Politics, if it was to be described in one single sentence, could be called the means by which societies problems are solved. Meaning that all politics is ultimately, a problem and a solution. However, I can't help but wonder if this definition appropriately explains the politics of the modern era.
Richard Nixon described politics as “the art of compromise”. Yet even this insightful observation is one which struggles to define politics sufficiently. For me, the reality is much more complicated, and I suspect is one which is far removed from such attempts to define as expansive a subject as politics. The politics to which I am referring, is the sort most often associated with politicians and the system in which they practice their particular brand of politics.
When I first became active in politics at the age of eighteen I saw the political system as a vehicle by which societal problems could be solved. Essentially, my belief at the time was that you enter politics because you want to do some good. And whether you agreed or disagreed with your political opponents, all were ultimately guided by the same honourable intentions. Funny now how I look back and laugh at my naivety, but I find myself asking a question. That is to say, if not the means by which societies problems are solved, then what is politics?
Perhaps the honest answer lies in Richard Nixon's suggestion that “politics is the art of compromise”. For to go further, it could be said that if this is accepted as being the case, then by extension, politics is also the end of all hope for a solution. After all, given the nature of the box filled ideological landscape, compromise is impossible given the wide range of boxes and box filled boxes which have come to typify modern political thought.
Essentially, how can a Marxist be expected to compromise with a capitalist when their ideologies are so opposed? How can a nationalist be expected to compromise with a free market globalist? The answer is that there can be no workable compromise, because doing so would mean both ideological groups coming to a mutually agreed conclusion that fails to solve any of the problems or attain any of the ideals as their individual ideologies see them. In effect, my point here is that should we accept this as the case, then politics as it currently exists is, the problem without a solution.
Over the years I have met, worked with, spoken to and debated with political activists and politicians of all kind of persuasions. And if I have learnt anything, it is that those for whom political power becomes a way of life, quite often end up becoming morally compromised by the very system they use as a vehicle for change. The essential point being that all power, not just ultimate power, corrupts.
Clearly the problem is the political system and its tendency to attract the corrupted and corrupt the well intentioned. But in accepting this, then the only conclusion can be that if this is the case, then the electoral process isn't as sufficient a vehicle for change, for the modern political activist, as it once was.
Even revolution is suspect as a political solution. For even in cases where it might be arguably justified, the problem with solving political problems by revolution is that you only ever succeed in replacing the old system with a new one. Sure, you might change the structure of government, or the constitutional pillars on which a State is based. But the eventual outcome will be the same, as the varying ideological and personality groups attempt to solve problems in a way which has less to do with finding solutions than it does furthering their own ideological interpretation of the ideal.
This isn't to say that I envisage a better way. Because the alternatives are just more of the same. Sure there are differences. Authoritarian and Monarchical systems, unlike the democratic, are just honest in what they are. The only difference with democracy is that society believes that it chooses the government. If only because it elects the people who rule over it. Yet the very involvement of various special interest groups and media conglomerates in formulating the very opinions which society votes on, and the government basis its decisions on, does however, only serve to prove the well disguised authoritarian nature of democracy.
Essentially, where as any other system would simply refuse you a choice; democratic systems give you a choice, but not before they've told you what your choice is going to be. Meaning that as things currently stand there can be no hope of rectifying the very system which has caused, and continues to compound the very problems for which we as society continue to hope for solutions.
Despite this though, I can't help but feel optimistic. Not because I see any solutions on the horizon. But because a wider awareness of the issues are growing despite attempts by the mass media and other establishment forces to maintain their grip on the collective consciousness. The 21st century is without a doubt fast becoming the age of information. An age in which the possibilities to learn and explore our potential is quickly changing the politics of the world around us. The only question left is whether this strangely Orwellian growth in proletarian awareness is one which can free us from the old ways of addressing the unavoidably political; and enable us to adapt and change in time to succeed in finding the solutions to the many environmental, social and geopolitical problems, which ultimately, threaten the very future of our society.
