Refining Democracy: The Presidential Debate

October 23, 2012

Refining Democracy: The Presidential Debate

By T.S. Khanna, October 23, 2012

“I am no Bush, and you are no Bill Clinton”---Anon.  That is no debate; it is only a drama designed to sway the audience. Debate is not a dispute to be settled by arguments on matters for which there is no trustworthy evidence; such an exercise is intellectual waste.  Debate is not a racing match where the results can be measured objectively and accurately. “Who won the debate?” is a meaningless question.  Moreover, debate is not a discussion by the candidates to show how much they agree or differ.

The purpose of presidential debate should be to enlighten the public with the presentation of true facts about national affairs, ideologies and policies of the political parties, lessons learned from noteworthy political experiences, personalities of the candidates, their character, and potential.  The voters then may be able to make rational judgment in choosing the most suitable candidate.  The debate should be designed to serve that purpose.

The present practice does not serve the purpose.  In the absence of any regulations, the candidates use forged/fabricated/fake facts, tinctured with discreetly selected truth blends to present their cases under a cloak of authenticity.  Time restricted sound-bite-responses provide candidates easy escapes from full exposure of their thoughts and explanations.

Well rehearsed, forceful presentation of false facts or hypothetical projections with Herculean confidence in front of the drama loving TV audience is required to “win a debate”.  Here, the age old weakness of democracy is best exploited; the only qualification needed for the road to power is competitive oratory, not a genuine heart for public service.

However, there is still hope in American politics.  Nearly 80% of the active voters are party loyalists, divided 50/50, between the Republican and the Democratic parties.  For them, the debate is like a football game without score.  Their candidate always “wins the debate”.  The remaining 20% are open minded non-partisan voters hungry for the facts and truth to make rational judgment in the national interest. The debate may be designed to satisfy their need.

To initiate discussion on the matter, some suggestions are offered:

1. Each candidate may be required to publish and post on the internet his/her election manifesto at least eight weeks prior to the scheduled debate.  All the facts or data used in the manifesto must have the verification by the Election Commission;
2. A Supreme Court Justice may chair the debate with authority to keep the questions and responses on track, but not necessarily time limited;
3. Two former Presidents, one from each party, may join the Supreme Court Justice to form the panel for asking questions;
4. At the opening, each candidate may be allowed up to fifteen minutes to present his/her manifesto, point out the differences with the opponent, and critique the opponent’s manifesto;
5. Each candidate may then be allowed to ask the opponent five questions without any time restriction in response;
6. Each former president then may ask the candidate of the opposite party five questions, without time restriction on responses;
7. Five questions from the media and the general public may be funneled thru the Chairman for each candidate to respond without time restriction;
8. To avoid any personal argument or sparring, all the responses may be addressed to the Chairman, and;
9. Before the end, each candidate may present his/her closing statement.

Two or three debates may be held to cover all the issues. Such debates, besides serving the non-partisan voters, may even start breaking lose party loyalists, serving the cause of genuine democracy.

Paradigm Shift for the USA

Foundation for Better Government

October 10, 2012.

Paradigm Shift for the USA

By T.S. Khanna, October 10, 2012.

In every society, there is a body of beliefs, convictions, sentiments, accepted principles, and firmly rooted prejudices, which, taken together, provide a framework of public thought process.  This framework is based on certain assumptions, true or false, tested or untested, that are believed by the society to be true with such confidence that they do not appear to bear the character of assumptions.

 This dominant theoretical framework controlling and guiding the public thought process, judgment, behavior, as well as perception of observations and life’s experiences is the paradigm of the society.

When human logic is not available to adopt certain values for which there is a felt need and the prevailing mental intensity in public, those values are adopted by invoking the authority of God.  Since communication with God is only through feelings, religious leaders can justify and sanctify any set of values, without any logical explanation, by invoking the authority of God.

Most societies around the world were established with paradigms based on religions, emphasizing all powerful God as the Supreme Arbitrator, religious leaders as the agents of God, and unquestioning faith in religious teachings as the unchallengeable, ultimate source of knowledge.  Such paradigms concentrated power in religious institutions; restricting the growth of knowledge with emphasis on obedience in an hierarchical manner.

The US society was founded in 1776 by adopting a “political religion” defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  The Founders created a new form of government which had no parallel; in James Madison’s words, “…no model on the face of the earth”. 

By invoking the authority of God, Declaration of Independence announced values: (a) all men are created equal, and, (b) all men have certain inalienable Rights (the Bill of Rights). These values have been the dominant basis of the US society’s paradigm.  This paradigm dispersed power among many as opposed to religious paradigms concentrating power in a few.

At the time of their adoption, the values seem to reflect the “ultimate truth”.  However, with the passage of time and new experiences “new truths” are revealed.  But for the keen observations and sacrifices of Copernicus/Galileo, our planet would still be flat and the center of the Universe.  

However, the values once adopted and practiced for some time, come to be regarded as axiomatic and hard to change, even when they are harmful or anti-progressive for the society.  Now the fast changing times are demanding flexibility in values to meet the new challenges.  But the power structures of the societies do not have the flexibility feature for a smooth paradigm shift.

 There seem to be six stages for a forced paradigm shift:

1. Some anomalous findings are noted but cannot be explained away in terms of the prevailing paradigm.  The findings are rejected as fallacious;
2. With more anomalous findings, paradigm model is stretched to explain, denying the inadequacy of the paradigm model;
3. Due to the weaknesses in the paradigm model, the number of anomalies increase to the level that they can no longer be disregarded, or explained, or handled by the prevailing paradigm.  This is a wakeup call to realize that the paradigm model may be inadequate; 
4. Formulation of a modified paradigm model that may treat the previously denied anomalies;
5. The transitional period, during which the existing establishment and vested interests resist the needed change; and,
6. Final acceptance of the modified paradigm model equipped to handle the anomalous occurrences previously denied as odd, infrequent, accidental, or fallacious.

The bigger and more diverse the societies, the longer the transitional period for paradigm shift.  However, if the shift evolution does not keep up with the demands of the changing conditions, it may trigger revolution in the society.

The USA seems to be in the third stage.  It must re-examine its democratic system based on the 18^th century knowledge of human nature and shore up its weaknesses to meet the new challenges.

Refining Democracy: Congress and the Presidency

Foundation for Better Government

October 1, 2012.

Refining Democracy: Congress and Presidency

By T.S.Khanna, October 1, 2012.

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”----Lord Acton.  Based on this collective wisdom, the democratic set-up was designed to divide power with checks and balances to protect the public from its abuse.  Besides dividing the power into three branches; Legislative, Judiciary; and, Executive, the legislative branch was further divided into two Houses----Senate and House of Reps.

Political parties were created with the intent to crystallize and vocalize various viewpoints and resolve conflicting issues through commonly accepted logic to protect and promote the public interest while serving self interests.  The system worked well when the people and their interests were not so diversified and the diversity was not as intense as it is now.

The Congress has earned its “Broken Branch, Do-nothing” title by default. The system is showing fatigue and needs to be examined.

Representative democracy gradually makes political parties stronger, stiffer, and non-compromising.  The assumption that by compromises the various parties would pursue, protect, and promote the public interest is faulted.  As the selfish pursuits of diversified interests are encouraged by representative democracy, logic loses its power even to define the public interest, let alone its pursuit.

Now the emphasis of each political party is to enhance its power by regimented unity at the cost of sacrificing the independence of elected reps.  The extreme end of each party now tends to wag the whole party.

With such stance of the parties, the system offers only three failed options:

·       When the Senate and the House of Reps have majority of opposite parties, there is a deadlock;

·       When President’s party and the majority party of any one of the Houses is not the same, there is a deadlock; and,

·       When the President’s party and the majority party in both the Houses is the same, the decisions taken may be fast but may tantamount to tyranny by majority.

To improve the system, a conceptual plan is presented to provoke thought and invite comments:

1. Abolish the Senate.  It has long outlived its usefulness, it is duplicate representation, and it slows down or deadlocks the Congress proceedings without ever adding any quality to the decision making process.
2. Change the term length of elected reps from two-year to only one six-year term, with one third retiring every two years.
3. Eliminate the position of the partisan president.  At every presidential election, the cleavage between the political parties increases and hardens.  Besides, the president, as head of the state, must not be a party rep; he/she must represent the whole nation in a non-partisan manner.
4. Establish a 15-member non-partisan Supreme Council elected by the process of direct or collective democracy.  The members may be elected for a six-year term.  The council members may elect president and vice-president every two years.
5. The Supreme Council may take over all the responsibilities of the senate and the Supreme Council non-partisan President/ Vice-President may replace the partisan President/Vice-President under the present system.
6. In addition, the Supreme Council and the House of Reps may have the powers to initiate and adopt constitutional amendments with 2/3^rd majority in both the Houses.
7. Establish a non partisan Agency “Research & Development on Political Affairs” answerable to the Supreme Council, for the best steer in political affairs.