The banality of evil ....

What’s the point of studying history? Well, for a start, there are some really great stories – giving substance to the claim that truth is stranger than fiction. But surely the main reason we study history is to guide our futures. What worked well in the past that is worth repeating? What didn’t go so well that we should avoid? All neatly summed up in Santayana’s pithy dictum “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”

One of the great fallacies in history, and one that denies us the opportunity to learn, is that the greatest atrocities were acts committed by the ‘wicked’ or ‘mad’ man – the idea that he did what he did because he was ‘evil’. And no more needs to be said in explanation.

Most obviously this is often repeated when we look at the Nazis and the actions not only of their leaders, those who were responsible for designing the polices (lebensraum and the final solution, among others) that led directly to the deaths of millions, but of those ‘ordinary’ Germans who implemented with enthusiasm a plan that would inevitably lead to those deaths, the attempted eradication of entire races. It may be argued that many Germans were shocked to discover, when war ended and they were presented with the terrible truth, what their leaders had done in their names. Well, it’s a moot point. But the policies could not have been enacted without the complicity of many of their fellow citizens.

And it is here that we often get lazy and we opt for the simple answer: Hitler was plain ‘mad’ and/or ‘evil’. As were his immediate entourage. And his high command. And his troops. And the many civilian functionaries who worked within the military-industrial complex that was the final solution …

While there is obvious illogicality to ascribing simultaneous madness/evil to an entire population, or substantial parts thereof, we are also thereby betraying the whole reason we study history. To learn the lessons so that the mistakes of the past should not be repeated. When we ascribe atrocities to the actions of a mad man, we are abrogating any responsibility to learn the truth. It is all too easy – and does nothing to further our understanding. Perhaps it made contemporary Germans feel better – that was not us, that was the action of a madman and his crazed gang. Perhaps it makes us later generations feel better – that could not be us, for we could never be led down that path by those who are palpably unfit to rule.

The great German political thinker Hannah Arendt spoke of the ‘banality of evil’ when she covered the trial of Adolph Eichmann – a man not responsible for devising the final solution but an integral part of its implementation. She observed him first-hand and concluded that he was an ordinary, rather bland, bureaucrat – ‘neither perverted nor sadistic’ but ‘terrifyingly normal’. He was, she noted, disengaged from the reality of his acts – a man who was shallow and clueless, someone in search of a purpose and direction – and finding that he could prove his worth by carrying out the commands of his superiors without demur and with ruthless efficiency.

Arendt was much criticised for her description – as it appeared to some to ‘normalise’ the atrocities and deny their evil. It was doing no such thing. Instead she was highlighting the important truth of this period of history, that ordinary people could be moved to do evil acts, especially if those acts became routine and served what they had become used to regarding as a greater good (Goebbels ‘If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it).

It is an important lesion of history – that context is all, and that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary acts – sometimes for the good and sometimes with the most terrible outcomes.

Only electoral reform can save our politics ...

As we move into the second decade of the 21^st century, it is barely conceivable that the UK persists with an electoral system that has long since ceased to be fit for purpose. Alone among the major developed nations on the globe, we operate a winner-takes-all model that has consistently failed to deliver good government and has led to the dangerous disengagement of the voting public (which, ironically, has made change even less likely, leading to greater disengagement etc etc …).

The arguments about the unfairness of first past the post (FPTP) are well rehearsed.

An electoral system is meant to represent the intentions of the voting public and to deliver a legislature and executive that reflects the diverse opinions that one expects to find in an advance liberal democracy. FPTP clearly does not do this. It is possible – and is indeed commonplace – for a party to achieve a minority of the popular vote but a majority of the seats. Referencing the majority thereby obtained, the winning party is able to claim a mandate where one has not been delivered by the public vote.

What if a proportional system allows smaller parties whose views we may find repellent a seat at the table? Surely that is what representative democracy demands and a mature liberal democracy should be able to cope with those minority dissenting voices, rather than hiding behind a distorting electoral system that allows those parties to claim the moral high ground.

FPTP leads to distorted geographical representation, since party support is commonly correlated with geography. So, for example, and putting the matter at its most simplistic, Labour voters in rural areas and Conservative voters in urban areas are likely to feel unrepresented in parliament.

