Equalism ….and the New Britain
….getting the message across involves there being a message worth listening to. Party political differences united?
The present confrontational culture whereby opposition is the accepted norm as a vehicle of change is an exclusive culture and only serves to alienate and entrench differing shades of opinion on a particular subject.
Because it is accepted that one side or the other should be opposing, we even call it the Opposition, the values in any particular initiative proposed by one side or the other are diluted by this institutionalized pseudo-rejection rather than strengthened through endorsement.
It also allows for the abdication and self denial of the strength that is a collective responsibility.
This will tend to put extra unnecessary pressure to “perform”, and it is a pressure which is driven by the dread fear of failure, rather than the desire to succeed.
Even in Peace, we make it a battle. Why?
Some recent reform policies being forwarded by HM Government, which must surely be seen as progressive, given the permanent nature of the social/anti social activities, will need careful management if they are to be accepted as de rigeur policies.
An activity, which is “socially acceptable” by an increasingly large section of the community, even though it is specifically against the Law, is one which cannot be ignored. Proposals to reclassify cannabis, will allow for the management of this “socially acceptable” behaviour. Information, guidance and help will need to be in place and freely available if the true value of this proposal is to be realized. It is a real opportunity for Government to educate effectively on the subject, as we can expect an initial abuse of the proposed freedom. Peer pressure advice and counseling through all the media outlets, which will not condone such abuse but clearly shows what is an abuse, is the responsibility of Government, if the initial proposed aim of allowing more time to be allowed to tackle the problem of harder drugs, is to be achieved.
An “If you use it, don’t abuse it” campaign is a logical first step.
Although a toleration through a reclassification, you can be sure that those working outside of the Law will see it as a further opportunity to expand unless their own criminal activities can be shown as being detrimental to, and probable cause for the Government’s policy to be further reviewed, even abandoned altogether. Judicious and well-publicised use of the powers in the confiscation of crime related proceeds and property legislation is a very valuable tool to consider. Crime must be seen not to pay and there is a beautiful natural justice in the proceeds of crime being used to prosecute the criminal.
The recent Big Brother concerns associated with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 may, to some, feel well founded but in the hands of an elected democratic Government, these concerns should be seen as opportunities. Having decided to address problems, recognized by all, and to take control and to give everybody what they deserve/want, it is not helpful to obstruct and/or undermine a Government decision. Unfortunately, within a rigid multi Party political regime, such aberrations can occur. An all-inclusive, transparent approach sends a powerful message to the country as a whole, and to those whom it is directed against, in particular. It is People Power which you are unleashing and guiding.
Although Government is the “control parameter” necessary for a society, it is only the management of that people’s individual choices, in a mutually agreed control environment, which will bring a stability.
To “succeed” on an individual basis, in a society which recognizes a non-achievement as acceptable, is a hollow victory.
Equalism, a recognition of a symbiotic, personal affinity to the political concept, whereby a “them and us” mentality evolves into a collective, although self serving, unambiguously beneficial responsibility, is its foil.
Equalism is the political perspective of Love. It is a concept. It is/has a simple, sympathetic, symbiotic symmetry.
In societies, which are failing or have failed, for whatever reason, be it war, internal strife [civil war] or persistent sectional violence [terrorism], the “solution” which is being offered, democracy, is, to them, a series of hurdles to overcome rather than a path to follow.
In an effort to unite a people, we suggest to them that they adopt an adversarial, confrontational governance system, such as our own Party political system and those near-clones which have developed in other democratic countries, in order to resolve an adversarial and confrontational situation. In a democratic society based upon the principle of Equalism, such hurdles are sidestepped. The hurdles may remain to be “overcome” but they are no longer obstacles. There is no longer a “physicality” to the obstacles. They are not seen as something which can stop progress, because we can plainly see the path ahead. If we care to consider all democratic Government models, none escape from this “acceptance of confrontation” label.
It is a “winners and losers” conceptual reality reinforced by and closely allied to what we know as Capitalism.
The previous hostile Clinton media profile being balanced by the recent passive Bush media profile is another analogy of this confrontational aspect of democratic governance.
