Transparency in Government

The importance of transparency in any government is an issue that cannot be overemphasised, not least because it is probably the only litmus test of democracy. Therefore, a truly democratic government should be one of total transparency. Unfortunately, we do not live in a truly democratic society. If we did, the government would be totally transparent it all its activities. It isn’t. One could argue, very strongly, that majority of the policies that have been implemented by the British government over the years that have gone awry were due to a lack of transparency.

Transparency of and in government is necessary for two reasons:

• 
  It is necessary to build trust between the people and the government.
• 
  It is necessary to give members of the public the opportunity to decide their own future, which is theirs by right.
  

The public had and still has no idea of what the government is doing. The government on the other hand makes, takes and implements decisions that have the potential to affect the lives of millions of people without appropriate consultation with the public, probably because it is of the opinion that the masses would not understand the pros and cons of policy making. Or perhaps because it feels that the mandate of the public grants it the authority to carry out such decisions. Both assumptions are wrong! The public is made up of intelligent individuals, majority of whom are literate and well educated. Surely if properly presented with the pros and cons of a policy that is to be implemented, such persons could be trusted with the capability of judging whether it would be in their best interests of not. No individual has the right to take unilateral decisions on behalf of an entire people, which have the potential of adversely affecting their well-being.

With regards to the issue of mandate, the only authority it confers to the incumbent politicians is the right and privilege of articulating and presenting to the people, the arguments – for and against, of any issue that is to be implemented in the service of the people. A mandate to run government does not give any individual the authority to decide the fate of millions. A mandate does not give politicians, or any government, the authority to act unilaterally. The reason for this is that in a system that is composed of numerous elements, uniform growth can only be possible with equal contribution from all elements. It is worth noting that the key word here is uniform growth. This is because the system as a whole can still grow even with contribution from only a few elements, but the growth will be non-uniform and to the detriment of some elements within the system. Extrapolating this analogy to the human society, if government implements any decision that has not been approved by consensus of the public, this would result in growth that will be non-uniform. In other words, the growth that occurs will favour a few and neglect the rest, and will give rise to discontent, which is itself the starting point of many of the ills we observe in society today – for example, non-uniform distribution of wealth, poverty, crime, war and so forth.

In fairness, it is necessary to point out that the human race has come a long way. This is due in no small measure to its innovative spirit and ability to adapt. In the great cauldron of creation, the results of all experiments, of which humanity is one, are valid. Therefore, one could argue that the world we find ourselves in today is what it should be, since from an absolute point of view, there is nothing wrong with it. However, from humanity’s perspective, not all results are desirable, no doubt because humanity would like to see that it evolves to its highest potential. This will not happen if it annihilates itself courtesy of implementation of decisions that are counter-productive to its uniform growth. This is the impasse humanity finds herself rapidly approaching. And which is reflected in all the societies of the world – especially in the so-called developed societies, of which Great Britain is one. Therefore, it behoves us to begin to find ways to correct for this. The fostering of a transparent government is one such way. It is crucial if this nation is not to implode under the tension caused by the ever-widening chasm between the haves and have-nots. The elimination of the dominance of the financial industry over all other sectors of society is another important solution.

So how can transparency be implemented in government – any government? Well there are two approaches to be considered: the practical approach and the ideal approach.

The ideal approach

In this scenario, transparency will be total. In other words, any decision that concerns the potential implementation of policy that could affect the lives of millions of people must be put to the people for their approval through voting. When it comes to the well-being of the masses, no decision or policy can be regarded as minor. They are all major. And should be treated with respect. The issue of voting for every major decision by the public cannot be the logistical nightmare that some dissenting voices might be quick to point out. The reason being, thanks to technology, we live in a digital age today where everyone has access to computers. Voting could easily be done at the touch of a single button, for as many times, and in as many days without detracting from routine duties. All that is required before hand is that the politicians in government do what their mandate requires them to do. And that is to provide full disclosure on the main arguments, for and against the implementation of the policy for which a vote is being asked. For example, in a policy proposing the implementation of a Bill to cut tax, the public would need to know who benefits and who will not, will it be the poor or the rich, the middle class or the upper class. Will businesses fail, will commodities become more or less expensive? Another example could be the implementation of a Bill to build, say, a new airport. The public will need to know who benefits, how many will lose their homes to make way for the runway, what will be the effects of increased pollution and noise levels on local inhabitants, how will the residents of the area benefit form incoming revenue, how will the rest of the country benefit, etc. These are just a few examples of policies that have the potential of affecting the lives of millions. People must be allowed to vote and have a say. The majority can never be wrong, in the sense that they accurately reflect the best possible progression for the Group.

