Skip to main content
Tag

improved democracy

Jan 18 2022
Love0

Liberal Humanists need to rally to the cause

By political thought

Democracies the world over are in deep crisis. Evolution is accelerating bringing huge challenges to advanced societies.  Issues resulting from an aging population, globalisation and new technologies have not been faced; the crises resulting from climate change, pandemics and immigration are piling on additional pressures. Nowhere is this democratic failure felt worse than in the USA.  Decades of political paralysis between the Democratic and Republican parties has resulted in a hugely discontented electorate.

Legions of Trump supporters are turning the Republican party against democracy. Republican Senators and Congressmen are lining up behind Trump in his rejection of the presidential election result. They are condoning his encouragement of rioters who marched on Congress and built gallows for those politicians who stood in their way. According to Johnathon Friedland writing in the Guardian, surveys show that 30% of Republicans say that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/07/trump-biden-republicans-election-lies-midterms One of the cradles of modern democracy is in danger moving towards authoritarianism and civil conflict.

With their rejection of democratic processes, the Republican party now represents the antithesis of liberal humanist values. Rational judgement is being replaced by patriotic fervour. Egalitarian policies that help the less well-off are being set aside. Freedoms for women, immigrants and the poor are being supressed. Despite all the recent physical proofs, climate change is still being denied. Their rejection of international co-operation in favour of a narrow view of ‘America First’ nationalism would be disastrous for confronting the coming environmental crisis.

rallying to the causeThe old political divisions of left and right are now no longer so important. People have a critical decision to make as to whether they support democracy and liberal humanist values or not. Decades of progress in the health and wealth of citizens of the advanced world are under threat. A battle is coming up for the heart and soul of the electorate. Liberal humanists need to recognise the danger and to rally around the cause. Rejection of liberal humanist values in favour of a narrow tribal nationalism would be disastrous for international co-operation, the environment, and the future of our children

Jan 16 2022
Love0

The moral culture of modern Western society is liberal humanism – we need to celebrate its achievements

By political thought

For a country to be stable its citizens have to accept the rule of law and, for laws to be seen as just, they must be underpinned by a common morality. For most of human history this common morality has been determined by priests. Old men consulted sacred texts and divined what they perceived to be God’s will. Religions determined acceptable behaviour: the role of women, crimes and punishments and many other mores of daily life. This moral control even extended to economic crimes such as usuary and to scientific argument on the functioning of the natural world.

After the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church started to lose its monopoly on determining moral issues. There began in the West a long process of establishing a new moral code based on natural principles. As Barack Obama said in later times:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or (invoke) God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is relevant to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This new ‘universal‘ morality became based on  the liberal ideas of freedom and equality that emerged in Britain and the USA in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, alongside natural humanistic ideals of behaviour. It has no recognised name, for want of a better phrase I call it secular liberal humanism. It has transformed our lives.

The natural world is no longer seen as controlled by Gods, demons and spirits. Scientific explanations of natural phenomena, including evolution and the creation of the world, are accepted as truths. The old fatalism of religions is no longer present. During the Covid crisis, no one said that this was a punishment from God- medical solutions were sought and found.

Slavery as an institution no longer exists. Its abolition was inspired by Christians in Britain and America, imbued with liberal ideas. As the poet William Cowper wrote in 1785:

We have no slaves at home – Then why abroad? Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free, they touch our country, and their shackles fall.

This change from a rigid religiously inspired morality has accelerated since the Second World War. Women have gained a more important role in society and we have become less judgemental of minorities. No longer are divorcees, unmarried mothers, bastards and homosexuals stigmatised. We have set laws for discrimination on the grounds of gender, disability, race or religion. It is far from perfect but there appears to be a genuine desire to create a kinder, more caring world based on humanistic principles.

At every stage many religious leaders have resisted change, but most of their congregations have embraced the new morality. I have attended several inter-faith groups and It has become apparent to me that many, perhaps most, religious people in the West also de facto support secular liberal humanist ideals.  The same sex marriage vote and abortion vote in Ireland in 2015 and 2018 are the latest example of congregations embracing the new morality against the advice of their priests.

