People Power

At the moment we cast a vote (or not) every few years - and then blame the government when things go wrong. Patently an absurd way to behave. We should rather choose a pressure group – or even join the relevant political party and get active there… Except that we are just one voice amongst millions….

Lobbyists are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in retainers to advise companies on how to   ensure that legislation reflects their master’s interests – so what hope do we, the ordinary citizen, have?    

And, indeed, what right – we might also well ask – do we have to expect to be listened to? Psychologists have been lining up in the past decade to tell us how irrational we all are!

And that includes government ministers who are notoriously so rushed off their feet as to be unable to focus on the country’s long-term interests – even if they wanted to…

At the moment, the only people who are pressing governments to take a longer - more strategic – view of things are the Extinction campaigners.  

But the idea of “deliberative democracy” has slowly been emerging – principally via the device of “Citizen Juries” structured on randomly-selected groups of citizens being presented over several days with a range of evidence which is then discussed as at a jury. The Irish Republic used citizen juries before several significant referenda on social issues in recent years – with interesting results.

Indeed pressure groups should be uniting these days to insist that municipalities (in the first instance) experiment with citizen juries – to help build up a head of steam nationally behind the concept…

It’s all very well for academics to talk about the need for governments to develop a more long-term and strategic sense. The Club of Rome is one of the most influential global thinktanks and commissioned the most famous global policy advisor of the time, Yeheziekel Dror, to produce in 2001 a book on the subject - The capacity to govern. It sank without trace.

But that is perhaps too pessimistic a note on which to end....A few years back - before Brexit and Trump -  there was quite a buzz around these ideas of more deliberative democracy and here's one book which nicely summarises that discussion - Can Democracy be Saved?  - participation, deliberation and social movements; Donatella Della Porter (2013)  

How do we get a better world?

Bulgaria goes to the polls tomorrow – a country I wrote about last autumn. A journalist friend gives a good indication of the choice here. This post wants to explore the fundamental question of why, these days, people – particularly the younger generation – should bother going to the polls? Politicians have become fair game in the new millennium – but, for those who cared to look, the warning signs about democracy were evident a long time ago. In 1977, after almost a decade of helping local community activists and of studying the new literature of community development, I wrote a critical article about the claim of the British political system to be open and pluralist  

The modern political party was designed to perform the following functions…

- recruit political leaders

- represent community grievances, demands etc.

- implement party programmes - which may or may not be consistent with those community demands.

- extend public insight - by both media coverage of inter-party conflict and intra­party dialogue - into the nature of govern­mental decision-making (such insights can, of course, either defuse or inflame grievances!)

- protect decision-makers from the temptations and uncertainties of decision­-making. 

Of these five functions, it performs only the first with any effectiveness. Community development represents almost the opposite of everything that a modern political party stands for - is a critique, that is, not just of certain operational deficien­cies of liberal democracy but of its very essence. The modern political party has itself a hierarchical structure and expects others to have the same features. Its members accept this discipline because of their belief in the greater good which, it is assumed, will materialise from the occupation by their leaders of political power and/or the implementation of a particular pro­gramme. And modern parties share, to a greater or lesser extent, a belief in the capability of modern forms of government. structure (and of industrial organisation) viz, that plans and programmes conceived in essen­tially private processes imposed on society by traditional hierarchical structures will achieve specified aims with negligible negative byproducts.

Political parties are about achievement - even if that is only the overthrow of their rivals' dogma (or their own!). They are organised to achieve something - be that power or specific changes in policy. Community development, on the other hand, is about a process. Its theory, in a sense, is one of “permanent revolution" which despite its own gentleness and emphasis on trust and sharing, has to live with the uncomfortable recognition that societies based on modern technology -whatever their form of ownership - will subject minorities to more or less subtle forms of repression and exploitation.

Of the functions listed earlier, those badly performed by local government are the representative, the programmatic and the educational: of these it is perhaps the lack of the educational that is the more serious and where certainly recent com­munity development theory and practice in Britain have performed well

A recent post charged the political class with treating the public like idiots   

 “You have, for the past few decades, made the following assumptions about your fellows –

- They need to be worked hard - but given bread and circuses

- Told what to do and measured by how well they do it

- Given a choice at elections only of those who represent an ever-circulating elite

- you therefore feel that you no longer need to bother even going through the motions of serving up promises and manifesto programmes

- the public is so stupid and so easily distracted that they will believe any of your lies

- you can do whatever you want, safe in the knowledge that you have a servile media which knows that its basic task is to keep the public entertained” 

Countries like Bulgaria and Romania came to democracy in the worst of times – when the very notion of governing was being treated with scorn in the West and “the market” was seen as the answer to everyone’s problems. I vividly remember being invited to speak at a training school in Romania for Young Politicians in the mid 1990s and finding it infested with young americans zealously teaching their counterparts how to market themselves. But absolutely nothing was said about the tasks and responsibilities of governing – let alone the moral aspects. 

