Inventions Articles Social Engineering Challenges Business English Simulations
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10

Previous page · Next page

The Post-Transition

“It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad.”

C. S. Lewis

In Chapter 6, I described a possible process to legally transition from the western democratic model to the TDG. I also described that this transition would mostly affect the electoral laws as the electoral laws of these two systems of governance are incompatible. All other institutions of western democracy would more or less remain in place, and the new TDG would initially work within this framework.

But it is very important to realize that the TDG is not just an updated version of the western democratic model. It is a whole new process of governance that has a whole new way of thinking and reaching societal decisions. If I wasn't clear enough in the preceding chapters, I am going to summarize the main points in new ways.

The positions of TDG governance will be open to practically all citizens, so society will have a bigger pool of talent to put into these positions.

If constructed carefully, a mature TDG will have created a culture that minimizes an overly ambitious individual's quest for a powerful position in governance.

Most citizens will be indifferent whether they are elected or unelected, whether they rise higher in the TDG, or whether they are appointed to the advisory board. They will see whatever way the TDG calls them into governance as an honor to the positive attributes they were given or have developed. Many called into this service will give their best efforts to the TDG, whether that be for a short time or a long time. When they are no longer called, they will willingly accept this decision and make way for the new people.

If we have such individuals being elected or appointed to governance, what is the likelihood that they will abuse their positions of influence and power? Not very likely!

But even when a high-ranking TDG official does put him- or herself in a position that brings discredit to the TDG, that individual will most likely not be re-elected in the next annual election. In essence, the annual election becomes an important check-and-balance to remove the infrequent corrupt officials from office, albeit in an undramatic way.

There will also be a different relationship between the general citizenry and the TDG officials. Citizens will see many people of good character and competence elected and appointed into government. They will have more trust and respect for these individuals. They will also know these people are making their decisions by employing the consultative process: there are no favors to be paid off, no party unity to be displayed, or no re-election considerations. The people making the decisions will be altruistically motivated—only for the good of the citizens they serve. Since the citizens know and feel this new way, they will be more likely to be accepting of TDG decisions that they disagree with. In other words, they will be less likely to fight the decision or degrade the decision makers; they will, instead, have an attitude of: “Well, I don't understand why TDG made that decision, but they have more insight than I have, and maybe the decision will all turn out well. If not, I'm sure they will fix any mistake.”

With such an acceptance, there will be new strategies for implementing government initiatives. New initiatives can be tried, monitored, and changed without fear of some kind of punishment. The society or community will learn new things from these experiments. If a new initiative is found not to produce effective results, it will be because the society or community tried its best to make it work and could not make it work. Therefore the initiative can be fully discarded, with certain lessons learned, because it is truly a failure—not because of opposition to the initiative was successful in supplanting the initiative before it was allowed to bear its fruits (or lack thereof).

With opposition to a perceived bad initiative curtailed, it might seem the TDG is stifling debate and discussion. This, however, is not the case. The TDG should encourage all sorts of discussion and debate and perspectives and consultation. After the decision has been made, the elected and appointed officials should all get behind the decision to see if it will truly work or not. And the citizenry should accept that some very capable people have listened to many sides of the issue and come to a certain conclusion based on what they felt was best for the society or community.

I am re-emphasizing the process of consultation as the combining of knowledge, wisdom, and experience of and by all participants to create the final decision. We need to realize that whatever intellectual and life assets we currently hold, we can reach a certain decision we may feel very comfortable with. But if we had more of these assets, we just might make a different decision. We need to see the people who often disagree with us as a source of knowledge, wisdom, and experience we don't currently have.

The advisory board of the TDG provides the elected representatives with a source of credible knowledge, wisdom, and experience—for the elected institutions to take a second look at their decisions and processes. These board members will have both an important part of the decision-making process and a check-and-balance to encourage the elected representatives to keep within the spirit of the TDG.

The final result is a much greater trust between the citizens and their elected representatives. With this trust, comes an ability to make some further changes to governance—and create an ever advancing civilization.

 
 

Previous page · Next page

Page 118

 
 
© 2009 Dave Volek.
All Rights Reserved.
Contact | Advertising