In the book I am working on I ask the question ‘what is government for?' After all, working out how to pay for what the government wants is pointless if it should not be undertaking the task in the first place.
I play out an explanation of government based on three scenarios. One is pure socialism, which the right use as their image of the threat we face, but which in reality we have neither ever had and nor would almost anyone seriously want because of the restrictions on freedom that it necessarily imposes to ensure its perpetuation.
Then there is neoliberalism, which I explain through the market fundamentalism of the Washington Consensus. This is the standard model of the right wing where ideally the government does as little as possible. Thankfully we have never had it. It is a fantasy, but the mismatch between it and our reality is toxic.
Then there is that reality. That is the mixed economy we live in, which appears to have almost no political defenders and no named philosophy that now supports it, social democracy now being a long abandoned term. Much ignored, this is the only model that we know of which works, albeit it needs some modifications.
So what is this politics? If like the Washington Consensus there were to be ten statements on the ideas that underpinned it, what would they be? I spent a little while drafting this. Comments would be appreciated.
The Social Consensus
Proposition one
The state shall be governed by those chosen by its population as a whole to fairly reflect the views of those living within the jurisdiction, each individual being recognised to have equal rights to participate.
Proposition two
The state will create law to reflect the ethics of the society it governs.
In pursuit of this goal the state will:
- provide for freedom of speech unless it promotes hatred of another person;
- secure the availability of diverse news media that reflects the range of opinion within its jurisdiction.
Proposition three
The state will uphold the rule of law.
Proposition four
The state will maintain peace.
Proposition five
The state will uphold the right to own and trade property, including its own.
Proposition six
The state will eliminate poverty and ensure a fair allocation of resources so that all might participate fully within society.
In pursuit of this goal a state will seek to provide appropriately rewarded work for all who want it.
Proposition seven
The state will protect each person from harm whether that be from:
- Physical risk;
- Discrimination;
- Preventable disease or illness.
Proposition eight
The state shall secure those resources that it needs to fulfil its obligations, in pursuit of which goal it shall:
- provide education to all capable of benefiting from it;
- command the macroeconomy of its jurisdiction, including its currency, currency creation, taxation and deposit taking to provide sufficient economic stability to achieve this goal;
- negotiate terms of exchange, trade and sharing to promote these goals;
- encourage the free movement of people and ideas within and beyond its jurisdiction.
Proposition nine
The state shall recognise the limitations that the availability of natural resources imposes upon it.
Proposition ten
These propositions shall be interpreted within the framework of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
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!
I like the overall picture.
I’d also like to see free lifetime education, to help people move from jobs, especially as technology moves so quickly.
First, I fear “Consensus” does not exist anymore…. but if it does I think you capture what is is/should be quite well. Here are few possible edits….
Proposition one
Each individual within the jurisdiction should have equal rights. This includes the right to choose a government that fairly reflect the views of all.
In pursuit of this goal the state will:
– provide for freedom of speech (unless it promotes hatred of another person);
– secure diverse news media that reflect the range of opinion within its jurisdiction.
Proposition two
The state will create law to reflect the ethics of society and undertake to uphold that law.
Proposition three
The state will maintain peace.
Proposition four
The state will uphold the right to own and trade property, including its own.
Proposition five
The state will ensure a fair allocation of resources that allows all to participate fully within society.
In pursuit of this goal a state will seek to provide appropriately rewarded work for all who want it and education to all who would benefit from it;
Proposition six
The state will protect each person from harm whether that be from:
– Physical risk;
– Discrimination;
– Preventable disease or illness.
Proposition seven
The state shall recognise the limitations that the availability of natural resources imposes upon it.
Proposition eight
In order to fulfil its obligations above, the State will;
-manage the macroeconomy of its jurisdiction, including its currency, currency creation, taxation and deposit taking to provide sufficient economic stability;
– regulate terms of exchange, trade and sharing to promote fairness, freedom and choice;
Proposition nine
Diversity is a strength; the State should encourage the free movement of people and ideas within and beyond its jurisdiction.
