Category Archives: Political Trust

THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT POPULISM. WHAT EXACTLY IS IT?

08 Saturday Feb 2020

Posted by in 2020: The year we need to change., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Communication., Democracy, Digital age., Disconnection., Human values., Humanity., Inequality, Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Technology, The common good., The far-right., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT POPULISM. WHAT EXACTLY IS IT?

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Eighteen-minute read)

The word came from the “prairie populists”, a 1890s movement of US farmers who supported more robust regulation of capitalism.

“But no one is clear what it is.”

We can’t really talk about populism without talking about our conflicting conceptions of democracy – and the question of what it truly means for citizens to be sovereign.

So is it an ideologically portable way of looking at politics as a forum for opposition between “people” and “elites”?

Or is it simply part of what it means to do politics?

Or is it a lens for looking at our politics?

Or a mode of talking about politics, rather than a set of beliefs?

Or is it an emerging political movement driven by technology, spread by social media, the smartphone and ruled by algorithms.

There is one thing for certain populism is inherent to democracy.

So it would be in the first place a massive mistake, considering the hollow, undemocratic mess we are in, with algorithms making decisions about our collective fate – outside the reach of politics, to ignore its power.

If one looks at the state of liberal democracy today it is becoming more and more a sham.  A nice-sounding set of universal principles that, in practice, end up functioning as smokescreens to normalise the exploitations and inequities of our capitalist system.

Nothing can stay depoliticised forever. The questions of populism would have little urgency were it not for the widespread agreement about the shortcomings of the political status quo: About the abyss between the shining ideals of equality and responsive government implied by our talk about democracy and the tarnished reality of life on the ground.

Populism is supposed to explain: Brexit, Trump, Viktor Orbán’s takeover of Hungary, the rise of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, even Putin.

However, neither Trump nor Brexit should be regarded primarily as populist phenomena.

His election and Brexit shows that every status quo – however sturdy – is only temporary, and can always be challenged by a movement that seeks to replace it with something new.

Populists consider themselves as victims of economic exploitation, anti-austerity movements – such as Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, and Occupy these movements are obviously animated by a sense of opposition.

From this perspective, populism is just another word for real politics.

On the other hand, what most people knew about these parties, at first, was that they were openly nativist and racist. They talked about “real” citizens of their countries, and fixated on the issue of national and ethnic “purity,” demonising immigrants and minorities.

But I say that there are no real populists in politics – just people, attitudes and movements that the political centre misunderstands and fears.

The question of populism, then, is always the question of what kind of democracy we want.

The only inherent connection between rightwing and leftwing populist movements is that both embrace the same fundamental truth about democracy: that it is an ever-shifting contest over how the default “we” of politics is defined and redefined, of which no one definition can be guaranteed to last.

When populism appears in the media, which it does more and more often now, it is typically presented without explanation, as if everyone can already define it.

It sounded less alarming than “extreme right” or “radical right”.

It will always live in the shadow of the muddled media and political discourse and there can no longer be any doubt that we are going through a populist moment, so which type of populist you want to be.

A liberal democracy populism that is forced by rightwing populism to make good on its promises of equality. That needs to reacquaint with the need to construct a democratic “we” – a people – around their demand to protect liberal institutions and procedures, in opposition to radical rightwing parties who are happy to see them discarded.

Liberal democracy, in this context, has almost nothing to do with contemporary distinctions between left and right. It refers, instead, to the idea that government should facilitate pluralistic coexistence by balancing the never fully attainable ideal of popular sovereignty with institutions that enshrine the rule of law and civil rights, which cannot easily be overturned by a political majority.

or

A populism that can never be disentangled from the concept’s pejorative baggage.  An ideology runs the risk of making effective and worthwhile political strategies seem irresponsible, even dangerously promoting nativisms and short term gains.

Obviously, there are leftwing and rightwing populisms both are motivated not by passion for populism’s core ideas, but by other ideological factors best described as a fuzzy blanket to camouflage nastier nativism.

We are now living through a time when familiar webs connecting citizens, ideologies and political parties are, if not falling apart, at least beginning to loosen and shift and old theories of populism that defined it specifically as rightwing, racist or anti-immigrant is insufficiently wide to describe these new developments in populist politics.

It seems to me that Populists deal in “simplicity,” in “glib, facile solutions” while liberal leaders have been “oblivious” to the sufferings of their people.

So why are the traditional parties of the left in the western world being defeated?

