Many people who champion liberal, progressive causes seem to believe that a written constitution is something we should call for.
But while one may hope that a written constitution will spell out exactly what from a progressive perspective should be carried out or forbidden, and enshrine the highest commitment to ensure that no violation will be permitted, there is no guarantee that this will happen in practice. A written constitution could just as easily codify ideas and practices that are ambiguous or potentially undesirable.
What if we have a written constitution that rules out any organised action by workers to challenge their employers; forbids interracial or gay marriage; grants immunity from prosecution to anyone who can pay a large fee to the state; or gives one supreme leader the unquestionable power to order the execution of any individual that leader declares to be a dangerous enemy?
Who is to say a written constitution will encapsulate our aspirations as opposed to what authoritarians and plutocrats want?
It is often suggested that the task of drafting a written constitution should be given to some form of citizens’ assembly, whereby a demographically representative group of randomly selected citizens will deliberate and formulate what should be included in a written constitution. Yet even if such a process could be secured, with impartial facilitation and expert guidance, and a set of proposals were to emerge, who is to be given the authority to deem the proposals sound and adopt the draft constitution formally?
Should the existing legislature make the decision? If that is done on the basis of a simple majority, the provisions can in future be overturned by a simple majority; in which case, the written constitution would be as readily amendable as any ordinary law. Or, one can insist that the adoption of the constitution (and any future revision) must be by a special majority (e.g., two thirds, four fifths) in the legislature, but either that is uniquely binding (in which case, the question arises as to why this special majority threshold should be respected; and to argue that it is set out in the draft constitution would simply be begging the question); if not, the very clause relating to special majority can itself be made void by the legislature repealing it with a simple majority.
Another possibility would be to put the draft constitution to a referendum. But we have seen how without proper safeguards, the holding of a referendum simply opens the door to mass deception, law-breaking that corrupts the voting process, and on-going distortion of what option is allegedly selected when none of the options is ever clearly explained in a binding manner. In the absence of due process and adequate enforcement, data manipulators and authoritarian propagandists can ‘win’ a referendum for the most oppressive constitution, and proclaim that all citizens must accept it as legitimate.
Finally, even if a seemingly sensible constitution is adopted, we have the issue of interpretation and revision to deal with. Laws are subject to interpretations that are tested in court and can be altered by the legislature on a simple majority. But any clause in a written constitution is accorded a higher status, and instead of any dissatisfaction with the law being resolved by the elected members of the legislature, contention over what a given provision requires of us is to be settled by the most senior court of the land. In practice, as the experience of the US has shown, when it comes to hotly disputed issues, more often than not, the judges on the supreme court will vote in line with the political party of the President who put them on the court in the first place (which could have happened ten, twenty or more years ago). So, instead of key issues (such as gun control, corporate involvement in elections, abortion, etc) being determined by the current elected representatives of the people, they will be decided mostly by people appointed on a partisan basis by politicians who are very likely no longer in office.
This is not to say we should not have a written constitution. But before we invite a government led by someone like Boris Johnson or any other self-absorbed demagogue to produce one, we had better get some satisfactory answers to the problems flagged up above.
Tuesday, 1 October 2019
Sunday, 15 September 2019
Shameless Subversion: Con politics explained
In news commentary and academic writings, one still frequently comes across attempts to encapsulate Con politics as some kind of ideological doctrine that merits critical examination. Analysts and scholars try to compare the merits of Neo-Conservatism/Neo-Liberalism with progressive alternatives, and discuss them in connection with rival philosophical and economic theories. But that is simply falling for the Con.
Con politics is not an ideological doctrine at all. It is a manipulative strategy to win support and power to advance its advocates’ position and wealth. It has no coherence except for an underlying focus on saying anything – regardless of their vacuity, incompatibility with other things said, harmfulness, or untenability – so long as it can help to deceive more people into backing its quest for political power.
Let us look at a few examples.
Con politics pretends to be religious, to be on the side of God. But its ‘God’ is a mask for hatred and intolerance. When sacred texts enjoin people to love their neighbours and care for strangers, they ignore them in favour of self-styled preachers who spread venom against the weak and vulnerable instead. When the Pope or an imam speaks out against bigotry and violence, they are dismissed as unrepresentative of the ‘true’ faith. Con politicians have no real religious integrity, just a readiness to invoke ‘God’ arbitrarily to justify whatever nasty rhetoric and policy they want to run with.
Con politics positions itself as being supremely concerned with security, but it promotes the spread of weapons at the domestic and global level so that insecurity grows, and more money can be made for the makers and sellers of weapons from handguns to missiles. In the name of security, it also calls for mass surveillance and intrusion into citizens’ privacy, except for its wealthy supporters who can keep their offshore accounts secret.
Security is swiftly thrown overboard when liberty can be shouted out as the ultimate value. Freedom from government control is the cover given for irresponsible businesses selling unsafe products, exploiting workers, and polluting the environment. Freedom of speech is the cover given for spreading lies and hate-mongering. Adam Smith is deified and his writings, like those of any ‘divine’ texts, are misinterpreted and selectively quoted to create the myth of the ‘free’ market devoid of Smith’s advocacy for appropriate government intervention.
Freedom from state intrusion is in turn jettisoned whenever it fits with the latest Con trick. It proclaims the need to keep government at bay, except when it comes to preventing women from making abortion decisions, sentencing people to death on the basis of trial procedures which are flawed, or punishing people for wanting to end their days of terminal illness with unendurable pain.
The Con cloaks itself with the flag and false patriotism. It talks about the country’s greatness even as it pushes for diminished support for the health and education of citizens. It condemns the poor, homeless, disabled as people who have not made enough of an effort to help themselves. It sends young men and women to fight and die on foreign soil while it concocts excuses for its rich advocates to stay out of military duties.
Above all, it embraces fascist sentiments and attacks its critics as ‘fascists’; it pumps out fabrications by the hour and denounces those who expose its deceptiveness as purveyors of ‘fake news’; and it shrugs off public accountability while censures honourable people who challenge them as ‘enemies of the people’.
Con politics is a shameless subversion of all that is good and decent in society. No one should waste time on discerning what doctrine it espouses. Just expose it as the Con that it is from beginning to end.
Con politics is not an ideological doctrine at all. It is a manipulative strategy to win support and power to advance its advocates’ position and wealth. It has no coherence except for an underlying focus on saying anything – regardless of their vacuity, incompatibility with other things said, harmfulness, or untenability – so long as it can help to deceive more people into backing its quest for political power.
Let us look at a few examples.
Con politics pretends to be religious, to be on the side of God. But its ‘God’ is a mask for hatred and intolerance. When sacred texts enjoin people to love their neighbours and care for strangers, they ignore them in favour of self-styled preachers who spread venom against the weak and vulnerable instead. When the Pope or an imam speaks out against bigotry and violence, they are dismissed as unrepresentative of the ‘true’ faith. Con politicians have no real religious integrity, just a readiness to invoke ‘God’ arbitrarily to justify whatever nasty rhetoric and policy they want to run with.
Con politics positions itself as being supremely concerned with security, but it promotes the spread of weapons at the domestic and global level so that insecurity grows, and more money can be made for the makers and sellers of weapons from handguns to missiles. In the name of security, it also calls for mass surveillance and intrusion into citizens’ privacy, except for its wealthy supporters who can keep their offshore accounts secret.
Security is swiftly thrown overboard when liberty can be shouted out as the ultimate value. Freedom from government control is the cover given for irresponsible businesses selling unsafe products, exploiting workers, and polluting the environment. Freedom of speech is the cover given for spreading lies and hate-mongering. Adam Smith is deified and his writings, like those of any ‘divine’ texts, are misinterpreted and selectively quoted to create the myth of the ‘free’ market devoid of Smith’s advocacy for appropriate government intervention.
Freedom from state intrusion is in turn jettisoned whenever it fits with the latest Con trick. It proclaims the need to keep government at bay, except when it comes to preventing women from making abortion decisions, sentencing people to death on the basis of trial procedures which are flawed, or punishing people for wanting to end their days of terminal illness with unendurable pain.
The Con cloaks itself with the flag and false patriotism. It talks about the country’s greatness even as it pushes for diminished support for the health and education of citizens. It condemns the poor, homeless, disabled as people who have not made enough of an effort to help themselves. It sends young men and women to fight and die on foreign soil while it concocts excuses for its rich advocates to stay out of military duties.
Above all, it embraces fascist sentiments and attacks its critics as ‘fascists’; it pumps out fabrications by the hour and denounces those who expose its deceptiveness as purveyors of ‘fake news’; and it shrugs off public accountability while censures honourable people who challenge them as ‘enemies of the people’.
