Blue Sky Thinking #2

This post could easily be construed as some sort of far-right rant and to a degree it is but believe me the ramifications are entirely practical. I don't believe in democracy mainly because it gives the capability of any fool or cretin into power. Democracies have been frequently let down by the qualities of the elected representatives, who once they have got into power have either feather-bedded and embezzled billions from their treasury, become totally deranged or pursued a course of invading their neighbours and murdering half of Europe. As long as a candidate can convince a broad enough section of the electorate that they deserve to be in power, they're in and often it isn't until another election before they can be removed unless they do something so heinously awful that they can get the boot from the boss. My theory, rightly or wrongly, is that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship where a panel run the country for the benefit of the people. In my own banana republic there would be a convened panel of governors who are experts in their field and in the top chair would be someone of merit appointed by an election. The twist being that the election takes place under a special set of circumstances.

Democracy: Same voting rights as you.

Democracy: Same voting rights as you.

Democracy: Same voting rights as you.

Before I elaborate on the election of the titular president, I want to advance another theory: suffrage has gone too far. The vote has been extended beyond the original qualifications of land ownership and now encompasses everyone over the age of 18. I think this is wrong. I think that age should not be the sole qualifying factor to determine suffrage, that it should be intelligence and political engagement. In my perfect world, in order to gain a licence to vote, electors would need to pass a test. This would be a fairly rigorous assessment designed to screen out people who are incapable of voting properly. By my rationale, only people who want to be engaged with the political process will bother to sit the test thus combating political apathy. Only people who are intelligent enough to pass the test will be given their voting licence, combating the obvious misuse of votes. I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't extend voting rights to people under the age of 18, provided they are capable of passing the test, and we continue to allow stupid people to have a say in running the country when they can't. Reasoning that people of diminished mental capacity deserve some form of representation is a null argument when it is the duty of the intelligentsia to act as carers and protectors of the rest of society including all forms of vulnerability, including that of mental disability. In the last election I pottered along to the polling station and saw a man I knew to be of sub-normal intelligence being led to a booth and his candidate being chosen and his vote being marked for him by his caregiver. This is electoral fraud and highlights a flaw in our system. Under  my system, there is no possibility that this would happen.

The other qualification is that voting rights should not be extended to those who, while otherwise qualified to vote, are serving time in prison. Are these the people we want having a say in who runs the country? At present Ewan MacDonald, Clayton Weatherstone, Stewart Murray Wilson, Graeme Burton and Graham Capill can all choose who runs the country. I would suggest that this errs on the side of morally questionable, that society is demonstrating its approbation of these people and yet they are playing a continuing role in shaping that society.

My preference is that a voting licence should be difficult to obtain to ensure a high quality of electors. Choosing the candidates is a little more difficult, but I would prefer a system similar to that is similar used in the current honours system but a little more rigorous. Candidates are nominated by a dozen qualified electors and considered by a nomination committee. A short list of exceptional candidates will be published and the election will take place with a couple of run offs and finally a first past the post round with three candidates. The successfully elected president will then choose their various ministers from a provided short list of qualified experts and government will take place by their administration. All minsters will be accountable to the president who will govern with the best interests of the people at heart. The judiciary will remain separated from the executive and administration as it currently is.

Can I get you a whisky Mr President?

I have considered who I would pick as president of the new intellectual republic of New Zealand and my first choice was Stephen Fry. Sadly, he fails on the residency requirement as it needs to be a New Zealander. The preferred President should be someone capable with a highly functioning bullshit radar; a person who is loved by the people who has the common touch; and is a master communicator. I nominate Mr John Clarke.
Viva el Presidente!