Idea: Generational Government

[Tee Kay]

This is not a good idea.

People in their 20s and 30s lack experience.

Generally speaking, this is true. But there are also plenty of counterexamples of young people succeeding in leadership positions. And young people bring in fresh ideas. Besides, the branches would not stand on their own, but would need to cooperate.

The leaders of the legislative branch will always be a few years from forcible retirement. How will they react to that? If they enact some policy that could have some negative effect in five years time they are less likely to care because they will be retiring.

The idea is that members of the junior branch can move into the senior branches. And if you get people more involved in decision-making earlier, that hopefully will make for more experienced middle-aged leaders who can make better and smarter decisions.

 

[Silurian]

Generally speaking, this is true. But there are also plenty of counterexamples of young people succeeding in leadership positions. And young people bring in fresh ideas. Besides, the branches would not stand on their own, but would need to cooperate.

Young people have less fresh ideas than they think.

What they do have is drive to get things done because they have not yet found the problems with their ideas.


Please explain how the 20 to 40 year old legislative branch would be forced to cooperate with the other branches. Advice can be ignored because they just don't get the "new idea", a new law can be passed if the interpretation of the law is not correct and administrators have to follow the law.

The idea is that members of the junior branch can move into the senior branches. And if you get people more involved in decision-making earlier, that hopefully will make for more experienced middle-aged leaders who can make better and smarter decisions.

But the senior branches are not leaders because they do not have the power to make, amend and repeal laws. The judicial and administrative age groups that are proposed are rarely (major) politicians anyway because they have different skills. So the legislative politicians are likely to be unsuitable for the other branches.

Another problem I can see with forced retirement at 40 is likely to be an increase in corruption. Politicians will benefit far more than now in giving contracts to a particular business in the hope of employment when they retire.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What they do have is drive to get things done because they have not yet found the problems with their ideas.

To limit it to not seeing the problems is very very wrong. To limit it to any factual knowledge is very wrong. It is more about biology (different chemical balances during different ages) and how people generally relate to them selfs and life.
You of course have a point that a certain naivety also plays a part, but if you limit it to naivety, you reduce the inherent power of the youth for change to this naivety - like being young just means to be too stupid to realize that change is not worth the effort or something. And this does not only sound unreal, it also flies in the face of the myriads of things setting younger and older people apart except plain naivety.
The OP's suggestion aims to bring this inherent power for change to the legislation process. And that is IMO in principle an interesting idea. I think inno (no disrespect meant, but every time I have to go look how your name is written, I've gotten tired of it ) has voiced the biggest concern against this suggestion: That the young members of the legislative branch become mere pans of their older party members.
I want to expand on that a little:
- Legislation is about law. And law is complex and malicious because of its abstraction. If you have people in their 20s and you throw them into this hard business, they wil find them selfs probably crying for help.
- People in their 30s, who maybe have the abilities to be more independent, will have to buddy up with the older politicians to be able to continue their political career
- With a mere span of 20 years of available life time for the legislative and the early 20s unlikely to enter to begin with (how about studying something first?), there will be ah high fluctuation of personal in the legislative. Which further weakens its position against the other branches.

In conclusion, I think what is supposed to give the legislative power for change, will also make it exploitable for external powers (be it the executive branch or a political party). Some good spirit and motivation may be there nevertheless, but I fear it would largely go to waist if the legislative can not assert itself.

The judicial and administrative age groups that are proposed are rarely (major) politicians anyway because they have different skills. So the legislative politicians are likely to be unsuitable for the other branches.

Another problem I can see with forced retirement at 40 is likely to be an increase in corruption. Politicians will benefit far more than now in giving contracts to a particular business in the hope of employment when they retire.

Also good points.

 

[BvBPL]

Generally speaking, this is true. But there are also plenty of counterexamples of young people succeeding in leadership positions. And young people bring in fresh ideas. Besides, the branches would not stand on their own, but would need to cooperate.

If that's the case then there's nothing to prevent those young people from competing with more seasoned folks in the marketplace of ideas. They don't need an artificial handicap to be able to bring those ideas forward. Promoting a legislature that is made strictly of young people suggest that those good ideas that the young people are not good enough to compete with the ideas held by older people.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

To explain reality or argue for a certain interpretation of reality with one of the most dumb-downed models to explain reality we know - the ideal free market - is IMO not helpful to talk about politics.

 

[Silurian]

no disrespect meant, but every time I have to go look how your name is written, I've gotten tired of it ).

I am not forcing you to look at my name.

I always think of window sill when I see your name.

 

[BvBPL]

This thread is predicated on a "certain interpretation of reality." The assumptions being that young people are not represented in government, that they have ideas that are valuable to government, that they are unable to promote these ideas within most democratic governments, and that mandating that certain functions of government must be filled by people of a certain age is the best way to ensure that the ideas of young people are promoted within the public sphere. That's a lot to assume, and meager evidence has been provided to support those assumptions. Indeed, other posters have already suggested that some of these assumptions lack face validity. The argument for generational government would be better served by shoring up the underlying assumptions of the idea than suggesting that the assumptions of others are without merit.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am not forcing you to look at my name.

