Democracy
is a strait-jacket. Long ago the powers that be learned to manage it
to ensure retention of the status quo, so business as usual can
destroy nature by creating more crap that we don't need. Progress
hasn't come from the left for as long as anyone can remember. Doesn't matter how long the left pretends to be progressive, people
know that whenever they get into government we only ever get
more of the same. The left is dead in the water. Progress can only
come from being neither left nor right, but out in front &
advancing!
Labour
is made impotent by slavish adherence to a fossil ideology: socialism. They could reinvent it. The need was apparent to me in
the early '70s; by the mid'80s the advent of Thatcher & Reagan plus the lack of any positive alternative in response from the left ought to have
even made it clear to slow-learners. Instead, political leftists
continue to spout banal clichés in media
situations as though the public knows what they mean - whereas that implied tacit acceptance of validity is only ever actually shared by those
who join a socialist party.
The
discrediting of socialism in the public mind has primarily been
achieved by the performance of socialists in government: they kept proving
that it doesn't work. All we ever got was high taxes and a bloated
inefficient bureaucracy. Folks feel alienated from the left &
some become victims of the left's use of state power to suppress or
exploit people when in government. Leftist governments penalise
individual effort (either in business or as high-earning employees). The example of governance they provide is gross irresponsibility and
lack of accountability for poor performance. Wrong-doers evade
accountability by means of bureaucratic cover-up. Unethical
behaviour is institutionalised.
Could
this dead political movement come alive again? Only by
re-invigorating its spirit. So what is the spirit of socialism? It
is embodied in concepts such as equity and the commons. Curiously,
in 45 years of observing socialists, I've seen no evidence that any
of them are aware of this. If they are, how come they never say so?! Socialism emerged in the early 19th
century as the antithesis of capitalism. Since the ideology of
capitalism is anchored on self-interest, one would therefore presume
that of socialism is anchored on the common interest. Has any
theorist of socialism pointed this out to the public? Not to my
knowledge! Hegel's perception of a dialectic that produces a social
response in antithesis to any thesis, and his suggestion that
consequent polarisation of two bodies of opinion can always be
resolved by a synthesis of the two, was a profound insight. In the
psychodynamics of mass power - that pits an individualist tendency
against a collectivist tendency - we can always transcend the dualist
frame (state of mind) produced by the polarity if we create a
synthesis instead.
Perhaps
the socialists failed to do this because they were led astray by the
red herring of communism – a sectarian ideology based on a
conceptual division of western civilisation by means of a frame
called `the class system'. Communists pit the common interests of
workers against the common interests of business owners. I believe
this to be a strategic error in socialist thought, that led the
socialist movement into an historical cul de sac. The success of any
collective enterprise is maximised via a common interest design,
structure and process that integrates stakeholders by motivating them
to work together for the common good. Such an incentive structure is
essential for optimal outcomes.
Polarising
employees against owners was an idiocy deemed expedient when
accepting the private property right of owners to operate business in
such a way as to minimise the share of non-owners. Greed thus
dictated outcomes. A win/lose zero-sum society became inevitable
when everyone shirked the responsibility of designing a win/win
scenario that would produce mutual-benefit outcomes. When the
positive alternative has been implemented, reality shows that
employees work better in situations where the business gives them
more of a share, and those businesses become more competitive than
those still using the traditional model. The sensible course,
therefore, is to charter businesses on the basis of a collective
agreement, where the relative shares of investors, management and
staff are mutually agreed. For a fairer basis of equity, such
charter agreements should include the sharing of risk as well as
profit.
The
historical failure of the left lies in its failure to even conceive a
credible design for collective enterprise, let alone implement it. They have instead tacitly exposed their intellectual inadequacy by
adopting the practice of conceding to capitalists the operation of
the economy. In compensation for this weakness, they have sought
political power by promising to use state power to extract and
redistribute the wealth produced by business to those who vote for
them. They have learned that this strategy is only successful when
they redistribute the tax money on a sufficiently credible equity
basis that their antique class agenda is masked. This is done via
public services and targeted state support for various groups unable
to earn a sufficient wage via employment.
