Topic of the month: Democracy and the problems thereof

Sleepy

SIMU wrote:

Are graduates immune from such splurging?[/SIMU]
No, but surely you'd agree that someone with a qualification for a job will generally be better capable of doing that job that someone without one? By this logic, they are less likely to waste money on poor decisions.

What if these graduate rulers feel threatened by people from formerly uneducated backgrounds making their way into universities and try to prevent them from doing so? Graduates are not immune from avarice and, from the point of view of increasing their personal wealth, it would make sense for them to limit challenges to the power they would find themselves holding under this system.

An interesting point. I'd agree with you that graduates would be no less susceptible to corruption than non-graduates. I don't think they'd be any more susceptible to it either though.

Obviously the laws put into place to create this meritocracy would have to be partnered with legislation ensuring that discrimination on this basis couldn't be created in any other element of life.

I would imagine that better management of the country's finances would leave better funding available for the Garda force too and an increased police force could help tackle the problem you suggest of people turning against the system. I honestly don't think that this would be any significant number of people though. I may be wrong (and am open to correction on this) but how many non-criminals don't actually complete secondary school?

On your point about CEO's being graduates, I don't think this is particularly relevant. In business, a CEO's responsibilities are to his shareholders. In government the TD's responsibilities are to the country as a whole.

DadaKopf

Sleepy, I thought we had a national panel of experts based on meritocracy - it's called the civil service.

Theoretically, all this amounts to public oversight of a state panel of experts, whose power over policymaking is checked by the constraints placed their boss by the pressures of public access to political power through elections and the media.

The primary role of the Minister is to respond to the multiplicity of demands vis-a-vis his own department and to the expert advice of the civil service. Interestingly, asking a neoliberal economist to take charge of the economy would yield very different policies to that of, say, sociologist whose focus would probably be on social matters more than competitiveness.

What you're in fact saying is that you don't trust poor and stupid people to run your country. You'd much rather an educated, probably middle-class, 'impartial' 'expert' to run departments that most matched their professional training. This undermines the central value of democracy as a political system that does not discriminate against difference and does not place arbitrary barriers in front of people who want to have a say in how their lives are lived, as members of a community and as individuals.

I think your argument is flawed because you assume 'experts' are impartial. The various different disciplines (economics, politics, medicine, art, natural sciences etc.) are not natural divisions, they're reflections of social relations, of intentional political acts for a great many reasons. For example, why is it that neoliberal economics is reigning supreme even though many, many economists know its principles are deeply flawed? Do pure economists really care about people's real quality of life, or a balance sheet?

What you seem to be advocating, deep down, is social segregation. Dividing people into groups and setting/limiting their potential for democratic participation on the basis of an effectively arbitrary set of disciplinary divisions. And who makes these decisions?

SkepticOne

I think it would be good to discuss the ends of democracy at this point.

If we limit the discussion for the moment to national government, for me, the general goal should be that broad policy (socialist, capitalist, authoritarian, liberal, etc.) of the state should be in line with what the majority is most comfortable with. This might be tempered with constitutional limits on governments in order to prevent tyranny of the majority such as constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

DadaKopf

Kind of what I was trying to get at. I forgot to ask the question, what should be the balance of power between civil society, representatives, ministers and the civil service?

Yeah, the question is: are the Values and Norms of democracy supported by the Rules and Procedures that comprise the institutions?

SkepticOne

Right, so if we have established that the goal is not necessarily to have the best person for the job but rather that the country is run in in some way consistant with the will of the people, no, the current system at best only partially achieves this.

Mainly the issue of money and vested interests which distort the available (or percieved) options available to people in choosing representatives, imo. I'm limiting my answer to representative systems.

I'm not sure that banning parties is the most practical way of dealing with this as money would still find its way into the system, possibly in ways that are harder to track than currently. It has been suggested that parties should get state funding based on prior success in elections but, for me, this has the problem of raising parties above what they are at present. In addition, how would independents be handled?

The current system doesn't, to my knowledge, recognise parties but simply allows them to exist. Individuals are elected, not parties. I think it would be a shame if this were to change. The question is: how to make it so that members of parties don't have a distinct advantage over independents at election time. I'm not sure what the answer is to this.

Another possible issue with the current system is that after all the TDs have taken their seats they then elect the Taioseach. Is this too removed from the wishes of the people? Should there be a directly elected head of state with significant powers?

Sleepy

DadaKopf, as someone who deals with the Civil Service on a daily basis, I know for a fact that very few of them could be classified as "experts" in anything other than wrangling junkets and wasting tax-payers money.

