Wresting the political from the technocrats

The  blog’s masthead carries some quotations which hopefully give readers a sense of the sort of material which will hit them (on the top right – just move the cursor down a bit to the end of the list of titles). This is one of the quotes -

We've spent half a century arguing over management methods. If there are solutions to our confusions over government, they lie in democratic not management processes.

JR Saul

John Ralston Saul is a true original – one of the very few who has chosen to carve out his own life of choice, In 1992 he published a blast of a book called “Voltaire’s Bastards – the Dictatorship of Reason in the West” - which I found at the time simply one of the most brilliant books of the decade. It went on to receive this friendly review which puts the issues in a wider context and turned out to be the first of a series of four books in which he has explored what he identifies as six “human qualities” - of which “reason” is only one.

18 years later, when I started my blog, his words were still in my mind and used for the first-ever masthead quote. I chose the quote, I suppose, because of a certain ambivalence about my own managerial roles.

Feeling the Tension?

For the first 20 years of my adult life, I had been a (fairly scholastic) politician - for the next 20 years an apolitical adviser. It’s perhaps only in the past decade that I’ve been able to go back to being truly “my own man”. In 1973 or so – based on my experience of working with community groups and trying to reform a small municipal bureaucracy – I had written a pamphlet called “From Corporate Management to Community action” (sadly no longer available) which reflected my disillusionment with the technocratic fashions of the time.

A few years later I drew on my reading of the previous decade’s literature (UK and US) about urban politics and community power to challenge (in what is, I grant you, a rather long and academic article entitled Community Development – its political and administrative challenge)  the validity of the “pluralist” assumptions underpinning our democratic practices.

The article looked at how community grievances found voice and power and were subsequently dealt with by political and administrative processes.

I wasn’t a Marxist but the sort of questions I was raising seem now to indicate a greater debt to that sort of analysis than I was perhaps aware of then, I wasn’t just saying that life chances were unevenly distributed – I was also arguing that, from an early age, those in poor circumstances develop lower expectations and inclination to challenge systems of authority. And the readiness of those systems to respond was also skewed because of things like the “old boy network”.

The piece explored the functions which political parties were supposed to perform under pluralist theory – and found them seriously wanting. 

The Technocracy of New Labour

The issue of inequality and poverty was, of course, an important one for the Labour government which came to power 20 years later - particularly one with Gordon Brown in charge of the nation's finances

A Social Exclusion Unit was quickly established in the Cabinet Office as an indication of the seriousness with which this “scourge” would be dealt with. 

But, despite the talk about “community” this was a centralising strategy with a vengeance. The Treasury became a giant machine for minute tweaking of socio-economic processes across the board. PSA (public service agreements setting targets for Departments) were infamous for their detail and optimistic assumptions about the link between technical means and social outcomes. But it showed little understanding of the literature on the perversity of social interventions.

New Labour had 13 years in which to make an impact and first assessments were on the cool side. A more detailed assessment can be found here.

My particular interest is in the “community power” aspect – where it took New Labour some time to move – with a Social Enterprise Unit being set up only in 2002

Scotland has a high profile in the social enterprise world – as evident in this 2014 report

The Big Society Con

When David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010 he launched the Big Society idea.

It was quite something for a Conservative Prime Minister to commit his government to deal with poverty and inequality (I think Bill Clinton called it “triangulation”).

He actually quoted from the Wilkinson and Picket book which strongly argues that healthy societies are equal ones. Having proven (to at least his own satisfaction) that big government (spending) has not dealt with the problem of poverty, Cameron then suggests that the main reason for this is the neglect of the moral dimension, refers to various community enterprises, entrepreneurs and goes on –

Our alternative to big government is not no government - some reheated version of ideological laissez-faire. Nor is it just smarter government. Because we believe that a strong society will solve our problems more effectively than big government has or ever will, we want the state to act as an instrument for helping to create a strong society. Our alternative to big government is the big society.

But we understand that the big society is not just going to spring to life on its own: we need strong and concerted government action to make it happen. We need to use the state to remake society.

The first step is to redistribute power and control from the central state and its agencies to individuals and local communities. That way, we can create the opportunity for people to take responsibility. This is absolutely in line with the spirit of the age - the post-bureaucratic age. In commerce, the Professor of Technological Innovation at MIT, Eric von Hippel, has shown how individuals and small companies, flexible and able to take advantage of technologies and information once only available to major multinational corporations, are responding with the innovations that best suit the needs of consumers.

This year's Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Elinor Ostrom, has shown through her life's work how non- state collective action is more effective than centralised state solutions in solving community problems.

