NationStates Jolt Archive

INTRODUCTION, PLEASE READ BEFORE PROCEEDING

Firstly, I should like to make clear that my thoughts on this are generally limited to the UK, as it is knowledge of the UK where I find the basis for the below theories. Also note that I say theory: in reality this is little more than extr-ordinarily cynical pondering on my part, backed by what I know of the UK system of government. I have few doubts that, if true of the UK, this thesis would prove true of most of the western world as almost all western and/or developed states have a strong civil service which is where the crux of my argument lies.

Right on with the show. No throwing things until the curtain is drawn, okay?

DEMOCRACY, THE SHAM SYSTEM

I think most democracy in the western world is just a silly little sham in order to make most of society think they actually have a say in the way government is run. Why?

1) The government only has to call an election every five years (in the UK anyway). That means it get away with murder in the mean time, no matter what public opinion is.

2) Is it democratic that a party with 36% of the vote has a three hundred seat advantage over the opposition party with 33% of the vote? Ha ha. And it is not just in Britain where this occurs. That is the result of the college system of democracy wherever it is implemented,

3) Democratic government is so slow that most of the decisions are handed to the unelected civil servants anyway. And even if they are not, it is the civil servants who have to carry out and write legislation, thus giving them another chance to place their own ideas upon it. Most ministers are never in a single department long enough to be able to wade through the seas of red tape presented to them, so they just sign whatever piece of paper is waved in front of them.

4) The only people who actually have a meaningful vote are those living in marginal constiuencies.

5) How really accountable do you think government is? You will never hear about most government action as even the broadsheets only concern themselves with the big interest stories. Most investigative political journalism is shoved in satirical magazines like Private Eye or professional journals like the Lancet so only a limited number of people actually read it. And even then, it is usually the educated middle classes who do read such publications and they are the ones who usually know what is going on anyway. For example, Private Eye have spent a huge amount of time and column space attacking the government's PFI (Private Finance Initatives) schemes, the results of which are truly dreadful. However I have yet to see any major pieces dedicated to this theme in a mainstream paper. The Freedom of Information Act (which allows you to access almost any government document very quickly) is only useful to you if you know which questions to ask and usually the people who know what questions to ask are those with the answers.

6) You might elect a new government but the same old civil service will remain in place. So in effect the way in which the government implements and writes its legislation/policies never changes. This is the way the Foreign Office has always been run - they always use the same old tactics, no matter what government is in charge.

Democracy is a sham. And thats the way to keep it. Stability is the prime virtue of statecraft and to produce that, you need order. Thus the first duty of the state is to create and maintain order. We must strive to create the system that promotes continuity, not a system that allows the people to air their whims.

Democracy, true democracy, is an inherently unstable system as it would allow the people (!) to change a government at any given time. If they have no or little stability, we become a weak state, divided and directionless. Only through the unelected civil servants can we maintain a singular continuous policy and with that continuity comes the stability that allows us to make a strong state that can protect us from the evils of anarchy and chaos. For what can grow in chaos? Can you have a strong economy when business men are unable or unwilling to risk their financial wellbeing on a unstable stock market? Can you have a strong foreign policy while the government is constant flux? No.

We should not dispose of the democratic disguise of this system for many good reasons. Primarily, if the people think they have a say then it will keep them happier and you can of course fob them off with the old "it is you fault, you gave us a mandate" or the "you can have your opinion in the election". Clever isn't it? The system rips off the people while at the same time making them feel as if they have something to do with it.

Another good reason is it disguises the fact that power has never shifted since the Industrial Revolution - since then, the power has always belonged to the educated middle classes and has never moved. And that is where it should remain, for only the educated have any real right to have a say in government. The ignorant, by their very nature, have not got the knowledge to fully understand or manipulate the workings of state. The ignorant consists of the majority of the population, seeing as how secretive the civil service can be, therefore meaning that only those who have been bred into government (as it were) have any real education in the practicalities of running a state. The people who are bred into government are the middle classes and so the system self-perpetuates much as monarchy self-perpetuated by passing the throne down through the bloodline.

Do not think I am criticising this state of affairs - indeed not, for it is mastery of this clever system that has made the western world and allowed it to become the focus for prosperity and power. This system keeps our states stable and thus keeps us safe from anarchy and the destitution of a power vacuum, the ultimate extent of democracy.

And no one had a thing to say to all that? I guess you must have said it all. :D

This is why a state should always have a powerful monarcho leader at it's head, even in a communist system. The problem with this obviously is that the leader must have the best interests of the state at heart at all times, which is what in theory a well trained king has... but it usually doesnt work that way because of the base-ness of human nature. Therefore logic would dictate that you would require a team of people to watch this leader for corruption... excepting then you just get into the watching the watcher loop and it all goes to shit...

