Government

Look back through history, and social change has prompted largely by power being taken away from a central authority and distributed. Originally there were tribal warlords who took over other tribes to form kingdoms and empires, it's true, but since then it's been a general distribution.

So now we have enlightened, democratic societies. Allegedly.

Of course, we don't have real democracy, any more than we have had anyone give Communism a real go. Marxist-Leninism wasn't real Communism, though it's come closer than just about anything else. Likewise, the United States isn't really a Democracy, for all they shout about it. They elect representatives (or should that be Representatives?) who sit in their government on their behalf... that's a Republic. Logistics limited the practicality of democracy until recently, but with the advent of near-instantaneous communication regardless of distance, the prospect of real democracy is upon us.

Imagine, if you will, the ultimate reality TV show - come home, sit down, switch on, and vote on todays Bills.... It could happen, but it won't - and for all the wrong reasons. Capitol Hill, the Houses of Parliament, The Diet, and all the other governing bodies of the world are largely a display piece for a bureaucracy that actually governs. All the image and glamour go into a veneer of 'Democracy', whilst the real work is being done by faceless, unaccountable lawyers, accountants and whatever else behind scenes. These people don't want to let the decision making out of their own hands - they'd be redundant - and that's why vote-from-home Democracy isn't going to happen.

Which isn't a bad thing. I couldn't run this country, not even for this country's benefit, let alone as part of a responsible attitude towards the rest of the world. Neither do the vast majority of people (including, unfortunately, the bulk of those to whom the responsibility allegedly falls), and this is where the problem lies. Spreading the power is perfectly fine, so long as it is being spread to a population capable of making rational, sensible decisions. Unfortunately, not only does a lack of education/ability form a barrier, but standard distribution means that even given the education, all decision making will end up falling in the moderate range, as decisions vary to either side - the facts may support that decision, on occassion, but there are occassions when the moderate approach is the worst, and extreme - either extreme - is the only real option.

People who watch soap-operas. People who crush beer-cans against their foreheads. People who worship God. People who don't worship God. People who think beer should be banned... and other dangerous extremists. Fundamentally, through little or no ill-will, the vast majority of people may know what they want, but they do not necessarily know what they need, nor what is best for them. Sufficient evidence for that lies in the amount of money passing into the coffers of, for instance, tobacco companies on a daily basis.

All of these people already have a limited say - thankfully the system is a lie and their say is largely a matter of cosmetics - but the fact that the people we elect are, largely, woefully underqualified for the job is a sign of the ineffectiveness of the system. In the USA, as in Britain, middle-of-the-road politics actually holds sway, with the two major parties being largely indistinguishable from each other, having a history of promoting lawyers and accountants.

Despite the 'anyone can rule' ethic both claim to apply, copious amounts of money seem to be a prerequisite, though the dynamic may not be that simple. However, no actual training or knowledge seem to be required. That knowledge resides in the bureaucracy, which is both a blessing and a curse.

The elected facade, therefore, have no direct method of taking their uneducated vague ramblings and foolish promises and actually applying them, without putting it through the bureaucracy, which hopelessly mangles it beyond their comprehension on the way. Unfortunately, the knowledge that resides within the bureaucracy is unguided, undirected and ultimately turned in upon itself - knowledge of the system is used to maintain the system, not improve it, or make it actually do anything.

So where does the answer lie? Government systems are as diverse as the people who offer themselves up to either be in one or who find themselves subject to one. Monarchies, Oligarchies and all the rest have varying qualities and effects, but logic leads to a simple conclusion.

Given, as already discussed, people are equal, any system which defines an individual or group as inherently ordained, selected, chosen or preferred for government is at best questionable, and at worst ludicrous. This removes monarchies, any other form of nobility or hereditary leadership, and any sort of caste system. The qualifications for government have to be based upon the ability to govern - equality requires that we each be assessed upon purely our own abilities, and government is a skill that can be taught and learnt. This means that anything based upon finance (which should be non-existent anyway), religion, military ability, or adherence to ritual practices is insufficient.

Which leaves us with the rather obvious notion that government should lie with those best qualified to govern. Shocking.

Leadership has been studied by generation upon generation of scholars and scientists and a reasonably complete profile has been developed of what the ideal governor requires. Early testing against those criteria would indicate suitable candidates who could then be trained to the role. The most successful candidate would go on to rule, assisted at the upper levels of the bureaucracy by the remainder of the trained individuals, and advised by experts in the various fields they decide require advice.