MIRROR MIRROR ON THE WALL

In response to some comments of mine, my friend Charles Nabet sent me the following response:

 

"En fait, nous avons tous de part le monde des interrogations sur nos élus, ce qui, à mon avis, est une erreur: nos interrogations devraient porter sur nous-mêmes. En effet, nous constatons, dans tous les pays de culture occidentale, une lente descente du niveau global de l'éducation, de la réflexion, de l'analyse, du respect, de l'écoute de l'autre, de la générosité (etc.) au profit d'une acculturation, d'un égoïsme, d'un individualisme et d'une irresponsabilité collective.
Dans ces conditions, nous avons des politiques à notre image. En d'autres termes, nos politiques sont notre miroir, nous retrouvons chez eux tous nos défauts et nos sociétés telles qu'elles sont devenues."

 

Google Translation:

In fact, we all around the world have questions about our elected officials, which, in my opinion, is a mistake: our questions should be about ourselves. Indeed, we observe, in all countries of Western culture, a slow decline in the overall level of education, reflection, analysis, respect, listening to others, generosity (etc.) to the benefit of acculturation, selfishness, individualism and collective irresponsibility. Under these conditions, we have policies in our image. In other words, our politicians are our mirror, we find in them all our faults and our societies as they have become.

 

I agree entirely with his comments about the decline of “civilisation” in the western world, and yes, it is most likely our own fault, and perhaps we do have the politicians that reflect the current decline, but it is only by railing against those politicians who thrive on that decline that there is any glimmer of hope to restore some kind of intelligence and integrity in political life.

 

There are many voices in this world who are crying in the wilderness “make straight the way of the just”. The trouble is there are just as many voices who claim they are the just. There are those who speak the truth and mean it, and there are those who purloin the truth with an agenda. That is to say, the words are the same, but there is an ulterior motive.

 

On the whole, western democracies operate under the premiss of respect for the rule of law. Each democracy has a system which is in place as a result of the adherence to that concept. In order to preserve that system, certain individuals put themselves forward to act together to help maintain the system as a service to the public, the citizens living within the system. They help organise the basic, and often hard fought for, requirements of the population, that is to say, security, health, education, employment and, above all, the freedom of movement and thought to enable the population to benefit and prosper from what have now become basic human rights.

 

The public service these people perform is a very heavy and serious responsibility. In order for these public servants to achieve the desired and required outcome of their office, each office is given certain powers over the general population, who trust the holders of that office not to abuse those powers, which are incumbent with whatever office they hold. It is important for the office holder to understand that the position of trust they hold is a very great privilege even though the office they hold is extremely demanding and arduous.  

 

Despite the difficulties of the office, many citizens put themselves forward as the person to occupy that office, and as a result the population decide which person is best suited and worthy of the trust being conferred upon them.  Different countries have different system of electing its public servants, but it all amounts to the same thing, the office holder must perform and deliver the desired and required human rights to each and every elector.

 

The difficulties arise in particular when the office holder confuses the powers conferred upon the office as being powers conferred upon them personally. It is a very difficult distinction to make when one is elected, or appointed, to  the office. It is not easy to keep the distinction in mind when one is performing the duties required of the office. Abusing the privilege can be just a simple slip, and often the public servant in question is not really capable of fulfilling the obligations of the office. This is something the public servant may find difficult to grasp and react accordingly.

 

To emphasise “The individual is not the office”, but too often the individual concerned believes him/herself to be the office. They do not recognise their inabilities and lack of competence. They are also, far too often, supported in their delusion by acolytes and other people who seek advantage from the pubic servant’s continued occupation of the office. This provides the public servant with an inflated view of their own abilities. They can become entrenched and appear arrogant and narcissistic. Indeed, personalities who are predisposed to arrogance and narcissism, often put themselves forward as public servants. It is that quality of blind ambition which can lead to serious psychotic and disturbed behaviour. They believe they have a mission.

 

It is therefore incumbent upon the citizen to be watchful of the derailing of the politician from public servant to entrenched arrogance of office. It is incumbent upon the citizen to observe and look closely at any person who puts themselves forward as a public servant in any office. Too frequently the wrong person is in the wrong job.

 

The added difficulty for the citizen is that, now, so many people are willing to put themselves forward as public servants. They compete with each other to obtain the endorsement of the citizen at the ballot box. They campaign to obtain the vote of the electorate by appealing to what they believe the electorate want or need to hear. They decry those who compete with them for the attention of the electorate. Various sections of the electorate come together to chose a spokesperson they would seek to have in the office. Differing groups claiming support for a specific political agenda thus try to push forward their candidate for a position.  Some of the electorate will align themselves with a particular political agenda, and so it goes on.

 

But not all the electorate will participate. So long as things seem to trundle along, they show little interest in who is, in fact, running their affairs and providing them with the opportunity to fully partake of their human rights, to health, education, employment, security and freedom. They are a very large part of the electorate and because of their apparent disinterest, they are prey to any group, false prophet, prospective public servant, or actual public servant who claims to know best how to solve their problems.

 

The turnout for local elections is generally low. In France at the last it was 44% although in the midst of Covid.  In the UK the turnout for local elections in 2018 was 34.6%. I Germany the local election turnout hovered between 60% and 74%. There is of course a form of proportional representation in the elections on the continent, so many more different groups are represented in the various forums, but no matter the form of election, participation is key. In the UK, with national general elections, a candidate is elected by the highest number of votes regardless of percentage. It is an undemocratic system, which accounts for low turnout at elections, and an obsessive clinging to 3 parties, although in effect only 2, as the liberal democrats seem destined to remain in the wilderness.  

 

Turnout is one thing, but what matters is the numbers of people that are actually listening and trying to pay attention to what is going on. The competence and integrity of public servants, as a result of this lack of attention, has diminished to a large degree. Populism seems to be on the rise, even if contrary to the rule of law, the very framework that keeps it all together.

 

For instance – don’t much like foreigners coming into the country, taking your benefits and jobs? No problem, we’ll ship them off to Rwanda. Breaking the law? Don’t worry, it’s OK, as long as you apologise and don’t do it for long. So what’s the time limit on burglary? I would guess 4 min inside the house is fine. How about a fixed penalty notice for that? I could go on but it’s too enervating.

 

The casual manner in which current public servants treat their responsibility towards the rule of law is deplorable.  Given the casual manner in which fraud and deception over the internet and phone lines is perpetrated, and on the increase, such behaviour, as Charles pointed out, is accurately reflected in the quality of our current crop of civil servants.  Why on earth did we elect them or allow them to be candidates in the first place? Individual vigilance is therefore essential, and calling it out a necessary act of the citizen, however they choose to do it.

 

I suppose, in effect, we are questioning ourselves when we ask “What on earth is that person doing in that job? Can we not get them out?” There has to be a better, quicker and more efficient way to remove an incompetent clown, and his entourage, other than waiting 5 years, or for 54 people to send a letter to a made up conservative club, with no real public scrutiny of any kind.

 

What sort of democracy is that? He will not behave with any kind of integrity so why should anyone else? He should be shouted down every time he walks into the houses of parliament. It should be the Speakers duty to call him out for having lied to the house and make him resign or be banned from attending the house at all. Why are our representatives not screaming at him to go? Why are journalists allowing interviews of people spouting ludicrous banalities to protect him? Why are they not just saying, do shut up and tell him to resign? HE LIES TO PARLIAMENT; HE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME SEVERAL TIMES OVER. Why is there a problem getting rid of him?

 

Do we really live in a democracy that is a mirror of ourselves? In which case “Mirror Mirror on the wall, who’s the biggest schmuck of all?” Surely not the British public?