I like politics. I mean REALLY like politics. I get giddy when in line to vote. I feel excited about putting my cross on the ballot paper. I chose to study Politics at the university level. I started a blog to talk about politics because I bloody love politics. That's great for me! I get to spend hours examining one of my favourite things. Which is lucky because it is extremely complicated. Now, unlike the title of this piece may suggest, I do not advocate that everybody should take an incredibly deep nosedive into the realm of political theory and science. A) it would require a massive amount of time and B) it can be incredibly boring. However, what I will argue is that there exists a severe lack of fundamental understanding that is exacerbated by every new generation. I am not the first nor will I be the last to stress just how important politics is: it is the basis of all decision making in our society and cannot be understated. To clarify, I am discussing this from the perspective of being taught in Scotland. For example, at school, we were all given two years of mandatory humanities (geography, history, RMPS, and modern studies) before being allowed to choose subjects for third and fourth year. The basics of British politics is taught as part of Modern Studies - Britain is a democracy, Parliament has an upper and lower house, the Queen is the head of state, etc. If one chooses to carry on Modern Studies after this, they receive a summary of electoral systems and policymaking, as well as an introduction to the left/right spectrum. As mentioned beforehand, none of this is mandatory and the political side of things is only part of the course - international relations, case studies such as Darfur and enhanced interrogation, and current affairs take up much of the teaching time, too. This is a nice little summary of the more important points one may need going forward in life and provides students with a basic knowledge of what they might need to know. Nevertheless, it is also reductionist and inadequate. All the basics of the UK political system can become completely irrelevant and ignored in the media cycle for years if a large enough challenge arises (see Brexit). Anybody on the base-level of political knowledge would be stumped at the constitutional intricacies of leaving the EU or Scottish independence, nevermind the substantial amount of governmental bodies that overlap between different levels of government. Trying to understand the differences between a coalition government and a confidence and supply deal isn't something that the average person wants to spend their free time doing, nor should they. Yet it was a substantial part of the political discourse for months following the 2017 General Election in Britain.
Unfortunately, the case gets more difficult the further one goes through the UK. A large part of politics for those living in the devolved part of the nation revolves around the differences and levels of governmental power. If a student in Scotland is to get a solid grasp of British politics then they must learn; devolved and reserved powers, four separate electoral systems (plus the D'Hondt system), plus the workings of the EU Parliament and Commission. These are not simple things and cannot be adequately taught or sufficiently understood whilst mixed in amongst the rest of the curriculum. This leads to another issue – the political parties. If you examine the inner workings of the Labour Party, you will find: Corbynistas, Blairites, remainers, leavers, unionists, federalists, socialists, and Christ knows who else. The same goes for the Conservatives. Even the SNP isn't a united front despite their party's prime objective. The objectives and policymaking of each party will vary greatly depending on its prominent figures and key players at that time. The Conservative Party's MPs were largely pro-European at the time of the EU Referendum, yet a significant minority and exterior pressures drove the party to hold a referendum. It's all very well to just listen to the news every time a General election rolls around. It's what the majority of the nation does. Alas, the 60-odd days of news coverage provided can't and won't ever explain the true depths of politics in the UK. None of this is taught and is just expected to be picked up along the way. The difficulty in making the above clear enough to comprehend takes me to my next point of contention - the left/right spectrum. At both Higher and HNC level, I was taught the political spectrum to be something along the lines of this:
Whilst this does a fairly good job of covering the very basics of political philosophy, it is also horribly reductionist. The characteristics of democratic socialism and anarcho-communism or libertarianism and fascism are so inherently different from one another that the suggestion they are so ideologically close together is laughable. Many of the inner-party factions mentioned above would find themselves at different points on the spectrum. The abridgement of extraordinarily complex and nuanced ideas into singular points on a line reduces their true meaning and relationship to one another meaningless. Some of their policies would be completely totalitarian whilst others would see no government exist at all. Yet, they are all lumped together in the minds of the public and students. Hence, I propose a switch to the similarly simple but infinitely more informative:
The political compass. The addition of the y-axis adds an immense level of depth and context to the world of political ideology whilst maintaining the same degree of simplicity. I argue and will continue to argue, that it should be taught as part of the curriculum. Now, I won't sit here and advocate that it is the best measure of ideology or provides one with the most accurate depictions. It is, however, the simplest and most effective measurement of ideological differences that doesn't require an intricate knowledge of political theory.
At this point, I can guess what you are thinking. Why does this matter? What relevance does this have with lessons about electoral systems in school? Firstly, it highlights how shallow the current curriculums are. Secondly, it shows that from the onset that people are conditioned to be restricted to pre-existing schools of thought. The political education that is given to pupils guides them to the major political parties and current viewpoints. There is a well-earned stereotype of uni students being rampant socialists or raging environmentalists. This is something that is often mocked by the older generations – but why?
Students using their newfound freedom to research and discover new schools of thought should be applauded, even if you think their reasons are rubbish. If people who are being educated on the matter view a pattern of the mainstream not working why do we immediately shut them down? The school system steers the entirety of political thought to the mainstream politics of the country and fuels the cycle of misunderstanding and settling for what is currently available. If the last four years of parliamentary politics are the example that we expect ourselves to hold ourselves too, we are doomed to repeat it.
It is not my place to dictate whether this is an inherently good or bad thing. There are reasons that certain ideologies are placed where they are on the spectrum. It is my place, though, to highlight the fact that the education one receives is insufficient to guide somebody through the minefield that is political discourse. If people aren't taught what makes extremists extreme, how are we to expect them to recognise it?
The old maxim of the politician you would go for a pint or who speaks their mind with isn't born out of a willing ignorance but from a neglecting education. Politics is neither simple nor easy. To many, it is a complex and foreign language. It is also the foundation of western society. Every policy and every decision taken will affect your life. It should be comprehendible to the majority. Not through their own volition or desires but as a fundamental part of their education. With the new wave of politically minded and attentive youth already leaving their mark, imagine what sort of discourse the country could have if everybody knew as much as they did.
Commentaires