It was a good idea the Greeks had. The amazing radical notion that the whole people decide together who should do what in the society, how resources should be allocated and if you should shag your sister. From the time of cave men, it had been the man with the biggest club who decided everything in his own favour, and I don’t mean fan club. Then as things got more complex, those who could organise the most clubs got to be despot and pick the harem. Then when trade and money were invented, the clubs were trumped by the diamonds, and gold became king.
So the idea the Greeks had that power should be shared was really rad. Of course they didn’t want to go too far, so the power was shared among those fit to enjoy the privilege. Not women, nor the poorer classes that couldn’t demonstrated sufficient wealth, and definitely not foreigners or slaves. Which put 1% of the population in power. But hey, you have got to start somewhere.
The Greeks had a pretty good run of a few centuries with this democracy thing until the Romans came along and put them back into the box. But the democracy idea seemed a bit contagious, so the Romans had their senates and their forums, though it never did spread beyond the 1%. The rest just wanted bread and circuses. The total pits of the Roman political system was the 1st century AD, when being stabbed in the back was not just a metaphorical phrase. The most laughable incident perhaps was when the praetorian guard installed a horse as emperor. A little later, when they had got over their hangovers, they decided perhaps a horse wasn’t up to the job, and installed Claudius who they thought was a total idiot because he stuttered and they could easily control him. The only reason he had survived childhood in an aristocratic family was because he was seen as a bumbling and harmless cretin studying the Etruscan language and possibly its last ever speaker. He surprised them a bit by being quite astute. He survived a few years before being poisoned by his own wife.
Politics is still a tough business, but with fewer fatalities, though political assassination are still rife. Here in Australia we have to ask if the system works. My opinion is that no, it doesn’t work. The civil service keep the bureaucracy ticking over and keeps the ministers from doing the worst damage to society, but the political system is barely functional. The bureaucracy will never bring change to update systems to the changes in society, economic environment, advances in technology etc, and the politicians are too scared to move. Politics in Australia has become all about the endless churn of attacking the other party, media bites, and damage control. Brand, positioning and spin have become more important than substance of policy. Abbot for instance doesn’t believe there is such a thing a global warming, so he scrapped the carbon tax. But he did read the polls and realise that a huge chunk of the electorate did, so he came up with a ‘green’ scheme that actually paid polluters in the hope that they might use some of that money to clean up their act. Yeah, right. Another $100m wasted on fig leaf policy.
What is really hard to stomach is the personal vilification and smear that the politicians and the media dole out to their opponents. A lot of it isn’t true but based on innuendo rather than evidence, but that doesn’t matter as the headline of today splashed on the front page can become the two line retraction of tomorrow buried at the bottom of page nine. There are vicious personal attacks about a persons’ dealings from 20 years ago, their appearance, their sexuality, or just anything to smear them.
I listen to the parliamentary proceedings on the radio. Yeah, honest I do! Me and another bloke in Yallingup. That’s how I learned that the proceedings start with a solemn reading of the Lord’s Prayer. What an anachronism! Some speeches raise concerns about the bill or give reasons for its necessity, but perhaps 80-90% of the time is spent vilifying those on the opposite benches. Mostly calling them liars for saying a different thing now than they said 10 years ago. Actually, I like to update my ideas as a result of new information and more thought. Apparently for a politician to do so is treachery and deceit of the worst order and dubbed a back-flip. Clive Palmer changes his mind all the time, but the mental picture of him doing a ‘back-flip’ is hilarious. It would bring the house down.
Add this filter to your ‘Bullshit Detector’. Is this politician talking about the ideas, the policies and issues? Do they name the opposing party or a person in it? Do they trawl the archives for sins of opponents or look into the future? Do you get the slightest flicker of hope?
It is about time we started punishing our elected representatives for lack of performance. Looks like an election looming quite soon, so an opportunity to apply the bullshit detector. Ignore the personal attacks and instead mark down the person and party uttering them. Listen to anybody actually discussing issues. That will not happen often so wont take much of your time. Develop a revulsion for ‘attack dog’ politics.
So, I discover our leaders aren’t our leaders. They are dedicated followers of opinion polls. Slaves to the media. Fearful puppets of financial forces. Minions of the inner elite. Disrespected by the populace down to the level of secondhand car salesmen. Manipulated by lobbies, bullied by corporations, coerced by donations and humiliated by trenchant criticism. So give them a break. Vote them out of office.
Instead elect those who don’t need to be there. Reluctant candidates who don’t actually need this job. People dragged kicking and screaming to endure the tedium of constructing laws and clauses which actually make society function better. They should be given time off for good behavior.
Well, you’re right about the media. They rule those countries we like to call democratic. And the media love the clamour of single-issue activists, the demands of the recently-bereaved or aggrieved – these make good headlines, especially if, as you’ve said, a politician or person with authority can be pilloried. No wonder spin and damage limitation rule, no wonder politicians and media-trained spokespersons have become so skilled in crafting statements that say nothing, nothing at all, and more flowery nothings, unless it can be reinterpreted at a later stage if necessary. No wonder policies, whether of the left or the right, are not adopted if those with media access might object. And it doesn’t take many objectors, to any policy – the media are masters at producing a tearful mother, who will claim that some new policy or system will in some way make her and her babies worse off.
Since the burgeoning of media power, through worldwide, instant communication, political parties are forced to show preference to the largest identifiable segment or class of the population they think might vote for them – in essence, they bribe the population with their own money.
It would be good if there were still investigative journalists, fearlessly exposing the excesses of those in authority, rather than just sitting at a desk, mindlessly regurgitating the press releases that appear on their screens. But investigation is hard, thankless and sometimes dangerous work. You might get your access to higher echelons withdrawn, and besides, the pub’s open.
Yes, you are right – democracy was a nice idea, but it does seem to be in difficulty, even in places like the USA. So, back to monarchy, the Windsors, Kims, Sauds, Romanovs and so forth? Or is Robert Mugabe doing a better job? I’m out of ideas. What’s better?
As seen from Oz, among the Windsors the present Queen has a lot of credit and respect, but getting a bit long in the tooth and the succeeding generations don’t inspire the same loyalty. Robert Mugabe deserves credit for his tenacity and longevity, but nothing else. As for the Sauds and the Romanovs, I’m sure they would be very efficient and run a tight ship ….. if you want to be a serf subject to random floggings. I’d go for the benevolent dictatorship style of Lee Quan Yew of Singapore who ruled by the power of his personal convictions, an IQ that could melt lead, and who’s disapproving stare could freeze the balls off dissenters. He took a sleepy tropical run-down British watering hole with no land, no water, no natural assets and an ethnic melting-pot into a high-tech hub of excellence. School kids may start at 6am, there are 2 shifts, and doing calculus in primary school.
Yes, Charles isn’t the sharpest knife in the box, but William at least has earned a bit of respect and liking, as an SAR Sea King pilot at RAF Valley – at least doing an honest day’s work. And it’s widely believed that HM will try to hang on grimly until William can succeed her, rather than Charles. Singapore sounds impressive, but look what happened as soon as Tito died. However benevolent and intelligent the dictator, he won’t live forever. He’s an individual, albeit widely respected, but not an ongoing system.
He died in 2015, after serving as PM from 1959 to 1990 when he resigned. Not voted out, resigned. His legacy remains. I got his name wrong as I remembered phonetically. Try Lee Kuan Yew.