Can Politics Survive the Twenty-first Century? Why Political Moralism Cannot be a Threat to Politics’ Existence
by The possibility that politics may not survive the Twenty-first Century is a frightening prospect to be sure, and it is not one to be taken lightly. However, Kenneth Minogue’s argument, though vivid and compelling, is nevertheless fatally flawed: he makes a critical assumption that leads him to question the ability of politics to survive the Twenty-first Century, an assumption which I believe is left unjustified.
The possibility that politics may not survive the Twenty-first Century is a frightening prospect to be sure, and it is not one to be taken lightly. However, Kenneth Minogue’s argument, though vivid and compelling, is nevertheless fatally flawed: he makes a critical assumption that leads him to question the ability of politics to survive the Twenty-first Century, an assumption which I believe is left unjustified. He assumes that true political moralism is in fact attainable if a despot imposes it on us, where I would argue that due to fundamental human nature it is not, especially when the said imposition is through force.
The failure of the Soviet Union to universally impose a relatively simple ideology on its population is evidence of the power of this fundamental element of human nature. Another example, the case of Singapore, shows us how the spread of dissenting opinions cannot be stopped after the introduction of the Internet. The inherent nature of these dissenting opinions within us is clearly exhibited through my relationship with my roommate. A more philosophical interpretation further illustrates the impossibility of political moralism’s killing politics.
Finally, Minogue assumes this predicted change is possible within the short space of a hundred years, where I would argue that current existing political systems are so resilient as to remain in place longer than this, in some form or another, before being replaced by an unchallenged and universal system. Minogue’s political moralism argument, thus, is simply not sufficient to justify the end of politics, because absolute political moralism is simply unattainable in the next hundred years.
Minogue’s recognition of a rising trend in today’s society, which he calls political moralism (Minogue, 1995, p.104), is of pivotal importance to his argument that politics may not survive the Twenty-first Century. From the German government’s decision to force its citizens to believe in the Holocaust to the increased expectation of tolerance between whites and blacks, he rightly argues that there has been, in recent decades, a shift towards greater “political correctness” in the lives of today’s citizens (Minogue, 1995, p.110).
Minogue predicts the rise of an ever-more-important political moralism, extrapolating this curve, so to speak, until “this will ultimately bring harmony.” (Minogue, 1995, p.111). This progression to “harmony” is not defined as natural; rather, it is brought about through “manipulation and [attitude] management” (Minogue, 1995, p.111). The crucial element of his argument, therefore, is not that political moralism exists, or even that it is on the rise, but that it will be universally imposed on all of us, in an all-encompassing and inescapable way. It is only at this point, when political moralism has completely taken over all walks of life, that Mtinogue argues politics can cease to exist.
Liked it
