Is it time to consider professional administrators to run our countries?

When we require surgery, we all expect the medical team to be trained, members of professional bodies, and have on-going professional training to keep their skills up to date. The list of people we expect to be properly training as they make life changing decisions is extensive, but I see one group that make life changing decisions that have no prior training.

Those we elect to run our countries.

The first we see of these people is when the media start to profile them or we see some election leaflets, highlighting why we should vote for them and how they will make our lives better. But one thing I never hear or see are their qualifications or practical experience in running a country. I have seen and heard what great business people they are, the businesses they have run, and in some cases the cities or regions they have administered, but all of these are little qualification for running a country and having to make decisions that decide that implicitly impact our lives and to send people to their deaths.

Of course, I accept that have professional administrators could be seen by many as a big step toward a single global Government, or the New World Order, but is now the time to consider starting to train people to run our countries?

Umm you mean like a scientific dictatorial oligarchy?
Isn't that the plan of The New World Order?

People with real world common sense? Or Professionals with no real world common sense? There is a huge difference. I am more in favor of tiny government and community decisions based on THEIR needs. Blue collar retiree's sounds ok.

When you think about it, we put a large part of our lives, businesses, and futures in the decision-making hands of 535 people and 1 president!! A whole lot of those people, including The One, are not really qualified in many areas of vital importance. Most, however, can baffle the majority with their bullsh*t and that passes for knowledge. When I listen to people like Nancy Pelosi say things like, "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it", I cringe at the sheer ineptness!

Since the OP is in England I think he should give his idea a try in his country and we can all sit back and see how it turns out first.

reply to post by Carreau


I would be happy to give this a try but where do we get the administrators right now? This is something that is years into the future as we start to train people to run countries, and who decides what the training course should be and who should be trained.

As a start we could look to the career civil servants around the world in the interim while the training program is defined and implemented.

reply to post by Freedom ERP


Career civil servants, excellent idea! The same people running the DMV should run the country, why didn't I think of that?

The problem is ..........the pay sucks, unless your on the fiddle
If you're that good at running something you're not going to work for, what? £100,000 on average ???
No
You'll go run a company or a bank for $$$

That's why politicians become politicians, because they're not good enough to run a company !
They have the upbringing and the background, but lack ability.
So they use their connections or visa versa to be put into places of influence in the government

But I like the sound of that retired blue collar idea ......I'd have to say retired military aswell though
And those from among those groups that get that calling as you said
Still based on the principle of public elections from a number of candidates

Could work

reply to post by Neocrusader


That's a good point. An idea would not to be paid for being an administrator. The state would pay all your expenses and when you retire, ensure you can live.

I guess I am making this a calling rather than a career.

Well if we did have such people, at least their titles would make them easy to identify.

Because if they're good at government, they're probably the kind of people I want to stay as far away from as I possibly can.

reply to post by Freedom ERP


Time for professional administrators to run countries?

Hell no, it's time for the opposite!

We are forever hearing that you have to pay top dollar to get the best. Well what good did that do us. Well the professional bankers screwed us, the professional corporations screwed us, the professional politicians screwed us. They all screw us, they are ALL corrupt.

It has been shown time and time again that 'the best' screw us and only do the bidding of the elites. There's a school at the end of my road and I'd be willing to bet everyone of those kids could run a country better than any appointed non elected bureaucrat. And anyway isn't The Civil Service trained professionals? It's only the MPs that change.

Take a look at Greece what you are proposing is happening there NOW in real time.

Surely this should be in the joke forum. This is a face palm thread, where's Picard?

It's time for joe public to run the country not professionals

reply to post by Freedom ERP

What we really need is a group taken from the REAL people who understand real concerns,who put the people first and who consult all before making any potential life changing decisions.As our present puppet Cameron is fond of pointing out,we are all in this together,we need to truly be part of the decision making and policy setting in our respective countries.

reply to post by merkins


And just how is joe public going to run the country? Local committee? Which I accept is a great way to run public affairs at a local level, but as size of the administrative unit grows, local committee does not react fast enough for global affairs, and how does a country administrator listen to thousands of local committees?

I fear you read my post but not comprehended my meaning. Read my post again and see if the current Greek leader fits my profile!

reply to post by nake13


I see much that is commendable in your idea and would like to ask the following:

Who decided this group of concerned citizens?

I would see this group of citizens has being advisors to the administrator, but we need to start train today. No one in power today or who wants to be in power in the next 20 years is suitable for the job. Despite what they say, today, all those who have or seek leadership offices are in it for their own benefit first, then those who got them the job, and maybe, if we are very luckly, the rest of us.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by nake13

 

I see much that is commendable in your idea and would like to ask the following:

Who decided this group of concerned citizens?

I would see this group of citizens has being advisors to the administrator, but we need to start train today. No one in power today or who wants to be in power in the next 20 years is suitable for the job. Despite what they say, today, all those who have or seek leadership offices are in it for their own benefit first, then those who got them the job, and maybe, if we are very luckly, the rest of us.

