2009.03.21 - MP Election by Lot - Secondary Rumination Part 3.

Philosophical Issues Around Learning and Teaching

I hesitate, sitting here, facing this e.tabula rasa. When first I thought of writing this piece, I remember having felt a clear sense that this would be an easy and interesting elaboration. But tonight I find myself unsure about how to begin or where I want it to go. My feeling of clarity muddied and hesitant, my ideas wispy and muddled.

Why? By now it would seem evident that I am not wanting for words. Perhaps I am concerned that further elaboration on whether or not the loquaciousness of my argument for MP Election by Lot is counter productive verbiage, and that any more words would be piling futility on top of pedantry. Yikes — that would never do!

And yet … is it wrong to question and explore the nature of ideas, especially contrarian ones, and their dissemination into a thinking-circumscribed society? I think not, although historically many have died and/or been imprisoned for doing just that. Not that my idea warrants a rub-out!

But I hesitate, none-the-less. I hesitate in part because I've read Lao-Tzu aver that

Those who know do not speak

Those who speak do not know (Ch.56).

But I think I know enough, maybe, maybe just enough, to make an argument. But if I think that that is so, then maybe I don't. Know enough, I mean. Yet, I can't help feeling that if I cannot argue ideas, then how will I sit or walk or breathe without exploding? Is Lao-Tzu's argument true? It certainly has a ring of philosophical wisdom, but perhaps this idea is one that simply sounds good when, in reality, it lacks significant veracity or sagacity?

If those who 'know' do not speak, how does knowledge get disseminated?

After sitting here off and on over several days, reading, re-reading and wrestling with how to proceed, the locus — or perhaps the strange attractor — bending my thoughts has to do with the nature of societal or, perhaps, civilizing learning. Does a civilization learn from the bleated preachings of the wise or from first person experiences with scammers shilling shams? Neither? A tertium quid melange of both? For now I'll cherish the thought that with time and experience civilizations that do not collapse under the weight of their own corruption evolve wisdom enough to be saddened by war in both victory and defeat; to have heart enough to argue, over shared bread and wine, ultimate truths with the enemy rather than killing them on behalf of any of them.

And still so esoteric! Take a deep breath. Wrestle my ideas back to an acceptable perception of my so-called 'real' world. And so I wonder, in the 'real' world, have there been any civilizations that have risen above their ignorance, that have avoided collapsing under the weight of their corruption? My knowledge of history is too weak to think of any.

Perhaps the thing for me to do is remember that this, this ... thing I am writing began at the inner promptings I felt around electoral systems and democratizing them. I elaborated why 'my' little (s)electioneering by lot idea makes more sense, i.e. is more truly democratic, than re-clothing electioneering politics with one that is, at its very best, only superficially distinctive from it. I even argued that our current system is not, in pragmatic functionality, a democracy at all and that moving to an STV system will not change that.

Did I make this argument because I am too ignorant to know not to speak? Well, I think I made it because I felt compelled to convince the people of my society of the verity of my argument. I rationalized that I did not want to be just a purveyor of just another nonsensical idea to a people I knew would mostly perceive the idea as perverse at best, and ludicrously insane, at worst. And even as I write that I know that perhaps if I'd read Aristotle enough before I wrote anything I could have spieled less stridently because I'd have the backing of a respected authority. 'Aristotle said...' sounds so much more weighty and meaningful than 'e.gajd wrote.'

Of course philosophers have warned against the reliance on the words of dead philosophers, especially the esteemed ones. For example, Linji (or Lin Chi), founder of Rinzai Zen, wrote that 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.' Of course, if he actually knew that then, following Lao-Tzu, he would not have expressed it! Furthermore, if the 'killing the Buddha' metaphor holds weight, then the knowers who do not speak are aware that a misplaced word from the adulated sage has the power to kill an individual's proper path to their own individuality and enlightenment.

Sigh!

And now another sigh! I just realized that if Aristotle was actually respected, then I would not have been ignorant of his ideas. If Aristotle was actually respected his arguments, both right and wrong, would have been a part of my schooling more substantively than they were, given my six years of university across ten departments (although not philosophy). As I pondered why that is, I had an odd thought: is this an example of what Lao-Tzu may have meant when he wrote about knowers remaining mute? What I mean is that expressing the truth may be irrelevant because those who know it do not need to hear it, while those who do not cannot hear it anyway.

Curious. Thought of in this light, Lao-Tzu's adage has direct correspondence with the myths of Cassandra who was cursed with the ability to see and speak the truth, but to have that truth disbelieved and ignored by her society.

This whole train of thought is very grim! It infers that people cannot really learn unless they already know. This would mean that society is always doomed to death and decay, as those who know get ignored or, in many cases, persecuted, shunned or otherwise extirpated by the grasping ignorant who compulsively carve their way into positions of societal importance and influence. Sadly, this does somewhat correspond with both my perception of the nature of personal development, especially as influenced by formal post-secondary education, and the rise and fall of societal organizations and civilizations. C.P. Snow enunciated this 'truth' most eloquently:

More often than I like, I am saddened by a historical myth.... I can't help thinking of the Venetian Republic in their last half-century. Like us, they had once been fabulously lucky. The had become rich, as we did, by accident.... They knew, just as clearly as we know, that the current of history had begun to flow against them. Many of them gave their minds to working out ways to keep going. It would have meant breaking the pattern into which they had crystallized. They were fond of the pattern, just as we are fond of ours. They never found the will to break it.

Snow, C.P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cited in The Game, by Ken Dryden. Toronto: Macmillan Canada, 1993, pg 205. [20th Anniversary Edition published by Wiley.]

More grimness! I must say, this rumination has plodded in a direction I had not anticipated. At least not consciously. Although it is quite likely my unconscious knew something of the flavour my thoughts were taking me, given the protracted time it has taken me to get my ideas up into my word processor. Also, I quite likely have had trouble finishing this peregrination because it undermines my ostensible goal of getting people to believe my words that advocate the adoption of a democratic idea likely as old as agricultural city-states.

Even Chuang Tzu, my favourite writer, suggests that you take my words and toss them into the heap of over elaborated 'good intentioned' ideas:

Besides, do you know how virtue degenerates and

how learning arises? Virtue is consumed by fame.

Learning is born of contention. Fame causes men to

fight with one another. Learning is the weapon for

both. Both can be evil instruments. They are not

the means to perfection. Though you are highly

virtuous and trustworthy, if you do not understand

the spirit of men, and though you are famous and do

not compete, if you do not understand the minds of

men, but instead go to a tyrant and lecture him on

goodness, ethical behaviour, measures and

standards, you are just using the failings of

others to demonstrate your own superiority. This

is deliberately hurting other people. One who

hurts others will in turn be hurt.

...

You have too many plans.

These preconceived ideas probably won't get you

into trouble, but that is as far as they go. How

could you possibly influence him? You are still

too rigid in your thinking.

Chuang Tzu. Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang Tzu. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1994. Translated by Victor H. Mair.

Or, in the words of a couple of westerners:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you (Matthew 7:6).

And:

None of the institutions, measures, and means of education established for the masses and the needs of men in the aggregate, whatever shape of form they may take, serve to advance human culture. In the vast majority of cases they are completely worthless for that purpose and are directly opposed to it. Our race develops its human qualities in essence only from face to face, from heart to heart. Essentially it develops only in little intimate circles which gradually grow in graciousness and love, in confidence and trust.

Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich. Pestalozzi Werk, edited by Martin Hürlimann, II. Zurich, 1927. Cited in The Practice of Psychotherapy: Essays on the Psychology of the Transference and other Subjects by C.G. Jung. CW Vol 16, 2nd edition. Pantheon Books: Bollingen Series XX, 1966. Footnotes 8, 9 & 10 p.106-7. (LCCCN 52-8757.)

And:

... The great decisions in human life usually have far more to do with the instincts and other mysterious unconscious factors than with conscious will and well-meaning reasonableness. The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no universal recipe for living. Each of us carries his own life form within him — an irrational form which no other can outbid.

Jung, C.G. The Practice of Psychotherapy: Essays on the Psychology of the Transference and other Subjects. Pantheon Books: Bollingen Series XX, 1966. Par. 81.

Well, then, is there no hope that formal learning can do anything but produce 'mass' men fueled with irrational puffery and petulant ignorance? And that elaborated knowledge produces mass confusion and drifts of snarling swine? Is there any value in reading the ideas of others or of expressing my ideas?

The answer to that likely moves and shifts like

... the moon, the inconstant moon,

That monthly changes in her circled orb…

Sigh! I did not mean to be so dark and gloomy, here. And I must counter that, on my bright days, I say and even shout 'Yes!' Expressed ideas do bring about change beyond simply creating a weapon to trump all weapons, such as the abolition of slavery, an end to child chimney sweeps, the suffrage and emancipation of women. But other times I am dubious. I certainly don't expect my tiny little argument in the nether-worlds of society to effect broad societal change. But to pretend with the world that the naked emperors are clothed when they are clearly hanging free goes against the nature of my nature, and I will certainly describe the lay of the genitalia, even if no one believes me and the act of doing so marks me ignorant or, worse, a dismissible, cantankerous contrarian.

And we never know what may come from an expressed idea, what friendships may be struck and from them the exchange of ideas and culture. From there it is a tiny leap to see the possibility of the expansion of wisdom, the rejection of oligarchy, and the smallest most personally profound victories against vasty ignorance.

If you don't know the kind of person I am

and I don't know the kind of person you are

a pattern that other made may prevail in the world

and following the wrong god home

we may miss our star.

For there is many a small betrayal in the mind,

a shrug, that lets the fragile sequence break

sending with shouts the horrible errors of childhood

storming out to play through the broken dyke.

And as elephants parade holding each elephant's tail,

but if one wanders the circus won't find the park,

I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty

to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.

And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,

a remote important region in all who talk:

though we could fool each other,

we should consider —

lest the parade of our mutual life

gets lost in the dark.

For it is important that awake people be awake,

or a breaking line may discourage them

back to sleep;

the signals we give —

yes or no, or maybe —

should be clear:

the darkness around us is deep.

Stafford, William. "A Ritual We Read to Each Other," from Stories That Could Be True. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.

And is that what teaching/learning is? An 'appeal to something shadowy,' with the hope that we are moving away from the darkness?

Well, I hope my argument is a move away from the darkness, but if not that perhaps from oligarchy.

Good night.

2009.02-22 - MP Election by Lot - Secondary Rumination Pt 2.

