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.

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/

Humpty Dumpty’s ‘Democracy’

“When I use a word,” said Humpty Dumpty (in Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass), “it means just what I choose it to mean.” And in this topsy-turvy world beloved of make-belief politics, no word is more prone to egoistic manipulation than ‘democracy’.

Since democracy is ultimately about the power of citizens to shape their own governance so that they would not be oppressed collectively or individually, it follows that any attempt by authoritarian wolves to cloak themselves with the appearance of ‘democracy’ is not going to stand up to serious scrutiny.

At the most basic level, democracy needs robust and transparent rules to operate. Otherwise, anyone can lie, intimidate, bribe, break the law to gain an illegitimate advantage in the electoral process, and claim to have a democratic mandate to rule.

Unfortunately, the Humpty-Dumpties around us seem to have been given a free pass these days to use the word ‘democracy’ in any way they like, regardless of how nonsensical they are being.

Listen to them defending as ‘democratic’ a referendum outcome that is produced by mass deception and systemic law-breaking. When their lies are exposed, the best they can say in response is “Everybody lies”. When their illegal activities are discovered, they insist that everyone else is biased against them.

Meanwhile, a new Prime Minister will be installed in the UK by 124,000 members of the Conservative Party, while the rest of the country’s 46.8 million registered voters will have no say whatsoever. If the House of Commons chooses to eject this leader with a vote of no confidence and call for a general election, be ready for cries of outrage against this affront on ‘democracy’ – as though 0.26% of voters should override MPs representing the whole electorate.

Under the ‘democratic’ system in the US, you can become President of the country by getting fewer votes from the people than your rival. Once in power, you can put your faith in the words of the Russian leader even though everyone else in high office back home has warned against Russian interference in American elections. If anyone is likely to expose any financial crime or deliberate obstruction of justice you may have committed, you dismiss them or appoint someone in a more senior position to sideline their findings.

Furthermore, in both the UK and the US, those who assume poor and minority ethnic people are more likely to vote against them, have turned to devising Photo ID requirements that will serve little purpose other than preventing these categories of citizens from voting. All in the name of defending ‘democracy’ [Note: the evidence has shown that voter fraud is actually few and far between].

If we value democracy, we can’t allow the word to be used by demagogues to mean whatever they choose it to mean. Humpty-Dumpties are full of themselves, but they too can fall – quite spectacularly.

Ask Grayling: the politics of chaos

Politics is meant to be the art of bringing people together, promoting harmony, and enabling people to work together to achieve what none individually could attain. But in the name of ‘politics’, some people practise the devious craft of sowing seeds of divisiveness, breaking up joint endeavours, and weakening the many so as to gratify the powerful few. This ‘politics of chaos’ presents itself as a governing option for the people, but in truth, it is little more than a series of tactical moves to disrupt society so an irresponsible elite can do as they please.

How does it work? Perhaps we can learn more about it by raising a few questions in connection with Chris Grayling, a long serving member of the Conservative Government in the UK, who seems to have an abiding interest in advancing chaos as an ideological goal.

The National Audit Office has found that changes pushed forward by Chris Grayling when he was Justice Secretary in 2014, which led to part-privatisation of the probation service in England and Wales, involved serious failings and had cost taxpayers almost £500 million. The Chief Probation Inspector, Dame Glenys Stacey, said what Grayling insisted on bringing about despite having been warned against it, was "irredeemably flawed" and people would be safer under a system delivered by the public sector.

Having created chaos in the supervision of offenders, Grayling moved on to become Transport Secretary, and continued with the mantra that private companies were better at meeting public needs, irrespective of the evidence. As the previous privatisation of the railway service was fuelling a growing chaos, and the railway regulator issued a report to highlight the need for the government to deal with the crisis, Grayling declared that it was not his responsibility – as the Secretary of State for Transport – to sort out the underlying system problem, which only the government could tackle.

The one area Grayling seemed to accept was his responsibility was to help the UK prepare for a no deal Brexit, since that could lead to critical imports not reaching the country, and vital medicine and key manufacturing components being held up indefinitely. So Grayling took immediate action by awarding a £13.8m contract to a ‘start-up’ company to provide extra ferries to help with shipping goods into the UK, even though that company had no experience in running ferry service – in fact, it had no ships at all. For the record, Grayling gave contracts to other companies too, and his handling of those arrangements led to costly compensation having to be paid out – estimated by the National Audit Office to be over £50 million.

