Many will think me mad for writing about green issues at a time like this. The eurozone is currently in the toilet with the market's hands on the flush handle, the British economy is flatlining and the climate talks in Durban have produced little other than hot air and empty promises.
However, I think the green agenda is slipping because we're all so focused on global warming. Don't get me wrong, I believe the evidence for global warming is strong, but green issues matter for other reasons. Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol because of it's inability to bring CO2 emissions under control. America didn't even sign up. Ecology and environmentalism cannot be advanced as a cause if everyone is focusing only on one problem, one subject to a great deal of skepticism.
So below I'm going to point out three reasons why green issues matter, right now, to the whole world, that are simply matters of fact.
Oil, Energy and fossil fuel dependency
Everyone knows we're going to run out of oil, eventually. I think only a fool would say he can predict exactly when, as technology changes. However, one thing can be said for certain, it will run out. Dependency on fossil fuels isn't just bad for the climate in the form of emissions, we're setting ourselves up for a fall unless we develop new strategies to generate energy.
The problem doesn't end at energy, though. After all, in theory at least, nuclear power could be used as a stop gap source of energy until better alternatives are found. However, many of the products we use every day contain products derived from fossil fuels. PVC, for example, which we depend on for everything from wire coating to drain pipes is made from fossil fuels.
It makes no sense for highly technologically capable countries to be stifling research funding into possible alternatives and renewables. It also makes no sense to be dependent on something that you don't have enough of. (Ask any heroin addict what withdrawal is like and then imagine how we're going to cope when the oil does eventually run out.) Not just because these solutions are carbon neutral (after all, this article isn't about global warming,) but because they are a possible solution to one of the other big problems we face: water scarcity.
Water scarcity
Let's be clear: fresh water supplies are falling massively. Only about 1% of the world's water is drinkable, and a great deal of that is used to deal with our third problem, food production. Millions (possibly billions) worldwide live without sufficient drinking water.
This is just one example of how dependent we are on a healthy ecological environment. The water system is broken because fresh water is being polluted massively and supplies are rapidly dwindling. Once water is impure and unsuitable for consumption, it is surprisingly difficult to make it elsewise. Especially if the culprit is one of man's favourite substances: salt. Desalination of salt water consumes huge volumes of energy. Unless we can solve the problems in energy, we have to find ways to preserve what fresh water is left. Which brings me onto my third and final point.
Food, biodiversity and extinction
Oftentimes in the urbanised west, we forget just how dependent we are on our ecosystem. Despite all of our modern trappings, we still depend massively on our environment to supply us with food and fresh water. As mentioned above, we use massive amounts of the world's fresh water supplies to irrigate crops, oftentimes resulting in contaimination with biocides.
This is because the environment au naturel could never support such a massive population as 7 billion, and we need to divert massive amount of water to help keep us supplied with food. The problem is, we're also diverting less obvious natural resources away from systems that help maintain the ecosystems we so very much depend upon.
The global ecosystem is a remarkably complex chaotic system. I use chaotic in the mathematical sense here: the system is dynamic and dependent on initial conditions. Predicting it's outcomes more than a short while in advance is remarkably difficult. Localised phenomena may not be so: but predicting what the loss of rainforests in Brazil might do to change the ecology of say, China, is basically impossible. This said there are certain principles which we still understand very clearly.
Biodiversity helps keep ecosystems in check and functional. The extinction of one species is a sad loss, but not an ecological threat in and of itself. The loss of multiple species, however, threatens to unbalance ecosystems.
Herbivorous animals run riot in crops if their predators are hunted too ruthlessly. Parasitic plants run riot if too many of it's competitors are eliminated. This sort of behaviour happens at every level, from single celled organisms up to the global level. It is one massive, interdependent network. I say all this so I cannot be misunderstood to have failed to stress the point: biodiversity is absolutely essential to human survival. If the wrong organism, bacterial, viral or multicellular, gets out of control it could decimate our own food supply. Mass starvation would be a looming prospect, as well as food protectionism and isolationist policies.
This could happen if, for example, pollinating insects died out and imported species run amok amongst the remaining wind pollinated crops. Science and genetic modification offer some hopes, but also risks. Nature is chaotic and we have no idea if the cure will be worse than the disease. Scare stories about Frankensteinian plants are grossly over-exaggerated, but unsettling the ecological balance is a definite risk in dealing with disease resistant crops, for example.
This problem is enormous because ecosystems worldwide are being devastated by various smaller demons that all add up to the same problem. Plastic contamination, deforestation, urbanisation, changes to planetary atmospheric make-up (even excluding the rise in greenhouse gases,) contamination, overfishing, radioactive waste... the list is a long one. All of these things threaten wider biodiversity. Taken individually, these problems would probably eventually balance out over time, but all at once and the system is dealing with a scale of shock that it cannot adapt to. Evolution requires mythic lengths of time in ways that human beings barely understand other than as figures written on a page. Nature is surprisingly adaptable but it must be given a chance to catch up.
These things are not theories, these are all going on, right now, worldwide. Taken on their own, each may not be a threat to our survival, but together they represent the spectre of self-annihilation. That may sound like hyperbole, but if our food supply dies out then we will go the way of every other extinct species unless we find a technological solution. We're still subject to the same rules as every other living organism, we have to find a way to extract energy from our environment to power our biological systems. We fail to do that, and we have the first and probably last self-engineered mass extinction event.
