This isn’t democracy

Our political system – aided by the media—stands in the way of meaningful change. To tackle the climate crisis we must look to a better, more inclusive politics that allows us to debate truly radical ideas.

Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. George Orwell

Most of us would consider a democratic society to be one in which the public can manage their own affairs; where decisions are made in the interests of the electorate; where people can choose their own leaders; and where there is open access to information. How much of this is true of our society today?

Since universal suffrage was hard won, we have been conned into participating in a democratic process that was always rigged against us. Our ‘democracy’ has not given people the power to decide their own destiny. Instead it has cemented the power of the wealthy, ensured the dominion of big business, and permitted the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few billionaires. It is a plutocracy, masquerading as a democracy to legitimise the rule of the rich.

It should come as no surprise that we are ruled by the wealthy, for the wealthy. The UK Government recently cut £20 per week from the incomes of the poorest in our society. It was not so hard to find £500 billion to bail out the banks that gambled and lost. When time came to break election promises and raise money, this Government increased taxes paid by workers, but kept its hands well away from the pockets of the idle rich. Does that sound like the democratic will of the people?

Now, with climate change and ecological collapse knocking on the door, this false democracy endangers us all. ‘Democratic’ votes have elected governments that endorse the devastation of the natural world. They have appointed ministers indebted to fossil fuel, and given us legislatures that award vast subsidies to oil companies. Democratically elected leaders have sat through dozens of summits and conferences, debated and discussed climate action for thousands of hours — and after 25 COPs, emissions continue to rise.

Far too many environmentalists still believe that they can enact change by way of ‘democratic methods’. Many progressive commentators turned on the actions of Insulate Britain, suggesting that a better path would be the ‘constructive methods’ permitted by the democratic system. Perhaps they think that petitions, voting, letter writing and lobbying can make a difference. Many hope that if we campaign hard enough, an elected leader will finally cap the oil wells — but this is laughable. Look at Joe Biden, once the candidate for the climate, now the President who has opened vast new areas to oil drilling. In contrast, the candidate most likely to tackle climate change was deemed unelectable by the billionaire press.

It’s time to face facts, we do not live in a democracy. This is crucial — to save the planet we must replace our economic paradigm, and to do that we must first address the politics that legitimises it.

In 1922, Walter Lippmann wrote that a “revolution in the art of democracy” was being used to “manufacture consent” — that is, provide legitimacy to the will of the ruling class through effective propaganda. He suggested that the population is principally composed of two groups, the “responsible men” and “the bewildered herd”. According to Lippman, only the responsible men could be trusted with decision making. The nation needed protection from the whims of the herd, which had to be controlled through propaganda.

In Media Control, Noam Chomsky demonstrates how Lippmann’s theory has been practiced in our liberal democracies for much of the twentieth century. He describes a system in which the public are tightly controlled by a media propaganda machine in thrall to Government and big business, a system in which decisions are taken by a ruling elite, in their own interest, with the majority of the population reduced to mere voting machines, tools used to legitimise their leaders every four or five years.

It might sound conspiratorial, but it is not hard to prove we elect leaders that principally act in the interests of the elite. Academic studies have shown analytically that the policies of the US Government have been overwhelmingly skewed to the preferences of the rich. The wealthy simply have more impact than the populace at large.

We might ask why our media so vigorously promotes the fetishisation of billionaires but spat venom at Jeremy Corbyn? We could question why they participated so willingly in the deceit of the Vote Leave campaign — or why anti-environmentalist messaging appears in both The Guardian and The Telegraph? The answer is simple — the media is operating as a propaganda machine.

The puppet strings are pulled in many different ways. There are the direct methods by which the ‘right’ winners are ensured — tight control over access to influential jobs, gerrymandering, political funding, lobbying — and our first past the post political system.

Then there is propaganda — the lies told during the Brexit campaign, the abuse of Corbyn and Sanders, the climate denial sown by the oil companies and mainstream press. The BBC’s climate bias is just the tip of a very deep iceberg. Most of our media is heavily dependent on corporate advertising. Consciously or unconsciously, editors must be careful not to bite the hands that feed them, and so studiously avoid offending the corporate moneymen. As David Edwards and David Cromwell of Media Lens wrote:

“…this corporate structure not only trims individual stories, it excludes entire frameworks of understanding. If writing something disagreeable about HSBC or animal rights is problematic, imagine editors consistently presenting corporate domination as a threat to human survival in an age of climate change.”

In other words, if you see an oil company advertise in a media outlet then it is best to distrust that outlet’s climate reporting.

A more subtle but equally pernicious mode of propaganda is the grip the ruling class hold on the political narrative itself.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate” Noam Chomsky

Those engaged in the climate debate will often find themselves shut down by what political scientists term the ‘Overton Window’ — the range of policies considered acceptable by the mainstream electorate. Of course this window is not really shaped by the public at all, but by the media’s discourse — which in turn is guided by the will of government and big business. The media say when a policy is radical, and convince the public that it is outside the envelope of acceptable debate. Free Broadband was deemed outrageous by BT, and promptly pushed out of the Overton Window by the press.

For climate change, the window of acceptable debate is narrow, and has shifted only slightly through the decades. We are permitted to discuss the slow introduction of electric cars — but not the immediate elimination of fossil fuels. A tax on frequent flyers is open to debate — the abolition of leisure flying is too radical to suggest.

Crucially, we cannot speak of the flaws of capitalism. We can talk about whether the top rate of tax should be 45% or 50% until we are blue in the face — but a wealth cap of ten million pounds is ridiculous. Indeed, the economic Overton Window is so tightly closed that the mere discussion of ending capitalism is considered sedition. How many times has capitalism been criticised on the Today programme or the ITV Evening News?

Fortunately it is possible for the Overton Window to shift dramatically — Coronavirus is an excellent example of how previously radical policies quickly entered the mainstream. One key mission of environmental activists is to push currently unthinkable but environmentally essential policies into the window of acceptable debate — before disastrous climate change forces them there.

There should be little doubt that our economic system is to blame for the collapse of the natural world. Capitalism is a system of exploitation and destruction, the economics of perpetual growth on a finite planet. It is a system that commodifies everything, then sells it to the highest bidder. It is a system that allows people to take from nature not according to their needs, but according to their bank balance.

Environmentalists are fast realising that capitalism must be dismantled if we are to save the planet. But we cannot do that until we bypass the political system that gives it its power. We need to have an open, honest societal discussion on climate and capitalism. The mainstream media is not allowing this debate. Our ‘democracy’ is moving far too slowly — and appears closed to the solutions we desperately need.

To tackle this, first we must notice the Overton Windows imposed upon us. When we perceive an idea as too radical or too impractical we must pause, question our assumptions and open our minds. We can then push the acceptable window of debate, conversation by conversation. Espouse the big ideas, explore the implausible and discuss the radical with all that we meet.

Political change can only come from mobilising our communities and organising ourselves. Through this we can create a new, inclusive politics that is guided by the real interests of people and planet. Collaborative, local politics is our way out. Citizen’s assemblies can develop policy. Communities can hold climate forums, where locals meet and discuss sustainable food systems, shared transport and better land use. The more people participate, the more will come — until eventually we achieve the critical mass for systemic change.

The elite do not want us to talk about a world they don’t rule. So let’s cut them out of the debate. Let’s get together. Let’s discuss. Let’s decide. And then let’s build our bright new world.