A critique of the reactions to US President Trump's actions

Let me begin by making it very clear ("stating for the record") that I consider US President Trump's actions with regard to refugees to be utterly wrong, indefensible and extremely harmful - especially to the struggle against violent extremism.

Having said that, however, I consider a lot of the actions taken in response to those awful actions to be either counter productive, or essentially unlikely to lead to any change, as they are "preaching to the converted". As reported by Reuters [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-supporters-idUSKBN15E0BH] today, Trump's supporters in the south and mid-west of the USA are unmoved by the protests on the east and west coast of the USA - let alone what is being done in other nations.

On balance, I consider those actions - with the exception of those instances where people have resorted to violence - are largely of some value: they don't only give people who are experiencing genuine distress at President Trump's actions an outlet for their pain, it also reminds the more progressive politicians that there is a powerful desire for the USA to be a better nation in an inclusive, progressive sense (and other nations where those actions also occurred).

But it is still preaching to the converted, and that is dangerous given what has to be done over the next four years - continuing that same approach will, unless something goes wrong that Trump's supporters care about (and that is possible - e.g., on jobs), run the very real risk of a repeat outcome at the next election in four years. Now, Trump will probably have a different opponent, but I'm not sure that they will necessarily be capable of inspiring an out-voting of Trump's supporters ... Bernie Sanders may, in my view, be too old to be a credible candidate - although he is only 5 years older than Donald Trump ... I doubt Hilary Clinton will run again ... maybe Elisabeth Warren or the others who are being touted by the experts (e.g., see http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/305614-ten-potential-democratic-candidates-for-2020) will be a credible candidate.

It would be very nice to have a Nelson Mandela or an Abraham Lincoln (or, to take a dream from the entertainment industry, a Jed Bartlet?), someone who strikes a chord with a large number of voters (i.e., has credibility in the voters' eyes), can eloquently elucidate the reasons that things like torture are wrong, and inspire people to get out and vote ... but even that would possibly not change the hearts and minds of those who support Trump - but what is certain, in my view, is that nothing being done now is going to change the hearts and minds of Trump's supporters, especially those in the US south and mid-west.

What will change their hearts and minds (which would probably be the most assured way of ensuring a different outcome in four years)?

Well, as a first step, maybe find out why they have the views they do - without disparagement, and carefully considering Gandhi's question as to whether one fought to punish or to change. In fact, if there are people in pro-refugee and other socially progressive groups who previously held opposing views, then there is a marvellous opportunity for those people to become heroes and share their knowledge of what successfully changed their hearts and minds - not what the listeners think should have changed their hearts and minds, but

what

actually

did. 

Those brave people who have already changed have the ability to be able to look at a list of suggestions and say things like "1, 4 and 7 helped me, 2 and 8 were neutral, and the others would have hardened my stance" - and it is important to keep in mind that people's actions can simply reinforce the prejudices and mindset of their opponents. Those who chose to be violent when protesting against President Trump's actions very likely did exactly that - hardened the views of Trump's supporters, or, at the very least, made it harder for whoever comes along next to try and change their minds (that is apart from the inherent errors of their ways .. ).

What we need, in my view - and this applies to more nations than only the USA, and more situations than refugees and torture and the other actions President Trump has taken - is for more eloquent people to sit down with those who support President Trump's actions, and engage in face-to-face communication - NOT talk at them, but listen, get to know and understand them, establish credibility, and then start persuading them why they should change their view.

It would take time, and it would possibly require those people who travelled to protests to think about travelling to areas they don't normally go to, and start viewing their enemies as human beings and equals - at the very least, equally deserving of respect, dignity and human rights, which is a bedrock principle of progressivism.

As an example of this, I have a friend who works in the power industry in the Latrobe Valley, in my home state of Victoria; he told me of a time that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard went to the power station he worked at, faced a mob of angry and hostile (mostly) men ... and talked them largely round to her position.

That's what we need - and there are Democratic Senators and Representatives in the states where President Trump received his most critical support: maybe it is time for progressives to look at what can be done to support those already progressive politicians, and see what they need/want in order to be effective advocates for progressive points of view.

