Submitted by Terence Blackett
“If religion is the opiate of the masses – then politics is the “crack-cocaine” of fools”
Western Anglo-Saxon style democracy prides itself on being a representative democracy subscribing to Duverger’s Law as a foundational principle which asserts that a plurality vote will eventually foster the creation of a two-tier party system set in place to offset checks and balances in the proper functioning and running of a modern society.
But is this really the case?
After decades of careful systematic study of political science, like many others, I believe the system is fundamentally flawed; dysfunctionally capacious; and the majority of us are sadly wearing blinders and have been fooled into our current ideological positions – taking one side or another forgetting that the system is rigged for social control and for “suckers” who are willing to sell out.
Let me make it clear – politics is the domain where angels refuse to trod (at least at this time) yet mortal men believe that they can tame this wild BEAST* which roams our planet polarizing mankind into determinant camps creating a “HERD” mentality – a sort of cognitive bias in which people automatically agree and support (LESS* enlightened) individuals whom they have determined are a part of their “group”.
This conclusion was not arrived at simplistically – although after reading the “nationalistic” rancour and banter on BARBADOS UNDERGROUND for almost [2] years (to name one of many such websites), it is easy to see why the level of subliminal political indoctrination, partisanship, and creature worship has resulted in so-called intelligent men and women (many with college degrees and taught to think for themselves) are now found “blindfolded” by a scarlet ribbon of supposed light – choosing to cower in dystopia and denial – locking themselves away in a dungeon of ideological despotism choosing to genuflect around in the darkness rather than to embrace “true” light.
As a son of the soil, I believe I share the opinion of many who feel that Barbados (though a “tiny” island state) suffers from a form of blind, irrational nationalism for which its leaders have not the political capital or political will to break. Such political polarization has created such a bandwagon in which cognitive behaviour fuels decision-making, and there is this tendency to jump on to the most popular option when most hold very little information regarding the process. This has led to a [2] party system of Parliamentary democracy “borrowed” from Westminster with few even really understanding what are the real underpinnings and even the social science behind what they claim to believe in and why they do.
But let us widen the debate as I know for some Bajans this is not comfortable analysis, (as it is for other nationalistic nations), who refuse to see themselves as part of an increasingly smaller and smaller global village. So for the sake of the presupposed argument being presented let’s take “good ‘ole England” from which we (those in Barbados & the Caribbean) and for that matter, the United States of America who have evolved their classical political economy from this once mighty (now fallen) empire.
Western parliamentary democracies, like what we have here in Britain are the “MODEL” from which all others flow. [1688] was the year recognized as the period when parliamentary democratic dominance took place when James 11 was forced to flee the shores of England as parliament held sway. Constitutional reforms also came in the 18th century through William Pitt and in 1830; the House of Commons forced Wellington to resign because of his refusal to accept reforms. So for the last [323] years, Britain’s parliamentary democracy has been undergoing structural, political, ethical and ideological change with not much changing in real terms, other than the political elites who run the bureaucratic machinery and the evolution of “statutes”, laws and conventions sitting on archaic rolls of parchment housed under lock and key.
But though “jolly” ‘ole England set the political benchmark, emerging out of its “feudalism” past, unlike American federalism or presidentialism, Western parliamentary democracy was the product of deliberate institutional takeover, design and initiation. Political sociologists like Bryce sees the American model of governance as having both merits as well as demerits and would argue his preference for presidentialism as against parliamentarism for a number of reasons for which this article is unfortunately bereft of brevity to accommodate at this time. However, the major plank of the argument is really quite simple to quote one of America’s great presidents –
“[Political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction… they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government…The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension… is itself a frightful despotism…The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction… the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it… It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions…
This is the power of which we assert so forcefully – evidenced in a small country call Barbados; rife in a land where some once thought the “sun” would never set upon its empire and even now, a dwindling super-power shackled to its own ideological, historic and prophetic destiny doomed to go the way of ALL* other great empires before it.
Any honest, careful analysis of 18th century European history, but especially within the context of its current ideological lenience MUST* see that the [2] PARTY SYSTEM of democratic governance makes “clowns out of most – and jokers out of the rest”. Let me explain what I mean: the Leftist Progressive Movement,” which began in Europe in the 1870’s reached the shores of America by the 1880’s. The political and ideological planks of government in a post-Civil War Era were to most sociologists and other commentators Fascist in nature. This was a “politico-economic system denoted by extreme nationalism, and direct societal regulation of all privately held personal and corporate assets for the purposes of perceived societal benefit. These perceived benefits, often included: Centralized Planning of Infrastructural Assets, Efficiency of Standardization, Environmental Protection, Societal Safety, Public Health, National Defense, and even International Economic Advantage.” In such a system, “with only two dominant political parties, the electorate was inevitably forced or led to choose the “Lesser of Two Evils;” and the logic is inescapable! If we abandon the party on the Right, the Leftists will invariably win; and our highly manipulative leaders will expend a great deal of time, energy, and money reminding us” of the foolhardy nature of our choices.
To conclude – in an age of [3] millions + BRITS* unemployed (if you believe the stats from government that is SPUN* it seems a lot less); [30] million + Americans jobless, homes foreclosed on and life chances down the toilet; notwithstanding that in a small, developing nation-state as Barbados, with a population of some 270,000 + individuals (not counting economic & political migrants) are seeing in a working population of about 150,000 (not counting black-marketers, drug-dealers, flesh-merchants & other dubious scoundrels) a 10% unemployment rate amongst its working age with a further tightening and constriction to follow given cutbacks and lauded “austerity” measures being imposed on the working classes in a country that will be on its knees sooner than later. Yet, political wrangling, obtuse partisan vacillations and an almost “demagoguery” form of nuanced nationalistic fervor grips a so-called mass of educated, privileged, affluent individuals content to allow the chilled winds of polarization to blow – seeing that as democratic progress!
Barbados Underground et al and all its other proponents around the world can continue to bury their heads in the sand, living in abject denial of the facts – that whoever we chose amongst the TWO MAJOR PARTIES, which is sadly called “our government” – we are basically “SCREWED”!
Time has come for the system to be open to the multiplicity of views that makes society what it really ought to be in the first place…
@Terence
Hope springs eternal!
politics like religion was intended to brainwash the masses. Fanaticism is the same mindset that drives both.A persons religious beliefs and political beliefs are about equal when it comes to their views.it is what it is and don’t bother to confuse them with the facts.
@ David | January 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM |
“… whoever we choose amongst the TWO MAJOR PARTIES, which is sadly called “our government” – we are basically “SCREWED”!
I think in many countries if not most. Barbadians are not alone.
It is even getting to the point where in most democratic countries, the single biggest block at elections are those that do not vote. More and more people are disillusioned by politics.
They should form a non aligned grouping or set up a group of independent candidates who’s greatest strength is in not forming a party or agreeing to a coalition. Representatives should vote based on the issues and for the benefit of those they represent.
There is nothing wrong with believing in God, yet religion causes problems and there is nothing wrong with representation except politics.
Peace
@Terrence
Very interesting comments. However I think that the principle of Duverger’s law which addresses plurality of vote leading to a two party system is still sound, that’s the mathematical and statistical side of the law that makes sense, and is in keeping with Duverger’s method of compiling data; where it fails is in its assumption that one side will be better than the other, and hence does not take into account the greed, graft and other vices of ordinary men/women who will constitute the parties. In short it’s weak human application. It assumes everyone will be nice and play fair
I was hoping you would have an alternative to the two party system, but from your final paragraph it seems as though you are suggesting Anarchy? Lets discuss.
Are you guys nuts?
This same 2 party system has taken wunna from de stan pipe to fortsingeorge.
From walkin or riding a donkey to driving toyotas an bimmers.
Yes the system has flaws but what are viable alternatives? More theoretical mumbo jumbo is always welcome on BU.
@Hants
Maybe you should check from the perspective that the system we used should be aligned to a society which is a living breathing entity.
Theories are all well and good… but when you look at the “human” factor – they all go to hell.
Animal Farm is probably the most apt book on this subject I have ever read.
Take any system and we will find some way to twist it for our own benefit.
Most of the world’s superpowers weren’t remotely democratic. Genghis Khan didn’t set up voting booths in conquered territory. The tsars of Russia conquered half of Asia without a plebiscite. Mohammad and his successors swept through the Mediterranean world and ruled for a thousand years without allowing the people a chance to vote on anything. Not one Chinese dynasty ever consulted with the people on anything.
Rome was sort of democratic, but it gave up being a republic soon after it conquered the known world. The first emperor, Augustus, put a stop to any serious attempt to expand the empire, but even so, the Roman Empire did last as a dictatorship for five hundred years — and a thousand years beyond that, if you count Byzantium.
So why do we think that being a democracy is any part of the reason for our success on the world stage?
Why are we so sure that putting things to a vote leads to good results?
After all, almost half the country right now, in the wake of the 2004 presidential election, is utterly convinced that democracy is an utter failure, having elected George W. Bush to a second term.
And four years earlier, the other half was deeply grateful that the U.S. is not a complete democracy, so that Al Gore did not become president despite having a plurality of the votes cast.
Plato and many other political philosophers were convinced that the only good government was a meritocracy — a government by experts who actually know what they’re doing.
If opinion polls show anything, it’s the profound ignorance of the general public.
And yet here we are, committed to getting Egypt and Jordan, and eventually even Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, to let the people choose their governments by majority vote.
Are we right?
Copyright © 2005 by Orson Scott Card.
In 2007/8 Presidential candidate OBAMA* ran on a platform of HOPE*…
Hope for a new era in POLITICS…
Hope in the eternal capacity to find the best in MEN***
Hope that after “DUBYAH” we could somehow speechify the world’s leaders into becoming paragons of virtue and integrity…
Hope that with the ELECTION* of the 1st Black man to the highest office on the planet (other than the POPE*) that we would suddenly enter a new age of RACIAL DETENTE*…
Well David, I am not so sure whether the concept of “hope” can have any direct application to POLITICS* in the current 21st century environment…
Maybe you know something that I am not aware of…
@ Hants
“Yes the system has flaws but what are viable alternatives?”
Don’t be closed-minded man!!!
If you studied your HISTORY* as I am sure you did, you would be the 1st to realize that the political evolutionary metamorphosis that has taken place in the last 200 years has moved us to where we were to where we are currently…
Is it a perfect place? HELL NO!!!
Can we afford to stall at the DEMOCRATIC GOAL-LINE? Well, most seem to have done just that!!!
Or do we work to find a more MERITOCRATIC* system of governance which will remove a whole host of idiosyncrasies that currently exist and which only drives men into socio-political apathy…
Sadly, while a whole bunch of folks worried about the newly-elected member for ST.JOHN (best parish in Barbados by the way – in my humble opinion) – the country suffers needlessly for a lack of men with TRUE VISION…
Say what you want about THEORIES* – it is the stuff which fuels change…
C’mon guys – TIME TO WAKE UP!!!
@TMB: “Can we afford to stall at the DEMOCRATIC GOAL-LINE? Well, most seem to have done just that!!!
If I may please ask you a two (leading) questions…
1. Does a non-Democratic jurisdiction prohibit free enterprise?
2. Does a Democratic jurisdiction guarantee free enterprise?
@ HUGH
“I was hoping you would have an alternative to the two party system, but from your final paragraph it seems as though you are suggesting Anarchy? Lets discuss.”
LOL!!!
That’s good ‘ole chap!!!
