Problem with technocrats is the same as everyone else driven by incentives to enrich themselves, so any technocrat will always demand more funding for their department or projects at the expense of society same as politicians, always need electorate and representative oversight to prevent corruption no matter the system.
@@Zyzyx442 a technocrat doesn't have the pressure to appease the voter base in the short term, so they might make more strategic decisions. I think thats why they took mario draghi in italy a few years ago
@@Zyzyx442 It doesn't necessarily have to mean getting rid of democracy, I think there's a lot of good ideas that should be adopted. If done correctly, it could possibly strengthen democracy since it'll further discourage politicians that are mostly in it for themselves.
Why does Europe love technocrats? You mean having a sector like energy run by an actual engineer than a lawyer-turned-career-politician? Because it makes sense lol
@@DiederikCAi don't think he was talking abt Harris, the presidential seat isn't tried to any single career, and a successful lawyer is more than smart enough for being a president.
Different sectors being run by people who understand how to operate them is great, but these people should also carry responsibility in front of the populace. In that case, why do we pretend that politicians are in charge and that voting matters?
The details are always the most important part, so wonky detail oriented people are good at wonky detailed jobs. However, here in the US we have a problem with Corporate Capture. While is makes sense for an electrical engineer to be involved with power policy, having bankers regulate the finance sector is often a bad idea.
as a dutch citizen, calling Dick Schoof a technocrat is rather generous. he's essentially Yuri Andropov: head of the secret service promoted to leader of the country because nobody better could be found.
@@comradeLucienne where can i read about dutch politics? its so hard on english media, im thinking of dipping my toe into dutch media. any recommendations?
@@TheEGrievous To be honest i believe Dick Schoof is a good choice, he seems very decisive and can be pretty strong in his statements. I just don't trust the rest of the cabinet to remain stable.
I mean is it surprising, that when our politicians are bickering performers and pandering populists with no plan after "say whatever people want to hear to get elected", that we´d actually like someone who feels like an adult in the room that can get SOMETHING done?
no technocrat gets something done. a technocrat just creates useless pretencious academia like papers, proposes useless expensive projects that have no value on the market, steals taxpayer's money through friends and then goes to work for goldman sachs rewarded also with a "special pension/allowance" from you :)
I agree, but I also find them too to often end up doing nothing. Nothing getting done is a result of the poor quality of discourse and respect for the process of negotiation and the holding of differing opinions. Until people relearn the fact that people are allowed to disagree and you should not call them names over that (thus alienating them) we're not going to get anywhere. (Presuming that you also learn to listen to others while you learn that).
If that is true, one could question why people then vote for these pandering politicians, given their distrust about them actually achieving anything. As much as I like the idea of knowledgeable civil servants being in charge, there are some clear disadvantages. One, if the people in charge are not elected, then why have elections? It can undermine the idea that citizens should have a say in who governs them. Two, the elected politicians can escape being held to account, because they can point fingers at the technocrat government rather than having to defend their own policies. Three, some policies are value based, for example should people have sufficient care in old age, or is it acceptable to let some people go hungry because of poor choices? That is a value based argument that technocrats aren't well equipped to answer.
@@hungrymusicwolf > Until people relearn the fact that people are allowed to disagree, and you should not call them names over that (thus alienating them) we're not going to get anywhere. (Presuming that you also learn to listen to others while you learn that). You're also presuming that everybody involved in discourse is also interested in common success, but there are traitors spouting foreign power propaganda.
Honestly, people who simply try to find a solution that works (aka deals with the problem without creating too many new ones) seem like a vast improvement over ideology-driven measures that are mainly designed to win voters for one side by perpetuating situations those voters can get huffed up about.
@juannaym8488 ideology is the tie-breaker you use when evidence is ambiguous. Unfortunately some try to use it as their first option without any evidence at all 🙁
The problem is who it works for. Quite often technocracies “work” for a shallow set of people, rather than the whole. You end up with vast inequities across the nation, highly developed areas and then severely neglected ones - rural communities and so on. This is partly because technocracies have a selection bias for representatives.
Romania also had two technocratic goverments. The first one was of Mugur Isărescu from 1999 to 2000. He was the governor of Central Bank before becoming premier and retook his governor post after that. He is still running the Central Bank , the longest term in the world The second was with Dacian Cioloș from 2015 and 2016. He was named premier after Victor Ponta resigned following the Collectiv Nightclub Fire disaster. He was only there until the legislative elections the next year could procede. And by many accounts both of their governments were quite succesful.
Succesful? What did they do, more exactly? Because so far the education system is still in a free fall which will hurt when all the good teachers retire and 90% of the new ones who will replace them are just people who couldn't find something else to do for a living and left the option to become teachers because of how low the net income of a teacher is.
@@Hardcore_Remixer_Alt_Acc Romania was almost bankrupt as a state in 1999, the first technocratic government practically saved the country from bankruptcy The second government reduced the inflation to almost 0 and, for the most part, it was a peaceful time in Romanian post-revolution history, when political scandals didn't affect the Romanians. Like the next government with the infamous Ordinance 13 would...
The problem with technocrats is that they only claim to be apolitical. In reality, they are all neoliberal, market driven and without any social concerns. There is no such thing as an apolitical person: that person may refuse to engage in party politics, but every single human holds worldviews that are at the core of political attitudes.
Technocracy's main problem, I believe, is that the inevitable disconnect between the populace and the ruling class -stemming from a lack of representation- often provokes a populist reaction as citizens feel alienated from decision-making.
Very true , while it might feel like enlighted despotism by some , its stems from elections after all, I guess a way to mitigate it is technocrats with better communication skills ?
No, technocracy's main problem IS the disconnect between the populace and the ruling class. Whatever citizens turn to after that is the understandable reaction.
Sometimes this disconnect is necessary though, the two largest issues in Finland are the healthcare system and our pension system and neither one can be changed due to political reasons. Traditional politicians will rather see the country default than actually reduce fix either of those systems
There are a few problems with your analysis of the Belgian government formation 1. The liberal openVLD party (the light blue seats) are not joining government, as they had one of the biggest losses in an election in years. 2. Instead of the Flemish Liberal party, the Flemish social-democrats are willing to join the coalition (which is also the only other realistic option) 3. The biggest problem is NOT that the centrist parties can agree on a budget. The current 'crisis' is about the Soc-Dems wanting to introduce a capital-gains tax, while the Wallonian Liberals (MR) are not agreeing to any proposal that involves adding new taxes. 4. These have been by far the most favourable election-results in years. It's highly unrealistic that Belgium will not have a federal government for another 600 days.
@@TheBliepbliep Are those 40% of extreme-right voters in the room with us right now? Last time I checked, VB only had 22% of the Flemish Parliament votes. Besides that, maybe there is a reason no one wants to work with Vlaams Belang?
@@DukeLeo-dl9yy Yep. Keep ignoring a sizeable and increasing percentage of the population just because it doesn't suit your ideals. That'll work well. België barst, de Nederlanden één! ❤
@@DukeLeo-dl9yy So you think it's a good idea to not listen to the problems of 22+% of the population. Also NVA and VB are going to want to work together so that's almost 50% of the Flemish population that have broadly similar ideas. Ignoring them will not only be undemocratic, it's also a recipe for danger.
40% is an exaggeration. More like between 20 and 30. And while yes, that number can still go up in following elections, the issue they have is that the Far Right Vlaams Belang and NVA are kind of pulling on the same demographic. If Vlaams Belang grows, NVA will shrink. And as NVA is Vlaams Belang's only realistic partner. I doubt that together they will ever get a workable majority together.
I'm not sure I'm 100% about what technocrat means. But as I've understood it it means that they're someone who believes that an issue should be solved by experts instead of politicians. A good example of how this can work is during the Coronavirus pandemic in New Zealand where the crisis was led by doctors instead of politics like in the USA and large other parts of the world. I'm not sure theres any good examples of it not working but if someone is curious look into this if you want to know more about why Technocracy can work.
Technocracies are characterised as "government of experts" while it sounds good on paper it also has a shortcoming, by de facto eliminating career politicians who act as a conduit between the citizens and the state - such form of rule can result in actions of the government that do not reflect the popular will or majority consensus. Not be as responsive to changes in social landscape.
