A Democratic Decision

I’m worried. It’s not the kind of casual concern that flitters across ones consciousness. It’s a nagging dread. I worry about the way that we are governing ourselves. I used to be sure that a democracy was the best way forward – the only way forward. I still believe that it is but I’m no longer as sure as I once was.

It’s because of this dread that this year I’m going to focus more heavily on political theory. I’ll still be writing about other issues, but regular readers can expect five or six pieces over the course of the year touching on a range of issues around how we govern ourselves.

2016 gave us the Brexit. It gave us Trump. Many people wondered how these things could happen. These events gave rise to many questions. I fear those questions might have answers our society will find uncomfortable.

One such question is at the knot in the centre of my nagging dread. Is the rule of the majority the best way to ensure that we get the best outcome for the majority? Such a simple question. So many answers.

On the one hand, it seems farcical to believe that the most popular answer to any problem is the correct answer. Sixty-four percent of people could believe that Mars does not exist. That Mars is ‘fake news’. Mars will still exist. We can measure it. We can scientifically prove that it is there. The majority is clearly incorrect.  

If sixty-four percent of people don’t believe Mars exists, should our government disregard the possibility of exploring Mars?  What if there are Martians on Mars?  What if they are coming to slaughter us? What if they plan to steal all the Earth’s broccoli?

(Disclaimer – I do not believe there are Martians on Mars. If they exist, It’s doubtful they would steal our broccoli.)  

One of the many criticisms levelled at the clever people of the world by the less clever majority is that they are ‘out of touch’. Many Trump supporters fall into this category in my view. In a sense, the criticism is accurate. The scientific community is out of touch with the mainstream. This does not make the mainstreams view correct.

Explaining to the majority that they are in fact misguided is one of the great challenges we face. So far, we as a community are failing to meet it. That’s why there is a disconnect. Logical, scientific thought is important. The scientific method has delivered a world measurably superior to the past. What I muse is perhaps forgotten is the art of communicating that logical thought to the less educated.

Having said that, I believe the challenge has become greater as our overall scientific knowledge has increased. The gap between a physicist and someone who has not studied any science is significant. I struggle at times and I’m someone who genuinely tries to better himself despite a lack of formal tertiary qualification. Where does that leave someone who isn’t interested? Someone who just wants the politicians to fix it?

Whilst the scientific view is important, on the other hand people’s views are also important. Attempting to force someone into doing something they don’t want to do isn’t going to work. It doesn’t matter how noble the goal is.

Furthermore, what happens when the science isn’t clear? As much as we know about the world there is still so much that we don’t understand. We could be wrong about so much. One thing we can be certain of is that some part of existing scientific orthodoxy is currently wrong.

Much of what we know the least about is how the human mind works. Why we form the social and cultural groups that we do. How much of that is determined by genetics? How much is learned behaviour?

All of these things are likely crucial to determining the most effective way for our species to organise and govern ourselves. With no clear scientific consensus, the only thing we have left is majority rule. We have a democracy.  

So we come back to the central question. How does government respond when what people actually want to do is not the sensible option based upon our scientific knowledge? What do our politicians do? If they ignore the majority, they run the risk of being voted out by a public who will feel that their views haven’t been well represented by those they elected.

If they ignore the scientists, they will likely deliver measurably worse outcomes for the people that elected them. People that they are trying to help. Once it becomes obvious that their lives are in fact worse, the elected officials will once again find themselves turfed out of office.

It truly is a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. Who’d be a politician? We should all be a little more forgiving of them.

I suspect that some type of overarching global government is inevitable. There is so much that we can all agree on. Sadly I’ve no idea how we should elect it as this piece shows. I also believe that underneath that global entity there is room for highly diverse small governments, governing relatively small groups of people. Once again, I’m not sure how that will work much less how those two governments fit together.

I am sure of three things. One, There is a very real risk that our world might suffer some type of dramatic collapse if we don’t get this right over the next thirty or so years.

Two, the only way to progress, to avoid the collapse, is to talk about it. Scientists need to research. People need be educated on that research. We will probably need to make some mistakes.

Three, should we avoid our ‘Roman empire moment’ future historians will be looking at pieces like this wondering how on earth it took us so long to figure this stuff out.