Sean Creighton

Summary

There is a growing debate on the state of democracy in Britain. At various times I have written notes on aspects of democracy, and the debate about democratic renewal. The following are some of those pieces.

 

Democracy

Problems with Power
October 2004

The Guardian (8 October) published a letter by me in response to an article by Michael Meacher (Bring power back under control, October 6). I point out that the unaccountable power wielded by arms' length agencies, quangos and regulators has created the 'New Corruption’. The letter has been edited. The following bit has been left out after 'radicals fought against': 'in their campaigns for Parliamentary reform and the extension of the suffrage. Except our 'New Corruption' can be described as Orwellian.' The letter can be seen on: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/comment/0,9236,1322624,00.html

Reflections on the Contemporary British Political Scene
August 2004

British democracy appears to be in crisis: contempt for politicians, disengagement from the political process, low level of participation in elections. A wide range of arguments are put to explain this: political and media spin, hypocritical personal behaviours of politicians (sleeze), the perceived failure of local and central government to deliver on their promises in a way that people can see beneficially affects their lives, or riding rough-shod over widely held concerns. The anti-democratic British National Party has been able to obtain short-term electoral advantage, boosted by anti-asylum seeker and refugee rhetoric from leading mainstream politicians.

Low election turnouts are not a new phenomenon. The Holborn Conservatives bemoaned it when in 1937 six Labour Councillors were elected for the first time. This anecdote is a reminder that achieving high levels of local electoral participation has to be worked at. Where local political parties take their vote for granted, and/or do not work to convince people to vote, then turnouts remain low. If political parties reduce their own internal democracy and alienate members, they will not have enough people to make the face to face contact with electors that is an essential part of sustaining a culture of electoral and democratic involvement.

The Government considers that local government reform will reinvigorate democracy. It is debatable whether the implementation of its largely technical proposals will do so. Government policies about putting people at the heart of decision making are seen as empty rhetoric, as it continues to exert heavy central control over spending programmes such as New Deal for Communities and Neighbourhood Renewal, or imposes unpopular decisions like the expansion of Heathrow airport. While it recognises that regenerating deprived communities will take 15-20 years, it is impatient for results. It does not give people and organisations a chance to obtain results before forcing another set of reforms. The consensus about local regeneration and community well-being that might be achievable through Community Strategies and Local Strategic Partnerships could result in electors thinking that there is no need to vote, because voting for a particular political party is not going to radically alter the consensus.

Devolution in Scotland and Wales has not solved the problem of disengagement. The proposed devolution for English regions seems dubious in terms of any potential claimed for it for improving democratic engagement. No wonder it has been rejected in the referendums. What might begin to make a difference and enable people to engage is to require the establishment of neighbourhood governance structures or reduce the size of local authorities.

Electors cannot be criticised for thinking that voting is irrelevant when so many decisions seem to be out of the hands of elected politicians: the requirements of the European Community, the power of multi-nationals, and the devolution at arms-length of so many services to regulators and other unelected bodies. Nor can they be criticised for thinking that politicians often get too involved in issues largely irrelevant to the majority of people, like fox-hunting. The cautious approach to House of Lords reform reinforces this by missing the opportunity to develop a new equal relationship between the four nations, and a new approach to UK wide governance.

The roots of the current crisis have been growing slowly over a number of decades. As the population sizes of Parliamentary constituencies and local authority wards have grown, it becomes more and more difficult for people to have regular personal contact with their MPs and councillors. The cumulative decline of engagement in democratically controlled organisations, like friendly societies, co-operatives and trade unions, has eroded people’s experience of democratic representation and participation. This is underpinned by a popular lack of historic understanding of the struggle to build democracy and the consequences of not rigorously defending and promoting democratic participation. The strength of evolving British democracy lay in mass involvement in its practice and in debates about its theory through mutual associations.

Commercially driven ‘consumerism’ makes people only think of themselves, and reject collective solutions. This has been reinforced by Governments seeing people as ‘consumers’, not as ‘citizens’ with a right to services, and by many mutuals downgrading democratic engagement.

Popular engagement in politics has had its historic ebbs and flows. It is difficult to tell whether we are in an ebb from which we can recover, or are spiralling downwards to an extent that it will be difficult to recover support for both representative and participatory democracy.