You can elevate "solving a problem" to "believing in the best form of governance" to elevate it to an ideology, called "thechnocratism". I am a firm believer in that. But, I also know that even technocrats are wrong 50% of the time. That is inevitable in governing (and in life).
One drawback is that technology experts often come from privileged background (rich and highly educated parents). They know how something works in theory but often have little understanding of how their solutions will actually work in a society. We've seen this fail when privileged westerners try to solve problems with water, food availability or health issues in "third world" countries.
Anyone with any expertise in a field will tell you that experts will have widely different opinions within that field. Therefore the idea that "my expert should decide" is, when you strip it down to it's core, just an appeal to authority. It's authoritarian.
"Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-makers are selected based on their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge." What a revolutionizing exciting new invention.
"seems to be stalling in belgium" sir this is Belgium have you considered how we usually form goverments? I'll call it "stalling" once we hit a year and not a day sooner
well, it makes sense to put experts in their fields into their positions of government, putting a teacher or child psychologist in charge of education, putting an engineer/architect in charge of infrastructure, pathologist/epidemiologist in charge of health, putting an economist in charge of the treasury etc.
@@axanarahyanda628 - Because real life is far more complex than theory and being a good theoretical expert doesn't necessarily makes you a good real life problem solver. For example, think of all those experts who told us to lock down the countries for two weeks to stop the spread of COVID and then they kept us under house arrest for a year while the only thing they successfully stopped was the economy.
The main problem with following what experts in their particular fields suggest is that they often tend to have the answers to their specific problems but don't know how to weigh if their ideal solution is worth it/practical when compared to its broader costs as they often tunnel vision on their fields concerns.
Well in Netherlands the guy who is now prime minister is a technocrat, a civil servant who is not apart of the Dutch parliament. Mark Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister, was apart of the Dutch parliament and the VVD's party leader. So you can see the difference.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me sounds dubious. I think it’s good if the technocrats are second to the government but if the have full authority in their given sector it’s just going to get abused by people who are not really kept in check by the public.
@@ecnalms851 Yes, but in a 'true' technocracy, the technocrats appoint the new technocrats. What we see in Europe happening is much more of a 'rise' (or really just coincidence at this point, it's not like half of Europe did this) of technocratic democracy. Which is a democracy first and a technocracy second. In the same way that a social democracy is democratic first and socialist second, and something quite different from socialism. Most companies for example are techocratic, the employees (usually will-be managers), and therefore the experts or technocrats (at least in theory) decide who is hired for the position. But in the Netherlands, the Dutch Parliament elected Dick Schoof into the position of prime minister. So he's appointed (albeit through a complicated process) by a democratically appointed organisation, the 2nd chamber, which is directly elected by the Dutch Public. And that same chamber has at any point in time the right to immediately fire him from the position. That's how electing technocrats is different from a technocracy. There's still democratic control on who can be a technocrat.
Why is it so controversial to hire someone with specific formal expertise within the field they're hired? I'd like my finance minister to know about finance. And the minister of energy can be an engineer
I hate this myth that governments are out of options because of a lack of money. Germany, France, Italy, Belgium… those are some of the richest countries ever. It’s just that 1% of people is holding 50% of the wealth and the “old” (establishment) parties are unwilling to change that.
The problem is tht nobody knows who these "experts" are. nobody elected them and they have no accountability when their economic experiments fail. Academics live in a bubble and have no connection to regular people who their policies affect. at least politicians have to keep up the pretence that they are listening to people or else they'll lose their position. the technocrats just become advisors in the next government. we should be led by who we elect and hold them accountable for their failings
There are gross oversimplifications here. Lucie Castets was chosen by the NFP because she wasn’t directly affiliated with any of its parties, yes, but also because she’s made herself known through clearly left-leaning initiatives in the past, and she made it very clear from the get-go that she intented to implement the NFP’s platform (although she’s willing to compromise on some parts since she won’t have a majority). She’s anything but but "apolitical". Castets isn’t Mario Draghi. Also, you say that both the NFP and the RN intend to "spend a lot more despite the deficit", but that’s not quite true either. The NFP’s platform is very careful to balance new spending and new revenue (through taxing the rich, among other things), and the RN spent the whole campaign trying to reassure the rich that they wouldn’t change anything economically, let alone spend more. We can also note that all the efforts of the previous governments to "reduce deficit" have only increased it, so err, maybe making deficit reduction the be-all-and-end-all of politics isn’t such a good idea. >.>
Agreed on first part, she is far from being an apolitical technocrat. For the rest, NFP's platform is anything but carefully balanced, It is an improvised platform that was severely criticized already and not only from the center and the right. This populist platform is simply not made to be applied and will not be. It consecrates the preeminence of France Unbowed on the left (despite losing seats), a party that has no desire to govern and is only interested in 2027.
@@ronaldderooij1774It's a reference to the game "Fallout: New Vegas" and Mr House rules New Vegas and he's like a technocrat or something and like is basically a computer or something someone who actually has an idea of New Vegas lore explain it
It's almost like people are fearful of politicians that can change their positions on a dime and are morally flexible and inconsistent. We're acting like this is an aberration, but there's good reason for this.
This is what I've been telling for the past decade ! Seems the world slowly understands that politics is not a reality show about "who we like and who we don't"
Part of the reason why I like that we have FPTP in the UK. Less representative yeah but at least we know who the government is the morning after election day.
It feels ironic that the Dutch PVV has to use a technocratic PM when the party was (arguably) born out of the resistance and discontent of the increasingly technocratic coalition of the 90s.
Saying that the three party coalition in Germany has been deadlocked by infighting is missing the context, that the previous centrist two-party coalitions were even worse in terms of metrics like laws passed over time.
Yes, but if the technocrats take unpopulad decisions the next election will not be in favor of the technocrats. Democratic accountability exists specifically to punish unpopular decisions.
“Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” - President Eisenhower, 1961. You make your own conclusions.
@@wenterinfaer1656 considering the mess they made of their own country and the world. Considering that their own democracy is flawed to say the least... It will be a cold day in hell before I take advice on democracy from an American. Maybe public policy should be beholden to a scientific technological elite. At least we might get educated decision making, not fear mongering.
@@wenterinfaer1656the conclusion is, would people have listened to science the pandemic would have been less devastating. Would governments listen to their experts, a lot of problems could have been prevented in the last 20 years.
It still seems unlikely for Belgium to get a technocrat PM. There's only five parties that can realistically make a government together; the leader of NVA is their party's most popular politician by far, is still the preferred PM by the leader of the second largest party(MR), was idolized by one of the other party leaders(CD&V) and gets along well with the new leader of the fourth party(Vooruit). Somehow a right wing Flemish nationalist managed to make himself a respected choice for Belgian Prime Minister, not just in Flanders.
As I understand, technocrats are experts in their fields. So having someone who knows what they are doing, instead of a career politician seems like a great idea. We need competent people leading Europe, so this is very good news.
But technocrats are only technically an "expert". They're still politicians at heart, just slightly more familiar with the position than most politicians
The idea of a technocracy leading countries will fall on its face spectacularly. It will be a dystopian hellhole cyberpunk authors wish they dreampt off for their books. Why anyone would rush to give these kind of people more power is insane to me.
wdym "know what they are doing"? they are experts in.... politics? you know, the whole thing about managing ppl, party, goverment? is that what they are experts in?
Technocrats are desirable however in mastering their fields a majority of them are not politicians at heart. This may sound like a good think but in democratic processes one must understand the values of compromise or consensus as at the end of the day it’s the majority career politicians making change. It’s like when Trump first entered office he didn’t know how to conduct foreign affairs and naturally that cycle is also common in technocrats.
Your analysis of the French situation is pretty bad and false. The goal is not to pick a candidate that is apolitical, the goal is to have a candidate that is moderate enough so the opposition doesn’t censure the government. Lucie Castets isn’t apolitical at all, since she defends the program of the NFP and she has been part of the PS. The goal is to have a government from the Left, not to have an apolitical government. The reason why it’s not a "politician" that has been chosen is because the Left didn’t win by a lot. If it was the case, this won’t be a debate. So your analysis, in my opinion, is totally incorrect. And the reason why the prime minister is not a politician, is also because there are very diverse parties in the NFP and that people from LFI don’t want someone that is at the PS, and that people from PS don’t want someone at LFI.
