What does one want from politics? Integrity , a code of ethics and a willingness to talk with people instead of at them would be a good start. We have little of that today from any political party. Here in Canada things have certainly changed since the Conservatives merged with the Alliance and became them. We have political candidates, adults , who have to ask party back room honchos for permission to attend all candidates meetings or even to speak to the press. Many, most notably the Conservatives are unavailable to the press and go far as to limit reporters to one question or none at all,, when they are available. When they make themselves available it is generally in very controlled situations . Instead they issue press statements long after a question is asked, issued from some back room, with no opportunity for follow up. Much of the real political information comes not from the politicians themselves but through freedom of information requests. In 1968 I ran as a candidate for the NDP. In that election in addition to myself, there was a Liberal and a Conservative as well as an independent. Not one of us had to ask for permission to attend an all candidates meeting or to speak to the press. To a person we responded because, despite our political differences, we all we all believed it was our civic responsibility to do so. If a candidate for any party ask to ask permission from anyone to do any of the above, before they win office, of what good are they going to be in advancing the cause of democracy after they attain office. At present Pierre Poilievre appears to be headed to the Prime Ministers office. This a man who has been in Parliament since 2004, a Cabinet minister and now leader of his party and one is hard pressed to name even one thing this man stands for. We know what he is against but we do not know what he stands for. We should demand better, but it is men like him that deter people from becoming politically active or involved let alone run for office.
Of course, we pontificate upon these theoretical issues in a world where there ARE political parties that want to provide people with those policies that are so popular - I just finished Nora Loreto's book on what I call the "Social Floor" (hate "safety net") , and it's always popular - how could an open ER be unpopular? But the guy who will cut doctor's salaries and close more ERs is riding high in the polls, way ahead of the party with the popular *policies*.
That's the conundrum. Why are parties with the popular policies, not in office?
What you write here resonates with my experience in China a few years ago (at the time of the “two Michaels”).
During my month touring around, it became obvious to me that most of the Chinese people have made a Faustian bargain: if the CCP can increase my standard of living substantially, I’ll forgo democracy (and the freedom that tends to accompany it).
I very much fear that here in the West, we face a situation eerily similar to that of the time between the world wars - then, empires had fallen, royalty was gone, the “roaring 20s” followed by the Great Depression overturned society. Society now has been overturned by the impact of the internet, turning away from traditional religion and demographic challenges (including immigration of people “not like us”, accompanied by the pandemic (and all the societal unrest it generated).
More and more I see people in many countries longing for a “strong man” to come along to solve all the problems, just like what occurred in the 1930s in Europe with Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Franco. Now the stars are Putin, XI, Ordan, Trump, Le Pen, and I see tendencies in Poilievre that way as well.
Economics or worries about money really does occupy 90% of public attention - especially when they see their wallet empty more frequently between paycheques. They are preoccupied and frustrated. What catches attention in this state is someone pointing to a 'villain', blaming this 'villain' for everything - true or not. That doesn't matter. Just rage farm. That catches attention; then repeat, repeat. Short slogans - easy to remember. Quickly, 'someone' starts to look like the hero because they pointed to the 'problem' in everyone's life.
Really, not much critical thinking happening. People really do seem too dumb for democracy.
To your last point (slick reference by th way), I agree, and am dumbfounded that so many seem to lack the imagination to consider what the fall-out of democracy death via autocratic takeover would be.
Maybe those with a platform need to focus their efforts on painting a picture of what average people would lose in such a scenario. Perhaps drawing from the experiences of those who can speak to it more viscerally, e.g., testimonies from those who escaped autocracy to have a freer life in the West. Maybe a broad invitation/campaign to share videos on social media sharing personal experiences of how moving from living under autocracy to democracy and the rule of law has improved their lives.
I agree most people don't pay much attention to politics. I doubt though that they are so changeable. Or weakly attached to democracy. But mostly I feel your idea that government is there to solve problems is fundamentally wrong. Government is there to build infrastructure, regulate and keep the peace. When did we become a culture of victims and problems, at which governments are endlessly supposed to throw money? People are basically honest and straight forward. They want respect and self-reliance.
Neoliberal Politics and Economics has captured the world, brainwashed us into the market solves everything.
Wages have suffered, democracy is disappearing and if you readvwhos pulling the strings one can see why. There are are many alive who remember times prior to worldwide adoption of Reaganomics and Thatcherism.
A time when people counted as citizens not just as consumers.
Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism
Gives you why we are giving up on democracy. UT democracy not the problem, corporate greed, a plan by the elite to take more wealth and therefore control
I have been ruminating on the state of increasing voter willingness across the democratic world to consider or even ardently support political movements that advocate radical system change away from democracy and the rule of law. The perceived failure of traditional political parties to address challenges faced by many voters seems quite entrenched and far from easy to address.
