#2 REFLECTION ON THE REFERENDUM ON MPs’ CUT

Hi reader,

in this article I want to talk to you about a reflection that we at CTZN.eu have made from an article on the MPs cut, which you can find here.

In the previous article, we talked about how the reasons for the “Yes” are apparently valid but, upon closer analysis, they are actually measures that do not solve any of the problems they should. And we talked about how this shows us that the cut of MPs is nothing but the latest populist maneuver which does not solve any issue, but satisfies that Italian majority for whom politicians “are all corrupted and only want to keep their seats”, and for whom the form is worth more than the content. For those people, a reform without any substance, but which satisfies their sense of social justice, is worth more than a serious reform, which does not punish anybody but tries to solve the cause of all the discontent.

However, I think that it would be too easy to downplay this matter, considering it the umpteenth proof of the stupidity of an electorate that does not see that they are being betrayed by the very ones who professed to be different from the “caste”. The temptation is surely there, but this very unmotivated sense of superiority makes it very difficult to have a dialogue with those who believe in these battles, because these people rightfully feel offended by the condescendence and the disregard with which they are addressed.

Because of this, I think it right to examine the issue more in depth, trying to understand why a huge part of the electorate agrees with such a reform even in the face of obvious lies and contradictions that many have pointed out recently. These people’s rage and need for justice have a great truth behind it: a demand for better democracy and more political weight in a frightening and uncertain world. In this world, they feel their social status and their importance as active members of the community as increasingly feeble and threatened by external forces, on which they feel like they cannot exercise any control.

In all this, the distance of the ruling class from common citizens and the subsequent abuse of power, which seems to remain substantially unpunished, are real phenomena that, despite being stereotyped and carried to excess, arouse an outraged and angry reaction at least partially justified.

The real problem is that this frustration, this sense of impotence and this anger for demands so often ignored, which I too feel to a certain extent as a common citizen, are cankered in the Italian social fabric. They create visceral hate for politics and politicians, which prevents people from clearly seeing things for what they are. Even a poisonous drink is impossible to reject for someone who is dying of thirst, and thus even a reform which actually worsens our condition is praised as a great leap forward for those whose frustration and thirst for vengeance are out of control.

But this is not something exclusively imputable to them. Unlike the past, when also less educated people had the possibility to train themselves to hold important political positions, today the undergraduate tend to have poor representation in European and American Parliaments. During the last 40 years, it has really been created an elite of intellectuals and technocrats who no only remain enclosed in the groups to which they belong, and do not have any type of contacts with people of different social background or with a different educational level, but who think to be the only ones capable of governing, even though they lack any real connection with their electoral base. They do not know those who theoretically should vote for them because of their obvious intellectual superiority, and do not wish to do so. In fact, educated people tend to have prejudices against the people with a lower educational level, and those prejudices are not condemned, but often accepted and justified by a purely meritocratic conception of society.

I do not think it wrong to grant prestigious and political positions to those who are best suited to hold them. This is partly because the best suited for a job are those who will probably do it best (to everyone’s benefit), and partly because it would be an injustice not to grant an important role to those who have worked to be up to them. However, even those who are best suited for holding a position cannot treat those who grant it to them with disregard. If the leaders believe that their privileges and the positions they hold are something that society owes them and not something that has been earned but also allowed by the rest of the population, they become arrogant and believe worthy of being really listened to only by those who are already part of their world. If they do not recognise that luck has had a role in letting them achieve a prestigious position and that it is not their merit the fact that their skills are the more requested and appreciated ones at this moment, they develop a sense of superiority which brings them to step aside from the rest of society and to feel ontologically different (better).

It is clear how all of this arouses a feeling of revenge and of frustration in those who, because of missed opportunities or a different mindset, have not followed a particularly prestigious formative path. These people find themselves to be a part of the population who contributes in its own way to the common wellness, but who is not recognized in its value as an active member of the community and is substantially excluded from actively participating in the democratic governance.

Indeed, the problem is that a purely meritocratic understanding of the society gives excessive value and prestige to the winners, while tends to deny any recognition to the rest of the population, arousing feelings of hubris on one side and humiliation and frustration on the other. Those who are best able to read the present times and to act accordingly for the common good, in other words those best suited to an administrative and governmental position, should probably govern, and high-level study can facilitate the development of such abilities (even though the correlation is by no means certain). However, governing isn’t just an issue of expertise, but also and above all of civic virtues, moral character, and fairness, and people with more years of study are not necessarily more in possession of these skills.

All of this has been going on for too much time not to be an element who has helped (along with many others) to generate the distortions that now dominate over the public discourse. You can easily understand how the ease with which people fall into the traps of populism and its false promises is at least partly due to this resentment.

Because of this, I think that the solution is not to presume that anyone who does not see the truth in my words is not my equal, but to try to promote a different narrative and to create a real and constructive dialogue even with those who think differently. Condemning something as wrong, stupid, or harmful does not suffice, in fact the condemnation alone risks only to be self-defeating and to further alienate those who are being persuaded. Instead, it is necessary to propose concrete and constructive alternative options, behaviour patterns that try to meet the needs of angry citizens without having to punish somebody as a scapegoat. In the meantime, it is necessary to try to create a dialogue which shows everyone that they should not agree with me because I am better than them (or think I am), but because I want to understand how to improve the society for both, in order to cooperate and help each other to build something better together. And, first of all, each one of us must look in the mirror and reflect on what he does wrong and what can be improved: it is necessary to remember how much luck weighs in giving some people particular privileges and power and to consequently develop a sense of humility, a fundamental civic virtue which the CommonWealth desperately needs.

It may sound naïve as a principle, and perhaps it is. However, I think that not even considering the problem of what one does wrong, before pointing the finger at others’ faults, and not even trying to follow this ideal, because it is too naïve, is part of the problem which poisons the public debate and prevents us from progressing beyond the politics of tribalism and discrimination.

And what do you think about today’s reflection? Is it something on which you had never reflected before, or is it an issue that you care about? Do you think that my criticism is grounded and, if applied, can help us improve the situation?

Let us know by leaving a comment here, sending us an email with your reflections or commenting on the related post on our social profiles.

Thank you for your attention,

Davide Bertot

Mail: ctzn.eu@gmail.com

Facebook: @ctzn.eu

Instagram: @_ctzn.eu_

Twitter: @ctzn_eu

P.S. If you are interested in further exploring the subject of meritocracy, its flaws and its consequences in the modern world I recommend reading “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?” (The Tyranny of Merit | Michael J. Sandel | Macmillan) by Michael J. Sandel, who I deeply thank for the inspiration he gave for this article.