Bonfires of Democracy.
I have mentioned before in these essays and in others, the real trouble with our political society is that we live in at least hree democracies not one – and possibly always have. We inhabit then at once political, knowledge and capitalist democracies. Each of which forms of governance has their own very clearly constructions, and rules. What is the interesting about these differing democracies, is that they all at least partially mistrust one another, while actually needing to really upon each other. There are then very standard rules of alliance where two democracies attempt to gang up on the third to pull it this way or that. Shifting alliance, moving battles, intricate intrigues are then the norms in the relations between these different freedoms. And yet in recent times, the picture has been made a great deal more complex by the emergence at various different levels of new demi-republics. That is impure mixed forms, mixed constitutions that attempt to define new ways these three differing states coalesce. It is then as if the rules for the relationships between these different states are being taken out, slowly of the states control, and becomes something in their own right (in the same way the credit agencies, having ruined our economy how appear to rule it). So much so that to understand our three different republics, and their traditional battle grounds is not now enough. One also needs to grasp at the fast moving and far more free form and wild republics and free states that are now attempting to cease control of the traditional three democracies that make our state, moves that I will begin to chart some of the essays in this series. In this essay I will recap on the traditional democracies themselves, and the way each distinct democracy endless attempts to reform the others in their own nature.
First among the three are the rich plurality of democracies that accompany academic disciplines. Democracies where what in a sense knowledge and the ability to argue a case according to certain rules (that is to have and to scare certain thoughts) is king. It is the theories, explanations, ideas, that rather gather up individuals – and not the other way around. The trouble of course is with such democracies is that there is a fairly heavy price to contribute. One needs to be able to speak the language, own the jargon, and understand the rules of thought generation, to enter such little kingdom. The enormous advantage is that once one can, then the democracy becomes truly democracy in that it becomes all about thinking, arguing, and agreeing.
This high entry price traditionally has made these democracy be viewed with mistrust by political democracies, which value their freedom. A mistrust that cuts deeper than mere paranoia as if is always possible for these republics, to create ideas which destabilizes democracies or at least raise impossible questions for them. Democracies will then look one askance as science fiddles with the boundaries of life and death, and where babies come from, or will manufacture bombs to blow up the world. all of which is fine in its way. But then of course science washes its hands of the affair and expects or at least appeals to democracy to sort out the ethics and morals of production process. Thought does not then undermine democracy so much as make it a great deal more difficult. Or better perhaps, it operates upon political democracy’ to transform it into a reflections of it own complex plurality. It has then a tendency to ask political democracies very difficult questions, and create within it parties of opposing thoughts, and endless differed spheres, different ways the question will be asked. All of which is fine in its way. and the yet political democracy is something apart, something in its own right, and resents this transformation.
At the same time, it is one of the features of such republics is their appetite for money reflects their appetite for knowledge. It is quite literally bottomless as the more they are given the more then can use. Money is then called upon to reflect the medium of thought itself – it is to be bottomless. The real problem here is not that money cannot do this but that it can. Or at least it can appear to One can always print more money- and as one trusts in technological change and the possibility of endless wealth it opens up on, one will be tempted to do so The trouble of course is that if the confidence in this change dries up, then the entire edifice is likely to crash around our feet.
The second great democracy is the traditional political democracy. This poor old thing, was initially conjured forth at the end of the nineteenth century, in the name of a supposed politics of the eighteenth century, its echoing a notion of supposed ancient politics and even human nature. It arose then as the supreme political buttress for the rise of nation states. It was the proof incarnate that we really were all in this together. The nation that votes together should fight together (and be free together. And yet the system always a little ad hoc - in a sense it had to be. At the heart of it after all lay a complex double think. On the one hand every democracy claimed to be the great (and possibly only real) forcing house for freedom. Its great claim was it was where this were disused and decidedly everybody. Or at least by those properly interested to make such decisions. And yet at the same time was of course the place that defend when and when its citizens were free. What freedoms then had, and what they defied not, when they can discuss and when not. It was the group of individuals coming together to delimit freedom, in the name of another kind of freedom.
This leads then to a situation where free speech was of prime importance. Free speech, that is the ably to endlessly argue a case, to make an argument (even if it was going to be ignored or was rubbish) was the freedom that justified or allowed the curtailing of freedom elsewhere. We could the argument went all make our case, and so ought to accept the eventual outcome, in the knowledge tat e had lost the debate fair and square. Free speech then became the defining freedom, the touchstone which allowed suppression elsewhere. A move that exploited the fact that the world we speak is not the world we live or think. We are then frequently theoretically at least more likely to mouth extreme solutions or assume that individuals can be limited or persecuted in someway (asylum speakers or the poor to the bankers); and yet of course do actually like it when we are faced with the consequences of these action. Democracy therefore become all about managing and encouraging free speech n certain as - certain debates helping certain parties (and allowing certain policies). The role of the democracy as form of government was ironically then subsumed under the necessity to manage its shibboleth – endless free speech. A move than became all the more pronounced as the scope of what a nation can do in a highly complex world in which such nations, as units of sovereign power, makes little sense, became restricted. All a political class really can do is define what is debated about. A debate that is then accompanied by a number of abstract policies that arise out of such debates, and may or may not have the effect promised.
