Cenocracy.org
The following is one view of a type of Cenocracy. Whether or not a reader agrees with a particular idea being espoused in this thought exercise, the overall consideration about the need for establishing a Cenocracy (New Government) remains. Generally speaking, there are some of us who realize that the present formula of government is a box that many can not think outside of. This requires those who seek to see beyond the present limits of conventions to explore an area infrequently visited, though during the 1700s such an exploration was adopted in order to create the US government's early beginnings. We once again need such visionaries... Those with a Cenocratic Vision because it has implications for the entire world.
We need a new form of government
By Dark Politricks
Over the years I have developed a total distrust in politicians and government in general. They say that power corrupts and I totally believe that it does.
We currently have career politicians who fill their pockets and treat the tax paying public with contempt. Therefore we need a massive reform of our governing system.
We need to have limits on the number of years any one politician can serve to prevent people getting too cosy in their jobs.
In my opinion government at every level should be treated more like jury service than a life long career.
What do I mean?
Well that every citizen with a brain and has paid tax during their life, has the possibility of serving in Government at some stage during their lifetime. This would ensure that a true cross-section of society is reflected in the people who make our laws at all times rather than the white middle class and well “schooled” males that dominate our current set-up.
It would also prevent MP’s becoming tools of the lobbyists which I think is one of the most detrimental aspects of our current system of government.
Big multi-nationals and rich businessmen buy influence and affect policy and the honest politicians voice is drowned out by the loud-speaker who is bought and paid for by the rich. There are always honours to be bought and rich people wanting a title as we saw with the scandal during Tony Blair’s years in office.
I also think there is a case for doing away with political parties altogether, or if not going that far we definitely need to increase the number of free votes on bills instead of having party whips forcing MP’s to vote against their constituents wishes. All because the party line has to be adhered to and fuck the voters wishes!
You may argue that such a system would mean a weak government as it wouldn’t be able to force through its own agenda however when I look at the UK’s 3 main parties there are no major ideological differences between them any more. The same can be said of the USA where the Democratic party is commonly known across the world as the 2nd most Conservative party in existence.
The only things that seem to really matter is who is going to manage the economy better e.g:
- Will we get a 1p reduction in income tax or a 2.5% rise in VAT?
- Will the Government add on an extra 3p increase on cigarettes and booze or will
they help motorists and put a freeze on fuel duty?
- Will the benefits of the poor be cut even more so that they can pay off the
national debts incurred by the tax payers bailing out the rich banksters who screwed
us over?
- Will corporation tax rise or fall and will that bring in more investment and
tax revenue or less?
- Do the bankers need more regulation and higher taxation on their bonuses?
- How can we spread our GDP equally across the country so that the South East and
London isn’t the major driver of tax income?
- How can we increase investment from foreign firms or new start-ups into places where there is high unemployment through tax breaks and other schemes?
These are the sort of arguments that most of our MP’s debate about and rightly so. The health of our economy matters so much that it really shouldn’t be left in the hands of politicians who only want to spend 4 years taking money from us so that they get enough cash stored up to bribe voters with tax cuts just before elections.
If management of the economy is so important, which it is, and our politicians are so useless at doing it, which they have proven to be, then another method is most definitely required.
I personally believe we should have a committee of top economists that have the responsibility for the economy and nothing else.
They would have the job of ensuring stable and equally spread growth so the North East of England benefits as much as London and the South.
They would also need to ensure low inflation so that if job creation is low we don’t get stung by high interest rates and constant money printing.
Most of all we would want high job creation for our citizens and an optimal but fair tax system that would ensure high tax receipts without scaring off investment or hitting the average worker in their pocket.
They would also have the job of ensuring a well-funded and invested social safety net national savings account. Whilst we spent our North Sea oil money like a kid in a candy shop the Norwegians put theirs into a special fund to be used for the benefit of the country and the people.
We definitely don’t want to be in the position we are currently in where a small percentage of workers are having to pay an ever-increasing group of longer living people’s pensions. This “Grey Block” are people who always vote and the Government is always trying to win votes wherever possible, even if it means students currently leave university with high quality degrees and huge debts but cannot find any work apart from job in McDonalds.