The principles of liberal humanism now determine the morality of all Western countries. Its natural authority allows both religious and non-religious to live together in harmony, sharing the same moral code.  It is certain that it has transformed our lives for the better. However, it is not celebrated as the revolutionary force it is. It has evolved naturally – it doesn’t even have a recognised name. No one prophet has espoused its ideals. No group specifically rallies round its principles. Except humanists, but we are a very small proportion of the population.

Since globalisation and the advent of social media the world has become increasingly fractious. If we are to continue to reap the benefits of  liberal humanism in the West, we need to positively embrace it as our common morality, uniting us across religious and national boundaries.  We need to name it, understand its force, celebrate its success and unite behind its principles. If we do so, we will be stronger together and better able to co-operate to confront the global challenges ahead.

Feb 09 2021
Love0

Democracy is the art of thinking independently together

By Uncategorized

Mejklejohn‘Democracy is the art of thinking independently together’ said the American philosopher, Alexander Meikljohn. If this is true then this art has been lost in the West and democratic government is in crisis as a consequence.

One problem is that the tribalism of party politics gets in the way of effective democratic processes. Too often party loyalty trumps rational decision-making.  A scandalous example of this occurs in the Committee stage of law-making at the House of Commons. This is the stage in which the finer points of a proposed law are discussed and problem areas are supposed to be resolved. Isobel Hardman in her book Why we get the Wrong Politicians describes the process as non-functional: in effect a charade. The government has a majority on the committee. They select the participating MPs, not for their knowledge and interest, but for their compliance; these doormats of politicians are expected to support the Government at all times. During the committee meetings only opposition MPs raise issues. Government MPs, with nothing to contribute, spend their time on other work such as answering emails on their laptops. The Government deliberately side-lines MPs who think independently and actively discourages rational discussion.

Debates in the Chamber are little better, too often political discussion appears to be a process in which the deaf shout at each other. No points are conceded, no questions are answered and no light is shed on the issues discussed. Party dogma and party loyalty rules.

Alexander Meikljohn also believed that democracy should mean self-government by the people; by this he meant that the Government should be involved in an informed dialogue with the electorate.   At the present time, the public is rarely enlightened by political discussion. The accepted art of a politician seems to be avoiding answering difficult questions. Never admit to a mistake is a mantra. New ideas are rarely discussed as politicians stick rigidly to the party line. As politicians waffle non-responses, media interviews frustrate both interviewer and public alike.

The tribalism of party politics is at its worst in the USA. Democrats and Republicans are barely on speaking terms. The American constitutional system was designed as a balance of power, involving discussion and compromise.  Too often Democrats dominate Congress and Republicans the Senate;  the result is stalemate. During the last two presidencies there have been long periods in which Congress barely functions at all.

flatpack democracyWe desperately need cultural change in the way our politicians behave. The excesses of tribal behaviour need to be curbed to allow issue identification and resolution. The remnants of effective democratic processes in the House of Commons survive in conventions for speaking courtesies: representatives must be addressed as Right Honourable and members are not allowed to use ‘unparliamentary language’. But the essence of the democratic processes  have been so degraded over time that there needs to be a root and branch review of systems and codes of behaviour. Politics would be much more effective if representatives listened to other views, ceded points of discussion and reached genuine rational decisions. It’s not rocket science.  It needs good chairing and agreed rules of conduct, such as those suggested by Peter Macfadyn in his book Flatpack Democracy. There is a precedent for change to be possible. According to Isobel Hardman, Select Committees, introduced in 1979, have a different political culture in which members are much less partisan.

