“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill
These sentiments, while pessimistic, have much truth in them. Democracy is deeply flawed yet it is the best solution we have found to the problem of governance. In this essay I wish to describe in which ways that present democratic systems are flawed and then propose solutions to either remove or reduce these problems. Before starting with this task I would like to briefly justify why it is that democracy is worthy of being the means by which civilization is ruled, whether that be in our present situation or in a utopia.
Democracy is the marriage of equality and freedom, both of which are fundamental principles for my utopian vision. As civilization is not something to which natural equality applies it is more reasonable to apply total equality in the ability to vote and weight of vote. Each citizen has accepted the “social contract” as Rousseau called it. While people may not be equal, the act of accepting a social contract is in essence the same. The inequality of individuals is removed from the debate as each acceptance of a social contract assumes the individuality of the person making that choice. If it could be represented as an equation in physics then the units of the inequality between individuals would be cancelled out by occurring on both sides. If one accepts the merits of equality where permissible and freedom then it is easy to accept that democracy is offering a fair and moral method of rule. These are the main reasons that I adhere to democracy and further justifications may be found in the appropriately titled essays.
If one does not accept the merits of equality and of freedom then we must look deeper to produce a suitable argument for using democracy. The Law of Large Numbers (or LLN) applies very well to people's opinions and estimations. If you have a guess the weight of the pig or the number of beans in a jar type event then the greater the number of participants you have the closer the average of their answers will be to the correct answer. While a few individuals may be very wrong, and the exact weight may never be guessed, the overall average will still offer robust results. While the LLN may be mathematically provable it is harder to accept that it applies to all areas of human choice. There is little way to ever test the correctness of any democratic decision and so this argument for democracy must remain an argument and not progress to a proof.
A utilitarian argument also exists for democracy as it is an area which can be effectively quantified. While utilitarianism is a logical method to select the best course of action, it is very hard to apply in most circumstances. This is because opinions as to what is the most good in any given situation are subjective. What is the utilitarian approach to saving either a medical doctor or two convicted murderers? If one values human life above all then saving the two people would be the utilitarian choice but if one accounts for the merits of human life then they may elect to save the doctor. As democracy is looking to find each persons subjective opinion the result of a vote will always show what people think is the most good. This means that it is always the utilitarian answer to the question, the problem is that the question is always; what do you think? not; what is the answer? If one is both a utilitarian and able to accept LLN as an argument for democracy then the answers to both of those questions should logically be consistent and not require a proof that is impossible to give.
“Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt
While it is a tangential argument for democracy, education is still worthy of mention. Under a democracy it is in every persons best interests if everyone is educated as it improves democratic choice. Education also improves both the productivity and innovation of industry and personal freedom but this is the case under any form of rule. Additional incentives for a positive thing are always welcome however, and as such democracy should get a tick in the pro column for the promotion of education the populous.
“Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who'll get the blame.” - Bertrand Russell
This is another pessimistic yet true statement but it does not need to be this way. If politicians did as they said they would then those people who voted them in would have no leg to stand on should they wish to blame anyone other than themselves. The accountability of individuals is something I feel strongly about. I am always riled when I hear of someone harming themselves through their own stupidity and trying to gain advantage from the situation by blaming others. Much freedom has been lost to the responsible individual on account of those who are not. The better the democratic system that is in place then the more accountable for their own situations each citizen will become. This argument is along similar lines to the previous argument, in that a democracy will provide incentive to responsible choice making and accountability for ones own actions. The democratic system I shall describe will hopefully negate the relevance of Russell's quote. A perfect democracy should lead to the quote “Democracy is the process by which people are only able to blame themselves”. People do not like to take blame as it hurts our egos yet it the best way to self improvement and advances in society. Democracy could be described in this way as the most mature form of rule. If a monarchy or dictatorship is the process by which we blame a person who we did not choose then I would assert that any present offering of a democratic system is not much more than a democratic monarchy.
Plato's philosopher kings may be a better logistical solution than a democracy but they are a much less consistent 'pot luck' approach to governance. Plato himself asserted that no civilization ruled by a philosopher king would necessarily remain so. The next ruler could always be a tyrant. This alone is enough of a flaw for it to not be a serious consideration for method of rule. Even if there became a method by which a true philosopher king would always rule, and that they were incorruptible by power, there would still be a similar degree of pros and cons for democracy and the philosopher king. As we have not yet found a way to make these assurances this particular debate is not worth having.