In the real world, to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Heading down a centralized path seems like a very good idea.
In the past, such an action would have been considered a compromise simply because we were unable to determine the path. Information Technology and Communication have changed all of that, forever.
In a country such as Iraq or Afghanistan or Liberia, the conspicuous excess which Capitalism can celebrate, is an alien and politically difficult path to follow. In most cases, it has been the greed, by their despotic masters, to plunder capitalist symbols such as a nation’s wealth, its Treasury, which has directly caused the breakdown in its society.
It can be argued that it is a lack of Communication, and/or an imbalance in Communication, which gives rise to this possibility for social unrest and an autocratic regime.
In the political arena, “extreme” policies, and these can be seen as ones which are imposed, will result in an opposite extreme “reaction”.
The secret is to equalize, to render excess “acceptable”, because it is then used to equalize, if not, initially, the status quo capitalist, political system, then the notion that excess is exclusive.
In layman’s terms, if you are fortunate enough to realize and to be allowed and assisted to do what you want and it is a money spinner, then the wealth generated is put back in the pot to regenerate even more wealth. Personal wealth becomes Government wealth. One cannot work in, or from, or for a country unless you have permission. When permission is granted, the implicit contract should be, in acknowledgment of a mutually beneficial commonality, that excess is available for Government use. Why should you chase me for percentage taxes on my income when I leave it all for you to use. “Modest” overheads and ongoing costs are accepted. All we want to do is to LIVE a NORMAL LIFE.
And what is a normal Life? Well, six cars in the garage and a handful of homes dotted around the world is NOT normal. That is conspicuous excess and that is unacceptable. That is a social conscience talking and we should be listening. All we need is enough to do our job and to live WELL, within our means and practical expectations. Apparent differences between individuals should reflect and support a “We are all equal but/however some of us are more equal than others” doctrine. It is an admirable and politically attractive concept for the likes of “Labour and Conservative”, “Republican and Democrat” political ideologies.
That is Equalism. It is a concept…………… And it may be even more than that!
It is not akin to the more rigid and uninspiring concept which was floated and tried out under the name of Communism. It is an altogether more enterprising and socially and spiritually rewarding.
We recognize and accept that change cannot be imposed, so in order that change be accepted, we must engage everybody in the process. The more people that we can actively involve, the surer we will be that policy decisions will be embraced and found worthy.
It is a development well suited for Government to explore in the Semantic Web environment, which is itself developing within the World Wide Web. It allows for a parallel, “virtual” governance system to be tested alongside and in tandem with, existing “real” systems. The control systems available to enable virtual self Governance further evolve during these early discovery phases in virtual control and introduce us into the Matrix, yet another control environment, acting as a safeguard and support for the initial system. The proposed Grid for the world’s computers will allow for the fledgling national Matrix systems to ensure that major malfunctions can be avoided and any flaws discovered, can be objectively assessed and quickly remedied.
It is the omniscient control “presence” in the Matrix evolution of the World Wide Web, the Semantic Web, which will offer operating systems compatibility. It is politics for the 21st century.
The Governments avowed e-governance aims for Great Britain have been adopted as real benefits have been recognized in its openness. The development and management of this openness is a virtual application. And as a virtual application, a global system will evolve with only “differences in colour” being caused by different national cultural and spiritual identities. The question remains though, as to whether British politics is ready to unite behind a common concept and to use digital Communication, as a means to discovering how and what to deliver, to its entire People.
The problem appears to be one of “operating systems”. Fortunately, in the world of today, a world of immediacy, it is not necessary to continue to labour under an inefficient system because we can seamlessly integrate enterprising innovations into an existing system, without disruption, to create what is in effect a new operating system.
Democracy, as we know it, has served us better than many other political systems and it IS a step too far to discard it. But it has its “flaws and vulnerabilities” and just as Software manufacturers offer upgrades to guard against exploitation of recognized flaws and vulnerabilities in programs and operating systems, so should we be open to providing upgrades in Democracy.
The virtual world allows us to deliver these upgrades, seamlessly.