What would you think would be the best alternative to a representative democracy?

Westerners often swell with pride when they talk about democracy and the more democracy the solution would be for just about all the problems of non-Western countries.Unfortunately, non-Western democracies (with a positive exception here and there) are usually synonymous with corruption and bureaucracy. And in the Netherlands it is slightly better, but not much better.

How is that?In my opinion, the problem of democracy is the political party. Political parties seem to be the most appropriate instrument for people who have nothing but the right appearance to make a career. The parties determine who will be in selectable places in elections and are serving retired politicians for non-democratic functions. The parties hate people with vision, because finally the elected must follow the party line. Parties are looking for people who are mediageniek and are easily debating. Parties are not interested in the fairness of the candidates unless this becomes a political problem.

For instance, we have democratic bodies (Kuch…) that are compiled by political parties of vision-free Inbenullen with media training, with a certain level of unscrupulous scammers.

So how do we get rid of the democratic form in which undemocratic political parties decide who is elected?This would certainly also strengthen democracy in non-Western countries and increase the intellectual content of the decisions taken, and reduce corruption and bureaucracy.

(And do not come up with the argument that you should then become a member of a party to strengthen democracy from within).

In the past (and even now), the theory of anarchism has appealed to me.A society without leaders, where everyone goes their own way.

In practice, anarchists were often small owners who were intertwined with each other.In Larger organisations There are also small owners, but the cooperation is better. But well, without those owners it should succeed.

An Anarchist society is governance from under on and a flat hierarchy.Decisions must then always be communicated to the basis and the basis must be able to correct this. Such a society is also aimless, it does not develop in a certain direction, but it is more about enforcing the statis quo.

You can see this organisation in artists ‘ circles and also at the village level.At district level, you could also have such an organization of self-government, but there is often an anonymier. But for example, a school can be very anarchistically controlled, with the school head executing the wishes of teachers, children and parents. The head of the school submits more than that he himself takes the decisions. Possibly he delegates the execution of the decisions, but also always in consultation. I suggest it so that the school head cleans the school. As a result, he comes everywhere and speaks to everyone. Or more clearly, the school’s cleaners then functions as the head of the school.

The prevailing structure, which mainly goes from above (the citizen is allowed to talk, but does not decide and the power device is in the hands of the government and can force the citizen) is of course not on reign from the basis posed.

If you look in nature its structures where there is no controlle from above is quite primitive.Already, single-celled together can be quite large structures, with specializations if necessary. Also an ant’s Nest is an anarchist community. Mutual Assistance is central.

If you look at complicated biological structures, such as the human body, it seems as if the different organs are hierarchically arranged, but in reality they stand side by side and influence each other in a complex way.

A family can also have a good anarchist structure

Each state forms or falls with the quality of the leaders.

Democracy as state form, governance by the people, for the people

Democracy is the best we have been able to think of, but in an increasingly large-scale society which, moreover, is increasingly easier to manipulate by those who concentrate on it, we are against the limits of what voters can still Overlooked.A representative democracy has been a first step to free people to follow and monitor the directors on behalf of the electorate. No one can overlook all the ins and outs of a city, provincial or national administration alone and in addition to his own work.

Borders on democracy

But also a representative democracy has its limits.This requires that you can trust the representatives to choose, and that they will be able to protect your interests as well as possible. We can partly absorb this-and we have done so in the Netherlands-by forming parties which, on the basis of their starting points and a programme based on it, select candidate elected representatives.

Together they can check in their group of a number of people, and with supporters plus a scientific agency, the Government, the College of Deputy States or the College of mayor and the councillor.

Democracy in a complex and rapidly changing society

And there is now the shoe.Driving an increasingly complex and rapidly changing society is also becoming increasingly complex. This calls for people who can think analytically, who are flexible and who can assess and limit risks. Unfortunately, that is not the average Dutchman, let alone half the population that is by definition below that average. Yet these people want to be represented and see their interests.

Moreover, the people who would have that could also have other career opportunities.In science, in business, in banks and insurers, as directors of civil society organisations such as hospitals, utilities, trade unions and employers ‘ organisations, housing associations, training institutes etcetera. Many of those working circles offer higher to much higher rewards.

Democracy influensible by other interests

Now you could say, beautiful, that purifies then fixed those who are only out on their own financial advantage stuck out.But that’s just the half story. The importance of these sectors in a well-known government is enormous. So they try to get their people in those places in all sorts of ways. They do so by direct influence, lobbying, participating in advisory institutes, funding research, publicity, newspapers, TV, radio and magazines, financing directly or through advertising budgets and by setting a reward for the prospect. Brinkman went to the construction world and tobacco industry, salmon found a staggered bed at a few banks, and Eurlings enriched Air France/KLM and the IOC with its presence. Wouter Bos and Mark Rutte came directly from Shell and Unilever.

