Why Not an Open Society
Why Not an Open Society?
According to Wikipedia “an open society” was:
“ a concept originally developed by philosopher Henri Bergson. In open societies, government is responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense; it is a non-authoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are the foundation of an open society.”
Karl Popper in his book “The Open Society and Its Enemies”, later developed the concept further and along with Bergson’s his ideas helped to influence the thinking of organisations such as The Open Society in the Central and eastern Europe and old Soviet states, as after the change of system in the 1989/90, they tried to help with the laying the foundations for a fully operational transparent, democracies.
But go back to that original definition, especially this bit:
“and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense; it is a non-authoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all.”
Having castigated Republican bloggers and journalists yesterday for failing to take intellectual risks I’m going to take the Unionist establishment to task today (that’ll have them shaking in their sheepskins).
This interview with PUP spokesperson Dawn Purvis last week raised the old question of how certain of the DUP’s leadership have *liased* with the loyalist paramilitaries over the years. Now I’m a humble blogger, I and I’d guess, the vast majority of people who’ve had their say on this topi,c do not know for sure how close this involvement was.
But over the years, from information that I’ve read and one or two things that I’ve heard personally, I’ve developed strong suspicions.
Now just imagine tomorrow, somebody rather high up in the DUP comes clean and says "yes, I had contacts with Mr X of Organisation Y and did this, this and that”
The impact?
Republicans hated him before, republicans will hate him after.
They will have accused him of being a hypocrite before, they’ll accuse him of being a hypocrite (albeit an honest one now after).
Nothing lost there.
But amongst Unionists?
This is where it’s interesting I think. Such an admission would work to the politician’s as well as the wider society’s benefit. His core supporters will have suspected such a dalliance with terrorists before and been prepared to vote for him regardless. Such a public disclosure would have very little effect on their loyalty therefore.
For people who don’t vote for the DUP for reasons other than their supposed prior links with the loyalist terrorists, I don’t think there would be much of a switch in support. To my mind, they (the DUP as a whole) are too tied in with Protestant fundamentalism and the “not an inch” version of Unionism which is taking us up the hill and down again fast. That view wouldn’t change, if the guy in question or indeed the whole party spilt the beans, I would however think more highly of his integrity and honesty, which is obviously a good although rather intangible benefit for him personally
For the waverers, the people in the middle, a definite chance that he’ll garner a pick up in support. How many times do you hear people saying about politicians (especially the Ulster variety), “Sure there all the same, I’ll put my “X” against the same people that my neighbours, my family and work colleagues do because...just because they’re all the same, it doesn’t matter..ad infinitum”
Someone who proves that he’s not “the same”, well, that’s going to jolt Mrs Complacent Voter and make them think. And we need a lot more thinking.
So, perhaps it’s a naïve thought, but actually no, it's not; I think if there was to be a mass outbreak of honesty amongst the Unionist politicos, the movement and society as a whole would benefit.
As I’ve shown, I believe that there would be very little to lose for the individuals in question. And when the voter lives in a “society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all.” then politics has got to move away from the present stale and sectarian state it’s stuck in. Unionist voters wouldn’t be voting any longer out of fear, supposition or rumour, but for positive reasons with the full knowledge of what the consequence of their vote would be.
Got to be a good thing surely?
Now with regards this bit:
“and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense”
I’ll be examining how Peter Hain and the rest of the NI Office live up to their responsibilities to keep “political mechanisms transparent and flexible”
Not a very long examination was necessary, I'm afraid.
They don’t and this lack of transparency and obsessive hoarding of secrets is one of the main causes of existing instability within the Northern Ireland political system.
And again (and again, yes I know it’s a naïve question) how exactly are we all better off for not been able to trust a word that Hain and his Cohorts tell us?
According to Wikipedia “an open society” was:
“ a concept originally developed by philosopher Henri Bergson. In open societies, government is responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense; it is a non-authoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are the foundation of an open society.”
Karl Popper in his book “The Open Society and Its Enemies”, later developed the concept further and along with Bergson’s his ideas helped to influence the thinking of organisations such as The Open Society in the Central and eastern Europe and old Soviet states, as after the change of system in the 1989/90, they tried to help with the laying the foundations for a fully operational transparent, democracies.
But go back to that original definition, especially this bit:
“and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense; it is a non-authoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all.”
Having castigated Republican bloggers and journalists yesterday for failing to take intellectual risks I’m going to take the Unionist establishment to task today (that’ll have them shaking in their sheepskins).
This interview with PUP spokesperson Dawn Purvis last week raised the old question of how certain of the DUP’s leadership have *liased* with the loyalist paramilitaries over the years. Now I’m a humble blogger, I and I’d guess, the vast majority of people who’ve had their say on this topi,c do not know for sure how close this involvement was.
But over the years, from information that I’ve read and one or two things that I’ve heard personally, I’ve developed strong suspicions.
Now just imagine tomorrow, somebody rather high up in the DUP comes clean and says "yes, I had contacts with Mr X of Organisation Y and did this, this and that”
The impact?
Republicans hated him before, republicans will hate him after.
They will have accused him of being a hypocrite before, they’ll accuse him of being a hypocrite (albeit an honest one now after).
Nothing lost there.
But amongst Unionists?
This is where it’s interesting I think. Such an admission would work to the politician’s as well as the wider society’s benefit. His core supporters will have suspected such a dalliance with terrorists before and been prepared to vote for him regardless. Such a public disclosure would have very little effect on their loyalty therefore.
For people who don’t vote for the DUP for reasons other than their supposed prior links with the loyalist terrorists, I don’t think there would be much of a switch in support. To my mind, they (the DUP as a whole) are too tied in with Protestant fundamentalism and the “not an inch” version of Unionism which is taking us up the hill and down again fast. That view wouldn’t change, if the guy in question or indeed the whole party spilt the beans, I would however think more highly of his integrity and honesty, which is obviously a good although rather intangible benefit for him personally
For the waverers, the people in the middle, a definite chance that he’ll garner a pick up in support. How many times do you hear people saying about politicians (especially the Ulster variety), “Sure there all the same, I’ll put my “X” against the same people that my neighbours, my family and work colleagues do because...just because they’re all the same, it doesn’t matter..ad infinitum”
Someone who proves that he’s not “the same”, well, that’s going to jolt Mrs Complacent Voter and make them think. And we need a lot more thinking.
So, perhaps it’s a naïve thought, but actually no, it's not; I think if there was to be a mass outbreak of honesty amongst the Unionist politicos, the movement and society as a whole would benefit.
As I’ve shown, I believe that there would be very little to lose for the individuals in question. And when the voter lives in a “society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all.” then politics has got to move away from the present stale and sectarian state it’s stuck in. Unionist voters wouldn’t be voting any longer out of fear, supposition or rumour, but for positive reasons with the full knowledge of what the consequence of their vote would be.
Got to be a good thing surely?
Now with regards this bit:
“and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense”
I’ll be examining how Peter Hain and the rest of the NI Office live up to their responsibilities to keep “political mechanisms transparent and flexible”
Not a very long examination was necessary, I'm afraid.
They don’t and this lack of transparency and obsessive hoarding of secrets is one of the main causes of existing instability within the Northern Ireland political system.
And again (and again, yes I know it’s a naïve question) how exactly are we all better off for not been able to trust a word that Hain and his Cohorts tell us?
