more on 8 handshakes how democratic is our democracy?The world is more democratic now than it's ever been. Even the glorious democracy of ancient Athens was based on slavery and didn't include women. Since then, we've had clan chiefs, feudal lords, monarchies, dictatorships, empires, fascism and communism. None of these systems was remotely democratic. But the 20th century saw many countries move towards elections, universal suffrage, women getting the vote, secret ballots, and the fall of dictators around the world.
What we're suggesting is an upgrade. problems with the current systemMost people know very little about the major issues of the day – let's just take a few: global financial institutions, nanotechnology, climate science, international law, Israel/Palestine, nuclear power, GM crops, population – getting policies right around these issues is crucial to our development, and maybe our survival. But the majority of the public don't know enough about them to make informed choices from policies put forward by political parties, that are often intended to benefit one part of society, not all of us. What qualities are required to get to the top in politics and business as it is currently conducted? I don't see much compassion or incorruptibility in there, and in many cases, precious little real intelligence either. Shrewdness maybe, but not any depth of understanding. Our politicians have become professionals. Very few of them have any experience in any other area than politics. This means that they are out of touch with the rest of us, and with science, with business, with technology, with academia. There's a whole culture of corruption in politics – look at the recent expenses scandal in the UK parliament. Some people say that it's unimportant, because relatively small amounts of money were involved. That's not the point. The point is we have lots of corrupt politicians. And they're corrupt because of personal ambition and ego. We can't filter this out unless we select representatives via face-to-face contact. The same people get to the top in a capitalist or communist system – the most ambitious. When the soviet system broke up, the communist leaders didn't lose their power, they became capitalist leaders. Most people have not met their representatives, and a significant minority don't know who they are. Thomas Friedman states that once a country accepts economic globalisation, then choices are in effect reduced to the choice between Pepsi and Coke, because their politicians have to behave within certain limits (unfortunately, it seems that Friedman sees our lack of choice when it comes to voting as a good thing). Some big decisions need to be made about things that could turn out to be very dangerous for us, and we don't have the quality of people at the top to make them. A lot of people are really suffering in the world today. Around half the world is on $2 a day or less. If you're reading this, you're probably not one of them – but you can imagine, can't you, having to work 12 hours a day or more, but still not earning enough to be sure that you and your family are going to eat properly; and not having any state pension for when you can't work any more, or welfare system if you're sick? Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, there's a burgeoning industry in liposuction – and in some places, liposuction for pets. This hasn't come about because bad people wanted it to happen, it's because we have a bad system. Let's change it. We live in a world where the worst human qualities – greed, egocentrism, ruthlessness, aggression, deviousness, ignorance, corruption – are no barrier to obtaining positions of power, and in many cases actually help. That's not going to lead to a good system. Wouldn't it be better for intelligence, compassion and incorruptibility to be the qualities that get you into positions of power? Politicians' hands are tied because of competition between countries for resources and markets, ultimately resolved by war. There is no umbrella organisation that can prevent war, and the causes of war. This new idea could provide it. Democracy is being trivialised. There was a serious interview on Radio 4 recently with a voice coach. All political leaders now employ a voice coach, because of course, as was discussed on the programme, a lot of voters base their decisions on who gets into positions of power on their voice. 'voices matter' was the theme of the programme. But they shouldn't – policies should matter, not voices. but policies don't seem to matter any more. This is why we don't have democracy – because of our focus on parties, campaigning and image, power is manipulated by voice coaches! is the new idea left or right?This idea is nothing to do with right or left. It has elements of both, and it has elements that will repel both - the conservative right with their abhorrence of big government (but small government means that power lies with money, not people). And the radical left with their utopian ideas on how society should be. What happens when people get in the way of their utopian ideas? Let's not have utopian ideas, let's just get the best amongst us to make the decisons. The right say:
And they're right. The left say:
And they're right too. The left may complain that the structure of society should be flat, not hierarchical. There are two arguments against this. Firstly, if you want the best results, you have to get the best people performing. You don't want just anybody working on a theory of relativity, you want Einstein. To win a football game you need to pick the best players. Surely the steering of the human ship is more important than anything – even more reason to find the best people to do it. Secondly, look at the most popular books, magazines, newspapers, TV programmes. We don't have equality of understanding, intelligence or ability. It's the case now, has always been the case, and will probably be the case in the future. The right may say that the decisions taken by the higher echelons of the new system could take away freedoms. This use of the word freedom is often used to disguise the exact opposite of freedom – the enslavement to desires, that in fact we would be well rid of if we really want to be happy. This notion of freedom refers to narrow individualistic pleasures, instead of the good, the survival, the evolution of our species. Recognising that unelected corporate power should be subordinate to our elected representatives has nothing at all to do with left or right. '8 handshakes' really contains no ideology – we can all have ideas, and feed them into the system and see what comes out. We should bring forth a jury from our midst to adjudicate on all the ideas that make it past the other levels - instead of the usual