Is sustainable forestry a fantasy?
Addressing racism’s toxicity

We the people

Future-governmentCHRIS OVERLAND

ADELAIDE - In referencing the great unwashed, Phil Fitzpatrick has set me thinking about democracy and its origins.

Many readers will know that the concept of democracy arose in ancient Greece, notably in the city state of Athens. The word democracy is derived from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule).

Democracy was established in Athens in 507 BCE. However, it was not democracy as we know it. Only adult males could participate in political debate or hold office. Women and slaves were excluded.

Importantly, Athenian citizens were deemed to be equal before the law and this principle is, in fact, far more important in modern democracies than the mere act of voting, although that is important too.

Athenian democracy lasted, nominally at least, for about 170 years. It was designed to be a means by which class related tensions within Athenian society could be managed without open conflict. For a while, it worked. Athens rose to become a great power of its era.

However, Athenian democracy slowly degraded into rule by a self appointed political elite. They managed to make an awful hash of governing Athens and, ultimately, through a combination of hubris and sheer incompetence, brought about its destruction by the powerful Persian Empire in 338 BCE.

The collapse of Athens and the other Greek city states saw the effective end of democracy as a viable political concept for nearly 2,000 thousand years. In fact, the whole notion of rule by the people was regarded with undisguised derision and contempt by the succession of emperors, kings, chiefs and other petty tyrants who ruled over most of humanity until comparatively recent times.

In those times, Phil’s reference to the great unwashed would have been regarded as an accurate description of the demos. The ruling elites regarded the huge bulk of the population as nothing more than instruments born to serve their needs and treated them accordingly.

To be born into the great unwashed was to be condemned to life as a serf or a slave. In either case your task was to be a part of a huge servant class that attended to the needs and wants of the ruling elite. Sometimes, you would be conscripted to fight in the endemic wars between the great lords of the land, in which your fate all too often was to die in dynastic struggles which you almost certainly did not comprehend much less care about.

The business of high politics was the exclusive province of the ruling elite who constituted a tiny but wealthy, ruthless and heavily armed minority of the population.

This situation persisted for a very long time. Serfdom had effectively vanished in England and much of Europe by about 1500 but persisted in Russia until 1861.

It was only with the gradual emergence of an educated and wealthy middle class of merchants and tradesmen that the great lords of the land were slowly but surely pushed into making political concessions that enabled some of these emerging elite to play a role in the governance of the state.

Despite these concessions, democracy as we know it really only begins to emerge in what might be called the age of revolution. This is generally said to have commenced with the English Civil War (1642 – 1651) in which the forces loyal to the king clashed with those of the parliament. The war culminated in destruction of the royalist armies and the arrest, trial and execution of King Charles 1st.

This event had several effects, the most immediate of which was the confirmation of the parliament as the sole source of political power and legitimacy in England. It wasn’t democracy as we know it because full adult suffrage still lay in the distant future, but the supposed divine right of kings to rule was consigned to the dust bin of history, at least in England.

The English Civil War sent shock waves through the many kingdoms, principalities and dukedoms of Europe. The previously unthinkable idea that kings might be deposed or made subject to the law as determined by a parliament suddenly became very thinkable indeed.

Somewhat ironically, the next great revolutionary upheaval was that of Britain’s American colonists who, having won the American War of Independence (1775 – 1783) threw off the yoke of British rule and established the world’s first modern republic.

The new American constitution commenced with the words “We the People”, thus signifying the primacy of the hitherto great unwashed in the new United States of America. Again, a collective shudder went through the crowned heads of Europe, although most seemed unable to grasp the true significance of what had happened in America.

If they had any doubts, these were swept away with the French Revolution (1789 – 1794) when yet another king lost his head and a short lived republic emerged. The ensuing period of European warfare (usually referred to as the Napoleonic Wars) lasted until 1815, only ending with the final defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, self proclaimed Emperor of the French, at the battle of Waterloo.

After a period of uneasy peace there were further revolutionary upheavals across Europe in 1848 which, although successfully repressed by the various ruling elites, put them on notice that the needs and aspirations of the great unwashed could no longer be entirely ignored.

In Britain, eligibility to vote was progressively extended until, in 1853, universal adult male suffrage was achieved. Universal female suffrage came rather later, with Britain’s distant colonies in New Zealand (1893) and South Australia (1894) being far ahead of the USA (1919) and Britain (1928).

