Friday, 9 November 2012

Pop: How the country should be run according to Pop

Democracy can be defined in two words: Mob rule. 

The views of the society are reflected in the government because everybody can vote. If the society that the government runs is full of people with low intelligence, they will vote for similar people and the country will fall apart. If society is filled with people who don’t understand politics, then the most popular politician who offers them what they want will get into power. And because of this, the vast majority of the time people will simply vote for the opposite to what they have because selfish people who don’t understand politics presume that every tax cut was done just to be mean to them. 

Democracy doesn’t work. People get involved in issues they have no comprehension of and then complain at the government’s views just because they are held by the government. A two party democracy is even worse, because no matter what happens large sections of society will not have their views represented. This inevitably leads to the suppression of minority views. If the only views that matter are the ones which have a chance of getting into power, then all other views are seen as eccentric and odd. Difference is the essence of fear, it is that which is unnatural that people consider nightmarish and scary. This of course leads to views being seen as something frightening. 

Take America for an example: America runs on a system where only the views of two groups of people matter, and the people (those who are allowed to vote at least) pick between the two points of view. Communism or Islamism, which are both simply differing viewpoints, are treated as dirty words. Watching the debates over the last few months and the bits of the election that were broadcast on English television I was horrified to see how racist American politicians are allowed to be towards the Chinese and Russians because of their links to communism. But this is what is bred by democracy; majority parties and therefore majority views lead to the alteration of the culture in response. Minority views become more and more abstract, more and more frowned upon because the people become scared of them and become unused to people with minority opinion. It can be seen in our culture already, where people are called evil on television because majority morals define them as evil.  But murder or rape or paedophilia, while frowned on by 99% of people in society, are not morally wrong to every person on the planet. While I might consider them horrible crimes, the person who committed them had a differing opinion and a differing moral compass. 

I’m not sat here trying to condone crimes and give argument to criminals, law and order is very important to keep a society running. But the fact that different people believe different things is an important concept. If different people had become powerful during history, we would have different morals and a different society. We might have ended up seeing what we call paedophilia as a perfectly acceptable form of love but seeing sitting on tables as abuse. Democracy and the belief that majority opinion is correct is a society altering view point and is therefore incredibly dangerous as a system of government, yet we go around the world sanctioning those countries that don’t follow our doctrine. In essence, spreading our ideology of democracy to make the entire world one step closer to the same mob rule.
The closer we come to mob rule and the closer we come to majority opinion destroying that of the minority, the closer we come to the thing which democracy attempts to fight: Autocracy. If everybody believes the same thing out of belief that it is right and if everybody becomes scared or even ignorant of minority opinion then the same view point will always get into power thus defeating the entire point of democracy. 

What I believe should be used to run the country is a modified system. A system where we don’t allow people who have no clue what they’re talking about to deal in those areas. It is my belief that the government should be essentially technocratic. That is, the health secretary should be a doctor or a knowledgeable official from that field. The transport secretary should be chosen by people who have experience in transport. 

Originally I believed the best way to do this would be simply for those from the appropriate sector to vote for them. But that isn’t fair on people who, for example, work in television but have a keen interest in medicine. So I extended this idea to a test that could be available to those people who wanted to have a say in a specific post. A test that decided whether a person was capable of deciding whether someone had enough knowledge to decide the head of Medicine in the country or the head of the military. 

Every person in power needs people around them, a team who I believe should be voted for in the same way. By having people from the correct area of society, chosen for by the correct area of society, it can be ensured that they actually know what they’re talking about.
As for the leader, I don’t think that views and ideology should come into it. I don’t believe in a ruling party in the same way as we have now, I think that there shouldn’t be a leader in a country. Foreign affairs should be dealt with by a minister for foreign affairs and they should be our representative abroad as they are now but I see no need for someone in the middle who does nothing. If every area of society is covered by a small group of people chosen by the people in the way I described, and of course there would need to be an organisation set up to prevent corruption across this new system of government, then there is no need for one person considered more important than everyone else. 

In the same way I believe that there should be an opportunity for everyone to work. If a person can’t get a job then the job centre, rather than just handing out money, should pay a person to be in the building for a period of time representative of a shift. From this building they could therefore be used as temporary labour by businesses who need people but don’t want to employ them because it’s a minor job. At the same time, considering they’re being paid to be there, the people claiming the money could be encouraged to learn skills. If they don’t go to the centre and give studying a good go, or if they refuse to go to do the work offered when asked, they should be refused payment. In this way nobody is left unemployed and doing nothing, everybody is working towards helping the country and out of it they’re getting money. 

Along with this I think that GCSE’s should be made more of an important qualification. This would allow A Levels to be replaced with a vocational qualification for any career path. People would be able to try their hand at what they want to do and be judged on their ability rather than their grades from exams that have nothing to do with their career. Law and medicine are good examples of this. If everyone was allowed to spend a decent amount of time showing their aptitude rather than being judged on the amount of A's they can get, people would have a much fairer chance of doing what they want to and the university courses would know who really has a shot at doing well. Failure at one of these courses wouldn’t be the end of the world because the previous qualification would mean something and would be enough to get a non-degree-course job. 

The key to this view is the tests. As long as help is given for any disability, the only variable holding back voting is unwillingness. A person who feels very strongly about the economy but doesn’t have a job in the correct sector can learn about it enough that they can pass a test and get their properly informed view heard. A person who just wants fewer tax cuts for themself is unlikely to be determined enough to spend the time learning about the economy in order to be able to cast their selfish vote. 

It doesn’t entirely reduce mob rule but as a theory I think it has more potential to allow informed views. The abolition of party politics and the application of intelligence and information would allow people to be more trusting and have some faith that the people in charge actually know what they’re doing.

Pop *Signature Placeholder

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please tell us what you think and don't be afraid to be honest, that's what we're here for.