In fact, if I was to try outlining a strategy to defeat Trump next election and also contain the damage being done now and until then, it would probably go something like this:

1. find and actively support progressive politicians (Senators and Representatives, in the USA - the terms are different elsewhere); 
2. engage - politely, respectfully, and remembering to listen, as Zeno of Citium suggested, twice as much as one speaks, with those conservative politicians, groups and people who are expressing concern about President Trump's actions - and have, in some cases, for some time. Find out how they can best be supported on these matters, whilst agreeing to disagree on others; 
3. the experts who write about matters such as refugees and torture need also to find a way to firstly establish their credibility with those who are more inclined to believe pseudo-facts (remember, communicate as equals - don't patronise, listen), and then start giving credible to the audience descriptions of real evidence.
   To illustrate this with an example from crime: many people either know, or think they know, someone who "got off lightly" (e.g., didn't go to jail) and committed further offences. Therefore, when talking about things like re-offending (don't use elitist terms like "recidivism"), talk about the statistics, that there will always be the exception, etc - make the comments real, and understandable to people who, although probably intelligent, may not have the specialised vocabulary and predilections that go with a University education (if I had my time over, I would quite possibly learn a trade, rather than do engineering, or any of the other options I had available at Uni [which included medicine and the law]: if I had done so, that would NOT have made me any less intelligent, but I would have been less familiar with the jargon); 
4. this also raises a very important principle: humanise, humanise, humanise - present the stories of people like those who worked helping the US military in Iraq and now need a place of safety (don't assume everyone has cottoned on to what you would consider obvious points - apart from anything else, they may be so busy with "everyday" things like caring for ill family members that they don't have the time, energy or inclination to consider politics). This was advice that has helped me and the others I was working with when I was involved in lobbying (sorry, we weren't paid so I have to say "community activism");
5. next, those people who are genuinely eloquent, calm under provocation (which rules me out) and patient communicators should start to engage slowly, genuinely and thoroughly with President trump's supporters - as I outlined above. It would be very good if this could be coordinated - when I was involved in "community activism", we used our connections on both sides of politics to guide our supporters when to write letters (this was quite a few years ago) or emails and WHEN TO STOP (you can get into people's face too much, and start to be counter-productive - i.e., inspire them to harden their positions, simply because you have become someone who is trying to bully them out of their position);
6. finally - and this should be last in the list of actions - start looking around for, and support the next credible progressive political opponent to, in this instance, US President Trump.

It's a long, slow process, but it has, in my view, the greatest chance of permanent success.

I'm not in the USA, but ... anyone there want to give something like this a go?

A Circuit-Breaker between Israel and Palestine

Although the stronger drive towards some form of Greater Israel, with its associated problem of “settlements”, is a relatively recent development, in general, the problems between Israel and Palestine and their causes are well-known and reasonably well understood, and there is a reasonable idea of what needs to be done to resolve or overcome those issues [1, 2, 3, 4] and start the post-conflict healing process [5].

Taking a step away from politics, perhaps, my opinion is that the stumbling block comes down to emotion – in particular, understandable grief, fear and hate on both sides.

Resolving these emotions is a difficult enough process at the best of times [6, 7]: under the current circumstances, where the closeness and intermingling of people and land where events – some good, most bad - happen makes me think of a civil war, asymmetric conflict is building emotions at a significant rate and retaliations on retaliations is creating a destructive and self-perpetuating cycle, overcoming them is even harder.

As Ehud Barak said:

“If I were a Palestinian at the right age, I would have joined one of the terrorist organizations at a certain stage.”

I am going to suggest that at least some of the pressure for finding a solution, or even a way to move towards a solution, be taken off the people who are most involved, most suffering, and thus possibly finding it hardest to break the cycle (although there have been groups of people who have made a difference in seemingly intractable conflicts – notably, perhaps, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina [8], and the Peace People in Northern Ireland [9, 10, 11, 12, 13 {which is a useful critique of what is required for long term, sustainable peace –more than just walls}, and there are groups working for that in Israel and Palestine [14], [15], [16]).

First, some history:

·         I argue that, amongst the many influences and factors (including the history of Jewish aspirations and activism and varying considerations by the UK), possibly the key reason the modern nation of Israel was created [17, 18, 19] could be considered to be as a result of failure [20] by many other nations in the world to prevent or stop the Holocaust [21] – not because of the influence that had on the thinking of Jewish people or the political representatives involved in this issue at the UN [22, 23, 24, 25] or the reparations Israel received [26, 27, 28], but because of the influence it had on “the rest of the world”, people in those nations outside Israel and Palestine who felt horror at the terrible events of the Holocaust;

·         thus, it could be argued responsibility for a just and equitable foundation of Israel lies with “the rest of the world”;

·         furthermore, when someone suffers a wrong, one form of justice is compensation, which also applies to abuses of human rights. This principle is discussed in Geoffrey Robertson’s book “Crimes Against Humanity: the Struggle for Global Justice” (for instance, pp. 119 – 123; Penguin Books, 2000, ISBN 0 1 025029 8, first pub. Allen Lane, 1999; p.362).