Mostly for the irony of commending Fidel Castro in an essay supporting democracy, I should like to use him as the only recent example I am aware of that may be described as a philosopher king. Castro has not been able to create a utopia despite having had great success in certain areas of civilization such as literacy rates. His hand was forced by global affairs to make an unsavoury choice in the best interest of his people in what is called The Cuban Missile Crisis. That choice has had lasting effects on Cuba, most of which have been detrimental. Things may have happened very similarly had Cuba been a democratic nation that made the same choices as Castro did. The difference is the human factor, Castro is a single person who can be more easily made to be a villain figure, someone to whom we can hold stronger emotions towards than a group of people. Grudges from bruised national egos will die with Castro at best. I would suggest these wounds would have healed long ago if it were a democracy and not Castro making the choices for Cuba, regardless of those choices. This is just one subtle example of an advantage a democracy has over a single leader. I will not however list any more as they seem insignificant alongside the unsustainable nature of the philosopher king. While Castro may help me to illustrate how Plato's vision of the philosopher king is a likely failure in the modern world I still hope Castro is remembered as such; a man with good intentions towards his people and the last of the philosopher kings.
I am strongly in favour of democracy in theory but most of the present systems in existence are flawed in numerous ways that each detract from the justifications for democracy. I do not wish to spend lots of time painstakingly de-constructing various democratic systems to fully show their failings. Instead I will give a brief an overview of the major problems as possible just so as to be able to later describe solutions to these problems. More could be said on these topics but I fail to see what purpose that would serve beyond being antagonistic. There have been understandable reasons for why present democracies are as they are but even seemingly unrelated changes can negate the need for previous ways of doing things. It is always worth looking at things to see how they may be improved. That is the intent of this next section, not to lay blame at people or belittle how they go about doing things.
The most widely criticised aspect, as thus the one of which people are already most aware, seems to be the lack of proportional representation in most present democracies. Various ways to simplify how votes are tallied often lead to situations where large numbers of votes are irrelevant. Situations can even occur where the total number of votes was greatest for a party that lost the election. To be fair and able to represent equality it is clear that each persons vote needs to count for as much as anyone else's and that the policy, party or person with the most votes should win the election. Not only does it undermine the virtue of equality but it massively reduces the effect of the LLN. By making a smaller sample of people in a position to decide the election, the result will tend less towards the optimal outcome. Similarly the utilitarian argument falls apart when there is disproportional representation. Although it comes with new risks, the age of computers has made the need of the systems that create disproportional representation obsolete. It is time to move voting to a paperless format, that in turn will make many other improvements more viable, inclusive of proportional representation.
If we now consider the fact that all democracies have candidates and parties competing for the ability to govern it is quite obvious that those parties and candidates must be most concerned with getting elected and not how best to govern. This is not trying to say that politicians do not care for optimal governance, only that they would be foolish in present systems, to not first consider how they might get in a position to govern. Another way to phrase this is by saying if a leader is faced with a choice, one that will favour re-election and another they believe to be best for the society I would wager the majority of people would follow the wisdom of Machiavelli and elect to go with the choice favouring re-election. This is understandable and can easily be justified on the basis that they will not be able to make other choices that would be best for society if they do not get re-elected, this however is a dangerous path to follow. It is rather like capitalism in this regard which makes companies pursue the most profitable path and not what is always best for the consumer. Certainly there is much overlap between what is best for society and what is either most profitable or most likely to help with re-election and so these systems have worked pretty well for us. The issues arise when there is not an overlap. Democracies have created politicians who's number one goal is getting elected. Capitalism has created a system where companies seek to make the most profit. The companies and politicians are not evil or wrong, they are what they must be in the systems that exist. If we want political choices made that are truly in the interests of the society at all times we must first look at the way in which the system functions and not those that partake in it. The same applies if we wish companies to consider ethical and environmental factors with greater priority. Here we encounter a problem as a one party system would not be very democratic, offering no choice or freedom to the individual. Unlike solutions to disproportion representation, this particular inherent problem will require much greater changes to be resolved.