What you're in fact saying is that you don't trust poor and stupid people to run your country

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't trust stupid or unqualified people to run my country.

I don't consider expecting someone to be qualified and capable of doing a job as an "arbitrary" barrier. If you can't understand the issues at hand, you shouldn't have a say in their running.

Neither did I ever state that I think experts would be completely impartial. I've already stated that I don't think someone qualified to do the job would be any more, or less, corrupt than our current shower of incompetents. They would, however, be better qualified and better able to do their jobs. This can only be seen as an improvement.

SkepticOne, your own logic is seriously flawed in your assumption that the role of government is to see that "the country is run in in some way consistant with the will of the people". Under this system, how does one judge the will of the people? By the majority? What if the will of the people is that all of a certain minority group be excluded from the protection of the law?

The government's role is to ensure that the country is run in a manner that works best for ALL of the population. To my mind, this aim is best met by having a government capable of running the country to best meet the NEEDS of the people: free education, free healthcare, good law enforcement and a thriving economy.

SkepticOne - you make a good point about state funding of political parties. This is something I could never tolerate. It's too open to corruption as I'd imagine you'd regularly see changes in these laws the year before an election year. You also seem to advocate the promotion of independants. I'm afraid I can't agree on this. Flawed as it is, the current system of having political parties ensures some level of consistency of opinion from the government. Independents lead to trouble, particularly when you've the likes of Jackie Healy Ray holding the balance of power. Certainly, there should be more political parties (I know I'm going to have trouble in deciding who to vote for in the next election because I don't believe any of our current parties accurately reflect my own political beliefs), but encouraging more independents to run would lead to an extremely fractitious and unstable parliament.

To deal with the issue of the influence of big business on governments, I would simply ban any political donation over a set amount (say €5000 or so), leaving the parties to have to fund themselves through their own membership/those running.

Another possible issue with the current system is that after all the TDs have taken their seats they then elect the Taioseach. Is this too removed from the wishes of the people? Should there be a directly elected head of state with significant powers?

An interesting point. The drawback would, of course, be the possibility of having a head of state with a parliament made up with a majority of opposition parties could lead to nothing being done. Imagine, if you will, Michael D Higgins as Taoiseach with this power. How many of his bills can you see the current seating TD's allowing through the Dail? With his party a vocal but small minority, I could see him encountering serious problems in getting anything done. I think that's why the current system is in place, to ensure that the leader of the country has the ability to do his job.

DadaKopf

To deal with the issue of the influence of big business on governments, I would simply ban any political donation over a set amount (say €5000 or so), leaving the parties to have to fund themselves through their own membership/those running.

You're confining your analysis to the party system. The influence of business extends further than that.

The state itself relies on revenues, primarily through tax, to exist. Therefore the state has an institutional self-interest in maintaing economic growth and competitiveness. Political parties differ on how that should be achieved but the effect is the same - the state and its operators (both elected and non-elected) will acquiesce to the needs and demands of producers of wealth and, often, actively work with them to create the conditions required for the state survive. These decisions cause unwanted side-effects in society, which particularly affect its most vulnerable members; the state is, in fact, incapable of providing the needs of all because the state's needs rest on the few who contribute most to a country's economic vitality. The ability of the state to maintain its own institutional apparatuses and to provide welfare is undermined, and with it the system's legitimacy.

Very often nowadays, the influence of 'big business' is exercised indirectly through national and international lobby groups like UNICE and the European Roundtable; more indirectly through the OECD. Another area of concern are academic institutions, whose funding is increasingly coming under the influence of corporate donations; here the problem of power/knowledge arises - business interests are also exercising power over knowledge, transforming solutions into one-dimensional market fundamentalism.

It's probably unlikely that banning or limiting business donations to political parties will eradicate this problem since the problem is so all-enveloping. It's probably at best a much-needed stop-gap but no solution.

Sleepy

DadaKopf, to a large extent I agree with that post. However, I think that if a government is smart enough there should be no reason for a favourable environment for business to harm the public. For example, in large part I agree with the low corporation taxes we offer. It's brought employment to Ireland, and for the most part these jobs are skilled positions. So, how does one offset the loss of tax revenue this entails? To my mind? A third tax bracket for those earning 100k+ and bringing artists that earn more than the standard industrial wage into the tax system (hello U2, Enya, I'm looking at you).

SkepticOne

Sleepy wrote:

SkepticOne, your own logic is seriously flawed in your assumption that the role of government is to see that "the country is run in in some way consistant with the will of the people". Under this system, how does one judge the will of the people? By the majority? What if the will of the people is that all of a certain minority group be excluded from the protection of the law?

