Suzanne Moore joins the discussion of the possible strategies for democratic reform post-expenses launched by Anthony Barnett in his recent post.
Anthony Barnett > Peter Oborne > Melissa Lane > Stuart White > John Jackson > Suzanne Moore
Anthony has hit on the key question of today which is how to convert the almost free-floating public anger at many of our institutions into actual political change. How do we reinvent democracy in the 21stcentury? It is crucial not simply to manufacture just ‘consent' but to encourage actual reinvestment in the political sphere. I am using political in its broadest sense as party politics seems to be itself part of the crisis of faith.
The positives, as I see it, are that a combination of factors makes this a truly unprecedented moment in which the desire for change is real: the lack of trust in institutions is at an all time high, the spectacle of these institutions (political, financial or cultural eg the BBC) failing to account for themselves or even really understanding why they should is deeply disturbing. It clearly points to a need for a far more radical change than any thing that these ruling elites will offer by themselves.
The crucial link is finally being made in the public mind between the hyper-regulation of everyday life and the absolute deregulation of the governing/financial classes.
The trouble though with anger as an "energy" as John Lydon called it, is that the public mood is so volatile that it can and may attach itself to the wrong thing. The righteous anger over MPs expenses for instance is laudable but I fear at times this kind of aimless rage may turn equally on other perceived to have feathered their own nests, those with public sector pensions for example. We don't as Anthony says need therapy but we do want to channel this anger into something productive for our culture as a whole.
As we find out more about how our politicians or our media class maintains power, the much vaunted notion of transparency is laughable. We have seen time and time again that internal inquires don't work whether carried out by the police into their own conduct or over the invasion of Iraq. This game is surely up.
Those currently in power are somewhat stupefied by this knowledge. Labour know they will not be in power for long. The Tories are all over the place, covering their tracks.
In terms of a civil liberties discourse, alliances need to be forged with the libertarian right. The war on terror - the excuse for so many of our losses of freedom has been shown up for what it is. But what about the war on drugs, drink, on anti-social behaviour? When senior police admit that the war on drugs has failed but politicians won't we are in strange times. Culturally, people's actual experience takes place in a parallel universe far away from the "common sense" mantras of the political class. Every extensive "expert" report on the decriminalisation of drugs has been ignored by our rulers.
Such a socially illiberal and cautious narrative is at odds with widespread recreational drug use. New technologies have produced a generation who exchange information for free bypassing all forms of top-down regulation. Popular discontent is indeed felt whenever more than one teenager is gathered together. The demonisation of youth itself is part of the politics of fear. We are now afraid of what we ourselves have reproduced.
Actual lack of freedom of movement is felt most keenly by the young who are fenced in. The issue of public space, common ground is one we need to reclaim, literally. Some campaigns around this have already started. Where can people just go and just hang out without being policed and surveyed? Without the assumption that they are going to do wrong?
The growing enthusiasm for festivals and talks and concerts, in fact collective experience of all kinds points, to the human desire to get to together, to escape the virtual world. This basic drive has almost become an anathema under New Labour. So I totally endorse the reclamation of public space. The privatisation of all civil space that we have witnessed is deeply unhealthy and promotes a false sense of lethargy. The sudden rumpus about police tactics "kettling" etc shows though that we can be stirred into action.
What I think is important reading through the list of Anthony's suggestions is that we need a pincer movement top down and bottom up. One doesn't preclude the other. The Real Change proposal for a thousand meetings feeding into a people's Convention is right for some people to get involved in.
We must assume a large amount of Independents will stand at the next election. If half of them pledge to reform parliament it's a start but we are not at a stage when any delivery can be guaranteed. It doesn't mean we don't need multiple "by any means necessary" strategies.
By the next election there will be major unemployment amongst new graduates who are in massive debt. They will be disillusioned and angry and key to demanding more of a stake in the way things are run. They surely are a resource.
In such a volatile context change can get forced through. Brown's sudden u-turn over the Iraq inquiry shows that even our great leader can be forced to respond properly if only by trying to save his own skin. We also have to be realistic about how self-serving the big institutions are in changing just enough to assuage public anger.
Many institutions are carrying on as they are. They have no shame. Goldman Sachs has bounced back. The media will protect itself over phone tapping, the politicians will tidy up the expenses scandal, and the BBC will not understand that its executives have to get out there and defend the public service ethos or give up. The banks will talk about job creation. The Tories will be torn between liberty and even more authoritarianism.
The danger is passivity which we have been cowed into by a plethora of experts in every area of our personal as well political lives. Having been sat on the naughty step for so long, not everyone feels able to take back what is rightfully theirs - our basic freedoms.
The imbalance is now tangible. We are expected to be grateful for what we are given but we will be given nothing of import. Democracy is not for others to give, it is for us to take. This is why all the main parties are lost and increasingly irrelevant.
An over-centralised state may thrive on this fragmented discontent and the isolation many feel.
The challenge set out is how to turn this loss of faith into an impetus to change, rather than a national sulkiness; how to re- enfranchise the people.
A low turnout at the next election will mean that no one can claim a mandate. We need to claim the alternative mandate and make it register.
A party, which registers those who won't vote, would interest me...it already exists in all but name.
