Panocracy 7

We could achieve anything then

“While it's good to honour the past, sometimes the best way to do that is just to leave it the fuck alone and move forward on your own merit.” - the critical drinker

Back in the 1950s, nuclear power, or atomic power as it was known then, was first commercialised. The first commercial reactor came on stream in Britain in 1956. We were promised cheap or even free electricity in the Atomic Age. At least one house near Chapelcross (an early atomic power plant) had a swimming pool heated entirely by electricity. That probably wouldn't happen now. Optimism about the future was the rule in those days, perhaps because of the post WW2 austerity.

Such optimism, and the (groundless) fear of Soviet Russian ascendancy, found a political outlet in the 'Space Race' and ultimately in the landing of men on the Moon in 1969. It led to cheap commercial air travel so ordinary folks could jet off to the sun, to mass car ownership and road building, to supermarkets and a much richer life for most. This was the placebo effect in action.

Contrast this with the psychotic zeitgeist around identity politics, global CO2 levels and a rather inconsequential respiratory virus and you can see the opposite nocebo effect. We can achieve very little in our current mindset.

Panocracy is founded in optimism. We believe in unleashing people's creativity; in bringing meaning back into their lives; in releasing them from their despair.

The return of the demagogues

"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” - H. L. Mencken

When I was much younger – and considerably more optimistic - I thought that world government was a great idea. After all, if we're all on the same side then conflicts simply couldn't occur. In thinking the same thing about major religions – that the world would be OK if everyone was a Christian, or everyone was a Muslim – it soon became apparent that this is a particularly silly idea. History has shown beyond all doubt that people will find an excuse for disagreement and conflict just as soon as some demagogue surfaces to 'teach them the way'. Catholics and Protestants; Sunnis and Shi-ites; Hutus and Tutsis: it's the same old story everywhere and always.

In its tribalism, politics has a lot in common with religion (and sport). Most people rub along together most of the time excepting the odd neighbourly dispute or road rage incident. Sometimes, when there's a whiff of danger, real or imaginary, some sect pops up claiming to have 'the solution'. Usually the solution involves blaming a racially or culturally distinct group for the perceived ills: the Jews, the Kosovan Albanians, the Germans, the 'white supremacists', whatever. Sometimes the scapegoat is more abstract: an infectious agent or an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. In all cases however, the answer necessarily results in the persecution of ordinary people: the Jews, the unvaccinated, the climate change sceptics pejoratively referred to as 'deniers'. Heretics are still metaphorically burned at the stake as oxen, goats, chickens and humans were once sacrificed to propitiate the unseen, unfathomable deities. And also conveniently to silence rational arguments that might be dangerous to the ruling class.

Panocracy suppresses demagoguery by design. At the moment it's only necessary to proselytise a minority of a population in order to get one's way. In the UK two party first-past-the-post system a 30% share of the vote might get a landslide victory and the winning party will trumpet its 'mandate' and impose its will with impunity on the 70% who didn't vote for them. In the Panocracy. it's extremely likely that tyrannical proposals will fail at the RFC stage as they are subject to the scrutiny not of merely a few party grandees, their placemen and advisors, but of the entire population. Those most qualified to spot any danger will have the opportunity to neutralise it before it gains traction.

But Who Do We Talk To?

“I am not concerned that I am not known; I seek to be worthy to be known.” Confucius

What the panocracy lacks is a human face; a mouthpiece; a figurehead. If, say, a foreign power wishes to strike a trade deal with a panocracy, who do they talk to? Who is authorised to make a deal?

Well, the process should be similar to all other matters of policy discovery. Someone or some group (on one side or the other) produces a proposal and this is then subject to the normal RFC process after which a bill representing the deal is drawn up and voted on. At present, trade deals can take years to negotiate so the RFC process would be adequately fast. The advantage in a panocracy is that real experts, people who have spent their lives trading, negotiating or resolving trade disputes - those not normally consulted by trade delegations, would have the opportunity to add unthought of conditions and point out possible flaws in a potential deal.

Panocracy might still benefit from having a 'head of state'. This would be a human face to associate with the panocratic state or group. In the UK we have a constitutional monarch, someone with no actual political power but who is our 'face' at grand occasions; other states have a president, premier or similar. The head of state in a panocracy would be an honorary position and might rotate or be awarded to someone who had, for example, excelled in the art of diplomacy, or perhaps was just especially attractive (a characteristic not to be underestimated in international affairs). This would be decided by the usual mechanism. Of course, the head of state would have no political power, just one vote in the panocracy like everyone else.

One person would almost certainly not be able to take on this role all by themselves so some kind of supporting department would be required. It would, of course, be purely administrative. All the institutions that a panocracy creates are necessarily purely administrative.

Next time we'll look at some of our treasured and not-so-treasured institutions to see how they might fare.