New Political Theory

[Renegnicat]

I've been thinking about a government plan in my head. Here it is:

All political authority will be vested in a single individual, who is appointed by a two-thirds majority vote of ten senators to the seat of power. All citizens and diplomats will be given legal entitlement to counsel the lehrer, at least in theory, but the lehrer will decide what reforms/laws to make. Every 8 years, the entire citizenry votes on whether the lehrer stays in power. Absence of a two-thirds majority in favor of the lehrer means he is unseated from office. The senators are appointed by the lehrer for life, and when one dies, he appoints another. In addition to the 8 year review process, any senator can call for a vote of no-confidence in the lehrer, anytime after his fourth year in power, where the lehrer must defend his policies to the public, and after which the constituency votes for his removal or stay. One-thirds of the vote in favor of the lehrer means he stays. This usually is used for major crimes or disastrous public policies. Kind of like an impeachment process.


Pros:

• Change is quick and efficient. Problems, if solved, are solved quickly.
• Problems will tend to get solved rather quickly. If the fuhrer doesn't solve the problem, or, god forbid, make it worse, he is kicked out by the electorate, who the problem affects. And his successor would do well to be a quick learner.
• Because the lehrer will want to keep his job, any slip up and he's done for. Thus there is strong motivation for the president to seek counsel from knowledgeable people.

Cons:

• Some mechanism will need to be in place to prevent the lehrer from declaring the current government system void

I call this form of government, a "Sephocracy" -> Government run by one individual held accountable to the people.
What do you guys think?

Also, as a side note, I have a really interesting economic system as well. If you like my political system, ask, and I'll post my theory of productivism[/i]!

[AlP]

Why call the leader the "fuhrer"? That reminds me of "Führer of the Great German Reich". Why make that implication?

[Renegnicat]

meh. I didn't have anything else to call him. So I figured I'd try for a little self-depreciating humor. Your point is well made, however. And as soon as I figure out a name I'll change it.

[Will]

History would seem to suggest that the best government is one of checks and balances, of systemic mistrust. You split up the power among many varied individuals and branches, forcing them to compromise in order to get that which is necessary done. If one individual or body wants to enact sweeping change, the onus is on them to convince the others.

I'm not even convinced that the office of the president is a good idea. A strong executive may have seemed like a good idea when having to face enemies like the English with muskets, but in the 21st century, with nuclear bombs and the ability to invade and occupy an entire nation in less than 24 hours, it's not a good idea anymore. The US would be much better off with a parliamentary system in the executive. We can always have a figurehead to look cool signing documents and making speeches, but it's too much power to be rested in one seat, imho.

[Renegnicat]

The problem with that is that there is too much status quo.

Believe it or not, sweeping reforms are necessary when problems arise. Look at the american school system. The american tax system. The american lobbying system. The gigantic mess of regulations and outdated laws in the judiciary system.

Can you honestly say that these things are perfectly fine the way they are?
If not, what's been preventing things from changing? Most likely the fact that in order for things to be changed, a whole mass of people have to sign off on it. The president can't actually initiate sweeping reforms, any more than you or I can. We don't actually have  strong executive, you see.

What do we have? We have an executive that is limited in what he can do, and that is held accountable for the excesses and problems of the system. Think about how almost all incumbents get re-elected each year, while the president is always ousted when things go bad, even when he had no power to change things.

In america, everyone goes gaga over the presidential elections, while the local politicians have it exponentially easier, and they are, as a whole, the ones who weild power. But the power is so diffuse, getting them all to decide on a plan of action? Hah!

Do you not agree?  

[AlP]

Haha, I think you might have it right. I'm British and I'm here to exploit the American system until it makes sense to return home. Good luck! Please don't take the rest of the world with you. Thanks.

[Renegnicat]

What do you mean by that, A|P?

I've always thought that the problem with representative democracy is that, while good governance may actually be found, there is a very large resistance to that good governance actually being carried out. In my opinion, good governance is not about dividing power with a system of checks and balances. Even a monarchy can be ruled well under a kind king. good governance is about finding the right solution to problems, and actually implementing them quickly.

A dictatorship implements reforms quickly, almost with every change in the seat of power. But they are almost always the wrong sort of reforms. One man can never know enough to solve all problems, thus he will often bungle. On the other side of the spectrum, a senatorium will have a much greater chance of the information needed to solve the problem surfacing. It's pretty clear in a lot of cases how to solve problems in america, usually with a little bit of debate. But it is almost impossible to get almost any kind of reform done, other than a topical patch to the problem.

In a senatorium, everyone is looking out for their interests. But the senators are usually the elite, and the elite rarely have motivation to enact sweeping reforms. Government by the people, then, is government by status quo.

My government system attempts to bring the good sides from both. A powerful executive can initiate reforms to solve problems quickly, and if his reforms don't work, either he changes them, or he is ousted from office. Eh? EH??  

[Will]

The problem with that is that there is too much status quo.

Believe it or not, sweeping reforms are necessary when problems arise. Look at the american school system. The american tax system. The american lobbying system. The gigantic mess of regulations and outdated laws in the judiciary system.

Can you honestly say that these things are perfectly fine the way they are?
If not, what's been preventing things from changing? Most likely the fact that in order for things to be changed, a whole mass of people have to sign off on it. The president can't actually initiate sweeping reforms, any more than you or I can. We don't actually have  strong executive, you see.

What do we have? We have an executive that is limited in what he can do, and that is held accountable for the excesses and problems of the system. Think about how almost all incumbents get re-elected each year, while the president is always ousted when things go bad, even when he had no power to change things.

In america, everyone goes gaga over the presidential elections, while the local politicians have it exponentially easier, and they are, as a whole, the ones who weild power. But the power is so diffuse, getting them all to decide on a plan of action? Hah!

Do you not agree?  

I do agree, but the foundation of our governmental ideologies is that too much responsibility in one place means too much can go wrong if one wrong person takes power.

What's supposed to motivate us to change is dire circumstances, circumstances that force political adversaries to align for the common good. It's all about checks and balances. If some parties feel there's no problem, it's up to those that see the problem to convince the rest.

[Renegnicat]

Power concentrated in the hands of one individual is unlikely to go wrong if the lehrer is motivated to provide for the common good. And fear of losing office is a very powerful motivator.

In theory, checks and balances are traditionally held to be the best way to make sure that the common good is provided for. But I would like to propose that that traditional view must be revised. It makes much more sense to say that the common good is provided for through accountability, regardless of how spread out the powers of the state are. This is because checks and balances are now showing themselves not to truly provide for the common good, but rather allow different parts of the government to prevent other parts from changing things they don't like.

I repeat: history is now showing that checks and balances, in actuality, provide different branches of government from impeding reform in other branches of government. In a perfectly checked and balanced system, there would be no way for reforms to even take place.

Of course, america does have accountability. Politicians that the voters don't like get kicked out of office. But the problem with the american system is that electorates are very good at judging how well a politician is treating the common good, but not so good at picking alternative candidates in a campaign race.

Look at how our election system has turned into a giant population contest.

Oh, shoot. I got to go. I'll follow this up later.  

[Will]

Power concentrated in the hands of one individual is unlikely to go wrong if the lehrer is motivated to provide for the common good. And fear of losing office is a very powerful motivator.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were reelected after 9/11, two wars, and domestic spying. Such a lehrer would be devastating with so much power.

Do you think Bush and Cheney were really all that concerned about the 2004 election? I don't think they were.

[Renegnicat]

Hmm... hopefully there won't be a lehrer like that!