Multinationals and banks expand their influence

The big money is of course mainly with the big companies and banks and the list above reflects that.Those guys (sorry ladies, I had been able to add Neelie to it, but I don’t want to call the reproach of VVD-basher) Its all not stupid guys. They are without exception graduated from real or technical universities, Wouter and Camiel even with honours. Their world is formed by large multinationals and not by the environment in which the average Dutchman has to fight his existence.

Equal opportunities to the right of the richest and smartest

So it is no wonder that in the last fifty years the work of Drees and others from a social and Christian democratic angle to build an equal opportunities society has been reworked towards an economic and educational system that mainly the rich and the Smarmen Promotes.As long as the economy grows, this is not the same, because it still remains sufficient to keep the less fortunate 80% satisfied. But now globalisation, automation and pushing the global economic centre of gravity to Asia make their consequences for those with fewer opportunities, they are opposed to this.

Ordinary people orphaned in politics

But who comes into politics for them?Who can vote on the one hand who knows and understands their world from within, and that on the other hand is so clever that he or she remains upright? The SP was such a lot for a long time. Jan Marijnissen was welder, Agnes Kant dokter and Emiel Roemer teacher. Three professions that are close to ordinary people.

Also at the Labour Party were for a long time to find active members among trade unionists, police, nursing, educators.But also there, as with GroenLinks, D66 and CDA, they are the Doktorandussen who now call themselves very international “masters” who make up the service. Of course, good training is not a disqualification to be a good driver, on the contrary. But a university does not reflect society and a world trip does provide experiences, but it is substantially different from years of work in cleaning or as a retailer in a retail chain, or as an older employee in the hospitality industry or as Nada.

Direct Democracy (Switzerland) an alternative?

Maybe.But that referendum-democracy is not an alternative without its own disadvantages. For instance, Switzerland was one of the last countries in the world where national women were entitled to electoral rights.

The advantages are:

  • More direct influence of the voter and thus
  • Directly confronted with the consequences of majority decisions
  • More regional influence, thus joining the living world of the people.

The disadvantages are:

  • Complicated problems with multiple alternative solutions are difficult or not in a referendum form to pour;
  • A closed society with high thresholds to be admitted to the political system (cf. women’s electoral law);
  • Focused on national interest in an international society (Switzerland was and to some extent still a refuge for corruption money from around the world.

The Swiss model is not the only conceivable.But it is by far the best and longest tried. It also has other advantages, such as no capital and no person-concentrated head of state (a yearly Changing alliance Council president who fulfils the ceremonial obligations, but that is not the head of state).

Very many smaller state units are a good alternative, for representative democracy.So large national states divide into smaller regional constitutional units. The administrations of smaller units are always closer to the Democratic base, and administrative decisions are of much greater immediate interest. The smallest state within the EU is the richest state with a very satisfied population: Luxembourg.

A democracy.

What do I mean by a democracy?A democracy in which everyone who is able to formulate a full phrase has the right to vote directly on everything that is not in a hurry. Therefore not the current control model, with

  1. We vote every four years or faster on people who want to represent us
  2. Those representatives choose a government that formulates policy,
  3. which allows our representatives to vote on this,
  4. This will let the approved policy work out by civil servants and
  5. Subsequently, the outcome of the work of civil servants is regularly monitored by our representatives, with
  6. Approve or send out the minister who has the policy under his responsibility.
  7. After which new policy is formulated when the policy is approved.

This model is too sensitive to influence by external and internal parties.For example, we now see that in the tax administration which formulates a scheme to make room in the workforce and then spends millions more than expected, loses knowledge by departures that one would not have wanted to go at all and new Employees must attract to fill the gaps.

We will still need representatives, because we cannot talk collectively about the best way to trade in natural disasters or contact with other countries.But something like abolishing or correctly entering a tax can be judged quietly collectively. Also how much money we want to give to education or the basic income or insuring our care is to determine without problem democratic.

Absolute Democracy is unfortunately not possible and has never existed either.But it can come a lot closer to absolute democracy if we let go of the idea that not everyone is fit to talk about what we want to do with it all.

If we have to change, I would rather see a different form of representative democracy than to choose a totally different form of our government, then I suggest that we set a series of requirements before you can vote for a leader (and not a Representative, which makes it technically not a representative democracy, more a ‘ we choose a leader who can do what he want as a leader ‘):

  • You have to earn at least more than Jan Modaal.

If you don’t even deserve better than average, how can you ever learn to deal with the tens of billions that the government spends on a sector like education?

  • You may not receive any public money for any reason whatsoever.
  • No child benefit, allowance or maternity leave. It is not a fair choice: if someone promises you more money you cannot expect to make a rational choice.

  • You have to be at least thirty years.
  • Everyone does things while he is 20 where he thinks back later as ‘ Ai, I shouldn’t have done that ‘. Please don’t let that be your voice anymore.

    I do not agree with three demands, I am really in favour of democracy, but if we have to make adjustments in order to get rid of a representative democracy, let us look at a kind of democracy as much as possible.

    So again: I disagree with those requirements, but this is the best alternative.Rather than an absolute dictator.

    Leave a Reply