This was meant to be posted yesterday:
Facts, truth, belief, opinion, support, division. These are matters with which one constantly puzzles over. The stronger one holds on to a particular belief, the more entrenched one’s position becomes, the more reasonable or unreasonable one appears; reasonable to those who share your view and unreasonable to those who do not. The more forcefully one projects that view, the more support or division is engendered.
I raise the conundrum in the light of upcoming elections and the difficulties of democracy being so bound up with party politics, in particular when there appears to be a two party monopoly on electoral success. Although candidacy is open to all citizens who wish to serve and participate in the governance of the state, political parties have emerged on either side of a political spectrum moving from left to right. There are many directions to define the various spaces between the outer limits: centre, left of centre, right of centre etc. Each of the parties position themselves by publishing a manifesto outlining their corps beliefs and opinions along with a program of activities they believe will best benefit the citizens of the state, and best meet the needs of the citizens of the state. That manifesto is produced to persuade and gain the support of the citizen, even though it will also cause division and opposition in some other citizens.
The electoral system of some countries seems to favour the two party monopoly whilst other nations have a more proportional system of elections allowing for more varied representation of opinion in their legislative assemblies. The European Parliament, Danish Folketing and French Assemble National are instances in point.
Be that as it may, and despite the clear evidence that the needs of, and benefits for, the citizens of a democratic state are essentially similar; there is serious division as to how to provide those particulars. What has been brought into focus by this pandemic however, is the necessity for the state to take control, in a far more dramatic way, than it had ever anticipated. As a consequence, those representatives on the right have had to approve actions which would normally be part of a leftist manifesto, and those on the left have had to approve actions which would be part of a right-wing manifesto. The provision of massive economic public support of workers’ salaries in the private sector, and the implementation of restrictive measures and limitations on human freedoms to impose order, have turned the spectrum upside down. Ironically, rather than a coming together of representatives, it appears to have caused greater confusion, division and entrenching of opinion.
One sees this in the United States where Republicans and Democrats seem unable to grasp the imperative need for a bipartisan approach to national recovery and conciliation. They talk of it, but neither side appears to actually put in into action. President Biden is trying, but they are so caught up in personality politics and its arch propagator ex-President Trump, that all and any attempt to change the perception of his supporters is thwarted by the left and right opinions pouring over its airways. CNN, Fox News and others appear to be wilfully tearing the country apart. White supremacist, religious fundamentalist and any number of fringe groups will do anything to prevent any variance from their agendas, whatever they are. Middle America doesn’t seem to stand a chance.
Oddly enough, it is the same in the United Kingdom. The opinions and support of representative in government, is obstinately entrenched, lacking in maturity and variable in character. The questionable integrity of its leadership has created even more division, and the name calling and diversionary tactics to deflect criticism is beyond control. Enquiries are demanded, implemented and ultimately ignored. Tit for tat is where it’s at. This is the current method of approach to argument.
The BBC’s Newsnight program displays endless instances of entrenched point of view as well as perfect examples of the bullying deflecting tactics of supporters of the current leadership. The thuggish demeanour of Andrew Bridgen MP in a pitiful charade in support of Just Boris and the Outlaws, was symptomatic of the state of the parties. Bluster, counter attack, deflection and veiled accusation of the questioner was all he had to offer. Reasoned argument, considered reflection of thought, and straight forward answers were nowhere to be seen and heard. What on earth can the electors of North West Leicestershire see in this man to have elected him on four separate occasions. The citizens of Ashby-de-la-Zouch should seriously think again.
I realize my comments above smack of entrenched opinion, but, honestly, what a lout. I almost felt sorry for Emily Maitlis. This is a BBC journalist with an entrenched view that she is at all times the personification of impartiality. She loves the gripped pen and papers in hand approach, and sometimes actually appears to take notes while people are speaking.
What is of greater concern, to my entrenched view, is that the requirement of controlling and dealing with the pandemic, will reinforce the concept of ‘social order’ as an appropriate modus vivendi. That the control of public association, assembly and freedom of movement, temporally imposed for reasons of health and safety, should become the norm, is very worrying indeed. That there is already a move to the right in politics round the world is scary enough. That it be supplemented out of some perceived continuing necessity, is a danger to democratic free thinking people everywhere. All the more reason for elected leadership to be held to account whenever they depart from established democratic codes of conduct. Upholding the integrity and reliability of civil servants and elected representatives, who have so much access to public funds, information about individual citizen’s and influence on their lives, is a rather crucial aspect of a democratic society. These things matter, and no attempt to divert attention by changing the subject and presenting alternate imagery should prevent public scrutiny of transgressions by public servants, no matter how slight they seem.
No comments:
Post a Comment