Demarchy, fifth in the ten-part series on Global Constructs
Sep 30, 2004 -
© Donna L. Quesinberry
John Burnheim believes that democracy is corrupt in meaning and believes a different word better represents his alternative. The people and Western societies describe democracy as a means of rule that is given to the people; it is argued, however, that democracies actually provide little in relation to self-government for the people. People are able to vote for their political leaders, but at infrequent intervals. They are not able to vote for powerful figures in corporations and government bureaucracies. Political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg conducted a study on the structural implications of elections and states that elections allow mass participation in a way impossible under systems of bureaucratic or military rule, but that elections also constrain participation. He suggests that participation is only allowed at specified intervals and takes a narrow form of voting for candidates that have been previously selected. The time and effort expended by politicians and bureaucracies to gain support and political strength, when compared to the suggested practice of Demarchy, implies an efficient alternative. Politicians in western governments do spend a good deal of time influencing others or being influenced by others. The purpose of influence is that politicians and lobbyists achieve political goals. Demarchy selects decision-makers randomly so the time and effort spent on politician machinations and manipulation would be limited. In theory, demarchy may become a more efficient system of democracy than elected officials. Demarchy can also be called Klerostocracy - kleros is the Greek word for casting lots. Klerostocracy would literally mean "rule by random selection." Burnheim decided that the state and large-scale bureaucracy should be abolished. He has a two-part solution as follows:
|