Tag Archives: Optimizing Democracy

Getting order into Number 10

A rational systemic approach is urgently required to make UK government perform as effectively and efficiently as possible.

What kind of system is government really? What exactly is its purpose? How to structure government best, so it serves the nation and the people best? How to make government perform optimally? How to set up an effective Government Performance Management System?

The UK government, generally speaking, is responsible for protecting and enhancing the wellbeing of around seventy million people. That is a huge and daunting task in our complex and challenging world.

As a consequence, when someone is entrusted with running government, they are obliged to ensure they do their job properly, or better even, optimally. Every degree in performance of the government will affect the lives of seventy million people in one way or another. The failure to get the job right can ruin the well-being of people and ultimately destabilise and destroy the entire nation.

Presently, only three months into the new Labour government, news have leaked out about infighting and chaos in Downing Street. Now ministers are calling for Keir Starmer “to get a grip of Number 10”. [1]

What the chaos shows is that a convincing rationale is missing for making Number 10 work. That is devastating for the nation. If the “head office” of government is not working properly, the entire government machinery won’t.

So, what exactly must Keir Starmer do, to bring order into number 10 and to make government perform optimally?

Systems Thinking provides a rational and transparent approach to answer this question.

A system is shaped by its purpose. So, the first thing Starmer, like any responsible head-of-government in our world, must ask is: What exactly is the purpose of “a” or “our” government system?

Systems Thinking also tells us how to get to the best answer to this initial question and to finding the solution to the overall problem of making government as effective and efficient as possible. It is by using all know-how distributed in society, and ideally in the world, through comprehensive research and consultation with the people. One of the fundamental typical mistakes in British government is that it is run by a narrow “boys’ club”, by people who consider government their private turf and think they personally know best how to run it. Most governments on earth suffer from this fault in one or another way. The attitude has caused much harm to the British nation. Not to engage in comprehensive consultation on how to structure and run government optimally at the beginning of one’s time in office, or ideally beforehand, amounts to negligence towards the seventy million inhabitants of the UK. Since the world depends on effective and efficient governments and leadership, not optimising government performance amounts, moreover, to negligence towards the entire world.

So let us assume for now the consultation on the exact purpose of the government system were to conclude: The purpose of governing is the identification, weighing, and the management of public issues in the most effective and efficient manner possible, so that the work of government maximises the wellbeing of the British population, today and in the future.

This definition tells us that our government system requires four fundamental sub-systems: One sub-system to make government perform in the “most effective and efficient way possible”, one sub-system to identify public issues, one sub-system to weigh and prioritise them, and one sub-system to manage them.

Systems and sub-systems are organisational units. They must translate into the organisation chart of government. Presently you will probably not find these four sub-systems on the first sub-level on line two of the organisation chart of the British government. This is a key reason why government cannot work optimally and will commit blunders. Evidently, if you do not have an effective system to make government performance as effective and efficient as only conceivable or, in other words, to “optimise government performance”, then you will probably not have a government capable to handle the extremely difficult political problems of our time adequately. Government will fail, disappoint voters, it will not be trusted and get into trouble, by the latest at the next election. Moreover, you will undermine trust in democracy altogether, you might cause discontent and riots.

What structuring government work in a rational, systemic way allows concerning the relationship to the public is to make government work absolutely transparent. It allows you as a head of government to lay your books open and to inform the people: This is how we optimise government performance. You can, moreover, involve the people in shaping government and tell them: This is your government. If you have a better proposal for optimising government work, please let us know. You can precisely show: This is how we identify public issues, this is how we weigh them, this is how we manage them. You can again involve the people by stating: If you have proposals how we can improve the performance of these systems, let us know. We will examine your proposal and feed it into our open consultation process on government optimisation.

Each of the initial four sub-systems will have many sub-systems on their own. The system for “managing” public issues, for example, will require a sub-system for strategy making, one for strategy implementation, and one for evaluation. The system for strategy making itself will require a system which identifies and confirms the exact goal of each policy, a system which identifies all factors affecting the achievement of the goal specified, and a system which builds strategies which incorporate all factors of relevance identified. If one omits any factors of relevance, the policy will not work, and resources will be squandered.

As regards the concrete identification of policy issues, one policy issue which is probably never properly recognised is the specific task of “stabilising UK democracy”. In a time when all democracies are threatened by populist tendencies and are at danger of sliding into destructive dictatorships, the issue of “stabilising democracy” is of critical importance for the nation, like for any democratic state.

