Arthanari Chandrasekaran

This conversation is closed.

Are we qualified enough to select our our own president, or prime minister or chief minister?

Selecting a president or chief minister is a extremely high priority, critical activity. Why are we common people, involved in this activity. In what capacity to you think we are intelligent enough to decide who can be our president who actually has to decide the growth of our entire nation. Isn't any human too innocent to make these complicated decisions. Only a president will have the accumulated wisdom to identify a person who is skilled enough to play his role.

I suggest a board of responsible, visionary community to the max of 100 people can get the inputs from the people and consider it as one of the parameter along with 1000 other parameters to decide the person who is going to run the nation for the next term.

Another possibility could be if the citizens have to decide who their leader has to be, then the election, when it should happen should also be decided by the people.

In what way do you think a individual/ citizen is qualified enough to identify a person who is fully equipped with the knowledge and wisdom to take the nation forward and find solution for all the problems the nation faces.

  • thumb
    Aug 5 2012: Isn't your model exactly what a representative democracy is supposed to be, as in the UK and in Germany? I'm saying "supposed to be", because the elected members of the parliament don't necessarily represent the opinions of all the people when it comes to selecting ministers and chancellors. I am tired of voting for a *political party* that has a political program which more or less (and rather less nowadays) corresponds with my personal ideas and beliefs. Instead, I would love to vote for the ministers directly and, so to say, tell them who they have to work together with, instead of letting the political party make those decisions for me.

    Would it be better to have regular citizens vote who don't know much about politics, or to have parties fight it out amongst themselves once we vote for them? I don't know. But I think more people would be interested in politics if we had the impression of truly being able to change things with our votes.
  • Aug 4 2012: I do not think that common people are prepared to elect a leader. I think that most times emotion plays a HUGE role and people end up voting for the prettiest face, best speaker, or the one with the best attitude in caucuses( it is human after all). In many countries common people do not even know how government work or what is policy. Democracy is VERY dangerous in a country of ignorant people, which are the most.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2012: And if you made a certain knowledge about politics mandatory, e.g. by having the people attend politics classes? It wouldn't have to be like obtaining a diploma at university, but I think that just voluntarily concerning themselves with politics would help people to not vote for the prettiest face, but for the best program.
      • Aug 6 2012: I think that people should be forced or encouraged to take classes on economics and politics. However, the key ingredient as you said previously, is that people feel that their vote is able to change things, that it is worth something. I fthese two were combined, I think democracy woul work better.
  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +1
    Aug 4 2012: Yes we are! And to me the best form of all governments is direct democracy by all the common people.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2012: May be you are, but are all citizens qualified enough as you, every citizen?

      Because election is not about individuals capability or skills its about those majority's opinions.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: And who defines who is qualified and who isn't? Who is qualified to decide to know better about your life, your needs, your wishes?

        In the history of all presidents, prime ministers, chief ministers and their parties, many of them proofed themselves incompetent to govern for the good and the interest of the majority of all people.

        Government, in any case, should be nothing but the voice and will of 'the people'. I understand that this may frightens many elites and their very own agendas, yet this can not count as long as they are not majority.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2012: @Jan-Bernd - Its not about your life, your needs, your wishes. A broader perspective is what is exactly missing and needs tremendous amount of information needs to be processed which the common public may not be able to efficiently perform.
      • thumb

        Lejan .

        • +1
        Aug 6 2012: Of course it is about my life, my needs and my wishes! A direct democracy is just about that. It is the statistical summary of 'my lifes' of all citizen on important national issues!

        I can understand your concern, that ordinary people are not capable to understand complex relations in politics, economics, law, etc. and therfore and due to this lack of specialized knowledge, they are most likely subjected to vote wrong.

        This is not the case! Becuase if it was, Switzerland would not exist anymore or would waste away among the poorest states.

        But Switzerland is pretty well off yet governed by 'the people', and how do they do that?

        They are using the same 'magic' any president, prime minister or chief minister on earth is doing, they are asking for help within the process of decision making. The are asking accepted specialists on every field a decision has to be made on. By this, specialists in politics, economics, law, etc. will explain what may be necessary and important, so people get an understanding of what's need to be done and voted for.

        Do you think our representative politician are that smart that they know for themselves how the world works? They are not, they don't need to be. And that's why they recruit their specialists to make better decisions, or, if a nation isn't lucky, they will mainly support the lobbyists...

        In addition to specialists, education and participation of the people is - as for any other political system as well - the key for a good and even better peoples government!

        So to answer your question again: We, te people, are qualified enough to select, to elect our political representatives, as those got nothing to do but to represent the majority will of 'the people'!

        Only if Switzerland vanishes soon and for 'really stupid' reasons,I am going to reconsider this, my view on direct democracy... ;o)
  • Aug 8 2012: Absolutely not. It is completely obvious that the electorate is not qualified to select a person of power. And as soon as we come up with a better idea, we will use it.

    "Only a president will have the accumulated wisdom to identify a person who is skilled enough to play his role."

    We tried this. It doesn't work. Have you read about North Korea lately?
  • Aug 7 2012: As long as we continue to believe we need presidents, prime ministers or any kind of politician, the answer is no, we are not qualified.
    Anyone who continues to allow people power, who never do what they say or promise to do, who never solve any problems the average citizens have to deal with and need solving, is qualified, for why would they continue to do what so obviously doesn't work, never has and never will?

    They never solve problems. They are not trained to, they don't know how to, they don't listen anyway, they don't, won't and will tell you they will......................if you vote for them?

    If you believe I'm wrong, nothing can help you. Not even you.

    They do however, profit off your problems, while you don't, won't and never will.
  • thumb
    Aug 6 2012: As i said involvement of citizen is necessary, that alone cannot be a viable parameter to make large scale decisions.

    A board which has nothing to do with the people and nothing to do with the politics/ politicians and whose primary task is to identify the person who can run the nation's government for the next term and decide whether that person should be replaced by someone better in between the term should fix all the issues in the currently vulnerable ecosystem.

    In such a scenario there are a array of responsibilities split across groups of people and there is no single point of failure, one mistake in one place can be easily addressed by others and fixed.

    People within the chain of responsibility of a political system may not be able to make these decision because of too many parameters to handle and in that process the core purpose of the process might get shadowed.

    Well, who controls this board may be taking one step further in this direction. Just for an example we can have "United Nations" and the likes to decide upon the members of the board.

    The world is more connected these days. The efforts of any nation does not only benefit that particular country but has positive impact on an grid of connected nations and so is the negative impact when the recessions hit and economies slowdown. So i believe involving a person from outside the nation in deciding the political system of any nation is definitely a healthy strategy as they are also going to derive major benefits form a nation based on the political climate of any country.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2012: As the involvement of a citizen is very essential in this process, and still the direct connection between public and electing a president has many vulnerabilities, introducing a healthy layer in the middle which can fill that gap could be a worthwhile procedure to work on.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2012: Simply by being a contributing citizen. That's the whole point of democracy, isn't it?

    I think the democratic process is in need of an upgrade, to use the parlance of our times.

    Also, it's a common perception that the 'unwashed masses' don't know what's good for them. In fact, I believe it's the exact opposite. People know exactly what they want. The concept that one 'leader' could embody all of these wants and needs is exactly where democracy falls over.

    Power to the people, not the imagined elite..
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2012: Well, obviously the founding fathers didn't think we were qualified enough, and that's why there's electoral college. Bush was the one who didn't win the popular vote but still inaugurated as the President. I believe most of us are qualified enough, but there are always people who don't care about their suffrage and therefore randomly vote for a candidate or abstain.