Applying diversity of views to governments

In the past months I have been reading about the importance of having a diverse set of individuals: different background, sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. to have a successful corporate board. Following the same line of thought, I ended up with the conclusion that our governments will never be successful and achieve what they are there for if they do not go on that same transformation road.

Governments are not formed, at least not in Spain-where I am originally from, by a healthy combination of people with different perspectives that are working together to agree on what is best for a country, city, social group. Furthermore, in most cases, or at least in the case of Spain, they are not formed by people with large experience running economic matters, or social matters. In most cases, the politicians that represent the people have rarely ever dealt with the issues that bother and concern the people. How can they actually know?

I am not saying that all politicians are like this, I am saying that in the past years most politicians are like this. Sometimes, it is almost worse than what I picture because those few politicians that actually struggled to live like the people they represent used their position to get an easy life and detach themselves from the reality that surrounds them. A real shame!!!

I think, and this is completely my personal opinion, that this situation would not have happened if governments were functioning as a mechanism of consensus and diversity. Consensus: all groups that have been voted have a saying in the actions, not only in the discussion, as proportional as everybody else's, not because you are a minority you have less of a voice, but you are forced by thecrules of tge system to work towards consensus. Critics will say that, like that, laws and actions will take long to be made. Well, who wants speed when that speed is bringing you downhill? We would expect decisions to be made and kept for them to cause an effect, instead than changed by a populistic attack of the major parties on board. If the law forces commitment on politicians, if they are forced out if no commitment is reached, I am sure they would be working hard to reach it. Clearly, the best way to get representation in this kind of scenario is by direct democracy, otherwise you risk holding general elections every month. However, there must be an evolution towards direct democracy: if you do not trust your own knowledge, you should be able to trust the person that represents you: person, not political sect!

And what about diversity? Right, left, up, down, liberals, communists, tories, labor, blue, red, ... These tags on politics are something of the past. The crisis is showing us that parties from different colors end up making decisions that even go against what they usually preach. Conclusion? We must do the right thing, based in honest principles and balanced views. We can only do that if we have a balanced government, and that includes people with different points of view. We are not good at everything, a diverse team has better chances to succeed.

Why don't we design our governments to run like successful teams? At the end of the day, we are the shareholders of our governments, we should be demanding, we can induce change!