A Technocratic Government?

craggles

According to Paddy Power the odds for the next government being a technocratic one are 22/1.

Does anyone know, under what circumstances would this actually happen and what can we do to make it happen?

ednwireland

had to wikipedia that one

Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. The term technocracy derives from the Greek words tekhne meaning skill and kratos meaning power, as in government, or rule. Thus the term technocracy denotes a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body. In a technocracy decision makers would be selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold

i'd say pretty much no hope (anyway some of the best guys i have worked werent neccessarily the best at their jobs , but they were the best managers )

craggles

It's hardly a complete non runner though since it's only 22/1. Is there any provision in the constitution or law of Ireland that covers this scenario?

There must be some set of circumstances under which it can happen.

craggles

And it's not a completely terrible idea at least at first glance. Having a professor of economics in charge of the finances of the country? A former surgeon general as minister for health? An actual scientist as minster for science? Having people in charge of important positions who actually know what they are doing?

imme

A communist takeover of Ireland is more likely than a technocratic government taking power.
Paddy Power is just pulling our legs, offering funny options like this, that of course is their business. Along with publicity.;)

craggles

A Fine Gael majority government is also 22/1, for what it's worth.

I'm mainly just interested in finding out how a technocratic government could occur. Someone in this forum must know something about it.

imme

craggles wrote: »

A Fine Gael majority government is also 22/1, for what it's worth.

I'm mainly just interested in finding out how a technocratic government could occur. Someone in this forum must know something about it.

it couldn't happen is the answer. you could get a government formed, either Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Fein etc that could have some experts in fields like education, finance etc appointed to the ministry that they're expert in, but we will never get a govt that is solely composed of experts.

In Italy PM Lamberto Dini was described as a technocrat, but he was just one member of the govt. It's just a term used to describe his political style.

So, no, we will never have a technocratic govt, Paddy Power are just having a laugh, making more options available to people to bet on.

Seloth

craggles wrote: »

And it's not a completely terrible idea at least at first glance. Having a professor of economics in charge of the finances of the country? A former surgeon general as minister for health? An actual scientist as minster for science? Having people in charge of important positions who actually know what they are doing?

While having a high place yes,for many cases such as the health or science you need managers.While a person may be a fantastic Doctor it does not mean they are a great Manager/administrator.

craggles

So someone with the right skillset for the job and the knowledge of the field as well as that.

Cookie_Monster

you don't need a technocratic gov, you don't even really need politicians to be in charge of particular depts, maybe some like finance to be run by accountants/economists. As long as the senior civ servants in the departments are properly qualified for their respective depts and actually have the correct powers and access to ministers that should be enough really.

Demarchy FTW

Sand

You could simply ban sitting elected politicians from holding ministerial positions. Ministers are then nominated and evaluated by the Dail and/or specific comittees. Seeing as Ministers cant be sitting elected politicians, it would remove the chance of a County Councillor being put in charge of the countries health system. Instead, assuming a proper and open evaluation process, to which anyone could be nominated so long as they werent an elected politician youd end up with incentives to nominate qualified, experienced people for each post.

The ministers would remain ultimately accountable to the Dail, and if the civil service departments were also made responsible to the Dail then you would retain democratic accountability. However, you would have strong, qualified managers for each department responsible for executing strategies supported by the Dail.

zig

craggles wrote: »

It's hardly a complete non runner though since it's only 22/1.

Id safely say it is a complete non-runner, at least the odds should be 1000,000s/1
Paddy Power just throw in stuff like that to get a bit of free money.
You'd want to be a lunatic to take that bet.

phantom_lord

craggles wrote: »

It's hardly a complete non runner though since it's only 22/1.

True odds are probably closer to 1000/1 though.

feicim

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you don't need a technocratic gov, you don't even really need politicians to be in charge of particular depts, maybe some like finance to be run by accountants/economists. As long as the senior civ servants in the departments are properly qualified for their respective depts and actually have the correct powers and access to ministers that should be enough really.

Demarchy FTW

Why do we need a government at all then?

If the civil servants are running the show that is.