The deification of free speech had then the effect of forcing a democracy to expand. It was legally rather difficult to restrict who could speak. The neat little cliques of the nineteenth century gave way to the mass democracies of today. And yet this then of course creates the problem that if everyone can speak, then how does not tell who is qualified to do so? If all opinion matter then, how beyond mob and prejudice can one decide? This was then the traditional role of the Quango. The Quango or at least hose hat made any sense operate as an intermediate - A problem which science then makes all the harder to grasp.
Governments answer was to create the Quango. That is to create a body that was responsible not only for making expert decisions (and so protect knowledge from rampant ignorance but also to orchestrate debate The quango was then meant to encourage and then monitor public debate, and loop it make into knowledge and then act accordingly. The task then of democracy was outsourced to protect knowledge from the mop. Or to put it the there ways around, little kingdoms of democratic accountability, and the need to discuss with politicians, were created within the kingdoms of science. Science were then forced into a political orbit, and made (though having o mage a budget and make decisions) to confront the kid of problems politicians had to work with. It might not have made good government, but it made a suitable come uppance. To destroy then in that infamous bonfire is therefore to open up knowledge to the full glare of the mob – an interesting move to put it mildly.
At the same time it is clear that political democracies have a similar love-hate relationship going on with the economy. Ultimately it is of course a mantra of politics that the economy drives political futures. Or perhaps to be more truthful, the economy defines what kind of future we belief we are entitled to, and so defines what a politician can do, and claim the credit for. More importantly government needs people to have confidence in the political system was that it operates at all it must then restrict debate about whether money has value. No politicians likes then to confront business. And yet there are real conflict lines in that every business operates by attempting to manage information of it own account and in its way. Every large business at any rate seeks then to limit information (and so restrict what a government can do to it). Governments answer to this riddle is traditionally to praise smaller and medium size business, which are held up as the paradigm for moral purity (they are they business equivalent of free speech – the little guy),and then come to some of agreement, hugga mugga with large cooperation’s (bout tax etc) . This bargain has clearly survived its apparent demise in the recent economic turmoil, and is back to haunt us all.
Finally there is the complex world of business. Business has a treble democracy of its own. There is the part owning democracy of the shareholder, there is the consumer led democracy of people buying the product, and between them runs the current of finance. Business operates by then imposing elaborate hierarchies between these spheres – defining which matters when and how much.- and for how long. The flexibly then of the business model is than there is not single domain force. At times of wealth the shareholders will no doubt by all important. And yet at times of scarcity, they become a cash cow to finance the pursuit of business (that is new markets etc). Likewise finance at once haunts then entire body, and is therefore what needs to always be allowed for and considered, and yet also, is what is provided (by customer and owner), and what then merely follows these other desires. However there are certain blind spots integral in such a model, most notably the workers. In a world of financing they fit in merely as a cost of production limiting factor, and more a substantial reality in their own right. A fact of course that has own dynamics (and possible solutions).
Business classic looks upon the world as if it was a business. We are treated then to endless business gurus telling government wants what, and talking about Britain plc- as a poltical and business democracy were one and the same. Worse that that in this model business of course sees itself as prime share holder, I is after all what finances the whole show. It will there rather naturally assume that it has certain rights in respect to the entire show, and recent their limitation. A fact that political parties, which their constant need for finance can scarcely ever resist.
Likewise business tends to assume that knowledge ought to operate in the same kind of spaces (discreet companies) that business occupies. It ought then to be about generating finance (and ought to be financed as if it were a business). Moreover there is a tendency for business to assume that all learning ought to conform to the laws of copy write. Knowledge is then thought to open up on endless new business opportunities and be judged accordingly.
Each of these three states have very much their own laws and rules, and yet each to others, need to others. More than that they endlessly look to recruit one or other of the other democracies, in their efforts o comprehend the third state. Political democracy looks to finance to fund education, while business appeals to copywriter to protect it from free speech…there are then numerous shifting alliances, and shot gun weddings. And yet through all these conjunctions their remains the single, rather uncomfortable truth. These democracies imply operate on their own rhythm, and these rhythms are no simply and straightforward compatible with one another. They will rather create problematic conjunctions, and even spin off organizations – of which the Quango was only the first form or species. New organizations that actually serve to direct and focus the struggle (think here the business and politics around climate change, or the political and conceptual problems linked to large media organizations, ) The rhythm war becomes then a very reach turf war which constantly simmers and ripples through our society. What is more this conflict is clearly at once intensifying and broadening. It is becoming then a domain struggle of our times, and one this series will need to continually return to.
No comments:
Post a Comment