An OurKingdom conversation. This is Part 2 of Rosemary's response in our 'Which Plurality?' debate [History: Jeremy Gilbert > Rosemary Bechler > Jeremy Gilbert > first part of this reply > this post > Jeremy Gilbert]

An OurKingdom conversation. [History: Jeremy Gilbert > Rosemary Bechler > Jeremy Gilbert > this post > second part of this reply > Jeremy Gilbert]

An OurKingdom conversation. This is Jeremy Gilbert's response to Rosemary Bechler in OK's debate on liberalism and democracy [History: Jeremy Gilbert > this post > Jeremy Gilbert > Rosemary Bechler (part 1; part 2) > Jeremy Gilbert]

I want to pick up a strand of thinking in Jeremy Gilbert’s stimulating and useful tour de horizon of the left landscape as a potential driver for democratic change. If developed, I believe it leads us to another major source of transformation overlooked in his otherwise comprehensive survey. The strand I’m talking about is plurality – individualisation, diversification, fragmentation – and its relationship not only to deliberative democracy, but to the reinvigoration and rescue of democracy in the modern nation-state as such.

Before picking up on Jeremy’s commanding call for ‘a new kind of deliberative democratic institution… a social forum for us all … vital to the fostering of the kind of democratic climate within which … reforms could take root, flower and grow’ – I want to return to the more uncertain role accorded ‘plurality’ in his previous openDemocracy contribution,‘Postmodernity and the crisis of democracy.’ Here it is regarded with a residual leftwing ambivalence. The ‘full pluralism and complexity’ of our world is laid at the feet of ‘wild, unregulated capitalism’ or ‘globalisation’, as if these were little more than a conspiracy to unpick the organisational capacity of the labour movement. Alternatively, plurality is a siren voice created by postmodern cybernetic capitalism and only narrowly averted in the 1980s, when Baudrillard and Co tempted us to deliver ourselves to ‘the nihilistic thrill of a world without shared values and meanings’. But this is to treat plurality or diversity as the rootless relativism it is reduced to being in a culture like ours.

However, plurality in its higher form - as negotiation with the other, the encounter with difference and differences that is the source of self-awareness and adult intelligence is a very different story. There is an enormous and unstoppable democratic potential inherent in the process of individualisation that has accompanied capitalism throughout its history and this process continues with the boost it has received not only from post-war consumer culture and ‘consumer choice’, but also from the communication channels opened up across the silos of national organisation by war, tourism, the internet and globalisation. This is the energy and intelligence for a new political culture, in which people negotiate how they wish to live side by side in one polity, and win some, lose some, learn how to compromise. This much deeper form of democracy is waiting impatiently in the wings (although I note in a thoughtful if sometimes jaded interview that Tony Wright thinks ordinary people, as opposed to MP’s, incapable of it. He says: ”politics is complicated, it’s difficult, it’s frustrating, it requires compromise and often politicians are choosing the least-worst options and so it’s guaranteed to disappoint vast numbers of people all the time… there’s something about politics that’s a challenge in a consumerist culture, which likes instant gratification through shopping and celebrity and all that.”)

Jon Lawrence's book, Electing Our Masters: the Hustings in British Politics from Hogarth to Blair, was published this March by OUP. Now he has turned his attention to the next election and the urgent need for real-life political interaction. In this paper on ‘The hustings, broadcasters and the future of democracy' in the History & Policy series, he calls on broadcasters to reinvent the old, irreverent spirit of the hustings to ‘deliver both dramatic television and serious democratic politics.' We have a long and valuable tradition of politicians submitting themselves to rigorous interrogation by the general public - one that he has chronicled in detail -  but only broadcasters can now ensure that that tradition survives and flourishes in the twenty-first century.

The problem as he sees it remains residual paternalism and ‘that fear of abandoning professional control'. And the brief recent history that he gives contains few encouraging signs of a major step forward - broadcasters seem only slightly less cautious than their political masters. But Lawrence is clear,  ‘Further expansion of 'vox pop' coverage will not do. Political interaction must lie at the heart of a healthy democracy, and broadcasting is uniquely placed to help facilitate that interaction between public and politicians.'  He is also calling for new ‘public rituals ‘ that bring politicians and public together: ‘Candidates could be selected at open public 'primaries', official nomination hustings could be held in every constituency, and broadcasters could be encouraged to hold Question Time-style encounters across the country during an election, using new technologies to throw them open to the Facebook generation.'

Lawrence lays considerable emphasis on ritual, drama and the ‘theatre and entertainment that must be at the heart' of politics if it is to connect, but this does not dilute his ambition for such encounters between the public and their politicians. His aim is the kind of interaction that ‘allows ordinary voters a chance, not just to have their say, but actually to hold their political masters to account.'

