Bicameral Vision

We lose sight of the origins & intentions of our democratic system to the point where, not only do we forget its advantages, we get distracted by those who intentionally want to subvert good process.

The number of times I have heard whinging about how the upper house (state or federal) "gets in the way" of law-making has even brought me to a point of tuning out & not responding with my old tune of " ... but that's their job!" Indeed, the whole point of having two houses of parliament is for one to set the laws & the other - having no part in the setting - ensuring that those laws make sense within themselves & for the people - a house of review.

We have muddied this for so long, where the "power" in the lower house - those who can control enough votes to set whatever laws they want to the exclusion of any good ideas coming from the other side of the house - will complain bitterly if they don't have the power in the upper house to steamroll whatever they want. They will use words like "mandate" or "trigger for a double dissolution" to imply that they are hard done by because the people did not trust them enough to review their own decisions (strangely).

Admittedly, the parliamentary system is far from perfect - & how people are elected to the two houses is constantly a matter of abuse & review in itself (by another party entirely, made up of public servants) - but to understand how it works best, you need to understand how it was meant to work when it was developed, & the years of changes in the English system from which ours was born.

My inspiration for beginning this blog, however, was not parliamentary decision making, but decisions for all social things. We still have a monarchical view of our democracy - someone comes into power, & they should be allowed to do what they want. This is tyrannical at the least, & we should have come a long way beyond that. It happens in government, in enterprises (Board Chairpersons or CEOs), & the public service (government-backed flunkeys placed in high positions).

What if, however, laws, rules, procedures & practices were developed in a bicameral way - one group to debate & propose changes, & another group to review & approve them (with limited ability to make changes)?

In a previous blog, I mentioned that education is a problem that no government can 'fix' because they just don't have the background or the desire to do anything socially useful to 'fix' the way in which non-voters (primarily) are educated.
What if, instead, educators were elected to a committee to investigate & propose laws, & a group of other interested parties - community representatives, administrators, parents, etc - were empowered to review & accept recommendations?

I know that sounds radical. It would also solve another of education's little problems - how do you get more out of the teachers who are skilled & knowledgeable & want to put back into the system without being administrators? You put them on committees of change, or involve them in reviewing changes - as professional & current teachers.

That way, you don't lose their interest, you gain from their experience, you give them something to aim for (a prestigious position on a committee), & you keep them engaged in the challenges that they themselves face in their day-to-day workplace.

Education is one such example. I don't want to list others, because the reality is that a bicameral vision could be applied to anything from the running of a public company to a charity. Looking at things differently, to see that rule by committee is possible, is one thing. Realising that any activity could benefit from the social experience of the members of any community is the big leap forward that democracy needs.