About

| | | | | | | |

About OurKingdom

OurKingdom is a part of openDemocracy’s new site. Our special focus is on the destiny of Britain. We will discuss Britain’s nations, institutions, constitution, administration, liberties, justice, peoples and media and their principles, beliefs, identity, destinations and character. In a word our democracy in its broadest meaning, its history and future, from cultures and religions, participation and issues of centralisation and authority to equality, rights, responsibilities and who rules.

OurKingdom begins with a conversation in blog form between people holding a wide range of views who share a concern about these matters. The aim is a discussion about how the country’s policies are made rather than what these policies are. From health and education, to crime and climate change, to war and peace, policy ‘outcomes’ to use the jargon, are obviously important. But in today’s world means and ends are co-joined: how things come about influence what they really are. The politicians and media prefer to talk about the ends (while keeping their methods to themselves). We will talk about the means and especially those that involve direct participation. A discussion of our name follows below.

May 2007

Why OurKingdom? Is this some royalist scheme?
It’s a statement of fact. We live in what is officially known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of course, the monarchy is part of this and needs to be argued about and (depending on your point of view) retained as is, rethought or replaced. But monarchy is, if you will excuse the pun, above all a relationship between rulers and ruled. We will look at Britain’s relationships of rule on the working assumption that, while Kingdom it may be, nonetheless is ours.

 But isn’t calling it ‘OurKingdom' closed and exclusive?
MySpace, YouTube, OurKingdom… Unlike the other two we have a geographical and historical focus. Our aim is a call for participation from anyone concerned with the fate of the UK, drawing on the energy and opportunity offered by the web. Yes, this is specialised in that it is a dedicated to a country and those interested in it. Therefore it is not for those who are no so interested. Yet it is built within and connected to a global website. No one is purely global while all of us have become global in local ways. Today, citizens of the UK face an especially demanding set of issues which oblige us to re-think the nature of our country. OurKingdom means to engage as many as possible who feel they have a stake in this re-thinking. So yes, it is not for those without this interest, for whom all the rest of openDemocracy is available.

 What is so special about the re-thinking Britain needs
Britain is confronting a profound crisis about what kind of country it is. This crisis is a good crisis.

It has been brought on by economic growth, by membership of the European Union, by the sweep of reforms the Labour government introduced after 1997 (national parliaments in Scotland and Wales, a human rights act, independence for the Bank of England, a Freedom of Information Act, a Mayor for London to name a few). All these are arguably positive developments which certainly resulted from conscious human agency. At the same time there is a malaise and a withdrawal from formal politics and an anger with it. Look at the extraordinary growth of intrusive legislation from detailed surveillance to powers to enter dwellings without a warrant, which appear to have shredded the principles of a hard fought tradition of liberty. The public is being treated to powerful, contradictory messages, which naturally upsets people and makes them angry and confused. On the one hand both politicians and corporate consumer culture tell us to be more active, empowered, self-motivated and confident. On the other, we are told that the need for personal security as well as the dangers of terrorism, demand that we allow ourselves to be monitored, controlled and manipulated, in effect to be passive and fatalistic.

 These conflicting pressures are not unique to Britain, but here they are connected to a state and media which is often exceptionally alarmist and hysterical…

For example?
Headlines telling us that Saddam Hussein could attack us within 45 minutes with weapons of mass destruction. Why is there such anxiety? This is a Kingdom without an Empire, which does not regard itself as European and which now feels that a special relationship with the United States is squalid and unseemly. Uncertainly abroad feeds domestic insecurity.

This does not sound like a good crisis
Comparing societies to individuals can be a weak cliché and inappropriate for an old country. But it might clarify how I’m using the word. Young people go through a crisis of adolescence. It would be bad if they didn’t! The path from childhood to adulthood is painful, alarming and fateful. You don’t want to encourage adolescents to deny their crises. If you can, you help ensure there is the love, friendship, wisdom, support and inner preparation to assist a fruitful outcome. In other words to turn a crisis of growth into a good crisis. A good crisis for individuals has two elements: it is necessary in terms of a healthy engagement with a changing world; it takes place when there are the resources, especially the inner resources, to assist a strong outcome. Of course, that does not mean it can’t go wrong.

A country has a different bio-rhythm to an individual. In every country all the time some parts are dying while other grow or renew. But the United Kingdom faces a system crisis. It has not been sudden and won’t be over swiftly. It is a good crisis, this is just my view, first because it is necessary and second because we have the resources to come out of it a much better democracy. For example, there are new institutions feeling their strength and even more important the confidence that comes from the knowledge that we have recently created them, the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and the London Mayor being prime examples. We have a historic culture of rights and liberty and a young, multi-cultural population with a global confidence. Certainly there is also cowardice and slavish acceptance of page-three commercialism. The crisis can have a bad outcome, there is no doubt about that! The one certain way to this is denial of the need for constitutional change.

Perhaps no institution better symbolises what I am trying to describe than the House of Lords, the second chamber of the Mother of Parliaments. Hereditary peers have been largely eliminated by the current government. Hurray! Score one for democracy. But should we? It puts aside the fatalism of being ruled by inheritance. Before it happened the experts used to say either “It will never happen”, or “You only get a Lords reform once every fifty years”. However, instead of a respectful and confident replacement of the hereditary system with something better there has been a shameful replacement of the peers by a corrupt process of cronyisation. Now the House of Commons has rightfully rejected a complacent white paper on what to do next and has demanded an entirely elected Lords.

But what should these elected Lords do? What will be their relationship to the different nations of Britain? With no sense of history, an irresponsible but very radical decision has been taken to extend our democracy. One has to ask, is this the way to do it? Is this what the people who are supposed to vote for these new ‘Lords’ want? What kind of country treats its defining institutions in this way?

Is this a crisis in the way we are governed? Yes. Is it a good crisis? Yes, first it is necessary, we should not continue to have half our parliament being patently illegitimate and, second, we have the imaginative and practical experience to create a much better second chamber of parliament. But will we decide on something better, and how can we do this? These are the kind of questions that will be analysed in OurKingdom.

| | | | | | | |