In this way, in the USA and much of the British Empire at least, the great unwashed finally had the right to vote and modern democracy as we know it assumed more or less its current form.

This history is worth knowing for several reasons, the first of which is the fact that universal adult suffrage is, in a historic sense, a very recent development.

Second, it is worth noting that there is no agreed “perfect” version of democracy. There are often strikingly different voting systems in use, as well as different parliamentary structures and legal systems.

Indeed, it is arguable that many so called democracies are not really democratic at all. The forms of democracy may be in place but the reality is rather different.

Venezuela, Cuba, Egypt, the Peoples Republic of China and the Russian Republic are all ostensibly democratic but, in practice, are governed by what might be called an elected oligarchy.

I would even argue that the European Union is, in practice, not governed in a genuinely democratic way but by an unelected bureaucracy, albeit one appointed by the elected governments of the individual member nations of the EU. This view is, of course, hotly contested by Europhiles.

Third, an incidental effect of this history is that the newly independent colonies of the former British Empire have, in the main, chosen to become either democratic republics or, in some cases, to maintain the legal fiction that they are constitutional monarchies.

This is the case even though most of these newly established nations are not only artefacts of the colonial era and hence not “natural” entities, but also have no historic or cultural experience of democracy in any form.

This then is the historic context within which Papua New Guinea finds itself now governed by a unicameral parliamentary democracy based upon the so-called Westminster system, with the distant Queen Elizabeth II (Missus Qwin) as its titular head of state.

It also now has a cabal of luminaries who are Knights of the Realm which, when you think about it, is a rather bizarre state of affairs in a society which traditionally had a communalist social structure.

As for the great unwashed, this brings me back to Phil’s key point, which is that we the people have, at best, a pretty spotty record when it comes to the way we govern ourselves.

Basically, despite the best efforts of several generations of committed educators, many of us remain as gullible, ignorant and fearful as our mostly isolated, illiterate and impoverished ancestors.

Most people remain conspicuously parochial in outlook and even in a highly developed country like Australia, literacy and numeracy rates are alarmingly low, thus leaving many people ill equipped to cope with what is frequently a bewilderingly complex world.

That this should be the case in Australia or the USA or UK or Russia or China is a source of bewilderment and frustration for me and many others who sincerely believe in the democratic ideals that can and should govern all human societies.

Ignorance and fear remain the only plausible explanation for our persistent willingness to elect leaders and governments who are singularly unfitted to the always difficult task of governing in our increasingly complex world.

Even if our governments are basically competent we all too often rapidly dispense with their services if they tell us something we do not wish to hear or propose necessary reforms that bring with them threatening immediate change, whatever its actual merits in the longer term.

It is rare indeed for a genuinely competent and reforming government to either be elected or, if this happens, to survive long an electoral process that favours the purveyors of fake news, fear mongering and marketing spin over a sober and frank discussion of complex and difficult policy issues.

The unexpected re-election of Australia’s current Federal government is an exemplar of exactly this problem, although there were other factors at work too.

This may well be the fatal flaw in democracy. Certainly, there are still many who privately believe that the great unwashed mostly lack the necessary interest, intelligence, insight and judgement required to even understand the issues that confront them, let alone choose people to govern them who actually do have the required knowledge and skills.

These problems are hugely compounded in countries like Papua New Guinea, which are struggling with a host of immensely complex socio-economic, cultural and political problems that might well defeat even the best equipped and motivated government.

Little wonder that the post colonial world is, with depressingly few exceptions, finding that gaining independence is much easier than establishing an inherently stable, competent, efficient and reliable system of governance.

I am afraid the we the people need to get our collective act together or, as was the case in Athens so long ago, real political power will slowly but surely slip from our grasp and the rule of the oligarchs already evident in places like China, Russia and the Middle East, will become the new normal.

This is by no means a foregone conclusion but nor is it the case that the hard won gains of the past will persist unchallenged into the future. History offers no assurance that progress, however defined, will be smooth, linear and always towards the light.

In fact, I would submit that the warning bells of history are clanging loudly across much of the so-called democratic world as the grievous economic, social and environmental problems inherent in late stage neo-capitalism (and in so called authoritarian capitalism) become more evident by the day.

Will we the people heed their clarion call or simply drift complacently into a maelstrom of catastrophic events?

