"It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power." – David Brin (1950- )
Weak moral compass
We must forever be grateful to British MPs for leaving their zippers undone. The revelations about how they boosted their incomes show that many of them find it hard to tell right from wrong. It's no surprise. Politics is a dirty business, bound to attract those who have a weak moral compass. Flies are attracted to dung heaps because the warm smelly environment provides their eggs with an ideal medium to thrive and hatch. In the same way, the political environment is a breeding ground for the ambitions of those who can live with - or who enjoy - the smell.
The revelations of small-scale rapacity, by those who were too stupid to cover up what they were doing or those who miss the point that cheating is not the right way to behave, provide rare insight into the mindset of the people we trust with responsibility for our welfare. The excuses of "everyone was doing it" or "it was within the rules" are significantly more telling than the petty thieving itself.
Game played by the greedy
Politics is a game played by the greedy. Our democratically-elected governments are the successors to the kings and queens of old. There are no two ways about it. These royal families had grabbed more than their fair share of the common wealth of the societies in which they lived and were determined to hold onto their gains by any means. They surrounded themselves with pomp and splendour, and adopted a regal bearing to intimidate the rest of society into accepting their ascendency.
They could not do this alone, so they recruited two groups of people to their cause: acolytes who managed the day-to-day running of their estates and the men whose strength and greed were equal to their own. This second group of people became the aristocrats, and in order to contain the threat they posed, they were brought inside the tent and rewarded with a share of the spoils. Constant dynastic disputes proved that this solution was imperfect.
Revolutions
Political revolutions, from the 18th century onwards, were intended to overthrow this system but, instead, they merely replaced one greedy group with another. The revolutions in France, Russia and China did little to improve the lot of ordinary people. The masses continued to live without the freedom or the means to enjoy life in the way that was open to those who grabbed the reins of power. In France and Russia, it took time for the new ruling group to consolidate its power, while competition between its members descended into a paranoid battle. They acted viciously against their enemies, mostly erstwhile compatriots, in a manner which even out-rivalled the dynastic battles of European monarchies. As ever, ordinary people were caught in the crossfire.
Representative democracy
Two exceptions stand out: the successful rise of representative democracy after the American revolution and the emergence of constitutional monarchies in Europe. These developments have done more than anything else to ameliorate the contest between men who see political success as a method of satisfying their greed for both power and money. However, the framing of the American Constitution explicitly acknowledged that the abuse of power was an inevitability and great efforts were made to incorporate a system of checks and balances to limit the opportunities for abuse. These efforts have failed, showing that democracy – as currently constituted – has some glaring weaknesses which threaten to unravel the progress made.
Democracy – and its handmaiden capitalism – has shown itself to be the high-road to happiness and freedom for a larger part of the population than any other system yet devised. It is therefore essential to improve the political infrastructure so that democracy can work better. It is essential that its control over those in power is improved. James Madison, one of America's Founding Fathers wrote: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." This second obligation has been outrageously circumvented.
Shadow over capitalism
The current financial crisis has a cast a shadow over the capitalist system. But in addressing the failures which have come to light, we must not forget that the magic of capitalism has shared the good life among far more people than any other economic system, (even in China where the power of capitalism is nurtured by a government so far unwilling to embrace democracy) . The strength of capitalism is the way it harnesses the ingenuity of the smartest to create wealth and the fact that it cannot function without universal participation. No-one can be left out of the process. Workers' wages fuel the demand for goods; the demand for goods drives the whole system. The mantra "greed is good" was a back-handed compliment to the importance of the driving force of capitalism. It functions by channelling the self-interest of everyone involved.
Monopoly
Monopoly is the enemy of the proper function of capitalism. But there is a paradox here for monopoly is the ideal situation for a capitalist. It provides a route to unimaginable wealth but, at the same time, it strangles the system.
We are accustomed to the idea that monopolistic capitalists earn excess profits. But other groups enjoy the fruits of monopoly too. Through the 1960s and 70s, trade union members in the nationalised industries captured the monopoly profits earned by these industries. They took these benefits partly in wages, but they also abused their power through working practices that reduced productivity and allowed them to work less hard than employees in industries subject to competition. When there are no owners to collect monopoly profits and spend them on luxurious lifestyles, the profits drain away through Spanish practices that are characteristic of bureaucracies which grow like cancers.