There are other issues bound up with the aspect of present democracies where parties and candidates via for power for the upcoming term of office. The most significant of which I deem to be the short term nature of political choices made. If a certain group is only in charge for say four years they will mostly be judged on those years they are in power for and not the longer term things that happen after their term. Because of the reasons previously described the choices a party makes will be very hedonistic. To get re-elected one must look good from now until only then. In democracies the short term fix with long lasting consequences tends to be a commonly made choice over investment in the long term future. One advantage of the philosopher king over a democracy is that their term of office is significantly longer on average and as such the choices they make will tend to be more long sighted. Even a lifetime is not a long time in terms of civilization, change must happen slowly, and so any method that can improve the forward planning in political choices is welcome. One of the significant reasons for China's incredible economic growth is because the nation is much more inclined to consider the long term benefits of the things they do. Part of the security society offers is that of continuation thus providing the other benefits of society to all your offspring. An unstable society, ever changing and liable to collapse offers very little in the way of comfort that those who you leave behind will be protected. A good society must be sustainable therefore it must also have a sustainable government. While this ruled out the philosopher king and not democracy, this was in principle alone. In practice we have a sustainable government that is bound to make unsustainable choices which is less use.
Another concern of having political parties and candidates is due to the compromise of opinion it forces voters into. When voting for a party or a candidates people tend to factor in a few things; how much do a parties policies overlap with theirs, if that overlap includes their main issues, likewise how many policies the party supports that they disagree with and by how much. Tactical voting is also used in an attempt to stop specific parties from getting into power rather than supporting one. All of these factors have the effect of distorting the opinion of the nation. It is impossible to say why everyone voted as they did, it is very unlikely at least that everyone who voted for the winning candidate have exactly the same views as them. This could very easily lead to situations where those in power have support from the minority of society and their policies are not really desired by the nation. This would be the case even with proportional representation and so both of these issues need to be resolved before a democracy can properly function. By voting for a party of person that represents a complete package of political opinion you are forced to make sacrifices and compromises, which do not reflect your will, in order to participate in politics.
Honesty is another issue with elected representation. One assumes that the main factor considered when casting a vote are the policies that go with that vote. If a candidates misrepresents their intentions then the will of the people is not served. It is very hard to enforce a legally binding manifesto as circumstances change so that honest intentions may no longer be possible. While enforcement may be hard, simply ignoring the issue and accepting dishonesty as part of politics devalues the effective power of state and the pride and faith (in their rulers) of the nation. The ground rules laid down by Machiavelli regarding the honesty of rulers still applies; they should always lie when it is in their interests to do so however they should avoid ever being seen to lie. This is the reason it is hard to come across a straight talking or an honest politician and why they say so much in an ambiguous cryptic fashion.
The game of cheat is a very basic game to which Machiavelli unwitting described the optimal solution to general play. In cheat a standard deck of cards is dealt between all the players. They each then take it in turns to place some number of cards face down in a communal pile while stating the value of the cards and the number, for example three nines, or two fours. The only stipulation is that the value of the cards you claim must be all either one above or below the value of the cards the previous player claimed. After a player has placed cards in the pile and stated what they are, each other player has the option to call them cheat, at which point the cards are turned over, otherwise play continues. If the cards are as the person claimed then the person who called them out must take the whole pile in to their hand, otherwise the cheater takes the pile. The winner is the player who gets rid of their whole hand first. According to Machiavelli if it is your turn and you are able to lay cards that are of the required value you should do so without cheating. Only when you have no option but to cheat should you, and when doing so it is best to not get greedy and lay lots of cards down in one go. The game is a very interesting one for all it's simplicity. It also shows that you only need change the rules of the game to stop the Machiavellian solution being optimal which would be similarly applicable to politics.
The final issue with party politics in present democracies is associated with wealth. Parties need funds to campaign which they tend to acquire through donations from sympathetic high worth individuals, often linked to companies. There is a grey area between bribery and this process of corporate sponsorship. I have no problems with donations being given in support of certain political beliefs, I do however have a large problem with political beliefs being maintained in order to receive a donation. Those with access to large sums of money have the option of a silent vote which counts for more than normal votes. We live in an age where money and power are synonymous and this is reflected in the politics of democratic countries. It should be that industry, commerce and government are there to serve the people. In reality it seems more as if the people and the government serve industry and commerce.