Re-reading and editing my submission on electoral reform to the BC Citizens' Assembly for this blog brought back memories of typical media misleading editorials — an example of which I will elaborate later.

And it renewed my inner ear's editorial concern that my necessary elaboration fell into boring pedantic counterproductive preaching. This concern raises interesting philosophical and pragmatic issues around learning and teaching, and the problem of expressing contrarian thinking in society. I will elaborate on that, too.

And thirdly, with hindsight, it provides a great cautionary example of how ignorance helps inflate egoistic intellectual imagination. I learned that if I want to think I know everything about something, all I have to do is keep myself ignorant enough so that my little snot of knowledge will appear expansively erudite and infinitely wise. At least to me and those who rise to at best my level of ignorance. And this is where I'll begin today's blog, prostrating — or maybe just genuflecting — myself before the gods of humility and ask for their forgiveness.

So, I have three items I would like to explore. However, prudence has directed me to separate the items into separate entries so as to give the appearance of less verbosity. And so "Rumination Pt 2" is going to expand to at least two more parts beyond Part 2, with Part 2 being "Ignorance Inflates Egoistic Delusion." Part 3 is to be "Philosophical Issues Around Learning and Teaching," and Part 4 "A Misleading Media Editorial."

Ignorance Inflates Egoistic Delusion
I wrote a preliminary draft of the election of government by lottery essay in the mid-1980s. I wrote it to explore my feelings about what I saw as an increasingly corrupt electoral process. Writing helped me think about those feelings, and in the process I discovered that the corruption wasn't just money — even though that is the biggest problem. I concluded that the corruption included the media's role in legally manufacturing election results.

I was not content with just griping, and elaborated a solution, my idea of (s)election of MPs by lot. And until recently I thought I'd come up with a novel, perhaps even unique, approach to creating a government. I was proud of that ideation, too! When a friend asked me from where or whom I'd got the idea, I snapped back a little testily "I thought it!" as if I had created something new. Well, it was new — new to me. And so I did think it, but... sigh. Thus it is that via these kinds of easy mental baubles are gassy inflated fat heads verbosely made manifest. Sigh. And yet how blissful it was, the joy I found in my perceived originality, bounded as it was inside the cramped hallways of my vast ignorance! It was so delightfully egoistic to think that if I thought it, it must be new! So when I got a chance to foist it upon the world, via the BC's Citizens Assembly, I leapt at the chance.

And there it is. My confession on how, in one easy synaptic burst of neuronal creativity, I became a fat head. And yes, I do love Peter Gabriel's Big Time and also Big Head by Spirit of the West.

It wasn't until 20 years later that that gem of delusion was found to be made of glass. Thank you, Aristotle and The Politics, where Aristotle comments on electoral lot systems many times. The amazing thing is that his comments are mostly matter-of-fact passing references to lots, as if the option to use lottery systems were a completely normal electoral option. For example:

Once more, the appointment to offices without salary, the election by vote and not by lot, and the practice of having all suits tried by certain magistrates, and not some by one and some by another, are characteristic of aristocracy (Introduction par 107).

And:

... or although the appointment of them by lot from among those who have been already selected combines both elements, the way in which the rich are compelled by law to attend the assembly and vote for magistrates or discharge other political duties, while the rest may do as they like, and the endeavour to have the greater number of the magistrates appointed out of the richest classes and the highest officers selected from those who have the greatest incomes, both these are oligarchical features (VI Book II par 419).

The Politics of Aristotle, trans. into English with introduction, marginal analysis, essays, notes and indices by B. Jowett. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1885. 2 vols.

(Aristotle makes many other references to choice by lot in The Politics.)

And thus was re-confirmed that with rare exception it is only the delusional who think that they have stumbled into creating a 'new idea'. It is with some guilt that I find myself now quoting my self from a letter I wrote to a friend about this idea of whether or not there are new ideas in the realm of our civilized human experience or not: 'the historical evidence is that human nature hasn't changed much, even while its toys and tools of production, distraction and destruction have. ... And, typically, that kind of truth comes from our creators of poetry and fiction. Why? Because much of our non-fiction is fixated on the superficial changes of political borders, weaponry, and encomiums to the powerful and the wealthy whereas good fiction looks at the nature of being human' ('Dear Thomas,' August 27th, 2008 10:19 p.m.).

2009.02.22 - MP Election by Lot - Secondary Rumination Pt 1.

For those of you who managed to read through my piece on an alternative to electioneering, I would imagine that I am in the eyes of many a complete nut bar. And a verbose fruit cake, at that. I am well aware that this idea, even terse versions of it, has little contemporary support. I have discussed it with others and I have suggested it to two different volunteer organizations, with which I was associated. I proposed the idea as a means of getting onto their executives new blood, and to minimize the few being endlessly re-elected, regardless competence or egoistic or self-serving motivations, simply because they are warm bodies willing to take on such thankless societal requirements.

But only two or three people have even cautiously thought that the idea had even a whiff merit — and one of them is a friend. The volunteer groups both found the idea laughable, by which I mean that they could not move past their incredulity to consider discussing it before unceremoniously dismissing it.

However, 'my' idea did receive grateful reception from someone in Quebec. He wrote "I was very elated to discover that there are like minds on the other side of the country," and "I have been discussing the "juror system" of MP selection and related ideas at every opportunity I have." I wonder if he and I are the only two 'minds' in Canada(!) because I've not received one query on the idea since posting it in 2005. (So, will this blog be any different? We'll see.)

