siniša karađole

This conversation is closed.

Democracy 2.0

This is something i have been thinking about for quite a long time.
I also presented it to "public" several times already so im aware of the usual counter arguments.

There are a few really big problems that our current system produces in practice and since i dont have enough space here to number them all and then present the solution/suggestions ill just go straight to the solutions.
These would all be constitutional laws from which all other laws and rules would be developed.

Or, a basis for a new constitution for democracy 2.0

1. During elections each candidate would need to present his promises in a simple, clear and written form that would be considered a contract with the people. Each promise must be given an exact date for completion.
For each breach or failure to fulfill each point in the contract the consequences would be strict, swift and severe, ranging from getting fired on the spot, to loosing seats in the parliament to being criminally prosecuted.
ie - no more lying in elections allowed - by law.

2. The elected would have no immunities whatsoever, no privileges whatsoever.
- no official cars, no payed lunches, no payed hotel rooms or any kinds of services.
- the wage they would receive would be nations average and nothing else.
- the elected would be required to work 8 hours a day just like everyone else, all year round
- not showing up on work would produce the same consequences as it does for everyone else (reduction of wage, getting fired)

3. All financial records of each elected official would be open and accessible to anyone 24/7.

4. All financial records and data of the government itself would be absolutely open and accessible to everyone 24/7.

I would ask anyone who comments on this to answer these few questions:
1. Do you think this would be an improvement over the current system? Why, why not?
2. If you had a choice would you rather live in such a system or any of the current ones? Why?
3. Anything else you want to ask about?

  • Nov 12 2011: Math, science, technology, even language is developing and innovating each day yet government has stayed the same for years. How do we know democracy is the best way to go? civilizations lived believing a monarchy was the best way to go about things and look how that ended up. Democracy is essentially the best wrong answer to a problem. that problem being how do we govern our society. not that it would work but out of curiosity what if you were to isolate the essential 3 branches of government so that they were independent of each other in a sense that each would represent themselves with a leader or leaders for each branch but no universal designation of leader ei president, priminister, dictator. this would eliminate a lot of problems with corruption given the fact that no one can be considered above the law. this is just an idea. feel free to expand on it or point out its flaws. i believe our society is stuck in a paradigm and the first way we need to evolve is by redeveloping and re-establishing a new form of government.
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2011: Thanks for the reply.

      Reality isnt quite that clear and cut and what you end up is those three pillars being dependent on each other, influencing each other.
      Like now.

      It is not a fundamental thing. It is a solution within the system instead of being a basic fundamental thing on which the system is built.

      Also, as soon as you have a "leader" regardless how that position is officially designated, youre creating a ruling caste which starts to pile up privileges and exempts from the law for themselves. Unless you have very fundamental laws preventing that directly.
      "Leaders" do not work.

      A system should not be dependent on any one person. History teaches us that.
  • Nov 12 2011: Wow, firstly, I must say, you have obviously put quite a lot of thought into this.
    Yes, the current system of democracy is ‘inherently flawed’, but there seems to be a large amount of public apathy towards doing anything about it, which is surprising, seeing the myriad of much better alternatives, such as yours, that people have been putting forward for centuries.
    I do honestly think this would be a huge improvement on the current system. Unfortunately, systems such as those you are proposing have some serious problems before they would become live-able.
    Three problems here:
    The first you have probably heard before a million times; you can’t possibly hold hapless politicians accountable for failing (or even delaying, by your statement) the execution of their plans due to potentially unforeseeable economic and even meteorological circumstances.
    Secondly, the threat of ‘criminal prosecutions’ would lead, obviously to extreme caution when drafting plans, which would turn the current system on its head. I believe that it is probably better for politicians to make ambitious pledges and sometimes carry them out, than for them to make cautious (and potentially meaningless or symbolic) ones and always carry them out.
    Thirdly, Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? You are imagining you can somehow get an organisation which will try and prosecute substandard politicians. Have you ever seen a politician on trial? How are you going to get a system to give fair trials to the people who control it?
    Do you think you will get the top level experts, or for that matter, the best leaders, by treating them like everyone else? Surely, you want the most competent people running the country, and you do this by offering incentives, not by threatening to prosecute them if they make a mistake.
    This falls prey to the old Communist problem: if you pay the elite like everyone else, they will just go and work in the fields, where they.. (ran out of characters, read the end on my bio. page).
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2011: Thanks for the enthusiasm and compliments Mark.

      I really did think about this for a long time and i already got the exact same counter arguments that you put forth numerous times.
      All the same ill just take the opportunity to present the answers to those.

      1. Yes i can hold politicians to their words. It is true that sometimes outside conditions make some promises unattainable, thats all fine and dandy.
      However, if you construct a system like this then its first and biggest effect would be that all those that wont to run for elections would be very careful of what they promise, right?
      And no it wouldnt turn the system on its head. It would actually make it work in this area.