Government organisations are notoriously inefficient. There is no competition to generate improved quality of service or value for money. Their administrations exploit their monopoly position to build empires while their titular political masters make vain (and largely disingenuous) attempts to institute cost savings. Uncontrolled monopolies stifle wealth creation – as proved by the way state monopoly in the Soviet Union strangled the system altogether.
Today it is the banks that have become too big to fail. As a result they are holding us all to ransom: we must hand over money to rescue them or the savings we have left will disappear with them. And there is no effective control on what they can pay their bosses or their employees – or on what they do next. This is a classic example of the exploitation of monopoly.
Stock in trade of politicians
So what is the link with politics? It is because monopoly is the stock in trade of politicians who, when in government, exercise a monopoly on coercion – including financial coercion. There is no escape from the obligation to pay taxes or to obey the law. But politicians also control all types of monopoly, some of which the government runs itself and others which it regulates. Many private monopolies are tolerated within a regulatory regime because, properly regulated, they offer advantages to society.
Because there is a permanent risk that monopolies will be abused, regulation by government on behalf of the population is essential. But in fulfilling this role, politicians are constantly approached by interested parties who want to influence the manner in which regulation is conducted. So at last we see why politics is so attractive to those with a weak moral compass. They are attracted by positions which give them power and which offer opportunities to make loads of money.
Have you ever wondered why wealthy businesses and other interest groups are so keen to provide financial support to political parties? This is why. Have you ever wondered how successful politicians end up far richer than their salaries would allow them to become? This is how. Have you ever wondered why politicians end up being offered attractive sinecures in big companies? This is why.
Accepted corrupt practices
Top politicians differ from the rank-and-file MPs whose money-grabbing antics have recently been exposed. They are more clever at covering their tracks. Even so, in some countries (even some in the European Union), only the flimsiest of excuses are required because people accept corruption as an inevitability. In some other parts of the world, ordinary people are so intimidated by politicians that corruption is blatant. But we should not be misled; corruption exists everywhere. It is just that, in the most democratic countries, its operation is subtle and – usually – invisible.
The map produced by Transparency International shows the spread of corruption. (the darker the colour the more corrupt). click on map to enlarge
Rules are made or operated in such a way that the well-connected pay (proportionately) less tax. The system ensures that the smarter operators always end up at the top of the heap. Tax rules are complicated – they are designed to be difficult to understand because it is easier to hide the loopholes, to throw dust in the air to obscure what is really going on. Again James Madison foresaw the problem: "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood".
Greedy people do not like to be caught raiding the larder. The smart ones never do. So let us be forever grateful to the stupid ones who have been caught with chocolate on their faces. They remind us of an important truth: much bigger raids are made on the cookie jar every day.
The American founding fathers were explicit in identifying the danger. They attempted to head it off. They failed. In opting for a representative democracy where political parties offer a fast track for greedy people to rise to the top, a massive loophole has been left in the system. Instead of providing an automatic system for the limitation of potential abuse, party patronage means that parliamentarians – who should be looking out for the public interest – are dependent on the main potential abusers for their advancement. This is true wherever political parties are predominant.
Better politicians to do a better job
Democracy has been dealt a series of body blows. The failure of the regulatory systems has allowed ordinary people to lose money while those running the financial sector are bailed out, paid off and allowed to get on with their lives. Huge quantities of public money were stolen by private operators employed by the American government after the invasion of Iraq. Blatant changes were made in the laws of Italy which allow top politicians to be protected from prosecution. Many British MPs have been caught fiddling the system.
It is time to design the next great step in creating a fairer world. We need to strengthen the political process to enable better politicians to do a better job. We have come a long way, as shown by the vast numbers of people in China, India and SE Asia who are now released from poverty. It is time to move forward.
Picture credits
Welcome back
The following observations are offered in the genuine spirit of debate.
"They surrounded themselves with pomp and splendour, and adopted a regal bearing to intimidate the rest of society into accepting their ascendency."
I doubt whether there was much intimidation involved. Most people accept that the imperium must be exercised and as long as as it is efficient in the protection of the individual from internal and external threats and does not impinge on the lives of ordinary people I think most people would support it. Ancient English kingship was in any case so hedged in by competing social forces such as the aristocracy, the church, the common law and local customs and freedoms that it was in practice far less oppressive than our present soft fascism. I would very much prefer it.
