At this juncture, it’s time for another of my editorial pieces.
Which I shall begin, by noting a subtle but relevant distinction between rule and govern.
For a long time, ‘rule’ involved issuing and enforcing decrees from on high, many of which were constructed to further the interests of the rich and powerful. Quite simply, ‘rule’ carries with it an unpleasant aura of authoritarianism, one that both electorate and would-be administrations should eschew with vigour.
On the other hand, ‘govern’, particularly in properly constructed jurisdictions, means formulating policy that benefits the entire citizenry wherever possible, and minimising harm to those at the bottom of the social pyramid.
That distinction is important, because it has serious implications for the operation of a properly functioning democracy. Which requires that those seeking office, take heed of that notion of governance presented above, and strive to implement said notion, even when presenting to an electorate distinct policies separating them from rival office seekers.
This is one of the reasons democracy has failed in the USA - the Republican Party has abandoned whatever flimsy pretence of governance they once displayed before the electorate, and instead seeks to rule, in the worst and most authoritarian sense of the word. It seeks to impose, coerce and oppress, instead of persuade, co-operate and empower. Which it has gotten away with in no small part, because the opposition has been factional and divided. The labyrinthine political machinery extant in the USA hasn’t helped here, but I have to admit that said machinery functioned as long as those operating within, maintained a proper perspective of governance.
Now, we face a problem that should be concentrating the minds of political theorists and policy makers wonderfully. Namely, how do we prevent abandonment of consensual governance of the sort that has now reared its ugly head?
Having a finely worded constitution is, as we can see today, useless if a ruthless junta simply drives a conceptual (or actual) tank battalion through it. Likewise, checks and balances cease to function if office holders are wilfully mendacious enough.
Which brings me to the crux of the matter. Namely, how do we prevent the hijacking of government by the unfit, the corrupt and the outright dictatorial?
I shall admit that I don’t have answers at this point, at least not answers that constitute a robust operating framework for moving forward into the future. That, I leave for the time being, to better skilled and informed thinkers than myself. But as a starting point, perhaps it is long overdue, that we require a test of competence for those seeking office, even at a relatively low level in the political command structure, and that said test should be increasingly stringent, the more far-reaching the powers of the office in question.
Furthermore, and I suspect this will be the most difficult hurdle to overcome, we should require political parties and allied organisations, to present candidates on the basis of proper administrative skill and talent, rather than loyalty to an ideology. Indeed, I would suggest that the next great evolutionary step in political praxis, will be the recognition that ideology is a fundamentally dangerous influence, to be rejected, not embraced.
I don’t expect either of the above to be treated seriously, either by political parties with too much investment in the status quo, or individuals seeking a gravy train to ride upon. But until those steps are taken, we will, tragically, see in the future more of the sort of malign developments currently infecting the US body politic.
There is nothing wrong, in principle, with allowing a majority to select a government. But said majority needs to be told - sometimes, forcefully - that while its interests should be noted, those interests cannot be allowed to trample upon the basic human rights of others, and that any government they elect should be held to account on this matter. The entire principle of government by consent rests upon this principle being adhered to. We’re seeing first hand what happens when that principle is thrown into the bin.