Do you think I was referring to you with "inno"? I actually meant innomiatu (or something )

I always think of window sill when I see your name.

Well window sills are awesome. You can rest your weary arms on them while grumpily looking at the world.

Spoiler :

@BvBPL
Yes yes, fair points already! And a much better job in attacking the Generational government than "If it was good, the free market had already revealed so!" Though IMO you - as Silurian - forgot the mature fact, that young people simply are more motivated to make a change! And that is not just a product of competence or incompetence, but of what it means to be young. The different general spirit, the different chemical balance of your body and what not.

 

[Winner]

Idea: reform the separation of powers so that participation in different branches of governments is restricted to people of certain ages.

Principle: a government dominated by older generations is not sufficiently incentivised to govern and develop the world in a sustainable way for future generations to flourish. However, young people cannot be entrusted with government due to lack of experience.

Rough proposal:
- A junior branch, comprising of democratically-elected representatives aged between 20-40 only, with the power to make, amend and repeal laws.
- A senior branch, comprising of adults aged between 50 and over only, with the power to interpret and apply the law.
- A middle branch, restricted to adults aged over 30, with the authority and responsibility for administration, and advisory to the junior branch.

Good idea. We'd really have to try it to see the possible problems with it.

Of course you're aware that it is in conflict with the present day notion of what liberal democracy should be like. That is good - perhaps in time you'll support my proposal to establish a "voter's licence" to ensure that idiots aren't allowed to vote at all.

 

[BvBPL]

Though IMO you - as Silurian - forgot the mature fact, that young people simply are more motivated to make a change! And that is not just a product of competence or incompetence, but of what it means to be young. The different general spirit, the different chemical balance of your body and what not.

I'd say that young people are more interested in change because they don't have vested economic interests in the status quo. As people mature and further their economic interests they are become less interested in change.

In any case, I'm uncertain if simply advocating and permitting change is a responsible goal in and of itself. After all, the possible negative changes a gov't could enact at any one time far outweigh the positive changes it could make during the same time frame.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'd say that young people are more interested in change because they don't have vested economic interests in the status quo. As people mature and further their economic interests they are become less interested in change.

That is also true, absolutely. But it really is more than contextualized explanations like that. Humans are "programmed" to be more revolutionary at a younger age. It is the natural adaption cycle. First see what goes. Then settle and secure. It is a fact of nature, of biology. Look for instance at different hormone levels of different age groups.

After all, the possible negative changes a gov't could enact at any one time far outweigh the positive changes it could make during the same time frame.

How did you reach that conclusion? Not to mention, that even a negative change is useful for it allows to learn.
But I guess it in the end is a question of different overall perception. My perception is, that politics is way too small-minded and and not brave enough, does not think innovative enough and so forth (and innovative does not necessarily mean more expensive, bigger or what not - while it of course can).
If you think that politics is best-advised to be old-fashioned, possibly advocate a very small "nightwatchman"-state, than you will of course see things differently.

 

[Traitorfish]

Of course you're aware that it is in conflict with the present day notion of what liberal democracy should be like. That is good - perhaps in time you'll support my proposal to establish a "voter's licence" to ensure that idiots aren't allowed to vote at all.

Presumably you can also be disqualified for scoring to highly, giving your noted hostility to those of us with the habit of "over-intellectualising".

Why do we have to put up with what you consider sufficient knowledge of history? Or anyone else for that matter?

I'm still trying to understand why that sort of thing should be considered even vaguely relevant. Even if we accept an arbitrarily exclusionary franchise as a good idea, what could it possibly matter if a person even knows what a "Carthage" is? It's like hiring a plumber based on their gamerscore.

 

[Flying Pig]

Of course you're aware that it is in conflict with the present day notion of what liberal democracy should be like. That is good - perhaps in time you'll support my proposal to establish a "voter's licence" to ensure that idiots aren't allowed to vote at all.

That's fine as long as said idiots are then exiled to the partition (Glasgow?) where they can elect their own government - no taxation without representation and all.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I thought we were beyond "mass expulsion is fine"

 

[Flying Pig]

I thought we were beyond "mass expulsion is fine"

Better than mass disenfranchisement, surely?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If it were better for the people in their own opinion, they would not have to be expelled.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not everyone has the financial means to move and set up home somewhere else, but presumably they'd be properly resettled in Glasgow, and given what passes for a house down that way.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So expulsion is now just a bad word for helping people who can't by their own? You are only getting more evil.

 

[Flying Pig]

OK, I'll concede - Winner, there's no good way around that one, it's just plain awful.

 

[Terxpahseyton]