A generation of political pygmies

I took it to mean that the political leaders were pygmies - from the economist article.

"The problem lies in a society-wide lack of strongly
held beliefs and values that could inspire people
and capture their allegiance. The same problem
afflicts just about every UK institution. There are
now few politicians of stature who can command
our respect. Comparing them with the post-war
generation of Clement Attlee, Hugh Gaitskell, Harold
Wilson, Denis Healey, Winston Churchill, Harold
Macmillan, Anthony Eden and Edward Heath, they
look like political pygmies, lacking substance and
authority."

The article apparently shows belief that humanity needs some sort of a big, good, fatherly leaders, who will take care of all this mess and show people the proper way to go. As an anarcho-positivist, I can only be happy if people disengage from the institutional politics, which, first of all, is built upon the state monopoly of violence. And that is why I am much into the commons movement, cooperatism, self-governance etc. - I really prefer building alternative life "with people, through people, by people" than to deal with wannabe masters.
That is why I am here. :-)

Let the dead bury their own dead.

OK... I find the reference fairly insulting to real Pygmies - short /= lesser!! But I think that point is a distraction from the real issue here. Ahem.

I recently gave a presentation at a roundtable discussion on the topic of "democratic disengagement" and I ended up referring to this article quite a bit (worth reading).

“The Outsiders: How Can Millennials Change Washington If They Hate it? Young people are eager to serve and to change the world. They just have no faith that public service or elected office are the way to get it done” -- The Atlantic Magazine, August 2013

Here are the main points:

1. Millennials, in general, are fiercely committed to community service.

2. They don’t see politics or government as a way to improve their communities, their country, or the world.

3. So the best and brightest are rejecting public service as a career path. Just as Baby Boomers are retiring from government and politics, Washington faces a rising-generation “brain drain.”

4. The only way Millennials might engage Washington is if they first radically change it.

I don't engage much with traditional politics because I'm too busy trying to make a difference. But I do still vote. Unlike Russell Brand I don't think participating in voting legitimises an obviously corrupt and dysfunctional system. It's just that voting is only a tiny piece of what being "politically active" means.

Sure, you can vote to exercise your influence over the nation's trajectory between pre-selected options, an action expressed as the tiny fraction of (me) divided by (the entire voting population).

Or you can tell people "I don't vote" and exercise your influence to bust a few myths and create space for unspeakable ideas.

I'm not sure which one I prefer yet. Maybe both ;)

Well here is where Otto Scharmer's Theory U, and "Leading from the future as it emerges" might come in...I'm not the one to explain that, I'd ask Stephanie Zuur, who (as I understand) has worked with Otto Scharmer directly.

Here in New Zealand, aren't there Enspiral-related projects collaborating with the Ministry of Social Development? Sounds promising.

The phrase from The Atlantic above that stands out is for me is: “They just have no faith”.

I’m here kind of via another ‘emergent’ gig, ‘Faith Forward’
http://faith-forward.net/media/audio/ (Brian McLaren quotes Otto Scharmer briefly in his talk).

Amelda Wright’s talk ‘“Personal Jesus, Public Faith: Cultivating a Generation of Young Public Theologians”
available there is stunning, imo, and speaks directly to many of the issues raised in this discussion so far.

For those able to hold their ‘agnosticism’ strongly enough to hear these ideas coming through a Christian context, I highly recommend it. These people totally get that the expansionist, colonising project of Christendom is over - Wright states it’s now a matter of giving voice to what our ways of thinking can bring to the table, in solving civic problems together with others.

I think it was the author of “Christianophobia” who points out that 21st century global politics is religious, like it or not. (and anthropologically, humanity is religious, like it or not).

And I think it’s Amelda Wright who asserts that the quality of political discourse is directly related to the quality of religious discourse.

Apologies, that name is "Almeda M. Wright"

@richarddbartlett fancy a chalkle/loomio conference in September (month before the elections) on 'citizenship and the future of politics' (well with a better sexier title)?

Nicanor Perlas one of my heroes and mentors is coming over in September and I am looking at different engagement options - from workshops to conferences... I think he would be the perfect person to stir this sort of debate in NZ. He has done some rad stuff in the Philippines and is an awesome facilitator and lecturer.

I helped organise a conference on the future of Agriculture in Switzerland - which was co-hosted by Otto Scharmer and Nicanor - that was a good example of taking a broken system and developing a kick arse conference of 300 people around it and really developing and building on new systems and processes.

@silviazuur I thought you said 'no more conferences' :P

Yes, I'd be interested in talking about the value of saying "I don't vote", challenging the dominant discourse that disengagement = apathy, and making space for denouncing this current political institution without having to provide comprehensive blueprints for the next.

It does raise interesting questions about how 'outspoken' Loomio should be; I'm happy to talk this way personally, but I would be hesitant to do it under a collective banner.