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.


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


       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

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.

Back                                  Contents                                Continue