Electoral / appointments system
During our evolution, we have trialled multiple models of organisational control over our Nation states. Current models include Socialism, Communism, Democracy, Hereditary hierarchy, Dictatorship, and we have generated many words that indicate control. LINK
These can be generalised into a couple of themes.
Electoral systems allow the mass of humanity to contribute to changes in the system. However, they do require an educated public. They do require that the influencing information is mostly true and balanced. The risk is that electoral systems make poor choices. Where anyone can stand in an election, there is a risk that amateurs end up in positions that require experience. Concensus may be difficult to achieve. Electoral systems promote short term aims, longer term tasks can be harder to maintain.
Professional systems, and I include monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies and appointed bureaucracies in this category, are prone to undue influence from the powerful, often exhibit nepotism, and can be resistant to change. The benefits are that professionals may have been educated and trained in systems of government, and appointees are likely to achieve consensus quickly.
This system proposes a combination or democratic and professional control.
This section requires more work, and can best be described at this stage by a set of principles. The detail required here is for the next level of system design.
- It must be possible for an individual to get their voice listened to.
- Nepotism should not be tolerated.
- The system must resist being controlled by small sectors.
- The system must work efficiently.
- The system must be capable of evolution
- The system must be open to interrogation
- No-one is above the law
- Truth should prevail
- The system should not stifle human spirit or invention
Risk: Revolution occurs when the system cannot be changed by any other method. Ensure the system can be changed.
Risk: The system becomes controlled and influenced by powerful groups. Mitigated by a process to monitor the system, freedom of speech to publicly highlight misuse and corruption, a ‘house’ where powerful groups have legitimate and visible influence.