Far from it…
What I would posit given time are some ideas which I have been haggling with for years…
However, this current forum will not allow a theoretical discussion on a neo-PLATO philosophy, neo-CONFUCIUS political teachings and what I aptly term (Chris Halsall should like this) – “OPEN SOURCE” political participation; a nouvelle form of citizen involvement at the grassroots level for the common good of the community in order that the SYSTEMS be more user-friendly for all!!!
Anyway less I spill some beans – let’s leave it at that!!!
Or… Perhaps put another way…
Can it not be argued that Politics and Commerce are orthogonal dimensions of human behaviour?
As in, Commerce will always take place, no matter the Political system within which it operates.
@ CH
GOOD TO SEE ya’…
Good questions indeed!!!
Both question do beg eachother – however, given where we are in TIME* (i.e. 21st century) – ENTERPRISE* has become an emergent phenomena of late 18th century PROTESTANT ethic… Today regardless of the jurisdictional confines – GLOBALIZATION* has torn asunder every last vestige of territoriality… Without enterprise – be it STATE-led or entrepreneurially triggered it remains the life-blood of PAST-modern society…
Question 2 – can be answered from the above with a degree of even more certainty!!!
@ CH
“Can it not be argued that Politics and Commerce are orthogonal dimensions of human behaviour?”
That’s DEEP!!!
And I absolutely concur with your statement…
As someone who is NOT* religious – permit me to validate your point…
In Eden, God said to ADAM & wifey – “INCREASE, MULTIPLY & INHABIT THE EARTH”…
My belief is that “etched” in the psyche of man is the DNA blueprint to conquer, occupy and rule…
The problem has been where DOMINATION* over-rules MORALITY* – tyranny and destruction follows…
@TMB: “My belief is that “etched” in the psyche of man is the DNA blueprint to conquer, occupy and rule…
You are not alone.
Richard Dawkins argued this is the fundamental objective of all genes. The organisms they happen to find themselves within just happened to be along for the ride…
(See: “The Selfish Gene”; Richard Dawkins; 1976.)
@TMB: “The problem has been where DOMINATION* over-rules MORALITY* – tyranny and destruction follows…
But, as Dr. Dawkins shows, Genes have no morals.
Thus, it must take an extraordinary organism to step past evolutionary and genetic imperatives to introduce morals into the equation.
Are we there?
Yet?
The simplest way to start making the system better would be to make the process of nominating a candidate an easier one. That way any one can be nominated and you would avoid a B/D mentality.
@ CH
Sorry but I broke to watch BBC 4 and a series of programmes on JUSTICE – tonight’s programme was key to this current debate but the 1 hour video has not been uploaded to the website…
Last week’s programme looked at the IDEA* of FAIRNESS* in modern democratic societies..
Harvard professor Michael Sandel hosts a discussion to explore fairness in public policy and the Big Society. An audience of politicians, opinion-formers and the general public should ensure a lively and topical debate…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xyzg7
@ CH
“Thus, it must take an extraordinary organism to step past evolutionary and genetic imperatives to introduce morals into the equation… Are we there? Yet?”
My belief is that mankind has been there for 1000’s of years… The problem has always been in what was discussed tonight – “The Categorical Imperative”…
Though a philosophical question – it poses necessary and obvious challenges which must be answered if we are to have any degree of FAIRNESS* in society and where this idea of the end justifying the means is curtailed – if not removed…
@Terrence
“However, this current forum will not allow a theoretical discussion on a neo-PLATO philosophy, neo-CONFUCIUS political teachings and what I aptly term (Chris Halsall should like this) – “OPEN SOURCE” political participation; a nouvelle form of citizen involvement at the grassroots level for the common good of the community in order that the SYSTEMS be more user-friendly for all!!!”
Would you suggest Constituency Councils as the first step in this process? Even that is having problems being implemented. I see where you are trending buddy but my fear is you will end up with a “too many cooks” situation.
My opinion is no matter what system you develop as long as you leave it in the hands of free thinking human beings it will become flawed. Unless we start with the complete re engineering of the human psyche, we will always return to this point. We can’t even get people to stop littering our streets or hold their pee until they get to the next bathroom. Errol Barrow had aspirations to move us along the Singaporean model but our level of discipline had not and still hasn’t evolved to that level, and don’t lets get started on what passes for education in this place.