This is the ideal approach, which is unpractical in the society we find ourselves living in today for the simple reason that it requires full disclosure on all the secrets being sat on by the government. Exposure of some of these secrets could result in breakdown of the governmental system. With no government, there’ll be anarchy. The high level of risk means that probably the only feasible approach is the practical approach.

The practical approach

This approach does not require immediate total transparency in all affairs of government. Taking into consideration the fact that the duties of government fall into two main departments: domestic and international, total transparency could be reasonably expected in all domestic related affairs while transparency in international affairs could only be expected for situations that do not compromise national security. The only condition under which total transparency may be expected in international affairs would be if all nations of the earth were to adopt the policy of total transparency. Such a situation would be ideal but impractical in the short-term as time would be needed for all other nations to join the transparency bandwagon.

It is unfortunate that the practical approach has to be given more weight than the ideal approach. This is due in no small measure to the web of lies, spin and deceit spun by the government for decades. Deception is a vicious cycle that has no corrective antidote. The only solution is exit with full closure. For a societal system that has its foundations built on deception, the only way out is to implement a strategy of exit in parts. This could take years, but in the end would be worth it because humanity would have put itself in a better position to remove the threat of self-annihilation.

The Distribution of Wealth

For many the issue of financial wealth is very important, not only because of the financial status associated with it, but also because it enables prompt access to invaluable services. Therefore, it is no surprise that in a society fuelled by capitalist driven economic model, the accrual of wealth plays a significant role in determining its progress. It is an open secret that in Great Britain today, the gap between the rich and the poor is at an all-time high. The economy has in effect being hijacked by a few individuals who pull the strings in order to dictate the pace of its progress. The result is that the upper class is accruing wealth at a faster rate than the middle and lower classes. Consequently, what we have is the development of a financial chasm separating the rich from the poor.

This state of affairs prompts the following questions: What factors control wealth? How is wealth defined? Why has the distribution of wealth become polarised into rich and poor classes? Is it possible to have an even distribution of wealth in our society?

In order to answer these questions, it is important to realise that wealth is defined intrinsically by value. When an item or service is deemed to have some value attached to it, it becomes important. The more value it has the more important it gets. The more important it is, the more the progressive instinct within each human being compels them to strive for access. This immediately creates a tension that leads to scarcity, with the consequent association of more value to the item in question. A vicious cycle is established. What this means is that he who controls value controls wealth. This in effect creates artificial demand. The most obvious step now would be to figure out the origin of this artificial demand in order to determine a way to counter it.

To do this we would need to go back to the beginning – the big picture so to speak. In doing so, we find that the existence of modern man, in response to the urge to evolve, has always revolved around three themes: the acquisition of knowledge, biological continuity and health. The acquisition of knowledge is what we are interested in because this is what man uses to consciously react to the natural phenomena of demand by attempting to understand the self and the environment and how the two interact. To this end, he started off with the formation of society, came up with rules to strengthen and protect it, before moving on to looking for ways to obey the urge to progress by trying to understand in greater detail the dynamics of society. Of course, this meant understanding his relationship with his fellow human being and with the environment. From this endeavour, the institution of economy was born and the various economic models put into play. Next came the institutions of science and technology– they found expression because they augmented the goals of the institution of economics. The same applies to other institutions dedicated to the acquisition of knowledge such as the Institution of the Arts and Crafts, Medicine, Nutrition and so on. This leads to the important conclusion that since all these institutions of knowledge originated as tools to be used to understand the phenomena of demand, they could all be classified as physical applications of demand. The phenomena of demand would then be a universal principle that humanity is able to apply in any way it chooses using any tool it pleases. The tools in this case would be the various institutions – economics, science, technology, Arts, and so forth.