Why is it that politics is the one activity – at least in the West - which has managed to resist the call for professionalization?? In China, the political class is thoroughly trained and its progress through the layers of municipalities and companies closely monitored…. 

A recent book was, hopefully, a small sign that some people at least recognise the need for new skill-sets in government. That is, of course, part of a wider argument which people like Mariana Mazzucato have been pursuing for a more positive role for government.

“50 Economics Classics” – part II

I’m impressed with this book  - one of a very useful series by Tom Butler-Bowden which actually invite you in and keep you reading. Suffering as we do these days from a surfeit of choice (what the Germans poetically call “Die Qual der Wahl”), some people will be dismissive of such a “Reader’s Digest” approach. But when time is short and we are deluged with books – this is a quite brilliant idea. Of course we can all quibble with his selection (I passed on the books on investing) - but the book covers a 200 year period and includes figures whose work challenges what I detect in the summaries as an overly pro-market enthusiasm – such as Hirschman, Klein, Marx, Ostrom, Schumacher and Veblen.

I’ve made my own comments in the penultimate column. You can find Part I here

Book/author	date	Comment on selection	Argument offered by Butler-Bowdon
“The Rise and Fall of American Growth” Robert Gordon	2016	Bit too American – the idea of limits to growth has been developed by so many people	The greatest gains in living standards have already been made
“The Use of Knowledge” Hayek	1945	A short essay which gives the basic principles of Hayek’s challenge to the notion of planning	Societies prosper when they allow decentralisation of knowledge
“Exit, Voice and Loyalty” AO Hirschman	1970	A highly original thinker – whose work deserves to be rediscovered	Consumers have many options to get what they want
“The Economy of Cities” Jane Jacobs	1968	Challenged the trend toward scale and emphasised citizen choice	Cities have always been the main drivers of wealth
“The General Theory of Employment” JM Keynes	1936	Still a bible for my generation	Governments must actively manage the economy
“The Shock Doctrine” Naomi Klein	2007		Neoliberal doctrines have been a disaster for many developing countries
“Freakonomics” Steven Levitt	2005	An early book to challenge the religion of economics	Economics is not a moral science – more a study of how incentives work
“The Big Short” Michael Lewis	2010		Modern finance was meant to minimise risk – but has actually increased it
“Bourgeois Equality” Deirdre McCloskey	2016		The world became rich thanks to an idea – entrepreneurship
“An Essay on the Principle of Population” Thomas Malthus	1798	His shadow still looms over us	The world’s finite resources can’t cope with an increasing population
“Principles of Economics” Alfred Marshall	1890	One of the last clearly-written economics books	To understand people, watch their earning. Saving and investing
“Capital” Karl Marx	1867	A work which suffers from 150 years of exegesis	The interests of labour and capital always conflict
“Stabilising an Unstable Economy” Hyman Minsky	1986	A prophet honoured largely after his death	Capitalism is inherently unstable
“Human Action” Ludwig von Mises	1949	Surprised to find him included	Economics has laws which no person, society or government can escape
“Dead Aid”	2010	people like Bauer were much greater critics – but the author is a black woman	Countries grow rich be creating industries not by addiction to aid
“Governing the Commons” Elinor Ostrom	1990	Got the author a deserved Nobel prize	To stay healthy, common resources like air, water and forests need to be managed in novel ways
“Capital in the 21st Century” Thomas Pikety	2014	The book everyone has claimed to read – and noone has!	If inequality widens, there will be social upheaval
“The Great Transformation” Karl Polanyi	1944	An unreadable classic	Markets must serve society, not the other way around
“The Competitive Advantage of Nations” Michael Porter	1990	A very bad idea	Industry clusters and competition make nations rich
“Capitalism – the unknown Ideal” Ayn Rand	1966	I preferred “The Fountainhead”	Capitalism is the most moral form of political economy
“Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” David Ricardo	1817		A free-trading world will see each nation fulfil its potential
“The Globalization Paradox” Dani Rodrik	2011	One of the most original economists	Globalisation, national self-determination and democracy – only 2 are possible
“Economics” Paul Samuelson	1948		The best-performing economies combine classical and Keynesian approaches
“Small is Beautiful” EF Schumacher	1973	A brilliant mind ahead of his time	A new economics is needed which takes more account of people than outputs
“Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” Joseph Schumpeter	1942	A powerful book which justified the notion of democracy consisting of “the circulation of the elite”	The dynamics of capitalism and its “creative destruction” is superior to other systems
“Micromotives and Macrobehaviour” Thomas Schelling	1978	Schelling was part of the war-games military complex	Individual choices produce “tipping points” – with major effects
“Poverty and Famines” Amartya Sen	1981	An important thinker but not a good writer	People starve not because there isn’t enough food but because economic circumstances change (!!)
“The Ultimate Resource” Julian Simon	1996	Economics at its most arrogant	The world will never run out of resources – because ingenuity not labour, capital or materials
“The Wealth of Nations”  Smith	1776	The moral philosopher whose basic message has been twisted out of recognition	“the wealth of a nation is its people – not its government” (!!)
“The Mystery of Capital” Hernando de Soto	2000	A favourite of right-wingers	Property rights are the basis of prosperity
“The Euro” Joseph Stiglitz	2016	Highly readable	The ideological underpinnings of a failed currency
“Misbehaving – the making of behavioural economics” Richard Taler	2015	The more presentable face of economics	How psychology has transformed economics (??)
“The theory of the leisure class” Thorstein Veblen	1899	Odd to find in the selection	The great goal of capitalist life is not to work
“The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” Max Weber	1890	Very influential book!	Culture and religion are the overlooked ingredients of economic success.