I mentioned how forms of rule such as monarchy will have inherently less logistical requirements than a democratic rule. This is an argument against democracy in general with it being one of the most onerous in logistical requirements. All I can really say to counter this argument is a chilling phrase both of my parents used throughout my childhood - “if something is worth doing, it is worth doing properly”. To base something as important as running a nation upon something as inconsequential as organisational needs would be lazy and irresponsible. The easy way might be the path humanity will chose to follow but I would wager that path will lead to a dead end.
The risk of people choosing the easy and comfortable option and not what is the best for society is the main argument against democracy. Individual choice is fundamental to the idea of democracy so one cannot change the rules of the game to solve this issue as is possible with honesty. Each of the previous concerns have been the result of how democratic systems have evolved and may be resolved with changes that would not prevent a democratic rule. Thinking that people do not know what is best for them is an arrogant position to hold. It is the main characteristic which defines the two kinds of utopian. The origins of the opinions are not relevant to the point and as such an answer is required to this problem. The best I can offer requires a leap of faith, not until we truly embrace the democratic principle and put people in charge will they then grow to be able to do so effectively. It is is a vicious circle that assumes people cannot be trusted to know what is best so are never given the chance to learn how. As previously mentioned I feel it is a dead end path for a civilization to adopt a method of rule which causes the cultural* development to stagnate. If this premise can be accepted than it is a simple choice between a bumpy risky path or the dead end.
*I cannot find a better word than cultural but my meaning is more specific. It relates to the general improvement of social conditions over time. As humanity matures (at various rates over the globe) it has offered more just systems, tolerates less inhumanity and offers a better chance in life. Some of this is due to technological advances, but more is simply due to a cultural evolution. Democracy, and more recently the internet, have been significant in hastening this cultural progression.
Having outlined the merits and issues surrounding both democratic theory and existing democracies I shall describe what changes I believe will remove the issues. I will then go on to describe a possible manifestation of a system which incorporates all of those changes. I propose three changes, proportional representation, single issue voting and public disclosure. Combined these three changes become an extension of direct or pure democracy. The closest example of such a political system today is the Swiss government.
Single issue voting is where any changes to society by state, such as a law or a fiscal policy, are done so individually. Rather than holding a large election for a group of representatives who then make all such decisions for a period of time, those decisions would be put to the public as they were relevant and voted on in isolation. This allows each individual the ability to express their exact political will through their votes and not have to compromise with an approximate vote. It would also help with how wealth may be used to effect political change. To operate a system where most major choices were voted on nationally would mean much more voting was taking place and thus require the use of electronic data collation to be at all practical. Such a move would reduce the cost of any form of voting once set up and so is not a valid argument to avoid single issue voting. An additional advantage of a single issue voting is that it can remove the need of political parties, which in turn allows for the removal of all the problems associated with party politics as earlier described.
Proportional representation is well understood and easy to implement. It would however, require the changing of many systems already in place hence having not become common place already. Trying to elect a house of representatives using a completely proportionally representative system would be impractical, however deciding the outcome of a single issue that will effect the nation is simple. There is debate in the UK regarding a proposal to increase the speed limit from 70mph to 80mph on motorways. This is a perfect example of something that would be incredibly easy to allow the populous to decide using a proportionally representative system. A window of dates is set, the citizens who care about the speed limits log on and cast their vote, the most votes is the new policy and nothing more (or less) complicated or convoluted.
Complete disclosure in politics is important for several reasons; it allows for more accurate and informed decisions, it allows a nation to trust the state, it promotes good moral behaviour from the top down and does away with the obligatory corruption (that is to say, not all of it, only the recommended dose by Machiavelli). What I mean by complete disclosure is a law requiring honesty for all civil servants, leaders and politicians in matters of state combined with documented publication of state workings and movements. This is another area of politics that could make good use of the internet. I see no difference between perjury in a legal proceeding and dishonesty in political ones, yet the latter is accepted while the former regarded as a serious offence. The difficulty of proving such a thing is a minor issue as it is the incentives provided by a law and the message that it would send that would have the desired effect.
