Recently, I finished reading a book called, 'The March of Folly From Troy to Vietnam', by Barbara Tuchman (1984). The book won the Puliter Prize twice and is lauded by reviews from eminent sources as The Times and Sunday Times. However, it is little more than a quaint work, aiming to do nothing more than bring into the glaring light, the great follies of human history. It is a book whose premise is wholly based on retrospect and superficial parameters. She chooses to focus on the Trojan Horse episode, the corruption of the Popes who presided over the road to Reformation, the British loss of America, and the Vietnam War. The compelling narrative is somewhat lessened by the obviousness with which the author reveals herself to be American. Furthermore, much charm is negated when the occasional (probably unconscious) racial stereotype is thrown in unheeded. It is nontheless, an enjoyable read.
Average though this tome may be, it did provoke some thought on the nature of human government. This seemed pertinent given the current circumstances at the moment, where the Coalition Government is taking a lot of criticism over its every manoeuver. Given that folly in government affects many more people than an individual's folly is ever likely to, should not those who govern us be particularly talented at not making and propagating mistakes, but also have nothing but the national interest at heart? Find me a politician who won't tell you they have the national interest at heart. Find me a politician who agrees with the other. Who is right? Or, should it be more important in a democracy for our representatives to actually represent the views of their constitutents? Are voters even qualified to pick between policies, or express their wishes in a format conducive to the machinery of government? Economics and social policy are not compulsory subjects for the electorate. Is our system, legitimated by history and imbued with Western Liberalism, ever going to produce consistent results? Or perhaps the fact that our politicians are mostly men of ambition and/or principle is an inherent obstacle.
Election-time then, a cynic may conclude, is nothing more than a whirlwind of propaganda and empty promises. These people, desperate for power and/or change, march about trying to please as many voters as possible by making popular promises. When in government, they probably try to implement their promises but discover that the realities of government deny them. At least that's what they should say instead of spouting sophistry. (I feel sympathy for the LibDems, who have lost all credibility because of the realities of coalition and now have no choice but to hang on with the Tories in the hope that things get better). When the next election comes, the government is desperate to win either to retain power and/or continue its program. How are we to go on with governors who are cyclically subjected to the differing and melanged urges to power and continuity? And if a new government with new ideas comes in, won't that destroy the progress that had been made? And who knows if they're right? Only time will tell, but recurrent elections means continuity is not given the chance to pass the examination of time. Therefore, politicians are inclined to win votes by any means in order to safeguard continuity - so disenchanting voters along the way. It's helluva tough out there guys.
So what of a solution to the paradox of our democracy, which both demands and denies honesty of its politicians? I think there is one system of governance which holds a secret and cherished place in the minds of many intellectuals - that of 'benevolent dictatorship'. Given today's connotations around the term 'dictator', perhaps a more palatable label would be, as expressed by Socrates and Plato, 'The Philospher King'. Such a King (or Queen), would be bred for ability, and taught the ways of philosophy in order to gain wisdom. Born to rule, their capacity would be undoubted, their intentions unquestionable, and their actions correct and good. It is an idyll both elegant and unreachable.
Tuchman tells us that President Kennedy had a decent chance of pulling out of Vietnam before it became disastrous. However, he would not take the chance because election-time was drawing near and he could not risk a withdrawal provoking the political Right from excoriating him. It would damage his chances. Then his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, also refused to consider withdrawal. Despite consistent and mounting evidence to the otherwise, he refused to be the first President of the USA to preside over defeat. After much unnecessary death, the lessons of human pride and politics really ought to be learned. It would be a thankless glory for those politicians brave enough to sacrifice their careers and prejudices in the national interest. But what are we to utilise to govern ourselves if not ourselves? Aliens? Discuss...
