Introduction

The human race has made impressive progress in a rather brief period of time. Compared to the age of the Earth, or of the Universe for that matter, man's history is a blink of an eye. Still, this blink of an eye has seen progress from the wheel to the International Space Station, and from smoke signals to wireless communications and the internet. Man has achieved stunning accomplishments in all fields of knowledge: from mathematics to healthcare, and from biology to semiconductors.

Most of this progress has been achieved in the most recent centuries; man's most impressive accomplishments took place in the past decades - an even shorter period of time. Time seems to have compressed as the pace of research, discovery and progress accelerates.

Is there a reason for all this progress?, one might ask. Is permanent wonder encoded in man's DNA? Possibly. More practical reasons exist as well. Scientific and technologic progress all serve the important purpose of fulfilling human needs. Be it advanced drugs or improved water systems that take care of physiological needs (remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs?), advanced social systems and organizations that take care of security needs, or improved communication that fulfills community needs, all of man's discoveries contribute to his well-being. Even abstract research and discoveries fulfill needs - the ones located at the top of maslow's hierarchy.

Although inequalities remain, man's living standards have improved a great deal in modern times. Still there is a lot more to learn; a lot of progress still remains to be made. And out of all fields of science, political science is one of the areas where progress remains slow. This is indeed surprising, since politics have a tremendous impact on people's lives. Most people are dissatisfied to some extent with the outcome of the current political processes. Unfortunately, most people only question outcomes, and not the nature of these political systems and processes.

Most people would never think the political system in use today should be changed. After all, it has worked "pretty well" so far. Indeed, compared to other systems, older or newer, democracy works well. Recent history provides plenty examples of failed political experiments, from nazism and fascism to communism and the cultural revolution; compared to these, democracy has obvious advantages.

In theory, democracy works very well. Society delegates power to its most capable individuals, who use this power to benefit society. In such a system, every individual has his say, by voting; politicians are held accountable and risk losing their status and/or job after a new round of elections, if they do not keep the promises made to voters. Sounds good.

As usual, theory is only good for textbooks. In reality, most voters are dissatisfied with the outcome of this process. An individual vote is meaningless in the grand scheme of things; most people perceive this problem, and a large percentage of the population doesn't even bother to vote anymore. Furthermore, the work of most politicians and members of the administration is far from satisfactory. Political systems, organizations and processes have lost their dynamism; instead, all of these have solidified into a mostly inert political process, from which few expect any improvements.

In most countries with traditional "democratic" structures, a very small number of parties take turns at taking control. New ideas or concepts are hard to promote and implement. Official and unofficial pressure and lobby groups distort the values of democracy. In the end, most people benefit, but this benefit amounts to less than it should be.

Of course everyone benefits in the end. I'm not saying that democracy is necessarily a bad system. It works well. But the telegraph worked well when it was invented, and no one saw any need to get rid of it. And then, after the telegraph came the telephone. The fax machine. Satellite communication, broadband and wireless. Undeniably all this progress has been beneficial. Undeniably, there is still a lot of room for progress in the field of communications.

So this brings us to democracy. It benefits people and has a positive contribution to society, just as the telegraph had. And just like the telegraph, it needs to be changed.

Options available to us

Democracy has emerged as a solution to a problem with multiple variables: finding an efficient strategy to advance society as a whole and benefit each individual human being, while preserving fundamental values such as liberty, equality and social justice. This is no easy task: advancing society on a consistent basis is hard enough; add to this the need for preserving liberty, equality and justice, and the problem becomes unsolvable.

And an unsolvable problem it is. We will probably never find a way to satisfy all individual needs of every member of society. In a world of limited resources, man's forever growing needs cannot be met adequately. So, the issue at hand is to find the most efficient way to allocate available resources, so that all members of society can benefit, and society as a whole advances. Naturally, the primary role of politics is the setting of guidelines and rules under which resources are allocated, and not the actual allocation itself. Under these circumstances, the question is: does the democratic political system in use today lead to the most efficient results?