As for disclosure on the workings of state there is only one problem and that is disclosure on military budgets. In the present environment it might be considered unwise to make the information on how much a nation spends on defence and the breakdown of that spending freely available. This precaution however, seems ever less relevant for developed democracies. It has been said that war is just an extension of politics and that politics is just an extension of economics, it would also be fair then to say that there is no economic gain to be had by any nation declaring war on an economically powerful democracy. The only real wars (meaning not acts of terrorism and guerilla style warfare) that are likely to occur are those between two poor countries, and those where rich countries impose their will on poor countries, often while taking advantage of the local resources. The risk of loss to infrastructure is too great for wealthy nations to engage in any form of conflict on their soil. It is also likely that political and economic allies will come to the aid of a nation that has had war declared upon them. I can see the UN becoming ever more the global police allowing individual nations not only to freely disclose their military spending but also significantly reduce it. Humanity has perfected the art of war so well that we are in a tentative age of relative peace simply through having too much to lose. I must applaud the Swiss again in their approach to national defence. While it has not always landed them with the most favourable of allies it has completely removed them from all bloodshed and cost them little. To summarise, disclosure of government workings poses certain security issues which are becoming less concerning with time, for a variety of reasons, meaning we are able to make moves in the direction of a more open government. As for my utopian vision this poses even less of a problem however the reasons for this are outside the scope of this essay and will be discussed in a future essay entitled utopian defence.
Now we must describe how a democracy might look once these three requirements are put in place. The most apparent difference is the lack of political parties, as they presently exist, in utopian democracy. This was intentionally not stipulated as one of the three requirements for my utopian democracy as groups of people with similar goals and beliefs will campaign over issues and votes in a variety of ways. The key difference is that utopian parties will never themselves get elected nor have any power. They are there to increase support for their cause, raise awareness and generally influence the debate from their perspective. By never having any direct power the various issues associated specifically with party politics are reduced or removed. The idea of groups of people supporting opposing ideas on how to do things is healthy and therefore not something I wish to remove from politics. It is only the pernicious effect of needing to be elected as a pre-requisite to any socially advantageous changes that is so damaging to the usefulness of such groups.
Not having parties in power or elected representatives in parliament makes single issue voting much easier to implement but requires serious consideration for how best to orchestrate in terms of who is deciding when anything happens or how. What follows will be a description of a potential candidate for utopian democracy. There will still be a main parliament from which will come the decision to have a vote on an issue. The parliament will only vote on whether to put something to the larger national vote, they will not vote to decide the issue themselves. This main parliament will resemble a scaled up court of law more than current parliaments. Various types of people will be there to serve various roles. Those who would represent the equivalents of the jury would be the only persons in parliament with a vote. I shall call them ephors after the Athenian persons who took on a related role.
There are numerous ways in which the ephors may be selected. I am personally fond of random selection much like jury duty. It may be prudent to make it voluntary so as to not conscript apathetic persons and there may also be benefit to ensuring an balanced spread of areas from which the ephors are recruited. As a court case is a complete even it makes sense to have one jury for the whole thing where possible. As governance is on-going it would seem wise to have rolling substitutions as it were, say each day one or more persons leaves and the same number replace them, the numbers would depend on the overall size of the parliament and how many ephors were required in total. Twelve people, as is traditional in legal proceedings, for a whole country, seems far too few. A good approximate figure to begin with is unlikely to be much different from the number of elected representatives that nation has in parliament presently under non-utopian democracy. The term an ephor would serve seems like it should probably be around two weeks in which they are paid an identical wage to what they otherwise would receive. The purpose of these ephors is to bear witness to the proceedings in parliament, contribute as they see fit, and select by vote which things are worthy of having a national vote on and how to phrase that vote.
The equivalent role of the judge in utopian parliament is rather like the chair of a meeting or the host of a debate. They are tasked with remaining neutral, keeping order, ensuring people get their turn to speak in a fair and appropriate manner. This person could be elected or an employee of state, I am unsure as to which is the better option. Provided either had mechanisms for votes of no confidence to deal with instances of favouritism or corruption I can see no significant advantages to either option. This person would likely also have department who were responsible for the organisation of the hearings and topics in parliament. These jobs would be clerical, decisions would be determined using guidelines not opinion and so these roles would not be elected positions.