And not only is this idea heard of elsewhere, but in various forms it has been and is being practiced. My favourite example comes from China, specifically the monks of at Kuei-yuan, who use an intricate and often protracted lottery method to elect their abbots.

As reported by Holmes Welch, and cited by Robert Hopcke,

these monks choose an abbot by drawing lots from among the [names of every member of the monastery]: after prayer and ritual, a senior member of the community uses chopsticks to pick out a name from a metal tube, and the person whose name is drawn three times in a row — from among the [scores] possible — is acknowledged as the abbot. As one might imagine, this time consuming process, which the community continues for as long as it takes unit the thrice-chosen name appears, can sometimes eventuate in the selection of a person whom the community initially perceives as a bad or problematic candidate. But even when almost universally acknowledged inferior individuals have been chosen, this method nevertheless seems consistently to have worked: to the community's surprise, such "inferior" individuals have proven themselves capable leaders, which points up the elegance of such a method in which pure chance — free from the influence of human prejudice, envy, malice, and ambition — is better at providing for the community's leadership than any mortal could have been (Hopcke p208).

(Hopcke doesn't quite do full justice to the transcription from Welch, because Welch describes an example of a monk who was selected but who refused the office because he'd been a monk for only three months. So there was a second name drawing, and after following the same process his name was drawn again. And when his five year term came to an end, his name was drawn yet again (pp169-70)).

Hopcke, Robert H. There are no Accidents: Synchronicity and the Stories of Our Lives. New York: Riverhead Books, 1997.
Welch, Holmes. The Practice of Chinese Buddhism 1930-1950. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Aziz, Robert. C.G. Jung's Psychology of Religion and Synchronicity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990, pp. 153-4.

And, as it turns out, out west Aristotle refers to lottery systems of selecting members of the various levels of government. For example:

There is a third mode, in which something is borrowed from the oligarchical and something from the democratical principle. For example, the appointment of magistrates by lot is democratical, and the election of them oligarchical; democratical again when there is no property qualification, oligarchical when there is. In the aristocratical or constitutional state, one element will be taken from each—from oligarchy the mode of electing to offices, from democracy the disregard of qualification (Bk IV);

or:

... In democracies all things are decided by all, but there are various ways in which the democratic principle may be carried out. a) The citizens may deliberate in the assembly, but by turns; and the boards of magistrates may come into office by turns until every citizen has held office, while the body of the people meet only to hear edicts and to pass laws. b, c) In another form of democracy the citizens all meet, but only to elect magistrates, to pass laws, to decide about peace and war, and to make scrutinies. The ordinary administration is entrusted to the magistrates, who are elected either by vote or by lot. [This form of democracy is given under two heads, but the second appears only to be a repetition of the first.] Or again, d) the whole power of the executive is in the hands of the assembly, and the magistrates only prepare the business for them: — this is the last and worst form of democracy. In oligarchies some deliberate about all things. If a) the ruling class are a numerous body, having a moderate qualification attainable by any one, and they observe law, there arises a form of oligarchy which inclines to a polity. But b) when only selected persons have the power of deliberation, although they still observe the law, the state is a pure oligarchy; and is of necessity oligarchical when c) the government is hereditary or co-optative. On the other hand, d) when the whole people decide the most important questions, but the executive is in the hands of the magistrates who are elected by lot or by vote, there the constitution is an aristocracy or polity. And e) when the magistrates are partly elected by vote and partly by lot, [the whole people having still to decide about peace and war and retaining the power of scrutiny,] then the government is partly aristocratical and partly constitutional (Introduction, Bk IV).

Aristotle. The Politics of Aristotle, trans. into English with introduction, marginal analysis, essays, notes and indices by B. Jowett. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1885. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Chapter: Introduction and Book IV.

End of Part 1 of rumination. To be continued.

2009.01.12 - STV vs FPP vs Governance by Lot

On the Self-Corrupting Nature of Electioneering - And an Alternative*

          May 6, 2004 Revised Slightly for this Blog January 12, 2009

This document is my submission to the Panel Members of the British Columbia's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in 2004-5. 

*In my original submission, which is still available at the Citizens' Assembly web page, I used the word 'Democratic' in the title. However, I have since then read Aristotle's The Politics which has taught me that our current and accepted usage of the word 'Democratic' is not quite in alignment with its original meaning. Aristotle describes 'democracy' as a perversion of a 'Polity,' or the rule of the citizenry. See my blog 2008.12.17 Collapse of Capitalism? A Rumination below. And I have made a few other minor edits to accommodate its entry into this blog.

There are Three Malevolent Aspects of Electioneering

The failure of the parliamentary process due to corruption, and the eventual symptoms of that failure, begin with the electoral process itself: by its structure, the process of getting elected populates parliament with tainted goods, regardless the integrity and honesty and goodness of the individuals entering the electioneering forum. There are three endemically malevolent aspects of any electoral process built around electioneering that causes this 'self' corruption. They are: the roles of money, good intentions and power.

There are alternatives to the current voting system.

After examining why a government's failings begin long before power is won by and entrusted to the "winning" party I suggest one that reduces all the significant corrupting influences of our current voting system.

