lpc1998's Home

Original Posting: New Political System for the Information Age Draft #05

In response to: How is the Committee of Lay People appointed? - [lpc1998]
Thursday, 08 July 2004 13:45 Singapore

Re: How is the Committee of Lay People appointed?
Email: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 22:34:21 -0700

[Bernard Clayson]:

“Yes, don't forget their function is not to decide anything, it is to present the publics comments in a formulated way for the people to decide.”

[lpc1998]:

“How is the Committee of Lay People appointed?”
 
It could be by volunteers, rota, or sortition.
----

[lpc1998]:

“Precisely, who appoint them and under what authority? How many of these committees could be appointed at the same time for the same or different issue?

The public 'appoint' them, what higher authority is needed.
In reality, one committee for each level should be adiquate, if more were needed additional people could be found.
I would not anticipate more than one issue being dealt with at any one time due to pushing public involvement too far, the duration of the committees work would not be too long (3-4 evenings at the most) depending on the number of comments/questions received. 
---- 
 

[lpc1998]:

“Moreover, from the 5 terms of reference you have stated earlier on (see above), the average lay person would have difficulties to discharge their duties and like the some of jury, it would frequently end up with the 'interested professional' making his 'recommendations' and have them rubber-stamped by the rest of the committee.

The committees would not make decisions, their function is to formulate public responces and quiries for the public to make the decision.
The function of the 'professional' people is to answer/advise on public inititiated questions, again, they can't decide anything.

Examples -

1. How much will it cost?
2. What will it cost the ratepayer?

The professionals would know who/where to find comparable costings.

<snip> 


[Bernard Clayson]:

“They can only vote on the power of the constituencies opinion (unless they have delegated powers) even then those decisions are logged for the public to judge by, on top of that, every representative (right up to the Prime Minister) can be repremanded/withdrawn by the community that proposed him/her. Move locality and they have to start again (reminder of their origins).
Every individual in the system has a deputy i.e. continuous government.”

[lpc1998]:

“Isn’t this precisely the problem? To remain in office or to be re-elected, the Prime Minister must serve his constituents ‘well’ with special benefits and privileges at the expense of the rest of the citizens. This is one crucial reason why Prime Ministers are often elected with large electoral majority.

A Prime Minister’s constituent is in the position to tell the civil servant handling his case that he wants satisfaction from the civil servant failing which he would see the Prime Minister on Monday (or whatever day it is) morning/evening at the meet-the–people-session. This would be scandalous in the NPS.”

[Bernard Clayson]:

“You are overlooking the hierarchy the PM has to climb through to get to that position, he/she has to be elected by his/her peers of that level in order to achieve the next level, and as it would be impossible to serve on all levels (from community, parish, district, county, region, government AND be PM), the obligation to serve on more than three is automatically removed ........... but the qualifying status remains.
Hence any attempt to favour ANY sector would automatically find disfavour with the other sectors, and the PM (and MP's) can only act on their constituents vote.”

[lpc1998]:

“Are “his/her peers” fellow MPs or party members whose endorsement for election or political career depends on or benefits from the political party controlled by the PM and his political success? ”

[Bernard Clayson]:

“The 'peers' are the people at the same level, only they know the individuals well enough to decide who is capable of representing them at the higher level, and please note, there are no 'parties' as such in the system.


Each individual is a community chosen person, not a party chosen person, each one has to answer to, and is held reponsible to, the community that chose them.”

[lpc1998]:

“Excellent! We have a very substantial agreement here. Your NPS also envisages a ‘no party’ system.

However, I still remain unconvinced on one important point. The PM would, in some ways, have to favour or give preferential treatment to the community that ‘choses’ or elect him for the office over the rest of the citizens, if he wants to remain in office or to be re-elected as contrasted to a nationally, directly elected President who would not have such a problem.”

The PM is 'chosen' all the way up the hierachy, if the PM did try to benefit his community in any way he would dis-enfranchise the support of other members all the way up the ladder, I think that would guarantee more troulble than the effort would gain in the process. If you look at 'directly elected President's, who actually knows them before they are elected.
The current saga with the USA Presdential election is a good example, leaving out the party politics for a moment, who actually can make an unbiased recommendation of Kerry.
Both he and Bush went to the same university, both members of the same, or similar clubs, both invited to attend the Bilderburger meetings at some point, as has Edwards (Kerry's running mate).
Currently, they are elected as the candidate to stand for President by the party they belong to, as being the best person to represent them.
My suggestion is the community choses the best person, the 'community' is extended each time they are elevated up the hirearchy until the 'community' is the country in the case of the PM.
So who is he/she going to 'bribe' to keep the position of PM. 

[Bernard Clayson]:

“This is one of the reasons I promote public-run systems, official-run systems all favour party promotion because party-people can-be/are manipulated, individuals are bucking a stacked-deck when it comes to competing for office at any level.”

[lpc1998]:

“Yes, I agree fully with you here. This is the inherent evil of the party-based politcal systems.

In a ‘no party’ political system, there is no party for promotion by the official. On the other hand, if the system is in fact run by a political party, then the system is not a genuinely ‘no party’ system..”

One also has to be aware of the party deviations, Proportional Representation is a good example, it is nothing more than a means of maintaining party principles under the guise of more democractic........

Regards
Bernard Clayson
PLANET-THANET

Replies from:

  1. lpc1998

Back to top