PREFACE
It is becoming clearer with
every election, and not only in Belgium, that polarization is
increasing. Extreme positioned blocks make it increasingly
difficult to form properly functioning governments and public faith
in political structures is under pressure. However, every government is
increasingly confronted with challenges that demand good governance. The
aging of the population, immigration, the environment and climate
challenges; it's an impressive list.
What is going on? Is
our actual democracy not the model that we need?
Hypothesis: Every human system that revolves around the use
of power will eventually destroy itself. That is good for social evolution, but
the crises require so much energy and misery! In the early history of humanity,
power was an instrument to "dominate and rob the others." That
created misery for the victims, and benefits for the thieves. When power is
used internally to organize a social system, the benefits of the theft fall
away, and an internal mechanism is set in motion that brings the system out of
balance and threatens it. This does not seem strange when the following
observations are brought together in a dynamic whole.
SOME OBSERVATIONS
1.
Every human system that revolves around the use of power will eventually
destroy itself. That is good for social evolution, but the crises consume
so much energy and misery ! All cultures that have ever had a
'high' degree of development, have also lost their supremacy over time: China,
Aztecs, Egypt, Greece, the Roman Empire, etc. are perhaps inspiring examples.
2.
If you can gain power by talking, you will get flatterers in power.
3.
Political parties have the real power in our current political
system , but are never held liable. Power without accountability
leads to decadence. (values and responsibility are subordinate to
self-interest - gaining power )
4.
If ' elusive ' politic parties form the power
structure, this leads to increased polarity in the system.
5.
Because political parties are fishing for votes, they come up with a
program that responds to collective interests and emotions. This
one-sidedness is then difficult to maintain in
policy-making because of the internal contradictions in the government, as
a result of which voters are disappointed. Half-baked compromises are
the result of polarity.
6.
If a majority is to be sought for government formation, then one again
gives room to the dictatorship of the figures (majority) and that encourages
the use of power, with a greater polarity as a result. Of course, this is
at the expense of the content.
7.
The more the polarity grows, the less the content is discussed.
(observe the BREXIT process!)
8.
A government with a lot of internal polarity is doomed to compromise, a
power - driven combination of points of view (then getting an agreeing
is more important than the quality of the solution) that does not
work. Visible impasse is the result.
9.
As the competition for the dominant positions grows, more and more is
played 'on the man' instead of 'on the ball'. As a result, mutual trust
disappears and it becomes increasingly difficult to work together. The
polarity continues to grow. If the game is about ‘playing on the man’ it
is not always clear where the ball (objectives) is.
10.
If the top managers of politics are elected, then it becomes an
attractive position for narcissists and manipulators. Popularity is the
most important criterion, and not managerial competence. That means comes
down to giving the most sympathetic person the steering wheel and do not even
ask if he / she has a driver's license.
11.
If elected politicians remain loyal to their party (and election
promises), it becomes hard to manage the contradiction between that loyalty and
the common sense that leads to solutions. The can only survive by using excuses,
blame others, manipulate information,…
12.
If the policy of a political majority fails, there is sufficient room to
shift the responsibility to the other parties. With a good story, if
necessary in the victim role, voters can be won again. There is no real
evaluation, except in the case of flagrant wrongdoing or unpopular
measures. The targeted person loses his position, , and the game
continues.
13.
If the ‘separation of powers’ (result of the ‘French Revolution’) leads
to judiciary becoming a self-managing team (autonomy), then
the " rule cousins " are without
leadership. Questioning oneself then becomes difficult and the system
visibly lags behind the needs of society.
14.
The ‘separation of powers’ was an attempt to limit the power of
policymakers (kings and emperors) . The question remains what
has been put in place to achieve a good result. 'Divide and
rule' has become 'divide and make policy impossible'.
15.
With compulsory voting the quality of the management is not
served, on the contrary . People with superficial and ill-considered
opinions, seduced by self-interest and the sweet talk, will strongly
determine the voting result. This manipulating system serves party
interest, using the naivity of uninformed people. And that manipulation
effect is increasing with the possibilities of the new media. The true
enthusiasts of our current power system, based on tempting voters, is therefore
in favor of mandatory elections.
16.
The new media is allows everyone to create and lounge "emotional triggers"
by spreading false information, blow up the importance of facts and stimulate
emotions like fear. Polarity is created in society because of the hunger
for power. This polarity is also locked in the political parties, which
then have to implement a policy together. These polarities are increasing:
within the population; between the political parties, between the
politicians personally, between their promises and their realizations, between
the real needs and the policies pursued; and not least: between
politicians and the population. What was the idea behind democracy
again?
17.
If the sitting politicians have to thoroughly change the system, they
put themselves out of the game. Whoever has the power will probably like
to keep it. Moreover, they are usually convinced , for the sake of
self-interest, that the existing system is the best possible
( " reduction of cognitive dissonance " - by Leon
Festinger ) .