Proposition ten
These propositions shall be interpreted within the framework of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Thanks
This is all helping
Something about ‘Foriegn affairs’ and relationships with other states?
Roosevelts ‘Four Freedoms’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
And the Adam Smith quote about necessities being those that allow you to appear decent ib society – sorry, dont have it exactly
The first is in proposition 8
The second in 6
I would suggest including something along the lines of ‘the state will support those who require help due to ill health, disability, learning difficulties, neurodivergence, old age etc.’
Appreciate that 6 could cover it.
Craig
Meant to say 7 could cover it.
Six was meant to
Thanks
Nit picking, but I think this could do with rewording:
“provide education to all capable of benefiting from it;”
I could see it being used to exclude those deemed ‘not capable’ of benefiting from it. Who ‘is’ capable is, of course, a purely subjective judgement.
I think it’s best left at “Provide education to all” (at any age?)
I’m also curious as to how the ‘ethics of a society’ are determined.
Noted
I will definitely revisit that
Yes, I feel that Maggie is right, and glad to see a revisit – but what a splendid piece Richard.
As a result of Stephanie Kelton, I’m big on sovereignty so I think this should be mentioned as part of Proposition 1. It is the people who should use that sovereignty through their state by voting for those who will rule this way. But also, ALL should have equal right to influence the State. In recognition it would be the State’s task to use its sovereignty to balance these equal and even competing rights. Politics is too often about winning and someone else losing. The State’s role is to remind us about win/win. Sovereignty has to be re-planted back into some sort of collective role, and away from rampant individualism.
Proposition 2: I’m sure something needs to be said or asserted that the aim of the State’s rule is to rule fairly and with a balance of diverse interests (I mention sovereignty above – this response is more about BALANCE). If we accept things as they currently stand, we have a state captured by wealth and rules and policy that benefit them whilst help being increasingly de minimis for everyone else . Proposition 2 needs to deal with this a bit more robustly. We are not animals; we are human beings and we function well when life is perceived to be fair; unfairness is something that can be fostered in order that it is then exploited by Fascists. Fairness/balance/ equality = peace.
Proposition 7: The State will protect people from exploitation by vested interests of bad actors or just bad business. This proposition needs to say something about protection from economic harm/disadvantage. Because economic war is being waged against ordinary people right now in the West. It is the slow poisoning of hope, democracy and peace.
Proposition 8: I do not like the word ‘command’. It seems ill-fitting. Again allow me to speak more clearly by considering what we have now: a state polity that leans on Neo-liberal dogma like a walking stick and tuts and shakes its head when markets fail (or blames those affected instead for some imagined deficiency). I would rather that the State were ‘constantly vigilant’ concerning the macroeconomy under its jurisdiction and prepared to ‘intervene’ in the interest of ‘human rights’ using a wide range of pragmatic, creative interventions to restore normalcy or mitigate negative outcomes for all.
Although I am with you on many aspects of your work, I do not pretend to arrive at that agreement the same way that you do – intellectually you come at these things from different level to me or direction at least so forgive me if I have misunderstood your intention – these are obviously high level objectives – yours in good faith.
That’s the sort of response I was looking for
Thanks
Agree, an excellent list
One suggested alteration
“provide for freedom of speech unless it promotes hatred of another person”;
On the basis that we shouldn’t be shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre
Shouldn’t that just be ‘promotes harm towards or hatred of another’…
Thanks….
I am also in the process of (too slowly) writing a book aimed at , at the beginning, defining the purpose of government. It begins with a statement of four axioms from which my intention is to derive everything else by pure logic. I think between them these four cover all, or at least most, of your propositions.
