Practical Strategy for a New Ethos

Any large group, organized or just a crowd, can develop its own will. Members of such groups, no matter how educated and otherwise intelligent in their private life, tend to lose their individuality and become dominated by a lowest common denominator: i.e. unconscious urges for aggression, gratification, conformity, safety, dependence &c. Members then feel anonymous and empowered by the group. But that power is poorly used: crowds or groups ignore rules, are highly impressionable, and lack the capacity for independent opinion or reasoned judgement. They are intolerant, impulsive and ready to engage in impossible projects including their own self-destruction.

Crowds, being unable to reason or reflect and desiring submission, are always at the mercy of emergent leaders who themselves abjure the use of intelligence and are inclined to action. These leaders spontaneously relate to the crowd in the way it prefers i.e. via affirmation, repetition, appeals to emotion, simple solutions (for complex issues), assertive authority, and active avoidance of any reasoning or subtlety in analysis. They use words manipulatively, play on instinctual fears and wishes, and cater to beliefs and illusions no matter how erroneous.

In any case, the thought given to political issues by most people is minimal. Videos show that people are ready to ban water, impose a Nazi-style Orwellian police state, add birth control drugs to the water supply, and support killing elderly people for healthcare. Winston Churchill, the UK Prime Minister who famously said that democracy is the worst kind of government except for all the others that have been tried, also noted that "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter".

Government is about the exercise of power and modern politicians are as power-centred as their predecessors. They may have ideological positions, but they tend to forget principles if their re-election is at stake. They follow crowd sentiments and consensus and, using the prestige that goes with their position, oppose critical reflection. They distrust rationality and are ready to denigrate and reject truth when expedient. Only a Constitution enshrining individual rights, together with an independent judiciary that deeply believes in that Constitution, can protect critics, dissenters or objectors against a government that is self-serving or subservient to the will of the majority. But a determined government can stack the judiciary and shape their judgements.

The citizenry, expected to possess sovereignty, is a mixture of groups and classes that are often dominated by a crowd mentality (cf. above) at critical moments. The government, expected to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the citizenry, is assumed to possess higher values and use reasoned judgement. However, parliamentary assemblies are dominated by power-centred politicians and often show the simplicity, suggestibility and emotionality typical of groups. Political leaders exert a preponderant influence, but one dependent on transitory prestige. They lead via eloquent and assertive but unverified, false or unverifiable claims. Societies being complex entities, the bureaucracy ends up being in charge of what happens. Yet it too ends up serving its own ends, frequently kowtows to political pressure, and manifests a crowd-like mentality.

Progression to a new political mode is always revolutionary, and yet (with the exception of φ1 to φ2), this is not necessarily evident to all. The present inquiry assumes conservative and pragmatic alterations are typical of social life, even if momentary eruptions and painful conflagrations catch more attention.

Radical proposals certainly excite more interest. But radical change does not characterize social life. Nor does it have a place in the Primary Hierarchy of Change-PH3 where stability-L4 is the core and improvement-L3 is the goal in practice.

The Problem: Many political groups (in line with a primitive group mentality dominated by anger, hatred and fear) cry out for ideologically-oriented radical change or revolution. They often fear anarchy and dictatorship while justifying (or ignoring) their own wish to dominate society. Such fringe groups can make a lot of noise and might cause turmoil and governmental over-reaction.

The Situation: The problem does not lie with the constitution of government, but with how it is operated by current politicians and elites. The solution is not to be found through imposing any ideology (as imagined in the 19^th & 20^th centuries), but in the tolerance of a diversity of ideologies and perspectives.

The Solution: Any existing constitution has deep roots of familiarity, cultural support and established beliefs. This is of enormous political value because it provides the stability and reassurance necessary for change of any significance. Even tinkering with the constitution is counter-productive. It will provoke antagonism, divide the people, displace energy and sustain the established elites and their behaviours.

These diverse interest groups, not ordinarily viewed as political players, define civil society.

Recall that the only actors in society are organised groups. Individuals get whatever power they have from the associations to which they belong or from which they get support. The ease in forming such associations, their number and diversity, are all measures of the vitality of civic life.

Depending on its size, a developed society has many thousands or tens thousands, of interest groups (i.e. formal associations or voluntary bodies) covering every aspect of social life: commercial, recreational, charitable, cultural, educational, scientific, religious, military, communal &c.
... as well as political. But note that in the UK, political party membership is minuscule. As of 2013, the Conservative Party membership has dropped by ~95% over the past half-century to around 100,000: the exact figure is kept hidden. The Liberal Party, with just 50,000 members, won 57 seats in in the 2010 election and formed a ruling coalition with the Conservatives.

People join interest groups willingly. They bring their energy, commitment and enjoyment to them. It is this popular energy that must now be harnessed by the conventionalist political process.

Are there alternatives?

No. Any expectation of individuals opens the door to crowd phenomena, and complete loss of control of progress to demagogic leaders. Any expectation of political parties opens the door to ideological domination of the agenda. These parties are typically controlled by an informal oligarchy disposed to use of any means for their own ends.

Interest groups are extraordinarily diverse and yet they coexist. This is fortunate as one person is often a member of several. Mostly they ignore each other, but some may conflict about an issue or compete for government attention, public profile, donations or members. Some interest groups directly engage with government policy-making through research, education, campaigns or crusades.

The size of these groups varies from tiny to millions. For example in the UK, while political parties have a tiny membership (see B. above), the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has over 1 million paid-up members.

What all interest groups have in common is that they represent the spirit of society. With the exception of elite monied groups and giant corporations, they depend on a government that can function fairly and effectively. The vast majority of civic associations are harmed by a dysfunctional political system, by corruption in high places, by social turmoil and by self-serving or vested interests.

The majority of such bodies, including most of the large ones, depend on membership subscriptions and command limited resources. This means that they cannot easily lobby, and their leaders generally feel ignored by politicians.

The initial project would be to contact groups, explain, and persuade them to become members of a new umbrella association to tackle political abuses in society. It will require sponsorship and steering, probably by a credible, unequivocally philanthropic organization oriented to the public good. The process must be wholly outside both government and the political party system.

If there is no interest (as some predict), then the time is not yet right.

Name: National Association for Proper Politician Participation and Practices: NAPPPP.

Funding: Private. Probably initial seed funding by suitable sponsors, and then continuing funding through a small membership subscription.
Suggestion: This might be progressive according to membership size/wealth, and left nominal for groups with less than 100 members.

Staffing: Small secretariat, keeping overheads small.

Mission: Creation of appropriate referendum items. That is: identifying political abuses, formulating appropriate referendum items that may command wide assent, and commissioning the referendum process. The prime focus will be to improve the context within which elections, policy-making and decision-making occur.

Method: Running an annual NAPPP convention to obtain key decisions.

Wealth & Powers: To be kept to an absolute minimum to avoid being co-opted by the political system and to reduce the attraction for power-seeking individuals.

The secretariat will need to develop appropriate viable rules for attendance and participation at the convention, for reviewing and selecting possible items to be put to a referendum, and for enabling debate and discussion prior to voting on those items. Exclusion of items that are issue-focused, directly or indirectly, will be essential.

Attendance online should be feasible to reduce costs for small associations, and enable the whole population to know what is happening and participate in a limited way.

A genuine social consensus is essential and referenda costs must be kept under control. So rules for acceptance of a referendum item will need developing e.g. how big a majority in terms of number of members represented, and in terms of numbers of groups attending.

Other protocols will be required to ensure fairness and impartiality, and maximize success in the subsequent referendum. It is important that no specific interest group can be identified with any particular choice of item i.e. the items should not self-evidently support specific social goals outside a better political process.

A regular schedule of referenda is desirable to condition the public e.g. semi-annually or quarterly but perhaps more often.

The associations will know what the referenda items will be, and it will be part of their responsibility to get their members out to vote—without necessarily directing them how to vote. Quite possibly, more people will vote in these referenda than in elections.

The secretariat will have the responsibility for communicating with the government, directly and indirectly, via the national media. However, local marches and similar activism will be a matter for local communities.

There may be a need to repeat referenda, perhaps with some modification, until the message finally gets through to those in government and changes are made.

Commonality fundamentals:

• Expressed social consensus—any result that comes from all members of all interest groups must be viewed as a genuine expression of consensus.
• Self-mobilization of civil society—the formation of an umbrella association, the holding of an annual convention, and the turn-out for the referenda all require self-mobilization.
• Norms of professionalism—what unites all in society is the desire for those in government to be effective and genuinely serve the people.

Individuality fundamentals:

• Better relations with government—the rational approach to identifying issues and the use of referenda should either change governmental behaviour or bring in better elites ready to respect the public.
• Discussion in diverse networks—issues and debates will not be restricted to formalized interest groups.
• Multiplicity of perspectives—the enormous diversity of interests and issues represented by organised groups is welcomed in this strategy.

Personal components: 

• Equality—there is a strong expression of equality.
• Moderation—the criteria for items, use of a secretariat, and the involvement of many community leaders who want practical benefits will foster moderation.

To this point, governments support vested interests, especially military, and largely ignore popular needs and wishes so far as these do not impair election prospects. But it is surely conceivable that government will eventually accept explicit choices carrying unequivocal and widespread public support. Doing so is the essence of this revolutionary transition.

Should governments resist a democratic consensus, there are likely to be massive peaceful protests that will produce a response. It is possible that some legislators will run for election on a specific platform of implementing referenda choices. One way or another, the government will come to accept the social consensus where it undoubtedly exists.

Authoritarian societies still in Stage-1 or early Stage-2 are aware of the power of groups and typically suppress freedom of association and limit public activities so they are not faced with the pressures.