Perversions of Power

Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it  - William Pitt the Elder

Across the board our political systems need reinventing. They no longer benefit ordinary citizens. Warped, out of touch with changing social mores, directed by lobbyists hired and paid for by special and foreign interests for their benefit, they have lost the integrity they once enjoyed without question. Democracies, absolute and constitutional monarchies as well as most authoritarian governments all suffer from the same thing: politicians and political parties that are open to corruption, have little impulse to plan for the long-term future, and spend most of their time working against the interests of the community as a whole.

Wherever one looks, disenchantment with politicians and the processes of government is escalating – particularly among young people. Human civilisation has spawned a rich variety of political systems. None of them is working perfectly or as intended. They are all flawed to some extent. Despotic regimes are usually doomed from their inception, though their calculated use of covert intimidation does tend to hide any inherent vulnerability until just prior to their downfall. Most representative political systems, however, have been reeling from one crisis to the next, in the full gaze of a bemused public, for the past decade or more.

At the same time citizens all over the world are crying out to reconnect with a governance structure that makes sense – one in which they can have faith, politicians can be trusted to do as they promise, and policies result not from some obsolete ideology or personal whims but from extensive consultation with the electorate. It sounds reasonable enough but the divide has become almost a chasm.

In many modern democracies, officials no longer see themselves primarily as representatives of the people, nor do citizens have the voice they were meant to have. Most politicians are too divorced from the lives of ordinary people. As a consequence they make decisions based on abstract ideals without fully understanding the context or complexity of an issue. A far more awkward problem is that citizens do not always appreciate what is in their best interest and the few who represent the many often do not know either. The only people who appear not to have noticed this profound sea change are the elected representatives themselves. That in itself is something of a concern.

For decades the political establishment have done much to remove ordinary citizens from the political process. Cocooned within a born-to-rule attitude of entitlement they have struck up cosy relationships with big business, used their PR firms and friends in the media to foster an impression of supremacy, and heeded the advice of self-appointed think-tanks that bolster preconceived notions of what constitutes appropriate policy. At this juncture it is also wise to keep in mind that it is in the nature of any complex political or social system to reward those who best propagate its core logic - and to castigate those who do not. Where that logic is deranged, based upon self-interest, greed, materialism and instant gratification, then that is the psychology and behavior that will be most rewarded by leaders within the system.

Because of these trends and tendencies today’s political class has become like an exclusive self-replicating blood-stock – members of an elite club who quite genuinely believe they are destined to rule over others in a system that sets them apart from ordinary citizens.

Recent incidents - encapsulated in the Occupy movement and the growing activism of young and old alike taking to the streets to campaign against everything from genetically modified foods and the erosion of human rights to student debt, unjust war, restrictive laws, corporate greed, environmental pollution, unfair treatment of refugees, increased surveillance, police brutality - and the need for new political standards - seem to indicate this might be changing. If so the electoral landscape may never be the same again.

In the Western world politicians of all persuasions are increasingly viewed as a single homogenous group, a malignant one at that, who cling to their privileges at all costs. They may have starkly different views, although even that is disputable these days. But what they share is public condemnation for their inability to rise above personal diatribes in order to focus on policy – relevant, coherent and constructive policy. This is a widely acknowledged and lamented situation that affects us all. Held in contempt, it is rapidly becoming the most wearisome aspect of governance models that are so dysfunctional as to have lost any potency or moral authority. Yet, for the time being, it is anticipated and tolerated.

From the lies and pompous tomfoolery of GOP candidates on the US presidential trail, where vilification awaits anyone who dares speak the truth; to Jeremy Corbyn’s unsettling popularity in the UK race to lead Labour which casts yesterday’s men as looking old, out-of-touch and fragile; the ruthless recklessness of Germany’s Wolfgang Schauble and Angela Merkel in bringing Greece to heel; the barefaced corruption of South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma; and the embarrassment of Tony Abbott in Australia whose idea of governing, in the absence of a unifying narrative, is to wrap policies around slogans; democracy as practised seems stained beyond belief.

Nor is it just Western democratic states that are suffering from derisory political ideals and processes. The repressive military-installed junta of General Prayuth Chan-ocha, which set about establishing “thai-style democracy” by strangling freedom of speech and other rights in Thailand, is as high-handed and condescending as anything invented by vindictive little martinets like Kim Jong Un in North Korea and Bashar Assad of Syria.

In true democracies there is nothing to fear from citizens speaking their mind, particularly if they are fully informed about issues and have the opportunity to consider the consequences of key policy decisions. There is no greater way of showing contempt for the rule of law than by removing an elected government, however defective, at gunpoint. Such inconsistencies do no appear to trouble Prayuth however. Recently the Thai army detained several people for eating sandwiches with political intent and warned the public this was now a criminal act. Such state-sponsored absurdity indicates a level of thinly-veiled anxiety lurking just beneath the surface of the junta’s brute power. Prayuth’s fear, and those of the elite he has sworn to defend, is a palpable paranoia that a majority of Thai people, if given half a chance, will insist upon equality and justice from a system that traditionally metes out such favours as a reward for loyalty and compliance.