"This second group of people became the aristocrats"
Politics is the business of obtaining, retaining and exercising power. Whatever you might think of the aristocracy in this country, they acted as a bulwark against the free exercise of power for many centuries. They forced King John to sign Magna Carter and through parliament constantly kept a check on power. They did so for self interested motives, of course, but would that democracy could keep a check on the executive only half as efficiently. We would be both free and prosperous.
"Political revolutions, from the 18th century onwards, were intended to overthrow this system but, instead, they merely replaced one greedy group with another."
This is to misunderstand what politics is about. Politics is about power. Revolutions exist to strengthen power. They always replace a weak king with a strong one. Cromwell for King Charles, Napoleon for Louis XVI, Lenin for Tsar Nicholas etc. Power has a life of its own. When it sees an opportunity to extend its grasp, it always does so. Power always hides behind stated good intentions, but it always lies.
Further remarks later...
Posted by: peter horne | Wednesday, 08 July 2009 at 09:32 PM
Thanks for your welcome. I don't know how frequently I shall be posting, but I do continue to think hard. I look forward to your further comments and am always keen to engage in debate. Here are some further points inspired by your comments.
I agree with much that you say but my interpretation comes from a different angle. I believe that there is a line of improvement that runs from slavery through feudalism to freedom and that progress has been made. There is a role for individuals who wish to exercise power but, in countries which have successfully established either constitutional monarchy or representative democracy, that role has been effectively circumscribed. But the problem remains, that unless the institutions which keep would-be exploiters of power in check are sufficiently robust, the ruthless will regain the upper hand.
I love your description of the current political climate as soft fascism. It calls a spade a spade. It also reminds me that, as well as clipping the wings of political masters, we need to be sure that officials are neither given too much power nor allowed to extend the authority they are given. It is here that the “soft fascism” you identify is nurtured. The present British government seems to love bureaucracy and is taking every opportunity to extend its tentacles.
You rightly point out that, in earlier times, there was a balance between the groups competing for power which acted as a sort of restraint. But it also meant that the powerful were constantly involved in bloody feuds with each other. And little or nothing was done for the majority of the population who remained ground down and excluded from much more than a hand-to-mouth existence.
I am not sure that I agree with your analysis that people “accepted the imperium.” For a long time, I have been trying to put together my thoughts about the idea, instilled in children by their parents, that they should “respect their betters”. I have yet to encapsulate it properly but, in simple terms, I think it is the teaching of a survival strategy similar to teaching children to look both ways before crossing the road. It actually unpacks to: “Don’t be rude to your betters because they’ll have you.” The need for pomp, treason laws and contempt penalties all suggest that effort was and is needed to keep people in their place.
I have described what I think power is in my post Power Structure . Perhaps you are right that revolution occurs when the authorities become weak and an opportunity arises to fill a potential vacuum. However, I believe there was a qualitative shift in power structures because constitutional monarchy and representative democracy moved the goal posts. It marked the beginning of a phase when a much larger part of the population started to enjoy freedom, to be able to choose the pattern of their lives. Once the ball started to roll, groups that were initially excluded were drawn in. At the beginning, no-one would have believed that women and previously despised minorities are now able to participate in this freedom.
I am still not clear in my mind whether it is capitalism which created this change or democracy. Chinese society is offering a better life to a huge part of its population with capitalism but without democracy. Until that phase in world development is played out we shan’t know whether democracy is an indispensible component of a freer life for the many. I would like to think so.
However, as you point out, the lust for power is forever lurking in the shadows, waiting for an opportunity to take over. I think the Bush administration is an example. His cohorts realised that the American Constitution was too strong for them to grab power and hold onto it (although I would not be surprised if of them were sufficiently hubristic to have made plans to do so). Instead, they used their window of opportunity to perpetrate one of the biggest smash-and-grab raids in history, with George W. acting as lookout. You can bet that the bulk of the proceeds of the various asset bubbles landed up in the pockets of those close to the regime, while ordinary people were left with empty piggy banks. These beneficiaries have quietly retired to the shadows to count their loot; while the rest of us are left to repay a massive debt.
