QUOTE (Vninect @ 20/8/2011, 02:56)
I didn't know there were terms for it, but yes, apparently it is inquisitorial here, for criminal courts. Civil cases usually have an adversarial nature. I didn't know that. I am wholly uninformed about courts, and so I will not (be able to) make a case for or against it.
OK. It is something we need to explore in this context I think: but one thing at a time
QUOTE
Well, you can't assume that everyone you toss into a debate will be heard, or is able to make a good argument: debating skills; knowledge of files; interpreting data and statistics. Those are some of the essential skills that even we are struggling with here, often, and we don't have much to defend - or maybe we do, but at least we don't have so much power that it matters... Throw a number of random people together and some will have those skills and other won't. Especially in debates, a lack of skills can be quite an obstacle for many (and an advantage for some). Or did you envision a method of coming to agreements that precluded such differences?
This is a substantive point. At present in the UK there are MP's who never speak; and those who speak on a very limited range of subjects; those who speak a lot, but are fed their lines by the party whips; and those who have good debating skills. Fact is, an election is not really a debate. So the skills necessary for election are not the ones ideally required in a functioning parliament. And the ones which serve well in that parliament are not necessarily any of those you quote, either: though it is possible they should be. What is important is first: money, if the system is as it is in America: second: membership of a big party, if the situation is as it is in this country;third: well I don't know: perhaps debating skills are crucial in your country? If so that is a plus for PR
I am not personally a big fan of debate as that term is normally applied in this country in any case. Parliament is the model for (or perhaps modelled on) the school debating society. In that setting the skills are honed: but they are honed in a peculiar way. One must be able to effectively argue any side of a case. I understand that this is a good way of getting people to understand an opposing point of view, arguably: and perhaps to foster logical skills in spotting fallacies and stuff. But it is rooted in other skills as well: and it necessarily means that people will use rhetorc and fallacy deliberately in order to "win". It also means that people must be able to make a case they do not believe, convincingly: I call that lying, usually. But it turns into something else in politics (and in the press, as it happens): or so those involved in those fields would have us believe. Only it doesn't work: and for me this is part of the distrust which bedevils us: for those groups are not trusted, and it opens the way for attacks on democracy which I find very scary indeed.
There is a case to be made for that kind of skill: "the art of the possible" is not meaningless. The need for a decision is clear, and collective responsibility is genuinely useful too: For many things need compromise, and once a compromise is reached there is good reason to get behind it, rather than sabotage it. The arguments are not simple.
When a jury sits there is no debate in public: but the arguments they hear are made in public. They hear from experts: sometimes those with skills in a particular field, and certainly from witnesses (who are expert in a different way). In our parliament there are select committees who call witnesses to get information which informs the chamber debate and the policy formation. That is relatively recent in our system, I think: and it is generally held to be a good thing. We also have a second chamber which is formed without election: the question of the constitution of a whole parliament is not simple and those kinds of things need to be addressed too.
In thinking about the kinds of feature we would wish to see in a democracy we have agreed the desirablity of full information, I think: and also on the difficulty of achieving that. A politician is there to devote their full working time to deciding how to allocate resources: and they can be expected to be better informed, for that reason alone. Because there is a party machine and a party line, at present, politicians don't have to: and many do not, or do not on subjects which do not already interest them. That would probably be true of a random system as well: but not so much. I think people would take the responsibility very seriously: juries do.
One feature of an inquisitorial system of law is that the decision taking body, however constituted, can call for information not presented initially: and can question the witnesses directly. That is not true in an adversarial system: and debate is quintessentially adversarial. I do not see why a parliament could not move in the direction of inquisitorial, whatever we decide is best for the justice system: and I think there are reasons we should consider this.
At bottom you make my case for me: those who get elected have a particular set of skills: I think not skills which relate to governance: but even if they do is it right that only those who are verbally adroit should represent the people? Is it a valid assumption that every self identified group has silver tongued folk available to make their points? Perhaps it is. I am not convinced. We have talked before about whether there is a difference between more visually inclined folk and more verbals ones: not sure about that: but I think there is certainly a difference between those with a good edcuation and those without. While we were making that more equal, it was clear that articulate folk did exist in the ranks of the poorest: so maybe that is not a concern: but it matters when we are in the realm of belief in an underclass we need not listen to and who we encourage to inarticulacy, whether we admit that is what we are doing or not.