And so coming back to the original question about the reason behind the financial class divide in society today, it becomes obvious that this is due to the dominance of the institution of economics over all the other institutions. So why has the institution of economics being allowed to run away with the prize and dictate to the rest of society how it must evolve? Surely, this is a pertinent question given that if every institution is simply a physical application of demand, then they should all be given equal weight with respect to their function in serving as an outlet for the phenomena of demand. A logical answer to this question would be that the institution of economics, in its bid to articulate the dynamics behind the interaction between the various elements of society, i.e. people, sectors and institutions, decided on using money (the so-called legal tender) as the defining tool to quantify the exchange of service between these elements. Consequently, since the institution of economics was responsible for coming up with the rules and regulations that defined the usage and availability of money, this implied that it in effect controlled the growth and evolution of society. This is wrong! It is wrong because natural growth in any given system should be dependent on equal contributions from every element within the system. If any element were allowed to dominate, it would result in the polarisation of growth within the system. In order words, the growth within the system would be unevenly distributed.

It is obvious to see now how our society became polarised into classes of wealth. How do we solve this? The solution in this case appears to be a simple one; remove the agents of polarisation and this would result in the even distribution of wealth. To achieve this, it would be necessary to re-define our societal perception of wealth. The current definition of wealth as equating to financial/monetary surplus must be discarded in favour of a one that is a direct function of the successful application of demand in a fluid and dynamic system. In other words, the medium of exchange that has been traditionally used to quantify the exchange of services should no longer be an external object. Rather, it should be intrinsic and non-physical. The medium of exchange would be the services themselves. This would lead to an even distribution of wealth, in which growth in society would become a direct function of the exchange of services in response to genuine demand from the people, sectors and institutions that make up the societal system.

To summarize, in order to effect the even distribution of wealth in society, the dominance of the institution of economics, which currently dictates the terms of exchange of services, must be removed. This can be done by shifting from a model promoting the quantification of the exchange of services with a physical, external object – money (legal tender), to a model whereby the exchange of services, in response to demand, is quantified by the service itself. This would usher in an era of wealth by even distribution and would remove monopoly of the market by a small segment of society. In addition, the proper implementation of this model would result in a gradual but inevitable transition from a consumer oriented society held hostage to artificial demand, to a service oriented society reacting only to natural demand.

The deception of Politicians in Government

To most people who lead regular lives, by that I mean people in the middle class working category who work 40+ hours a week, pay their taxes and respect the law of the land, the word politics is synonymous with lies, deception and broken promises. To people in the lower class working category, the perception is even worse. Politicians are regarded on the one hand as beacons of hope and on the other as the embodiment of lies, intrigue and abuse of power. To people in the upper class echelon – the business moguls, CEO’s and the filthy rich, politicians are seen as pawns, tools to be used in advancing personal wealth. Looking at all these different perceptions, one thing becomes immediately obvious, in no class are politicians regarded with respect. They are instead looked upon with disdain for trying to provide an important service to society, and this especially if they are directly involved with government.

Why is this the case? Most would agree that the mechanism of government is vital for the smooth operation and cohesive progression of society since any system must have a focal point from which the coordination and organisation of the system is exacted - or else they’ll be chaos. The government constitutes such a focal point and as such is of vital importance to the continued growth of any societal system. Growth in this case would mean that every member of society would enjoy equal access to economic wealth and prosperity. In other words, the distribution of wealth must be uniform. This clearly is not the case today with the gap between the rich and the poor widening daily. The wealthy upper class never had it so good while the poor and lower classes languish in abject misery. In a system that gets most of its sustenance from taxes levied on the middle and lower classes which together make up over 90% of the workforce, it beggars belief as to why the wealthy who make up less than 10% of the workforce should be allowed to make away with the spoils of growth and progress. That this should be allowed to happen is a bitter pill to swallow.

So who is to blame for this sorry state of affairs – the government of course! Who runs the government? The politicians! So why are politicians, despite their best intentions, the object of such vitriolic condemnation from the two most important work sectors of society – the middle and lower class?