The axioms are:
1. I believe that people must always be considered as individuals, never by way of stereotypes.
2. I believe, more or less with John Stuart Mill On Liberty (1859), that each mentally competent adult person should be free to do whatever he wishes in so far as this does not (significantly) impinge directly on the freedom or welfare of others, or inflict unnecessary suffering on any other sentient being, and this consideration should at all times be paramount.
3. I believe that it is the duty of a civilised society to so organise and conduct itself that the strong are constrained to observe the above principle in their dealings with the weak.
4. I believe it is the further duty of a civilised society to provide protection and support to those unable to provide for themselves the necessary conditions for a healthy and pleasant life, in so far as this is possible.
I am getting the message that (1) is not stated enough
The problem I believe we face is with proposition (1) from Mr Fisher that only the powerful (power through wealth) are deemed to be individuals these days; the rest of us are just treated like cattle or the hoi polloi to be put up with and exploited.
That is unacceptable and backward.
John Stuart Mill was right about ‘doing no harm’ in the pursuit of an objective. Too many sectors harm people – these sectors poison the planet and us; denude us of our wealth, exploit our humanity and labour, render us powerless and render us incapable of collective action to change things.
Our individualism is used against us to sell things to us instead rather than to have our deeper needs met – security, stability, viability, credibility (a voice) and the social.
Human society was a way of organising for survival for everyone. Now society seems to be used as a reservoir to support a narrow band of the species.
This narrow band is increasingly glorified and sold as how we should all be. But the big con is that in order to achieve that is that others have to lose and will as they try because those already in that position already hold the best cards.
I will muse on this…
Agree with all the propositions but would add the duty of government is to ensure our ecological survival and to do all in its power to counter climate heating, biodiversity, and the whole range of measures to ensure a healthy life and well-being on Earth. Also a commitment to ensuring civilised international relations and support for the UN in peace and human rights measures such as a humane policy on refugees and immigration.
Aren’t they covered by 9 and 10?
What I don’t see clearly expressed (certainly as clearly as I would like) is the proposition that all people matter, and so the function of the state is to act in the interests of all its people, equally. Or perhaps this is an overarching proposition, encompassing the others.
The other thing that is perhaps missing (though I’m not sure quite what it should say (or how)) is over the relative rights of people (real persons) and corporations (legal persons) – thinking that those of people should somehow be the more important.
I tried to build that in and added 10 instead
Your 10 propositions identify both ‘government’ and ‘the state’. One of our current problems is that successive governments have replaced the employed servants of the state, whose role was politically neutral (our Civil Service) with their own loyal, partisan servants. The same goes for the Judiciary, the Police, our state broadcaster, the BBC, the EHRC and official Committees of Inquiry. Thus ‘the state’ no longer serves the people, it serves only the ruling elite. I don’t see where these problems are addressed in your propositions.
I think that fair….
I will review that
My difficulty with all the points is that they are very UK focused. There is a presumption that there will be a highly centralised national government and they have functions and spending programmes to deliver.
The history of the USA and Australia is rather different where the states started out with a lot more power, and only let central government have the competencies they allowed it to have. The EU has a system in theory where the national governments only let Brussels have the competencies they allow it to have and there is a principle (subsidiarity) which is interpreted wrongly in my view but if done correctly allows you to work out what should be upvolved.
On specifics point 4 is terrifying – other countries have it written as the State shall provide for the Common Defence. They don’t assert that it will be peaceful. As written the proposition would mean always surrendering.
I dispute that a word of this is UK focussed – it could apply to any form of government if it has authority in the areas in question (which most won’t have, so implying this is inherently aimed at federal level government, which we also have in the UK if you have not noticed)
And your comment re 4 is utterly absurd. Peace is always the objective.
I suggest that the right to work is stated clearly. So S.6 , delete “shall seek to provide” and insert “shall ensure the provision of…”.
Looking like a competent group of Manifesto and / or Constitution writers here.