How to stabilise UK democracy? One key factor would be to create contentment with it. To achieve this goal, one would have to make UK democracy work optimally, meaning concretely that one would need “a system to make UK democracy work optimally”. But making a machine work optimally alone does not suffice to create contentment. One would also have to communicate to the client, how exactly the machine is constructed and why its way of construction would be optimal, so people really see that their democratic system is the best they can get. What this requirement tells us that we need an effective system of communication with the citizens. We also need an effective citizenship education system to maintain the stability of democracy and to avoid that people are being misled by populists. What is the present state of the UK citizenship education system? Does it comply with the requirements? We would need to check, but it is highly unlikely.

While the individual lay-out of each system and sub-system largely depends on its specific purpose, all systems must have two effective standard systems for them to function properly: Effective control and effective communication. No system works effectively without effective control, and all system needs effective communication systems, both inside the system and with stakeholders on their outside. In case of government those stakeholders are primarily the people. How to set up effective control and effective communication? It will again depend on identifying all aspects which influence effective control and communication and on incorporating all relevant factors into the system.

For us as citizens it is important that democracy is “government by the people”. This means that it is ultimately our responsibility to make democracy and government, as its key part, work. We must set up an effective chain of control from us, over our control institutions, to the head-of-government, and to ultimately all policy making units. Presently Parliament and House of Lords are our key “control systems” over government work. Do they function effectively as control systems? If members of the House of Lords give presents to government, at worst they might do this to bribe government, at best they might simply be more like friends to members of the government. In any case, they will not be acting properly as “controllers” on behalf of the people and unlikely to control government work effectively. Yet, if our control systems do not work, we cannot be astonished if we are not content with the work of government.

How can we set-up effective control over government? Systems Thinking tells us that, we, the people, need to form a driver to achieve this goal, an organisation which deals with the question of “how to set up an effective democracy and an effective government”. Without the people forming a driver, an organisation which deals with the question of how to optimise democracy and government performance, we will not get an effective democratic system, and we will not have a government which performs optimally.

But back to government itself. What must Keir Starmer now do to ensure his government works optimally?

I suggest he now needs to do two things: First, he must ensure that government runs optimally on the basis of its present organisational set-up, and, second, he must set up a system which develops a new government structure on the basis of Systems Thinking, a structure which optimises government performance. For these tasks the Prime Minister needs to hire two persons: One person familiar with present government operations who ensures government works as smoothly and efficiently as possible on the basis of its current organisational structure, and one person whose task it is to optimise government performance. For the task he or she needs to understand Systems Thinking and to set-up an effective “Government Performance Management System”. The time frame for developing a new, systems based organisational structure for government would perhaps be a year. As soon as the new, systemically sound system would be developed, the organisational structure of the government system would be adapted to it. To gain the confidence of the people, Starmer should inform the public about these actions.

After years of turmoil in government the British people finally need and want a government which works optimally. Starmer must explain to the public how he will build it.

[1] Andrew Rawnsley, Urgent memo from his anxious ministers to Sir Keir Starmer: you need to get a grip of No 10, The Observer, 29 September 2024https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/28/keir-starmer-no-10-ministers

Biden’s crucial failure: So far, no success in stabilizing US democracy

Leave a reply

Now, in the remaining months before the election, an instant democracy turn-around program is of decisive relevance. Further measures to stabilize US democracy on the long-run are also indispensable.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

To make it clear upfront: The thoughts in this essay are not an encouragement to vote for what I perceive to be a dangerous demagogue. To the contrary. They are a call on the Biden government to now rectify some fundamental flaws in policy making. Most democratic governments suffer from these deficits. Securing democracy in the US and globally requires that we mend them.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“Tonight, I come to talk about crisis and opportunity, about rebuilding the nation, revitalizing our democracy, and winning the future for America.” Under the impression of the chaos in government under the Trump presidency and the upheaval he caused after losing the election in 2020, Joe Biden declared “revitalizing democracy” the prime task of his government in pretty much the first sentence of his address to Congress at the outset of his term in April 2021. [i]

One must appreciate that Joe Biden stood against a demagogue like Trump and maintained the US as a democracy, even if certainly not a perfect one, over the last three years. One can only hope that he manages to repeat this achievement in a now likely second electoral competition for the Presidency against Trump in November 2024.

