A technocracy is better than a democracy.

I would like to thank Mexecutive for the opportunity to debate the concept of a "Technocracy" model of government. Hopefully it will be an interesting and enjoyable experience for both of us. I will attempt to convince the voters that Democracy is a better option than Technocracy. I would like point out, for starters, that China is not a Technocracy. China is a single-party Socialist State (according to Wiki [1]). The Party puts "technocrats" in positions of power. A Democracy could certainly employ the same strategy; a President could put a "technocrat" into each Cabinet position. Essentially, he does. I'm sure all Presidents actually do believe they are filling each Cabinet position with a highly qualified "expert." As it pertains to economics, there is little doubt that Ben Bernanke is the most influential figure in the American economy, and he is a technocrat (an appointed "expert" in the field of economics). The closest thing to a technocracy in the modern world would be some European nations where the EU has essentially usurped the will of national citizens by appointing technocrats in the name of economic management. Basically, they are managing economies on behalf of Brussels and international bondholders rather than on behalf of national citizens. So far, the results have been predictably disastrous. I will not provide an extended defense for Democracy (and for the purpose of this debate, I will use Republic and Democracy interchangably, though I recognize there is a distinction). Democracy is a fairly new concept in the history of governmental organization, but has generally served the nations where it's been used quite efficiently. In the United States, democracy has been used for over 200 years with just a single major civil conflict. Democracy is not without flaws or problems, but I believe the reason for its general success is quite simple: it provides citizens with a means by which they can align government with their own interests (the grave danger of technocracy is glaringly evidence is Europe on this matter). In essence, it puts citizens in charge of government, rather than goverment in charge of citizens. By that, I mean citizens have the authority to peacefully determine who rules them. In the history of the world, that had basically never been the case before the advent of democracy. The only way to replace an undesirable regime was through violence. It seems to me that technocracy is just another form of returning power to the "ruling elite", however that is defined. Essentially, a "technocrat" is no different than a "dictator", except that someone somewhere has deemed them an "expert." Even the most despotic rulers have claimed to work in the best interest of the people, and I assume technocrats would claim the same. Whether they actually do is another matter entirely (see: Greece... compared to Iceland). My problem with Technocracy as a system of government (which is what it appears you are proposing, since you are comparing it to Democracy) is three pronged: 1. Who appoints the technocrats? By what authority? Using what critereon? This wasn't specifed by Mexecutive, so hopefully he does so in the next round. 2. Do citizens have any recourse in the event of a failed technocratic regime? When a government fails to adequately please its citizenry in a Democracy, citizens can vote them out of power. The standard is, quite simply, popularity (for both better and worse). What is the proposed process for replacing failed technocrats? And as with one, what is the critereon for determining failure, who makes the determination, and by what authority? 3. The notion of "technocracy" assumes that experts (presumably, the technocrats) have a higher level of competence and can thus better manage unwieldy problems. I believe this premise is grossly false, and will produce a variety of amusing studies to support the position. Nowhere is this truer than in economics (ironically, your example of choice). Economists are notoriously awful at predicting the future. (See:Ben Bernanke [2]) The use of China as an example of exemplary economic planning is interesting. Certainly a streamlined bureacracy with little room for dissent makes for faster planning and execution of large-scale policy. It also leaves big decisions in the hands of few people trusting their "expertise" is sufficient. We will see how dangerous that can be i future rounds. China experienced exceptional growth as it became an industrialized nation over the last fifty years (though no better growth than "free market" economies that were not centrally planned by technocrats). But the centralized power structure employed by its technocrats has also led to a series of very significant long term (maybe short term?) problems with potentially disastrous consequences (not unlike our own increasingly "managed" economy). Once again, my contention will not be that Democracy is some panacea. Rather, that Technocracy is one of the worst options conceivable. Thanks again to Mexecutive for this opportunity, and I look forward to the debate. [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2]: http://investmentwatchblog.com...