The best form of government

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Okay,

so this is the Political Academy, where such issues can be raised.

I studied political science for 5 years, and I'm still curious about which is the proper form of government.
I'm even more curious about TWC's opinion about this.

As to the poll list: I tried to create a comprehensive list, if you don't find it so, leave comments, but don't be negative.

(Sorry for the syntax errors - Technocracy instead of Tehnocracy and Dictatorship instead of Dictarship.)

I tried to arrange the list by the extent of the power concentration: anarchy is the least centralized, and totalitarian dictatorship is the most. (Okay, we can argue about the concept of "power" too, but that would need another thread and a whole library )

I define democracy as a form of self-governance where the numerical majority rules, and republic where a certain kind of selected or non-selected elite rules. Of course there are subversions of mere "democracy" and "republic", but there are strong correlations between them - hence the foretags. The term monarchy is pretty obvious - one ruler.

As to the concept "best": if you think this is childish, just read what the greatest political philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Paine, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel) wrote: they were all keen on finding the BEST form of government.

These forms of governments can be composite, and Aristotle believed that the best form of government is indeed the mikté politeia, the mixed constitution of democracy, republic and monarchy. (You can find this idea finalized even in some modern constitutions).

So my choice is the mixed government, mainly with republican elements. (Please try to abstract from the republican party of the USA, or else we'll be in the political mudpit). I think this is the most stable and balanced form of government.

I would like this thread to be an intelligent discussion forum without flames and burps. So if you don't think you can make serious arguments, don't post here, thanks.

You can check some info on this wiki site:

Forms of government

So what's YOUR choice and why?

[rodne]

Anarchism. The world will fall into it some day.

[Confederate Jeb]

I can't remember which form of a republic was the best, so I did mixed government. I think this is right one.

[Tiwaz]

Technocracy.

Having anyone lead because they appeal to emotions of people is horrible way to choose leaders.

Similarily, choosing people because they represent certain political ideology is horrible way to come up with leadership.

Optimally, leadership is about finding optimal solutions to secure best possible life to population as whole.

Let those most competent and with understanding do the leading. Meritocracy mixed with technocracy is best solution for government.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

For me, the best is a liberal (by liberal I don't mean the stereotypical American version of liberal) republic, the closest I could find was "Republic-mixed government"

As for the question of what is the "best" government, I dont think there can be one. Its all dependent upon cultural, socio and economic attitudes and trends of a certain area.

Technocracy.

Having anyone lead because they appeal to emotions of people is horrible way to choose leaders.

Similarily, choosing people because they represent certain political ideology is horrible way to come up with leadership.

Optimally, leadership is about finding optimal solutions to secure best possible life to population as whole.

Let those most competent and with understanding do the leading. Meritocracy mixed with technocracy is best solution for government.

good in theory, bad in practice methinks

it creates too much of a division between the rulers and the ruled, the the latter would, I think, come to look upon the rulers, just like the nobles of old, a seperate elite, and see themselves as second-class citizens.

I can certainly sympathize with why you would choose technocracy, but it's far too unrealistic

I think both of you have made good points.
Generally we can all agree, that the goal of leadership is "about finding optimal solutions to secure best possible life to population as whole". That's also a well-known principle of political philosophy.
Well, when it comes down to practice or method, there are a several various solutions. Technocracy may be one of them.
De facto, we live in a very much technocratized society today. Originally i wanted to include Robocracy in the list, but it was too futuristic in 2008. (Or was it?)

I think the problem with technocracy, is the same with a non-selected elite: it may become despotic very soon without public control and balance. And if we accept the principle, that the goal of leadership is to pursue happiness, we might as well say that a techno-society doesn't offer much more happiness as an ancient society.

But how can we define happiness? Now some say, happiness is the meaning of life. But how can we define the meaning of life? Or is there any meaning in life beyond our mutual experiences?

I think that the politics of happiness can mean only public happiness, meanwhile pursuing individual goals. By public happiness I mean people coming together, discussing the matters of the community and trying to reach a rational decision through open-minded deliberation. Of course, sometimes this is not possible, hence other (aristocratic or monarchistic) elements are needed for a political system to function properly. By "monarchistic" I don't mean old-school kingdom-like leaders, but sole leaders, who decide f.e. over war and peace (just take the institution of US presidency, it's the last elected monarchy in the whole world!).

And the whole notion of deliberation is lacking in those government forms I don't like - f.e. technocracy, but this doesn't mean that a healthy amount of technocratic elements couldn't included in the best government form. It all comes down to the proper ratio.



