With politicians of all parties bemoaning the public’s deepening disinterest in party politics and trying to devise ever more elaborate wheezes to entice them back to the ballot box, almost no one seems to have noticed that globalisation itself is quietly setting the narrow parameters within which national political discourse has become confined.

Today, financial markets represent a largely borderless world with trillions of dollars able to move from one end of the global to another in a matter of seconds. Likewise, it’s relatively easy for major corporations to switch or outsource their production to wherever in the world offers the lowest costs and the highest profits.

The ability of capital to move freely and globally by and large has the effect of forcing all governments to enact only those policies designed to enhance (or defend) their nation’s ability to attract capital, investment and jobs. For without them, their economy will go into decline. It follows, then, that whichever party we elect has no choice but to follow substantially the same market- and business-friendly policy agenda; that is, what might be called the “national competitiveness” agenda – the modern-day version of pursuing the national interest.

That’s why, in whatever country we may live, we find left-of-center parties adopting policies traditionally espoused by right-of-center parties. It’s why New Labour’s Tony Blair was often said to be the best Conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher. Or, as the former Conservative prime minister, John Major, himself once put it, “I went swimming leaving my clothes on the bank and when I came back Tony Blair was wearing them” (The Week, 29 October, 1999).

Hence globalisation, for all its good and bad points, has also resulted in all political factions, once they come to power, having no choice but to pursue substantially the same policies. Party politics, consequently, has become substantially devoid of meaning. It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that lower voter turnouts, and the general pervading cynicism about politics, are the inevitable outcome. These effects are the ingredients of what the famous philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, calls a “legitimation crisis”; a breakdown in the adequacy of the existing worldview and its governance systems to command allegiance amongst the population as a whole.

Globalisation, in other words, has rendered much of what citizenship means meaningless. And so, for anyone to try to address politics only at a national level is, in this day and age, to miss the “bleeding rhino head in the room”; that thinking about politics and governance now needs to move decisively up to the global level. Our thinking about politics needs to move, in other words, from nation-centric to world-centric.

The ossification and emptiness of today’s political discourse is one symptom, in effect, of the present global crisis brought on by globalisation; a crisis which, in a broader view of things, is telling us that the present most senior organs of governance in the world – nation-sates – are now no longer capable of governing adequately; that they are reaching the end of their evolutionary lives and now need to be “transcended and included” by a still-higher level of governance. As philosopher, Ken Wilber, concurs, “The modern nation-state, founded upon initial rationality, has run into its own internal contradictions or limitations, and can only be released by a vision-logic/planetary transformation” (Sex Ecology Spirituality, p. 192).

And as to how citizens may discover a completely new way to engage with politics which is truly transnational (i.e. world-centric) and which transcends the old party-political divides, there is now a solution available; a solution called the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) http://www.simpol.org. As Wilber points out, “The central idea of Simpol is very powerful; that is, the notion of how to link votes in one country with votes in another – how to link political action in one country with action in another. International competition is built-in to the nation-state system at its current level of development, and so the issue is not environmental concerns, but how to get humans to agree on environmental concerns. This is really fascinating and very hopeful. In my opinion this is the crucial issue for the 21st century”.

It seems those in positions of power are fully aware of the need for global cooperation . They are even quite happy to ‘talk the talk’ about it.

Here’s a few choice quotes we found:

“And yes, we need global co-operation. But that shouldn’t be difficult. It just takes leadership…”

David Cameron, talking about climate change

…”but the underlying problems have not been tackled and they can’t be tackled by any one country acting alone…”

Mervyn King (governor of the Bank of England) talking about the global economic crisis. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15203847

”Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Barack Obama,  President of the USA

“Global co-operation is the best –I believe the only– answer…to dig our world back out of recession…to create the growth, trade, and international rules we need for a fairer, greener, safer planet.”

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister

“We are in the 21st century. There is not a single country that can direct the world on its own,” “The world is totally, fully interdependent and interlocked.”

Nicolas Sarkozy, French President

“We should step up co-operation on international supervision and regulation. We must work together to address major global challenges.”

Wen Jiabao, Chinese Premier, talking about climate change.

…and yet and yet… Strangely enough, they seem curiously unwilling to ‘walk the walk’. Why should this be?!