British historical experience suggests that the challenge of reversing political disengagement and strengthening both representative and participatory democracy cannot be left just to politicians. Democracy was built from below, and will need to be re-built from below. There will be an important role in this for practical organisation of a new 'associationism’. There is considerable scope for this within local communities linked to opportunities available through the Government agendas, even though these might be only short term. Networking and alliance building will be crucial.

All advances on the road to democracy were pioneered by people with a minority perspective, whether political radicals or motivated by faith. Such groups need to be nurtured and funded to play their role in creative questioning and suggesting new solutions and approaches.

Reform of the House of Lords

My views on the reform of the House of Lords can be seen in the form of a letter in the Independent Labour Publications (ILP) magazine ‘Democratic Socialism’ on http://www.democraticsocialist.org.uk/ns28lords.html

Democracy by any other name…?
May 2002 – in bassac communities in action newsletter

Power of the people is the essence of the Ancient Greek words demos (the many, the people) and kratos (rule by the people or the power of the people). Of course the democracy of ancient Greece was limited. It excluded women and the slaves.

Britain’s representative Parliamentary democratic system based on one-person one-vote has taken centuries to build based. The widening of the suffrage to include the majority of ‘the people’ had to be fought for (e.g. the Levellers, Peterloo Massacre, Chartists, Suffragettes). The process was not finally complete until 1948 with the abolition of the University constituencies and the business premises qualification.

Four strands of thought

Through these struggles there have been four main polarities in debate about the nature of ‘democracy’ is: direct democracy, indirect democracy, democratic elitism, and social democracy.

Direct/Participatory Democracy

• The direct and continuous participation of citizens in the tasks of government.
• Citizens discuss and vote on each issue.
• Requires high level of citizen knowledge.
• Problem: difficult to undertake in large populations

Indirect/Representative Democracy (Liberal Democracy)

• Citizens elect representatives.
• Voting methods vary: e.g. first past the post; 50%+1, proportional representation.
• Problems: an illusion of participation, limited range of candidates, manipulation of opinion
• Degree of protection from arbitrary government
• Element of popular consent

Democratic Elitism

• Power effectively resides in elites or oligarchies, or state organisations.
• Political equality and electoral competition are largely a sham.
• Electoral competition creates a political market with parties competing or votes.

Social Democracy/Democratic Centralism

• Marxist concept that genuine democracy is dependent on social equality which capitalism prevents. First British Marxist political party: the Social Democratic Federation (1884 onwards)
• Concept changed to be associated with the Labour Party (1930s) and then the Social Democratic Party (1980s onwards – now part of Liberal Democrats)
• One strand of Marxist organisation (via Lenin) conceived idea of ‘democratic centralism’. In its ideal form involved participatory debate and decision making, and then total support once decisions had been made.

In practice democracy means that different aspects of each polarity can operate at the same time/ For example:

• Juries are a form of direct participation.
• National and local referenda are a form of direct/participatory democracy in representative democratic systems.
• The parliamentary and local authority Party Whip systems are a form of democratic centralism.

Alongside ballot box electoral representation through Parliament and local government every three to five years, mutual and self-help collective organisations - friendly, loan, building, co-operative and trade union societies – helped to frame other aspects of British democracy. This democracy involved the election of officers and their accountability back to the members at quarterly and later annual meetings. They also developed skills in running organisations that were transferred into local government as wider suffrage led to activists being elected. British democracy gained its strength from mass involvement - in its practice and in debates about its theory.

“I am a great believer in demonstrating the efficiency of democracy, and this combination of efficiency with democratic control is vitally important just now.”
– Ernest Bevin discussing the relationship between trade union officers and lay members at the Transport & General Workers Union General Executive Council, 30 November 1936)

Missing out on joining in

Decreasing electoral turnouts suggest a growing crisis for British democracy. This is not just linked to disillusion with political parties, and the weaknesses of local government. It is also partly the decline in mass democratic participation in organisations. Home Secretary David Blunkett links these together in his book ‘Politics and Progress. Renewing Democracy and Civil Society’ (Politico’s Publishing, 2001).

‘And those who care about the consequences of increased hopelessness, alienation and indifference must unite to find new ways to rebuilding neighbourhood and community, democratic participation and political interest.’

