Left debates "big society", evades democracy
I&R ~ GB
*iniref* <http://www.iniref.org/>
24 September 2010 - 5:19pm
Now the Tories have conceded that after all there might be such a thing
as society perhaps a trans-ideological and cross-party discussion about
politics can ensue.
Several components of the newly advertised Con-LibDem philosophy
currently appear to be seen as worthy of debate on the left, e.g. big
society, mutualism, social networks. Glaringly omitted by the
representatives of the left are the Con-LibDem promises concerning
democracy.
"Big society" is vague and can be debated endlessly. More practical and
pressing are matter of everyday politics and public problem solving, in
local and central governance, not forgetting some overdue reforms of
state constitution. For improved problem-solving, as well as enhancing
the culture of politics, better democracy is essential.
Anger about politicians, lack of trust in public institutions and low
election turnout especially among young people have in recent decades
caused deep concern to government and to independent expert observers.
This assessment is backed up by a large body of research and spelled out
in several government and think-tank reports. It is officially assumed
that a sense of involvement and other effects resulting from increased
and improved participation of citizens in public affairs will help to
reduce indifference and antipathy to politicians and to increase trust
in government.
During its long period of rule the Labour Party did very little to
increase the involvement of people in public decision-making. There were
some Labour voices in favour of more genuine and effective democracy,
for instance from the Communities ministry, but on this issue as on
others the Party was split. The Ministry of Justice was resistant to
change, a prominent figure in constitutional matters Jack Straw is
arch-conservative. As a sop to the reformers Gordon Brown when Prime
Minister introduced deliberative citizens’ juries for selected matters
of state but did nothing worthy of note to strengthen participative
democracy.
For some years now, avant garde (?) groups in the Tory party and David
Cameron have publicly floated some progressive ideas about citizens and
democracy. Many of these ideas appear in Con-Libdem proposals and
promised legislation. A sample follows below. A question which poses
itself in response to these proposals is, to what extent does this
government intend to allow citizens to take over aspects of public
decision-making? At iniref we are sceptical, see comment
<http://www.iniref.org/conlibdem.html>.
Coalition proposals and promised legislation concerning democracy, 2010,
include:
1) For the “local” level there is a proposal to introduce the citizens’
proposition (“initiative”) and referendum, which can be started by a
minimum of one in twenty voters.
2) The coalition states, “We will give residents the power to veto
excessive council tax increases.”
3) The new government has announced a referendum plan for village
housing schemes with a ‘Community Right to Build’. Overwhelming support
for a housing scheme must be shown in the referendum, with a hurdle of
80 or 90 percent approval.
Proposals “2″ and “3″ have already evoked heated comment by local
authority representatives and interest groups, reported in news media,
including BBC.
4) There is a clear commitment to “The Recall”, albeit in a watered down
form. Coalition: “We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a
power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is
found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition
calling for a by-election signed by l0% of his or her constituents.”
5) There is the promised referendum about electoral system with which
the right of the electorate to decide constitutional matters is
implicitly acknowledged. Coalition: “We will bring forward a Referendum
Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction
of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the
referendum, …”
6) Obligatory referendum promised on Europe (no such guarantee in sight
for constitutional change at home): Coalition: “We will amend the 1972
European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that
transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a
referendum on that treaty – a ‘referendum lock’.”
7) Even at the national-level there’s a hint of direct democracy.
Coalition: “We will ensure that any petition that secures 100,000
signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament. The
petition with the most signatures will enable members of the public to
table a bill eligible to be voted on in Parliament.”
Separately all of these proposals are weak and mainly unsatisfactory for
democrats. Together they show a small but seismic shift in reform potential.
More <http://iniref.wordpress.com/>
------------------------------
*The above is a reply to:
The Challenge of the Big Society
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/challenge-of-big-society>,
Anthony Barnett, 20 September 2010
"Now Labour finds that Cameron has more than thrown off the (....)
branding of Thatcher's 'There is no such thing as Society'. He has moved
the Tory party and the Coalition government into the heart of the UK's
communities in a 'bottom up' approach aimed at empowering the poor and
marginalised.
So to start OurKingdom's investigation of the challenge of the Big
Society, Niki Seth-Smith has approached people and institutions on the
left to question them on how they see it. Today, we publish Sundar
Katwala of the Fabians, tomorrow Neal Lawson of Compass, and on
Wednesday Will Straw of Left Foot Forward in the build up to Labour's
Party Conference."
-------------------