Nauru

Nauru is a Sovereign Nation with a population of just over 10,000. It is the third smallest state in the world after Monaco and the Vatican City. Early Micronesian and Polynesian explorers settled the island in around 1000 BCE. Nauru is a Phosphate Rock island which allows easy strip mining. In the late 1960s and early 1970s it boasted the highest per capita GDP in the world. Not dissimilar to Equatorial Guinea which currently has the highest GDP per capita of any African country. Then the Phosphate ran out. Now the per capita GDP is $8,570 per person. The 12 traditional clans are represented in the 12 pointed star on the flag. Between 1888 and 1898 there was a civil war that killed around 500 people, which was a third of the population. Germany annexed the island and banned alcohol and firearms. The Islanders wanted peace but didn't trust other local tribes enough to lay down their own arms. In 1914, power was transferred to Australia. Independence came in 1968, but the country remains heavily dependent on aid. It gets this in part for acting as accommodation for refugees applying for asylum.

Same As

I could have voted for the first time in the recent British election, but didn't. It didn't matter because I was registered in Putney which is a very safe Conservative seat. I would've if I wasn't travelling. I was pet sitting in Avalon, Sydney. What I did do, was read the election manifestos of the five big parties. So I don't think I completely neglected my democratic duty. Since I spent much of the time there at the local RSL, that duty was hard to forget. Every night at 6pm, there would be a moment's silence in remembrance of lives lost in the World Wars.

The manifestos didn't leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling. Like the American and South African election processes, democracy seems to be largely built around the politics of opposition. It isn't pretty. Left-Right politics originates from France where they are referred to as 'the party of movement' and 'the party of order'. For there to be political parties, there need to be policy differences. The parties can't be too closely aligned or the electorate isn't presented with a choice. If the opposition party doesn't present an alternative, they will be accused of not holding the government sufficiently accountable. It gives the impression of being a game. A debate club where you have to take up views that aren't necessarily genuine. Spaces are even designed in a confrontational way where it becomes hard to know where to sit politicians when there are more than two parties.

A debate in South Korea's parliament 

Most people are not going to have the time to read the manifestos. Many people don't seem to trust them anyway. So votes are often tribal. Governments could probably save a lot of money by allowing people to select a default vote until death or otherwise notified. There could even be a 'Same As' principle where your vote doesn't change unless you say so. Even without that being a policy, I suspect many of our decisions, not just in politics, tend to be same as. We disagree with someone by default.

Daniel Dennett gives four rules for how to compose successful criticism:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says "Thanks, I wish I thought of putting it that way".
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement)
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism

In the same way as you earn the right to provide feedback, you earn the right to oppose. You do that by showing you are part of the same bigger tribe. If you are having a 'same as' discussion in the sense that you are never going to agree with the person anyway, you don't have to be present. You can write your view down and go do something else. You aren't required.

When it comes to politics there is an easy test for this. Many people say, 'A vote for [the people I oppose] is a vote for [these horrible things]'. The easy test is whether if asked, the other side would take those points and agree.

At the end of the day, we are all on the same side.

Politics of Polarisation

Politics seems frustrating in most places. With the upcoming UK elections, having recently become a British Citizen (joint with SA), I need to wrap my head around the different parties views more than I have in the past. I think the UK is pretty awesome and at the moment, in large, people are in a position to get on with their lives. Clearly I wouldn't be this un-invested if my job was directly related to the government, or if my livelihood depended on which party was in control. Therein lies the rub. Democracy seems to have been designed around representation of interests at a time when there are many groups. I say seems because I have never studied politics, but that isn't a requirement for voting. We aren't that good at looking for who will represent everyone's interests best. A vote becomes around a particular aspect of change required rather than who will be the best custodians.

I always feel a little in the dark having not had the time to sit down and study the different policies of the different parties. I know most people haven't done this either. I also know most people base who they vote for on something very different from what the parties policies happen to be. Perhaps they were born into a particular family who voted one way or the other. Perhaps there is one issue they care about, which means the other issues really don't matter. I think a certain level of political ambivalence represents the truth that we actually don't know what to think unless the issue is really clear in a sense that almost all voters understand.

At the last South African election, News 24, put out a useful app which showed the voting history, down to individual towns, since 1994. It made for fascinating reading. I had always thought of the main opposition party in South Africa (the Democratic Alliance) as having grown out of the Democratic Party. In 1994, the ANC won 62% of the vote and the National Party won about 20%. In 2014, the ANC won 62% and the Democratic Alliance won 22%. The Democratic Party only won 1.7% in 1994. The single 'clear' issue many people opposing the ANC vote for, seems to me, is not wanting there to be a single party with a 'two thirds majority' that can change the constitution. This single issue hardly allows for groups to start mixing and look for common goals. It is a valid fear though. It doesn't lend itself to building a bigger tribe.

South Africa National Election Winner by Ward 2014 - SA's version of US Red Blue State

I have always thought perhaps a better way would have been for all South Africans to join the ANC. That way rather than identifying who 'represents us', we can find leaders who represent everyone and do a competent job. Perhaps while we are shedding our sexism, racism, homophobia etc. we still need to look to shed our desire to have these groups that represent our agendas. Perhaps technology will offer a way of getting our views on a more regular basis, with more specific questions. Questions where we wouldn't know the answer, but we would vote for an engineer. Questions where we would vote for a doctor. For a teacher.

Most of government should be pretty mundane and administrative once the big ticket tribal issues have been resolved in forming a constitution. Then, if things are going well, we should be able to get apathetic and politics and passionate about life. Not necessarily so well that there aren't problems. But we can't remove power from government (which we have done in liberal democracies) and then point to government when things don't get done. Constitutions lay the groundwork for us to go out and do it ourselves. Politicians could just go about helping remove obstacles. Perhaps they could just help create cool cities.

Whether in the US, the UK, or South Africa, the politics of polarisation doesn't seem to help.