It's not all doom and gloom
So, what do we do? Well perhaps unsurprisingly many of the solutions mooted to deal with climate change help contribute to solutions for the above problems. A 100% renewable energy source would allow us to desalinate water, and would massively alleviate the pressures on fossil sources required for other uses buying us plenty of breathing room to produce other solutions to our needs. However that isn't enough, solving our energy crisis will not stem the wave of extinctions coming our way if we continue the way we are going. We must find solutions to pollutants, plastic, radioactive and biocide pollution are the most urgent but there are plenty of others, if we are to ensure our future survival.
I am not going to hypothesise as to why this hasn't happened so far: it doesn't matter. What matters is that action is required from the global village, and it is required yesterday. If this article can help show why, even in "the toughest economy in a generation," we must put the Green agenda at the heart of our politics as a matter of survival, then I am a grateful man.
PS Do not be fooled by thinking that small places like Britain cannot contribute to this sort of "de-toxification." We are massive polluters in many of the respects listed above. Land fill sites are one of the worst offenders. We need to find solutions to all these problems if we are going to ensure a future for our children. Let's be clear, that's not a healthy future, or a positive future, it's any sort of future at all.
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Saturday, 13 August 2011
A Letter From the Inbetween - Open Letter to the citizens of England
Pre-amble: This letter is not inkeeping with the usual content intended for this blog. However I feel in this particular circumstance that I air my quite personal opinions without too much editing.
Dear Citizens of England,
Last week saw some of the worst rioting that our country has seen in a long, long time. I wish to write to all, all sections of society variously, to express my personal concerns for each and every one of you.
First of all, to the rioters themselves. Let me be clear first that I cannot condone your actions. The loss of human life, and the violence perpertrated against innocent individuals is utterly abhorrent, no matter your grievance. I wont patronise you by suggesting that somehow you didn't know this already, but I'm reinforcing it to be clear on the terms of what I am about to say.
Having said this much, I can sympathise with your position. I'm from a single parent working class family that struggled by on benefits after my father left when I was 10. I understand the difficulty of cultural isolation that ensues from being different from the mainstream, albeit my differences and yours are very much removed from one another. I was homeless at 16. I struggled to put myself through college to find that it wasn't enough to get into a decent degree course. Long term mental health problems, including depression, have kept me from achieving my potential for a good chunk of my life. I wasn't out rioting, but I sure as hell understand why you'd want to. Hell if I'd been 17 and had an opportunity to give the middle finger to the establishment I'd've probably taken it. Nick Clegg sure as hell did, as did the Bullingon boys I don't doubt.
There will be those out there in the world describing you as feral, uncouth and yobbish. All I can say is lead your life in fashion that proves those bastards wrong, because that's the only real way that you can defeat them. It's an uphill struggle, and that is unfair. We should all get a fair crack, and the fact is most of you haven't had. I can say from personal experience, however, that when you have dragged yourself out, and everything you own, no matter how meagre, is yours, earned and accepted, you will feel a greater sense of accomplishment, and you'll be sticking it to those that thought you couldn't do it.
Secondly, to the front line police. I'm proud to have police services such as yours. There is no political gain to be made from saying this, but for the largest part, you did a bloody good job with next to no support from your higher ups.
Contrary to the howls of right wingers and those who have no respect for humanity, you restrained the force available to you, using a show of numbers as opposed to the blunt instruments of rubber munitions and water cannons. Once that happened, the war was basically over. The cost-benefit balance of criminality shifted back to it's former position and by sheer force of will, you prevented any serious incidents above what you'd expect to see during an average week in August from Tuesday onwards, in London at least.
However, this is not to say there are not lessons to be learned from this. The disconnect of certain sections of communities from the concept not just of the police, but the whole of jurisprudence, is at least partially an issue of policing. You are the agents of our society's justice in the first instance; identifying and apprehending criminals. The powers provided to you in the various Terrorism Acts amongst others have made a temptation of using racial profiling to identify potential risks and this is resented by the communities it effects.
Moreover, whilst many officers are quite rightly to be hailed as heroes for their tireless dedication to the mainenance of our society, not all of them are thus. The phone hacking scandal, alongside several miscarriages of justice which though now far removed, still live large in the public memory, have undermined confidence in the concept of community policing. This clearly has to be the highest long term priority for the police, re-engaging with the disenfranchised and demonstrating that jurisprudence exists to protect them as much as punish them.
Thirdly to the politicians and our so called leaders. I am ashamed to call you leaders. We are engulfed in some of the worst communal violence since the war, if not prior, and all you can do is bicker about petty grievances and score cheap points from the suffering of your citizens. I strongly suggest you take a long hard look at the Norwegians, because right now, compared you are but schoolchildren bickering about who broke a window whilst they are proving how real politicians behave. With dignity, in defence of the democracy they love and without scoring cheap points on the suffering of others.
Frankly, start leading. I haven't heard a single politician accept one iota of responsibility for what has happened, and do not think for a moment that the situation is so simple that it can be blamed on "pure criminality." Those who are driven to steal by pure greed do not burn police cars and buildings. They take what they want and run. They do it all the time - shoplifting is probably one of the most common crimes, and also one least likely to be prosecuted. This was as much about anger as greed, and you would do well to pay heed to the message they are sending you about the society you have helped create.
