To be President (Prime Minister) or Cabinet Member over a federation of 50 states containing over 300 million people is a huge responsibility to say nothing of the potential workload. I don't see how any human being could be expected to perform in this role competently, let alone sanely.
Yet we can always hope that a few among us exist who could bear such a task with skill and success.
I would only point to a few related matters that might have to be worked out to make this a realistic expectation for even the most accomplished human being:
1) The organization being run (in this case the administrative branch of the federal government) must be sanely organized. A sane organization follows a few basic rules of which I will only mention two.
a) Any senior should only have four or five direct juniors.
b) Sub-sections of the group should follow the exact same patterns and policies that the full group must follow.
To me this means dividing the country into regions and sub-regions. Maybe five regions each with two or three sub-regions. The Federal Reserve, for example, is divided into 12 districts.
2) A chief executive should be highly emotionally stable. You can't have the guy throw some fit that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (Putin? Stalin? ...Lincoln??).
In my world this can only be accomplished through extensive spiritual counseling from my church. Thus, bringing secular executives up to my standards for "competence" is currently beyond possibility, unless we somehow manage to elect an OT8 Ls completion (forgive the jargon; you can look it up if it makes a difference to you).
This may be the best original reason for democratic elections. This essentially crowd-sources the sanity test. It's a big ask of any population, but perhaps better than leaving it up to psychiatrists or psychologists. Perhaps Lobaczewski would disagree?
While I agree in concept with much of this, I'm not sure it can be regulated out.....if the idea has merit, then it will form on its own accord I reckon.
I mean it is one thing to have ideas about better organization but another entirely to actually implement the ideas and past times suggest old ideas stubborn die hard.
But, die they will if the old ideas have no merit. If they don't have merit, they won't resonate, and if they don't resonate, they will fade away in sound and time. Still - old ideas die hard - case in point, what we all are experiencing presently when the news is a lie and only the soul willing to dig deep has a chance to understand that evil forces intent upon harm don't really care about the peasants. That is the crux of the matter I think and the outcome is undetermined other than it is known those who cause harm will face justice. Lady Libra holds the scales and she suffers no fools.
To be President (Prime Minister) or Cabinet Member over a federation of 50 states containing over 300 million people is a huge responsibility to say nothing of the potential workload. I don't see how any human being could be expected to perform in this role competently, let alone sanely.
Yet we can always hope that a few among us exist who could bear such a task with skill and success.
I would only point to a few related matters that might have to be worked out to make this a realistic expectation for even the most accomplished human being:
1) The organization being run (in this case the administrative branch of the federal government) must be sanely organized. A sane organization follows a few basic rules of which I will only mention two.
a) Any senior should only have four or five direct juniors.
b) Sub-sections of the group should follow the exact same patterns and policies that the full group must follow.
To me this means dividing the country into regions and sub-regions. Maybe five regions each with two or three sub-regions. The Federal Reserve, for example, is divided into 12 districts.
2) A chief executive should be highly emotionally stable. You can't have the guy throw some fit that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (Putin? Stalin? ...Lincoln??).
In my world this can only be accomplished through extensive spiritual counseling from my church. Thus, bringing secular executives up to my standards for "competence" is currently beyond possibility, unless we somehow manage to elect an OT8 Ls completion (forgive the jargon; you can look it up if it makes a difference to you).
This may be the best original reason for democratic elections. This essentially crowd-sources the sanity test. It's a big ask of any population, but perhaps better than leaving it up to psychiatrists or psychologists. Perhaps Lobaczewski would disagree?
"The president of the council of ministers "
Is this the "leader" of the gubment or is there no individual leader?
If not, if there is no "executive" in person, then does this not lend itself to confusion needless and bureaucratic?
Or is the "prime minister" the leader?
Regardless, without an individual leading, restricted accordingly, just begs for gubment inefficiency.
Local is better. From the ground up.
While I agree in concept with much of this, I'm not sure it can be regulated out.....if the idea has merit, then it will form on its own accord I reckon.
I mean it is one thing to have ideas about better organization but another entirely to actually implement the ideas and past times suggest old ideas stubborn die hard.
But, die they will if the old ideas have no merit. If they don't have merit, they won't resonate, and if they don't resonate, they will fade away in sound and time. Still - old ideas die hard - case in point, what we all are experiencing presently when the news is a lie and only the soul willing to dig deep has a chance to understand that evil forces intent upon harm don't really care about the peasants. That is the crux of the matter I think and the outcome is undetermined other than it is known those who cause harm will face justice. Lady Libra holds the scales and she suffers no fools.