I have been, as you know, contemplating the matter of a PPE degree or at least a self-imposed approach to the study of such a course. A political system, supported by a philosophy and an economic methodology seems worthy of examination. Some of it, from what I can gather from reading lists on the subject, is pretty basic stuff.
The idea that human beings’ innermost desire is to exist in a free association governed by particular norms or conventions is certainly supported by the actions of humans throughout the world. This is also reflected in most animal behaviour who exist in tribes or groups. So it is not too far-fetched to assume that this instinct is hard wired into our brains, as is our human ability to acquire and use language (sound and sign) as well as developing reading and writing.
Establishing a political system or organising a method which best co-ordinates the basic desires and needs of the group, is presumably what politics is about. So nations have been formed and developed over time to become the democracies we have today.
The various systems that have emerged suppose a leader who is mainly elected directly by the populace or by elected representatives of the populace. It also supposes that the general population (citizens) have a choice through an electoral system. Whether this electoral system is fair and free of corruption is another matter. The idea that each citizen has the right to vote has taken some time to develop, but that is what we have now in most democracies. Also, we have a universal doctrine of the rights of man and have establish a universal forum with the United Nations, the Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court. How effective these institutions are, depends on the resolve of the member nations.
The United Kingdom has developed a Parliamentary Democracy under a constitutional monarchy. There is a Head of State in the Crown, a Primary Legislative Chamber in an elected House of Commons, led by a government chosen by the majority party. There is also a second supervisory chamber in the House of Lords, an historic concession to the existence of an aristocracy aligned to the Crown. This too is evolving. The government is also composed of a leader, or prime minister, who selects a cabinet, or groups of individuals to oversee the various government agencies which implement and regulate their various responsibilities (e.g.: welfare, education, health, employment, foreign affairs, security etc..) Each department will have a number of people who actually work on putting into effect the ideas of their minister or head of department. These are people with certain skills and training who are hired for the express purpose of carrying out the work required. They are the Civil Servants who have jobs that remain constant no matter which political party is in charge of the ministry as they guarantee a degree of stability in dealing with the transitions required at the time.
The cabinet is meant to operate on the basis of ministerial responsibility. These ministers are overseen by a ‘Prime’ Minister who is effectively in charge of the government overall but who is responsible to Parliament, which is part of his ministerial responsibility. The idea is that Parliament is sovereign above all. The decisions of Parliament, as decided by all the members, who are the elected representative of the electorate, are what rules the nation.
The United States on the other hand has a more complicated structure in that it has developed a three pronged approach to Governing the country. There are three independent institutions who act as a check on each other. A system of checks and balances comprising an independent Judiciary, and independent congress, comprising two chambers (Senate and House of Representatives) and an independent executive. This sort of triumvirate operates with the consent of a federation of states who are governed under a similar system of checks and balances. Each state has a governor, a supreme judiciary and a legislative assembly, consisting of local state representatives and senators. Effectively each state is independent and has what are called States Rights which on the whole supersede Federal rights unless they infringe the overall rights imposed by the written Constitution of the United States. Indeed there are times when Federal Legislation is deemed unconstitutional vis a vis the individual States.
Each State will therefore have its own different ministries (education, defence or national guard, commerce, welfare, health etc..). The various departments of the federal administration are in respect of overall National matters such as Foreign Affairs, National Security, Armed Services, major disaster relief, overall health care and overall welfare. They provide overall legislation and assistance and finance to state institutions. Therefore the Federal governance of the United States is a much more layered system, and presidential power is limited within each individual state.
The individual states are or course reliant on the overall policies of the federal government in so far as they affect interstate relations in respect of the overall economy, security and welfare of the nation. So it is all intertwined, which can make things more complex in terms of the relations between federal and state civil servants, and federal and state legislators. The Constitution is what keeps it all together, which is what the Civil War (1861-1865) was all about.
Included in the Constitution, perhaps as an afterthought as they are defined as amendments, are the rights of individuals deemed as sacrosanct and inalienable. The first ten amendments are as follows:
1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
2- A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
3- No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
5- No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
6- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
7- In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.
8- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9- The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Some of these rights are now part of the constitutions, whether written or not, of most countries who profess to be democracies with free and fair elections.
Operating within these political systems are a variety of individuals who purport to be best able to accomplish the desired requirements to keep the system in operation and preserve the rights and needs of the individual citizens. They form political parties and in most cases there appear to be two parties who tend to dominate the political landscape.
On the one hand there is the party that believes the state should function with the minimum of interference with the general population. This conservative body firmly believes that the market place and private enterprise is the best way for the state to function. In that way the state can operate on a smaller budget and therefore need not impose a heavy tax burden on the citizen. It will favour the rich and the so called entrepreneur who will provide for the welfare of the less fortunate in society as a matter of course.