Whatever measure the traditional political class may attempt to implement, those working to convince voters that our democratic institutions are broken and unable or unwilling to meet their needs seem to be far better organized, financed, and able to engage the attention of the voting public.
The billionaires, whose continued accumulation of wealth and power is at the heart of the economic and power inequality that is so toxic to voters' perception of the ability of the current system to meet their needs, are also the ones who are often working hardest to convince voters that progressive politics and politicians are failing them. And their money and lack of spotlight gives them a much greater platform through their networks without any meaningful awareness of or accountability for their political machinations.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that while policies that actually help people are critical, of course, they will not necessarily be enough to prevent the continued slide down the slippery slope we find ourselves on, because the truly fundamental problem (wealth inequality and systematic attacks against the credibility of democratic institutions) seems impossible to address.
Read this later than I meant to, but the timing now is actually perfect...thanks David.
People do want their problems solved, and their anger & mistrust of status quo options increases the more they feel unheard. Whether it's real (widespread income shrinkage & unaffordability) or imagined (loss of mythologized previous status, inflamed for convenience), we just saw the results of this.
More and more I am thinking that electoral democracy on a federal or even provincial level is never going to work.
The interests are too broad, the connection to people too weak, the power of Parties too strong. In our highly connected age, we are only going to get Trumps or Trudeaus… celebrity politicians who fritter around the edges of power, always making sure that nothing changes for the donor class.
Electoral democracy only really works on a municipal level. I would be fine doing away with ongoing posturing and preening that goes on at these higher levels. We need only have our locally elected bodies send representatives to higher parliaments. The product of these higher bodies would then need to be approved by rotating citizens assemblies.
We need long term planning on a federal level that brings the country together, more inter-city public transit, better planned and comprehensive healthcare, protections against local fluctuations in economy.
I don’t think I’ll live to see any of this, but this is almost certainly where we have to go.
If there is one thing I find both amusing and ridiculous about public discussions, it is all the people talking about democracy as if they were actually in one. I do not think there is a national government of any size run as a democracy.
The phrase “representative democracy” is an oxymoron. As every political scientist from ancient Greece up until the eighteen hundreds knew, elections and representatives are about oligarchy. Democracy means sortition, legislature by lottery, or public assemblies of everybody.
So everyone is fed up with something they never had in the first place. What is really vexxing them is government by an elite group, and the trouble caused by disputes within factions of that elite. We have only had this type of government for a couple of centuries, since the rising liberal elites responded to demands for democracy by brainwashing people that that was what democracy meant.
As for actually achieving a democracy, we can not get there from here. These other ideas people have are not adequate solutions for current problems, either. Military dictatorships never work well, but are usually very hard to permanently get rid of. A technocracy is another unicorn type thing which has never been seen.
An autocracy works as long as the autocrat is competent and ethical. How does he or she get into power in the first place against an oligarchy? And what happens when they get old? Any government better than the present one would have to be put in place by some kind of social movement which can defeat the present oligarchic order.
The present order is not going to just get out of the way. It will use violence and it will try to take everything down with it. It will be removed by external military force or by internal revolution, and probably by a combination. The question then would be to put a more effective and stable order in its place.
If the group replacing the present order want to set up some sort of real democracy, that would take some time. The economy would have to be completely reorganized. The control mechanisms of the old order would have to be dismantled in detail. A whole generation of people would have to be educated to function in a democracy.
In the long run, autocracy does not work. A real democracy would be the most stable and effective form of government. But they are very hard to establish.
Most people will find this idea weird, but the only way to get a democracy going is to first establish a transitional dictatorship. And that is going to happen through a revolution or external conquest. The transition group must be committed to the idea of a real democracy, a government in the interests of the population.
I have written this fast. I hope it is clear enough.
David is right that the average voter wants their economic interests addressed more directly by political parties. The challenge that political parties face, however, is that directly responding to voters' economic interests often results in a backlash from the corporate community.
This is what is holding up Canada's badly needed Employment Insurance reform. Employment Insurance reform has been promised by the Liberal government since 2022 and yet, we are still are left with the wholly inadequate mid-1990's version of the program which had to be basically junked when COVID hit in Spring, 2020. The reason that reform is stalled is that the Liberals are afraid of the corporate community who would pay higher premiums under a reformed program.
The corporate lobby is standing in the way of many badly needed changes that would address the pocket-book concerns of average voters. All we need is a government that is willing to stand up to these corporate interests.
It goes beyond just people seeking a leadership to solve their problems. They want someone to be accountable for those decisions made so they don't have to be.
What does one want from politics? Integrity , a code of ethics and a willingness to talk with people instead of at them would be a good start. We have little of that today from any political party. Here in Canada things have certainly changed since the Conservatives merged with the Alliance and became them. We have political candidates, adults , who have to ask party back room honchos for permission to attend all candidates meetings or even to speak to the press. Many, most notably the Conservatives are unavailable to the press and go far as to limit reporters to one question or none at all,, when they are available. When they make themselves available it is generally in very controlled situations . Instead they issue press statements long after a question is asked, issued from some back room, with no opportunity for follow up. Much of the real political information comes not from the politicians themselves but through freedom of information requests. In 1968 I ran as a candidate for the NDP. In that election in addition to myself, there was a Liberal and a Conservative as well as an independent. Not one of us had to ask for permission to attend an all candidates meeting or to speak to the press. To a person we responded because, despite our political differences, we all we all believed it was our civic responsibility to do so. If a candidate for any party ask to ask permission from anyone to do any of the above, before they win office, of what good are they going to be in advancing the cause of democracy after they attain office. At present Pierre Poilievre appears to be headed to the Prime Ministers office. This a man who has been in Parliament since 2004, a Cabinet minister and now leader of his party and one is hard pressed to name even one thing this man stands for. We know what he is against but we do not know what he stands for. We should demand better, but it is men like him that deter people from becoming politically active or involved let alone run for office.
Very much agree.
.. the reality is far more toxic & dire than Canadians may care to consider & realize
They could try replacing sham democracy that's really plutocracy with actual democracy:
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
Gilens & Page, Perspectives in Politics
https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba
Of course, we pontificate upon these theoretical issues in a world where there ARE political parties that want to provide people with those policies that are so popular - I just finished Nora Loreto's book on what I call the "Social Floor" (hate "safety net") , and it's always popular - how could an open ER be unpopular? But the guy who will cut doctor's salaries and close more ERs is riding high in the polls, way ahead of the party with the popular *policies*.
That's the conundrum. Why are parties with the popular policies, not in office?
What you write here resonates with my experience in China a few years ago (at the time of the “two Michaels”).
During my month touring around, it became obvious to me that most of the Chinese people have made a Faustian bargain: if the CCP can increase my standard of living substantially, I’ll forgo democracy (and the freedom that tends to accompany it).
I very much fear that here in the West, we face a situation eerily similar to that of the time between the world wars - then, empires had fallen, royalty was gone, the “roaring 20s” followed by the Great Depression overturned society. Society now has been overturned by the impact of the internet, turning away from traditional religion and demographic challenges (including immigration of people “not like us”, accompanied by the pandemic (and all the societal unrest it generated).
More and more I see people in many countries longing for a “strong man” to come along to solve all the problems, just like what occurred in the 1930s in Europe with Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Franco. Now the stars are Putin, XI, Ordan, Trump, Le Pen, and I see tendencies in Poilievre that way as well.
Economics or worries about money really does occupy 90% of public attention - especially when they see their wallet empty more frequently between paycheques. They are preoccupied and frustrated. What catches attention in this state is someone pointing to a 'villain', blaming this 'villain' for everything - true or not. That doesn't matter. Just rage farm. That catches attention; then repeat, repeat. Short slogans - easy to remember. Quickly, 'someone' starts to look like the hero because they pointed to the 'problem' in everyone's life.
Really, not much critical thinking happening. People really do seem too dumb for democracy.
To your last point (slick reference by th way), I agree, and am dumbfounded that so many seem to lack the imagination to consider what the fall-out of democracy death via autocratic takeover would be.
Maybe those with a platform need to focus their efforts on painting a picture of what average people would lose in such a scenario. Perhaps drawing from the experiences of those who can speak to it more viscerally, e.g., testimonies from those who escaped autocracy to have a freer life in the West. Maybe a broad invitation/campaign to share videos on social media sharing personal experiences of how moving from living under autocracy to democracy and the rule of law has improved their lives.
I agree most people don't pay much attention to politics. I doubt though that they are so changeable. Or weakly attached to democracy. But mostly I feel your idea that government is there to solve problems is fundamentally wrong. Government is there to build infrastructure, regulate and keep the peace. When did we become a culture of victims and problems, at which governments are endlessly supposed to throw money? People are basically honest and straight forward. They want respect and self-reliance.
Neoliberal Politics and Economics has captured the world, brainwashed us into the market solves everything.
Wages have suffered, democracy is disappearing and if you readvwhos pulling the strings one can see why. There are are many alive who remember times prior to worldwide adoption of Reaganomics and Thatcherism.
A time when people counted as citizens not just as consumers.
How did we get here?
Yes it has been a plan explained in.
https://evonomics.com/how-to-disguise-racism-and-oligarchy-use-the-language-of-economics/
In addition George Monbiot's new book
Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism
Gives you why we are giving up on democracy. UT democracy not the problem, corporate greed, a plan by the elite to take more wealth and therefore control
I've just started that book, as it happens!