To understand the answer it is probably best to consider as a case in point, one of the leading figures in British politics for the last 70 years – Tony Blair. In 1997 in the run up to elections and just before he took office, Tony Blair came across, without exception, as unique among politicians. His zeal and firm convictions of equality, justice and liberation were firmly etched on his face for all to see. There was a sense of hope for the future that was augmented by a landslide victory at the elections. As a politician there is no stronger statement of ones mandate than a landslide victory. Fast forward ten years to 2007. Tony Blair who has just left office – 23 days ago to be precise, cuts a very different picture from the bubbly, dynamic personality with positivism oozing from every pore that stepped into the Number 10 ten years ago. Today Tony Blair is a broken man, a figure of mockery both here in the UK and abroad. The reason for this is not because of the things he achieved while in office, and they were quite considerable. No, the reason is because of the things he promised to achieve but did not. The reason is because of the lies, the deceptions and the unilateral decisions he carried out in the face of all opposition and in direct contravention of his promise to listen to the voice of the people. The reason is because by the time he left office he had lost all respectability. The realities of office brought Tony Blair crashing back to earth, so that in the end, he became not “the unique politician” but an ordinary politician just like the rest of them.

So why did one of the world's most respected politicians leave office with his reputation in tatters? Did Tony Blair underestimate the enormous demands of his office? Did he underestimate the strength of government? Or did he simply overestimate his own ability to bring change to government and the people? The answer is that Tony Blair and all politicians for that matter, overestimate their ability to effect change in government and consequently society. This is in part due to ignorance in the art of governance and the dynamics of government, and partly due to mastery in the art of deception through the use of white lies.

The ignorance stems from the inability to recognise that any ideology becomes limited in expressing itself the moment it steps on to a given path. This is because a path by definition is constrained by the boundaries that define it. And these boundary conditions by default extend to anything that seeks expression on the path. Consequently, in relation to politics and government, the politics constitute the ideology and the government the path. Therefore every politician must use the tools of government to express their ideology with the result that the expression of any new ideology has the potential to be severely restricted in its expression. And so someone like Tony Blair comes in to office thinking that he has everything under control only to find that the task of supplanting the existing ideology with his own is a lot harder than anticipated. And this is where the white lies come into full play – the use of half truths, promises that couldn’t possibly be fulfilled in the time spent in office and the enactment of convoluted Bills that are made to look like something new and beneficial but in reality are no different from pre-existing Bills. These white lies are a blatant attempt by politicians in government to cover up their inability to fulfil the promises made on the campaign trail.

So why do politicians make promises that they know are likely to be broken since history has shown that this is what their predecessors get up to every time they find themselves running government? The answer – Greed and lust for Power! Politics is a career that demands servitude to the masses. Ironically politicians are less concerned with the servitude aspect as they are with enhancing their career prospects.

And so we come back full circle. What is the solution? One could argue that the fallibility of the human nature in a sense exonerates the human being from its actions, but only if the consequence of the actions adversely affect the lives of only a few people. Where it becomes inexcusable is when the actions have the potential to affect the lives of millions. In such a situation, total transparency is not only the best medium for running the top political job in the country, it also constitutes the direct link between the government and the masses. It is the only way government is likely to get support for any of the decisions it makes, since no major decision would be taken without the express will of the people. In this way politicians would be seen to perform their duties fully as it should be, in service to the people.

The Web of War

When the word war is mentioned, at least in the western world these days, the most common reaction is one of anger. Anger generated by the fiasco that led to the current war going on – the war in Iraq. People are upset at the audacity of those in government to make, take and execute decisions concerning the well-being of men, women and children with impunity and without regard for opinion of members of the public by whose mandate they were put in office to begin with. In other words, the majority of people associate war with the abuse of power.

