Every now and then I feel like whittling away at random theories on democracy and making preposterous generalizations. :)

I remember reading in Naked Economics that policies that benefit a minority are much more easily agreed upon by the majority than policies benefiting a majority. They usually cost less; they are implemented easily and in a short time-frame; their successes or failures don't stir up a lot of mud; and at the end of it the politicians get a good name for acting in favor of the repressed minority! So it is win-win all around. That being said, the policies benefiting one small group are always at the expense of another group, so the cycle of repression goes on and on in a round-robin fashion.
 
In contrast, the decisions affecting a majority go through endless rounds of deliberation, because there is usually a lot more at stake, and a lot more people with vested interests and varied opinions riding on them. People are generally skeptical about supporting long-term projects whose benefits are not directly realizable. Some concerns don't even seem precisely comprehensible. Take global warming for instance.. how does a person who does not experience the impact of this nebulous concern, support it wholeheartedly! How does he vote in favor of policies that speak to mitigating global warming if he does not understand the outcome. How then is it true democracy if he is allowed to vote on gut-feeling and his inherent prejudices rather than real understanding or rational thinking.

There are several exceptions to this majority-minority theory, and I haven't completely bought into it (especially now that I am reading India After Gandhi and see outcomes, both positive and negative, that shoot down rational suppositions), but I do see the rationale to some extent and get the whys and wherefores. I found myself thinking a lot about it during the Indian elections! It was intriguing how even though there were so many calamitous events taking place around our country and within our country, the parties chose to focus on superfluous issues, none of which were of any major consequence! Concerns related to minorities seemed to have completely eclipsed more pressing issues, such as those affecting the very security and stability of our country.
 
The whole world seems to have lots of strong opinions on all the major crises we face today! I sit in the living room at a friends place and there are a group of engineers throwing in ideas on how to combat the war on terror. What is to say, the government can’t hire them in a larger living space to discuss their vision for a better world? Of course, having a disease and following the doctor's treatment plan does not make one the expert in the disease.  

But, I was suggesting to a friend that governments should outsource big policy decisions the same way they do other jobs requiring specialized skills. By this I don't mean Mckinsey working with the Indian Railways to restructure our transportation system or Bush's idea of outsourcing Federal jobs offshore. I am speaking of involving regular bright people in recommending policy decisions for such nebulous things as global warming. I can already see some Astrophysicists coming up with brilliant ideas to calibrate solar activities to keep global warming in check! ;) 

Will it put an end to every global crisis we face today? Certainly not! But, expecting theorists to make our world problem-free is as idiotic as expecting doctors to make our world death-free! But, while people are sick or dying, we need doctors. And as long as we have problems in this world, we need theorists. 
 
When I suggested my idea to a friend, he thought I was being naive, and so I did the most obvious thing, which is to google my idea - "Outsourcing the Government" !! Guess what I found. Chip Conley thinks the US Government should be outsourced to Walmart! I'll take it one step ahead and even suggest that we should sell the government to Walmart and lease it back when the performance indicators fulfill our predefined expectations. ;) This way the government will never be in debt and we can all live in a cheaper if not better place! Walmart. Save Money. Live Better. :)

But going back to my idea, of the government luring smart opinionated people in to thrash out ideas to solve various global problems, I see nothing but good coming out of this. Even at the rate of 100 bad ideas for every good idea, the risk-to-reward ratio is pretty darn awesome-- such as the solution to global warming. If they underperform, the government is in no obligation to keep them employed. And at no point is the government obligated to implement the recommended solutions (although I don't see why not. Who has smarter solutions to problems than the world's greatest eggheads)   

There is the likelihood that some of these employees will eventually serve as mouthpieces to corrupt politicians, and will relay the solutions spoon-fed to them. Even so, most corrupt politicians too embrace good policies because it serves as a way of getting elected. Voters too have the choice of electing people based on whether they support a recommendation or not! They can even come up with their own recommendations, which will be rated by other users through an automated voting system, much like digg.com where the best ideas get pushed up the queue. This way everyone's competing to outperform the other in coming up with solutions to big problems! People will actually contribute to the democratic process and make a more informed choice in electing their government, as opposed to blindly selecting a party that will tell you exactly what you want to hear, with the help of fuzzy statements on where they will take the country.

The interesting thing about the outsourcing these decisions is that the solutions can come from any part of the world! Not necessarily from one's own country. And the benefits to this would be just the same as the benefits to International trade. Here, ideas replace goods and services! This will not only promote global citizenship, it will foster better relationships between countries, and will also build in a much required "unbiased third party" opinion that most countries need. But, since the solution suggesters don’t know the social intricacies of the country that will benefit from their recommendations, the politicians will have to do the selling, which in any case is what they are best qualified to do! 

Think of it like Switzerland’s direct democracy on steroids. Or even going all the way back to 500 BC in Athens, which is the very first known democracy, where people did not elect representatives but voted directly on legislation and executive bills. Interestingly, the public opinions were greatly influenced by theatre and political satire performed by comic poets. The only times the law excluded decisions of some citizens is if it was felt that they had a personal interest in the outcome of a debate, such as decisions related to war by citizens with property close to the wall.

My idea is only to extend the Athenian democratic model to a global scale. And who knows, if this theory works well, countries can start outsourcing the voting too! That way educated people around the world will be allowed to make electoral decisions for all countries, which might cut down on global conflicts as well, since everyone will be allowed the chance to speak up in the election. Moreover, with International trade, where your country's economic performance is dependent on the performance of other countries, it is only logical that the people have a say in matters relating to those other countries as well! 

With this I have established that I am true global citizen!  :)