I think i lost my point and/or finishing arguement somewhere.

I agree, but would like to point out that anarchy should only be feared by the people who make a living in government.

No anarchy should be feared by everyone who likes a decent standard of living.

-snip-

Alot of differences here (in the US) and there then.

I'm participating in an election about once every year, either for state or federal exectutives or legislatures...

Every 4 years I'm voting on the "President".... offset with that by 1 year, I'm also voting every 4 years for a new Govenor [which gets more complex, because Virginia state Govenor cannot be encumbent... They have a single term limit, so it's always someone "new"]... sic. 2000 (President), 2001(Govenor), 2004(President), 2005(Govenor)... Mixing in further, every 6 years, I'm voting on a Federal level Senator; and every 4 (with the Federal executive [President]) the state senate. In rotation, holding 2 year offices, both state and Federal House offices [Representatives for the Federal, Delegates for the State]... What you guys lack in elections, we have a plethora of! I'd be great to have some year where I could take a sabbatical from fricking electing someone!

However you must wonder whether any of these elected officials have enough time to stop relying on the civil servants that no doubt power them before they are replaced ?

I agree that (representative) democracy is a sham, but disagree that it is a good thing. I especially disagree with this part:

And that is where it should remain, for only the educated have any real right to have a say in government. The ignorant, by their very nature, have not got the knowledge to fully understand or manipulate the workings of state. The ignorant consists of the majority of the population, seeing as how secretive the civil service can be, therefore meaning that only those who have been bred into government (as it were) have any real education in the practicalities of running a state. The people who are bred into government are the middle classes and so the system self-perpetuates much as monarchy self-perpetuated by passing the throne down through the bloodline.

1) If the people are ignorant, then how will they be able to elect a good politician? If they can't make decisions well, then they can't make decisions well. So this is inconsistent logic.

2) If the people are ignorant, then it is precisely because they are kept out of the political process that they are ignorant. If they were to participate directly in the political process, then the political process itself would serve to educate them.

If the people who ran the show were actually intelligent, we would have a different energy policy in the UK. Heh, we would actually have a Department of Energy in the UK. It got closed around 1989, if I recall correctly.

The idea that the topic post seems to take as a given, is that the educated middle classes are fit to rule. They are not. The majority of the educated middle class is actually no better informed than the working class, they are simply more articulate when expressing their ideas, thus giving the misleading impression that they know what they are talking about.

In my opinion, the model which would work best is a Technocracy - rule by bodies of experts. The CEGB was the best example of a properly-functioning technocratic government to date. It acted in the public interest, over-riding public opinion, and it did a brilliant job, never once abusing its power or sinking into corruption. Sadly, the extent to Western democracy today seems to have given people the idea that their opinions have a greater validity than someone else's facts.

Yes, but if we get rid of the ignorant, everyone will have the right to participate in government. And the way to do that is to make participation mandatory. Apathy will decrease and the people can rule themselves. Representative democracy may be a sham, but direct democracy will never be. If everyone is educated in such matters, direct democracy can thrive. Look at a nation like Czardas for example.

Wow, the UK must suck having a democracy. (*rolls eyes*)

Good thing the US has a republic instead of a democracy.

you seem to be describing oligarchy which is bound to happen in all governments especially as they get as old as ours

Firstly, 300 seat? Its more like this Lab:358 Con:198 Lib:62 other: about 29 (Not sure)

I think the parliamentary system is one of the best methods of a stable democracy, and that we actually have one of the best systems of accountable government.

When was the last time accusations against President Bush had any real affect on him? (Ok, since about 2004, things have got better. But before then, he got away with blue murder)

Also, the reason the UK had such an odd outcome in the election is for the following reasons

-The constituency boundaries (These are due to be changed before the enxt election, so that could change things)

-Very low turnouts. 60% doesnt make for completely representative governments. I daresay though, if everyone voted, the liberals and labour would do better, as left-leaning parties usually do better from higher turnouts.

-A high level of votes for third parties. Correct me if Im wrong, but probably 90% of the vote in the USA goes to the democrats or republicans. Whereas in Britain, its was around 33% (Including liberals).

Well Churchill did say after all that "It has been said that democracy is the worsy form of government, except all the others have been tried"

But my favorite government would have to be a minarchy, both small in officers and political power. It wouldn't be exclusive to democracy, but I'm still trying to figure out what system would best support a minarchy.

I think the parliamentary system is one of the best methods of a stable democracy, and that we actually have one of the best systems of accountable government.

