The Political Strife is Strife for All
A response to:
The Political Life is no Life at All
Katharine Murphy
Winter 2017 https://meanjin.com.au/essays/political-life/
A toxic work environment threatens the health of our democracy
A toxic work environment threatens the health of our democracy writes Katharine Murphy. Murphy makes some salient observations, but what of the root causes? What is a healthy democracy. For that matter, is democracy a healthy thing anyway. What makes a work environment a toxic one?
In looking at Australian democracy, Murphy writes, “Politics”, has become “hostile territory for human beings.” Indeed, I would (somewhat) concur - Politics has not just become, but always was, hostile territory for human beings – for politicians AND for those “represented” - the everyman.
Murphy says a senior member of the government “observed his vocation was becoming unsustainable for normal people.” She expands with saying by “normal people, he meant balanced people.” But what is meant by a normal/balanced person - and what is not?
Looking at the 'not balanced', Murphy gives us some good insights. She writes, “protagonists are being rewarded for their efficiency at treachery rather than the substance of their contributions.” This senior member of the government, she adds, that politicians become “a very narrow type of personality—people who live for the brawls and the knockouts, and can’t function without the constant affirmation of being a public figure.” Interesting!
She also quotes cabinet minister Combet, “political career is a strange blend of the selfless and the cravenly selfish.” A good assessment from Combet – yet, in addition to this, I would add, there are those who do not have a blend - and fit only into the selfish category. The people are known as psychopaths.
Psychopaths are said to possibly make up 10% of the population. They a self-centred and completely lack the empathy of the 'normal or balanced' human being. One work position they are highly represented in is that of corporate CEO. Psychopaths love power. They are attracted to positions where power lies. Politics is the ultimate arena of power! Power that has a monopoly on the use of force.
If protagonists in politics “are rewarded for treachery” and their practice is one of brawls and knockout, then it is only logical to conclude the 'halls of power' are littered with power hungry psychopaths. If there are bad people in society who crave power and have no moral compass, the worst thing you can do is create an all powerful centralised system for them to utilise. “Diversify your assets”, says the financial advisor – perhaps the same should be said about (legally imposed) power structures?
But what of the “ good people, talented people, people of ideas and values” in so called 'public life'. There are many issues here. Tribalism is brought up more than once as an issue, “members of the tribe will banish them (party members) for weakness, and the voters will respond with derision.” Tribalism – an archaic form of 'governance' - has both pro's and cons. Tribalism focussed on family and community. As a governance system it can work well when it represents local concerns. As such, it is more salient for a small community with aligned values, than say distant Federal politics is today.
Tribalism however is also based on group association, which can over-rule principled decision making. Tribalism, like Nationalism, clings to the familiar and persecutes the foreign.” It is regressive. Society thrives through innovation and civilised principled thinking. Politics in its tribal governance mechanism is a ball and chain on society.
In such a 'toxic and corrosive' environment such as politics what choices do 'good people' have? 'Good people' are “burning out and ending their political careers early” writes Murphy and that th “
vocation was becoming unsustainable for normal people.” When psychopaths fill the halls, the culture and the way of operating changes to that of predation - “That attacking style of politics”.
Some 'Good people' can bury their heads in the sand for a while - be in denial One MP's feedback ‘... politics as hospitable to humans (?). I guess we have to continue to act as though it is.’
Eventually 'good people' must make a choice. They could “continue to put their heads down”, but in in order for their 'work' not to be “zero sum”, they must eventually join in the “brawls and the knockouts”. A toxic culture corrupts all those who remain in that culture. We could also add the Lord Acton quote here; 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
The other choice 'good people' could make is to get out. Murphy writes, “If pain persists, see a medical professional.” I would suggest, if pain persists, then stop participating in damaging behaviour!
In a healthy work environment creative & productive people work in co-operation, with suppliers, co-worker and clients, to offer goods and services that others can voluntarily accept. They create the goods, that are then offered with terms and conditions (Rules) – with agreed to consequences for broken promises.
In the work environment of government the normal way of doing things is reversed – the cart is put before the horse. The creation of rules (laws) is the main order of business - not good and services. Rules that are not consenting agreements between themselves and voluntary customers (for the most part), but rules that are IMPOSED on OTHER peoples transactions. Political rules (laws) are quite simply no more than the threat of violence for non-compliance. In business and all relationships, negotiation can help in breach of contract. With the state, law is not quite so flexible. Every law is a gun aimed at somebody. The guns can be quite loose and the targets broad. e.g A peaceful couple on a picnic, disturbing no one but enjoying a glass of wine -in an alcohol free zone park - is just as much a target for the law as two uncouth drunks disturbing the peace in the same park. One couple has not committed a crime – in the sense that there are no victims. The other two are threatening to the liberty of others. The law is not so much incentivised by customer/citizen need. Here the peaceful couple are just as likely, or even more likely to be fined as they are a soft target and will help fill state coffers.
Could it be that this inverse modus operandi to the peaceful way business generally operates, contributes to the unhealthy work environment in politics? When the business of government is making laws, it business is one of legalised threats and coercion. Rather than voluntary agreements - it imposes mandatory requirements and compulsory demands.
Could it be that 'good people' not only get burnt out, but also consciously or unconsciously realise that the business of government is the business of coercion, and as such in order to maintain a healthy conscious remove themselves? Di Natale says. ‘We’ve got a political class here in Canberra disconnected from the real world, because this is a job that many people from the real world wouldn’t do.’ Indeed! There 'business' in antithetical to human relations and ethical people know better than to participate in coercion.
People may object at this idea that government is all coercion. Some may argue that it is a necessary evil. An argument that government is a necessary evil though is an argument that evil is necessary. “Politics is fundamentally a people business” writes Murphy. But is it? When all people business requires individual consent then this is hard to accept.
Why individual consent? Well, what makes an act of love making, not rape? – individual consent. What makes employment not slavery? – consent of the individuals. What makes a transaction not a robbery? - consent of the individuals involved in the exchange. Politics does not require the consent of the individual.
Mal Washer says, “Institutional influence trumps community representation. ‘You’d really hope people in the parliament would be representative of the Australian public, not just pressure groups, and until we achieve that—well, we are buggered, quite frankly.’”
So there are the 'pressure groups' (and cronies) to appease in this 'people business' but what of representation? Democracy at its basis is rule of the majority – or 'mob rule'. The individuals needs, wants are rights get over-ruled by the mob. On the other hand, Australian democracy also allows minorities to ascend to power. Candidates due to the mechanics of the voting system can come to power with a very small support base. E'g Ricky Muir.
The system then is a strange mix of mob rule and compromise. Compromise means no winners – no one side gets all it wants. In the free market many people can get their needs met. If you like Coke or you like Pepsi then you do not need to vote for one, nor compromise on some blend or dilution of either, or be given some other unwanted alternative!
Surely however there must be some 'good people' who represent the 'will of (some abstract, nebulous or homogenised concept of) the people'. One maxim comes to mind, but with an addendum: The road to hell is paved with good intentions – when the means are coercion. Government business is coercion. The means can never justify the ends. This has been the rationale for all totalitarian rule.
What is also never asked is how one can morally vote for a candidate to represent you (provided any do)? If you do not have the right to do it yourself – how can you delegate that right to somebody else?
“The health of our democracy depends on” writes Murphy, “good people, talented people, people of ideas and values and commitment to keep volunteering for public life.” No, democracy by its very nature is unhealthy. 'Good people' are nothing but 'useful idiots' if they believe politics is a force for good.
Politics is an unhealthy 'business' and is “hostile territory for human beings” for politician and citizen alike.