Technocratic Government, too much to ask for?

Jackovarian

Obviously they'd have to be elected representatives, but at least they'd have a clue!

I mean, you wouldn't hire a english teacher to fix your boiler...

I'm not echo'ing what Micheal "Monty Burns" Martin said.

I'm talking about a genuine full ministerial cabinet of educated people, educated in the specific areas they are assigned to.

I know its not the easiest thing to try find a full set of people within a party to fill these rolls. It would mean a complete change in the party system, and maybe leaving the party system behind.

In Irish politics, absolutely anyone can get elected to the Dail. I dont mean to offend anyone when I say that a person with an I.Q. of 40 could probably get elected with the right campaign behind them. This person could in turn become Minister for Health and you see where this is going...

It just seems that maybe the right people should receive the right jobs. You wouldn't give an unqualified person the most important job in your company after all.

jdooley28

i don't know if i could agree anymore. The smartest economic minds should be in charge of how to run our economy.

KELTICKNIGHTT

how would you elect these people

Its a fine idea, but seriously, how do you go about getting these people in these positions? I cant write all night, so will have to generalise a bit. Technocrats can be "correct" in their decision making, but they tend to lack empathy with the common man/woman. Their expertise is up against the often ignorant(but sincerely felt) views of a majority of the electorate. Pols at least have to keep their feet on the ground. I really dont have any answers to this conundrum; "common sense" v. "qualifications"

CDfm

The Civil Servants are meant to provide the Technocrat paert.

Instead they are a partisan interest group who exercise de facto power and thats according to John Bruton.

We need politoicians to take the power back.

CMACSAFF

This is a really interesting point how do you get the necessary expertise into the Dail?

Possibly people need to start thinking about the relevant experience a candidate has before they vote for them. What qualifies them to be a TD since membership of a political party isnt sufficient. Personally I like to see successful experience in the private sector but that in itself is no guarantee and does it then exclude people who have a lifetime commitment to public service. Dont know..

Judging by the dept of finance the civil service is failing badly - how they think its acceptable to have next to no economists in the dept is deeply worrying. And health policy has been a disaster. So do we reform the civil service and try to import relevant experience from the private sector? Should these be temporary or permanent appointments - either way the people you want will probably demand a high wage. In principle I wouldnt oppose high remuneration but only if it was results based, you would definitely want value for money.

If you fill the Dail with professionals or take all policy from external professionals will that produce the right outcomes? Will it be representative - I mean is that democratic or a Technocracy? Dont know..

Maybe we should start looking at international best practice but as stated above no you wouldnt get a teacher to fix your boiler.

scheister

i understand this type of goverment a certain bit but there is certain derpartments i dont think it wud suit. Like sport and fishery been two i can think of off hand

Yillan

Have the IMF or some external body interview the candidates to ensure they are fit and proper. I don't think they'd have let JHR through the net. Is Chopra still **** around hotel rooms in Dublin? Give him something to do

CDfm

scheister wrote: »

i understand this type of goverment a certain bit but there is certain derpartments i dont think it wud suit. Like sport and fishery been two i can think of off hand

politcians are supposed to reflect the will of the people.

civil servants are supposed to be the experts and provide technical expertise to support the politician - everyone knows that aint so.

Black Swan

Jackovarian wrote: »

I'm talking about a genuine full ministerial cabinet of educated people, educated in the specific areas they are assigned to...

It just seems that maybe the right people should receive the right jobs.

While I applaud your emphasis on improving the qualifications of our politicians, it does not address their political values, which may widely differ and be in conflict.

Max Weber in Economy and Society suggested something like a technocratic government, whereupon qualified professionals would select the most efficient and effective means to an end, which he called means-ends rationality. On the surface, it would appear that having such qualified professionals in office would get us out of the financial mess we are now in.

But Weber also cautioned that no one was value free, and that the means selected, as well as the ends were subject to these values. For example, one very qualified technocrat may value a completely unregulated free market, while another qualified technocrat may challenge this thesis, suggesting that some regulation was needed, or vast numbers of citizens may suffer while a few profit.

mewso

Isn't the real problem that if you want your boiler fixed most give the job to their brother in-law/cousin/buddy?

Black Swan

mewso wrote: »

Isn't the real problem that if you want your boiler fixed most give the job to their brother in-law/cousin/buddy?

It's certainly a serious problem that occurs in government, as well as in business. Nepotism, cliques, party affiliation, etc., sometimes result in lesser qualified persons obtaining office, but this is not the problem introduced by the OP.