My proposal is that “the rest of the world” takes on responsibility for ensuring the second part of the partition plan from 1947 - that relating to Palestine - is fulfilled, including provision of some form of compensation for the loss of land that was required to enable the unquestionably necessary foundation of a nation of Israel, which had the provision of a place of sanctuary for Jewish people as an inherent part of its raison d’être.

To give another perspective on this, consider the following (lengthy) quotation from Christopher Hitchens [29]:

“Suppose that a man leaps out of a burning building—as my dear friend and colleague Jeff Goldberg sat and said to my face over a table at La Tomate in Washington not two years ago—and lands on a bystander in the street below. Now, make the burning building be Europe, and the luckless man underneath be the Palestinian Arabs. Is this a historical injustice? Has the man below been made a victim, with infinite cause of complaint and indefinite justification for violent retaliation? My own reply would be a provisional 'no,' but only on these conditions. The man leaping from the burning building must still make such restitution as he can to the man who broke his fall, and must not pretend that he never even landed on him. And he must base his case on the singularity and uniqueness of the original leap. It can't, in other words, be 'leap, leap, leap' for four generations and more. The people underneath cannot be expected to tolerate leaping on this scale and of this duration, if you catch my drift. In Palestine, tread softly, for you tread on their dreams. And do not tell the Palestinians that they were never fallen upon and bruised in the first place. Do not shame yourself with the cheap lie that they were told by their leaders to run away. Also, stop saying that nobody knew how to cultivate oranges in Jaffa until the Jews showed them how. 'Making the desert bloom'—one of Yvonne's stock phrases—makes desert dwellers out of people who were the agricultural superiors of the Crusaders.”

I would argue that the responsibility for ensuring both the person jumping out of the window, and the person who was landed upon, are both well and properly cared for, lies with the person(s) responsible for setting the fire and allowing it to spread unchecked. Germany has already paid a substantial quantity of reparations to Israel, as discussed above, but there is a responsibility that others have not yet, perhaps, come to terms with, and, despite the quantity of international aid that Palestinians are receiving [30, 31], which is still less than that given to Israel [32], I would suggest that there is reason for rethinking such aid to being a form of compensation, and that it be formulated towards establishing Palestine as a healthy, capable and self-sufficient state - perhaps take an approach akin to that used for the Marshall Plan [33], and aim to develop Palestine until it has a healthy enough economy to be attractive to trading partners – which will require a change of economic activity.

Others have looked at using the influence of third parties [34] (and there was, of course, the Oslo Accords [35], which I personally consider the closest the region has come to peace), but not, as far as I am aware, from the point of view of this idea.

As I see it, implementing this suggestion would involve:

·         a genuine international commitment to responsibility for security, including a substantial military and police presence in Palestine, until Palestinian security forces are both capable and motivated enough to assume responsibility themselves;

·         relabelling aid as “compensation”;

·         extending the “compensation” to include building a vibrant and capable state with a healthy economy for Palestine (some aid already aims to do this [36], but I question whether the amount is adequate);

·         defer the resolution of other problems until this is accomplished.

It would obviously be difficult to do this:

·         no nation would be willing to stand up and say “we accept a share of responsibility for what happened and led to the creation of Israel, and this is what we can do now to help” - particularly so for nations not directly involved in the region;

·         there is going to have to be extensive and forthright negotiation around security and lifting the blockade – and Israel would have to accept that any attacks on international investment in Palestine would not be well received, and may actually trigger responses Israel does not like, just as the international players involved (and Palestine) need to understand the vital necessity of enforcing security. One particular issue which would need to be resolved is the location and return of missing Israeli soldiers (as an example of the ongoing significance of this issue, see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38486573);

·         what nation - or group of nations - is likely to make the military commitment necessary to actually achieve the required level of security initially? With regard to individual nations, I can only think of the USA and France, but the USA is about to become more isolationist and/or pro-Israel, and France tends to not get involved where it hasn’t had an historical role (although hosting the recent conference on peace was a promising initiative - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-paris-cummunique-idUSKBN14Z0RT): could this be a role for the European Union?;

·         for the economy to be viable, it is likely that a shift away from agriculture will be needed, and aid needs to be significantly increased to move the economy to an internationally competitive, knowledge- and/or industry-based model;

·         considerable institutional capability building would be required, together with investment in mental health services to start dealing with the trauma of the last seven decades;

·         I would expect this to take at least two decades.

On the other hand:

·         Israel and Palestine would not have to reach an agreement for advancement to happen;

·         a pause in conflict, and the restoration of normality would allow for some of the emotion to be reduced before the next negotiations on peace [5];

·         Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza has, perhaps, been more successful than typically considered [37];

·         the continuation of the current approach, based on the imposition of more force, has been described as “futile” [38];

·         the sight of a healthy economy free of the high expenditure on defence that Israel currently has to spend (although that has reduced from around 17% in the early 90s to just under 6% now [39]) would be an attractive inducement for peace, and a market that would be some sort of reward for whatever nation(s) were far-sighted enough to take on such a long and difficult role.

Is this proposal likely to be accepted by anyone? No, but maybe proposing it will get someone thinking of something that will be accepted and work.

Notes:

[1] for instance http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36682062

[2] "Israel: Background and U.S. Relations", by Jim Zanotti
(URL https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33476.pdf)

[3] “Israel: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief", Jim Zanotti
(URL https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R44245.pdf)

[4] "Israel and the Palestinians: Prospects for a Two-State Solution", Jim Zanotti
(URL https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40092.pdf)

[5] "After The Violence: Three Things We Know About the Effects of War Trauma and What We Can Do About It", by Thomas Zeitzoff
(URL https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2016/02/01/after-the-violence-three-things-we-know-about-the-effects-of-war-trauma-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/)

[6] "Terrorism, Spoilers, and the Barriers to Resolving Civil Wars", by Joe Young
(URL https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2016/03/07/terrorism-spoilers-and-the-barriers-to-resolving-civil-wars/)

[7] "Civil Society and Trajectories of Violence: A Summary of Emerging Research" by Pauline Moore and Cassy Dorff for the "Denver Dialogues"
(URL https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2016/04/12/civil-society-and-trajectories-of-violence-a-summary-of-emerging-research/)

[8] “Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mothers_of_the_Plaza_de_Mayo&oldid=748689849)

[9] “Peace People”, Encyclopaedia Britannica
(URL https://www.britannica.com/topic/Peace-People)

[10] The Nobel Peace Prize 1976
(URL http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1976/)

[11] website – history page
(URL http://www.peacepeople.com/?page_id=8)

[12] “The Good Friday Agreement”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Good_Friday_Agreement&oldid=760177782)

[13] “Peace in Northern Ireland: A model of success?”, by Mike Allison
(URL http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201281292223454712.html)

[14] “Rays of Hope in Gaza: 13 Israeli and Palestinian Groups Building Peace”, Yes Magazine
URL http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/13-peacebuilders-in-gaza

[15] “Interfaith Efforts to Foster Peace in the Middle East”, Cheyenne Interfaith Council
(URL http://www.interfaithcheyenne.org/links/interfaith-efforts-to-foster-peace-in-the-middle-east)

[16] “Peace Groups in Palestine and Israel”,
(URL http://www.mepn.org/peace-groups-palestine-israel/)

[17] “Creation of Israel, 1948”, (US) Office of the Historian
(URL https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel)

[18] “United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine&oldid=758126488)

[19] “Aftermath of the Holocaust”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aftermath_of_the_Holocaust&oldid=757903434)

[20] “Responsibility for the Holocaust”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust&oldid=760452980)

[21] “the Holocaust”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&oldid=759883375)

[22] "The Holocaust: Factor in the Birth of Israel?" by Evyatar Friesel (Shoah Resource Center, The International School for Holocaust Studies)
(URL http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203575.pdf)

[23] "Did the Holocaust Play a Role in the Establishment of the State of Israel?" by Tomer Kleinman
(URL http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/holocaust/Research/Proseminar/tomerkleinman.htm)

[24] “United Nations Special Committee on Palestine”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Special_Committee_on_Palestine&oldid=750246003)

[25] URL https://www.reference.com/history/did-holocaust-affect-formation-jewish-homeland-be38e12cbc60474c

[26] URL http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/reparations.html

[27] "Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany", Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany&oldid=759253838)

