The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 20 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

Lip-service:

Service in non-profit and government organisations

In most countries, much of the economy is delivered via non-profit organisations. In many cases, these institutions were set up to deliver a service to the community, or to provide a system of administration for the purpose of a smooth-running public network — whether it be health services, law and order, education, and/or transportation.

The framework, tradition, and nature of non-profit organisations have tended to diminish the importance of customer satisfaction. In some cases, customer retention is not even a consideration, especially where government monopolies exist. However, with privatisation looming over many infrastructures, and since the emergence of competition either directly or indirectly (through shifting emphasis within the networked world) the question of customer service has been gaining importance.

To improve the levels of customer service and to create an environment whereby service providers truly care about the quality of their service delivery, major reforms are required at the top. Those in charge need to be given the autonomy to act, unencumbered by red tape and bureaucracy. The best way to remove the bureaucratic stranglehold is to make the process of government accountable. This innovation could occur through a novel scheme called ‘democracy’. Within the networked world it is possible to give the public a real and regular say about how things ought to be run.

Who needs to be governed?

In a democratic networked world, people do not need to be governed, therefore they do not need a government. Instead, they need an administration — that is, a reliable and professional team of experts who can ‘administer’ the policies voted for by the people.

Unfortunately, people have very little say in how their country is run. Going to elections every few years is hardly what democracy is about. We are all playing one big and costly game of politics that stirs most citizens to anger.

Citizens are asked to elect a new government every few years, based on a convoluted combination of promises. When we vote, we are asked to distinguish between good and evil amid mud-slinging and insults. We are expected to swing one way or another, based on a few headline-grabbing ideals that do nothing more than confuse and distract the voters from the real issues of a changing world.

We are told of ‘polls’ that go up and down like a yo-yo. Forget what the polls say. Let us put a simple system in place that allows all voters to have a real say on a regular basis. Citizens need to begin to insist on a real say. If countries start to plan for the democracy they desire, it would be possible to plan for, and to introduce, computerised regular voting on issues that affect the constituents. Such a proposal could use simple telephone and/or computer technology to connect all voters to a central system that can log their votes. Important public issues would still undergo rigorous investigation and public debate, but the final say could be made by the voters through their telephone or public computer network (or any other reasonable method to suit the environment). This is more than a new style of referendum or plebiscite. This is a new way of involving the public in life-changing decisions. Such a system would extend to dozens or hundreds of issues whereby the voters would be able to vote on specific policies, rather than vote for one or two people who promise things that they might not be able to deliver. This does not mean that you should destabilise the country. It does not mean that the parliamentary systems should be abandoned. It does not mean that local or state representation should be abolished, but it does mean that we would hear less of the political innuendoes and lies, and less speculation about what voters really want because the computerised system would record each voter’s wishes. As times change and situations force us to make new decisions, voters would be given the opportunity to make new selections.

If voters do not want to cast a vote on some or all of the issues, they can opt to give their vote to their local member of parliament (MP) who will represent them in the best way possible. Furthermore, their MP would be one that they have voted for based on competence, not on geography — meaning that people ought to be able to vote for their preferred candidate, not the one who happens to be standing for election in their district.

When a corporation is looking to employ a senior executive, it does not limit itself to applicants of a particular locale. Instead, it conducts a wide-ranging search to find the best person for the job. In the same way, citizens should be given the ability to vote for any MP, no matter the region.

Only when we can elect our MP of choice will we start to see an improvement in the calibre of members. We would no longer be forced to select ‘the best from a bad bunch’. Instead, we could start to select ‘the best from the most qualified’. Unfortunately, the current system encourages mediocrity by forcing voters to select from a limited choice. Under this proposal, the function of MPs would become more important because they could be entrusted with more votes than the one they carry in parliament. MPs currently have one voice, and one voice only. Whether they represent one town or twenty, whether they represent 10 000 people or one million, they have just one vote in parliament. However, under this proposal, MPs could end up the custodians of hundreds or millions of votes. And each vote would carry real weight.

Converting ‘opposition’ to ‘competition’

I have been a long-time critic of the concept of an ‘Opposition’. When you think it through, you will realise that the single most important function of any Opposition is to tear the Government down so that it can get into power. This is destructive! The Opposition (no matter the party) seems to think that it has a duty to oppose, obstruct, and obfuscate every move. Citizens ought to demand maturity, innovation, and co-operation — not opposition.