British historic experience suggests that this cannot be left to politicians, but has to be re-built from below.

Democracy – at the core of our work
Why issues of democracy are at the heat of the work of bassac members May 2002 – in bassac communities in action newsletter

‘Oh come on! Why is bassac wasting time looking at issues of devolution and democracy? It is not relevant to our work.’ Despite this response, as an organisation that aims to end social exclusion and improvement community engagement in the decisions that affect them, issues of democracy are at the core of bassac’s work.

The operation of democracy may be flawed. There any be considerable room for improvement. But local democratic disengagement is not just down to what central and local government, political parties and the media have been doing since the mid-1970s. It is also down to all those - the voluntary and community activists – who have spent large amounts of energy slagging off local Councillors, local officials and local authorities, MPs and Government.

Yes the changing democratic environment is difficult to understand, especially with the a degree of devolution of power from Central Government:

• Cabinet Government and directly elected Mayors
• Local Strategic Partnerships
• Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
• London’s Mayor and the Greater London Assembly
• Regional Chambers, Regional Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies

We may want to but we cannot ignore the way the democratic structures are being re-shaped.

They affect the policies being pursued and the resources available to us as service deliverers and community development agents.

Fostering engagement

Bassac members already indirectly foster democratic engagement in many ways.
• We bring people into contact with each other educing social isolation
• We help build personal, neighbourhood and group connections and understanding about issues of concern
• We support the creation and running of organisations and campaigns that seek to meet emerging needs, that are not yet being addressed by local and central government
• We work through networks and in partnerships, sitting round the table seeking to influence the decisions being made by local government
• We are self-appointed voices, claiming to articulate the voices of people in the neighbourhoods in which we work

Do we fundamentally differ from the aspirations of local government as articulated by the Local Government Association. If we so, why?

Aspirations for Local Government (LGA)

• Give all children the educational opportunities and support they deserve
• Help and encourage young people to learn, obtain jobs and be involved in the community
• Support families and older people as key members of stable communities
• Tackle the particular needs of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods
• Build prosperous, pleasant, healthy and safe communities
• Tailor public services to meet the different needs and aspirations of different area
• Support the local council improvement agenda

From Opportunity to prosper. A new agenda for local communities. LGA 2000

Large numbers of people are not as disengaged as politicians and the media might think. During Local Democracy Week 2001, a survey for the Local Government Association found that significant numbers of people have an interest in local democracy and government.

Local Democracy Week Poll – October 2001

• 72% think it is important that the local councils keep local people informed about what they are doing
• 58% either strongly agree or agree that they would prefer to be involved in decisions affecting their local areas
• 58% of people either strongly agree or agree that local elections are an important way to express views about the performance of local councils
• ]52% know a great amount or a fair amount about their local council

Source: Local Government Association

Strengthening interest

As organisations that claim to be multi-purpose and holistic mainly working at neighbourhood or local authority level, there is a lot more we can be doing to strengthen that interest in democratic civic engagement and accountability.

As advocates for the neighbourhoods in which we work it is logical to argue and campaign for neighbourhood decentralisation, taking advantage of the option for area committees under the Local Government Act 2000(Part II, Section 18).

Potential activities

• Advocate neighbourhood forums
• Provide briefing, training and other support to people taking part in neighbourhood forums (e.g. Time & Talents for Canada Wharf)
• Undertake voter registration
• Contact households not on draft electoral registers
• Offer to be an election polling station
• Keep in touch with any plans to introduce electronic voting, so that people can vote electronically at your building
• Produce a guide on how the local Council works, and how to influence it
• Run informal learning opportunities that help explain how local government works, and how people can engage with it
• Provide space for Councillor and MP surgeries (e.g. Cardigan Centre & Burley Lodge)
• Run a community newspaper (g. Planet Easton)
• Take part in the Community Empowerment Fund Community Networks (e.g. Katherine Low Settlement)
• Act as a venue for the posting of planning applications and run sessions about them with residents affected
• Provide activities that celebrate community and democratic history
• Run local election meetings at which residents can question candidates
• Host report back meetings for local councillors
• Raise issues of concern with the members of the Council Scrutiny Committee
• Get to know the Leader or the elected Mayor and the Executive Councillors

Page created December 2006