Leadership is about taking responsibility not just for your actions, but your inaction. Justifying the things you didn't do to those it affects is just as important. Frankly, good sirs and madams of the political establishment, grow a fucking pair.
Fourthly, to my fellow citizens. Your outrage is understandable. Lives and livelihoods have been lost, as has a sense of our own innocence about the nature of the society we live in. I watched as rioters burned cars dangerously close to the most vulnerable members of my community. I watched them roar with delight as they destroyed that which was not theirs to destroy. They have left my elderly neighbours shaken and scared for their safety, especially at night. I must confess I think twice about travelling after dark now. My local town is decimated much as many other towns have been. Businesses damaged, some perhaps beyond repair.
We didn't even get a mention on the BBC of the looting or damage, just the shocking mugging of a Malaysian student; clearly Barking is too poor to be worthy of note for what it has lost, just as Clapham, Tottenham, Hackney and Ealing have.
I say this so you understand that I am as scared as you are, but I must urge you that you cannot push our legislators towards heavy-handed, draconian measures, no matter how righteous our desire for retribution may be. This is because when power is given, it cannot easily be taken back. Laws are easily made but it often takes years of painstaking campaigning and reports to have something struck from the laws of the land. We may come to regret giving the police the power to disperse any group thought to be capable of violence when we participate in a peaceful rally only to be told to disperse because we "might" become violent and therefore the police can do as they please.
Civil liberties don't just protect criminals from the police and the Government, they protect us all from those powers. As stated above, we know they are not above corruption from expenses and phone hacking, so do not willingly hand over your own rights because you are angry now. In time, that anger will fade, but the legislation will not.
I am not suggesting for one moment you don't have the right to be angry, but I'm suggesting that you should take great care over making affirmative pressure on the establishment to become even more draconian than they already are. Take a week, or a month, to mull over any decision about what you think should happen. Don't just read your usual paper, pick up all the broadsheets and read all their commentators. Or just look them up online. When it comes to the future of our country, we cannot be too careful. We often vaunt "Keep Calm and Carry On" like some sort of second national motto. Let's live up to it. Let's keep calm and carry on living our lives, while we consider what has happened here.
Finally, some personal thoughts on the commentary I've seen. Thus far, it's a case of everyone appears to be half right, and everyone half wrong. I see these riots like an earthquake. A massive release of pressure from the fault-lines of our society. Hundreds, possibly thousands of faults rubbing up against one another in certain places, for long periods, suddenly exploding with little warning.
We may never truly understand in full the causes of the riots, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. What it does mean is that we may legislate in haste and repent at our leisure. Nothing about these riots is simple. I can only urge the reader to dig beyond the rhetoric to find some deeper truth about how this all came to be. How hundreds or thousands of precipitating factors created this violence that has so deeply shocked us all.
The fact is we all have our part to play in this. We all need to accept responsibility for our failings, and we all need to look towards creating a future where such riots are unthinkable not because they would be met with deadly force or martial law, but simply because it would be utterly unnecessary.
Perhaps, at this point before I sign my name, I should name my failings in this. I didn't do enough to contribute to my community, I certainly haven't done anything to prevent the alienation of the young, and for all my intellectual capability, I have failed to set a better example for young working class kids. Perhaps we could all do well to contemplate what we did, or didn't do. We sure as hell don't have much left to lose.
Yours, with deepest sympathies,
Warren O'Keefe
Dear Citizens of England,
Last week saw some of the worst rioting that our country has seen in a long, long time. I wish to write to all, all sections of society variously, to express my personal concerns for each and every one of you.
First of all, to the rioters themselves. Let me be clear first that I cannot condone your actions. The loss of human life, and the violence perpertrated against innocent individuals is utterly abhorrent, no matter your grievance. I wont patronise you by suggesting that somehow you didn't know this already, but I'm reinforcing it to be clear on the terms of what I am about to say.
Having said this much, I can sympathise with your position. I'm from a single parent working class family that struggled by on benefits after my father left when I was 10. I understand the difficulty of cultural isolation that ensues from being different from the mainstream, albeit my differences and yours are very much removed from one another. I was homeless at 16. I struggled to put myself through college to find that it wasn't enough to get into a decent degree course. Long term mental health problems, including depression, have kept me from achieving my potential for a good chunk of my life. I wasn't out rioting, but I sure as hell understand why you'd want to. Hell if I'd been 17 and had an opportunity to give the middle finger to the establishment I'd've probably taken it. Nick Clegg sure as hell did, as did the Bullingon boys I don't doubt.
There will be those out there in the world describing you as feral, uncouth and yobbish. All I can say is lead your life in fashion that proves those bastards wrong, because that's the only real way that you can defeat them. It's an uphill struggle, and that is unfair. We should all get a fair crack, and the fact is most of you haven't had. I can say from personal experience, however, that when you have dragged yourself out, and everything you own, no matter how meagre, is yours, earned and accepted, you will feel a greater sense of accomplishment, and you'll be sticking it to those that thought you couldn't do it.
Secondly, to the front line police. I'm proud to have police services such as yours. There is no political gain to be made from saying this, but for the largest part, you did a bloody good job with next to no support from your higher ups.
Contrary to the howls of right wingers and those who have no respect for humanity, you restrained the force available to you, using a show of numbers as opposed to the blunt instruments of rubber munitions and water cannons. Once that happened, the war was basically over. The cost-benefit balance of criminality shifted back to it's former position and by sheer force of will, you prevented any serious incidents above what you'd expect to see during an average week in August from Tuesday onwards, in London at least.
