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
No comments:
Post a Comment