The Politics of Critical Realism

It is interesting that the majority of Channel Island blogs that I've come across seem to be commenting on politics in Jersey, in one form or another, and usually from a critical point of view.

I do this myself, and this is by way of note to those anonymous posters who think that everyone who criticises the States in any way is either (1) wishing for Jersey to become part of the United Kingdom, or (2) are somehow socialists, or as one blogger put it "you poor socialist tool" (which sounds like a sound bite from a sitcom!). In fact, my politics derives largely from my scientific background, and philosophy, and might be better described as a politics of critical realism.

So to (a): I am Jersey born, and can on the maternal side, at any rate, trace my ancestry back probably to well before anonymous' descendants came to the Island. I do not think the United Kingdom always gets it right, but when they do (or any other place does, including Guernsey), the old phrase - "why reinvent the wheel" comes to mind. Certainly the Jersey Law Drafting department seems to think so, because realms of new Jersey laws borrow extensively from United Kingdom legislation, even if sometimes it is slightly adapted to fit local circumstances. If they can look elsewhere for ideas, why can't I! It doesn't mean I want Jersey to be like the United Kingdom at all, rather that I want to look for the best ideas wherever they occur, and see how well they fit in a Jersey context. Freedom of Information would be one good matter, Identity Cards would not (especially for Islanders with long memories of the last time they were used).

On that score, of looking elsewhere for innovation, and not being totally insular, Guernsey's bus system has "smart cards" for bus fares, rechargeable at the depot or on getting on a bus, which replace the old problem of cash, and unlike Jersey's commuter fares (use only twice a day) and like structures, can be used as required, as little or often, and topped up when required. Ideal for commuters, visitors and the occasional bus user. I've mentioned it to Guy de Faye, but while he did give a polite reply, he has proceeded to ignore the idea.

That deals with the first point, of wanting Jersey to resemble the UK. I don't, except where it would improve the lot of the average Jersey citizen.

As far as (b) the "socialist tool" criticism goes, I tend to Pericles Funeral Oration, in which it is said:

We consider a man who takes no interest in the state not as harmless, but as useless; and although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it. We do not look upon discussion as a stumbling block in the way of political action, but as an indispensable preliminary to acting wisely....

The philosopher Karl Popper certainly applied this when writing his two books critiquing both Fascism and Marxism - the "Open Society and Its Enemies", and this tied in with his theory of science, that the logic (not the history) of scientific discovery works by the criticism and modification of theories. As Popper notes:

The Western rationalist tradition, which derives from the Greeks, is the tradition of critical discussion of of examining and testing propositions or theories by attempting to refute them. This critical rational method must not be mistaken for a method of proof, that is to say for a method of finally establishing truth; nor is it a method which always secures agreement. Its value lies, rather, in the fact that participants in a discussion will, to some extent, change their minds, and part as wiser men.

But the tradition of rational discussion creates in the political field, the tradition of government by discussion, and with it the habit of listening to another point of view; the growth of a sense of justice; and the readiness to compromise.

Criticism of the status quo, then is not necessarily a "socialist" matter, and with the best will in the world, the States are going to make mistakes. The larger the scale of change, the greater the possibility of a really large mess at the end of the day. That is why Popper argues in "The Poverty of Historicism" for what he calls "piecemeal change", because the more any change approaches the "utopian" kind of change - wipe out everything and start with a blank slate - the more likely it is to go wrong. When designing a complex machine, like an aircraft, the blueprints of necessity draw upon experimental work, previous history of aircraft design etc, and to design a blueprint, from scratch, is a recipe for ending up with something like Concordski, the ill-fated Soviet Tupolev TU-144, withdrawn after several crashes.

The other reason for a piecemeal approach is because any changes always generate unexpected consequences, side-effects that could not have been anticipated (although the critical thinker should always be on the look out for these). This "unplanned planning" is always worse if the change is greater, on a Utopian or grand scale, because plans then have to be changed to accommodate the problems that arise, and in fact, you end up with something very much like piecemeal change, but a lot messier, because the blueprint has to be amended after all!

Recent changes that seem to demonstrate this clearly are:

a) The Proposals for Jersey Independence
b) The Hopkins Masterplan, with its sunken road

Both of these are Utopian in sheer scale, and both assume that nothing nasty will upset the applecart, that they have set out to produce a plan, and it will work. There is no evidence of much planning for unexpected contingencies, and what might go wrong, although one consequence of the Hopkins Plan that has already arisen is a road network that will cost - in today's prices - half a million per annum to maintain in perpetuity.

The problem with Utopian planning, as Popper pointed out, is not only the costly mistakes on the way, but also that they of necessity involve a degree of long term control. Such planning,

is a big undertaking which must cause considerable inconvenience to many, and for a considerable span of time. Accordingly, the Utopian engineer will have to be deaf to many complaints; in fact, it will be part of his business to suppress unreasonable objections. (He will say, like Lenin, 'You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.') But with it, he must invariably suppress reasonable criticism also.





Books of the Post:

The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl R. Popper
The Open Society and its Enemies, Karl R. Popper
The Poverty of Historicism, Karl R. Popper