The pageantry of his disillusion took shape in a world-old procession of Prophets, Athenians, Martyrs, Saints, Scientists, Don Juans, Jesuits, Puritans, Fausts, Poets, Pacifists; like costumed alumni at a college reunion they streamed before him as their dreams, personalities, and creeds had in turn thrown colored lights on his soul; each had tried to express the glory of life and the tremendous significance of man; each had boasted of synchronizing what had gone before into his own rickety generalities; each had depended after all on the set stage and the convention of the theatre, which is that man in his hunger for faith will feed his mind with the nearest and most convenient food.
F. Scott Fitzgerald - This Side of Paradise (1920)
To a significant degree, political disputes do not go much further than the set stage and the convention of the theatre. The political arena is effectively a theatre of political dispute with politicians as its actors. Only when matters become critical enough to threaten the theatre itself are actors required to become more than actors.
The oddity of political theatre is that it is so obviously theatre. Equally obvious is that it leads to a feeble democracy where political parties and vested interests subvert the purported point of democracy, the point of voting to change something - anything.
Yet if political parties were to provide effective political oversight of the permanent administration there would be no political theatre. The point of the parties is the theatre, not the oversight. The permanent administration mostly oversees itself.
It is certainly easy enough to imagine a situation where political parties do provide effective political oversight, where they require the permanent administration to adhere to standards, achieve results and remain within budgets. A situation where failure is dealt with as it would be elsewhere.
But this is an imaginary situation because so many voters seem to accept political theatre as democracy even when it is clearly no such thing. Most voters vote for an ineffectual vote.
To a significant degree, political disputes do not go much further than the set stage and the convention of the theatre. The political arena is effectively a theatre of political dispute with politicians as its actors. Only when matters become critical enough to threaten the theatre itself are actors required to become more than actors.
The oddity of political theatre is that it is so obviously theatre. Equally obvious is that it leads to a feeble democracy where political parties and vested interests subvert the purported point of democracy, the point of voting to change something - anything.
Yet if political parties were to provide effective political oversight of the permanent administration there would be no political theatre. The point of the parties is the theatre, not the oversight. The permanent administration mostly oversees itself.
It is certainly easy enough to imagine a situation where political parties do provide effective political oversight, where they require the permanent administration to adhere to standards, achieve results and remain within budgets. A situation where failure is dealt with as it would be elsewhere.
But this is an imaginary situation because so many voters seem to accept political theatre as democracy even when it is clearly no such thing. Most voters vote for an ineffectual vote.
3 comments:
That, I think, will be the only meaningful question in our political future. To what extent can the politicians standing for office actually get a grip on the administration. It needs a broad range of talents and abilities, which aren't planned for now. If everyone chosen by the local parties is either a country solicitor or an equality & diversity co-ordinator, nothing will get done. They simply will not understand. And it also needs the drive to get something done, or else they will simply "go native" and represent the established interests.
I've often thought that the theatre, or pageantry, of the Houses of Parliament was a 'bug', a symptom of failure.
I now realise it is a 'feature' - the stage set for politicians to act their parts against. With this understanding it is easier to recognise the narcissism of the players. The relentless attention to reviews (opinion polls). The essential hollowness of each parliamentary session.
All the world's a stage...
...Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Sam - that's it, many people just don't have the experience and character to do the job of an MP. Professional politicians won't ever do what they are supposedly elected to do. We'll only know things have changed when senior members of the permanent administration are widely seen as accountable for the performance of their department in an objective sense. Administrative heads should roll after significant failures, but they don't.
DJ - yes, seen as theatre it is easier to recognise the narcissism of the players. It is also easier to see that as MPs they have achieved a major goal in life without ever needing to worry about or even be aware of the goals of the electorate.
Post a Comment