Around the world, several political parties use a co-leadership model to govern themselves. The practice goes back thousands of years, but today it faces old and new challenges alike.
I guess delving into Quebec Solidaire would have derailed this point. I thought they had co-leaders but looking it, they have co-spokespeople with leadership being more fuzzy.
As always, I like the examination of structures in a fun way that's a hallmark of your writing.
Happy households have co-heads, though perhaps that's recursive. :-)
It's not unheard of in executive functions. It's quite common in finance: "co-head of investment banking" or the like is a title you see a fair amount, though they don't seem to have a long life.
I think it was quite common in the rise of the UK executive state, but the only example that comes to mind immediately is Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (i.e. head of the Metropolitan Police) which was a 2-person office 1839-56.
The co-leadership model requires ongoing conversation between the leaders and if the two leaders respect each other this model has the benefit that decisions will be more soundly reasoned. Unfortunately the voters seem to want the strongman leader rather than the reasonable leaders
how about citizens randomly selected like a jury sitting at the top of critical points like Ethics Commissioner of Parliament, Police/Lawyer/Judicial conduct boards?
With life as it is, I’m curious how Democracy best fits for the future in a changing world order. Close to home in Ontario, other than the obvious of not enough people voting, where are the safeguards against the kind of government we’re living through - healthcare, education, development, etc?
I wanted to get a bit more into that but I didn't quite have the time. And thank you!
I guess delving into Quebec Solidaire would have derailed this point. I thought they had co-leaders but looking it, they have co-spokespeople with leadership being more fuzzy.
As always, I like the examination of structures in a fun way that's a hallmark of your writing.
Happy households have co-heads, though perhaps that's recursive. :-)
It's not unheard of in executive functions. It's quite common in finance: "co-head of investment banking" or the like is a title you see a fair amount, though they don't seem to have a long life.
I think it was quite common in the rise of the UK executive state, but the only example that comes to mind immediately is Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (i.e. head of the Metropolitan Police) which was a 2-person office 1839-56.
The co-leadership model requires ongoing conversation between the leaders and if the two leaders respect each other this model has the benefit that decisions will be more soundly reasoned. Unfortunately the voters seem to want the strongman leader rather than the reasonable leaders
how about citizens randomly selected like a jury sitting at the top of critical points like Ethics Commissioner of Parliament, Police/Lawyer/Judicial conduct boards?
With life as it is, I’m curious how Democracy best fits for the future in a changing world order. Close to home in Ontario, other than the obvious of not enough people voting, where are the safeguards against the kind of government we’re living through - healthcare, education, development, etc?