Aware of the dangers of power, the framers of the American Constitution remedies which have proved inadequate. Those who wish to exercise power are forced to hide their motives because it is no longer acceptable to openly lust after it. As you so aptly put it when speaking of revolutionaries, they hide behind good intentions. But let us not forget that the power hungry are people, individuals or cabals, and they manipulate their supporters to help them obtain what they want. However, they also are greedy and they are in positions which offer unbounded opportunities to satisfy their greed. The little pigs have been caught red handed and it has caused outrage. If some bigger ones were caught, it might be enough for people to demand a change.
The powerful can be controlled provided that adequate institutional structures exist. I would like to see a wholesale review of the democratic process. We need a radical rethink on the scale of what went into the creation of the American Declaration of Independence and its Constitution.
Posted by: paulus | Friday, 10 July 2009 at 01:35 PM
Further observations.
The following was written before I saw your recent response to my earlier comments and therefore probably makes some similar points. I will continue to offer my thoughts on your original post for the time being and then maybe offer some solutions of my own, time constraints being what they are! (Money to earn, women to chase, beer to drink and so on!)
"the people we trust with responsibility for our welfare"
No-one is responsible for our welfare but us. I would no more trust a politician to look after me than I would a builder to build me a house without benefit of supervision by an architect and a surveyor. It is we who are to blame.
There are far worse scandals in the public sector, involving far more money than here. The real scandal is the failure of MPs to scrutinize legislation and hold the executive to account. Now that is important.
"Two exceptions stand out: the successful rise of representative democracy after the American revolution and the emergence of constitutional monarchies in Europe."
I think the democracy thing is a bit of a red herring. Leaving aside for the moment, whether or not the American or European political systems are democratic in any meaningful way, I think the USA has been successful because it is a constitutional republic. Its democratic elements are bye the bye. Power is held in check by the constitution which is above the political system and above power. This means that ultimately sovereignty lies with the Supreme Court, hardly a democratic institution. This explains why politicians are so keen to get their man or woman in there.Power does not like to be checked and will do anything to clear obstacles from its path.
"Democracy – and its handmaiden capitalism – has shown itself to be the high-road to happiness and freedom for a larger part of the population than any other system yet devised."
First, let me discuss democracy, by which I take it you mean universal suffrage. The latter is a fairly recent development and I believe that the foundations of liberty and prosperity were laid long before its arrival. Those foundations were the Rule of Law, strong property rights, free markets and individual freedom. Democracy is bad for all these things and hence bad for liberty and prosperity. It does not matter who wields the imperium, be it monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, what matters is the strength of the power so wielded. The leader of the largest party in the House of Commons wields more and stronger power than any monarch or aristocracy ever could. Why? Because power is hiding behind a convenient fiction - popular sovereignty - who could argue with that? Power is command but not everyone can command so how can the people be in charge? The governing party is rarely elected by more than a small proportion of the popular vote and yet it believes itself to be expressing the general will. It is not. It is expressing the will to power. Power loves democracy, it feeds on it voraciously, expanding the size and power of the state at every turn, extending its tentacles into every aspect of national life and demolishing all opposition, all in the name of the people.
It is no coincidence that the democratic era has seen the erosion of civil liberties hard won over centuries, the destruction of the aristocracy, the subversion of local government and the church. These social forces all held power in check and now can be got rid of all in the name of the general will. People know quite well that voting changes nothing and that elected officials are no more than window dressing in a system where the real power lies elsewhere, in the civil service, academia, the media and the boards of large companies. That's why they don't vote. If this is democracy, what we need is less, not more.
Final remarks, on capitalism to follow...
Posted by: peter horne | Friday, 10 July 2009 at 04:21 PM
Final observations.
"The current financial crisis has cast a shadow over the capitalist system"
That would be to presuppose that we have a system which can be defined as capitalist. I would argue that we do not. Capitalism is, surely free markets with no state intervention. In my part of the country 70% of GDP is reliant on the state, that's higher than in some East European countries before the fall of the Berlin Wall. That's not capitalism, that's socialism.
I would also contend that we do not have a free market in financial services. It is one of our most regulated industries. In addition, government controls interest rates and has a monopoly on printing money. That's not free markets, that's state capitalism. The system suits power very well. It gets control and reaps immense sums in taxation and when it goes wrong it has someone or something to blame... it was Capitalism and the Wicked Bankers! (that's not to say that some bankers were not greedy and irresponsible.)The government pumps money into the economy and keeps interest rates low to maintain the feel-good factor and get re-elected. An asset bubble results. When the bubble bursts... it's someone else's fault. I think a truly free market would be better and probably much more stable.
