Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Democracy, Republic and Technocracy in Europe
This isn't exactly the most "national" affair, but I do think that the material is relevant to our discussions in class. The video is a speech given by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament.
To understand what Farage is talking about, you need to understand that while many of the Presidents of countries in Europe are elected, a large number of positions in the EU including the President of the EU are selected in a republican form. That is, people don't vote directly for the the president, but rather, people vote for the representatives who chose the position holders of the EU system.
Farage furthers this discussion to the actions recently taken in Italy. After Prime Minister Berlusconi was ousted, technocrat Mario Monti was installed into the governmental seat in Italy. To understand what a technocrat is, read this. One of the most defining figures of a technocrat is the fact that a technocrat is not elected to office. Rather, a technocrat is placed into office for relative skill.
While one pro of a technocrat is a lack of political baggage, one fault of a technocrat is a the fact that they don't have any political legitimacy, and if things don't go well backlash from the citizens is likely to be strong.
Considering the current trend, it is to be asked, do you think the recent trends to "Technocracy" are a good thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think trends toward technocracy are necessary, but they should not be permanent. As the economic situation worsens in Europe (and around the world), perhaps it is more important that leaders are chosen for skill than their ability to convince people that they are better. And the political legitimacy issue can sort of be hand-waived by the necessary and proper clause (or any equivalent in foreign constitutions) if they are appointed by democratically elected officials. However, a technocracy may possibly be prone to become something like a one party government if whoever appoints technocrats lets them appoint people to other positions to the point that technocrats hold all of the executive power and end up in positions that they can influence popular opinion regarding elections. However, this is an extreme that can only happen if the technocrats become popular. As long as elected officials hold power over technocrats, this is not much of a danger.
Also, isn’t this “technocracy” the same thing as a meritocracy?
This post reminds me of the People of Paradox reading, and how it discusses that politicians are so busy trying to make everyone happy that they don't accomplish what actually needs to be done. In the attached article, Marco Incerti states, “The measures they need to implement are so tough that they would have failed to get the necessary political support if introduced by any politician.” I do think that it’s important to have a group of people in office who can make all of the changes that politicians would be too afraid to touch for fear of losing their next elections. I think that having technocrats as well as elected officials keeps the country in balance. Because there is a group of people focusing on keeping the public happy, politicians will be much less likely to implement oppressive policies, and because of the technocrats, there will be a group of people actually implementing necessary, though probably unpopular, change. We have technocrats in America as well (Supreme Court Justices, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, etc.). For this situation in Italy, though, it seems a bit extreme that they would replace the country’s leader with a technocrat to fix the economic crisis. However, the article states that “Italy is no stranger to the phenomenon, having appointed several technocrats to lead the country out of various economic crises in the early 1990s.” Perhaps if it has worked in the past, it is a good thing to have an unelected prime minister temporarily just to fix the current economic situation.
I don't want to entirely discredit technocracy. In the BBC link, it does mention that technocrats are more knowledgeable and can make decisions unaffected by political interests. I feel that technocracy would be an effective quick fix, especially in countries like Greece and Italy that have been bogged down by political conflict. I agree with Meredith when she says that we should have technocrats in addition to elected officials in order to keep a balanced system, but it reminds me of the quote "Power tends to corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Will the technocrats really be able to stay completely detached from politics? I feel like they will eventually be influenced by the desire to keep their power.
Ultimately, I believe that the trend towards technocracy is just that, a trend. I don't see technocracy as a long lasting form of government because technocrats, although intelligent, just aren't qualified to be politicians. As much as we like to jest about how incompetent politicians are, they still have the experience and education that technocrats lack.
And to respond to Joey's question, I don't think of technocracy as the same thing as meritocracy because technocrats are not necessarily the ones that have worked the hardest, and the people elected by merit may not be as detached from politics as technocrats.
I would like to agree with both Amy and Joseph's comments that the technocrats are a good idea right now but it should only be until the recovery has been successful and the countries are better again. Europe has not had democracy or Republican system of government for that long so it is not that big of a change for them but I do think that not all of the countries should go this way. I think that because the men have experience in banking, they will do a good job at saving their economy. Lastly, I think that because they do not have to rely on the vote of the people to keep in power that they will do more of what they want and not care about what others want.
In the context of american government, doesn't the conduct of the technocracy observe some of the workings of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors? I'm going along the assumption that since both the technocracy and the feds are not elected to office, but "placed into office for relative skill" (of course the president and senate select and approve the feds respectfully, but the public doesn't choose them). They also are able to make quick economic changes that are best for the nation over political party interests. It is interesting to see that Italy and Greece have extended power to technocrats because it is high time to require skill over political interests.
As Andrew's post mentioned "if things don't go well[,] backlash from the citizens is likely to be strong" we can see the technocracy as a huge gamble, and of course, the short-term route for people who want problems solved quickly. I found Farage's speech enlightening to the background of the technocracy settings. He very livid to the fact that the technocracies were set up, but had a good reason for it: their elections to the posts they have were not equal to those of other presidents of the EU.
However, I agree with Amy's idea that technocrats can't actually remain distant from political interests for long because of the constant reminder that they are in positions of power. And as Rebecca said, they would be not have to worry about public appeal and could make their own choices. In this perspective, the skill of technocrats could come with a price, when no one is watching them. But, this scenario could happen to anyone in a position of power and besides, as Joseph said, "as long as elected officials hold power over technocrats, this is not much of a danger".
Post a Comment