I was going over a point I had made earlier "If we limit the discussion for the moment to national government, for me, the general goal should be that broad policy (socialist, capitalist, authoritarian, liberal, etc.) of the state should be in line with what the majority is most comfortable with." I was talking about the role of democracy here, not the state or the government. I was trying to clarify what we mean by the word in a system similar to ours.

Sleepy wrote:

The government's role is to ensure that the country is run in a manner that works best for ALL of the population. To my mind, this aim is best met by having a government capable of running the country to best meet the NEEDS of the people: free education, free healthcare, good law enforcement and a thriving economy.

The role of government, of course, is to govern (;)), but would you not agree that how the government governs, should ideally be consistant with the will of the people and that the reason free education is provided is because that is what people want, not because someone has decided it is what people need.

Sleepy

SkepticOne - apologies, I misconstrued your point. I see your point though it scares me. I couldn't ever conceive of socialism or an authoritarian government being a good thing *shudders* but yes, I agree with your statement.

In general it is necessary for the government to give the people what they want because, most of the time, people want what they need. Other times, the government has to be able to make what in layman's terms are the tough decisions. Moves that are unpopular with the electorate yet necessary (e.g. raising taxes etc.)

DadaKopf

I think it's probably appropriate to introduce the theme of distance into the discussion. There tends to be a distance between political leaders and the populations they represent, act on behalf of. Sleepy, you already mentioned how you think societies generally know what's best for them. Why then should we rely on experts to know what's good for us? The quality of expert advice is often shown to be dirt poor.

Would it be a better idea to introduce direct democracy as a solution to these problems?

Interestingly, David Starkey (Uber conservative royal historian) called for a return to an Anglo Saxon model of governance in Britain - small (semi-)autonomous regions ruled by direct democracy. A contemporary example is Zapatismo in Chiapas, Mexico.

I suppose, given current constraints etc., could we imagine this working at all?

I think it's worth opening the debate out.

SkepticOne

Sleepy wrote:

In general it is necessary for the government to give the people what they want because, most of the time, people want what they need. Other times, the government has to be able to make what in layman's terms are the tough decisions. Moves that are unpopular with the electorate yet necessary (e.g. raising taxes etc.)

However, in the context of democracy, I would argue that giving people what they want has to be the end in itself. It could be that what people want is not consistant with what they need, but what they want is the only thing we have to go on. If the aim were to give people what they need, then we might start talking about health, education, etc., but I think it is fairly clear that we are moving away from the idea of democracy.

On the other point, in a representative system, of course, governments need to make tough decisions on occasion, but the job of the democratic system is to make those representatives accountable for their overall decision making to the people.

If the country ends up in a good or bad bad for whatever reason, can we as a people say, "well, we were presented with a reasonable set of alternatives and we made our decision and these are the consequences for which we are ultimately responsible"?

This is another point I think is important - that within the idea of democracy is the notion that the people are ultimately responsible for the way the country is run.

1. There is the a state or some entity over which decisions are made.
2. This entity has certain powers over individuals and can impose rights or duties on individuals.
3. Those who are affected by the powers of the entity can effect the decisions made in such a way that the decisions reflect what they want.
4. These same people are ultimately responsible for the actions of the state.

Sleepy

DadaKopf, I can't imagine it working at all. You'd end up with train tracks being different sizes, the regions suffering massively, different speed limits all over the place and in general so many local by-laws that it would have a disasterous effect on a country.

I should admit here though that ultimately, I think the goal of world politics (and I'm talking a timescale of centuries here) should be that of one governing body for the world. No trade barriers, no local laws etc. just one world operating for the good of all.

Society in general may know in general terms what's good for them (i.e. good healthcare, education etc). But a lack of education or relevant qualifications prevents them from knowing how to achieve these things.

Sleepy

Skeptic, sure, theoretically democracy is a good idea because all those involved have a level of self-determination. However, it's been proven over and over again to be ineffective. It's much like communism, nice in theory but in practice human nature (and stupidity) screws it up.

My argument that meritocracy is that it works much the same way as democracy, it just eliminates some of it's problems, i.e. the election of the nice but incompetent/dim and the restriction of the vote to those who understand the different options they are presented with.

DadaKopf

Sleepy wrote:

Skeptic, sure, theoretically democracy is a good idea because all those involved have a level of self-determination. However, it's been proven over and over again to be ineffective. It's much like communism, nice in theory but in practice human nature (and stupidity) screws it up.

