How the Plurality ensures that monopolistic governing systems can be permanently challenged with more options and

analysis, so as to improve their performance.

By Norman Strauss

It is in the nature of ambition, power and politics that a blind eye will be turned towards any difficulties when they first appear. Both past philosophies and present policies cause heels to be dug in rather than new paths to be explored. Typically, too much is felt to be at stake for adaptive responses to be allowed to come first by the powers that be. Rather, a desire to be proved right and not to have to make changes will rule the roost. In an age of scarce resources, it is even less likely that inconvenient and disruptive changes will be allowed to be dealt with in a timely manner, as this forms a perfect excuse to do nothing. It is human nature that makes people cling to the old certainties, even in the face of evidence that a newly minted future is disrupting yesterday's ideas. Because we know that this is the case, it is now time to devise an organising and governing system, which takes account of this very human deficiency. The problem is made worse by the fact that few, if any, power structures and hierarchies, whether in government or business or institutions, allow permanent competition to occur within their control. Such governing systems are monopolistic and will continue to be so for some time to come. It is important to note that, as a general rule, neither Cabinet government nor board meetings use sufficient disciplines and knowledge bandwidths, to examine a large enough set of pluralist options, to fulfil the breadth of new policy and business model searches that need to be made, to get better results, in today's complex and fast moving world, where information spreads faster than it can be managed. Only extreme crisis forces change upon unwilling rulers. Knowing this, we have to create a countervailing force to ensure that needed change is explored proactively and not, belatedly, reactively. The more difficult and threatening the problem, the more urgent this need becomes. Not only that, but the maximum possible perspectives and experiences and points of view must be brought to bear to give us the best possible chance of finding the best way forward. Only an external countervailing force will do. The example of the judiciary, demonstrates that rulers cannot be allowed to judge themselves, when laws are broken or called into disrepute. To my mind, as a near-external force for change, the judiciary represents the most powerful of the present three separations of power, namely, the legislative the executive and the judiciary. Now is the time to create the fourth separation of power to create more pluralist options, evidence and ideas, utilising external free and competing resources, rather than those within the current system, which are internally controlled and restricted. I suggest that we call this new body, the Plurality as it has to take into account, more information than existing hierarchies are prepared to do and come up with more possible ways forward than present governing systems allow. The plurality will publish its findings and open its database to the public, who will be able to contribute to it, rather in the manner of Wikipedia. It is intended to cause change to existing rulers of the roost by its work raising doubts where there are presently ideological and policy certainties, within existing governing and hierarchical systems, both in the private and public sectors.