Still, by now, about seven months before the new election, it becomes disturbingly evident that Biden and his government spectacularly and critically failed to deliver on what three years ago they themselves declared to be their prime responsibility in office. According to polls in the spring, 45 percent, nearly or around half of the electorate are still in favor of Donald Trump.[ii] The outcome of the upcoming election is unclear and now, even more so than in previous elections in which Trump stood, the US is at risk of decaying into a chaotic and destructive dictatorship. The Trumpist action plan for a takeover of the state formulated in the “Project 2025” document evokes disturbing images of the ferocious wiping out of all opposition by the NAZIs in Germany in the 1930s.[iii]

Why have the many democracy endeavors which the Biden government undertook over these three years, the “Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal”, the repeated international “Summits for Democracy”, and the overall expense of “approximately $9.5 billion… to support democracy, human rights, and good governance globally”, not produced any results, neither nationally nor globally? [iv] And what needs to happen now to protect democracy in the US?

Faulty Policy Approach

The range of reasons for the failure of the Biden democracy project appears rather large. It seems to begin with the wrong philosophy behind the approach. In his speech to Congress Joe Biden declared: “We have to prove democracy still works — that our government still works and we can deliver for our people”.[v] What, however, if the political and economic circumstances were to make delivering what people expect difficult or even impossible? Then there is the imprecise overall definition of the policy aim ranging from “defending democracy, fighting for it, strengthening it, renewing it” to “revitalizing it”, when the overall goal after the last election clearly must have been and now urgently must be “stabilizing” US democracy.

Moreover, the design of the project strategies appears incoherent. The outline of the Summit for Democracy called for input on three main areas, “Defending against authoritarianism”, “Addressing and fighting corruption”, and “Advancing respect for human rights”. These aspects are without doubt somehow connected to healthy democracies at home and around the world, but they clearly do not exert a direct impact on the goal of “stabilizing” democracy. Sound strategies depend on a precise analysis of all factors affecting the achievement of the policy goal. Any effort to “stabilize democracy” clearly depends on ensuring trust in the democratic system, at least as a key aspect. From this thought follows the necessity to ensure that the factors warranting trust in the political system are in place, including certainly the solid construction of the political system. One aspect in the policy design of the Biden government also appears to be that national and international efforts are fused, enhancing the lack of clarity in the strategy design. A further problem appears to be a certain mingling of the role of Joe Biden as a head of state responsible for ensuring the stability of US democracy and as a competitor against Trump in a seemingly never-ending election campaign, with both roles demanding different strategic approaches.

Finally, there seem to be deficiencies in the communication with the public on the democracy efforts. The website on the Summit for Democracy is far too convoluted for any citizen to take any information in on how democracy is to be made to work for the people.[vi] One will not want to emulate Trump, but with his populist style of communication he appears to reach people far more effectively.

Structural Deficits in Government Policy Making

Two reasons behind these deficits in strategy making appear to be a lack of methodological know-how for policy making, evident from the flawed design of the democracy project, and the lack of an effective Government Performance Management System, which would have insured an effective policy design.

A further fundamental structural shortcoming causing these deficits is the apparent failure to set-up government as a permanently learning system, a set-up which would include an effective system of open consultation with the public both on governance and policy design. Practically all democratic governments in the world appear to suffer from this lack of openness. They operate as “closed shops” in which government decision and policy making largely happens in a small circle of ministers, advisers, and possibly, public officials and is often based on personal convictions of the decision makers, rather than on comprehensive consultation and rational decision-making methods.

As Michael D. Shear and Shane Goldmacher observed in the New York Times already in December 2020, more than three years ago, the members of the then incoming Biden government were largely selected on the basis of their years, if not decades of cooperation with Joe Biden. They looked like a “team of buddies”. Reflecting on the benefits, but also the risks of such a tightly woven staff network, they wrote: “Even some allies in the Democratic Party say they worry that Mr. Biden’s reliance on the same people threatens to undermine his ability to find solutions to the country’s problems that go beyond the usual ones embraced by the establishment in Washington.” Observers were suggesting, “With building his team based on credentials”, he would miss the “opportunity to introduce fresh blood and new thinking…”. They felt: “Tackling the big problems in America…is going to require a lively debate…It doesn’t have to be a room full of people you like.” [vii]