My argument that meritocracy is that it works much the same way as democracy, it just eliminates some of it's problems, i.e. the election of the nice but incompetent/dim and the restriction of the vote to those who understand the different options they are presented with.

In the real world, meritocracy would probably mean the exclusion of the majority by the rule of the few. Even Plato knew this!

Another comment: political systems can never be 'proven' - that sentence is nonsense. Without getting into an argument about philosophy of science, social systems are always, at best, provisional.

Of course democracy is incomplete and unstable. It's a system that's based on transformation and incompleteness.

I mean, direct democracy has worked perfectly well all over the world throughout history when it suited past socio-economic structures. What you're in fact arguing for is a limited conception of democracy suitable to today's socio-economic structures.

In fact little has changed since the industrial revolution. As you mentioned above, 'slower' forms of democracy wouldn't work under current conditions because of the exigencies of industrial capitalism, complex interdependence, perceived necessity for standards setting, and the existence of a culture-ideological hegemony. Even back in the 1800's, Weber lamented the creeping spread of bureaucracy, career politicians, hierarchical and exclusionary meritocracies (that institutionalised new managerial forms of power) and the need for national prestige, power, leadership, efficiency.

Hardly democracy, surely. Just a competitive elitist system of governance with just about enough 'participation' and social spending to prevent a revolution.

I dunno about you, but I like to think there are still better alternatives given these constraints.

Just 'cos things are the way they are doesn't mean they're forever, as history seems to show (historiological debates considered).

One governing body for the whole world? Same problems apply, although George Monbiot has an interesting proposition. And don't get me started on free trade - that's for the politics forum.

simu

DadaKopf wrote:

Interestingly, David Starkey (Uber conservative royal historian) called for a return to an Anglo Saxon model of governance in Britain - small (semi-)autonomous regions ruled by direct democracy. A contemporary example is Zapatismo in Chiapas, Mexico.

I suppose, given current constraints etc., could we imagine this working at all?

Interesting. I think that such structures could, perhaps, work well using direct democracy and modern communications technology to keep in touch with other regions and share ideas. You mention that these regions might be semi-autonomous. From this I take it that certain policy areas requiring cooperation over large geographical zones would still be governed from a central point or perhaps from different central points?

It certainly seems preferable to a monolithic world government. Such a government would require armies of bureacrats to run and would imply a complicated hierarchy, the people at the top of which would have far more influence on decision-making than those at the bottom. Also, such a government would almost certainly overlook the needs of minority communities (not that I'm in favour of complete cultural relativism - I think the best idea is to let people live however they decide to live as long as certain, stated human rights - along, say, the model of the UN declaration of human rights - are respected).

Sleepy

DadaKopf - I think to say that meritocracy would end up with "exclusion of the majority by the rule of the few" is a bit silly. In any political structure when the majority aren't being listened to, they rebel. Thus, were you to impose this type of meritocracy, it wouldn't last long.

I concede that proven was probably the wrong word to use, let me ammend the sentence: Demorcracy has been shown to be ineffective as a form of government. Our own country is a prime example, England is another, if the state's oligopoly counts as a democracy it's another. Virtually every deomcratic country I can think of is an under-achiever.

You seem to like the idea of a government run by hitting the red button on your Sky Digital remote. Where everyone has their say on everything. The same problems I identified in the current system would exist, and probably far more obviously under this type of direct democracy. When idiots can vote, the wrong decisions are made. It comes down to the central premise of meritocracy: only those qualified for a job are allowed to do it. If you don't have the necessary intelligence and education you can't be considered fit to vote. Why should you be let have a say if you don't understand what it is that you're having a say in?

simu, can you not imagine the amount of duplication of work and levels of bureacracy that such "semi-autonomous" regions would entail? Certainly it would be far more than a single central government would require. That said, there are problems with the idea of a "world government". I just think it's something we should be working towards, kind of an EU for the world (i.e. a United Nations which included all countries and actually worked).

simu

Sleepy wrote:

simu, can you not imagine the amount of duplication of work and levels of bureacracy that such "semi-autonomous" regions would entail? Certainly it would be far more than a single central government would require. That said, there are problems with the idea of a "world government". I just think it's something we should be working towards, kind of an EU for the world (i.e. a United Nations which included all countries and actually worked).

Humans aren't robots whose main reason for existence is to reach a state of maximum efficiency! People would be doing similar work in different parts of the world but in each instance, they would have to apply themselves to the particular circumstances of their own particular region and they would see the consequences of this in their daily lives as opposed to them being hidden among reams and reams of statistics. People would be able to share their experiences and advice with other regions facing similar problems.

