“My firm conviction is that we of the conservative camp must put
ourselves entirely onto a democratic basis. After the collapse of the
old conditions nothing else can provide us with a future and a
justification except pure democracy. Even if democracy has a dark side
it is preferable to the quasi-democratic aristocracy of the
representative system.” Philipp Anton von Segesser, 1866
Jerome di Costanzo is a writer and journalist. He blogs for ladroitelibre and lives in Yorkshire How
this quote from a mid-19th century Swiss politician could perfectly
transpose to Britain today! Jonathan Steinberg, author of "Why
Switzerland?" goes on to comment:
“Philipp Anton entered politics as naturally as
certain old Etonians become Tory MPs and, like some of the ‘wetter’
among them, he incorporated the paradox of the aristocrat as democrat.”
Does this not aptly depict a David Cameron of today? What is it about
Conservatives and democracy? They could be seen as in opposition when
one considers the sovereign democratic tendencies of the Thatcher
years. Today cynicism might make us think that Cameron’s latest
declarations about democracy at the Open University are just to push Gordon
Brown towards a new election. But the evidence points to a real
governmental and social strategy: during the debate on the Lisbon
treaty, they asked for a referendum; David Davis resigned – forcing a
by-election in his constituency – because of his opposition to our
Orwellian society, creating the ‘fight for freedom’; and then last week,
David Cameron called for elected peers in the Lords, more power for the
local councils, and a turnover of parliament with a reduction in the number
of MPs. Laura Sandys, who is a member of the Tory Conservative
Taskforce [and Chair of openDemocracy] calls this “a truly British Revolution in the making…”.
Perhaps the Tories want us to see them as knights-in-shining-armour,
rescuing our sick political system? Whatever the case, it is
interesting to look at what is happening to this reputedly patrician
party. What is this new form of British Conservative rhetoric – a “You
the people” Toryism?
This newly proposed trust between the
Tories and the people has some similarities with the Tory doctrine of
“One Nation”. In 1845, a year after the publication of Friedrich
Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England, Benjamin
Disraeli wrote in opposition to the newborn Marxism: “Two nations
between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as
ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they
were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets:
the rich and the poor.” This quote sparked the beginning of the One
Nation movement inside the Conservative party. The Tory was then
positioned on the border of a liberal doctrine with a patriotic appeal
to national feeling against the class war. This doctrine was the
People, the Nation, against disorder and social inequality. Randolph
Churchill was one of the disciples of this Tory democracy. It was also
to become the political basis for Winston Churchill, explaining his
regular transfuge to the liberal party and his genius in giving a
definition of One Britain nationalism when facing the Nazi danger, perfectly illustrated by the war film of this time – the “This is not a
gentleman’s war!” of The Life and Death of the Colonel Blimp. One
Nation fought against barbary, exalting the lower class, where the
Tommy (beautifully incarnated by John Mills) had the cunning
intelligence of a Homeric Ulysses.
With the post-war
consensus, from Harold Macmillan to Edward Heath, One Nation Toryism
ruled Conservative thinking. It was bullied by the nationalist “river
of blood” speech of Enoch Powell, with the popular support of the
workers of Smithfield market and here the One Nation was fatally
wounded, only to be followed by a resurgence of elitist and patriotic
feeling during the Thatcher Years, and then dying out with the
confusing “Back to Basics” debacle of John Major.
In 1997,
in reaction to the victory of New Labour, Damian Green tried to revive
the One Nation Tory with the Tory Reform Group, but with little
concrete success. In 2005 David Cameron hailed the “Nine principles”
of the Conservative Way Forward. The concise declaration of the CWF
gave the new principles of 21st century Conservatism: the introduction
stating “Each nation must be free to determine its policies to the
benefit of its citizens.” and followed by the two first principles –
“Freedom: For responsible individuals, guaranteed by the rule of law
administered by and independent judiciary and minimal state activity;”
and “Democracy: The exercise of political power, with the consent of
the people – through regular elections on the basis of universal
suffrage and a secret ballot.” Their nine principles marked the end of
opposition inside the party between the liberal Thatcherite and the
liberal Humanist, but liberal all the same, so is this still
Conservative? Or could “You the People” just be a politically correct
liberal democratic party?
