The significance of childhood for how healthy the politics is that is practised – and is possible to practise…

When I was writing the recent blogposting about solidarity I came to think of something I read in one of the books John Cleese has written together with his therapist Robin Skynner “Life and How to Survive It” (the Swedish edition). I wrote a blogposting in Swedish about this.

First I want to add that I don’t believe in all their ideas on why people get psychologically ill, are having psychological problems or how to come to terms with them.

However, here I want to quote a little freely from the chapter about "changes for everybody."

Politicians dividing people in ”we” and ”them”, whom always need somebody to blame when things have gone wrong, aren’t really psychologically healthy.

They have less contact with the reality and their opinions are less gone through. Instead we are seeing their deep-rooted emotional attitudes (whom they maybe aren’t aware of).

On average they are more polarized, more prejudiced towards political opponents and thus less capable of seeing the whole picture and work towards the most reasonable compromises, as the soundest in every party are capable of.

Both Stalinists and Nazis were very authoritarian and totally paranoiac.

Differences, disunity and debate are important to be able to make proper political decisions, for they show the whole row of possibilities and through comparing and choosing among those we can make changes in consensus (without manipulation or brainwashing or anything: my comment).

See earlier postings about cults.

The soundest politicians have a lot of other interests in life besides the politics.

The sounder have less needs controlling other people. They are less interested in power for its own sake and more anxious or eager sharing it, as far as possible, giving power to other people in the society.

And when changes are desirable they try to bring those about through convincing people, instead of forcing changes on them. But again: not through manipulation. Sooner or less people will see manipulation through. And if they don’t we will see the results anyway; in a less good working society, workplace, family etc.

The people in the current system getting power are maybe the ones that least of all should have it. But the ones who ought to have the power are held back by the others, because that’s how our system is working. You obtain influence in a party by investing all your time and energy on it – something you are more apt to if you are obsessed by it and don’t have any other real interests.

Thus it’s the human beings whom have less on the side of politics, and the ones with the greatest power-hunger, who get disproportionate big influence and force the sounder and more moderate holding more extreme opinions than they should have otherwise. Which in turn increases the polarization further and conjure more extreme opinions up than most people usually would entertain.

The governing in Great Britain has largely consisted of foisting minority opinions on the citizens, with the result that a great part of the population don’t feel represented in the political process(es).

I wonder: Can this demoralize people? Create cynicism in the worst case and create cynicism if it continues a longer time?

The decisions that are working are the ones that are obtained through a thorough and open discussion where diverging opinions are welcomed and listened to, leading to a real and widely spread unity or in the worst case that decisions are taken by a management one feels is acting with the WHOLE systems best for its eyes.

A bit ironic: for our own good!!??

But this sounds a little as the Summerhill school!

One-sided (or badly supported: my addition) made decisions aren’t lasting. Instead of solving problems they maintain the sad processes in the political apparatus that makes so decisions never are what they ought to be, but always are an exaggerated reaction against the last one-sided decision. The result becomes an endless oscillation between extremes giving overcompensation for what you have lost on the earlier decision.

My comment: The ones that are governing are in many cases governing through dividing and ruling.

The result can become a society that is less sound, more authoritarian, more polarized and group-selfish.

My comment: Exactly what we are seeing.

The trick is finding people whom are less one-eyed.

My comment: why are people one-eyed? Why don’t we have healthier leaders? Or healthier societies?

If I use rhetoric people are paying back with the same coin and we don’t get anywhere. Only in the healthiest contexts we are safe/secure enough to encourage all becoming independent and to express what they feel.

Yes, as the meetings at Summerhill!?