In any political structure when the majority aren't being listened to, they rebel. Thus, were you to impose this type of meritocracy, it wouldn't last long.

It's quite easy to keep uneducated masses amused with bread and circuses and repress brutally the few who dare oppose you.

Virtually every deomcratic country I can think of is an under-achiever.

What do you mean by this? What would an "achieving" country be like?

If you don't have the necessary intelligence and education you can't be considered fit to vote.

How do you define and measure intelligence? Who decides what constitutes "education"?

DadaKopf

Ivan Illich and Paulo Friere argued that "traditional education" was a form of indoctrination by the powerful to maintain social hierarchies for the purpose of control.

This is the opposite of what they advocated which were new forms of participatory education that were supposed to blast away the disciplinary walls that keep people apart.

This is close to the point I've been making all along regarding Sleepy's argument.

I think most people would agree that the function of the education system is to equip people to enter the work force. In this case, the system by its nature limits people's choices.

Isn't this counter-democratic?

Sleepy wrote:

In any political structure when the majority aren't being listened to, they rebel.

I reconfirm everything simu just said and have to comment that what you just said isn't always the case. See above.

Sleepy

Well, if a people are in the majority and don't rebel, surely they're too stupid to be let have a say in the first place?

I grant you that the education system at present is a joke. However, this can be easily changed. It's just a matter of changing the sylabus. When subjects as useless as Irish and Religeon are given such a disproportionate amount of time in schools, of course more important areas of education will suffer. As long as universities are left to fund themselves by tailoring their courses to suit multinational's needs, of course people will be less qualified to rule themselves.

However, which voter is going to cast a more informed vote ceteris paribus, one with something of an education or one with no education at all? My major reason for believing in meritocracy is that I believe a large amount of the voting carried out in this country is ill-informed. How else could Sinn Fein be doing so well? How else could Fianna Fail have such an iron grip on power?

Sinn Fein having no policies whatsoever and Fianna Fail's inate corruptness should rule them out of the minds of any educated electorate, yet we as a nation still vote for them. Why? Because a massive percentage of our electorate don't know or understand a thing about government policy, economics, law or it would appear, common sense.

Meritocracy is a means of changing this. Educationg people about the things that affect how they should be governed (or govern) and only allowing those that have this education to take part in the electoral process. To me, cold hard logic dictates that this would produce better results than our current system of ignorant democracy.

Sure, it's not something that could be put in place overnight, nor do I see our government taking the necessary steps towards putting it in place (they'd never see power again if they did) but it would work if only our government were honourable enough to work towards it.

SkepticOne

DadaKopf wrote:

I think most people would agree that this is the function of the education system - to equip people to enter the work force. In this case, the system by its nature limits people's choices.

Isn't this counter-democratic?

This depends on where you draw the boundary between the system and other areas of life (or indeed whether you draw a boundary at all).

It also depends on your concept of human freedom. While it is possible to explain a persion's actions in terms of outside influence, indoctrination, past experience and so forth, how does free choice enter into this picture?

The alternative stance is that the choices exist whether or not we have been educated or made aware of them. The job of the democratic system is to provide those choices. Education is important in helping people make good choices but in itself doesn't provide the choices.

Democracy in whatever form, allows individuals to participate in decisions affecting a group. This is implicit in the idea. If they are poorly educated then they may make bad decisions but this is not, in my view, a fault of democracy.

In a monarchy, it is good to have a well educated king so that he can make informed decisions, but if he were badly educated this would not detract from the fact that he is the king and makes the decisions and it is still a monarchy.

DadaKopf

Sleepy wrote:

It's just a matter of changing the sylabus.

Well, no. It's a matter of changing the whole way people learn. For example, consider how, in school and only to a limited extent in university, that participatory education is marginalised to the point of non-existence. Education is about the whole manner in which people acquire knowledge and how they come to believe some things more important to know than others.

I'd like you to read this, please.

It explains better than I could why educated people don't rebel.

There's a difference between:

• Coercive control: manifested through direct force or its threat (needed by a state when its degree of hegemonic leadership is low or fractured);
  
• Consensual control: which arises when individuals voluntarily assimilate the worldview of the dominant group (=hegemonic leadership).

"Dominant groups in society, including fundamentally but not exclusively the ruling class, maintain their dominance by securing the 'spontaneous consent' of subordinate groups, including the working class, through the negotiated construction of a political and ideological consensus which incorporates both dominant and dominated groups."

