I laughed out loud at this — my dad is a retired Uni professor, so I know exactly what you are talking about — but I'd point out that the "student list" has around 140 seats in the parliament, so 80 academics hopefully still has another 60 common sense people who are not all about being right all the time, and who bring other perspectives too.

I didn't, but I saw a friend go into a week long alcohol session because he wanted to leave academics and couldn't take it anymore...

It must be like a pit fight, but with connections and half truths

There’s a chance of failure in any human endeavor. but I am sick of lawyers, bankers, landlords, lobbyists and various other grifters hanging on currently in most western governments no one can say that they haven’t had their chance. There needs to be a wider variety of professions involved at/in the legislative branch.

which is why one or more gravitate to academic administrator, eventually become a professional politician and we're right back to where we started. In the meantime either something exciting or absolutely nothing might happen!

A group of 80 academics sounds like the level of dysfunction that can only be superseded by a group of 80 politicians.

"Winning was easy, young man. Governing's harder."

They need historians and political scientists, and maybe some politicians, to constantly remind them not to allow perfection to be the enemy of good.

It is not always obvious how to lay ground work over a decade ... or four of them.

It isn't even mostly about fixing problems. But how to make government act as an expedient rather than as an impediment.

Seems pretty obvious to me that it's not going to be 80 academics debating everything under the sun, but instead dedicated groups focusing on their expertise area...

Liable to get hoodwinked by "academic publisher" types.

> MAN have you ever SEEN a working group of 80 academics?

As compared to what? A working group of 80 uneducated idiots?

If democracy doesn't work if you put smart, educated people in control then it doesn't work, period and we need to pay better attention to whatevere China is doing.

Because a working group of 80 career politicians is more effective?

[dead]

Any sources?

[dead]

The exact opposite is true. The only consistently working, stable democracies do not have a single leader of the executive branch, e.g. Switzerland.

The CIA sponsored extensive studies on this and came to the conclusion that democracies with a strong presidential role are associated with a greater risk of failure. It's not really surprising, and it can be seen in the US right now.

The ancient Roman republic (i.e. pre-Caesar) did just fine run by the senate without any emperor (they were vehemently opposed to the idea of putting so much power in the hands of one individual).

One of the ways they made this work was by assigning temporary powers to elected/appointed individuals appropriate and sufficient to get their job done, whether that was provincial governor, tribunus plebis, consul or whatever. A notable title was that of "dictator" (where the modern word derives from) which gave sweeping temporary powers to a general sufficient to execute a war.

Julius Caesar famously abused this system, effectively becoming the first emperor (despite no such position existing) by assuming the title of "dictator perpetuo" (perpetual dictator), although that did not end well for him. His successor, Augustus (whose adopted name later became the name of the office of emperor) initiated a more acceptable version of this by simultaneously holding multiple "elected" positions thereby having the power of them all.

And they won't, system in Serbia is still the same - they will form ministries and prime minister leading them.

They will choose who will that be by a committee, but after that they have to function as usual.

Nice example of Poe's Law. I genuinely can't tell if this is a sincere comment written by someone who spent too much time in the start-up bubble, or a satirical comment on that type of person said by someone who very much aware that start-ups are just one of many ways humans can organize themselves and who knows that parliamentary politics is nothing like that for very good reasons.

But I do find it hilarious that apparently everyone assumes it to be the former, and that is quite telling about how most of this site's visitors think the other visitors of this site look at the world.

Switzerland effectively runs via committee

The constitution will necessitate a certain structure so it's not like "it can't work". It is working and then at some point soon the structure will be reified and some will be given more power and different portfolios than others.

A country is not a business. The goals are different. The levers and constraints are different.

I mean ... most countries are run by some sort of committee hierarchy / supervisor chain. Having consulted at many different levels of govt. over here in Europe, I can tell you there are way more committee decisions than Executive directives.

In many cases, the executives / politicians / directors just rubber stamp what a working group / committee has decided.

Also, see the Tomato guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqUBdX1d3ok

What anti-intellectual horse shit. Carney has a PhD in economics, for one. But there are many: Tomáš Masaryk, Manmohan Singh, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Ricardo Lagos, Mary Robinson, Lee Teng-hui, Tsai Ing-wen, Mario Draghi, Angela Merkel, Claudia Sheinbaum.

All these people have been been at the forefront of b ringin freedom, democracy, and well being to their populations. If anything, the "fun facts" show that academics can make great leaders.

Considered by whom - you?

Most surveys, either of experts or the public, rank Wilson above average.

Worst are generally Buchanan, Johnson, Harding and of course Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_preside...

I didn't know Trump held an academic appointment. (Other than John G. Trump, I mean.)

Whatever it is going to be it will hardly be worse than what we had for past 14 years of SNS / Vučić dictatorship.

Yeah, there's plenty of high-profile academic politicians in Europe with debatable legacies including Thatcher and Merkel. Time will tell.

A quick search suggests the economists associated with this movement are fairly 'mainstream' institutionalists of the type that's popular with government these days in the west. I don't think there will be big changes soon beyond dealing with corruption/nepotism.

Later on, I imagine they will push for faster EU integration on possibly slightly worse terms. Serbia may become marginally less independent in terms of fiscal policy at least and the markets might become even more exposed/beholden to foreign capital. This process has been in motion for years now and I don't expect the student movement to care - the upsides are broadly popular with younger people globally. Personally, I think it is deeply ironic that in the age of tariffs and huge government spending by the superpowers, small countries like Serbia are still signing up to be bound by the 'free market' consensus which is rapidly disintegrating globally.

It's always funny to me when people say "overeducated", as if knowing things is only good up to a point. If you know too much, you suddenly turn bad.

There are more ardent second amendment supporters among tenured professors in US universities than you think.

Why are russian bots always so easy to spot?

Still beats the alternative of corrupt career politicians.

Average professional politician is a psychopath fighting for power no matter what.

At least these guys might be honest about their hubris and arrogance and won't smile to you while slaughtering your future or robbing your family.