These warnings have come true, as the remarkable failure of the democracy endeavours of the Biden government show, so far at least. In an essay the author of the considerations presented here already made suggestions in January 2021 on what the Biden government needed to do to be successful in its approach to stabilizing US democracy.[viii] Later in the year he spent days trying to get through to the US government, both the White House and the Department of State, to offer know-how on systemic problem structuring methodologies to help ensure the success of the “Summit for Democracy” and of the other democracy efforts of the Biden government. No result. No way to get through to the government, even on a question of such existential relevance for the nation. If one suggests that a policy concept cannot work in the way it is structured, people in government appear to build defense walls around their approach, rather than checking such suggestions out. That is partly natural human behaviour. To overcome such inherent resistance an independent quality control system in government is required which ensures that policy approaches are sensible and work. Especially if democracy is at stake, a responsible government must actively look for and include any potentially relevant know-how.

The US – Not A Democracy Anymore?

As also the case in this essay, we keep talking about the US as a democracy. A fundamental reason for the lack of success in stabilizing US democracy, however, must finally be the fact that, many observers suggest that this is wrong. Rather than being a democracy, the US political system would be a system controlled by money.

In a detailed assessment of the matter political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page state already in 2014: “…when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose”. Later in their essay they conclude: “… we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” [ix] The former Vice President Al Gore formulates such observations even more unreservedly. In his 2013 book “The Future” he writes: “…Not since the 1890s has U.S. government decision making been as feeble, dysfunctional, and servile to corporate and other special interests as it is now”, and: “The US no longer has a well-functioning self-government…American democracy has been hacked.” [x]

When Joe Biden declares: “We have to prove democracy still works…” he completely ignores such crucial perceptions about the essence of US democracy. Yet stabilizing US democracy undoubtedly requires the trust of the people, and the people will only then trust in the US political system, if it truly is a democracy serving wider society. Fixing this structural deficit in US democracy clearly is an enormous task for any government. But who wants to stabilize US democracy cannot sweep this fundamental issue under the carpet. People will always notice and distrust the system if what they get is not the real thing.

Clearly any government which takes its responsibility in serving society seriously, must examine and discuss suggestions like the ones presented here on why it failed in reaching its prime policy goal. It is, as we realize, of critical, perhaps existential relevance for democracy and a nation.

What now?

Due to the failure of the Biden government to stabilize US democracy over the last three years, the US now, half a year before the new presidential election is more than before on cliff’s edge of turning into a dictatorship. To avert the risk an instant short-term democracy turn-around program appears now desperately required. Moreover, US democracy should be set on a stable footing for the long run.

1. An Instant Democracy Turn-Around Program to Stabilize US Democracy in As Much As Possible Before The Election

What would be the purpose of such an instant democracy stabilization programme?

The first goal evidently would be to avert the risk of the US turning into a destructive dictatorship.

The basic mean required to achieve this goal would be to offer more sensible alternatives to the public for reaching their goals and for turning the US into an effective democracy serving wider society.

To convince the people one would have to gain their trust.

To achieve this, one would have to address all existing problems in society and the state in an honest way, from poverty and inequality to migration, race, and certainly the climate, to the problems of US democracy itself.

One would have to discuss the joint goals of American society, the pros and cons of what “Making America Great Again” means, and the need to instead perhaps simply agree on “building a co-operative, healthy, and strong society” as a joint goal.

One then would have to discuss the central need to make the political system including government as effective as only possible to achieve this goal. In this context one would have to point to the factors which make a government effective, the need for both, effective government processes and for persons of high integrity and high professional qualifications in government and the Civil Service.

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, as two of the founding fathers of the US, already provided clues on the selection criteria for officials in the US governments. Reflecting on the election of a president for Columbia College, the oldest undergraduate college in New York, Alexander Hamilton notes: “It is essential that he be a gentleman in his manners, as well a sound and polite scholar, that his moral character be irreproachable; that he possesses energy of body and mind, and be of a disposition to maintain discipline without undue austerity; and in the last place, that his politics be of the right sort.”^[xi]Thomas Jefferson suggests that the federal service of the US requires officers “whose talents, integrity, names, and dispositions, should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and ensure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business”^[xii]^.

Certainly, nobody is perfect, and also the founding fathers were not. Still, the Biden government needs to make it clear to society that especially those who aim to “Make America Great Again” must be looking for leaders who fulfil these guidelines. It must convey that applying these criteria clearly shows that Donald Trump is not at all suited for any political office in the US and certainly not to lead the nation. Instead of making it great, he would rather destroy it.