Con politics is a shameless subversion of all that is good and decent in society. No one should waste time on discerning what doctrine it espouses. Just expose it as the Con that it is from beginning to end.
Sunday, 1 September 2019
Where is the Jobs Manifesto?
Politicians are increasingly divided into two camps. On the one side there are those who are convinced that they can win power by stirring up xenophobia – build a wall to keep Mexicans out; scream for Brexit to keep EU citizens out; blame immigrants for everything. On the other side there are those who frown on such xenophobic manipulations, and want to take power away from their champions. Unfortunately, the second group have been so concerned with exposing the egoism and deceit of jingoistic charlatans that they have forgotten to address what citizens most need from their political leaders – a manifesto for jobs.
Jobs are important not only because they enable people to meet their basic needs in terms of sustenance and shelter, but they also hold the key to giving people a sense of identity, self-respect, and autonomy. We all want to make a difference, to contribute to something bigger than ourselves, to be recognised as being ready to shoulder responsibilities for the wellbeing of others.
While xenophobic demagogues have been spreading their lies and fanning hatred, the crisis of low pay and job insecurity continues to worsen. The best way to defeat them is to deal with the underlying socio-economic problem of precarious employment. A political commitment to generate decent job opportunities for all is what is urgently called for. And in case anyone thinks that is not possible, here are at least four things that can be done.
First, place a legal obligation on firms profiting from the spread of labour-displacement technology to invest in training for workers to take up roles in companies that focus on quality personal service, and in business development support for enterprises with such a focus. Secondly, provide advice and start-up investment for the setting up and growth of worker cooperatives, and offer guidance on protection from demutualisation. Thirdly, tackle staffing shortages in key public services such as health, education, policing, and housing with a sustained programme of training, recruitment, and retention. Fourthly, give backing to local development projects where local service and employment needs are prioritised through devolved management, and day-to-day personal contact and relationships are appreciated in preference to automated communications that are remote and unresponsive.
There are many progressive economists, community finance pioneers, and experienced strategists for sustainable employment who can refine and expand on these and other ideas. Although it is important to unmask the con perpetrated by xenophobic ‘populists’, the battle for prosperity and decency cannot be won unless the spectre of precarious employment is cast away.
If we want people to turn away from scoundrels and hatemongers, we must come up with a robust and unequivocal manifesto for jobs.
Jobs are important not only because they enable people to meet their basic needs in terms of sustenance and shelter, but they also hold the key to giving people a sense of identity, self-respect, and autonomy. We all want to make a difference, to contribute to something bigger than ourselves, to be recognised as being ready to shoulder responsibilities for the wellbeing of others.
While xenophobic demagogues have been spreading their lies and fanning hatred, the crisis of low pay and job insecurity continues to worsen. The best way to defeat them is to deal with the underlying socio-economic problem of precarious employment. A political commitment to generate decent job opportunities for all is what is urgently called for. And in case anyone thinks that is not possible, here are at least four things that can be done.
First, place a legal obligation on firms profiting from the spread of labour-displacement technology to invest in training for workers to take up roles in companies that focus on quality personal service, and in business development support for enterprises with such a focus. Secondly, provide advice and start-up investment for the setting up and growth of worker cooperatives, and offer guidance on protection from demutualisation. Thirdly, tackle staffing shortages in key public services such as health, education, policing, and housing with a sustained programme of training, recruitment, and retention. Fourthly, give backing to local development projects where local service and employment needs are prioritised through devolved management, and day-to-day personal contact and relationships are appreciated in preference to automated communications that are remote and unresponsive.
There are many progressive economists, community finance pioneers, and experienced strategists for sustainable employment who can refine and expand on these and other ideas. Although it is important to unmask the con perpetrated by xenophobic ‘populists’, the battle for prosperity and decency cannot be won unless the spectre of precarious employment is cast away.
If we want people to turn away from scoundrels and hatemongers, we must come up with a robust and unequivocal manifesto for jobs.
Thursday, 15 August 2019
The Art of Political Criticism: an educator’s guide
One of the most difficult and yet indispensable life-skills to instil in citizens is the art of political criticism. It is dangerous for people to accept everything they are told without question by those in power. But it is just as risky to reject whatever is put forward without giving it due consideration. Knowing how to scrutinise political claims in a coherent and effective manner is a vital part of being a responsible citizen.
