The so-called "summit of democracies" had passed me by until a friend alerted me a few days ago - although I see that Brankovic is not impressed. I argued earlier this year that the US no longer deserves to be considered a democracy - so it's a bit cheeky of them (to put it mildly) to dare to offer a lead such as this.... But it does take me back to an important post in may which argued that –
- few (if any) societies can any longer claim
to be democratic
- we need, very loudly, to be exposing such claims
to be the falsehoods they are
- a better vision of democracy needs to
be articulated
- pressure groups should coalesce around the demand
for citizen
juries – initially at a municipal level to demonstrate their benefits
- political parties no longer serve any useful
purpose
- we should be insisting that governments
start focusing on the big issues - which governments currently seem
incapable of even attempting to deal with
- using citizen juries
- governments, in other words, should govern
That same post went on to argue that, between 1950
and 1980, we had an effective and balanced system in which each type of power –
economic (companies/banks etc), political (citizens and workers) and
legal/admin/military (the state) – balanced the other. None was dominant.
Deindustrialisation, however, destroyed that balance – more specifically the power which working class people had been able to exercise in that period through votes and unions has been undermined. In its place a thought system developed - justifying corporate greed and the privileging (through tax breaks and favourable legislation) of the large international company.
· All political
parties and most media have been captured by that thought system which now
rules the world
· People have, as
a result, become cynical and apathetic
· Privatisation
is a disaster – inflicting costs on the public and transferring wealth to the
few
· Two elements of
the “balanced system” (Political and legal power) are now supine before the
third (corporate and media power). The balance is broken and the dominant power
ruthless in its exploitation of its new freedom
· It is very
difficult to see a “countervailing power” which would make these corporate elites
pull back from the disasters they are inflicting on us
· Social protest
is marginalized - not least by the combination of the media and an Orwellian
“security state” ready to act against “dissidence”
· But the beliefs
which lie at the dark heart of the neo-liberal project need more detailed
exposure
· as well as its
continued efforts to undermine what little is left of state power
· We need to be
willing to express more vehemently the arguments against privatisation -
existing and proposed
· to feel less ashamed about arguing for “the commons” and for things like cooperatives and social enterprise (inasmuch as such endeavours are allowed)
But
the elite - and the media which services their interests - noticed something was wrong only when Brexit and Trump triumphed – in
2016. But that was simply the point at which the dam broke – the pressure had
been building up for much longer.
If
we really want to understand what is going on we have to go much further back –
not just to the beginning of the new millennium when the first waves of populist
anger started - but to the 1970s when the post-war consensus started to crumble –
as Anthony Barnett, for one, most recently argued in his extended essay “Out
of the Belly of Hell” (2020)
The demos have been giving the Elites a clear warning – “your social model sucks”. We may not like some aspects of what the crowd is saying – for example the need for border restrictions….but we ignore its message at our peril. So far I don’t see a very credible Elite response. Indeed, the response so far reminds me of nothing less than that of the clever Romans who gave the world Bread and Circuses. Governments throughout the world have a common way of dealing with serious problems – it starts with denial, moves on to sacrificial lambs, official inquiries and bringing in the clowns - and finishes with “panem et circenses”
But the post was too cynical. It failed to offer a way
out. And for more than a decade, people in different parts of the world have
been working on what is various called “deliberative democracy” or citizen
juries to give inspiring examples of that way out. I hinted at this
in an April post and indeed gave quite a few examples of other tools
determined governments could use - if they actually wanted
to develop their capacity. But that’s a bit like asking turkeys to vote for
an early Christmas!
Let
me therefore make amends with two shortish articles which offer the best introduction
to developments in this field - first
this and then the second
part here
And, if that whets your appetite, I would
recommend this short book Democratic
innovations – designing institutions for citizen participation;
by someone who was the research director of the
famous UK Power inquiry of
2004
Update; Milanovic argues in this piece that the summit was a bad idea. I agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment