As a philosopher, John Stuart Mill produced highly influential works that explain how arbitrary beliefs should be displaced by systematic, experimental reasoning. As an elected Member of Parliament, he turned his attention to politicians who deliberately exploited foolishness and prejudice as a means to win support for their self-centred agenda which was actually detrimental to the public. When asked if he was maligning the Conservative Party as dim-witted, he explained thus:
“What I stated was, that the Conservative party was, by the law of its constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. ... Now, I do not retract this assertion; but I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. ... And I do not see why honourable Gentlemen should feel that position at all offensive to them; for it ensures their always being an extremely powerful party. ... There is a dense solid force in sheer stupidity – such, that a few able men, with that force pressing behind them, are assured of victory in many a struggle; and many a
victory the Conservative party have owed to that force.”
It may be argued that rationality is a matter of degree, and everybody has different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to what we know (or not). But as Socrates pointed out, while we are all ignorant about various matters, those who know about what they lack knowledge of are wise, but those who think they know when they are in fact quite ignorant of the subject in question are fools. And what makes Mill object to his political antagonists is that they build their platform on the exploitation of irrationality. Far from trying to help people reason and understand, they encourage them to despise the pursuit of knowledge, they endorse the display of blind hate and twisted prejudice, and they deride those who seek deeper understanding as feeble.
These tendencies can be seen from ancient emperors and monarchs pretending that they speak for the gods, while encouraging superstitions amongst the masses so that it was all the easier to trick them into accepting raw deals in this life. They can be seen in religious charlatans through the ages as they prey upon the minds of dupes and would-be fanatics. And they are all too visible amongst contemporary neo-conservative politicians who extol the god-like virtues of the corporate elite, dismiss criticisms of oppressive business practices as mere jibes made by ‘know all’s, and champion every vicious prejudice as a great traditional value.
Like the philosophers of the Enlightenment who came before him, Mill hoped that education would enable more and more people to reason, discuss and explore what would be better ways to shape their lives and organise society. But like many progressive politicians who came after him, he was concerned that the power of education might not always be a match for the deceit and propaganda deployed by those who would glorify prejudices for the sake of turning the gullible into legions of diehard supporters for exploitative regimes (see, ‘Convert or Con Victim’).
The enemies of mutual respect and rational cooperation will always have the edge in any process for allocating political power if there is nothing in place to expose their lies and misdirection. Some have concluded from this that the devil cannot be beaten and henceforth they too would try to win votes by pandering to people’s prejudices – whether these take the form of anti-immigrants, anti-internationalism, anti-science, anti-welfare, anti-equality in any sphere, or anti-diversity in every context.
But there is a different conclusion that can be drawn from this conundrum – and that is, we must be resolute in exposing lies and misdirection. We must use every means at our disposal, and develop new tools and networks to question those in power, challenge prejudices, and help those with unreasonable views to reflect on the implications of their beliefs and rethink what they may have hitherto held to be indubitable. It is commonplace these days to maintain that there is no guaranteed march of reason and progress. Indeed, irrationality not only resurfaces, but goaded by unscrupulous politicians, can even spread alarmingly. But history has shown that where the citadels of dogmas and bigotry are relentlessly and imaginatively challenged, truth and understanding can prevail (see the short history, Against Power Inequalities)
Monday, 1 February 2016
Friday, 15 January 2016
Flag, Freedom, & Family …
Think about ‘Flag’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Family’, not to mention, ‘God’, ‘Enterprise’, and ‘Traditional Values’. In many contexts, they conjure up positive associations for millions of people. The pride one takes in the success of one’s country. The freedom to defy tyranny. The nurturing support of one’s family. The boundless love encapsulated in the ideal of God. The ingenuity of business enterprise in meeting one’s needs. The moral anchor offered by traditional values.
Yet all these notions have been hijacked by manipulators to trick people into believing that ill treatment of scapegoats and exploitation of the vulnerable are glorious endeavours. The ‘Flag’ is waved to cover up unjustifiable aggression. ‘Freedom’ for the elite is invoked to subjugate the many. Interference with people’s own family life is instigated on the basis of an alleged respect for the ‘Family’. ‘God’ becomes a label endorsing every act of oppression. The belittling of workers, pollution of the environment, shortchanging of customers are all glossed over as a small price to pay for allowing ‘Enterprise’ to flourish. And hateful prejudices are fanned by the rhetoric of ‘Traditional Values’.
The last thing we should do is to concede to the hijackers and let them keep hold of these terms and abuse them. We have a duty to remind our fellow citizens that precisely because such terms can be contested, we need to rethink which version should be embraced.
The flag of one’s country is rightly a matter of pride, and we should celebrate when it is hoisted by a conscientious leader who will leave no one behind, but not if it is being waved by a treacherous demagogue. Freedom is a condition we all seek, and everyone should be granted it so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others, which is why we would just become less free if we allow the powerful elite to keep gambling away our money, making people addicted to their harmful products, or imposing contracts on others courtesy of their superior bargaining position. The family should be cherished for the love and security it provides, and society indeed has no business with how people go about forming their families, except in cases where one or more malignant members embark on abusing and terrorising others.
God embodies the highest ideal, but any claim about what God commands is nonetheless made by mere mortals who are fallible, and these include the delusional as well as the deceptive. Any business enterprise that is run by creative minds to add value to the lives of others deserve help with its growth and expansion, but anti-social enterprise that is concerned with exploiting others for its own gain must be reined in. And traditional values must evolve over time; and the inclination to differentiate between what is to be preserved and what is to be phased out in the light of experience, rather than dogmatic adherence, has itself become one of the most treasured traditions.
People with an enlightened and progressive outlook should not surrender the aforementioned notions and many other emotionally significant words. Instead of dismissing them, and end up appearing disdainful of the potential good they stand for, it is essential they are respectfully unpacked, with false and malicious interpretations exposed, and their proper applications restored.
Yet all these notions have been hijacked by manipulators to trick people into believing that ill treatment of scapegoats and exploitation of the vulnerable are glorious endeavours. The ‘Flag’ is waved to cover up unjustifiable aggression. ‘Freedom’ for the elite is invoked to subjugate the many. Interference with people’s own family life is instigated on the basis of an alleged respect for the ‘Family’. ‘God’ becomes a label endorsing every act of oppression. The belittling of workers, pollution of the environment, shortchanging of customers are all glossed over as a small price to pay for allowing ‘Enterprise’ to flourish. And hateful prejudices are fanned by the rhetoric of ‘Traditional Values’.
The last thing we should do is to concede to the hijackers and let them keep hold of these terms and abuse them. We have a duty to remind our fellow citizens that precisely because such terms can be contested, we need to rethink which version should be embraced.
The flag of one’s country is rightly a matter of pride, and we should celebrate when it is hoisted by a conscientious leader who will leave no one behind, but not if it is being waved by a treacherous demagogue. Freedom is a condition we all seek, and everyone should be granted it so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others, which is why we would just become less free if we allow the powerful elite to keep gambling away our money, making people addicted to their harmful products, or imposing contracts on others courtesy of their superior bargaining position. The family should be cherished for the love and security it provides, and society indeed has no business with how people go about forming their families, except in cases where one or more malignant members embark on abusing and terrorising others.
God embodies the highest ideal, but any claim about what God commands is nonetheless made by mere mortals who are fallible, and these include the delusional as well as the deceptive. Any business enterprise that is run by creative minds to add value to the lives of others deserve help with its growth and expansion, but anti-social enterprise that is concerned with exploiting others for its own gain must be reined in. And traditional values must evolve over time; and the inclination to differentiate between what is to be preserved and what is to be phased out in the light of experience, rather than dogmatic adherence, has itself become one of the most treasured traditions.
People with an enlightened and progressive outlook should not surrender the aforementioned notions and many other emotionally significant words. Instead of dismissing them, and end up appearing disdainful of the potential good they stand for, it is essential they are respectfully unpacked, with false and malicious interpretations exposed, and their proper applications restored.
Friday, 1 January 2016
Goodbye Utopia, Hello Synetopia
“For, when everyone’s entitled to get as much for himself as he can, all available property, however much there is of it, is bound to fall into the hands of a small minority, which means that everyone else is poor. And wealth will tend to vary in inverse proportion to merit. The rich will be greedy, unscrupulous, and totally useless characters, while the poor will be simple, unassuming people whose daily work is far more profitable to the community than it is to them.”
Utopia, Thomas More (1516)
Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’ heralded a new tradition of seeking the ‘good society’ wherein all is held in common and everyone cooperates to serve their shared interests.
Over the last 500 years, the tradition has moved on in three quite distinct directions. First, there is the retreat from the conventional world to go off elsewhere to build small communal groups with no (or very limited) private ownership, to be sustained by an anarchic sensibility of mutual help without many top-down rules or enforcement. Secondly, there is the sweeping transformation that depends on a charismatic leader or an all-powerful state to act as the communistic overseer of all things common, on the basis that the common good will prevail through the judgement of those in control. Thirdly, there is the experimental development of communitarian arrangements for sharing and cooperation, not as an escape from but to replace prevailing institutions.
The first has long been branded as the tendency to chase after utopian dreams. Attempts at setting up isolated communal groups rarely last more than a few generations and seldom spread their ethos more widely. The second trend is rightly chastised as the harbinger of dystopian nightmares. Relying on a strong leader or unchallengeable party machine, the proclaimed custodianship of common property held in a cult or a totalitarian state invariably degenerates into some form of exploitative appropriation.
By contrast, the third approach recognises the interdependence of existing institutions and seeks to change them through on-going experimentation. Resources and responsibilities are shared out with the help of a variety of democratic methods, and new commons and cooperative forms spread organically through similar sectors and diverse localities. Cooperatives, sustainability networks, digital commons, and other forms of inclusive associations have shown a variety of ways to elevate human relations from self-centred zero-sum contests to sustained mutual respect and collaboration.
By their very nature, groups that rely on on-going deliberations, democratic decision making, and experimental adjustment do not work to any fixed blueprint. But there are certain elements that they cultivate in order to expand and realise their potential. These are elements that make them a cooperative place – or ‘synetopia’. Not all of them consistently succeed in developing or integrating all these elements, but where they do, people involved with them attain higher satisfaction and they achieve their objectives more effectively and on a more sustainable basis.
The nine core elements are summarised in the Synetopia Protocol so that any group, small or big, can check its progress towards a higher state of inclusiveness. Utopia, for better or worse, is not going to be attainable, but where the quests for better forms of human association do converge on an approach that delivers continuous improvement for all, it is where we find synetopia.
Utopia, Thomas More (1516)
Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’ heralded a new tradition of seeking the ‘good society’ wherein all is held in common and everyone cooperates to serve their shared interests.
Over the last 500 years, the tradition has moved on in three quite distinct directions. First, there is the retreat from the conventional world to go off elsewhere to build small communal groups with no (or very limited) private ownership, to be sustained by an anarchic sensibility of mutual help without many top-down rules or enforcement. Secondly, there is the sweeping transformation that depends on a charismatic leader or an all-powerful state to act as the communistic overseer of all things common, on the basis that the common good will prevail through the judgement of those in control. Thirdly, there is the experimental development of communitarian arrangements for sharing and cooperation, not as an escape from but to replace prevailing institutions.
The first has long been branded as the tendency to chase after utopian dreams. Attempts at setting up isolated communal groups rarely last more than a few generations and seldom spread their ethos more widely. The second trend is rightly chastised as the harbinger of dystopian nightmares. Relying on a strong leader or unchallengeable party machine, the proclaimed custodianship of common property held in a cult or a totalitarian state invariably degenerates into some form of exploitative appropriation.
By contrast, the third approach recognises the interdependence of existing institutions and seeks to change them through on-going experimentation. Resources and responsibilities are shared out with the help of a variety of democratic methods, and new commons and cooperative forms spread organically through similar sectors and diverse localities. Cooperatives, sustainability networks, digital commons, and other forms of inclusive associations have shown a variety of ways to elevate human relations from self-centred zero-sum contests to sustained mutual respect and collaboration.