Was Grayling just overwhelmed by the fear of Brexit chaos that he ended up rashly taking some rather ill-considered decisions? Actually, on all matters relating to Brexit chaos, he was all for turning the country upside down for the sake of combating the cause of all ills – immigration. Back when he was Leader of the Commons, he warned that mass immigration “will change the face of our country forever”. He actively campaigned for Brexit to keep ‘foreigners’ out and claimed that otherwise “additional demand for housing will gobble up vast tracts of green belt land and mean we will have to dramatically expand our transport system to avoid gridlock.” And he did go on to demonstrate, irrespective of levels of immigration, he could ensure chaos across our transport system all by himself.

Wasting public money, undermining public services, stirring up animosity towards immigrants – have we here a litany of utter incompetence, or an ideological obsession with the politics of chaos, or both? Ask Grayling.

--
For a report on the failings of Grayling’s part-privatisation of the probation service, see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48288433
Other reports on his role as Transport Secretary and advocate for Brexit can be found in most newspapers published in the UK.

Cooperation First: a new educational focus

Cooperation First is an approach to human interaction that should be the focus of every form of education, at every level. It teaches us to recognise that reciprocity is key to mutual wellbeing; that helping each other succeed is better for all than if some were allowed to push ahead by taking unfair advantage of others; and genuine cooperation can only take place on equal terms without deception or prejudice distorting relationships.

It does not matter what party labels people prefer, what religious or secular beliefs we grew up with, or what our cultural heritage happens to be, we all have the potential to appreciate and engage in positive cooperation with others. What is needed is sustained support in developing our understanding, so that we are ready to reach out to others, and at the same time be on guard against those who refuse to reciprocate our readiness to work with them. We also need to grasp the necessity of two-way scrutiny of reasons and evidence, and be able to apply cooperative problem-solving and avoid dogmatic assertions, when we seek to establish what can be accepted as shared beliefs.

Furthermore, Cooperation First can be taken forward in learning programmes that enhance:
• Skills for workplace cooperation: the most important are transferable skills that can be applied at successive levels in the work context – these are skills for cooperation, from customer service, production liaison, setting up quality circles, to rota management and strategic planning, and the setting up of worker cooperatives.
• Skills for political cooperation: the most important are critical skills in understanding policy proposals, grasping intentions, unpacking rhetoric, checking the reliability of sources, debunking false or misleading claims, persuading others to think and act, and learning to anticipate deflections, and address others’ underlying concerns.
• Skills for community cooperation: the most important are social skills in ice-breaking, building trust, devising joint activities, defusing misunderstanding, and facilitating consensus exploration. Particularly important is the ability to improve empathy amongst diverse groups, and generate a sense of common purpose.

In parallel, we all need to learn more about how to deal with people who appear not to want to work with us. We should be able to understand what is behind their stance. For example, some may have been deceived or indoctrinated into going along with prejudiced and irrational actions. Some would have missed out on opportunities to think through issues in an open and rational manner, engage with people beyond a closed circle, or be treated with trust and respect. There are those who been conned into believing they should target their anger and frustration at people who are in fact innocent scapegoats. In all such cases, we should engage with them sympathetically to help them escape from their distorted perceptions of the world. Through appropriate learning, they may come to see through the lies, and channel their feelings where they will make a positive difference for them and others.

Unfortunately, there will also be those who want to gratify their own ambitions regardless of the consequences for others, and some will even seek the subjection of others to give themselves a twisted sense of superiority. With them, there can be no compromise. Their duplicitous agendas must be exposed, their overbearing power curtailed, and their insidious policies reversed. This, too, is something that must be widely taught if true cooperation is to be secured.
--

Check out the one-volume learning resource for democratic mutual support and cooperative problem-solving: What Should Citizens Believe? – exploring the issues of truth, reason & society.
Available in e-book format: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CSYRF8H
And in paperback: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1548183105

The Politics of Reckless Endangerment

Egoistic authoritarians have always sought more power so they could do as they please regardless of the dire consequences for others. One of the main obstacles facing them has always been people’s readiness to resist their rule once the threats they pose come into view. But recently they have hit upon a new way to overcome this obstacle – it is the politics of promoting reckless endangerment.

How does it work?

Quite simply you identify the foundation of threat-identification – namely, objective analysis – and erode it until it becomes so unstable that people can be easily misled as to what poses a real danger to them.

With the help of irresponsible media under the control of corporate allies and the support of troll farms spreading misinformation, a culture of reckless endangerment can be widely and rapidly advanced. This is done through, for example, misleading people into rejecting vital vaccinations even though that will result in dangerous diseases spreading; diverting them to blaming immigrants for lowering their standards of living so they won’t notice that it is greedy executives who deny them even subsistence pay; championing the unaccountable use of excessive force at home and abroad without mentioning how counter-productive and harmful it is; or conning them into thinking pollution and climate change chaos are unreal even as the negative impact undermines their health and habitat.