Once Richard has taken on-board all of the constructive input – and re-tweaked it – can we get Labour / Lib Dems / Greens / SNP to sign on to it and collectively act as the desperately needed Progressive Alliance at the next GE…….. Too late for new political parties right now……..
It was only meant to be a couple of pages in a book, but other options are available
Hi, as a latecomer to this debate I apologise for any repetition. My suggested additions
Proposition 1. Define the electorate
Proposition 4. Does that include security from attack by terror or other nation states (also terror!)
Proposition 6. ‘ensure work is provided’, rather than ‘provide’ What about retirement?
Proposition 7. Add environmental degradation and (here or elsewhere) ensure that treatment for disease and help for disabled (including age-related) disability.
Finally, where do constitutional issues like holding the executive to account and the independence and representativeness of the judiciary come in
Thanks
I will be reviewing this tomorrow….
Re: 5 on property. While everyone should have property so they can live and participate in society on a par with others (relevant for proposition 6), shouldn’t ‘property without function’ (R.H.Tawney) or ‘improperty’ (J.A.Hobson) be restricted – i.e. property far beyond what is needed to meet this condition and which allows the owner merely to extract rents from others? (This is the basis of our current rentier form of capitalism in the UK).
Re: 9. Like Bill Hughes I wonder, given the climate/environment emergency, whether this is sufficient? Given the depleted state of our environment shouldn’t governments be responsible for restoring it to a sustainable condition? I guess that’s what you meant but the proposition doesn’t preclude different interpretations: as it stands, it would allow us (e.g.) to exhaust our coal and oil reserves. And it doesn’t explicitly preclude offshoring unsustainable activities and depleting the non-renewable resources of other countries.
Re: 5 and 9 I wondered if a sustainability condition is needed for proposition 5 to limit unsustainable consumption. Or is that too illiberal? (I’m not sure).
Anyway, thanks for a thought-provoking list.
Re your comment on 5, isn’t this implicit in 6?
9, noted
Many thanks for your uplifting proposals for the purposes of government, no doubt intentionally highlighting a stark contrast between what we currently endure and what might be possible. Sincere thanks also to the many contributors who are providing thought-provoking suggestions for possible adjustments. I hope your book deadline doesn’t prevent you from taking some time to reflect, reconsider and perhaps allow another round of review on your blog. It seems to me that this topic could provide some backbone for all political parties, if it was widely disseminated. I look forward to the next version.
Thanks
The next version will probably go to Twitter as well
A superb list.
I think P4 does need expansion; history tells us that humans are very often agressive; I suspect strong defence remains a necessity and that might mean being prepared for the use of force.
I agree with comments above that some strength needs adding to P9 on the use of resources, so that environtal damage is controlled and reduced.
This forms the base of a constitution; can something be added to try to prevent the abuse of convention that we are currently suffering?
Thanks
Let me rework this first….
Good stuff. Perhaps make it explicit that the state’s role is to ensure that private companies and investment decisions take into account externalities. Ie do not wreck the environment, pollute, overpackage, overprocess foods, dump sewage into rivers.
My own ‘take’ on your ten propositions is that they are excellent – but in the wrong order.
Propositions Nine and Ten are fundamental to any socio-economic contract, and should stand as Proposition One and Proposition Two.
Thanks
I like Amartya Sen’s approach which is that the state should enable everyone to lead a life they have reason to value. What this entails is then open to discussion but would certainly include policies designed to allow everyone to live a long healthy life, be well educated, be treated with respect and be kept safe
That is what I hoped I had covered in 6
A well worthwhile exercise – thank you Richard.
Apologies if this drifts into policies rather than principles. Perhaps one needs some illustrate policies to show how the principles work in practice.
As another fan of Sen’s analyses and the state’s role, I’d suggest Beveridge’s checklist of the ‘six evils’. You’ve already picked up education and work/income, and touched on ‘preventable diseases’ though that feels to be a bare minimum. Housing? Personal security and justice?
Beveridge did not touch on ‘external’ security (defence), environment, and the need to ‘manage the markets’ to ensure that they work in our collective interests – all of which you’ve added.
Might also ask ‘how would we know if we have ‘good’ government, that are following the principles that you are trying to define? As a test of completeness.
Although ‘liberal’ has become a contested and disputed label, that feels to me to be the space in which you are operating. That does not mean neo-liberalism and libertarianism, or the kind of ‘Orange Book’ ‘liberalism’ that the LibDems drifted into under Clegg. Ian Dunt’s book How to Be a Liberal is a good back to first principles review of what it might mean and the underlying principles.
If one thinks of the far Left and Far Right meeting up, where they both drift into centrally controlled authoritarianism and totalitarianism, politics as a circle, also known as the ‘horseshoe theory, then ‘liberal’ politics might be said to be the diametric opposite point on that circle or compass. Accepting of markets but that they also need a strong state managed framework in which to operate. Believing in the role of the state to ensure that all its citizens have access to ‘essential’ services (education, health etc) but pushing the power and resource to deliver those to be as close to citizens as possible. Subsidiarity.
Its also about the checks and balances. At one extreme we end up with an overbearing, out of control state, and at the other its markets and corporates out of control having co-opted the state for their own interests. Russia is a case study with the old powers behind a supposedly ‘socialist’ state (with their dachas and other privileges), smoothly morphing into the powers behind todays fascist gangster state.
You are right: this is genuine liberalism
Mr Fisher
I was referring to your first axiom. And I think that we agree to be honest.
My point is that we have to be in my mind very careful when talking about people at an individual level – very careful indeed.
We have been living in an age of self -realisation for a long time – some have called it ‘hyper-individualisation’. Look where it has got us. The market has tried to meet (and create) our every whim and presented this to us as unlimited choice.
It’s about getting human beings to favour the right sort of individualisation . That’s the art of real politics.
We can choose the individualisation / self realisation that comes through being encouraged to buy the latest SUV or selling public policies that will support and enhance systems that will help all individuals such as a well funded health service or public transport?
In the private sector marketing strategy sphere, increased personalisation/attention to individual needs/wants is seen as something of a top tier premium level of service – customised and exclusive with a price to match. If that is the case, then what service should the rest of us expect to receive?
Ethically it can takes onto very dubious ground.
If a poor person and a rich person contract a life threatening cancer, which one should get the best treatment?
Well, both should of course. But I do not think things are going that way at the moment. The capacity for mass cheap and efficient transport and an excellent free at the point of use health service to meet individual needs are being deliberately undermined to create opportunities for profit and premium pricing for alternatives for private medicine and car markers.
This is why when we talk of ‘individuals’ it must be accompanied by a simple clarify word before it: ‘all’ or ‘each’.
And I say again that it is only the wealthy who are allowed to be seen as ‘individuals’. Look at how our Chancellors wife has ‘chosen’ to allow the State to determine her tax affairs whilst the rest of us working stiffs cough up without question.
The point I’m raising here is fundamental to our society. It is not that the rich, middle class and poor exist at all: it is the nature of that existence that concerns me. We have recently seen the rich get extremely rich from 2008 (if not before) whilst the middle class has shrunk, wages have died back and we now have the working poor. WORKING POOR!
I don’t mind people being rich. But I do mind less rich people not getting medical treatment when they need it or working people having to go to foodbanks or freezing to death in winter because utilities are too expensive. And what about those who can never work or face prejudice?
Frankly – and returning to the original aim of this post -the State’s job is to reduce this disparities between the layers of society – not exacerbate them like this bunch of Tory goons has done. I have never seen a person on benefits drive around in a Roll Royce nor would I expect them too. But I don’t want to see them starving or freezing to death either.
And at the moment there is a section of society who are driving around in high end motors and getting loads of benefits from the state – low tax, a blind eye to their real income, incentives and honours and titles for doing what exactly? The rich – that’s who.