Cameron’s speech at the Open
University could have been influenced by French aristocratic but liberal thinker
Tocqueville and his program starts with the same observations as
Tocqueville, that democracy has a tendency towards ‘middling values’,
creating relativist conformism, and perversely can generate
individualism. When MPs abuse the system, Lordships are bought for
cash, a Prime minister doesn’t want to endanger his position with a
democratic election, a financial crisis is created by individual
risk-taking and some minorities decide to segregate themselves within
their own country, our democracy is showing clear symptoms of
individualism.
In this context democracy becomes an empire of
relativism where all ideas are similar to others, a Brown or a Cameron
is the same thing, and if you want to vote for difference you have to
turn to the extremes. This is the Tocquevillian nightmare. And what is
the solution? Tocqueville envisioned the creation of a local and
intermediary order – a nod towards the old regime, which ruled
the life of the citizen locally. And here we may recognize a point in Cameron’s
speech about wanting to give more power to the local councils – the local
democratic order. Two points from the CWF’s
Nine principles are associated with this new local policy: “Community:
Defined by geography, tradition, inheritance and sense of identity” and
“Choice for individuals must be maximised – even if the state accepts
responsibility for provision of a safety net.” In this sense, local
governments aren’t micro-parliaments, but real expressions of human
particularities, befitting each area’s political traditions and moral
values as shared by the members of a community.
So
what does the “You the People” philosophy need for it to become a real
Conservative policy and not a liberal one? Just as the old aristocratic
class survived in the representative system described by Segesser, the
preservation or the recreation of a pre-modern form of local
government can be viewed as a mark of pure Conservatism. This realism
in political analysis should be a Conservative virtue, as is perfectly
illustrated by Roger Scruton: “Conservatism is itself a modernism, and
in this lies the secret of its success. What distinguishes Burke from
the French Revolution is not his attachment to things past, but his
desire to live fully in the present, to understand it in all its
imperfections, and to accept it as the only reality that is offered to
us.”
So is Cameron’s view of our democracy realistic? The analysis of
the situation through the eyes of Tocqueville completely fits with the
reality of our society, liberal and democratic, and in this sense can’t
be considered a liberal heresy of Conservative dogma. But how is
Cameron the faithful successor of the Tory patrician tradition? It is
certainly in his trust in an elitist democracy, not just vain elitism,
but a chivalric one: our knights-in-shining-armour. With a country in
economic crisis and the standing elite completely disqualified by their
own weakness and established position, as was the case in 1791 when
Burke wrote his reflections, it is the great gamble of Cameron in his
“You the people” politic to regenerate the elite by making them better
and more accountable to the people. The important place of the elite,
traditional, national and local in a democratic and transparent
government ensures that Cameron’s Conservatism isn’t, on this point,
latent liberalism. Scruton’s identified duty to recognise the reality
of the present, with all its imperfections, is vital to the ruling
elite, because if they don’t pay attention to reality, people could be
tempted by more radical ideology such as Marxism, which Disraeli faced,
or Nazism which Churchill confronted, or the French Revolution which
roused Edmund Burke. These ideologies could legitimately be criticised
because of their lack of consideration for human life.
The
accuracy in describing reality and its imperfections requires a careful
sense of morality – what is good and what is bad. For the moment at
least the Tory party’s programme doesn’t answer fundamental questions:
what are the moral values of its elite? What are our common values or
ethics? What are our traditions, our heritage? What is our sense of
identity? And what is their order? What are the real imperfections of
our present? We are free, says the Tory manifesto, but we are far from
a valid democracy! And the problems of scandal and corruption in
parliament are not solved by giving more power to local councils – the
corruption will still be there just on a smaller scale in greater
numbers. Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue concluded: “ what matters …. is
the construction of local forms of community within which civility and
the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark
ages which are already upon us.” The question about the moral life
could be misinterpreted – it is not a nostalgia for the past moral
order, but a question about our values in our society. It is also a way
of clearly defining a difference between our 500 years of political
experience and the version of democracy upheld by an Ahmadinejad or a
Hugo Chavez.