My rather pessimistic belief is that unless we act soon to force our various governments to confront these problems, we may ourselves be forced to fight once more for the very freedoms that our ancestors fought and died to achieve.

I for one do not want my grand children to live through the experiences forced upon my own father and grandfather or, worse still, find themselves part of a new version of the great unwashed.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chris Overland

Thanks for the link to the Counterpunch article Bernard.

As mentioned in my article, the ruling elites, with very rare exceptions, fail utterly to recognise or understand the paradigm shifts that lead to their demise.

Even if they do see the emerging danger, they invariably think that the usual mechanisms of suppression (subversion, persuasion, coercion and violence) will work.

This is how the seemingly all powerful Tsarist regime in Russia could lumber almost blindly into the disaster instigated by a very tiny group of Bolsheviks bent upon communist revolution or, much later, the seemingly mighty empire that was the USSR could simply collapse almost overnight.

Sadly, the USA is lumbering towards its demise as the reigning global hegemon. In a bizarre twist of fate, it is a President bent upon putting America First in all things, who will be the principal architect of its fall.

The ridiculous but deeply ignorant and dangerous Donald Trump represents a clear and present danger to not just America but the rest of the so-called free world too.

He, along with almost all members of his class, cannot see that neo-liberal capitalism is now in mortal jeopardy of annihilating itself in an orgy of so-called creative destruction. The signs of this are obvious.

There is the emergence of gross disparities in wealth and power, accompanied by the absurd inflation of asset prices across the globe.

This has been funded by the "free" money provided by the world's Central Banks which are themselves now hopelessly in thrall to the markets they purport to regulate.

And, of course, it would be remiss not to mention catastrophic human induced climate change, the first effects of which are becoming manifest to all but those whose ideological blindness precludes insight or understanding.

All these things reflect the growing malaise lying at the dark heart of neo-liberal capitalism.

The risk of unforeseen and unmanageable disaster, whether socio-political or environmental or economic or all of these simultaneously, is growing exponentially but the enthusiasts for global capitalism either ignore this or downplay its significance.

Unhappily, as the USA and the global system it has promoted so vigorously begins to fail we will all be cast adrift in a world filled with new uncertainties.

PNG, as a tiny and vulnerable nation in a world full of predators, whether state actors or corporations, will feel the loss of America's once important moral authority in due course.

The emboldened autocrats in China, Russia and many other places will extend their power and reach to the detriment of those whose misfortune it is to be in their way.

They will become mere collateral damage in the seemingly endless struggle for power, control and wealth that has bedevilled our species since time immemorial.

This is a bleak vision but history tells us that such visions can easily become reality. The much harder task is to foresee such eventualities and then take steps to either prevent them occurring or mitigate the risks involved.

Right now, I see no sign whatsoever that those in power either foresee such risks or have any inclination to take prudent steps to mitigate them.

Bernard Corden

Another gem from Counterpunch:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/30/capitalism-in-america-the-coming-crisis/

Bernard Corden

"Corruption is nature's way of restoring our faith in democracy" - Peter Ustinov

Paul Oates

Bernard, in Australia, as opposed to Britain, the current Queen is the Constitutional Monarch. What might or might not be done elsewhere in the Queen's name is another matter. Intentional obfuscation is often used by some, who aren't interested or aware of the actual situation, to confuse the issue of whether or not Australia should be a republic.

The Australian Governor General may perform the role of a monarch by giving or refusing ‘royal assent’ to any proposed law or legislation but it is a formalised terminology and in name only.

In other words, the Governor General is the recognised legal, titular head of Australia. This is expressly spelled out in the Australian Constitution accepted by all Australian States when they federated in 1901.

Australia may choose to keep symbolic references to our historical links but these are in name only. Instead of changing our coinage, paper or these days polymer money and historical terminology like as ‘Queens Council’ (QC) and ‘The Crown’, and ‘The Honourable’ (Hon), these terms are only used as linkages with the past. They are part of our historical heritage.

Any nation that intentionally turns their back of their history usually finds they have discarded something of their own culture and national identity. If this vacuum is created, then it is usually filled by opportunistic persons who seek, for their own aspirations, a change that accommodates their own perceptions on reality, whether or not these concepts have been fully spelled out or in fact understood by the majority who may not have considered the full implications at the time.

Perhaps someone would like to elaborate on the differences between the PNG Constitution and Australia’s?