By their very nature, groups that rely on on-going deliberations, democratic decision making, and experimental adjustment do not work to any fixed blueprint. But there are certain elements that they cultivate in order to expand and realise their potential. These are elements that make them a cooperative place – or ‘synetopia’. Not all of them consistently succeed in developing or integrating all these elements, but where they do, people involved with them attain higher satisfaction and they achieve their objectives more effectively and on a more sustainable basis.
The nine core elements are summarised in the Synetopia Protocol so that any group, small or big, can check its progress towards a higher state of inclusiveness. Utopia, for better or worse, is not going to be attainable, but where the quests for better forms of human association do converge on an approach that delivers continuous improvement for all, it is where we find synetopia.
Tuesday, 15 December 2015
Political Education with a Twist
Carl von Clausewitz infamously said, “war is merely the continuation of politics by other means”, but in truth, politics is the avoidance of war through the art of persuasion. When violence erupts, politics has failed.
Because people do not live in sealed bubbles from each other, human interactions are inevitable. While this makes it possible for people to cooperate and achieve more together than they can ever do on their own, it also means that they may seriously disagree about how they should treat each other. And there are always those who pay lip service to the notion of fairness while seeking to exploit others at every turn.
The arrangements that endure tend to be those that over time have come to be accepted by the vast majority as the best they can hope to get. The mission for political educators is to help people think through the prevailing arrangements and consider what should be preserved, and what should be altered for the common good.
Not surprisingly, anyone endeavouring to do this is liable to be accused of being partisan by those who would prefer their political regimes not to be questioned by too many ordinary citizens. This has put many people off from advancing political education for fear of being branded ‘party politically biased’. But once they retreat to the ‘safety’ of teaching only what no one with political power could possibly object to, they have in effect resigned to acquiescing in the status quo.
So what can be done? One approach is to leave political parties out of the picture, but highlight why certain practices and policy assumptions should be changed with the help of allegorical or satirical stories. It is a tradition that goes back to Voltaire, Wells, and Orwell, and has proven to be a most effective means of stimulating political reflections in people who may not otherwise be interested in such issues.
But has not the rigid demarcation of disciplines since the mid-20th century meant that political thinkers have long ceased to venture into writing novels? Classic texts can only take us so far, and will bring with them the added complexity of how they should be interpreted decades, even centuries, after they have been written.
A way forward would be to revive the tradition of weaving cogent political ideas into gripping imaginative tales. To this end, I have in recent years produced two dystopian novels, which have been acclaimed as original fiction in their own right, and widely recommended by advocates for political education as a valuable resource to promote reflections and discussions on democracy, freedom and social justice.
The first is the allegorical Kuan’s Wonderland. It tells the story of a young boy taken against his will to the surreal world of Shiyan, where he has to cope with shape-shifting beings, hated creatures called Potokins, the pompous Mauveans, and the mysterious Curator. Through his reluctant adventure, he comes to discover that far from resigning to his life in exile, he must help to counter what may destroy Shiyan and his own world. The Equality Trust has selected it as the novel to read in its Young Person’s Guide to Inequality. It has also been picked as a book for adult reading groups set up by the WEA (Workers’ Educational Association).
The second novel is the satirical tale, Whitehall through the Looking Glass, set in the not-too-distant future, when the Consortium of the world’s largest corporations have taken control of the government of the UK and US. Nearly all assets are controlled by the big firms, and everyone’s movement and preferences are tracked and analysed by the Consortium in order to devise the most effective strategies for convincing people that all is as it should be. The Consortium’s grip on power seems unshakable until resistance emerges where it least expects it. The Chief Executive of the Civil Service College, General Secretary of the TUC, and the Director of the Speakers Corner Trust are amongst those who urge the public to read it.
If politics is not to fail and give way to violence, we need more political education that is different enough to stir the imagination and sufficiently bold in challenging prevailing ideas. Worth giving Kuan’s Wonderland and Whitehall through the Looking Glass a try.
--
Kuan’s Wonderland:
E-book version available from:
Amazon UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kuans-Wonderland-ebook/dp/B008144G9I/
or Amazon US http://www.amazon.com/Kuans-Wonderland-Henry-Tam-ebook/dp/B008144G9I;
The Paperback version is available from: Barnes & Noble http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/kuans-wonderland-henry-tam/1117511602
or CreateSpace https://www.createspace.com/4062249
Whitehall through the Looking Glass:
E-book version available from:
Amazon UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whitehall-through-Looking-Glass-Novel-ebook/dp/B00J3VRGEU/
or Amazon US http://www.amazon.com/Whitehall-through-Looking-Glass-Novel-ebook/dp/B00J3VRGEU/
The Paperback version is available from: Barnes & Noble http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/whitehall-through-the-looking-glass-henry-tam/1118953239
or CreateSpace https://www.createspace.com/4709766
A shortened version of my interview with ‘Shout Out’ magazine about the thinking behind the novels can be found at: http://kuanswonderland.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/political-engagement-of-surreal-kind.html
For more about dystopian fiction, visit The Dystopian Syndrome
(The Hunting of the Gods, a novel about Earth being governed by virtually immortal rulers, and modern civilisation knowing nothing about democracy, will be published in 2016)
Because people do not live in sealed bubbles from each other, human interactions are inevitable. While this makes it possible for people to cooperate and achieve more together than they can ever do on their own, it also means that they may seriously disagree about how they should treat each other. And there are always those who pay lip service to the notion of fairness while seeking to exploit others at every turn.
The arrangements that endure tend to be those that over time have come to be accepted by the vast majority as the best they can hope to get. The mission for political educators is to help people think through the prevailing arrangements and consider what should be preserved, and what should be altered for the common good.
Not surprisingly, anyone endeavouring to do this is liable to be accused of being partisan by those who would prefer their political regimes not to be questioned by too many ordinary citizens. This has put many people off from advancing political education for fear of being branded ‘party politically biased’. But once they retreat to the ‘safety’ of teaching only what no one with political power could possibly object to, they have in effect resigned to acquiescing in the status quo.