The finality of a clearly communicated moral
goal is what makes a successful Tory – Edward Heath never announced his
goals with his policies, and this obscurity made Thatcher seem all the
more remarkable. In today’s political context, the moral goal of a
Promised Land is necessary and it doesn’t yet appear in the
Conservatism of “You the People”. It could be made apparent by
answering the question “which values do we want to believe in to secure
a peaceful society?” or by stating practically what our future is with
regard to, say, Europe, the environment, globalisation or immigration. Here is the
debate, and it must be supported by plurality, because it is by real
debate that we can reach an ideal renovated democracy with more justice
and more security.
The proposed democratic vision embodied
by Cameron has no face, and can’t guarantee its success on the repeated
empty refrain of democracy and freedom if it doesn’t succeed in
encouraging people to actively participate in the debate about our
values. With courage and foresight, it must enter into the moral forum,
trying to answer the traditional question of politics that started with
democracy in Athens: what is good for society? This is crucial for the
success of Cameron’s new strategy to create a real, popular and
interclass movement with a strong feeling of responsibility for the
good of One Nation. Here in the widest sense is a potential definition
for our democratic system in general – a successful addition of human
singularity while preserving the common good.
“My firm conviction is that we of the conservative camp must put
ourselves entirely onto a democratic basis. After the collapse of the
old conditions nothing else can provide us with a future and a
justification except pure democracy. Even if democracy has a dark side
it is preferable to the quasi-democratic aristocracy of the
representative system.” Philipp Anton von Segesser, 1866
Jerome di Costanzo is a writer and journalist. He blogs for ladroitelibre and lives in Yorkshire How
this quote from a mid-19th century Swiss politician could perfectly
transpose to Britain today! Jonathan Steinberg, author of "Why
Switzerland?" goes on to comment:
“Philipp Anton entered politics as naturally as
certain old Etonians become Tory MPs and, like some of the ‘wetter’
among them, he incorporated the paradox of the aristocrat as democrat.”
Does this not aptly depict a David Cameron of today? What is it about
Conservatives and democracy? They could be seen as in opposition when
one considers the sovereign democratic tendencies of the Thatcher
years. Today cynicism might make us think that Cameron’s latest
declarations about democracy at the Open University are just to push Gordon
Brown towards a new election. But the evidence points to a real
governmental and social strategy: during the debate on the Lisbon
treaty, they asked for a referendum; David Davis resigned – forcing a
by-election in his constituency – because of his opposition to our
Orwellian society, creating the ‘fight for freedom’; and then last week,
David Cameron called for elected peers in the Lords, more power for the
local councils, and a turnover of parliament with a reduction in the number
of MPs. Laura Sandys, who is a member of the Tory Conservative
Taskforce [and Chair of openDemocracy] calls this “a truly British Revolution in the making…”.
Perhaps the Tories want us to see them as knights-in-shining-armour,
rescuing our sick political system? Whatever the case, it is
interesting to look at what is happening to this reputedly patrician
party. What is this new form of British Conservative rhetoric – a “You
the people” Toryism?
This newly proposed trust between the
Tories and the people has some similarities with the Tory doctrine of
“One Nation”. In 1845, a year after the publication of Friedrich
Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England, Benjamin
Disraeli wrote in opposition to the newborn Marxism: “Two nations
between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as
ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they
were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets:
the rich and the poor.” This quote sparked the beginning of the One
Nation movement inside the Conservative party. The Tory was then
positioned on the border of a liberal doctrine with a patriotic appeal
to national feeling against the class war. This doctrine was the
People, the Nation, against disorder and social inequality. Randolph
Churchill was one of the disciples of this Tory democracy. It was also
to become the political basis for Winston Churchill, explaining his
regular transfuge to the liberal party and his genius in giving a
definition of One Britain nationalism when facing the Nazi danger, perfectly illustrated by the war film of this time – the “This is not a
gentleman’s war!” of The Life and Death of the Colonel Blimp. One
Nation fought against barbary, exalting the lower class, where the
Tommy (beautifully incarnated by John Mills) had the cunning
intelligence of a Homeric Ulysses.
With the post-war
consensus, from Harold Macmillan to Edward Heath, One Nation Toryism
ruled Conservative thinking. It was bullied by the nationalist “river
of blood” speech of Enoch Powell, with the popular support of the
workers of Smithfield market and here the One Nation was fatally
wounded, only to be followed by a resurgence of elitist and patriotic
feeling during the Thatcher Years, and then dying out with the
confusing “Back to Basics” debacle of John Major.
In 1997,
in reaction to the victory of New Labour, Damian Green tried to revive
the One Nation Tory with the Tory Reform Group, but with little
concrete success. In 2005 David Cameron hailed the “Nine principles”
of the Conservative Way Forward. The concise declaration of the CWF
gave the new principles of 21st century Conservatism: the introduction
stating “Each nation must be free to determine its policies to the
benefit of its citizens.” and followed by the two first principles –
“Freedom: For responsible individuals, guaranteed by the rule of law
administered by and independent judiciary and minimal state activity;”
and “Democracy: The exercise of political power, with the consent of
the people – through regular elections on the basis of universal
suffrage and a secret ballot.” Their nine principles marked the end of
opposition inside the party between the liberal Thatcherite and the
liberal Humanist, but liberal all the same, so is this still
Conservative? Or could “You the People” just be a politically correct
liberal democratic party?
Cameron’s speech at the Open
University could have been influenced by French aristocratic but liberal thinker
Tocqueville and his program starts with the same observations as
Tocqueville, that democracy has a tendency towards ‘middling values’,
creating relativist conformism, and perversely can generate
individualism. When MPs abuse the system, Lordships are bought for
cash, a Prime minister doesn’t want to endanger his position with a
democratic election, a financial crisis is created by individual
risk-taking and some minorities decide to segregate themselves within
their own country, our democracy is showing clear symptoms of
individualism.
In this context democracy becomes an empire of
relativism where all ideas are similar to others, a Brown or a Cameron
is the same thing, and if you want to vote for difference you have to
turn to the extremes. This is the Tocquevillian nightmare. And what is
the solution? Tocqueville envisioned the creation of a local and
intermediary order – a nod towards the old regime, which ruled
the life of the citizen locally. And here we may recognize a point in Cameron’s
speech about wanting to give more power to the local councils – the local
democratic order. Two points from the CWF’s
Nine principles are associated with this new local policy: “Community:
Defined by geography, tradition, inheritance and sense of identity” and
“Choice for individuals must be maximised – even if the state accepts
responsibility for provision of a safety net.” In this sense, local
governments aren’t micro-parliaments, but real expressions of human
particularities, befitting each area’s political traditions and moral
values as shared by the members of a community.
So
what does the “You the People” philosophy need for it to become a real
Conservative policy and not a liberal one? Just as the old aristocratic
class survived in the representative system described by Segesser, the
preservation or the recreation of a pre-modern form of local
government can be viewed as a mark of pure Conservatism. This realism
in political analysis should be a Conservative virtue, as is perfectly
illustrated by Roger Scruton: “Conservatism is itself a modernism, and
in this lies the secret of its success. What distinguishes Burke from
the French Revolution is not his attachment to things past, but his
desire to live fully in the present, to understand it in all its
imperfections, and to accept it as the only reality that is offered to
us.”
