On a flight back from the US to Singapore, dug out an old draft to see if it can be finished
It would appear its time for the annual post on Politics. Not terribly irrelevant, givent that Singapore will likely have an election this year too.
As a recap, my last two posts in this series explored:
- The spectrum of effectiveness, which ranges from benevolent dictatorships to unfeterred democracy.
- An additional observation about people: those dispositioned to balance/intuition (aka Jedi) versus those who believe in absolutism (aka the sith)
These were perhaps a broader on the high level reflections of the systems we see in the world, and the types of people who vote.
This post aims to unify the two for what matters the most: Voting.
Premises
First, that political governance ideally demands serving the state over self. This, in itself is a strong claim - one that I personally believe in, but like many things, may or may not really true.
Second, that politics will ultimately be fronted by a Human, and with it, all their indvidual strengths and drawbacks. We are not yet at the stage of electing our AI overlords.
Third, no nation (in a globalised world) exists in a vacuum. There are always external challenges to deal with (economically, naturally, geopolitically). These are factors out of control: powerless are the voters, powerless are the electees.
Fourth, with inherent human nature and the complexity of challenges, it is impossible to please everyone. There are winners and losers.
Fifth, Political actions are driven by short-term and long-term motivations, although modern democracies favour the former.
Sixth, Political actions are restrained by institutions. These favour long-term motivations. Check and balances, structural norms, etc.
Seventh, both the Voters and Electorate are ultimately motivated by the preservation of Power. (of course, the power of a Prime Minister to lead a country and the power/agency of a shopkeeper to keep a shop running are of different magnitudes, but speaks to the root concept of individual Power)
Eigth, the ultimate game for the electorate is to Perform well enough to maintain majority, to preserve their own power. This involves influencing others, with tribalism being on the extreme end of things.
Maturing Political Structures for an increasingly Complex World
With climate change, increased competition, (no more Pax Americana, thank you very much) and peak inequality: I am curious as to whether the existing political norms are sufficient.
Drawing a parallel concept from the Start-up world: i see it necessary for both individuals and the collective to learn as fast as possible, to iterate quickly enough to make the decision needed to (aforementioned) Perform Well Enough.
Layering on the concept of efficiency to the previous model, I now consider:
Poltiical quadrant 1: Benevolent dictatorship - serving society over individuals, high efficiency Quadrant 2: Ideal democracy - serving society over individuals, inefficiently Quadrant 3: unideal democracy - serving individuals over society, inefficiently Quadrant 4: tyrannical dictatorship - serving individuals over society, efficiently
Equally important, within the stated concept of efficiency is the ability to navigate the institutions and constraints (planning boundaries).
I’ve stated my position before: that dictatorships can be, rightly or wrongly, relentlessly efficient, as opposed to the consensus building necessity of democracies. I add that while dictatorships are at risk of making the wrong decisions (due to poor check and balance systems), I’d like to recognise the fact that it enables the collective body to learn faster as well. The response to COVID was a good test of this.
What does it mean as Voter
Objectively, the best choice would naturally depend on circumstance:
Quadrant 4 has the ability to maximise one’s own power, assuming you’re politically connected (see it in Oligarchal structures).
If you’re not, Quadrant 3 could work, on the a basis to preserve your own power in a body aspiring to Perform Well Enough for the majority.
However, Well Enough, will necessirate effiiient trade-offs, and if you’re a minority (who gets shafted for the greater good), Quadrant 2 is probably the way to go.
Quadrant 3 is probably the worst. It’d be interesting to identify countries in this stage (somehow.. im not a political scientist)
Regardless of which Quadrant is selected, there will be a face and name to vote for.
So why does someone follow someone: Strength? Vision? Competency? Belief?
Charisma and speeches aside, I would also add the following considerations:
- Restraints: What instituions are you bound to? What institutions is the electee bound to?
- Efficiency: Are the electees competent enough to navigate an increasingly complex world?
My Concerns (In a Singaporean Context)
Caveat and disclosure: I strongly identify myself within Quadrant 3.
- The next engine of growth - what economic development means for developed economies, while balancing with domestic needs (more thoughts on this in a later post). At the same time, gratitude is necessary for breaking out of the middle income trap
- Of a maturing Benevolent Dictatorship and the governing body’s Security and Resilience (and more specfically, the ability to make short-term unpopular, but Sound Enough decisions in the long term.
- The balance between Institutional Restraint and maintaing Efficiency in an increasingly complex world.
Politics is a game of control and Power. Of people and the systems they exist in. Its an exercise in immense complexity to surpass the odds and do well. Failing this is a big deal: The inability to manage both external and itnernal factors well is what leads to war. Yes. War is bad.
Side reflection: The US model is interesting - giving the illusion of unfettered freedom, opportunity and identity, but shackled and fettered by a capitalist system.