openspace4life: (Default)
[personal profile] openspace4life
"So, in order to protect the populace from their own governors, the law must be universal.  More, it must require transparent and consistent behaviour from those appointed to rule.  Hence, the rulers must function, not as individuals, but as applicators of perfect justice, the willing part (and here I use the term 'willing' meaning intending and asserting rather than merely accepting) of a machine for good government."
        - The Gone-Away World by Nick Harkaway, p. 125

In computer science we have a data structure called a search tree, where you can quickly find your way from the "root" data item to any of the "branch" or "leaf" items by following simple rules.  But whenever this structure is diagrammed in textbooks or on whiteboards, the root is always drawn at the top, with all the leaves below it:



A similar thing happens with any large organization: the org chart shows the boss at the top (whether that's a CEO, a governor, or the Pope), and like a search tree, the organization often becomes machinelike, blindly following rules and executing orders that come down from the "top."  In a natural tree, by contrast, the roots are of course at the bottom, and their purpose is to "serve" the branches and leaves by collecting water and nutrients and sending them up the trunk.  In both cases something is flowing outward from the root, but in the former case, accountability only runs one way: all those below are held accountable for their work by those above them.  In a tree it runs both ways: both the roots and the leaves provide nutrition without which the tree could not survive.

Is there a way to apply the natural tree model to human organizations?  Well, in the case of democratic government, there is a tradition of referring to elected officials as "public servants," accountable to those who elected them.  This is the definition of "accountability" favored by progressives, in George Lakoff's interpretation, while conservatives prefer to focus on citizens' accountability to the laws -- hence their greater tendency to make "I'll be tough on crime!" a major campaign promise.

The problem is that "downward" accountability -- Senator to constituents, or CEO to employees -- never seems to be nearly as strong as the "upward" kind (using the directionality of the org chart here).  In the case of most religions, I'm not sure "downward" accountability exists at all.  Is there any way to flip this tendency upside-down?

In the case of corporations, employee ownership is the obvious answer -- the CEO is always accountable to the shareholders, so if the employees are the shareholders, one can expect a much more balanced relationship.  So yeah -- corporate democracy now!

In the case of religions, at least religions "of the book," immutable top-down rules are inevitable -- but their interpretation is far from set in stone.  It would be interesting to know how many pastors, rabbis, etc. have tried involving their congregations in theological debates.

In the case of government, the problems are many: how to get citizens more interested in holding their leaders/servants accountable, how to keep politicians from acting more accountable to their biggest campaign financiers than to their constituents, how to give all interest groups the same level of access that high-powered lobbyists currently have.  Public financing of elections is probably a big part of the answer to problem 2.  The others I'll leave for later posts.

Through all of these issues runs the question: is there any way to consistently choose leaders who aren't power-hungry, who are honestly willing to think of themselves as servants?  And if not, does that mean we have no choice but to try to build machinelike structures with rules so inhumanly rigid that it doesn't matter how corrupt the leaders are?

Date: 2009-09-10 11:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bdunbar.livejournal.com
is there any way to consistently choose leaders who aren't power-hungry, who are honestly willing to think of themselves as servants?

If the politician in question seeks to be a leader, no: power-hungry is part of the spec. A person who actually wants to be a politician has a mental defect. The higher the office, the worse the defect.

There are - as always - exceptions. But they are pretty rare.

One way to choose leaders would be to draft them. Everyone who is eligible has their name put into a hat. When drawn, they serve.

And if not, does that mean we have no choice but to try to build machinelike structures with rules so inhumanly rigid that it doesn't matter how corrupt the leaders are?

I think the US Constitution provides a pretty good guide for this. Setup the governing structure with checks and balances. Write a loose charter leaving a lot of room for flexibility and interpretation.

March 2015

S M T W T F S
1234567
89101112 1314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 18th, 2025 10:01 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios