Source: ANP
On average, we are doing much better than our peers four or five generations ago. Still, something strange is going on. The Second World War is now 75 years behind us. Thanks to extensive reconstruction programmes and great efforts, a time of unprecedented prosperity and optimism broke out. This optimism has vanished, and that is not only because of the recent COVID-19 outbreak. It seems that our young adults now, compared to the generation just after the war, on average have less chance of a good job, need multiple incomes to keep things running at home and are less able to afford a home of their own. Perhaps needs have changed, and the desire for self-development has increased. Still, it remains to be seen whether this has increased their socio-economic independence and prospects for a better future.
Despite all efforts, only a small 6% of the world's population has the privilege of living in a democracy where happiness is commonplace for large groups of people and where human rights are respected. For the remaining more than 94 per cent of the world's population, to a lesser or greater extent, this is not the case. Happiness is not a given, and respect for human rights is far from self-evident. What influences play a role, and to what should we pay attention? What factors limit our freedom and give others the right to put their privileges first? I have tried to create some overview and list seven political pests.
1. PLAYING GOD
In my opinion, there are no world religions that have aggression or oppression as their guiding principle. Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny that their interpretations, rituals, customs and habits are strongly focused on directing human behaviour. Historically this is very reasonable: deviations from the norm of behaviour are undesirable. The more consistent the behaviour, the more homogeneous, more robust and more successful the group was able to hold its own. Religious groups derive their identity, each in their way, from a belief in a transcendent, moral and omnipotent authority (let's call it 'God'), which brings structure, order and unity to a world that is difficult to fathom. Religions shed light on issues of the past, present and future. In doing so, they used anecdotal insights that often reflected their own time and circumstances and were and are not necessarily mutually compatible. For a good understanding of the interrelations between these different insights, the mouthpieces of God on earth (let us call them 'clergymen') increasingly played an essential role. Usually, they do (and have done) this in the right tone and with nuance. Religions through time have given a vital and necessary interpretation of the uncertain and unfathomable existence on earth.
Because of the transcendental nature of religion, however, it is also vulnerable to abuse. After all, God cannot defend Himself. Where faith presents itself as the absolute and only truth, this danger increases exponentially. It places a heavy ethical burden on the clergy. The power it provides carries great responsibility. History is clear: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Clerics are not exempt from this 'law of nature'. Under the special intermediate relationship between them and God, there is little or no control over the way clergy deal with the will and insights of that God. Unfortunately, at times this does not go well, and there are numerous examples of clergymen who have severely betrayed the trust placed in them. Whether seeking power, influence, prestige, pleasure, wealth, or authority, they behave blasphemously when declaring themselves, occasionally even with demonic possession, the mouthpiece of their God while selectively shopping from the scriptures on which their presumed authority is founded. All faiths have their share of clergymen who are guilty of this to a greater or lesser degree. It is of all times and in its worst forms have led to the Inquisition, 'Troubles' in Ireland, Islamic State, sexual abuse or genital mutilation, to name a few diverse examples.
Intolerance towards other faiths or directions within them, unfortunately, remains a recurring source of misery in our time as well. The tensions in India between Hindus and Muslims are an example of this. The continuing friction between Sunnis and Shia also holds not only the entire Middle East in its grip, but - thanks to the geopolitical importance of the region (read oil) - the whole world politically as well.
More subtle, but still intense, is the influence of the religious right, especially in the United States. They propagate a conservative Christian agenda around themes such as LBGT, euthanasia, birth control, abortion and the role of the government (low taxes) and are very present politically. This group makes up 26% of the total American electorate, and 81% of them voted for Donald Trump. A man who could hardly be called the figurehead of Christian values. The 'faith' of the religious right is a banner for the preservation of white privileges. The current COVID-19 crisis shows how hypocritical this movement is, as it turns out that their politics hit the poor, blacks, and other minorities the hardest, promotes income inequality and maintains an inherently unjust society.
2. IDENTITY POLITICS
One of human's essential characteristics is its identity; it determines to a large extent who and what he or she is. It goes far beyond the data in your passport and includes, for example, personal, genetic, social, cultural or national identity. Viewed in this way, a person possesses multiple characters. A person can be a woman, New Yorker, black, lesbian, Muslim, liberal and British at the same time. The degree of awareness of the different aspects of a person's identity differs from person to person. It can also, to a large extent, be nourished by the (perceived) reaction of others to those individual aspects (such as skin colour, orientation, religion) and related generalizations about them. If the bearer of these different identities identifies exclusively with one or a few of them, things can become more complicated, especially when done in a group context. Legitimate feelings of anger, fear and powerlessness can degenerate into antagonisms. The legitimacy of their position is not in question within the group itself (for example, it stems from slavery, abuse, oppression or deprivation). Still, it is often not readily understood as such by the rest of society, and (re)actions perceived as disproportionate. As a result, dialogues stall and the constellations harden into supporters and opponents, into victims and perpetrators. The Dutch Blackpeter discussion is a good example of this. In the most extreme variant, not infrequently fed by national populist movements, the position reverses. Immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, etc. are declared scapegoats for certain situations without any verifiable evidence, but often with enormous simplifications and the greatest possible forcefulness. The last World War and the Holocaust are a testament to what that may lead to, but the last decades show that this lesson is still hard-learned. The we-against-them movements poisons societies, creates distance, dehumanizes, drives wedges, feeds mistrust and undermines democracy. At its worst it also kills people. The United States has become a sad example of this. The constitutional right to bear arms is too often used unconstitutionally by white citizens to take the lives of black fellow citizens, without being prosecuted for doing so. Identity politics undermines our legal order by going against the principle that everyone is equal under the constitution and before the law.
3. AUTOCRATS
Democracy is a threatening concept to some leaders. Also, we should acknowledge that some countries don't have a democratic tradition or understand the phenomenon of freedom. Strong leadership without any hassle, often is the norm in those countries. Nationalist rhetoric and references to a great and compelling past are the standard overtures for politicians who want to be in control, but have little patience for transparency, accountability and facts. These politicians employ an army of opportunistic followers who - with a right eye for possible favours and their prestige - facilitate and provide cover for these leaders. Once elected and after exploring all limits and possibilities, critical voices are stifled with the support of the carefully positioned followers, and (if the people fall for it) the constitution is amended. Autocratic powers and ultra-long terms in office should enable maintaining strong leadership for the nation, and ... continuance to unpunished plundering and filling of pockets for as long as possible. The list below of the most wealthy incumbent heads of government gives an impression of how lucrative this can be:
The typology of the type of democracy or regime in the overview above comes from the most recent Democracy Index 2019 of The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The figures behind it reflect the score on the index (10 = very democratic, 0 = very authoritarian). Currently, 35.6% of the world's population lives in countries with authoritarian rule. In these countries, citizen's freedoms and organization of the government are entirely subordinated to the power (and purses) of the incumbent autocrat and his clique henchmen. Only 5.7% of the world's population lives in 22 countries regarded as full democracies. In 2008 this was still 14.4% of the world population in 30 countries. The election of Donald Trump as President in 2016 did not help. Trump is a political transgender: born an autocrat in a democratic straitjacket that is too tight for him. Electing Trump (which, according to The Economist, was not so much the cause of the crumbling of confidence in politics, but rather the result of it), was the drop in the bucket in relegating the US from a position as a 'full democracy' to a 'flawed economy' one. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Greece have followed the same path.
4. SHORTERMISM
After the Enron-affair and other similar scandals, the short-term thinking of many multinationals and other listed entities has been blamed on them by governments, parliaments and the media, not to mention citizens. Parliaments staged complete investigations to make clear to the whole world that 'we' are not only very sad about this short-term thinking, but even extremely angry! Entire Corporate Governance codes were written to suppress this abhorrent and one-sidedly share-value-focused thinking.