PS:Any odds given for a sociopathic government?

craggles

Fianna Fail minority government is 100/1, does that count?

later12

Sand wrote: »

You could simply ban sitting elected politicians from holding ministerial positions. Ministers are then nominated and evaluated by the Dail and/or specific comittees. Seeing as Ministers cant be sitting elected politicians, it would remove the chance of a County Councillor being put in charge of the countries health system.

Yeah, you would just get the failed county councillors who didn't get elected, or the failed TDs who lost their jobs instead of the sitting ones.

Sand

@Later10

Yeah, you would just get the failed county councillors who didn't get elected, or the failed TDs who lost their jobs instead of the sitting ones.

This assumes successful politicians are willing to lend their credibility to failed politicians - where with a transparent evaluation by the Dail any embarrassing ****ups by the candidate would be reflected back on their supporters.

I mean, can you imagine Jackie Healey Rae being grilled by a Dail comittee on his views and plans for Irish banking policy in light of wider EU policies? He'd be shown up as a fool very quickly, and his supporters would be shown up as fools by extension.

Also you're assuming that youd still have locally identified TDs running in and for particular constituencies, where local political figures would retain power and influence by being the local party presence in their area. A list system would hopefully eliminate the county councillor as a serious national political figure.

InchicoreDude

I asked about this on boards a while back too (Afer seeing the odds on PP too!). I dont know how you can define a technocratic governemnt though. Like, if FG had a majority government, couldnt they assign relevant people to appropriate ministries (Like Reilly to Health). Would this then be a technocratic government?

It makes far more sense than a TD being in one ministry and then in a reshuffle suddenly moved to a completely different ministry (Mary Hanafin for example).

southsiderosie

Sand wrote: »

You could simply ban sitting elected politicians from holding ministerial positions. Ministers are then nominated and evaluated by the Dail and/or specific comittees. Seeing as Ministers cant be sitting elected politicians, it would remove the chance of a County Councillor being put in charge of the countries health system. Instead, assuming a proper and open evaluation process, to which anyone could be nominated so long as they werent an elected politician youd end up with incentives to nominate qualified, experienced people for each post.

The ministers would remain ultimately accountable to the Dail, and if the civil service departments were also made responsible to the Dail then you would retain democratic accountability. However, you would have strong, qualified managers for each department responsible for executing strategies supported by the Dail.

This is basically what we do in the US. Heads of departments (secretaries) cannot simultaneously hold elected office, and are drawn not only from the political ranks, but business, industry, and local and state agencies. They are appointed by the President, but approved by the Senate.

Often, this can work really well, especially if the person both has a background in what they are doing (say, diplomacy), and a great deal of credibility both in Congress and in their field. But the more overtly political appointments (i.e. hiring someone who wants to destroy the department they are in charge of) can be disastrous. The worst is when someone gets an appointment for being a big donor or fundraiser and they end up being utterly incompetent (a la the guy in charge of disaster response when Hurricane Katrina struck).

I suppose balance is key, but in the greater scheme of things I prefer the US system because it does seem more accountable and frankly the level of competency of many Irish ministers, particularly in the areas of finance and health, has been (and currently is) appalling.

ISAW

ednwireland wrote: »

had to wikipedia that one



i'd say pretty much no hope (anyway some of the best guys i have worked werent neccessarily the best at their jobs , but they were the best managers )

Id say it already happened. The government listened to professionals and experts on the public and civil service. They elevated policy advisers and civil servants over the traditional people in their own parties. And with the spin doctors and someone to "draft a report" it all becomes management and not leadership.

hardCopy

---

InchicoreDude

I think John Rodgers on the week in politics last night was proposing something along the lines of a technocratic government?

jmayo

craggles wrote: »

And it's not a completely terrible idea at least at first glance. Having a professor of economics in charge of the finances of the country? A former surgeon general as minister for health? An actual scientist as minster for science? Having people in charge of important positions who actually know what they are doing?

Why oh why do people persist with some of these ideas.
Sorry but the Health Service does not need a surgeon as it's cheif.
We had one and he was a disaster.

It needs a damm good manager, much like was shown by Gerry Robinson's stint in charge of a British hospital.
The health systems failings are lack of proper management, lack of oversight, and lack of political will to take on the vested interests and defeat them once and for all.

