Marrying Democracy and Technocracy

Hopefully in this post, much like the Guzzle Puzzle Helpline, I will find the right words to explain my idea. The idea is something that I tackled before but since then my views have evolved somewhat. The idea – finding a middle ground between representative democracy and technocracy.

Constitutional Monarchy
For over 900 years, the British unitary parliamentary democracy-constitutional monarchy system has held as a steady form of government. The Queen acts as head of state and whilst still retaining certain powers (calling elections, dissolving parlement, etc) must adhire to the law. This is called Rule of Law and it governs every single person, parlement and military, everyone.

Senate of Rome
Surviving the Kingdon, Republic and Empire of Rome, the senate is another clearly stable political structure of over 900 years. At it’s core the senate was always a collection of ‘wise men’ giving advice (senatus consultum) to those in power. During republic domain the senate was at it’s most influencial and although their advice had no real authority, it was usually obeyed.

The Idea (Constitutional Technocracy)
To take the three-tier structure of British Parliament, or more directly, Canadian Parliament, change the nature of the House of Lords (Senate) and increase their influence:

  1. Head of State (Monarch)
  2. Senate (Technocrats)
  3. House of Commons (Democrats)

The Senate is voted in by anyone with a PhD, those standing for position (representives of fields) must submit their papers and works. This is because, although technocrats have been burocratically designated like in Greece and Italy, real technocrats should be subject to peer review – just like good science. Putting technocrats in influential positions will encourage an intellectual community, bringing foreign science to us. Our science is already on the up-and-up but it would increase enthusiasm in knowledge and reason.
One out there idea is to give control to the Senate in states of emergancy – be it medical (epidemic), military (assassination), economic (crash), etc..

As for the House of Commons, anyone over the age of 18 can vote as long as they pass a standardised political party test. This test is on the policies of parties running in their area. One of the issues I see with democracy is missguided votes squewing the ballot, this precaution would help voters understand the bigger picture. Originally I concieved an Academocracy, but as the comments suggested a large problem with it was disfranchising people. Although again I’m saying not everyone should vote – what I’m really saying is everyone should know why they are voting and what they are voting for. Which is surely reasonable? Hopefully it will also cut down on the tribalism of chosing who your parents or friends vote for, because you will know if you correlate with the party you choose.

House of Lords Reform
My above idea is basically making the House of Lords [seem] more important. The reason I came back to thinking about this issue is a recent proposal in British politics to elect members of the House of Lords democratically. I oppose this notion because of how useful an outside view is, when someone doesn’t have to please constituents or try to stay in power, they are more likely to give an actual view without tribalism.

“The great strength of the Lords is that it contains not just a bunch of experienced retired MPs but a whole raft of individuals with specialist knowledge and experience from the worlds of commerce, medicine, the services, the civil service, academia, the unions – the list is endless – none of whom would be likely to be available to stand for election.”
– Lord Steel, former Alliance leader

7 thoughts on “Marrying Democracy and Technocracy

  1. I really like your idea – it makes so much sense and to be honest it fills in the gaps of my own ideas that have been unclear for a time now as I’ve been unable to reach a clear answer. Thank you, because you’ve struck on a great balance here in my view. And this line in particular hit the nail right on the head regarding approaches to their job in government:
    “because of how useful an outside view is, when someone doesn’t have to please constituents or try to stay in power”
    I’m going to share this idea with some of the more open-minded folks if you don’t mind. Nice work.
    Oh and thanks for dropping by my blog as well, always nice to see a fresh face.

    • Thankyou, I’m glad to see it corrolates with others. It always begins as something I’m just throwing out there, then I try and make sense of it before I post.

      By all means share it with who you like 🙂

  2. An interesting suggestion, bringing more expertise in and removing politics from the upper chamber is definatly a good idea. In terms of making a technocratic senate (or House of Lords) more important but still part of a democratic system I have a couple of suggestions. One would be to have regular question sessions, where the democratically elected ministers from the government answer technical questions on their policies from the members of the upper house who have expertise in that area. Another would be to have this and all other debates and activity in the upper chamber televised live so members of the public can follow the intellectual debate.

    This should all be in aid of making winning the intellectual battle in the upper house just as important to politicians as winning the political battle in the lower house.

  3. Pingback: Technocratic Thoughts | Neural Outlet..

  4. Pingback: Marrying Democracy and Technocracy | Neural Outlet.. « Secularity

  5. I disagree, look at CATHERIN ASHTON … the whore of the EU … this woman alone is more then enough reason to distrust the house of lords… she was their lead for crying out loud… And for the record what we call DEMOCRACY nowadays is not DEMOCRACY the once by SOLON (From Athens) favored form of state which rightfully had the name democracy is long since dead, it involved all the people voting (or being able to vote) not chosing a representative every four years…. what we have now is a sort of democratic despotism… a hypocracy…. and with all the populism and the too easy to manipulate PROLLS … a idiocracy … yes on that last part you try to think for a solution… not everyone should vote… I do agree… most people are too stupid and to prone to populism… and will blow with any wind the media manipulates them to… however the elite have proven to be no better… strictly passing laws for personal gain… your solution unfortunatly is not one I would like to have … Unfortunatly intelligence is no premesis for some one being an honest good person… far from I would say… and apart from being intelligent I think we can agree what our representatives should be trustworthy, honest people who do what best for THE STATE (with all the people) and not just for their own group… now the past hondreds of years have proven to us we cant trust these elite … they have their own agenda… a lot of them shit on the commoners… or even people who are intelligent but not bread by the right blood line….

    Read Plato’s Republic … it seems you are a big fan of his kind of state… I am as well… a state ruled by philosophers… however Im wise enough to see our ELITE no where near being wise philosphers…

    And the day I take a quote about a group from the group itself serious … lol… of course that lord says the house of lords is reliable and trustworthy… but IE C. Ashton has shown us the real face of this lying deceithfull moloch… and many others have preceeded her and many others will still come… nice story to read… but no I dont agree 😀 but thats the beauty of discussion… when we agree there is nothing to discuss.

    • Yes I’d really love to read The Republic, it’s been on my list for a long time, I will buy it one day! The cycle of governmental types is an interesting idea I think Plato goes into in that book.

      There’s another quote from a Lord that I think, as you liked the first one so much, I have to share:

      “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern: every class is unfit to govern.” – Lord Acton

      I think it’s my favourite political quote and probably why I am still so unsure about my own political views as a whole. That and Hume’s Guillotine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s