So what can be done? One approach is to leave political parties out of the picture, but highlight why certain practices and policy assumptions should be changed with the help of allegorical or satirical stories. It is a tradition that goes back to Voltaire, Wells, and Orwell, and has proven to be a most effective means of stimulating political reflections in people who may not otherwise be interested in such issues.
But has not the rigid demarcation of disciplines since the mid-20th century meant that political thinkers have long ceased to venture into writing novels? Classic texts can only take us so far, and will bring with them the added complexity of how they should be interpreted decades, even centuries, after they have been written.
A way forward would be to revive the tradition of weaving cogent political ideas into gripping imaginative tales. To this end, I have in recent years produced two dystopian novels, which have been acclaimed as original fiction in their own right, and widely recommended by advocates for political education as a valuable resource to promote reflections and discussions on democracy, freedom and social justice.
The first is the allegorical Kuan’s Wonderland. It tells the story of a young boy taken against his will to the surreal world of Shiyan, where he has to cope with shape-shifting beings, hated creatures called Potokins, the pompous Mauveans, and the mysterious Curator. Through his reluctant adventure, he comes to discover that far from resigning to his life in exile, he must help to counter what may destroy Shiyan and his own world. The Equality Trust has selected it as the novel to read in its Young Person’s Guide to Inequality. It has also been picked as a book for adult reading groups set up by the WEA (Workers’ Educational Association).
The second novel is the satirical tale, Whitehall through the Looking Glass, set in the not-too-distant future, when the Consortium of the world’s largest corporations have taken control of the government of the UK and US. Nearly all assets are controlled by the big firms, and everyone’s movement and preferences are tracked and analysed by the Consortium in order to devise the most effective strategies for convincing people that all is as it should be. The Consortium’s grip on power seems unshakable until resistance emerges where it least expects it. The Chief Executive of the Civil Service College, General Secretary of the TUC, and the Director of the Speakers Corner Trust are amongst those who urge the public to read it.
If politics is not to fail and give way to violence, we need more political education that is different enough to stir the imagination and sufficiently bold in challenging prevailing ideas. Worth giving Kuan’s Wonderland and Whitehall through the Looking Glass a try.
--
Kuan’s Wonderland:
E-book version available from:
Amazon UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kuans-Wonderland-ebook/dp/B008144G9I/
or Amazon US http://www.amazon.com/Kuans-Wonderland-Henry-Tam-ebook/dp/B008144G9I;
The Paperback version is available from: Barnes & Noble http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/kuans-wonderland-henry-tam/1117511602
or CreateSpace https://www.createspace.com/4062249
Whitehall through the Looking Glass:
E-book version available from:
Amazon UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whitehall-through-Looking-Glass-Novel-ebook/dp/B00J3VRGEU/
or Amazon US http://www.amazon.com/Whitehall-through-Looking-Glass-Novel-ebook/dp/B00J3VRGEU/
The Paperback version is available from: Barnes & Noble http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/whitehall-through-the-looking-glass-henry-tam/1118953239
or CreateSpace https://www.createspace.com/4709766
A shortened version of my interview with ‘Shout Out’ magazine about the thinking behind the novels can be found at: http://kuanswonderland.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/political-engagement-of-surreal-kind.html
For more about dystopian fiction, visit The Dystopian Syndrome
(The Hunting of the Gods, a novel about Earth being governed by virtually immortal rulers, and modern civilisation knowing nothing about democracy, will be published in 2016)
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
Snide & Prejudiced: a tale of constitutional shenanigans
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a government in possession of a slim majority must be in want of more power. But when that power is sought by reversing centuries of constitutional advancement, resistance is in order.
The progressive development of Britain’s constitution was once an inspiration to the world. The sealing of the Magna Carta in 1215 to limit the powers of the ruler; de Montfort’s inauguration of the Parliamentary tradition in 1265; the first ever trial of a reigning monarch for treason in 1649; the Glorious Revolution that produced the Bill of Rights of 1689, which in turned inspired the American Constitution of 1789; the Great Reform Act of 1832 that opened the door to almost a century of franchise reforms that eventually secured the vote for all adult men and women in 1928; and after the Second World War, British MP and lawyer David Maxwell-Fyfe, led the deliberations and drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights (ratified 1953), which drew on the strong democratic traditions of countries like the UK to lay the foundation for protecting human rights across Europe.
Regrettably the Conservative Party (in government with the support of the Liberal Democrats 2010-2015 and with its own small majority since 2015) has decided that since its hold on power is so slight, it will manipulate the British constitution to enable it to do what it cannot otherwise get away with doing. Let’s take a look at a few of the tricks being played on a largely unsuspecting citizenry.
1. Puppet Legislature
The House of Lords has always been a curious non-elected appendage of a supposedly democratic legislature. As long ago as 1649 it was abolished, only to be brought back when the monarchy was later restored in England. The current Conservative plan is for the number of elected MPs to be cut down while it puts more of its non-elected donors and supporters into the House of Lords (which has risen by 16% since 2015 [Note 1]). 50% of the increases in party-affiliated peers have gone to the Conservative Party though that is higher than their share of support from those eligible to vote in either the 2010 or 2015 elections. Many of these donors and supporters hold shares or positions in large companies, and they are free to vote for policies that will increase the profits of those companies. Meanwhile, the government will do nothing to address this anti-democratic anomaly except to erect obstacles to stop the Lords voting against Conservative policies.
2. Political Power for Sale
It has long been recognised that disparity in campaign finance can remove any prospect for a level playing field in electoral contests. The Electoral Commission accordingly set out limits for how much political parties should spend on campaigning in the run-up to elections. But the Conservative Party in government took no notice and exceeded that limit by 23%, and having outspent the Labour Party, they won the 2015 election with a narrow majority. In the meantime, Tory politicians readily admit to financial support they receive from companies that benefit from their policies [Note 2]. Far from placing restrictions on these links, Conservative politicians, such as a former Secretary of State for Health (who was funded by private healthcare firms when he was the Shadow Health Secretary [Note 3]), can be in office one day bringing in new policies to push more public contracts in the direction of private healthcare firms, and leave office the next to take up consultancy roles to help private healthcare firms make more profit out of government contracts [Note 4].
