What sort of society do we really want?
We have another opportunity in May 2015 to choose our lawmakers for the following 4 or 5 years. That is our right as members of a democratic society. It is also an immense responsibility as the worldview or mindset of those we choose to make our laws will not only affect us, but our children and our children's children. It is important therefore, in my view, that we know what sort of society we want for ourselves, bearing in mind that our successors will inherit the society we design for ourselves.As I see it, our starting point should be; do we want a collectivist society or do we want an individualist society? A collectivist society is one where people, neighbours, communities work together for the general good of society, support those who fall ill or suffer in some other way; a society where nobody causes harm to anybody else, a society which respects all life on this planet. An individualist society is one where every individual is the master of his/her own destiny and is free to sate their own individual desires. Put simply, a collectivist society is a left leaning one and an individualist society is a right leaning one in the political sense.
Having made that choice, we have to make the second decision; are our elected politicians presently providing or aiming to provide the sort of society we have decided we want. If so, then we can justify re-electing them. If not, are there any other prospective politicians out there who would change our laws and regulations in the direction that we have decided we want? If this is the case, vote for them. Simples.
There are several problems with this simple philosophy. Firstly, we have a 'party' system which forces prospective politicians to join a political party of their choice, thereby being bound to their particular party line on any decisions rather than making those decisions on the basis of their own viewpoint or on the basis of what their constituents have requested. That does not necessarily mean that the present party system should be abandoned, but rather that the 'party whip' system should be relegated to history allowing our politicians to vote according to their conscience. Secondly, we have to trust our prospective politicians to do what they say they are going to do. Here lies the problem of not only trust, but effective communication. Certain words in the English language can mean totally different things to different people and in different contexts; words like 'justice', 'security', 'fairness', 'freedom', 'respect', 'honesty'. It is important therefore, not only to satisfy ourselves as voters that we understand what prospective politicians actually mean when they use these words, but to explain to prospective parliamentarians exactly what we mean when we use these same words.
There is a further problem which is specific to Northern Ireland. That is the rhetoric and politics of fear. How often have we heard the line that goes, "vote for me otherwise the other side will get in". This has worked very successfully in the past for particular politicians despite the absence of logic, but has it produced the type of society that we want? The voter is being asked to make a choice based on what he/she doesn't want as opposed to what he/she does want. How can society be moved in the direction we do want when so much time and effort is taken up with trying to avoid what we don't want.
We are living in the 21st Century. We are an evolved, educated, developed society. If these statements are true, then why do we have a primeval, confrontational political system?
Perhaps it's due to the fact that we suffer from a psychological condition known as Cognitive Inertia. This is defined as the tendency for a belief or set of beliefs to endure, and a reluctance or inability to revise the assumptions on which those beliefs are based, regardless of the absence of evidence or new evidence arising to challenge those assumptions. This results in statements such as, "I have always voted for them and therefore to vote for anyone else could be dangerous." So we are scared of change 'just in case'. There is no logic in the decision to vote this way and no sound evidence to justify it if our lives are not improved as a result.
The media, in my view, have a lot to answer for. There seems to be an over reliance on the goings on at Stormont, Dail Eireann and Westminster making our news headlines rather than the goings on in the heart of the community. Even in other news stories like road accidents or a house fire, we are treated to comments from the local politicians before anyone else. Okay, I agree that given their close contact, it is very much easier for a journalist to get a ready made quotable quote from a politician than an 'ordinary' member of the public. But I would argue that since the local politician is determined to get his party point across, this not only leaves less time for an unbiased viewpoint to be voiced, but compounds the cognitive inertia that we seem to suffer from. It is a fairly well established fact that the BBC has very close ties with the Conservative Party, RTE has close ties with Fianna Fail, and that BBCNI tends to follow the English Conservative Party line. With Rupert Murdock controlling Sky and 70% of the print media, it becomes rather difficult to spread a good news story about how society can be improved, to explain how there is a better way.
