Some random musings I thought the good people of MAP might be interested in running with The UK is embroiled in the Brexit debate at the moment. Regardless of your politics and beliefs on this particular subject, I remember a political correspondent on the radio saying, "we love the theatre of the whole thing." I also remember thinking, "no, WE don't. Political commentators and analysts might, but what most people actually want is the country running well and as little political drama as possible." If politics is mind-numbingly boring, you're probably living in a very good time. In a naïve way, I then started thinking about how businesses hire and fire senior executives based on their performance. If the company tanks, the top brass get fired. Unless their business is tanks, of course But if the share value falls, senior people get nervous. It made me wonder if it isn't possible to propose similar criteria as an alternative to democracy for Governments, as a thought experiment. I know this is doomed to failure, but it might be interesting Churchill supposedly said, “The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Perhaps we should look at alternatives? So given the opportunity to design Key Performance Indicators for politicians, what would you suggest? Economic growth? Growth in productivity? High employment? Redefining "employment," at the moment in the UK it means working more than 1 hour per week, or being a full time carer for a relative, for example. Low crime? Good national environmental conditions and contributing to global environmental preservation?
I've held the view for a while that we could do with a big re-think regards the political world. I think we have all the statistics and indicators we'll ever really need or find useful already. For me the key decision is this, do you follow the democratic path and work that way, or do you go old school and have a single powerful leader making most of the calls.. The trouble with that is that not everyone will agree, or like what that looks like. I often think, with the right person at the helm that could be preferable to a democratic system. Our particular democratic system is very skewed towards the 2 party set up, each competing desperately against eachother - and what that brings with it. This bit in particular I think should be the first element to be reformed. I believe polarisation in the various forms it takes is a quite natural phenomenon. But is it always useful ? Maybe there's another way that fosters a bit more co-operation and compromise.
Trouble with that is it's a board of directors who have the power to decide what the shareholders vote on. Who would perform that role in your thought experiment?
Not sure I like your Il Duce slant, but the rest I agree with. Our political system was never designed with party politics in mind, it was designed for a parliament full of independent MPs. The Prime Minister's role was really just a chairman (no chairpeople in those days) for the cabinet, not in any way a leader (if anyone could claim that role, it would the Chancellor of the Exchequer). We need radical reshaping of our parliamentary systems, but, as you say, the competitive nature of party politics makes it so no major party wants to lose the chance of running the country by themselves.
Sure, even what we have can offer us good leaders; Thatcher, Wilson and Churchill come to mind. People I consider to have had the right vision or qualities at the right time. Something like that. But no one can be above being lynched by the mob. Ever
We need more willingness to embrace the unknown, say "we don't actually know" (both in the populace and politicians) and trial a variety policies to see which is best before rolling them out wholesale. Wanna tackle knife crime (or whatever) ? Not sure how? Gather expert opinion and trial various options in different places to see what works. Then do the best one everywhere when there are tangible results to actually work with. But people don't want to take that approach because by definition some areas will be getting worse options than others. But then in a situations where we don't actually know the right course that cannot be avoided. One of the big things I have taken from the whole Brexit farce has been how falsely confident people (and politicians) are about things they have no right to be. How convinced people are that they know what the right course of action is when the actual answer for 99% of people in 99% of situations is "I don't know". And yet some "bar-stool politician" down the pub will be adamant they know how to navigate Britain leaving the EU, sort out the NHS, sort out criminals and crime, reform the welfare system and increase jobs and affordable homes when in reality they can barely navigate their way home at the end of the evening.
Good politics, like justice and science works well in an adversial system, however much like in any market system, good governance makes sure that the natural fluctuations don't destroy the system and hurt the population. Which is what we potentially have with brexit. Having one person with absolute power and no way to change them means your too dependent on one person doing the right thing, you get less good stuff done with democracy, but you get less bad stuff done too.