3. Second Class MPs
It is no secret that Scotland tends to vote for representatives on the left of the political spectrum. While the Conservative Party is keen to keep Scotland in the UK (after all, it does not want to lose the oil revenue from the North Sea or the docks in Scotland for British nuclear submarines), it wants to curtail the power of Scottish MPs. So on the back of a ‘promise’ to devolve more local powers to Scotland (in return for their staying in the UK), it plans to ringfence ‘England only’ matters in Parliament and deprive MPs from Scotland a vote in them. The superficial argument is that if Scotland is given certain exclusive powers to vote on ‘Scotland only’ matters without MPs from other parts of the UK having a say, then the converse should be true for ‘England only’ matters. But so long as Scotland is in the UK, and the UK is overwhelmingly dominated by the networks and capital of England, it would be obvious to any impartial observer that decisions concerning England will have a major impact on Scotland. Unless what is defined as ‘England only’ is limited to issues which genuinely do not affect the wellbeing of people in Scotland, what is being concocted is the relegation of MPs from Scotland to second class status.
4. Diminished Rights
Although the UK is the inspiration and a key driving force in the development of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Conservative Party wants to rewrite constitutional history by pretending it is an alien invention that undermines the wellbeing of British people. It is so hostile to the notion of international peer scrutiny over possible violation of human rights that it wants to cut ties with the wider global community so it can reject as irrelevant any external criticism of its activities that breach human rights. Thus it plans to repeal the Human Rights Act. If its promised replacement is meant to offer more rather than less protection for human rights, there is not the slightest evidence for it. Significantly this is happening when the Conservative Government policies to cut support for vulnerable people are being investigated by the UN for the “systemic and grave violations” of disabled people’s human rights [Note 5]. People’s rights to organise to seek better economic treatment are also under further threat as the Conservatives plan to outlaw strike actions by unions unless they are backed by at least 40% of those eligible to vote in those unions – a threshold that if applied to the government would mean that it cannot carry out any action since its manifesto is backed by far less than 40% of those eligible to vote in the country.
5. Destabilised Sovereignty
The Conservative leadership, despite its party’s historical role in taking the UK into what became the European Union, has sought to undermine the electoral prospects of anti-European rivals by promising a referendum on British membership of the EU. But just as England’s sovereign power was enhanced through union with Scotland, the UK’s membership of the EU confers greater strength when the world is geopolitically dominated by continental blocks. To commit to a referendum when the terms of what would amount to a revised deal the Conservative Government would support remain unclear, and when the uncertainty undermines confidence in UK’s future connections with the rest of Europe, is unwise at best, and reckless at worst. Even Margaret Thatcher, who was hardly enamoured with the EU, warned against using the crude mechanism of a referendum to decide on a major constitutional issue such as UK’s membership of the EU (see: ‘Thatcher, Europe & Referendum’). Ironically, when it comes to what can seriously undermine British sovereignty, namely the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) – which would give power to American corporations to sue the UK for enacting laws to protect British people if it can be argued that such laws would reduce the profits those companies might otherwise make – the Conservative Government is happy to keep discussions secret and offer British citizens no opportunity to scrutinise the pros and cons of TTIP.
All the above threats against our democratic heritage should be opposed, and the core issues subject to an independent constitutional review. It is fair to say, in homage to Ms Austen, that we should be ever sensible of the warmest gratitude we owe towards a constitutional tradition that, by bringing justice into government, has been the means of uniting them.
Let us not allow this precious union to be put asunder.
--
Note 1: The number of Lords eligible to attend the House of Lords went up from 706 in 2010 to 791 before the May election 2015; and up to 821 after the May 2015 election; an accumulative increase of 115, or 16%.
Note 2: See, for example, on private healthcare firms: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/healthcare-companies-links-tories-nhs-contracts; and on hedge funds: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/05/conservatives-bankrolled-hedge-fund-managers
Note 3: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6989408/Andrew-Lansley-bankrolled-by-private-healthcare-provider.html
Note 4: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/20/andrew-lansley-advise-firms-healthcare-reforms
Note 5: http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/confirmed-un-is-investigating-uks-grave-violations-of-disabled-peoples-rights/
The progressive development of Britain’s constitution was once an inspiration to the world. The sealing of the Magna Carta in 1215 to limit the powers of the ruler; de Montfort’s inauguration of the Parliamentary tradition in 1265; the first ever trial of a reigning monarch for treason in 1649; the Glorious Revolution that produced the Bill of Rights of 1689, which in turned inspired the American Constitution of 1789; the Great Reform Act of 1832 that opened the door to almost a century of franchise reforms that eventually secured the vote for all adult men and women in 1928; and after the Second World War, British MP and lawyer David Maxwell-Fyfe, led the deliberations and drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights (ratified 1953), which drew on the strong democratic traditions of countries like the UK to lay the foundation for protecting human rights across Europe.
Regrettably the Conservative Party (in government with the support of the Liberal Democrats 2010-2015 and with its own small majority since 2015) has decided that since its hold on power is so slight, it will manipulate the British constitution to enable it to do what it cannot otherwise get away with doing. Let’s take a look at a few of the tricks being played on a largely unsuspecting citizenry.
1. Puppet Legislature
The House of Lords has always been a curious non-elected appendage of a supposedly democratic legislature. As long ago as 1649 it was abolished, only to be brought back when the monarchy was later restored in England. The current Conservative plan is for the number of elected MPs to be cut down while it puts more of its non-elected donors and supporters into the House of Lords (which has risen by 16% since 2015 [Note 1]). 50% of the increases in party-affiliated peers have gone to the Conservative Party though that is higher than their share of support from those eligible to vote in either the 2010 or 2015 elections. Many of these donors and supporters hold shares or positions in large companies, and they are free to vote for policies that will increase the profits of those companies. Meanwhile, the government will do nothing to address this anti-democratic anomaly except to erect obstacles to stop the Lords voting against Conservative policies.