P.S. Sorry for the syntax errors in the list: it is Technocracy and not Tehnocracy, and Dictatorship and not Dictarship as you all might well found out.

[Last Roman]

For me, the best is a liberal (by liberal I don't mean the stereotypical American version of liberal) republic, the closest I could find was "Republic-mixed government"

As for the question of what is the "best" government, I dont think there can be one. Its all dependent upon cultural, socio and economic attitudes and trends of a certain area.

Technocracy.

Having anyone lead because they appeal to emotions of people is horrible way to choose leaders.

Similarily, choosing people because they represent certain political ideology is horrible way to come up with leadership.

Optimally, leadership is about finding optimal solutions to secure best possible life to population as whole.

Let those most competent and with understanding do the leading. Meritocracy mixed with technocracy is best solution for government.

good in theory, bad in practice methinks

it creates too much of a division between the rulers and the ruled, the the latter would, I think, come to look upon the rulers, just like the nobles of old, a seperate elite, and see themselves as second-class citizens.

I can certainly sympathize with why you would choose technocracy, but it's far too unrealistic

[Valentin the II]

Depends.
With a perfect ruler: Dictatorship.
Otherwise, democracy.

[Tiwaz]

good in theory, bad in practice methinks

it creates too much of a division between the rulers and the ruled, the the latter would, I think, come to look upon the rulers, just like the nobles of old, a seperate elite, and see themselves as second-class citizens.

I can certainly sympathize with why you would choose technocracy, but it's far too unrealistic

And of course current political leaders are in no way removed from those who are ruled...

How many of YOUR elected representatives live on minimal income? Each and every political elite is elite in terms of being in the upper scale of population. Finding a poor politician is like looking for dry water.

And if they weren't rich when they got in power, by the time they are ready to retire they usually are nicely cushioned with cash.

And only excuse this elite has to lead you is that they lied to you in convincing way. At least in merit based technocracy your leaders would be there because they know about they are to decide on.

It is not, necessarily, bad to have ruling elite if ruling elite is not based on your pedigree or capability of lying. One where only your own merit and obtained knowledge matter is one where elite indeed is the elite. The best and brightest.

Though this system should include well developed welfare principles. Education all the way to the top should be free and available for everyone. So only thing limiting your raise to top is your brain, not if your daddy had right party membership or had lots of cash etc.

[Last Roman]

And of course current political leaders are in no way removed from those who are ruled...

How many of YOUR elected representatives live on minimal income? Each and every political elite is elite in terms of being in the upper scale of population. Finding a poor politician is like looking for dry water.

And if they weren't rich when they got in power, by the time they are ready to retire they usually are nicely cushioned with cash.

And only excuse this elite has to lead you is that they lied to you in convincing way. At least in merit based technocracy your leaders would be there because they know about they are to decide on.

It is not, necessarily, bad to have ruling elite if ruling elite is not based on your pedigree or capability of lying. One where only your own merit and obtained knowledge matter is one where elite indeed is the elite. The best and brightest.

Though this system should include well developed welfare principles. Education all the way to the top should be free and available for everyone. So only thing limiting your raise to top is your brain, not if your daddy had right party membership or had lots of cash etc.

I never said the current situation is perfect

but you create not only a political elite, but a elite over everything.

And while I hardly trust every politician, many of them had similar experiences. One of the reasons Bill Clinton was so popular because he came from a dirt poor background.

also, who's to say that a person selected by some test really has your best interests in mind?

no one is incorruptible, not even the best and brightest.

[Tiwaz]

I never said the current situation is perfect

but you create not only a political elite, but a elite over everything.

As opposed to current elite which rules over everything? Politicians and corporate leaders holding hands, politicians becoming corporate "consults" after retiring etc...

And while I hardly trust every politician, many of them had similar experiences. One of the reasons Bill Clinton was so popular because he came from a dirt poor background.

also, who's to say that a person selected by some test really has your best interests in mind?

no one is incorruptible, not even the best and brightest.

Let's put it this way. I honestly accept concept that those who want power are last ones that should be given any. Clinton started poor, whopee. And how poor is he now? How can he relate to problems of lowest classes after spending all those decades in luxury?

Or Bushy... He has never even been poor. He is off with silver spoon. And you believe that these guys would have your interests in mind? They are there for self gratification.