The First Malevolence - Money's Role

The first and most obvious electioneering malevolence is that it requires money to get elected. While a party and its candidates may receive the majority of its funds from John and Jane Canuck, the largest individual donations come from collectives, the main ones being business and organized labour. Limiting the size of donations will curtail this problem - but only as far as under-the-table perks and the promise of lucrative post-government corporate appointments. These corporate collectives buy the voice and obligation of the candidate and in the process mutes John and Jane Canuck's democratic voice. This role of money in the voting process perverts any democracy into an oligarchy.

The muted Canadian electorate is frustrated because its expressed distrust of big business's apparent goal of Americanizing Canada and organized labour's apparent goal of socializing Canada is not being heard by MP's, MLA's or city officials. Some might say - especially the media! - that the news media are John and Jane's voice. And maybe once they were. Unfortunately today's corporate media has, for the most part, long since abdicated that important and difficult function for the easier role of outing political "scandals", spouting inconsequential homilies about political parties listening to the voter on election day, and selling stock portfolios and the value of American-style "free" market economics. Their corporate ownership structure aligns it with the beneficiaries of the oligarchy. The media is now a part of the oligarchy, and a significant one.

Given the role money plays in getting elected, even the individual with the purest of motivations and purest of hearts will eventually be faced with the well dramatized ethical problem of choosing between doing what seems right and doing what is expedient in getting or keeping power and/or wealth in order to achieve an even greater vaguely defined good in some distant and tenuous future. The inherent corruptibility of this situation is obvious: the short term "small" corruption of minor consequence will be offset by the wonderful things that the honest, hardworking, ambitious, good politician's hubris says power conferred on him or her will enable him or her to make manifest in a utopian future.

The Second Malevolence - Good Intentions 

The second malevolent aspect is the ostensibly "good" intention of wanting to do, honestly and without self serving motivations, "good things." History and current events demonstrate that more evil, death and corruption has been done on this planet in the name of doing "good" than Marx ever ascribed to religion. When an individual or group is convinced that they are doing something for the greater good, be it for one's God, race, country or economy, the end will frequently be used justify the means. In the name of "good" children are beaten to death, "pro-lifers" kill, "pacifist" religions authorize death and torture, "socialist" rulers initiate genocidal pogroms and "democratically elected" governments take their armaments into undemocratic countries to fix their elections. In the name of "good" we have had the Spanish Inquisition, Hitler's "Jewish Solution", the Vietnam War, and Canada's past policy of the cultural genocide of aboriginal peoples.

And while the good-hearted people we send into seats of power may not orchestrate the death of millions, the desire to do good can and does lead people to accept or tolerate varying levels of corruption as a necessary evil for the sake of doing the good deed they promise themselves they are there to do. Acceptance of the questionable actions is almost always well rationalized and/or justified, of course. An ongoing example is that of various governments choosing to deal with their/our monetary crunch by initiating various types of gambling schemes, despite gambling's documented "bad" side effects. (It is interesting to note that, if memory serves me correctly, gambling as a means to supplement tax revenue has been rejected by the majority of Canadians in poll after poll, and at least once by referendum in British Columbia. For those people who advocate a government bound to referenda, I pose this questions: Would politicians actually listen to referenda results which went counter to their desire to do good deeds and the "right" thing - such as protecting the ignorant voter from the folly of making a bad choice on a particular referendum?)

And a particularly poisonous form of "good-intentionitis" is when the politician "knows" better than the voter what is good for the voter. In this form of condescension the politician can block out the concerns of his or her constituents and espouse with a clear conscious the most mellifluous of double-speaks. Gordon Campbell's referendum on treaty negotiations is a recent example, and ably demonstrates that direct democracy, such as described by Douglas Broome, can be at best a post hoc bandage and at worst a tool of false democracy.

The Third Malevolence - Power

The third malevolent aspect of the electoral process is a subtle twist of the previous: the appeal of power tends to, in general but with just enough exceptions to prove the rule, draw to it those who are: a) least capable of handling it well and, b) the easiest to corrupt.

This aspect relates to how the underlying temper of motivation within the hidden chambers of the individual's heart, and not just his or her broadcasted smiles full of bright teeth, wide eyes, purity and integrity, eventually reveals itself in the actions of that person.

The compulsive power seeker is often expressing some psychological need, a need not dissimilar in structure from any addictive need, even if it is expressed differently than the typically self destructive behaviour of the alcoholic, junkie, of coke-head. In the clever power seeker this character flaw can be effectively masked and rewarded as willingness to sacrifice family and health for long hours of getting results. On the surface, s/he looks self sacrificing but in truth this type of power seeker is narcissistically out to get just even an bit more power, so that all choices and actions are weighed by their ability to get the next hit of power. The recent publications about the sociopathic, or even psychopathic nature of chief executive officers, give concrete form to this argument.

Wanted: A Politician with a Small Ego

The insurmountable difficulty here is in finding a politician whose ego is wise enough by being small enough to know the difference between a small corruption and a big one - with the added spice that those with the best intentions, biggest aspirations, and largest egos generally tolerate the largest corruptions. Nixon and VanderZalm are excellent examples of this, each denying inappropriate behaviour even after having their hands caught inside the metaphorical cookie jar. But so are the NDP, who were far more effective when their ego was content at being simply the conscience and voice of John and Jane Canuck in parliament than after they deemed it important to get elected so as to be able to do really good things.