Our plans for decentralisation are based on a simple human insight: if you give people more responsibility, they behave more responsibly.

So we will take power from the central state and give it to individuals where possible - as with our school reforms that will put power directly in the hands of parents.

Where it doesn't make sense to give power directly to individuals, for example where there is a function that is collective in nature, then we will transfer power to neighbourhoods. So our new Local Housing Trusts will enable communities to come together, agree on the number and type of homes they want, and provide themselves with permission to expand and lead that development.

Where neighbourhood empowerment is not practical we will redistribute power to the lowest possible tier of government, and the removal of bureaucratic controls on councils will enable them to offer local people whatever services they want, in whatever way they want, with new mayors in our big cities acting as a focus for civic pride and responsibility.

This decentralisation of power from the central to the local will not just increase responsibility, it will lead to innovation, as people have the freedom to try new approaches to solving social problems, and the freedom to copy what works elsewhere.

Of course one can make various criticisms – one of the best is in a TUC blog.

It is sad that I never found Blair or Brown singing a song like this – despite some of the important steps they took to encourage social enterprise and community banking.

Conclusion

My intention had been to write about an article being hyped as “the new practice of public problem-solving” – but got sidetracked instead by these memories. Treat this post as the necessary context which is completely missing from the article which my next post will hopefully address…

A JR Saul Resource

On Equilibrium – six qualities of the New Humanism (2004)

A Doubter’s Companion – a Dictionary of aggressive common-sense; John Ralston Saul (1994)

A review of a Doubter’s Companion; Brothers Judd is a great website I had forgotten about

Power versus the public good – a 1996 lecture

Rethinking Development – Bhutan address 2007

He was interviewed on this great website when a new edition of "Voltaire’s Bastards" came out in 2013.

Full Proceedings of the Bhutan Conference can be read here.

A Transylvanian Dawn – and Victor Orban

I woke early, with streaks in the black. night sky hinting of dawn but in the chill of a mountain house in a village 1400 metres high - with the snow still glowing thick on the two mountain ranges which lie south and north of the house.

I spent a few hours updating an old post on the intellectual disputes of the last century which now lead off the draft book which has occupied me these past couple of weeks – but aware that an article on “the new practice of public problem-solving” awaits my attention. 

It’s by a couple of Americans who presented it recently in Berlin but, worthwhile as it is, it completely fails to recognize that it reflects a “community-control” model which many of us were struggling to put into practice in the 1970s.

And it raises the fundamental question of how exactly the insights and experience so many of us had in those heady days were so easily and quickly trashed by the managerialism which took over our minds in the 1980s.    

I will get round to that post eventually but got distracted by this superb interview by the infamous French journalist celebre - BHL - with Victor Orban – which reminds me of Oriana Fallaci at her best

Because I am preoccupied with memories and am reluctant to ask Orbán right at the start how a former anti-totalitarian militant discovered conservatism and ultranationalism on his way to Damascus (or rather Moscow), or how the recipient of a Soros grant was able to make his former mentor public enemy No. 1 (with Soros’s caricature plastered all over the streets of the capital a while back), and because I did not wish to begin with the mystery of a true dissident who somehow relearned the Stalinist technique of retrospective reinvention of biographies (in this case, it is his own memory that he is purging), I begin benignly with a polite question, simply to buy myself a little time to let everything settle in.

“Why did you choose this monastery? Why such an austere site?”

But his response is curiously intense and sets the conversation in motion.

“Because my old offices were in the Parliament building down the hill on the other side of the Danube, and that wasn’t good from the point of view of the separation of powers.”

He would have been more truthful had he said, Because I wanted to dominate this town, which is the only part of the country that is still resisting me.

But no.

The inventor of illiberalism, the man who uses democracy to torpedo democracy, the autocrat constantly engaged in gagging the Hungarian Parliament, bringing judges to heel, and controlling the media, tells me baldly that he left his former offices out of concern for democratic processes.

I let it go.

I have no idea, at the moment, how much time he is going to give me.

I have no idea that Hungary’s free press is going to observe, the next morning, that I spent with him, in the course of an afternoon, more time than they, collectively, have spent with him in nine years of demotatorship—a term I use to mean a democratic dictatorship. So I prefer to push on.

“You have become the leader, in Europe, of the illiberal strain of demotatorship—”

The term illiberal seems to take him aback.

“Let me stop you there. Because we should agree on our terms. What is the reality? Liberalism gave rise to political correctness—that is, to a form of totalitarianism, which is the opposite of democracy. That’s why I believe that illiberalism restores true freedom, true democracy.”

This time, I feel obliged to tell him how specious I find this line of reasoning.

The last straight?

What I’m hoping is the last stretch for the book proved more arduous than I thought – particularly checking that the 50 mini-essays which form its core actually hang together and give some sort of narrative. These mini-essays were originally drafted as blog posts in the last 5-6 years but have been updated and edited for this book. That’s 50 out of 1,350 posts over the past ten years – so they survived a tough selection process which was based on intuition rather than explicit criteria.

And they are grouped into six Parts (or chapters) whose titles, I hope, are self-explanatory.

”Ways of Seeing” uses the title of John Berger’s seminal book of the 1970s to highlight what seemed to be the main subjects of controversy and debate (at least in America/Europe) from the 1930s - decade by decade. From the 1980s there was a tendency to reduce debate to a few competing “storylines” – reflecting the post-modernist “discursive turn” of the times.

As someone who studied Politics and Economics at Adam Smith’s old University (Glasgow) it is hardly surprising that political analysis should then put in an appearance at this point – ahead of the economics analysis which is the focus of Chapter 3 (“Putting Economics in its Place”).

In the 1960s, politics was an honourable pursuit and the reasons for its dramatic decline in respect is explored in a detailed consideration of one of the few books which has bothered to try to understand this loss of trust. The growth of technocracy is clearly one of the factors as managers and economists have been elevated to the status of high priests of a new religion…..

“Not in Our Name” plots the growth in the past 25 years of social protest and moral disgust.

“Putting Economics in its Place” maps how writers of various sorts have tried to make sense of the post-war world – not least the 2008 global economic crisis – noting that economists somehow seem least able to offer satisfactory explanations…

“Our Exploitative Society”, chapter 4, starts with a reminder that western societies are built on carbon exploitation – and then looks at how some of the key books since 2008 have mapped the efforts these societies have made to cope with the new realities

“Other Ways” contains various essays about social movements and the solidarity economy

Chapter 6, “Changing the World”, return to the moral and political aspects – asking whether the “western model” can survive and how it will all end. It finishes by reviewing the literature on power and change

I’m now experimenting with Dropbox – so the current draft should be accessible here

Welcome Romania

Fascinating that I had 662 hits from Romania yesterday – was that because the post about Seton-Watson mentioned his work from 1910 supporting the downtrodden ethnic groups in the Austro-Hungarian Empire – particularly the Romanians, Serbs, Czechs and Slovaks??

Or was it simply the mention that he had, a century ago, been made an Honorary citizen of Cluj?

Or something to do with the EU Summit this week in Sibiu?

It would be nice to have some feedback…Sometimes I feel a bit lonely….

And assiduous readers of the blog should know that last month’s post on Salad Days was updated today with an important little reading list about depression – which includes at least two full book downloads…..

Scotus Viator

Robert Seton-Watson was a Scot who, in the early part of the 20th century, helped shape central Europe – in the very literal sense that his active journalism contributed to the boundary changes which took place as the Ottoman Empire fell apart. Serbia, Czechoslovakia and Romania were the countries whose struggles for removal of the Hungarian yoke received his warm support.

His articles were penned under the pseudonym Scotus Viator – “the travelling Scot”. I remember coming across an old book (with his writings about Romania) in the British Council library here in Bucharest in the early 90s and would love to find it again

As a Scot who has been living for the past decade in this part of the world, I think he really does deserve to be better remembered. In these days of faceless bureaucrats, he was a wonderful example of what individual effort could achieve. His life would make a fascinating film. I am indebted to Wikipedia for the following info.

Seton-Watson was born in London in 1879 to well-off Scottish parents. His father had been a tea-merchant in Calcutta, and his mother, Elizabeth Lindsay Seton, was the daughter of a genealogist and historian who had been the son of George Seton of the East India Company. His inherited wealth, of Indian origin, later assisted his activities on behalf of Europe's subject peoples.
Robert was educated at Winchester public school and New College, Oxford, where he read modern history, graduating with a first-class degree in 1901 and then studied at the Universities of Berlin, Sorbonne and Vienna from where he wrote a number of articles on Hungary for The Spectator.