However, this is not to say there are not lessons to be learned from this. The disconnect of certain sections of communities from the concept not just of the police, but the whole of jurisprudence, is at least partially an issue of policing. You are the agents of our society's justice in the first instance; identifying and apprehending criminals. The powers provided to you in the various Terrorism Acts amongst others have made a temptation of using racial profiling to identify potential risks and this is resented by the communities it effects.
Moreover, whilst many officers are quite rightly to be hailed as heroes for their tireless dedication to the mainenance of our society, not all of them are thus. The phone hacking scandal, alongside several miscarriages of justice which though now far removed, still live large in the public memory, have undermined confidence in the concept of community policing. This clearly has to be the highest long term priority for the police, re-engaging with the disenfranchised and demonstrating that jurisprudence exists to protect them as much as punish them.
Thirdly to the politicians and our so called leaders. I am ashamed to call you leaders. We are engulfed in some of the worst communal violence since the war, if not prior, and all you can do is bicker about petty grievances and score cheap points from the suffering of your citizens. I strongly suggest you take a long hard look at the Norwegians, because right now, compared you are but schoolchildren bickering about who broke a window whilst they are proving how real politicians behave. With dignity, in defence of the democracy they love and without scoring cheap points on the suffering of others.
Frankly, start leading. I haven't heard a single politician accept one iota of responsibility for what has happened, and do not think for a moment that the situation is so simple that it can be blamed on "pure criminality." Those who are driven to steal by pure greed do not burn police cars and buildings. They take what they want and run. They do it all the time - shoplifting is probably one of the most common crimes, and also one least likely to be prosecuted. This was as much about anger as greed, and you would do well to pay heed to the message they are sending you about the society you have helped create.
Leadership is about taking responsibility not just for your actions, but your inaction. Justifying the things you didn't do to those it affects is just as important. Frankly, good sirs and madams of the political establishment, grow a fucking pair.
Fourthly, to my fellow citizens. Your outrage is understandable. Lives and livelihoods have been lost, as has a sense of our own innocence about the nature of the society we live in. I watched as rioters burned cars dangerously close to the most vulnerable members of my community. I watched them roar with delight as they destroyed that which was not theirs to destroy. They have left my elderly neighbours shaken and scared for their safety, especially at night. I must confess I think twice about travelling after dark now. My local town is decimated much as many other towns have been. Businesses damaged, some perhaps beyond repair.
We didn't even get a mention on the BBC of the looting or damage, just the shocking mugging of a Malaysian student; clearly Barking is too poor to be worthy of note for what it has lost, just as Clapham, Tottenham, Hackney and Ealing have.
I say this so you understand that I am as scared as you are, but I must urge you that you cannot push our legislators towards heavy-handed, draconian measures, no matter how righteous our desire for retribution may be. This is because when power is given, it cannot easily be taken back. Laws are easily made but it often takes years of painstaking campaigning and reports to have something struck from the laws of the land. We may come to regret giving the police the power to disperse any group thought to be capable of violence when we participate in a peaceful rally only to be told to disperse because we "might" become violent and therefore the police can do as they please.
Civil liberties don't just protect criminals from the police and the Government, they protect us all from those powers. As stated above, we know they are not above corruption from expenses and phone hacking, so do not willingly hand over your own rights because you are angry now. In time, that anger will fade, but the legislation will not.
I am not suggesting for one moment you don't have the right to be angry, but I'm suggesting that you should take great care over making affirmative pressure on the establishment to become even more draconian than they already are. Take a week, or a month, to mull over any decision about what you think should happen. Don't just read your usual paper, pick up all the broadsheets and read all their commentators. Or just look them up online. When it comes to the future of our country, we cannot be too careful. We often vaunt "Keep Calm and Carry On" like some sort of second national motto. Let's live up to it. Let's keep calm and carry on living our lives, while we consider what has happened here.
Finally, some personal thoughts on the commentary I've seen. Thus far, it's a case of everyone appears to be half right, and everyone half wrong. I see these riots like an earthquake. A massive release of pressure from the fault-lines of our society. Hundreds, possibly thousands of faults rubbing up against one another in certain places, for long periods, suddenly exploding with little warning.
We may never truly understand in full the causes of the riots, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. What it does mean is that we may legislate in haste and repent at our leisure. Nothing about these riots is simple. I can only urge the reader to dig beyond the rhetoric to find some deeper truth about how this all came to be. How hundreds or thousands of precipitating factors created this violence that has so deeply shocked us all.
The fact is we all have our part to play in this. We all need to accept responsibility for our failings, and we all need to look towards creating a future where such riots are unthinkable not because they would be met with deadly force or martial law, but simply because it would be utterly unnecessary.
Perhaps, at this point before I sign my name, I should name my failings in this. I didn't do enough to contribute to my community, I certainly haven't done anything to prevent the alienation of the young, and for all my intellectual capability, I have failed to set a better example for young working class kids. Perhaps we could all do well to contemplate what we did, or didn't do. We sure as hell don't have much left to lose.
Yours, with deepest sympathies,
Warren O'Keefe
Thursday, 26 May 2011
A Funamental Question - a personal perspective
What is the purpose of government? Sometimes amongst all the politics this rather fundamental question is left out.
Given the historical context, and the evolution of power over the past few thousand years, I think there is one purpose of government.
