Is conspiracy inevitable?

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations (1776)

Although we tend to be suspicious of conspiracy theories, it is obvious enough that the vast complexities of human discourse will generate conspiracies in an Adam Smith sense. Social groups discuss matters of mutual interest in social situations - obviously. That includes elite social groups – equally obvious. In which case suppose we rephrase Smith’s observation –

People of the upper social strata seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to further their own interests.

Today this would not be a traditional conspiracy but an inevitable outcome of hierarchy, social contact, human nature, modern communication and the extraordinary power of the virtuous narrative.

For example, it seems strange that we have such poor choices when it comes to UK general elections. Suppose we take our two recent elections. Our choice of leaders with any prospect of winning the election was in each case only two. Theresa May versus Jeremy Corbyn followed by Boris Johnson versus Jeremy Corbyn.

To my mind the choice in both cases was fairly obvious – it was necessary to vote against Corbyn. But it is rather like having to choose between BBC and ITV. As if there are too many powerful forces heavily invested in government largesse and government power - too many to make democracy work as well as it could.

Another example. The hysteria surrounding Brexit still echoes around political debates like a stroppy ghost which refuses to be exorcised. Within the political fabric of the UK there is an ingrained determination to keep the Brexit debate alive, a determination which seems at least partly due to decades of Eurocentric narratives. As if Brexit only just made it in time and another decade of EU propaganda would have sealed our fate.

Climate change is certainly a conspiracy, but again it is not the kind where furtive plotters discuss their nefarious eco-plans behind closed doors. The climate faithful are merely pursuing their professional or political interests - or they are following what they perceive to be the only side of a virtuous argument.

Mass immigration has been another conspiracy where a desire for cheap labour and a parallel desire for captive voters seems likely to have generated an enormous mix of unplanned and somewhat unpredictable consequences. Some of those consequences have been visible for years but rational debate has been off the table for years too.

This is how mediocre democracies seem to work. Conspiracies effectively become part of the furniture simply because vested interests exploit that same mediocrity and because the undemocratic nature of those interests cannot be openly admitted. We end up with conspiracies by default.