I agree with your remarks on monopoly but believe that the best remedy is free markets and the removal of the state from economic activity. State intervention creates unintended consequences, is inefficient and very expensive. What we need is no intervention at all. It is interesting that you should mention China. The Chinese had before them, for many years, the example of Hong Kong from which I'm sure they learnt a great deal. One of my few political heroes was the (completely undemocratic!) architect of Hong Kong's success: Sir John James Cowperthwaite.
See here
http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=020106I
The Chinese regime is a disgusting one of course but I think they are right to resist democracy for the reasons previously stated. What the people there need is the Rule of Law, property rights etc.
What is to be done...?
Apart from going for a large pint of beer this Friday night of course!
Posted by: Peter Horne | Friday, 10 July 2009 at 10:05 PM
Suggestions
The following ideas are not meant to produce some kind of utopia, but to recognize that state solutions to social problems are a terrible idea. They make things worse. My suggestions are meant to restore civil society. In a world of constitutionally guaranteed freedom, minimal taxation and almost no state people will be free to find their own solutions. It is not so long ago that this country supported a vast network of local hospitals and schools, mutual societies, provident societies, credit unions, charitable institutions etc. all paid for and organized by the people themselves. We need to free the people.
I have argued that tyranny is tyranny no matter how it is organized and that democracy as presently practised is conducive of a very modern form of fascism. That is, a fascism shorn of its more unpleasant aspects such as deliberately killing people who belong to socially disapproved groups rather than just allowing them to die as a result of the incompetence and neglect of the state apparatus. What is the natural result of this process and what will the long term effect be, if nothing is done?
"Where will it end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone-that of the state.In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the state.In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master-the state. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the state, and in the denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the state. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie between man and man, whose only bond is now their common bondage to the state. The extremes of individualism and socialism meet: that was there , predestined course." De Jouvenel - "On Power:The Natural History of its Growth"
In other words Orwell's boot stamping on a human face forever, though these days it is as likely to be a pair of high heels!
So what can we do...?
The following suggestions are an attempt to take advantage of the best parts of all three possible systems (ie monarchy, aristocracy and democracy). Constitutional Monarchy as a bulwark against the capture of the imperium by the political class, Aristocracy as a further curb on the executive and democracy where it actually works (locally) and where people can see that their votes and participation actually counts for something.
Firstly remove the state from every aspect of national life except the administration of justice and defence.
Secondly restore all our ancient rights, habeas corpus, trial by your peers,etc. Removal of all offences of strict liability.
Thirdly, adoption of a written constitution guaranteeing this position.
Four, appointment of a sovereign whose sole job is to safeguard the constitution and who is answerable to the law if he/she signs legislation which contravenes its terms. This office should be hereditary with a possible proviso that the sovereign could name a successor. It is very important that the position is not held by a politician.
Five,restoration of the House of Lords to its previous position. This helps to ameliorate the problems of party faction and and the growth of power.
Six, reduce the House of Commons to half its present size, after all, they're not going to have much to do!
Lastly, restoration of local democracy. Democracy only works on a local level. It is much easier to choose a councillor, whom you may well know personally than an MP. Councils would have to raise all their money locally. There would be nothing from the state. Initially they would be responsible only for street lighting, roads and the police and fire services. Any other services would have to be voted on and paid for by local people. This all would have a number of advantages. It would concentrate the minds of electors and officials wonderfully, no more free rides. Political factions would be weakened as in local elections people are much more likely to vote for the person rather than the party. Competition would then take place between different local authorities
to attract residents and to provide the most efficient and effective services. In addition the chief constable and chief fire officer would be directly elected.
All public officials whether elected or otherwise would be personally responsible for their actions with severe penalties for corruption or exceeding their legal powers. Similarly, in the private sector, limited liability would be abolished with all company directors personally responsible for the activities
of the corporation. No more power without responsibility. There would of course be severe penalties for all forms of fraud or deception.
Maybe it would work. I think it would.
Posted by: peter horne | Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 10:08 PM