Why We Hate Politics by Colin Hay (Book Review)

*This is a midterm book review in a subject Citizenship and Governance submitted last March 16, 2009

Why We Hate Politics

Colin Hay

Chapter 1 introduces the meaning of politics and the political. Politics has increasingly become a dirty word. To attribute political motives to an actor’s conduct is now invariably to question that actor’s honesty, integrity or capacity to deliver an outcome that reflects anything other than his or her material self-interest, all three simultaneously. Politics responds to the need in complex and differentiated societies for collective and ultimately binding decisions making. Politics is concerned with construction and ideally, the realization of a sense of the collective good. Political analysis should pay rather greater attention to the understanding of politics of ‘real-world’ political participants and non-participants. Moreover, it relates to the responsibilities of political analysts towards their chosen subject matter. The term politics has become synonymous with notions of duplicity, corruption, dogmatism, inefficiency and a lack of transparency in decision making. Political, on the other hand, is the label of an activity or the process.

Chapter 2 of the book reflects more systematic and sustained manner on the concepts of politics and the political. It also argues how we understand politics has a considerable bearing on what we mean by political participation, politicization and depoliticization. It differentiates clearly between narrow and formal definitions of the political on the one hand and broad inclusive definitions of the political on the other. Two different definitional strategies inform two rather different approaches to the question of political participation. By contrast, the latter’s conception of politics is so inclusive as to render almost all social interaction political, with the effect that worrying trends in levels of formal political participation maybe overlooked. The second half of the chapter it explores the implication of different conception of the political, first for our understanding of political participation and then for the process of politicization and depoliticization. A differentiated conception of political participation and non-participation focuses our attentions on the contexts which, and the processes in and through which, issues come to be politicized and depoliticized.

Chapter 3 focuses to consider the domestic sources of contemporary condition of political disaffection and disengagement. It also traces the origins of contemporary political discontent in our tendency to assume the worst of political actors and public officials. The seemingly paradoxical phenomenon of the public advocacy of depoliticization by professional politicians, revealing the profoundly pessimistic assumptions about politics on which this discourse is publicly predicated. The assumptions had been contrasted with more optimistic conception of politics that underpins the critical academic literature on depoliticization. The conception of politics animating the practitioners’ discourse was precisely that of public choice theory. The remaining sections of the chapter explore the potential role of public choice theory in sowing the seeds of the contemporary condition of political disaffection and disengagement. It also demonstrated its profound intellectual affinity with neoliberalism and its two-stage role – first, in serving to demonize the political in the normative phase of neoliberalism and second, in serving to rationalize and depoliticize neoliberalism in its phase of normalization and institutionalization. It showed how public choice theory’s antipathy to ‘politics’ is a direct correlate of its projection of the assumption of instrumental rationality on to the politicians, voters and public officials.

Chapter 4 is summarized as whether or not globalization is happening and whether the consequences often attributed to it should be attributed to it depend on what globalization is taken to imply. If we are to assess the implications of the complex economic and political independence that many would see as synonymous with globalization, then it its important that we adopt a relatively exacting defining of the latter. It is important that we retain the capacity to differentiate between globalization and regionalization, acknowledging that one does not necessarily entail the other. The influential hyper-globalization thesis is predicated on the assumption of perfect global market integration. There may well be considerably more room for domestic political autonomy and effective democratic deliberation at the domestic level than is conventionally assumed. If policy making autonomy is not perceived to exist, policy choices will continue to be dictated by the perceived imperatives of globalization.

Chapter 5: Why Do We Hate Politics? The contemporary condition of political disaffection and disengagement has attracted a vast literature by more or less anxious analyst, commentators and practitioners. It is not politics or the supply of political goods that changed but the receptiveness or demand of citizens for the political goods on offer. What we expect from politics is dependent to a considerable extent on the assumptions we project on politicians and public officials. Politicians are assumed today not to be selfless representatives of those who elected them. They are instead self-serving, and self interested rational utility-maximizers. They are moreover increasingly seen to be powerless and ineffective in the face of process beyond their control. The author seeks to explain the declining political participation. Privatization, the contracting-out of public services, the marketization of public goods, and the displacement of policy-making autonomy from the political realm to independent authorities, the rationalization and insulation from critique of neoliberalism as an economic paradigm and the denial of policy choice are all forms of depoliticization.

           

Political disengagement, public choice theory and showing how neo-liberal ideas were the conjectures that the book has enclosed. The author aim to look at the conventional knowledge on the causes of political disaffection. In our society, some people argues that the citizens get the politics that they deserve buy Hay argues that instead of thinking that way, people should assume that democratic polities get the levels of political participation that they deserve. The book itself broadens our understanding of politicians’ responsibility for political disengagement. The book also states and argues less on the conventional institutional concerns of the reform movement and on the other hand focuses more on the negative impact of neo-liberal ideas that have come to shape how politicians and policy makers think about politics and public life. The author’s main apprehension is to show how economistic assumption of public choice theory is necessarily self interest rational utility maximisers has change the way we think from the competitions during election to the behavior of our public leaders and also the citizens.

            We should be able to coordinate as possible through the market’s invisible hand in which public choice theory has coordinated with the neo-liberals assertion. According to Hay, the primary drivers of political disaffection are depoliticizing effects of reinforcing assumptions, ideas and practices. Hay made a difference of making an analysis of political disaffection through the supply and the demand side understanding of political participation. He argues that we should not only focus on the demand side - the openness of citizens to political appeals but also on the supply side factors - change in the context of politicians appeals and their capacity to deliver them. The demand side basically talks about a well-situated message for politicians freeing them of all the responsibility.

            One thing I have observed in our politics today is that there were lots of dirty things that are happening. It is true on the side of Colin Hay on his book wherein he said that the people deserve the politics that they deserve. Every election here in our country, we could see a lot of dirty things like the suhulan, vote buying and all sorts. 2010 is the year that we will be electing for a new set of government officials. In this case let us ask ourselves whether we are voting for is trustworthy or not. According to the book, if we assume the worst of political actors then our capacity for collective public goods are significantly attenuated as a consequence. Politics is a social activity and it will work best if there is cooperation and trust.

            Yes, 2010 is coming nearer and nearer but I am still not planning to register for voting. Well, I have my reasons for that. I remember every time my parents would often talk about our politicians. They would say that all of them were doing bad things and the like. In my mind, there was this certain things that flash over and over and it was about the official of our country. My parents might be true but in some cases other politicians were just being named of doing bad things. If I vote, would I assure myself that those candidates will win? Will they be able to change the peoples’ perception on them that they were corrupt? Probably not and that was the main reason why I still am not registering for voting.

References:

Hay, C. (2007). Why We Hate Politics. Malden, Ma: Polity Press.