Thats a tricky one, because the running of a state can't and never has been the equivalent to the running of a business. Take it as a pinch of salt from someone who did political science at university and now co-runs a business. If you want an anology appropriate to this board its like the difference between Combat Sports and Self Defence. There is bound to be some overlap yes, but some things simply are not analogous and depends on the for the lack of the better word 'context' in which the state operates in. Bear in mind that it depends on which way you view Politics. In the Anglo Saxon model, the apparatus of the state is what does Politics. In the Continental model Politics is involved by everyone from the Prime Minsiter to the Child in primary school. Some things are obviously similarities particularly on the expenditure/taxation side. A State might not have its focus on turning a profit, but it does have its focus on maintaining its existence and functionality. That means it has to redistribute and allocate limited resources both on a daily and a long term basis. If you want a business analogy its a bit like "Buisiness as usual" and "Project Management". Business as usual is Political terms is largely made on a daily basis by a governments Civil Service, the top brass who usually have far more experience in the running of the country than the executives put in charge of running government departments.The public via the media rarely see this drudgery, but up to 80% of all politics is done here at national and regional levels, usually with decision making committees and stakeholders represented, with whatever is decided enacted by society at large via policemen teachers, doctors, firemen, road maintenance et et etc etc etc etc etc. By and large the Civil service like most "business as usual" is hidebound: don't rock the boat, just keep things running, punch in your hours and do your job. At this level the executive and parliament only become overt to the country when there is an emergency or something to complain about. In business its a customer service issue faulty products and complaints. In the state this is a Train crashes, measles outbreaks, or natural disasters, anything where there is public outcry and someone has to do something. Politicians get involved here in the same way a customer wants to talk to the manager. Someone in authority needs to be seen to responding but you can bet your ass its the team leader thats been in the role 20 years (civil service) that will be the one to resolve it. What I think is closer to your definition is not the whole business per se but Project management. Every couple of years business needs to reassess its strategy and reorganize its resources and allocation for long term goals. In Britain this take the form of parties putting forward competing visions of the long term projects (manifestos) and the population voting for delegates belonging to these parties to represent them, with the party or coalition with most votes getting to be put in charge of the project management and the losing side being relegated to 'quality control' by challenging the government on its performance. Political manifestos like Projects are risky endeavors which require lots of forward planning and take years to enact The problem however is that the users/customers of the State/Government are not always the best placed to accurately appraise what may be good for the country in the long term. Thats why they vote MP's, they want to delegate the hard decisions and their concerns are dictated by 'business as usual' Futhermore by the time you start to get accurate data on key performance indicators both the environment (market) that the state (business) operates in may have changed and ongoing manifesto commitments (projects) may no longer be fit for purpose. Brexit is an excellent example in many ways. Many people voted leave on the assumption that they could make a free trade with a America/Commonwealth. But since the referendum the world especially america has turned more protectionist. So do you continue with the project knowing that one of its key benchmarks is now undeliverable? (Brexit up and including no deal) Make a variation on the parameters of the project and swallow some losses? (Canada+++/Norway?) Go back to the Stakeholders and ask them again? (second Referendum?) Say stuff this and just go on holiday (David Cameron option) Bottom line I think modern governments processes are too clunky to react to real world events on 5 year projects. But if you want to make changes of any kind there are really no other choices and replacing the management team guiding it is no good either. Look at Italy it struggles to get coherent long term projects off the ground (61 governments since WWII.
I think a good way to shake up politics today (in both the U.S. and U.K.) would be to outlaw political parties. If all politicians are required to be independent, and political parties are not allowed to sponsor politicians, then each would be required to stand on their own merits instead of simply being a face for the very strong and influential political party which they currently represent. Nobody would be able to simply vote along party lines without knowing anything about the candidates. This would have the added benefit of uniting all the voters. Since there would no longer be a political party to "belong" to, it would go a long ways toward eliminating the 'US' vs. 'THEM' mentality currently pervasive in both countries.
Trouble with this is that you are infringing on free association. I think you'd end up with secret associations that would be a lot more insidious. One thing that I'd like is for all political donations and private funding to be made illegal. Campaign funds would be from the public purse, and the same for all candidates.
How about an annual "report card" where you get to score each government department on a handful of issues?
Doesnt "strongman politics" embody the worst of what we're talking about? Wanting the bigger monkey to be in charge only leads to more tribal conflicts. Churchhill was terrible post war / peacetime, Maggie was amazingly diversive, (and she stole my damn milk) Trump is a (nuclear) disaster in the making, Castro, Saddam & Assad weren't well known for their countries economic successes. We need more politicians like the NZ prime minister.
Just saw that New Zealanders get a party vote and an MP vote. That seems like a really good idea on the face of it. MMP Voting System
Politics is ever evolving. It's the way Government is operating which needs to be reviewed and rehauled. Not an easy task. (I just deleted a rant against T-May, but thought this is not the place for it. lol)
All I'm thinking is you guys should revisit Olivier Cromwell's approach to government accountability...
