"We shall make the basis of our state consent to disagree. Therein shall we ensure its deepest harmony." - Harold Laski
Everywhere we turn today, we observe an electorate that is indignant, disaffected, disappointed, disconnected and disengaged from the political process. Two weeks ago, in the Jamaican general elections, there was a record low turnout of voters (47.7 percent) who seemed to be disinterested in the process.
In that election, the Jamaica Labour Party won by a single seat over the previously ruling People's National Party (32 to 31 seats, respectively). The differential between the two major political parties was just 4,106 votes out of 868,812 votes cast between the two parties.
Recently in Ireland, we also observed a very close general election the official results of which, on election night, could best be described as inconclusive. In the United States, the race for the White House has descended to new depths in terms of the vitriolic venom that has been volleyed between the Republican and Democratic candidates.
Given the incessantly shifting sands surrounding the unpredictable global political topography, we would like to Consider this ... will the new normal for general election contests be characterized by compromise or confrontational brute force, otherwise referred to as dictatorship?
In defense of politics
In his book, "In Defense of Politics", Bernard Crick observed that, "Politics is a way of ruling divided societies without undue violence." By its very nature, politics engenders the art of the possible - an art which simultaneously recognizes the existence of divergent or disparate ideas, groups, interests and opinions. It represents an attempt to balance or compromise those divergent ideas, groups, interests and opinions.
The political model assumes compliance to generally accepted rules of engagement, normally enshrined in a national constitution or in established conventions, the objective of which is to achieve compromise in a manner that the majority of the citizens consider to be legitimate.
The advantage of politics is that this option encourages continuous dialogue, a sort of endless conversation in which we embrace disparate ideas from varying perspectives in an attempt to balance differing views against our own.
The downside is that politics can sometimes be a messy and confining activity, where issues are not fully settled. Often things become muddled, and participants have to recognize restraints where competing parties must settle for less than they want and participants are frequently disappointed.
Anti-politics: The authoritarian alternative
The antithesis of politics is authoritarian or tyrannical rule, anti-politics for short. The proponents of this approach attempt to govern by fiat or totalitarian dictates that result in thrashing everyone in the way.
Supporters of anti-politics discard the legitimacy of other interests or opinions, reject restraints, attempt to achieve total victories for themselves and their doctrines, suffer from a form of political narcissism and ultimately do not recognize the views of others.
Recently, we have witnessed the accelerated ascendency of anti-politics. Those who support anti-politics often desire to elect "outsiders" with little experience who delegitimize compromise and deal-making, invariably trampling the customs, conventions and rules that give legitimacy to legislative decision-making. The proponents of anti-politics seek to achieve their attempts to gain power by any means necessary. They prefer power-grabbing rather than power-sharing.
Anti-politics and democracy
The anti-politics disposition contributes to a devastatingly downward spiraling effect, depreciating and disparaging democracy.
Supporters of anti-politics prefer to elect legislators with little or no political skills or experience which often leads to dysfunctional government, ultimately resulting in greater disdain or disgust with government which consequently leads to greater demand for outsiders.
Persons who support anti-politics reject the idea that politics is a limited activity, and often make unachievable promises and heighten unrealistic expectations. When those expectations are unfulfilled, voters become cynical, disgusted, disappointed and disconnected from politics, consequently embracing anti-politics even more adamantly.
Because the proponents of anti-politics refuse to compromise, legislative gridlock increases, resulting in political stagnation and an erosion of the public trust which further reduces the ability to compromise or build consensus.
Striking examples
Three striking examples that accentuate the ascendancy of anti-politics and the tyranny of the minority are:
1) The Tea Party
The rise of the Tea Party in the United States clearly demonstrates the debilitating the effects of anti-politics. The Tea Party is a political movement known for its ultraconservative positions which has become the mantra of the Republican Party.
The Tea Party focuses on a significant reduction in the size and scope of the government and advocates a national economy operating without government oversight. For example, its members have protested the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) stimulus programs, health care reform, including "Obamacare", and amnesty for illegal immigrants. They have also supported tighter border security legislation.
Because of these intransigent, ultraconservative positions of the Republicans, the United States Congress has experienced a degree of gridlock that has not been seen in recent history.
2) The United States Supreme Court nomination
Congressmen who have adopted an anti-politics attitude have maintained that they will not even consider the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia, in defiance of the American Constitution. Because of this intransigence, reasonable conversation has completely broken down.
3) Donald Trump
The spectacularly meteoric rise of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate is often described as that of an unconventional candidate who represents a break from politics as usual. However, he can more accurately be described as a Washington outsider who is the personification of anti-politics and whose approach to politics is characterized by vitriolic and venomous character assassination which prevents consensus-building, considered conversation of national issues.
A New York Times columnist recently observed that Trump is "the culmination of the trends we have been seeing in the last 30 years: the desire for outsiders; the bashing style of rhetoric that makes conversation impossible; the decline of coherent political parties; the declining importance of policy; the tendency to fight cultural battles and identity wars through political means. Trump's style is bashing and pummeling. Everyone who opposes or disagrees with him is an idiot, a moron, a loser."
Conclusion
In the current environment, politics is in retreat and anti-politics is on the ascendency. The solution to this rising phenomenon is to embrace our disparate and opposing viewpoints and seek workable, consensus-driven solutions to national issues.
It is time for us to reassess how we constructively interact with each other in the political arena. The concept of the nobility to consent to disagree is not new. The idea of political tolerance is encapsulated in the observation that is misattributed to the French political philosopher Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
If we are going to strengthen and sustain our democracy and find achievable, practical, desirable outcomes, we would be well-advised to remember the admonition of Harold Laski: "We shall make the basis of our state consent to disagreement. Therein shall we ensure its deepest harmony."
More importantly, if we are to discourage the disaffection, disengagement and disinterest amongst our Bahamian electorate that has manifested itself in Jamaican and Irish elections so far, we must foster the concept that the growth of our nation can be best shaped from the results that will emerge from this "consent to disagreement". Otherwise, we will be looking, at the very least, at a stagnant, stalemated state.
At the worst, we could find ourselves once again governed by the kind of authoritarian, tyrannical power-grabbing individuals from whom we thought we had freed ourselves almost a half-century ago.
o Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis and Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
