Policy Bytes: Why Progress?

Progress is a fledgling political party. It is so fledgling that it barely has membership. It will have a large membership very soon. As soon as millennials figure out that it makes sense. They'll figure it out. They're smart, tough, tough-minded, and one of the most unique and complex generations humanity has ever produced.

Being born into the information age has its benefits. Yet - the challenges are also immense, and disinformation and misinformation are two of the greatest of those challenges. If you are a millennial who finds all the current political offerings in our fake democracy confusing and unsatisfying, then that is probably because most of them are fake, confusing, and unsatisfying.

Try globalist pragmatism with a side of anti-duopoly scepticism.

What is this ‘duopoly’ business?

It is not enough to have all the machinery and stability in place for a working democratic system, whether it be Westminster, Jacksonian, Jeffersonian, direct, parliamentary, participatory, or Australian (or any of the dozen or so other variants.)

Why?

The problem is straightforward. The stable, well-oiled machinery of democratic states (voting systems, electronic ballots, parliamentary policies, electoral systems and processes, parliaments, electoral colleges) can be bought, subverted, and totally undermined in terms of their intended function, by various tyrannies of majorities (such as those implemented by megacults) and the tyranny of large well-financed interests. Not to mention the overriding influence of markets and economics.

This happens so often, and so constantly, that most people are by now numb to the process.

We all know this very well, really. The outcome in most Commonwealth countries is the same as it is in the US and UK. One ends up with two strong major parties that, for all their rhetoric and politicking, end up being near carbon copies of each other in practical terms.

Even when there are significant differences in the ideological and practical policies and actions of major parties – as is the case with Tories and the Labor Party in the UK - the pendulum like democratic process of duopoly means that voters are exposed to the worst of only two options for about half the time. The tenure of the either party is generally not enough to gain any meaningful policy implementation momentum.

Other social and economic forces end up prevailing over all alleged real democratic choice. Megacults and corporations, for example. Democracy as duopoly becomes an ongoing exercise in – subverting democracy.

One wonders if democracy can ever work in principle at all, given our understanding of psychology, economic, social psychology, and of people’s psycho-social development.

It is difficult – probably impossible - for democracy to resist the pull of economic necessity in a capitalist free market economy. Capitalist states have specific social and economic dynamics and properties that are very politically normalising. Or perhaps ‘homogenising’ is a better term. They make all political party options look very much the same, and reduce the number of 'options' - usually to two.

There are a limited number of ways (historically) to break this cycle of duopolising-homogenising of democracy:

- Violent coup de tat and revolution of the communist variety

- Fascist takeover (violent)

- Total anarchic social breakdown from the bottom up

- Collapse and failure brought about by top-down mismanagement

- Social collapse brought on by economic depression linked to ecological and other disasters (including large scale wars.)

Then there is an approach that is sometimes, but rarely successfully, attempted.

- Radical revisionary evolution of existing systems

Efforts are often made to advance democratic systems, and as a result we have some very sophisticated and complex systems. However, these are easily subverted by the abovementioned forces of duopolising homogenisation. In any case - such changes are usually not radical.

Anarchic post-truthism is probably not the answer we need for the world's issues either. Yet, post truth happened for very good reasons. The usual binary oppositions of left-right/capitalist-socialist/conservative-liberal (and a host of others) are only heuristic tools for getting a basic, intuitive grip on the differences between people and ideologies. They do not serve us well for a proper and necessary understanding of the stochastic (probabilistic) and chaotic nature of human beings, human societies, and human affairs.

I have proposed concrete, workable strategies and policies for breaking duopolistic stalemates and bringing about real change that will force the political pendulum of duopoly to stop so that real economic and social change can be achieved.

It goes without saying that the radical revisionary option is preferable to most humanistic and reasoning persons. Even communists, with their declaration of war in the communist manifesto, prefer to avoid bloody revolution if it is at all possible. They regard it as a forced and unavoidable response to the oppressive and dehumanising forces of fascistic, unrestrained, free-market capitalism.

However, free markets are a way for pragmatic secularists to achieve good global outcomes for all if they are arbitrated and managed appropriately by governments that are there to serve all people, and not just lucky self-proclaimed elites. (Some people like to proclaim that everyone makes their own luck. Of course – the accident of birth and the genetic lottery alone are enough to debunk that idea as shaky, at best.)

Certainly we are not all naturally equal. However, as Aristotle observed, egalitarianism in voter enfranchisement is almost certainly necessary for a true democracy to function. Otherwise - what motive have most people got to ratify the system with their participation?

We need to use the best statistical sciences to support our reasoned understanding of the world. We all need principles and habits to get through the day, but pretending things are simple when they are not helps no one in the end. Principles and habits need to have flexibility and adaptability to allow individuals and societies to respond fluidly and effectively to chaotic and challenging circumstances.

- Dr Bruce Long

---