Nowadays a significant number of governments consist mainly of technocrats, with a few politicians about. Who in your opinion is likely to do a better job? Should a government be composed of politicians only? What are your views?
I stongly believe that governments should be composed largely of PhD holders, specially, Ministry of Economics, Ministry of Education, and Ministry of Higher Education.
Dear Alexandre,
I must say that engineers practice the hard sciences which are largely objective. Politics and government deal with very complex realities which are very far from being objective. It would be interesting to know how engineers whose faculties have been trained largely to manipulate inanimate entities - both physically and intellectually - would be able to be better in government than others?
Dear Mohamed
Technicians or managers, are absolutely necessary. The world has no way to do without them., Technicians must be subordinated to political orientation. Because there is a tendency among technical, think more in cuts in excessive objectivity in cold numbers, and forget the dreams of individuals, not to bet on hope. The technique, though decisive, must take into account the sensitivity and perception of politicians.
The technicians are seminal, but as I said the German sociologist Max Weber, nothing substitutes for rational competence and sensitivity and breadth of vision of politicians.
After all we are human beings, might need too change role models time to time...
Unfortunately leadership and technical capability rarely go with the same person. In addition to that we have the political process wherein we need to have the votes from people in order to get elected. Unfortunately all these three will not be available in a single person. In India when Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister, he chose Manmohan Singh as finance minister because of his capability. Both were able to move India on a path of economic renaissance through policies without the fear of elections or consequences. I think it will be rare to get such a combination again. Both of them cannot get elected in normal elections.
Yes @ Nageswara...Now the same Dr.Manmohan Sing is the Prime Minister of India, and I am proud of him that he is the highest qualified Prime Minister in the world.
http://jyoti-kothari.hubpages.com/hub/Dr-Manmohan-Singh-Highest-Qualified-Prime-Minister-in-the-world
Technocrats over Politicians! That is my opinion! Read the following: "What can technocrats achieve that politicians can't?" Fine text!
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15720438
Technocrats are generally not answerable to the people; thus they cannot be entrusted with larger issues that involve values or the overall direction of the country. In a democracy politicians are those who represent the will of the people, so they can see the larger picture. It is best for the technocrats to work for the politicians and then the politicans have to be accountable to the people through democratic means such as the Parliament.
The article that Ljubomir cites talks about another kind of technocracts - those who actually become politicians in their own right. So that's another matter. Even when technocrats in this new sense assume political power, they still have to be accountable to Parliament an ultimately to the people.
Rule is simple, if you want an administration oriented towards people : put in charge of the ministry of health one who was for a while patient in the hospitals, in charge of public welfare one who was a recipient of such welfare programs, and so on. Avoid to put in charge of interior or defense ministries (former) thieves and anyway, don't put in charge of any ministry people obsessed with power and "public relations".
Otherwise, what is a "technocrat"?
In some countries, it seems that they managed to strike a very good balance in having a government that is composed of both politicians and technocrats. Key government positions which involve a high degree of political skills such as the prime minister, the minister of economic affairs, the interior and foreign ministers...etc. are held by politicians; while the minister of education, the minister scientific research, the minister of finance, the minister of commerce, the minister of health are held by technocrats who tend to be highly educated individuals with a deep understanding of the issues related to their domain of excellence.
@Mohamed, I have read this blog about fact that Africa needs technocrats rather than politicians!
http://sierraleonesignposts.com/?p=1000
It is a good article!
It's a choice between a Kafka narrative and a Coen brothers movie. Either you have a mindless bureaucracy or a government of elected narcissists and psychopaths. I like the question because it pinpoints the exact difficulty with political freedom. We cannot actually choose a benevolent despot; we would have to choose what we believed was a politician who then managed to take over: true despotism leaves you no choice. A technocracy would resemble despotism in certain ways. But where a despot can sometimes see a reason to actually care about some group of people, a technocrat would value systems in place and improvements in technology to manage those systems. As Hongladoram observed (above), how the operation of the systems impacted peoples' lives would matter less than the integrity of the systems.
It is often said that "well, the system isn't perfect but it is better than the alternative." That is always only partly true. If one reads Huxley's Brave New World these days, one can see the virtue of the system over self-determinisn.
In every government there are only political.
Some present themselves as experts.
But do not act as experts in government management objectives.
The technician is neutral and technically. But there is no neutrality in government management. Each review involves a choice. The option an idea. And the idea ideology.
Then the technocrat is merely an undercover at the power set ideologue. In communist China are interventionist technocrats because there is no political freedom and political pluralism. In the capitalist West technocrats are in favor of the market economy as the economy dominates politics. But when the dominant power in the executive palamentos and discuss some become liberal democracy but only for now.
I think it varies according to portfolios.
The prime minister should first and foremost be a mixture of both with knowledge of various areas and also being a politician.
Concerning ministries such as finance, science, technology and energy - definitely technocrats.
But on the other hand, for ministries such as the foreign minister, they should be a politician due to the maneuvering required in the job.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science