posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 02:49 PM
A strange and simple idea.
Most countries live in a "democracy" with a two-party system. You have a choice of party A or party B, and in order to present you with a
"choice" they have to take opposite stances on specific political issues.
But most people fall somewhere in the middle, opting for choices on different sides of different issues from those espoused by the parties. Strange,
isn't it? And not terribly logical.
Or, indeed, democratic: in the UK there are plenty of occasions when reluctant MPs are subject to a "three-line whip" which is rather duller than it
sounds. It can mean a certain amount of none-too-subtle blackmail or perhaps the dangling of advancement before a particular voter. At any rate, the
party often coerces its members to vote "along party lines". There is also (in the UK at least), by contrast, a "free vote" where party lines are
specifically suspended, but these do not come along very often.
So... without parties, how will people know what to vote for? It will mean rather a lot more contact between the candidates and the people, because
no-one will have a presumed agenda. The candidates will have to actually explain where they stand on specific issues, and be responsive to
So, everyone's in the government.
In terms of organisation I'd suggest another elected person to act as Moderator: I'd suggest a new Assembly every six years and the election of a
Moderator at the half-way point so it's staggered.
The Moderator's function is basically to act as a co-ordinator, perhaps with some small staff he or she would take suggestions and slate them for
debate. The role would also encompass that of the Speaker in the current system, and it might even suit to confer responsibility for ethical
standards of the MPs.
Another advantage of this radical decentralisation is that it makes it a lot more difficult for, say, a lobbyist, to influence matters. It's not
like you'd be able to get to a few key people on a given issue (of course there might be subcommittees where this is the case, but that's
unavoidable). It just means that the suborners can't just get their feet under one table to get what they want.
In terms of Ministers for specific areas, these would, I'd suggest, be set for election within the Assembly itself, and subject to review every year
and emergency recall at any time if someone seems truly out of their depth.
This process needn't be time-consuming: you just set things up so all the internal stuff happens within the parliamentary recess. So the MPs don't
get quite such a long holiday (plays imaginary violin).
Just a thought, anyway. I'll be interested to see the reactions.
[edit on 31-8-2009 by rich23]