I am still in that frame of mind
asking myself “What am I to do?”. Conversations with others that touch on the
politics of the United Kingdom and United States are problematic. Both of these
nations have the conceit to label themselves as United. They proclaim that the
various areas of the country form a union of people that are so connected
together as to form a completely united nation. It proclaims that the
leadership elected by the people has the backing of the entire populace and
therefore a mandate to rule. How often have we heard an elected representative
claim they will represent all the people of their constituency, not just those
in their party or those who voted for them.
A promise given to assuage those who might have any doubts as to the
genuine commitment of the elected person to fulfil their resposibility towards public
service.
(It might be noted that Donald
Trump has, so far as I am aware, never subscribed to the notion that he would
be president for all citizens. He has always maintained he only supports those
who support him. As to the notion of being a hero, his latest release of
superhero digital trading cards, at $99 a throw, is an instance in point as to
how far into fantasy land he has descended. His supporters are equally deluded)
As some nations have formed and
developed towards civilised democracy under the rule of law, their governments,
on the whole, have tried to move the nation towards greater democracy and the
furtherance of a civilised society under the rule of law. There have been peaks
and troughs that have caused significant upheavals along the way. The acquisition
and control of power in government is always a vexed question. The electorate
can sometimes be bamboozled into a way of thinking that the vision of a
particular would be leader, or national hero, is the very pinnacle of where the
society ought to be heading. As a result, democracy falls by the wayside until
such time as circumstances remove the obstruction. The obstructionists today
are Putin, Lukashenko, Orban, and a number of others. Donald Trump is an obstruction
not yet quite removed, although there are hopeful signs of an expungement.
There are moments however, when
it is not a single individual controlling power, but a political party that
comes into power, abuses its position, and stubbornly refuses to let go. It
hangs on in the hope of maintaining its grip over the electorate. Whatever the
makeup of the party, acting as a collective, it can remain in office so
long as the terms and conditions of its election allow, or, it can dispense
with the terms and conditions and forcibly, or defiantly, remain in power. That has been the case following the so-called
elections in Belarus, Russia, and possibly Hungary and any other country where parties
and certain individuals have extended their power to circumvent the wishes of
the electorate.
Whatever nationalists and
isolationists may think about their sovereignty, the nations of the world are clearly
interdependent. The current pandemic, the war in the Ukraine, the after-effects
of Brexit, the difficulties in the Far and Middle East, all leading to economic
conundrum around the world, have demonstrated beyond doubt that nations can no
longer function efficiently without co-operation. The difficulties facing countries
having to deal with external problems as of necessity to cope with the effects
on its internal problems are exceedingly problematic.
It is all very well for a
government to blame outside forces for its inability to cope with its domestic problems
and failures to secure and maintain its economic security. Blame is not a
solution and it must find a way towards resolving those outside issues as well
as the internal ones. It must accept its part in the failure of bringing
nations together and work towards remedying that fault. A self-centred nation
cannot hope to survive.
Coming back to my conversations
with others, it is clear that the Kingdom and the States are far from United
and that their electoral systems can allow for a minority to decide on the
accession to public office of any individual. Indeed, the plurality of
political parties or points of view of candidates for office, shows just how
diverse or disunited the nations actually are.
So the information I am being
given makes it clear that there are some, amongst my friends and acquaintances,
who take a view that is contrary to my own. There is a right-of-centre element
that is being expressed, or should I say, a more severe appreciation of the
situation. Their view of sentencing for criminal activity is more severe, as is
their view on industrial action. They may not speak highly of the current
conservative leadership but are very specific in their condemnation of those
politicians who purport to be on the left side of the political spectrum. In short, their dissatisfaction sees some
degree of support (so far as US politics are concerned) for the likes of Ron
DeSantis. This is not exactly a move
away from dangerous conservative thinking. It is certainly not a move towards
the centre, but very much a move to the right. So disconcerted am I to hear such
comment, that I do not speak for fear of causing alienation and discord. It comes back to “what am I to do?”. Perhaps
I need to rethink my own perspective of what I expect my representatives, at
all levels of government, to do.
I accept that we live in a market
economy; however, the economy can only function at its best when all citizens
are free and able to partake in that economy. In order to be free and able, the
citizens must have certain guaranteed human rights, which include mental and
physical wellbeing, education, employment, security and the ability to speak
out, protest, and subscribe to whatever religious belief they choose, or not,
as the case may be. This requires some adjustments to the free market. Certain
regulations need to be in place in order to maintain those freedoms and support
those individuals who are less fortunate than some, and less able to take
advantage of the freedoms of opportunity available in the marketplace. There
are those who would argue for very few regulations, supposedly to encourage
the market and let it thrive. They would see some of the rights, that I
ascribe to individuals as necessary human rights, as commodities rightly open
to the marketplace, such as health, education and security.
Most democratic societies see
primary education of its citizens as a necessity and is therefore provided by
the state along with a requirement that the citizen must ensure their children
attend some form of primary education. Beyond that, some states have seen fit
to subsidise further education to a lesser or greater degree, with some expense
down to the student. Higher education is open to the market place. Similarly
with health, the state sees fit to provide physical and mental health to it
citizens whilst additionally allowing for the market place to take part in the
provision of medical services. Some countries feel it is entirely a matter for
the market; the increasing costs being covered through the insurance market, a
necessary adjunct to the market place to cover the various risks which can
occur from time to time. Security is likewise a mixed bag. The security of the
nation is provided and paid for by the state’s standing armed forces. Domestic
security and policing are also provided by state and local government,
although, again, private security is available. As to housing security, this is
on the whole a matter for the market place although some housing assistance is
of necessity provided by the state or local authority.
Given the complexities of a
modern democratic state, it is clear that Government at all levels have, of
necessity for all its citizens, a duty to provide all manner of assistance,
including health, welfare, housing and education. Public servants
are elected to provide for and manage these matters. It must also ensure that the market place
operates fairly and with integrity, hence regulations on goods and consumer
protection.
The idea of a completely free
open market place is therefore always going to be subject to some form of
regulation. It cannot be otherwise. The balance is between compromise and
necessity. What is essential to the citizen and what is open for trade is the
question. For some, there are more essentials not open to trade than others. For
others, some essentials are open to trade regardless of others. It is all a
matter of compromise.
What we currently have in western
democracies is a variety of governments providing all the necessities with
various degrees of success, and all of them have similar societal problems
which result from the market place, including poverty and homelessness. As an
example, New York is the richest state in the United States and New York City
has the highest rate of homelessness of any city in the United States. So what
is not being done to allow for this incongruity? It is the same in most of the large
capitals of Europe. It is certainly true of London.
There are many countries around
the world seeking solutions for the problems of democracy and I fear that some
of the solutions are becoming more severe and drastic, with certain elements in
societies being scapegoated yet again and being blamed for the state's inability
to find real solutions. This is not a
healthy sign. In most of the democratic nations, nationalists are assuming that
militant nationalism, super patriotism and me first politics are the answer.
“Clear out the debris and all will be well”. “Lock up the problem and throw
away the key”.
I, for one, am not ready to agree
to this course of action. So in my middle class angst I wonder what compromises
I will have to make or ought to make, if any. What am I to do?
It is a truth universally
acknowledged that people just want to be able to get on with their lives and to
be in possession of good fortune. That is to be able to go about one’s business
without fear, in security and freedom. To have a roof over one’s head, having
satisfying employment, be able to amble down the pub, meet with friends, go
shopping, go for a meal, go to the theatre or cinema, play or watch sport, go for
a walk, have a nice holiday and a myriad of other activities, or not as the
case may be. The freedom to choose would be nice. In this day and age everyone should
have that choice, but everyone does not. Wouldn’t it be nice if they did?
In questo periodo
dell'anno buona fortuna a tutti