Yes have a scientist in charge of science.
It must not just be a blooming research scientist, but one that has started and run a sucessful science based company.

The problem with some of the ideas being passed about is that you get a fine academic who can give you the theory, but is totally ineffectual since they may often lack managerial experience and sometimes sadly lack good old common sense.

I actually think first thing needed is good managerial capability, secondly enough intelligence and possible relevent experience to grasp the portfolio they are in charge of, and lastly a good dollop of good old fashioned common sense.
Note I did not include decency, ethics and honesty since I would have that as a given for anyone that was mooted for leadership roles in our country.
I know it would make a change. :rolleyes:

Also these people need thick skins.

InchicoreDude

Why oh why do people persist with some of these ideas.
Sorry but the Health Service does not need a surgeon as it's cheif.
We had one and he was a disaster.

It needs a damm good manager

or perhaps a surgeon who is a good manager?

Noreen1

jmayo wrote: »

Why oh why do people persist with some of these ideas.
Sorry but the Health Service does not need a surgeon as it's cheif.
We had one and he was a disaster.

It needs a damm good manager, much like was shown by Gerry Robinson's stint in charge of a British hospital.
The health systems failings are lack of proper management, lack of oversight, and lack of political will to take on the vested interests and defeat them once and for all.

Yes have a scientist in charge of science.
It must not just be a blooming research scientist, but one that has started and run a sucessful science based company.

The problem with some of the ideas being passed about is that you get a fine academic who can give you the theory, but is totally ineffectual since they may often lack managerial experience and sometimes sadly lack good old common sense.

I actually think first thing needed is good managerial capability, secondly enough intelligence and possible relevent experience to grasp the portfolio they are in charge of, and lastly a good dollop of good old fashioned common sense.
Note I did not include decency, ethics and honesty since I would have that as a given for anyone that was mooted for leadership roles in our country.
I know it would make a change. :rolleyes:

Also these people need thick skins.

I agree with most of what you say, but would add that a degree and experience in the relevant areas does not automatically suggest the individual couldn't also have excellent management skills....
We need both.

OhNoYouDidn't

InchicoreDude wrote: »

or perhaps a surgeon who is a good manager?

Interesting thread. If the idea of a Technocratic government worked, we would see examples of it. But we don't.

Is it a good idea to have a soldier running Defence, a train driver Transport, a doctor Health, a teacher Education, a footballer Sport, a dole mole Social Welfare? I'm not sure, experience is one thing, being completely native is another.

phantom_lord

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Interesting thread. If the idea of a Technocratic government worked, we would see examples of it.

? Chinas whole politburo is engineers and scientists.

OhNoYouDidn't

phantom_lord wrote: »

? Chinas whole politburo is engineers and scientists.

And our Dail is full of publicans and teachers....

But the point of a Technocratic government is that people with direct industry experience run that particular field. China doesn't have a singer running their Arts department.

InchicoreDude

But the point of a Technocratic government is that people with direct industry experience run that particular field. China doesn't have a singer running their Arts department.

Has a true technocratic government ever been tried?

OhNoYouDidn't

InchicoreDude wrote: »

Has a true technocratic government ever been tried?

Not to my knowledge.

One of the whole points of the civil service is to buffer the coal face from the state. I can't really see any upside to the whole education process being handed to teachers. Give them a real input, yes.

dynamick

The short answer to this thread is that the constitution requires that all cabinet ministers are members of the dail or the seanad. At most two may be members of the seanad.

The taoiseach has the power to appoint some members of the seanad, so he can use that power to appoint two non-politicians and then make them cabinet ministers.

Paddy power's technocratic government is impossible without a coup. So the odds they are offering are terrible.

Overheal

Just as susceptible to corruption (ie. Doctors and Lawyers passing laws to protect Doctors and Lawyers)

It would be like throwing out the politicians and just handing power over to lobbyists. I pause at the idea.

phantom_lord

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And our Dail is full of publicans and teachers....

But the point of a Technocratic government is that people with direct industry experience run that particular field. China doesn't have a singer running their Arts department.

I don't think that's the assumption for what a technocratic government is. It's more generally described as one where scientists and technical experts are in control. China's government is described as being technocratic.