As I said Mr Fisher – I think we agree.
You make very good points, yet your dismissal of ‘pure socialism’ does not satisfy me. You wrote:
“ … pure socialism, which in reality we have neither ever had and nor would almost anyone seriously want because of the restrictions on freedom that it necessarily imposes to ensure its perpetuation.”
Agreed, it was not ‘pure’ socialism but …
First, ruthless free-trade-enthusiasts/capitalists have made sure that attempts at socialism have had little chance of success:
– Churchill sent troops to help thwart a popular rejection of authoritarian Tzarism.
– Castro’s rebels succeeded partly because the incumbent Batista regime was so dreadful. The ‘Bay of Pigs’ invasion ended in fiasco but American embargos on trade with Cuba continue and were harsh and unrelenting until recent years.
– The presidency of legitimately elected, Chilean marxist, Salvador Allende, ended in a military coup evidently supported by the machinations of US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.
Second, to support wars, all sorts of ‘restrictions on freedom’ (your words) requiring military service (and inevitable deaths) and other forms of national service are demanded by right wing regimes.
My father served in France in 1917. In 1936, he wrote that this was to be ‘a war to end war’. ‘Never again!’ ‘We will have a new comradeship between class and class.’ ‘After the war we will make a land fit for heroes to live in.’ Such socialist(?) promises!
After WW2, the Attlee government instigated socialist measures: Education, the NHS and more. At the same time, it was compelled to repay debts owed to the US where the government was hostile because of ‘socialism’ … so the right-wingers and their press barons ensured reversion to right-wing control after one term of socialist government.
Third, socialist-type measures during the world wars, such as rationing, speed limits, and restrictions such as ‘utility’ clothing and furniture, were necessary and accepted by the poorer majority.
Similar policies are needed now in response to the climate emergency – horrendous droughts in Somalia and Madagascar – floods in South Africa and Australia – rising sea levels and wilder storms already destroying farmland and communities – and will affect the UK sooner than those living in low lying areas (like East Anglia) commonly admit.
Other points: Proposition one
“The state shall be governed by those chosen by its population as a whole to fairly reflect the views …”
‘Citizens’ assemblies’ surely have a role for properly informed debate about long-term interests. ‘What if we were to begin with the assumption that people can and do make sensible decisions if they have the evidence and the influence that they need? That if we designed a meaningful dialogue between citizens, experts and governments, we would get better outcomes?’ wrote wrote climate scientist Professor Rebecca Willis recently. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/nov/01/the-big-idea-is-democracy-up-to-the-task-of-climate-change)
Proposition two
“The state will: … – provide for freedom of speech … “
What about advertising that causes illness, obesity, plastics pollution, waste disposal nightmares etc?
Nobody has solved the nuclear disposal problem. UK mini-nukes (perhaps of the size now advocated by Mr Johnson) lie in rotting decommissioned submarines. Nightmares as the sea-level rises around them!
Proposition five
“The state will uphold the right to own and trade property …”
THERE WILL NEED TO BE RESTRAINTS OR LIMITS OF SOME KIND. For instance:
a) “I’ve seen around 10 or so really large new houses (almost like stately homes) built within the last 6 years” wrote Pilgrim on another topic recently. Meanwhile ‘Crisis estimated that around 227,000 people were experiencing the worst forms of homelessness – rough sleeping, sleeping in vans and sheds, and stuck in B&Bs – across England, Scotland and Wales in 2021.’ (https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/almost-230000-households-are-experiencing-the-worst-forms-of-homelessness-this-christmas/)
b) Professor Julia Steinberger and colleagues write “Ecological breakdown looms while the basic material needs of billions remain unmet. Yet, despite population growth, global use of energy by 2050 could be reduced to 1960 levels – and still provide decent living globally & universally. This requires advanced technologies & reductions in demand to sufficiency levels. But ‘SUFFICIENCY’ IS FAR MORE MATERIALLY GENEROUS THAN MANY OPPONENTS OFTEN ASSUME.” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512?via%3Dihub)
Proposition six [Similar arguments for seven and eight]
“The state will eliminate poverty and ensure a fair allocation of resources.”