DL
Richard Nixon described politics as “the art of compromise”. Yet even this insightful observation is one which struggles to define politics sufficiently. For me, the reality is much more complicated, and I suspect is one which is far removed from such attempts to define as expansive a subject as politics. The politics to which I am referring, is the sort most often associated with politicians and the system in which they practice their particular brand of politics.
When I first became active in politics at the age of eighteen I saw the political system as a vehicle by which societal problems could be solved. Essentially, my belief at the time was that you enter politics because you want to do some good. And whether you agreed or disagreed with your political opponents, all were ultimately guided by the same honourable intentions. Funny now how I look back and laugh at my naivety, but I find myself asking a question. That is to say, if not the means by which societies problems are solved, then what is politics?
Perhaps the honest answer lies in Richard Nixon's suggestion that “politics is the art of compromise”. For to go further, it could be said that if this is accepted as being the case, then by extension, politics is also the end of all hope for a solution. After all, given the nature of the box filled ideological landscape, compromise is impossible given the wide range of boxes and box filled boxes which have come to typify modern political thought.
Essentially, how can a Marxist be expected to compromise with a capitalist when their ideologies are so opposed? How can a nationalist be expected to compromise with a free market globalist? The answer is that there can be no workable compromise, because doing so would mean both ideological groups coming to a mutually agreed conclusion that fails to solve any of the problems or attain any of the ideals as their individual ideologies see them. In effect, my point here is that should we accept this as the case, then politics as it currently exists is, the problem without a solution.
Over the years I have met, worked with, spoken to and debated with political activists and politicians of all kind of persuasions. And if I have learnt anything, it is that those for whom political power becomes a way of life, quite often end up becoming morally compromised by the very system they use as a vehicle for change. The essential point being that all power, not just ultimate power, corrupts.
Clearly the problem is the political system and its tendency to attract the corrupted and corrupt the well intentioned. But in accepting this, then the only conclusion can be that if this is the case, then the electoral process isn't as sufficient a vehicle for change, for the modern political activist, as it once was.
Even revolution is suspect as a political solution. For even in cases where it might be arguably justified, the problem with solving political problems by revolution is that you only ever succeed in replacing the old system with a new one. Sure, you might change the structure of government, or the constitutional pillars on which a State is based. But the eventual outcome will be the same, as the varying ideological and personality groups attempt to solve problems in a way which has less to do with finding solutions than it does furthering their own ideological interpretation of the ideal.
This isn't to say that I envisage a better way. Because the alternatives are just more of the same. Sure there are differences. Authoritarian and Monarchical systems, unlike the democratic, are just honest in what they are. The only difference with democracy is that society believes that it chooses the government. If only because it elects the people who rule over it. Yet the very involvement of various special interest groups and media conglomerates in formulating the very opinions which society votes on, and the government basis its decisions on, does however, only serve to prove the well disguised authoritarian nature of democracy.
Essentially, where as any other system would simply refuse you a choice; democratic systems give you a choice, but not before they've told you what your choice is going to be. Meaning that as things currently stand there can be no hope of rectifying the very system which has caused, and continues to compound the very problems for which we as society continue to hope for solutions.
Despite this though, I can't help but feel optimistic. Not because I see any solutions on the horizon. But because a wider awareness of the issues are growing despite attempts by the mass media and other establishment forces to maintain their grip on the collective consciousness. The 21st century is without a doubt fast becoming the age of information. An age in which the possibilities to learn and explore our potential is quickly changing the politics of the world around us. The only question left is whether this strangely Orwellian growth in proletarian awareness is one which can free us from the old ways of addressing the unavoidably political; and enable us to adapt and change in time to succeed in finding the solutions to the many environmental, social and geopolitical problems, which ultimately, threaten the very future of our society.
DL
0 comments:
Post a Comment