I’m the local vice Chairman of a political party here (in Sweden) and hold some elected positions municipally. The other day I was discussing with the Chairman, in the abstract, the process of making decisions on the many issues that are presented to you.
My party, the Green one, isn’t one with a core ideology in the same way as a socialist or liberal party, so there isn’t a stringent party line in most cases, and anyway, the issues that are on the table are usually too close to reality to benefit much from flimsical political ideas.
Unfortunately I discovered very early that most political decisions aren’t about chosing between good and bad, but between bad and bad. Or if you’re fortunate, bad and worse (which makes it easy).
Having thought about this from time to time I basically came up with a guiding principle, three ideas, axioms you might call it, that were unquestionably ‘good’ and worthy to strive towards. Effective use of resources, increased health and happines, and maximum freedom.
I argued to the Chairman that those were three good objectives to keep in mind while making or discussing decisions, but he disagreed. His position was basically that these ‘axioms’ are too abstract and ill defined to be of any real use, and that every case needs to be scrutinised and analysed on its own merits. Which in itself of course doesn’t lead to any method of deciding other than “common sense”, which is neither very common nor always the most sensible.
Since my main area of responsibility directly involves some of the people who are at the very bottom of our society, and in the most need, every decision we make will have a big impact on a very vulnerable person. This means the stakes are very high so obviously frivolous decisions would be highly immoral, yet I have to admit to having no solid foundation to base mine on. I’m not sure how many people here are in a simmilar position, but it seems likely that many if not most would have some input on this issue.
I’ve voted Green, but I’m mainly a progressive, so I’d advise to go with change, especially any change resisted by entrenched interests. Let the bad people help you decide to vote against them. And please resist pleas to get along with strange bedfellows. Don’t accept the advice that your enemy’s enemy is your friend. That’s the logic that turned the Iraq war from won back into a stalemate, with the allies supporting the Baath party’s enemies instead of insisting on a government reflecting the entire nation.
I’m progressive too but I’m not going to vote for something just because it is a change, it may well be a change for the worse after all. And although the opposition obviously is satan/the root of all evil/sworn enemies etc etc they sometimes have good ideas.
Easy if you’re talking dollars vs dollars. Now we’re talking dollars vs effects on peoples lives, and with unknown outcomes of the decisions (ie: a project may not work as intended or projected).
I also note that both these suggestions would make it irelevant which parties were in power. If both either go with a “Cost vs Reward” system or a “Do the opposite” system, it doesn’t really matter which side wins.
In an era of emotionally charged partisanship it’s easy to forget that one of the reasons people vote for a candidate is trust that the candidate will use his/her best judgement when it’s time to make a decision.
I’d agree with your chairman that your axioms are somewhat abstract (after all, who can disagree with them?) but they are your axioms. So approach the issues with that in mind, and follow your conscience.
Personally, (if I was emperor) I would impose a law that any law with an expected effect had to also include methods to test that effect and that the law would become null if it did not work as intended.
And I don’t just mean in terms of dollars. There’s a cost and reward for everything. How we each quantify cost, however, is rather difficult to summarize. Ideally it would be based on logic and statistics.
In a “Cost vs Reward” system, it makes a difference which side wins, because different groups put different values on things, and specific policy choices are going to be different depending on how the policy maker determines what the benefits and costs are.
Besides, costs are usually lied about by the contracters and the benefits are usually overblown by the politician who wants to put HIS name in the papers with HIS idea.
So far, so good. You don’t have to slavishly adopt a position already adopted by your party which can then bend you to its will and force you to toe the party line by withdrawing all of your future political support, thereby ending for eternity all of your high minded political ambitions.
Your situation is quite unusual for the elective junta system under which you (and I) happen to operate. Regardless, since your political independence appears to be absolute, why don’t you choose four or five men and four or five women, selected purely at random, and without regard to political affiliation, from the electoral rolls, and invite them all to a meeting to discuss the issues and make the decision for you. (Don’t forget to provide them with a meal and travel costs, at the very least)
Provide your jurors with all of the necessary documentation they would need to help them come to a decision (but give them executive summaries so that they don’t need to spend more than an hour studying all of the material) then after they have pondered, discussed and decided what they think is best, act in accordance with their wishes. ( I suggest you exclude anyone aged 80 or over in case someone with Alzheimers or something similar happens to get picked).
I quite stupidly forgot to mention ways in which the political system here differs from the one Americans are accustomed to, so I’ll give a brief and hopefully correct summary of how it works here:
You have a personal mandate. For the mandate period, your mandate can not be taken away from you and your party can not ‘force’ you to do, say or vote on anything.
There’s usually a coalition made up of X out of the 7 big parties. Whatever parties aren’t invited into the coalition make up the opposition.
Civil servants, acting under law, are to prepare and give objective adcive on issues to be voted on, and carry out the resulting orders.
The vast majority of politicians aren’t paid. More than 95% of them (including me) don’t get paid, but get re-imbursed for any wage loss and get a nominal fee. Our system is based on people volunteering for polictical offices (I personally love this system and will rabidly oppose any suggestions for raising fees or putting more politicians on a salary).
This means that elected people have a very high degree of freedom, since they are not economically dependent on keeping their position. And that most are “grounded in reality” due to having an actual job that supports them, while doing most of the politicking in their spare time.
Now… two observations.
I think this is a very interesting idea. A while back I brought up something simmilar, getting members of the party who don’t hold elected positions together once a month and discuss the issues that would come up in the next committee meeting.
Picking people at random would be good from a purely democratic viewpoint of course (assuming a large enough sample size) but I was elected by people voting for the Green Party, and it is them I should be representing, not the average person.
After discussing it here, I think I’m going to arrange so that one week before the committee meetings every month, I will simply invite people to come and take part of the information and discuss the issues. And have this meeting open to everyone who is interested, although in reality it will most likely only be members showing up.
I’m actually a bit surprised that there hasn’t been more response, and more elaborate responses to this question. It would be an understatement to say that the average poster here is interested in the political proccess, but not that many seem to have thoght about how decisions are (or should be) made. Or they’re just not sharing.
There is always a conflict when making decisions in politics. For many ,politics is the business of getting reelected. They have to fuel their ambitions. Then most of then really try to do the right thing by their constituents. In America campaigns are very expensive. If you want to stay in ,you have to raise money, lots of money. What do you owe to those who came up with large amounts of money? Do you lean toward their causes when they conflict with the needs of the majority of residents in your district.
My apologies. I misunderstood you. Just like you, I live in an elective junta and I forgot the standard elective junta mindset. My mistake.
After every election in Australia, no matter which party wins, the party leader of the newly elected or re-elected junta always gives a speech to thank the party workers who made the win possible, but the elective junta leader (AKA Prime Minister) invariably comes out with a bit of insincere political boilerplate: “but for all Australians who voted against us, blah blah blah, rest assured, we intend to represent all Australians blah blah blah, regardless of colour, political affiliation and creed blah blah blah.”
Setting that aside, the action you propose to take is better than the usual action taken by politicians in similar circumstances, so good luck to you and please tell us how it works out.
There is one thing I would strongly recommend. You should not simply accept anyone and everyone. Ask for expressions of interest from everyone and select from that group by lot (no other method will do) a maximum of about four men and four women to form your consultative council on a one time basis.
I don’t really get politics. To me it seems like trying to strike a balance between making the decision with the best outcome against the decision that will appease several million imbeciles so you can keep your job.