Q: But if we do not vote them in, how can a "democratic" government be formed?

A: Make Governance A Selection Process, Akin to Jury Duty

I suggest that we replace electioneering with a sophisticated lottery process not dissimilar in principle from the jury selection process. Eliminating elections would effectively destroy the three malevolent aspects of the electioneering process I discussed above in the following ways:

"Candidates" would not begin their term pre-bought.  The random nature of the lottery would minimize both the number of people drawn to power simply to feel powerful and those ambitious "do-gooders" who are inherently prone to corruption and constituency deafness;

double-speak would no longer be necessary to keep a good face forward or to mollify pre-election "bad" press.

This would not eliminate the "crook" from politics, of course, for crooks are a part of society.

But the structure itself would not be inherently corrupt, nor encourage corruption, because no one would begin office being beholden to anyone or to an egoistically generated and dangerous ambition from the first day of office. Furthermore, broad corruption requires collusion that, without "bought" parties, would be very difficult to initiate let alone maintain.

Four Other Serendipitous Benefits

Serendipitously this form of government selection has four other very significant benefits.

Firstly it is Democratic 

The first is that it is truly democratic! All people (with certain minimum years of education/work/experience, age, and residency status) would be eligible: thus the sexes, races, religions and classes would all be represented proportionally as they exist in Canada. (Like today, unfortunately, the poor and homeless would have a hard time getting representation. However, they may well be heard more clearly when the government is not bound to corporate American economic ideals which have rendered the poor our expendable economic - not social! - failures.)

Secondly, Free Votes in the House Would be the Norm Not the Exception

Almost every vote in the houses would likely be a free vote, and no longer would there be wasted verbiage in the press and in the house about them.

Thirdly, the Elimination of Electioneering

An enormous amount of costly and mostly puerile word-waste would be eliminated because the need for dissembling political posturing and silly verbal fencing to gain political points rather than assist in the running of the country would be gone. And, not insignificantly, it would eliminate the wanton waste associated with electioneering, i.e., advertising, and the inane but endless media spectacles and speculations. But the media could still root happily around for scandal!

Fourthly (and lastly), It Honestly Recognizes the True Nature of Governance

Because governing is an odious task it is not insignificant that, like jury duty, the task of governing be aligned with that fact, and not with glamour, prestige and Barnum and Bailey-like showmanship and the hope and thrill of shilling the paying customer.

While Not Without Flaws, It is Not Inherently Malevolent by Design

Government selection by lot has its flaws, but unlike our current system it is not malevolent by design to the majority it is suppose to be governing while benefiting those few with money. And there are ways of minimizing even some of the most obvious flaws, such as using some form of direct democracy as per Harvey Schachter and Douglas Broome. In this case, direct democracy would not be trying to counteract inherent corruption, but would be a vehicle to give the population an immediate voice in choosing between the various policy and social options.

Some Other Points to Consider

Here are a few other ideas that might increase the effectiveness of a "government-by-lot-selection".

1. Education is Important

Beyond some kind of minimum education and/or work experience and residential qualifications, have those selected attend intensive schooling for a year, more or less, to balance their areas of familiarity with a broader look at history, the humanities, literature. (This would be the opportunity to give those selected and qualified "memory", as it is described by John Ralston Saul, in his book On Equilibrium.)  Follow that by six months of study of domestic and/or international affairs, as per the experience and qualifications of the "candidates." Follow this by six months time to rest from schooling and work to give the "candidates" time to be with their families and thoughts in a significant way before serving a long term. To accommodate attrition during this process, begin with more candidates than seats in the house - about ten percent, say. These people, if not actually sitting at the opening of parliament, become alternates during the course of the term.)

2. Cabinet Members are Chosen, the Unsuitable Thanked and Let Go

During the education process those most suitable for the equivalent of cabinet posts would make themselves known, as would those suitable for some form of senate - as a place of reflection and second thought. Additional or extended education and/or direct experience would be "foisted" onto them. And those not at all suitable to govern would be thanked for their time and let go.

3. A Tour of Duty is a Minimum of Seven Years - With Reviews

The duty term be made for not less than seven years. Some kind of "direct democracy review" could be done after three years and thereafter bi-annually, for example.

4. For Continuity, The End of a Tour of Duty Doesn't Include Everyone

After the seven year term is done, have only two thirds of the people retire out of government. A secret ballot at the end of year six is held in which, perhaps, each parliamentarian chooses one hundred people as being suitable for continued action in government. Here also direct democracy could have a place, as the population in general would also choose those people they feel would be best to stay in government. They too could pick one hundred names. The top thirty to fifty names would then serve a second term. This kind of arrangement allows for change, but recognizes the value of some form of continuity. Any form of electioneering by anyone to be one of those selected is punishable by not less than having his or her name crossed off the list of those eligible for a second term.

5. Salaries Linked to A Member's Previous Employment

Salaries for the representatives would be at 10-20% above the wage/salary they would have earned in their current work/career, plus some expense money. This addresses the concern about getting "qualified" people into government and links the cost of government personnel to "market" prices. Wage increases and pensions would be similarly linked to the work world.