Little note when you say vlaams belang came in second, they didn't really cuz In Belgium political families are split per language. So yes VB got the second most seats but when you count familes they only got 5th : 1st Socialists : 29 seats 2nd Liberals : 27 seats 3rd Christans : 25 seats 4th NVA : 24 seats 5th VB : 20 seats They only got better results then the commies (15 seats) and the greens (9 seats)
@@teaser6089 They don't intend to work together at all. NVA won the elections by saying that they would never work with VB and made them an useless vote
@@teaser6089 Not really. There's a huge difference between intentions and reality. In reality, they've intended multiple times to work together, but they've failed.
@@teaser6089Bart De Wever also promised his voters that he would never work together with VB. Independence is also not a top priority for NVA because Bart De Wever said that independence is unrealistic and that he would be content with a kind of confederate system, that would be a big change in connection to working together with separatists.
@@teaser6089not really. They are both nationalist. But when it comes to other policies, they are very different. NVA is socio-economical right, VB is all over the place, telling all kinds of people what they want to hear…
Hi, love your videos! I want to make a small correction, though. In Belgium, until recently, NV-A had the initiative to from a new government and they were trying to do this with the French Liberals (MR, economically center-right), the French Christian Democrats (Les Engagés, economically center), the Flemish Christian Democrats (cd&v, economically center) and the Flemish Socialists (Vooruit, economically center-left). In the visual you were displaying, you swapped Vooruit for Open-VLD (Flemish Liberals, , economically center-right). While this might sound like nitpicking, it is relevant to the situation: the reason the negotiations failed so far, is the fact that Vooruit really wanted to reach an agreement about introducing extra taxes on wealth. All other parties seemed ready to compromise, except MR. Furthermore, I cannot remember the last time that Belgium had a first - or finance minister which was not a member of any political party. I might be wrong, but I believe that when Belgium went through their long negotiations, it was the resigning government which was taking care of the budget.
There's no chances for a technocrat as PM in Belgium. Government formation is mostly about establishing a program for the legislature and this is always where things get stuck. It's only after there's an agreement on the program that they decide who gets what office and it typically takes 2 hours.
To be fair in Scandinavia the most prevelent party is some form of social democratic one and those are full of technocrats, some may atgue that in certain circles the party was a party of lightly left technocrats.
As a Brit in the UK, I have to agree, politicians are useless and are more opportunist than actually serving the interest of the people. At least with technocrats, they are more likely to be an expert in their position compared to unlike politicians where it's like musical chairs where they put them in any position that's going, regardless of experience they have, and probably explains a lot of the bad results we've been seeing in Europe and North America over the last few decades and probably why the far right is on the rise, people are getting fed up with the system not delivering.
@@paul1979uk2000 the problems that politicians cause are problems most humans with power cause just because technocrats are experts it does not mean they will be any better people when in power. It also will make barely any difference as it’s not like counties like the uk or Germany or America could have gotten this far without listening to those who know there stuff.
I wish Poland would do the same. The previous government was Katoliban (our term for Catholic fundamentalists) and the new government is a hodgepodge of center-right to left wing, so they can't agree on basically anything. And the alternative to that camp is Konfederacja, which is just Katoliban mixed with Russian stoogery.
This isn't really technocracy or apolitcal, business man and civil servants are just as biased and full of ideology as the comon politicians. Is literaly impossible to separate ideology from politics, the way we see things influences every action we do.
Hey just a little mistake at 3:19, the coalition talks actually don't include the open VLD (liberal flemish party) and include instead Vooruit (center left flemish party)
Schoof is not a technocrat, he is a (top) bureaucrat. Dutch democracy is abdicating its right of accountability to unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats. It is what happens when people vote for protest clubs like NSC, BBB or PVV.
Some US cities use the council-manager form of government, where an elected city council appoints a City Manager who is outside of politics to actually run the city government, and implement the Council’s decisions. This form of government with exception of the three biggest cities has become the most common form of government in most cities, as the Strong-Mayor form of government becomes less popular. Politics and Management don’t typically go well together.
When you can see 3:30 and how they survived without a federal government for coming close to 2 years it really makes you think why do we need such a large federal government
1:30 It's what we do get competent people. In Sweden the poltically elected ministers are not allowed to control the departments directly only set rough goals. Again because that's how we end up keeping competent civil servants around.
You need to do something about the colorimetry of your work guys. Not the first time i notice, you saturation is way too low, luminosity too ... tell the video edit dude to get his things together ^^
@@peterfireflylund I've come to the realization that I find the aspects of democracy immoral, though not democracy itself. To me, it is universal suffrage that is the most immoral aspect of democracy. Simply, not everyone is qualified to vote. And I don't think that everybody should have a role in determining a country's political destiny.
The technocratic goverment in Slovakia last year was presumably one of the best goverments our country ever had. Managed to allocate 70% of Eurofunds in just 4 months
Although you’re largely correct, a distinction should be made between largely apolitical technocratic governments (such as the typical ‘governo tecnico’ in Italy) and Lucie Castets’ profile. While she is a civil servant, she is also the head of an organisation advocating for better public services. She has a clear left-wing profile, which one might label a ‘political technocrat’ or something.
Calling bankers technocrats is like calling artists engineers. You don't want a great artist building a brigde and you don't want a great banker running society.
Why ? Maybe because having someone who is there to actually do something and who knows how to do that thing is what a government should always be about. Why on Earth do people want people who just manipulate well to be the ones to run their country ?
I prefer technocrats not because I have something against politicians in general, but rather because I believe a technocratic government that simply executes policy and uses expertise to make proposals to the legislature is preferable, because it allows the representative legislature to be more in control and actually follow majorities as they are, rather than coalition agreements where policies are traded and compromised. Combined, that should lead to more representative outcomes whilst also allowing more room for more expertise.
Actually, in my opinion, technocrats in the executive is the only reasonable thing. I don't even get why we started to vote politicians into this positions. Even if it's politicians that are voted in. The best run countries have a system where the politicians with the best technocratic behavior are voted into the executive, not some random opinion carrier. (E.g. Switzerland) We got seperations of power systems for a reason. Legislature: Decide laws. -> Experts of public opinion = politicians Executive: Execute laws. -> Specialists of executions = technocrats Judiciary: Judge on the law. -> Specialists of judging = judges
Well in Belgium the government formation seemed to be going well until a disagreement between the socialists and the liberals. To keep things short: the socialists recognise that this government formation will be quite right wing. So they gave a lot of concessions but asked for a tax on selling big amounts of stocks( good idea since Belgium is one of the few countries in europe who doesn’t have that, and big corporations can be sold of for billions without a single euro in tax). The liberal party was extremely against it since they wanted no new taxes. The other parties got pissed at them because it really wasn’t a big deal. Now talks have collapsed
Not really collapsed but there is now a time out and negotiations could continue between the same parties only with Les engage taking the lead in compromising.
Tldr forgot to state their bias on this argument. In the UK the prime minister is the head of the party. Any monister must be an mp. This make introducing technocrat complicated requiring a Cameron's type of workaround. The rest of Europe usually has no such rule. The executive branch doesn't have to be political even if it usually is.
Technocracy is great when it's done right and democratically rooted. It's nice to have the person making the decision be more than just the people rousing demagogues that Socrates looked down on.
One could argue that the Nordic countries have more of a technocratic tendency already. Leaning much on institutions with no political affiliations for many decisions. Even if these institutions don’t hold any political power there is strong historical precedent for relying on their expertise.
There's a problem with your definition, unfortunately - the stark difference between a technocrat (or a person whose field of expertise is technical, like in finance or economics) and a bureaucrat (who's experienced in a legal/government sphere, like most civil servants are bound to be). The difference is that a non-career politician is likely to be affiliated with the industry they're based from, so where a technocrat is likely to promote an economy of growth (allowing for improved opportunities for their industry by proxy), a bureaucrat is likely to favour an economy of stagnation (seeing how resistant most bureaucracies are to change).
I actually like technocratic governments myself, so long as they actually are a technocratic government and not ideologically biased or motivated. I don't an economist implementing trickle-down economics despite studies and practical examples showing that it doesn't work; implement policies based on evidence not ideology, or greed.
the problem is like when technocrats due something necessary like increase the retirement age people then vote them out and then vote in the person who says who is offering free money.
I dont think we need politicians in general, technocrats are better at the same job, the only thing that they dont have is legitimice, but once the public accepts technocracy, we will have a better functioning state
That doent mean that all democratic elements of society should vanish, but that we should vote for what goals do we like to be fullfiled in the future, not which people should try to make them happen
Sometimes less popular decisions need to be taken to avoid bigger issues in the future. At least in the Netherlands politicians (from the VVD) should have but didn't. They could have prevented the nitrogen thing becoming as big as it has become by taking measures earlier.
Personally I would have felt deeply embarrassed if Geert Wilders had become our Dutch prime minister. We have a lot of political parties, so even though he has less than 25% of the votes, that's enough to make his party the largest. However, I would hope that a majority of the Dutch would feel like me if he would actually end up representing us internationally. So I'm glad that the coalition came up with a different solution to that.
We would not judge. You have a big migrational problem and voting for wilders is only understandable here - especially since he is not like the AFD. He is pro gay marriage etc - as far as I understand it he is really just focused on reducing Muslim migration wich is understandable. Just look at happend in Solingen
As much as I agree with you about Wilders on the international stage, I disagree with you for the national stage. I would have wanted to see Wilders squirm when he is dealing with difficult issues in government and defending compromises in parliament. He was never one for compromise and we only thrive on compromises in our political system. That would have brought some sense in the hard heads of his supporters as well as in himself. I do agree with one item of his political program, less asylum seekers and more stringent access to our country. The influx is smashing away the acceptance of receiving and taking care of (real) refugees in our country. The inability to send asylum seekers back to their country, the very very lengthy process for asylum, the many times they can appeal and the ultimate decision is not our country’s high court but the EU courts. And they don’t consider our problems (the very high population density, the shortage of housing etc), but only look at the rules for the whole EU.
@@RealConstructor I didn’t mention the national stage. I don’t know what would have been the outcome, but I do dislike that he avoids getting in front of the opposition this way. However, I don’t think that outweighs having a government that can be taken seriously internationally. There is already enough madness going on in the world as it is, we don’t need to add to that, as a country that is already doing quite well. We should want a better world, and not hoping for people to fail…
Yeah, Wilders as PM would never have worked. The Foreign Minister already had to smooth things over with Jordan after Wilders called it the only Palestinian state.
I think there is a general longing among the public for more technocratic seeming politicians. Think about the success of Angela Merkel, who while being the leader of a major party made an effort to stay out of the controversies of the day and frame her decisions as results of necessity rather than ideology or Joe Biden who won the 2020 election on the promise or restoring normality.
merkel was a fraud and her system almost a dictatorship de facto. merkel made brexit possible, made russians invading ukraine possible, made AFD and extremism in EU at 20%+, accepted frauds from german car makers and deutsche bank, destroyed Deutsche Bahn
Angela Merkel was not successful at all... I'm not sure why people take a liking to her when she was a big imposer of austerity both in Germany but also abroad during the eurozone crisis. Even Obama wanted her to spend more money. She also oversaw the beginning of Germany closing nuclear plants, and making Germany more and more dependent on gas from a sole provider, Russia. Her open border migrant policy has contributed to the rise of Afd. Her austerity is largely responsible for the state of German infrastructure today. So why she may have appeared stoic and calm, her policies were quite literally "do nothing to not be hated". Germany's problems today are a direct consequence of her actions.
the problem is that technocrats only seem apolitical cause they weren't in the hard position of making political decisions yet. Running the government is a political job, and having technocrats run the government is just pretending they aren't political.
Well he isn’t fluent in answering questions of journalists. But I don’t mind, I rather have a PM not answering leftish journalists question with the intention to let him stutter, than a political one which gives an answer where you cannot tell what (s)he said or ment.
He didn't have the opportunity to do anything wrong yet. The government went on vacation once it was formed. The cabinet only met again on Friday the 16th of August.
It's called being new at the job. Every politician will end up being hated and seen as the worst politician of all time after some years pass, it is inevitable.
My proposal would be a reform where the civil service is responsible for carrying out policies and politicians remain in the parliament, voting for what they believe in, without forming coalitions to throw their principals overboard. It then will be the civil service job to form a cabinet and find majorities for their plans, with varying majorities.
@@BKRUclips-zq3yv Generally you elect a government and you will have a fair idea who is doing what or at a minimum your democratically elected representatives control who from among them is given what job. The new Dutch PM was not even elected to parliament, he is a career civil servant drafted in from outside. The voters had barely even heard of him let alone elected him to the most powerful position in the country. In which case, why waste time and money with elections - just let the civil service run everything
Technocrats know what they are doing in certain sectors and actually get things done. I’ll take an engineer turned temporary leader over a smooth talking lawyer any day.
I work in high-level public administration in a central central European country and let me tell you: Most bureaucrats you'll meet are well intentioned, but they are not any less political than elected politicians. I guarantee that every career administrator has a full stack of very explicit political beliefs that they have been pushing for for years, they are just obscured behind a facade of supposed neutrality and professionalism. This is not necessarily bad; you need millions of people to run a country and they cannot escalate every decision to parliament. But we should not pretend as if appointed technocrats were an entirely different species lol. They are as human and opinionated as any of us.
Better a technocrat who does nothing more than steer the ship than a captain who pokes holes in it.
Problem with technocrats is the same as everyone else driven by incentives to enrich themselves, so any technocrat will always demand more funding for their department or projects at the expense of society same as politicians, always need electorate and representative oversight to prevent corruption no matter the system.
@Zyzyx442 these aren't technocrats, they're WEF representatives.
@@Zyzyx442 a technocrat doesn't have the pressure to appease the voter base in the short term, so they might make more strategic decisions. I think thats why they took mario draghi in italy a few years ago
@@Zyzyx442 It doesn't necessarily have to mean getting rid of democracy, I think there's a lot of good ideas that should be adopted. If done correctly, it could possibly strengthen democracy since it'll further discourage politicians that are mostly in it for themselves.
@@renaatsenechal major parties have exactly the same politics anyway, and “technocrats”can’t suddenly do things counter to corporate interests either
Why does Europe love technocrats? You mean having a sector like energy run by an actual engineer than a lawyer-turned-career-politician? Because it makes sense lol
What about a failed orange businessman-turned-politician? 😅
@@DiederikCAi don't think he was talking abt Harris, the presidential seat isn't tried to any single career, and a successful lawyer is more than smart enough for being a president.
Different sectors being run by people who understand how to operate them is great, but these people should also carry responsibility in front of the populace. In that case, why do we pretend that politicians are in charge and that voting matters?
The details are always the most important part, so wonky detail oriented people are good at wonky detailed jobs. However, here in the US we have a problem with Corporate Capture. While is makes sense for an electrical engineer to be involved with power policy, having bankers regulate the finance sector is often a bad idea.
@@DiederikCAin Europe not that God forsaken country of yours
as a dutch citizen, calling Dick Schoof a technocrat is rather generous. he's essentially Yuri Andropov: head of the secret service promoted to leader of the country because nobody better could be found.
But in better health, surely!
@@peterfireflylund nobody knows, he was head of the secret service after all :)
@@comradeLucienneLet's hope he can keeps the country running for more then a few months.
@@comradeLucienne where can i read about dutch politics? its so hard on english media, im thinking of dipping my toe into dutch media. any recommendations?
@@TheEGrievous To be honest i believe Dick Schoof is a good choice, he seems very decisive and can be pretty strong in his statements. I just don't trust the rest of the cabinet to remain stable.
I mean is it surprising, that when our politicians are bickering performers and pandering populists with no plan after "say whatever people want to hear to get elected", that we´d actually like someone who feels like an adult in the room that can get SOMETHING done?
no technocrat gets something done. a technocrat just creates useless pretencious academia like papers, proposes useless expensive projects that have no value on the market, steals taxpayer's money through friends and then goes to work for goldman sachs rewarded also with a "special pension/allowance" from you :)
I agree, but I also find them too to often end up doing nothing. Nothing getting done is a result of the poor quality of discourse and respect for the process of negotiation and the holding of differing opinions.
Until people relearn the fact that people are allowed to disagree and you should not call them names over that (thus alienating them) we're not going to get anywhere.
(Presuming that you also learn to listen to others while you learn that).