[28] amounting to US$60 billion over half a century, according to “Crimes Against Humanity: the Struggle for Global Justice”, Geoffrey Robertson (Penguin Books, 2000, ISBN 0 1 025029 8, first pub. Allen Lane, 1999; p.362)

[29] “Hitch-22: A Memoir”, Christopher Hitchens
(URLs http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3956.Christopher_Hitchens and http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/8987023)

[30] “U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians”, Jim Zanotti (URL https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22967.pdf), which includes the following:

“… the Palestinians, who are among the world’s largest per capita recipients of international foreign aid.” ($400 million per year)

“Successive Administrations have requested aid for the Palestinians in apparent support of (1) promoting the prevention or mitigation of terrorism against Israel; (2) fostering stability, prosperity, and self-governance in the West Bank that may aid Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic prospects; and (3) meeting humanitarian needs. The long-term utility of U.S. aid in encouraging regional stability and Palestinian economic and political self-sufficiency might depend to some extent on progress toward a political solution that addresses Palestinian national aspirations and Israeli security demands”

[31] “International aid to Palestinians”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_aid_to_Palestinians&oldid=757838959)

[32] “Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance”, by Clyde R. Mark https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB85066.pdf, which includes the following:

“Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy. Since 1985, the United States has provided $3 billion in grants annually to Israel.” cf. the ~$0.4 billion to Palestine)

“In addition to U.S. assistance, it is estimated that Israel receives about $1 billion annually through philanthropy, an equal amount through short- and long- term commercial loans, and around $1 billion in Israel Bonds proceeds.”

[33] “Marshall Plan”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Plan&oldid=759137273)

[34] “Gaza Crisis: U.S. Should Press Egypt to Rein in _____”, by James Phillips
(URL http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/11/gaza-crisis-us-should-press-egypt-to-rein-in-_____) 

[35] “Oslo Accords”, Wikipedia
(URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oslo_Accords&oldid=754181589)

[36] "The Middle East Partnership Initiative: An Overview", by Jeremy M. Sharp
(URL htps://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21457.pdf)

[37] "Israel’s Gaza Withdrawal 10 Years Later: More Successful Than You Think", by Daniel Byman
(URL https://warontherocks.com/2015/08/israels-gaza-withdrawal-more-successful-than-you-think/)

[38] "Israel and Gaza: Force is Futile", by Claire Yorke
(URL https://warontherocks.com/2014/07/israel-and-gaza-force-is-futile/)

[39] See URL http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=IL

A Commissioner for Political Plurality?

I came across an article yesterday advocating for the creation of a new position: Commissioner for Political Plurality (my capitals).

The author, Reverend Dr Michael Bird, started by referring to voter anger and the rise of extremists, and gave some examples closer to home of concern to him – for instance, one of the Greens being President of the Senate or Prime Minister (which I’m actually OK with), the Sex Party’s advertisements about taxing the Church (which I consider he slightly misrepresented – perhaps understandably), and the apparent xenophobic connections of some of our conservative politicians, which is a concern that I share.

The election of Trump in the USA was cited as an example of how objectionable politicians can rise to power, and the author then stated:

“The danger is that political parties, whether mainstream or minor, can modulate extremist views, cultivate ethno-nationalism, and move to silence dissent.”

Up to a point, I agree with that warning. There are a few parties, such as the Australian Democrats, which Don Chipp started to “keep the bastards honest” and maybe some of the smaller parties (e.g., the Australian Progressives) where that is unlikely, but there is always the possibility of change if enough members join who don’t accept a party’s (or any group’s) goals.

The author gives examples of the dangers he associates with right and left – and, again, I disagree with his assessments of the dangers of religious coercion from the left, as my minority religion experiences that from the religious right.

To counter this, a position of Commissioner for Political Plurality is suggested, with the Religious Freedom Roundtable organised by former human rights commissioner and now Liberal Member for Goldstein Tim Wilson to pursue “a settlement between religious communities and LGBTI advocacy groups that respects both religious liberty and equality for sexual minorities”.

My immediate reaction to that was to wonder if my and other minority religions had been shut out as is so often the case in multifaith/interfaith events, which tends to favour, in my experience, the Abrahamic religions, and maybe one or two of the other big ones.

And that reaction, and our divergences of view, are a perfect example of why something along these lines would be good.

As the author states:

“Whatever our differences, progressive or conservative, whether urban or rural, gay or God-fearing, immigrant or fifth generation ocker, we are stronger together than we are apart.”

Again – there is a point of difference there, as I know many LGBTI Christians, but the point that we are richer and more resilient when we embrace diversity is as true for us as it is for biodiversity in the natural world.

