Can we function with no polititcians?

[lars573]

That's a fair rebuttal, although as you note, there have been generations (few and far between, I'll grant) that had the sense of civic duty I am espousing. My argument is that if our representative democracies are to survive in the future - which you rightly note, is one of increased scrutiny - then representatives must re-discover or adopt a position whereby civic duty and responsibility outweigh the opportunity for corruption. In my view, without such a change, voters become ever more disenchanted and therefore disenfranchised. The oligarchies we see nowadays take less and less interest in the opinions of the common person, keeping them suitably anaesthetised with mindless entertainments. I consider that we are a long way down that path already, and that political activism in developed democracies is fracturing and being marginalised. Perhaps democracy can only truly be refreshed in dangerous times?

Any form of government change can only happen in dangerous times. I once said to someone frustrated at the bureaucracy of getting ones drivers license renewed on your birthday, that when large groups of people have a similar problem at the same time you get things like revolutions. See the Arab spring. Truth is I've seen in my life that oligarchies are the natural state of human governance. No matter what form a state is founded on in the fullness of time it will tend toward oligarchy. Our modern representative democracies just make that slide easier. Another thing I've seen is that while the life of a man is linear, the live of civilization is cyclical. And perhaps right now were in a place of complacent bred tyranny of the political class. And that it could change if things get really bad.

Again, you make good points but from a fairly cynical position towards people's willingness to participate in political activity. It may well be that you are proven right.

When dealing with the philosophical constructs of men, the more cynical (or more properly realistic) you are the better.

I believe that with good education (it is no coincidence to me that western leaders have spent much of the post-war years undermining real, discursive and analytical educational skills in favour of results-based, coached benchmarks) and civic duty - the concept, appreciated by others of society as a virtue worth celebrating in ways other than pecuniary, that devoting time and energy to the betterment of that society is a responsibility all citizens should embrace - our democracies could be revitalised. I really don't see how representative democracy will survive long without such commitments. This then, draws me onto another view, that citizenship and the related voting power is actually something to be earned, not universally granted at an arbitrary age of majority.

I've read Starship troopers that sort of system would end up with the same sort of oligarchy. Just with the uncivic minded de-jure left out, as opposed to de-facto left out as we have now. This sort of system you suggest is exactly what Heinlein lays out in that novel, who was an english lit. educated ex-military man approaching middle age when he wrote it, coincidence? Where the voting franchise is only open to those who do a term of federal service. After reading it I couldn't see how this would make better voters. As those willing to do the service requirement would have been the ones who voted under our systems now.

I note your opinions on term limits. My own view is that there is overwhelming evidence that politicians who stay in power much longer than six or seven years go barking mad, developing a sense of entitlement, just as it is rarely healthy for a party in government to last much longer than ten years without a refresh. Impeachment should be reserved for punishing wrongdoing, not as a method of removing old politicians. The remedy for that is competitive seats, where the incumbent has to work damn hard to ensure re-election (and to me, can only expect to represent that seat for a limited term).

I might have been a little unclear. I think the Athenian system of de-electing an archon is something that might be better able to keep officials on their toes. But Athenians did that every year. And in the modern state is too big for that sort of annual expenditure, although digital technology might make it more feasible. I also think a major problem with our modern democracies is that all our political class operators are as short sighted and self serving because they have to face the voters so frequently. They have 48 months to get all the gravy they can. If they, or their peers, don't mess up too badly they could get another 48 months. That kind of desperate insecurity is a great place for someone who is a little flexible already to go full Corleone. So if you want less corruption and term limits, terms would have to be increased. To 5 years at least, 6-8 ideally.

And after all my verbiage, a completely inoffensive name puts it quite succinctly:

And 90% of people are not willing to do more than that. I'm not.