2 kinds of anti-politics: mass movements and technocracy

[lpetrich]

Anti-politics and the 1% : Democratic Audit UK

Representative democracy has come under attack from different directions during the global financial crisis of 2008 and beyond. In assessing these critiques, Matteo Mameli and Lorenzo del Savio argue that he existence and strength of the two strongest kinds of attack show that the current dominant kind of electoral-representative structures have become irremediably obsolete.

I'm not convinced of that, because of the lack of clearly better alternatives.

#1:

The electoral-representative institutions of contemporary democracies are arguably little more than instruments in the hands of corporations and of the super-rich, both of whom control electoral-representative structures through lobbying, the financing of electoral campaigns, the “revolving doors” between politics and business, etc. By means of these mechanisms, the richest 1% can constrain and direct the action of democratically elected politicians, and thereby determine the economic policies that affect (often negatively) the remaining 99%. In the last 35 years, these policies have produced more efficient and subtle ways for the super-rich to extract resources from the planet and from the rest of the population.

This has inspired Occupy Wall Street and many similar movements and political parties. Their alternative is mass movements with very loose leadership.

#2:

This is the call for depoliticization that finds its rationale in the wish to increase the efficiency of decision-making in contemporary democracies. According to this view, many decisions currently taken by elected bodies should instead be taken by independent and unbiased experts, or by strong executives with the advice of experts.

In short, technocracy.

Advocates of it often want to restrict the powers of parliaments, suppress disagreements and silence vocal minorities, etc. Such advocates sometimes envy China and similar countries with their seeming success in politics-free decision-making.

A telling instance of this form of anti-politics is a report released in 2013 by JP Morgan – the global financial giant – on the Euro crisis and the need to reform the institutional arrangements of the so-called “peripheral” countries in the European Union. According to this report, one problem is the “anti-fascist constitutions” of these countries. Such constitutions are said to be problematic because they protect labour rights and the right to protest, and because they result in weak executives and in “consensus building systems which foster political clientalism.”

Constitutions that feature strong parliaments and local councils, bodies that make decisions that JP Morgan often dislikes, like lots of the "wrong" kind of government spending.

This example indicates that efficiency-driven anti-politics is often a call for restricting or weakening the democratic oversight on policy-making in order to give more power to the markets and ultimately to corporations and financial firms. Experts – especially economic experts – are never really independent or unbiased. Efficiency driven anti-politics is a weapon in the hands of those who aim to establish an oligarchy-controlled technocracy.

The authors argue that, between those two lines of attack, representative democracy is doomed, and that we will face a fight between mass movements and oligarchy-enabling technocrats.

 

[Deepak]

I'm not really sure how a technocracy really solves the issue through. Any current technocratic posts seem to be largely filled by way of the revolving door.

Do we need a meta-technocracy, and how exactly would such a thing work? Apart from causing the Rs to shit themselves with rage, either a system where such individuals are appointed or elected is fraught with the same weaknesses of the current system.

I think, instead, that a change to the structure of the FPTP electoral process will both be tractable and have more tangible effects.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Anti-politics and the 1% : Democratic Audit UK

I'm not convinced of that, because of the lack of clearly better alternatives.

#1:

The electoral-representative institutions of contemporary democracies are arguably little more than instruments in the hands of corporations and of the super-rich, both of whom control electoral-representative structures through lobbying, the financing of electoral campaigns, the “revolving doors” between politics and business, etc. By means of these mechanisms, the richest 1% can constrain and direct the action of democratically elected politicians, and thereby determine the economic policies that affect (often negatively) the remaining 99%. In the last 35 years, these policies have produced more efficient and subtle ways for the super-rich to extract resources from the planet and from the rest of the population.

This has inspired Occupy Wall Street and many similar movements and political parties. Their alternative is mass movements with very loose leadership.

#2:

This is the call for depoliticization that finds its rationale in the wish to increase the efficiency of decision-making in contemporary democracies. According to this view, many decisions currently taken by elected bodies should instead be taken by independent and unbiased experts, or by strong executives with the advice of experts.

In short, technocracy.

Advocates of it often want to restrict the powers of parliaments, suppress disagreements and silence vocal minorities, etc. Such advocates sometimes envy China and similar countries with their seeming success in politics-free decision-making.

A telling instance of this form of anti-politics is a report released in 2013 by JP Morgan – the global financial giant – on the Euro crisis and the need to reform the institutional arrangements of the so-called “peripheral” countries in the European Union. According to this report, one problem is the “anti-fascist constitutions” of these countries. Such constitutions are said to be problematic because they protect labour rights and the right to protest, and because they result in weak executives and in “consensus building systems which foster political clientalism.”