I have been ruminating on the state of increasing voter willingness across the democratic world to consider or even ardently support political movements that advocate radical system change away from democracy and the rule of law. The perceived failure of traditional political parties to address challenges faced by many voters seems quite entrenched and far from easy to address.
Whatever measure the traditional political class may attempt to implement, those working to convince voters that our democratic institutions are broken and unable or unwilling to meet their needs seem to be far better organized, financed, and able to engage the attention of the voting public.
The billionaires, whose continued accumulation of wealth and power is at the heart of the economic and power inequality that is so toxic to voters' perception of the ability of the current system to meet their needs, are also the ones who are often working hardest to convince voters that progressive politics and politicians are failing them. And their money and lack of spotlight gives them a much greater platform through their networks without any meaningful awareness of or accountability for their political machinations.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that while policies that actually help people are critical, of course, they will not necessarily be enough to prevent the continued slide down the slippery slope we find ourselves on, because the truly fundamental problem (wealth inequality and systematic attacks against the credibility of democratic institutions) seems impossible to address.
Read this later than I meant to, but the timing now is actually perfect...thanks David.
People do want their problems solved, and their anger & mistrust of status quo options increases the more they feel unheard. Whether it's real (widespread income shrinkage & unaffordability) or imagined (loss of mythologized previous status, inflamed for convenience), we just saw the results of this.
Support for Democracy seems to be another casualty of the (ongoing) Covid-19 pandemic.
More and more I am thinking that electoral democracy on a federal or even provincial level is never going to work.
The interests are too broad, the connection to people too weak, the power of Parties too strong. In our highly connected age, we are only going to get Trumps or Trudeaus… celebrity politicians who fritter around the edges of power, always making sure that nothing changes for the donor class.
Electoral democracy only really works on a municipal level. I would be fine doing away with ongoing posturing and preening that goes on at these higher levels. We need only have our locally elected bodies send representatives to higher parliaments. The product of these higher bodies would then need to be approved by rotating citizens assemblies.
We need long term planning on a federal level that brings the country together, more inter-city public transit, better planned and comprehensive healthcare, protections against local fluctuations in economy.
I don’t think I’ll live to see any of this, but this is almost certainly where we have to go.
If there is one thing I find both amusing and ridiculous about public discussions, it is all the people talking about democracy as if they were actually in one. I do not think there is a national government of any size run as a democracy.
The phrase “representative democracy” is an oxymoron. As every political scientist from ancient Greece up until the eighteen hundreds knew, elections and representatives are about oligarchy. Democracy means sortition, legislature by lottery, or public assemblies of everybody.
So everyone is fed up with something they never had in the first place. What is really vexxing them is government by an elite group, and the trouble caused by disputes within factions of that elite. We have only had this type of government for a couple of centuries, since the rising liberal elites responded to demands for democracy by brainwashing people that that was what democracy meant.
As for actually achieving a democracy, we can not get there from here. These other ideas people have are not adequate solutions for current problems, either. Military dictatorships never work well, but are usually very hard to permanently get rid of. A technocracy is another unicorn type thing which has never been seen.
An autocracy works as long as the autocrat is competent and ethical. How does he or she get into power in the first place against an oligarchy? And what happens when they get old? Any government better than the present one would have to be put in place by some kind of social movement which can defeat the present oligarchic order.
The present order is not going to just get out of the way. It will use violence and it will try to take everything down with it. It will be removed by external military force or by internal revolution, and probably by a combination. The question then would be to put a more effective and stable order in its place.
If the group replacing the present order want to set up some sort of real democracy, that would take some time. The economy would have to be completely reorganized. The control mechanisms of the old order would have to be dismantled in detail. A whole generation of people would have to be educated to function in a democracy.
In the long run, autocracy does not work. A real democracy would be the most stable and effective form of government. But they are very hard to establish.
Most people will find this idea weird, but the only way to get a democracy going is to first establish a transitional dictatorship. And that is going to happen through a revolution or external conquest. The transition group must be committed to the idea of a real democracy, a government in the interests of the population.
I have written this fast. I hope it is clear enough.
David is right that the average voter wants their economic interests addressed more directly by political parties. The challenge that political parties face, however, is that directly responding to voters' economic interests often results in a backlash from the corporate community.
This is what is holding up Canada's badly needed Employment Insurance reform. Employment Insurance reform has been promised by the Liberal government since 2022 and yet, we are still are left with the wholly inadequate mid-1990's version of the program which had to be basically junked when COVID hit in Spring, 2020. The reason that reform is stalled is that the Liberals are afraid of the corporate community who would pay higher premiums under a reformed program.
The corporate lobby is standing in the way of many badly needed changes that would address the pocket-book concerns of average voters. All we need is a government that is willing to stand up to these corporate interests.
It goes beyond just people seeking a leadership to solve their problems. They want someone to be accountable for those decisions made so they don't have to be.
We have a personal accountability deficit.