It’s likely that most civilisations arrive at a point where everything seems to go wrong at once, and it’s usually just before they collapse. As we move into 2025, it’s worth reflecting that our civilisation’s polycrisis will almost certainly end in collapse. At least three of our related crises have the potential to bring to an end not just our civilisation, but the whole biosphere.
Our changing climate could alter planetary systems beyond anything humans, and many species we’ve evolved alongside, could survive. The biodiversity crash, like a game of Jenga, could result in the whole complex, interconnected edifice coming tumbling down; a chaotic outlook for whichever species remain. And the geopolitical situation could very easily slip into a nuclear conflict, with all the destruction that would bring.
This is a bleak perspective on the future; but perhaps it doesn’t have to be like that. There are various groups taking action to shore up our resilience in the face of collapse. One such is the Climate Majority Project, which tries to help communities rediscover their cohesiveness through community-level climate action; meaning the better able to function they’ll be, post-collapse. Such initiatives deserve our applause and support.
Diagnosing the core problem: growth at all costs
But I want to go further and suggest by changing the structures of our civilisation we can pull back from complete collapse. To do that, we need to understand the faults in the system.
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that the insistence on economic growth is a major fault. After all, we’ve known about the approaching climate crisis for decades. Climate scientist James Hansen’s testimony to the US Senate was in 1988; the Rio Earth Summit was in 1992; and we’ve just had COP 29. That’s 29 years of trying to solve the problem. But the problem just keeps getting worse.
We see, of course, the intense lobbying at these summits from the fossil fuel industry, which wants to go on making more money, bigger profits. Growth is fuelled by gas, coal and oil. Organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank offer assistance to developing countries predicated entirely on growth. The WTO conducts its regulation of global trade with the iron fist of growth. Elections in the USA and the UK were all about growth, with Keir Starmer now desperately turning to the bodies regulating the privatised service industries for ideas for growth.
Politicians seem to think that a bit more growth will solve all their problems. Not a bit of it. And not even on their own terms.
Analysis shows that the vast majority of growth since 2010 has accrued to the wealthiest 1%, while for the rest of us the cost-of-living crisis deepens. Worse than that: growth fuels climate change; development cuts further into natural habitats, adding to the biodiversity crash; and nations in the global majority struggle under increasing levels of debt imposed by the ‘assistance’ afforded by the structural adjustments required by the IMF.
Because of this blind obsession with growth, parts of the world become less habitable, harvests fail, droughts leave land, livestock and people fighting over dwindling water supplies, and refugeeism increases, adding to already stressed nations nearby and across the world.
The case against political parties
So we must change the way we run economies. Can we do this democratically? I suggest we can, but not before abolishing political parties. That sounds quite startling – how can we have democracy without political parties to vote for?
Turning that objection on its head: how can we have democracy while we have political parties ready to take ‘donations’ from rich corporations in return for favourable policies?; how can we have democracy when political parties offer such tempting ladders for ambitious sociopaths to climb to power?; how can we have democracy when you and I, and anyone who’s no one, haven’t the power to change any of that, not even in elections, because one party is much like any other party in its willingness to be bought?
You could argue that all we need is stricter rules about donations and lobbying. Parties need to clean up their acts to ensure they don’t become prey to sociopaths. But we’ve had guardrails before, and they’ve been eroded; there’s no reason to think they won’t be eroded in the future. And parties often struggle to find candidates, so trying to balance that against keeping malign influences at bay becomes an impossible task.
A radical solution: direct democracy
The only alternative to representative democracy is direct democracy. To quote that famous Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, “government of the people, for the people, by the people”. At the moment, we have a citizenry that is disconnected from politics and political participation. Even in general elections, turnout is rarely above 65%, and in local elections, we’re lucky to hit 30%.
I believe this is because of an evolved property of the brain, which rightly spends time and energy trying to deal with current and immediate events for the individual, and rightly rejects spending energy on more distant problems. The existence of the political classes allows the brain to consider political problems as more distant: not my job, their job.