The answer of course is that, for all the talk, our global system is dominated by destructive international competition and the fear of first mover disadvantage this engenders in those very same politicians.

Unless we solve that problem we will get nowhere.

Let me leave you with a couple more quotes. First, here’s one from a global figure who is, perhaps, more inclined to action on cooperation than most:

“(Business leaders) need to embrace global co-operation and partnership on a scale never before seen”. “and abandon short-term thinking in favour of long-term solutions to climate change and other pressing global challenges.”

Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations

Finally here’s one more from Mr David Cameron:

“…take power away from politicians and give it to people… We know that the best ideas come from the ground up, not the top down.”

They say talk is cheap, but in this case the cost of inaction is more than any of us can afford to pay! It’s time to take action together now!

Consequently, it is a brave or a foolish individual indeed who makes predictions for the future – even over so short a time as a year. Who, for example, would have bet a mere 365 days ago that Time Magazine’s person of the year 2011 would ‘The Protestor’? Who could have predicted the events that would lead to this unprecedented outcome?

I think what we have seen  in 2011 is indeed the Year of Protest. This has been the year of mass recognition that the current system is practically unsustainable and morally unacceptable.

So I will be brave/foolish and make this prediction for the year ahead. 2012 will be the Year of Change.

Across many sources in many areas – from permaculture to decentralised energy to commoning to political projects like Simpol and the fledgling Democratic Reform Movement (and many many more) – I have seen amazing ideas spreading all over the place.

These ideas will, I think, propagate and spread ever further into the mainstream. Then the tremendous energy that has been so obviously present in the actions of 2011 will  begin to translate into real and lasting change.

But then perhaps this prediction is not so foolish, as it is all of us who must be the authors of this change. It is not enough to predict it – we must be the ones to make it happen.

We are 2012. We are the Year of Change.

The government says deficit reduction, the opposition says go for growth.

Doing the former, Chancellor Osborne tells us, will keep interest rates low and so, in time he hopes, help the economy to grow. But given future growth is heavily dependent on the growth of other national economies around the world, the only thing to be said for deficit reduction is that it will prevent us from being eaten alive by the markets, at least for now. But doing the latter—going straight for growth, as Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls would have us do—would give deficit reduction a lower priority and so likely incur the wrath of global bond markets, push up interest rates, and so make growth much more difficult or impossible anyway! So whichever way we go, there’s no solution in sight. I’m not an economist, but when each argument is as self-defeating as the other, one does have to wonder if our economists and politicians are really looking in the right place for solutions. A genuine solution, in other words, probably lies on an entirely different plane altogether.

Indeed, both arguments depend for their success on what happens in the wider global economy; on the health of the economies of other nations. If other nations don’t grow, there won’t be sufficient demand for our exports. If they don’t grow, then, we can’t grow—regardless whether the deficit is reduced or not. And even stringent deficit reduction won’t necessarily prevent us from being eaten by the markets. For it’s important to understand that any nation’s standing with the markets is an entirely relative affair. That is, there’s no absolute state of affairs that guarantees market approval. Rather, it’s whichever nation is most vulnerable that will get eaten; whichever nation that, regardless of its absolute economic health, fails to keep ahead of its competitors that will be sucked under, dismembered, and consumed. So whether it’s keeping the markets happy or keeping GDP up, both approaches are predicated on events and forces no nation can control.

It’s here, then, that we see the fallacy upon which both approaches are based. National political parties, we see, are in the business of getting us to believe that national governments can actually deliver solutions; that they still have relevance in a globalised world. But the truth is that the factors determining success lie well beyond any individual government’s control. The blunt truth, then, is that while we may like to believe our governments are in the economic cockpit, they’re just sitting in First Class along with the transnational corporations and hedge-fund managers, buffeted and shaken by global market forces no one is in control of. But the disastrous effects are felt most in Economy Class, of course; by the poor in both rich and poor nations alike. Politicians may pretend to be in control, and we may want to believe them, but the fact is that in our globalised world it’s the overwhelming impersonal forces of global markets that determine what happens; forces that are running out of any democratic control or accountability.