Thus
both Labour and National governments adhere to the capitalist system. This traditional collusion of the left and right defines people as
consumers of capitalist product and binds them into debt slavery. Folks continue to yearn for freedom from this antiquated bullshit
system, yet the left continue to fail to provide a positive
alternative! No wonder voters have been deserting them. Pretending
to represent the people no longer works: too many can now see
through that pretence. The persistent refusal of the left to provide
real progress threatens to marginalise them to the point where the
effect becomes terminal. Time to get real!
People
think they are born free, yet the system prevents them owning
anything unless they earn capital, and it is designed to minimise the
amount that people can earn. Life becomes a grim struggle for most,
made worse by the excessive wealth of those who have more than they
need, and the collusion of those who pretend to be helping the
struggling majority. A social system based on deceit and
exploitation breeds moral corruption and ill health, and the
consequences cost everyone. People must be free to choose a positive
alternative to the status quo, yet the left still colludes with the
right in maintaining the status quo. Wage slaves forever? Not when
capitalism is failing to provide the jobs. Home ownership a distant
dream? Nobody left from the 1980s still believes in the mythical
trickle-down theory of wealth (unless it is the top 1% of owners
pissing on everyone else). Yet that scenario is misleading: despite
shrinkage of the middle-class, around 20-30% of the populace remains
comfortably well-off, while according to recent news reports half the
families in our country now receive some form of state support.
David
Parker seems that rarest of kiwis, a leftist with genuine intellect -
but he will need to prove that he can go where no other leftist with
intellectual pretensions has ever gone; to the avante garde. We
need to reformulate socialism via a return to basic principles such
as equity and the commons. A rationale that derives social theory
from metaphysics is still missing on the left. What do Maoris,
Greens, and the English peasants of the 17th
century share? The tragedy of the commons, of course, and it's just
as obvious now as it was 30 years ago. Enough already of fatalistic
contemplation or evasion of the problem, which is seemingly the eternal predisposition of leftists. Move on to the solution
please! Why be an intellectual wimp forever? Let's make progress
instead. Even leftists are potentially capable of being real men and
making a positive contribution to society. Actualise that potential!
Protection
of the commons must be constitutionally enshrined by all peoples
everywhere to enable the human race to survive and prosper. Make
this a priority now! If the right stands for individual rights, the
left must stand for collective rights to perform a complementary
function. Regenerating the commons must be the imperative of all
leftist political movements if they want to serve the public by
fulfilling their natural function. Future generations have a right
of equity in the environmental commons that must be secured by
international law. We all have a right of equity in social wealth
produced by collective endeavour provided we contribute equitably to
that endeavour. The traditional right to private profit cannot
continue to be protected on a morally corrupt basis. The private
exploitation of the commons contravenes our right of equity – yet
social convention and the law continues to protect such corruption.
Businesses ought not to be parasites on the body politic! We need a
new state that subordinates the right of private profit to the
preservation of the commons and our collective right of equity. This
means formulating a public consensus that approves mutual-benefit
economic practices. Teamwork, as exemplified by the All Blacks,
serves as suitable method and role model for collective enterprise.
Parliament's
upper chamber remains empty, unused, dormant: testimony to the lack
of political imagination of democrats and other politicos. Why not
use it to create a forum for political debate unconstrained by the
formal rules of our antique democracy? Why not allow consensus
decision-making to replace adversarial grid-lock? Let's empower
collective brainstorming in the ambience of the old colonial
aristocracy.