backbiting, attacking and confrontation and waste of the current system. what about political parties?8 handshakes is about individuals not parties. It's not possible to think long-term with party poilitics – only as a far as the next election. How can someone agree with all the policies of a party – enough to join it, represent it, vote for it? The larger the party, the more money they have for electioneering. It would be impossible in any Western 'democracy' to reach the top without being in one of the (usually) 2 main parties. And even then they have to be extremely wealthy. They have to toe the party line – but how can someone agree with all a party's policies? Those that don't are subject to the party whip. How does that serve democracy? Party election broadcasts. How on earth can you decide to vote for a party because of a 30-second broadcast? But more and more that is what is persuading people – along with trivia such as the dress sense of politicians, or how good-looking their partners are. Politicians are usually concerned about which policies would be most likely to get their party elected, not which policies are actually the best policies. The current system is a beauty contest, where parties promise the world, but are unable to face difficult problems, because it's all about retaining power. Currently we have a system that involves parties bringing out a manifesto containing their policies, that the public are supposed to read and then make a decision based on a careful consideration of the proposed policies. But it doesn't work, because no-one reads the manifestos, and there's no compulsion for parties to follow what's in the manifesto if they get elected. Currently our representatives are chosen from candidates selected by the membership (or even the leadership) of political parties. That is the only choice we have. If we don't think they are the best candidates, that's tough, because that's all we've got. Listen to the UK parliament in action on the radio, and you'll be reminded of a chimp's tea party with a few football hooligans thrown in. The shouting and jeering demonstrate clearly that it's all about point-scoring, not listening and reflecting. It doesn't reassure us that we have either the best system we can devise, or the best people in government. Parties waste resources on election campaigns (and those with most money can spend more to spread their message). more potential benefits of 8 handshakesIt's a better idea than pure democracy – if we had a global referendum on every single issue, and the majority opinion prevailed, that opinion wouldn’t necessarily be the right one. Racism was and is always wrong, even if a majority hold racist views. We might not have ended capital punishment, or ended discrimination against homosexuals either, under pure democracy. No-one would be able to obtain power by force, and they wouldn’t be able to buy it. They would be chosen to rise through the ranks because of high levels of intelligence, compassion and incorruptibility, so that right at the top, we'd have the most intelligent, compassionate and incorruptible. It would be better for those people to choose the direction we move in, not corporate leaders. Many people could not debate complex political or economic subjects, but could pick the most intelligent, compassionate and incorruptible from a group of people. That’s the basis of the new idea for a way to organise ourselves. So it's about getting the best people to the top. the kind of people who are not going to allow anyone to torture, invade other countries, accumulate huge wealth while others can't feed their kids, or to destroy the ecology of the planet that we need to survive. Most people can pick out bullies – we can recognise them. Let’s stop them getting power. let’s stop rewarding the worst qualities. It provides a framework for de-militarisation. Avoidance of war may be the biggest potential benefit of this system, as war may be the biggest threat to our survival. Also, if the new system reduces the threat of war, it will reduce the amount of money spent on the military and armaments. And therefore, it could reduce the amount of tax we all pay. For example, in the US, around 32% of taxes is spent on defence. If this was no longer necessary, the average American tax bill would fall by 1/3. People get to know their neighbours, and therefore feel safer. It's also an opportunity to share resources and childcare, swap garden produce, look out for each other, chat in the street, have dinner together, foster a strong sense of community, keep old people company and have fun. If this system results in more security and togetherness at the local level, it could result in less crime, and therefore less money spent on policing, courts, prisons etc (reducing our tax bill even more). If something is bad for all of us, it can be restricted – for example, pesticides, pollution or environmental damage. Taxes, subsidies and legal restrictions could be brought in, that individual countries can't do now because it would put them at a disadvantage economically with other countries. There are no world bodies to decide policies that affect all of us. It's a free-for-all, a race to the bottom that is clearly ridiculous. Simplicity: at the moment, if you live in the UK, here are some of the councils that have a say in things that affect your life – parish council, town council, district council, county council, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Assembly, House of Commons, House of Lords, the UK Cabinet, various select committees, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of Europe, the UN, the G8, the G20, and then there are all the talking shops where the super-wealthy get together to make probably the biggest decisions of all. Do you really know how all these meetings work? and how people get to be part of them? and how much power they have? For the first time, there could be as many women in positions of power as men – because there are no parties putting up lists of candidates dominated by men. Who knows, more women than men may be pushed to the next level, as traditionally female qualities may be more attractive in face-to-face contact. The top table meetings could be televised – including presentations by experts to the 'leaders' and their subsequent discussions. If the discussions are particularly technical, then maybe not many people will understand them (how many could have followed Einstein talking about quantum theory, for example, or bankers talking about global financial institutions?). But the subject of the discussions could filter down to meetings at all levels, making philosophers of all of us, and definitely increasing our understanding of the way the world works. more on 8 handshakes |