These examples, together with the cruelty of an entire generation of African dictators like Idriss Deby Itno, Jose Eduardo Dos Santos, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and Robert Mugabe, unresolved tensions between China’s leaders and their obsessive claims of authority over territories like Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong, and the posturing of Burma’s generals in allowing once-promising reforms to stall, all point in their distinct way at something inherently flawed across a range of dissimilar governance models.

They also testify to the urgent need for a mindful uprising of those who are oppressed by inhumane, mercenary or immoral systems. But that is only one half of the equation. There needs to be a better replacement on hand and we cannot allow that substitute to be yet another corrupt system – or worse. So where should we start?

It appears the intended, and no doubt unintended, combination of defects we have designed into our political systems - exacerbated by the tendency of the popular press to perpetuate the antics of conceit, conducted under the guise of leadership, that coax so many narcissists, bullies and megalomaniacs into government - have reached absurd proportions. Irrespective of ideology, and with very few exceptions, the future of humanity is no longer being steered by sane or capable people. Inept and psychopathic, the inmates really have taken over the asylum.

The time has come to declare our current governance systems corrupt to the extent that they are not simply worthless in their current state of health but also increasingly hazardous to the majority of human beings. If we do not take a stand and demand something much, much better, egalitarian ideals and human rights, already breaking down or being eroded irreparably, could so easily shatter into meaningless fragments.

If that startling proposition is even partially true we must first find ways of recruiting people of unswerving integrity and intelligence into public office – or do away entirely with the need for representation, elected or imposed, as the primary mechanism for establishing and carrying out the will of the people. As politics is the most social of undertakings it would be ludicrous to suggest removing the human element from politics altogether. The notion of driverless vehicles might be a sensible option in reducing traffic accidents caused by human error. It is patently an absurd suggestion in terms of politics. Or is it?

While one might argue that democracy has been a relatively successful undertaking within the realms of Europe, North America and Oceania it has yet to be fully established elsewhere. That is not to claim democracy is the most effective system for our times. Anything invented by humans can just as easily be used, exploited, improved - or discarded altogether. Many countries in Southeast Asia, for example, are not ruled democratically, even though in some countries democratic ideals have achieved a cult-like standing that is best described as democratic devotion. Contrary to expectation this usually means democracy in its pure sense is not fully appreciated, deliberately misinterpreted, or actively avoided whilst giving it lip service. In some nations, like Singapore for example, benign authoritarianism under the guise of democratic devotion might have been a valid and preferable strategy, especially given the circumstances surrounding its genesis. Today that same ethos is questionable. In other cases, as in modern-day Thailand, such pretence is a flagrant and cruel deception. Ultimately much depends upon the intentions of those who hold and exercise power.

To avoid being taken in by deceitful rulers or corrupt systems it is crucial we identify the flaws existing across all models of governance and try to fathom out why these factors in particular cause and then encourage behaviours that are undesirable, while generating results that are only moderately, if at all, effective. Perhaps we can then design alternative systems that are more viable, principled, and that really do benefit a majority of the population, rather than lining the pockets of the well-to-do.

That kind of analysis is never easy to do because there are so many subjective variables to consider - including history, present circumstances and future aspirations, community access to relevant information, the type of instructional mode most commonly used to inform the community, the extent of social interaction, neutrality of the press, reliance on the law to maintain order, demographics, the amount of graft and corruption evident in the system, quality of general education, and the level of discernment within society at large. This analysis is likely to be less of a problem in states where egalitarian arrangements are already the norm rather than in more autocratic societies. The latter is still a valid topic of inquiry of course and needs to be approached from a similarly comprehensive study of systemic conditions.

Perhaps we can begin by looking for progressive exemplars within current representational frameworks. For example, we might draw lessons from India’s Aam Aadmi Party – a radical anti-corruption, anti-establishment party - that recently swept to power in Delhi’s state assembly winning half the vote and an astonishing 95 per cent of all seats. By unabashedly championing the cause of the poor, and the interests of underprivileged social and religious groups, it signalled the arrival of a new moral force in India’s national politics.

Sometimes, if rarely, that same moral force is inherent within a single individual. Being human means that each one of us has flaws. Some of these seem to be so tenaciously ingrained in our being that they stay with us for our entire lives. This is consistent with the views of most psychologists who believe character is a permanent substrata of personality and far too deep to be altered in any significant way. We live with our weaknesses.

Politicians are not exempt for they, too, are only human. On that basis perhaps those who actively and aggressively seek public office should be automatically disqualified?

True political greatness, however, as exemplified in the disposition and achievements of someone like a Nelson Mandela, has the ability to rise above any blemishes of character, changing and reshaping our world in significant ways. Of course Mandela’s ascent to high office was more an act of accepting fate than the choice of a man impatient to enter the political fray and, even less, to benefit personally from doing so.