I could state that there are natural checks and balances in having a plurality of views, which is true enough, but I also consider there are evolutionary advantages, in a sense – society can explore a range of paths, and then have some evidence for choosing one that works. As an example, society can choose not to live under totalitarian communism because some parts of the world didn’t go down that path last Century, and got to see the problems that that led to.

Of course, we’re now seeing the problems that go with unbridled capitalism, and the fact that not all the world has gone down the US path means we can choose another option.

And, believe it or not, we’re getting better at doing this. We’ve even realised we can make informed choices about our religious / spiritual / humanist / agnostic / atheist pathways …

To some extent, that is because we are mostly better educated, and the “good” media (like the ABC, as oppose to tabloids) helps us know what is going on, and provides informed commentary to help us think about the issues. Actually, the range of media provides us with a range of political viewpoints and a richer appreciation of any one issue, as we get to see it through many different facets – including those we disagree with, which gives us some insight into those we are seeking to co-exist with.

Going back to education, that is one of the roles that Dr Bird proposes for the Commissioner for Political Pluralism, teaching people to embrace (my word) “confident pluralism”, which is “a socio-political philosophy developed by American legal philosopher John Inazu which seeks to promote peace in the face of social fissures and political fault lines”.

I consider that to be admirable and highly desirable, and a way to start transforming this world into a better place.

Is a Commissioner for Political Pluralism the best or a good way to realise that goal?

Well, better education about political process would be good. That’s something I’ve long suspected the yanks do better than us, but I would like any education on process to go beyond the mechanics of voting and passing laws, and also consider fundamentals such as the collaborative decision making at the heart of our political system.

Debate on the topic could also potentially be good –and the “potentially” qualification is well illustrated by the concerns over the recent proposed plebiscite, where the risk of abuse, assault and suicide was real, and the imbalance associated with the endemic preponderance of one side was under-acknowledged, if at all.

Are there other alternatives beyond the creation of a new position?

Well, we could try some sort of law, but that could be fairly easily repealed by future parties, so perhaps we could add some provisions around political pluralism to our Constitution.

That would be much, much harder to change (although it would also be commensurately harder to implement in the first place), so it behooves us to be sure that the change is actually what we want and consider best – which is similar to the debates over proposals for a national Bill or Rights, and, of course, a good, well informed public debate can help.

At this point, I’d like to consider the USA again.

After the Presidential elections last year, a number of people in the USA bemoaned their Electoral College system, and opined that it should be changed.

Well, changing a system because the result isn’t what you wanted is fundamentally unsound – unwise. Those changes could always potentially go the other way: advocates for changing the Electoral College system often mention the Al Gore-George Bush contest, but some people claim that Richard Nixon won the popular vote against John F Kennedy, for instance (see here).

If you want to change something, do so because you are set on something better, not because you want to control the result.

Now, in the case of the US system, according to the Federalist Papers, the Electoral College was created to ensure that men of wisdom (excluding women and slaves was not seen as contrary to wisdom, in those days) would do the actual voting. Well, the obvious flaw in that from my point of view is that, if I am voting for people on the basis of their wisdom, I want to vote directly, and in an informed way, for those people, not for a candidate and then have someone else get in-between my vote and my choice of candidate.

That system has led to a significant amount of debate and thought over the issue of “faithless voters” in the electoral college, people who go against the decision of their state’s voters – some states have even banned such behaviour, which goes against the intentions of those who created the system, and there have been suggestions of a proportional allocation of votes.

Perhaps it is better to take a step back, and look at whole thing – specifically, is that intermediate step of an Electoral College of “Wise People” redundant in this day and age of widespread education, better media and more egalitarian expectations of democracy?

Did the system come undone shortly after its invention because of the development of political parties?

I consider that is a valid point, and one that is significant in many political systems, as I know of none that properly address the issue (and haven’t tried researching the point). Perhaps the closest we’ve come to this is ensuring that “replacement Senators” for a casual vacancy are from the same party – which was adopted after the convention to this effect was breached.

I would prefer that our Constitution properly acknowledged parties, and reduced the use of unwritten conventions – which the aforementioned US President-elect Trump is illustrating the fragility of. Could this, perhaps, be a better field for preserving our political plurality?

But I still like the idea of education, and maybe “the best” solution is a combination of measures, which is perhaps a bit along the lines of not keeping all one’s eggs in one basket .