People spend a lot of time complaining about the current state of political affairs. But complaining without offering an alternative option is useless and, well, annoying. And that is precisely the reason why some alternatives to the political system in use today are going to be discussed.

What democracy tries to achieve is efficient management of society's affairs, while attempting to give each individual a say in this process, with no discriminations. Everyone has the right to vote and everyone takes part in the management process, in an indirect way. Me, you, each one of us - we all decide our own fate, and together we decide the fate of our society. Hallelujah!

Really, let's see what options are available for improving the democratic system. For it is a good system, but it can be improved. As mentioned earlier, with democracy we aim for efficient management of society and equality among individuals. Neither of these two goals is achieved today though. The management process is usually inefficient for an important proportion of society. And you don't really believe you're in any way equal to a higher member of the administration.

Option 1
Intelligence and Efficiency

We're going to present two alternatives for improving the political system. So, first, let us focus on improving efficiency. Ideally, what we would like to have is an administration and a legislature composed of the most intelligent and capable people, so that we can delegate in confidence the task of leading the country.

In practice you will probably never find these people. Or they might not want to do the job. Still, in either case society can do a much better job than it does today.

Now consider this: if you want to be a doctor, you will spend many years studying. You will spend many more years as an intern, or whatever the correct term is. You will have to pass several not very fun exams and your performance on the job will be under constant scrutiny. Not everyone can and should be a doctor. People do not get to elect doctors and send them to the operating room; doctors are selected and trained.

There's a similar process for lawyers. And for countless other professions. Even a sales associate in a department store has to show some type of skill to get the job. So, why is it then, that we use a different procedure to staff the most important function of society - its management?

Make no mistake, a country's administration influences its citizens in countless ways, in ways that you might not even perceive anymore. The people you have "elected" decide what percentage of your income is taken away from you; how "public" money is spent; how you can make your income in the first place; to what extent industrial development can poison you through pollution; what food you can eat; what you can drink and where; how you can travel and under what circumstances - thousands of decisions that are made for you, by the people you "elect". "Your vote counts", right?

So now then. Since we agree that there has to be someone to manage the affairs of society, why not make this management process more efficient? How do we do that? Easy, find better people. How? by screening them.

OK, I'm not proposing that these geniuses should be put in power. We would still have elections, political parties and all of that; no one wants dictatorships, and that includes me. After all, we're trying to find ways of improving the democratic system, not replacements for it.

Modern research has shown a fact that was obvious for a long time: people are not created equal: some can run faster than others; some can talk better than others; some can think faster and come up with better solutions to problems. Genes, environment and preparation all play an important part in this.

Furthermore, people do not develop in a similar manner: some work harder to improve themselves; some study for most of their lives, so they know more, and come up with, well, better solutions to problems. For better or for worse, we can now measure the IQ level of an individual and relate it to his performance in various cognitive tasks. Potential members of parliament, presidents and top-ranking members of the administration should have their IQ tested by independent reviewers. These groups of people should also take strict professional exams.

First, people who get low scores on exams (and, potentially, people with an IQ level below a certain level) should not be allowed into office in the first place. Is this discrimination? Hell yes, but I for one would like to know that I get smart and capable people to represent me.

Second, the results of these exams together with IQ scores should be made available to voters, to enable them to make informed decisions.

Now this solves just part of the problem - leaders. Potentially, we could take a look at the other part - voters. What percentage of voters make rational decisions when they cast their vote? What percentage of voters base their vote on tradition? or on flashy tv commercials? on isolated incidents or speeches? So here's another idea: have every voter take an IQ test at the time of registration. It won't take more than 30 minutes. Correlate voting power to IQ levels: give each individual one, two or three votes based on his IQ. Naturally, you cannot force people to take IQ tests; voters who refuse get one vote by default.

Too radical, you say. Discrimination, I hear you scream. Maybe. It will lead to dictatorship, you think - unlikely.

What matters most, in the end? The means or the result?

Option 2
Technology and Equality

Ok, so maybe that was too radical. And now, that we have the radical stuff out of the way, let's find ways to improve public policy efficiency, while also maintaining the equality of voters principle.