His research for these articles took him to Hungary in 1906, and his discoveries there turned his sympathies against Hungary and in favour of then subjected Slovaks, Romanians and southern Slavs. In 1908, he published his first major work - ”Racial Problems in Hungary”

Seton-Watson became friends with the Vienna correspondent of The Times, Henry Wickham Steed and the Czech philosopher and politician Tomáš Masaryk. He argued in books and articles for a federal solution to the problems of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then riven by the tensions between its ancient dynastic model and the forces of ethnic nationalism. 
After the outbreak of the First WW, Seton-Watson took practical steps to support the causes that he had formerly supported merely in print.
He served as honorary secretary of the Serbian Relief Fund from 1914 and supported and found employment for his friend Masaryk after the latter fled to England to escape arrest.
Both founded and published “The New Europe” (1916), a weekly periodical to promote the cause of the Czechs and other subject peoples. Seton-Watson financed this periodical himself.

Seton-Watson's private political activity was not appreciated in all quarters, and his critics within the British government finally succeeded in temporarily silencing him in 1917 by drafting him into the Royal Army Medical Corps, where he was given the job of scrubbing hospital floors.
Others, however, rescued him, and from 1917 to 1918 he served on the Intelligence Bureau of the War Cabinet in the Enemy Propaganda Department, where he was responsible for British propaganda to the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He assisted in the preparations for the Rome Congress of subject Habsburg peoples, held in April 1918.

Following the end of the War, Seton-Watson attended the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 in a private capacity, advising the representatives there of formerly subject peoples. Although on bad terms with the governments of the major powers, whom he famously referred to as "the pygmies of Paris", he contributed to discussions of where the new frontiers of Europe should be and was especially influential in setting the postwar frontiers between Italy and the new state of Yugoslavia.
Although the British Government was unenthusiastic about Seton-Watson, other governments were not, showing their gratitude after the conference. Masaryk became the first president of the new state of Czechoslovakia and welcomed him there. His friendship with Edvard Beneš, now Czechoslovakia's foreign minister, was consolidated. Seton-Watson was made an honorary citizen of Cluj in Transylvania, which had been incorporated into Romania despite the claims of Hungary and, in 1920, it was formally acclaimed by the Romanian parliament. Yugoslavia rewarded him with an honorary degree from the University of Zagreb.

He died at the age of 72 in Nov 1951 on the island of Skye. His 2 sons also became well-known historians - Hugh and Christopher – and wrote, in tribute to their father’s memory, “The Making of a new Europe – RSW and the last years of Austro Hungary” (1981)

A Seton Watson resource

Seton-Watson and Nation-Building – clashes in late Habsburg space;

British radicals and Hungary in late 19th century;

Hungarian responses to RWS;

Beyond Balkanism – the scholarly politics of region-making Diana Mishkova (2018)

RW Seton-Watson and the Romanians 1906-1920; Cornelia Bodea and Hugh Seton-Watson (Editura Sciintifica and Encycilopeca 1988)

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/86/5/1118/121726?redirectedFrom=fulltext

British liberals and the Balkans;

articles and books written by Seton-Watson

This site actually contains quite a few examples of his original journalism

The Southern Slav Question; RWS (1911)

The Rise of nationality in the Balkans; RWS (1918)

A History of the Roumanians (1934)

Notes on a Western Crisis

I have known for a long time about the importance of taking a critical approach to one’s own writing - of reading it back as if I was a reader. This helps me not only to find easier ways to say what I mean but also to identify imprecisions and ambiguities…

And whenever I notice that the argument in a text of mine has moved on, whether to another aspect of the same theme or to a new theme, I will tend to mark that change by starting a new paragraph (at the very least) or by inserting a heading – no matter how small. This makes the text easier to read….

But it is the tables I started to use in the blog a year or so ago which are now proving to a powerful tool in the editing the book which I have been trying to finish for the past 20 years…To the extent that I now realise that the focus of the book is not quite what I thought it was.

Initially the book carried the title “Ways of Seeing…the global Crisis” but, some years ago, that changed to “Dispatches to the Future Generation” to convey first the fact that it was structured from blogposts (like “letters”); and, second, the sense that it was the giving of one generation’s account of its “stewardship” of the world (or lack of it) to the next generation (my daughters’)

But, as far as I was concerned, the core of the book was its commentary on the various books written about the global economic crisis…

In the past week, however, I have been adding various posts from the archives which, intuitively, seemed appropriate eg the recent series on the UK power structure, old ones about political roles (which had identified four very distinctive group loyalties or “constituencies” between whom politicians generally have to choose); thinking institutionally; and a conservative philosopher’s musings on the New Left. These, patently, had nothing to do with economics and yet my unconscious clearly saw them as significant. They joined some other commentaries already in the draft which had more to do with social values; and also a significant one about intellectual timelines….And means that the draft has broken through the 200 page barrier..

I was already aware that my draft said very little about the ecological crisis (surely, I argued, it’s all been said?) but that, equally, it focused very much on the reactions of the privileged world. So I am now experimenting with the title “Notes on a Western Crisis”

Six Questions about the new draft

The book has now expanded to 140 pages – each of which seems to have half a dozen hyperlinks. That makes almost 1000 of them. The book still needs a proper conclusion – but can be accessed in its current state here. It's been constructed from the notes I have made over the years  as I tried to make sense of what “experts” were saying in the hundreds (indeed thousands) of books which have deluged us about “the crisis”. Your eyes may glaze over when you come across some of the lists which appear from time to time - so let me anticipate some of your questions….

1.   Why should we read it? After all, you’re the guy who said we needed to ration non-fiction books!

And that’s precisely why I have taken so long to write this damned thing…..at least 10 years. When I wrote that post, I offered the reader some tests to apply to any new non-fiction book. These included explaining what was distinctive about it; annotated reading lists; typologies showing the variety of perspectives the field offers; and visuals and other material to make the text less boring

2.   If you’re so critical of economists, who do you mention so many Economics books?

The majority of well-written books about the global crisis are actually not written by economists! There’s a table in this section (page 46 or thereabouts) which gives examples of the key books about the global crisis in 9 other disciplines apart from economics

3.   OK but why inflict so many titles on us?

Three reasons – First, anyone who wants to be taken seriously in discussions needs to be aware of some of the key names and titles in “the literature” – even if you only flick a few pages to get a sense of their style

People, secondly, differ in their tastes – and I’ve tried to structure the lists by various categories to allow you to find what suits you…For example, p43 gives you access to 8 introductory books which are great reads in themselves….

I would agree, finally, that academics are too good at throwing bibliographies at us. Indeed they overwhelm us with them – whether in footnotes, brackets or end-pages. It’s almost a virility test with them. I get very frustrated with this – since all these lists do is to flaunt their superiority – they don’t actually tell us anything interesting about each book. And that’s why I decided to try not just to list the more interesting of the books – but to add a few notes to give readers a sense of whether it was their sort of book..

4.   Surely neoliberalism has been discredited?

You would think that, as the deregulation which was its hallmark blew up in our faces, this would have led to a rethink but as Colin Crouch first showed in 2011 (and Philip Mirowski in 2013) the doctrine of commercialising anything that moves has actually strengthened. Most people are still scratching their heads to try to understand how this happened and why it seems so difficult to put an alternative agenda together…

5.   Why can’t progressives unite around an agreed agenda for change?

There are a lot of egos at stake! But also so many different perspectives. And it is a notorious fact of history that progressive forces tend to fight one another more than “the enemy”. Understand that, and we will be half way to achieving consensus

6.   Why should I trust anything you say?

If this is the first time you have come across my material, this is precisely the question you need to pose..The only answer I can give is that you will see from the blog I have had for 10 years that I try to keep an open mind on issues – painfully aware of the legitimacy of the different ways of seeing things

"A Pluralist “Reader’s Digest” Guide to the Global Crisis"??

One of the great features of British newspapers – apart from the cartoons – used to be the “Parliamentary Sketch”. 

Television cameras were allowed to show the proceedings of the British House of Commons only from Nov 1989 – prior to which a rather special sort of journalist attempted (from the early 19^th century) to put some flesh and bones on the rather dry reporting of political news.

You might have thought that the arrival of a dedicated television channel would have killed the parliamentary sketcher’s occupation but, instead, it gave it an enormous boost.

Simon Hoggart was The Guardian’s man in the place for 20 years until his sad, early death in 2014 – but his words live on in his collection House of Fun (2012) which I picked up recently in my second-hand bookshop in the Bucharest centre. Each entry is about 2 pages – and is a real gem as you can see from some of the excerpts given when you click the title…And John Crace has given the art of the parliamentary sketch a real edge in the past few years…..

I suddenly realized that my “Dispatches” book has the same structure – even if it’s missing a bit of the humour! A short entry – focusing on an idea or book rather than a politician – which can be dipped into almost at random…….although I have tried to give it a certain logic…..

And that led, in turn, to another of these dangerous, creative leaps….My book can perhaps be seen as a thoughtful “Reader’s Digest” Guide to the global crisis.

My generation is a bit sniffy about the Reader’s Digest – and its ideological purity is indeed questionable….But its original instinct is not all that different from that of Allen Lane who brought us the Penguins in the 1930s……

So what do you think? Should I stick with my “Dispatches……” title – or call the book “A (pluralist) Reader’s Digest Guide to the Global Crisis”?