6.Creative Genius May be Granted at Least a Tiny Plot of Fertile Parliamentary Ground

While structured, this "system" gives creative genius a reasonable shot of being expressed without it being stifled by a structure thoroughly wedded to mediocrity and corruptibility (to paraphrase John Ralston Saul).

Bibliography

Aristotle. Politics and Poetics. Books the Second and Third.

Broome, Douglas. "Saturday Review", The Vancouver Sun, Sept. 21, 1996

Saul, John Ralston. The Unconscious Civilization. Concord, Ont.: House of Anansi Press Limited, 1995.

Saul, John Ralston. On Equilibrium. Toronto: Penguin/Viking Books, 2001.

Schachter, Harvey. The Globe and Mail, Sat. Apr. 19, 1997 D3.

2009.01.10 - Spengler is Interesting

I've been reading Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West, the Knopf 1962 abridged version. It is fascinating! And it is engaging and challenging, and I see why it isn't popular. To begin with, Oswald has a pan-historical approach that requires of the reader a bona fide and very broad education, one that is largely lacking today now that universities have become primarily purveyors of specialized skill sets and departmentally delimited unquestionable truths. Without that education there is no way of evaluating his ideas. And the second thing is that he has complex ideas of what 'society' and 'civilization' mean, as well what it means to be a person. I am surprised to see that some of his ideas regarding person-hood are very similar to those of CG Jung, someone else who is relatively unpopular in our culture and who also demands of the reader a broad and unspecialized education. And it has become clear I will need to go out and buy Decline of the West, preferably from a used book store, because it is going to demand research to evaluate.

And that thought got me thinking about reading. From a sociology course, I 'learned,' anecdotally, that the father of modern Sociology, Emile Durkheim, stopped reading anything so as to keep his own thinking uncontaminated by the ideas of others. And I love what Socrates supposedly said of the written word. In Phaedrus, Plato relates Socrates’ record of a conversation between the Egyptian god Amon and Thoth, the inventor of letters:

This discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific you have discovered is an aid not to memory but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth but only the semblance of truth; they will be bearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

Socrates continues:

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question, they preserve a solemn silence, and the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always give one unvarying answer. (From Phaedrus, cited in Mass Communication in Canada, 3rd edition, by Lorimer and McNulty, Oxford University Press, p. 20.)

Social critic John Ralston Saul frequently castigates our leaders for their unwillingness (inability?) to read. There is no more dangerous a leader than one ignorant of his/her ignorance, and Saul sees the unread as being largely ignorant, especially of history.  And he rightly fears that that ignorance will be the unravelling of our society. And I concur with his opinion that being well read does not include the reading of mainstream newspapers and/or magazines. If anything, this kind of reading promotes false-knowledge by propagating (dis)information by the manipulative listing of specialized and/or circumscribed and/or cherry-picked events either real or imagined. Journals of events do not impart either understanding or knowledge, let alone the wisdom to apply them when choosing a course of action.

Noam Chomsky describes this superlatively. He has a great deal to say about the bias of the media, in particular, the bias the media has in masking the true aggressive nature of American foreign policy and its role in keeping business in business. His focus is on American foreign policy and the manner of its reporting in the American press, and the degree to which the "educated" individuals of the society are indoctrinated to see the peaceful nature of American foreign policy, despite the blatant contradictory evidence of Vietnam, Panama, Guatemala, the Middle East, and of the US's role in other Latin and South American coups and bloodshed. Its applicability is obvious to far more than US foreign policy, such as the myth of free markets in a corporate world. From a 1986 interview:

     ...When the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia, they got away with it. They didn't kill many people, but it was wrong because aggression is wrong. We all understand that. But we can't allow that understanding to be expressed when it relates to the violent action of our state, obviously. If this were a totalitarian state, the Ministry of Truth would simply have said, "It's right for us to go into Vietnam, period. Don't argue with it." People would have known that's the propaganda system talking and they could have thought what they wanted. They could have seen that we were attacking Vietnam just like we can see that the Russians are attacking Afghanistan.

     You couldn't permit that understanding of reality in this country; it's too dangerous. People are much more free, they can express themselves, they can do things. Therefore, it was necessary to try to control thought, to try to make it appear as if the only issue was a tactical one: can we get away with it? There's no issue of right or wrong. That worked partially, but not entirely. Among the educated part of the population it worked almost totally.

     There are good studies of this that show, with only the most marginal statistical error, that among the more educated parts of the population the government propaganda system was accepted unquestioningly. On the other hand, after a long period of popular spontaneous opposition, dissent and organization, the general population got out of control. As recently as 1982, according to the latest polls I've seen [this interview took place in Oct. '86] over 70% of the population still was saying that the war was,quoting the wording of the Gallup poll, "fundamentally wrong and immoral," not "a mistake." That is, the overwhelming majority of the population is neither hawks nor doves, but opposed to aggression. On the other hand, the educated part of the population, they're in line. For them, it's just the tactical question of hawk vs. dove.

     This is, incidentally, not untypical. Propaganda very often works better for the educated than it does for the uneducated. This is true on many issues. There are a lot of reasons for this, one being that the educated receive more of the propaganda because they read more. Another thing is that they are the agents of propaganda. After all, their job is that of commissars; they're supposed to be agents of the propaganda system so they believe it. It's very hard to say something unless you believe it. Other reasons are that, by and large, they are just part of the privileged elite so they share their interests and perceptions, whereas the general population is more marginalized. It, by and large, doesn't participate in the democratic system, which is overwhelmingly an elite game. People learn from their own lives to be sceptical, and in fact most of them are. There's a lot of scepticism and dissent and so on. (Chomsky, Noam. Chronicles of Dissent: Interviewed by David Barsamian. Vancouver, BC: New Star Books, 1992, p.48-9.)

