To:    Comment at the Guardian
Re:    Politics and leadership from an evolutionary, anthropological perspective
Date: Friday 12 January 07

In response to a Guardian article, "Dead-duck decisions" by Mark Lawson on the quality of political leadership

Link to article and thread at The Guardian.
 

Is it not time we looked at society, politics and leadership more objectively, from an evolutionary and anthropological perspective?
 
Human behaviour and emotions evolved over millions of years to serve the survival and advantage of individuals and their family groups in the natural environment (which included other, rival, groups of humans). From the very beginning, these family groups needed leadership, which was normally provided, presumably, by a dominant male.
 
With the advent of civilisation the natural environment was increasingly replaced by an artificial "socio-economic environment", where Homo sapiens' blind, dumb-animal, Darwinian struggle for survival and advantage continued, some family groups, i.e. their leaders, seeking to dominate and exploit others, which resulted in the  creation of kingdoms, some of which developed into empires. These tended to be unstable, because of their size, and break up into separate kingdoms or nation states, which are now the basic units of political power, providing the essential framework within which individuals, now largely independent of and indifferent to their extended family group, continue to struggle for survival and advantage (for themselves and their immediate family).
 
Free-market capitalism developed within this context to both serve and exploit humankind's animal nature and behaviour, our needs and desires, principally, of course, in the narrow, dump-animal (as opposed to more enlightened, human) self-interests of those in a position to influence its development (particularly leaders and other dominant males, and occasionally females).
 
If the sociology, politics and leadership of any country were studied from this perspective, they would become a lot more intelligible.
 
Most urgently, we would recognise and begin to understand the inherent non-sustainability of the existing socio-economic order, which, because it is so deeply rooted in our animal nature and behaviour, naturally causes us to give priority to economics (the household of man in the socio-economic environment) rather than to ecology (the household of our planet in the natural environment), despite human survival now demanding the opposite.
 
Our big brains and prodigious intelligence are a mixed blessing. On the one hand they give us the potential to recognise the situation and adapt our behaviour accordingly, while on the other (and this dominates us completely at the moment) they enable us to rationalize and blind ourselves to the situation and the consequences of us continuing to pursue our narrow, dumb-animal self-interests (which mainly boil down to gaining or retaining wealth and power, or status) in the artificial socio-economic environment, despite this leading, as it manifestly is, to ecological and climatic disruption and disaster.
 
More in this vein at http://www.spaceship-earth.org
2nd Post

It's a very important point that [Grinch] makes (see below), but it does create something of a dilemma for a democracy.

But now, following on from my first post:

Those who rise through the system to lead us are unable to recognise wider socio-economic reality (including its inherent non-sustainability), because, like the rest of us, they are totally immersed in and dependent on it, and even more expert than most at exploiting it.

They are motivated and driven (as we all are) largely by their animal nature and its narrow self-interests, which of course, they rationalize and present as a desire to serve others (their constituents, country, company etc).

We need leaders who are not driven and blinded by their animal nature, but unfortunately that is exactly what the system (rooted, as it is, in our dumb-animal nature) developed to give us. Which is another dilemma.

 

Grinch's post: TeflonBliar: "A limited form of direct democracy has existed in Switzerland for years. Why not here?"

Because, my friend, that is the absolute f*cking worst idea I have ever heard. Do you know when women got the vote in Switzerland? 1971. Why was that? Because they had to have a national referendum on it, and only men could vote. Do you know when Switzerland joined the UN (the UN, for god's sake?) 2002. Why was that? Direct democracy again. If you give direct democracy to the people, all political progress will halt in its tracks. There is no group of people more cowed, dull, apathetic, ignorant and bull-headed than the general populace. Do you think the England team would do better if we could all have a go at playing, by rotation? Would you rather entrust your heart operation to an amateur? Well then - leave politics to the professionals, please. I have no wish to be governed by Jade Goody and the readers of Heat magazine.