Tests are there to determine who is good for position. Testing can mean also personality tests. Actually, that is what I have been suggesting all the time. Doubleblind testing where neither person doing the test or giving the questions knows what "right" answers are. Those who analyze do it without knowing who they are analyzing. And there should be several analyst groups who have to come within certain degree of agreement for result to be valid. Which is again determined on another level.

In short, I want to take emotions, personal preferences and all that crap out of choosing leaders. Leader should be chosen for merit, knowledge and education. Those who have persona, knowledge and skills to do job should do it.

Not some guy from big well off family who can talk in simple terms to average joe to convince (lie) him that he is out there to look for joe.

Elected officials are corrupt too. They are even more corrupt than specialists usually. So which would be better?
Elected and corrupt liar who is deciding on matters he has no idea of...
Or tested and verified specialist who decides on matters related to his area of speciality. That means economist does not make decisions on areas not related to economy, doctor does not make decisions not related to medical sciences etc.

Now we elect people from variety of backgrounds to perform tasks they do not necessarily have any competence to. Finland had defence minister who had never been in the army!


Would you people want your heart surgery to be performed by plumber because he was chosen to be most affectable chap by local vote?
No, you would want specialist surgeon to do that thing. So why we want to have our lives ruled by bunch who do not necessarily have education or brains to do so successfully?

[Tiberius Nero]

I still don't see why technocracy is considered a system of government; it is a style of government, not a system. An elected prime minister can appoint whomever he wants as ministers, those people don't have to be elected, so technocracy can be the style of government of a parliamentary democracy even, if the prime minister believes this is how it should be run; in effect you could vote for such a guy and vote for technocracy. Technocracy has a place in any political system, it doesn't define the political profile of a state.

[Last Roman]

.

In short, I want to take emotions, personal preferences and all that crap out of choosing leaders. Leader should be chosen for merit, knowledge and education. Those who have persona, knowledge and skills to do job should do it.

like I said in my first post, totally unrealistic

also, I would think that most politicians have at least two of the three you mentioned (certainly the first)

Look, I can certainly agree with you (to a point) as to why you see this as the best form/system of government.

But people are not robots. They will continue to vote with their hearts and gut instincts. They will continue to support the person that they think will best represent them, not who did the best on a test.

Lets face it, the person is smart, people are dumb

So, like I said, I sympathize with you, but it is totally unrealistic

[Tiberius Nero]

I think "Technocracy" is somewhat misconceived as a term; would that mean that a technocrat has no political ideology or agenda? You could have Technocratic Capitalism, Technocratic Communism or any combination. Technocracy the way I see it is the practice of appointing specialists to oversee and coordinate their respective sectors, it doesn't say much about the politics of a state otherwise and it isn't a government type. But I could be persuaded otherwise.

[Stalins Ghost]

Voted Direct Democracy, not because it's necessarily the most effective, but because it's the only one I can truely agree with.

[VALIS]

I voted for dictatorship. While troublesome for citizens, it is probably the most effective and efficient way of running a country

[Tiberius Nero]

I voted for dictatorship. While troublesome for citizens, it is probably the most effective and efficient way of running a country

lol?

There hasn't probably been one instance of absolute, unquestioned rule which hasn't resulted in rampant corruption and pointless massive repression at the hands of people who are frankly by all accounts incompetent and plain idiots. Unless authority can be checked this will happen.

[Yorkshireman]

Happy with the form of government we have in Britain, which I suppose is a mix of const monarchy/parliamentary.

[wilting]

Parliamentary Democracy is the most successful form of Government, and therefore the best. Distinctions between Republic, Monarchy, Proportional or Plurality or what have you aren't of particular importance in the grand scheme of things.

[Tiwaz]

lol?

There hasn't probably been one instance of absolute, unquestioned rule which hasn't resulted in rampant corruption and pointless massive repression at the hands of people who are frankly by all accounts incompetent and plain idiots. Unless authority can be checked this will happen.

Actually, dictatorship does not equal incompetent or idiot. Quite contrary, those who raise into such position tend to be both smart and competent.

Also ruthless and plain narcistic... But not stupid or incompetent. Stupid and incompetent lose power, they do not gain it.

[Tiberius Nero]

Actually, dictatorship does not equal incompetent or idiot. Quite contrary, those who raise into such position tend to be both smart and competent.

Also ruthless and plain narcistic... But not stupid or incompetent. Stupid and incompetent lose power, they do not gain it.

I do speak from a country (Greece) which has had good experience of such types, dictators which were absolute bumpkins, trust me.

Even if that is not a universal case, dictatorship always leads to corruption.