2. Political Power for Sale
It has long been recognised that disparity in campaign finance can remove any prospect for a level playing field in electoral contests. The Electoral Commission accordingly set out limits for how much political parties should spend on campaigning in the run-up to elections. But the Conservative Party in government took no notice and exceeded that limit by 23%, and having outspent the Labour Party, they won the 2015 election with a narrow majority. In the meantime, Tory politicians readily admit to financial support they receive from companies that benefit from their policies [Note 2]. Far from placing restrictions on these links, Conservative politicians, such as a former Secretary of State for Health (who was funded by private healthcare firms when he was the Shadow Health Secretary [Note 3]), can be in office one day bringing in new policies to push more public contracts in the direction of private healthcare firms, and leave office the next to take up consultancy roles to help private healthcare firms make more profit out of government contracts [Note 4].
3. Second Class MPs
It is no secret that Scotland tends to vote for representatives on the left of the political spectrum. While the Conservative Party is keen to keep Scotland in the UK (after all, it does not want to lose the oil revenue from the North Sea or the docks in Scotland for British nuclear submarines), it wants to curtail the power of Scottish MPs. So on the back of a ‘promise’ to devolve more local powers to Scotland (in return for their staying in the UK), it plans to ringfence ‘England only’ matters in Parliament and deprive MPs from Scotland a vote in them. The superficial argument is that if Scotland is given certain exclusive powers to vote on ‘Scotland only’ matters without MPs from other parts of the UK having a say, then the converse should be true for ‘England only’ matters. But so long as Scotland is in the UK, and the UK is overwhelmingly dominated by the networks and capital of England, it would be obvious to any impartial observer that decisions concerning England will have a major impact on Scotland. Unless what is defined as ‘England only’ is limited to issues which genuinely do not affect the wellbeing of people in Scotland, what is being concocted is the relegation of MPs from Scotland to second class status.
4. Diminished Rights
Although the UK is the inspiration and a key driving force in the development of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Conservative Party wants to rewrite constitutional history by pretending it is an alien invention that undermines the wellbeing of British people. It is so hostile to the notion of international peer scrutiny over possible violation of human rights that it wants to cut ties with the wider global community so it can reject as irrelevant any external criticism of its activities that breach human rights. Thus it plans to repeal the Human Rights Act. If its promised replacement is meant to offer more rather than less protection for human rights, there is not the slightest evidence for it. Significantly this is happening when the Conservative Government policies to cut support for vulnerable people are being investigated by the UN for the “systemic and grave violations” of disabled people’s human rights [Note 5]. People’s rights to organise to seek better economic treatment are also under further threat as the Conservatives plan to outlaw strike actions by unions unless they are backed by at least 40% of those eligible to vote in those unions – a threshold that if applied to the government would mean that it cannot carry out any action since its manifesto is backed by far less than 40% of those eligible to vote in the country.
5. Destabilised Sovereignty
The Conservative leadership, despite its party’s historical role in taking the UK into what became the European Union, has sought to undermine the electoral prospects of anti-European rivals by promising a referendum on British membership of the EU. But just as England’s sovereign power was enhanced through union with Scotland, the UK’s membership of the EU confers greater strength when the world is geopolitically dominated by continental blocks. To commit to a referendum when the terms of what would amount to a revised deal the Conservative Government would support remain unclear, and when the uncertainty undermines confidence in UK’s future connections with the rest of Europe, is unwise at best, and reckless at worst. Even Margaret Thatcher, who was hardly enamoured with the EU, warned against using the crude mechanism of a referendum to decide on a major constitutional issue such as UK’s membership of the EU (see: ‘Thatcher, Europe & Referendum’). Ironically, when it comes to what can seriously undermine British sovereignty, namely the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) – which would give power to American corporations to sue the UK for enacting laws to protect British people if it can be argued that such laws would reduce the profits those companies might otherwise make – the Conservative Government is happy to keep discussions secret and offer British citizens no opportunity to scrutinise the pros and cons of TTIP.
All the above threats against our democratic heritage should be opposed, and the core issues subject to an independent constitutional review. It is fair to say, in homage to Ms Austen, that we should be ever sensible of the warmest gratitude we owe towards a constitutional tradition that, by bringing justice into government, has been the means of uniting them.
Let us not allow this precious union to be put asunder.
--
Note 1: The number of Lords eligible to attend the House of Lords went up from 706 in 2010 to 791 before the May election 2015; and up to 821 after the May 2015 election; an accumulative increase of 115, or 16%.
Note 2: See, for example, on private healthcare firms: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/healthcare-companies-links-tories-nhs-contracts; and on hedge funds: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/05/conservatives-bankrolled-hedge-fund-managers
Note 3: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6989408/Andrew-Lansley-bankrolled-by-private-healthcare-provider.html
Note 4: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/20/andrew-lansley-advise-firms-healthcare-reforms
Note 5: http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/confirmed-un-is-investigating-uks-grave-violations-of-disabled-peoples-rights/
Sunday, 15 November 2015
The ‘All-or-Nothing Fallacy’ of Polarised Politics
Political discussions are too often misdirected, intentionally or otherwise, to fall down the hole of the All-or-Nothing Fallacy.
Here are just a few examples:
• You either punish every accused (innocent or not) so not a single guilty one will get away, or you may as well let every guilty person go free.
• You either pay everyone the same, or you leave pay differences alone.
• You either distrust everything connected with law enforcement agencies, or deem those agencies as totally beyond reproach.
• You either condone all verbal attacks on practices carried out in the name of religion, or you forbid them all without exception.
• You either impose rules on people without them having any say, or you have to allow them to do as they please.
• You either back every proposed armed intervention against foreign targets, or you are unreservedly against the military establishment.
There are countless more such examples to be found in heated arguments or coldly calculated propaganda. Isolated in their bare form, they are easy to spot, but fired off in the midst of claims and counter-claims, they can imperceptibly trap the unsuspecting into one corner or another.
The underlying problem is that nuanced analysis has been marginalised as ‘fence sitting’, ‘lack of assertiveness’, or even ‘muddled thinking’. Having ADS (attention deficit syndrome) at a societal level means that in public debates and private conversations there is now considerable peer pressure to respond to simplistic depictions of political issues, not by challenging them and setting out the variety of possible solutions, but by seizing one of the extreme options with dogmatic gusto.
Those of us involved in political education can play a part in tackling this problem in at least four ways. First, we can make explicit the false dichotomies every time some form of All-or-Nothing Fallacy is slipped into a political discussion. Secondly, we can promote the approach of cooperative problem-solving that has evolved from the deliberations of many leading thinkers and practitioners as a highly reliable way to explore contested issues and resolve disagreement (see: ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’). Thirdly, we can raise wider awareness that while debating may help to develop certain skills and serve to formulate a few relevant arguments, it is a mistake to focus on it as ‘the’ format for exchanging and examining political ideas. In many cases, it merely reinforces the misleading impression that a complex issue can be reduced to a crude ‘either/or’, and that one must back one or the other without assessing other options.
Last but not least, we should sustain a critique of the routine polarisation of policy options deployed by many in the media. Instead of assuming every problem is to be dealt with by some All-or-Nothing proposal with proponents divided into opposite camps, news editors and presenters should learn to facilitate cooperative enquiries where the solution comes from more sophisticated exploration of what on balance may achieve the desired outcomes more effectively than other variants. Commentators may achieve more by being tasked with working out shared positions rather than just goaded into attacking each other [1].
--
[1] This is not to say that some issues should not be tackled by cross-examination by opposing sides, or by a narrowly focused investigation. But only another invocation of an All-or-Nothing Fallacy would suggest that such techniques are never to be used if they are not always used.
Here are just a few examples:
• You either punish every accused (innocent or not) so not a single guilty one will get away, or you may as well let every guilty person go free.
• You either pay everyone the same, or you leave pay differences alone.
• You either distrust everything connected with law enforcement agencies, or deem those agencies as totally beyond reproach.
• You either condone all verbal attacks on practices carried out in the name of religion, or you forbid them all without exception.
• You either impose rules on people without them having any say, or you have to allow them to do as they please.
• You either back every proposed armed intervention against foreign targets, or you are unreservedly against the military establishment.
There are countless more such examples to be found in heated arguments or coldly calculated propaganda. Isolated in their bare form, they are easy to spot, but fired off in the midst of claims and counter-claims, they can imperceptibly trap the unsuspecting into one corner or another.
The underlying problem is that nuanced analysis has been marginalised as ‘fence sitting’, ‘lack of assertiveness’, or even ‘muddled thinking’. Having ADS (attention deficit syndrome) at a societal level means that in public debates and private conversations there is now considerable peer pressure to respond to simplistic depictions of political issues, not by challenging them and setting out the variety of possible solutions, but by seizing one of the extreme options with dogmatic gusto.
Those of us involved in political education can play a part in tackling this problem in at least four ways. First, we can make explicit the false dichotomies every time some form of All-or-Nothing Fallacy is slipped into a political discussion. Secondly, we can promote the approach of cooperative problem-solving that has evolved from the deliberations of many leading thinkers and practitioners as a highly reliable way to explore contested issues and resolve disagreement (see: ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’). Thirdly, we can raise wider awareness that while debating may help to develop certain skills and serve to formulate a few relevant arguments, it is a mistake to focus on it as ‘the’ format for exchanging and examining political ideas. In many cases, it merely reinforces the misleading impression that a complex issue can be reduced to a crude ‘either/or’, and that one must back one or the other without assessing other options.
Last but not least, we should sustain a critique of the routine polarisation of policy options deployed by many in the media. Instead of assuming every problem is to be dealt with by some All-or-Nothing proposal with proponents divided into opposite camps, news editors and presenters should learn to facilitate cooperative enquiries where the solution comes from more sophisticated exploration of what on balance may achieve the desired outcomes more effectively than other variants. Commentators may achieve more by being tasked with working out shared positions rather than just goaded into attacking each other [1].
--
[1] This is not to say that some issues should not be tackled by cross-examination by opposing sides, or by a narrowly focused investigation. But only another invocation of an All-or-Nothing Fallacy would suggest that such techniques are never to be used if they are not always used.
Sunday, 1 November 2015
Synetopia: progress through cooperation
Advocates for progressive improvement, from the Enlightenment philosophers [1] to later cooperative and communitarian reformists [2], have been perennially challenged on two flanks. Militant radicals mock them for wasting time over a supposedly utopian dream. Cynical reactionaries misrepresent them as the progenitors of dystopian nightmares
In reality, what progressive thinkers have been helping to develop can be expressed in the notion of ‘synetopia’ – a place where people cooperate together on the basis of objective reasoning and mutual respect to work out how to improve their wellbeing as individuals and as a community.
Synetopia is not an idealised place that is founded on the hoped-for kindness of all who dwell within, nor is it an ideological system that is to be imposed unkindly on everyone without exception. It is a model for human interactions that over time has helped to open our eyes to specific societal problems to be overcome, and potential collaboration that can bring about better outcomes for all concerned.
Based on the critical iteration of progressive thinkers from the Enlightenment on, the model can be outlined with reference to nine key proposals that enable any group of people to come together to achieve more than they can on their own. The extent to which these are taken forward in practice serves to indicate how far synetopia is being realised for any given group of people at the local, national or global level. Set out below are the nine proposals, which for mnemonic reason, are listed under headings, each of which begins with a letter that will together with the others spell out ‘SYNETOPIA’:
Shared Mission
All members of the group should have a shared understanding of their common mission or purpose. The group should be effectively and visibly organised to enable its members to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
You-and-I Mutuality
Instead of ‘Me’-centred individualism or ‘We-subsume-all’ collectivism, there should be genuine mutuality in distributing the benefits and burden connected with the group, and none should amass what comes from the group’s joint endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Nimble Membership
There should be a transparent and responsive membership system that underpins who is brought into the group or excluded from it, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the group and its members.
Educative Collaboration
All member of the group should be enabled to share ideas, learn through collaborative exchanges, and have lifelong opportunities to study, formulate and discuss interpretations of the world as well as ideas for change.
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group should make sure no claim or assumption is privileged as unquestionable. It should subject all doctrines and findings to continuous testing, and revise them in the light of the latest evidence.
Open Access to Information
There should be open access so nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared. Processes to detect and expose deception should be in place, and demands for secrecy must be independently scrutinised for their legitimacy.
