More complexity and diversity in political and economic views make it more difficult to find a consensus
At ancient Athenian democracy around 500BC-400BC, only adults who had passed military training were allowed to vote. Practically, this means that only 10~-20% of the population actually vote. With smaller and less diverse group voting, there may be more opportunities to find consensus, even if that ‘consensus’ doesn’t apply to everyone.
Of course, limiting the voting population is not good. This is a terrible idea in a democracy that values freedom. However, when political differences lead to government paralysis, it’s tempting to think that the world would be a better place if some people (not us) weren’t allowed to vote.
It is difficult for governments to develop policies that will make everyone happy at the best of times, but it is made even more difficult by the diversity and complexity of views, and the ability to develop contradictory evidence at the push of a button.
Political opinion is increasingly diverse and complex
As humans progress, more information is created and made available. Widespread availability of information and education support people to form diverse and complex political and economic opinions. By contrast, people who have only read on The Little Red Bookfor example, probably has more standard views.
Furthermore, democratic societies are less homogenous than before, for example, with greater cultural diversity, and ‘types’ of family units (single, double income childless (DINKS)). It also provides a wider variety of opinions.
A variety of political and economic views is good. It opens up new ways of thinking. However, it is also more difficult to organize politics and find consensus. For example, governments cannot always satisfy the views of the car lobby and the environmental lobby with the same policies.
Certain views will not be represented in government if there is a diversity of opinions. It feels like it is known, but not accepted.
New ideas, trends and events can create more potential for disagreement
New and emerging fields contribute to this complexity and it can be more difficult to find consensus – even if we are just trying to expand our minds. For example, the growth of environmental policy has created a reason for disagreement with questions like ‘who wants to reduce emissions?’ and ‘who should pay for climate change?’.
New ideas are not a bad thing, they just create complexity.
COVID-19 is an interesting example of where an emerging disease has a polarizing effect, and creates disagreements over issues like lockdowns and vaccinations. It’s hard to envy a government that tries to deal with such complexities.
Reaching a consensus is made more difficult by the ease with which contradictory evidence is generated
A government that takes an evidence-based approach may decide that a new policy should go ahead, only to be challenged by opponents using evidence that suggests otherwise.
Creating definitive evidence is difficult when it is easy to create contradictory evidence through online sources or sponsored research. Coffee and drinking red wine is an interesting example. It’s easy to find evidence that coffee and red wine are good and bad for you. If there is a good argument to suggest that both are true, how can we find a consensus with the evidence?
In the face of two strong competing evidence, what is still often a value judgment to prioritize the needs of one group over the other. Polarization results in nature.
Of course, the quality of the evidence is important, as is critical thinking, but it’s hard to shake the bad evidence in people’s heads. Sensational headlines can spread faster and easier than efforts to debunk the nonsense.
Furthermore, with the proliferation of interest groups and lobbies, more people are challenging policies they don’t like.
An extreme and strict view is the enemy of a workable system
So it becomes very difficult for a democratic government to combine the various political options with the complexity in the political and economic spheres. It was created even more difficult with polarization and zero tolerance. Democratic governments struggle without moderation and open-mindedness among voters.
It seems the low-hanging fruit for many democracies is being able to reach a wider public space. It is important that we do this to address major issues like COVID-19, climate change and global instability.
We need a system of government that works for most people, and we can’t expect it to work perfectly for everyone. It’s not defeatism, it’s just pragmatic.
▼▼ Thanks for reading. Share using the link below. ▼▼