If I read the OP correctly, he wants us to consider technocratic government based upon professionally educated and experienced candidates that are more of a fit for the problems we face in government, rather than electing Joe the Plumber to fix the IMF financial mess, just because he is popular with the voters; i.e., you would have to qualify for a particular office before you could run for it, no matter how well you were connected, or how popular you might be.

CDfm

But , a parlimentary democracy are represenative of the people and any citizen can be a candidate.

You get the politicians you deserve. So it is the peoples choice who they elect.

The idea behind the Civil Service appointments service is that they fullfill that function and appoint technocrats

In 2004 the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission (CSLAC) was dissolved and 2 new bodies were established; the Public Appointments Service (PAS) and the Commission for Public Service Appointments (CPSA).
Publicjobs.ie is the public face of the Public Appointments Service, which will act as the centralised recruitment, assessment and selection body for public service departments. Together with the CPSA, we will work to provide an efficient, fair recruitment service for the public service sector.
The CPSA's role is to regulate recruitment in the public service bodies. They publish recruitment and selection Codes of Practice, which outline the standards to which all public service bodies must conform.


http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/en/employer/cpsa.do

They do not seem to be doing their jobs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

EggsAckley

Voters in South Dublin could start by electing Peter Mathews - he's getting my #1. I doubt he'll get a place at the cabinet table but hopefully he'll be a minister of state in Finance and/or on the finance committees (unsure if ministers of state can be on committees though)

Black Swan

CDfm wrote: »

The idea behind the Civil Service appointments service is that they fullfill that function and appoint technocrats...

They do not seem to be doing their jobs.

It could be that the Civil Service appointments are not doing their jobs in properly advising elected officials; then again, to what extent would elected official Joe the Plumber understand the complex economics associated with the Irish financial meltdown, how this financial crisis relates to the EU, IMF, and the world, or the opposing value-laden solutions that may, or may not pull us out of this mess? He may be a grand plumber, but is he qualified to govern?

I am led to believe that the OP was suggesting that we consider a different forum of government, which he labeled technocratic, where you had to be qualified for office, before you could run and be elected by the citizens.

mewso

Black Swan wrote: »

If I read the OP correctly, he wants us to consider technocratic government based upon professionally educated and experienced candidates that are more of a fit for the problems we face in government, rather than electing Joe the Plumber to fix the IMF financial mess, just because he is popular with the voters; i.e., you would have to qualify for a particular office before you could run for it, no matter how well you were connected, or how popular you might be.

My point is even if you do decide to give the Finance portfolio to an economist how is he chosen? The same way as usual? My point was the Brother In-Law above fixes boilers by trade but he gets the job irrespective of his excellence at fixing them.

Jackovarian

mewso wrote: »

My point is even if you do decide to give the Finance portfolio to an economist how is he chosen? The same way as usual? My point was the Brother In-Law above fixes boilers by trade but he gets the job irrespective of his excellence at fixing them.

Thats a fair point.

I guess some kind of national interview, or maybe a proven track record etc.

If each party put forward two or three ministerial candidates with the correct credentials (Candidates already successful in the general election), then we could all vote in one referendum to choose the ministers for every area.

A secondary election, I suppose...

CMACSAFF

I am led to believe that the OP was suggesting that we consider a different forum of government, which he labeled technocratic, where you had to be qualified for office, before you could run and be elected by the citizens.

But how does it work? Do you elect ministers individually based on their qualifications for the portfolio regardless of party affiliation. Or do you vote for the party with the most overall expertise? Or do you vote for a party with the best plan to outsource the expertise needed? Or do you re-organise the civil service which currently are populated with people who joined when they were young and have no particular expertise in anything other then how the civil service works?

Soldie

jdooley28 wrote:

The smartest economic minds should be in charge of how to run our economy.

I think that we need to get away from this outmoded idea that the economy can and should be run. Central planning does not work, and history has shown us that governments have a very poor track record when it comes to creating jobs. The government should not concern itself with stimulating particular sectors of the economy, or adding thousands more workers to the state's already overstretched payroll; instead, it should concern itself with creating a business-friendly environment in which the productive private sector can thrive. That is what real economic growth is.

Killer Pigeon

I don't think that you should have to be educated in a specific area to become a T.D. however I think you should if you wanted to become a minister of a certain department. Also, I believe that the Seanad, if it isn't totally abolished, should be given more power, it should act as a "technocratic filter" and no member of the Seanad should be a member of any political party.