The attempt to find a ‘fair’ way to arrive at a common opinion about who participates and how their opinions are to be integrated to form the ‘preference of the group’ is a misconceived attempt. A rational analysis must concentrate on how the rules and institutions contribute to the removal of bad rulers and policies, and to the creation of new options.

It is well recognized that ‘no one is as smart as everyone’ but the voters are not a fount of wisdom from whom the right decisions or policies can be empirically derived. They will favour multiple choices. It does not make sense to try to include every one’s favoured policies in the new decision, what is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote new ideas and continually review them.

Again as David Deutsch writes – just as Science seeks explanations that are experimentally testable, so a rational political system must make it as easy as possible to detect, and persuade others too, that a leader or policy is bad and hence, to remove them without violence. Just as the institutions of Science are structured to avoid entrenching theories, but instead to expose them to criticism and testing, so too political institutions should not make it hard to oppose rulers and policies, non-violently, and should embody traditions of peaceful and critical discussion of them, and of the institutions themselves and of everything else. Thus, systems of Government are to be judged not for their prophetic ability to choose and install good leaders and policies but for their ability to detect and remove bad ones that are already there. (See – “Electoral Reforms and Election Funding”)

• “We are not really free if we can’t control our own Government and its policies. And we will never do that if we remain ignorant.” – Charley Reese.
• “Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.” – Chester Bowles.

Bowles

This entire stance assumes that rulers and policies are always going to be flawed – that problems are inevitable and that this will always be so. But it also, assumes, that improving upon them is possible, that problems are solvable (with growing knowledge and resources), and that even though things may go wrong in unexpected ways, when they do it will also, be an opportunity for further progress.

To warn that unless we solve certain problems in time, we are doomed, has always been true and will always be. Problems are inevitable. We shall always be faced with the problem of how to plan for an unknowable future. Predictions, of so called experts which really are only extrapolations of their present knowledge applied to a future that will emerge from newer and as yet unknowable and unpredictable knowledge, become mere prophecies or guesses, which can never really be valid, based as they have to be on the yet unknowable. History evidences that such extrapolations by so called experts have almost always been wrong.

History also, shows us that many past civilizations could have avoided the catastrophes that destroyed them had they then possessed a little additional knowledge. From the Neanderthals who became extinct because of challenges which they could easily have coped with had they only known how, to civilizations that starved because of drought or famine but really because of poor methods of irrigation and farming, to the many millions who died because of plague and cholera not knowing enough about hygiene and the benefits of boiling drinking water, all would have blamed the ‘Gods’ or ‘Nature’ or ‘Fate’. But it was really their lack of appropriate knowledge and, on occasion, of time and resources to implement it. Actually, their failure to have created a scientific and technological civilization like ours that grows on a tradition of criticism and the seeking of better knowledge. Knowledge that encourages the replacement of bad rulers and policies, striving for constant improvement.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead.

Again as David Deutsch asks, ‘why would anyone want to make the leaders and policies that they themselves favour more vulnerable to removal?’ First – why would anyone want to replace bad leaders and policies at all? – The question may seem absurd, but perhaps it absurd only from the perspective of a civilization that takes progress for granted. If we did not expect progress, why should we expect the new leader or policy, chosen by whatever method, to be any better than the old? On the contrary, we should then expect any changes on average to do as much harm as good. And then the precautionary principle, of blind pessimists, advises, ‘Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don’t’. There is a closed loop of ideas here: On the assumption that knowledge is not going to grow, and on the assumption that the precautionary principle is true, and that therefore we cannot afford to allow knowledge to grow. Unless a society is expecting its own future choices to be better than its present ones, it will try to make its present policies and institutions as immutable as possible. Therefore Karl Popper’s criteria, for better rulers / policies or governance, can be met only by societies that expect their knowledge to grow – and to grow unpredictably. And further, their expecting that if it did grow, that such growth would help.

