Before Christmas, a reader sent me a pdf with a very thought-provoking article on the ability of technocracies to solve significant problems like climate change (or the Covid pandemic for that matter). The problem with this article is that it challenges some of my own beliefs and thus reading it made me feel quite uneasy at first. So, thanks for nothing (just kidding).
I personally believe democracy works fine for countries with a population that, whatever differences in opinion they might have, are at least vaguely aware of what needs to be done and are willing to cooperate. Problem is that in times of crisis and associated insecurity that is exactly what comes under fire.
People fall into rabbit holes of blatantly stupid grand ideas about the world to impose an artificial but mentally soothing order onto a fundamentally chaotic situation. Couple this with a desire for a "strong leader" in such times of crisis and you have the ingredients for a democratic system to eat itself. (Of course none of this is new and all(?) modern democracies have some kind of non-democratic power base as a check on democratic ouroborosing)
Climate change seems a particularly difficult subject for democracies to deal with because it is such a long term and abstract (until it's too late!) problem, while politicians have to get elected on immediate and "felt" issues. But, beyond what you already said, scientists are not infallible nor do they even agree amongst themselves about what should be done or even what the data is telling us.
As the kind of mix between democracy and technocracy you seem to propose it might be time to introduce a fourth branch of government; let's call it the empirical branch. Much like the judicial system checks the legality of law this branch could check its scientific validity (as much as that can be said with certainty anyway). With the accepted caveat that just as a legal law can be bad a "scientifically valid" law could also still be awful. Hopefully such direct "scientific" involvement would also lead to less of an ivory tower feeling towards the scientific community and perhaps lead to more interest in what science actually *is*. There are of course a million potential pitfalls here and I have no idea what the specifics would look like yet.
"What we need is a constant process of deliberation and communication where ideas and proposals are checked with data by experts."
This sounds not dissimilar to the IPCC, which sifts and weighs evidence and provides expert statements on the nature of the climate problem?
"And once these ideas have been proven to be valid, we can argue about the different choices and the trade-offs we face. In this process of deliberation, compromises can be formed and implemented."
Sounds something like the intergovernmental COP processes each year.
Or is there something I'm missing and you see key issues/gaps in these?
I personally believe democracy works fine for countries with a population that, whatever differences in opinion they might have, are at least vaguely aware of what needs to be done and are willing to cooperate. Problem is that in times of crisis and associated insecurity that is exactly what comes under fire.
People fall into rabbit holes of blatantly stupid grand ideas about the world to impose an artificial but mentally soothing order onto a fundamentally chaotic situation. Couple this with a desire for a "strong leader" in such times of crisis and you have the ingredients for a democratic system to eat itself. (Of course none of this is new and all(?) modern democracies have some kind of non-democratic power base as a check on democratic ouroborosing)
Climate change seems a particularly difficult subject for democracies to deal with because it is such a long term and abstract (until it's too late!) problem, while politicians have to get elected on immediate and "felt" issues. But, beyond what you already said, scientists are not infallible nor do they even agree amongst themselves about what should be done or even what the data is telling us.
As the kind of mix between democracy and technocracy you seem to propose it might be time to introduce a fourth branch of government; let's call it the empirical branch. Much like the judicial system checks the legality of law this branch could check its scientific validity (as much as that can be said with certainty anyway). With the accepted caveat that just as a legal law can be bad a "scientifically valid" law could also still be awful. Hopefully such direct "scientific" involvement would also lead to less of an ivory tower feeling towards the scientific community and perhaps lead to more interest in what science actually *is*. There are of course a million potential pitfalls here and I have no idea what the specifics would look like yet.
Hi. Would love to know your thoughts on what made you conclude that India's Narendra Modi has worked towards undermining democracy.
"What we need is a constant process of deliberation and communication where ideas and proposals are checked with data by experts."
This sounds not dissimilar to the IPCC, which sifts and weighs evidence and provides expert statements on the nature of the climate problem?
"And once these ideas have been proven to be valid, we can argue about the different choices and the trade-offs we face. In this process of deliberation, compromises can be formed and implemented."
Sounds something like the intergovernmental COP processes each year.
Or is there something I'm missing and you see key issues/gaps in these?