2023 FUTURE OBSERVATORY
2023 FUTURE OBSERVATORY
The outcome of the revolutionary changes in the political views of the electorate has not yet been, as those expecting 'Crises of Legitimation' (and before them Marx and Engel) might have predicted, that the masses have risen up against the establishment in bloody rebellion. Even the genuinely revolutionary changes which have already happened in the communist world took place with, relatively speaking, almost no bloodshed; even though they occurred on the same massive scale as Lenin's very bloody revolution at the beginning of the century. Instead, in the West the population has - whilst learning to use their new powers - simply rejected politics; or at least they have rejected the political establishment!
Possibly as result of the elite's tight control over the processes of legitimation, the public at large have not seen revolutionary change as a viable option. Unlike earlier revolutionaries, they have not been desperately hungry. Instead they have been rather comfortable. The result is that they have, with some notable exceptions, chosen to distance themselves from the whole political process - whilst gradually developing a quite considerable distaste for all of those involved in it (journalists almost as much as politicians).
Whatever the reasons, legitimation (at the level of the individual) has broken down in a spectacular manner - but this has so far not been reflected in widespread political activity.
What has been developing, however, has been a growing awareness by individuals - but not by politicians - of the new powers of the individual in the political processes. As one example of this, referred to earlier in terms of single issue politics, many contentious issues have merely been taken outside the normal frameworks to be dealt with in specialist actions by specialist groups. More generally, though, electors are beginning to use - with increasing effectiveness - the one power that they are given; that of the ballot box.
Thus, there is some evidence that they are starting to use even national elections to deliberately convey messages - typically of discontent - to the politicians. For a number of decades, possibly since the end of the Second World War, there has been a cynical recognition that, with a few notable exceptions, nobody won an election, parties only lost them - most voting (apart from die-hard supporters, and even these are now disappearing) was essentially negative. This was, in particular, evident in the opinion polls and by-elections, between national elections, where the electorate could with impunity concentrate on making their objections known - in protest votes. Sometime in the 1980s, however, this seemed to extend to national elections. It is not possible to be definitive about what were extremely sophisticated political reactions, but it did appear as if a large proportion of the electorate started to vote tactically - to diminish the power of politicians. In the United Kingdom, for example, this was perhaps evidenced at the beginning of the 1990s by what seemed like an attempt by the electorate as a whole to create a hung parliament. Unfortunately, the degree of subtlety proved too great for the crude political processes. The outcome, swayed by critical failures in the accuracy of the published opinion polls, seemingly represented a major miscalculation by the electorate - worried that (as predicted by the opinion polls) there would be a Labour landslide - and an unwelcome continuation of the Conservative government - which was almost immediately rendered powerless by its lack of actual popular support. On the other hand, in the US the equivalent support for Ross Perot, the independent candidate for President, did have rather more positive outcomes. Bill Clinton was elected, but with a very obvious question mark hanging over his presidency; and this question was, of course, answered in the subsequent congressional elections.
The result was, seemingly, that the electorate - perhaps not unreasonably - reached for the axe to replace the scalpel they had been trying to use. Around the world - in Canada, Italy, Japan, to name but a few - there were massive switches in voting patterns; which heavily penalised the sitting tenants. More puzzlingly, seemingly affected by the popular mood, even the fringe members of the political parties holding power themselves withdrew their support - despite the fact that they would be themselves hurt (at the polls) by such behaviour! The Conservatives in the UK tore themselves apart over the topic of the EU. Before the congressional elections in the US, the Democrats fought each other as viciously; and made themselves unelectable!
The result is a form of anarchy; an especially pure form of it - since the electorate is only concerned with destroying the power of government, to give it to the individual. In past times this might have been seen to hold all the terrors popularly associated with anarchy. Now, however, with a well-educated electorate and sophisticated communications, it can be viewed as another, potentially viable, form of government, without the popular overtones. On the other hand, it is a form which will require much more sophisticated management if it is to be genuinely viable - and, hence, the poor reputation it had in the past. Now, however, it seems to be an almost inevitable trend - if the increasing power of the individual is not to be thwarted. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the overall trend was not generally recognised as such by a significant number of our general groups; although a greater degree of recognition of the more significant individual changes was evident in our 'expert' groups. Along with most managers in the west, our non-specialists had difficulty in seeing such structural changes - here in politics, elsewhere in society. Two thirds of these general groups, however, recognised most of the symptoms. They did see that there were major problems in the general area of politics - including the rejection of traditional parties, the emergence of single issue politics and revolutionary tendencies in general - but they ascribed these effects to a wide variety of causes, rather than seeing any overall patterns. The overall themes which did emerge most frequently, again across two thirds of the general groups, were those related to resurgent nationalism; including the re-emergence of Fascism and, on the contrary - the rejuvenation of Socialism. The expert groups, especially those more directly involved with politics, were much more able - as one might expect - to put names to the various 'movements' they were describing; though even they had difficulty in seeing the overall picture. It is not surprising, therefore, that the establishment - even more insulated from reality - fails to see what is happening.
Around the globe, as electorates recognise the failings of existing systems, the first reaction is to reject government - and refuse to participate in its legitimation. In a subsequent step, electorates are choosing to punish and even destroy governments by visiting massive electoral defeats upon them - out of all proportion to their failings. When even this punishment fails to work it seems likely that more direct action - probably in the form of new quasi-political groupings will emerge. These will probably committed, however, to put in place new democratic processes; whilst gaining, in the short-term, some identity from alliance with single-issue groups. The essence of the political future over the short-term may, thus, be a (workable) form of anarchy.
Paradoxically, the short term impact - in the US at least - has been to reinforce the position of the conservatives. As the rest of the population has rejected politics, and hence the elections, the core conservatives have been emboldened to capture government. Unfortunately, in the case of the US, this may not be solved in the short term - or even the medium term.
9 May 2003
Other pages you might like to consider are:
hits
Copyright © 2005 Future Observatory