I am a supporter of democracy, but with one important caveat: I am not satisfied with the lack of efficiency in modern Western democracies. Western countries now face too many problems, and local politicians generally do not even try to address them.
I would like more people to discuss this question: is it possible to improve modern democracy? The main goal is to build social and political institutions so that smart people frequently come to power in a democracy.
I believe it is essential to introduce laws that help people with limited political experience come to power. Firstly, the state must support "technical ministers": individuals who have the knowledge to function as ministers but are not overly motivated to become politicians themselves. A lottery system could be effective for this: suppose the state randomly selects 300 people, provides them with resources, and allows them to elect the most competent individuals among them to become the ministers.
Another idea is the implementation of participatory budgeting: a system in which citizens vote online on how to allocate budget funds. With such a system, ministers would be able to secure funding for their departments through the participatory budgeting portal, making them less dependent on the president or prime minister and more accountable to the population. Consequently, it would become less common for the president to alienate an outstanding minister as a potential competitor.
Additionally, participatory budgeting could create a financial incentive for parties to promote capable leaders. Suppose a party aims to identify and support individuals with exceptional qualities who could become good leaders. If this party succeeds in electing such an individual as president, it could receive rewards through participatory budgeting: the more popular the president becomes, the more the party earns. Thus, promoting outstanding individuals could become a viable business for party members.
If significant financial resources help politicians come to power, participatory budgeting could turn this to society's benefit: a good politician would be able to earn substantial money through popularity and real achievements (albeit with a time delay—first spending, then earning).
In other words, we sugges the idea of appointing some ministers via online voting rather than by the president or prime minister. While inappropriate for areas requiring unified command, like the military, this approach could be suitable for many other domains, especially those involving information dissemination (education).
The political system must enable celebrities or famous scientists to enter politics. They should be able to initiate online voting via the participatory budgeting system, allowing the population to decide whether to allocate state funds for their political training. If these celebrities are popular and intelligent enough to win such votes, they will gain political experience and eventually be able to win regular elections.
Additionally, the constitution should mandate that all ministers maintain personal blogs to share information, assisting new politicians in governing if they come to power.
The idea of "technical ministers" could be implemented at any time with some adjustments. For example, a person could announce their candidacy for mayor, stating that, due to their lack of expertise in areas like housing and public utilities or city transport, they will consult with an experienced individual. The mayor would simply sign decrees suggested by this consultant, and the mayor's salary would go to the consultant. This arrangement would grant the mayor political status and the ability to initiate referendums.
In Russia, we see that independent mayors and governors are often imprisoned by Putin because they become his competitors. I suspect a similar problem exists in Western society, albeit in a more subtle form: an argument for this is that mayors and governors in the USA do not have judicial immunity, unlike deputies. In my opinion, this is fundamentally wrong.
