Loïc Delorme | Contributing Writer
It is established that there is a rising cynicism and disinterest in politics in the Western world. Voter turnout is low, and attachment to parties has declined. Anti-establishment groups are on the rise, fuelled by the woes of economic stagnation, national debt and the wide-spread belief that the politicians we have can’t do anything about it. Politicians are rocked by scandals and frequently betray their incompetence at drafting laws.
Most of this comes from people expecting to have more influence in public decisions and taking for granted that they, and not an elite, decide.
ADVERTISEMENT
This is, believe it or not, good news. Or more precisely these are (mainly) the symptoms of yesterday’s good news and will (hopefully) be the cause of tomorrow’s good news. Why? Well, most of this comes from people expecting to have more influence in public decisions and taking for granted that they, and not an elite, decide. It also means that people are not divided (even if they appear only to unite in their hate of politicians).
Let me explain. Up until a generation ago, in most countries society could be divided into clear cut categories: labourers and capital holders, or pro-Collins and anti-Collins in the oddity that is Ireland (apologies for the brutal oversimplification). More than that, parties worked from the assumption that knowing which side of that divide you were on probably determined which side of all the other divides of society you were on. Someone had very similar or near-opposite views to you, with fewer mix-and-match cases. This led to the formation of two-party systems that so neatly encompassed the opinions of voters that voters, in turn, identified themselves with these parties, voted for the same parties for all their lives and would pass down their voting habits.
For example, believing that the government should not intervene in the economy often went hand in hand with the belief that it should intervene in matters of law (namely morality and marriage) and cultural heritage. If you believed this, you were on the right. Inversely, if you thought that the government should do more to protect the poor, you probably felt that it should not interfere in people’s personal choices and should embrace the future, in which case you were on the left. This major divide (be it left/right, Collins or not) was never universal for individuals but it held up on a national level. It has now utterly dissolved.
For Ireland, this is because few really want to or think it realistic that we get Northern Ireland back, and we are no longer in a state of war. For the left/right divide, I think this is because everybody thinks of themselves as middle class. Economists debate whether 43 per cent of the UK really are the middle class they believe they are, but what is important is that most people don’t feel that they are “proletariat” or “capitalist”. The Great Divide is dissolving.
The two-party system so neatly encompassed the opinions of voters that voters, in turn, identified themselves with these parties, voted for the same parties for all their lives and would pass down their voting habits.
This is good news, but with it comes electoral chaos. Elections aren’t two ideologies fighting or compromising for power but an entire spectrum of ideas trying to get a say. Type “political compass” in Google. With four extreme positions and everything in between, it is still an over-simplification of today’s politics. For example, where do pro- and anti-nuclear go?
How do political parties react to the fact that they cannot possibly have an answer to everything and still satisfy the majority? They race to the middle ground, taking as few stances as possible and generally not getting anything done. In fact, the two main parties end up following similar policies once in power. This is the most sensible strategy on their part: most voters are centrists, easily swayed and tipping the elections each time. They have given up looking for a party that accurately represents their views and are looking for the “least worst”, the one that manages to get through an entire campaign without saying something that they fundamentally disagree with.
But that doesn’t mean the parties don’t have anything to disagree over. They mud-sling each other (it is easier to convince people that the other is bad than it is to convince them that you are good), and choose a few divisive issues upon which to take a stance for the elections. In short, politicians haven’t become mediocre because they are out of touch with the people. They very accurately represent the majority of people: there is no cohesive ideology to explain things, just a multitude of isolated issues which are solved through compromise, status quo and by looking at polls to see where the majority stand. I would however note two exceptions to this: one is the US, which faces the opposite (rising inequality and polarisation of the debate) and Ireland which faces this situation, but worse. Ireland’s two main parties have become indistinguishable, probably because they were never that different to start off with, being divided for historical reasons.
Politicians very accurately represent the majority of people: there is no cohesive ideology to explain things, just a multitude of isolated issues which are solved through compromise, status quo and by looking at polls to see where the majority stand.
Other factors worsen this. For one, we are no longer in a war or coming out of a war and two, economic times are hard. The first means that we don’t unquestioningly gather around heroes and – on a far less positive note – without a tangible emergency, “heroes” don’t appear in the first place, replaced by people with less ambition and lesser values. The second means that the only route for governments is to take unpopular decisions and fasten their seatbelts for some tough times. True, there are two ways out of hard times:
1) blow the deficit through the roof, spend your way out and try to recoup on inflation or
2) free the economy from government intervention by lowering tax and regulation but pay for it in draconian cuts and lower social protection.
But they depend on your money rate (inflation or stability), and this has long ago been entrusted to a combination of impersonal markets and bureaucratic central banks and also depends on what previous governments did. There is no point in having a charismatic and exceptional leader if they can only act within the limits imposed by these forces. Plus, there is no consensus on which is the better option.
Once we accept that no single party, person or ideology can accurately represent an incredibly diverse majority, that will be the moment we, the people, realise that we can decide a lot ourselves, without going through the middle men.
Now to move on to why this is good news for tomorrow. Once we accept that no single party, person or ideology can accurately represent an incredibly diverse majority, that will be the moment we, the people, realise that we can decide a lot ourselves, without going through the middle men. Sure, they’ll still be there, telling us that high spending and low taxes can’t last forever (unless they’re in power of course), but single-issue lobbies are probably going to take the brunt of their influence. Gay marriage is a good example of this: the campaign groups on either side are independent of the political parties, they push for a referendum and will probably have the organisational capacity to continue to further their cause even after the referendum. We can expect the politics of tomorrow to be more like a direct democracy, probably relying heavily on technology with mobilisation on social media, electronic voting and, maybe, crowd participation in writing laws.
That’s the best solution to our problems and the outcome we should strive for and we need to start thinking now how to crowdsource good and consistent policies. But this coin has its dark flipside too. It is also possible that, sick of indistinguishable mainstream politicians that are blocking change, we blame them instead of ourselves. It will be worse if they do block this change in an attempt to hold on to their power. A large number of voters will simply fall into apathy and cynicism, as is already happening, and another large number will be sufficiently desperate for change and leaders that take firm, controversial and brave stances that they will follow parties whose only ideology is the promise to do everything differently.
The various extreme to extremist groups that are cropping up pretty much everywhere in the West are clear examples of this and a warning. You can recognise them because they blame scapegoats, promise miracle but drastic solutions such as leaving the Eurozone or Schengen, getting Central Banks to borrow money from themselves, kicking out a minority group, etc. These may be things that no mainstream party is willing to do but that is more because doing these things would be plain stupid and less because the political elite is conspiring against us. We mustn’t allow these ideas to become mainstream, especially since these parties rely far too much on the charisma of individuals while being dubious about some of the core aspects of democracy. Giving them the reins of power would return us to the “golden age” of political simplicity, but at the cost of the democratic progress outlined above, not to mention worsening of the economic situation.
Photo from Flickr
