The core flaw in our democracy

Our understanding of what politics in a democracy should be like is sadly lacking. In fact, the yawning chasm between how we act and how we should act is big enough to swallow the world, leaving nothing but a sad memory of a nice place behind… and is likely to do so.

Everyone has heard of Machiavelli, made famous through his (tongue-in-cheek) advice to his patron about sly deceptions and the pursuit of power over all else. That’s how politics in undemocratic and chaotic societies works; there are no rules and power is everything. That’s our history.

In the modern world we have tamed that conflict. Instead of the barbaric power-mad conniving of our overlords we let rival factions compete peacefully for votes. Who wins power is decided by who persuades voters the best. This has its subtleties: do you persuade people to think you have the best position, or do you concentrate of persuading those who already think so actually to make the effort to vote? Do you hope that by energising your base they go out and convert others for you?

This is fantastic progress. But it’s still basically the same idea: rival groups compete for power through a mixture of trickery, generous promises to the wavering and flowery rhetoric that wins broader support. Of course, the generous promises come directly from public taxes without going through the intermediate step of becoming our leaders’ personal wealth. That wealth, and the wealth of their supporters, pays for the promises to be made – it pays for the research to find out what to promise, and the advertisements to let everyone know. We pay for those promises that are kept.

What hasn’t changed from our barbaric past is the focus on rival factions. What else should we be thinking about? Well, truth and facts seem to have got lost in all this. Yes, the supposition is that truth is more persuasive for the voters, but all the evidence is that this is, well, not true. Does this persuade you? If not, it merely proves my point that truth doesn’t persuade!

People derisively dismiss technocratic government, which they summarize as allowing experts to run things; it’s a matter of faith that democracy is best. It protects us against tyranny and complete meltdown of society, because the people can trust themselves to vote in their interests – and if they don’t, at least they chose the result deliberately. Yet at the same time we put our trust in the science that has achieved modern society: our food production, our communications technology, our transport…

Where does the science of government stop and the legitimate arena of political conflict begin? At the moment, we assume that wherever the politicians choose to go is a legitimate place for them to bring their conflict. Just like when Roman gladiators left the arena and started hacking at the spectators, everyone cheered, munching their dormice and leaded wine and … no, wait. They had guards to send any straying slaves back to where they belonged. Actually, comparing modern politicians to gladiators is laughable. It makes them seem much braver and more macho than they are. But they are public servants, and modern politics is as much about the spectacle and as much about revealing truth or persuading people. Perhaps a sports simile is more appropriate? They’re like footballers, and we should expect the ‘game’ to be played on the pitch and according to the rules.

In fact, it’s very like a sport, in that most people have their favourite side, and the most important thing to them is that that side wins. If one of their players dives for a penalty, it’s clever gamesmanship; if an opposition player does it, it’s dishonourable and dishonest. The rules should apply strictly to others, but are a guideline for us.

We invoke modern concepts of ‘the marketplace of ideas’ to suggest that the wisdom of the crowd is best and democracy will always reach the truth. And yet apart from these occasional passing references, we ignore the truth as a goal. Maybe a crowd could collectively determine what is true (a dubious claim in itself), but not when the crowd isn’t even looking to buy that particular product! The goal is always for our side to win! Truth matters only because lies and lack of understanding are a convenient way to mock and belittle the opponents. Truth isn’t the goal; it’s just one way to make the other side look bad.

Imagine if science worked that way, not only in academic research (where people are people and there is often rivalry) but also more widely? Imagine if half the passenger flights in the world were planned as if the world were flat, mostly driven by a few powerful organizations that demanded it. Imagine that all the discussion over which holiday to go on focussed on rival advertisements claiming that their location was sunnier, and occasionally on mocking the other airlines because a spokesman hadn’t worn a tie. Imagine if public broadcasters had all the airlines on some sort of Watchdog programme, and gave the flat-worlders as much airtime as anyone else, or possibly more.

Would that be a sensible way of doing things? And if holiday-makers ended up in the wrong places all the time, and the airlines with the most flat-world flights were the most sympathetic, offering discount return flights for people stranded, would you buy more tickets from those airlines?

