Government by computer

I was talking with some theological students.

One of them was decrying the fact that there was never any conversation in his church about Brexit. He had a point. It is an issue of immense consequence. But I said that perhaps the reason was that it is such a contentious question (a bit like Trump/Clinton in the US elections) and Christians were keen to keep the peace in the churches (Ephesians 4.3). He wasn’t convinced.

Shades of grey

But why should Brexit continue to be so divisive? I believe it is partly because at the referendum on 23 June last year people were asked to choose between two extremes (a bit like Trump/Clinton) neither of which most people really wanted. It appears that most UK citizens maybe wanted some kind of mutually beneficial trade deal without being sucked into a United States of Europe. Mrs May has spoken about taking back ‘control of our money, control of our borders, control of our laws’. Since we were expected to choose between black and white when we wanted a shade of grey, it has become easy for either side to perceive the opposition as composed of unbelievable lunatics. But actually many of them voted the way they did ‘on balance’, not as unequivocal zealots.

Perhaps the breakthrough in the first round of negotiations which occurred on 8 December will lead to some kind of middle way that many of us wanted in the first place … or perhaps it won’t. We can only carry on praying for those in government (1 Timothy 2.1, 2).

This raises the question as to why contemporary society is often being asked to choose between extreme positions (Trump/Clinton). With Mr Corbyn’s Momentum group driving Labour’s agenda it is likely to be another choice between extremes at the next General Election too. Is it because the middle ground taken by Tony Blair’s government led us into the Iraq war, with all its knock-on effects? Is it because extremist Islam is seen by some to require an extreme political response? Is it to do with losing faith in institutions which move with the speed of a diplodocus, or have been exposed as corrupt?

Eroding truth

Whatever is the case, it is not helped by the advent of fake news and an electorate composed of people with short attention spans. Writing in the Telegraph in November, Juliet Samuel commented on Russia’s possible influencing of the Trump/ Clinton election: ‘Misinformation or “fake news” has rarely spread so fast or found such a hungry audience. It’s helped by the way we browse, rather than absorb information, picking up loose impressions that feed “narratives” over facts. As Moscow understood, it doesn’t necessarily have to convince voters of an alternative argument. All that’s needed is to erode the idea of truth. If no one knows what to believe, they stop trying. Cynicism and nihilism are the result.’

If those who disagree with each other politically keep demonising the opposition, while at the same time fake news prevails, then we are likely to lose faith in the democratic process completely. Perhaps the idea of being governed by a super-computer which has access to all the facts and can spot fake information will not seem such a ridiculous prospect. The crucial matter though would be: who feeds the computer with the criteria on which its decisions are based ? What a dreadful thought – man governed by machine. Thankfully the Lord is on his throne.