Democracy

So I suppose I ought to kick this blog off with something thoroughly controversial and what is undoubtedly massively unpopular in the public eye.
So I'm not beating about the bush, I'll cut to the chase. I am against democracy.

My reasoning for this comes partly from something that's happening in Cheltenham near me. There is a little corner shop near where I live called "Nisa". It sells... general corner shop stuff, I imagine, I've never actually been in. Well, recently Tescos brought the shop right next to it and intend to set up a Tesco Metro there. There has been public outcry about this (which I intend to talk about in another blog). Both the local MP and the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate have gone to the press about protecting Nisa and resisting the Tesco set up. The MP got a petition with 2000 signatures in favour of stopping Tesco set up shop. Both the MP and the Conservative candidate will undoubtedly benefit from this in the eyes of the voters.
This is the problem. Tesco should be able to put their shop there. The MP knows it, the Conservative candidate knows it. But because of democracy, they are forced to compromise their views in order to gain votes. Similarly, we see MPs speaking out against things like our jobs going abroad, the Post Code Lottery and industries of Britain moving abroad. Why? Because this is modern politics. This is a pragmatic approach to gaining more votes, not a pragmatic approach to politics, nor a coherant ideology. If we didn't have democracy, but instead a group of intelligent benevolant dictators, we would not have this problem.

Of course, the notion of 'choice' is the one most often brough up in favour of democracy. We can 'choose' who governs us best. But this I still see as a problem, for two reasons. Firstly, people, as touched on above, are incapable of making intelligent decisions regarding the entire population. People will make irrational decisions because at the end of the day, they are not clever enough, and are swayed by emotion and first impression (a particular problem with 'impact' media of newspaper headlines and emotional speeches). Secondly, there is the issue of the tyanny of the majority. Why is it that steel factory workers campaign for tariffs on steel? Why is it that famers campaign for subsidies for farmers? Because it benefits them, but has a negative effect on both the world and the country (there is also the problem of lack of intelligence here too). People will vote for parties who offer them personal benefits, not who will do best for the entire country. Potentially in the coming years of economic hardship, we will see a rise in nationalism and a call for tighter laws on immigration. In an extreme case scenario (although this is highly unlikely), we could see a rise in people wanting to persecute immigrants. This is tyranny of the majority. In this way, I see the notion of choice as being a wholly negative one. It encourages people to vote for those who will bring benefit only to themselves, not to the country or the world. It also puts minorities in a vulnerable position.

The way in which I do see democracy as being a good thing is in that it keeps government in check. It makes sure that the government does not extend itself and stop serving the country. When a government is doing poorly, - theoretically - the people can kick it out. History tells us that very bad governments - Conservatives 1970s, Labour 1970s, for two, do get voted out. But this is generally in situations which are extremely bad. Generally speaking, people choose the party who benefits them.

So, how can we remove the problems of democracy - selfishness, vulnerability of minorities, people being swayed by emotional speeches or newspaper headlines, and a lack of understanding amongst the general populus - and keep the benefits of democracy - scruinty of government.

I propose two potential systems, but they're basically the same. The first, which is probably worse is to give people votes according to their annual earnings. Those who have earnt a lot have proved themselves to be rational and intelligent. They are not the kind of people to be swayed by an emotional speech, or to act just within the interests of themselves. This is especially pertinent in a society with fairly good equality of opportunity - reaching the top means that you're rational, and intelligent. Thus, those people deserve more votes. Those who have hit the bottom of society are clearly less rational, and their opinions are not worth dwindling on. I would propose giving richer people more votes than fewer people, with the very poorest recieving just one (or even no) votes and the richest receiving... a significant amount more. Of course, there are anomalies - Jade Goody, for one - but generally speaking, richer people are more intelligent. This therefore is better than the current system.
Another possibility, working in exactly the same manner, is to attribute people votes in accordance to their level of education. This seems to make sense for a similarly obvious reason. This would probably be a lot more popular with the general public (although still massively unpopular).

So, that's my critique and solution of democracy. If we want effective government who makes decisions for the best of the country, not just putting on a 4 year electioneering performance, we need a significant change of democracy. We will have succeeded when a government who underspends in the first 3 years of their term and overspends in the last performs worse than the government who spends equally across the whole 4 years.

One criticism that people have made when I've suggested this is that it will result in more economically right wing governments. They're right, it will.
Because right wing economics are correct.