August
Friday 12 September 2008 photo 1/1
|
Friday 12 September 2008 photo 1/1
|
|
Well, well... her I'm back again. Missed me?
*Cold Siberian winds blows around Mohammed*
Guess not. But I don't give a shit. I'm here and I'm staying, whether you like it or not!
Todays topic will be... democracy? Felt that time was ripe for the discussions of the topic. Especially with school and social studies and all. I'd better be making myself clear about where I stand, so that people won't go "OMFG hes teh 3v1L h4axx0rzzz" on me.
I'm not a democrat.
Yes, you read it right. I'm not a democrat. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, 'cause I do. It's more like I'm not his fan (I write everything with masculine pronouns, get used to it). I rather prefer a couple of other forms of government and I DO actually have my reason (No, it's nothing like some big epic story about little guy getting trampled on by big evil corps. or some shit like that).
Main reason is: it's way to unstable for my liking. There are so many loopholes in it: corruption; loyalties; affairs; hypocrisy; tricking; mudslinging; incompetence (for example Bush) and so on. Not to say how easy it is for one single charismatic demagogue to sway hundreds of thousands of people with his tricky use of words and rally them under his cause. That's how Hitler did it, didn't he? That's how it looks like in Eastern Europe right now, a big breeding ground for racism and irrendetist sentiments. There's enough hate in the region to start a new holocaust. Democracy is to light on these things, no strong decisive decision can be taken because either the people will whine or some court will rule in favour of one party and thus nothing CAN be done about it.
The other reason being that I don't consider freedom of speech, movement, religion, organization and so on to have anything to do with democracy. It just happens to exist in most democratic states. Or rather only seeing as how the only other alternatives we have in this world are dictatorships, depotisms and totalitarian states. Cuba, Burma and North Korea are good examples of these respective forms of goverment. Well, we've got anarchy in Somalia and all those right are there, but since it's an anarchy then nothing is GUARANTEED, which sucks for us. We've got absolute monarchies and theocracies also, but the former is really just a variant of dictatorships. Theocracies on the other hand seem more stable, just look at Iran. They've even got elections! Free and fair!
Or wait, forget free, but at least they're fair. Every participant has equal chance. Not like in Italy, Russia or Ukraine where the big brass own the media and thus rule the minds of the people: thus they get control of the country. If you ask me, I'd rather go live in Iran than in Russia.
That's about those we can chose from. From all those only democracy guarantees the so called human rights. Of course we have failed democracies too, like Zimbabwe of Venezuela or crap like that. The reason I don't like any of these is because each of our current ruling systems of Earth have no guarantee against us being ruled by in incopetent, stupid nutjob like George W. Bush, Boris Elcin or Saddams's sons or some other idiot like that. What I want is a guarantee that I'll be ruled by competent rulers who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING!
It is here that Meritocracy comes in. I'm sure that those of you who know me are in one way or another already familiar with this system. According to meritocracy: those who are most able or most competent to rule shall rule. Those who hold the most experience and most merits in one field shall supervise or reign over that field. In a practical sense our leaders would be chosen through annual tournaments say, every five years. The candidates and winners are picked by a special jury, these candidates/winners would in turn be approved by the supreme court. If the supreme court rules against, the jury must select the next best.
Each game in the tournament would be characterized by the post or position the game is about. So for example the games for ministry of finance would consist of solving a series of elaborate scenarios, plausible and implausible, in which the participants need to get the state out of the situations in at least relatively good shape while the game about the ministry of defence would include strategic games, resource distribution and budget planning among others. Those who perform best are by the jury presented to the supreme court who may then accept of decline the candidate for the post. A final game of teamwork is also needed to be accopmlished by the selected candidates. When all the trials are passed and all posts filled, a government may be formed. However, should the government ever act beyond it's authority, the supreme court may dissolve the government and a new tournament would be held. The former member of government cannot participate if his government has been dissolved twice.
That sounds like a good system to me. Ensures that we have competent rulers in our country. The people would be able to express their concerns and opinions to the government through so called "orators", who would carry the opinions of a special interest group to the government.
The other system I had in mind was the Technocracy. In this for of government the rulers are chosen according to their academic education. Only those who have a degree in a certain field may serve as a minster of that field, the higher the degree and/or greater the achievments, the greater the chance of being chosen. So let's say that in the ministry of finance only economists and so on may serve, while the ministry of defence is strictly for strategists, tacticians, generals and the like. The ministry of society for socialogists and psycologists and the ministry of the environment for bioligists and ecologists etc. A ministry of ethics would also have to be created, consisting of philosophers, so as not to make the government overstep its bounds and do something horrible like starting experimenting on humans or the like. The members of goverment would be chosen every five years by an academic council, consisting of different representatives for the universities and academies of the nation. The government is approved by the supreme court.
Rings good in my ears. I really like that. So meritocracy can be defined as "rule of the competent" while technocracy can be described as "rule of scientists". As opposed to democracy (rule of the majority), anarchy (rule of chaos or no rule), autocracy (rule of one), monarchy (rule of a dynasty), oligarchy (rule of a few) and aristocracy (rule of nobles), communism (rule of the workers) or plutocracy (rule of the burgeoise or middle class).
The rights of the people, or the human rights such as freedom of speech, movement, religion, organization, privacy etc. would be defined and protected by the consitution. The supreme court would exist not only to rule in judicial cases and approve and dissolve governments but also and primarily protect the constitution and the rights of the people. The supreme court would have the ultimate say in important matters of the state such as declarations of war or peace and branding of certain individuals or organizations as harmful to the state. This would perhaps allow the government to crack down on potentially dangerous destabilizers such as anarchists, nazis, stalinists and so on if the supreme court agrees. But the supreme court would prevent the government fron cracking down on the opposition with the same pretext. Every such matter would be subjected to and extensive investigation so as to not trick the supreme court and make them dance after the governments flute. The supreme court would also only be able to dissolve the government a maximum of 3 times before its members would be forced to retire from their positions, having them replaced by new supreme judges.
So you see, this way the rights of the people would be guaranteed despite the abensce of elections. Personally I've always had at least a little doubt in democracy, particularily for what I consider to be the uneducated elements of society, those who never went through a social education enough to understand the core principles and foundations of our society, but are easily convinced by charismatic demagogues or populist partes. This element, these uneducated people, especially when packed together, are what I like to call "the stupid popular masses". They are like sheep, for when one goes the rest follows. They can't think very far ahead, only of the present and are thus unable to react until it is too late to do anything about it. These masses are in my opinion the single greatests threat to democracy and our rights and freedoms. These masses are the prime reason not for my dislike (because I don't have any) of democracy but of my great distrust of it. They will eventually become OUR undoing.
Although I feel quite good and well in our current system, It's actually pretty neat, especially how we manage to protect our rights. But I can still never stop to worry and I can still never cease to be amazed at the sheer stupidity of some of our fellow citizens, who do not notice when protection of our rights becomes infringement of our rights.
That's all for now, have a pleasant day. ^^
Cheers!
Visa toppen
Show footer