Anti-Democrat

While looking at Never Trust a Hippy during the previous discussion, I noticed this:

I was on the wireless a while ago with our mutual friend Guido Fawkes. I did my usual thing of asking him what he was in favour of (amazing how often people manage to avoid answering that one) and to his credit, he said that the political model that he’d like most like to see applied to the UK was that of Hong Kong (which, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit (PDF) gets a paltry overall score of 5.85 compared to the ZaNuLieBore Police State (!!!?!??!?!) ranking of 8.15.

Minarchists. Anti-politics (they say). Anti-democrat, more like. Remember that next time you read anything from any of them about political corruption in the UK.

I’ve heard others put forward the Hong Kong idea before. Personally, I’m more inclined to the French commune system having seen it work and the Swiss system looks interesting. However, before Paulie uses Guido as an example to demonstrate that all political nihilists are anti-democratic (one example not making a summer and all that), I am reminded of Sean Gabb’s essay on political nihilism. He uses a restaurant menu as an analogy for our current political landscape:

Suppose you are taken into a restaurant, where everything offered is some preparation of stinking fish. Do you placidly go ahead with your order? Or do you throw the menu aside and comment on the smell?

And suppose the other guests—who all seem to have a connection with the management—strike up a debate on the merits of poached as against grilled stinking fish. Do you join in? Or do you head for the door?

And—to complete the analogy—suppose you find yourself chained to the table with a feeding tube shoved down your throat. Is it reasonable to do other than wish for the waiters and the unseen kitchen staff to be taken out and shot?

That describes the politics of this country at the moment. And if saying so is nihilism, I am a nihilist.

That, pretty much sums it up. All too frequently I visit Labour supporting blogs where the author trumpets the virtues of democracy. Possibly this is more noticeable with Labour because, being the party of government, they are more sensitive to negative feedback as I don’t believe that the other two major parties are any more or less democratic in nature.

Political nihilism is not the problem; it is a symptom of a malaise that emanates from the viper’s nest that is the palace of Westminster. It is not political nihilists who have undermined democracy and parliament with increasingly illiberal bills, it is not political nihilists who use the guillotine to cut off debate, it is not political nihilists who seek to stifle opposing voices (are you listening, Dolly?), it is not political nihilists who fail to read bills and then vote for them and wonder why the government of the day pulled a fast one.

Liberal Democrat, Labour or Conservative; stinking fish with different flavoured sauces is what is on offer. Is it any wonder that some of us decide that none of them fits the bill; that all of them are merely corrupt, venal, self-serving crooks unworthy of our vote?

Ah, but… even that is all our fault, they are not what we accuse them of; we malign the poor, dear souls, doncha know?

Personally, I think that the obsession with hectoring politicans and demanding high levels of transperency from them along with a ringside seat on their decision making processes is generally anti-politics – and ultimately, anti-democratic.

Bollocks! Politicians put themselves forward for election, they seek high office and take the taxpayer’s shilling. In exchange, the taxpayer has every right to expect transparency – we employ the bastards after all. It is not anti-politics to expect them to behave impeccably; it is a normal, reasonable expectation, just as I would expect exemplary behaviour of anyone I employed. If, as an employer, I was faced with my employees choosing not to let me see the details of their expenses, for example, they would be seeing the inside of a job centre pretty damn quickly. As a taxpayer, I expect to be able to see where my money is going. Given that they are making decisions that affect the lives of sixty million people, those people should have every right to a ringside seat on the decision making process and to challenge those decisions. To suggest otherwise is grossly anti-democratic.

I can see why people struggle to agree with me on that, but I’d follow it up by saying that politicans have rivals (commercial pressure groups, media owners, civil servants) – we don’t demand similar rights to invervene in their decisionmaking and their pro-active work, so when we do it to politicians, we effectively give their rivals an advantage.

Bollocks! Politicians are paid for by us, we employ them. There is no struggle to agree, the sentiment is wrong. Not wrong as in a matter of opinion, wrong, but wrong in fact; that is why people disagree – and there is no struggle involved whatsoever. Indeed, it is remarkably easy – a choice between nonsense and fact. Fact wins every time.

We can choose not to buy the products of media moguls or the captains of industry (although, I do tend to abhor both for being just a bit too hand in pocket with politicians). Politicians work for us, their “rivals” do not. Therefore, different standards apply.

I will not weep for the poor, hard-done-by politicians. They chose their lot and choices have consequences. Don’t like it? Then get out. Funny, though, once they get their snouts in the trough, they don’t seem to be in too much of a hurry to get out, despite their miserable existence. This could be a consequence of our new political class of career politicans. If they got out, they would be unemployable. Just a thought…

It gets worse… Not content with complaining about the lot of poor politicians, bloggers come in for some of it, too. This comment from Tim Ireland:

…in recent years, I’ve mostly been demanding reasonable levels of transparency from the pseudo-bloggers demanding high levels of transparency from (certain) politicians.

Bollocks! A blog is a self publishing platform, nothing more, nothing less. If you don’t like what the author says, go elsewhere. Do not make demands of me, for I do not respond to demands. I am not elected, I do not take taxpayer’s money, so I am not and should not be bound by the same levels of transparency. I am bound by the laws of libel and defamation and that is sufficient.

I know Tim complains about sock puppets but frankly, no one else gives a damn. The reason for this is because it really isn’t that important. If Dolly Draper is right about one thing, it is in his assessment about the small audience of political blogs. So what if someone pretends to be someone else? The world will not end. It’s almost as bad as getting worked up over someone pinching your parking space.

I’ve strayed a bit from my point here, though. As a political nihilist, I have dropped out of the democratic process. This is because the evidence of the past three decades tells me that it doesn’t work. What we have currently is dictatorship by an elected minority. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. I cannot change it. I can withhold my vote, though, for that is all I have.

Democracy is merely a means to an end, it is not and should never be an end in itself. If liberty can be achieved by some other means, then perhaps that other means should be tried. As it is, democracy is the best we’ve got. Therefore, for the moment, I remain a democrat.

———————————-

Update: More fuckwittery…

I know that there are some of them that actually don’t understand why it’s anti-democratic to hobble MPs with accountability while ignoring the way MPs rivals flex their muscles – but it’s not a defence that is available to all of the supporters of this campaign. It’s a common theme of this blog that a lot of self-styled liberals and libertarians don’t understand the tension between liberty and democracy. While most literate libertarians are expressly in favour of direct democracy (and will therefore love this campaign), it’s amazing how many of them aren’t aware of this and imagine they can reconcile their views with representative government.

What is it about these arseholes? So arrogant that they assume that anyone who dares to dissent does not understand. “Poor dear, he doesn’t understand, ignorance is his excuse”. Oh, I understand alright. The point being made was perfectly clear. I can read and comprehend plain English and apply reason and logic to the argument being posited. It is not a difficult argument to follow. My disagreement has nothing to do with a lack of understanding, it is because the point being made is wrong. I can also recognise a poison well fallacy when I see one.

It is not anti-democratic to hold MPs to account – this is nothing to do with ignorance or not understanding; it is a matter of fact. It is not anti-democratic to expect exemplary behaviour. It is not anti-democratic to expect them to justify their expenditure. They are not special – despite Paulie’s pompous protestation to the contrary; and none of this hobbles MPs. The rest of us have to abide by standards, MPs should be no exception. We are not seeking the model citizen, we are seeking people who do as they are paid to do and do it honestly and to a high standard.

I understand all too well the tensions between liberty and democracy, and it is the height of patronising arrogance to assume that I do not. Paulie expresses the self-righteousness of the political animal – an attitude that is just the type that puts ordinary people off politics; arrogant, self-righteous, pompous, self-important and, most of all, unethical.

Again, I restate the point – holding MPs to a high standard is perfectly reasonable. There is no reason why they cannot carry out their duties and decision making while exercising a high level of ethics.

Paulie complains (with some justification) that MPs are the victims of unexpected consequences following badly drafted legislation. He is probably right. I have no sympathy though. Welcome to the real world where the rest of us have been forced to live with the unexpected consequences of badly drafted legislation for the past decade. If MPs have been hoist with their own petard, then it is not before time.

On a side note, I was talking with my mother in law about this kind of self-righteousness. Ah, she pointed out, self-righteousness and pomposity are the preserve of the not very bright, because they lack the imagination to consider that they might be wrong. If you really, really believe that holding MPs to a high standard of ethics is anti-democratic (it isn’t by the way), then you are not only not very bright but your own standard of ethics is remarkably low. Read a bit further down the linked article to see Paulie’s belief that skimming a bit off (theft) is okay and make up your own mind…

*Edited to improve clarity of my thinking – sometimes sleeping on it makes those thoughts gel.