A lot of government is exactly the same. We know that parties’ policies won’t work, or won’t achieve their goals, or cannot be combined with some of their other policies. But we value the assertion of intent more than the truth: we value the statement of identity more than expertise.

Identity politics; tribal politics; democratic politics – these are all the same, and they are all based on the same barbaric notion of politics as conflict and beating our opponents. Plato, 2,000 years ago, tried to imagine a different mode of governance, of philosopher kings who governed with wisdom. We mock his ideas because we have seen countless seemingly benign tyrants become tyrannical, but a core part of his observation remains as valid now as it was then: it is truth and justice that are the foundations of society, and a mob isn’t the best way to find either.

We should be co-operating, as scientists do, to find the best ways to run a country. Our political parties should be exploring different possibilities, sharing data and coming up with results… and we should reward those who have the best findings, not those with the most appealing conclusions. The space for genuine conflicts of opinion is minimal compared to what can be understood and known for certain. Not all opinions are equal, even if those who hold them are.

If we don’t value expertise; if we give platforms to liars and charlatans time after time without asking them to recant and repent; if we care about entertainment instead of truth and complex debate, then we might as well be in a dictatorship. After all, neither system will provide what is best for us, but at least a dictatorship doesn’t involve the soul-corrupting self-deceit that currently defines us. Without a drive for truth, we are just semi-wild apes following our leader because he has covered his rival with more mud.

Hard Liberalism

Our polarized world is often categorized into hard-nosed conservatives and soft, caring lefties. This binary view makes people think of liberals as less competent than conservatives because liberals are more lefty. Right-wingers, in contrast, can be called uncaring or even cruel.

Conservatives hate being called heartless; many of them do have hearts and some actually care deeply about helping the poor. But as I’ve discussed elsewhere, people will always choose a reason to explain why you’re wrong and they are right, and if you’ve ruled out incompetence and ignorance, due to your reputation for competence, then malice is their only answer.

Lefties similarly object to being regarded as incompetent. Governments of all types have made fantastic blunders, and lefty policies are no more likely to fail than right-wing ones. In fact, of late they are less likely to fail. But if you’ve ruled out lack of interest in good as an explanation for doing bad, then incompetence has to be people’s explanation.

This dichotomy has expanded to govern people’s perception of politics in other ways, too. The Right is regarded as more ‘head’ whilst the Left is ‘heart’. The dominant Right is assumed to be dominant because of the economic stability and good stewardship it brings. This is why the remain side in the EU referendum campaigned so hard on economic prosperity versus economic doom. Common belief is that people care about economics and social issues are just a sideshow. This neatly fits economists’ old ideas of ‘homo economicus’, who is perfectly informed, perfectly rational and makes rational profit-maximizing decisions.

However, the referendum was lost, and with good reason. Commentators are now realizing that it was lost due to irrationality; the Leave campaign lied and appealed to biases. There were no facts in sight, let alone rational analysis. This was not ‘head’, yet it was right-wing. The cold, hard facts were all on the remain side, which is clearly the more ‘Left’ of the two.

For those of us who care about being right (not Right-wing), this is no surprise. It has long been recognized that reality has a liberal bias. But this truism is more than a running joke amongst liberals. It is an important insight that explains the political shifts we are seeing. Brexit was achieved by appealing to people’s emotions: their fear and distrust of strangers, their feelings of powerlessness, their resentment towards political elites and the status quo…

Facts would say that strangers are no worse than other people. This is why the areas with the most immigrants weren’t very scared of them. This is why most rapes are still committed by people known to the victim. These things answer the fear of strangers with hard logic. Instead Brexit answered the fear by offering to try to change the outside world. Lefty identity politics came full-circle, and the Right claimed that opinions based on lies and misunderstandings were as valid as any expert’s opinion.