From Wikipedia about Paulo Freire:

More challenging, however, is Freire's strong aversion to the teacher-student dichotomy. This dichotomy is admitted in Rousseau and constrained in Dewey, but Freire comes close to insisting that it should be completely abolished. This is hard to imagine in absolute terms (there must be some enactment of the teacher-student relationship in the parent-child relationship), but what Freire suggests is that a deep reciprocality be inserted into our notions of teacher and student. Freire wants us to think in terms of teacher-student and student-teacher, that is, a teacher who learns and a learner who teaches, as the basic roles of classroom participation.

This is one of the few attempts anywhere to implement something like democracy as an educational method and not merely a goal of democratic education. Even Dewey, for whom democracy was a touchstone, did not integrate democratic practices fully into his methods. (Though this was in part a function of Dewey's attitudes toward individuality.) However, in its early, strong form this kind of classroom has sometimes been criticized on the grounds that it can mask rather than overcome the teacher's authority.

Fysh

DadaKopf wrote:

Ivan Illich and Paulo Friere argued that "traditional education" was a form of indoctrination by the powerful to maintain social hierarchies for the purpose of control.

This is the opposite of what they advocated which were new forms of participatory education that were supposed to blast away the disciplinary walls that keep people apart.

This is close to the point I've been making all along regarding Sleepy's argument.

I think most people would agree that the function of the education system is to equip people to enter the work force. In this case, the system by its nature limits people's choices.

Particularly in this country and the UK, where the governments seem keen to make academic qualifications "relevant" ie useful for industrial enterprises. Which, in effect, means that educational institutes would become (or, if you're cynical about it, admit that they already are) merely glorified training courses in which monkeys are taught how to do a task, with little or no emphasis on the pursuit of knowledge or understanding outside the immediate scope of where it might be useful to that task.

Now, call me a hippy libertarian idealist if you must, but one of the few things I'm willing to fight for is a university/education system that isn't just a glorified apprenticeship, because I think that apprenticeships and degrees should be differentiated. If anything, there's insufficient recognition given to apprenticeships and job-oriented training courses, which means that bachelor degrees end up trying to cover both academic education and job training in one go. Because of this, they're not great for either purpose.

Sleepy wrote:

Well, if a people are in the majority and don't rebel, surely they're too stupid to be let have a say in the first place?

Based on what? Based on your interpretation of meritocracy maybe, but this can be interpreted as simply being in favour of a system which is beneficial to yourself. It would probably be beneficial to myself, since I often find myself despairing at the idiocy behind many "democratically established" decision. What if the majority are sufficiently subdued by, say, reality tv and recreational drugs as to not understand why they need to make a decision about how they are governed? What if they have no easy resources with which to rebel (iron fist of dictatorship)? What if the media is controlled sufficiently that each member of the majority dismisses their own opinion assuming it to be contrary to the will of the majority? Rebellion isn't easy nor safe - it takes a lot to drive people to armed rebellion, and it takes even more for such a rebellion to have any productive outcome.

Sleepy wrote:

I grant you that the education system at present is a joke. However, this can be easily changed. It's just a matter of changing the sylabus. When subjects as useless as Irish and Religeon are given such a disproportionate amount of time in schools, of course more important areas of education will suffer. As long as universities are left to fund themselves by tailoring their courses to suit multinational's needs, of course people will be less qualified to rule themselves.

What you deem as "useless" subjects, others such as myself see as areas where knowledge is pursued regardless of its value in terms of performing a task or function. See above regarding the distinction between academic learning and apprenticeships.

Sleepy wrote:

Meritocracy is a means of changing this. Educationg people about the things that affect how they should be governed (or govern) and only allowing those that have this education to take part in the electoral process. To me, cold hard logic dictates that this would produce better results than our current system of ignorant democracy.

Government dictates education and its policies. Governments are made up of, and elected by, people. People who are lazy, self serving and ignorant. How, exactly, do you expect a government of ignorant self serving people to be trusted to set a system up where you have to meet their standards of education before being "allowed" to vote? Contrary to what you appear to think, education and fitness to a job are not the same thing. This idea of forcibly restricting people's ability to vote tied into an educational system is far too open to exploitation, for the following reasons:
a)Authoritarian government can manipulate what consists an "educated" individual, effectively imposing a dictatorship
b)You expect an imperfect government to implement an educational system close enough to perfect to produce people who will be able to intelligently and competently elect a similarly intelligent and competent government. Unlikely to happen, particularly given recent trends in western education policy.
c)Education cannot and should not be measured as something that allows someone to do a job (which you seem to agree with, going by your comment about universities and multinationals) and yet you are proposing that possession of a degree automatically qualifies you as being equipped to do a job. (I, like simu and many others, don't share your faith in 3rd level degrees as indicative of intelligence, because generally they're more like jumping through hoops than they are an actual test of intellectual mettle). Surely some sort of governmental/ministerial apprenticeship or training program would be a better way of filtering candidates for positions of power/responsibility?