In as far as government processes are concerned a turn-around program could concentrate on how the government would in the future ensure that citizens are adequately heard and involved in the policy making process and how the government will ensure its optimal performance through an open consultation system with the public and through an effective Government Performance Management System.

If one discusses all these issues with US society in the most open, honest, and constructive way conceivable and communicates with the public on these issues in an effective manner, I am sure one can prevent the US from turning into a dictatorship in November.

2. Stabilizing US Democracy on The Long Run

To stabilize US democracy on the long run three key factors appear essential:

First, people must subscribe to a joint goal, such as creating a co-operative, healthy, and strong society.
Second, people must appreciate and be certain that they have the very best democratic system conceivable to achieve this goal, and,
Third, they must be able how to run their democratic system effectively and to ensure it stays stable. Crucial issues which the public must understand is how to select suitable politicians and how to prevent the democratic system turning into a dictatorship.

Government should lead and agree with society on the goal of building a co-operative, healthy, and strong society. The goal should perhaps form the basis of a joint mission statement of society.

For people to know that they have the very best system conceivable that quality in itself must be a fact. The new government should, therefore, install a work group to initiate the review of the construction of the US democratic system. The group should propose measures to mend its deficits. A key problem evidently is the fact that the US democracy is dominated by money. Fixing this problem will be extremely difficult but must be done. One problem of the US election system evidently is that it repeatedly leads to a show-down between two elderly candidates when in a three-hundred million society easily fifteen candidates could be found who possess the necessary qualities and qualifications to run the nation. A constitutional review should also address this problem evidently caused by the election system. The world is facing huge challenges. For the US being able to cope with these challenges and having the most effective and efficient democratic system conceivable is of fundamental relevance for the nation and for the democratic world.

Ultimately, stabilizing democracy requires that people understand the value of democracy, what it is, how it can and must work to serve wider society as effectively and efficiently as only possible. They must also see that building the perfect political system is extremely difficult and requires huge system building capacities and co-operation. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as government “of, by and for the people”. People must understand what government “by the people” entails and what they can and must do to make “their government” effective and efficient and to keep the democratic system stable. Conveying all this information requires a highly effective Citizenship Education System. This must be built as soon as only possible.

But back to the present situation.

As we said, there are only seven months to the Presidential election in November. To avert the risk of the US turning into a dictatorship at that point President Biden must now, without delay, initiate an instant turn-around program for US democracy. For the program to be effective, Biden and his government must now finally look for “new ideas and thinking” on the matter, they must tap into relevant know-how distributed in society and consult comprehensively with society on how to structure the program.

[i] Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress, U.S. Capitol, April 28, 2021Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress | The White House

[ii] 2024 Election: Biden Holds On To Slight Lead Over Trump, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Trump Gets Higher Marks On Age, Mental & Physical Fitness; Biden Does Better On Ethics, Empathy & Temperament, https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3890

^[iii]For a discussion of the Project 2025 see for example MICHAEL HIRSH, Inside the Next Republican Revolution, Politico, 19 September 2023, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/19/project-2025-trump-reagan-00115811

[iv] The White House, FACT SHEET: The Biden-⁠Harris Administration’s Abiding Commitment to Democratic Renewal at Home and Abroad, Briefing Room, Statements and Releases, MARCH 29, 2023, FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Administration’s Abiding Commitment to Democratic Renewal at Home and Abroad | The White House

[v] Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress, April 28, 2021

[vi] Cf. The Summit for Democracy, The Summit for Democracy – United States Department of State

[vii] Michael D. Shear and Shane Goldmacher , Team of Rivals? Biden’s Cabinet Looks More Like a Team of Buddies. In making his picks for the new administration, the president-elect has put a premium on personal relationships., New York Times, Dec. 9, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/us/politics/biden-cabinet-personal-relationships.html

[viii] Hans Peter Ulrich, Biden – The Savior of Democracy? | optimisingdemocracy, 29 January, 2021

[ix] Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, American Political Science Association 2014, Published online by Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595

[x] Al Gore, The Future, 2013, p. 95 and 104

[xi] Quote in Paul C. Light, A government ill executed, Harvard University Press, 2008 , p. 79 (from Lynton K Caldwell, The administrative theories of Hamilton and Jefferson…Chicago University Press, 1944)

[xii] Ibid. (from writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 10, p. 182)

Optimizing Democracy in Brazil – Two Concrete Steps Necessary

Leave a reply

Brazil has been seeing huge protests for more than two weeks now against many issues – mostly against a lack of transparency, corruption, and ineffectiveness in government.