18.
The same goes for the press: it lives on the sensation that the
polarized game brings, and will happily fuel it.
19.
As long as people want to win in the existing system, they are less
interested in change the system.
20.
The more the focus of policy makers is on their own position
of power, the less they are busy with their assignment.
21.
The worse the system works, the more people turn away from
politics. If they then vote (mandatory), they opt more for their
own interests in the short term. The ‘level
of the game’ decreases even faster.
22.
Democracy was intended to break the abuse of power by dictators and to
make the needs of the population more important (development of a balanced
society) . The power has shifted from a single individual
to the power of the numbers (number of votes). The power is therefore not
out of the system; it is equally strong, but more diffuse and
therefore more difficult to unmask. Therefore our actual form of democracy
is only an unproductive step towards something that works better. Our
painful memory of the dictatorship often prevents us
from daring to question the current democratic system.
23.
If the political and civil service is parceled internally
according to functions, then it becomes slow, and short of flexibility and
transparency. Projects are not finished because the number
of authorities involved creates a kind of 'squared matrix
organization'. There is always an excuse why something is not
possible. The number of powers that must be included in a certain problem
is constantly increasing. The focus of thinking and acting is lost; and
with that also the responsibility.
24.
The less the political system is able to provide an answer to the social
problems, the more the political parties get involved in extremism, both left
and right. When there is chaos, people rally for an extreme approach, even
authoritarian leadership and power. (the impact of emotions).
25.
Extremism sets a vicious circle in motion: polarization, power
struggles and political alienation, making the police sink to a lower
level, and the system itself gradually destroys. Elections are
about winning votes through extreme views. Policy is about problem
solving. Having the two things done by the same people is a recipe for
disaster; it creates a system crisis.
26.
The same dynamics seems to occur in all 'democracies': the US, the
United Kingdom, all European countries (right - wing movement).
27.
Conclusion: it is high time that we learn from our mistakes, and
build something new.
Criteria for a
better democracy :
- Power must
be replaced by the combination of, an assignment, a mandate ,
and accountability.
- Political parties
must be outside the power center, out of the management position.
- The government
(executive management) may not consist of elected politicians. That is
simply an application of the basis principle of "good
governance" : you should not be judge and involved party at the same time!
- The government should
not be under the direct influence of the political parties.
- Elections serve to
determine the relative importance of policy objectives and priorities, not to
determine who gets power.
- There must be more
policy continuity at government level, so that we do not have to start from
scratch every time there is a new government (and waste time and energy to
create one!)
- The separation of
powers must not lead to a failing policy. Leadership responsibility needs to be created.
- The role
of the press must be more strictly defined; it must become a disciplined social antidote
to manipulation through the new media.
Elements of a possible
alternative democratic system: (more 'sociocratic')
1- Elections are only
about the number of seats in parliament. It is up to the political
parties to translate social needs to management priorities, thereby setting the
policy accents for the future. The winners of the elections do not form
the government, only the parliament. So there are no negotiations for
a government formation.
2- The government is
formed by appointed policy experts (' technocrats ') who have
substantive and administrative competences (people with a driving
license). They do not belong to a political party (not a ‘tool’
of the polarized interests of political parties) . They are selected
on the basis of a job to be done, instructed by the parliament,
and where the allocation of mandates is done by a professional selection
process , with final approval by the parliament . Their
appointment is not temporary.
3- The appointed
government makes a policy plan (each time for 1 year ; with an
underlying multi-year vision ), which is
submitted to the parliament for approval. All the
projects implemented by the government (eg pension reform), are submitted at
the discretion of the parliament. They are tested against the
policy plan and the debate must lead to indicators for
adjustment, if necessary. The adjusted project
plan is approved by the parliament. Parliament respects an empowerment-mandate for the
government, an does not intervene on technical and operational issues.
4- The vote in
parliament must be secret. This is against the general rule of
transparency, but it must protect individual members from the pressure of their
political party. If that pressure remains too high, then tactical games take
over again and replace common sense when making decisions.
5- The members of the
government are evaluated individually in their work through
an annual 360 ° feedback; the parliament, the colleagues,
the officials who work with them. This feedback is organized annually and
is always anonymous. The final stage is the judgement by parliament,
based on feedback scores. A final judgment below a certain
threshold automatically leads to dismissal and replacement. (same
procedure as appointment). The person concerned can of course also resign
from his position.
6- The government
organizes itself on a project basis. Every government member may
specialize, but all projects are assigned as an integral, multidisciplinary
assignment. The members of government organize themselves as a team that
provides the necessary support (also from cabinets) to these colleagues who
have to realize a project. The government is collectively responsible
to the parliament.
