Governance Redefined, Part III

GOVERNANCE REDEFINED

PART III.  THE AUTONOMENT

Picture a darkened, round room of some forty-feet in diameter.  On its walls are nine, evenly-spaced, large electronic displays each registering an index measuring the extent to which the needs of Postcapians are currently being fulfilled in a particular sector.  The sectors undergoing this surveillance are: sustenance, shelter, health, safety, education, environment, works, research, and personal freedom-the assumption being that any citizen enjoying the wherewithal to survive, decent shelter, good health, a sense of security, the opportunity to educate himself, a livable environment, satisfactory public works, the fruits of ongoing research, and personal freedom would be equipped with the basics needed for a satisfied and productive life.

 Clustered around each of the main displays are anywhere from ten to thirty smaller panels devoted to the sub-sectors contributing to the tallies presented on the main displays.  Within the health sector, for example, there is continuous monitoring of the prevalence of heart disease, the robustness of the na­tional liver, physical condition­ing, mental health, and so on.  Within the safety sector are sub-sectors devoted to the incidence of crime, accidental deaths, industrial injuries, and suicides.  Within the environmental sector are indices devoted not only to air and water pollution but to the less obvious assaults on the quality of life such as damage to oceanic reefs, shrinkage of forests, inappropriate land use, and so on. 

 To complete the picture, imagine rows of desks in the center of the room occupied by the response teams that are always on hand.  These will be discussed later.

We are looking at the Autonoment, Postcapia’s control center, or, for those who wish to be reminded of its biological association, its hypothalamus.  In a way, the latter name is the more descriptive.  Like the hypothalamus, the facility not only passively produces statistics but uses them to automatically generate a constant flow of instructions designed to maintain the indices within their preset parameters.  The determination of these instructions is accomplished by sets of linear equations that have been developed over the years to measure the disparity between actual current conditions and their comparable nadirs-that is to say, the index readings at which the sectors would no longer be capable of meeting basic needs.  The greater the disparity between these two conditions, of course, the more favorable the current state of affairs.  To cite a simple example, one component of the works sector is devoted to Postcapia’s highway traffic flow index.  A zero reading in this index would represent universal gridlock while a reading of 58 mph would represent the average speed over the current week’s period.  If a speed of 60mph were nominal, the computer system would produce an instruction requiring an increase of two miles per hour.  Other instructions, of course, have a more direct bearing on social issues.  Within the health sector, the state of children’s health is monitored on a series of panels showing the current incidence of various diseases compared to epidemic conditions.  And within the sustenance sector, a panel tracks the level of farm workers’ income by its margin over their impoverishment, and so on-in every case, the higher the reading the more favorable it is.

The reader might question the Postcapians’ preference for tracking data built around eschewing known perils as opposed to the attainment of predetermined goals.  The explanation is that, when formulating policy, agreement is easier to obtain on the avoidance of unwanted outcomes than on the establishment of disputable targets.  A second reason is that nadirs can be kept constant as opposed to subjective goals that are bound to fluctuate.  The Postcapians always have the ability, therefore, to resurrect historical data upon which useful benchmarks can be set.  And, third, Postcapians are firmly convinced their methodology more nearly parallels nature’s own techniques-no small matter to those for whom such things are of great importance.

The Postcapians liken the process to that of a cart proceeding down a road lined with sensors.  Were one of the cartwheels to approach a sensor-let’s say a perceptible increase in tuberculosis-warning signals would be triggered in the form of corrective instructions thus giving society time to correct the perceived problem long before the cart went off the road-that is to say, before a serious threat arose to Postcapia’s well being.

THE REGULATORY AGENCIES

As mentioned earlier, the Autonoment’s computers that generate the index readings also create feedback meant to fine tune the economy so as to maintain stability and steady improvement within each of its sectors.  Since the process is a continuous one, the generated instructions typically specify small, incremental changes expressed in terms of quantitative objectives stopping short of indicating how those objectives are to be met. 

The job of translating the objectives into action is left up to nine public agencies, corresponding to the Autonoment’s nine sectors.  And it is the agencies’ staffs that bear the responsibility of achieving results on the ground that are in accord with the computer-generated directives they have received.  Thus as mechanized as it might first appear, Autonoment’s system is best described as “semi-automatic” rather than fully automatic.

Each of the agencies is managed by an elected head, unimaginatively called the “agent,” who appoints his own staff numbering fifty or so qualified professionals.  In keeping with Postcapia’s prohibition against direct governmental involvement in operations, they accomplish their mission indirectly by persuading elements within the private sector or, if necessary, by imposing governmental regulations.  Let us say, for example, that the most recent Autonoment’s sweep of high school students’ proficiency in mathematics determines that this sub-index has fallen below its prescribed lower limit.  The sector’s programming would then automatically deliver to its corresponding regulatory agency an order to raise mathematics test scores by say 5% by a given date.  Upon deliberating on how to best meet this objective, the regulators assigned to education might elect to issue a regulation requiring high school teachers of mathematics to pass demanding refresher courses.  If this regulation failed to do the job, the agency would be obliged to pursue others until it was able to report back to the Autonoment that its assignment had been fulfilled.

What might surprise the reader in this regard is that the agencies are as mindful of their instructions’ upper limits as their lower.  Were test scores in our example to jump 10% instead of the targeted 5%, the agency would have to advise the response team (see below) of the anomaly and submit to its decision on the matter.  In any case, the offending regulators were certain to be reprimanded for having violated their duty as technocrats and straying into the forbidden territory of policy making.

Regulations in Postcapia, it should be noted, do not excite the rancor they ofttimes inspire in our society.  To begin with, each one must be accompanied by a feedback loop that circumscribes its impact to that dictated by the Autonoment.  In addition, the incremental corrections demanded of the regulators tend to be of less impact thanks to their very frequency.  Another moderating factor is that laws issued by the Volitionment, as will be discussed later, have precedence over regulations.  Were any of the latter to be unusually abusive, therefore, legal remedy would be at hand to contain them.  Finally, as elected officials, agency heads are reluctant to incite any widespread dissatisfaction that might cloud their political future.

Situations can arise in which neither persuasion nor regulation can achieve the wanted result simply because the private sector does not have sufficient resources to do the job.  The Postcapians compare this dilemma to that experienced by a weight lifter whose brain urges him to press 75kg but his muscles refuse to lift a gram more than 70.  In like manner, an agency frustrated in this regard can do no more than report back to the Autonoment of its failure.  The Postcapians regard such incidents as healthy reality checks that call upon the response teams, described below, to take corrective measures.

RESPONSE TEAMS

 Ordinarily the Autonoment-Regulator system runs smoothly keeping Postcapia on even keel, but at times it does face problems, such as the following, that it cannot handle without assistance:

a) As discussed above, the inability of the private sector to meet the Autonoment’s demands in a particular area
b) Exogenous events such as natural disasters involving multiple agencies that must be coordinated to work effectively
c) Some new issue for which the Autonoment’s software has not yet been programmed

To meet such contingencies, there is always a response team at their desks in the middle of the control room that are prepared to usurp the computers’ normal functions and assume control.

Three teams, each filling eight-hour shifts, provide coverage twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.  Members of the team are primarily young, innovative technical people-systems analysts, engineers, and scientists-appointed for one six-year term by professional societies on the strength of their probity, impartiality, and intelligence.  The size of the teams is defined by law, but they are free to summon outside experts as the occasion warrants.  To reduce friction and maintain the group’s collegiate spirit, all team members are paid alike and are prohibited from earning money from outside sources during their employment-policies that produce teams that function well and cohesively.  Member salaries are not large, but their prestigious positions often provide stepping stones to excellent jobs in the private sector after their term is over. 

To illustrate the response teams’ function, imagine that a hurricane has struck Postcapia.  Flooding has occurred, residential neighborhoods have been demolished, power lines downed, sections of roads washed out, people injured, and a number of schools made unserviceable.  To address the situation, the next response team available is tasked with parceling out instructions to the regulators across the affected sectors-works, sustenance, education, and health among them.  Such instructions would, as always, be in the form of desired objectives leaving it up to the regulators to evolve the necessary operations on the ground.  And, as always, the regulators would, in turn, limit themselves to directing private and nonprofit organizations rather than taking an active role themselves in any of the restoration measures.  This limitation, however, would not prevent the regulators from setting up information centers and otherwise coordinating the operations needed.  When, in cases such as this, several regulatory agencies are impacted by the same incident, the response team appoints a lead agency to coordinate the effort.  

