Eighty-five seconds remaining, with no vision, no strategy

We need political systems that think in terms of 50 or 100 years, but we assuredly don’t have them. And in these days of polarisation, and a widening gap between politicians and the people they are supposed to represent, we need a way of bridging that gap. I’m proposing a way in which we both institute long-term planning and bridge that gap. There are currently some examples of direct democracy, whereby people vote on policies and laws themselves, instead of electing politicians to do it on their behalf. But they are limited to a small number of countries and regions, are very constrained as to what they can decide and how often or how meaningfully they are followed. As a result, while some citizens can occasionally block or initiate change, most detailed law‑making, and protection of rights stays in representative and judicial hands. So, in our representative democracies, we elect people to make most policy decisions. 

But governments can't, and don't even try to, do everything. Take nuclear conflict as a critical, urgent possibility. Our national and supra-national systems of government are incapable of reducing the likelihood of that catastrophe. My thinking is that instead of leaving it all up to a combination of government, big business and lobbyists, we should:

•  Give people a chance to decide on such long-term goals as nuclear peace,
• Target those goals, and
• Reward the people who achieve these goals most efficiently, whoever they are and however they do so.

I'm assuming that nuclear peace is something that almost everybody would wish for, given the chance to voice an opinion. Efficiency is important: ideally, we’d inject market incentives into the achievement of our goals. That’s difficult to imagine in today’s policymaking environment, dominated by lawyers, big business, lobbyists and others with their own interests to pursue – including resistance to any change. So it’s important not to take today’s institutional structures, including that of government, as a given. Our goals should shape our institutions; not the reverse.

Nuclear peace is too big a goal to be tackled by a single conventional entity. For smaller goals we could contract out the achievement of our goals to a corporation that would be paid only when our goal had been achieved. This could work for narrow, short-term goals, where the costs of achieving the goal can be estimated. But our most important goals are long term, and for these goals, a single body would, at best, require a huge premium over its expected cost of achieving the goal. More likely, since we are talking about goals that could take decades to achieve, any single entity would not take on such a huge commitment. (As an aside, there are people working for charitable organisations who work to achieve these long-term goals. But such efforts, though admirable, are small in scale and, mainly because they receive few financial incentives, they are likely to remain so.) If we are going to reward outcomes then, we need to:

• reward people along the path to goal achievement, so that they can exit, with profits, before that point; and
• find ways of sharing the risks inherent in long-term commitments between different operators.

A single company?

One option would be to set up a company solely to achieve nuclear peace and to sell shares in it. The motivation would be provided by a large sum, kept in escrow, that would be paid out to the company once the goal has been achieved. The shares would rise and fall with progress toward or away from the targeted goal. A disadvantage of this is that there would be no link between those who would profit from progress toward the goal (shareholders) and those working to achieve the goal. Shareholders would be passive investors, and all decisions as to how to allocate funds for goal achievement would be made by the directors of the single company. Directors could be promised a share of the payout or would own shares, but they would be making all the decisions as to where to allocate funding for the various projects. With such a huge overall goal, they would not have sufficient oversight to keep up with progress on all those projects; nor to determine which are the most promising and which it would be more efficient to terminate. Again, because of the necessarily large size of the company, it is unlikely that it would be subject to the market discipline through the possibility of takeover. 

Social Policy Bonds

Perhaps a better option would be to apply the Social Policy Bond concept to nuclear peace. In brief, a Nuclear Peace Bond regime would contract out the goal of sustained nuclear peace to investors willing to be work towards that goal by buying the bonds, doing what they can to help bring about the early achievement of sustained  nuclear peace, then selling their bonds for a profit, to other investors capable of taking the next necessary steps toward the goal. The bonds could be owned by a multiplicity of investors who would initiate many different activities in pursuit of the goal. They would benefit from making progress toward the goal by appreciation in the value of their bonds; they could also finance their goal-achieving projects by borrowing on the strength of their bondholdings. At any one time, the bondholders would form a tacit or formal coalition of parties - a new type of organisation that would have as its sole goal the efficient and rapid achievement of the targeted nuclear peace goal. It is this coalition that could form a motivated, countervailing force to the current interests that are arrayed against it: the weapons manufacturers, ideologists, religious zealots, but also the politicians who, being preoccupied with their own short-term, petty concerns have allowed this ominous situation to occur.