The fact is that many governments, media groups, newspapers and parliamentarians operate in the exactly the same way. Replace share value with opinion polls, seats, scoops, print runs, audience ratings, or scoring for the interrupting microphone, and you have caught the same pattern. Politicians and journalists are generally no better or worse people than those in business; the same impulses control their reactions. Drives such as power, influence, and ego are not of a morally or ethically higher value than salary, bonus, or dividend.
What politician or journalist can state without blushing that they have never played outrage in the public eye? Has never cherry-picked the facts when presenting an argument? Always investigated all available facts when making his point? Or ever did apologize for mistakes and misinterpretations? They can only do their job by presenting their audience with bite-sized chunks: nuance is annoying ('takes too much time to explain, we don't have enough words or time for it') and black-and-white thinking creates clarity ('otherwise people don't understand').
Only governments are held to account for their mistakes. Parliamentarians and journalists seldom experience this, if all, and they do not sufficiently realize what the consequences are. It removes barriers to sowing suspicion and for chasing effect. Journalists, in particular, find it difficult to hold each other to account for this behaviour, let alone to take the measure publicly. Self-reflection is an art. The internet and the rise of social media have reinforced all this, and there is no longer any punishment for blatant mud throwing and threatening. Opinions became facts, and respectable media thrashed in the corner of 'fake news'.
The result is that not necessarily the administratively correct or most desirable is done, but the best defensible and least risky in the short term. Consequently, the positive general long-term perspective subordinates to the prevention of specific adverse effects in the short run. Likewise, the interests of civilians get subordinated to the short term and the relatively risk-free success of individual members of parliament, parties or journalists. Often, this has little to do with honestly and effectively keeping a check on power; however, it is crippling for the functioning of, and confidence in, parliamentary democracy all the same.
5. LOBBYING
Lobbying is the organized and external exercise of influence on policymakers in administrative bodies to achieve a favourable outcome for their clients in public opinion or the legislative process. It often eludes the public eye and avoids existing democratic procedures to present a point of view, vision or proposal to the legislature. In the United States alone, more than $3.5 billion has been spent on registered lobbyists to influence political decision-makers since early 2019. Public record shows that in the 2019-2020 parliamentary term, the top 10 highest earning politicians together have pocketed more than $3.1 million alone (two-thirds of which are Republicans) on top of their official remuneration as representative. In the 2017-2018 parliamentary term, this was more than $4.6 million (of which almost 85% went to Democrats). This is a widespread and accepted custom in the US. Because of the influence companies buy, the interests of citizens come second to the re-election and wallet of politicians they elected to Congress. The sector that relies most heavily on lobbyists is the health sector (with $160.6 million paid to lobbyists since early 2019), where it is certain that the interests of the least-earning Americans are not paramount.
This part is visible; however, much remains shielded from the public eye. The National Rifle Organisation (NRA, the organization that promotes the interests of gun owners) hardly figures in the OpenSecrets.org overviews (from which I derive these figures), which suggests that there are gaps in the registration or that money flows do not only pass through lobbyists. Advertisements and campaign contributions, for example, are other ways to influence policymakers. Nor is visible how (anonymous) 'sponsors', position candidates for representative bodies (federal and individual states) and positions (judges, presidents, governors, etc.) with what agenda. This positioning is not idealism: the quid pro quo is loyalty to the interests of the sponsors. That the US is not unique in this is shown by the list of wealthy autocratic government leaders above. In the EU, too, the influence of lobbyists is abundant. The automobile and tobacco lobby, for example, are very successful in influencing potentially harmful decisions for them. The large-scale impact of corporations and wealthy sponsors on the political debate and the balance of power therein is a severe undermining of the primacy of the voter in our democratic process. As soon as money and not ideas determine the outcome of the political debate, democracy is in jeopardy.
6. FLAWED INSTITUTIONS
Within and outside our national political systems, 'institutions' have been set up that are necessary to maintain and safeguard the stability and continuity of our mutual relations. Examples include a Constitution or the United Nations. In the first case, it provides the foundation upon which a nation-state operates, proclaims its values and indicates what kind of governance it advocates; sometimes it also provides the basis for and a framework against which the laws of a country can be (or can be) tested. In the second case, it is a supranational institution that functions as a 'lubricant' in relations between states, to jointly settle or deal with matters that go beyond the jurisdiction or possibilities of individual states. Examples include conflict resolution between countries or within regions or the cross-border promotion and assessment of human rights situations.