Any government should exist to create a state of social justice
[Please note I purloined the term social justice for the lack of anything better.]
This statement clearly needs to be expanded. To be specific the job of a government, as I see it, is to create a cultural and physical space in which all members of a given governed population may be judged and measured by and solely by their choices. Those choices, by definition, have to be both informed and free. That is, poor education is a limitation upon a person's choice because of the absence of options, and there should be no coercion in the choosing. Equally poor health, or other forms of "poverty" (both material and cultural) are barriers to free and informed choices.
That is to say, that societies should be about the choices of individuals, all adding up to the collective "will of the masses." Those choices should be totally free and unimpaired.
Now, this is very hypothetical stuff, given that I can't think of a single government that behaves solely in this manner. However, I feel it's not a far cry from what we should be asking from our governments. It is also rather ill defined, but that is because ultimately such judgements are cultural and complex. The measures of judgement of an individuals choices are subjective. Personally I would hold them to some broadly humanist scale but that is ultimately my own personal bias.
However, I think this is what we really desire from our politicians. To, in essence, allow us to make our own lives whilst ensuring that we don't impede on the lives of others in the process. It's a pretty fine line and many of the ideas that are common in politics stem from this basic desire, albeit oftentimes cloaked in deceptive biases of one form or another.
Happiness, goodness, and the likes are both fluid and temporary. Freedom, however esoteric and difficult to measure, is as close to a permanent measure of the relative success of a government. However free their populations are to pursue lives that are genuinely based solely upon informed and free choices, the "better" I feel they have performed.
Asking the purpose of a government is a tricky thing, mostly because there are so few examples of functioning modernity that lack a government. There's no point for comparison, so we can only compare the spectrum of existing governments and compare them to one another, and hypothesise from what we find.
Moreover, I eliminated measures like wealth, happiness and power as unrepresentative. Wealth is largely unhelpful because of the example of "relative poverty" - the concept that even the rich have their poor, and they are, whilst not as disenfranchised as the truly impoverished, are alienated from a political and popular culture that increasingly does not represent them.
Happiness is hard to define at the very best of times, and can be equally the result of chance and of intent. Suggesting that governments should make everyone happy implies that only the emotional results of what a government does is important and not the actual "moral" content of their actions.
As for power, even when it is somehow measurable it is as fluid as any other concept that exists solely in the minds of human beings. People can feel powerful even though they may not otherwise appear to be, and people can feel utterly disempowered even when they have the tools to make more of their personal power. Further, influence and power do not accurately measure a society's relative values. China is immeasurably fiscally powerful at the moment but that does not necessarily translate into the success or failure of that government relative to others, nor how it is viewed by it's governed population.
Now, all this said, I am fundamentally biased, I was born and raised in a culture that values freedom and fairness. However, freedom particularly is a useful measure of the relative success of a government because it demonstrates that it can control it's population sufficiently well to prevent them from impeding on one anothers happiness whilst allowing them to pursue it for themselves, allows individuals to pursue power or wealth with vigour whilst protecting others from the greed or malevolence of anyone for whom those things matter more than morality.
As always, debate and disagreement about the content of this blog is encouraged. All constructive comments welcomed.
Given the historical context, and the evolution of power over the past few thousand years, I think there is one purpose of government.
Any government should exist to create a state of social justice
[Please note I purloined the term social justice for the lack of anything better.]
This statement clearly needs to be expanded. To be specific the job of a government, as I see it, is to create a cultural and physical space in which all members of a given governed population may be judged and measured by and solely by their choices. Those choices, by definition, have to be both informed and free. That is, poor education is a limitation upon a person's choice because of the absence of options, and there should be no coercion in the choosing. Equally poor health, or other forms of "poverty" (both material and cultural) are barriers to free and informed choices.
That is to say, that societies should be about the choices of individuals, all adding up to the collective "will of the masses." Those choices should be totally free and unimpaired.
Now, this is very hypothetical stuff, given that I can't think of a single government that behaves solely in this manner. However, I feel it's not a far cry from what we should be asking from our governments. It is also rather ill defined, but that is because ultimately such judgements are cultural and complex. The measures of judgement of an individuals choices are subjective. Personally I would hold them to some broadly humanist scale but that is ultimately my own personal bias.
However, I think this is what we really desire from our politicians. To, in essence, allow us to make our own lives whilst ensuring that we don't impede on the lives of others in the process. It's a pretty fine line and many of the ideas that are common in politics stem from this basic desire, albeit oftentimes cloaked in deceptive biases of one form or another.
Happiness, goodness, and the likes are both fluid and temporary. Freedom, however esoteric and difficult to measure, is as close to a permanent measure of the relative success of a government. However free their populations are to pursue lives that are genuinely based solely upon informed and free choices, the "better" I feel they have performed.
Asking the purpose of a government is a tricky thing, mostly because there are so few examples of functioning modernity that lack a government. There's no point for comparison, so we can only compare the spectrum of existing governments and compare them to one another, and hypothesise from what we find.
Moreover, I eliminated measures like wealth, happiness and power as unrepresentative. Wealth is largely unhelpful because of the example of "relative poverty" - the concept that even the rich have their poor, and they are, whilst not as disenfranchised as the truly impoverished, are alienated from a political and popular culture that increasingly does not represent them.
Happiness is hard to define at the very best of times, and can be equally the result of chance and of intent. Suggesting that governments should make everyone happy implies that only the emotional results of what a government does is important and not the actual "moral" content of their actions.