So is Cameron’s view of our democracy realistic? The analysis of
the situation through the eyes of Tocqueville completely fits with the
reality of our society, liberal and democratic, and in this sense can’t
be considered a liberal heresy of Conservative dogma. But how is
Cameron the faithful successor of the Tory patrician tradition? It is
certainly in his trust in an elitist democracy, not just vain elitism,
but a chivalric one: our knights-in-shining-armour. With a country in
economic crisis and the standing elite completely disqualified by their
own weakness and established position, as was the case in 1791 when
Burke wrote his reflections, it is the great gamble of Cameron in his
“You the people” politic to regenerate the elite by making them better
and more accountable to the people. The important place of the elite,
traditional, national and local in a democratic and transparent
government ensures that Cameron’s Conservatism isn’t, on this point,
latent liberalism. Scruton’s identified duty to recognise the reality
of the present, with all its imperfections, is vital to the ruling
elite, because if they don’t pay attention to reality, people could be
tempted by more radical ideology such as Marxism, which Disraeli faced,
or Nazism which Churchill confronted, or the French Revolution which
roused Edmund Burke. These ideologies could legitimately be criticised
because of their lack of consideration for human life.
The
accuracy in describing reality and its imperfections requires a careful
sense of morality – what is good and what is bad. For the moment at
least the Tory party’s programme doesn’t answer fundamental questions:
what are the moral values of its elite? What are our common values or
ethics? What are our traditions, our heritage? What is our sense of
identity? And what is their order? What are the real imperfections of
our present? We are free, says the Tory manifesto, but we are far from
a valid democracy! And the problems of scandal and corruption in
parliament are not solved by giving more power to local councils – the
corruption will still be there just on a smaller scale in greater
numbers. Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue concluded: “ what matters …. is
the construction of local forms of community within which civility and
the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark
ages which are already upon us.” The question about the moral life
could be misinterpreted – it is not a nostalgia for the past moral
order, but a question about our values in our society. It is also a way
of clearly defining a difference between our 500 years of political
experience and the version of democracy upheld by an Ahmadinejad or a
Hugo Chavez.
The finality of a clearly communicated moral
goal is what makes a successful Tory – Edward Heath never announced his
goals with his policies, and this obscurity made Thatcher seem all the
more remarkable. In today’s political context, the moral goal of a
Promised Land is necessary and it doesn’t yet appear in the
Conservatism of “You the People”. It could be made apparent by
answering the question “which values do we want to believe in to secure
a peaceful society?” or by stating practically what our future is with
regard to, say, Europe, the environment, globalisation or immigration. Here is the
debate, and it must be supported by plurality, because it is by real
debate that we can reach an ideal renovated democracy with more justice
and more security.
The proposed democratic vision embodied
by Cameron has no face, and can’t guarantee its success on the repeated
empty refrain of democracy and freedom if it doesn’t succeed in
encouraging people to actively participate in the debate about our
values. With courage and foresight, it must enter into the moral forum,
trying to answer the traditional question of politics that started with
democracy in Athens: what is good for society? This is crucial for the
success of Cameron’s new strategy to create a real, popular and
interclass movement with a strong feeling of responsibility for the
good of One Nation. Here in the widest sense is a potential definition
for our democratic system in general – a successful addition of human
singularity while preserving the common good.
This article is published by Jerome di Costanzo, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.
The author assumes an unbroken historical link between the one nation Conservatism of Disraeli and Cameron's soft focus Thatcherism. The last "one nation" Tory was Edward Heath. The Tory Party which Thatcher created was the political and economic heir of Gladstone, Disraeli's nemesis.
The Thatcher legacy is incredibly anti-democratic: Re-housing council tenants in other boroughs; abolishing the GLC; the crushing of trade unionism; driving the poor off the electoral register with the poll tax.
While Cameron has achieved a public relations success by avoiding being associated with these horrors in the public mind, he and his shadow cabinet are Thatcherite to the core.Expect a Tory government to attack democratic institutions, not advance them.
"during the debate on the Lisbon treaty, they asked for a referendum;"
Of course they did; Cameron's a Eurosceptic and he knows he'd probably get the result he wanted. Had it been otherwise, he wouldn't have.
"David Davis resigned – forcing a by-election in his constituency – because of his opposition to our Orwellian society,"
He didn't resign from Labour, though, did he?
"and then last week, David Cameron called for elected peers in the Lords, more power for the local councils, and a turnover of parliament with a reduction in the number of MPs."