Despite this, we see the Left still acting on its understanding of itself as the ‘heart’ of politics. When the Right wants to negotiate, it stamps its foot and refuses to move, and the consensus-seeking, wimpy lefties fall in line. Even when Obama had power in the USA, he ended up behaving like a Republican because they kicked up such a fuss: ‘our precious principles are under threat from economically damaging lefties! We mustn’t change anything’. We saw the same in the UK in the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Lib Dems got an awful coalition deal from the Tories, who then blamed all nastiness on them whilst taking the credit for good Lib Dem policies. The Left cannot negotiate because it seeks consensus with people for whom consensus is a dirty word; who believe that democracy matters less than their own opinions, and that the Left, even if in power, must be fought in any way. Their politics has become the die-hard equivalent of guerilla warfare or terrorism.

And that’s why the Left needs to realize that it is not the ‘heart’ of politics. The Right is the biased, irrational side of politics, and liberals have all the facts and evidence. You cannot seek consensus with the terrorist who just wants you to die. Our government has a policy of not giving in to terrorist demands, yet Obama caved in when Republicans held up the national budget, and our government is right now attempting to negotiate with the EU using the blackmail of economic doom for all. What is this negotiating position except a national equivalent of a suicide bomber? The Right imagines that its opponents will once again cave in to its demands, as they have done so many times before.

We need to realize that liberalism is the doctrine of facts, principles and competence. The Conservatives and UKIP are the ‘heart’ of the country, but they are the black, twisted emotions of fear, distrust and resentment. The Greens are mainly ‘heart’ too, hoping for utopia whilst advocating alternative (i.e. not) medicine. That’s the wacky, well-meaning ‘heart’ that we’re accustomed to considering.

Liberalism is different. It is a cold, hard doctrine of principles. Sometimes it will enrage the well-meaning who wish we could just do something really nice, even though it’s impractical and probably ineffective. Often it will enrage the new ‘heartlands’ who don’t want to engage with detail and prefer comforting lies.

But, as a liberal, I want to be clear that my rage at seeing my country ruled by lies and stupidity is bigger than any impotent fury others feel at being exposed to facts and principles. I’m not a wishy-washy, woolly Leftie with a well-meaning attitude who will roll over in submission when others start to kick up a storm. I am someone with a devotion to truth and justice, and if you are too, then you need to make it clear, because we need a new narrative and stereotype for this country. We need to stop caving in; to stop ‘acknowledging their opinion’; to stop hedging and seeking consensus and trying to be all things to all men.

I understand that being outspoken can create conflict. I understand that can feel nasty. I understand that disagreeing strongly with someone often won’t persuade that person as well as gently nudging them. However, others can refuse to be nudged, and can deliberately create conflict to silence us. We have abandoned our principles and accepted opinions that should never have been countenanced in the hope of meeting someone half-way who has no intention of ever moving.

There are no alternative facts. There can be no more compromise.

Conservative commitments - 5, 5 fails

5.     Extend the right-to-buy scheme to housing association tenants in England

This is possibly the biggest joke of them all. Housing associations are independent organisations. Offering their assets for sale at a discount (whether topped up by the government or not) is state appropriation of private property. It conflicts directly with (supposedly) deeply-held Conservative beliefs in the sanctity of private property. Conservatives who think that taxes are theft should be outraged about this one.

       Nationalisation of private organisations is deeply anti-Conservative. If they think that the state is better at deciding what to do with property, why so keen on privatising education and the NHS, or on the inefficient railways we have now?

       The people able to afford even discounted homes are actually relatively well-off. They need no further help, although they will of course welcome it. They’re not super-rich by any means. But it is the people without any savings at all for a deposit, or who would be turned down for a mortgage because they have no steady job at all, who need help. There are plenty of poor people not in housing association property.

       If it really is a gross injustice that people pay rent for years on end without getting any asset from it, the Conservatives should introduce the right to buy for all renters, including of private accommodation. That would certainly help spread housing ownership to housing users. I suspect that the large numbers of property investors and landlords in the party might object.

       Right-to-buy is vote-buying, except it’s at an astonishing price (tens of thousands per vote) and it’s taxpayers’ or charities’ money, not party money. Not that that matters, because if they’d been only marginally less subtle about it and offered money from any source for people’s votes it would have been a criminal offence and a scandal.

