Facing Crisis, Technocrats Take Charge in Italy: Good luck to Mr. Mario Monti, also known under his nickname "Super Mario".
I don't know how much confidence I'd put in a guy affiliated with Goldman Sachs. You saw where they got the U.S.
Why are you people so hung up on building a technocracy where you give all your democratic power to an elite to decide for you how your life and country should be run? Technocrats are the new European Royalty and only Euros could enjoy such high-tech despotism.
The technocrats only hold power with the consent of parliament. They could throw them out and hold elections if they wanted to. They haven't because right now they need people witha full understanding of the challenges facing italy in charge.
It's not my fault you don't understand the very basics of a concept known to man as "democracy". I'm sure you are aware that European socities are more pluralistic, e.g. Social-Democratic parties (centre-left), Christian-Democratic parties (centre), Liberal-Democratic parties (centre-right or centre-left), Green parties (centre left), Nationalist parties (centre-right), Communistic parties (left), Pirate Parties (= ???), Extreme-Right parties, etc. However, it is also a cause that every single European country has turned into a so-called "particracy": political stability is achieved by the fact that the big political parties (= Christian-Dems, Lib-Dems, Soc-Dems) control the political process in general terms, although this is changing with the consolidation of the Green parties all across Europe! Here is an entire Wikipedia-article on it. This enables that the Executive branch and the Legeslastive Branch are often one and the same thing. The Prime Minister goes to Parliament, put forward a plan and he is sure that it will be approved by Parliament (of course it's first debated within the coalition in the so-called "Core Cabinet"). However, with these technocratic governement this entire mess that has grown overtime dissappears! The Legslative branch becomes again what is was supposed to be: to look out for the overall well-being and welfare of the people that have elected them and to control the Executive Branch fiercly! I'm interested to what this all will lead to. A bit excited too. So, in short, I don't think this is a bad thing persé.
Indeed! Every European government only holds power with the consent of Parliament. Americans don't know this system at all, e.g. their government leader (which in America is at the same time Head of State) going to parliament every week to awnser fierce questions from the oppossition, vote of (non-)confidence, etc.
It is a convention in many countries that the government be comprised of members of the legislature, some countries ie Ireland* have constitutional restrictions on who can/cannot be Prime minister or serve in the government but the idea of non elected "technocrats" serving as members or leaders of government is hardly revolutionary. I understand that in the US the members of cabinet are often "technocrats" who while they are secretaries of their respective departments hold no democratic mandate or elected office, and that is an american convention that I have never heard criticised on these boards. *In the case of Ireland there are restrictions on the number of non TD members of government and a requirement that the PM (Taoiseach) be a member of the Dail. An unfortunate consequence of this requirement is that we often end up with persons running departments which they are completely unqualified for them. Teachers and lawyers are lovely and while I can see merits to have a teacher/educator serve as minister for education. I am stumped as to how Brian Lenihan or Cowen were ever qualified to be Ministers for Finance.
People have criticized Obama's "czars", which are basically Cabinet members in charge of different realms of governance, but most of these criticisms are highly partisan in nature. Technocrats run a lot of the Chinese system as well. Either way, I don't have a problem with Mario's position, but I do wonder how much help he'll be when it comes to fixing the same problems the company he advises helped to create.
So thats what a "czar" is, lol I had always taken it to be heads of smaller government agencies I didn't think that cabinet mambers were included in the bunch. Has Obama deviated significantly from his predecessors in appointing non sitting Seantors/Congresspeople to his cabinet? Does it happen more under his regime? I had always taken it as logical that the members of cabinet in the US with its strict seperation of powers would be more likely to be non-elected officials than in a parlimentary system where the lines between the executive and the parliament are often blurred by the fromers membership of the latter.
This is a grave mistake!!! Mixing the executive and legislative branch powers is exactly what America's founders strove to prevent. The above statement, the legislative and executive branches being "one and the same thing" is the the very definition of tyranny in America. This is why America's system is superior. Legislative and Executive powers should never ever be placed under one umbrella, their very function should be to act as a check against the other. You seek efficient Government, which is understandable, but you are basically opening yourselves up to same problems that have infected every system since the dawn of man, overmighty politicians granted with both legislative and executive powers having no checks against abuse of that power.
As far as I'm aware it is against US law to appoint a sitting legislator to an executive cabinet position. I've never heard of it being done.
SiliconMagician, You sometimes really need to hear yourself talking man... Yeah, I guess a Republican Congress isn't that sympathic towards a Republican President. In case you didn't notice -- but the entire American political class is sitting on her bum. Congress has been reduced to a so-called "Ship Of Fools",... Also, I don't think you quite understood what I was saying... It's not that the legslative powers and executive powers are merged or something. It was a mistake of me to bring this even up, I already regret it. So, here you go:
I always reread what I write. Sometimes, many Republicans go against a Republican President. Its not sitting on its bum, it's locked up tight in ideological struggle, which is what the system was designed for. The American Federal Government was intentionally designed to lock up when harsh ideological disagreements such as what is going on in America right now crop up. This is a good thing. In case you haven't noticed, the States themselves are using the opportunity to increase their own power at the expense at the Federal Government, which to a federalist such as myself, is always a good thing. It wasn't a mistake. It's a difference in political culture between our two societies. In America there are clear and strict lines of demarcation regarding separation of powers and we guard those lines of demarcation jealously in America. You may scratch your head at it and call it strange, but to us Americans the blurring of separation of powers in Europe is just as strange.
Ya and they are ratified by the Senate through a majority vote and then serve at the discretion of the POTUS, our secretaries are the Parliamentary equivalent to ministers.
This thread is hilarious and I love the sarcasm. Technocrats have been handed more and more power in the civilized world over the past few decades and things have gotten worse and worse, with more corruption, scandals, debt on the taxpayers, and nations on the brink of bankruptcy. Anyone advising Goldman Sachs is to be cheered and admired! They should immediately build a statue of Monti in Rome. Janpor's anti-democratic EU dream crumbles at her/his feet. Sing along, "Austerity and Debt to bankers for life!"
Well, in a more literal sense, you're correct. I was just referring to them as being a lot like Cabinet members. Technically, the Cabinet only includes Secretaries (Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, etc.). Czars are a lot like Cabinet members because of the power they wield, but they still must often defer to the actual Cabinet. As far as I understand it, it's not that uncommon to select them for Congressional approval. Usually, Cabinet members are a combination of former legislators and industry experts. Yes, the American system definitely separates the two more than parliamentary systems.
