Who needs politics, anyway?

Historically, poverty is a measure of social failure. On that basis the global economy could be described as about 5% efficient.
Historically, poverty is a measure of social failure. On that basis the global economy could be described as about 5% efficient. | Source

Politics is the process of dividing societies along ideological grounds. A society, by definition, is supposed to be a social organization for mutual benefit. A divided society, in which people actively work against the interests of others, is by definition a state of conflict at various levels.

The effects of politics are similar to mental illnesses in their extreme forms. If a drug or psychosis causes delusions and antisocial behavior, it’s a health issue. People aren’t paid to be delusive or disruptive.

The mind needs correct information to deal with situations properly. Politics spreads disinformation on a gigantic scale, promoting delusions and conflict in the interests of the different sides. People don’t listen to those they know to be liars, but with politicians, there’s only a choice of lies.

Politics is expensive, and the antithesis of cost efficient. A person that costs money, does nothing useful, and sabotages useful social functions isn’t employed. Quite the opposite, they’re considered unemployable.

Politics creates wars. Clashes between groups of people aren’t exactly unknown, but only politics has ever succeeded in creating global wars. Nobody is elected on a promise of destroying their countries, but that’s been the net effect in the last century or so.

Politics encourages corruption. A “representative” usually turns out to be representing a relatively small number of interests, not voters. The sole defence against corruption of individuals is on a basis of personal integrity, and that’s not exactly a common denominator in political representative. A group of individuals is more likely to represent a cooperative form of corruption than an electorate.

Politics breeds fanaticism. The extreme polarization of politics is usually the recipe for dictatorship and the loss of human rights. Societies ossify. In all cases where politics has been based on fanaticism, the states affected invariably collapse.

Politicians in party systems usually don’t have much individual room to express themselves. Politics is a form of “group think”, and only a minority of people can actually influence this process.

Politics actually interferes with liberties, lives and personal property. A law can be passed against people’s rights, if any constitutional power is ambiguous. Fanaticism-based politicians usually ignore constitutions, in any case.

There is no absolute guarantee of accountability of politicians for actions taken in office, anywhere on Earth. Only in very rare cases are politicians or those acting for them ever held responsible for crimes, and that’s usually through international law.

The actual administration of a state can be seriously undermined by politics. The process of government is paid for by the people, and is supposed to act in the interests of the people. Most people now living on Earth would dispute that that has ever happened in their lifetimes.

Politics has proven itself incapable, globally, of dealing with organized crime on any level but the rhetorical. The drug trade has thrived so much on Prohibitionist laws to the extent that it’s highly debatable whether these laws have ever had any effect but to enrich criminals. The public is subjected to the effects of crime on a minute by minute basis, largely because of these laws which don’t work. The global slave trade, estimated to affect 500,000 people per year, has had no effective attention whatsoever at the political level.

Politics encourages legalism. Legalism is the process of turning any issue into an expensive, pedantic, legal situation. Only those who can afford the protection of law on an ongoing basis usually receive it, unless legal aid is available, and it’s debatable if that constitutes a serious attempt to make legal representation freely available to plaintiffs. The idea of the rule of law is to protect the public. So far it protects criminals and lawyers, and precious little else. The law is now effectively a weapon for use against the public, not for its benefit.

Politics is a wrecker of working social systems. On average, Policy Bipolar Disorder trashes lives on a daily basis. On the basis of “representation”, a polarized approach to policy means that policies that were helping people or upon which social functions depend can be disrupted, literally at will, purely on the basis of polarized politics, with no hint of any issues related to good government.

Politics generally does nothing to deal with real world cost of living issues. Anti competitive commercial practices, in which huge corporations can charge fantastic prices are universally ignored, even when monopolies, cartels and price fixing are illegal. There’s never been any indication that any political party on Earth is prepared to address these issues, even as rhetoric.

So- Does the world need politics? Does the human race, generally, require a mechanism which simply creates conflicts, internal and external? Does the world need highly paid freeloaders who merely enrich themselves and demonstrate no particular benefit to anyone or anything?

Life would be a lot easier without politics. Simply providing a working system of government operated by actual experts with full accountability would do. Representation could be achieved by independent people not bound to ideologies or interest groups. You could make political parties, networks, donations and lobbying illegal, in which case the parasites would disappear. Only highly motivated, competent people could operate effectively in this environment.

You can have representation without corruption, fanaticism, and society-destroying ideologies. You can have proper recognition and enforcement of your human rights without politics, in fact you’d be more likely to get it without politics.

The global absurdity which we call politics, and its proven inability to manage economies, societies and everything that matters to them, has to go.

More by this Author


Comments 5 comments

666divine profile image

666divine 6 years ago from Toronto, Ontario

We're having an election this week. I've decided not to cast my vote for I can't stand any of the candidates and my vote would only be cast agaisnt the one I like the least. Imagine if everyone decided not to vote. Would dictatorhsip take place or just be unmasked?


Paul Wallis profile image

Paul Wallis 6 years ago from Sydney, Australia Author

Yeah, unmasked. The secret society of incompetent gerbils ruling the world would be forced to take control.


Hello, hello, profile image

Hello, hello, 6 years ago from London, UK

Paul you should be up there. You really defined politics perfectly. I don't belief in the voting system anymore. I think there are, not many, a few behind and they decide. These characters are only glove puppets especially the one we got in England now. No way they could have been voted legally. They closed the voting station early in the Midlands and North where the Labour voters are. 10ths of thousands couldn't vote and that confirms my suspicion. They, who ever they are, must have been desparate.


Paul Wallis profile image

Paul Wallis 6 years ago from Sydney, Australia Author

And have a look at the corruption, and the UK economy. Democracy isn't supposed to be a form of accountancy.


Tony Ryan 4 years ago

An excellent article, Paul; but for one implied element... which is that you appear to regard this current circus as democracy. It is not. In 27 years of very active research I have not been able to identify a single democracy in the west since the eighth century; although Thomas Paine tried hard to proselytise a Christian variant in England, France, and finally in America, with his The Rights of Man. Most Americans, including Paine's descendants, believe the US Constitution was based on his works, yet every principle thus enshrined was excised by Madison; later rewarded with the Presidency.

The Irish Monks (one third of whom were women) wrote in depth about the 19% democracy of ancient Greece, and praised the 95% democracy of the ancient Finns, and of others, but the dedicatedly homosexual and misogynist Vatican closed them down.

Abraham Lincoln, for all his internal values conflicts, provided the most concise definition of democracy: Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In other words, policy formulation through informed electoral consensus.

I witnessed the implementation of consensus protocols in north East Arnhem Land in the 1970s, and in his autobiography Nelson Mandela claimed the same systems operated amongst the Lesotho and his own Xhosa, until the British closed them down. The same values were operative with the Inuit and Kung, and probably Sami.

Anthropologists have attempted to smother this information but there are still books in hidden libraries that record the thousands of democracies that have flourished in history. The most recent manifestation of this value can be found in the Occupy Movement, which has spread to 83 countries. This is a war that has barely started.

Finally, let me say that electing someone to do our thinking for us is an act of madness; not democracy. That this 'representationalism' is owned and managed by the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Murdochs of this world, makes it an act of surrender to tyranny.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working