I don't understand the point of the question. Governments in the UK and US are theoretically accountable, yet we have messes like Brexit and Trump (goodbye this week to net neutrality). In my other hometown of San Francisco, supposedly a bastion of liberal progressive values, our $9 billion budget is bigger than that of 100 countries', yet homeless people run rampant on the streets, vandals break car windows with impunity every single day, and property prices are even more out of control than HK.
I suppose it could be worse, but in a place like Hong Kong, in its current state, suddenly adding accountability might not do much. At best, it will be like when city officials in SF get fired, and taxpayers foot their 6-figure severance packages.
Sure, with many forms of democracy you can always point your finger at flaws here and there, and I personally don't consider bi-party systems to be the apex of representative democracy, but still they do have a say at the ballot box. In a non-representative kleptocracy (which authoritarian regimes invariably are) you don't.
Interestingly qualified statement supporting the lack of accountability.I suppose it could be worse, but in a place like Hong Kong, in its current state, suddenly adding accountability might not do much.
I was reading about a scheme whereby democracy is essentially a continuous process, no ballot box, the voters hold the money / tokens and send payment instructions, a simple example fixing the roads is important us, and the politicians get funds to fix roads. politicians can create demand, for example, requesting funds to fix NHS, and voters give money/tokens, it is an interesting idea.
You have a serious misunderstanding of government. The government borrows money to accomplish their goals. The tax money they're asking you for is the share of the ROI you gained from those investments. It's their money.
That's the reason why debt rises dramatically during wars and then people spend many years after to pay off those debts. So, if you want to complain about taxes, you should also complain about Churchill fighting the Nazis and racking up such debts in the first place.
The dangers of your proposal is that this type of system would sacrifice the smooth functioning of government. Hence it would undermine democracy in the long-term.
Last edited by civil_servant; 28-11-2017 at 10:16 AM.
To elaborate it comes down to what "accountability" means in the original question, which when combined with the SCMP article I took to be a synonym for democracy, or being able to elect our leaders. In theory SF's and USA's leaders are "accountable" to the people, but today we all see how that's just a theory.
If by "accountable" we mean that there would be negative consequences to leaders who work solely to benefit themselves or special interest groups, then yes, I wholeheartedly support it in both the USA and HK. But that's just a pipe dream, an interesting theoretical exercise that has its place only in our minds, and not reality.
Whataboutary?
But since you ask perhaps you are confusing your desire for a perceived lack of justice for a bad war.
This is quite different from political accountability which did happen with a much more dovish approach by politicians in the subsequent years as the public had no desire to be embroiled in overseas conflicts.