Abstention
― And
if the citizens have no
interest in a specific
problem?
If they have no desire to undergo
the test and they
prefer to sit in
front of the TV with a
beer,
then what?
We would have only
a small participation in our voting.
But why should
this be bad?
Is
the opinion of the indifferent
and
ignorant so important that
it
is essential to have it?
Those who
•
have
no interest in the subject,
•
feel
no desire to inform themselves,
•
are
not willing to undergo the test and
•
prefer
that others take responsibility for the decision,
let them sit in
front of the TV.
Anyway their
opinion
wouldn't have great
value.
Let us restrict
ourselves to the opinionof those
•
who
consider the issue important,
•
who
have knowledge of the matter,
•
who
have a point of view about it,
•
who
took the trouble to learn
•
and
to undergo the test.
And
if we actually
manage to
make this system a
reality,
then more and more
people will show
interest.
When they realise
that it is them
who
make the decisions,
•
they will be more interested in
the problems of the
state,
•
they will be more informed and
•
they will discuss with each other
about it.
So
they will became more and more
involved
with what is real politics,
and not
the bickering and
gossip of the parties
that we call politics today.
― In
such a system of government aren't we
giving special
importance to the experts?
Are they not the ones who form the
government,
determine the factors, prepare
the test and carry
out the voting?
Yes we are, but that’s
the nature of things.
When it comes
to avoiding
collision with an iceberg,
it's better if the
decision is made by
the captain and not by
a random
passenger.
― And
should we tolerate the same
expert all his life? Making
decisions
(even minor ones because major
decisions will be taken
by the people)
and having therefore the corresponding
influence?
No way.
As a private
person
he remains expert throughout
his life,
as long as he retains his
abilities.
As
a public official, say as a minister,
he
can not remain forever.
His
time on the job is limited.
For example
•
he
can be appointed for a year as
"minister-in-waiting"
to learn the job,
•
then
he works the next year as "active minister"
to put into practice
what he has learned,
•
and
finally he remains for another year as "counsellor minister"
to help those who
follow with his experience.
The
Ministry will be led by
all three
of them together.
If one year
is much too short
a time to complete the project,
we can allow some extra
time depending on the
task and of course
after appropriate consent
from the people.
But remaining a
long time
in the same
position should be avoided,
because over the years
our expert tends to
become
institutionalised, "ossifies" and reacts
against any changes.
Such a combined
system of government
where the people
make the decisions,
and the "council
of the wise" carry them out,
does not guarantee that no errors are possible.
But it minimises
their probability and
distributes the
responsibility fairly.