Participatory Decision-Making
The group should enable and encourage all members to participate as equals in the making of decisions that affect them, and ensure everyone can contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
Impartial Distribution of Power
The distribution of power should be monitored and where necessary revised to minimise the likelihood that an individual or an alliance of them can come to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
Accountability for Action
All members, especially those entrusted with the authority to act on behalf of the group, must be held accountable for any action against individual members or the wider interest of the group. Disputes over charges should be resolved through independent mechanisms and judgements carried out in accordance with the rules.
Details of these nine SYNETOPIA proposals can be found amongst the leading progressive writers, and they constitute the core elements of the effective governance of any neighbourhood, business, or national community [3]. There is no need to remain shackled by the false dichotomy of either sceptically abstaining from backing any form of social development or dogmatically throwing one’s lot behind some arbitrary doctrine. History has taught us that there is a practical approach to question the way we live, explore alternatives, and test out improvements through sustained cooperation [4]. It is the path that leads to synetopia.
--
[1] The following books are recommended to attain a better understanding of the Enlightenment and its key proponents:
Blom, Philipp: ‘A Wicked Company: the forgotten radicalism of the European Enlightenment’.
Bronner, Stephen Eric: ‘Reclaiming the Enlightenment’
Commager, Henry Steele: ‘The Empire of Reason: how Europe imagined and America realized the Enlightenment’;
Gay, Peter: ‘The Enlightenment: an interpretation’;
Hampson, Norman: ‘The Enlightenment’;
Israel, Jonathan: ‘Democratic Enlightenment’;
McMahon, Darrin M.: ‘Enemies of the Enlightenment’;
Porter, Roy: ‘Enlightenment: Britain and the creation of the modern world’.
[2] For a background piece on communitarian thinkers, see: ‘Communitarians: an introduction’.
[3] For a more extensive look at the elements of good governance, see: ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’. (For specific advice in relation to peer production and commons economy, see: Michel Bauwens’ ‘The Ten Commandments of Peer Production and Commons Economics’).
[4] For a short history on the struggle to challenge power inequalities and develop more inclusive communities, see ‘Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle’.
In reality, what progressive thinkers have been helping to develop can be expressed in the notion of ‘synetopia’ – a place where people cooperate together on the basis of objective reasoning and mutual respect to work out how to improve their wellbeing as individuals and as a community.
Synetopia is not an idealised place that is founded on the hoped-for kindness of all who dwell within, nor is it an ideological system that is to be imposed unkindly on everyone without exception. It is a model for human interactions that over time has helped to open our eyes to specific societal problems to be overcome, and potential collaboration that can bring about better outcomes for all concerned.
Based on the critical iteration of progressive thinkers from the Enlightenment on, the model can be outlined with reference to nine key proposals that enable any group of people to come together to achieve more than they can on their own. The extent to which these are taken forward in practice serves to indicate how far synetopia is being realised for any given group of people at the local, national or global level. Set out below are the nine proposals, which for mnemonic reason, are listed under headings, each of which begins with a letter that will together with the others spell out ‘SYNETOPIA’:
Shared Mission
All members of the group should have a shared understanding of their common mission or purpose. The group should be effectively and visibly organised to enable its members to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
You-and-I Mutuality
Instead of ‘Me’-centred individualism or ‘We-subsume-all’ collectivism, there should be genuine mutuality in distributing the benefits and burden connected with the group, and none should amass what comes from the group’s joint endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Nimble Membership
There should be a transparent and responsive membership system that underpins who is brought into the group or excluded from it, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the group and its members.
Educative Collaboration
All member of the group should be enabled to share ideas, learn through collaborative exchanges, and have lifelong opportunities to study, formulate and discuss interpretations of the world as well as ideas for change.
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group should make sure no claim or assumption is privileged as unquestionable. It should subject all doctrines and findings to continuous testing, and revise them in the light of the latest evidence.
Open Access to Information
There should be open access so nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared. Processes to detect and expose deception should be in place, and demands for secrecy must be independently scrutinised for their legitimacy.
Participatory Decision-Making
The group should enable and encourage all members to participate as equals in the making of decisions that affect them, and ensure everyone can contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
Impartial Distribution of Power
The distribution of power should be monitored and where necessary revised to minimise the likelihood that an individual or an alliance of them can come to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
Accountability for Action
All members, especially those entrusted with the authority to act on behalf of the group, must be held accountable for any action against individual members or the wider interest of the group. Disputes over charges should be resolved through independent mechanisms and judgements carried out in accordance with the rules.
Details of these nine SYNETOPIA proposals can be found amongst the leading progressive writers, and they constitute the core elements of the effective governance of any neighbourhood, business, or national community [3]. There is no need to remain shackled by the false dichotomy of either sceptically abstaining from backing any form of social development or dogmatically throwing one’s lot behind some arbitrary doctrine. History has taught us that there is a practical approach to question the way we live, explore alternatives, and test out improvements through sustained cooperation [4]. It is the path that leads to synetopia.
--
[1] The following books are recommended to attain a better understanding of the Enlightenment and its key proponents:
Blom, Philipp: ‘A Wicked Company: the forgotten radicalism of the European Enlightenment’.
Bronner, Stephen Eric: ‘Reclaiming the Enlightenment’
Commager, Henry Steele: ‘The Empire of Reason: how Europe imagined and America realized the Enlightenment’;
Gay, Peter: ‘The Enlightenment: an interpretation’;
Hampson, Norman: ‘The Enlightenment’;
Israel, Jonathan: ‘Democratic Enlightenment’;
McMahon, Darrin M.: ‘Enemies of the Enlightenment’;
Porter, Roy: ‘Enlightenment: Britain and the creation of the modern world’.
[2] For a background piece on communitarian thinkers, see: ‘Communitarians: an introduction’.
[3] For a more extensive look at the elements of good governance, see: ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’. (For specific advice in relation to peer production and commons economy, see: Michel Bauwens’ ‘The Ten Commandments of Peer Production and Commons Economics’).
[4] For a short history on the struggle to challenge power inequalities and develop more inclusive communities, see ‘Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)