During the 2016 presidential election, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders argued that elites were hurting the economy. But, drawing together evidence and theory from across economics, political science, and even finance, Garett Jones says otherwise. In 10% Less Democracy , he makes the case that the richest, most democratic nations would be better off if they slightly reduced accountability to the voting public, turning up the dial on elite influence. To do this, Jones builds on three foundational lines of evidence in areas where he has personal experience. First, as a former staffer in the U.S. Senate, he saw how senators voted differently as elections grew closer. Second, as a macroeconomist, Jones knows the merits of "independent" central banks, which sit apart from the political process and are controlled by powerful insiders. The consensus of the field is that this detached, technocratic approach has worked far better than more political and democratic banking systems. Third, his previous research on the effects of cognitive skills on political, social, and economic systems revealed many ways in which well-informed voters improve government. Discerning repeated patterns, Jones draws out practical suggestions for fine-tuning, focusing on the length of political terms, the independence of government agencies, the weight that voting systems give to the more-educated, and the value of listening more closely to a group of farsighted stakeholders with real skin in the game―a nation's sovereign bondholders. Accessible to political news junkies while firmly rooted and rigorous, 10% Less Democracy will fuel the national conversation about what optimal government looks like.
Whether you agree with all of Jones’s conclusions or not (and I do not), this is an important book.
I’ve been saying for many years that democracy, for all its many virtues, is flawed. Alas, as the author says, “people are not equally capable of adding value to political discourse.” Jones dares to question things most people don’t even realize are up for debate. He starts by acknowledging the many benefits of democracy, why we certainly need it, and how its benefits in rich, strong democracies wouldn’t even remotely be affected by a 10% reduction in the political influence of the masses.
Athens was the only major democracy in history that was actually a pure democracy, where every voter was invited to voice his (yes, his—obviously women didn’t get to vote) opinion on every single issue. The United States is obviously not that. We are a representative democracy. So Jones points out that we obviously believe in certain limits on the concept of pure democracy. Then he illustrates, with ample support, how government bodies that are largely independent from politics (democracy), like the Federal Reserve and much of the judiciary, make better policy decisions (which Jones supports with evidence). He’s now proposing more limits that would result in better policy decisions. Then he walks us through lots and lots of research to support his many proposals, which include:
-longer terms for politicians (because studies show they vote differently—worst—when running for re-election)
-eliminating elected judges
-allowing elected politicians to make values-driven policy, but appointed panels of experts make substantive policies, such as economic or tax policies
-raising the voting age
-only allowing graduates of the top 140 universities vote for Senators
-requiring a high school diploma in order to vote
-educational gerrymandering to increase the number of reps from highly educated areas
Jones doesn’t prescribe all of these reforms for every nation. He invites us to search for the right “dose” of democracy, and like most politica philosophers throughout time (including our Founders), he advocates for “polyarchy”: a blend of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy.
In a perfect world, we would all set aside our devotion to the “sacred right to vote” and consider prioritizing good government instead.
コメント