Indeed, an extension of this is the fact that in the UK it is estimated that at least half the seats in each election are safe seats – ie they are seats that never change hands. This may well lead to the parties that hold such seats becoming complacent – whether or not they continue to hold the seat has very little to do with how well they have represented their constituents.

And it means too that voters in those seats who do not support the ‘ruling party’ come to believe that theirs is a wasted vote. They will never get the chance to influence which party forms the next government (most elections are decided in just a handful of seats – and parties’ electoral efforts are very much focussed on those few areas). Again, in terms of public engagement with the political process, the effect has been hugely negative.

With electoral outcomes concentrated in so few areas, and depending on so few voters, it has made the manipulation of that outcome far too easy for those with the intent and resources to do so.

But the most important reason why FPTP is so damaging to our politics is that is massively distorts the make-up of our political parties and leads to a profoundly dishonest relationship between the major political parties and the electorate they are meant to represent. Let me explain.

Each time we enter a general election in the UK, it is an almost absolute certainty that only one of two parties is going to form the next government. Under FPTP with its inbuilt biases and winner-take-all nature, that is as near to a guarantee as is possible. Every 100 years or so, there is some realignment in our politics that leads to one of the Big Two being replaced. So, unless you are one of the Big Two, then you start off as an also-ran – with no hope of forming the next government.

So, it pays dividends to be a part of one of the Big Two – and a lot of dedication to stand aside and support one of the “smaller” parties. If you are not in the Big Two, then you are not going to be in government – however good your ideas, however hard you work, however dedicated your campaign teams. It just isn’t going to happen. You need to join one of the major parties.

And what this has led to is our two main parties becoming unnatural coalitions – of diverse and contrary interest groups that have no business belonging to the same party. How did Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Blair end up in the same party? Kenneth Clarke and Mark Francois? They are marriages of convenience – though the convenience is entirely that of the ruling parties and not the people they are meant to represent. Come together and you have a chance of taking power, and if you take power, you have a chance to make the changes that you believe are important. But that means sharing your bed with some very strange bedfellows.

A lot of the time, this may be workable. You will agree with your colleagues on some issues, and not on others. At times you may have to hold your nose, but in general it is a price you believe is worth paying. But in any case you have to present a united front to the electorate where one very often does not exist - particularly when it comes to the issues that most profoundly affect the country.

This was brought into sharp relief during the Brexit debate. On issues of such profound importance, it would be natural to assume that parties formed by a coherent political philosophy would be able to unite behind a common position. But both Labour and Conservatives were divided right down the middle – a not unexpected outcome given that parties exist in their current form only to win elections, not united by common values. The two-party system allows for no “Big Ideas” –such a diverse range of politicians cannot possibly unite behind a single unifying idea. And so we have uninspired and uninspiring government. Government for government’s sake.

The fact that the Big Two are unnatural coalitions leads to a profoundly dishonest relationship with the electorate. You have only the choice to vote Labour or Conservative. You are not give the option in your constituency of voting for a Corbyn-flavoured Labour rather than the Blair-flavoured option, or for a One Nation Tory rather than the ERG wing of the party. You can vote Labour or Conservative if you wish to affect the outcome of the election – but you have very little idea with what you will end up, even if your party wins the election. Manifestos are becoming increasingly irrelevant and, post-election, everything is up for grabs. Most of those who voted Tory because they believed in Theresa May (ok, a bad example …) had no say in her replacement a year later with a politician of a very different hue, who was selected by his party members.

We are often told that FTTP delivers us stable government – and frees us of the dreaded coalitions that our continental neighbours have had to endure.  And yet in the last five years (with its three elections), and indeed for much longer, we have been landed with profoundly divided governments that have been unable to govern. And voters have been forced to choose between a dishonest coalitions of one of the Big Two rather than to vote as their conscience allows.

Propositional representation would engage voters once again. Instead of elections being decided by a handful of voters in a handful of seats, every vote would matter. Voters would be able to vote for parties that had been honest with them about what they stood for, safe in the knowledge that they no longer had to obfuscate and form unnatural alliances with those whose values they did not share. And politicians would be forced to engage in a different kind of politics, with the nation’s wishes being truly represented in the national parliament.

Politics would become honest once again and elections would reflect the national mood. What’s not to like?