Referenda Issues in a Conventionalist Ethos

Avoid Misunderstandings

Q: Will referenda let people get what they want?

a) everyone wants something different;

b) the modes in Cycle-1 provide all the necessary mechanisms for identifying and pursuing purposes in society:

  • Pluralist institutions allow groups that embody purposes to battle it out peacefully.
  • Legitimist institutions provide for regulations deemed desirable, and a fair playing field for all (subject to pluralist pressures).
  • Individualist institutions provide for personal effort, social exchanges and markets.
  • Rationalist institutions help in dealing with problems and making recommendations for the general social good.

Of course, these institutions will favour those with power, but that is to be expected. Conventionalist referenda can only give people the opportunity to set certain conventional standards for politicians and government that can reduce abuse of their power.

Q: Will referenda produce honest politics?

It is not realistic to assume that the citizenry en masse are suddenly going to understand exactly how they have been exploited by those in power. Nor will they cease responding to flattery or mud-slinging, or be able to ignore propaganda and slogans devoid of meaning.

Democracy means that the majority will still be in charge: most likely preferring illusions to truth in regard to their aspirations and suffering. If many current politicians are discredited, which is possible, the new leaders would be those who:

  • supply illusions suiting the new Conventionalist environment,

    and

  • possess sufficient prestige on whatever basis (e.g. celebrity, dynastic, military).

The right leaders will recognize this, and draw on a nation’s culture and traditions in a highly conservative way while appearing to offer radical change: and then doing rather little (or perhaps more harm than good).

Discriminate Consensus Issues

Consensus is required on items that emerge from the self-mobilization of civil society. Communal leaders must initially orient these to standards of behaviour. But it will become evident that many issues of apparent or hoped for consensus are not useful. For example:

  • Consensus on slogans will continue, but no one can implement, for example, “change we can believe in”. Slogans are not suitable for a referendum.
  • Consensus on values like freedom, security, justice, healthcare, nutrition &c. will also continue. It may make you feel good, but these are intrinsically abstract, and have no effect on governments. They won’t suit referenda.
  • Consensus on ideologies, ideals or religious beliefs is unlikely ever to emerge. Whatever consensus may exist will have been present in the cultural ideals of Primitive Pluralism-I, and offers no further guide.

Consensus on policy or projects, domestic or foreign, may be an aspiration. However, such issues are usually too complicated for the populace to grasp. Simplifications become meaningless; and votes can be sabotaged and/or distorted by both politicians and the bureaucracy. However, as conventionalist mechanisms became more appreciated and entrenched, I would not rule out the possibility for policy guidance or specific demands subject to criteria to be developed.

At the outset, suitable issues for consensus will need to be simple in the extreme. Referendum items must be devoid of subtle judgement, deep learning, complex analysis or logical reasoning. Such «popular extremism» appears feasible.

Release of «Popular Extremism»

Those in senior positions within civic associations understand political dysfunction very clearly. They can see how the system is abused from personal observation and the tangle of regulations. Being unable to finance lobbying and campaign contributions like wealthy vested interests, they find the experience of dealing with government and politicians frustrating.

Using the strategy suggested, communal leaders could certainly propose, explain and support referenda on issues like:

  • Should Government be held to accounting standards required of the private sector?
    Why is this extreme?Closed Governments typically fiddle expenses, hide costs, fudge future projections and manipulate statistics: activities that would land private individuals in jail. Providing accurate figures would be hated by politicians, but it would help prevent waste and possibly even economic crises.

  • Should a politician's vote, for legislation they have not read and know nothing about, be counted?
    Why is this extreme?Closed Many legislators now function on automatic. They vote without having read the legislation and know little about its effects. Testing politicians and ruling the vote invalid if there is ignorance would create screams of resentment. It would definitely change their outlook on bills that run for thousands of pages. But why shouldn't politicians be expected to know what they are doing? That is expected of doctors and lawyers.
  • Should pork-barrelling be regarded as acceptable?
    Why is this extreme?Closed Politicians regard it as their duty to bribe their own electorate with other people's money. However, pork-barrel projects are typically inefficient and lack economic justification.
  • Should citizens ever be detained without warning, their contact with family and lawyer blocked, and with a prohibition on publicizing this state?
    Why is this extreme?Closed Shock, horror! This suggests that citizens have rights to exist that cannot be removed from them by a government bureaucrat.

ClosedClick here for more details and speculative examples of serious issues that the general public is capable of understanding, and which the current political classes have shown themselves to be unwilling to address.

  • Remove inbuilt incentives for politicians to misuse finances in order to get elected.

ClosedTwo simple and previously used ideas:

  • Stop bail-outs of the wealthy that encourage risk-free risk-taking at the public’s expense.

ClosedTwo extremely simple solutions:

  • Stop financial mismanagement in government.

ClosedSome very simple notions:

  • Reduce rampant pragmatism ('kicking the can down the road') to deal with government-induced crises.

ClosedHere are simple suggestions:

  • Stop government, politicians and bureaucrats, acting legally in ways that would be illegal for citizens and private organizations.

ClosedHere are two simple examples:

  • Stop political misuse and abuse of the tax system for electoral benefits.

You probably know that the tax system Closed is used to support vested interests and inefficiently subsidize numerous other sectors. The most harmful effect is to rig or otherwise subvert markets. This nonsense also creates dependency on government, vast fees for an army of accountants and lawyers, unproductive diversion of business energy, and an intrusive and aggressive tax collection agency. Current systems generally benefit the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

ClosedHere is a simple idea to cut through all the guff:

  • Stop the government-banking monopoly and abuse of money

Ownership of Central Banks: Closed Central banks are creatures of their governments. The US Federal Reserve is a consortium of private banks created to serve those banks, but is wholly integrated into the US Government apparatus. The Swiss National Bank is listed on the stock exchange! However, it is majority owned by the Cantonal banks and integrated into government policy-making.

ClosedHere are some simple, if currently radical, ideas:

  • Return more government power to the people

ClosedConsider these possible solutions:

Note that none of these items deal with the purposes or policies of governments; and none favour any particular organized interest group, vested or not. Rather they put constraints on the pursuit of purposes in regard to any issue of interest. It is not proposed that these are the best issues to deal with. My goal here is simply to show:

  • it is possible to have a social consensus on issues that cross interest groups;
  • the result would be revolutionary, yet without chaos or violence;
  • the political system would mature in a way that involves and benefits everyone.

Existing politicians and bureaucrats will hate such popular votes: but that is the point. If the Conventionalist ethos is indeed emerging, I predict that the acceptance of public consensus will come to characterize governance, like it or not.

Originally posted: 1-Nov-2013. Last updated:  11-Apr-2014.