On the other hand there is the party that seeks to provide as much welfare for the citizen as is deemed necessary for maintaining the overall health and safety of every member of society no matter what their circumstances. This is in keeping with the idea that any individual can become rich by being an entrepreneur or exercising their talent and expertise.
There is however another sort of party line, which is evidenced by the current trend in the election of authoritarians. There are those who believe that the ruling party must regulate the behaviour of its citizens whilst at the same time supporting the most rich and powerful on the basis that minimal government expenditure is required for the state to function providing order is maintained. This form of governance requires every citizen to conform to a specific train of thought and to ostracize any citizen who does not conform to this idea. Hence the censorship of books, a restrained method of education, and a thoroughly conformist view of the state. Anyone who disagrees is vilified.
We have seen this already in the attitude of Trump to questions he deems fake news or contentious. His reactions are instant attack and vilification of the questioner. So to have we seen this with Kari Lake, who ran for Governor and Senator from Arizona. The exact same playbook. So long as you agree you’re ok/ If not “You need your head examined” So too the 2025 committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and any number of people who have got behind Trump. He is appointing people without any real knowledge or expertise in the subject of their ministry. None of his team have any idea of running a government department, nor does he have any real idea of running a presidency.
He presents himself as the sole leader who can fix all the world’s problems and in particular those of the American people. He will do this putting American First and the rest of the world will follow in 24 hours by making a couple of phone calls.
The reality is that he does not care one jot about the citizens of the United States, only the photo op and the chant of USA, USA etc. He has an infantile view of the nation as depicted in Del and Marvel Comics and a strong adherence to making the wealthy even richer. Hence his references to fictional characters as if they were real and toadying to the likes of Elon Musk.
So what will happen to education is anybody’s guess, save that it will have less funding. Indeed many things will have less funding, and some media publications may come under surreptitious attack. The EU and NATO will be under constant strain in relations with the United States State Department and foreign affairs will disintegrate into deals with dictators to the detriment of democracy.
Whether the tradition of States Rights keep the spirit of the Constitution alive is to be seen. The Federal Government could well be a lost cause, particularly in the light of a simpering and unresponsive supreme court which upholds criminality as opposed to anything approaching a check or balance on the executive.
So grin and bear it is hardly in my thinking. This election is a disaster for the United States as it is for Western Democracies as a whole.
Any approach to political policy begins with personal philosophy. Why are we here? What are we here for? does it matter? and what are we to do about it? There are any number of answers. If one takes the view of Adam Smith, David Hume and others of the enlightenment, there are clear social implications and a social contract must be arrived at. The reasons behind the formation of the United Nations and European Union are not to be discarded and are still relevant today, particularly in this climate of war in the middle east and in middle Europe.
Separatists and Nationalists are not what is required, yet that appears to be all that is on offer. Where do we go from here? Where does philosophy take us and whence the economic agenda to take us there beyond politics?
The Constitution of the United Kingdom although unwritten as a specific document, has its own Convention of Human Rights which it has developed over centuries and those first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, created in 1787, are in effect derived from those human rights as developed in the United Kingdom. This in turn led to the Declaration of the Rights of Man emerging from the French Revolution in 1789. These rights are at the core of most democratic political systems. Providing those rights are very much part of the United Kingdom’s very existence and they do not come cheap. Health, education, employment, safety and security are the very much part of that agenda. Those ministries of government are vital for the welfare of the nation aa a whole and not just for the few. There are 67 million souls and counting who are entitled by right to benefit from those ministries which must be supported or the whole thing falls apart.
Because we live in a world that now requires funds to function, in order to obtain goods and services rather than barter, the citizen of necessity has to contribute in whatever way they can to the state, in order for all to have the goods and services require. The government is therefore charged, amongst other things, with the task of raising and distributing the funds required for each of the ministries concerned with providing those rights and necessities. How governments do this is what politics is all about. The various factions and parties put forward their ideas and the populace will elect those who they feel best represent the priorities of the nation. Depending of the political organisation of elections, it is not necessarily the majority who rule. This is most clearly evidenced by the United Kingdom whose electoral system currently allows for a large Parliamentary Majority from what is in effect a minority of the electorate.
Nevertheless that party in power must govern for all. This is not an easy proposition. Any party and indeed all current parties are struggling to get it right. None of us seem satisfied and there are as many points of view as there are column inches in the various newspapers and other forms of media. I hope that what we have, at present, in the UK, is a government committed to the welfare of the people and all the concomitant features that implies. I hope.
More of this anon.
I would just like to add that Oliver Cotton’s play, The Score, will be playing at the Theatre Royal Haymarket Theatre from the 20th February 2025. It is highly recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment