It is rare that I find running this blog difficult. Yesterday was an exception. I definitely found some of the reactions to my post on why I still believe in democracy quite difficult.
The post itself came out of a comment from a quite experienced commentator on the blog saying they had no time for democracy any more. I presumed that they were an isolated case. It appears not. I found some of the comments posted quite shocking.
The contempt for the idea of universal representation was what shocked me most. The idea, both implicit and sometimes explicit, that those with the time or inclination to participate should end up with the greatest say reminded me of nothing less than feudalism.
The suggestion that sortition might be appropriate is, to me, indicative of the indifference of so many on the left to the condition of others, arising for so many reasons, which suggests that those differences are not an issue of concern when they should be at the epicentre of that concern; there was on display an assumption of uniformity amongst people that simply does not exist. To presume it does is arrogant and indifferent.
The use of citizens' assembles was defended by suggesting that they might shape policy, and on occasion they might, although I would suggest that the experience of politics by focus groups should make us wary. But those saying so never answered the question of who actually decides because these assemblies are simply not fit to do so, precisely because they are as likely to be unrepresentative as the worst forms of democracy but without the accountability.
But perhaps what shocked me most is the fact that I have been platforming people who do not innately believe that we are all, despite our differences - which are many and real, and which need to be respected - equal. For all its faults that is the idea implicit in democracy with a universal franchise.
Democracy is undoubtedly under threat from corporate interests, a deeply biased media, the capture of political parties, and the design failures that have resulted in two party politics.All of them need reform, but the idea that democracy might be got rid of is to me utterly unacceptable.
I believe in the equality of all people, in all their diversity. If you don't, this is not the place for you.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Well said Richard.
Equality is at the very core of democracy. If some think abandoning democracy is the answer then they are asking the wrong questions.
Well it is worrying that some people do not believe in democracy. Very worrying. We certainly need to reform the systems we have as the fail us abysmally. I have noticed those on the left who seem to think at times that some people are not fit to vote – that was apparent during and after the Brexit referendum. Rather than find out why people were in favour of leaving there were those who just thought they were stupid. A similar situation now in the USA where some people refuse to accept that the Democrats were not offering a lot to a lot of people.
Regarding citizens assemblies I have certain reservations. They have had several run by the BBC looking into various issues. Sounds fine. You get a representative group of people, provide evidence and let them discuss the evidence and come up with recommendations. But who decides who provides the evidence and what that evidence is? I am sure you could have a citizens assembly which presented with ‘evidence’ could conclude that there’s a ‘black hole’ and we need to cut spending and/or raise taxes.
We need a more democratic system and also to ensure that people are informed about issues rather than rely on ‘common sense’ or what some prominent person has said.
I found myself in a Facebook spat last week where on a group to which I contribute I rebuked someone for making scurrilous remarks about the local council, I was then accused of being in some sort of worldwide conspiracy and not being truly Cornish. I don’t mind true debate but being abusive is not the way forward.
Thanks
I may be wrong but I think Citizens Assemblies were used in Ireland to discuss and inform on the reform of abortion law in that country. It was thought to be a crucial element in allowing the law on a very divisive issue to be changed without the sort of virulence (and sometimes violence) that can follow such change.
They were, but ;et’s be clear, there was a very particular need to over-rule the power of the Catholic church. And the change was not as a result: that came from a referendum.
One argument deployed by China against ‘western democracy’ is that because there are no intervening structures between national legislatures/executives and voters, people vote on the basis of what the media, etc, conveys to them about candidates, and this automatically results in (a) politicians that are just good at media presentation – or acting – and (b) undue (billionaire or corporately-owned) media influence.
Interestingly, they defend the old labour-movement model of delegate-democracy (a local branch sends delegates to the region, which sends delegates to the national…) precisely because it takes place outside of the media, between people that actually know each other personally to some extent.
I don’t think anybody likely to be reading this would defend Chinese ‘democracy’, but I think it’s true that the way capitalism has evolved recently, weakening both large unionised workplaces and community social structures in favour of socially isolating work and media (mainstream as well as social media), while at the same time proliferating advertising and subscription based media models, which are therefore dependent on big business interests, represents an enormous challenge to meaningful democracy.
I wonder whether the Chinese would see Western democracy as a sham where the population is given the appearance of choice, but in the end, the capitalist, neoliberal party gets in regardless?
I note that in both the UK and US elections, there was no left-of-centre party available as a choice, and the only option in the UK (Corbyn) was crushed by the establishment with the help of the media.
One Chinese entrepreneur interviewed in the film ‘The Coming War with China’ noted that in the West, we vote for different parties who all want to more or less do the same thing.
In China, there is one party that has actually changed the way it does things (the Communist Party).
Thought provoking isn’t it?
Chinese society is still deeply Confucian and (small C) conservative, or gradualist. The Maoist revolution was in many ways an aberation. Even Deng Xiao Ping brought change based on ‘crossing the river feeling the stones with your feet’.
Confucianism came out of a period of exhausting wars between multiple states within what is now the Chinese heartland, as a social philosophy to bring stability and peace, through inculcating respect and deference in standard relationships. The CPC leads the PRC in a similar manner, not unlike the ancient ideal of a benevolent scholar king. Well, that’s the theory… So there’s a huge sense of ‘obligation to the people’ at all levels of society; much of which is technocratic in methodology. Maybe the Overton Window is applicable in some way? That’s to say, there are choices and arguments to be made (and exercised through different Party factions, government and Party research institutes etc) but they are arguments for and against different policies, methods and their expected outcomes; never against the overall system of government.
There’s also a saying: “The sky is high, the emperor is far away.” Meaning that those who disagree with central dictats may simply ignore or dilute them; and hardly get found out, before the policy (or the emperor) changes. It works less well nowadays, I suspect, with high-speed travel and digitisation and data on everything.
I think I want a system with a much wider Overton Window! And greater equality of voice and agency.
Equality, Liberty and Justice.
People need to be aware of priviledge and empathy.
Just to say that I appreciate all that you do and please don’t lose heart with this blog.
Publishing comments directly opposed to your own is of course an expression of democracy.
It also eats into my time and energy . Neither are infinite.
“Fund”??? should in not be “Find” this blog????
Corrected…
Didnt realise so many here were against democracy – talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Our democracy certainly isnt working – but it should be cleaned up – get the money out, get the cronyism and corruption out, clean up the media.
Not easy – but better than the alternatives
Making a better democracy – The Nolan principles are worth reading … and adopting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life
Thanks
(In response to Geejay yesterday)
Looking over these comments, I can only conclude that the subject of democracy is in as bad a state as economics. I don’t believe in this democracy – I want something better and I am prepared to accept a little less ‘contemporary’ democracy to get a better one in the future, one that turns the tables on the surreptitious table turning I’ve seen over the years and gives these people a taste of their own medicine.
Richard is absolutely right about participatory politics – I’ve seen tenants in the social housing sector ran into the ground through exhaustion – unpaid – because of the demands on their time; I’ve seen corruption in representative bodies; I’ve seen tenant reps used to legitimise bad policy ideas that tenants do not want and even seen tenants hold back new policies and ideas and want to sustain their status or based on personal bias.
The tenants not involved often distrust those that are – for the reasons stated above.
One theme that also crops up and Richard also brings up is education. Community development budgets in some places are more likely spent on local authority staff than developing skills in the community. But you mention Pablo Friere’s ideas to many community policy strategists and they poo their pants. But is that is because they have a mainstream media all too ready to harry them if they mistakes?
So there has been lots of participation over the years but what has it got us, what did it result in?
Well, in my view it’s been used – cynically by a Thatcherite Treasury ever since Compulsory Competitive Tendering that turned it into Best Value – to manage the reduction in budgets and services over the years, to reduce down services, pay lower wages and ended up – wait for it – with Cameron’s Big Society idea and the Localism Act. And how prepared were communities for that level involvement – running the local library ? It was just another cynical ploy to help capital hoover up common wheal assets.
What we have now is national politicians who seem allied to the continued retrenchment of the state, who want to be sales persons for the market which will reward them handsomely for NOT being representatives of the people who are scared and exhausted trying to get services that the politicians want to wash their hands of because of lies and received wisdom about money and funding.
You only have to look at that and ask yourself where are we going with democracy? The use of the private sector disrupts the punishment/reward relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Because someone who has been appointed to their post and not voted in in an election now has a significant say in things. That someone is a CEO, and the others are called shareholders and THEIR needs are put first by corporate law as I understand it. And that is NOT democracy at all. It needs a reset.
BTW – I do indeed start early on here sometimes because I am in the process of going to work, a work place that has been denuded of money, and resources by exactly the same cynical processes I describe above.
Thanks PSR
You get it
Perhaps I am wrong but the impression I get from the advocates of techniques such as sortition (selection by lottery) and citizens assemblies (deliberation by unelected bodies) is that these would be adjuncts to the usual democratic process, as a way of seeking to widen participation. Most proponents would not replace the usual elections with universal suffrage, I think.
I don’t know if there have been any experiments to use sortition as part of the democratic political process in recent times (the usual example is Ancient Greece, alongside their direct democracy with a very limited franchise, but for example we randomly select the people on juries that decide criminal cases). But there is some recent practical experience of citizens assemblies, for example in Ireland.
I agree, many would not seek to replace the existing system
Some were suggesting we should though
Hence my comments
I believe a central component of a citizens’ assembly is not the assembling but the studying and discussion of materials and commentary provided by experts – hopefully experts with some range of views. Apart from whatever is delivered as an outcome, a byproduct is a set of better-informed participants who may pass on considered views to others who did not take part … views that take account of the complexity of problems and accommodate lots of grey and downgrade black and white.
That would be useful
If a variety of evidence was called
My comment at https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/11/09/why-democracy/#comment-993324 was aimed primarily at those advocating participatory systems, who seemed to neither understand nor care about those who are unable to “participate”. You are right to challenge them.
Here in Bristol, as the Greens take power, there is a real danger that the uncaring arrogant control of the sold-out Labour right, will be replaced by poorly informed well educated middle class activists from a more privileged demographic, who may not give proper consideration to how things like transport or housing policy affect a variety of people in my neighbourhood whose life experience is beyond the comprehension of the vocal activists who now have their hands on the local levers of power.
When I attend activist gatherings, I don’t see people like my neighbours there (and I attend fewer of those now, because of my wife’s mobility issues, and my reluctance to use the car especially at night, so I am now partially excluded too).
You rightly asked me if I am complaining about the lack of champions- and I said, Yes.
You are such a champion.
I want to see people who are asking, “Who is my neighbour? Who doesn’t have a voice round here (or even, far away, like in a tropical rain forest or S Asian river delta, or dismantling my electronic waste in the Far East, or assembling my smart phone in a Chinese prison, or getting blown up in Gaza or Sudan)? Who is not being listened to? How can I find out about their needs? How can they be included, and how can their lives become better? How can I challenge those who have power in this or that system? If we advocate a revolution, who will be the victims of the resultant violence?”
Sometimes the powerful who need challenging are insensitive activists with a limited understanding of the challenges faced by my neighbours, but they have the megaphone, they know how to get the grants and play the “progressive politics” game. So they can become the new masters.
If you or I stand up and say, “Hang on a moment, but what about this group here? How will our proposals affect them? – that doesn’t make me a reactionary. It means I’m caring for my neighbour. That’s one of the strengths of people at the bottom the pile, all over the world, they know how to share the little they have. They may not be able to quote political philosophers, but they are, nevertheless, the salt of the earth.
Keep going Richard, and keep doing the main thing. The money. Remember Coca Cola? “I’d like to teach the world to sing…” about how money works.
“We can’t afford it!” they winge.
YES, WE CAN!
Enjoy the marshes, the sun is coming out today after a week of “anticyclonic gloom”. Yippee!
You totally get my point
Thank you
I look at it all as a triangle, with three components, all important.
First (Government/politicians).
Second (People/voters).
Third (Facts/evidence).
For democracy to improve people’s lives, there has to be two-way communication between each of these components.
The Government must base its policies on (Facts/Evidence) but it must also explain them to (People/voters).
(People/voters) should expect to be heard by (Government/politicians) but this brings with it a responsibility to consider (Facts/evidence) and evaluate what they are told in a sea of disinformation.
As well as changing over time, (Facts/evidence) need to remember political reality, to look at people’s real needs, and explain clearly why information is false.
(This would all be better as a chart.)
Some years ago I did some theorising around this
We added a fourth element – the environment
It never got as far as publication
… The Government must base its policies on (Facts/Evidence) but it must also explain them to (People/voters) …
And give explanations for informed adults rather than children – Explanations that include accounts of the competing forces that must be balanced in implementing policy.
“Democracy” what does this means nationally, regionally, locally.
The last 14 years have seen local democracy (local gov) evicerated ref funding – so you Mrs Miggins might want better day care, & you might have voted for it (locally) but central gov – he say “No”. Likewise with education & the gradual removal of (local) democratic control over this. Centralisation rules OK! & perhaps that is part of the problem – people have lost faith because the bits of democracy that are in their face – local government – has lost money and thus power. Thus rather than a “you are either for or against democracy” perhaps a more nuanced “what should be the power balance – between national – regional – local governments” and who holds the purse strings. Obvs, discussions are needed about lobbying, gov-industry relations etc etc.
Good argument
Yes, a healthy democracy needs to be healthy at all levels.
Twenty years ago I went to Denmark with a group of English teachers.
One older Danish lady talked to us about the local control of schools and the local commune or council meeting. She pointed to a series of seats above the chamber (like the Common’s gallery)
‘When i was young -so the 1960s-lots of people came to watch. Now no one comes,’ she said.
With zoom and other technological tools we could do better. The central powers have the power because, in large part we have let them take it.
But OTOH blogs like this could not have existed 30 years ago. All is not lost.
Mike Parr rightly references the quite brutal financial situation facing local councils, with increased responsibilities thrown in their direction, and their financial resources being reduced, leading in six cases so far, to the issue Section 14 notices ie: go bankrupt namely Northampton, Slough, Croydon, Thurrock, Woking, Birmingham City and Nottingham City. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41264965 Local democracy has suffered serious damage in those council areas, and there are more councils in the Section 14 pipeline. Isn’t it ironic that central government, which CAN’T run out of money is making worse the situation of local councils that CAN run out of money and are doing so right now.
We CAN afford to do something about this.
One factor that I have direct experience of, is the third (voluntary) sector, which for some time has been attempting to imperfectly plug some of the gaps left as both central and local government have withdrawn from providing various essential services. My particular experience came from 20 years leading a local church, founding a local community charity and the last five of those years helping start and then manage an independent foodbank in a wealthy south west market town (a hint on demographics – our main source of foodbank supplies was Waitrose!). Both the community operations were multi–church based and inclusive, and we co-ordinated with other third sector groups involved in housing, and family work (SureStart, latterly Barnados).
I now live, by choice, in a very different area in retirement, a seriously deprived community in S Bristol and I relate more to individuals than to institutions but I have my ear to the ground, and volunteer for a national housing support charity, again, with a Christian base.
What is happening now, which I think will definitely have a harmful impact on people’s attitudes to democracy, both national and local, is that the third/voluntary sector is beginning to seriously creak at the seams in terms of the material resources they can access to help people who have effectively been abandoned by the state. This week I saw news that a significant voluntary organisation in our ward, providing employment support to unemployed youngsters, has suspended activities pending investigation by the Charity Commission. Given that councils have been going bankrupt, the fact that voluntary organisations are seriously feeling the pinch should not be a surprise. Jacob Rees-Mogg may arrogantly pretend to find foodbanks “uplifting” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41264965 , former Tory minister Brooks Newmark may have ignorantly recommended charities go back to their knitting https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/03/charities-knitting-politics-brook-newmark but we are NOW at a stage where services once provided by local authorities or the central state, but currently provided by third sector volunteers, will quite simply CEASE. The foodbank shelves will be empty. The hospices will no longer be able to care for the terminally ill, the charity shops will close, the pre-loved clothes white goods and furniture will end up in landfill instead of being offered for resale, the housing workers will no longer be there to assist the homeless, the drug and addiction charities will no longer be supporting addicts, and the shelters will no longer be open in church halls in the winter for the growing numbers of street homeless. This will create anger, fear, resentment, despair and real ongoing suffering and death. It will increase the likelihood of civil disorder and the far right are actively working to foment such disorder. Government appear to be inexcusably ignorant of the scale of this problem, and astonishingly complacent about where years of deliberate callous political choices have taken us. When third sector organisations of all types have tried to warn them, government has actively taken steps, through public bullying and threats, and very dubious charity-gagging legislation timed just before elections, to shut us up (the successful appeals against such gagging usually take place AFTER the election is over!). https://bylinetimes.com/2023/09/29/how-campaigners-and-charities-are-being-gagged-by-government-as-report-issues-stark-warning/ Government is keen to produce repressive legislation to silence protest, & limit demonstrations, but remains deaf to well informed, data-driven pleas to address the REAL problems, related to drastic under resourcing, and exponentially increasing inequality and injustice. Politicians from the Single Transferable Party (STP) dishonestly, irresponsibly, culpably claim that we “can’t afford it”, they invent mythical “black holes”, they can’t even do basic arithmetic (eg: Winter Fuel Payment) let alone basic real-world economics.
But we CAN afford to do something about this.
Civil disorder probably won’t trouble the Home Counties but it will occur again in the poorer areas of our cities and our northern town. Growing poverty is on the point of breaking many of our local communities apart. Democracy will suffer as a result because local people will no longer tolerate the platitudes offered to them by mainstream politicians and are susceptible to the lies of the far right. I am in regular contact with neighbours who are listening to the far right, not because they are ignorant racist bigots, but because their perceived grievances appear to be listened to by the far right but ignored by the STP. I listen hard to what they say, and I rigorously avoid criticising them or scoffing at them. I don’t want to abolish or restrict democracy, I want to protect it, but it will take more than a Maginot line of centrist rhetoric or anti-fascist banners, to stop the extremists sending their troops in to our most deprived communities.
We CAN afford to do something about this.
The third sector is amazing, the amount of plant, and manpower hours that they provide is incredible (and largely unacknowledged by government) but their material resources ARE finite. Like the late Dot Cotton, “it’s me faith wot keeps me going” (and I include all faiths in that comment, because they are ALL doing amazing things with very little). Government CAN create money (but WON’T), churches and charities CAN’T even when they WANT to, and eventually even the miraculous resources of the “widow’s mite” come to an end, the twelfth basked of left-over loaves and fishes is consumed, and there is no room at the inn. Some of us have got to the stage where turning over the metaphorical tables of the money changers is a viable and attractive option – and promoting MMT (in our neighbourhoods, and on our omnibuses) seems a good way of doing it,
We CAN afford to do something about this.
Several third sector groups have recently begun to loudly articulate their dissatisfaction with their role as “sticking plaster”/first aid, and insist that instead of being congratulated on their selfless service, politicians should be ready to hear their criticisms about government’s failures, about structural injustice, unacceptable oppression, and falsehoods perpetrated by government and “opposition” politicians. Foodbanks would desperately like to go out of business because they have run out of clients, not because they have run out of food or volunteers.