The operating rules of the institutions, a reminder of the always complex process of getting everyone to agree, are often not perfect and, to safeguard the status quo achieved, are figuratively cast in concrete. After some time, this starts to wriggle; circumstances change, insights and needs change. Examples include the increasing untenability of various amendments to the US Constitution; the unanimity clause in the EU Treaty or the crippling influence and right of veto of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. It often results in locking things up and making the functioning of these institutions increasingly problematic. This inability to function optimally and adjust to the demands of our time, creates tensions, mistrust, impotence and accidents. The institute gets trapped in its ineptitude, does not function as it should, becomes vulnerable, loses its credibility and usefulness. The institutions were all established with a clear objective. That objective has not changed, but the world, its interaction and relationships have. Our inability to deal with this politically and failure to step outside our bubbles poses enormous risks that are in no one's interest. Failed institutions are like ticking time bombs. You feel the danger, but you don't know when, by what causes and with what force they will go off. The consequences for peace and security can be enormous with civilians as unintended victims of political cockerel behaviour and overdue maintenance.
7. NATURAL DISASTERS
This category occupies an exceptional place within the collection of 'human-made disasters'. Although politicians individually are not directly to blame for the occurrence of natural disasters such as climate change and the current Corona pandemic, it is clear that they are the first to be responsible for responding adequately to them. It is a political litmus test. We typically see three different types of reaction patterns:
denial for as long as possible, economic interests take precedence;
act as quickly as possible; economy is secondary;
recognizing the problem, adapting behaviour and economics to the problem.
A signboard for the first reaction is the President of the United States. The facts are known. According to authoritative epidemiologists, his denial of the seriousness of COVID-19 ('business as usual, it's just the flu') has caused may additional deaths. Furthermore, his hesitation has paradoxically also resulted in the economy encountering much harder hits than it would be the case, had the federal government intervened in time. The short-term reflex often has uncomfortable long-term consequences. The initial reaction of the Dutch government to exploration induced earthquakes in Groningen, also falls into this category.
An example of the second reaction is the one in New Zealand, where the government made a relatively quick, very competent and empathic response to the arrival of COVID-19. The result is that only 21 people died; the crisis was manageable and now seems to be under control. Despite the lockdown, the economic consequences seem to be controllable as a result of the adequate and timely measures, partly thanks to safety nets put in place for the most vulnerable.
South Korea and Taiwan seem to be examples of the third way of reaction. Personal freedoms are subordinate to the solution. The economy kept on going, people actively monitored, and hotbeds quickly identified and fought. Current forecasts suggest that economies in both countries be much less affected than in the other states affected by COVID-19.
It seems that the second way of reaction is the most desirable, but the assessment depends on the culture of the country concerned. A crisis separates the political chaff from the wheat. That may be the only good news from such a situation. Leaders of transparant and mature democracies are open to evaluating their functioning in the crisis and are willing to learn from their mistakes. It is not primarily a question of whose fault it is; it is a question of whether, in time, in what way and with what intention, you have taken responsibility for tackling and driving out the crisis. That is the litmus test for leadership, and it is clear that there are leaders who - because of the ruthless willfulness of Mother Nature and their abhorrent inabilities and ego - will fall hard. We cannot wait!
In conclusion
Political leadership is there to protect citizens and hard-fought democracy. But citizens themselves have a role to play in this as well. Let us stop trusting and putting our future in the hands of hypocrites, opportunists, false prophets, autocrats, short-term thinkers, lobbyists, conservative dogmatics or populists. Our democracy is too precious for that and the price of mistakes too costly. Every time we are allowed to vote in elections and exercise our democratic right, we also have a solemn duty to safeguard that right for future generations by making responsible choices.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) and edited with Grammarly