How can these protests lead to a concrete, lasting improvement in the quality of government?

The model described in this blog provides a solution:

To govern a country like Brazil, to reduce poverty and corruption, and to solve the many other policy issues as effectively and efficiently as possible with only limited resources, “best practices” in policy making are necessary.

What are the best practices in policy making? Hard to say. To establish best practices in policy making Brazil like any other democratic country needs an effective organization working on behalf of the citizens which identifies what best practices in all aspects of governing a nation are. The citizens themselves must set up the organization, so they do not depend on “anybody else”, i.e. for example the politicians, to tell them what best practices supposedly are. The citizens themselves must identify them, so they can be sure they get the best solutions.

Second, the people must ensure that those best practices are actually applied in policy making, concretely that structures and processes in the policy making system are as effective as possible, serve the common good, and do not leave room for inefficiency. One system which the people must optimize is the system for corruption control.

To implement those two steps the citizens must join and create two organizations:

1. A citizens’ organization, lets call it “Optimizing Democracy Brazil” which initiates the necessary actions.

2. A “Citizens’ Public Policy Know-how Institute” which informs the citizens about the best processes and systems in policy making necessary to make their democratic policy making system effective.

The writer Ignácio de Loyola Brandão is very pessimistic about the outcome of the demonstrations. He expects the protests to ebb off after a while and Brazil to return to its “normality” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 June 2013).

If people want to see a concrete improvement in how they are governed they must establish a joint initiative taking the necessary, constructive measures towards achieving this goal. They must identify the best practices in policy making and work together to make sure they are applied.

Brazil is an example for what needs to happen in all democratic nations to optimize their democratic policy making systems.

Italy – A Citizens’ Association for the Optimization of Democracy

Leave a reply

How can Italy get a stable and effective democratic policy making system, now and in the future, a policy making system able to handle the challenges of the 21^st century? In Italy, like in any other democratic country, the citizens themselves are ultimately responsible for the fate of their country. They themselves must fix any problems with their policy making system.

For decades the Italian people have been hoping for a strong man or a better party to establish stable and effective governments only to be disappointed over and over again. Now the situation is getting urgent. Due to the financial crisis and probably also due to the process of globalization industrial production in the country has fallen by 25% since 2008. Unemployment continues to be high, especially among young people.

Many people in Italy now recognize the need for a radical restructuring of the existing political institutions. But this issue is not being moved forward effectively. Citizens continue to elect politicians and to hope for the political system to fix itself. This cannot work. Politicians have their own agenda. And they may not know how to establish the most effective policy system conceivable. Citizens themselves need to take action.

What needs to happen?

People in Italy, like in any other democratic country, need to change their perception about their role as citizens in a democracy. In a democracy the people are the highest sovereign in the state. They govern themselves. The policy system is their tool for managing their public affairs. The people need to realize that they cannot hope for a politician or party to repair the democratic policy system on their behalf. The citizens in a democratic society must ensure that the system works, they themselves.
In the light of the complexity of the problems of our globalized world of now seven billion people only the best policy making system will suffice to solve the problems of the country. In Italy, like in other democratic nations, citizens, therefore, must aim to optimize the performance of their political system.
To take concrete action citizens must establish an initiative which identifies the best options for making their democratic policy making system effective and which ensures that those concepts are implemented.
Only with the best objective and independent know-how available in Italy and the globe can the citizens be sure to arrive at a democratic policy making system of the highest quality conceivable. The initiative must set up a know-how system which is completely open, invites contributions from anybody who may have to say something on the matter, and identifies the know-how of the required level of quality.
Citizens must realize that making their policy making effective on the long run does not only take isolated one time action, but constant effective citizen control. They should establish the initiative with a view to turning it into a permanent element in the political life of the country and of the constitution, a “Citizens Association for the Optimization of Democracy”. The association will be responsible to persistently monitor the performance of the policy making system and to identify possibilities to further improve its performance.
The qualification of politicians working on behalf of society in policy making is perhaps the most crucial element necessary for the policy system to be able to cope with the problems of our globalised world. The best qualification is of relevance in any function and at any level of the policy making system, especially at leadership level. Specific subject matter qualifications for making the economy competitive and to create millions of jobs are also of the highest importance. The association must make sure that those qualifications are “in place” to ensure that the system is as effective as only possible. One key effect of the objective qualification and performance standards, which the citizens’ association will aim to generate, will be a considerable reduction, perhaps even the nearly complete eradication, of widespread corruption and nepotism presently existing in the policy making system.

