This essay is dedicated to my friend Alex Pantea who passed away on Friday 5th March 2021. Alex and I had many deep conversations about the need for less conflict, along with more empathy, in our political and governance systems. I cannot imagine a better tribute to Alex than this plea for widespread public resistance to the many evils existing in our world today.
Although we live in a liminal moment of seeming stability, that is a delusion. The social fabric of our civilization is slowly unravelling. The signs of meltdown are not easy to discern, partly because of a political facade that hides many of the fissures opening up in society. The same skeletal structures, rhetoric, and narratives remain intact for the time being, helping to shape a facade of normality. As a consequence, significant citizen engagement with the political process has become a travesty.
This is part of a long process of decay - an institutional failure to keep large corporate power in check, while falling captive to media monopolies, public relations spin, and the massively destructive power of the industrial-military-surveillance complex.
When governments of every persuasion see violence as a form of purification; when they lie, coerce, subdue, assassinate, belittle and routinely incarcerate citizens, all the while protecting corporate power; and when that leads to a proliferation of nihilistic violent acts and the rise of proto-fascist hate groups, it is surely time to assess what governance of society is for, how we could have got things so impossibly screwed up, and where it is likely to end up.
At what stage did we start to encourage the least among us to govern? Why do we permit oligarchs to make rules that mostly benefit themselves and their cronies? How can we allow elite cabals to cannibalize the very systems that have enriched our societies in the past but that now goes into their own pockets? The answer is twofold. Most opposition has been well and truly marginalized, while the working classes have become disenfranchised to such an extent that their power to protest is neutralized.
In these circumstances how is protest possible? What muddled signals do we send to the elite such that pleas for tolerance or understanding are twisted to excuse brutal paramilitary force constituted to 'protect' the social order? On what basis can anyone argue it is morally just to crush peaceful demonstrations of citizens by militarized police with live ammunition, who act as internal armies of occupation? How far have we descended when ordinary people, perhaps in fear of losing their job, and in an attempt to tell those in power that their most basic needs are not being met, are openly massacred by their government, when that is the only available mechanism by which citizens are shielded from thieves, liars and corporate predators?
How dare you, thundered Greta Thunberg in sheer frustration at a conclave of alleged world leaders during a UN Climate Conference in New York in 2019? How dare you? I did not detect any air of discomfort or embarrassment at Thunberg's accusations. On the contrary, I only saw feigned tedium, fidgeting, cynical applause, and palpable annoyance that their mission could be so easily hijacked for an interlude, designed purely for the media, where a 17-year-old schoolgirl who had achieved more celebrity in the space of two years than anyone else in the room, could publicly castigate the assembled throng. It is worse than that of course. Not only do these fake leaders fail to act in terms of the climate and other emergencies facing us. As unfettered capitalists they pretty much do as they please. And almost none of it is in the long-term interests of humanity.
It matters not whether we are reviewing the misuse of military power in Myanmar or Thailand, the dictatorial tyranny of a Putin or a Bashar Hafez al-Assad, the sheer misogynistic cruelty in the tribal milieus of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the Israeli regime's apartheid-like treatment of Palestinians, the global war-mongering of successive look-alike US administrations, the inane protection of dysfunctional royal families by equally dysfunctional courtiers, the despotism of a Hun Sen in Cambodia, a Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or the sinister paternalism of the Chinese Communist Party when yanking Hong Kong into line... These are all clues to a deep cultural despair spreading across the globe.
How has it come to this? Political ideology, though often held up as the cause, has nothing to do with this inhumane and narcissistic phenomenon. This is a fusion of panic and class warfare: the political classes versus we the people.
Across a range of competing ideologies and dogmas - from extreme Marxism-Leninism to ultra-right-wing totalitarianism, the models we so nonchalantly apply to maintain cohesion need reinventing from first principles. And the two most critical principles must surely be to protect the sovereignty and wellbeing of individuals, along with the sacredness of all life. In other words that:
Control, indoctrination, or manipulation by any means whatsoever, of individuals and the society as a whole, is immoral. That any form of compulsion be applied only when intrinsic forms of maintaining order for the public good have failed and there is broad consensus that some form of extrinsic control is needed and is the right thing to do.
The overarching governance imperative is to protect and safeguard human life from all kinds of harm - including from the various mechanisms of state where necessary.
Intervening in other peoples' lives in order to exercise control, wherever they are located, and for whatever reason, is an infringement of their sovereign right to make their own decisions, within guidelines mutually agreed by the society as a whole.
The goal, you see, must be to avoid the imminent collapse of human civilization - not just to protect a few individuals who by dint of birth, inheritance, wealth or cunning, have been able to set themselves apart from the rest.
