Surfing around the other day I came across this site about Agent Orange (for those as uninformed as I) and came across a couple of interesting facts. The first is:

"In dense terrain particularly, the use of herbicides to destroy covering vegetation was to protect American and allied troops from ambush or other undetected movement of the enemy."

Which I think is a much more plausible excuse for war than procuring oil or deposing dictators or weapons of mass destruction. Don't like fighting in jungles? Let's go the desert! Heaps easier to blow things up, and better for the environment - gotta have that green vote. The second is:

"No. Title 38 of the United States Code prohibits veterans from suing the government for injuries suffered while in the military."

Total rubbish if you ask me. There should definitely be a workers union for the military, the occupational health and safety standards are abysmal. I also go the tote that all deaths in war should be able to be prosecuted in regular law courts. Unreasonable? Yes, of course, oink oink flap flap you say. Anyone read 'His Dark Materials', by Phillip Pullman? The concept of someone doing penance their whole life for a crime they'll commit towards the end of it is fantastic.

My work colleague is correct. The movie "Starship Troopers" bears little resemblance to Robert Heinlein's book, which is the narrative of man who joined up for 'Federal Service' to find himself in the Mechanised Infantry (MI).

Unlike the movie, there's no sex or graphic violence. Although women are in service, they're not in the MI, and there's certainly no mixed showering as was depicted in one memorable scene.

In Heinlein's fictitious society, the only way to gain a voting franchise (gain 'citizenship') is to enlist for 'Federal Service' for minimum term of two years. 'Federal Service' can be anything the government wants you to do, but in the book it seems that most volunteers do some sort of military service. Only a small percentage of the population enlist, and many fewer complete the obligation that ultimately allows them to vote.

Society is run by an authoritarian government where corporal and capital punishment is allowed, crime is almost unheard of, and the disenfranchised 'non-citizen' population is affluent and content under the rule of the ex Federal Service elite. This situation comes about after global wars destroyed most world governments, and the military veterans found themselves in control. Rather than cede power to a democracy with universal suffrage, they decided that only people like themselves possessed the necessary skills and should be eligible to vote.

Apparently Starship Troopers was written after the US government banned atmospheric atomic weapons testing. Heinlein vehemently disagreed with this move and wrote the book soon after. I suppose it was written to convey his social theories describing how things would be run and how well off we'd be if only 'no nonsense,' clear thinking, ex military types were in charge.

Although Heinlein goes to a lot of effort to justify the philosophy of his social model, I can't help thinking that it's flawed.
Regardless of the ruling classes' life experiences, power concentrated in the hands of a few will eventually corrupt. No differently to many corrupt military regimes both past and present.

In summary, it's not a bad book, but the movie was more entertaining.

In a post a few days ago, I referred to the movie "Starship Troopers" when theorising (read 'dreaming') about alternatives to voting for political representation.

A colleague who read the post sent me the following email:

Dear Mr Flying Pig,

Not just a comic book movie.

"If you have seen Paul Verhoeven's movie Starship Troopers, you have seen merely Heinlein's story with almost all the philosophy carefully removed."

"Starship Troopers was originally to have been one of Heinlein's juvenile books, but the violence made it unfit for that duty. Instead, it is the book that earned Heinlein the mislabel "fascist." Understandable. Heinlein uses Troopers as a vehicle for his autocratic ideals. Daring stuff for the standards of 1959 (when Troopers first saw print) and still so today. "

Starship Troopers
by Robert A. Heinlein
Ace (New York): 1959.
Paperback: 208 pages.
ISBN: 0-441-78358-9

Found this interesting reading:
"The Nature of "Federal Service" in Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers", by James Gifford
http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf

He's lent me the book. I'll let you know how I find it.

Tony Blair's election victory completed the trifecta with him being the last of the main protagonists of the Iraqi war to regain office. It wasn't much of a choice for the UK voters. The economy's going well under the Labour administration, and the Tory opposition was always vocal in its support for the UK's involvement in Iraq, not to mention all the bad memories from when they were last in government. Is it any wonder that around half the population didn't bother to vote?

The UK population's disengagement from politics shown in this election, and similar disinterest displayed in many other western countries, begs the question whether it would be possible to have fair and effective government without the downside of the political process. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have government without career politicians, political parties, and tedious election campaigns?

Yes, I'm dreaming, but I promise I'll wake up soon.

There was a concept described in the comic book movie "Star Ship Troopers" where, to gain 'citizenship' and thereby, the right to vote, you had to join and do time in the military forces. Obligations were met to gain the privilege of having a say in the way the place is run. Yes, our world is not threatened by giant ant like aliens, and I'm not suggesting that we should be encouraging the population into uniform, but perhaps there's something in the thought that we could encourage ordinary people to take on the obligation to actually be the government, rather than just vote for a bunch of professionals to do the job for us.

Imagine the population could be encouraged to register in a government ballot to select members of parliament. If your number comes up, you must spend a fixed term as a member of parliament. The ballot would happen every year, and the proportion of those whose terms have completed would leave to be replaced by the new members. If the parliamentary term is for three years, then one third of the members leave every year. Parliamentarians would only ever server one term.

There'd be no election campaigns, parties or professional pollies. The ballot, being random, would ensure that the proportions of views and attitudes within the parliament would be proportional to the general population .... well, proportional to those who were willing to participate, that is. Having a fresh influx every year would make it difficult for 'parties' to form. Decisions wouldn't be made with the constant thought that the law makers need to be re-elected at some stage in the future. Every vote on the floor of the parliament would, in effect, be a conscience vote. The speaker would be an outsider, voted in or out by a two thirds majority of the parliament, and have the necessary powers to control the Parliament.

The downside, of course, is that the depth of experience in government would be low, creating the risk of poor decisions. As much as we hate the idea that current politicians always have their eyes on the opinion polls, it does keep them in check. Perhaps the whole thing would turn out to be an unworkable rabble. It is a figment of my warped imagination, after all!

Maybe a better solution is a hybrid government. The professionals in the lower house, and the senate being populated by members selected as described above. A proper house of review ........

Remember the title of the blog!

Any thoughts on the way the political process could be improved to increase the interest and participation of ordinary voter?