While studying this law course at university, we were presented with a TED lecture which argues for sortition. This is essentially a random selection process for a nation's ruler(s). When I was quite young, and certainly uneducated, I gravitated towards this same idea, calling it a 'randomocracy'. While seemingly appealing on the face of it, once one delves further into this idea, it is actually a very dangerous proposition. Let us examine my own household.
Let us suppose that either of my housemates were to be randomly selected as the nation's leader. In the first case: Euclio. We played some silly board game in which we were supposed to run a country together. Euclio, instead of helping the team as best he could (as everyone else did), did all he could to consolidate his own personal power base, accrue as much money as he could, and scuppered any bills passed by the others, simply to cast the cat among the pigeons. Imagine if Euclio were chosen at random to be Britain's Prime Minister. Wars would be started on a whim. There would be much more corruption. Euclio would act in the same way, leaving the nation to hang, while he creamed off as much money as possible. The nation would very soon be paralysed, starving, without electricity and most likely, annexed by a foreign power. So we can rule out Euclio as being Britain's Prime Minister.
What about the other? I suppose that this gentleman's criminal record may very well invalidate him from becoming Prime Minister. Yet even if criminals were permitted, how much more corruption would be rife if crooks were permitted to run the nation?
Moreover, there is no such thing as 'random' when it comes to computers (and in this day and age, the 'random' selection would probably be done via computers). Computers generate pseudo-random numbers, kind of like a wheel with numbers on, that turns a number of notches. As evidence of this, a friend of mine (a very gifted programmer) once generated a random height map for a game he was writing. On the first generation of it, the hills, when looked at from above, generated a face with a smile. This is evidence that there is no such thing as 'random' when it comes to computers.
The lecturer cited the κληρωτήριον (incorrectly mentioning it in the plural, therefore betraying the speaker's lack of knowledge when it comes to Latin and ancient Greek). It is fanciful to imagine that back in the 5th century B.C.E. or even the heyday of Rome, that things were much better than they are now. This is a rose-tinted view of the ancient world, and many people indulge this nonsense. For example, no women or slaves had any say in ancient Athenian 'democracy'. Moreover, there are some (mentioning no names) that believe that the dream-temples of Asclepius should be brought back. Yet reading Aelius Aristides, it is clear that whatever spirit(s) visited him in his dreams, was not a good spirit. The being bade him to jump into a freezing cold river in the middle of winter, then cover himself with mud and walk around the town naked. This is not a good thing, just as returning to Athenian style 'democracy' is not a good thing. Democracy is precious, and for all politicians' faults (which are very many), a good many politicians go into politics to help bring about positive change. It would be cynical to take the view of House of Cards, and have no faith in democracy (even if House of Cards and Yes, Minister have much in common with Britain's political system). Sortition is not an answer. It is a dangerous idea that could potentially throw many nation states into chaos, without law, order and most of all: democracy. The electoral mandate is what gives a party legitimacy. It is not because a ruler has been pulled out of a hat.
In other news, England plays Iran today in the World Cup. Even if this is a nation of money launderers and arms dealers, without honour, I will support England, if only because I was born here.
No comments:
Post a Comment