Educators may find it useful to approach the task through five learning routes:
[1] Grasping Key Concepts
At the roots of most flawed arguments and attempts at misdirection are inappropriate uses of key concepts. Notions such as ‘freedom’, ‘rights’, ‘responsibility’, ‘democracy, are often taken to imply certain general principles which are in fact quite unfounded. Freedom, for example, is something we value, but not if it becomes a licence for people to act in callous and harmful ways towards others. Democracy is a much-needed form of governance, but it is not obtained merely by a majority vote if misinformation and corruption influence voting intentions. Educators should ensure key political concepts are widely understood.
[2] Reviewing Historical Perspectives
What happened in the past can often be highly relevant to what society should do now and in the future. But that relevance is only discerned through proper interpretation of the causes and consequences of different events. Dwelling on some events while ignoring others, or distorting the reasons behind notable successes or failings, would only lead to misunderstanding or mistakes being repeated. Educators should be equipped to cite balanced historical accounts, and facilitate learning of the critical lessons that are still applicable today.
[3] Identifying Practical Options
One of the biggest challenges for political educators is how citizens can take part in the decision-making of government institutions when there are so many seemingly insuperable obstacles. Whatever democracy may suggest in theory, it is often felt that in practice members of the public will seldom be able to have any meaningful say at all. It is up to educators to draw attention to the many successful approaches and examples of deliberative engagement and state-citizen cooperation, and promote their adoption in all spheres of civic life.
[4] Cultivating Critical Challenges
Demagogues seeking power and many of those who have already gained high office, are adept at rhetoric that makes the most dubious claims sound rousing and convincing. It takes the development of a critical mindset to see through such claims without falling into some form of ‘we-can’t-believe-anything’ scepticism. It is incumbent on educators to inculcate the disposition and ability to question the powerful in a logical and objective manner, appreciating what expertise and evidence can be relied on, and what unwarranted claims to discard.
[5] Exploring Alternative Futures
Imagination can be an important tool in bringing out what people may otherwise overlook. Misplaced complacency on the one hand, and mind-numbing saturation with negative news on the other, could leave many oblivious to the threats posed by plutocracy and fundamentalism. Dystopian literature helps to highlight what may otherwise be overlooked. Educators should facilitate the exploration and discussion of stories that dramatically present the kind of political outlook and social structures that everyone should seek to avert.
--
For a short guide to Henry Tam’s learning resources relating to the Art of Political Criticism, click on: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-art-of-political-criticism.html
Educators may find it useful to approach the task through five learning routes:
[1] Grasping Key Concepts
At the roots of most flawed arguments and attempts at misdirection are inappropriate uses of key concepts. Notions such as ‘freedom’, ‘rights’, ‘responsibility’, ‘democracy, are often taken to imply certain general principles which are in fact quite unfounded. Freedom, for example, is something we value, but not if it becomes a licence for people to act in callous and harmful ways towards others. Democracy is a much-needed form of governance, but it is not obtained merely by a majority vote if misinformation and corruption influence voting intentions. Educators should ensure key political concepts are widely understood.
[2] Reviewing Historical Perspectives
What happened in the past can often be highly relevant to what society should do now and in the future. But that relevance is only discerned through proper interpretation of the causes and consequences of different events. Dwelling on some events while ignoring others, or distorting the reasons behind notable successes or failings, would only lead to misunderstanding or mistakes being repeated. Educators should be equipped to cite balanced historical accounts, and facilitate learning of the critical lessons that are still applicable today.
[3] Identifying Practical Options
One of the biggest challenges for political educators is how citizens can take part in the decision-making of government institutions when there are so many seemingly insuperable obstacles. Whatever democracy may suggest in theory, it is often felt that in practice members of the public will seldom be able to have any meaningful say at all. It is up to educators to draw attention to the many successful approaches and examples of deliberative engagement and state-citizen cooperation, and promote their adoption in all spheres of civic life.
[4] Cultivating Critical Challenges
Demagogues seeking power and many of those who have already gained high office, are adept at rhetoric that makes the most dubious claims sound rousing and convincing. It takes the development of a critical mindset to see through such claims without falling into some form of ‘we-can’t-believe-anything’ scepticism. It is incumbent on educators to inculcate the disposition and ability to question the powerful in a logical and objective manner, appreciating what expertise and evidence can be relied on, and what unwarranted claims to discard.
