Hanzi: Reading your article reinforces my hypothesis that governance should be flexible, ready to adjust as times and conditions needed. It is strange that we are still using 18th social engineering tools for the 21st century.

Your "local waste management" situation is a great example. Local? Regional? Provincial? National? International? Where is the best place to put authority and responsibility? We really need to move this issue (or parts of issue) up and down the political hierarchy as needed.

To help make a better world, I spent six years as an active volunteer in a Canadian political party. I came to realization that this culture was inherently dysfunctional--and this dysfunction later spread into government and society-at-large.

We can't move forward because our democracy is a culture of conflict, contention, and combativeness.

Somehow I invented another system of governance. I have been working on it since 1997.

The biggest feature of my TDG is there are no political parties. Political parties are the disease that is holding humanity back from its true potential.

With no parties, we can build a culture of consensus, collaboration, and consultation.

Unfortunately, political scientists cannot envision governance without political parties. Hopefully, you can get around this prejudice for a couple of hours to take a look at Tiered Democratic Governance.

My website is:

http://www.tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/tdg.php

Dave Volek