|
Post by phicksur on Jun 27, 2017 17:12:51 GMT
For the record, any time I have ever been a part of something and not been in charge, I have been screwed over by whomever it was that was in charge. The range goes from politicians to judges to cops to my own parents. When I have been in charge, I have always made sure that everyone involved profits, because of my experiences of constantly being screwed over.
That said, I believe that leadership should be focused on tasks, and the person who best demonstrates the ability to lead on that task be given the leadership position for as long as the task is required AND they are capable of performing the leadership role.
The idea of a President or King, or other supreme executive authority is outdated. Leaders should be far more directly accessible to their constituents and vulnerable to their ire.
Making clear that persons in positions of authority have no right to privacy while acting in their role as leader is a good start, as that would eliminate many forms of corruption and graft. It would also ensure that only those persons who have managed to keep their closets relatively clear of skeletons would be elected into office.
|
|
|
Post by bigred on Jul 7, 2017 3:56:33 GMT
I think no rights to anything, no privileges, no security, no secret shit, no ability to make decisions for everybody else without properly consulting everybody else, no additional money, no ability to have their own businesses or bank accounts benefited.
Permanent politicians, parliaments, police, security, military or public positions always lead to corruption and feelings of "I can do it to you because I am in power". There should be no such permanent positions and no positions of power. They are there to actually serve.
All positions should be positions of responsibility to enact, manage and complete a decision already decided on by the population of the community. They just become project managers for the period it takes to complete that project or a fixed time period, then they return to normal life. There should be no popularity votes for the position and no control over how long they are there by the incumbent. No additional power or ability to make direction decisions for the community and no additional benefits - NONE, NADA, NOTHING
I guess I feel a bit strongly about that :-D In case you didnt get it from that tirade I do agree with your comments.
|
|
|
Post by amitchell on Aug 25, 2017 16:47:27 GMT
Personally, I'd rather go with direct democracy, with the colony's population submitting e-petitions to the ruling authority (which I imagined as a sort of technocratic council of lawyers and scientists elected once every five years), which are discussed, modified and implemented. Essentially, the population provides the political "what", and the authorities provide the political "how".
|
|
petrv
Space Pioneer
Posts: 93
|
Post by petrv on Aug 26, 2017 12:51:47 GMT
I´d combine both systems - the projects would be "selected" for realization by direct democracy voting and then the project leader(s) would become a part of "council" for the project period (with maximal time limitation of fouir or five years). The council will make decisions about fundings, resources etc.
|
|