Solutions, we must realise then, no longer lie within the gift of individual national governments, but can only be achieved through widespread international cooperation; cooperation strong and broad enough to reign the markets in. As the governor of the Bank of England, Mervy King, also acknowledged in a recent interview, the underlying problems in the global economy which caused the current sovereign debt crisis, “cannot be dealt with by any nation alone. … They won’t be tackled,” he says, “unless countries, as a group, come together to ensure that the world economy can keep growing.” One might also add, that nations won’t stop themselves from being eaten alive by the markets until they come together to agree robust global rules and taxes to ensure global markets start to operate in the common good rather than just for the benefit of the globally mobile few.

So there are solutions, but we won’t find them by listening to governments or economists. Only when we take on board the truly global nature of our problems will we realise, both that solutions can only be achieved in the realm of global international cooperation, and that we, citizens, are the ones who will have to drive our respective governments towards it.

A tall order, you might think, and rightly so. But there are some people who’ve taken up this monumental challenge. Over two general elections, in 2001 and 2005, a small group of UK citizens campaigning for global cooperation succeeded in getting 27 Members of the UK parliament and countless candidates from all the main political parties to pledge to implement the campaign’s global policy package simultaneously alongside other governments. In some UK electoral areas, more than one candidate signed the pledge, meaning the campaign gained support in parliament regardless which of those candidates won the seat. This showed the campaign was capable of transcending party-political divides and was global in scope.

But how could a very small number of citizens achieve such big results in so short a time? The answer, it seems, lies in their discovery of a new, powerful way to use their votes. They do this by writing to all parliamentary candidates in their electoral area, informing them that they’ll be voting in future national elections for ANY politician or party—within reason—that pledges to implement the campaign’s policy package simultaneously alongside other governments. Or, if they have a party preference, they encourage their preferred politician or party to sign that pledge. In that way, campaign supporters still retain the ultimate right to vote as they please, but they also make it clear to all politicians that they’ll be giving strong preference to candidates that have signed the Pledge, to the exclusion of those who haven’t. So, politicians who sign the Pledge stood to attract those votes and yet they risked nothing because the policy package is only to be implemented if and when sufficient governments around the world have signed up too. But if politicians failed to sign the Pledge they risked losing votes to their political competitors who had, and so risked losing their seats.

With many parliamentary seats and even entire elections around the world often hanging on a relatively small number of votes, it’s not difficult to see how, with this novel way of voting, only relatively few campaign supporters could make it in the vital interests of all politicians to sign up for global cooperation. And therein lies the power that citizens who join this campaign already have to ensure their governments cooperate. As increasing numbers of citizens in all democratic count learn to use their votes in this way, one can imagine how more and more governments could be driven towards global cooperation. As more signed up, others would come under pressure to follow.

Whether democratic or not, and whatever their level of development, the worsening world predicament is in any case making it in the interests of all nations to solve problems cooperatively, as Mervyn King suggests. But what this campaign uniquely seems to provide is an appropriate framework for that to occur, and a way for enlightened citizens to take the lead. Moreover, the campaign is spreading: some Members of the European, Australian and other parliaments have signed up alongside their UK colleagues. The campaign presently has supporters in over 70 countries and endorsements from some leading statesmen, economists and ecologists. So maybe global cooperation is simply a matter of time; and of how quickly world citizens realise that voting in this new way may well be the most potent way forward. The campaign’s name? The Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) http://www.simpol.org.

But whatever the case, I still believe that most people set out with good in their hearts at christmas. They want to express their appreciation for their loved ones at a time of happiness.

So perhaps the problem with Christmas is actually that it should be like that all the time.

Obviously the booze and food we can’t do every day, else we’d all keel over from heart failure after a month.

But the kindness, the community, the sharing and the giving – these are values that run deep within us all. So I don’t think decrying Christmas as commercial nonsense is the answer (true as it sadly is these days).

In these heartless modern times now, more than ever, we need something to unite us, to bring us together. In the end, we need each other.

Peace on Earth, goodwill to all Men… who was it that said that?

Happy Christmas to you all!

What I found interesting and even a little heartening though, was a comment made by Chris Huhne, the UK Energy and Environment Secretary. He said:

“It shows that when the European Union is united, we can play an absolutely critical role in protecting our national interests. This is a very good example of how the European Union actually can act very crucially in the British national interest, in a way we could not possibly achieve on our own.”

This may not seem like much, but it does represent a very important point and maybe, just maybe, a change in the way this problem is being thought about in the places of political power.