Social Policy Bonds and direct democracy

There aren't many examples of direct democracy whereby 'people vote on policies and laws themselves, instead of electing politicians to do it on their behalf.' In a representative democracy, we elect people to make those decisions. There used to be many practical reasons for this: canvassing opinion was technically difficult and expensive, education levels were low, governing is complicated and requires many people to set up systems and oversee them. As well, people in government genuinely believe they can do a better job of governing than ordinary people and, for that reason and others less edifying, do not want to relinquish their power. But with rising educational levels, government becoming ever more powerful and intrusive, and with the widening gap between our elected representatives and ourselves, I think it may be time to reconsider how certain decisions are made - and who makes them. 

Many of the biggest decisions that government could make, are made implicitly, reactively or without deliberation. Decisions about how much to spend on health versus defence, for example. Short-term considerations dominate. But the broad, long-term policies that fall out of the current system need not actually be made by politicians and bureaucrats. It's now feasible that they be made by those who are most affected by them: that is, ordinary citizens. 

I've written much about Social Policy Bonds and how they would direct the market's incentives and efficiencies into the achievement of society's long-term goals. (For more, see here.) But the other main feature of a bond regime is that it would oblige us to frame policy in terms of these goals, and it reward the achievement of these goals rather than activities or bodies that are supposed to achieve them. 

Policy expressed in terms of broad outcomes, with the decisions about who shall achieve them and how they shall do so left open, could be best made by ordinary citizens. Most of us nowadays are fairly well educated and could inform ourselves about broad policy goals, and choose which of them should have higher priority. So, under a bond regime, government, in its new role as synthesiser of the public's policy priorities, could present us with a range of policy goals, with approximate costings that we could rank (see Efficient costing of objectives in Chapter 5 of my book for why they need only be approximate). 

We'd be able to choose between various goals. For instance, at the national level, we could choose to target a reduction in crime; or an increase in physical health; or reduced unemployment; or improved air quality. Approximate costs could be given, along with targeted percentage changes. We could then rank them according to which we'd like to see most. 

There would be many benefits from such an approach. Apart from the efficiency gains that would result from allowing non public-sector bodies to compete for the work, there'd be:

• a long-term approach to policymaking, with much greater stability of policy goals,
• more transparency about these goals, 
• more buy-in from ordinary citizens, and
• more widespread appreciation of the notion of trade-offs inherent in policymaking.

There are various steps along the way to moving toward this - radically different - form of democracy. Some forms of direct democracy are already in use: referenda or proposals initiated by citizens in eg Switzerland or New Zealand, subject to their being supported by a significant number of signatures. A less familiar example is: 

...Taiwan’s experiment with deliberative democracy, which has generated fast and flexible policy responses to many issues, including social media. ... Taiwan’s minister for digital affairs ... has been central to this deliberative democracy initiative. She points to the island’s success in tackling deepfakes and disinformation by inviting 447 citizens to discuss appropriate responses. These 45 citizens’ assemblies suggested community notes should be attached to suspicious posts, that social media companies should share liability for deepfake scams and that their services should be progressively “throttled” until they complied with such requests. As a result of collective efforts, Taiwan’s Ministry of Digital Affairs reported a 96 per cent fall in online scam ads last year and a 94 per cent reduction in identity impersonation. Want to solve deepfakes? Ask citizens what to do, John Thornhill, 'The Business Times' (Singapore), 30 January 2026

I think we can now be entrusted with deciding on bigger issues, such as deciding on the relative importance of health versus defence but also goals that are currently not explicitly or meaningfully quantified and for that reason and others remain untargeted: one example would the numbers of people made homeless by natural disasters over a period of, say, 30 years. A bond regime would require that government take a hands-off approach to the achievement of these goals, and let all bodies, public- or private-sector compete for funding on the basis of efficiency, at all steps along the way to achievement. 

While government would relinquish some of its powers, especially over the funding of public-sector bodies, it would still have the responsibility of articulating society's wishes coherently, and in raising the revenue for their fulfilment. These are functions that our democratic governments can do well; they are not so good at efficient achievement of long-term societal outcomes. Under a bond regime, that would be done by market forces: in economic theory - and on all the evidence - the most efficient means of deploying society's scarce resources. Social Policy Bonds would represent a radical transformation from current policymaking systems; but it's one that is now practical, has huge advantages, and would close the gap between government and the people.