Evolution, politics and democracy | ||
Having lived
for the vast majority of our existence as a
species under a system of government which
depended on a chief of some type – a tribal
chief, a king or a dictator – we live now in an
era in which democracy is the most widespread
political system. It seems to have taken over. I
am though concerned about its longevity and how
firmly rooted it is.
It is worth noting that the original UN constitution made no reference to democracy until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war. It was only in 1999 that the UN’s Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man was modified to include: “the right to full participation and other fundamental democratic rights and other liberties inherent in any democratic society.” The result?
Almost every government now proclaims itself
to be a democracy. This is hypocrisy for many,
but they think that they ought to pretend
because it is the preferred international
model. They can often lie with impunity
because it is difficult to show that a country
is not in fact a democracy. But as we know, a
democracy doesn’t exist simply because there
is an election from time to time. There need
also to be the conditions required for a
genuine form of participation in those
elections. This requires not only a voting
booth, but the liberty to vote against those
in power without fear of the consequences –
and so freedom of opinion and expression and
the rule of law. Thus a country can easily say
that it is democratic when in fact the real
exercise of democracy is prevented in order to
allow the sort of corruption which we see in
Russia and various other countries at the moment.
But we can
see from recent events in Western countries,
even those with a strong tradition of democracy,
that democracy can go wrong. Difficulties emerge
in part because of the party system. A major
party is resistant to the normal pressures of
natural selection, even when it no longer
actually responds to the wishes of the people
and the circumstances of the times. This is in
contrast to the position of independent MPs who
are much more easily removed. Parties will have
money, investments and a party structure, all
there to assure the continued existence of it
and its philosophy in their darkest moments. So
then it has an inertia which is difficult to
stop. Its self-belief creates an impression of
invulnerability. In turn, this discourages the
formation or the growth of other parties or the
departure of its supporters to join a new party,
for fear of finding themselves in the political
desert. Obviously even a party (or an
organisation) with a long history can finally
disappear. But the process is not
straightforward. Normally it follows a period of
tension which stretches the elastic until it
finally breaks. It is similar to the
evolutionary process of ‘Punctuated
Equilibrium’. Dinosaurs dominated the world for
almost 200 million years until a catastrophic
change in the climate suddenly removed them. In
turn, this allowed some other little animals to
replace them, which had not until then made much
progress: primitive mammals, our ancestors. The
dinosaurs never made it back.
And it might just be that we are now in a state of change in the political climate which will initiate yet another era. Recently we have seen political earthquakes in Europe. In Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Hungary and other countries we have seen the growth of extremist parties which, until now, were at the margins or simply did not exist. In France, miraculously, a new party of the centre won. But elsewhere the traditional parties have not succeeded in recognising and suggesting solutions for the problems perceived by the voters to be important. And so democracy suffers. It suffers because when there is not a choice which speaks to the voters, they have a tendency to lose their faith in the system and not vote, because it’s not worth the bother, or they vote for extremist parties as a protest. Disenchantment with democracy has also arrived in the UK. According to a series of surveys, the proportion of our fellow-citizens who support an authoritarian leadership of our country - a ‘strong man’ - has increased from 25% in 1999 to 50% now. Those under the age of 25 are much more critical of democracy than the corresponding age group was 20 years ago. Supporting
the idea of an authoritarian form of government
indicates another element of the problem for
democracy – the people and their credulity. As
we have seen, when the traditional parties don’t
provide policies which are attractive to the
masses, it benefits the extremist parties, or as
I prefer to think of them, the unrealistic
parties. In Italy, for example, the extreme
right wing party, the Lega, is proposing to
deport 600,000 immigrants shortly after taking
office. Quite how, they haven’t explained, but
it gave them more votes than Berlusconi’s party.
The other winner from the Italian election, M5S,
Beppe Grillo’s party, considers that Italian
citizens are so well informed about and engaged
in political matters that they can be relied on
to vote digitally from their homes in place of
MPs – a sort of continuous referendum. In
numerous countries in Europe, the extremist
parties doing remarkably well are supporters of
nationalism in a barely concealed racist form.
In the UK, we
have seen a resurgence of nationalism in the
form of the demand to ‘take back control’, as
the answer to all of our problems. At the same
time, we have a Labour Party of the extreme
left. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are
both admirers of Lenin and Trotsky and all
things communist. They want to nationalise most
things because they are against the profit
motive, except perhaps for the sale of the
vegetables grown in Jeremy’s allotment.
According to McDonnell, in an interview on the
Today programme earlier this month, they would
make massive ‘investments’ in infrastructure in
order to achieve fairness as between the
different areas of the UK. Who would
decide what this fairness consisted of in the
various contexts and how much to spend in order
to attain such a vague objective is not
clear.
And when the electors in the various countries realise that they’ve been duped? But there is
yet another factor when considering democracy:
the European Commission. We criticise countries
such as China and Russia which allow their
authoritarian heads to remain in power
indefinitely. It makes corruption and a complete
disregard for the good of the people far more
likely. But the European Commission doesn’t
exist solely in order to implement the wishes of
elected representatives, as would a normal
bureaucracy. It proposes laws. It upholds what
it defines as the values of the EU and any
suggestion of change is met with resistance. It
is in fact a self-perpetuating part of the
government of the EU and has been in office
since the beginning. And we can see from the
attitude of many people in the EU that they
regard it as not representing their interests
and not to have democratic legitimacy. The
irony is that, at last, and in no small measure
because of British efforts, the overweening
power of the Commission is now being reduced -
just as we're about to leave!
Perhaps we
shall arrive at a stable political destination
over the next few decades. It is not, though,
only the destination but also the confusion
during the transition which may be difficult. We
shall see a variety of parties and ideas which
will fight for supremacy in a form of natural
selection. We cannot even be sure that our
new-found democracy will continue to be the
dominant system. Being nice doesn't always beat
brutality in the evolutionary struggle.
PJB 22 March 2018
|
||
|