Comment by tsimionescu
2 years ago
What you're describing is a form of technocracy (rule by a class of dedicated scholars). It has been tried occasionally, but it is essentially the same thing as any non-Democratic rule: the technocrats do what is best for themselves, and using their knowledge and expertise, are able to invent convincing reasons on why that is supposedly best for the country as well.
This is especially true when the "science" they are supposed to study is economics, a notorious pseudo-science whose real purpose is to act as justificationa for policies desired by whoever is paying the research.
There is no way to ensure that rulers align with the people unless the people have a say in who rules. Scientific authorities have a long history of being negative even for their own fields ("physics advances one funeral at a time"), and that doesn't change when they are given power over an entire country.
With the current MPs, why do you think they do not do what's best for themselves, or for whoever is sponsoring their political campaigns and lobbying them constantly? The question is not whether a technocracy would be perfect, it's whether it would be better than that, and your argument has zero explanatory power to answer that.
Because they still need to win an election, so at least some of them need to do at least a few things that makes them popular enough. A technocrat only needs to make sure people aren't so desperate as to rise up.
This is really simple political theory, not some advanced concepts.
Nobody said the technocrats wouldn't also be elected, you made that up.
1 reply →
And the leaders of the proposed technocracy would be immune from lobbying and bribes?
Yes, because they would be easily "caught" if they didn't make decisions based on merit.
1 reply →