When thoughtful observers and experienced experts point out that such approaches are both unfounded and dangerous, the response is invariably the equivalent of a dismissive smirk. There won’t be any rational, evidential, sincere engagement on what claims are warranted and what should be rejected. All that will be forthcoming are lies, abuses, groundless rumours, and endless aspersion against genuinely qualified people who seek to expose their untenable claims.

The net effect is that people who are most susceptible to emotional manipulation and rhetorical misdirection increasingly ignore reasoned judgements, and instead fall for systemic deception that endangers the lives of countless people.

For the egoistic authoritarians, this is the go-to recipe for stirring up mistrust, uncertainty, and chaos. When enough people can be steered towards, not only reckless behaviour that diminishes their own security and wellbeing, but fervent beliefs that glorify such behaviour as expressing their inviolable freedom, the demagogues who present themselves as the protectors of this freedom are hailed as their political saviours.

As the vicious circle continues to spiral downward, disorder spreads; public health is jeopardised; peace is displaced by knee-jerk aggression; vital public services are savagely cut; essential preventative measures are jettisoned; and international institutions for cooperation and conflict-resolution are dismantled. And while vulnerabilities multiply, those who have manipulated their way to amass ever greater power are able to dictate terms to more and more people.

It is time we remember that to value freedom is not to give a licence to people to cheat and distort so that they can gain power while others’ lives are severely damaged. We can live a worthwhile life freely, only if we have rules and objective adjudication that bind us all to behave responsibly.

The promotion of reckless endangerment is not an absolute right, it is an unforgivable wrong.

Policies for Renewing State-Citizen Cooperation

Government institutions and citizens can only cooperate in an informed manner if policies in support of effective democratic engagement are taken on board. Set out below are five key policies to be considered:

[1] Focusing on making engagement a genuine lever for change
Engagement must be connected to options that would make a real difference to people’s lives. It should be backed by organisational arrangements so that at the outset there is a transparent and shared understanding of what changes can be secured. To involve people in detailed discussions only to reveal some way into the process that various doors are actually closed will only aggravate disillusionment. Those with the formal decision-making power must be willing to act on the outcomes of informed deliberations. In practice, such a commitment would require a feasibility analysis and a corresponding implementation plan before one launches into an engagement initiative.

[2] Identifying and publicising the value of democratic cooperation
More should be done to make the case for cooperative engagement. Local government accounting, for example, should not only list ‘the cost of democracy’ relating to any expenditure associated with elections and subsequent activities of councillors, but cover the gains to accountability and effectiveness generated by informed participation. Techniques for quantifying such gains should be widely adopted. Assessments from around the world have shown that where people are given genuine opportunities to reflect and contribute their views on the development of public actions, it tends to lead to more satisfactory and cost-efficient outcomes.

[3] Selecting appropriate and feasible involvement approaches under different circumstances
A wide range of approaches have been developed and refined for different circumstances, and they only work effectively if they are chosen sensibly and applied with the necessary know-how. Issues such as representativeness, locations, duration, and expenses need to be addressed accordingly. The approach to be adopted should comply with ground rules on, for example, mutual respect, civil discourse, and the adjudication and exclusion of lies and misinformation; handling emotional tensions and resolving them with due empathy; fair facilitating of discussions in reviewing pros and cons, questioning experts, formulating suggestions, and weighing options; and overseeing the resolution process.

[4] Cultivating inclusive community relations as a long-term strategy
Between specific engagement exercises there should be communications to cover not just how the outcomes of those exercises are being followed up on, but also what other policy explorations or everyday issues people may want to discuss. In addition to government bodies having regular and constructive communications with the public, the communities being engaged must themselves be not so divided that it would render shared deliberations impossible. This requires the appropriate use of community development to ensure people from all socio-economic and diverse cultural backgrounds are kept in touch and given realistic opportunities to share their views.

[5] Investing in the development of civic leadership at all levels of society
People aspiring to take on civic leadership positions in society should be assessed on their aptitudes for deliberative engagement with their fellow citizens, and there should be high quality training to enable them to develop the necessary skills and dispositions. Such training should raise understanding of the value and techniques of citizen engagement. Apart from investing in improving formal training provisions and selection arrangements, community-based learning networks should be supported to improve awareness of the opportunities and implications of becoming civic leaders, so that people irrespective of their age, gender, race and class, can be encouraged to participate in informed deliberations and decision-making in relation to public issues.
--

For more on the renewal of state-citizen cooperation, take a look at Whose Government is it? Available from Bristol University Press: https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/whose-government-is-it