This material is my personal invention and does not reflect any professional or public opinion of Toastmasters, any employer, or any other organisation with which I am connected.  Please note that it is in the nature of Toastmasters, while working to build their presentation skills, to present opinions which they may not necessarily hold.

Copyright Graham Tritt (1996).  May not be reproduced in any form without permission.

Introduction
Thank you, Madame Chairman; good evening, fellow Toastmasters, welcome guests.

I listened to a very interesting discussion yesterday, during a long drive back from Frederichshafen in Germany. It was on Radio DRS, in the session "Doppelpunkt": the proposal for a "Zukunftsrat" as a third parlamentary chamber in the Swiss legislature.  I'm going to tell you about my ideas for making the "Zukunftsrat" work.

We have already heard opinions on politics from several members tonight, so it really is a burning theme.  Patricia quoted that "the more I see of politicians, the better I like my dogs."  Jana mentioned the need for more political action from women, and Marianne thought that the present day was better than the past has been and also better than the future will be.  I wonder ...

It has seriously been suggested that Switzerland, and indeed other countries, needs a new parlamentary body.  Another chamber, which should promote discussion and decisions which give due regard to environmental and other matters which are of great importance to future generations: concerns which are not safeguarded by the present system.  This body will be called the Council for the Future, or in German, Zukunftsrat.

In this presentation, I will describe some current problems and their causes in the current political situation.  I then have a proposal for a political structure which can make the Council for the Future effective.

The Problems
Let us look at some of the problems that our children will face - I'm sure they will not need elaboration.

Where should we store nuclear waste?  Should we have started down this path without understanding the risks and effort for preventing them?  And now, are we starting down a similar path with genetic engineering?

A long time ago we started using herbicides and other chemicals in our agriculture.  Pests are becoming resistant, the residues are in our food, allergies have doubled, and fertility has halved in the last generation.  Can we sell more food by breeding more special monoculture crops?

The forests are still dying - will we worry only when the fruit trees begin to suffer too?  Or will we plunder the third world - we have the money, so we have the right!?

The Mediterranean is fished out, the Atlantic is going this way too.  But a fisherman, and his family,
has to live for today - how can we tell him, stop?

The Causes
These well-known problems can be traced back to some common causes.

First is a selfish consumerism.  Me first.  I want it.  Now.  Let's look after today, the future will look after itself.  The priorities of the present take precedence over the future - as any politician up for re-election will agree.

This goes along with short-term thinking.  We optimize our political decisions for a few years only - even private companies usually do better.  There is no mechanism in place to reward sound long-term planning.  Altruistic behaviour is often sacrificed for expediency.

The average of our politicians is between 50 and 60 - and they are not poor.  With 20 to 40 years of life ahead, is it any wonder that lobbies push for better medical aid and more secure pensions?  At the cost, in the U.S. for example, of cutting back in education and programs for the already disadvantaged?  But the young and the poor do not vote.

Thirdly, we work in a male-dominated, hierarchical, money-based power structure with great resistance to change.  The cards are stacked against women and minorities, and the result is a primitive social structure that penalizes half of our best brains and best workers.  We can do much more in the area of representation.

There are 7 million people in Switzerland.  And 1.3 million foreigners - who work, pay tax, and cannot vote!  And lose their jobs for the sake of the economy.  And the only way to pay the pensions of the aging Swiss will be to mring in more!  There is a simple principle: all so-called stake-holders should be able to participate in decisions that affect them.  Didn't the Americans rebel against "taxation without representation"

And there are 1.6 million children.  Who gets one extra vote for promoting their interests?

We see, forty percent of residents in Switzerland have no representation.  Is it surprising, that the interests of workers and the young for the future have a low priority?

The solution
The proposal for a Council for the Future is in principle good.  But what would ensure that it would operate any differently from the present machine?  (Although many, if not most elected persons in our democracies make enlightened and forward-looking decisions, within a limiited framework.)

One quote is that "No matter who you elect, you always get a politician!"  Parties will always be formed, lobbies still promote their interests.  And will the establishment tolerate a new body which is further to the left than it likes?

The answer is simple.  Change the form of representation.

For fair representation, it is clear that all residents must have a vote.

This includes the children.  Sure, their votes would probably be exercised by their parents, or their guardians.   As a father of two, my family should have four votes - and outweigh the couple next door who decided not to have children because it would spoil their holiday plans.

This "simple franchise" system is still not fair.  My children will live longer than our neighbors, and also have children. Their future is as important to them as the number of years they have yet to live.

Therefore I go further: I propose the TRISS, the Time Relational Incremental Step System or in German, since Step translates as Tritt, we call it the das Trittsystem:

The Trittsystem is simple to state:

 Each person has at birth a right to ten (10) votes;
 one vote is revoked for each decade of life.

In this way, a teenager has 9 votes, from 20 to 29 just 8.  My family has altogether 6+6+9+10=31 votes, and we can promote our plans for the future even against the resistance of our neighbours, who have just 10 votes between them.

I'm sure that you agree with the principle that "the user pays".  Combine this also with the rule "who pays the money, calls the tune" and you get the above result.

In Conclusion
In this talk I have sketched the problems which face us because the current political system discourages long-term planning.  I have related the problems to their causes in human nature, and the key to changing the system is improving representation.

I assert further, that a simple franchise is not enough.  The user who pays, decides.  If each person on this planet has the right to participate in the decisions that affect his future life, then we must come up with a TRISS step system.

But however the Council of the Future is structured, we must work to make it effective.  I ask for your support for the plan, your effort to make it work, and finally, for your vote.
 
 
 
 

Copyright (1996).  May not be reproduced in any form without permission.

Graham Tritt is the author of "Council of Ethics" (1988), a one-hour play on the topic of social responsibility in software engineering.  A software developer faces charges by his employers, by a consumer protection advocate and by a state attorney, that he failed to consider public interest in the production of a voice-controlled vacuum cleaner.  The audience participates as the jury, deciding on guilt or innocence regarding the somewhat unusual charges.  The play has been produced at numerous technical and legal conferences and has been translated into German and Italian.

Graham Tritt, Postfach 495, 3000 Berne 25, Switzerland.