Pretty much this yes.
If that is true, one could question why people then vote for these pandering politicians, given their distrust about them actually achieving anything.
As much as I like the idea of knowledgeable civil servants being in charge, there are some clear disadvantages. One, if the people in charge are not elected, then why have elections? It can undermine the idea that citizens should have a say in who governs them.
Two, the elected politicians can escape being held to account, because they can point fingers at the technocrat government rather than having to defend their own policies.
Three, some policies are value based, for example should people have sufficient care in old age, or is it acceptable to let some people go hungry because of poor choices? That is a value based argument that technocrats aren't well equipped to answer.
@@hungrymusicwolf > Until people relearn the fact that people are allowed to disagree, and you should not call them names over that (thus alienating them) we're not going to get anywhere. (Presuming that you also learn to listen to others while you learn that).
You're also presuming that everybody involved in discourse is also interested in common success, but there are traitors spouting foreign power propaganda.
Honestly, people who simply try to find a solution that works (aka deals with the problem without creating too many new ones) seem like a vast improvement over ideology-driven measures that are mainly designed to win voters for one side by perpetuating situations those voters can get huffed up about.
There is no such thing as being free from ideology
@@Jonas-SeilerSo because no one can be completely free of ideology, you think it’s best to put those people into government who are most full of it?
@@Jonas-Seiler that is true but we can aim to be as free of it as possible
@juannaym8488 ideology is the tie-breaker you use when evidence is ambiguous. Unfortunately some try to use it as their first option without any evidence at all 🙁
The problem is who it works for. Quite often technocracies “work” for a shallow set of people, rather than the whole. You end up with vast inequities across the nation, highly developed areas and then severely neglected ones - rural communities and so on. This is partly because technocracies have a selection bias for representatives.
Romania also had two technocratic goverments.
The first one was of Mugur Isărescu from 1999 to 2000. He was the governor of Central Bank before becoming premier and retook his governor post after that. He is still running the Central Bank , the longest term in the world
The second was with Dacian Cioloș from 2015 and 2016. He was named premier after Victor Ponta resigned following the Collectiv Nightclub Fire disaster. He was only there until the legislative elections the next year could procede.
And by many accounts both of their governments were quite succesful.
Succesful? What did they do, more exactly? Because so far the education system is still in a free fall which will hurt when all the good teachers retire and 90% of the new ones who will replace them are just people who couldn't find something else to do for a living and left the option to become teachers because of how low the net income of a teacher is.
@@Hardcore_Remixer_Alt_Acc Romania was almost bankrupt as a state in 1999, the first technocratic government practically saved the country from bankruptcy
The second government reduced the inflation to almost 0 and, for the most part, it was a peaceful time in Romanian post-revolution history, when political scandals didn't affect the Romanians. Like the next government with the infamous Ordinance 13 would...
The problem with technocrats is that they only claim to be apolitical. In reality, they are all neoliberal, market driven and without any social concerns. There is no such thing as an apolitical person: that person may refuse to engage in party politics, but every single human holds worldviews that are at the core of political attitudes.
Technocracy's main problem, I believe, is that the inevitable disconnect between the populace and the ruling class -stemming from a lack of representation- often provokes a populist reaction as citizens feel alienated from decision-making.
Very true , while it might feel like enlighted despotism by some , its stems from elections after all, I guess a way to mitigate it is technocrats with better communication skills ?
No, technocracy's main problem IS the disconnect between the populace and the ruling class. Whatever citizens turn to after that is the understandable reaction.
Italys everywhere
@@sergiomunizaragon5405 BS
Sometimes this disconnect is necessary though, the two largest issues in Finland are the healthcare system and our pension system and neither one can be changed due to political reasons. Traditional politicians will rather see the country default than actually reduce fix either of those systems
There are a few problems with your analysis of the Belgian government formation
1. The liberal openVLD party (the light blue seats) are not joining government, as they had one of the biggest losses in an election in years.
2. Instead of the Flemish Liberal party, the Flemish social-democrats are willing to join the coalition (which is also the only other realistic option)
3. The biggest problem is NOT that the centrist parties can agree on a budget. The current 'crisis' is about the Soc-Dems wanting to introduce a capital-gains tax, while the Wallonian Liberals (MR) are not agreeing to any proposal that involves adding new taxes.
4. These have been by far the most favourable election-results in years. It's highly unrealistic that Belgium will not have a federal government for another 600 days.
@@TheBliepbliep Are those 40% of extreme-right voters in the room with us right now? Last time I checked, VB only had 22% of the Flemish Parliament votes.
Besides that, maybe there is a reason no one wants to work with Vlaams Belang?
@@DukeLeo-dl9yy Yep. Keep ignoring a sizeable and increasing percentage of the population just because it doesn't suit your ideals. That'll work well.
België barst, de Nederlanden één! ❤
@@DukeLeo-dl9yy So you think it's a good idea to not listen to the problems of 22+% of the population.
Also NVA and VB are going to want to work together so that's almost 50% of the Flemish population that have broadly similar ideas.
Ignoring them will not only be undemocratic, it's also a recipe for danger.
@@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva
Ik ben het eens, het wordt tijd dat Groot Nederlandisme weer populair wordt!!!
40% is an exaggeration. More like between 20 and 30. And while yes, that number can still go up in following elections, the issue they have is that the Far Right Vlaams Belang and NVA are kind of pulling on the same demographic. If Vlaams Belang grows, NVA will shrink. And as NVA is Vlaams Belang's only realistic partner. I doubt that together they will ever get a workable majority together.
I'm not sure I'm 100% about what technocrat means. But as I've understood it it means that they're someone who believes that an issue should be solved by experts instead of politicians. A good example of how this can work is during the Coronavirus pandemic in New Zealand where the crisis was led by doctors instead of politics like in the USA and large other parts of the world. I'm not sure theres any good examples of it not working but if someone is curious look into this if you want to know more about why Technocracy can work.
Why does the US hate fauci and his medical team?
Technocracies are characterised as "government of experts" while it sounds good on paper it also has a shortcoming, by de facto eliminating career politicians who act as a conduit between the citizens and the state - such form of rule can result in actions of the government that do not reflect the popular will or majority consensus. Not be as responsive to changes in social landscape.
You can elevate "solving a problem" to "believing in the best form of governance" to elevate it to an ideology, called "thechnocratism". I am a firm believer in that. But, I also know that even technocrats are wrong 50% of the time. That is inevitable in governing (and in life).
One drawback is that technology experts often come from privileged background (rich and highly educated parents). They know how something works in theory but often have little understanding of how their solutions will actually work in a society. We've seen this fail when privileged westerners try to solve problems with water, food availability or health issues in "third world" countries.
Anyone with any expertise in a field will tell you that experts will have widely different opinions within that field. Therefore the idea that "my expert should decide" is, when you strip it down to it's core, just an appeal to authority. It's authoritarian.
"Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-makers are selected based on their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge."
What a revolutionizing exciting new invention.
Not new at all
@@dalfokane "sarcasm"
@@ffarkasm Why would you use new in a sarcastic context, if time wasn't mentioned in the first place.
"seems to be stalling in belgium"
sir this is Belgium have you considered how we usually form goverments? I'll call it "stalling" once we hit a year and not a day sooner
well, it makes sense to put experts in their fields into their positions of government, putting a teacher or child psychologist in charge of education, putting an engineer/architect in charge of infrastructure, pathologist/epidemiologist in charge of health, putting an economist in charge of the treasury etc.
In theory, yes. In practice not so much.
@@SirAlric82 I'm curious about why.
@@axanarahyanda628 - Because real life is far more complex than theory and being a good theoretical expert doesn't necessarily makes you a good real life problem solver. For example, think of all those experts who told us to lock down the countries for two weeks to stop the spread of COVID and then they kept us under house arrest for a year while the only thing they successfully stopped was the economy.
The main problem with following what experts in their particular fields suggest is that they often tend to have the answers to their specific problems but don't know how to weigh if their ideal solution is worth it/practical when compared to its broader costs as they often tunnel vision on their fields concerns.
@@SirAlric82 That's debatable. The lockdowns have been successful in reducing the disease spread.
Electing technocrats does not make a technocracy.
You don't elect the technocrats. You elect the guys who elect the technocrats.