There would also be an equivalent group of people to the witnesses. For the various significant areas of government there would be a representative in terms of field rather than institutions, for example; economics not the Bank of England, health not the NHS etc. These persons would be renown experts in these fields and voted in to the position via nationwide vote. Their role would be to offer advice and understanding when called upon, or when facts are misrepresented or misunderstood. These people I imagine would be widely respected people nearing the end of their careers. I imagine multiple people would fill the positions so they could alternate when they were needed in parliament. There is no need to have terms for such roles so once voted in, to get out again you would either need voting out, to abdicate or to die! These people would be allowed to express personal opinions unlike the chair and so would have a significant influence on the parliament. Potential for corruption is reduced by limiting each of these experts to a specific field in which they are called to advise. The major areas would have permanent representation in parliament but specific experts would also frequently be summoned so as to provide information etc. These specific experts would for the most part be suggested by one of the permanent general experts or witnesses.
Combined with these elected witnesses are a number of unelected representatives who speak on behalf of a branch of state or public organisation. Each branch of state would be run by an executive who would be voted in. These persons would manage the smooth running of these institutions and internal budgeting etc while larger policy choices would be democratically decided, the executive must then implement the policy. These executives, the head of the NHS etc, would be some of the most powerful people in society and as close to a president or prime minister that could be found in utopia. Each executive being answerable to the nation and only responsible for a single organisation, not having control over any other executive will reduce the problems of monarchic control while maintaining the benefits of executive decision. In order to maintain the benefits of executive decision these heads of state branches cannot spend all day answering for things in parliament and must choose for themselves a representative to speak on their behalf. These chosen people fulfil much the same role as the various experts, they would be called on to justify choices and explain things relating to their branches.
We are left with two groups that are not unlike the defence and prosecution in the court room analogy although in practice they may look more like trade unions, local government and business lobbies. These groups are the closest thing in utopian democracy to a political party. They would either support or oppose suggested changes and alterations, they would promote the arguments for their causes and they would have particular changes of their own they wished to have enacted. The two groups do not in any way correlate to defence and prosecution, these roles would be determined on an individual issue basis into those groups for it and those opposed to it. The distinction between the groups is how they come into being and who they represent.
The first of these groups we shall discuss is the one that encompasses trade unions and business lobbies. Any industry that wishes to have a voice in parliament may form a union that they run, although possibly subsidised by state. These unions will elect their own representatives who are able to request the audience of parliament and sit in on any debate of interest to them on the upcoming agenda. Many of the motions and suggestions will be made by these groups although less are likely to pass on proportion from these suggestions than others due to the inherent bias. There would be no limit to the number of unions any industry could have representing them but weighting of priority would be given to those unions with greater numbers of members. There would also likely be some qualifying conditions for a union of any sort to command the highest level of parliament as we shall go on to look at. The unions would be from both private and public sector industry so that the workforce as well as management have their say from the public sector.
The representatives of the second of these groups would be the elected representatives of geographic areas. To facilitate the direct or pure democratic aims the nation would be roughly divided, as most are, into smaller areas, which are again sub-divided all the way down to the smallest of communities. In a country such as England a reasonable sounding number of layers of government would be three or four; national parliament, county council and then one or two further smaller ones. Each would feed into the one above a single representative who was to voice the issues of all of those they stand for. In a global utopia there could be up to seven layers of government with the world parliament being a few levels above most national ones. The most significant factor in considering how to evenly yet painlessly divide up a land mass is population, each area on the same level would ideally have a similar population to the others. Other relevant factors would be size and wealth but as each of these vary rather a lot the areas will have to be approximate and as such likely to be existing ones for the most part. Care would be needed with such divisions to ensure that proportional representation is not compromised in voting.
As to the exact workings of the middle layers I am not wholly decided, the top layer should be selected rather like a jury and the bottom layer should be entirely open for anyone to come along to meetings and make suggestions. Should the completely open bottom layer find a suggestion from one of its members to be worthy this will be passed up to the next layer and so forth allowing for anyone to participate in politics. All one needs is to go to their local community council meeting, which likely happens somewhere in the region of weekly or monthly, and have a good idea. Each council at each layer has one representative who sits in the layer above. Perhaps the best way to organise the various middle layers would be to allow these elected representatives voting power. The representatives of regions in the top layer have no voting power, only the ability to suggest votes to the ephors, while the bottom layer have a vote and don't even require election.