Rod of Correction Showcase
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you ..
@ HUGH
“I see where you are trending buddy but my fear is you will end up with a “too many cooks” situation.
My opinion is no matter what system you develop as long as you leave it in the hands of free thinking human beings it will become flawed…”
QUESTION –
Do you think British PM David Cameron’s much lauded idea of “THE BIG SOCIETY” fits into your analogous concept of “TOO MANY COOKS”?
@ HUGH
“Errol Barrow had aspirations to move us along the Singaporean model but our level of discipline had not and still hasn’t evolved to that level…”
I have always been a [pro]ponent of the Singapore model which is primarily based on the notion of MERITOCRACY* however, for me that should only apply in the “ECONOMIC” framework…
The overall model does have many anomalies which would prove difficult to address within a CARIBBEAN context and I concur on your premise of “DISCIPLINE” – something that is still a “tough” slog for most Black folks – given that we don’t fully appreciate the stringency of what is involved in being disciplined…
@ TB What about a hybridised version of a swiss- style democracy crossed with a singaporean model. We could substitute the cantons model for the constituency.
@ ZION1971
Interesting!!!
Are you suggesting a concoction of SEMI-DIRECT* “democracy” (as is prevalent in Switzerland) fused with the best parts of the Singaporean model (MOST NOTABLY, THE E-GOVERNMENT MODEL) – would be a doable compromise for a small nation state like Barbados?
But who in Barbados has the POLITICAL BALLS* to revamp the current outdatedly archaic Westminster model which clearly doesn’t work and has only created a dependency culture since the early 1970’s (post E.W Barrow [TRH] )…
And all we can boast is a stable democratic society in a land where the mercantile class still holds on the reins of plantocratic power and where modernity has allowed a new class with “NEW” money to come in and be occupiers of the best of our land and its resources while we remain government employees and “slaves” to the wage packet…
For a country with so many geniuses, bright articulate individuals and savvy entrepreneurial-minded men & women – why are we no further down the road – blazing the trail as a highly industrialized, technologically proficient, scientifically adept beacon of futuristic innovation, thinking and experimentation?
But then again, what I am pushing maybe a TALL* order!!!
So I may very well be wasting precious time…
Even to debate “hard-nosed” ideas and concepts as a means of moving forward is either embroiled in “diatribe” and base rancour or as is with this blog and others where “SERIOUS” debate and discussion becomes a skirmish which most folks would rather avoid…
No wonder local politics is in such a MESS* with people perishing because of a lack of vision, a lack of knowledge and most importantly, a lack of true social & political WILL*…
No wonder most EXPATS* find it hard to repatriate given the level of consciousness you have to deal with…
@ TB . I agree with you wholeheartedly.
@TB
I concur on your premise of “DISCIPLINE” – something that is still a “tough” slog for most Black folks – given that we don’t fully appreciate the stringency of what is involved in being disciplined…
Can you prove the above? If so, how? If not, why do you think so?
Is lack of discipline a “Black” issue generally? Or are you only referring to ‘discipline’ in certain contexts e.g financial discipline, educational discipline?
Are Blacks less *morally* disciplined than say, the Chinese? Than Whites? Let’s discuss.
If a war came to the shores of BARBADOS* I wonder what our population would do to safeguard themselves and their families…
As a people do we believe in a “CRASH” course in SURVIVAL* or would we be prepared for impending strife, chaos and destruction?
Would it be easy to suddenly learn the necessary survival techniques in a time of CRISIS* than it was to adequately prepare in a time of peace, quietness and safety?
These are the real questions!!!
But then, we are NOT* at war, as some would have us believe – MORALLY, CULTURALLY, MONETARILY or SPIRITUALLY!!!
All is well on our shores and on the horizon…
Pingback: Images of Jesus Christ | politics and religion | moon rising time