One of very few advantages of getting older is that you can look back and see patterns developing over decades, patterns that were not immediately obvious at the time.
During the Brexit Referendum campaign and its aftermath, people like Dominic Cummings came to prominence and most of them talked about ‘disruptive leadership’ in a positive way. As someone who worked in the field of ICT, I was used to a fairly rapid pace of change, but I also was well used to people talking about ‘paradigm shifts’, revolutions, sea changes and all the other phrases that people who call themselves ‘blue-sky thinkers’ love using. (Is my cynicism showing?)
Anyone who has worked in a medium, or large organisation will know that all change creates as a by-product, a level of disruption. Sometimes this disruption can be positive, but only if managed carefully. However, people like Mr Cummings seemed to delight in the prospect of tearing down the old and predicting that it would be replaced by something better, without any clear plans. Brexit was just one example of that sort of thinking.
Is disruption good?
I had not realised back in 2016 that managers and politicians were starting to take the idea of being a ‘disrupter’ as a universally positive sign or that this idea would last so long in business and politics.
If you are setting up a new business, it makes sense to view disruption as positive. When you set up a company and develop a new product like a mobile phone, the existing phone companies will be an obstacle in your way. You want to disrupt the market and make room for your company and your products. You want to make the profit that they used to make. But how does this apply to politics?
Across many countries this idea that the ‘old style’ of doing politics was corrupt or ineffective and needs to be torn down has taken root. People like Nigel Farage, Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Alice Weidel of Germany’s AFD are riding the crest of a wave that labels all conservatives as a corrupt ‘elite’, as obstacles to change. This idea has caught fire, fuelled rather strangely by support from people who are opposed to the changes brought about by immigration. Populist disruptors are fanning the flames of this anger and encouraging mistrust in the way countries are run, and sometimes even encouraging people to question democracy itself. Are ordinary people best equipped to choose their government. Would we be better with proven business geniuses in charge.
Funding of Political Parties
If you ask people to fund political parties out of the public purse, through our taxes, you often meet disapproval. Some of us are very concerned that our political parties are almost entirely dependant on funds from very rich business people, sometimes from foreign countries. Yet many voters seem content with this.
Their thinking seems to be that if someone can run a very large company and make many millions, they must be a genius and be capable and prepared to will run the country for the benefit of its ordinary people. Is this belief justified? Remember that very rich people can purchase whatever they need, the do not often need the services provided by government and tend to be opposed to the state education or health services on which the rest of us rely.
Out of the Ashes
In America the fires are already raging. The old order is being torn down, with a vaccine sceptic in charge of Health and human services, a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) co-founder taking charge of Education and, as the rest of the world focusses on climate change, an oil and gas industry executive takes of Energy. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have taken charge of Government Efficiency, with rows over saving money by hiring cheaper immigrants already taken off.
What will grow out of the ashes of the old system?
The ‘blue sky thinkers’ often find that tearing down the old system is the easy part, but creating a new system that works is very difficult. In business startups this is not a problem, if your new system is a disaster and your company fails (as very many startups do), you simply file for bankruptcy and start again.
If you are the leader of a nation, declaring bankruptcy and starting a new country is not really an option.
Arnold is a retired teacher from Belfast.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