Greed has always been more stupefying than sex. But only in a nearly completely stupefied society would greed be extolled as a virtue by our economic and political elite. And only in a society with an efficient machine of propaganda would that societally self-destructive belief come to be accepted or embraced by increasing numbers of the remnants of the middle class who assiduously read the business sections of the papers and the dummies books in their striving to make real the dream of a wealthy future that will be found in stocks and bonds and the purchase of third world goods. Our political and economic leaders can't have read even the most basic of fairy tales, in particular Midas, the Golden Goose, etc., and those involving dragons. All these stories warn against the effects of greed, they being killing everything and starving to death for the love of gold (Midas); destroying the source of wealth in greed driven impatience (Golden Goose); and the razing of community's whose wealth is hoarded in piles kept by dragons. Real world examples of each are clear-cut logging, the quarterly financial report and the recent banking and corporate bailouts.

Alas! I need to stop writing, now, before this entry gets completely out of control. When I'd started it I had thought I would cite a few passages from Spengler because he is challenging, and to show how anaemic is our education. Unfortunately that gave my fingers the energy needed to focus on reading and ignorance. I will re-visit Spengler soon. After I meander into STV (Single Transferable Vote), an issue which is raising itself into our media's eyes here in BC.

2009.01.03 - Nascent Year; Sonnet & Epictetus

The nascence of a year brings feelings of hope and helplessness. I do not make resolutions, at this time of year because the pressure's too great — how can I support the weight of a year when I am barely able to support a day's or even a morning's resolution? Despite the multiplicity of distractions in our age of diversions, I am struggling to live one day at a time, one moment at a time. And, to be honest, I am not doing that great a job at it. On the one hand the dream aspect of my Aquarian nature is very strong in me, so remaining in the pragmatic requirements of a tangible here and now is difficult: playing with words and ideas is so much more engaging than planning for next week's meals. On the other hand the diurnal aspect of living with a partially disabled wife, a mortgage and car payments, long hours at a challenging job, eating, etc., butts heads with my dream world and keeps life moiling. Do I take the time to do yoga, blather verbiage, prepare meals or make myself ready for work?

I began this blog while on a vacation from work. That vacation ends tomorrow night as I return to work on Monday. And I have an ambivalence about that, which is stronger than it has been in quite some time. I enjoy my job a great deal, but dislike my employer at least as much. I have enjoyed setting my own hours, within the challenging delimits of being with wife with her own set of hours. I loved the freedom to verbalize here and elsewhere, as my whim took me. And I am wondering how to proceed with this blog, when I become so busy with my 50 hour work weeks and living requirements that writing will fall to the wayside.

I think what I shall do is post some of my old writing, as well as new stuff. I have some fiction I'd like to put out into the world, and other writings, too. I have a correspondence that began in 2006 and continues to the present that I think might make an interesting blog contribution, if the other party agrees to it. And I wonder if there may be some entertainment and other value in posting a synopsis of and table of contents to the economics course book reader I have been put together for 'The Hand Inside the Invisible Glove: Economics for the Perceptive,' the economics course I have been building to promote critical thinking of the ideological nature of much of what passes for economic sagacity.

So many possibilities. Too many choices. And that could easily result in my getting nothing done as I dither and blather about choice instead of actually doing anything. Sigh!

And so, in a backwards way, my fingers have pushed me to begin - two days late! - to make a kind of public year's resolution about this blog. What will come of that? We'll see.

I did write a poem, a kind of new year's sonnet! It is was initiated with Kim's request that we celebrate the new year with a candle light meditation. I used our fireplace instead, and here's the result:

In Black, Shadow Puppets Dance

In black, shadow puppets dance with the light

That leaps in bounds to fire a new year born.

Wick'd stories fill with dread an endless night

Of starry dreams dreamt once but now stillborn.

But how the gilt flames o'er leap these limits!

They tickle hearts open with glitt'ring scenes

Of thick plated truths, gold carded credits,

Hip hopping livers and bilious spleens.

I stare and stare. And to my dark eyes' chagrin

Sharp smoke caresses and brings to them tears.

When I blink through the brine my mind starts to spin

A tale of two halves – my mask-face and fears.

  The flickering night has caught spots in my mind,

  Spots black in my mind my mind minds to find.

2009.01.01

Well that was some new writing.

What about some old stuff? Hmmmmm. Well, I am reading the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus right now, which I am thoroughly enjoying. So maybe I will truly cheat, and transcribe some very very old words here, albeit not mine, to mark the nascent year with something aged:

…it is a more valuable thing to get a dinner, than not; and a greater disgrace to be whipt, than not to be whipt; — so that, if you measure yourself by these things, go and do your office.

“Ay, but this is not suitable to my character.”

It is you who are to consider that, not I; for it is you who know yourself, what value you set upon yourself, and at what rate you sell yourself; for different people sell themselves at different prices (Epictetus Book I Ch II).

And I think that is a good ending to the beginning of a year: what is the price at which I am willing to sell my self?