2016.

You wake up in the morning. You go to work, if it’s something you enjoy you work hard to get better, learn more and be more. If payday just came around you order out or go out and people watch and life takes you like that from one day to another and slowly you start feeling like maybe you have some semblance of a plan because everything is looking up and things are falling into place.

2016 started out that way. Brexit and the US elections were coming up but since, at least on a personal level I was feeling positive I thought everything would turn out OK, because we had learned our lessons and the world would finally show the far right that that century had passed and hatred and fear were no longer in our collective emotional vocabulary.

“Where do you see yourself five years from now?” – is a job interview cliche. Whenever I get asked that my answer is always “I’ll be looking back at my current self and seeing a person who doesn’t know anything about anything” and I think that is poignant now – in 2015 I knew nothing about how much people can hate, how much of an echo chamber I was living in, from the media I consume, to the people I associate myself with. But slowly but surely I felt xenophobia closing in.

My friends and I were in Britain the day after the Brexit vote. I was randomly selected for a few questions by airport security, not in a way that would’ve stopped someone with malicious intent but enough that it made me feel a little uncomfortable. Later in a pub I told this story to a stranger and he said “welcome to being black”. I’d never thought of myself as non white before, it just wasn’t ever an issue, but I guess I am a little tan as some Romanians are, but… what’s that got to do with anything?

Everyone in London was friendly, I loved it, the atmosphere though was uneasy, people were shocked about the outcome, and then England lost to Iceland and everything was no longer falling into place. A majority of people in a nation that had always been a part of Europe, on the forefront of every cultural shift that has impacted our continent had chosen to believe they would be better off on their own than working together with everyone else, for goals that are common.

Furthermore, a continent of seven hundred million people who live  the most secure and comfortable lives humanity has ever experienced, feels threatened by the influx of just one million others, who just want to take part in that, and maybe contribute in their way. We are horrified by the deaths of hundreds at the hands of madmen with an agenda but will not bat an eye about the eighty four thousand road deaths in Europe last year, which amounts to two Paris attacks daily . I decry how shortsighted we seem to be.

That said, Brexit hasn’t happened yet, and in a way I still cling to the hope that it won’t though the cynic in me can’t see a way for it not to.

Surely, I thought, seeing the reaction to this, America will come to its’ senses and do the right thing and say “no” to demagoguery, outright racism and misogyny. Surely, they remember the pain and the horror that all of this has brought before. Surely, they will act.

But no.

I wake up in the morning, with an empty feeling, that makes me nauseous. Everything is out of place, Leonard Cohen died, Brexit is still happening, and Trump is still President-elect of the United States of America.

 

 

Advertisements

Why I am not a nationalist.

Nationalists these days call themselves Euroskeptics. It’s popular. It’s the safe word to use in polite company, something you can say when people ask you how you feel about your government, and it is suicidal.

The jist of the idea behind Euroskepticism is that a farmer in Cornwall knows best how to run his farm and his facon de faire may be different from that of a farmer in Transylvania. Whatever the case may be, they both definitely know better than that pompous European Commission on Agriculture in Bruxelles. There is no need, they say, for a unified policy on the subject because every farmer knows what’s best for himself.

While this may be true, not every consumer knows what’s in the farmer’s produce and the farmer doesn’t always know what’s best for his livestock, he’s a farmer not a veterinarian. Not only that but if a produce market in London sells Romanian potatoes I am quite certain consumers would like some kind of guarantee they weren’t grown in a bed of pure manure. The EU provides safeguards against abuse in a very open market. These do not always work as we saw in the case of the horse meat scandal, but they do make for a very neat paper trail which can be followed to find the flaw, and this was done in months rather than the years it would have taken without the close integration we have.  Here was a case of a boring issue where Europe pulled through for the consumer but got very little credit.

What does this have to do with nationalists Kirk, you’re ranting man, get a grip. Well it does. Farming regulations within Europe are a local issue. They are about ensuring standards are met throughout the union so that competition is fair within this space. They are also in place to protect European consumers from products, which would fall below these standards, that are imported from outside of the Union. So in essence, they have nothing to do with who wields power and everything to do with quality products which we can trace from store shelf to raw materials source every step of the way in every single case – from cheese to beef that isn’t beef. This is a unified European policy that works.

Right, nationalism.

There are however issues that we do not agree on. One of them is foreign policy. Case in point, the Ukraine crysis. While the protests in Kiev were in full swing, three European foreign ministers, individually representing France, Germany and Poland traveled to Kiev to settle the matter once and for all. (Mind you this was later construed to seem like they had the European Foreign Affairs Commissioner, Baroness Ashton’s blessing, but I submit to your consideration that they acted unilaterally).  This was a blunder on many levels, not least of which because it seemed to back a movement whose only claim to legitimacy was the fact that people had died in supporting it. One need only point to the Colombian FARC to see that this policy was flawed. It could not claim to represent a majority of the Ukrainian people as no elections were held.

Why is this important? The UK did not have a voice in these dealings. As a member (though reluctant) of the European Union it should. What was the result? Events evolved into the current situation and it is William Hague’s turn to pick up the baton and speak on behalf of either the UK, or in conjunction with the US, or the UK within the EU, one cannot be quite sure. What is clear is that on the one side of the issue stands Russia, with a clear policy, a clear leader and a focused approach to the situation while on the other we have an entity vaguely defined as the West, which is scrambling desperately for cohesion in this highly volatile situation.

European (read, that represent countries which happen to be a part of the Union) leaders are wrangling for preeminence in defining what line we should follow as a group based solely on their need to maintain their own countries’ status within the EU to the extent that the broader implications of the outcome for the block as a whole are being ignored.