      We as voters would end up with carefully studied plans presented by "politicians" instead of whatever their marketing departments think will bring the most votes - as we do now.
      In this there cannot be any half measure.
      Either you allow lying in elections or you dont. There is no middle ground.

      Secondly, criminal prosecution would be the last counter measure for this. Reserved only for biggest and most harmful of lies. And maybe just firing them on the spot would be enough. Or making a particular "party" loose parliament places or ministers in the government itself - that would automatically be replaced by people from the party with second biggest vote count and so on.

      Thirdly, there is no need to burden the prosecution of substandard and cheating politicians on some organization since the whole system from the foundation up would be aimed against those - actively.
      And the trick is that politicians would not control this system. It would control them.
      Plus, an independent judiciary branch is said to be one of the three basic pillars of democracy, right?
      So its not like im inventing something out of a fairy tale here.

      Of course, the judiciary part would need to be adapted to such a system too in a sense that it would need to be very, very fast and expedient.

      - whoops, so little space ..
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2011: ..abra E=mc2 kadabra!...

      hmm, spacetime continuum!

      Anyway... yeah, i think it would be very possible to have a system where parties or individuals that fail to deliver just get automatically removed from their functions, without the need for some sort of prolonged dramatic trials. After all who gets those when they fail at their workplace and get fired?

      Maybe one failure would be tolerable, depending on the extraordinary circumstances or even two but you would be banned from running the elections every again?
      There is always a way.

      I would like to reserve serious criminal prosecution more for those that try to swindle money for themselves (either in form of currency or favors or material gifts or whatever) and treat it legally as a high treason with automatic ban of ever running for office again and getting practically forever publicly exposed as traitors and corrupted with their pictures and details posted in front of the parliament itself and online on specialized part of the govt web site.

      2. Yes i do. I do believe there are enough people out there that would work for their ideals, for the greater good and betterment of the whole society (which btw includes them too so by improving the overall situation of the country they would improve it for themselves too in the end).
      All they need is a system that would not only allow them to do it but actively support such behavior unlike the current one which supports selfishness and corruption.

      Also, incentives and privileges do not work. The proof is all around us.
      All they do is create a caste of privileged that do not live in the same conditions (and therefore reality) as the rest of the people.
      And no the Communism did not work that way. The rulers were over privileged, overpaid and above the law.
      A caste separate from the rest of the population.
      I should know because i lived in a form of it.
  • thumb
    Nov 10 2011: The purpose of posting this is to present a seemingly simple and workable solution to the question of evolution of democratic socio-political system that would serve as an intermediary system between the present failing ones and the more ideal future systems.

    I also wish to stress-test it to experimentally prove whether it is feasible or desirable for majority of people.
    And to get constructive critique and smart suggestions about it whether its about its main ideal and basic assumptions or about particular specifics.

    The system is designed primarily to deal harshly with several fundamental and very negative features the current systems produce, whether intentionally or not.
    And to be a solid framework independent from the actual political, religious or any other preference its end users posses.

    It is also intentionally written in as simple and clear manner available to me - which would also be one of the basics in its construction as a whole.
  • thumb
    Nov 10 2011: I see nothing wrong with Democracy 2.0, I'd be a little more involved if I lived in such a system. I might even consider getting a job in politics.

    My question : how many years/decades do you think it'll take for Democracy 2.0 to be adopted anywhere? I don't want to sound like a pessimist or a revolutionist, but how do you get rid of the worms currently eating the apple?
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2011: Thanks for the comment.

      Well, this is something thats far from a finished product that would be ready for actual use.
      Since i dont have a lot of writing space here i presented just the basics to show where im going with this generally.
      There are other smaller rules and additions to these basic ones such as working out exactly how the punishment for failing to deliver election promises would work, the idea of setting up specialized web site that continuously and in real time presents information on each elected in the parliament, the amount of work they do as individuals and together as a government, or setting up two independent monitoring "councils" or work groups that would monitor financial states of the elected and each other to further minimize the potential for corruption.
      People that work in these anti-corruption councils would be chosen almost randomly, very much like American jury system works with a difference that it would prefer people with specific knowledge suited to the task.
      I would also shorten the elected serving term to two years instead of four.
      And so on.

      Even presuming that huge number of people suddenly like this and get involved , the implementation would be difficult. Of course.
      Basically you need a critical mass of people involved to push this to a national referendum.
      So i really cannot say how long would it take.

      The "worms" currently in the apple would simply find it impossible to exist in such a system that would reduce the image of "ruling the country" to a common working place.
      Just imagine an ordinary politician type being forced to put his promises on paper in a simple and clear form together with projected dates of completion.
      Not to mention working for the national average wage and having no privileges at all.

      One of the basic ideas of this is to create the system which would remove the "politicians" from the executive power and replace them with experts for each field and people truly wiling to work for the greater good.