How to Solve Political Problems

How to solve political problems.

A problem is defined as; A situation or a structural defect, or mechanical/electromagnetic defect, that is causing loss of efficiency and or damage. Any thing, matter, person etc., that is difficult to deal with.

A political problem has the added complication that the people trying to solve the problem will be derided and harassed, they will not be allowed the time needed to establish facts and whatever is done will be opposed simply because of who is proposing it. Sensible discussion and cooperation will not be available.

In any situation, but especially in trying to solve political problems, the first step is to actually check to see if there is a problem.

In some cases it will be discovered that there is not a real problem but a media led and politically-driven attempt to denigrate the present governing authority. To hype up a non-problem so that it seems someone has to take action to solve it, it is a wonderful invention. How can the target “authority” solve a problem that does not exist? They can not; but if they deny the problem the media can descend on them as uncaring, out of touch, etc. In the meantime, the inventors of the problem will have given themselves a power base, and in contentious areas, say climate change, very often a lucrative wage structure as well.

Even in real life, that is non-political life; many times we are told there is a problem we have to fix, when actually the situation is that another person wants things changed to suit their way of thinking, or to make something easier for them; this is not a real problem. It may be that not granting their wish will result in some form of loss to yourself. Even then, it is not really a problem, it is the need to meet someone's wishes.

One of the biggest obstacles to finding a political solution to any practical problem is that politics and practicality do not mix well. It has become a modern “mindset” that the answer to every problem, is to spend money. This is so obviously wrong but it is the prevalent attitude.

This has become the first thought of individuals, political parties and even governments. The media and opposing politicians find it easy to demand extra money is spent, it is not coming from their pockets and they know that when the taxes increase, the taxpayer will blame the government of the day, not those demanding more money. As far as the opposition is concerned it is a win, whatever happens

A political party is slipping in the “opinion poles” so they must advocate more spending on welfare, health, education etc.

When there is a huge gap between the service provided, by a government-run agency, and that expected by its customers, the only demand is spend money. This is mostly a political exercise, make sure this extra spending gets a media a head line; and then it is assumed all will be well. The problem is automatically solved. Why? If the money already being spent is not gaining the results you want, how will spending more improve things?

When did this come to be the first thought? I assume it is a product of the consumer advertising which directs so much of the lives, of so many people.

Mass production and increasing standardisation needed more consumers, that means a population increase but not one that relied on artisan skills. Individual creative thoughts and solutions are not good for global sales companies and so these mega-businesses started the chain of deceits we call advertising. I assume this notion of spending money to solve everything, from personal unhappiness to climate change, stems from advertising.

We now have millions of people who never consider any alternative. If a proposal does not involve spending money, it is not even a consideration.

This was not always the solution and in pre-industrial societies, where individual skills were valued, it was never a consideration.

We need politicians who can get back to basic “engineering thinking.”

When presented with any problem, the first step should be to analyse to see if it is actually a problem or just someone's wish.

The second step is to go through the whole complete process, that chain of events and actions, which bring us to the problem and then try to see why it is a problem.

The third action is to set out every possible solution. However outlandish or unwelcome or distasteful these may be.

The fourth stage is to decide if any solution is going to be worth the “cost” ( both in terms of money time energy and effectiveness).

The fifth stage is to calmly and clearly work out if any of the proposed solutions, is actually practical.

The sixth step is to choose the best solution and then follow through the “what next” chain. If the proposal is acted on, what happens next and then next after that, and so on.

The seventh act is to do a cost-benefit comparison of the three most practical solutions.

The eighth and final evaluation stage, is to do a cost-estimate of the proposed solution and offer this to the decision makers.

Once the decision makers make a decision; or I should say in the modern political climate, IF a decision is made; the engineers set to work to implement the decision and enact the planned solution to the problem.

While doing this they will inevitably come across minor difficulties that they had not anticipated, but this is where all the work on alternative solutions comes back to help; in examining these alternatives they will have thought about every possibility and so can cope with them.

Political problems have the added problem that they have to be “sold” to those supporting the authority, sold to the media, sold to the taxpayers and to the unions. These will not be like-minded groups, they will all have different requirements from any solution.

In many cases, a lasting solution will need more money spent, but if spent wisely, it will prevent the same problem coming back. In some cases, it will be found that changes to the way things are organised and done, will solve the problem without more money.

Very often, reducing costs provides a solution but it will never be a popular one.

What matters is that a long-term and preferably permanent solution, is put in place. This is where the short-term, political expediency, of today's leaders collides with the practical engineering solutions to problems.