Policy "dictatorships," Handivote, and party roles in demarchy (random selection)

[Die Neue Zeit]

In bourgeois circles there are the odd debates on how long a term should last. As opposed to the debates on term limits, term durations can be somewhat tied to policy, especially strategic policy.

"Handivote" refers to a framework by Cockshott and Renaud that takes advantage of cell phones to facilitate referenda with multiple options. However, this brings up the question of policy duration.

GOELRO was a Soviet infrastructure plan that was fulfilled in ten or eleven years, beyond two four-year terms. Can demarchy facilitate policy "dictatorships" whereby certain strategic policies decided either by referenda or by statistical representatives cannot be replaced on a whim (each must be allowed to run its full course without hijacking by statistical bureaucrats or statistical representatives), and what role can parties play in this?

[Hyacinth]

There's no reason why demarchy cannot accommodate long-term goals, you've already suggested one way in which this can be done, i.e., by making the coordinators and representatives subject to the decisions of plebiscites.

Also, demarchy lends itself well to ad hocracy, i.e., the creation of administrative bodies on an ad hoc basis for the purpose of achieving specific goals. So, for instance, you might have an ad hoc demarchic committee designated with the task of planning and overseeing the construction of a nation-wide high-speed rail transportation network, and the committee can continue to exist until the project is complete.

Further, even if we choose not to go that route, there's also no reason why a demarchic body with a relatively frequent refresh rate (e.g., an annual turnover in its composition), wouldn't continue the policies of its predecessors. People are prudent enough to recognize when a continuation of policy is called for, and when, in exceptional circumstances, a radical break from past policy is called for.