I) Worldwide poverty has been exacerbated by i) colonialism ii) financial domination iii) climate change largely the created by wealthy countries over, say, the last 150 years.
Reparations are due.
II) Inter-generational restitution is due.
Proposition nine
“The state shall recognise the limitations that the availability of natural resources imposes upon it.”
Also, the state shall recognise its responsibility for historical, current and future: deforestation, loss or reduction in numbers of animal, flora and fauna species, pollution and land spoilage.
For example, soot deposited in layers on mountain & polar ice and snow over decades, is cumulatively revealed as layers melt. The increasingly dark surfaces absorb heat more readily and accelerate melting and the imminence of inundation of all coastal communities and agricultural land worldwide.
This is not a policy document
It’s about principles
I am sorry that you seem to have missed that
But I will consider all you say
Thanks for the stimulating read. I’m not sure whether I am being picky here, but I found your syntax irritated me. Given your prompting question “what is government for?” I think you need to distinguish between the continuing entity of the state (with the expectations of what any state does) and the government which is in power for the time being and has responsibility to manage the state’s functions but might make political choices about how to do so.
Throughout modern Western history, state functions seem to me to be providing defence of its territory, establishing relationships with other states, maintaining a legal system, and acting to promote economic prosperity part of which is ensuring there is necessary infrastructure. Along with that the state has over centuries acquired functions which were initially undertaken by the state-recognised religion of a level of educational and care provision.
Some of your propositions relate to this.
To achieve those there needs to be a government to manage the state, which requires there be a constitution laying out its authority, powers and responsibilities. As you say the current UK consensus is for a government gaining its authority from free democratic election (some other countries work differently, usually to their detriment). But regardless, any government needs the powers to make laws, raise taxes, and employ people (or organisations) to carry out state functions.
Some of your propositions relate to this.
But actually the most interesting part of your blog is the vision about government responsibilities, what are in broad terms should be the aspirations for a government that you and I, and presumably most readers of your blog, would see as meeting our expectations of a modern democratic civilised society. That includes some of your points (fairness, valuing diverse media) but also a responsibility of government to manage – either through direct control or regulation – long term strategic needs like energy transition.
But that bit reflects our values, different from those of others such as Boris Johnson and the parliamentary Conservative Party, and I think it would be helpful to distinguish what is an aspiration of “good” government from things that go with government of any sort.
(And, really as a question, while you include macroeconomics and currency management not surprisingly given your interests, are you saying countries like France and Germany and other European countries who pool the central banking part of government as an outcome of their democratic decision making fall short of their responsibilities as states?)
I agree with you on my syntax
I disagree on aspirations for government
This is a normative statement just as the Washington Consensus was .
What most concerns me is that both the present system and the one you propose allows voters to outsource their responsibility to inform themselves properly. What particularly attracts me about both the citizens assembly and the legal jury is that participants are afforded a framework to make decisions themselves. Unless any system to ensure that all the members of a community obtain a fair share of opportunities cuts out the shyster, voters will be tempted to take shortcuts or simply behave like consumers, in effect just indulging their feelings.
I’m sorry if this sounds pious. I think it is just practical.
I have a profound disquiet about citizen assemblies
To be blunt, I can find nothing remotely democratic about them
And there is also the question – how are people rewarded for taking part?
Perhaps Jan Francis is concerned about career politicians. It would be simple enough, surely, to have a system of a) keeping jobs open, like we do for maternity, b) paying representatives what they’d have normally earned, c) not allowing anyone to several more than 4 years in total.
Sorry. Autocorrect… not “several” but “serve”.