New words are to be avoided unless they're needed, but my modest suggestion of ignocracy to describe the tyrannical imposition of stupid ideas, practices and items for political purposes is increasingly compelling. OED are interested, but need evidence of more widespread use of the word before they can include it. Recent examples of ignocracy include the DCSF's discouragement of parents accompanying children on school trips, Ofsted's thuggish, ill-informed and ineffective approach to inspecting schools and social services, and now lightbulbs.
Professor Arnold Wilkins has been writing about the effects of lighting on work, reading and health for over twenty years. I have written about the issue, over the years, in the Telegraph, TES, Guardian, Times and Mail on Sunday. Getting on for a full house. The ignocracy - beginning with a former Conservative Minister of State, Tim Eggar, who refused to discuss the issue - takes no notice. It lives in a world of its own, dismissing as "perceptions" any opposing views, whatever their basis. Ignocracy differs from fascism, Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge in that it does not lock up and murder its opponents. Its mindset is otherwise very similar, and its strategy is to marginalise its critics and to ignore them. What an ignocrat says is right because he or she says so. If it weren't right, they wouldn't have said it. Anyone who disagrees is therefore wrong. It's a matter of logic.
Well, the imposition of fluorescent lightbulbs is not right. It is anti-literate, because it discourages reading - even those of us who are not subject to headaches and illnesses often find it uncomfortable, and it is a hidden cause of many serious educational problems, some of them leading to violent behaviour - see Asberger's or a Reading Problem on this weblog. It's now, at least, got into mainstream media and the BBC News. The ignocracy won't take any notice of that either.