I think that, to progress further into this discussion, it would be useful to know what you define as education, to avoid any misinterpretation.

Sleepy

The concept assumes a plain consent given by the majority of a population to a certain direction suggested by those in power.

If you consent to your being exploited you are either masochistic in nature or stupid.

Certainly, I see your point on the education aspect of this debate. The education system does need reform, I've conceded that issue already. However, discipline and orderly behaviour are important parts of education. Yes, participatory education is an ideal to aspire to. However, this is far more demanding of the teacher and relies on a co-operative class. Whilst parents continue to acquiesce to spoilt children instead of teaching them how to behave in public, I can't see the posibility of 100% participatory education (unless you reduce teacher:class ratios to single digits). It's quite like democracy, socialism or benevolant dictatorship in a way: a nice theory but imposssible to fully implement given the flaws of human nature.

Sleepy

Fysh wrote:

I think that, to progress further into this discussion, it would be useful to know what you define as education, to avoid any misinterpretation.

To my mind the very minimum education standard that one should achieve at second level would be:

numeracy
functional literacy in your native tongue (in our case English and even a cursory look at these boards proves that half this country can't write properly)
a basic understanding of science
a basic understanding of business and economics
a basic understanding of history and geography

with subjects such as foreign languages (including Irish), wood/metalwork, accounting, classics, technical drawing etc. being selected as optional courses (with a minimum number of these having to be chosen similar to the current leaving cert system).

Physical and civic education should also be included here, not as examinable subjects but in an attempt to improve the lives of the children we educate. Religeon should have no place in schools.

As basic as this sounds, I don't believe our current education system is even providing this adaquately. Due in large part to poor teachers and due in larger part to poor parenting skills.

For a third level education, ideally all students (regardless of degree course) should take courses in philosophy, economics and sociology. No matter what career you intend to pursue an education in how to think for yourself, understand what a finance minister is attempting to do and how people behave will benefit you in it.

Yes, our current third level system neglects all these things, though I've found a rather large amount of students will educate themselves in these during their time in college. In large part, these are things you learn purely by being in college (or maybe I just hung around weirdos).

Obviously in addition to this, students would take courses that teach them to UNDERSTAND the principles of their discipline, not how to remember lots of quotes and regurgitate them verbatim.

DadaKopf

A flaw of human nature? No, just your own interpretation based, probably, on your own interests.

However, this is far more demanding of the teacher and relies on a co-operative class.

Do you really think this is a sufficient reason to shy away from the participatory ideal? I think it's an extremely weak argument. How can you argue for the idea of participatory education and then so glibly reject it on a straw man of an argument? "Ooh, it'll make the teacher's jobs harder." How on earth can you argue for change on one hand and for the status quo on the other? Are you a conjuror? What about this: perhaps one of the reasons classes are (apparently) becoming more unruly is because of the teacher-student hierarchy? Perhaps students aren't engaged with what they're learning anymore because of this structural relationship?

Then you appeal to "flaws in human nature". Have you found this human nature somewhere? Do you really believe that human beings are incapable of co-operation? Here's news, buddy, human beings are capable of co-operation, but that's not based on my own idea of 'human nature', I just look around me to realise that. I'm also not saying we're not competitive.

How about this: human nature is what we define it as through our intersubjective interactions in society.

And now I think that, considering you've conceded to participatory education as an ideal in principle (although you're still wedded to the status quo), we can now seriously start talking about democracy.

Sleepy

Based on what? Based on your interpretation of meritocracy maybe, but this can be interpreted as simply being in favour of a system which is beneficial to yourself. It would probably be beneficial to myself, since I often find myself despairing at the idiocy behind many "democratically established" decision. What if the majority are sufficiently subdued by, say, reality tv and recreational drugs as to not understand why they need to make a decision about how they are governed? What if they have no easy resources with which to rebel (iron fist of dictatorship)? What if the media is controlled sufficiently that each member of the majority dismisses their own opinion assuming it to be contrary to the will of the majority? Rebellion isn't easy nor safe - it takes a lot to drive people to armed rebellion, and it takes even more for such a rebellion to have any productive outcome.

Based on common sense. Maybe I have too much faith in people but I believe that in a meritocracy it would be the majority of this country that would be part of the ruling class and the only thing preventing those who aren't part of it would be their own decision not to avail of the education services on offer.

