So what is politics for?
A major problem we have is that politics is seen as an organised competition to get control of the state. Our political process is designed to emphasise competition and encourages behaviours that are positively destructive when viewed from the perspective that cooperation is a good idea that leads to progress. Control of the state gifts the winner with the tools to impose change top down. One of the perverse effects of this system is that it encourages unhelpful behaviours. Anyone advocating cooperation either does not believe it or is shown up as a hypocrite (since they engage in the dirty business of politics). Anyone who really believes in cooperation is either traduced or side-lined – the political space does not exist for them to operate in.
Instead of a competition for control of the state suppose politics is a collaboration to achieve good governance. If we were to treat government as a necessity like plumbing, i.e. we need it to work but we don’t want it to become all consuming – we’d surely do it differently.
I envisage this in contrast the the picture used to describe the current political process. Building on systems thinking and knowledge, we can see that the collective, collaborative and co-operative aspects of human nature just as important as our ability to compete and fight. Holistic Political Economy recognises that to manage our way through peak population, where there will be massive pressure on resources as the rest of the world catches up, we are more likely to succeed if we collaborate on the solutions. In the face of this challenge it chooses to try and build a culture of joint endeavour by nurturing and encouraging people to fulfil their potential. It tries to create virtuous circles, it insists on civic equality. It has structures to root the process of decision-making and problem solving in collective action free (insulated) from special interests. In short the holistic political economy provides the resources for all citizens to achieve their potential within sustainable global limits.
Simply stated in politics redefined, we have knowledge as the main input. Within the political process, instead of rivalry for control of the state we have two processes, policy making and policy delivery. The measurement of suceess is used so that we have an effective feedback mechanism. I don't want to be prescriptive here: many people can debate how this works in detail, what I want to establish is the fundamental difference between this and conventional (as is) politics.
Once we take on this definition the question changes from; how do we persuade people to support us and get control of the state, to what problems do we face and how can we best overcome them.
If we advocate cooperation and collaboration then because (excuse the cliché) "by their deeds ye shall know them" we require a set of politicians who "walk the walk as well as talk the talk". Not only that they have to "stick to their guns" that is they have to insist on the cooperative frame of reference for the debate with all it implies. If in an interview the question was posed “how do you encourage competition” the response has to be “we seek to encourage cooperation”. For sure we will only be able to go in baby steps, the point is that many of the small thing we will chose to do will be quite different from those on the current political agenda as a result of this thinking.