The Future of Politics

We have seen how our leaders failed us. We have seen how they withhold secrets from us and then treat us like fools because they know better. We have seen how they paralyze our countries by their senseless arguments. We have seen how our leaders draw large salaries for themselves, claiming that they are elites who are worth it. In short, we have seen how our leaders have fucked up time and again, and each time we conveniently forgive them because we gave in to the notion that THAT is politics.

 

With the explosion of technology and the internet, our world has changed tremendously since the end of the cold war. Our ways of communication, travel, expression; our way of life has changed. But what remains unchanged is the political scene. Our so called ‘democracy’ is rigged with nepotism, lies, secret dealings, lobbyists and unfair elections. Our leaders scare us into believing that there is no other system beside democracy. If we don’t go to elections and get our voices heard, then we must be anti-democratic. If we do not support democracy, then we must be communists/socialists.

 

If an election is proof of democracy, then democracy can only mean the rule of the majority. In this context, who is to say that China, ruling in favor of the majority Han people, is undemocratic? Is America truly democratic with only 2 major parties? You are either a Republican or Democrat in America, how democratic does that sound? Is Europe democratic, if we take into account their treatment of minorities like the Roma? Democracy is easy to implement (and a given) in a homogenous society, because then it boils down to individual opinions. In a heterogeneous society, where racial tension and conflicts are just suppressed under the surface, will democracy work? Isn’t a Sunny/Shite majority a representation of democracy?

 

Alexis De Tocqueville, in his book ‘Democracy in America’ has written “….when I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on any power whatever, be it called a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I say there is the germ of tyranny.”

 

Daniel Ellsberg, in his book ‘Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers” wrote, “….the concentration of power within the executive branch since World War II had focused nearly all responsibility for policy “failure” upon one man, the president. At the same time, it gave him enormous capability to avert or postpone or conceal such personal failure by means of force and fraud. Confronted by resolute external resistance, as in Vietnam, that power could not fail to corrupt the human who held it.”

 

The conclusion I draw is that even in a democracy, no one person or body should have unlimited power and ultimate responsibility. No leaders should be burdened with ‘Top Secrets’ so much so that they feel they are above everyone else. This point is best represented by Daniel Ellsberg, in his advice to Henry Kissinger before Kissinger got his clearances as the special assistant for national security under Nixon in 1968.

 

“….you’ll be aware only of the fact that you have it (clearances) now and most others don’t… and that all those other people are fools……….it will become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn’t have these clearances…….You will deal with a person who doesn’t have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you’ll have to lie carefully to him about what you know……..You’ll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours.”

 

Human beings are not competent to exercise unlimited power with discretion, something we have seen time and again repeated throughout human history. As such, our political system cannot have concentrated power and it can do with less secrets. I am not talking about national secrets like nuclear warheads or weaponry technology. I am referring to the secrets behind the decision making process. If our leaders have nothing to hide, then they have no use for secrets. Secrets can only beget lies. In this era of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden, is it still feasible to spent billions of dollars to protect the secrets and lies of our leaders?

 

In my conclusion, I will like to pose the question, ‘Do we still need a leader?’ Someone we have to trust to make good decisions. Someone we have to trust to not lie to us. Wouldn’t the world be a simpler place to manage without the large pool of government staff eating away at our taxes? Wouldn’t the world be safer if we don’t concentrate executive powers onto just a few on the top? We need a new political system to usher in an era of post imperialism and racism. We need a system where every vote truly counts and every voice truly heard. We need a system of inclusivity, not exclusivity. We need a system with transparency, not secrets. In an era of instant messaging and an ever increasing middle-class, we need a bottom-up system, not a top-down one.

 

We are already filing our income taxes online. We are already conducting many economic activities on line. In Singapore, we have an identity number attached to us on the day we are born. This identity number allows us to file our income taxes, check on our CPF balances, conduct banking transactions, and do many other things online. Why can’t we also execute our legislative right as an individual? Why can’t we have a referendum on all legislation? A decision made in transparency, with majority agreement will be more successful than one mucked in secrets and lies. The ministers we voted in will have to put up arguments for and against a certain rule. They will have to tell us why we should vote this way or that. But at the end of the day, we, the citizens, will have the final say by voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’. We will still need a government to keep things moving, but their roles will be less ‘decision-making’ than ‘execution’. We do not need a government to lead. We need a government to serve.

 

Of course in reality, this is easier said than done. There will be issues concerning decisions affecting minorities. In this case, I will suggest that the minorities be given a larger say in their vote to counter the ‘tyranny’ of the majority. There is also the danger of misuse and hacking of votes. But I am sure, if we can do everything else online, we too can rule ourselves online.