Categories
- Consultation - Governance Discourse Justice Knowledge

Post-Partisan Politics

Identifying aspects of political discourse that is partisan in nature and to be avoided is challenging and will call for a higher caliber of insight and self-mastery as issues become increasingly engrossing and complex and as noble ideologies arise to prominence within the context of partisan systems. The boundaries may not always be clear, and our understanding of these boundaries in turn may evolve over time as the community synthesizing and advocating noble, selfless, and unifying ideologies 1) learns from the global experience, 2) synthesizes collective learning into tangible guidelines, 3) initiates more radically when responsibilities are low, and then consummates more reservedly as responsibilities and powers grow,  and finally 4) as issues available in the data itself evolve and humanity unitedly breaches new frontiers in the study of phenomena related to modern governance. World conditions change, and as such, engagement in partisan politics must change its off-limits demarcations – always keeping true to the axiom that what promotes unity is best, and any discourse involving combativeness, conflict, or competition, must be eschewed behind. In our struggle to apply our keenest insights into unraveling these boundaries, perhaps some controversial issues will unintentionally be engaged, however, rapid real-time delimitation of what is considered valuable and allowable discussion will suggest itself and can be modified distinctly and quickly, retracting said involvement, and supplanting it with non0involvement – as a policy most conducive to unity. Damage will by this means be minimized and any controversy will be pre-emptively avoided.

Future collective understanding of these boundaries will be able to benefit from the synthesized experience of others who engaged in discourse of a similar learning nature and whose results, quickly synthesized in a globalized learning process, feeds its respective experience of controversial boundaries into a centralized, canalized, web of communication that extends inwardly collecting experience from near and far policy-discussions. Subsequently, dissemination of information regarding which topics, structural arrangements, language insensitivities, particularistic proposals, and bigoted sentiments conduce to public discontent, fueling contention. This information is data that can be synthesized into a guideline for political activists seeking to avoid encroachment on elements that create disunity, constitute partisanship, inadvertently support campaigning, or constitute a breach in voting secrecy. Generation of knowledge takes places through experimentation at city and village centers; the collation of information from localities will proceed inwardly and upwardly toward a world nerve center for synthesis and crystallization of collective experience into a distillate of statistical averages, constructive coincidences, complementary tendencies and identification of strategies of benefit. Finally, recommendations can be formulated by induction, insofar as cultural and contextual considerations allow, for the dissemination and diffusion of guidelines in a retrograde direction, towards diverse cities and hamlets, on a global scale. The process of the generation, application, and diffusion of knowledge therefore has its dawn at the grassroots level, sees its meridian glory emerge in the metropolitan nerve center that synthesizes global experience, and reaps its golden luster in the distant goal lands it warms in the political landscape which undergoes a global re-organization of its structure and re-education of its culture. Knowledge and praxis of political science will be equipped to assist and not invalidate human progress.

We know that we can minimize our mistakes, maximize our systematic learning, and revolutionize structural insufficiency  if we deliberate together on the synthesized global experience, study the resultant guidance, and consult together with unity. So powerful is the light of unity, that it can illuminate the whole earth. The power of fraternity, camaraderie, and prosperity through unity surpasses the light of the sun, and turns earth into a lustrous homeland for a prosperous people. As a species, we learn how to apply knowledge, have faith in the collective, scientific, knowledge-generating and synthesizing process, and ultimately take action informed by such experience and empowered by such loving unity. After one cycle of experimentation, collation, synthesis, recommendation,  application and diffusion – we return to reflect on what we have learned through such action. Please, offer some recommendations that inform the structure of a post-partisan political world. Outcome measures include considerations of practicability, merits and nuances in application, prohibitions and descriptions of internal dynamics. Let us keep in mind the complexity and difficulties that are involved in prosecuting such a charge.

Categories
- Governance Discourse

Surgical Politics

Our goal is to participate in discourses of importance to society at all levels of stratification, from informal discussions on internet forums and attendance at regional seminars, to the dissemination of insightful statements and relationships with government officials. It is necessary to forge a dialogue and maintain a presence in the many social spaces in which thought and policy-making take place. But, we ought to desist from participating in partisan political processes and discussions that are not constructive.  To do this we must develop first a perception that discriminates between forums for constructive, noble discourse, in which we seek to engage, as opposed to divisive, partisan discourse, which must be quarantined and allowed to fade.

The principles that help identify boundaries between processes and discussions that are unproductive for us to participate in are part of a surgical approach to political discourse which is invasive and substantial, in terms of achieving social change, but which intentionally and distinctly avoids elements that can act as a quagmire or self-corrupting influence within partisan systems. What principles can guide us in our efforts to determine what elements and when to participate in specific discursive processes? What initiatives can we take to participate in public discourses as individuals and when should we maintain silence or non-involvement on a forum or issue for the achievement of an higher common unity?

How can we cultivate a deeper understanding of the grand narrative of social transformation at work in global challenges, reading into it more than just superficial phenomena, and how can we align our political goals with this epochal process? Partisan viewpoints that drag unsuspecting activists into immovable ideological gridlock ought to be avoided, among other things. What spiritual insight will guide us to distinguish constructive processes that advance civilization from divisive partisan processes that ought to be avoided?