Debating the relevance of independence from Bruxelles at a juncture in our history when each individual state is vastly outgunned economically politically and I dare say militarily by a much greater power flexing its’ muscles right on our doorstep thus becomes an exercise in self harm on behalf of each European nation.

Nationalism was a great idea in the 19th century. It described a world in which people governed themselves in opposition to the rule of empires headed by despots and autocrats. We take pride in the accomplishments of that era and cherish our independence and self rule. But it is an outdated idea for Europe to adhere to in a world of super sized economies fueled by vast resources that are no longer part of European empires.  Nationalism in this context is a counterproductive position to take given the limited capability of individual states to effectively deal with issues of this magnitude.

 

The shortcomings of democracy.

One of my friends read my previous post. The discussion that ensued lasted well into the night. We are not from the same country and so our views tend to be quite different about a number of things though sometimes they magically converge allowing us to discover the utility of debate. This was not a Bill Nye vs Ken Ham confrontation.

While this was going on, one of the people who have stumbled upon this blog mentioned something very important in the one comment to my last post. “The Athenians didn’t have it so great either (…)” they said. And I agree. I had mentioned them because ancient Greek democracy serves as the template to our own systems. We do not share all of the details of theirs but the concept is the same.

The one pervasive complaint everyone shares about the way government works is that the people who make it up are incompetent for the most part. Sometimes you can get lucky and have someone in charge who knows what they are doing, like Bismark. Now Prussia would hardly live up to the standards of a democracy nowadays. The most important point being that they did not have universal suffrage, and it was really democracy by the elite or, if you want to get technical, an aristocracy.

Make no mistake, Bismark was a dictator, but what sets him apart from Stalin or Hitler or others is the fact that he was not a madman. He was a nation builder however. Germany would not be what it is today had it not been for this man. Not a perfect leader, but one who could find compromise and who managed to unite the many Holy Roman states under one rule (Prussian rule) – a sum greater than its’ parts. In fact he did such a great job the nation he built was annihilated twice and within fifty years came back to the forefront of Europe.

Speaking of Europe. Why is Europe so sluggish? Why does it feel so far removed from the electorate? And why are Europeans so skeptical about it?

The answer is that it is obscure. Europe is run by a modern day elite who is not directly accountable for what it is doing. People feel that Europe meddles in their country’s internal affairs far too much. Additionally there are several layers of bureaucracy between the government and the governed. It is highly decentralized when compared to say China or the USA in terms of decision making.

That is to say even though rules come from Brussels and signatory states have to abide by them, there is no unitary foreign policy, domestic policy, immigration policy and this list can go on but it should end with “there is no head of state”.

I am making it harder and harder to believe that I am a proponent of a united Europe but since you have come this far I feel I should redeem myself.

I have so far described some of the issues the electorate has with Europe. There are those who also have a problem with the electorate however. It too is distant and out of touch. Take the Ukraine crysis for example. Mark Mardel (the BBC’s North America editor) wrote this piece today. It is remarkably alarmed for a Brit. In it he deplores the failure of the west to recognize the importance of the events.

Speaking from a rather more humble position of a citizen of Romania who does not work for an international news corporation I share this feeling. The people around me are far more concerned with what online clothing stores have on offer and where to get one’s nails / hair done, or how attractive the new girl is than they are with events that are likely to shape the future of us all. In fact, the only meaningful conversation I am able to have on the topic is with two of my closest friends and a Frenchman (a white Caucasian Frenchman immigrant to Romania, welcome to the Twilight Zone).

While personal experience alone does little to serve in the pursuit of truth, save for an indication of possible fact I submit that this is a widespread phenomenon in Europe, and much of the western world. This is our democracy, built on universal suffrage.

Universal suffrage is based on the assumption of universal education. It is in theory a system whereby an educated citizenry is able to make informed decisions about the issues being put before them for a vote. It sounds great on paper and it would be in practice if we could be confident people are actually educated. Note that I used the term educated rather than intelligent. Education is a formative process involving assimilation of factual knowledge as well as the reasoning skills to interpret this knowledge in ways that make sense. I again submit to the reader’s consideration that a non zero percentile of the electorate does not conform to this definition. In fact, an important part of the electorate does not conform to this definition.

Many of us see voting as a chore that we choose to humor the government in performing when in fact it should be a duty. A duty to ourselves and our children to vote responsibly and to consider carefully the choices we make.

Our politicians are mediocre because they are chosen from among the mediocre while the capable shy away from public service for fear of being embroiled in inconsequential power play that a mind concerned with real issues cannot stomach.

My my Kirk, you are angry… and you are patronizing, what do you propose we do?

Every country in the European Union organizes a national testing session once a year. Here it is called the Bacalaureat. Other places have different names for it but essentially it is a series of tests which gauge a high school graduate’s knowledge and reasoning. Sound familiar? I believe that people who are unable to pass this test should forfeit their right to vote until such time when they are able to resit the examinations and receive at least passing grades.

I do not believe people who have no grasp of mathematics, Europe’s geography or history should be allowed to participate in the decision making process as their vote is equivalent to casting dice at best and highly susceptible to very directly targeted manipulation at worst. Additionally, one should not be allowed to hold public office without having received a high mark in this examination for the same reasons. Those who thus become ineligible can always resit the tests just like they can now and become fully recognized citizens at any point in their lives.

Culling the electorate in this fashion will not only improve the quality of the votes but also reduce the need to have the number of representatives that we currently have from the ridiculous current total of 766 to a number that allows for less anonymity and much more relevant scrutiny by a voter base who is more informed than the one in our current model.

Should such a proposal ever be considered? Would you vote for it? Why? Leave a comment in the comment box below and let me know your thoughts.