The National Insurance I am paying at the moment is not going to any insurance scheme I know of – not a real one anyway.
A real scheme would be one that would be used to help pay my own NHS costs, a pension when I retire and dole money if I become unemployed. People who don’t use their own money as much would pay for those that need it more. However it would be tied to generations and not the current situation where one generation is paying for the benefits given out to those 2 generations ahead of them.
Instead it is being used to pay for the increasing costs of the growing grey voters who have more power at the voting booth as all their NI money has been spent already by previous governments on wars, bailouts and other wastes of money.
This “Government of Economists” could be voted in just like MP’s are on a 2 or 4 year basis to ensure they can enact policies that the people want and have the option of being re-voted in if their policies turn out to work or kicked out if they bring the country to its knees.
You would have your chance to vote in a well-known qualified economist, an Austrian or a Keynesian. You could vote in a Joseph Stiglitz, Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman or even a Peter Schiff / Max Keiser to this board if they are qualified to a certain degree that would need proper specification. They would lay out their plans for how to grow the economy, spread growth, create jobs and so on just like the political parties do in their Manifesto’s.
A coalition of opposing views might be elected in but then compromises would have to be made just like the current Lib-Con coalition.
However the most important thing is that you would be able to vote them off again when they fail to deliver the core demands of this “economic government”, e.g an economy that is balanced in the right position to deliver growth across the country, jobs, a social safety net and not massive national debt!
This would leave MP’s or the citizens of the country currently selected to act in their place to debate and vote on things that really affect people’s lives and matter such as drug policy, road pricing, immigration, social issues, Europe, NATO, war and so on.
The normal man in the street or politician for that matter has little knowledge of micro and macro economics so why should they make economic policy when we could have proper economists voted in who can decide the best way of increasing our GDP, balancing our debts and ensuring our country has money and not a massive WONGA loan out to China.
As for the non economic based politicians these would be selected like Jury service, with wages missed paid for from the state, and let’s face it, an MP’s salary is going to be greater than most average wages anyway.
If the person cannot take the role as they would rather work then they would be able to opt out as in real jury service if they met special criteria. Also as we have such as large proportion of unemployed young and retired old people there are plenty of opportunities for these groups to take up the role. A Government mixed from various generations would be the best way to get an even balanced social policy that benefited the whole of society.
Plus this “Government Service” would be marketed as doing your civil duty and giving back to the country. We have too many people who think the country has gone down the drain and the politicians are useless.
An old updated Greek style of democracy might be just the think to give people that pride back in their nation. Of course an exam or test would have to be done first when someone is selected to ensure you are not a murdering rapist or a total numpty with no clue about the world before coming on board, but let’s face it, if the Tea Party can fill Congress then why can’t we get some knowledgeable good citizens to fill our own parliament?
Just think of how many unemployed or retired people would jump at the chance of being paid to give back to the country they worked for all their lives, having the chance to make it a better place instead of watching crap daytime TV all day or pottering around the garden.
Even people with jobs could take the chance if recompensed properly. They could opt out if their job is important or they feel that they would rather work than serve on the Government but lets face it we have enough retired and unemployed and knowledgeable people to fill 600 seats anyway!
Also as these real people’s representatives would only have a fixed 4 or 2 year term there is no incentive for big business to invest millions in re-election campaigns by bribing them.
You might ask why would people give up their normal jobs for 4 years to act as MP and then leave to not gain their old job back?
Well for one I am saying we could enact laws stating that anyone selected for Government Duty must be allowed the chance to have their old job back once their term is finished or one of a similar nature at the company they left otherwise the business would have to pay a hefty redundancy payment to say “goodbye”.
Also the money that is currently given out to MP’s for wages could be split so that their current company is recompensed for having staff leave and to ensure they are taken back at the end otherwise all that money paid to the company would have to be paid back to the Government in one lump sum.
Also I am not saying that people with a love of politics cannot have a “career” in it, they just cannot serve more than 4 years at a time, at the same level of Government.