Some unions would form but fail to qualify for a seat in the main parliament and one of the most common reasons for this would be the scope of the industries effect. If a certain type of industry is found in only one or perhaps a few of the sub-regions then they would only reasonably be able to have an involvement at that level. Local business would be encouraged to get involved with local politics and governance as they would be able to work with the community for mutual gain. Companies would be allowed to send representative that were the ambassador of that company alone and not the whole industry. While few companies would ever reach the highest parliament, nor challenge the industry unions in the number of people they represented, they would still be significant to involve. As the local business grew they may find they are able to move to the next level of parliament. While suggestions, issues and elected representatives are able to move up levels in the utopian satellite direct democratic system there is also the scope for delegation. Certain things must be uniform across the utopia but not all rules or systems need be. Indeed there are advantages to allowing regional variance somewhat as it is in the United States. Should a certain practice offend or a certain privilege be sufficiently desired an individual is afforded the option of moving to gain this extra freedom. Where possible therefore each layer of government should pass the control of anything they are able to the level below thus increasing the public involvement and control in politics, specifically where it affects people the most. When a form of control is passed to a lower layer of government it will mimic the larger system but only apply to that area. The particular mid level council or parliament will chose to pass an issue out for the vote, all residents of that particular area will then be eligible to vote on the issue.
There is one final role required in the main parliament that I have yet to describe. This person has neither a vote nor a voice. They must attend all sittings of parliament and document how they would act for each vote that is passed. This person acts as a fail safe for times of crisis when a nation really needs the speed of action that only an executive can offer. This person is elected by national vote, probably a person of military background, and is able to assume control of all national choices once. This terms ends when the crisis is over or the nation vote them out and a new executive is elected. This person documents what they would do to reassure the nation of their proficiency, the information would be published alongside the result of a national vote to allow for comparison. In ideal circumstances the executive would never need to assume power but it seems a wise precaution to take none the less.
All proceedings that occur in government councils and parliaments would be protected by laws against the equivalent of perjury. Should individuals be suspected of corruption in these arenas, including the intentional misrepresentation of information, then they would be able to be tried by the courts of the land. The whole system is interlinked and counterbalanced from all angles. Those with power, influence and responsibility have both veto from the democratic public and legally binding obligations to ensure they act in the best interests of society. It is a checks and balances system that is normalised rather than cyclic thus preventing the stagnation of issues. This is not to say once passed another vote on the same issue will happen again shortly after. It would be unwise to prevent the reversal of a passed motion so as to be able to react to unfavourable results of sudden drastic changes of circumstance.
The methodology for altering fiscal policy, budgeting and taxation would be numerically controlled. A document would exist which detailed each of these things in an algebraic manner to account for varying economic climates. Votes on such things would come in the form of changing one of the factors on one variable, say lower income tax and then a selection of other variables from where this reduction may be compensated for, some options could be a raise on VAT or a reduction to the defence budget.
To ensure certain values or principles are retained there needs to be another clerical department. In the utopian case these values or principles are namely the three fundamentals; freedom, equality and sustainability. This clerical department is tasked with ensuring that no vote may be passed which would reduce the level of that fundamental the society had reached. This would be analytical and not opinion based and so these roles would not be elected positions. They would have the ability to veto any vote that had been agreed upon by parliament and as such would have significant power. It would be important therefore to enforce the use of the courts of law as the checks and balances system in this department more than others. Ideally this department would offer more than just veto and would offer alternative approximations of the vote that passed the fundamentals check.
While this essay has been rather large in comparison to most of my others it still feels as if it has only lightly dipped into each of the points. The topic of democracy is huge and may be looked at in much greater detail. This essay is more like a bullet point flow chart with brief descriptions for each bullet point given, along with a few tangents. I hope therefore that I have been able to logically point out the various inherent problems within the existing systems, and that the way these problems are removed via the three proposed changes is reasonably appreciated despite the relative shortness. Although less important to the overall issue, I suspect the hardest part to fathom an understanding for is the last part where I describe how a system incorporating the proposed changes could look. I have attempted a description of this before and found both tries entirely unsatisfying when compared to the vivid picture of the system I have in my mind. I may return to this particular area again in the future in an attempt to clarify my ideas further but until then I would be more than happy to expand on any point which is unclear do to assumptions I have made regarding those of the reader.