Yeah, but parliamentary systems are classified as system of legislation under a monarchy.

I don't want a king, queen, or little prince thinking we are his subjects. Here, we may have a lot of voter apathy because there is NO real organization for a reform movement, but at least we are real citizens and don't have to pay homage to some royal pain in the ass thanks to birthright.

Uhh, no they don't. Countries like India have parliamentary system, and the queen in not their head of state.

1) If the people are ignorant, then how will they be able to elect a good politician? If they can't make decisions well, then they can't make decisions well. So this is inconsistent logic.

And do you think that the people do elect good politicians? I would argue that competence is not necessarily the first thing that the people seek in a politician - generally, people will not even look at the politican they are electing but instead observe the party or the leader of that party. Even if they do vote for the MP out of his personal popularity, it is generally because he/she can shout their point in a louder or more effective way than the opposition.

Another point here on democracy being a sham - a true democracy would allow you to vote for whoever you wanted. We, however, are given a limited number of options. Who makes the choice? Unelected officials and members within the political party. Thus, political parties are ran in a similar way to the government itself - figure heads are placed for popular approval while the real decisions as to policy are made by those who are never seen and cannot be deposed by elections because they are unelected.

Do you think politicians make most of the decisions? Those out of government (the opposition and backbenchers) will rarely have any real input into governmental decision making - generally they will blindly vote as their party tells them. And the issues they get to vote are few and far between. All ministerial politicians have to do is select a choice that is prepared for them by the civil service - that is the extent of their decision making. They do not construct the choices of governance themselves but instead merely give the official stamp to those choices. This is why the civil service has all the power - they can control what choices ministers have to make and thus can control most of the decisions made.

Politicians are the main trappings of the democratic sham but they also serve a purpose. Stability (the prime virtue remember) is only of use if we build things upon it. Civil liberties (or at least those liberties which do no detriment to society) can easily be built on stability but, because of the all-consuming nature of power, the civil service could always attempt to take those liberties under their own jurisdiction. This would be bad for stable government, as removing civil liberties only creates distrust and disturbances among the people and amongst business. Who would want to set up a business in a country where people and property can be arbitarily siezed? Therefore the very few democratic checks placed on civil service actions can be used to prevent the civil service from encroaching too heavily on liberties. The Civil Service is not the servant of democratic government - no indeed, democratic government is the servant to the Civil Service, protecting it from itself. That is the only functional use of democracy - a mere safe guard to stop human lust for power taking precedence over the stability of the state.

2) If the people are ignorant, then it is precisely because they are kept out of the political process that they are ignorant. If they were to participate directly in the political process, then the political process itself would serve to educate them

Mere participation in the political process does not give understanding. I can sit on a bus but that does not mean I will learn how to drive one.

Firstly, 300 seat? Its more like this Lab:358 Con:198 Lib:62 other: about 29 (Not sure)

So having only 3% more than the next largest party should give you 160 seats more than them in Parliament? Do not be absurd, that is not democratic.

I think the parliamentary system is one of the best methods of a stable democracy, and that we actually have one of the best systems of accountable government.

Parliament does not create the stability, the Civil Service does. Parliament is in constant flux and thus is of little use to the creation of a continuous governmental policy, whereas the Civil Service rarely alters in character or composition, due to their training and selection methods.

When was the last time accusations against President Bush had any real affect on him? (Ok, since about 2004, things have got better. But before then, he got away with blue murder)

That is what I said.

-The constituency boundaries (These are due to be changed before the enxt election, so that could change things)

Throughout recent history, constiuency borders undergo constant changes. The system will always produce similar results.

In my opinion, the model which would work best is a Technocracy - rule by bodies of experts. The CEGB was the best example of a properly-functioning technocratic government to date. It acted in the public interest, over-riding public opinion, and it did a brilliant job, never once abusing its power or sinking into corruption. Sadly, the extent to Western democracy today seems to have given people the idea that their opinions have a greater validity than someone else's facts.

What do you think I have just been describing? The Civil Service are not interested in public opinion - why should they be, seeing as they are not elected? Therefore we do have groups of experts in control - experts at good government, which is what the Civil Service strives to produce. They act in the public interest, which as you rightly note, is not necessarily what the public want. The Civil Service runs upon facts and the opinated politicans at its pinnacle merely form part of the democratic disguise. I have mentioned above the various ways in which the Civil Service wield their power, informal and formal. The politicians are useful though to the Civil Service in another way, for when the Civil Service makes a mistake (which even the most smoothly run machine will do occasionally) who will take the blame? The minister of course, who has little say in which direction the department really goes. The corpse of the minister protects the Civil Service and allows it to progress without any disruption to the stability of the department.

Every 4 years I'm voting on the "President".... offset with that by 1 year, I'm also voting every 4 years for a new Govenor [which gets more complex, because Virginia state Govenor cannot be encumbent... They have a single term limit, so it's always someone "new"]... sic. 2000 (President), 2001(Govenor), 2004(President), 2005(Govenor)... Mixing in further, every 6 years, I'm voting on a Federal level Senator; and every 4 (with the Federal executive [President]) the state senate. In rotation, holding 2 year offices, both state and Federal House offices [Representatives for the Federal, Delegates for the State]... What you guys lack in elections, we have a plethora of! I'd be great to have some year where I could take a sabbatical from fricking electing someone!

You elect politicans, who, as noted, have little say in the real running of government, local or national. You vote every four years too, which means each position is not responsible to you until their next election.

The ultimate goverment in my mind is the cybercracy, where brain implants are mandatory. All information is freely distributed to all people using wierless recivers in the brains of people. The implants would also contain some form for hard drive and/or processor to store and process information recived. The problem is that such a system would requre a person to be constantly in range of a wierless network, and that not all would be happy to forcefully getting brain implants.

However, if all ideas, theories and information could be distributed to all, we might not need a goverment at all, although a form for civil service would still be necceary.

What do you think I have just been describing? The Civil Service are not interested in public opinion - why should they be, seeing as they are not elected? Therefore we do have groups of experts in control - experts at good government, which is what the Civil Service strives to produce. They act in the public interest, which as you rightly note, is not necessarily what the public want. The Civil Service runs upon facts and the opinated politicans at its pinnacle merely form part of the democratic disguise. I have mentioned above the various ways in which the Civil Service wield their power, informal and formal. The politicians are useful though to the Civil Service in another way, for when the Civil Service makes a mistake (which even the most smoothly run machine will do occasionally) who will take the blame? The minister of course, who has little say in which direction the department really goes. The corpse of the minister protects the Civil Service and allows it to progress without any disruption to the stability of the department.
Civil servants are nubs, in many key areas of government. They simply have the wrong education for a lot of the job they do. National infrastructure is an engineer's job, not an accountant's.

I'll comment later. I once suggested a constitutional monarchy as a stable form of government for a minarchy. I am not sure if that would work, however.

And do you think that the people do elect good politicians? I would argue that competence is not necessarily the first thing that the people seek in a politician - generally, people will not even look at the politican they are electing but instead observe the party or the leader of that party. Even if they do vote for the MP out of his personal popularity, it is generally because he/she can shout their point in a louder or more effective way than the opposition.

Another point here on democracy being a sham - a true democracy would allow you to vote for whoever you wanted. We, however, are given a limited number of options. Who makes the choice? Unelected officials and members within the political party. Thus, political parties are ran in a similar way to the government itself - figure heads are placed for popular approval while the real decisions as to policy are made by those who are never seen and cannot be deposed by elections because they are unelected.

Do you think politicians make most of the decisions? Those out of government (the opposition and backbenchers) will rarely have any real input into governmental decision making - generally they will blindly vote as their party tells them. And the issues they get to vote are few and far between. All ministerial politicians have to do is select a choice that is prepared for them by the civil service - that is the extent of their decision making. They do not construct the choices of governance themselves but instead merely give the official stamp to those choices. This is why the civil service has all the power - they can control what choices ministers have to make and thus can control most of the decisions made. Oh, I agreed that representative democracy was a sham. No, I don't think that people elect good politicians - but that's because people are, for the most part kept out of the political process.

Politicians are the main trappings of the democratic sham but they also serve a purpose. Stability (the prime virtue remember) is only of use if we build things upon it. Civil liberties (or at least those liberties which do no detriment to society) can easily be built on stability but, because of the all-consuming nature of power, the civil service could always attempt to take those liberties under their own jurisdiction. This would be bad for stable government, as removing civil liberties only creates distrust and disturbances among the people and amongst business. Who would want to set up a business in a country where people and property can be arbitarily siezed? Therefore the very few democratic checks placed on civil service actions can be used to prevent the civil service from encroaching too heavily on liberties. The Civil Service is not the servant of democratic government - no indeed, democratic government is the servant to the Civil Service, protecting it from itself. That is the only functional use of democracy - a mere safe guard to stop human lust for power taking precedence over the stability of the state. Because power is so all-consuming, does it not make sense to decentralize power as much as possible?

Mere participation in the political process does not give understanding. I can sit on a bus but that does not mean I will learn how to drive one. That's because you're not participating in the driving of the bus.