[Jeremy]

I think a Meritocratic system, at least in part, is long overdue.

We are forlorn with ministers who are unsuited to their roles. They are shoehorned into positions where they don't know left from right in the field, such as George Osborne, with a BA in History, in the position of power over the economy. Anybody can tell you that this has to be at least partially wrong, particularly with his membership of the Bullingdon Club, where money has no value.

What I suggest is a two tier system where politicians are nothing more than what their job should entail: representatives of the community. The policies are bashed out by the best, most experienced and peer reviewed (and admired) of each fields, be it arts, sciences, humanities or otherwise. These policies are put to government whose position it is is to put this to their constituents with a time limit to submit discrepancies. If there is no problem the government can put the policy into place. There would be no need for termly elections or tribalesque partisanship. If you wished to work for the local government then you would have to wait for a place to open up, just like in the council or civil service. However, if your representative is not doing their job, the constituents can put this to a central government who do not control or whip local government.

If, however, there is a problem then the petition for the local area would have to be submitted. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a policy to apply to one constituency and not another as some policies do not benefit some areas like they might another. If there is a problem, the policy is put to a public vote dependent not on a whole majority, but individual constituencies concerned.

The only control government has wide ranging domestic affairs, such as war. If a war is considered, there is a public vote as to whether or not they feel the war is acceptable, with the resulting action being factored by the public.

However, there would be a veto mechanism in place, should the public have been sufficiently misinformed. There would be a necessary condition in this mechanism which is that if a majority wish to veto the public vote, they have a contract of accountability; that is, should the decision of a war or policy that the public voted in one way about be vetoed or overturned, then the majority who vetoed it (which would have to be a majority) would have to shoulder costs and responsibilities should any problems arise. I can only see vetoing happening in two cases: the public were genuinely misinformed or an element of self interest. By accepting culpability they either lose out on the benefits from a destructive veto by having to shoulder the costs or they will be praised if they have turned out to be right.

I haven't managed to conclude whether some form of presidential role would be appropriate. If it was, there would no doubt have to be some form of restraints and conditions.

Through this meritocratic/democratic system: the public have a voice in a) the nation and b) the community; policies are decided by people who know what they are talking about, for the benefit of the country, not forged by politicians who are often in the back pockets of certain industries; politicians can get back to doing the real job, listening to the people and their concerns.

If there are discrepancies, problems or more preferably, positive feedback then please let me know. This is the line of political ideology I am going down, with a political charter and at some point, a manifesto that everyone can benefit from.

[Dagoth Ur]

Meritocratic Democracy is Communism.

[Jeremy]

Meritocratic Democracy is Communism.

Except I don't believe in the abolition of private property.

[Dagoth Ur]

Too bad as that's the only way to assure meritocratic positioning. Otherwise people will use their private control of the means of production (which the almost never earned in any meaningful way) to maintain their position regardless of how incompetent they are. Nepotism flows from private property.

[Jeremy]

Too bad as that's the only way to assure meritocratic positioning. Otherwise people will use their private control of the means of production (which the almost never earned in any meaningful way) to maintain their position regardless of how incompetent they are.

There are more citizens in the UK than there are big businesses. Emancipation is the empowerment of said citizens. Of course, if the citizens' vote pales in significance against industry, then yes you're right. However, what I am suggesting is that all votes are equal. I'm not suggesting an end to lobbying, they can lobby to their hearts content, but it would have to go to a public vote if the constituents decided that, say, they didn't want a new Tescos opening up down the road from another Tescos. Development and innovation collapses under communism as no individual is rewarded for their harder work. I didn't go to university to study Architecture just to get paid the same with the same rationing as a rack stacker in New Look who is getting nowhere because they have no interest in developing a real career.

I think a real incentive to stop businesses buying favour is making cash settlements illegal. These are the sorts of company that don't face legal action because they just pay out. Rather they should be forced to face the law like everybody else. If this is enacted, then so can the end to paying for businesses to support a vote. Still, if an industry wants to push a rather dodgy policy, then the people have every might to say no to it.

[Preston Cole]

Meritocratic Democracy is Communism.

That's laughable. There's very little meritocracy in communism. Leninism did open up opportunities for less-fortunate people living in rural areas to study in a quality urban environment, and I do agree with that. But that's just a booster of meritocracy in that a bridge is built between the few rich and many poor, a gross and counter-productive financial difference which hinders organicism. You view private property as exploitation; private property is the most fruitful endeavor any human being can be proud of. People work their asses off for their property; some work more and have more. That's the essence of meritocracy: the results are justified by the amount of work. Communism relies on emotional blackmail, "what about the guy who has no house and no farm?" That guy most probably sat on his ass all his life, thus his poverty is justified.

