A third way in politics?

None of them inspire and all are being slowly, grotesquely distorted by monetary interests in a bid to hang onto power. None pay more than lip service to the international rule of law, with corruption, abuses of power including wiretapping, arbitrary detention and torture common place. Rigged media paint distorted, often only partially informed pictures of reality.

Against this, the future might seem bleak, but we have seen some vivid flashes of hope in places and at times least expected. The rise of the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn in Britain, the rejection of Marine Le Pen and her Front Nationale in France sent a message that divisive nationalist politics will not be tolerated.

What does New Zealand need (pic one of the three):

  • A Socialist government that some will argue for a case of higher rates and transparency
  • A capitalistic, laissex faire Capitalism type wage where the income is not scrimped by other needs
  • An authoritarian government with little regard for human rights, their defenders and non-Governmental organizations that agree with them.

Long before the idea of a third way existed to my knowledge, I had an idea based on playing computer games such as Civilization and Command & Conquer. It taught me that the third way does not subscribe to the simple left vs right conflict that the western nations such as the United States now find themselves a part of with rivals such as Russia or China. This is a major simplification of a major problem that the west have not taken time to understand or respect.

Command and Conquer was an interesting game because for the first time in such a format, it introduced a little understood figure into the game format: the third party player. To me this just made it more exciting. Instead of a simple good vs bad game type scenario playing out, one had to stop and wonder what the third party would have done. In this case the parties were China, the United States, and a terrorist organisation called Global Liberation Army or G.L.A.

The realism is amazing. Just as people struggle to understand “the enemy of my enemy is not my enemy” is a totally wrong context in critical geopolitics today, a lot of people in the past have had this very scenario in a G.L.A. context. The Viet Minh of Vietnam were a case in point. Were they Communist leaning? Absolutely, but when you look at why, it was only become Communist U.S.S.R. and China were spending large sums providing arms and support for the Viet Minh (later Viet Cong)to realize a long hold dream of a singular Vietnam – it did not care for either the Russians or the Americans and when the North Vietnamese took over the nation of Vietnam on 30 April 1975 it was a long time coming, but totally inevitable.

I obviously do not endorse terrorism or activities that might overthrow the New Zealand Government – something that should only happen via the ballot box, with no violence, intimidation and so forth.  But when the polar ends of the political spectrum have two diametrically opposed visions and no clear or obvious way to go forward, one should look at the bigger picture and ask how do you break the dead lock? The Russians and Americans in Syria are a good case in point.

So, I welcome any challenge to the idea that the status quo works, when we have seen it does not. Lives, livelihoods and their challenges need to be dealt when when they arise and not after a period of time. This simply gives the illness a chance to dig in. Not everyone has that luxury of time.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.