Skip to main content

The Morals of a Politician

One of the reasons why I adopted the nom-de-blog "Cicero" was because I saw- indeed still see- parallels between the fall of the Roman Republic and our own times. Although, after the accession of Octavian, Rome remained nominally a Republic with the Emperor initially simply "first citizen", in reality the political system based on Roman Liberty was overthrown. I strongly fear that although the nominal forms of Parliamentary Democracy may survive, the principles, indeed the guiding spirit, of Liberal Democracy are being eroded to the point where our freedoms are being taken away.

I see the challenges not being so much the direct threat of dictatorship, although in truth the nascent Russian democracy has indeed been overthrown by a dictator, but from a more corrosive and collective mixture of ignorance, hypocrisy and greed.

The fundamental problem is that many political platforms are not created based on evidence, but on prejudice. 

A good example has been the policies that have been adopted by successive governments towards the use of social drugs. Since the end of the "permissive" 1960s, it has been the collective wisdom that their are great social ills that result from the use of psychoactive drugs. Certainly many of these drugs are both highly addictive and can be often fatal, either through overdose or the physiological damage that long term repeated use may cause. The problem is that the policy that has been prescribed- prohibition- has not merely failed, it has arguably created more pernicious social ills- through placing the trade in the hands of criminal gangs and undermining the politics of smaller countries, from Afghanistan to Peru. The cure seems worse than the disease. Sure enough the political weather is being made by vested interests and not by, for example, healthcare professionals. The Liberal Democrats have championed evidence based drugs policy- and been abused by the twisted journalism of both left and right for being "soft on drugs". The drugs crisis is not made one ounce easier by the failed policy of prohibition, but it does appeal to the prejudices of the ignorant.

Politicians, by definition, are not experts- they are lay supervisors- yet in order to understand the pros and cons in modern policy, our political leaders need to have a skill set of knowledge that few actually possess. This has led many to conclude that society has become too complicated for democratic government to offer effective leadership. The example of China or Singapore is offered- technocratic elites who can take decisions based on detailed or arcane knowledge. This, for me, is a temptation that must be resisted at all costs not least because it is the end of democratic government as we have known it, but it also removes leaders from having to account for their decisions, because by definition they have arcane knowledge- and the result would be corruption and waste- as it already is even in the only three decades since the emergence of a more open China since 1975.

For the fact is that political leaders in a democratic state depend on the knowledge of their electorate. An ignorant electorate creates ignorant politics. An electorate that is not prepared to hold their leaders to high standards also creates a compromised political system. The current fashion to hold all politicians in contempt is equally dangerous, for few will want to serve if their every move is regarded with suspicion. The fact is that our political system requires accountability, but it also requires an element of trust- if the trust fails, the system falls. Yet that trust must rest on the electorate themselves understanding, openly or at least tacitly, the compromises that are required in order to take policy decisions. On the one hand the system should respond to political will, on the other hand the political will needs to be based upon more than mere populism- it must rest on serious and informed debate.

This is where I am so concerned. I have heard supposedly educated and informed voters express deeply ignorant and indeed wholly mistaken opinions and yet express them as unvarnished truth. They may be encouraged in this by a bigoted and prejudiced press, but in the age of the Internet, there is little excuse to be as ignorant as so many people can be.

In the end the morality of the politicians is our own morality, and their collective wisdom is our own wisdom. Unless the voters themselves take responsibility, then they will have their rights eroded by propaganda and vested interests.

That is exactly what I see happening now. The fault lies in ourselves.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie. 

The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship. 

The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and the j…

Breaking the Brexit logjam

The fundamental problem of Brexit has not been that the UK voted to leave the European Union. The problem has been the fact that the vote was hijacked by ignorant, grandstanding fools who interpreted the vote as a will to sever all and every link between the UK and the European Union. That was then and is now a catastrophic policy. To default to WTO rules, when any member of the WTO could stop that policy was a recipe for the UK to be held hostage by any state with an act to grind against us. A crash out from the EU, without any structure to cope, was an act of recklessness that should disqualify anyone advocating it from any position of power whatsoever. That is now the most likely option because the Conservative leadership, abetted by the cowardly extremism of Corbyn, neither understood the scale of the crisis, now had any vision of how to tackle it.

Theresa May is a weak and hapless Prime Minster, and her problems started when she failed to realize that there was a compromise that w…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…