Bernard Corden

The Queen is far from symbolic. In 2004 an order in council or royal decree was issued by Missus Qwin and denied the Chagos Islanders their right to return to Diego Garcia from Mauritius despite a UK High Court ruling in 2000, which declared their expulsion illegal. It was a fatwa and a tactic often used by dictators but without the quaint ritual. The public is never told about it and parliament never hears a word on the matter.

https://vimeo.com/17401157

It's also the 48th anniversary of Bloody Sunday this coming Thursday, which provides yet another example of British justice. Over one hundred rounds of bullets leaving fourteen dead with a four-decade quest for the truth.

The Fields of Anthenry - The Dubliners

But a lonely prison wall,
I heard a young girl calling
Michael they have taken you away,
For you stole trevelyn's corn
So the young might see the morn,
Now a prison ship lies waiting in the bay

Low lie, The Fields Of Athenry
Where once we watched the small free birds fly
Our love was on the wing
We had dreams and songs to sing,
Its so lonely round the Fields of Athenry

By a lonely prison wall
I heard a young man calling
'Nothing matters Mary, when you're free'
Against the famine and the crown,
I rebelled, they brought me down
Now its lonely round the Fields of Athenry

By a lonely harbour wall
She watched the last star falling
As the prison ship sailed out against the sky
Sure she'll live in hope and pray
For her love in Botney Bay
Its so lonely round the Fields Of Athenry

Paul Oates

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
― Winston S. Churchill

The recent examples of how easily a system like the British monarchy can be brought into disrepute are very much in evidence.

It’s a pity that the tabloid press uses and confuses the concepts of a titular head and the democratically elected government of the people, just to sell media products. Mind you, the media is not alone. Apparently, memorabilia of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have reportedly now been going for a song in the British shops selling ‘kitsch’ to overseas tourists.

In Australia, we have people who believe that we should be a republic as there is in the USA. As I heard someone years ago say with a shudder, ‘Thanks heavens we haven’t got down to level yet!’

However, our system of government has often never been clearly understood by many who are happy to be deluded into thinking our head of state is the Queen. I’ve just read a recent book by the American Prof. Jared Diamond where he too refers to Australia’s Head of State as the Queen.

Australia’s head of state is the Governor General and that position is subject to appointment. The incumbent can be either removed during the term of office (as has happened with an unsuitable person a decade ago), or replaced after the period of appointment expires. While the incumbent is appointed by the Queen to represent the monarch, all actions are on advice from the Australian government of the day. The one example of where this differs from the British system is that the Governor General has the power to dismiss a government as happened in 1975. But this action is only on the surety that there will be a general election to overcome a constitutional impasse that may occur as it did in 1975. In fact, an appeal to the Queen over the dismissal in 1975 revealed the Queen has no actual power in Australia.

The Queen and her position as Australia’s monarch, is basically only ceremonial and of historical significance. Even in Britain, the Queen is still not allowed to enter the British House of Commons, a left over from the time of Charles the 1st, and ceremonially opens Parliament in the House of Lords.

Those who constructed the PNG Constitution opted for a unicameral system that, as also is the case in the only Australian State that got rid of its Upper House. Surprisingly of all places, that system is in Queensland. Queensland now depends on a system of Committees to review draft legislation before it becomes law. Whether this has been successful in protecting that State from a virtual dictatorship by ‘gerrymander’ might depend on one’s perspective. Continuing with a Queensland Upper House may well have been a better view, given past historical events.

I have previously suggested that the PNG Parliament would benefit from a House of Review. That would be easy to implement as the Regional Members could be extracted from the current Parliament and separately perform the same function as the Australian Senate.

There is no perfect system of government as Chris has pointed out. I suggest that the Australian model may be one of the best since it combines features from both the British and USA systems It also took many years of broad-based discussion and review to agree upon and has so far stood the test of time. This long period of contemplation and detailed discussion clearly did not happen in the brief lead up to PNG’s Self Government and Independence.

Perhaps over time and upon due reflection, PNG should conduct a Constitutional review? It might well help prevent a future dissolution of the national fabric made up of PNG’s diverse cultures.

Philip Fitzpatrick

I'm reminded of what Karl Marx referred to as the 'lumpenproletariat', the unthinking and lowest strata of society.

Marx had no time for them at all and thought they were irrelevant to social change.

The experience with Trump's election might indicate otherwise.

Perhaps they are gaining a power they never had before.

If that is the case we are surely doomed.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)