Conservative commitments - 4, 4 fails

4.   Open 500 more free schools

A free school in this context is a type of academy, which is a not-for-profit, independent, state-funded school. It is free to attend but not controlled by the local authority. Free schools are funded per pupil in the same way as state schools, but receive start-up grants.

The goal of free schools is to improve education by putting parents and interested groups in charge of it rather than teachers and experts working for the DfE. They are also expected to increase local competition, which is regarded as the only force that can drive up standards.

There is a host of issues with this policy, starting with government waste. Government is funding this competition with normal government-funded state schools, in effect duplicating its effort. Some companies run internal competition, but I have yet to see anyone who thinks it’s wise for a company to compete directly with itself for precisely the same market. Yet this policy is supposed to bring efficient business practices to government. The start-up costs for 500 schools will be immense and will be wasted. Free schools often start in areas where no new school is needed, ensuring that pre-existing government buildings that have been maintained for the purpose of education are rendered redundant even if the free school is a success.

We require teachers to have qualifications for a reason; it’s a basic standard to ensure acceptable teaching across the country. If this is a bad idea, school heads could be freed from the requirement without needing to set up new schools just to experiment with unqualified teachers.

Free schools require proposals from keen people. The people who are keenest, and able to negotiate the paperwork and project management to start a new school, are those who are either already well-off or have a specific desire to indoctrinate children. The well-off want to create high-performing schools with just their own children, who will do well anyway due to parental support; this helps explain the few results where free schools have been found to have higher performance. Indoctrination of children, such as for religious reasons, is a bad thing and should not be supported. Children are not parents’ property, to be fed ideas that their parents have chosen. They should be educated as independent people who will grow into independent, free-thinking adults.

Either way, free schools won’t help poor children who have little money or parental support. Children rely on their parents to make good choices. The problem we already have is with parents who cannot or will not make good choices for their children. Providing more choice simply will not help; it will help leave poor children behind.

Conservative commitments - 3, 3 fails

3.     Hold a referendum on membership of the EU by 2017

Referenda are good for democracy. It is sensible that really important issues are decided independently by the people. However, the referendum on AV shows that campaign funding and political support matter a great deal. In that referendum the Conservatives, having complained at the cost of the referendum, campaigned against it on the grounds that it was complex and would be expensive to switch to.

The cost of switching electoral systems would be that of a few referenda. If the Conservatives were so worried about the cost of democracy, why are they so keen to pay it now?

In an EU referendum, will they tell the electorate that it’s too complex for their feeble little minds and they should just do without the EU, or will they actually educate and explain why the EU is good for us? The referendum could be a terrible idea if the Conservatives campaign in a negative manner. Almost all economists agree, business agrees (except JCB which got caught by the EU for unfair trading practices): staying in the EU will be a good thing.

Sometimes the right thing to do is take the time to explain something, not pander to opinions.

Conservative commitments - 2, 2 fails

As a bonus for the first day (and knowing I'll be away for a few), here's a second:

1.     Invest an extra £8bn a year for the NHS by 2020

The key to understanding this commitment is that although it’s quite generous compared to Labour, it was utterly unfunded. The Conservatives produced this one when the NHS began to be an issue in the campaign but gave no information about where the money would come from. A party claiming to be fiscally responsible should probably have plans for finding £8bn. Most people in this country like the idea of the NHS being better-funded, but an open and honest politician would have explained what would lose out.

By not even mentioning who the planned losers would be (if there was a plan at all), the Conservatives failed to be honest about how budgeting works. They gave the emotional impression that they could fund everything worthwhile, but did it through being irresponsible.

It’s also important to note that the plan for the NHS which suggested that it needed £8bn more was already pretty harsh, anticipating deep cuts (efficiency savings of a scale that have never been achieved and that are required on top of ‘savings’ already seen) in services.

£8bn in funding does not address the structural problems the Conservatives introduced, nor the massive long-term issues that the NHS faces. No mention was made of the Conservatives’ attachment to PFI, the system that is bankrupting hospitals across the country.