Very interesting. Also democratic I think. Your first and third chambers will no doubt have been democratically elected, and your second chamber of provincial government appointees will have been chosen indirectly democratically in that provincial governments are democratically elected.
Exactly, it's just the form of the franchise that differs for the 1st and 3rd chambers. In this way, a good King will be the source of good policies that would, presumably, be accepted by all 3 chambers while a bad King will always have at least one chamber opposing them. And if you have a good King you don't want to limit the number of years they serve arbitrarily, while a bad King will be nothing more than an annoying playboy.
Judicial appointments could be made by an independent body, I like the Finnish model where Judges, legal academics, prosecutors and the legal society appoint the members of such a body.
Maybe democracy should not be about "electing rulers" but about ordinary people actually participating in the decision making process which affects them. Maybe the solution is not less democracy but more democracy! And we should extend democracy to the workplace too.
The state has a lot of power but at least we as the public have (theoretically) some say in it's actions and its composition. With a corporation we have no say, not even theoretically. They are private tyrannies.
If you founded a company, risking your capital, your credit, your time, effort and ideas - would you want any rando that you employ to have an equal say over what happens in the company?
Public Companies are already functionally democratic. You purchase shares, you get a vote.
Well yes public companies are technically democratic among the shareholders. But those shareholders are of course primarily a small elite in society. And private companies exist too. And the rich and powerful are not willingly going to cede any power and privileges.
But I think a big issue in South Africa and globally. is that some people have far too much wealth and power, and then are not incentivised to invest it in a way that benefits society as a whole.
We have to look at each company on a case by case basis. Probably a small business is not problematic, but there are many examples of industries or companies which don't contribute to the national interest. Thus we should look at them all in a rational way, asking the question, what is best for society as a whole.
China is actually quite a good example of this. They permit capitalism, but with the caveat that it must contribute to the national interest. So they just banned sports gambling.
There are many industries in South Africa that serve to just extract wealth from the country, mining is one such industry.
I agree, but what if we move legislative power (including the power to tax, make appropriations, declare war) to a tricameral legislature: one represents the adult population on a proportional basis (like the NA now), one represents provinces with the provincial governments appointing members (a little bit like the NCOP but with equal powers with the other chambers) and the last one represents taxpayers (right now I'm thinking only represent personal income tax payers and the vote is weighed by the average tax paid over the past 5 years). The executive is a constitutional monarch who has the power to appoint and dismiss the prime minister, the King has to consult the leaders of the 3 chambers but he may appoint whomever he wants as Prime minister.
This removes the populist control over taxation and expenditure specifically, but also makes sure we don't have populist leaders as the focus of elections, focus is put more on policies and being able to work well with the other chambers and the King.
Very interesting. Also democratic I think. Your first and third chambers will no doubt have been democratically elected, and your second chamber of provincial government appointees will have been chosen indirectly democratically in that provincial governments are democratically elected.
Exactly, it's just the form of the franchise that differs for the 1st and 3rd chambers. In this way, a good King will be the source of good policies that would, presumably, be accepted by all 3 chambers while a bad King will always have at least one chamber opposing them. And if you have a good King you don't want to limit the number of years they serve arbitrarily, while a bad King will be nothing more than an annoying playboy.
Judicial appointments could be made by an independent body, I like the Finnish model where Judges, legal academics, prosecutors and the legal society appoint the members of such a body.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. ---Winston Churchill
Maybe democracy should not be about "electing rulers" but about ordinary people actually participating in the decision making process which affects them. Maybe the solution is not less democracy but more democracy! And we should extend democracy to the workplace too.
The state has a lot of power but at least we as the public have (theoretically) some say in it's actions and its composition. With a corporation we have no say, not even theoretically. They are private tyrannies.
If you founded a company, risking your capital, your credit, your time, effort and ideas - would you want any rando that you employ to have an equal say over what happens in the company?
Public Companies are already functionally democratic. You purchase shares, you get a vote.
Well yes public companies are technically democratic among the shareholders. But those shareholders are of course primarily a small elite in society. And private companies exist too. And the rich and powerful are not willingly going to cede any power and privileges.
But I think a big issue in South Africa and globally. is that some people have far too much wealth and power, and then are not incentivised to invest it in a way that benefits society as a whole.
We have to look at each company on a case by case basis. Probably a small business is not problematic, but there are many examples of industries or companies which don't contribute to the national interest. Thus we should look at them all in a rational way, asking the question, what is best for society as a whole.
China is actually quite a good example of this. They permit capitalism, but with the caveat that it must contribute to the national interest. So they just banned sports gambling.
There are many industries in South Africa that serve to just extract wealth from the country, mining is one such industry.
I agree, but what if we move legislative power (including the power to tax, make appropriations, declare war) to a tricameral legislature: one represents the adult population on a proportional basis (like the NA now), one represents provinces with the provincial governments appointing members (a little bit like the NCOP but with equal powers with the other chambers) and the last one represents taxpayers (right now I'm thinking only represent personal income tax payers and the vote is weighed by the average tax paid over the past 5 years). The executive is a constitutional monarch who has the power to appoint and dismiss the prime minister, the King has to consult the leaders of the 3 chambers but he may appoint whomever he wants as Prime minister.
This removes the populist control over taxation and expenditure specifically, but also makes sure we don't have populist leaders as the focus of elections, focus is put more on policies and being able to work well with the other chambers and the King.
See my reply to you above