Keven's question:
> Question for the more politically-savvy amongst you: Why can't we vote
for
> who gets what portfolio? Why can't we insist that someone with half a
clue
> technically be put in charge of the IT portfolio?
<disclaimer>I don't like the 'cult of the ignorant' either. Journalists will
often argue that they should not need expertise to report on a particular
topic; and I disagree. </disclaimer>
But in politics...
1) We can't guarantee that expertise - or claimed expertise - equals good
decision making. The famous Westpac CS87 etc debacles of a decade ago were
conceived by experts.
2) So to insist on expertise in the body politic - technical expertise, I
mean here - also demands assessment criteria. And,
3) Even then, find me five experts who agree on the detail. Look, for
example, at Link's own debates about (say) digital certificates. Were Link
to act as an advisory body for an expert cabinet member, I reckon he/she
would end up schizophrenic ...
It would be nice to see stronger intellectual content in Canberra, I agree.
Sad fact - here I'm talking research, not opinion, but I don't have the
citations in front of me - the sad fact is that people don't follow someone
vastly smarter than they; they prefer representatives who look, think and
act (or seem to) as they do.
RC
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben McGinnes [mailto:ben-mcginnes@iname.com]
Sent: Saturday, 4 August 2001 22:02
To: Kevin Littlejohn
Cc: link@www.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: [LINK] Talk is cheap
Kevin Littlejohn(darius@bofh.net.au)@Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 12:42:19AM +1000:
>
> Heh. See, the difference is, you could always slap the village idiot in
the
> stocks and pelt them with rotten fruit...
Unfortunately it is no longer politically correct to do this. Or is that
socially acceptable?
> Question for the more politically-savvy amongst you: Why can't we vote
for
> who gets what portfolio? Why can't we insist that someone with half a
clue
> technically be put in charge of the IT portfolio?
Perhaps for the same reason that military commanders are rarely, if ever,
turning to politics to become Ministers of Defence. The theory, I
believe, is that the Minister is supposed to operate from the perspective
of acting on behalf of the constituents and the government (i.e. to carry
out its policies). It is the role of permanent secretaries and other
speicalists within the department to make sure that Minister is fully
appraised of the details relating to his/her portfolio.
There are two main reasons for doing it this way:
1) If holding a Ministerial position or responsibility over a given
portfolio is restricted to professional training and history as well as
democratic mandate, then it defeats the purpose of a free and open
democratic process in which anyone may run for office within their
society/community.
2) There is a somewhat lesser view that encouraging only those with a
particular professional background to take on a particular political role
(e.g. the IT portfolio) will also serve to encourage either an "old boys"
type network and/or even corruption between the portfolio holder and
members of the industry s/he was previously a part of.
Of course the second view is rarely, if ever, used as an argument against
allowing someone who happens to fall into that category from pursuing a
political career. It is just something often kept in mind. Though a good
example to consider here is Dr. Wooldridge (sp?), in particular in
relation to those medical scanners which were subsidised and the
surrounding controversy.
Regards,
Ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:03 EST