CMV: technocracy might be a better political system then democracy

Imagine this system of government.

​There are no elections. Instead, you must rise through the ranks from the bottom up.

​You start working at a city hall as a civil servant. When the position of Mayor becomes vacant, the civil servants elect a successor. Imagine you are chosen as Mayor.

​The same applies to the province. When the Governor’s seat becomes vacant, the Mayors elect one from among themselves. This continues upward until reaching the position of President of the Government. It is a system where leaders are chosen from the bottom up.

​A position becomes vacant due to:

• ​Death or incapacity.
• ​Mandatory retirement (age 80). However, they may remain as an advisor.
• ​Resignation.
• ​Dismissal. Those at a higher level can dismiss a subordinate for "just cause" (performance, poor results, corruption, etc.). Dismissal can be appealed in court. For the President, dismissal occurs via a vote of no confidence triggered by the political base. If half of the political tiers vote in favor, the President is removed. In some circumstances, one can be demoted.

​Despite not being a democratic system with universal suffrage, there is a Rule of Law and a written Constitution. It guarantees freedom of the press, opinion, religion, effective judicial protection, non-retroactivity of laws, etc.

Advantages:

• Competence and Experience: Unlike traditional democracy, where a "charismatic" leader with no experience can take power, every leader in this system has "boots on the ground" experience. The President would have mastered every level of administration.
• ​Long-term Stability: Without the 4-year election cycle, the government can focus on long-term infrastructure and social projects (20–30 year plans) rather than short-term populist wins.
• ​Internal Accountability: Since superiors can dismiss subordinates for poor performance, there is a direct incentive to be efficient.