Well in Netherlands the guy who is now prime minister is a technocrat, a civil servant who is not apart of the Dutch parliament. Mark Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister, was apart of the Dutch parliament and the VVD's party leader. So you can see the difference.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me sounds dubious. I think it’s good if the technocrats are second to the government but if the have full authority in their given sector it’s just going to get abused by people who are not really kept in check by the public.
@@ecnalms851 Yes, but in a 'true' technocracy, the technocrats appoint the new technocrats. What we see in Europe happening is much more of a 'rise' (or really just coincidence at this point, it's not like half of Europe did this) of technocratic democracy. Which is a democracy first and a technocracy second. In the same way that a social democracy is democratic first and socialist second, and something quite different from socialism. Most companies for example are techocratic, the employees (usually will-be managers), and therefore the experts or technocrats (at least in theory) decide who is hired for the position. But in the Netherlands, the Dutch Parliament elected Dick Schoof into the position of prime minister. So he's appointed (albeit through a complicated process) by a democratically appointed organisation, the 2nd chamber, which is directly elected by the Dutch Public. And that same chamber has at any point in time the right to immediately fire him from the position. That's how electing technocrats is different from a technocracy. There's still democratic control on who can be a technocrat.
Why is it so controversial to hire someone with specific formal expertise within the field they're hired? I'd like my finance minister to know about finance. And the minister of energy can be an engineer
I hate this myth that governments are out of options because of a lack of money. Germany, France, Italy, Belgium… those are some of the richest countries ever. It’s just that 1% of people is holding 50% of the wealth and the “old” (establishment) parties are unwilling to change that.
Technocracy understood as "government of experts" sounds great! Until the question is asked: who decides who is an expert and who is not?
Generally the answer seems to be: The experts decide. So eventually you end up with something of an oligarchy.
Elected officials 😉
Education and merit
Experience, knowledge and focus on one thing makes an expert
The problem is tht nobody knows who these "experts" are. nobody elected them and they have no accountability when their economic experiments fail. Academics live in a bubble and have no connection to regular people who their policies affect. at least politicians have to keep up the pretence that they are listening to people or else they'll lose their position. the technocrats just become advisors in the next government. we should be led by who we elect and hold them accountable for their failings
There are gross oversimplifications here. Lucie Castets was chosen by the NFP because she wasn’t directly affiliated with any of its parties, yes, but also because she’s made herself known through clearly left-leaning initiatives in the past, and she made it very clear from the get-go that she intented to implement the NFP’s platform (although she’s willing to compromise on some parts since she won’t have a majority). She’s anything but but "apolitical". Castets isn’t Mario Draghi.
Also, you say that both the NFP and the RN intend to "spend a lot more despite the deficit", but that’s not quite true either. The NFP’s platform is very careful to balance new spending and new revenue (through taxing the rich, among other things), and the RN spent the whole campaign trying to reassure the rich that they wouldn’t change anything economically, let alone spend more. We can also note that all the efforts of the previous governments to "reduce deficit" have only increased it, so err, maybe making deficit reduction the be-all-and-end-all of politics isn’t such a good idea. >.>
Agreed on first part, she is far from being an apolitical technocrat. For the rest, NFP's platform is anything but carefully balanced, It is an improvised platform that was severely criticized already and not only from the center and the right. This populist platform is simply not made to be applied and will not be. It consecrates the preeminence of France Unbowed on the left (despite losing seats), a party that has no desire to govern and is only interested in 2027.
Wasn't Lucie Castets chosen because she self-identifies as a blaq inDUHpendent kween?
Mr. House? Is that you?
Sorry, I don't get this joke.
@@ronaldderooij1774Fallout New Vegas.
@@ronaldderooij1774It's a reference to the game "Fallout: New Vegas" and Mr House rules New Vegas and he's like a technocrat or something and like is basically a computer or something
someone who actually has an idea of New Vegas lore explain it
We call schoof Mr deepstate
Mr. House is a Vegas nationalist billionaire
I think TLDR is missing the enormous and groundbreaking influence of Kraftwerk's 1978 release of "Die Mensch-Machine".
Odd that you didn't define what a technocrat means, its not like its a widely understood term
I can't imagine having Sir Humphrey Appleby leading a government.
But he already did-
It's almost like people are fearful of politicians that can change their positions on a dime and are morally flexible and inconsistent.
We're acting like this is an aberration, but there's good reason for this.
This is what I've been telling for the past decade ! Seems the world slowly understands that politics is not a reality show about "who we like and who we don't"
In a technocracy none one should listen to a commoner like you sho you are (not) getting what you want?
By definition a technocrat is supposed to be someone who has knowledge about various policies.
1:35 coalition talks are always stalling in belgium, we got the world record on that
Quel était le record? 541j ?
Part of the reason why I like that we have FPTP in the UK. Less representative yeah but at least we know who the government is the morning after election day.
It feels ironic that the Dutch PVV has to use a technocratic PM when the party was (arguably) born out of the resistance and discontent of the increasingly technocratic coalition of the 90s.
Saying that the three party coalition in Germany has been deadlocked by infighting is missing the context, that the previous centrist two-party coalitions were even worse in terms of metrics like laws passed over time.
Technocrats are selected because they are capable not because they are likeable. It's about time we had capable leaders.
Yes, but if the technocrats take unpopulad decisions the next election will not be in favor of the technocrats.
Democratic accountability exists specifically to punish unpopular decisions.
“Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” - President Eisenhower, 1961. You make your own conclusions.
@@wenterinfaer1656 considering the mess they made of their own country and the world. Considering that their own democracy is flawed to say the least... It will be a cold day in hell before I take advice on democracy from an American.
Maybe public policy should be beholden to a scientific technological elite. At least we might get educated decision making, not fear mongering.
@@wenterinfaer1656the conclusion is, would people have listened to science the pandemic would have been less devastating.
Would governments listen to their experts, a lot of problems could have been prevented in the last 20 years.
It still seems unlikely for Belgium to get a technocrat PM. There's only five parties that can realistically make a government together; the leader of NVA is their party's most popular politician by far, is still the preferred PM by the leader of the second largest party(MR), was idolized by one of the other party leaders(CD&V) and gets along well with the new leader of the fourth party(Vooruit).
Somehow a right wing Flemish nationalist managed to make himself a respected choice for Belgian Prime Minister, not just in Flanders.
As I understand, technocrats are experts in their fields.
So having someone who knows what they are doing, instead of a career politician seems like a great idea.
We need competent people leading Europe, so this is very good news.
But technocrats are only technically an "expert". They're still politicians at heart, just slightly more familiar with the position than most politicians
The idea of a technocracy leading countries will fall on its face spectacularly. It will be a dystopian hellhole cyberpunk authors wish they dreampt off for their books. Why anyone would rush to give these kind of people more power is insane to me.
wdym "know what they are doing"? they are experts in.... politics? you know, the whole thing about managing ppl, party, goverment? is that what they are experts in?
@@HyperScorpio8688That's still better.
Technocrats are desirable however in mastering their fields a majority of them are not politicians at heart. This may sound like a good think but in democratic processes one must understand the values of compromise or consensus as at the end of the day it’s the majority career politicians making change. It’s like when Trump first entered office he didn’t know how to conduct foreign affairs and naturally that cycle is also common in technocrats.
Your analysis of the French situation is pretty bad and false. The goal is not to pick a candidate that is apolitical, the goal is to have a candidate that is moderate enough so the opposition doesn’t censure the government. Lucie Castets isn’t apolitical at all, since she defends the program of the NFP and she has been part of the PS. The goal is to have a government from the Left, not to have an apolitical government. The reason why it’s not a "politician" that has been chosen is because the Left didn’t win by a lot. If it was the case, this won’t be a debate. So your analysis, in my opinion, is totally incorrect. And the reason why the prime minister is not a politician, is also because there are very diverse parties in the NFP and that people from LFI don’t want someone that is at the PS, and that people from PS don’t want someone at LFI.
Little note when you say vlaams belang came in second, they didn't really cuz In Belgium political families are split per language. So yes VB got the second most seats but when you count familes they only got 5th :
1st Socialists : 29 seats
2nd Liberals : 27 seats
3rd Christans : 25 seats
4th NVA : 24 seats
5th VB : 20 seats
They only got better results then the commies (15 seats) and the greens (9 seats)
Then again NVA and VB could also be seen as one family, cause they intend to work closely together meaning combined they got 44 seats.