David Sifry described social networking and other new forms of communication in an emergent world of public opinion as a "conversation among the people formerly known as the audience". The phrase sprang to my mind when the Today programme wrestled with explaining to itself and its audience what is inspiring about Abbas Kiarostami's latest film, ‘Shirin', recently showcased in the Edinburgh festival. Is it subversive? What are its politics? What is the people's hunger and spirit behind the insurgency? Is it on our side? The problem is that the film consists of 90 minutes of close-ups of more than 100 women, including a headscarved Juliette Binoche, as they watch a film based on a 12th-century poem by Nezami Ganjavi about a love triangle involving an Armenian princess and a Persian prince. 

"Light from a screen flickers on the women's faces; their expressions alone create the drama."  I learn more when I repair to Maya Jaggi's interview with Kiarostami in the Guardian, although I have to flap away an intrusive advertisement that informs me ‘Your opinion matters' and invites me to complete a short survey before I can proceed. Eventually, it appears that the maestro has been willing to give us a couple of clues. He has gone so far as to say that the "beauty of art lies in the reaction it causes", and that "a work of art doesn't exist outside the perception of the audience".

The fact is that this is yet another of those moments when one has to say: "They just don't get it do they?" This interesting rhetorical question has peppered political commentary in the last few weeks, most recently when the limousines drew up outside Mansion House. In politics it always carries the danger of complacency, since the people who point the finger are invariably the ‘brother' that had the ‘mote' in his eye last time around. This week one feels even more nervous using it because the onion has begun to unpeel with a vengeance as foolishly self-serving expenses claims settle around the ankles of those other ‘civil servants', BBC top management, with all around in the media ducking for cover.

Nobel Women's Initiative calls for the immediate release of Mairead Maguire and other Human Rights activists detained by Israeli authorities on June 29th.

It’s Time to Return to the Hotel Brochure

Day Three. One of the plenary speakers, I can’t remember who it was, told the delegates, ‘We are the privileged ones’. People nodded and you could see that this struck a chord. I have been wondering exactly what it meant. The most obvious reading belongs to the same family as the jesting remark made by Jane Austen’s Elizabeth when she suggests that she fell in love with Darcy when she first saw his lavish ancestral home, Pemberley.

All events of this kind have their own shape and dynamics. If Day One was an eager and passionate Tatiana’s letter, not to Onegin, but to an already cynical yet surely reclaimable democracy – we seem to have collectively matured overnight. There are three major themes to this great day’s proceedings: lessons from some extraordinary women who have run for and held political office, strategic thinking from women reporting unforgettably from the front line of war-torn societies, and the sliding into place of the last gargantuan building block for our overhaul of democracy – the battle for women’s human rights.

STEPS is a women’s organization founded in 1991 and registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act 1975, based in Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu, to work on the empowerment of all poor women, and particularly Muslim women in the region. It aims to bring about a change in the dominant perception – including among Muslim women themselves – about the rights of women in Islam. It believes that interpretation of the Qu’ran through a patriarchal lens resulted in discrimination against the women of the community and forced them to lead subjugated lives in a way that is not sanctioned in Islam.

Thomas Rainsborough was the highest ranking supporter of the Levellers in the New Model Army when he spoke in the Putney Debates in July 1647, and uttered the immortal words for British parliamentary democracy:

"For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under."

The first day of deliberations was Women’s Day in Guatemala, and participants at the Nobel Women's Initiative conference had awoken to the sound of firecrackers in Antigua celebrating the role of mothers and the sight of a local volcano erupting ash, apparently an every day occurrence. Naomi Tutu as the first moderator deftly appropriated the motherhood theme, which she said needed renovating, to give an undertaking on behalf of participants: we were going to be gestating a new definition of democracy capable of celebrating women’s achievements over recent months and years. Many of these definitions were offered during the next eight hours of discussion, though none perhaps so pithy as Mairead Maguire’s emphasis on ‘empowering people where they live – giving them dignity and hope’.

First impressions

In 1998, nearly a decade after his influential post-Cold War piece, 'The End of History?', Francis Fukuyama addressed himself to the question of Women and the Evolution of World Politics in the influential journal, Foreign Affairs. Commenting on what was then an emerging gender gap in support for (US) national defence spending, he announced that it was quite evident that women were more peaceful than men. Women, he argued, are different.

Russell Brand: Hello Andrew Sachs, this is Russell Brand. I am a great appreciator of your work over the decades. You are meant to be on my show now mate … I am here with Jonathan Ross. I could still do the interview to your answerphone.