We CAN afford to do something about this.
Democracy isn’t a theory, it isn’t a subject in a politics course, it isn’t a bibliography or or even a social science laboratory. it’s a fragile gift to EVERY SINGLE member of our society, including to all those who think differently or live differently to me, and it has developed, painfully, and imperfectly over centuries. But it is being damaged, by dishonesty, by greed, by corruption, by intellectual arrogance, by selfishness and by ignorance, particularly about money, and it is my neighbours who are suffering and will suffer even worse consequences in the years to come. Once people understand MONEY, they have a much greater chance of realising who is lying to them and why and they can start to exercise their informed democratic rights against those who are oppressing them.
We CAN afford to do something about this.
I like the style of your message
I like your message
I like the passion in your message
well said Richard. I too was shocked at some comments. Arrogance, yes, and a disregard for another’s views.
The immediate question is how to stop the further erosion of democracy in the UK and continued destruction of the role of the UK state.
We are not allowed to protest without the real possibility of prison.
The populace cannot rely upon Labour to do anything constructive. Labour seems intent on continuing the Tory policy of dismantling the NHS, education and so on.
The UK urgently needs a written, well protected, constitution to represent all groups and
integral nations. Perhaps we need to form a federal system to achieve this?
In my experience the majority want a job, a home, decent education and a future for their children.
At the moment that is not on the cards.
How do we destroy neoliberal economics? Ridicule? Rational debate does not work.
Perhaps we need to look at the Chartists, Suffragettes for examples of how to achieve change?
You hit the basics – and that is the place to start
The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. The predicament you outline, Richard is our failure of vigilance. Faith in democracy too easily lapses into a lazy, whiggish, complacent sense of inevitable progress. We assume that battle is won and does not require defence or explanation. It is all an illusion. Democrats are always at a disadvantage, because its opponents have few restraints, and fewer self-restraints. The failure is ours; a failure of understanding, a failure to face challenges, a failure to convince, and most of all a failure to face-up to democracy’s inability to resist the seduction of bad actors, or fall before the insidious inducements of corruption, of one kind or another. This thread is an illustration rather of how little thought has been applied to developing democracy since WWII to strengthen the trust of people in its efficacy. I have said before; fewer people vote in general elections at all. Politicians are simply not trusted. That is: democratic politicians who are not trusted, across the board. This has been a developing alienation from politics, over decades. I am not shocked or surprised, but I at least I know that must be part of the failure.
The need to defend democracy is eternal; and the defence is not won by blame or exclusion.
Thanks John
Much to agree with
Citizens Assemblies *are* democratic, as the assembly is chosen by sortition from the general population, weighted for different representative groups. First Past The Post representation is also democratic.
The point is, we need to have *more* and *better* democracy (eg Citizens Assemblies for the Nature & Climate Emergency and proportional representation for voting), and Citizens Assemblies are a very useful approach for specific questions.
Sorry
Sortition is a massive imposition that would be deeply to expect many to partake in
And, as asked earlier, who decides what the question is, who chooses who is chosen to give evidence, and who then decides on the advice given? It’s at best a consultation process that is made much more onerous than is necessary. It would be better to give grants to those wanting to submit.
I disagree with you, as I do on first past the post
Why is it, in your view, a massive imposition?
Read this thread.
I have explained several times already.
But in essence, if you can’t work out how intensely disruptive this will be for sine, or demanding in ways likely to be harmful for others, you really should not be proposing anything until you have learned to look at the world from other’s perspectives.
> Sortition is a massive imposition
Definitely, people need to be reimbursed, as they are for jury service.
> who decides what the question is, who chooses who is chosen to give evidence, and who then decides on the advice given?
The democratically elected government — Citizen Assemblies could play a vital *additional* role, a House of the People rather than a House of Lords for example!
The democracy we have now certainly isn’t working very well, skewed massively in favour of corporate interests.
(btw, I wasn’t clear about FPTP, I meant it’s a voting system that could be massively improved upon).
For heaven’s sake, understand I was not just talking about money. Understand people. Many of them would have no wish to be involved in this. Many of them would also find it staggeringly stressful. Why don’t you care?
John Fairhall is spot on about needing a written constitution and federal UK. I have written a book to this end, complete with first-draft constitution. But guess what? The mainstream media will not touch it. They are afraid of damaging their reliance on “sources” or otherwise being blackballed for challenging the status quo.
UK democracy has evolved to a dead end. Constitutional changes that limit power are quietly reversed in a few years. Those that enhance power become entrenched. The establishment has a lot to do with this, because functionaries never want change. Until the people demand change, we are stuck with the present failing system.
I live in Switzerland, and it is noticeable how little poverty there is compared to the UK. Ditto employment and skills – the Swiss have a brilliant apprenticeship system, and most cantons teach four languages in their schools. It’s also noticeable how little dissent there is, few strikes, some demonstrations, but the people are involved with their democracy.
What I find most offensive about the UK is abuse of State power. The State gives itself too much power and treats citizens with contempt. “Citizen” is itself a misnomer because technically we are the “subjects” of Charles but in reality Brits are serfs to an over-powerful elite. The whole concept of giving a party absolute power needs to be swept away.
I am a trained facilitator for Scott Peck’s Community Building workshops. He once wrote a book called A World Waiting To Be Born, which described Community Building as the foundation of a new politics. That’s when I founded Humanity, a political party for which I have stood for Parliament on three occasions and may well do again next time around.
Community Building offers a process by which people meet together and clear out as much as they can that gets in the way of their being able to be in community with each other. Scott Peck tried it out in many different settings and found it highly successful as a precursor to decision-making, which, in my book, needs to be consensual and not majority/minority based.
I favour participatory democracy at every level, seeking to remove all obstacles to people being able to hear and listen and express freely, with the intention of inclusively attending to everyone’s real needs, which can only be arrived at by exhaustively allowing people to express and be heard.
It’s a massive task to transform the way in which we communicate with each other and the way in which we arrive at decisions we can live with, and, for me, it starts with me, then me and my partner, then us and our neighbours and broadening the community as and how we ate able.
I am promoting a consensual meeting of those seeking a world in which people come before profit, who wish to present an alternative to Labour. From here, it looks like an almost impossible task, and it’s absolutely necessary if the human race is to survive!
Keep up the good work Richard! …
I’m sorry – but people really do not want to spend their lives in meetings
Seeking consensus is wonderful. Quakers in principle love doing it. Most quakers will never go to business meetings to achieve it. I deal with that reality. What you suggest is completely undeliverable. Sorry, but that’s a fact.
I’ve been trained in congregational mediation by Mennonites and done secular mediation in the field, with a local charity. It sounds similar to what you are talking about, forgive me if that’s a wrong assumption. I agree with you as to its powerful benefits but it is incredibly time consuming, and to be effective requires the pre-existing enthusiastic consent of the participants. Likewise, the sort of peacemaking that brought hope in S Africa and Northern Ireland.
But a tool for general use on the electorate at large as a part of our political system? Taking hours of sceptical people’s time? Requiring so many people to be trained in its use? Succeeding in being truly inclusive? I can’t see it being practical.
Agreed
Constitutional reform, a written constitution, a proper Bill of Rights…
All necessary; but also: education, education, education (to coin a phrase!) – education IN democracy, ‘civics’, the ideas of equality, citizenship, community, representative politics…
Are these anywhere to be found in our schools? Do many voters have much idea about them? Or are they merely at the mercy of one or other voice shouting soundbites and slogans?
Some suggest ‘democracy’ should be expanded to 16 or 17 year-olds – arguing that they’ll make choices based on a longer-term perspective, since they have a longer future. But heaven help us if they don’t understand what they’re doing: like sheep without a shepherd, with the wolves circling. Or right amongst us, as now seems to be the case.
I question Citizens’ Assemblies- for the reasons Richard gave about the questions and information but also because who decides how the sortition is sorted out- weighted etc.?
Interesting comments; but it seems to me that a key aspect is not getting much attention, and that is ‘Small is beautiful’.
Democracy is destroyed by centralised power. It has to operate primarily on a human scale, a local level. Humans are but one species among many, we are social animals and we function best in relatively small groups. Human society is really a sort of ecosystem, and ecosystems are by nature interconnected relationships that cannot be centrally controlled.
In the US, ‘democracy’ as currently understood means the dictatorship of 75,145,618 voters over 71,884,039 opponents and of course all those who voted for other candidates or saw no point in voting at all. The fact that they had no real choices or information to guide them is not really relevant.
When faced with an election in the UK or US, many people feel despair. It seems that however they vote it will make no difference. However, in Iceland (population, just under 400,000) people can feel actively involved. And able to take some responsibility for themselves and their neighbours.
So the first requirement is decentralisation.
Second, here in the UK, democracy and government itself has been bought and sold by the super-rich. Everything now depends on their ‘philanthropy’, so public services are shut down and privatised leaving us all utterly dependent on their largesse. Those who theoretically represent constituents cannot do so. They represent political parties rather than people; and the party machine keeps them in line, to please the party donors. We need to insist on voting for independent MPs, councillors etc, or at least those who will commit to putting constituents before party. And we need a genuinely independent judiciary and access to the law for all. A National Legal Service, free at the point of use. The oligarchs who pay for the present Orwellian sham set political agendas and hate the very idea of any dissent from their perceived self interest. More and more wealth and power are centralised in their hands, and for the rest of us, well, ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy’. (Except we won’t; and actually, nor will they). But the more we can be impoverished and set to fight each other, the more we (supposedly) become dependent on them to protect and provide for us. But the less we feel that anyone cares about us, the less we are likely to care about anyone else either. Disempowerment leads to aggression, despair, mental illness, vandalism, terrorism, fascism. The only way to counter that is by sharing power as widely as possible. That has to happen at local level. It also means reversing privatisation – not back to big monolithic state industrial giants but to local democratic accountability.
Of course we must have democracy but it has to be real and empowering – in other words based on an interlocking network of small economies rather than one centrally directed, global one. John Major used to talk about ‘subsidiarity’. The reason Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries have relatively successful democracies is because they are relatively decentralised. Modern ecology has moved on. ‘Survival of the fittest’ no longer means the survival of the most reckless and ruthless at the expense of others. A real democracy means ‘power with’, mutual aid, rather than ‘power over’ – our present system of coercion and corruption. It is perfectly possible. We just have to demand it and stop being so fearful.
Another thing that is essential for democracy to work is openness. Conflicts of interest have to be made visible. In particular we cannot continue to have secret societies operating like a sort of mafia. Anyone holding public office must be required to declare all affiliations and memberships.
Finally, ‘sortition’. The jury system is a good one, tried and tested. I agree that not everyone wants to sit on a jury but it does value and respect the jurors and encourage them to consider a social responsibility to others and to justice. To work I think it has to be genuinely random, without any pre-selection at all. There would need to be measures in place to ensure that people could serve without hardship. And again, it surely works best in a relatively local context: I used to favour replacing the House of Lords with one based on sortition but I am more inclined these days to abolish Westminster altogether and have separate sovereign parliaments for England, Scotland and Wales (and then further devolution from there). But I think a system based on sortition running in parallel to a representative democracy might provide a useful check on elected representatives.
Another person totally willing to imagine others feels as they do, and fancies being called by situation without imagining that for many this would be a nightmare.
Why are you so inventive to the reality of many people’s lives? What sort of arrogance permits you to make demands of others that many would find almost impossible to manage for a massive range of reasons?