Are there no better alternatives to having 'political leaders' run countries?

Some would say that we already have a national management team of sorts, which is why campaign promises are routinely broken and direction is anti-populist.

In “Sicko,” European leaders testify to the “fear” of the populace as a reason to respond more directly to their concerns (such as universal health care). France, most especially, has a well developed culture of mass protest.

Naomi Wolf also talks about the perfect record of mass protest as a political tool and explains why it is absent from contemporary American politics.

@kevbo Maybe so. But you don’t usually have to wait 4 or 5 years to replace a failing “management team”. And they don’t usually have the same amount of time to exploit their populations for their own personal gain.

Get enough people together in one group, and leaders will emerge. To avoid this, we could go back to a pre-agricultural, pre-urban, small band sort of wandering existence – and hope that the “big man” (or woman) in charge doesn’t aspire to lead any other groups.

I don’t see this happening. We’re stuck with civilization, it appears, at least until some cataclysm kills enough people to dismantle the hierarchy. The sad thing about hierarchies is that they almost beg for a cake topper – a leader of some sort, a monarch or president or oligarchy or archon to sort out the complicated mess of people and their wants and needs, to allocate scarce resources, to mete out the acceptable violence as punishment and keep everyone from killing each other. And that is how we have political leaders. Whether or not you believe it, I think a majority of us do engage with the system, if only by driving at the posted speeds, paying our taxes, voting, picking up the mail, and not lopping off heads at will.

Your “national management team” would be a group of political leaders, by the way – an oligarchy. Or are you asking if there’s some way to run a country without the vote of the people? There are plenty of ways, but as Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those forms which have been tried from time to time.” (Get too many people and a direct democracy is nearly impossible, so we have a representational form of government, which, in a perfect world, would be exactly like your National Management Team.

One last thing. Without some sort of overall government leadership and rule of law, we end up with something like Somalia, which is a great example of totally free everything – and a place I wouldn’t want to live.

@lloydbird, failing for whom?

My point is that if national leadership is a revolving door of disappointment, then there’s probably a back office of guys who are making a career of making money and making sure things go there way.

So far, in my opinion, ours or the England Parlimentary system is the best. In Communism (all forms) the leaders that “emerge” can’t be easliy removed. Election by the people as flawed as it is, is so far the best.
We have too dense a population and too complicated a world to use the pre-agricultural systems.

We dont need political parties at all. All they do is get elected then do their own thing which suits the party and not the general populace.
We could have voting on many issues via the internet so that what people want happens and not what suits politicians.
All over the western world less and less are bothering to even vote. This is a very dangerous trend when sometimes only 25 percent are voting. This means that the “winner” has only about 12 percent of those eligble to vote voting for them.
Is an X in a box every 4/5 years democracy?
Why do we need political parties at all. Just because politicians say that “nobody has come up with an alternative” is a lame reason for the status quo.

@Sandydog – the American Founders hated political parties, too. In fact, they tried to make things happen in such a way as to discourage them. Their idea was that the guys running for President might be unknown to most of the everyday farmer citizens, so they made the Electoral College, whereby these farmers would vote for someone they did know to be bright and trustworthy who would be entrusted with voting for the President. Political parties were not part of it at all.

@laureth GREAT answers. You are very bright.

@kevbo “failing for whom?”
Failing the people who elected them. Failing to honour pledges and stated targets? Failing to be honourable and succumbing to corruption, say.

@Laureth its just a pity that political parties ended up worming their way in and taking over.
Living over here I’m not too clued up on US electoral colleges. Ive been involved here in politics and I found the whole thing stank up to the high heavens – so much back stabbing was going on that it was sickening, and yet these were the people who were going to take control.
They were only interested in power for powers sake.

@lloydbird, okay how about ”not failing for whom?”

I suppose we could let ducks run the country. Or… how about a benevolent despot? Yeah, that’s the ticket!

In my opinion, everyone who wants to change the way government is run really wants to change the government so it does what they want, instead of what other people want. It’s just a kind of frustration for being in the out-group; or perceiving yourself to be in the out-group.

Power comes from organizing. Businesses are great at organizing because they pay people in money. It’s harder to organize poor people, but if you do, you can get them to vote for their own interests. Usually, though, they have no idea what will work for them because there is too much confusing information out there.

I say we cover a large wall with all of our nation’s policy options and let monkeys throw darts at it.

@Sandydog
“We could have voting on many issues via the internet so that what people want happens and not what suits politicians.”
Experience with what can happen to internet polls tells me this would be a very, very bad idea. I’d predict that in the best case, the most ridiculous option will always mysteriously win by a landslide. In the worst case it will be the option that causes most controversy or does most damage.

That’s right. /b/tardocracy. And you do not want these guys in charge.

Who’s the leader of the club
That’s made for you & me
M-I-C-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E
Hey! there,Hi! there,Ho! there
You’re as welcome as can be
M-I-C-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E

Mickey Mouse!
Mickey Mouse!
Forever let us hold our banner
High! High! High! High!

Gets my vote couldn’t possibly do any worse than the present lot are.

@Fyrius so we just keep with the present system?
The Swiss have a system of Plebicites where the people are often asked their opinion.
The internet I think could be used for people to voice their opinion. I dont think it should just be dismissed without trial.