That is a very good point,there are so many criteria that would need to be fulfilled before "giving" power to any such group,they would need to be in it to serve everybody and not just themselves(this would be the most difficult aspect I would suggest),we would need to look at people who already give their time to the betterment of others, and choose from that pool.To ensure that no one in a position to implement policy could do so unilaterally,there would need to be consultation and referenda by ALL the people,we can not afford to give those in power a blanket mandate to implement policy whenever they see fit.

Originally posted by nake13

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by nake13

 

I see much that is commendable in your idea and would like to ask the following:

Who decided this group of concerned citizens?

I would see this group of citizens has being advisors to the administrator, but we need to start train today. No one in power today or who wants to be in power in the next 20 years is suitable for the job. Despite what they say, today, all those who have or seek leadership offices are in it for their own benefit first, then those who got them the job, and maybe, if we are very luckly, the rest of us.

That is a very good point,there are so many criteria that would need to be fulfilled before "giving" power to any such group,they would need to be in it to serve everybody and not just themselves(this would be the most difficult aspect I would suggest),we would need to look at people who already give their time to the betterment of others, and choose from that pool.To ensure that no one in a position to implement policy could do so unilaterally,there would need to be consultation and referenda by ALL the people,we can not afford to give those in power a blanket mandate to implement policy whenever they see fit.

If we think of our countries today, who can you think of that serve everybody and not just themselves? I can not think of anyone!

I like the idea of total consultation with the people but how do we achieve this in a timely manner? Referendum? We would need to find a quick and simple way to get the mood/feelings of the people. And how do we get all the people to be part? Some compulsion?

Personally I am happy and capable running my own life

reply to post by Freedom ERP


What you're referring to is a sort of technocratic bureaucracy. The idea being that the most technically and intellectually experienced should oversea the governing of the various laws, departments, and legislation. The problem with this thinking is that it completely ignores the history of how we arrived at democratic/republican flavors of government in the first place. Which is this: people who serve life-long terms in powerful political, legislative anbd judicial positions tend to abuse those powers and utilize them to maintain their power and influence (not matter how corrupt it might be). Mainly the checks and balances of our current system are meant to prevent the worst aspects of human flaws in relation to power. Until the corrupting act of power on individuals can be checked in a way as effective as these checks and balances built into our current system--creating a technocratic government would be a terrible idea. Now, if another system of government (technocratic or otherwise), that can balance the worst aspects of men (and women) in power, can be made--then sure, why not. But technocracy without some form of input by the public-at-large will never work. History has thousands of examples of proof.

-Ghoster

reply to post by theghoster


We have to find or train people who can run our countries for the good of the country rather than for their own good or benefit, and I accept right now I am hard pressed to think of anyone in the UK who would or could run the country for the benefit of all. Hence, the idea of starting to train our administrators. After all we train doctors, surgeons and the like.

I do not ignore the history of how we arrived at the current forms of government, we arrived at the current form from a history that goes back thousands of years, and have been evolved, I see what I am suggesting as another path for evolution.

Nake13 and I have been discussing in this thread more detail of how we marry this form of administration with greater input from the people it serves. Your ideas would be most welcome.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP

Originally posted by nake13

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by nake13

 

I see much that is commendable in your idea and would like to ask the following:

Who decided this group of concerned citizens?

I would see this group of citizens has being advisors to the administrator, but we need to start train today. No one in power today or who wants to be in power in the next 20 years is suitable for the job. Despite what they say, today, all those who have or seek leadership offices are in it for their own benefit first, then those who got them the job, and maybe, if we are very luckly, the rest of us.

That is a very good point,there are so many criteria that would need to be fulfilled before "giving" power to any such group,they would need to be in it to serve everybody and not just themselves(this would be the most difficult aspect I would suggest),we would need to look at people who already give their time to the betterment of others, and choose from that pool.To ensure that no one in a position to implement policy could do so unilaterally,there would need to be consultation and referenda by ALL the people,we can not afford to give those in power a blanket mandate to implement policy whenever they see fit.

If we think of our countries today, who can you think of that serve everybody and not just themselves? I can not think of anyone!

I like the idea of total consultation with the people but how do we achieve this in a timely manner? Referendum? We would need to find a quick and simple way to get the mood/feelings of the people. And how do we get all the people to be part? Some compulsion?

Regarding those people who serve others I was thinking of those members of society who give their time in volunteering with the less fortunate amongst us,those who help the homeless,help with animal welfare,childrens welfare etc,in other words,those who demonstrate completely altruistic motives in their daily lives.

For the consultation process,I had in mind a mass media campign,bypassing current governmental mechanisms,where the idea is first pitched as a proposal,if there were an overwhelming response in favour,then representatives from each community or group would need to be chosen,these representatives would then be charged with creating a new "constitution"before this constitution could be approved,it would be presented to all where the individual aspects of the constitution would require the approval of all the people(by all I literally do mean all,as it would be undesirable to create sub groups of people who would feel allienated by any of the proposals).