- The democracy model we follow today is not suitable for a world this crowded and diverse, and this leads to fundamental problems from corruption of the political institutions to conflicts within the same societies.
- The solution is to find the balance between the full and representative democracies, distribute the power to the point of making it meaningless to
obtainand much harder to influence.
- We must give up the one-man leadership model. Almost only 200 people leading 7.5 billion makes little sense; it creates too much conflict and distraction.
- We need to rely on specialized knowledge more, both while governing and voting.
There are a ton of problems from income inequality to corruption to injustice that need to be addressed globally, problems that create constant conflicts and pose a threat for the future of global social peace. Yet we don’t seem to be able to take even a single meaningful step towards solving them for centuries. The same problems created the monstrous government that led to our forced separation too my love. Hence, I will write about what I believe to be the most realistic solution here.
I believe the underlying reason for the inability to solve these problems is self-inflicted and roots from our habits. We are tribal creatures and so are our governance systems. Even in this day and age we still seek a leader who is a strong, charismatic parental figure we can look up to. Hence, we let a handful of individuals lead the seven and a half billion of us into a future full of conflict and suffering, into the certain failure of our civilization.
We came from small tribes that were lead by strong men, hence we didn’t see a problem in uniting in larger numbers and putting just another strong man in charge. Then we rediscovered the idea that everyone should have a say in who that strong man is going to be. We replaced kings with presidents by thinking that we were solving the problem without even realizing what the root-cause is: the way we distribute power, and ignorance.
Concentrating the power to only a few hundred people in each country makes them easy targets for the groups that want to take advantage of them and steer the system to the direction beneficial to themselves. The so-called checks and balances system is clearly ineffective as we have seen repeatedly across the globe. Hence the corruption, hence the paralysis… There is only one way to overcome this issue, and that is to distribute the power to the point of making it meaningless, making it hard to control. Controlling a few hundred representatives through offering benefits or otherwise does not seem to be an issue for those self-interest groups. Let’s see how will they deal with tens of thousands of representatives.
No more one-man leaderships, no more entrusting only a few hundred of us to determine our future. A healthy and corruption-resilient governance model is the one in which we balance the representative and full democracy models, in which we allow an individual to represent only the number of people he/she can directly maintain contact with and represent accurately. A democracy in which the leadership is entrusted to a large group of people rather than an individual.
I believe that in well-educated and less populous countries – such as most of the Central and Western European; and all the Nordic countries – this ratio can be as low as 1-to-1000. In populous, less educated countries and/or countries with tribal inclinations – such as Turkey, India, Japan, the United States, Brazil – this ratio can be lower, lets say 1-to-10000. No, we cannot, we should not go full democracy or entirely rely on AI as some contemplates. Those are dangerous paths for different reasons.
Yes, we will lose efficiency in some already inefficient legislative processes, but take it from this efficiency freak in everything he does and owns, this is a worthy tradeoff. Arriving at a healthy future slowly should be more preferable to all rather than arriving at a dystopian future speedily. Having said that, we can also gain efficiency in many areas by creating smaller and specialized legislative units that does not require attendance from all representatives.
There of course are certain aspects of governance which requires immediate action or secrecy, such as responding to threats or gathering and sharing intelligence. For those, we will come up with smaller groups of governance that are more agile, but still without much power.
For the second part of the problem: No, I do not believe in everyone having a right to vote on every matter either. I find this principle dangerously romantic, disconnected from reality. When was the last time anyone sought advice from an 18 years old for managing their investment portfolio, or advice from a farmer for shaping international relationships, or advice from a music teacher for which crops to subsidize? And no one should, unless those individuals demonstrate a certain level of understanding of those topics. Likewise, no one should have a vote in determining what the future should be for everyone in the matters they don’t grasp. People should earn the right to vote by passing a civic exam which targets educating the public in every field of life, an exam they can take as many times as they like. Yes, we are capable of coming up with a / a few fair civic exam model(s) that could be applied to the majority of the world, if not all. We are capable of creating social structures that will give a chance to everyone to experience more, learn more, have more, share more, love more, tolerate more.
An alternative to this would of course be allowing everyone to vote on all the matters by giving their votes a different weight based on their civic exam scores.
A stretch “goal” would be to having multiple governance models and laws applying to different groups with in the same society, based on their preference and not their geographic location. This is already the case for certain groups in certain countries, such as the native folks of Canada. This is basically just taking the federalist government model of the United States and defining the states based on people’s governance preferences rather than their geographic location. This would especially help countries such as Turkey where there is a clear division within the public’s opinion of what the way of living should be, where some groups are forced to abide by values they find offensive/torturous/inhumane because of the fear of a non-unitary governance model leading to loss of hegemony in certain geographic regions.
This is an achievable -as exampled in certain cases- but yet rather complicated way of governance. Therefore, I deemed it a stretch goal and put it as the bottom of the priorities.
I believe once we fix the fundamental issue of fair, just and correct governance the rest will unfold. Once we see we can solve millennia old problems, we will grow confident, mature and learn how to live together better.
There is a ton to read between the lines in this writing. It is certainly not well-planned and more of a brain-dump than an article. Unfortunately, I am running out of time and have to move on with the hope that I will be able to fill in those lines later on, or you will find this writing and pick it up from where I left my love.