There exists a certain prominent and elementary logical confusion in the majority of contemporary political dialogue, it’s associated assertions and subsequent administrative activity. This is not purely a matter of the endless trickery and misdirection with which so many of the political (or for that matter, the bureaucratic) class seek justification for their more often shameless, self-aggrandising statements and activities. Nor is this simply a matter of some (perhaps) historically inevitable and privileged self-interest, having emerged from various cultural or ideological incubations and having been born to an advantaged position of wealth or status, merely seeking to perpetuate this state of perception or wealth; some of the most powerful political figures have been those with authentic, sincere interests in equity and justice. (Nor could this ever solely represent the other end of the ideological dichotomy in which collective, potentially decentralised social systems assume centrality; to be lost between these two binary political vectors is little more than to be lost within a tribal, infantile and simplistic attempt to comprehend the world, to narrow its rich complexity, inherent uncertainty and semantic ambiguity into easily displayed caricatures and symbols.)
The primary logical error at work in contemporary political dialogue and governance appears to be the erroneous misattribution of primacy to the why (that is – the semantics, ideology and value-generation) of social, economic and technological activity over the how (- the methods, mechanisms and organisational systems) of an actually effective and intelligent government and long-term approach to creative, innovative problem-solving. The source of the most ineffectual and costly public policy appears to be in those circumstances where the ideological bases of political dogma and doctrine become foundational to the structure upon which the method and structure of administrative action and governance is built. This is a logical error and procedural failure because the interpreted, ascribed meanings of social and economic or organisational realities are not the same thing as the actual functions and methods of organisational, intellectual sophistication required to effectively govern them. The blossoming complexity and systemic inertia generated by the categorical intersection of semantics and justifications of policy with the methods and architectures of implementation ensures proliferating inefficiencies and loss of productivity into the far future. Witnessing global organisational ineptitudes across nations and economies implies that such inefficiency could hardly be more effectively incurred even if it was the stated goal of attempts at governance and bureaucracy.