You could start off on a local level at a borough council before moving up to county or metropolitan councils before then serving a term in the national Parliament. Also we could do away with the Lords and have a Senate instead to reform and amend bills that the House of Commons make. Just by going through those 4 levels that’s 16 years.
Once you have completed the circle you would then be eligible to either leave or go back to a different level of Government i.e regional or local politics. The knowledge gained from serving at National or County level would then help serve you and the people better when you go back down to local government. The idea is just to stop politicians working at the same level of government for their whole careers before getting a nice seat in the House of Lords forever.
So the 4 year fixed term is there to prevent the problems we have now of politicians being bought and paid for by lobbyists who promise cushy directorships and other incentives on leaving office. This would all be illegal in my system. No ex MP would be able to work for a company in which a law was passed during their term in office that could have affected that company in any way.
We should also make use of modern technology to create ourselves a true form of democracy where the people really do have a choice on the outcome of important decisions. Like California’s ballot system or Switzerland’s referendums it would be possible for the average citizen to force a vote if they got a certain number of signatures on a proposal.
Other big decisions that have previously been forced on the populace by government would also be held as referendums. Anything that took powers away from our country such as the European treaties should have to be confirmed by a majority of people anyway and its a national disgrace that we were promised just that and then denied a vote due to a name change on the treaty of Lisbon.
People say referendums are unworkable because you just get uneducated people ticking boxes when they don’t understand the issues and too many referendums would become an administrative nightmare.
However we could and should use modern technology to tackle both those issues. In my idea of a modern democracy you would only be able to vote in the referendum if you have first taken an on-line test that confirms you have the appropriate amount of knowledge regarding both sides of the argument.
The no and yes campaign groups would produce videos and fact sheets conveying their points of view and arguments. If you cared about the vote you would have to make the effort to learn this basic information and take the test to confirm you know the basic what’s and whys the debate revolves around. This would also force you to investigate the opposing point of view as if you couldn’t pass the basic test you wouldn’t be allowed to vote.
This would be much preferable to a modern-day referendum say on Europe where you would have huge sections of the population voting one way, say against the Lisbon treaty, who had made their minds up about the topic years ago and if asked to read up about the benefits of the EU, trade agreements and the Human Rights act would probably refuse to on principle.
This “pop test”would weed out all those people who didn’t care enough about the subject or didn’t have the brain capacity to make a proper judgment call and leave only those who were willing to spend the time studying both sides of the proposal to pass the test to be able to vote on the matter. Therefore only real stake-holders in the issue involved would be voting rather than any Tom, Dick and Harry.
Although not a perfect system it would also prevent quick rushed bills becoming law as the time would have to be spent to make the public campaigns for both sides of the argument and to create the necessary tests to allow people to vote.
This form of democracy is true to the original Athenian democracy which had one person, one vote. However even though majority rule is more favourable in my eyes that a dictatorship or feudal systems of the past, a majority of idiots should not be allowed to subject the minority to a life of stupid laws.
We have basic rights and freedoms that need to be protected even when the majority wants to take them away. Therefore any proposed laws or referendums that go against the new bill of rights that should be created would be thrown out straight away by our new constitutional court.
For example my right to free speech should be protected no matter what public opinion is or whoever is offended. A government with a majority of 100% should not be able to pass a law that restricts this right or to amend the constitution to remove this right.
Therefore with this idea of mine the prime minister, chancellor of the exchequer and the cabinet become less like a war monger, debtor in chief and a team of yes men to back them up, and more like a management team for the country.
Their job is to ensure the smooth running of all the departments and to make sure the country doesn’t fall apart at the seams. This keeps the state small and acting in the interests of the people rather than any other party.
Then of course there would be our new president that would replace the Queen and be our head of state handling all the global handshaking and un-signing ceremonies that will need to be carried out as all the existing treaties are unstitched one by one.
This is only a rough idea of some of my thoughts regarding this subject and I am sure this idea of governance will have some issues to resolve and I would be interested to hear about anyone’s thoughts regarding this.
Date Of Origination: Wednesday, September 23, 2015