States has created a new political system called ‘dimwitcracy’

In spite of certain noises to the contrary, there is still an overriding view that finding anything worthwhile this particular States Assembly has achieved is extremely difficult to pinpoint.

However I would like to set this viewpoint straight:

It is abundantly clear to me that our States over the past few years, including this particular Assembly, has (either by accident or design) indeed achieved an extremely notable milestone in political science. The creation of a new political system which I will endearingly call – ‘dimwitcracy’.

Now you can Google this but as yet this hitherto unknown system is still in its infancy and you will struggle to find any ‘Wiki-information’ on this.

However your luck is in, as I will now endeavour to enlighten all of you.

The first stage in employing this new system is ‘Manifesto Fallacy’. This is when electoral candidates put forward a manifesto, stating what they can/can’t and won’t do – in essence making promises (which in democratic politics you should always be cautious of doing) – but then when elected, candidate(s) embark upon a complete U-turn from the said manifesto promise. In a democratic system this is unforgivable and tantamount to political suicide, but in dimwitcracy, it is perfectly acceptable and expected.

The next stage we come to is ‘Revenue Management’. This is known in dimwitcracy circles as ‘Failing To Control Expenditure’. This is the hallmark of our new system.

The ideology here is to ensure that the public is made aware of monetary shortfalls in day-to-day running expense; thereby hoping to create a sympathetic response to ‘essential’ tax increases – or (a favourite among followers) the introduction of new taxes. It should be pointed out here and noted that these taxes are usually intended for public projects, such as new airport runways, harbours and a myriad of other feel-good projects, which the incumbent government would not otherwise be able to afford.

This leads on to a very important stage in the dimwitcratic system. You must wholeheartedly ignore the majority view:

A good case in point here would be the reaction to – let’s say – one of the largest public demonstrations of outrage in a jurisdiction’s living memory to an introduction of a ‘new tax’.

What would the correct dimwitcratic response to a defeat here be?

Simple – raise the pay of all your elected colleagues irrespective of their contribution/worth, or where that extra money will come from. Also, loaning money/investing in private companies is a good move here too – all as a harmonious show of fiscal sympathy and strategic goodwill.

It is also essential and a very good idea at this time, to allow a period of quiet. You can talk a lot of course, without really saying anything – but unbeknownst to the public, you have every intention of returning with the same/similar set of tax proposals in the very near future.

A good follower of this new system will lay the groundwork to their proposals by naming them differently and nicely asking any possible opponents to not raise any opposition to them.

This is generally agreed upon, providing that the ‘new’ proposals are not strongly campaigned – which of course, in true fashion, was never going to happen anyway – after all the dimwitcratic motto is, ‘The back door is the best

way!’

A final battle cry, along the lines of ‘..never giving up’ and ‘...we are going nowhere(?)’, should now be enough to carry any contentious debate on the issue(s) over the line.

As mentioned previously this new political system is a cross between what is generally referred to as democracy with a slice of autocracy thrown in for good measure. However, what sets this system aside is that all good dimwitcratic politicians are expected to have left school having attained at least a kindergarten level education.

Long live dimwitcracy!

Mercer Till