Moderator: This is a response to a speech made by Meg Russell at an ippr fringe meeting in September. The speech itself is reproduced here.
Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Meg Russell is one of the few people who manage to carry out empirical research on British democracy that has a political point whilst thinking more deeply about the longer-term implications of what is actually happening. At a recent IPPR meeting at the Labour Party conference she asked, "Are we bovvered about renewing democracy?" and then said the first place to look in answering this question was at the opinion polls.
I think her brief analysis of the polls was flawed. But put that aside - let's move on. Meg confessed to concern about the constant focus on reform for two reasons. First, it can be a kind of displacement activity: "By focussing on constitutional tinkering we risk not facing the bigger cultural forces which seem to me the root of disengagement". And second, by consistently talking about the inadequacies of our political institutions, we (whoever we are? are "we" a community?) risk fuelling the very disillusionment we're seeking to address: "if we want people to be more 'bovvered' about politics there may be wider and more difficult cultural changes we need to bring about."
Well, yes. In our international work on the assessment of democracy at Essex, we have found evidence of a disparity between the views of expert communities and people at large, the latter being more satisfied than the "wankers and whingers" (Neil Kinnock's ringing phrase) who joined Charter 88 in the 1990s. But what if our institutions and practices actually are "inadequate"? What if they fail to produce a representative Parliament, or suffocate local democracy, or are compromised by subservience to big business, or perpetuate social exclusions, or are prone to policy disasters (the poll tax, rail privatisation, the war, to mention a few)? Meg says that we should point out the truth. Why then not do so and seek remedies?
But sure, too, let's agree that we have to keep a wider perspective. There are major issues and trends within which democracy has to work. We have to accept that it is hard to make democracy, a collective enterprise, seem more relevant in an individualistic society, especially when the political parties converge upon their own form of consumer appeal. And let's argue for reform with the kind of honesty Meg enjoins: democracy is "not like shopping. It's imperfect, it's frustrating, we can't all win. But that's the nature of it, and it's the best system we've got."
[1] For a recent example see Peter Tatchell, 'Voting corruption thwarts democracy', Tribune, 28th September 2007. This suggested, in arguing for a change to the voting system, that "This wholesale voting sham is reminiscent of the gerrymandering and ballot-rigging of two centuries ago.This is political corruption on a monumental scale. It represents a perversion of the popular will and a subversion of democracy itself."
Comments
This deductively presented piece might have been actualized in 2007. In fact, 2008 and especially 2009: one might say reactualize its arguments even more. What haven't we seen yet making this statement not reasonably require newer insights to still stimulate pushing its arguments/debates?
Deductive: as "Reform can make us bothered about democracy" is, leaves one in limbo. But is that its purpose? No! You might surely need to consult all the factors, variables, questions, approaches and also theories making sense in the processes of "democratic auditing", locally, nationally and globally, to capture its perspectives - a three level areas of what to many is each problematic.
The 'character' of democracy as perhaps the only reasonable instrument of rule, but a frustrating one in terms of: a) models of rule and institutions best suitable; b) legal and moral values/traditions cum its extraordinarily collective/ individualistic' societal and enterprise marks]- is this. The concepts: political parties, elections, representation, population with voting-rights, voting systems, electoral systems/rules - all add-up with those above. Beyond the national debate about the challenges for Britain, there is even a wider picture of why "reform" might sound relatively threatening - even beyond!
Yet let's look deeply into the rationality of courage to take the "reform" - the bull] by the tail! The 'knot' as a problem is well easy to untie - thus making reform to scare less. For example, if we borrow from what is known about system theory: the idea of its sub-system units offers an helping hand. Many would say that with the indices above: 'the factors and variables', by which concrete democratic character and practices derive] - analogize the idea of sub-systems - a notion of which hangs on interdependence, but too: clear possibility to conduct constant repairs of the parts as they depreciate or require puffing-up: in some senses of the game of renewal!
Alternatively therefore, the tendency is to believe/argue that reform in relation to the task of managing democracy: challenges of "system maintenance/renewal" can only abnormally bother where there is not the courage to appreciate the naturalness of the change process. Being abnormally/ normally bothered marks a difference or degree of intensity argument! Men can handle that, "not nature"!
Looking well beyond other local and global levels focusing interrelated arguments one appreciates better the national level of British politics. In fact, the Britons are doing marvelously! Think of ongoing debates: its future prospects for this "unitary" state! If you love politics in practice and in theory, you can't stop admiring what we are seeing or say the will to reform democracy is dead, just because it will unduly bother various political actors/interests. There is sizable rationality in Stuart Weir. Meg Russell's beautiful empirical democracy study, I haven't read it], an 'academic' contribution: obviously what it is steers deeper reasons for intensive discourses. It is a goal worth what it should!
No need to crucify for the two reasons: hence worries about activities that could radically remodel 'unwritten' with unknown constitutional outcomes in face of old established conventions for the unitary state: Britain. The 2nd sits in the view that hacking excessively on the failures of a long-standing political system settings is risky, because its also tends to fuel disillusionment, which no-matter what, politics might not correct to satisfaction of all - a Bentham theoretically inspired view. Anyhow, the crux of that study, one could guess, is this. An important question is: whether the effort amounts to silencing productive and curious debates? Could that and 'latest' obvious political challenges have fueled interests for "Modern Liberty" hence recent Convention we saw and read much about?
Democracy is like the human body, whichever way you might want to analogize it: if you stop the exercises that have to be done stretching several parts of the body - surely you know what the consequences are likely to be. Attempts to maintain systems and its sub-systems, if equated with reform or change processes are a thing to welcome not try to hold back. Humans have to be bold to manage political, institutional, cultural value, and no-less attitudes change also. Reform is carried out by trained minds and 'peoples', optimists not pessimists - hopefully actors with GRACE working for sustainable peace/progress, not chaos/anarchy.
Post new comment