So what exactly is war? What is the cause of war and how can it be prevented? Contrary to popular perception, war isn’t just conflict. War is extreme conflict that has the sole purpose of subduing an adversary using the most lethal means necessary with a high probability of ending in the cessation of life – in other words, death. This is the definition of war stripped down to its barest essence. Ignore the glamorised version fed to us by those in power that purports war to be a necessary tool that can be used to bring about peace, justice and growth. This is utter nonsense. Nothing, no action, can justify the taking of life. We do not have the power or the ability to create life and therefore we do not have the right to take it. Yes, modernization has provided mankind with the tools to understand how to put together the right conditions to aid the manifestation of life – organic or inorganic. History tells us that mankind has been unable to escape the tantalising bewitchment of war despite its best intentions. There always seems to be a new war brewing around the corner. A good example is the war by the United States led coalition in Iraq that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives since its inception. Estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives since the conflict that started out as a self appointed, almost messianic mission to oust against Saddam Hussein from power went underway. The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina between the Serbs, Croats and Muslims which claimed of hundreds of thousands of lives in the early 1990’s with many more millions displaced from their homes and villages is another example of the horror of war. The same scenario was repeated in Kosovo in the late 1990’s. Rwanda, 1994, in one of the most bloody and shameful episodes in African history, Hutus wiped out 800,000 Tutsis in just 100 days! The killings were carried out for the most part with machetes attesting to the depths of savagery the human being is capable of sinking to.

And the reason for all these wars; petty arguments, territorial disputes or simply the rabid desire of a few fanatical individuals to willingly push through the implementation of their grandiose ideas without care of consequences. All these reasons seem benign when compared to the damage they cause. The resulting loss of lives that follows just doesn’t seem commensurate to the trifling nature of the events that led to them in the first place. The sad thing is that most humans that get caught up in war realise this and yet seem powerless to stop the rush of the tide.

And so we have our answer. War is caused by the greed of men who lust after power and consolidation of territorial rights, business rights and any other perceived right that promotes the placement of the self and or individual identity above all others. The combination of such individuals with government makes for an extremely lethal cocktail that can only have one result – conflict. When human beings on opposing sides of a conflict engage with the intention of bringing death to the enemy, a line is crossed that vanishes on the act of crossing. It becomes impossible to find ones way back. One has no option but to keep on fighting to the end. This is the web of war. This line is not a physical line marked out on the ground that can be erased and redrawn at will, it is a line that exists within the self. It is marked out in the mind by choice and conscience. And once marked cannot be undone for the simple reason that the track gets hidden by the deluge of mental trauma and emotional upheaval within the self that results from the chaos of conflict. This is the reason why war, the taking of human life can never be justified – no matter how well intentioned.

How can war be stopped? Well, we know that human nature being what it is, is still saddled with the less desirable traits of greed, lust for power and servitude to consumerism. Consequently there will always be conflict. But conflict is not war. Knowing that there is a trap is the first step in evading it. To prevent or rather, to reduce the probability of war occurring to a minimum, the tools of war must be removed from play. The G8 nations must immediately cease the production and distribution of the instruments of death, i.e. weapons. The G8 nations must also engage in the destruction of all its arsenal of weapons. If the flow of weapons is interrupted and stopped, war will cease. People will be forced to come to the table and negotiate terms amicably. A man who has lost members of his family to the evils of an on-going war is unlikely to come to the table to negotiate because he doesn’t know how. In his bid to exact revenge and justice, the emotional and mental trauma of losing his loved ones will have erased the passage of his crossing in his conscience. So that he is unable to find his way back no matter how much a part of him desires to.

The question then becomes: how feasible is it for the G8 economies to cease production and distribution of weapons? The reality today is that the global weapons industry is a thriving multi-trillion dollar industry that provides job opportunities for millions of people. This being the case the G8 economies are unlikely to scrap it for fear of falling into an economic black hole. Such a move would more than likely trigger a domino effect that could herald a period of economic depression from which it would be difficult to recover.

And so we come full circle – a vicious circle. To stop the cycles of never ending wars humanity must first re-examine its understanding of the meaning and purpose of economy. It must decide if it is willing to pay the price that will result from abolishing the production and distribution of weapons. It must do this or risk consigning itself to the scrap heap of creation.

The Problem of Demand

Society today is a paradox. On the one hand it is in rude health - modernization, technological progression and the steady stream of innovative discoveries that push back the boundaries of knowledge all attest to this. And yet on the other hand, it appears to be on the brink of imploding – as evidenced by the prevalence of poverty, crime, war and aggressive diseases. And so the question becomes how and why has it come to this? Is humanity on course to wipe herself out or is she on the verge of something great.