We
ought to resume operation of an upper house of parliament in an
advisory and advocacy role. The social charter of its operation
should define the purpose as social improvement via the solution of
the most urgent social problems. Membership driven by the ethic of
voluntarism, the culture to be meritocracy, providing an alternative
forum for the public service ethic. The agenda to be nominated by
consensus of concern, with volunteers offering their skills and
expertise to teams taking on collective priority tasks. When the
chamber is overloaded with process or commitments, these tasks and
teams to function autonomously outside parliament until their job is
done - whereupon the upper house would be required to address their
report and decide subsequent implementation options.
Such
a forum would allow folks frustrated by the strait-jacket of
democracy to work together for the common good. People keep
appealing for a new style of politics as if it hasn't occurred to
them that the structure of democracy is designed to prevent any such
thing. Use of a rule of consensus decision-making in a
non-adversarial context ought to foster an innovative political
culture. Expedite the brainstorming of difficult issues via use of
`the fishbowl' – a dual holistic structure of audience and
activists that the Greens used in the early years to move everyone
toward resolution. As Convenor of the Standing Orders Committee of
the Green Party I was confronted by a catch-22: early in '91 an
activist at a Party meeting explained to me that formal
decision-making wasn't happening because the leading activists
couldn't agree on the requisite rules for how to make Party
decisions. He said getting them to consensus was “like herding
cats” - first time I'd heard this expression, which has since become
popular! All it took to break the impasse - as it transpired - was
use of the fishbowl strategy as catalyst plus the usual judicious
redrafting to clarify ambiguities and intent.
Democracy
creates conformist pressures within a political party that are
inexorable in marginalising and eliminating lateral-thinkers, the
very type of human being who normally excels in problem-solving.
That's why democrats continually wallow in historical social
problems. The lowest-common-denominator design of democracy eliminates the very folk most likely to produce the results that
democrats aspire to. Use of an upper house allows us capacity to
collectively transcend this flaw in democracy, this paradox, by means
of a more intuitive informal decision-making process fostering a
culture of meritocracy. If we telecast the forum it will provide the
opportunity to role-model the process to non-participants. Younger
folk would have their survival prospects enhanced by doing so.
A
right of self-determination exists on both the individual and
collective levels, thus sovereignty cannot be restricted to the
nation state. The right of indigenous peoples and other minority
groups to determine their destiny must be recognised and accepted –
provided that exercise of that right does not produce harmful effects
on others. Where such become evident, minority group rights must be
suspended or restricted till the harm is eliminated.
The
role of the head of state ought to be constructive and exemplary, and
constituted accordingly. Suitable contract clauses that compel
performance must be incorporated to secure this result. Currently,
MPs must swear allegiance to the Crown, which is an archaic
irrelevance. In order to create a true democracy, elected
representatives must be made to swear their allegiance to all
citizens. The oath of office would then alert them to their
responsibility to serve the common interests of the people in accord
with their collective aspirations. The people have the right to
remove any office-holder that they agree is acting contrary to that
oath, so the constitution requires a recall mechanism to replace
them.
If
the upper house is chartered to make advisory decisions on
constitutional changes, then lobbying by experts can allow
improvement suggestions to be tested for the general perception of
suitability in that forum, amendments to be made, and a prototype
bill to be proposed to parliament. In the event of parliament
refusing to make the legislative change on any issue, we ought to
empower the upper house to launch public referenda, the results of
which would be binding on parliament. This mechanism allows voters
to progress issues that party politics avoids or fails to achieve
consensus on.
I'd
also charter the upper house to integrate traditional values &
priorities of the left and right, discarding elements of capitalism
and socialism that have proven to be contrary to the public interest. Those emotionally attached to the traditional political and
philosophical framework of dualism would remain free to use
democracy. The psychodynamics of polarity and their adversarial
relations they induce in people are addictive. The upper house would
be dedicated for the use of those who prove capable of transcending this addiction, so they can provide a positive alternative to those
wallowing in the negativity of democracy. Specifically, this would
mean a constitutional framework in which individual rights and
collective rights are defined separately so their natural
complementary relation is apparent to all. The traditional political
dialectic of thesis and antithesis would thereby achieve synthesis.