Because the other side doesn’t play fair any more with conflict an inescapable and defining feature of political life.

The juvenile incapacity of both to bring their preferences to the political arena and engage in the complex give-and-take of rational compromise is with Social Media now fraught with a political examination and association accusation and assassination.

With the impersonal forces, of “globalisation” and “technological change voters are deciding that mainstream political parties have done nothing for their static incomes or disappearing jobs or sense of national decline these past two decades.

The “many, not the few.”

Populism is a new, consensus-smashing thing that is now secondary to nativism. Ultimately, they are disputes about which types of politics make us suspicious, and why.

To conclude that the two camps are simply talking past each other would be to miss the extent to which they are in agreement –and what, taken together, they tell us about the current political moment.

We can never know exactly where democracy is going to take us – not this time, nor the next, nor the time after that, but political parties must come to terms that the elephant in the room is that we no longer vote once every five years we vote on Social media ever five minutes.

Unless politics is not achievable, or rewarding, it obviously is sowing the long-term seeds for discontent.

It’s great to see politicians with Twitter accounts but there’s only so much you can do with that. Online participation in local decision-making is possible.

Failing to practice what you preach has ethical and political costs. E-voting is the next step.

Here below is what they are voting on and its not Fifty Shades of Grey Popularism.

 

 

Capitalist greed has and is poisoning political life.

Unregulated Algorithms will ensure it continues to do so.  Combined with the new realities of the portability of populism’s ideological movements spread by social media it is no wonder that liberal democracy is crumbling around the world.

To keep up with algorithms and their lavishly detailed position papers, their leaders,  Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Mircosoft, and their inc have little personal sympathy any longer with the travails of working people.

We can only hope that the fear of populism on the left will enable the victory of populism of the right.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. APART FROM THE FINANCIAL COST WHAT ARE THE UNSEEING COST OF THE UK LEAVING THE EU.

19 Sunday Jan 2020

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit., European Union., Political Trust, Politics., The common good., The Obvious., Trade Agreements., Transition period or Implication period., Unanswered Questions., World Trade Organisation, WTO.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. APART FROM THE FINANCIAL COST WHAT ARE THE UNSEEING COST OF THE UK LEAVING THE EU.

Tags

,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

The UK is set to leave the EU on January 31.

The article 50 process will have been completed and the country will no longer be legal in the EU.

With speculation now playing a part in almost every claim for or against the EU, it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish between legitimate risks and doom-mongering however the implications of becoming the first nation to leave the 28-state bloc are much clearer.

The term Global Britain is the moment Britain chose to step back from the world.

Confused.

Well here is the picture as I understand it.

The UK will not get a free choice on its future relationship with the EU.

It will not be quick or straightforward to establish a new relationship.

Obviously, there are two ways that Britain can leave the EU:

With a deal, or Without a deal.

A no-deal Brexit would result in a rigid position on all the issues.

If Mr Johnson’s government chooses to change course he has to so before December 31, 2022, if not then Britain will fall back on to basic World Trade Organization terms.

Under WTO rules, this would not include any preferential access to the Single Market, or to any of the 53 markets with which the EU has negotiated Free Trade Agreements.

Or

What is called a soft Brexit which would aim to keep the relationship between the UK and the EU intact?

This could be done by keeping Britain in the single market or, at the very least, arranging the terms of some sort of free-trade agreement before the 31 October deadline arrives.  However, by staying in the single market and customs union, the UK would be liable to EU rules and legislation regarding the free movement of goods, services and people across borders.

Therefore if the UK gets a deal as is the case with Norway and Iceland it could still end up being forced to comply with EU laws and regulations.

A Norway or Iceland model would give the UK considerable but not complete access to
the free-trade Single Market. We would be outside the EU Customs Union, and we
would lose access to all of the EU’s trade agreements with 53 other markets around
the world. Re-negotiating these would take years. Combined with the 27 other countries in the Single Market, and the countries in the EU Customs Union and EFTA, this is effectively more than 80 trade deals – covering over a third of the world’s economy.

No existing bilateral trade agreement will deliver the same level of access that the UK currently enjoys to the EU Single Market. In particular, none provide an equivalent
access for services, which accounts for almost 80 per cent of the UK economy.

It involves accepting most EU rules, but with little influence over the creation of those rules.

Under any of the alternative models, there is no guaranteed access to the current measures for police and security cooperation, which allow our law-enforcement agencies to work with their EU counterparts.