[5] Exploring Alternative Futures
Imagination can be an important tool in bringing out what people may otherwise overlook. Misplaced complacency on the one hand, and mind-numbing saturation with negative news on the other, could leave many oblivious to the threats posed by plutocracy and fundamentalism. Dystopian literature helps to highlight what may otherwise be overlooked. Educators should facilitate the exploration and discussion of stories that dramatically present the kind of political outlook and social structures that everyone should seek to avert.
--
For a short guide to Henry Tam’s learning resources relating to the Art of Political Criticism, click on: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-art-of-political-criticism.html
Thursday, 1 August 2019
The Stoic-Epicurean Resolution
How are we to navigate the vicissitudes of life? On the one hand, Stoic philosophy is often presented as directing us to fulfil our public duties and lead a solemn, simplistic existence. On the other hand, Epicurean ideas are supposed to guide us towards the quest for private pleasures, away from the wider turmoil of society.
But this apparent dichotomous choice is a false one. On closer examination, what Stoic and Epicurean thinkers put forward actually fit into a single coherent ethos. The starting point is what will bring us fulfilment – that state of being which we would be content and happy to attain. Stoics come at this by setting out what everyone must do for the conditions to be in place for each to find fulfilment. For example, we should not harm others, but defend one another from aggressors; we should respect other people, and treat all on honest, reciprocal terms. It follows that there are public duties that should be upheld by all if each is to find fulfilment. Epicureans come at this by reminding us that nobody who neglects one’s own wellbeing can ever truly experience a fulfilled life. For example, we should not damage our own health, but nurture it; we should evaluate our desires, and pursue only those that are realistic and would not undermine our longer-term happiness.
Together, the Stoic-Epicurean approach leads us to take a holistic view about what we should do in relation to both ourselves and others, and consider the long term as well as short term implications. Strategic thinking and impulse control are vital. There is no room for insatiable chasing after pleasures, power, fame, wealth, or anything that may directly or indirectly ruin the chances of attaining a fulfilled existence. Moderation, consideration, cooperation are key ingredients in cultivating the collective and personal conditions for living a genuinely satisfying life.
If one can make a difference in strengthening the social and political structure needed for such cultivation, one must act on one’s public duty. If circumstances are such that one would have no real opportunity to influence wider trends and outcomes, then one should sensibly focus on the more limited sphere within which one can shape the course of events.
The assessment of desires, personal aptitudes, social arrangements, scope for development, and options for action and abstention, should be guided – and here Stoics and Epicureans are at one – not by superstitions, dogmas, rash assumptions, or flawed reasoning, but by the systematic application of logic, evidential findings, and experimental learning. Wisdom, grounded on critical thinking and practical examination, will thus help us decide how we should live.
But what about the Stoic respect for ‘God’ and the Epicurean dismissal of divine causes? There is actually no contradiction between the Stoic ‘God’ as the totality of nature and the Epicurean notion of nature as the ultimate foundation of all existence and meaning. By whatever name we call it, nature interacts with us as we seek to make the most of the life we have. We need to study and understand nature, and recognise that it has no volition of its own to grant us wishes or thwart our pursuits. There is nothing beyond nature, and we must develop plans and solutions in line with nature if we are to attain a life worth living.
But this apparent dichotomous choice is a false one. On closer examination, what Stoic and Epicurean thinkers put forward actually fit into a single coherent ethos. The starting point is what will bring us fulfilment – that state of being which we would be content and happy to attain. Stoics come at this by setting out what everyone must do for the conditions to be in place for each to find fulfilment. For example, we should not harm others, but defend one another from aggressors; we should respect other people, and treat all on honest, reciprocal terms. It follows that there are public duties that should be upheld by all if each is to find fulfilment. Epicureans come at this by reminding us that nobody who neglects one’s own wellbeing can ever truly experience a fulfilled life. For example, we should not damage our own health, but nurture it; we should evaluate our desires, and pursue only those that are realistic and would not undermine our longer-term happiness.
Together, the Stoic-Epicurean approach leads us to take a holistic view about what we should do in relation to both ourselves and others, and consider the long term as well as short term implications. Strategic thinking and impulse control are vital. There is no room for insatiable chasing after pleasures, power, fame, wealth, or anything that may directly or indirectly ruin the chances of attaining a fulfilled existence. Moderation, consideration, cooperation are key ingredients in cultivating the collective and personal conditions for living a genuinely satisfying life.