As for power, even when it is somehow measurable it is as fluid as any other concept that exists solely in the minds of human beings. People can feel powerful even though they may not otherwise appear to be, and people can feel utterly disempowered even when they have the tools to make more of their personal power. Further, influence and power do not accurately measure a society's relative values. China is immeasurably fiscally powerful at the moment but that does not necessarily translate into the success or failure of that government relative to others, nor how it is viewed by it's governed population.
Now, all this said, I am fundamentally biased, I was born and raised in a culture that values freedom and fairness. However, freedom particularly is a useful measure of the relative success of a government because it demonstrates that it can control it's population sufficiently well to prevent them from impeding on one anothers happiness whilst allowing them to pursue it for themselves, allows individuals to pursue power or wealth with vigour whilst protecting others from the greed or malevolence of anyone for whom those things matter more than morality.
As always, debate and disagreement about the content of this blog is encouraged. All constructive comments welcomed.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
2020UK - A question of governance
Greetings all. I am writing this blog as part of the 2020UK club, as imagined by Rodney Willett. It's an online club, or community, devoted to examining the issues surrounding Governance in the United Kingdom.
The idea was spawned during the debates around the recent referendum on the Alternative Vote (A.V.) in the U.K. While both sides in aforementioned debate presented reasonable arguments, and some not so reasonable ones, what became apparent is that, even if A.V. was rejected by the popular vote (as turned out to be the case) the issues surrounding governance in the U.K. were not going to go away. In fact, in some ways, it made them all the more pressing, and not just in relation to national elections. All forms of governance, at all levels, are in some way dysfunctional. As Rodney put it in the inaugural discussion of 2020UK;
"The form of representative democracy that we have in this country no longer works in the best interests of the people as it fails to meet the needs of many members of the electorate -
From this idea, that representative democracy in it's current form is becoming decreasingly relevant to modern society, the immediate and obvious question is what should replace it? How can we progress forward and build something better?
These are weighty issues indeed. I encourage anyone reading this to think beyond the traditional lines, as was envisaged when 2020UK was created. Party political tribalism, short termism and spin are intended to be left at the proverbial door on this blog and I hope you will help me keep it that way. This issues discussed are not for politicians, they are for societies. They are for all of us, and more importantly, for the generations that follow us.
Now in the spirit of this I intend to post a non-partisan blog aimed at analysing the issues involved with the purpose of encouraging others to post conclusions in relation to the questions raised. While I will post my personal conclusions, I intend to argue several possible points of view before reaching a conclusion.
So, to begin, I will examine the issue of justice and representative democracy. Specifically, should local police chiefs be elected?
Yes, they should
The principle behind this argument is a fairly straightforward one, and that is, irrelevant of realpolitik, we, the society, should have a democratic right to express our opinions on how the law is enforced as well as how it is made.
Moreover, it would add an additional layer of accountability to a legal system which sometimes seems sorely out of step with the will of the people. Judges, in traditional jurisprudence cannot be held to account, but the police are in fact accountable directly to their electorate in the United States and doubtless elsewhere in the world. The principle stands that if we have a right to say how our laws are made, then we should help decide how they are enforced.
Police officers should be able to be removed if their performance is judged unsatisfactory by their ultimate employers, the society in which they operate. Moreover, if one officer is elected and particularly effective, s/he should be able to remain in his post as long as the public and s/he is comfortable.
Electability is a brilliantly effective tool for incentivising the police to not just represent the Government of the day, but also to represent the people it polices.
Consider the recent issue of "kettling" at protests. I am not going to pass judgement but it is a controversial tactic. If the chief who issued the orders were to be massively rejected at his next election, then his successor would do well to reconsider his/her attitude to the matter, lest they meet the same fate.
In fact, many potentially controversial policing topics could be succinctly and definitely decided by elected police officials.
As stated here the intention of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill as currently being considered in the House of Lords is to create elected police positions.
No, they should not
The difficulty with the principles expressed above is that it ignores the reality of the nature of human politics. From my point of view, human beings have basically three modes of political behaviour; higher principle behaviour, emotive behaviour and tribal behaviour. To sway someones opinions on any given subject there are three basis of appeal.
The first is the higher principle, and above is a great example of a higher principle argument. Higher principle arguments usually ignore the nature of human politics and consider the philosophical issues involved. Having the vote, and democracy, while considered utterly common now, was once spawned from this from of rationale. In fact many of the greatest political achievements have been made in contradiction of the commonly accepted values of the time because of higher principle arguments. Owning another human being is wrong, we should all get a say in how we are governed, and taxed, we should be free to express ourselves. In fact the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is basically the go-to document for higher principle reasoning. It lays out basic political "rights" that all human beings should have.
The second appeal is to the emotive. A brilliant demonstration of emotive appeal is presented here and here. It is an appeal to our emotional responses, and is a common approach in modern politics. I will not pass judgement on the morality of appealing to human emotions in the political process, because whilst the above two examples may be particularly inflammatory, there are times when appealing to emotion is the only way. When providing the justification for the NHS, or rape counselling services, how can we not mention the emotional impact these two great services provide? We would be negligent if we did not make complete and well rounded arguments in politics, and that, whether the political classes like it or not, includes how people feel, as well as how they philosophise.
Thirdly, and perhaps most disturbingly, there is tribalism. This is basically the "us vs. them" factor. We are biologically programmed to respond to threats that come from outside our sense of community. Be that direct family, friends or entire nations, when another human being feels as though they belong and have loyalty to a particular cause, idea, name, or other label, they will rally behind it. Even sometimes when it is against their better judgement. Worse, when another group is labelled the enemy, things can become ugly. A psychologist called Sherif did a brilliant study of the psychology of the "us vs. them" mentality.
It is this behaviour, in particular causes the greatest problem with the election of police especially. When those who enforce the law are splitting the populace, creating an "us vs. them" mentality, i.e. those who did and did not vote for the winning candidate, those who are the "out group," that is, the losers, become utterly disenfranchised.
Now, in the rest of politics that is sad, and is a serious consequence. But in policing it becomes a whole other issue. When a populace becomes disenfranchised with it's legal system they will do one of two things; ignore it, or worse, usurp it. Jurisprudence is only relevant if it has the broad support of it's populace. Dividing the populace on whom they are policed by, even if party politics were strictly banned, will create the psychological illusion of division.
Consider this hypothetical scenario; in a culturally diverse community, with approximately 51% "tribe A" and 49% "tribe B", a police leader from the former community is elected. [In this hypothetical scenario we have 100% turnout, of course, and 100% tribal voting.] That police chief is a firm believer in cracking down hard on crimes that are statistically more common in "tribe B," which for the sake of this argument let's just assume it's something relatively small, like owning a T.V. without a license. [Yes, that is a civil issue but this is a hypothetical argument.]
In this scenario, "tribe B" suddenly find themselves losing their T.V.s and getting fines in much greater numbers. They, rightly or wrongly, begin to feel as though they are being targeted because they are "tribe B," and not because they have actually committed a crime. Incensed, "tribe A" starts attacking "tribe B"'s profligate use of television sets without the appropriate documentation in the local media.
"Tribe B," even those not engaged in illegal activity see this as an attack on them, not on the illegal use of television sets. They feel they are being persecuted by their tribal association, and not by any actual illegality on their part. At this point the conflict begins to spiral, and the police have to step in. Difficulty is, no matter what the police chief does in this scenario that police chief as already lost the confidence of the public. If they acquiesce and rescind the order to crack down on illegal televisions, tribe A will be outraged at aforementioned officer's going back on their manifesto pledges. If this officer does not, tribe B will assume it's because the officer is tribe A and therefore doesn't care about their plight.
Conclusion
Both arguments are in some small part over simplifications of the truth. Both fail to consider certain possible outcomes, as all arguments of this nature may.
I, however, feel that the danger of dividing communities is far greater a loss than any accountability gained in the process. It is worth remembering that while, even if the police of today are brilliant, and utterly unbiased in their enforcement of the law that doesn't mean we should assume that tomorrow's police will be similarly inclined.
The possibility of division creeping even further into an already badly divided society is too great a risk, in my opinion. That said, it is purely my opinion.
I encourage all my fellow 2020UK club members, as well as anyone else who is so inclined, to reply and pass comment. I cannot stress enough that no one voice alone can make a case for change, or for the status quo. Comment, or write your own 2020UK blog. Inspired to join the debate? Contact Rodney Willett to see how you can get involved.
Democracy, from demos, the people, and kratos, power. It's about people power. Let's use it.
The idea was spawned during the debates around the recent referendum on the Alternative Vote (A.V.) in the U.K. While both sides in aforementioned debate presented reasonable arguments, and some not so reasonable ones, what became apparent is that, even if A.V. was rejected by the popular vote (as turned out to be the case) the issues surrounding governance in the U.K. were not going to go away. In fact, in some ways, it made them all the more pressing, and not just in relation to national elections. All forms of governance, at all levels, are in some way dysfunctional. As Rodney put it in the inaugural discussion of 2020UK;
"The form of representative democracy that we have in this country no longer works in the best interests of the people as it fails to meet the needs of many members of the electorate -
From this idea, that representative democracy in it's current form is becoming decreasingly relevant to modern society, the immediate and obvious question is what should replace it? How can we progress forward and build something better?
These are weighty issues indeed. I encourage anyone reading this to think beyond the traditional lines, as was envisaged when 2020UK was created. Party political tribalism, short termism and spin are intended to be left at the proverbial door on this blog and I hope you will help me keep it that way. This issues discussed are not for politicians, they are for societies. They are for all of us, and more importantly, for the generations that follow us.
Now in the spirit of this I intend to post a non-partisan blog aimed at analysing the issues involved with the purpose of encouraging others to post conclusions in relation to the questions raised. While I will post my personal conclusions, I intend to argue several possible points of view before reaching a conclusion.
So, to begin, I will examine the issue of justice and representative democracy. Specifically, should local police chiefs be elected?
Yes, they should
The principle behind this argument is a fairly straightforward one, and that is, irrelevant of realpolitik, we, the society, should have a democratic right to express our opinions on how the law is enforced as well as how it is made.
Moreover, it would add an additional layer of accountability to a legal system which sometimes seems sorely out of step with the will of the people. Judges, in traditional jurisprudence cannot be held to account, but the police are in fact accountable directly to their electorate in the United States and doubtless elsewhere in the world. The principle stands that if we have a right to say how our laws are made, then we should help decide how they are enforced.