It is possible to fully replace the UK bilateral agreements outside the EU in these areas or demand a right to choose which to participate in will not replicate the reach and influence that is currently enjoy.

Mr Johnson has ruled out any form of an extension to the transition period.

Then both sides would need to make preparations for how they cope with the economic fallout in 2021.

After Britain leaves, its people will still have certain rights – at least for another 11 months. Freedom of movement is likely to end on 31 December next year.

The key rights that have yet to be negotiated include the continued right of British settled in the EU to move for work, leisure or retirement within the EU.

Erasmus will continue after Brexit but this depends on negotiations on the future relationship with the EU.

British citizens will still be able to apply for funding in Horizon2020 programmes during the transition period.

The EU’s Creative Europe funding stream will remain open to British applications.

Also promising a call for applications in 2020 is IPortunus, a new EU mobility fund for artists.

Little is written about cross-border healthcare or the processes involved but it is still available during the transition period,

So far, discussions of the gains and losses of Brexit have, understandably, tended to focus on the most obvious costs.

It may soon cost the UK more than its combined total of payments to the European Union budget over the past 47 years

The UK’s total projected contribution to the EU budget from 1973 to 2020 at £215 billion after adjusting for inflation is likely to keep increasing.

On leaving the Uk will be operating in a vacuum till there is a deal or not.

This comes with huge hidden dangers.

In adopting the government’s proposed model for close customs cooperation and a common rulebook, it runs the risk of finding themselves with little scope to diverge from EU regulations on goods, and unable in practice to strike new trade deals with the rest of the world.

The EU cannot change the rules of a customs union for the UK. If it does the trading bloc will fall asunder. When you’re in a customs union for goods, you become part of a common trade policy — you don’t have autonomy anymore.

Agreement with the EU, under which the UK would continue to levy EU tariffs on goods destined for the single market, but would apply a rebate on those that remain in the UK does not work and will not work.

As for a special mutual recognition arrangement in financial services, this might work.

Politicians often praise the visible benefits of public spending, e.g. the number of jobs “created”, without considering whether the funds could have been spent more wisely elsewhere – or even how the taxpayer might have spent the cash, had it remained in his or her pocket

There are a number of countries which have negotiated trade agreements with the
EU. Switzerland has a complex set of bilateral agreements with the EU. Turkey is part of the EU Customs Union and has a long-term aspiration to join the EU. Canada has agreed a Free Trade Agreement with the EU.

The status quo, or anything close to it, carries huge opportunity costs of its own.

So let’s have a look

WTO rules represent a minimum threshold.

It would be the most definitive break with the EU, offering no preferential access to the Single Market, no wider co-operation on crime or terrorism, no obligations for budgetary contributions or free movement of people.

It would, be hard even to come close to replicating the level of access and
influence from which the UK currently benefits.

Whatever alternative to membership the UK seeks following it departure the UK will lose influence over EU decisions that will still directly affect the country.

So far, the European Union has made only tentative steps towards regulating genetically modified crops and artificial intelligence and robotics.

There are of course important cultural differences between the Uk and the European continent and these may seem like small concerns in the grand scheme of things.

The free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of EU policy … the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible’.

Each possible approach will involve a balance between securing access to the EU’s Single Market, accepting costs and obligations and maintaining the UK’s influence.

The UK will, therefore, have to make some difficult decisions about its priorities and the voting public will be holding it very directly responsible. 

It is not the means that matter, but the ends.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Underneath is a long list of everyday EU Common day terms that might help.

Ankara Agreement The Association Agreement signed between the European
Community and Turkey in 1963 and the Additional Protocol added
in 1970. They set out basic agreed objectives for relations between
the EU and Turkey, such as the strengthening of trade and economic
relations and the establishment of a Customs Union.

Banking Union The Banking Union is an EU-level supervision and resolution system
for the banking sector in the euro area, and participating member
states. It aims to ensure that banks in the euro area are safe and
reliable and that non-viable banks are resolved without recourse to
taxpayers’ money and with minimal impact on the real economy.

The Capital Markets Union (CMU) is a plan of the European
Commission to create a true single market for capital in Europe. It
will channel increased capital to all companies, including Small and
Medium Enterprises (SMEs), and infrastructure projects.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the agricultural policy of
the European Union. It implements a system of agricultural support
through direct income payments to farmers and guaranteed prices.

Common External Tariff A common external tariff must be introduced when a group of countries forms a customs union. The same customs duties, import
quotas, preferences or other non-tariff barriers to trade apply to all
goods entering the area, regardless of which country within the area
they are entering.

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a set of EU rules for managing
European fishing fleets and for conserving fish stocks.

Common Travel Area
A travel zone comprising Ireland and the UK. It allows for the nationals of
both countries to travel and live in each country without immigration
controls.

Council of the European Union(also known as Council of Ministers)
The Council of the EU brings together the representatives of the EU
Member States’ governments. It is the EU’s main decision-making
body and agrees EU laws, usually together with the European
Parliament.

Customs Union An agreement between two or more countries to remove customs
barriers and reduce or eliminate external customs duties on mutual
trade. Customs unions generally impose a common external tariff
(CET) on imports from non-member countries.

Dublin Regulation An established set of criteria for identifying the Member State
responsible for the examination of an asylum claim in Europe. Under
Dublin, the claim for asylum must be made in the first EU country
entered.

EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA)
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a
trade agreement negotiated between the EU and Canada. Once
implemented, it will remove customs duties, end limitations in access
to public contracts, open up services markets, and help prevent
illegal copying of EU innovations and traditional products.
Eurojust is an agency of the European Union dealing with judicial
cooperation in criminal matters.

European Arrest Warrant (EAW)
A legal framework that facilitates the extradition of individuals between
The EU Member States to face prosecution or to serve a prison sentence
for an existing conviction.

European Commission (the Commission)
The European Commission is responsible for proposing draft
legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU Treaties and
managing the day-to-day business of the EU.
European Council The European Council is the body in which the Heads of State
or Government of the EU’s 28 Member States, together with an
appointed President and the President of the European Commission,
take strategic decisions about the direction of the EU.

European Court of Justice (ECJ)
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a supranational court based in
Luxembourg and made up of one judge from each of the EU Member
States. The Court deals with cases concerning the interpretation and
application of the EU Treaties.

European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS)
A system for criminal records held by the Member States to be
exchanged with the authorities of other Member States.

European Economic Area (EEA)
The EEA is an internal market providing for the free movement of
persons, goods, services and capital. It is made up of 31 countries:
the EU’s 28 Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. It
is governed by a common set of rules.

EEA Joint Committee
An institution of the European Economic Area (EEA), in which
decisions are taken by consensus to incorporate EU legislation into
the EEA Agreement.

European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Community (EC)
The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional
cooperation organisation and precursor to the EU, as one of the
European Communities. It was founded in 1957 to promote economic
integration between its member states. When the Maastricht Treaty
created the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated
and renamed the European Community (EC). In 2009 the Lisbon
Treaty provided for the EC to be fully incorporated into the European Union.

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) has four members:
the three non-EU EEA member states – Norway, Iceland and
Liechtenstein – plus Switzerland. It has the right to conclude Free
Trade Agreements with the rest of the world on behalf of its four
members.

EFTA Court The EFTA (European Free Trade Association) Court is a supranational
judicial body that deals with cases concerning the interpretation and
application of the EEA Agreement. It is essentially the equivalent of
the ECJ for the EFTA countries that are also members of the EEA
(Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland).

European Parliament
The European Parliament was established in 1979 in order to
represent the views of citizens directly in EU decision-making. It
shares responsibility with the Council for passing EU laws and for
agreeing the EU’s budget, although the Council enjoys broader
decision-making powers. The Parliament is made up of 751 members
(MEPs) who are directly elected across the 28 Member States and
serve a five-year term. The UK has 73 MEPs.

European Union (EU)
The European Union is an international organisation made up of 28
European countries, including the UK. The EU has its origins in the
European Coal and Steel Community, founded by six European states
after the Second World War. However, its remit has evolved and
is much broader today. The EU facilitates cooperation between its
Member States on a wide range of objectives, from facilitating trade to
protecting the environment, and security and development overseas.
The EU has created the world’s largest Single Market, enabling the
free movement of goods, services, people and capital.
Europol is an EU agency that assists Member States’ law
enforcement agencies in tackling cross-border crime. It carries out
over 18,000 cross-border investigations a year to tackle security
threats such as terrorism, international drug trafficking and money
laundering, organised fraud, counterfeiting and people smuggling.

Europol Information System
The Europol Information System (EIS) is a central criminal information
and intelligence database covering the areas under Europol’s remit.
Europol and all EU Member States can use the EIS to store and look
up to data on serious international crime and terrorism.

Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is a treaty between two or more
countries or trading blocs that reduces but does not eliminate,
barriers to trade and investment. WTO rules allow its member states
to sign FTAs granting each other preferential market access, subject
to certain conditions. FTAs usually cover agreements to reduce tariffs
and other restrictions to trade on goods and, to a lesser extent,
services.

Frontex is the EU’s Borders Agency, which manages cooperation
between national border guards to secure the EU’s external borders.
G20 The Group of Twenty (G20) is a forum for international economic
cooperation and decision-making. It comprises 19 of the world’s
leading economies, including the UK, plus the European Union.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a treaty of
the World Trade Organization (WTO) that came into force in January
1995. The treaty was created to extend the multilateral trading system
to the service sector, in the same way, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provides such a system for merchandise
trade. All members of the WTO are parties to the GATS. The basic
WTO principle of most favoured nation (MFN) applies to GATS as
well. However, upon accession, members may introduce temporary
exemptions to this rule.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organisation
of 188 countries. It works to foster global monetary cooperation,
secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high
employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty
around the world. The UK is a member.

Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) refers to EU cooperation on asylum and
immigration, judicial matters, civil protection and the fight against
serious and organised crime and terrorism, as well as the Schengen
Border-free area. The UK has secured a set of exemptions that mean
it is not required to participate in JHA matters, but can choose to do
so if it wishes.

Lugano Convention The Lugano Convention facilitates the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil law cases in the EU and EFTA countries.

Most Favoured Nation (MFN)
Under WTO rules, countries cannot normally discriminate between
trading partners that are members of the WTO. So a country or
trading bloc cannot grant another a preferential arrangement (such as
a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) without doing so
for all other WTO members. This principle is known as Most Favoured
Nation (MFN) treatment. Non-tariff barriers A non-tariff barrier is a form of trade barrier other than a tariff. Nontariff barriers include quotas, levies, embargoes, sanctions and other restrictions. They are frequently used by large and developed
economies.

Passporting entitles a financial services firm authorised in a European
Economic Area (EEA) state to carry on permitted activities in any other
EEA state by either exercising the right of establishment (i.e. setting up
a branch and/or agents), or providing cross-border services. These
rights are subject to the fulfilment of conditions under the relevant
Single Market directive.

Preferential market access
A country or trading bloc grants preferential market access to another
when it grants it better terms of trade than as standard, for instance
by reducing tariffs or providing access to public tenders. The WTO
sets a number of rules about how countries and blocs can grant
each other preferential access. Between developed economies, this is
usually granted through Free Trade Agreements, through which each
side agrees to reduce trade barriers.

The Prüm Decisions are EU Council Decisions which embed into
EU law a pre-existing Convention between several European Union
States. They provide mechanisms to exchange information between
Member States on DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data for
the prevention and investigation of cross-border crime and terrorism.
The UK has recently decided to apply to re-join the regime.

Qualified Majority Voting (QMV)
Qualified Majority Voting is the principal method of reaching decisions
in the Council of Ministers. It allocates votes to the different Member
States according to an agreed formula, based partly on population
size. Under Lisbon Treaty rules, a decision or law is passed by
a qualified majority when 55% of Member States vote in favour (in
practice this means 16 out of 28) and the Member States supporting
represent at least 65% of the total EU population.

Rules of Origin are the criteria needed to determine the national
source of a product. They matter because duties and restrictions
often depend upon the source of imports. The complex supply chains
of the global economy mean that this is not always straightforward to
determine. The bureaucracy involved is a cost for businesses.

The Schengen border-free area comprises the 26 European countries
(22 EU member states and four others) that have abolished passport
and any other type of controls at their common borders. It also has a
common visa policy.

The Schengen Information System II (SIS II) is a large-scale
database that supports external border control and law enforcement
cooperation within the Schengen States. SIS II enables competent
authorities, such as police and border guards, to enter and consult
alerts on certain categories of wanted or missing persons and
objects. An SIS II alert contains not only information about a particular
person or object but also clear instructions on what to do when the
person or object has been found.

Single Market a common trade area that extends beyond the
deepest and most comprehensive Free Trade Agreements. It works
to remove all regulatory obstacles to the free movement of capital,
people, goods and services. It stimulates competition and trade,
improves economic efficiency and helps to lower prices. The EU’s
Single Market is the largest in the world.

Stabilisation and Association Agreements are bilateral agreements
between the EU and the countries of the Western Balkans designed
to promote regional peace, stability and eventual accession to the EU.
As well as establishing a Free Trade Area with the EU, the agreements
pledge the parties to work towards common political and economic
objectives and encourage regional cooperation.

State Aid refers to any advantage or subsidy granted by public
authorities through state resources on a selective basis to any
organisations that could potentially distort competition and trade
in the EU. The definition of state aid is very broad because ‘an
advantage’ can take many forms.

A tariff is a tax or duty imposed on a particular class of imports or
exports.

A trade deficit occurs when a country imports more goods and
services than it exports. The deficit equals the value of goods and
services being imported minus the value of goods and services being
exported.

United Nations (UN) is an international organisation formed in
1945 to increase international cooperation and uphold peace and
security. It has 193 members.

The WTO is the international organisation that regulates global
trade between nations. It was established in 1995 as the successor
to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The WTO
enables participating member states to agree on trade rules, negotiate
trade agreements, and resolve disputes. A total of 162 countries are
members, including the UK.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WITH THE INFORMATION AGE ARE WE HEADING FOR CYBEROCRACY.

30 Monday Dec 2019

Posted by in Cyberocracy., Dehumanization., Digital age., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Freedom, Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Populism., Reality., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The state of the World., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute last post of the year read) 

 

Technology is not neutral or apolitical.

So information may very well come to succeed capital as a central theoretical concept for political and social philosophy.

The retrieval systems of the future are not going to retrieve facts but points of view. 

However, the weakness of databases is that they let you retrieve facts, while the strength of our culture over the past several hundred years has been our ability to take on multiple points of view.

The question is, will new technologies speed the collapse of closed societies and favour the spread of open ones. The information revolution empowers individuals, favours open societies, and portends a worldwide triumph for democracy—may not hold up as times change.

The revolution in global communications will forces all nations to reconsider traditional ways of thinking about national sovereignty.

We are witnessing this happing already with the rise of popularism – Election of Donal Trump and Boris Johnston, but the tools that a society uses to create and maintain itself are as central to human life as a hive is to bee life. However, mere tools aren’t enough. The tools are simply a way of channelling existing motivation.

The influence in the information age is indeed proving to revolve around symbolic politics and media-savvy — the ‘soft power’ aspects of influence.

The information revolution may well enable hybrid systems to take the form that does not fit standard distinctions between democracy and totalitarianism.  In these systems, part of the populace may be empowered to act more democratically than ever, but other parts may be subjected to new techniques of surveillance and control.

Technology with algorithms are leading to new hybrid amalgams of democratic and authoritarian tendencies, often in the same country, like China that is building a vast new sensory apparatus for watching what is happening in their own societies and around the world.

The new revolution in communications makes possible both an intense degree of centralization of power if the society decides to use it in that way, and large decentralization because of the multiplicity, diversity, and cheapness of the modes of communication.

Of all the uses to which the new technologies are being put, this may become one of the most important for the future of the state and its relationship to society.

So are we beginning to see the end of democracy and the beginning of Cyberocracy?   

Crime and terrorism are impelling new installations for watching cityscapes, monitoring communications, and mapping potential hotspots, but sensor networks are also being deployed for early warning and rapid response regarding many other concerns — disease outbreaks, forest protection.

However, the existence of democracy does not assure that the new technology will strengthen democratic tendencies and be used as a force for good rather than evil. 

The new technology may be a double-edged sword even in a democracy.

To this end, far from favouring democracy or totalitarianism, Cyberocracy may facilitate more advanced forms of both. It seems as likely to foster further divergence as convergence, and divergence has been as much the historical rule as convergence.

Citizens’ concerns about top-down surveillance may be countered by bottom-up “sousveillance” (or inverse surveillance), particularly if individuals wear personal devices for detecting and recording what is occurring in their vicinity.

One way or the other Cyberocracy will be a product of the information revolution, and it may slowly but radically affect who rules, how and why. That is, information and its control will become a dominant source of power, as a natural next step in political evolution.

Surplus information or monopoly information that is concentrated, guarded, and exploited for privileged economic and political purposes could and WILL most likely lead to Governance by social media platforms owned by Microsoft/ Apple/ Google/ Facebook/ Twitter.

When we change the way we communicate, we change society. 

The structure may be more open, the process more fluid, and the conventions redefined; but a hierarchy must still exist.

The history of previous technologies demonstrates that early in the life of new technology, people are likely to emphasize the efficiency effects and underestimate or overlook potential social system effects.

The information revolution is fostering more open and closed systems; more decentralization and centralization; more inclusionary and exclusionary communities; more privacy and surveillance; more freedom and authority; more democracy and new forms of totalitarianism.

The major impact will probably be felt in terms of the organization and behaviour of the modern bureaucratic state.

The hierarchical structuring of bureaucracies into offices, departments, and lines of authority may confound the flow of information that may be needed to deal with complex issues in today’s increasingly interconnected world.

Bureaucracy depends on going through channels and keeping the information in bounds; in contrast, Cyberocracy may place a premium on gaining information from any source, public or private. Technocracy emphasizes ‘hard’ quantitative and econometric skills, like programming and budgeting methodologies; in contrast, a Cyberocracy may bring a new emphasis on ‘soft’ symbolic, cultural, and psychological dimensions of policymaking and public opinion.

Why will any of this happen? 

Because the actual practice of freedom that we see emerging from the networked environment allows people to reach across national or social boundaries, across space and political division. It allows people to solve problems together in new associations that are outside the boundaries of formal, legal-political association.

As Cyberocracy develops, will governments become flatter, less hierarchical, more decentralized, with different kinds of middle-level officials and offices? 

Some may, but many may not. Governments [particularly repressive regimes] may not have the organizational flexibility and options that corporations have.

So where are we? 

Future trends:

  1. The advanced societies are developing new sensory apparatuses that people have barely begun to understand and use;
  2. A network-based social sector is emerging, distinct from the traditional public and private sectors.  Consisting largely of NGOs and NPOs, its rise is leading to a re-balancing of state, market, and civil-society forces;
  3. New modes of multiorganizational collaboration are taking shape, and progress toward networked governance is occurring;
  4. This may lead to the emergence of the nexus-state as a successor to the nation-state.
  5. We now have communications tools that are flexible enough to match our social capabilities, and we are witnessing the rise of new ways of coordination activities that take advantage of that change.
  6. Civil society stands to gain the most from the rise of networks since policy problems have become so complex and intractable, crossing so many jurisdictions and involving so many actors, that governments should evolve beyond the traditional bureaucratic model of the state.

There is no doubt that the evolution of network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies will attract government policymakers, business leaders, and civil society actors to create myriad new mechanisms for communication, coordination, and collaboration spanning all levels of governance. 

However, states, not to mention societies as a whole, cannot endure without hierarchies. 

In the information-age government may well undergo ‘reinventing’ and be made flatter, more networked, decentralized, etc.—but it will still have a hierarchy at its core.” As the state relinquished the control of commercial activities to private companies, both the nation and the state became stronger.  Likewise, as the social sector expands and activities are transferred to it, the state should again emerge with a new kind of strength, even though it loses some scope in some areas.

A central understanding of the big picture that enhances the management of complexity is now needed more than ever. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY IS TRUST IN POLITICIANS AT AN ALL TIME LOW?

30 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by in Political Trust, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY IS TRUST IN POLITICIANS AT AN ALL TIME LOW?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

The problem with the above question is where to start.

Around the world, democracies are distrusted by a majority of their citizens.

As a result, it is creating space for the rise of authoritarian-populist forces or other forms of independent representation.

Without trust we are diminishing our capacity to meet complex, long-term challenges, reducing support for evidence-based public policies and promotes risk aversion in government.

This lack of trust is and will translate into a lack of action.

I suppose that there is no one simple explanation for what drives or undermines political trust but there can be no doubt that social media with the growing worldwide inequality is contributing to spreading distrust. and forming barriers of political engagement.

This is set to get worse with profit-seeking algorithms.

So what is it about citizens, such as their educational background, class, location, country or cohort of birth, that makes them trusting or not?

In general, the strongest predictors of distrust continue to be attitudinal and are connected to negativity about politics which is being influenced more and more by technological algorithms of prediction and recommendation.

What would it be that makes citizens feel that their vote could deliver value?

Most interventions tend to focus on dealing with issues of social disadvantage through education, labour market activation, public participation, improved representation, place-based service delivery and other forms of empowerment.

By offering more participation or consultation we are turning politics into a tokenistic exercise, generating more cynicism and negativity among citizens, who are turning to Populism.

The term populism can designate either democratic or authoritarian movements. Populism is typically critical of political representation and anything that mediates the relation between the people and their leader or government.

Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established socialist and labour parties.

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics.

Populist politics, following this definition.

It revolves around a charismatic leader who appeals to and claims to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate his own power. In this personalized form of politics, political parties lose their importance, and elections serve to confirm the leader’s authority rather than to reflect the different allegiances of the people.

Depending on one’s view of populism, a populist economic program can, therefore, signify either a platform that promotes the interest of common citizens and the country as a whole or a platform that seeks to redistribute wealth to gain popularity, without regard to the consequences for the country.

In Europe, we are seeing the rise of the Swiss People’s Party, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Swedish Democrats, the Danish People’s Party, the Northern League in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France, Victor Orban in Hungary, and Greece’s Golden Dawn and of course the Brexit party in the UK.

Elsewhere in the world one has to only look at Donald Trump, Dufeele in the Philippines.

The question of what’s fueling this populist?

It’s nothing new.

Most of us are now live in two increasingly separate worlds one wants to eliminate health care, shred the social safety net, and cut taxes on the rich—benefit the winners from globalization and work against the economic interests of the working class.

They others want revenge and this revenge is —not of the economically insecure, but of the cultural left-behinds.

So are groups like the those mentioned above, just groups of nativist, putting their nation first?

The answer is obvious. No. They’re looking backwards.

However, that is not the case, because if populism was truly driven by economic fears, populist candidates should be drawing votes from those who are suffering the most: unskilled workers, the unemployed, those with lower levels of education, and less advantaged groups in cities and urban centres.

Because economic issues have declined in importance to voters, like cultural issues—around women’s rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, and gay rights—climate change – have risen to the fore, along with the anti-immigrant sentiment, authoritarianism, mistrust of global national governance, and right-wing ideological self-placement.

The rise of populist parties reflects, above all, a reaction against a wide range of rapid cultural changes that seem to be eroding the basic values and customs of Western societies.

So a populist leader is forced to be in a permanent campaign to convince his people that he is not established and will never be. Magnify the political divide. Ultimately he ignores complicated democratic systems and is therefore viewed with suspicion…

What if anything can be done?

The importance of beliefs can only be tackled through discussion of the role of mass media in influencing public trust.

The power of mass media is not easy to reconcile with the empirical evidence of experimental social psychology research which demonstrates that people with strong beliefs and values often remain unpersuaded even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Positive economic growth does not necessarily increase political trust, but negative economic growth and prolonged economic crises.

Rather, economic development and social modernisation in advanced industrial democracies have encouraged new types of engaged, questioning and assertive publics, for whom strong economic performance no longer automatically leads to increased trust.

There is only one answer to this question.

It is greater political accountability of MPs and political parties to their electorates and members.

Providing performance data will not work because it leads to government officials trying to manipulate the way citizens judge their performance. Positive data is given prominence, less helpful data sometimes hidden.

There is one thing for sure because trust cut across racial and ethnic lines any solution to the puzzle of political trust can not be achieved without our engagement.

Anti-establishment, might having faith in “plain talkers” and “ordinary people” as opposed to the “corrupt establishment” of business, government, academia, and media but without formal rules there can be no good democratic practice.

Here I may be forgiven for indulging in some wishful thinking and believing that, despite the current shortage of inspirational leadership in the West, trust in democratic principles and values that transcend national boundaries will remain strong and shared by a large number of ordinary people across the world.

The good news for political parties that take up the cause of democratic reform is that the citizenry is ready to take up the challenge.

Finding what is the equilibrium point between political trust and distrust requires reducing inequality because political attitudes are shaped by more than people’s pocketbooks.

In effect, political parties are each a product of the world view of their membership or of their directing minds. Their attitudes, carriage or expression are often indicative of the groups’ underlying body of beliefs, catechism or affirmation of faith.

The chattering class will continue to wallow in their own cynical self-assurance, and the best and most principled among us will remain reticent to enter to the moral minefield of public life.

At the heart of this faulty ontology remains the myth of the autonomous self, the pipe dream that our identity is a “blank slate” that WE choose regardless of the desires and influences of others.

Dogmatism and doctrinaire ideology may seem no longer attractive or realistic political attributes. But democracy will continue to mean a change of government from time to time as if oscillating between two sides with opposing philosophies rigidly applied.

The democratic tradition of alternating governments, evolving policies, pragmatic choices, etc theoretically presents us with some choice with regard to the management of our economic and other affairs.

Being so vulnerable to purely political decisions surely honesty is required.

Perhaps it is time to remove politics from decisions that require long term solutions and set them in law, like reducing Carbon emmission, before we see civil unrest, and migration on a massive scale.

Why should this be done:

Because elections are for political parties to be in office for the short term – five years if not re-elected.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