Igenlode Wordsmith

I've thought for a long time that it would be a good idea simply to select representatives at random, as we do for jury service -- you are judged by a jury of your peers, not, as in France for example, by a legal expert, but by ordinary people who are not specialists in the law but selected entirely by chance, and who, if they so wish, are free to return a 'perverse' verdict, i.e. to disregard the legal case being made and vote according to their collective conscience instead... although the government is currently trying to suppress that :-(

Yes, a random selection will inevitably end up by picking some people who are completely inadequate to the task, but at least they will only be there by pure chance rather than because they were really good at selling themselves (but not so good at actually doing the job) or out of nepotism. There is a saying that the best leader, for example, is the one who doesn't actually *want* the job: anyone who is ambitious enough to push his way into the role is probably by definition not a good choice.

In the case of politicians in particular, they don't receive any training for their role in any case, and the qualities that get them elected have nothing whatsoever to do with the qualities that are required to actually get anything useful done once they are in government. The Minister for Transport doesn't need to know anything about transport -- he is appointed because of his perceived loyalty to the party leader, and will probably be 'shuffled' to another Cabinet position within a year or two, to be replaced by another new face who needs to learn all the functioning of his department all over again....

They might just as well be chosen by lottery. And if there was a chance that anyone in the country might at some point find themselves taking part in local (even if not national) government, then I feel that they might be more inclined to actually engage with the process, and less likely to dismiss it as a silly game of politics or a popularity/personality contest :-(

(Which is one reason why, in my view, having a hereditary head of state actually works pretty well: you *do* get what is basically a random genetic choice, of someone who is trained up for the job from an early age without necessarily having any ambition to do it. The monarch is essentially a living avatar for the country whose role is to represent it without having any power to *do* anything to it, regarded in much the same way that the Americans regard their flag, as a focal point for loyalty and a shorthand for the nation. You can get by on being doggedly 'good enough', so no great talent is actually necessary, but importantly it doesn't depend on charisma and the ability to whip up a crowd...)