Thank you, thank you Tom (and David M) ... for illustrating
That there are alternatives, to "simplistic" democracy, and good cases for them.
No parties ?... need to ensure there is minimum incentive for them to
form - true independence - like some of Tom's suggestions.
Karl - selected by lot ? surely, surely, surely we can do better than
that in a "sophisticated" democracy. (I'm all for participation, but
even trial by jury has its drawbacks - ask OJ).
Anyway, my work is done here ;-)
Ian
On 3/8/07, Tom Milner-Gulland <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There is a case for a non-elected House of Lords. It is not and does not
> pretend to be democratic. It is instead dignified, or generally dignified.
> I do think we should be able to have some means to kick them out if they
> are corrupt but when you know many of these old toffs, including the ones
> with a lot of money (quite often so much that it becomes no object, so
> corruption is not worthwhile), you have got to trust them a lot more than
> someone who pulls sufficient numbers of strings as to be able to get
> themselves on the shortlist for candidature.
> I can't remember which country it is - I think it was a Scandinavian one
> (actually there are probably a number of them) - who simply pays its
> politicains huge amounts because if they don't the likelihood is that they
> will end up in corruption scandals.
> If you place total faith in the ideal of democracy, and not in
> unpublicized, personally held values (I'm thinking again of the more
> decent toffs), you will get disillusioned.
>
> Tom
>
|