The essence of it is that we concentrate on the decision-making process instead of who we elect to power. The bitter contest between left and right is part of the problem : simply trying to get one side to win will never work. Instead, we abandon the winner-takes-all and adopt the system of competitive collaborations used in science; we give some power to everyone. Through a system of anonymous peer review, competing groups of scientists reach conclusions while agreeing to disagree. Oh, they can say whatever they like in conferences, but not in papers. Anonymity usually prevents rivalry from escalating into outright hostility, and mistakes are learning experiences, not grounds for dismissal. A triumvirate system of author, reviewer, and editor avoids the need (at the level of individual studies) for an infinite chain of referees. When this works well, it fulfills a critical function of having author and critic address the salient points, and not go off on an invective-laden diatribe about the other side's fat ugly face or some other pointless distraction, as usually happens in political "debates".
On the larger scale, wider community review permits an emergent consensus. No-one is "in charge". No-one says, "this is Truth, all unbelievers in the Truth shall burn". Almost nothing and no-one is held to be beyond question. In this way an efficient consensus rapidly emerges that's close to the optimum, most rational conclusion possible given the evidence and methodology of the day.
There's no reason to suppose that adapting such a proven system into the political sphere is either impossible or wouldn't work. Science does work, and was contemplating the nature of time when the prevailing moral view was that a woman's place was in the home. Does it work perfectly ? Of course not, but it works a damn sight better than politics.
What worries me is the "too good to be true" factor (leaving aside the tremendous difficulties of persuading people to adopt such a system). Of course, there are many important questions of detail about how to modify the scientific system into a political one, some of which are discussed in the previous links, but before even contemplating any sort of revolution, we should be damn sure that it's actually going to work.... or at least, will work better and for longer than the current omnishambles.
One problem I've encountered is that undue criticism tends to lead to bullshitting. Permanent extreme hostility by the media is at least a contributing factor as to why politicians frequently convey no meaningful information at all, since literally any answer they give will be treated as definitive proof that they're worse than Hitler. And recently I tried a Clearer Thinking app that claims to help you re-evaluate your beliefs, but all I did was end up modifying my original statement to make it more rigorous - I didn't change my mind at all, I just made things more precise.
But this, I think, points to a wider issue rather than a fundamental flaw in the proposed method. As the primary means for conveying information between politicians and the people, the functioning of the media is critical, but this in itself doesn't undermine a political system based on competitive collaboration : it only underscores the further need for media reform. And the anonymous refereeing system and obligation for cross-party involvement is specifically designed to deal with overly-hostile criticism. So I think the idea is safe enough on that score; I don't think it will lead to people rationalising their pre-existing biases.
The article below raises a more serious potential problem : the nature of scientific versus political truths. Scientific truth is largely objective : it can be measured and quantified to a point beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, yes, things get much more messy when dealing with the nature of models and theories, but that doesn't invalidate the main proposition. For example, whether we view gravity as a force or the curvature of spacetime or something else entirely, it is an undeniable fact that gravity exists. Which is usually what matters if you're nearing a cliff edge, be it physical or political.
Politics has plenty of blunt facts and even objective models, but it also has something science simply doesn't : moral principle. Science is supposed to be a search for the truth no matter how unpleasant it might be, but politics often doesn't have that luxury. The subjective needs of individuals are often in stark contradiction, and what seems virtuous and good to one can seem dark and brutal to another. Thus political decisions simply cannot be based on evidence and fact alone. In order to make choices, the political system needs guiding principles. For example :
“In 1948, New Zealand’s first professor of political science, Leslie Lipson, wrote that if New Zealanders chose to erect a statue like the Statue of Liberty, embodying the nation’s political outlook, it would probably be a Statue of Equality,” he writes. “This reflected New Zealanders’ view that equality (rather than freedom) was the most important political value and the most compelling goal for the society to strive for and protect.”It's not necessary to have a specific end goal in mind, some mythical Utopia to consciously strive for. But it is necessary to have the basic principles established firmly enough so as to act. In this example, freedom and equality. In some ways I like very much this blunt notion of saying, "to hell with freedom, it's equality we should aim for !" It's a lot more appealing that the complexities of trying to balance the two, and perhaps aiming for equality leads to freedom as a pleasant side-benefit. After all, New Zealand is clearly not a tyrannical dystopia... but on the other hand, the Soviet Union certainly was.