For the time being the politicians elected by the Italian people must fulfill their responsibilities for the country and the citizens and form a joint government. But the factors affecting the performance of Italian governments must be analyzed as soon as possible, so the necessary performance level can be established for the policy making system. Only an overhaul of the political system in the sketched fashion can make the country strong enough to handle the challenges which the country is facing.

Democracy is government by the people, as one element of the definition formulated by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address. The citizens of a democratic country govern themselves. They must make sure their tool for governing the country, their democratic policy making system, works optimally, in Italy like in any other democratic country.

How to optimize democracy? – Two things are necessary

Leave a reply

From a very fundamental analytical perspective it takes two things to optimize democracy:

1. Optimal know-how in setting up the most effective democratic policy making systems and processes conceivable.

2. Making sure that this optimal know-how is adhered to and applied.

In the following a short discussion on what is required to establish the optimal know-how for making our democratic policy making system effective and for making sure that this know-how is applied. For a graph visualizing the issues discussed click here: How to optimize democracy – A graph

Establishing the “optimal know-how” for setting up an effective policy making system.

The following key factors appear necessary to establish an effective “know-how system”:

1. Assembling and scanning all know-how available in a country and the world.
2. Absolute openness for any suggestion whatsoever on the matter of “optimizing policy making” and even soliciting input from wider civil society on the issue (excluding one view only could mean we miss out on the best option for addressing a certain problem).
3. Optimal know-how in the objective assessment of approaches to system optimization.
4. Adequate human and financial resources.

What, as a next question, does it take to make sure the optimal methods identified for building an effective policy making are actually applied?

We suggest as the key factors: power and resources, next to effective communication.

Whose power and resources? Who is responsible for optimizing the system?

Democracy is government by the people, as one of the elements of the definition of democracy formulated by Abraham Lincoln.

So far we rely on our politicians to optimize policy making by themselves. This is wrong. Following the statement by Lincoln, the people, the citizens of a democratic country themselves, are responsible for optimizing the way they identify and handle their common policy issues.

Acquiring the necessary resources to identify the best know-how and the power to make sure that it is applied.

Achieving the goal to optimize democratic policy making processes in as short a time frame as possible requires an effective citizens’ organization which operates directly on behalf of the citizens and whose task it is to optimize the policy making systems and procedures. One task which the organization will have is to define the optimal dividing line between issues to be handled by direct democratic procedures and those to be handled by indirect democratic procedures.

Citizens must pool their resources to establish such an organization. No system is effective without effective control. Without such an organization the effectiveness of the policy making system is not guaranteed. The more people join the smaller will be the required contributions. The more “normal” citizens join, the larger the power of the association to ensure that no specific interest groups on the inside or the outside of the policy making system abuse it and reduce its effectiveness in working for the well-being of society as a whole.

Like a union working on behalf of society as a whole.

All in all we can envision the organization like a union working on behalf of society as a whole and making sure that the democratic policy making system works optimally for the common good. One task the organization will have is also to ensure that the national policy making system contributes in as much as only possible to establishing the most effective international organizations.

Our own knowledge not substantiated enough.

Optimizing democracy must begin with the initiative of citizens to set up a citizens’ control organization over policy making. This organization must then also set up an effective know-how system. Our knowledge as individuals or groups, or even as policy institutes is not substantiated enough to optimize our democratic policy making systems. We need effective systems to generate the best know-how.

How to optimize democracy? – Some basic thoughts

Leave a reply

Democracy is government by the people, as one element of the statement by Abraham Lincoln on the nature of democracy.

The prime way for citizens to take control of their world and their policy making systems suggested in this blog is to join in and support a citizens’ association for “Optimizing Democracy”.

Our current control systems such as the parliaments do not work effectively. But no system works well without effective control. Also our policy making systems don’t.

Citizens, therefore, must establish effective systems to shape and control the democratic policy making systems. We as citizens ourselves are responsible for the way our policy making systems work, for the quality of our governments in whichever country we live, and for the way we treat the globe.