If one can make a difference in strengthening the social and political structure needed for such cultivation, one must act on one’s public duty. If circumstances are such that one would have no real opportunity to influence wider trends and outcomes, then one should sensibly focus on the more limited sphere within which one can shape the course of events.
The assessment of desires, personal aptitudes, social arrangements, scope for development, and options for action and abstention, should be guided – and here Stoics and Epicureans are at one – not by superstitions, dogmas, rash assumptions, or flawed reasoning, but by the systematic application of logic, evidential findings, and experimental learning. Wisdom, grounded on critical thinking and practical examination, will thus help us decide how we should live.
But what about the Stoic respect for ‘God’ and the Epicurean dismissal of divine causes? There is actually no contradiction between the Stoic ‘God’ as the totality of nature and the Epicurean notion of nature as the ultimate foundation of all existence and meaning. By whatever name we call it, nature interacts with us as we seek to make the most of the life we have. We need to study and understand nature, and recognise that it has no volition of its own to grant us wishes or thwart our pursuits. There is nothing beyond nature, and we must develop plans and solutions in line with nature if we are to attain a life worth living.
Monday, 15 July 2019
What to do about Manipulative Authoritarianism?
Despite the use of terms such as ‘populism’, ‘illiberalism’, or ‘neo-fascism’, the many related movements that are posing a serious threat to democracy are in essence all variants of ‘Manipulative Authoritarianism’.
Its tools are intimidation and marginalisation. It will wear any mask and exploit any theme that can help win them support, dressing up as patriots, traditionalists, champions of freedom, defenders of ‘democracy’ even, so long as it gets them more support to obtain more power to do whatever they want with fewer and fewer constraints.
Its ultimate enemy is democracy as a political culture which strives to enable society to work out in an informed and uncoerced manner what should or should not happen in the common interest of its members, and hold to account those who go against the agreed positions.
To counter manipulative authoritarianism, we need to identify where they are posing the greatest threats, and what counter-measures should be put in place.
Let us focus on four areas where the foundation of democracy is being most seriously corroded, and what actions must be urgently taken.
Objectivity
Democracy is not just about giving the people a say about what should happen, it is about giving them an informed say. And without an objective basis for distinguishing reliable info from fabrication, we become extremely vulnerable to deception. So we must:
Debunk absolutist rhetoric about ‘freedom of speech’; regulate against irresponsible communications; and set clear criteria to define the unacceptable promotion of hatred, lies, misleading stories, and intimidation.
Not allow political speech to be exempt; and legislate to give powers to disqualify candidates who deceive the public.
Establish legally recognised professional standards for journalists, scientific researchers, investigators in line with medical or engineers’ standards.
Accountability
Democracy is about enabling people to hold those with collective power to act on their behalf. Without proper accountability, political leaders can do what they want regardless of the consequences. So we must:
Put in constitutional protection of democratic institutions from those who seek to undermine them; and not allow people to stand for office with the professed aim of undermining/dismantling the democratic institution in question.
Strengthen rules on transparency and enforce them strictly against over-spending on campaign limits; financial impropriety; obstruction of justice; and support from foreign government.
Make punishment commensurate with seriousness of offences, e.g., removal from office for defined violations.
Inclusiveness
Democracy functions on the premise that everyone counts as equal as a fellow citizen. But anti-inclusion rhetoric and practices have spread without counter-measures put in place. So we must:
Facilitate cooperative culture and opportunities to meet, across cultural divides, age gaps, and any other superficial differences that are irrelevant to civic solidarity.
Increase deliberative and meaningful engagement (see, Whose Government is it?).
Reduce power gap, guarantee decent pay, and involve workers in setting pay differentials.
System Integrity
Democracy requires rules and procedures to facilitate decision-making that reflects people’s concerns and deliberations. But cunning manipulation of these rules and procedures can give unfair advantages to their supporters and exclude those they want to marginalise. So we must set up a Democracy Commission that will have the responsibility and the power to:
Scrutinise (and, if necessary, reject) proposals to bring in new barriers (e.g., Voter ID), constituency boundaries, or selectively lower the bar to suit one party (e.g., campaign finance limit).
Explore alternative voting systems, thresholds, procedures, campaign advertising etc. that may make electoral participation fairer.
Invalidate results where rules have been twisted or broken.
