Brave New Europe posted a blog from Heiner Flassbeck yesterday in which he argued:
[T]here is much that needs to be rethought and redesigned at the beginning of this critical decade. But no political minds are on offer that could explain to the population and to businesses what is really at stake. Clichés are no longer enough. The political minds that would be independent and clever enough to take on this enormous communication task do not exist, because they have no chance of survival in our parties. Party-political democracy is at an end, with no alternative in sight. Beyond all the concrete political tasks, this is where the greatest challenge lies: how can a system be designed in which those with the best minds get involved in politics and not just those whose ego is so big that they believe they can do anything?
It's an idea worth discussing.
I have no immediate answer, unless we move to a position where the government is appointed in US style and is held to account by, but is not necessarily drawn from, the ranks of parliamentarians.
Gordon Brown claimed to try this, of course: the result was the failed attempt to deliver a GOAT (government of all the talents) that left Digby Jones in the House of Lords.
Norway, at least, does such a thing. Ministers there can be drawn from outside parliament. And they do not get a sinecure for life as a result.
Is it worth thinking about?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Dunno, ask Dr Philippa Whitford and Joanna Cherry QC, for two, what got them out of their comfort zone and into Westminster.
Scottish politics does not conform to the norm, I agree
Heiner Flassbeck says “Party-political democracy is at an end, with no alternative in sight.”
The alternative is in sight though. A feckless, ostensibly charismatic leader fronting an unaccountable backroom team of ideologues with what is essentially an elitist agenda.
How it is possible to change course when that is ‘the will of the people’ is the existential question for our society.
Richard posits “……a position where the government is appointed in US style and is held to account by, but is not necessarily drawn from, the ranks of parliamentarians…..” But this is more or less where we will be for the next five years. Dominic Cummings, as noted elsewhere, is assembling his version of a GOAT, but what powers of accountability does Parliament have if the governing party is supporting or at the very least acquiescent? None, I would say and effective emasculation of the supreme court, if it goes ahead as seems intended, will remove another control mechanism leaving us at the mercy of the House of Lords again.
In recent memory the second chamber has been a surprising bastion of sanity and moderation. Not precisely a gerontocracy, but with some of its qualities, but alas susceptible to ‘stuffing’, as has been done from time to time, when governments have felt the need.
It is deeply ironic that the ‘will of the people’ to take back sovereignty has been hijacked so very thoroughly and quickly even before Brexit is ‘done’.
“Norway, at least, does such a thing. Ministers there can be drawn from outside parliament.”
Ditto for France, where Emmanuel Macron (named as minister for Economy under François Hollande before founding En Marche & standing for President) is just one of many examples.
You can have new recruitment methods to get the ‘best minds’ but if those are chosen from the banking and financial sector, forget social policies.
As for egos…they exist there too, Macron is the embodiment of it.
Clever and big egos can still produce good politicians, but they have to have the right experience and the right ethics for that in the first place.
I see 3 ways that this potentially could happen, however, each would require some sort of constitutional reform/concessions to have happened first:
Firstly, you could use citizens assemblies to help guide policy. However, these can obviously be manipulated and may be short term in their views when a government should look longer term (although there’s no reason why they also can’t look long term).
Secondly, you could have a ‘technocrat’ House of Lords where subject ‘experts’ can help guide legislation. However, you’re never going to get the current turkeys voting for Christmas and, again, the new Lords could be manipulated for bias.
Lastly, my own nirvana is for there to be 12 regional governments in the UK which run local services and which are proportionally represented. The role of the UK government would then change to being more strategic and running certain services that the local devolved powers could not (such as Defence). There’s no reason why this government couldn’t incorporate a more technocratic aspect.
What, or who, are, or have, the best minds? Plato’s philosopher kings? The “intellect” of a Rees-Mogg – apparently an example of “very clever people running the country”? And who is going to decide whose mind is in the “best” category? Even revered academics can and do lie, cheat and falsify, as the career of Cyril Burt showed – a man whose falsifications had a disastrous effect on education.
I’d like to see participatory deliberative democracy where members of “parliament” were chosen by sortition, but there’s as much chance of that happening as of us getting PR for a voting system.
But what could be done by the “best minds” is creating a manifesto for a “praiseworthy” (in Smith’s usage) political philosophy, by, for example, drawing on many of the best ideas and principles from progressive blogs such as this (Common Weal do some of this kind of work) and finding ways of getting the message across to a wider public, beyond the taint of our right wing media and politicians.
The trouble is that everything gets hijacked, put through the disinformation grinder and comes out as the “will of the people”, a construct that has no reality except in the minds of people like Cummings and Johnson, but sounds good and creates it’s own “truth” and sucks in the unwary and gullible. The problem there is not the end of “party-political democracy”, but the party system where MP’s owe their allegiance to party over and above, their constituents and their country and are fearful that if they create waves the revolving door will fling them out into bleak eternity rather than into a 6 figure sinecure.
“how can a system be designed in which those with the best minds get involved in politics and not just those whose ego is so big that they believe they can do anything?”
Ring any bells Richard?
Well,
One frequently cited problem with the party-political democracy as we currently know it is the “revolving door” syndrome” where people become MPs or staffers in order to gain inside knowledge that enables them to make money as “consultants” and lobbyists when they leave parliament (and, while they are in govt, to serve the political aims of those that would hire them later on).
The flipside of that is the tendency of people from inside the vested interests, industry lobbies or partisan ‘think tanks’ to find work inside government (as “advisers” or as say, Tory MPs with City backgrounds – for example)
Which, to cut a long story short, brings me to the issue of the USA where notorious investment bank Goldman Sachs is even more notorious for populating the US govt with its alumni.
The US system hires people from outside of the Congress (or career civil service) to fill posts in Treasury, the State Dept. EPA and the Cabinet itself. That ability to hire “expert” cherry-picked outsiders merely facilitates a corrupt system.
In politics bypassing the party system doesn’t necessarily help . The things that Bernie Sanders says about getting the money and the lobbyists out of the system are more to the point.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/324027-trump-names-another-goldman-sachs-exec-to-senior-administration-role
” Goldman alums .. account for 30% of the votes on the Fed’s rate-setting committee.”
https://www.investopedia.com/news/26-goldman-sachs-alumni-who-run-world-gs/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_employees_of_Goldman_Sachs
Citizens Assemblies?
The Irish did really well in their abortion referendum. It could be replicated in some form to guide policy choice.