The key to this answer is to understand the nature and purpose of that which drives and controls society. This means understanding the nature of demand. So what is demand? The phenomenon of demand is an attribute that is inherent in any societal system. It derives its existence of the property of diversity, which is itself a natural consequence that arises by virtue of the presence of the uniqueness of each element that make up a given system. In other words, since any system in nature is composed of many elements, each of which is separate and subtly different from any other element, this automatically creates diversity within the system. And when this scenario is extrapolated into a societal system, which is composed of sentient, self-aware organisms such as man, diversity gives rise to demand because the each element recognises its deficiencies relative to the strengths of the other
elements and strives to correct this perceived imbalance.

The desire of humanity to address the urges of demand has given rise to the various economic models we have in existence today. The proliferation of crime, poverty and war show that that humanity hasn’t really made a good job of it. The reason for this is simple, the economic models are all flawed in some crucial way. To understand what this flaw is, it is necessary to examine the philosophy behind the main economic models in use today – capitalism, socialism and communism. For simplicity, will ignore every other economic model since they will be in most cases a combination of one or more of the main models.

The model of capitalism, stripped down to its barest essentials embodies the concept of a free market. It assumes that the market is a spectrum with the consumer at one end and the supplier at the other. The model requires that the system be self-sustaining. So far there is nothing wrong with these assumptions since in this case demand would be a direct reflection of what people actually need. However, where it becomes flawed is in its assumption that for the system to be self-sustaining this requires that the consumers must be kept wanting. This goes contrary to the phenomena of diversity and introduces a loophole that can be exploited. And so elements within society use their strategic position and influence to interfere with the natural phenomena of demand by acting as self-appointed stabilizing agents. Thus in societies today that boast predominantly capitalist economies, demand is not a direct reflection of the actual needs of the people. It is an artificial demand, which in essence is another word for consumerism. In other words, consumerism is demand created artificially by government, businesses and unscrupulous individuals with a strangle hold on the market. The effect is twofold; first it continually widens the divide between those who have and those who have not – poor and the rich, and second, it starves people of their true demands. The presence of slums and ghettos side by side with wealthy suburbs is a symptom of this divide. It is apparent in the presence of crime, diseases, and disaffection that is rampant within the so-called technologically advanced economies of the earth. On a global scale, it is apparent in the divide between the rich and poor nations where the poor nations are used to serve as fodder to feed the rich nations. This leads to the conclusion that the economic model of capitalism is flawed because of the inherent flaws in man – nothing else.

With regard to the models of socialism and communism, since the ideal of communism is buried within that of socialism they can in their most fundamental forms, be treated as one and the same thing. In their most fundamental form they both rest on an ideal that is designed to negate the effects of consumerism by taking away control of the market from individuals and placing it in the hands of a centralized system. The idea being that the needs of all would be treated on an equal footing. The result would then be the provision of specific services to the people without prejudice or bias. These specific services would take the form of a centralized welfare system, benefits system, and state pension and so on. Debates on the potential pitfalls of such a such a model has over the years led to emphasis being placed on controlling the degree of centralization. This has spawned numerous models all of which answer to the same fundamental principle – to take away power from the individual and place it in the hands of the group. However these models are also flawed for two pivotal reasons. Control is not placed in the hands of the group. It is placed in the hands of a few individuals who purport to represent the group. And since human beings are inherently flawed – greed, and power to name two of the most damning attributes, then it means that any socialist or communist economic model is doomed to failure. Secondly, the creation of specific services through the centralized system implies that the system has anticipated the needs of the people. This is a flawed argument because it goes against the principle of diversity and in turn creates artificial demand by starving individuals of their true demands – their needs and desires. In this respect it also creates a form of consumerism, i.e. artificial demand. This is true of any economic model that proposes to work through a centralized system.

To summarize, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the capitalist, socialist or communist economic models. Each model has the capability to aid humanity in satisfying the natural urge of demand. However each model becomes flawed for one reason only – the weakness of human nature. The conclusion would be that if humanity wants to give herself any chance of eliminating poverty, disease, war and crime, she must look inwards and bend all her powers to really understanding the self. She must look to understand the origin of the self and attempt to understand the nature of the forces that have given rise to humanity's existence in the first place. She must finally look to understand the key to that which controls these forces. These are non-trivial requests but they are crucial for the progression and survival of mankind.