Well, again, he would, wouldn't he? He would now anyway - he's already claimed the mortgage on his third house, and the major parties can't afford not to be seen to be tackling constitutional reform.
This article has some interesting points to make on the issue of power and community, with which I have some agreement, but it fails to mention the legacy of the last Tory governments' often violent expansion of the state into every sphere of life, including basic individual freedoms, outside the Plutocrat Zone of the markets. They're the party which passed an Act of Parliament outlawing a specific style of music, threatened the BBC with privatisation whenever the news started sounding a bit lefty, silenced elected representatives by law (providing work for a generation of actors who could do a plausible Ulster accent). And so forth. Maybe I've missed something, but millionaire Old Etonian David Cameron hasn't exactly been strident in his repudiation of this legacy, in between cosying up to the lunatic right in Europe. It's an indictment of the left that individual Tories (sincerely and commendably enough, I suppose) are stepping forward to defend civil liberties and individual freedoms. In reality this amounts to a few maverick libertarians enjoying the luxuries of opposition, and I don't expect them to be making policy if the party as a whole form a government - which is exactly why it makes sense for David Davies to resign from the Conservatives to make his point. The kindest thing I can say about anti-authoritarian Tories, assuming against experience that there really are any, is that after a Tory win in 2010 they'd get suckered by their party leadership just as the left did in 1997, I should imagine.
Fill in the form below to sign up to our automatic daily alerts, or weekly editorial summary (you will be taken to another page to confirm which options you want).
Comments
The author assumes an unbroken historical link between the one nation Conservatism of Disraeli and Cameron's soft focus Thatcherism. The last "one nation" Tory was Edward Heath. The Tory Party which Thatcher created was the political and economic heir of Gladstone, Disraeli's nemesis.
The Thatcher legacy is incredibly anti-democratic: Re-housing council tenants in other boroughs; abolishing the GLC; the crushing of trade unionism; driving the poor off the electoral register with the poll tax.
While Cameron has achieved a public relations success by avoiding being associated with these horrors in the public mind, he and his shadow cabinet are Thatcherite to the core.Expect a Tory government to attack democratic institutions, not advance them.
Big C
"during the debate on the Lisbon treaty, they asked for a referendum;"
Of course they did; Cameron's a Eurosceptic and he knows he'd probably get the result he wanted. Had it been otherwise, he wouldn't have.
"David Davis resigned – forcing a by-election in his constituency – because of his opposition to our Orwellian society,"
He didn't resign from Labour, though, did he?
"and then last week, David Cameron called for elected peers in the Lords, more power for the local councils, and a turnover of parliament with a reduction in the number of MPs."
Well, again, he would, wouldn't he? He would now anyway - he's already claimed the mortgage on his third house, and the major parties can't afford not to be seen to be tackling constitutional reform.
This article has some interesting points to make on the issue of power and community, with which I have some agreement, but it fails to mention the legacy of the last Tory governments' often violent expansion of the state into every sphere of life, including basic individual freedoms, outside the Plutocrat Zone of the markets. They're the party which passed an Act of Parliament outlawing a specific style of music, threatened the BBC with privatisation whenever the news started sounding a bit lefty, silenced elected representatives by law (providing work for a generation of actors who could do a plausible Ulster accent). And so forth. Maybe I've missed something, but millionaire Old Etonian David Cameron hasn't exactly been strident in his repudiation of this legacy, in between cosying up to the lunatic right in Europe. It's an indictment of the left that individual Tories (sincerely and commendably enough, I suppose) are stepping forward to defend civil liberties and individual freedoms. In reality this amounts to a few maverick libertarians enjoying the luxuries of opposition, and I don't expect them to be making policy if the party as a whole form a government - which is exactly why it makes sense for David Davies to resign from the Conservatives to make his point. The kindest thing I can say about anti-authoritarian Tories, assuming against experience that there really are any, is that after a Tory win in 2010 they'd get suckered by their party leadership just as the left did in 1997, I should imagine.
Post new comment