Constitutions that feature strong parliaments and local councils, bodies that make decisions that JP Morgan often dislikes, like lots of the "wrong" kind of government spending.

This example indicates that efficiency-driven anti-politics is often a call for restricting or weakening the democratic oversight on policy-making in order to give more power to the markets and ultimately to corporations and financial firms. Experts – especially economic experts – are never really independent or unbiased. Efficiency driven anti-politics is a weapon in the hands of those who aim to establish an oligarchy-controlled technocracy.

The authors argue that, between those two lines of attack, representative democracy is doomed, and that we will face a fight between mass movements and oligarchy-enabling technocrats.

Fairly good points, but I would add that a technocracy is doomed to the same kinds of problems if the 1% strategically position their experts into decision-making positions. This has become a standard practice in, for example, the selection of school administrators: the local school board in my town has become dependent on "research companies" to find principals and super-intendents, SO dependent in fact that they deliberately exclude members of the community who are qualified for the position (a year ago they had the research company submit a field of applicants and explicitly barred the assistant SA -- who had had the position for almost seven years and had acted in that capacity when the SA went on vacation for three months).

I'm convinced that the only way democracy can truly work is by random ballot, not unlike jury duty. You get a letter in the mail one day informing you that you have been selected to represent your district in the United States House of Representatives for a term of one year, the Federal government is going to match and double your existing salary and all your travel expenses will be paid. If you wish to decline, you may nominate another member of your community to act in your place (provided this person has not served within the last three years).

Watch the lobbyists' collective heads spin as they scramble to figure out what your special interests are in order to most effectively bribe you.

 

[Jayjay]

I'm convinced that the only way democracy can truly work is by random ballot, not unlike jury duty. You get a letter in the mail one day informing you that you have been selected to represent your district in the United States House of Representatives for a term of one year, the Federal government is going to match and double your existing salary and all your travel expenses will be paid. If you wish to decline, you may nominate another member of your community to act in your place (provided this person has not served within the last three years).

Watch the lobbyists' collective heads spin as they scramble to figure out what your special interests are in order to most effectively bribe you.

Most people can be persuaded with money, and the median income in US is about $25,000 a year so the lobbyists would likely be able to buy their votes much cheaper.

 

[lpetrich]

I think, instead, that a change to the structure of the FPTP electoral process will both be tractable and have more tangible effects.

I agree. Proportional representation or something similar, like the Single Transferable Vote, would be good. It makes legislative bodies better reflect the will of the electorate than FPTP, by setting the bar lower for additional parties.

(my OP snipped for brevity)

Fairly good points, but I would add that a technocracy is doomed to the same kinds of problems if the 1% strategically position their experts into decision-making positions.

Complete with making it seem like they are the only ones that can possibly have any competence.

I'm convinced that the only way democracy can truly work is by random ballot, not unlike jury duty. ...

I'm not sure how well that would work.

Watch the lobbyists' collective heads spin as they scramble to figure out what your special interests are in order to most effectively bribe you.

Most people can be persuaded with money, and the median income in US is about $25,000 a year so the lobbyists would likely be able to buy their votes much cheaper.

On the plus side, one will not need to raise lots and lots and lots of money so one can have a career in politics, so that bit of vulnerability will be gone.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm convinced that the only way democracy can truly work is by random ballot, not unlike jury duty. You get a letter in the mail one day informing you that you have been selected to represent your district in the United States House of Representatives for a term of one year, the Federal government is going to match and double your existing salary and all your travel expenses will be paid. If you wish to decline, you may nominate another member of your community to act in your place (provided this person has not served within the last three years).

Watch the lobbyists' collective heads spin as they scramble to figure out what your special interests are in order to most effectively bribe you.

Most people can be persuaded with money, and the median income in US is about $25,000 a year so the lobbyists would likely be able to buy their votes much cheaper.

I don't see how, if they are unable to insert their bribes into a convenient envelope labeled "campaign contributions." If there are no campaigns, there's no need for contributions. Outright bribery could at least be prosecuted as a crime, and the randomness of the ballot (not to mention the very limited terms) would mean more people would support banning bribery than legalizing it.

OTOH, lobbyists would find it very useful to contribute money to causes championed by this year's candidate. If the randomly-selected representative from the 17th district is a member of the ASPCA, for example, a defense lobbyist might offer to donate fifty million dollars to the ASPCA in exchange for a "yes" vote on the new defense budget (you know, the one that includes an extra 2.5 billion for that joint strike fighter the Lobbyists' client manufactures that doesn't actually do anything it's supposed to do).

I imagine there'd still be a lot of one-percenter meddling, it's just that the effects would be a lot more evenly distributed.