@kevbo ”not failing for whom?”
That ”..back office of guys..” that you mentioned earlier, I guess. And all the political support networks, the media, the pundits, the teachers of political studies and so on. But hardly the majority of ordinary people.
The banking industry have done well by politicians of late, a surprising number of whom tend to land in lucrative positions with banks after leaving political office.
I’m not sure that I’m following your argument. You seem to be very focussed on mass protest and “fear” as a motivating factor for governments to look after the people.

Part of the point that I am trying to make is that – the need for mass protest would not arise if countries were being effectively, honestly and fairly managed for the benefit of the majority (ideally for all). I’m just wondering if political leaders, whose basic business is the business of politics and whose primary allegiance is to their parties and to those who fund them, are the best people to do the job of running countries. Perhaps the people who advise politicians are better qualified. The experts. Why not employ an exceptional one of these, in the way that sports teams employ managers and give them a chance to do the job.
As for fear of the populace being the reason why governments bow to the will of the people, well how about basic, honest concern and a desire to do the right thing? Good hearted people just want to do good – just for the sake of it.

The problem with letting the general public vote directly for policies is that most of the general public is not all that savvy about what the issues are, or what the consequences would be from their vote. I’m not saying politicians are perfect by any means, but they’re supposed to be doing this schtick as a full-time gig, meaning that we’re paying them to have time to educate themselves of the issues, do the research, and vote for the right thing. (Again – not perfect.)

If a congresscritter doesn’t have time (or enough assistants) to know what all the issues and legislation is about, they still have a better chance at it than the normal workaday American citizen who (1) generally spends at least 40 hours a week at work, and (2) may very well have no inclination to think about the matter in such a way as to make his vote an informed one, and worse yet, (3) may depend on soundbites and pundits for their news. I do NOT want those people voting on issues that affect me and my family.

And for the folks who think that there should be one-term limits, or just vote ‘em out after a week if they’re not doing the “people’s will?” We tried that here in Michigan with term limits. People thought it would be a great idea to get people out of government before they were “entrenched.” What happened was, instead of seasoned, informed lawmakers who knew how to do things like compromise, we ended up with a bunch of freshmen all the time who didn’t know jack squat and thought they’d be all tough and go conquer the other side. Basically, they didn’t know how government worked, so they made it not work. To me, this idea is about as effective as saying, “Let’s kick all the doctors out of the hospitals every four years and only let fresh medical school grads in.” There has to be a certain amount of turnover and churn, but to kick them all out every couple years means that we’re always starting from scratch.

Rather than all that, I’d prefer to drastically limit some things like the amount of money and favors that corporations can donate – but as we all know, corporations are people too (especially after the recent SCOTUS ruling) and deserve their say in government. [Laureth quietly vomits.] I think special interest groups should be more limited, but not all the way because those do represent citizens and sometimes provide Congresscritters with the information they need to make decisions. But mostly, if you want your voice to be heard in Congress, individual people need to get involved. I don’t mean by signing the latest internet petition or by sending off a “Me too!” prefab email. I mean by educating yourself, educating your friends and family, writing or calling (with your actual hands and voice) your representatives, and dispelling myth and bad information where you find it.

Education, and using your right to free speech and petition of grievances, is absolutely key. Even President Obama begins his day by reading letters from people like you and me.

@laureth . . . Even President Obama begins his day by reading letters from people like you and me.

You forgot to add, “after a giant doob.”, to the end of that ^.

You’d probably need one to get past some peoples’ letters, indeed. :)

@Sandydog In Canada, participation in elections remains at very high levels, especially in regions where the populace is diverse and the support for different parties is common.

In the USA, disillusionment and long-term discontent with government has drastically reduced the proportion of eligible citizens who actually vote.

In large, diverse, and widely distributed populations, the alternative to elected representatives running the country are rather ineffective and/or tyrannical. Anarchy is not pretty either!

@Laureth in Britain our politicians get most of their information from civil servants.
Its oft been said over here that so many politicians have never held down a day job – the trend in fact has been towards professional politicians who get involved from a relatively young age and know nothing else. I still think the peoples voice must be heard far more and a good example is the Swiss system. You cant just say the people are ignorant and leave it at that. The politicians know no more most of the time than we do.

@Sandydog – I’m sure they’d say “that’s socialism!” here (because people here think things like that are socialism). If your population is as politically savvy as the group in government, they must be better informed than people here. When do they have the time to do the research, if the issues are not a primary interest in their lives?

@Sandydog
I’d still prefer an incompetent or self-serving government to an internetocracy any day of the week – at least the politicians can be called on to justify their actions. You really should take votes either in real life or not at all.
Internet polls are by their nature heavily biased in favour of those who are able and willing to cheat the system. In other words, trolls. Irresponsible people who don’t care about politics and just like to make a mess for shits and giggles.
You’d probably end up with Goatse on the flag, with money saying “In Lulz We Trust”, and with your treasury depleted by a ten billion dollar project to build a giant statue of Longcat reaching to the stratosphere.

Actually, that does sound like fun.

People in Britain are probably a lot better informed here than in the US. I’ve been in the US several times and noticed that most news in Television or the newspapers don’t reach the same depth that happens here. I’m talking about on average.
Fyrius – With nationaly conducted polls through secure networks ( not in peoples homes ) the chances of what your talking about is about zero. I think we’re actually talking about different things here.

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. —Albert Einstein

@Sandydog
Mmmmyes, that might work better. ‘kay.