We're not talking about the "iron fist of dictatorship", we're talking about an enhanced form of democracy, that removes democracy's inherrant weakness: the ability of the stupid to influence important decisions.

A smarter electorate, and therefore a smarter government is in the best interests of the entire population. An educated government and electorate is better qualified to run a country than an uneducated one. This leads to government resources being correctly (or merely better) managed. Tax revenues could then be stretched a lot further than they are under democracy which fosters ineptitude.

Quite simply: a group of three relevantly qualified people will make a better decision than a group of three relevantly qualified people and one completely unqualified person.

Surely some sort of governmental/ministerial apprenticeship or training program would be a better way of filtering candidates for positions of power/responsibility?

Yes, it would be a better means of qualifying candidates for election and is something I've argued for myself. However it neglects the fact that no matter how suitable a person can be for election, an uneducated electorate will probably overlook them for the person with more flair/the person their father is voting for/the person that promises them utterly unattainable things. An educated voter doesn't do these things. We need to ensure that both our candidates are fit to run for government and that our population is fit to cast a vote for them.

Fysh

Sleepy wrote:

If you consent to your being exploited you are either masochistic in nature or stupid.

There's a huge difference between consenting to something and having the power to change your situation in any meaningful way. Or would you consider black slaves to have "consented" to being relocated and forced into miserable and servile lives (among countless other examples).

However, discipline and orderly behaviour are important parts of education.

They are an important part in one-way communication, which is a necessary part (although not the only, or biggest, part of education). They are not absolute necessities, and when dealing with people who are not adults I find your attitude to be scarily fascistic. I know several people studying towards qualifications to work with emotionally disturbed children and teenagers, and am interested in the issue myself - one of the things that research has shown with these cases is that authoritarian attempts to impose discipline will only make the case worse. An educational system has to be adaptable to the individual, not force the individual to adapt to the system. This necessarily involves catering to people with learning disabilities (including conditions such as autism), emotional difficulties, and physical disabilities. Anything else isn't good enough.

Yes, participatory education is an ideal to aspire to. However, this is far more demanding of the teacher and relies on a co-operative class. Whilst parents continue to acquiesce to spoilt children instead of teaching them how to behave in public, I can't see the posibility of 100% participatory education (unless you reduce teacher:class ratios to single digits). It's quite like democracy, socialism or benevolant dictatorship in a way: a nice theory but imposssible to fully implement given the flaws of human nature.

Going back to your meritocracy idea, how is that any less subject to the flaws in human nature? Specifically, in the ways which I pointed out previously?

Quite aside from the fact that even if we can't ever fully succesfully implement it, it's still a damn good method to aim for and try to use. Or is anything less than perfection not worth implementing, even if it improves the current system?

Sleepy

DadaKopf wrote:

Do you really think this is a sufficient reason to shy away from the participatory ideal? I think it's an extremely weak argument. How can you argue for the idea of participatory education and then so glibly reject it on a straw man of an argument? "Ooh, it'll make the teacher's jobs harder." How on earth can you argue for change on one hand and for the status quo on the other? Are you a conjuror? What about this: perhaps one of the reasons classes are (apparently) becoming more unruly is because of the teacher-student hierarchy? Perhaps students aren't engaged with what they're learning anymore because of this structural relationship?

No, you misunderstood me. I don't think it's sufficient a reason to shy away from better education methods, just a major obstacle to be overcome. If our school teachers were to move entirely to this method of teaching in the morning, we'd have a murdered teacher on our consciences before long.

With the current standard of child-rearing in this country, a hierarchical relationship between teacher and student is NECESSARY. How can a teacher discipline a child if this relationship doesn't exist?

Students aren't engaging with what they're being taught any more in large part due to a serious decline in parenting skills and increasingly shorter attention spans. So, yes, engage the children in class but you need to maintain order so you must also keep the hierarchy whereby the teacher has the authority to impose rule and order.

simu

Sleepy wrote:

Based on common sense. Maybe I have too much faith in people but I believe that in a meritocracy it would be the majority of this country that would be part of the ruling class and the only thing preventing those who aren't part of it would be their own decision not to avail of the education services on offer.

What would change in Ireland with the introduction of such a system? Graduates would vote for whatever party best looked after middle and upper class interests and the problem of Ireland's underclass would be ignored entirely as these people wouldn't even have a vote anymore. The existing political parties would have to get rid of some of their present-day politicians who don't have degrees but there are plenty of graduates involved with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael etc to replace them. Not much of an improvement there.