There is an argument to be made about technocracy. The earliest argument was put forward by Plato in his work ‘Against Democracy’ in his book The Republic, in which he argued that ordinary people are unable to make politically competent decisions.
In the book, he suggested three characteristics of a politician.
The first is that they must have the knowledge to know what to do, which means a good knowledge of society, the sciences and technology and the economy, as well as international and political affairs.
The second characteristic is that they must have the technical knowledge to carry out their decisions, which means understanding policies, legislation and their implementation and enforcement. This means a good understanding of the governance structure and of international agreements.
The final is the will to make such decisions. Technocrats cannot be emotional; they must make cold, rational decisions based on data. This means that there will be some decisions made that will be seen as immoral but will be considered effective and beneficial (arbitrarily). Therefore, technocrats require training and education. Their roles must be filled by selection of the most capable. This is in contrast to the democratic system in which the people who are the most popular are voted into office.
The reason that these technocrats are able to make these decisions and think about them rationally and logically instead of emotionally is because they have no fear of being ousted. This differs from the democratic system in which political leaders are forced to make the most popular decision rather than the most effective decision.
I believe this could be the reason for MMP. It allows the people’s voice to be heard but stops decisions made by passion or by mob rule. MMP allows people who are not entirely dependent on the popular vote to cool that passion. I believe the idea of list MPs was to protect minority interests from the majority and to allow actual discussion and debate over what the people want.
The same reasoning also applies to technocracy. The reason that the Prime Minister often relies on the advice of experts who are appointed is that they will provide the best advice possible based on evidence and data and not by mob approval.
However, the issue with this system is that the populace is unable to hold their leaders accountable for their actions.
In an ideal world, the populace would be able to trust their leaders because they make perfect decisions and live by their word. However, recent controversies around Dr Siouxsie Wiles and Jacinda Ardern show that they are not perfect, which therefore necessitates a system to hold them accountable and remove them from power if they abuse it. It’s also possible that our leaders will not make the best decisions. Therefore, the public must be allowed to have a say in the decisions that affect them. Therefore, while democracy is not the perfect system, it’s the best we have.
We have allowed Ardern’s Government to take our freedoms away. While we have been fighting a culture war, the political class has continued to gain more power until it was too late to stop it.
The current political parties in power are all members of the political class, which means they are isolated from the rest of New Zealand. A majority of them are university educated and are therefore more likely to follow the media and academia rather than the layman. Even the ones who chose not to gain a qualification often rely on the advice of policy advisors and analysts who do have that academic background. I should know because I went to university with them. And what I found is that their perception of the world was based on the ideology of wokeness, equality at all costs and a focus on identity rather than on character.
Their university degrees gave them a sense of superiority that they knew more than the uneducated because they had read the books, done the research and written the essays. There are exceptions to this rule of course: Roger Eatwell, Matthew Goodwin, Eric Kaufmann and David Coleman. However, they are the minority and not the entire political class. It is this sense of superiority that has led to the ‘professionalisation of politics’ – by people who believe that in the interests of serving the nation they must become effective at being a politician. Parties are no longer local groups of volunteers who represent specific factions of society and stand for local areas but national organisations of professional, ‘camera-ready’ communicators who try to appeal to as much of the population as possible.
Outside this group are the people who have nothing to do with the political class. These people are outside of the Wellington echo chamber and have real-world experience. They are not beholden to theoretical ideas or concepts but are more practical and pragmatic. They have the ability to compromise and cooperate. They may not agree with each other but they are willing to work together (for now). This is because through life they’ve had to learn to negotiate and cooperate in order to achieve their dreams. Most are employed, self-employed or own a business and have learned from experience rather than from theory.
These are the people who understand the issues. They have experienced the consequences of government policies and decisions. These people have simple needs and feel threatened whenever society becomes complex. They want government decisions to be based on common sense and for policies to be pragmatic and practical: policies that do good rather than feel good. Of course, it should be noted that there are different ideas of what could be called ‘good’. Some believe that the status quo is good enough and should be preserved; others believe that some changes in society could improve it. These are simple changes in society and not too difficult to understand.
This is a perfect reflection of the market. We have big corporations in all sectors and we have small businesses. The corporations have global reach and therefore will focus on the mass market which does not anchor them to a particular community. For advertising businesses, they will try to associate with the biggest trends in the media and social media in order to reach the biggest audience. This means working with celebrities and getting their products promoted by the biggest media companies.
In the digital age this also means using digital platforms to promote their message, including taking advantage of algorithms and collecting data to understand what their target demographic are viewing. This explains why big companies try to follow what celebrities want and the latest trends.
Due to their global view, they are not anchored to a particular community. They communicate with the aggregate population but not a particular community, which means they will not consider the interests of a local community but the interests of the global market.
Small businesses are different. They are rooted in a local community. They connect themselves to their neighbours. They have a regional or local view which means that they are more likely to consider the interests of the local community.
In the same way, we have the professional parties of the political class which attempt to appeal to the masses and therefore campaign on a platform of ambiguous general issues. Their communication strategies will focus on mass media. In contrast, parties outside the political class will emerge from a local community, on a platform of specific issues for that community, and their communication strategies will be focused on their specific area.
It is this fear of complexity that has led to the backlash against the complex ideas which confuse their understanding of normality. Therefore, if complex ideas are placed into the public sphere in lieu of the basic issues of the people, and the government appears to prioritise these complex ideas over basic issues, this will lead to the loss of trust in politicians.
I’m sure I am not alone in thinking that a political class obsessed with exploring complex ideas is a perfect description of our current Parliament.
It is no good now to think in terms of right/left or conservative/liberal. I have heard different meanings of the terms. The best I’ve heard is that conservatives see society has a specific purpose. Everyone has a specific responsibility to improve society, not because they should but because they can and have the freedom to. This comes out of compassion for each other. But with this freedom comes responsibility; for instance, our freedom to form a business has the responsibility to provide the best goods and services.
The mistake that the left make is assuming that the hierarchy is one of privilege and power which has connotations of pleasure. However, this is a mistake. It is more accurate to describe it as a hierarchy of responsibilities.
It is not a privilege for leaders to have to listen to complaints and mediate between different interests, it’s actually hard work. Just as Moses organised the Israelites, with some placed in charge of tens, some in charge of hundreds, some in charge of thousands and some in charge of tens of thousands, society must be organised in the same way.
The standards we set also provide specific rights. The prohibition of murder provides the right to life. The prohibition of theft and stealing provides private property rights. Conservatives see society as a group of people who want to work together, arguably because it is out of a devotion and reverence to God not to humanity. In this, they see stability, which is why they have a healthy fear of the unknown.
In contrast are the liberals, who want to try new ideas and want to improve society. They see problems that need solutions. They also are quite creative and want to try new ideas that might help society. As I mentioned in a previous article, both liberals and conservatives may have different beliefs and ideas but the reason for these viewpoints is out of a concern for the wellbeing of society and with a drive to maintain its growth.
I believe that we will see a shift away from the left/right divide towards a divide between the establishment political class and the ordinary people. We will have working classes, farmers, small business owners. Simple minded people with simple interests versus the complicated and complex. The local minded vs the global minded. The uneducated vs the professional. The patriots vs the globalists. And it will be exciting.