At best, then, this preference for equality over freedom points to an incompleteness in how New Zealand gets it right. One possibility is simply that New Zealanders are sensible people who elect good leaders; it's been claimed that countries with female leaders are doing much better at handling the pandemic (would that Theresa May was still in charge to test this !). And I should emphasise that most systems probably work well enough - even authoritarian monarchies ! - if you happen to have sensible, well-meaning people in charge; difficulties occur only when you don't. So this explanation would only shift the problem : what keeps the New Zealand electorate sensible ?
Knowing next to nothing about New Zealand, I'm marking this one down for further research. Maybe they've got some secret sauce, maybe right now they're just lucky. After all, plenty of Western democracies have produced great leaders in the past.
To return to the main point : freedom and equality are not always in conflict, but sometimes they are. And in that situation only an ideological belief allows you to choose between them, since no objective measurement of which is better is possible. Or you might prefer fairness and justice to either of those, saying that both can be good or bad depending on context, but not aiming to create a society which was more free or equal for its own sake. Regardless, you need an ideological, moral principle on which to make your decision, which is damned hard to define objectively.
For instance, we can all agree that freedom is nice when it lets us choose between fun things like going for a swim or eating eighteen kilos of chocolate cake, and we can similarly agree that it's less desirable when it lets a serial killer do as they will. Likewise, equality is nice when everyone is rewarded in direct proportion to their efforts, but it's not nice at all if we all get the same pay regardless of hours worked.
Or put it like this. Suppose you define freedom as the ultimate moral principle. Then if you give everyone the freedom to eat as much chocolate cake as you want, and half the population gorge themselves to a sticky death, by your definition you've done a good thing. And no-one has acted unfairly at any stage either. Yet allowing this to happen is clearly not right ! It would seem that there is no single simple principle by which we can define morality, yet we need moral principles in order to make many political choices.
So this worries me for any reformation to political systems. Unlike science, the state has to judge not just whether something is correct or not but also whether it's moral : sure, nuking a city would stop a riot, but that doesn't mean you should do it. And sometimes states do have to make the choice to use extreme violence. How should it do this ? Will the cross-party deliberations be equally effective here, or will they just reach an impasse ? If one side wants to go to war but needs the consent of those who don't, how would this ever work ? You can settle scientific arguments objectively. Moral ones ? Not so much.
This is not something I have an easy answer to. In fairness I aimed to modify the political system, not society itself : I don't claim to know what an ideal society would look like.* And it should be noted that science is the epitome of the "marketplace of ideas" not because it's one amazing system, but because it blends multiple systems together : in conferences, the market is almost entirely free and unregulated, whereas in papers regulations are rather strict; researchers in individual, global institutions are organised and connect and collaborate in radically different ways. So too with politics - there's space for votes, elections, sortion... but also more authoritarian methods. The blending matters.
* Who am I kidding, that is obviously for a future blog post...
Perhaps this wouldn't matter much. As scientific truth is emergent, not established through diktat, perhaps so is society's view of morality established through conversation - as this system encourages. Perhaps it's not necessary to establish overarching moral principles ahead of time; maybe the existing diversity will be an asset in forging a moral consensus rather than a hindrance. I don't know. I hope so.
Why is New Zealand so progressive?
"Evening everyone, thought I would jump online and just check in with everyone as we all prepare to hunker down for a few weeks," said the New Zealand woman via Facebook Live as the country prepared for its month-long Covid-19 shutdown. She pointed to her grubby sweatshirt.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.