Interestingly enough, the response teams require no government funding to rectify the hurricane’s effects.   Since the government owns no property, it need not spend a farthing on repairs-schools, roads, power lines, etc. all being owned by outside interests.  Damage to private property is largely covered by insurance and that which is not comes out of the pockets of the corporate and individual owners directly involved.  Every storm, therefore, becomes a learning experience and the economy thereby made more efficient.

THE ELECTION OF AGENTS

Before leaving this discussion of the Autonoment, it may be well to briefly touch on Postcapia’s election process for it differs so much from, and, in my opinion, is so superior to, our own.  For reasons already mentioned, general elections are resorted to sparingly and never for individual candidates.  On the other hand, Postcapians are adherents of strongly focused elections as described below.

First it must be understood that the country is permanently divided into nine voting districts, each devoted to the selection of a single agent.  The rationale for this demarcation hearkens back to the brain/government analogy.  Somehow, by activating some sites and deactivating others, the brain creates a fleeting image of reality from which it determines its next course of action, so setting off another cycle of trial, error, and readjustment.  The point is, at any given moment, only those cells with a “need to know” are involved in the process.  The implication the Postcapians draw from this otherwise mysterious process is the seemingly undemocratic principle that, in arriving at decisions, the will of the people need not translate into the will of all the people.  In short, the Postcapians are convinced that it is far preferable for one million people to vote intelligently than for ten million to vote stupidly.

Aside from this biological justification, the Postcapians believe that it is hard enough for an elec­torate to grapple with a single set of issues and per­sonalities let alone tangle with the totally incomprehensi­ble snarl of words, voices, and faces that accompany the election of multiple candidates and ballot propositions.  Moreover, obliging a population to concentrate on the job of filling just one office enables them to become more familiar with the issues relating to it with each successive election.

Once election time rolls around, there is never a shortage of cit­i­zens willing to toss their hat into the ring, for the job of agent, while demanding, is well paid, prestigious, gratifying, and rela­tively secure over its six-year term.  On the other hand, getting on the ballot is not an easy matter.  Theoretically, any citizen can run, but, as a practical matter, the process limits candidature to those who have a reasonable chance of winning.  In any case, the old saw, “Anyone can grow up to be President,” that is tossed about so readily on Earth (and so often turns out to be agonizingly prescient) would be characterized on Postcapia as egali­tarian­ism run amuck.  Here, high in­telli­gence, a solid record of professional accom­plishment, and the endorsement of one of the ad hoc, apolit­ical nomi­nating committees are all prerequisite for a sporting chance of win­ning office.

During the campaign period, not much time is given over to debate between the candidates less their appearance and articulation prove distracting-these characteristics taken to be contra indicatory of the their true worth.  On those rare occasions when debates are held, the outsider cannot help but be impressed by the pains the speakers take to emphasize their integrity.  Any opinions expressed are carefully accompanied by possible extenuating circumstances, acknowledgement of the legitimate points in their rivals’ positions, and the error bars that accompany their own.  Also novel to the uninitiated ear is their refreshing dependence on the phrase “I don’t know”-three little words that cannot be pried from the lips of our politicians under any circumstances whatsoever.

Instead of relying on debates, the Postcapians ensure an informed electorate by more thoughtful means.  Fifteen days before an election, every potential voter is furnished a campaign booklet in which all pertinent voter information on the candidates is published in a consistent format allowing ready comparison of their qualifications.  Entire pages are given over to tables of test scores,   academic achievements, and experience.  And yet more pages are given over to the candidates’ vitae, physi­cal and mental health, and publications related to the office being sought.

Finally to be sure that each voter has truly digested the material in the booklet, he is required to answer a series of questions displayed on his voting machine regarding the current challenges facing the agency and the positions taken by each of the candidates on them.  Those who pass the test are then allowed to register their ballot.  Those who fail it are encouraged to study harder and return to the voting booth for another try.