Its tools are intimidation and marginalisation. It will wear any mask and exploit any theme that can help win them support, dressing up as patriots, traditionalists, champions of freedom, defenders of ‘democracy’ even, so long as it gets them more support to obtain more power to do whatever they want with fewer and fewer constraints.
Its ultimate enemy is democracy as a political culture which strives to enable society to work out in an informed and uncoerced manner what should or should not happen in the common interest of its members, and hold to account those who go against the agreed positions.
To counter manipulative authoritarianism, we need to identify where they are posing the greatest threats, and what counter-measures should be put in place.
Let us focus on four areas where the foundation of democracy is being most seriously corroded, and what actions must be urgently taken.
Objectivity
Democracy is not just about giving the people a say about what should happen, it is about giving them an informed say. And without an objective basis for distinguishing reliable info from fabrication, we become extremely vulnerable to deception. So we must:
Debunk absolutist rhetoric about ‘freedom of speech’; regulate against irresponsible communications; and set clear criteria to define the unacceptable promotion of hatred, lies, misleading stories, and intimidation.
Not allow political speech to be exempt; and legislate to give powers to disqualify candidates who deceive the public.
Establish legally recognised professional standards for journalists, scientific researchers, investigators in line with medical or engineers’ standards.
Accountability
Democracy is about enabling people to hold those with collective power to act on their behalf. Without proper accountability, political leaders can do what they want regardless of the consequences. So we must:
Put in constitutional protection of democratic institutions from those who seek to undermine them; and not allow people to stand for office with the professed aim of undermining/dismantling the democratic institution in question.
Strengthen rules on transparency and enforce them strictly against over-spending on campaign limits; financial impropriety; obstruction of justice; and support from foreign government.
Make punishment commensurate with seriousness of offences, e.g., removal from office for defined violations.
Inclusiveness
Democracy functions on the premise that everyone counts as equal as a fellow citizen. But anti-inclusion rhetoric and practices have spread without counter-measures put in place. So we must:
Facilitate cooperative culture and opportunities to meet, across cultural divides, age gaps, and any other superficial differences that are irrelevant to civic solidarity.
Increase deliberative and meaningful engagement (see, Whose Government is it?).
Reduce power gap, guarantee decent pay, and involve workers in setting pay differentials.
System Integrity
Democracy requires rules and procedures to facilitate decision-making that reflects people’s concerns and deliberations. But cunning manipulation of these rules and procedures can give unfair advantages to their supporters and exclude those they want to marginalise. So we must set up a Democracy Commission that will have the responsibility and the power to:
Scrutinise (and, if necessary, reject) proposals to bring in new barriers (e.g., Voter ID), constituency boundaries, or selectively lower the bar to suit one party (e.g., campaign finance limit).
Explore alternative voting systems, thresholds, procedures, campaign advertising etc. that may make electoral participation fairer.
Invalidate results where rules have been twisted or broken.
Monday, 1 July 2019
Key Lessons on Power Inequality
History has taught us that power can take many forms – money, weapons, status, land, authority; and if any individual or group is allowed to amass much greater power than others, then the powerful elite is liable to act to the detriment of everyone else. Let us take four specific lessons from the past that have been instructive to this day.
First, even the most conservative-minded about the need for reducing inequalities domestically are quick to recognise that in international affairs, a balance of power is essential to guarantee good relations. If one country is becoming so powerful, or is forming a formidable alliance with another, that others are at risk of having to bow down to its demands, then something must be done to check its rise, or counter-alliances must be formed. This is reflected in diplomatic manoeuvres and military strategies through the ages. The only reason why some refuse to promote at home a principle they would wholeheartedly follow when dealing with others abroad, is that at home, they rather hope their own superior power would go unchallenged.
Secondly, from the overthrowing of kings by the Athenians and Romans, through the English Civil War and the French Revolution, to the rejection of colonial rule and military dictatorships since the Second World War, the pattern is clear. If a few could ‘take the throne’ by birth-right or belligerence, they would use their power to shield themselves from having to justify what they did to others who were subject to their whims and decisions. When leaders are only answerable to their private conscience or a god whose voice only they can hear, the danger of oppression is deep and permanent. But the system of absolute rule can be displaced, not just in relation to countries, but to businesses too, as worker-owned enterprises and multi-stakeholder cooperatives have demonstrated. The more those in charge have to count on the consent of those they oversee, the less likely they will treat the latter irresponsibly.
Thirdly, even if the route to the top is based on an open electoral process, there must be on-going checks and balances that can constrain, and if necessary, remove those in ruling positions. Louise Napoleon won the popular vote in France and made himself Emperor. The Nazis won seats in an election and proceeded to dismantle democracy in Germany. Without adequate power or dedication to keep watch over those who have taken control, misrule can quickly entrench itself. Democratic systems have to keep learning and improving so that public deception can be more effectively exposed, the power of money to buy political influence curtailed, and the abuse of power more swiftly detected and rectified. From national presidents to corporate CEOs, there can be no guarantee that they will not deliberately put their own interests above those of the people they have authority over, or make seriously erroneous judgements of what should be done. The only reliable redress is that they are subject to scrutiny that is backed by enforceable demands to make them step down as a last resort.
Finally, we must not forget the impact of power polarisation on social cohesion. When a powerful elite relentlessly elevate themselves to an ever higher level of power with attendant privileges and luxuries forever beyond the reach of others, their dismissive attitude towards the plight of everyone else corrodes all bonds of solidarity. The trajectories of the collapsing Roman Empire, the degenerative downfall of dynasties in China, the disintegration of the Ancien Regime, the intensifying sense of alienation amidst the widening inequalities today in the US, Europe, and more broadly, the global plutocratic society – all point to an unhappy ending, unless the power gap is narrowed between the have-not and have-lots.
--
[A longer version of this essay was previously published with the Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics]
Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle is available in e-book and paperback: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Power-Inequalities-progressive-struggle-ebook/dp/B00RQQYA5M/
First, even the most conservative-minded about the need for reducing inequalities domestically are quick to recognise that in international affairs, a balance of power is essential to guarantee good relations. If one country is becoming so powerful, or is forming a formidable alliance with another, that others are at risk of having to bow down to its demands, then something must be done to check its rise, or counter-alliances must be formed. This is reflected in diplomatic manoeuvres and military strategies through the ages. The only reason why some refuse to promote at home a principle they would wholeheartedly follow when dealing with others abroad, is that at home, they rather hope their own superior power would go unchallenged.
Secondly, from the overthrowing of kings by the Athenians and Romans, through the English Civil War and the French Revolution, to the rejection of colonial rule and military dictatorships since the Second World War, the pattern is clear. If a few could ‘take the throne’ by birth-right or belligerence, they would use their power to shield themselves from having to justify what they did to others who were subject to their whims and decisions. When leaders are only answerable to their private conscience or a god whose voice only they can hear, the danger of oppression is deep and permanent. But the system of absolute rule can be displaced, not just in relation to countries, but to businesses too, as worker-owned enterprises and multi-stakeholder cooperatives have demonstrated. The more those in charge have to count on the consent of those they oversee, the less likely they will treat the latter irresponsibly.
Thirdly, even if the route to the top is based on an open electoral process, there must be on-going checks and balances that can constrain, and if necessary, remove those in ruling positions. Louise Napoleon won the popular vote in France and made himself Emperor. The Nazis won seats in an election and proceeded to dismantle democracy in Germany. Without adequate power or dedication to keep watch over those who have taken control, misrule can quickly entrench itself. Democratic systems have to keep learning and improving so that public deception can be more effectively exposed, the power of money to buy political influence curtailed, and the abuse of power more swiftly detected and rectified. From national presidents to corporate CEOs, there can be no guarantee that they will not deliberately put their own interests above those of the people they have authority over, or make seriously erroneous judgements of what should be done. The only reliable redress is that they are subject to scrutiny that is backed by enforceable demands to make them step down as a last resort.
Finally, we must not forget the impact of power polarisation on social cohesion. When a powerful elite relentlessly elevate themselves to an ever higher level of power with attendant privileges and luxuries forever beyond the reach of others, their dismissive attitude towards the plight of everyone else corrodes all bonds of solidarity. The trajectories of the collapsing Roman Empire, the degenerative downfall of dynasties in China, the disintegration of the Ancien Regime, the intensifying sense of alienation amidst the widening inequalities today in the US, Europe, and more broadly, the global plutocratic society – all point to an unhappy ending, unless the power gap is narrowed between the have-not and have-lots.
--
[A longer version of this essay was previously published with the Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics]
Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle is available in e-book and paperback: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Power-Inequalities-progressive-struggle-ebook/dp/B00RQQYA5M/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)