@@teaser6089 They don't intend to work together at all. NVA won the elections by saying that they would never work with VB and made them an useless vote
@@teaser6089
Not really.
There's a huge difference between intentions and reality.
In reality, they've intended multiple times to work together, but they've failed.
@@teaser6089Bart De Wever also promised his voters that he would never work together with VB. Independence is also not a top priority for NVA because Bart De Wever said that independence is unrealistic and that he would be content with a kind of confederate system, that would be a big change in connection to working together with separatists.
@@teaser6089not really. They are both nationalist. But when it comes to other policies, they are very different. NVA is socio-economical right, VB is all over the place, telling all kinds of people what they want to hear…
It's almost like people are tired of incompetent politicians who know nothing about running a country, but sure say pretty words on a podium...
I dunno. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing some terrible, which is what technocrats are doing.
Hi, love your videos!
I want to make a small correction, though. In Belgium, until recently, NV-A had the initiative to from a new government and they were trying to do this with the French Liberals (MR, economically center-right), the French Christian Democrats (Les Engagés, economically center), the Flemish Christian Democrats (cd&v, economically center) and the Flemish Socialists (Vooruit, economically center-left).
In the visual you were displaying, you swapped Vooruit for Open-VLD (Flemish Liberals, , economically center-right).
While this might sound like nitpicking, it is relevant to the situation: the reason the negotiations failed so far, is the fact that Vooruit really wanted to reach an agreement about introducing extra taxes on wealth. All other parties seemed ready to compromise, except MR.
Furthermore, I cannot remember the last time that Belgium had a first - or finance minister which was not a member of any political party. I might be wrong, but I believe that when Belgium went through their long negotiations, it was the resigning government which was taking care of the budget.
There's no chances for a technocrat as PM in Belgium. Government formation is mostly about establishing a program for the legislature and this is always where things get stuck. It's only after there's an agreement on the program that they decide who gets what office and it typically takes 2 hours.
To be fair in Scandinavia the most prevelent party is some form of social democratic one and those are full of technocrats, some may atgue that in certain circles the party was a party of lightly left technocrats.
Informative! Thank you!
France still needs PM Jean-Luc Mélanchon
As an American I'd gladly take a technocrat over a politician honestly
As a Brit in the UK, I have to agree, politicians are useless and are more opportunist than actually serving the interest of the people.
At least with technocrats, they are more likely to be an expert in their position compared to unlike politicians where it's like musical chairs where they put them in any position that's going, regardless of experience they have, and probably explains a lot of the bad results we've been seeing in Europe and North America over the last few decades and probably why the far right is on the rise, people are getting fed up with the system not delivering.
You have Trump, a businessman who got into politics.
Las time we did the entire country locked down and the economy crashed
@@paul1979uk2000 the problems that politicians cause are problems most humans with power cause just because technocrats are experts it does not mean they will be any better people when in power.
It also will make barely any difference as it’s not like counties like the uk or Germany or America could have gotten this far without listening to those who know there stuff.
@TLDR 5:20 why do you use a dollar sign when talking economy in an EU country?
Everytime I go out and have a little too much of the drink, this is all I ever bang on about.
Bangladesh also recently got their own Technocrat Head of Government in the form of Noble Laureate Dr. Yunus.
As with many topics regarding Europe, this is more of several trends in multiple countries at the same time, rather than one europe-wide trend.
Do you mean that your minister can be someone competent in his field ???? Like an education minister that worked ... in the education ????
Technocrats seem to work in countries with ceremonial heads of state. Would they work for those with executive ones?
We will find out with France.
The thumbnail is of a guy literally nobody here in the Netherlands voted for or even knew existed btw
I wish Poland would do the same. The previous government was Katoliban (our term for Catholic fundamentalists) and the new government is a hodgepodge of center-right to left wing, so they can't agree on basically anything.
And the alternative to that camp is Konfederacja, which is just Katoliban mixed with Russian stoogery.
This isn't really technocracy or apolitcal, business man and civil servants are just as biased and full of ideology as the comon politicians. Is literaly impossible to separate ideology from politics, the way we see things influences every action we do.
Hey just a little mistake at 3:19, the coalition talks actually don't include the open VLD (liberal flemish party) and include instead Vooruit (center left flemish party)
Schoof is not a technocrat, he is a (top) bureaucrat. Dutch democracy is abdicating its right of accountability to unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats. It is what happens when people vote for protest clubs like NSC, BBB or PVV.
Some US cities use the council-manager form of government, where an elected city council appoints a City Manager who is outside of politics to actually run the city government, and implement the Council’s decisions. This form of government with exception of the three biggest cities has become the most common form of government in most cities, as the Strong-Mayor form of government becomes less popular. Politics and Management don’t typically go well together.
Hmm, it's interesting that just last week, the "best way to learn" was brilliant. Funny how quickly things can change!
When you can see 3:30 and how they survived without a federal government for coming close to 2 years it really makes you think why do we need such a large federal government
It's popular because most people don't see the dark side of technocracy.
Fratelli d'italia (brothers of Italy) was the only party NOT in Draghi's Government.
Lithuanian here. Not aware of any technocratic ministers in baltics or am I missing something?
Seems to be a more western European thing
@@quadrirahaman9264 yeah but video said something about 120% increase in the baltics
@@mantasbarcys6509 2 x 2,2 = 4,4 but 4,4 < 34,4
technocracy VS Democracy
Agenda VS Democracy.
1:37 LEUVEN MENTIONED LETS GOOO
a spy chief that few people knew about.
Sound like a good spy chief.
Tommykay is booming
If you want Technocracy you have to allow elections of Job applicants rather than politicians. Best man or woman for the job.
The oo in Dick Schoofs name is pronounced like the o in over or okay
1:30 It's what we do get competent people. In Sweden the poltically elected ministers are not allowed to control the departments directly only set rough goals. Again because that's how we end up keeping competent civil servants around.
You need to do something about the colorimetry of your work guys. Not the first time i notice, you saturation is way too low, luminosity too ... tell the video edit dude to get his things together ^^
Just for context, in the USA, cabinet ministers are technocrats, rather than politicians, although they don't call them that.
Isn't being apolitical an inherently political position?
As an American, i often envy European parliamentary systems with many parties, but I wonder if this is one advantage of the US system.
Socrates was right
I don’t think democracy is bad. It’s just *universal* suffrage that is bad.
@@peterfireflylund
I've come to the realization that I find the aspects of democracy immoral, though not democracy itself. To me, it is universal suffrage that is the most immoral aspect of democracy. Simply, not everyone is qualified to vote. And I don't think that everybody should have a role in determining a country's political destiny.
He's stolen Keir Starmer's glasses!
Maybe a little bit .. but it's okay actually, can we get a little of that Technocracy in the US?🥺
The technocratic goverment in Slovakia last year was presumably one of the best goverments our country ever had. Managed to allocate 70% of Eurofunds in just 4 months
Although you’re largely correct, a distinction should be made between largely apolitical technocratic governments (such as the typical ‘governo tecnico’ in Italy) and Lucie Castets’ profile. While she is a civil servant, she is also the head of an organisation advocating for better public services. She has a clear left-wing profile, which one might label a ‘political technocrat’ or something.
Calling bankers technocrats is like calling artists engineers. You don't want a great artist building a brigde and you don't want a great banker running society.
Why ? Maybe because having someone who is there to actually do something and who knows how to do that thing is what a government should always be about. Why on Earth do people want people who just manipulate well to be the ones to run their country ?
I prefer technocrats not because I have something against politicians in general, but rather because I believe a technocratic government that simply executes policy and uses expertise to make proposals to the legislature is preferable, because it allows the representative legislature to be more in control and actually follow majorities as they are, rather than coalition agreements where policies are traded and compromised.
Combined, that should lead to more representative outcomes whilst also allowing more room for more expertise.
The fact that most countries have an independent central bank tells you all you need to know about politicians
Actually, in my opinion, technocrats in the executive is the only reasonable thing. I don't even get why we started to vote politicians into this positions.
Even if it's politicians that are voted in. The best run countries have a system where the politicians with the best technocratic behavior are voted into the executive, not some random opinion carrier. (E.g. Switzerland)
We got seperations of power systems for a reason.