Generally speaking our governments no longer benefit ordinary citizens, except in the most material manner. Warped, degenerate, out of touch with changing social mores, undermined by lobbyists hired and paid for by corporate and foreign interests for their benefit, open to hacking but also masters of propaganda, they have lost the integrity they once enjoyed.
Democracies, absolute and constitutional monarchies as well as authoritarian governments all suffer from the same things: officials and partisan coalitions, increasingly open to fraud, graft, and corruption; prejudiced groups with little impulse to plan for the long-term; and most time spent working against the interests of the community as a whole.
Wherever one looks, disenchantment with politicians and disengagement from the processes of governing are escalating – particularly among young people. They get that our civilization has spawned a rich variety of political systems and that 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 tends 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. Now we are perched on the edge of despair.
At the same time citizens all over the world are crying for sanity to prevail over chaos. They are wanting to stand firm against anarchy in order to reconnect with structures and practices that make sense. Humane frameworks grounded in integrity, in which they can have faith; where the logic behind the decisions being made is transparent and just; where politicians can be trusted to listen to the voices of the community, and to do as they promise; and where policies evolve not from half-baked partisan views or pork-barrelling, but from needs clearly expressed through extensive consultation with the public. It all sounds reasonable. But the divide between ideals and reality has become a chasm, tinged with weaponized words in the form of hate-filled state propaganda.
In modern societies, many officials no longer see themselves primarily as representatives of the people but as rulers in service of their own ends. Nor do citizens necessarily have a voice that is theirs by right. 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 representatives themselves who have come to believe that everything is (and should be) about them. That kind of narcissism in itself is a huge concern.
For decades the political establishment has been working to remove ordinary citizens from engaging in the political process. Cocooned within a born-to-rule attitude of entitlement they have struck up cozy relationships with big business, used 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 socio-economic system to reward those who best propagate its core logic, and to reprimand those who do not. Where that logic is deranged, based upon self-interest, greed, materialism and instant gratification, then that is the behaviour that will be rewarded by the custodians of the system. When, as in China or Vietnam, that logic is concerned to preserve social cohesion at all costs, then that is the psychology and behaviour that is most prized.
Because of these trends and tendencies today’s political class has become an exclusive self-replicating blood-stock – members of an elite club who genuinely believe they are destined to rule over others in a system that sets them apart.
Recent incidents - encapsulated in the Occupy and Milk Tea Alliance movements, along with the growing activism of young and old alike taking to the streets in campaigns remonstrating against everything from genetically modified foods and the erosion of human rights, to unjust wars, student debt, restrictive laws, corporate greed, environmental pollution, ingrained political corruption, unfair treatment of refugees, increased surveillance, police brutality, and the need for high ethical standards in officialdom - seem to indicate this will only change via mass civil disobedience and resistance.
In the West, politicians of all persuasions are increasingly viewed as a single homogenous group, a malignant one at that, who cling to their privileges at any cost. They may have starkly different views, although even that is disputable. But what they share is public condemnation for their inability to rise above personal diatribes and focus on policy – relevant, coherent and constructive programs. This widely acknowledged and lamented situation affects us all. Held in contempt, politicians and the political process, are becoming the most wearisome aspects of governance models that are so dysfunctional as to have lost any moral potency. Yet, for the time being, this unsatisfactory state of affairs is both anticipated and tolerated. We are never taken by surprise by the latest scandal because all we ever see of parliament is little better than a pit of vituperous abuse in a playground of bullies and sociopaths.
From the lies, pompous tomfoolery, and incitements to violence of the Trump-led Republican party in the US, where vilification awaits anyone who dares speak the truth, to the deeply polarizing figure of Boris Johnson who recklessly bundled Britain out of Europe, the ruthless power of Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, the barefaced depravity of South Africa’s modern day ANC, Vladimir Putin's inclination to poison any rival questioning his tenure, Jair Bolsonaro's declaration that people should stop whining about the pandemic, and the embarrassment of Scott Morrison in Australia whose idea of governing, in the absence of a unifying narrative, is to wrap policies around slogans and images that incite only scorn and apathy, politics as practiced seems stained beyond belief.
Nor is it just in the West that suffers from derisory and warped political ideals and processes. The repressive military-installed junta of General Prayuth Chan-ocha, which has established 'disciplined 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 the generals in Myanmar.
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. Indeed that is the whole point. 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 individuals like Prayuth and Min Aung Hlaing however. I recall the Thai army detaining several students for eating sandwiches with political intent and warning the public that was a criminal act. In Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi has been held under house arrest on charges of importing walkie-talkies, while President U Win Myint, has been detained for breaching coronavirus regulations.