[J Oswald]

Meritocratic Democracy can exist only under very specific conditions:

1. There is a government-imposed limit on the number of parties that can participate in the electoral process (more than two, less than 5). The people must have the power to recall officials by referendum if they perceive them to be corrupt.

2. Of these parties, one is larger than the others, the differences between the parties are minimal, and there is some sort of covenant between them to present a united front on most issues.

3. There is a meritocratic system of education that all citizens of the state must go through (public or private, as long as the meritocratic aspects are enforced). This system must ignore any divisions of race, class, socioeconomic status, or parentage.

If these three conditions are met, then, although nepotism will still exist in the private sector and the government, it will be much-reduced. Since the best people would get the best education, a private company that wanted to hire friends and family for top-ranked duties without losing a lot of money could only do so if the person they wished to hire was of the top rank. In the government, since there are multiple parties and a recall ability, the people could remove any nepotistic or corrupt officials through elections or through recalls.

[Jeremy]

Thanks Oswald and Cole for your comments.

You view private property as exploitation; private property is the most fruitful endeavor any human being can be proud of. People work their asses off for their property; some work more and have more. That's the essence of meritocracy: the results are justified by the amount of work. Communism relies on emotional blackmail, "what about the guy who has no house and no farm?" That guy most probably sat on his ass all his life, thus his poverty is justified.

This was always my contention with Communism. It enforces charity. There can thus be no good deeds in a Communistic system because there would be no need to express mercy on other humans. And many people want to do that. Communism also relies on the idea that possessions and money are the answer to citizen satisfaction, that if everyone has the same amount, that's all that matters. On the surface, it can seem like that, but having no family or friends is infinitely more destructive to a person's emotional and psychological state than having no possessions. People living on the poverty line are only depressed when they are drawn in to start coveting consumerism. If I do good things, it's because I feel it's the right thing, not because the government wants to make lazy people equal in financial status. Because then nobody would bother to work harder than everyone else.

Meritocratic Democracy can exist only under very specific conditions:

1. There is a government-imposed limit on the number of parties that can participate in the electoral process (more than two, less than 5). The people must have the power to recall officials by referendum if they perceive them to be corrupt.

Why does this have to be the case? What if, say, government had no other job than to deal with how the country is run. The policy-makers were the people who knew what was good for the country. Thus the idea of electing on ideology is redundant and saves the country of being run by a group of people that some consider too harsh, or too weak, on policies. The idea of electing would be to choose a representative from the community who is known to, and trusted by, many. This also means that parties would have no effect, if they are not choosing policies, which means no party 'whipping' and no control over an area of the country they weren't voted for in and sometimes never would be.

3. There is a meritocratic system of education that all citizens of the state must go through (public or private, as long as the meritocratic aspects are enforced). This system must ignore any divisions of race, class, socioeconomic status, or parentage.

We sort of have this now. The best people get to be in the top class for the subjects, each subject having class layers of difficulty. Still, I'm with Sir Ken Robinson (if you know who he is) in that the system is not the right one. The education system is based on a factory-esque model, with different departments and groups, the only thing defining a person is their date of manufacture / birth. I think it would be productive for mixed age learning sessions, along with a better mix of fact-learning / innovation, with on going evaluation of progress, rather than exams once every few years.

If these three conditions are met, then, although nepotism will still exist in the private sector and the government, it will be much-reduced. Since the best people would get the best education, a private company that wanted to hire friends and family for top-ranked duties without losing a lot of money could only do so if the person they wished to hire was of the top rank. In the government, since there are multiple parties and a recall ability, the people could remove any nepotistic or corrupt officials through elections or through recalls.

The best people do get the best education, generally. Hence you can only get into a good university with good grades. I am against the party system but the recall ability, apparently being introduced by David Cameron (though I haven't heard anything about it recently) is one that has always been needed.

[daibido1123]

I find your theory very interesting, and would like to see how it has evolved sense you last posted on this thread. As it stands now it is a very simple and straight forward Libertarian approach to solving the problems of modern political mud-slinging, in the same token though, it seems very incomplete in how it would deal with the darker side of human nature.

One thing I find in my studies about the human condition I always seem to find, is the we as a species all need a balance of Homeostasis and Transistasis. This is why I would like to talk with you some time, for your idea as of right now resolves many of the problems dealing with change and staying the same, but it lacks the regulation framework and strong centralizing force to anchor balance and stability to those two forces.

I mean no offence if I have committed one, I'm just stating an observation, but I find my self falling short with trying to describe what I am thinking, that is why I ask if we may talk some time. So that I may better try to describe what I am trying to say.

Still so far, I must say good work.