Legislature: Decide laws. -> Experts of public opinion = politicians
Executive: Execute laws. -> Specialists of executions = technocrats
Judiciary: Judge on the law. -> Specialists of judging = judges
Well in Belgium the government formation seemed to be going well until a disagreement between the socialists and the liberals.
To keep things short: the socialists recognise that this government formation will be quite right wing. So they gave a lot of concessions but asked for a tax on selling big amounts of stocks( good idea since Belgium is one of the few countries in europe who doesn’t have that, and big corporations can be sold of for billions without a single euro in tax). The liberal party was extremely against it since they wanted no new taxes. The other parties got pissed at them because it really wasn’t a big deal. Now talks have collapsed
Not really collapsed but there is now a time out and negotiations could continue between the same parties only with Les engage taking the lead in compromising.
In my opinion, this is just drawing a line to prevent MR to sabotage the government like they did in the previous one. De Wever is not like De Croo….
Tldr forgot to state their bias on this argument.
In the UK the prime minister is the head of the party. Any monister must be an mp. This make introducing technocrat complicated requiring a Cameron's type of workaround.
The rest of Europe usually has no such rule. The executive branch doesn't have to be political even if it usually is.
Technocracy is great when it's done right and democratically rooted. It's nice to have the person making the decision be more than just the people rousing demagogues that Socrates looked down on.
One could argue that the Nordic countries have more of a technocratic tendency already. Leaning much on institutions with no political affiliations for many decisions. Even if these institutions don’t hold any political power there is strong historical precedent for relying on their expertise.
There's a problem with your definition, unfortunately - the stark difference between a technocrat (or a person whose field of expertise is technical, like in finance or economics) and a bureaucrat (who's experienced in a legal/government sphere, like most civil servants are bound to be). The difference is that a non-career politician is likely to be affiliated with the industry they're based from, so where a technocrat is likely to promote an economy of growth (allowing for improved opportunities for their industry by proxy), a bureaucrat is likely to favour an economy of stagnation (seeing how resistant most bureaucracies are to change).
I actually like technocratic governments myself, so long as they actually are a technocratic government and not ideologically biased or motivated.
I don't an economist implementing trickle-down economics despite studies and practical examples showing that it doesn't work; implement policies based on evidence not ideology, or greed.
the problem is like when technocrats due something necessary like increase the retirement age people then vote them out and then vote in the person who says who is offering free money.
I dont think we need politicians in general, technocrats are better at the same job, the only thing that they dont have is legitimice, but once the public accepts technocracy, we will have a better functioning state
That doent mean that all democratic elements of society should vanish, but that we should vote for what goals do we like to be fullfiled in the future, not which people should try to make them happen
It makes sense when it comes to things that falls under "common good".
Sometimes less popular decisions need to be taken to avoid bigger issues in the future. At least in the Netherlands politicians (from the VVD) should have but didn't. They could have prevented the nitrogen thing becoming as big as it has become by taking measures earlier.
Personally I would have felt deeply embarrassed if Geert Wilders had become our Dutch prime minister. We have a lot of political parties, so even though he has less than 25% of the votes, that's enough to make his party the largest. However, I would hope that a majority of the Dutch would feel like me if he would actually end up representing us internationally. So I'm glad that the coalition came up with a different solution to that.
We would not judge. You have a big migrational problem and voting for wilders is only understandable here - especially since he is not like the AFD. He is pro gay marriage etc - as far as I understand it he is really just focused on reducing Muslim migration wich is understandable. Just look at happend in Solingen
As much as I agree with you about Wilders on the international stage, I disagree with you for the national stage. I would have wanted to see Wilders squirm when he is dealing with difficult issues in government and defending compromises in parliament. He was never one for compromise and we only thrive on compromises in our political system. That would have brought some sense in the hard heads of his supporters as well as in himself. I do agree with one item of his political program, less asylum seekers and more stringent access to our country. The influx is smashing away the acceptance of receiving and taking care of (real) refugees in our country. The inability to send asylum seekers back to their country, the very very lengthy process for asylum, the many times they can appeal and the ultimate decision is not our country’s high court but the EU courts. And they don’t consider our problems (the very high population density, the shortage of housing etc), but only look at the rules for the whole EU.
@@RealConstructor I didn’t mention the national stage. I don’t know what would have been the outcome, but I do dislike that he avoids getting in front of the opposition this way. However, I don’t think that outweighs having a government that can be taken seriously internationally. There is already enough madness going on in the world as it is, we don’t need to add to that, as a country that is already doing quite well. We should want a better world, and not hoping for people to fail…
Yeah, Wilders as PM would never have worked. The Foreign Minister already had to smooth things over with Jordan after Wilders called it the only Palestinian state.
I think there is a general longing among the public for more technocratic seeming politicians. Think about the success of Angela Merkel, who while being the leader of a major party made an effort to stay out of the controversies of the day and frame her decisions as results of necessity rather than ideology or Joe Biden who won the 2020 election on the promise or restoring normality.
merkel was a fraud and her system almost a dictatorship de facto. merkel made brexit possible, made russians invading ukraine possible, made AFD and extremism in EU at 20%+, accepted frauds from german car makers and deutsche bank, destroyed Deutsche Bahn
Angela Merkel was not successful at all... I'm not sure why people take a liking to her when she was a big imposer of austerity both in Germany but also abroad during the eurozone crisis. Even Obama wanted her to spend more money. She also oversaw the beginning of Germany closing nuclear plants, and making Germany more and more dependent on gas from a sole provider, Russia. Her open border migrant policy has contributed to the rise of Afd. Her austerity is largely responsible for the state of German infrastructure today. So why she may have appeared stoic and calm, her policies were quite literally "do nothing to not be hated". Germany's problems today are a direct consequence of her actions.
It's a way for the establishment parties to keep a death grip on the levers of power.
the problem is that technocrats only seem apolitical cause they weren't in the hard position of making political decisions yet. Running the government is a political job, and having technocrats run the government is just pretending they aren't political.
How about solving the issue by removing unnecessary hinderances like the ECHR or break up the EU so each state can do what is right for their society?
Well, better a Technocrat than a Dubstepcrat.
lmfao
As a dutch persoon schoof does his job pretty good at the moment. At the moment i don’t hear people talk badly about him
Well he isn’t fluent in answering questions of journalists. But I don’t mind, I rather have a PM not answering leftish journalists question with the intention to let him stutter, than a political one which gives an answer where you cannot tell what (s)he said or ment.
He didn't have the opportunity to do anything wrong yet. The government went on vacation once it was formed. The cabinet only met again on Friday the 16th of August.
It's called being new at the job. Every politician will end up being hated and seen as the worst politician of all time after some years pass, it is inevitable.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me most accuraat sentence in a decade
My proposal would be a reform where the civil service is responsible for carrying out policies and politicians remain in the parliament, voting for what they believe in, without forming coalitions to throw their principals overboard.
It then will be the civil service job to form a cabinet and find majorities for their plans, with varying majorities.
If your ministers are just going to be appointed without being elected why bother with elections?
You want to elect every single minister individually? Do you know what ministers do? How many there are? Lmao
@@BKRUclips-zq3yv Generally you elect a government and you will have a fair idea who is doing what or at a minimum your democratically elected representatives control who from among them is given what job. The new Dutch PM was not even elected to parliament, he is a career civil servant drafted in from outside. The voters had barely even heard of him let alone elected him to the most powerful position in the country. In which case, why waste time and money with elections - just let the civil service run everything
Technocrats know what they are doing in certain sectors and actually get things done.
I’ll take an engineer turned temporary leader over a smooth talking lawyer any day.
I work in high-level public administration in a central central European country and let me tell you: Most bureaucrats you'll meet are well intentioned, but they are not any less political than elected politicians. I guarantee that every career administrator has a full stack of very explicit political beliefs that they have been pushing for for years, they are just obscured behind a facade of supposed neutrality and professionalism. This is not necessarily bad; you need millions of people to run a country and they cannot escalate every decision to parliament. But we should not pretend as if appointed technocrats were an entirely different species lol. They are as human and opinionated as any of us.
I actualy feel good about Technocrats and Technocracy, allow those with experince in X (and management) run X thing