In a democracy complaining about the work of governments is not enough. We as citizens must take constructive action to optimize the way our democratic policy making systems work.

Why optimize democracy?

Leave a reply

Many regions in the world and the world as a whole are facing severe actual or potential crises:
1. Global warming could well turn into the most existential crisis for human beings across the globe the world has seen so far.
2. The West has been seeing increasing gaps in income and wealth and wide unemployment, especially also among the young generation, already dubbed the “lost generation”.
3. The Arab countries are struggling to build effective democracies which help to secure fair opportunities and balanced well-being for all its citizens.

In addition the fight against global poverty remains a gigantic task after more than 60 years of international development corporation. We see conflicts in many parts of the world over matters of religion, land or resources which urgently need to be resolved in order to avoid further unnecessary bloodshed. Pollution affects the state of the globe everywhere. Our oceans are covered with carpets of plastic rubbish the size of central Europe, rubbish which also threatens to enter the human food chain. No individual human being would approve of such pollution, but the policy systems we have in place do not prevent it. At the same time the expected steady increase of the global population to 9 billion by the year 2050 continues to add to the pressure on the resources of the globe year by year. Finally, as a completely different problem largely unnoticed by the public in the light of these more imminent challenges, advances in biogenetic medicine could well endanger even the dignity of human life. Our policy making systems would have to keep us updated on those developments and, next to the benefits, the risks for humanity involved in them.

Democracy as we operate it does not appear to be able to cope with these challenges.

It has a number of inherent deficits which need to be fixed. One of them is that it forces politicians to look out for the next day’s headlines and for votes in the next elections, rather than for long-term and sustainable problem solutions. Another problem of democracy is corruption, more generally the tendency of many politicians to put their own benefit above their work for the common good, a problem widespread in many countries. Those deficits severely affect the capacity of democratic policy making systems to cope with the economic and other challenges of our time.

As a consequence of the ineffectiveness of democracies in dealing with the problems especially in the area of economics we have seen and keep seeing uprisings in many countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, as well as the rise of the Occupy movement in the US and Europe. Also the London riots of 2011 have been attributed to the lack of opportunities for the young generation and the fact that, as a consequence, many young people do not have a stake in society.

Since the pressure on employment and income in the West is likely to rise with ongoing globalization, some observers consider it highly likely that the number of protests and riots will increase. They warn against a potential outright economic and social collapse of the old industrialized societies in the years to come. The distinguished British-American historian Tony Judt writes: “ Few in the West today can conceive of a complete breakdown of liberal institutions, an utter disintegration of the democratic consensus. But what we know of World War II – or the former Yugoslavia – illustrates the ease with which any society can descend into Hobbesian nightmares of unrestrained atrocity and violence”.

Our only chance: Optimizing the performance of democracy

All problems mentioned above, global warming, pollution of the globe, unemployment, global population growth and establishing balanced well-being in a world in which 80% of the people live in so-called developing countries are problems of the highest complexity and urgency. Many of those issues are interdependent, such as reducing poverty, creating peace, establishing strong economies, and effective administrative systems. Also in our interconnected world the economic development in other countries is likely to affect employment and well-being in our own country.

Dealing with such interdependence and complexity, fighting those challenges and avoiding crises potentially arising from them, requires the most effective and efficient use of our resources. We have to get our priorities right in the way we spend our resources and we must learn, how to achieve our goals in each policy area with the minimum amount of resources necessary, so we can free resources up for other tasks. Achieving these goals requires the most effective policy making systems conceivable.

The goal of only “enhancing” the performance of our democratic policy making systems is not enough in the light of these challenges and the existential risks connected with some of them. In a highly competitive sport athletes will tickle every bit of reserve out of their bodies. They will optimize any element of their preparation from training to nutrition and mental fitness to enhance their competitiveness. For democratic states the complexity of the challenges and the highly competitive nature of the world today mean that also their national and international systems must perform to the highest standards and make the best use of any resources available to them. On the international level we must jointly create the very best systems and procedures to handle the problems our globe is facing.

Optimizing Democracy, setting up a competent and fair policy making system of the highest standards, is also of relevance for countries which try to build sustainable and strong democratic systems, for example Egypt, countries which need to provide fair and equal chances and balanced well-being to different ethnic, cultural and religious segments in their societies in order to establish and maintain peaceful and productive co-existence between these segments.