I'm hoping this one will not lose me friendships. I've been thinking about democracy. Here's one thought: if you take a country and define half its population as being less educated and the other half as being more educated, both parts have equal power in electing politicians. It's a mathematical equation. Anybody who wants to be elected has to speak to both sides. And we could agree that someone skilled could get elected even if it was not in the interest of the majority of the people, as the least educated people can be more easily misled. It could be argued that's what happened with George Bush when he got elected. People who would suffer most from his policies in economically deprived "red" states voted massively for Bush. And were not able to purchase necessary medicaments which had stopped being reimbursed. Or a pair of reading glasses.
Politicians' primary goal in wanting to get elected is power seeking. Is this the best attribute to fill a government role?
One of the personality traits that are most important in getting a politician elected is skill in getting elected: manipulating people, delivering speeches convincingly. While it is somewhat relevant, is that the best attribute to fill a government role?
Hey, wait a minute. Democracy is a better regime than monarchy, cast/class systems, tribal supremacy, dictatorship, apartheid, plutocracy. No question. But how about moving forward to a new, improved system? I don't know that I feel like I can pull something convincing from the top of my head. But the system I have fleeting visions of would include a selection. Now I said it, a meritocracy. The Chinese did it a few thousand years ago. They were called mandarins. Anybody in the country could take the test. And we're saying anybody: aristocrats, merchants, peasants. Well, males. I'm sure abuses occurred, it's very difficult to avoid corruption. The system was highly organized, with extensive testing taking place all over the empire. One of its goals, beside identifying the best candidates and having all classes feel empowerment, was to integrate all regions of the empire in government. It seems to me that tests could be established which would identify a pool of suitable candidates. Or eliminate unsuitable candidates (back to George Bush). Many people with great skills never make it into the political sphere because they lack a high degree of thirst for power as well as the suitable election panoply: looks, name (OK, Barak Obama made it but check out his speech delivery. And looks. And charisma), speech delivery, charisma. I see women who are excellent managers, multitaskers who could run any organization and we're lucky if they head something as important as a minor NGO. France has made a step in that direction by forcing political parties to have an equal number of male and female candidates in elections, and in some cases, amongst elected officials.
And I'm not speaking just about women. Plenty of men too could make good managers, but don't care to do what it takes to climb to the top of the ladder, and content themselves with some form of activism at the grassroot level. Am I off course, off the politically correct course?
Image above of candidates taking the test to qualify as mandarins
Contributed by - - Arabella Hutter