When it comes to elections, therefore, some people decide not to vote, and some make their decision based on emotive issues barely related to the election, or go with what they get from the media. The media indeed has a great deal of influence in the outcome of elections. Let’s not forget most print and broadcast media, as well as social media, is owned by growth-obsessed billionaires, too.
How UBI and sortition would reshape governance
How, then, do we turn that round? The existence of the political classes is a barrier to greater participation and engagement. The opportunity for anyone to have a say in decision-making would help. If people were to understand that their system of governance actually put people first, not growth, they’d be more positive about it.
But there remains the problem of brains dealing with immediate difficulties; that’s why I believe an important integral part of this plan would be a universal basic income (UBI). It would help free up time, diminish other worries, and develop greater interest in a range of other activities.
Here’s how it would work. First, a political party would be formed with the specific and explicit aim of introducing government by citizens assemblies – selected by sortition, much like juries are at present – and introducing UBI. It’s extremely difficult for new parties to make headway in our system. It’s usually a lack of money or a lack of media coverage that’s the problem.
The party would try other means to get a head of steam. One way would be to hold public meetings up and down the country, in which it would seek the opinions of the public as to which other policies it might seek to enact in its first – and only – term. In other words, the campaigning would itself offer a foretaste of the style of governance the party offers.
This in itself might generate interest via social media, which might lead to print and broadcast media attention (though I anticipate much of this would be negative). The party would place itself, legitimately, as anti-establishment, challenging the arguably illegitimate stance of Reform UK Party Ltd on the same grounds.
Citizens’ assemblies, UBI and a constitution
Assuming the party wins, it would introduce UBI as early as possible. The very first citizens’ assembly it would set up, would be one to formulate a written constitution, to be put to a vote for approval by the public. I anticipate other specialised citizens’ assemblies would also be established to follow up on ideas arising from the election campaign. Such assemblies would be made up of everyday citizens selected by sortition – a form of lottery alike to how jury duty operates.
By the end of the party’s term, the system of governance by citizens’ assemblies would be up and running. The party’s final act would be to adopt the constitution and abolish political parties, including itself.
The constitution not yet having been written, I cannot say how long any citizen’s service on an assembly might be, but it would almost certainly not exceed two years. I also cannot tell you how many different assemblies there might be at any point in time, nor what they might cover, but I think it’s a fair assumption they may mirror to some degree the ministries of an elected government. As to the number of citizens on an assembly, again, that would be for the constitutional assembly to decide.
Advantages of direct democracy
The assemblies would have the support of a professional civil service, and would be able to call for all the evidence they need to come to decisions. I’d hope there’d be training for those called on, not least in critical thinking.
The advantages of this system are as follows:
- First, we would no longer have policies for sale, though I’m sure some attempts might be made, either via the lobbying of selected assembly members or via the professional civil service, to influence the outcome of particular debates. Instilling a sense of pride in the system can help deter that.
- Second, sociopaths will discover there’s no ladder to power; they may try to infiltrate the civil service, but the professionalism of the service will help counter that.
- Third, it’s likely we’ll have a much more engaged citizenry, who are aware they may be called to service. (There remains the problem of the media. It needs dealing with, and I have my own ideas – convert them into worker co-operatives – but I have faith in the power of a revitalised and re-engaged citizenry to fully address that).
Averting collapse: a global effort
And so, by altering the system, the assumptions made within the system and the beneficiaries of the system, we can hope to hold back or even avert some of the elements of collapse. To work as fully as possible, this has to be an international movement. Global sortition would be much more likely to deliver the policies we need to control our emissions, reverse biodiversity loss and avert nuclear armageddon.
Finally, I know this idea sounds crazy, far-fetched and unlikely to succeed, but just how crazy, far-fetched and unlikely to succeed in avoiding global catastrophe is Business As Usual? Can we stand by and do nothing? Is there another plan?
So let’s try this.
Sortition.
For the planet.