As soon as people identify as a group, tribal behaviour becomes inevitable. A truly effective democracy depends on its culture and its processes to minimise this behaviour and allow rational discussion to take place. In Britain and the USA, at least, these democratic norms have fallen into disrepair. The West’s position in the world pecking order is under threat from populist movements, Chinese militarism and the success of East Asian forms of democratic government. If the West is to maintain its international competitiveness it will need to look again at its failing democratic procedures and revise them to be fit for the 21st century.

 

Jan 24 2021
Love0

Democracy in crisis

By Uncategorized

Democracy is in crisis. Representative democracy, invented in the eighteenth century, is no longer fit for purpose. Politicians have 2 major roles: to represent and to govern.  They are failing in both.

Over the course of history, those elected in a representative democracy have rarely come from a broad cross-section of the electorate.  In Britain, democracy began as a popularity contest between local power-brokers of the ruling class.  In the nineteenth century, as the electorate was broadened, middle-class politicians muscled in on power. In the mid-twentieth century, there was a brief scary period for the upper echelons when working class people were elected and opinions of all classes were heard in Parliament. Today, however, the less well-off are again excluded. Gaining a degree has become a necessary qualification to be selected as a candidate. Britain is divided between those that went to university and those that didn’t. Those without degrees are unrepresented and their opinions are rarely sought. The result has been protest and populism as expressed in the election of Trump, the Brexit referendum and the French gilet jaune.

demcracy in crisis

The recent record of governance by Western democracies is also poor. Good decision making is hampered by the fact that political parties are only guaranteed to be in power for up to five years. This means governments focus on the short term. If there are difficult decisions to be made that could be unpopular, the temptation is to delay. When the pace of evolution was slower in the 19th and early 20th century the problem wasn’t so serious. Nowadays it is disastrous. Every major issue, whether it be climate change, the pandemic or the divided society, is being tackled too late. Only when problems become destructively overwhelming are solutions sought. By then much of the damage has been done.

We expect a lot of our politicians. They are required to be responsive to the needs of their constituents at the same time as looking after the interests of the nation as a whole. They are supposed to stay in contact with ordinary people while simultaneously running the country. We require them to respond to the latest petty scandal at the same time as looking after the long-term future of the country. They are supposed to be excellent communicators with their finger on the pulse of the nation as well as understanding the detailed minutiae of government issues. In office, we expect them to be excellent managers, with no training, expertise or experience in their roles. It is too much to ask.

The current form of representative democracy isn’t the only possible method of government in which people elect their leaders. If we are to confront the challenges ahead, we need new types of democratic institution which improve both governance and representation. Ones better able to foster excellence, capable both of taking the long-term view and, at the same time, representing the people in a more active fashion.

For more listen to David Runciman on BBC Sounds  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005f8w

Aug 02 2019
Love0

Optimism

By political thought

Optimism - the signpost to disasterBoris Johnson’s recipe for the future of the UK is clearly based on energy and optimism. The belief that if you think something will happen, put aside negative thoughts and stride forward with enthusiasm, you will succeed. However, if the direction is wrong and there is not sufficient analysis and forethought, it is also a recipe for disaster. A splendid piece by Tim Lott in the Guardian warns of the dangers ahead.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/24/boris-johnson-optimism-sales-pitch-only-disappoint.

He says that too often:

optimism leads to disappointment- attended by its henchmen, bitterness and resentment … If optimism does not produce the desired results, then optimism itself has been sabotaged – not by realists but by the pessimists, otherwise known as traitors.

Optimism and an appeal to national fervour are the building blocks of populism. The belief that if our nation/race/religion all band together we will overcome all obstacles and triumph over others. It is attractive to many because it appeals to deeply held tribal instincts.

However, if we are to seriously address the critical issues of our society such as climate change, an aging population, the gig economy and increasing wealth disparity, optimism alone will not succeed.  It will inevitably lead to further divisions within society, less and less rational action and diminishing international cooperation. We need a more thoughtful approach based on shared human values. Optimism and its cohort populism are dangerous.  They represent the antithesis of the principles of eco-humanity and will inevitably result in a poorer, more divided world that continues to destroy the planet.