Does this “kind” of decentralized government even have a name?

0
The Politicus
May 21, 2022 09:26 PM 0 Answers
Member Since Sep 2018
Subscribed Subscribe Not subscribe
Flag(0)

Related to the problem of political ignorance, I was thinking about a goverment system as described below, and I want to know if this or something similar even has a name ("decentralized goverment" doesn't fit because it usually means territorial decentralization):

  1. There's not a centralized goverment that rules ALL political areas. Each ministry/department, like education, transport or immigrancy is voted independently has their own elections with their own set of political parties and candidates. That invites the creation of parties specialized only on specific ministries (I'll use the word ministry from now, but I mean any kind of division of power by specialized areas of responsability "by topic").

  2. Of course, traditional politics would still need a niche here because there are always areas that are kind of transverse to the state as a whole (I'm thinking about state budget right now).

  3. The state must be flexible at defining how many ministries there are, because people change and so do their needs, so ministries shall not be absolutely fixed in number and responsibilities.

How does it solve political ignorance? (and other consequences; optional reading)

  • It would cause an increased amount of options for voters, and they will have to take one decision (who do I vote?) per ministry. Ignorant voters probably won't spend energy on even trying to take so many decisions if they have no idea. So they won't vote for every ministry, only for those they care about. The core of the idea is forcing the voters to spend "more mental energy" to vote, as proof that they care about specific topics. If they care about specific topics, the voters of that ministry are less ignorant than before, thus reducing the "power of the ignorant" in the areas they are ignorant about, because they won't participate there.

  • I'm using the equivalence of "caring about" = "knowing more". While that's not neccesarily true, I think it usually is.

  • The power of the government is decentralized on ministries because each piece of goverment (each ministry) is now independently controlled by a tinier mass of voters but with a higher understanding than before, and a set of potentially independent parties that try to fit themselves to those voters. Conversely, the power of each citizen is now split in as many ministries as there are, where the number of unused pieces of power will be proportional to their degree of disinterest/ignorance (number of ministries for which they didn't vote). That would cause the power of domestic and foreign propaganda, that usually targets the most ignorants ones, to be greatly disminished, hopefully discouraging propagandists to even try, unless propagandists convince enough ignorant victims to participate in all affairs, which I believe is too much to ask.

  • It's important to recall that voters still have 100% freedom to participate, so citizens are not discriminated against by their education (as other "proposals" to solve the political ignorance problem do). It is the system which "forces" the citizen to be more specific in his/her opinions. The human nature of "not actually giving a f**k" will do the rest. By parallelism with bitcoin, votes now become in some sense "proof of work" that allows them to participate in the system by overwhelming them with options and testing their resolve. If he passes the test by voting, it means that he cares.

  • It also helps those who feel that no existing party fits them. Consider, as an extreme case, a transgender person who believes in aggresive capitalism. That person will tend to agree with a left-wing party when considering social problems, and with a right-wing party when considering economic issues. Which party should that person vote for in our traditional democratic systems? With "my approach", that person now has a chance to use his/her power as a voter in a more satisfying way.

  • I think it will also reduce hatred between political parties, because in the usual bipartisanism a lot of people interact with parties as though they were futbol teams, encouraging competition too much and making political collaboration difficult. Thanks to this decentralization of power, politics wouldn't be based so much on two giants trying to destroy each other at all costs or using problems as arenas to fight the adversary.

  • It will also help tracking the main concerns of citizens by inspecting the participation rate per ministry. If the participation rate of the "ministry of immigration" increases year by year, it's obvious that people are becoming increasingly worried about immigration. Scratch votes are also more meaningful now than before because those who are concerned about an issue but are not sure about who to vote for, their "vote of concern" will be registered. Of course that won't help to know exactly what is the voter is worried about, but at least scratch votes give more information than before.

0 Subscribers
Submit Answer
Please login to submit answer.
0 Answers
Sort By: