Inalienable

A much heavier topic than communication, I’d like to take an aside to talk about humanity, society, freedom, etc. This is based on my current readings over the last few days - Rev Kirby Hensley’s dreams of the separation of church & state, & a revisit to Ben Elton’s Stark. In some strange Jonathan-Creek-esque thought process, it all suddenly made sense.

At first, these two authors may appear unrelated - Hensley often talks of the inalienable rights of a person - security, food, procreation (in that order) - & how governments have never been particularly good at ensuring these for all of the people all of the time. As an American, he views their Constitution as somewhat excessive if it doesn’t have these rights exclusively. Once upon a time, when the state was not so good at running things, the one true church would fill the gap & ensure that responsibilities were met. With the current proliferation of schisms, there is no one true church, therefore its attention has turned to competing for the right to claim the role. Hensley’s core religion is Humanist.

Similarly, government, which used to be a relatively stable platform of power, has turned into a competition for being in government. Isn’t democracy wonderful? If the majority of the energy of those elected is poured into staying elected, then they’re not the government. With a weak church, who is pointing that out? Even the bicameral system that was intended to hold checks & balances works on the same principal of oneupmanship to ensure that the talons of some mysterious force referred to as a political party firmly grip power.

Now, throw into this mix a few thoughts from someone who should be taken more seriously - Ben Elton suggested that those who are making the decisions concerning people’s everyday lives are actually in power, & that the world would fall into chaos without them. He is referring to the producers - those who own the methods of production & effectively dictate what is made available to the consumer. These people have power, yet have no responsibility. They don’t get elected - that would be silly. They have no fear of losing power through popular vote (in general). They are a stable force.

These people should form the core of the oversight government. They wouldn’t dare collude, because they are by definition competitive, & if this group is small relative to the body of candidates, then this oligarchic system will have its own checks. They have too much to lose to be corrupt during this sideshow of government. They have their livelihoods at stake.

The average politician is effectively unemployable. Some senior people go back into business, mostly as figureheads, but few work to the ideal of representing their fellow constituents in the parliamentary proceedings & staying grounded enough to do so over any length of time before getting to their use-by date & returning to their past lives. Some systems of government do work like that.

The British government often uses ‘outsiders’ - non-politicians - in the cabinet. The Swiss militia system, for both the army & the legislature, seems to work quite nicely for them. Countries as diverse as Rwanda & New Zealand have assured representation from women or native populations. These are just some examples whereby non-traditional, or non-professional politicians are given involvement in the process of government.
Fundamentally, of course, ‘government’, being no longer absolute, is simply the right to set policy & oversee those who implement it - that is, the public service. As such, the dual roles of thought leadership & implementation oversight don’t need to be in the same place. Having two houses within the government where one watches over the other watching over the public service seems somewhat pointless except as another indication that the system doesn’t work. In many countries, non-elected professional ombudsmen also oversee the public service (& other industries) as a proxy for the people.

This is why so many ‘ordinary’ people complain of the many layers & inefficiency of government. The reality is that the system is inherently complex because of its need to appear democratic & corruption-free. It needs to justify its own existence. But simplification takes away that veneer. The simpler the system, the easier it is to make it go wrong. The more complex, the harder it is to make it do anything.

There is no inalienable right to good government. It is the responsibility of the society to govern itself. A mature society does this democratically (not necessarily representationally). An immature one should be able to rely on something beyond state - such as the church or a non-absolute monarchy - to ensure some semblance of social responsibility within the government.

I only hope this diversion from my usual content doesn’t alienate me from my usual readership.