Well I'll be damned! I'm finding myself in this section, posting a topic! Hell must have frozen over! Pardon the upcoming spelling and political title-errors.
Introduction
The newly elected parliament here in Finland have now managed to complete the distribution of minister posts among the winning parties. Some choices were good, others less than acceptable. So I started wondering: These people are often not qualified for their jobs. They're politicians. Ok, sometimes in every fourth leap year a position in the government is filled by a person that actually has credentials for the job (for my fellow Finns an example: Our previous Minister of Foreign affairs). Then again, if he represents a party that loses the next election, he loses his place in the government and someone not as qualified takes his place (Our current Minister of Foreign Affairs).
So, does representative democracy work?
Sure it does. People are getting exactly what they deserve. But is it effective? Do we have the right people for the job? Now I'm not saying this because my party (the Social Democrat Party) lost the election, and that we currently have a ”bourgeois” parliament/government. I've tried to keep my political stance out when thinking of the following idea. I've had the Finnish model in mind when forming this idea; mainly because that's the form of running a country that I know even slightly something of.
The Idea!
A common catchphrase today is that companies run the world. Well, why can't countries, or at least the peoples elected parliament be run like companies?
The Stockholders
Read: ”The people”. The people finance the companys/countrys activities. They have the final say in everything. In a representative democracy, this should be the case. But maybe we should give the stockholders more ”value for their input”.
The Board
Read: MP:s. A parliament is elected by the people, every 4 years. Nothing new there.
The Managers
Here's the catch.
Companies have their own managers for every single subsection of the companys activities. In a goverment, tasks are also divided by the same principle. You have your Minister of Defense, Finance, Internal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister etc. Now read the introduction again; do we have the right people as managers for our countries different tasks? The answer is: no. Our current ”Managers” are selected from amongst the politicians of the winning parties from the last election. These ”Managers” (read: Ministers) might change every four years. Often they have to learn their job from scratch. Of course, they all get their own staff (read: Ministries), who consist of experts in their own area.
How about this? The board would ”interview”/select the managers/ministers, not from among themselves, but from a group of experts who actually ”know their shit”, E.g. from the ministries. From these ”job applicants”, correct people would be chosen to do the job that politicians have done before. An expert in Social Sciences as a ”Minister of Social Matters” (or whachammacall it), a general as ”Minister of Defense”, an Economic ”guru” to run the financial matters, etc.. The managers would be chosen by votes from the parliament. And since the parliament is elected by the people, and the winning party has the most people in parliament, we would still have representative democracy. Yay!
The ”Managers” would take care of ”everyday matters”, always under supervision of the peoples (stockholders) elected board (Members of Parliament). Bigger issues would be discussed in parliament (the board). If the ”hired staff/managers” would not succeed in their tasks, they would be replaced (in case a voting in parliament would lead to that), regardless of what part of the electorial season we would be. Also, if the tasks are performed well, the ”Minister/Manager” could hold his position for even 20+ years, regardless of which party is the ”winner” at different times. When votes for/against firing the ”Manager in question” would go e.g. 40/60, the ”Manager” would surely start doing his/her job much better.
In other words
Could the implementation of this idea effectivate the way countries are run? Would it decrease bureucracy in a way that decisions would be made faster and better? Would the ”experts” be able to do a better job than long time politicians who are members of the party that won the last election?
This idea IMHO can't be labeled as ”communist” ”liberal” ”republican” conservative” or anything else. It's.. ..well, just an idea that popped into my head. And no, I still haven't thought it through yet.
Discuss?
-Don-
Introduction
The newly elected parliament here in Finland have now managed to complete the distribution of minister posts among the winning parties. Some choices were good, others less than acceptable. So I started wondering: These people are often not qualified for their jobs. They're politicians. Ok, sometimes in every fourth leap year a position in the government is filled by a person that actually has credentials for the job (for my fellow Finns an example: Our previous Minister of Foreign affairs). Then again, if he represents a party that loses the next election, he loses his place in the government and someone not as qualified takes his place (Our current Minister of Foreign Affairs).
So, does representative democracy work?
Sure it does. People are getting exactly what they deserve. But is it effective? Do we have the right people for the job? Now I'm not saying this because my party (the Social Democrat Party) lost the election, and that we currently have a ”bourgeois” parliament/government. I've tried to keep my political stance out when thinking of the following idea. I've had the Finnish model in mind when forming this idea; mainly because that's the form of running a country that I know even slightly something of.
The Idea!
A common catchphrase today is that companies run the world. Well, why can't countries, or at least the peoples elected parliament be run like companies?
The Stockholders
Read: ”The people”. The people finance the companys/countrys activities. They have the final say in everything. In a representative democracy, this should be the case. But maybe we should give the stockholders more ”value for their input”.
The Board
Read: MP:s. A parliament is elected by the people, every 4 years. Nothing new there.
The Managers
Here's the catch.
Companies have their own managers for every single subsection of the companys activities. In a goverment, tasks are also divided by the same principle. You have your Minister of Defense, Finance, Internal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister etc. Now read the introduction again; do we have the right people as managers for our countries different tasks? The answer is: no. Our current ”Managers” are selected from amongst the politicians of the winning parties from the last election. These ”Managers” (read: Ministers) might change every four years. Often they have to learn their job from scratch. Of course, they all get their own staff (read: Ministries), who consist of experts in their own area.
How about this? The board would ”interview”/select the managers/ministers, not from among themselves, but from a group of experts who actually ”know their shit”, E.g. from the ministries. From these ”job applicants”, correct people would be chosen to do the job that politicians have done before. An expert in Social Sciences as a ”Minister of Social Matters” (or whachammacall it), a general as ”Minister of Defense”, an Economic ”guru” to run the financial matters, etc.. The managers would be chosen by votes from the parliament. And since the parliament is elected by the people, and the winning party has the most people in parliament, we would still have representative democracy. Yay!
The ”Managers” would take care of ”everyday matters”, always under supervision of the peoples (stockholders) elected board (Members of Parliament). Bigger issues would be discussed in parliament (the board). If the ”hired staff/managers” would not succeed in their tasks, they would be replaced (in case a voting in parliament would lead to that), regardless of what part of the electorial season we would be. Also, if the tasks are performed well, the ”Minister/Manager” could hold his position for even 20+ years, regardless of which party is the ”winner” at different times. When votes for/against firing the ”Manager in question” would go e.g. 40/60, the ”Manager” would surely start doing his/her job much better.
In other words
Could the implementation of this idea effectivate the way countries are run? Would it decrease bureucracy in a way that decisions would be made faster and better? Would the ”experts” be able to do a better job than long time politicians who are members of the party that won the last election?
This idea IMHO can't be labeled as ”communist” ”liberal” ”republican” conservative” or anything else. It's.. ..well, just an idea that popped into my head. And no, I still haven't thought it through yet.
Discuss?
-Don-
I need around tree fiddy.