There is an old story which exemplifies such an optimistic attitude that goes as follows:

A Prisoner sentenced to immediate death by a tyrannical King, gains a reprieve by promising to teach the King’s favorite horse to talk within a year. Later, a fellow prisoner asks what possessed him to make such a bargain. He replies ‘a lot can happen in a year. The horse might die. The King might die. I might die, or the King might change his mind, or I might escape or the horse may even learn to talk or a way found to make it seem so. Anything can happen’.

The list is infinite and many of the options are unlikely, but it takes only one of them to be realized to get him out of his predicament. He realizes that, as a rational optimist, he must negotiate for time to allow for, or make, something to happen.

When society as a whole faces a choice, and citizens differ in their preferences among the options, how does one rationally define a preference among the options as being ‘the will of the people’ – the option the society wants? The next question follows: How should society organize its decision making so that it does indeed choose the option it wants? Kenneth Arrow’s ‘no – go’ theorem ap- pears to deny the very existence of social choice – and to strike at the principle of representative Government, and apportionment, and democracy itself, and a lot more besides. It seems to follow that a group of people jointly making decisions is necessarily irrational in one way or another and therefore there can be no one such choice as ‘the will of the people’. The choice can at best be the most equitable and preferred option at that moment, but how do we identify or arrive at that and how do we ensure that in this fast changing modern world each is appropriately recognized and valued?

“…Globalization is… diffusing power away from… States and towards cities, companies, religious groups, non-governmental organization and super-empow-ered individuals from terrorists to philanthropists.This force of entropy will not be reversed…” – Parag Khanna

A centralized Nation – State may seem efficiency optimized but it is extremely vulnerable to unforeseen events. A decentralized system can on the other hand give rise to more numerous mistakes that are small and benign, even reversible and quickly overcome. So a fair amount of decentralization is beneficial and is something to aim for. However, too much decentralization can also, result in fissiparous tendencies. Hence, a proper balance needs to be arrived at, somewhat biased towards centralization in National issues.

Think not of a mechanical system where in an unexpected stress on a part causes the failure of the system, but of an organic system where such an unexpected stress results in the system becoming stronger. The way the body reacts to exercise, to vaccination and so on.

It is true the free market economy has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, but at the same time it has also, created greater awareness of the inequality between those at the top and those at the bottom. The resulting sense of economic insecurity, adding to the political disillusionment and insecurity arising from the continuous barrage of exposures of the misdoings of the very politicians, government and its institutions that we trust and look to, to manage our affairs for our common benefit – leads to distrust and inclination to respond violently both at the individual as well as at the group level. We therefore need to develop a proper understanding of such apparent inequality and to find ways to bring about necessary change and improvement – without violence. (See- ‘EQUALITY for ALL’ or are ‘ALL EQUAL?’)

It is now evident that modern societies are too complex to be managed by governments run by a few elected leaders and many bureaucrats that have lost touch with the very people whose welfare they claim to be working for, while actually only striving to maintain a status quo for themselves and the institutions they belong to. The people thus end up with a sense of disconnect, a feeling of impotence and frustration. They seek ways to have a say and be heard i.e.: have a sense of agency, in what affects them. Local solutions need to be found for local problems. (See – “Bureaucrats – Selection & Development”)

This calls for collective decision making and action resulting from being directly involved, being heard and participating meaningfully, especially at the levels that directly impact their lives. The greater the impact the greater such participation should be, i.e. 100 percent direct involvement opportunity at the Gramsabha or Municipal ward level and in the approval of candidate at the local Party constituency level. Giving them a say in the choice of the Party candidate, even if only out of those selected by the Party Bosses, or High Command or Politburo, is vastly preferable than to have such a candidate selected by the Party Bosses and thrust upon them. Both, the candidate so approved and the people, will then have a sense of connection and responsibility to each other, a far better situation than if the candidate feels responsible to only a small coterie of the Party Bosses.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7