7- Within the
government, a minister is responsible for the judiciary. He / she is not
involved in the operational operations, but does have powers to change
the system, through the action of the government . This goes beyond
providing budgets and infrastructure. The entire internal functioning
(structure, appointments, rules of the game, etc.) fall under this
authority. Developing the necessary legal framework to accommodate the
leading role belongs to the minister, with the support of the government, and
accountable to the parliament. The judiciary is therefore not
completely independent, but at operational level, not at policy
level.
8- The press is being put
responsible. There are clear rules created for the
"free" press and for "normalized" or ethical
press. The latter is primarily the assignment of the ‘national
broadcasting’, via a management agreement. An ethics committee should be
established that strictly monitors (with corrections, suspensions and
exclusions as instruments) the social role it must play. This role does
not consist in seeking sensation in magnifying the opinions and interests of
individuals or political parties. It must not increase polarity by
increasing the contradictions between opinions and interests. The free
press is given more room to work with opinions, but the 'free opinion' must
refer to content, not stimulating emotions (inciting racism is an extreme form,
but not the only ethically unacceptable and socially acceptable
destructive effect) . The official press has the first role to
do 'fact-finding'; to defend reality by making the right information
available, every time enlargements or distorted information is
done. Correctly correcting this popular deception is their first
assignment. You don't do that through political debates where the
sensation of opposition and personal feuds are cultivated. Party
presidents are not their main source of information, but the government leaders
are, and even senior officials who have the expertise and the right
information. They must be given the space to provide sound information and
explanation, and not to be 'grounded' into the existing interview techniques
that are full of interruptions, search for sensation, etc. Freedom of
expression applies to individuals, but becomes disastrous as the nonsense that
results from power seekers is misused to dominate the system.
9- Political parties
do not receive an allocation from the government to finance their operation.
10- During the
elections we don’t votes for people, so the person cult attached to the
preferential votes disappears. Voters vote for content and priorities.
SHALL WE CALL THIS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DEMOCRACY ?
(which replaces the current
'power democracy')
THE TRANSITION
As the existing system will
try to maintain itself based on the interests of the occupants, the transition
will not be easy.
It seems that these are the
possible ways that fundamental change can arise:
1- Great leadership
(at Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi level) . In our current
political environment it is presumably impossible that such figures stand up
and / or have the opportunity to have sufficient impact. This mechanism of
political change seems to be more suitable for getting out of a dictatorship.
2- An existential
crisis (similar to the BREXIT in the United Kingdom?), rhat makes the whole
system collapse visible. The climate problem and the migration
problem are candidates! We hope that it will be necessary to reach that
point, and that we develop the capacity to timely prevent destructive disasters.
3- Poupehan. Earlier
in the Belgian political history, we had a moment of a blocked political
situation. Under the leadership of Prime Minister
Jean-Luc Dehaene, an informal crisis meeting was then held in Poupehan
with the real rulers in our system, not the politicians in the
foreground. They have reached a consensus on the necessary approach, and
have done the necessary, each from their position, to sufficiently
influence all organs and consultation moments to realize the
change. At that time it was about restructuring public finances (and the
economy) to meet Europe's budget norms and to (be allowed to) enter into the
Maastricht agreement. This seems a realistic possibility.
4- The
development of an "impact network". This implies that around the
idea of the alternative ('administrative democracy') a number of
influential people formally commit themselves to show their support for this
idea, and to obtain broad support for the idea through sustained
communication. That will hopefully be picked up by the existing political
structures and translated into the necessary changes.
We can also continue to
treat symptoms for a while and keep the system intact by relieving the worst
pressure. Forms of ‘symptom fighting’:
a.
A broad survey of the population (based on the French example). The
chance that the existing system can translate the conclusions of this survey
into results is minimal.
b.
Installing a confederal state (in Belgium). This means that
the two (three) parts of the country in Belgium, with their
different culture, will be separated administratively and will
cooperate selectively on a voluntary basis. This could bring relief, but
not a fundamental solution. The increasingly clear differences between
north and south in Belgium are, after all, an aspect of increasing
polarization. Both cultures respond differently to the frustrations and
administrative inability described above. The cultural differences that
arise in socio-economic history explain this. The symptom is that
political left and political right are sharper opposed to each other, and make
it difficult to form a government according to the working method in existing
political working methods. Do it separately for both parts of the country,
and the fundamental system- problem persists. For Belgium it means,
although perhaps necessary, at most a postponement of execution.
c.
Include in the party programs more “listening to the
people". That could pick up many of the existing needs in the short term
and intuitively could have a temporary success in creating new
majorities. As long as the foundation of power democracy is not being
tackled, it will undoubtedly also provoke counter-reactions, thereby sustaining
the existing problem.
Hugo Der
Kinderen 30 /5/2019