Now think about this: how would you like to live in a world where you decide who sells your groceries only once every four years? once your decision is made, you're going to buy groceries from the exact same store for four years. And that goes for every economic decision you make: you cannot get another car for four years; you cannot change your barber for four years; you can change your bank, the mall where you buy clothes or your furniture supplier only once every four years.

Now also imagine this: your grocery store, your bank, your car manufacturer and your furniture supplier all belong to the same company. You can change this company only once every four years. When you do that, you get a different grocery store and furniture supplier, but they still belong to the same company (albeit different from the first one). So, for periods of four years, the general policy of all stores you visit in the same.

Sounds like fun, huh? Well, that's what happens in politics right now. You cast your vote once every four years or so, and hope for the best. You can't change your mind and elect a different party. One vote and you get the whole package: vote for a party because you agree with its economic policy and you also get its foreign policy, which sucks; and its tax code which doesn't look that good. On the other hand, this other party proposes a decent tax code, but the rest of their economic policy is terrible. So you have to compromise.

The standards of living that you're enjoying right now are a lot higher than the ones enjoyed by a person who lived 300 years ago. This progress is almost exclusively a result of private-sector initiatives; if anything, the state has been doing a great job of over-regulating and basically slowing down progress.

Think a bit about the way our economic system works: for any given product or service that you need, in general there is a high number of suppliers to choose from. Producers with best products, lowest prices, or both, succeed on the market. Companies generally work hard for their buck: research and development, customer service, information technology, sales force - there's a lot of stuff going on, since consumers make their decisions in real-time, and not once every four years.

Now consider the way the political system works: there are no real-time decisions for the average individual. the number of choices is limited. basically, you don't really decide anything; you just sort of decide which people will decide for you. you decide which parties, politicians and "experts" will tell you how you can live your life in this "civilized" and "democratic" society of ours. The system relies mostly on human ignorance; for if enough people would take the time to think about this problem, solutions might arise.

the political ideal of our age is the right of each person to "self-determination": every individual is free to live his life in any way he pleases, if in this process they do not disturb the liberties of others. With the way the state is organized right now, this ideal is just that: an ideal.

the more power you give to a person or organization, the more possibilities of abuse, purposely or involuntarily. and there's much more to abuse than just misappropriation of government funds or taking bribes; high tax rates are an abuse. a poor healthcare system is an abuse; inefficient economic and social policies are all abuses.

so now then. all of this can be changed with available technology and a major shift in the way the political system works. what i propose is replacing the entire parliamentary system with a complex system of individual decisions. in other words, all laws will be proposed, analyzed and voted by the population directly. thus, the legal system would be shaped and adopted by its users. now that's power to the people.

using the internet any individual would have the possibility to cast his vote for or against any proposed bill, regulation, economic policy, budget, and so on. this system of voting will be used for all laws and regulations needed to run society, and the process will take place in real-time. bills will be proposed by any number of political parties, non-government organizations or individuals.

the parliament would disappear. the function of political parties, as we now know them, would be reduced to proposing laws to the voters (competing at that with NGO's and individuals). governments and administrations would have no say whatsoever in shaping any kind of policy, their role being an executive one. individuals would analyze policies proposed by political parties, NGO's or other individuals, and vote freely and directly, based on their own experience, anticipations and analysis.

with this scenario, the political system would attempt to replicate the success of the economic system, letting the needs of the many shape the legislative system and the mechanisms for managing society. if we honestly believe that power should belong to the people, then let people exercise it, not delegate it.

By operating in real time, the system would potentially pose a number of problems to its users - the number and complexity of policies, laws and regulations in all fields of human activity will be huge. This will lead to some interesting screening processes. First, an important proportion of the population would not have the time and/or willingness to take part in a real-time political process. Thus, people who vote blindly once every four years, just because that's their "civic duty", will be left out of the decision process by their own decision. Only individuals with a genuine interest in the way society should be managed will decide the terms of this management process.