Such state-sponsored absurdities indicate a level of thinly-veiled anxiety lurking just beneath the surface of the juntas' brute power. Prayuth’s fear, like Hlaing's, and those of the elite they have sworn to defend, is a palpable paranoia that a majority of people, if given half a chance, will insist upon equality and justice from systems that traditionally mete 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 the Chinese leadership and their obsessive claims of authority over territories like Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong, and the posturing of Myanmar's generals in allowing once-promising reforms to stall, all point in their distinct way at inherent flaws across a range of dissimilar governance models.
They also testify to the urgent need for peaceful resistance: a mindful uprising of those who are oppressed by inhumane, mercenary and 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 fraudulent to the extent that they are not simply worthless in their current state of health and incapable of reform, but also increasingly hazardous to the majority of human beings. If we do not take a stand soon, 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, until recently, 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 pretense 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 governance models 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, culture, 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 holds 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 is imperfect. Some flaws seem so 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, and is even shut down if deemed vital to their survival. The result is systems more aloof and out of step than they ever have 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 revolutionize 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 direct 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 ten 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 step forward.
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. There should be one interest only: the health, wellbeing, and financial security of all citizens.
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 in a global context. They undermine democracy by contriving dispute. The internet and decentralized smart phone apps make political parties redundant and they 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 state 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 everyone. Large-scale experimentation in this field is uncommon and most recent experiments, like Soviet-styled communism, have failed us. In terms of what assumptions should inform future governance models, it will be crucial to put morality and justice ahead of legality. It is perhaps a salient reminder that the holocaust was legal, while hiding Jews a criminal act in wartime Germany. Slavery was legal in the US, yet freeing slaves was illegal.
The need for regenerative systems, to ensure efficiency, stability and adaptiveness at the same time, seems to be a utopian impossibility, especially given the propensity of political 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, within the context of reinvented governance, is urgently needed. But it must be based on a different set of truths than exist in most modern political systems. There is too much at stake that we should blindly follow past creeds. Immorality and exploitation cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged. The unjustified silencing of the majority cannot be condoned. Not can we continue to promote people into positions of authority 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, as has been the case in China, for example.
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 11.02 billion by the turn of the century. They will also need to limit conflict, cure mankind’s inhumanity to man, protect the planet, be designed for rapid adaptation to changing circumstances, and as near incorruptible as possible.
There is not much time though. Societies are fast breaking down. Public ferment is simmering ominously just under the surface. Neoliberal ideas that sustained the growth and activities of the corporate state in the 20th century lost their efficacy long ago, such that the plight of the working poor is now one extended emergency. In that regard the rise of Donald Trump with all his vulgarity and spontaneity can be clearly seen as a product manufactured in television reality shows, speaking directly to dispossessed workers in America and their legitimate rage. Understanding these circumstances was why it was such an easy task for me to predict the outcome of the Presidential election in 2016.
Meanwhile the economic assault on ordinary people, and the consolidation of wealth into the hands of an oligarchic elite, goes mostly unnoticed and unreported because of the burlesque theatre that politics has become. As a direct result of the cult of celebrity, political rhetoric has become infantile, cliched and slogan-ridden - so void of real content that we are made to feel puzzled by what scientists are saying about existential issues, in contrast to how they are conveyed as entertaining and intriguing bites of arcane glossolalia.
Unfortunately our emotional inability to accept that all governance and political systems are inherently fragile, and can unravel so quickly, means that we often ignore the need for change until it is simply too late. Given present conditions it might only take a spark - the ditching of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency perhaps, a surprise invasion of Taiwan by China, a missile attack by North Korea on Seoul, or possibly a single martyr as violence escalates in Myanmar, to shock the world out of its apathy and to ignite social unrest on a massive scale.
Should such anomie arise, it is likely the military will become involved. That would most likely aggravate any catastrophe. In many countries the military is considered untouchable: deified but also a death cult in which an ethos of sacrifice is inculcated in order that violence grabs hold and becomes addictive.
If that idea captures the imagination of our society going forward we can expect social rules and norms to be ignored as the collective order dissolves into chaos. Add the likely impacts of climate change to that volatility and we can consider the extinction of the human species to be imminent. The moral imperative for resistance is clear. We must hope that sanity will prevail.
Thank you! Thank you! for these well thought out possibilities and potential ways of transformation of our world. I'm passing this on to all of my elder friends who just can't envision any "new" way of doing things, other than "the way we have always done them.