Police officers should be able to be removed if their performance is judged unsatisfactory by their ultimate employers, the society in which they operate. Moreover, if one officer is elected and particularly effective, s/he should be able to remain in his post as long as the public and s/he is comfortable.
Electability is a brilliantly effective tool for incentivising the police to not just represent the Government of the day, but also to represent the people it polices.
Consider the recent issue of "kettling" at protests. I am not going to pass judgement but it is a controversial tactic. If the chief who issued the orders were to be massively rejected at his next election, then his successor would do well to reconsider his/her attitude to the matter, lest they meet the same fate.
In fact, many potentially controversial policing topics could be succinctly and definitely decided by elected police officials.
As stated here the intention of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill as currently being considered in the House of Lords is to create elected police positions.
No, they should not
The difficulty with the principles expressed above is that it ignores the reality of the nature of human politics. From my point of view, human beings have basically three modes of political behaviour; higher principle behaviour, emotive behaviour and tribal behaviour. To sway someones opinions on any given subject there are three basis of appeal.
The first is the higher principle, and above is a great example of a higher principle argument. Higher principle arguments usually ignore the nature of human politics and consider the philosophical issues involved. Having the vote, and democracy, while considered utterly common now, was once spawned from this from of rationale. In fact many of the greatest political achievements have been made in contradiction of the commonly accepted values of the time because of higher principle arguments. Owning another human being is wrong, we should all get a say in how we are governed, and taxed, we should be free to express ourselves. In fact the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is basically the go-to document for higher principle reasoning. It lays out basic political "rights" that all human beings should have.
The second appeal is to the emotive. A brilliant demonstration of emotive appeal is presented here and here. It is an appeal to our emotional responses, and is a common approach in modern politics. I will not pass judgement on the morality of appealing to human emotions in the political process, because whilst the above two examples may be particularly inflammatory, there are times when appealing to emotion is the only way. When providing the justification for the NHS, or rape counselling services, how can we not mention the emotional impact these two great services provide? We would be negligent if we did not make complete and well rounded arguments in politics, and that, whether the political classes like it or not, includes how people feel, as well as how they philosophise.
Thirdly, and perhaps most disturbingly, there is tribalism. This is basically the "us vs. them" factor. We are biologically programmed to respond to threats that come from outside our sense of community. Be that direct family, friends or entire nations, when another human being feels as though they belong and have loyalty to a particular cause, idea, name, or other label, they will rally behind it. Even sometimes when it is against their better judgement. Worse, when another group is labelled the enemy, things can become ugly. A psychologist called Sherif did a brilliant study of the psychology of the "us vs. them" mentality.
It is this behaviour, in particular causes the greatest problem with the election of police especially. When those who enforce the law are splitting the populace, creating an "us vs. them" mentality, i.e. those who did and did not vote for the winning candidate, those who are the "out group," that is, the losers, become utterly disenfranchised.
Now, in the rest of politics that is sad, and is a serious consequence. But in policing it becomes a whole other issue. When a populace becomes disenfranchised with it's legal system they will do one of two things; ignore it, or worse, usurp it. Jurisprudence is only relevant if it has the broad support of it's populace. Dividing the populace on whom they are policed by, even if party politics were strictly banned, will create the psychological illusion of division.
Consider this hypothetical scenario; in a culturally diverse community, with approximately 51% "tribe A" and 49% "tribe B", a police leader from the former community is elected. [In this hypothetical scenario we have 100% turnout, of course, and 100% tribal voting.] That police chief is a firm believer in cracking down hard on crimes that are statistically more common in "tribe B," which for the sake of this argument let's just assume it's something relatively small, like owning a T.V. without a license. [Yes, that is a civil issue but this is a hypothetical argument.]
In this scenario, "tribe B" suddenly find themselves losing their T.V.s and getting fines in much greater numbers. They, rightly or wrongly, begin to feel as though they are being targeted because they are "tribe B," and not because they have actually committed a crime. Incensed, "tribe A" starts attacking "tribe B"'s profligate use of television sets without the appropriate documentation in the local media.
"Tribe B," even those not engaged in illegal activity see this as an attack on them, not on the illegal use of television sets. They feel they are being persecuted by their tribal association, and not by any actual illegality on their part. At this point the conflict begins to spiral, and the police have to step in. Difficulty is, no matter what the police chief does in this scenario that police chief as already lost the confidence of the public. If they acquiesce and rescind the order to crack down on illegal televisions, tribe A will be outraged at aforementioned officer's going back on their manifesto pledges. If this officer does not, tribe B will assume it's because the officer is tribe A and therefore doesn't care about their plight.
Conclusion
Both arguments are in some small part over simplifications of the truth. Both fail to consider certain possible outcomes, as all arguments of this nature may.
I, however, feel that the danger of dividing communities is far greater a loss than any accountability gained in the process. It is worth remembering that while, even if the police of today are brilliant, and utterly unbiased in their enforcement of the law that doesn't mean we should assume that tomorrow's police will be similarly inclined.
The possibility of division creeping even further into an already badly divided society is too great a risk, in my opinion. That said, it is purely my opinion.
I encourage all my fellow 2020UK club members, as well as anyone else who is so inclined, to reply and pass comment. I cannot stress enough that no one voice alone can make a case for change, or for the status quo. Comment, or write your own 2020UK blog. Inspired to join the debate? Contact Rodney Willett to see how you can get involved.
Democracy, from demos, the people, and kratos, power. It's about people power. Let's use it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)