Second, no individual will be able to keep track of and vote for all bills and regulations. thus, most people will probably specialize and only take an interest in fields that directly impact their lives in some way or another.

individuals, companies and organizations connected to the fertilizer industry, for example, will be able to submit their own proposals for ways of regulating the industry; individuals who vote on and adopt these regulations are the ones connected to the industry: owners, managers and employees of fertilizer companies, users of fertilizers and so on. thus, this segment of the population would be free to regulate the field of most interest to them in the best way they see fit. As the process develops, some people and organizations would come to the conclusion that the fertilizer industry might create health problems through pollution or contamination; these individuals would be free to take a direct role in the regulatory process by proposing alternatives and negotiating with the fertilizer users and producers. the system regulates itself.

if a large enough percentage of the population is concerned about fertilizer health threats, the will of the majority will prevail, and though anti-pollution rules would be included in regulations for the fertilizer industry. if, on the other hand, people don't really care about fertilizer-induced pollution, then owners, managers and employees of such companies will be free to regulate this industry as they see fit.no entity would vote with the elusive "higher good" in mind - a goal that an administration always aims for, but never reaches; instead, people would always vote with their direct interests in mind. let the people who care about something vote directly. what makes an MP better than you or me at this job?

the fertilizer industry is a niche example. more important laws such as driving or securities codes would attract higher interest and many more voters. and if the majority of voters considers that the speed limit on the highway should be 100 mph, then so be it - that is the will of the majority. isn't that what democracy is all about? in time, people might realize there are a lot more accidents with this higher limit, and lower it. the system would eventually stabilize itself.

implementation of such a system would witness the emergence of various types of service providers - companies set up to centralize, organize and disseminate information about new legislation to voters. ideally, you would subscribe to such an information service, find out about proposed legislation regulating insurance, for example, and then vote one way or another. voter manipulations by such entities, by political parties or by any other organizations or individuals would be severely punished, just as price manipulation on the stock market is punished today.

a longer term threat to the system is the emergence of a small number of political structures that would monopolize new legislation proposals; in other words, a limited number of former parties or politicians might get undeserved attention from a large percentage of the population, based on tradition and past accomplishments. hopefully, people who tend to vote form and not content would gradually lose interest in the system. if anti-manipulation regulations are firmly enforced, then political manipulation as is practiced today on a mass scale will disappear.

a prerequisite for implementing this system is widespread use of the internet. in most highly developed countries, the internet is already as natural as running water and electric lighting for a significant percentage of the population; in a couple of decades, this statement will be true for the vast majority of people living in these societies. for people who would still lack their own internet connections, government offices would be set up offering free connections to the system.

the technology is already here. what we don't have yet is the necessary state of mind. for a long period of time, society has been used to someone telling it what to do and how to do it. getting rid of parliaments and most functions of political parties and administrations probably sounds outrageous to many people. many people probably feel comfortable with delegating power and with the current parliamentary system; there's nothing wrong with that. the problem is that today people base their decisions (votes) on tradition, image, feelings and the quality of the show that politicians stage. why not delegate power to anyyone who wants to take part in the political process instead?

no one would be more displeased with such a political system than politicians themselves. a system such as the one proposed above would basically leave most of these people without the power, influence and opportunities they now enjoy. they would not find themselves without a job, since people would still be needed to staff the administration; but their roles would be significantly diminished. thus, no politician in his right mind would agree to and promote a system like this.

since the political system is in many ways different than the economic system, change will be painfully slow. rapid change is driven only by revolutions, but such events are basically out of the question in today's most developed societies, where people live with the illusion of liberty and wealth, and see no reason to change anything. furthermore, revolutions are usually driven by groups that are more interested in power shifts than in the wellbeing of masses; thus, a revolution that intends to distribute power instead of concentrating it in new hands sounds unlikely.

in any case, the ways in which our current political system will be improved are still a matter of debate. today, major improvements seem highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. nevertheless, one must never lose hope. new concepts should be analyzed and discussed, with the hope that maybe someday democracy will mean much more than it means today. (wfoster42, jul 2003)