Politics: why we, the electorate, need utilitarianism more than ever.

Five years have passed surreptitiously by, and the time has come around again to fake our best expressions of comprehension towards the talk of politics. There is a refreshing gust of change this time, though; we as the electorate have the power to medicate ourself once again with a repeat prescription of the same old, antiquated politics, or to be adventurous and try something entirely new; something radical. Immediately alarm bells are probably ringing in your head - and of course so they should be, it is because the word radical has been hijacked by conservatives to portend a soon-to-materialise ruinous event. It is not synonymous with historically significant events as the French Revolution, and the succeeding Reign of Terror; but ought to symbolise something that can potentially make a huge and positive difference. In this case, radical is used to signify something that is outside of the stale status quo, something at odds with what is considered – subjectively I may add  – as the conventional way of doing things. As with most decisions, there is of course some uncertainty around a radical shift, yet these choices and their potential consequences are of too much importance to merely discard due to some, small or large, possibility that it may end badly. The propaganda and falsities of the major parties are in a slow descent to being exposed for what they are, and people are beginning to wake up from their hypnotic slumbers. And yet, what we are seeing is people ignoring their convictions and choosing to espouse the very same parties that have used deceit and skullduggery to secure their vote in the past. If there ever was an almighty paradox, this is a major contender. Why would one persist in voting for a party that has condescendingly lied to them; one which has manipulated them for no other end than that of their own progression?

The rigid and age-long duopoly of the Conservatives and Labour has been placed under increasing pressure by the radical but infantile political parties of the Green Party and UKIP. Perhaps in a few years’ time, and only if their momentum is maintained or even better increased, the opportunity for the Green Party to challenge the shared hegemony will be ripe, but for the present moment, and with the looming election in mind, the party will not achieve empowerment anytime soon. Instead, yet more of the same now bilious policies will follow, with the election being a close and hotly contested toss-up between the Tories and Labour. Hotly contested is just the start of it; these two parties, though more so the Tories, are now scooping down to new levels of childish pettiness by bellowing personalised insults and defamations towards one another all in the name of their agendas. Ironically, the Green Party is doing a better job at upholding the values of etiquette and professionalism than either of the major parties. Attacking the person instead of the party’s policies is a clever tactic of diverting away from the latter, which in itself calls into question; why belittle the other parties leader if they truly believe their respective party to have the best policies?

This opportunity to step outside of mainstream politics, away from austerity, neoliberalism, and institutionalised venality, has been around for years, but it is only recently that the general populace have begun to take notice. Yet the only party offering this alternative, and I would go as far to say, refreshing doctrine, is either systematically vilified by the media, excluded outright from the media limelight, or made into laughing stock due to some exaggerated (often misquoted) statement. Gandhi was the first to recognise these desperate and spiteful tactics; he wrote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”. If examined chronologically, there is definite resemblance to the sequential process described by Gandhi when one considers the interaction between the Green Party and the media; and I don't think this can be attributed to mere chance.

It is us, the electorate, who are affected by politics; we transfer our microscopically small share of constitutional power to the entrusting hands of politicians, who then, on our behalf, decide all aspects of government, from education to healthcare. So with that in mind, it is – and I believe this to be unchallengeable - only natural of us, the people, to expect a large degree of political virtue at best – or at the bare minimum, at least some. This notion of political virtue is important, as it helps to distinguish between a self-interested politician (or political party) and one who has the public’s interest at heart. Only with an open and explicit abnegation of self-interest for the public good is political virtue manifest.

It is in this current era of turbulence and precarity that the values of togetherness, selflessness, and thoughtfulness have been crudely replaced by individualism, narcissism, and a degenerative crisis in empathy. Unlike some countries, politics in the UK is determined through the suffrage system: for those who are legally allowed to vote, they are encouraged to pledge their support to the party whose manifesto is most closely aligned with their personal convictions and, increasingly, their financial standing. It is the individual that is the main and perhaps only consideration, not the collective. Consistency is important for all political parties; if it is compromised, and one begins to renege on old promises, voters will become disenfranchised, or worst yet pack their bags and chose a different party. For the Tories consistency is not a problem in one respect: of how they maintain their unbroken track record in implementing - what's that - yet more regressive austerity cuts, the brunt of which fall by and large on the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Neither the Tory politicians nor their superrich bankrollers are none the wiser to these consequences. Two parallel societies have sprung into existence, living in complete isolation of one another. Inhabited by the millionaires and billionaires of society, the first society enclosures themselves off from the repugnant sight of the plebeian masses; all that matters is themselves and their class; everybody else is subject to ignorance and lives in the background. They seem blissfully unaware, or perhaps even indifferent towards, the worrying trends in poverty and associated ills that their political preference brings. The second society, occupied by the common man, is one in which public services are vital, where one or two more pound above the minimum wage determines whether one can live under a roof or not.

On that note, it brings the discussion to the central point of this writing, that what is needed to remedy this sorry state of affairs is a renaissance in the interest of utilitarianism. For those to which utilitarianism is just a longer than average word without meaning, I will now provide a succinct and simple definition. As a doctrine, the idea of utilitarianism, at least in principle, is premised on the maximisation of overall social utility. To think about the present situation, one in which a small proportion of individuals have high utilities, while others, a preponderant majority have low utilities, it is clear that the principle of utilitarianism is violated. For the doctrine’s formulators, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, their argument would follow the logic that, to achieve a fairer and happier society, there is a need to equalise the relative utilities across all different societal classes. The analogy of a see-saw will help to visualise this effect, a utility see-saw if you will: on one end, high in the air, are the superrich, unperturbed by their fellow countryman’s poverty; then on the other end, with their feet dragging across the ground, is the remaining majority, mired by debt, eroding purchasing power, and job insecurity. The wealthy minority may be less in absolute quantity, but on account of sheer mass they win hands-down. It doesn’t have to be like this; indeed even Moses would have his work cut out facilitating a passage through the gulf between the rich and poor. People tend to forget that even humans are imperfect, and the notion of infallibility is but a fraud; not every situation can be critically analysed, and the inevitable outcome is the occasional mistake or regret. Yet people look at others with a sort of Darwinistic mindset, an unforgiving and uncompassionate way of thinking. This disconnection between one’s unfortunate socioeconomic position and others’ sympathetic reaction when faced by it has meant that people are less caring to one another.

To reverse back down this tangent to utilitarianism, we can think of one’s utility as being out of a possible score of ten. For the wealthy in society, free of the daily worries about whether the next debt interest instalment will be serviceable, or if their zero-hour contact will cover the bills this week, their utility averages between nine and ten. To move down the scale and we will pass individuals from all societal positions; for the vast majority, though - that is to say, the working class - utility can range widely from a measly four to seven, when considering averages only. Don’t take these as givens as this is supposed to be nothing more than an illustrative exercise; but I conjecture that these are accurate approximations. As the working class accounts for a significantly larger proportion of the population, the implication is that there is a worryingly large underfulifillment of utility in society. There is a necessity for the richer more fortunate members of society to recognise this underfulifillment and impute it into their political decisions; the answer they ought to consider is: what is of most importance: an extra two utility points for themselves, or an additional four or five for their poorer counterparts? The utilitarian would assert the latter, and indeed I would have to concur too – the 19th century poet, William Blake, sums this point up sombrely when he stated that “The most sublime act is to set another before you.”