I can envisage a randomly selected parliament reading and listening to broad based information, and calling whoever they like: and then voting in secret, but with a feature seen in the Italian system: that is, writing a full account of their reasoning for their decision which we can then all read. That still leaves a lot of influence in the hands of those who talk well: but it is potentially better than what we have now, I think. And it means we can at least judge if what we consider to be important about an issue has been fully taken into account
QUOTE
The danger I see is that a great many people might become convinced that the assembly of randomly appointed people is a bit like a lottery, where rich fellas will offer you great sums of money or entitlements if you vote their way. This is a problem we're seeing in current governments... Why would it be any different? I suppose you could draft some kind of law prohibiting any donations or promotions resulting from their appointment in the temporary assembly, for the rest of their lives, which isn't so easy to prove, I think. Well, perhaps if you made the penalty quite astronomical for both sides... But I think that is quite difficult to enforce.
Think I already addressed this. Corruption is always a potential, and some (like me) would say that the system we have now has been largely bought: whether a different system would do better is moot. I think it would, for reasons already outlined, both in this thread and in the corruption thread. I may be wrong, but I do not think folk are as venal as it implies, on the whole. I think it is true that they can become so if they are in power for a long time and are isolated from the general population: as happens now. Judging from the excuses given in the Lord Tayler thread it is easier to corrupt a system than an individual, too: they rest on "everybody else was doing it". But it is a slow process of subversion so one, short, term helps to prevent it. Very strict rules such as applied to the civil service and outlined in the corruption thread do work: though the short-term nature of this system actually makes that less effective because that founds on a loyalty to the service itself- tenure if you like. The fact of return to one's previous situation balances that, I hope: and your peers and the press should certainly notice if a year after returning to your job as a dustman or a surgeon you move to the seychelles as a member of the board of "boughtim plc" Open tax returns etc would also help. A blanket ban on freebies, draconian in its consequences and well enforced is essential: and that was covered in the accountability thread to some exent. There it was argued that an alternative power base is important: and without pre-empting the later part of your post this is being discussed in the context of a "lowest possible level of decision making" principle which means it is not just family and work mates who hold to account: but every other tier of government.That fact also meets your wish to reduce the scope of this level: far too many decisions are made centrally which do not need to be. If that is accepted we have further safeguards built in, I think
QUOTE
Not sure how to answer... What I was trying to do is downscale the task of the 'national' government, at least for the most part, because I think there's something dangerous in people deciding about things they don't know anything about. Farmers voting about banking or bankers voting about farming -- That makes little sense to me, unless perhaps we're talking about investment loans given to the farmers, or raw food being delivered to the bankers... I think there's fairly few issues that requires the experiences and input of people from all walks of life -- Although I recognize that sometimes that is the right thing or only course.
No. A well informed populace is of course desirable: but see my remarks on why it should be a democracy at all. Farmers voting about banking absolutely is right: because bankers decisions about banking will affect farmers in ways the bankers cannot even imagine. The world will not slice that way. But lowest level decision making meets some of those problems: a well informed populace does more: and a body of people genuinely working an 8 hour day to understand the ramifications of what they decide on, does something as well. A requirement to give full reasons for the final decision allows challenge where things have been missed: and the security of basic rights as a yardstick gives a means of overturning unintended detrimental consequences (for those will always arise) Nothing is perfect, I think: but to allow the "experts" in a particular field to make all the decisions is dangerous: if they are truly expert and their case is good it will be persuasive: let the bankers persuade the farmer reps in the parliament.
QUOTE
As to the fear that there's greater scope for corruption if there's fewer to target in each interest: I'm only saying I'm making the interests smaller, but not the amount of people potentially involved. What that means is having a lot more people involved in taking decisions at all kinds of levels and sectors - a LOT more. But each of them probably have a lot less decisions to take. Although the complexity of all these levels working at the same time and with each other will add some considerable time to the total workload, I think the scope for corruption will be a lot less, because people will be affected more directly by their own willingness to participate in bribes.
This argument takes the form of a decentralization argument -- fair enough, because it is one. A central government is at least a lot cleaner and simpler than what I'm sketching here -- insofar as I made a coherent sketch. But although equal influence is absolutely a good idea, I'm not sure where the bounds on that are. If we can't exclude anybody at all, we must have a global centralized government? Why would any English person have influence over the English decision to stop importing my beets, because their own beet farms are suffering, and not me? When the farmers near Newcastle-Upon-Tyne decide they need to re-prioritize their beet production, do any tenants of mid-London need to have much influence over that? And is it really equal if the farmers make their case, while the tenant just listens making up their mind on the basis of their arguments and style?
I hope I'm making any sense here.. Just trying to think along, you know
Agreed and enshrined in the original statement of principle, I think? First in the principle of lowest level decision making and second in the citizens of the world one. Am I missing something?
As an afterthought I think this is a handy illustration of how the general principles are to be used in evaluating the more specific tiers: that is heartening because sometimes big picture stuff is not useful: I am finding that this set are, however crude they still are
Edited by FionaK - 20/8/2011, 15:21