This is why Mandela was able to transcend ordinary politics and become such a beloved icon. It is where his importance lies. He confronted and overcame the evil of apartheid not through extremism, not through violence, nor even through the ideology of the ANC. His new South Africa, the rainbow nation, was forged out of empathy and a love for all of humanity. Through the ballot box and in the pursuit of reconciliation founded on forgiveness, Nelson Mandela achieved political greatness. Like all of us he had flaws in abundance. But he never allowed these to hinder his beliefs concerning what was the right and moral thing to do in any situation.

But an AAP or a Nelson Mandela are rare. We cannot rely on fate to help us out when it is most needed. So perhaps looking outside of orthodox structures for signs of positive reform would be more instructive. The use of new digital technologies obviously holds out real hope for governance systems that are incorruptible. The internet and smart phone applications have transformed media, retail, communication and other areas of life, but politics has been one notable exception. Politicians appear to operate in an elite ghetto where the internet barely exists. The result is a system more aloof and out of step than it has ever been.

If more politicians had the vision and courage to respond to the opportunities offered by technology for real-time direct voting on issues, for example, and were willing to embrace a range of more participative approaches to informing and devolving policy decisions to the community, they could revolutionise the entire political process, massively boosting voter engagement and moving societies to a system of genuine direct democracy.

This is an unlikely scenario for several reasons. Too many politicians, trapped as much by their factional party impulse as by their individual impulses, view technology as a threat – to their privileged standing in the community as well as to their personal career aspirations. Political parties do not have a role within a system of pure participative democracy – in fact they would be an impediment more than anything else. But that is a big psychological leap to transcend for most people.

The imperatives for any alternative system of governance to make sense in this day and age seem pretty straightforward. My own preference for a code regulating the field of politics would comprise the following guiding principles:

1. The incentive for corruption at every level should be eliminated. Any barriers getting in the way of running for office should be removed – opening up the opportunity for anyone with the requisite capabilities to apply.
2. Voting based upon personality should be dealt a fatal blow by requiring that the community be informed about every issue in ways that are unbiased and immune from being tarnished by those with the loudest voice or the deepest pockets.
3. Lobbyists that work for special interest groups should be outlawed.
4. Debate in any forum should be banned. It is an obsolete form of dialogue in that it can only lead to two possible policy positions – neither of which is necessarily fitting.
5. Every person of voting age should be registered to vote online by being issued with a personal security code for life. Voting on an issue should take place all at once and be made public as it happens. Nothing should be able to influence the outcome of an election other than votes.
6. Political parties are too blunt an instrument for dealing with the subtle consequences embedded in most contemporary issues. They undermine democracy by contriving dispute. The internet and television make political parties redundant and should consequently be banned.
7. Public officials should be on fixed term contracts of limited tenure. Politics should not be a career option.
8. Those in public office should speak from the heart rather than notes written by professional speechwriters, aided by electronic teleprompters.
9. Elected officials should be accountable to the general public for what they promise and do. It must be illegal for a politician to lie or to deceive the public. If they do they should be immediately removed from office.
10. Government should be open and transparent at all times. Closed hearings should be relegated to history.

It matters little whether we are considering the issue of Palestine’s survival against Israeli paranoia, Arab nations striving for democracy that always seems to be just out of reach, the likelihood of the European experiment imploding, or China’s intransigence over disputed territories like Taiwan. Almost without exception, irrespective of geography or ideological belief, the world’s most urgent and complicated troubles are born out of a growing political incomprehension of reality and the collective dithering of the establishment in power.

I am happy to admit there is probably no such thing as a perfect political system. We certainly have very little practical knowledge when it comes to designing political and social systems that work for the benefit of all. Large-scale exploration in this field is uncommon and most recent experiments, like Soviet communism, have failed us.

The need for such systems to ensure democracy, efficiency and stability at the same time seems to be a utopian impossibility, especially given the propensity of these systems not to adapt fast enough to changing circumstances - thus exposing the dangers of social disorder, environmental change, and technological disruption.

The truth of the matter is that we can only ever know our past - yet face an uncertain future. Political reform is urgently needed. But it needs to be based upon a different set of truths than exist in most modern political systems. There is too much at stake that we can blindly follow past creeds. Corruption cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged. The unjustified silencing of the majority cannot be condoned. Not can we continue to elect representatives based upon their temperament, connections or uniform.

I am no champion of democracy. If something else works more effectively, is guided by principles of equity, justice and freedom, and provides social stability and opportunity then I am all for it. Indeed I have enjoyed the thrill of working in political systems where there are clear options and things actually get done.

But nor am I a champion of exploitation or sociopathic posturing. Whatever political systems evolve and are adopted over the coming decades they will need to benefit the majority of a population likely to reach 11 billion by the turn of the century. They will also need to limit conflict, cure mankind’s inhumanity to man, protect the planet, and be designed for rapid adaptation to changing circumstances and as near incorruptible as possible.

Let me take another look at those ten commandments…