It shows that, finally, it is being recognised, that acting cooperatively can be in the interest of all.

It’s a small step to be sure and, in truth, each nation will still be looking to its own national competitive interest above all else. It will take something much greater than this to change that mindset once and for all – it will take People Power to do that. Until then we will still be stuck with deals that don’t do the job.

But it is a shred of hope nonetheless. It is also proof that all the campaigning is worthwhile; that the message is, ever so slowly, getting through.

So, two questions:

1) How do you think the world will be in:

a) 1 year?

b) 5 years?

c) 10 years?

d) 20 years?

e) 50 years?

2) How do you think the world could and/or should be over those timescales?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and predicitions!

So I’m going to ask that you come up with a list ordered 1-5 of your policy priorities (1 being most important) and stick them in a comment on this post.

I look forward to reading your responses.

Mark

Over the years I have spent (far too) many hours on political debate boards and, more recently, social media and the blogosphere talking about politics. If I had to pick out the one argument I have made the most times  (in various forms) it would be the argument against the false dichotomy. This can be defined as:

…a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes).

This is perhaps best summed up by the great Ben Goldacre with his T-shirt with the slogan ‘I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that’ (I want one!).

An obvious example of the false dichotomy would be the messages that regularly do the rounds on the social media websites, demanding that we stop giving out foreign aid because there are poor people here in our own country. The false dichotomy is also closely tied with the use of political absolutes (“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”)

The thing about a pendulum swing though is that, by definition, the vast majority of its moment must be spent between any two extremes. Thus it is that, though there have always been extremes, for the most part political life and the lives of the people tend to be somewhere in between.

From a historical point of view it could be argued that many, if not most, of the great conflicts have occurred when one or more parties tried to hold the pendulum still in one position – their position.

Such a situation is the one we find ourselves in now. The global power of transnational corporations and the power of destructive international competition holds the pendulum in place. So there is then a mismatch between the span and variety of public opinion and the narrow span allowed by the business friendly, international competition based agenda.

But time marches ever on, with or without the pendulum. As we build, together, our new world-centric politics those holding onto the pendulum will look increasingly desperate and foolish. They will be stubborn children clinging on in the face of the facts. We will be the adults shaking our heads at their immaturity.

Time marches ever on indeed. The future, friends, is ours – not for the taking but for the sharing.

There has, of course, been a fight-back by the protestors to be allowed to stay via the courts. This action appears to have been unsuccessful. No doubt the battles will go on for some time, but perhaps we ought to be asking whether they should?

The actions of the occupy movement have done a fantastic job of raising public awareness and changing the narrative of the debate. It has also been a monumental logistical achievement. It is most certainly also important that the right to peaceful protest be protected.

But as a post on occupywallst.org itself points out:

Some politicians may physically remove us from public spaces — our spaces — and, physically, they may succeed. But we are engaged in a battle over ideas. Our idea is that our political structures should serve us, the people — all of us…

Herein for me lies the root of my question. If this is truly a battle of ideas then why does it need an occupation? Ideas don’t take up any physical space. People can do of course, when they want to discuss their ideas together. But in fact a virtual space will serve just as well for this and is in fact far less exclusive in practice.

There is also another consideration here, which is the benefits and costs of different models of organisation.

On the one hand we have an occupy style model, which is intentionally non hierarchical and based on consensus decision making. The advantage of this model is that it’s much more democratic in itself. The disadvantage is that, with the best will in the world, it’s not all that efficient at actually getting anything done.

By contrast you have what might be called the representative model, which is pretty much the opposite – not so democratic because decisions are made top down, but much better at taking action efficiently (in theory at least!).

But why must we necessarily chose the one or the other? We already have elected representatives, we just need to drive them to work for us – and we need to do this in a way that is inclusive and consensus based.

Basically we the people set out the agenda by consensus and discussion, then we drive our elected representatives to actually get on and enact it efficiently. Easy!

Now it seems to me, as described above, that most of that consensus building work can be  most efficiently, fairly and inclusively done online.

How then, do we drive our elected representatives to work for our agenda? With our votes of course. Nothing – and I mean nothing – motivates politicians more than votes. That’s why the Simpol voting system will work so well.

Working together we can decide and implement a better future for everyone!