When I looked at the different political systems currently in place around the world. I noticed one core issue. Power corrupts people, be it democratic elected, rich or authoritarian there is always an incentive to abuse said power for personal gain. It also attracts people who strive for power, who usually experienced a lack of control in life and are unsatisfied.
In an ideal world politicians should work for the good of the people, but that seems impossible in current systems.
So how do you build a system that doesn’t insitivise using political power for personal gain. I think it is a rather tricky question.
Some of the ideas I had feel free to discuss:
- Strictly limit the legislative period without exception. (minimizing the time exposed to power and possibility to using it for personal gain)
- A politicians elected get permanently limited in their private posetions, in exchange for the opportunity to change policy. (you need to give away personal benefits in order to gain power)
- Punishment for thresholds of personal gains. In our capitalist society for example, I cannot imagine any billionaire, who did not exploit and therefore use violence against other people in order to reach these riches. I think it is fair to assume, that no one can reach this amount of wealth, without any moral wrong doing. It therefore could be classified as a crime and procecuted as such.
Any criticism and ideas are welcome. I’m no expert, so excuse me if I got something wrong. These are just ideas.
@GregorGizeh @eezeebee but we have too many laws and regulations in the first place. Most are arcane and set up to benefit someone rich. If we had direct democracy, we could all vote only necessary laws and regulations. With less ones that affect everybody (where a whole country votes) to more ones that affect local communities.
That’s simply unrealistic to implement right away though. The best realistic system I could see would be the Swiss system except online.
There the citizens vote on all major decisions, requiring politicians to either take on issues of importance to the people or to make their policies palatable to the general population if they hope for it to pass.
This seems like a reasonable middle ground to ensure that citizens stay informed and engaged - at least on big issues - and that their leaders are generally required to consider the wishes of the people.
I could see monthly or bimonthly digital voting on a handful of current issues work out well, provided they are presented in a digestible format to the average citizen.
If people have to do hours of research to even understand what the question is they will very likely just vote whatever or ask their friends what they voted. Worst case even sell their votes on issues they don’t care about.