Democracy as skeleton, flesh AND blood

I have, these past few days, been fixated on the question of the future of education – triggered partly by what is apparently a famous TED video with Sir Ken Robinson about how modern schools tend to kill creativity in children - very impressive performance, with lots of laughs - so sad therefore to hear of his recent death. His books include "Creative Schools – the grassroots revolution that’s transforming our schools" (2015). 

When, however, I translate these thoughts into words, I discover that I’m writing about democracy which, of course, we know is in trouble – the masses, somehow, have broken loose and are no longer accepting what their masters are telling them. This, of course, has been a perennial fear of the elites – it has happened before and, in that sense, might have been anticipated.

But the elites are not as clever as before… so let me give them some simple advice – based on a simple adage - ”If you treat the general public as idiots, they will behave as idiots”. You have, for the past few decades, made the following assumptions about your fellows –

- They need to be worked hard - but bread and circuses will keep them happy

- Told what to do and measured by how well they do it

- Given a choice at elections only of those who represent an ever-circulating elite

- you no longer even bother going through the motions of serving up promises and manifesto programmes

- the public is so stupid and so easily distracted that they will believe any of your lies

- you can do whatever you want, safe in the knowledge that you have a servile media which knows that its basic business is to keep the public entertained

I spent more than 20 years of my life helping the establishment of new democratic systems in ex-communist countries and tried to convey a sense of what that involved in a definition which perhaps reflects the thinking of the period...... 

“The Government system in a democracy is made up of several structures or systems each of which has a distinctive role. It is this sharing of responsibilities – in a context of free and open dialogue – which ideally gives democratic systems their strength – particularly in

-   Producing and testing ideas

-   Checking the abuses of power

-   Ensuring public acceptance (legitimacy) of the political system – and the decisions which come from it”.

We used to call such a system “pluralist” – with reference to its multiple sources of power and legitimacy - but, these days, it seems that the public have become impatient with talk and favour instead action. demagogues and strongmen. This is a fundamental perversion of the spirit of democracy….and the focus in the final part of my (admittedly dated) definition on institutions is meaningless without ideas and discussion…. 

The key institutions for a democratic system are -

·       A political executive - whose members are elected and whose role is to set the policy agenda- that is develop a strategy (and make available the laws and resources) to deal with those issues which it feels need to be addressed.

·       A freely elected legislative Assembly – whose role is to ensure (i) that the merits of new legislation and policies of the political Executive are critically and openly assessed; (ii) that the performance of government and civil servants is held to account; and (iii) that, by the way these roles are performed, the public develop confidence in the workings of the political system.

·       An independent Judiciary – which ensures that the rule of Law prevails, that is to say that no-one is able to feel above the law.

·       A free media; where journalists and people can express their opinions freely and without fear.

·       A professional impartial Civil Service – whose members have been appointed and promoted by virtue of their technical ability to ensure (i) that the political Executive receives the most competent policy advice; (ii) that the decisions of the executive (approved as necessary by Parliament) are effectively implemented; and that (iii) public services are well-managed

·       The major institutions of Government - Ministries, Regional structures and various types of Agencies - should be structured, staffed and managed in a purposeful manner

·       An independent system of local self-government – whose leaders are accountable through direct elections to the local population The staff may or may not have the status of civil servants.

·       An active civil society – with a rich structure of voluntary associations – able to establish and operate without restriction. Politicians can ignore the general public for some time but, only for so long! The vitality of civil society – and of the media – creates (and withdraws) the legitimacy of political systems.

·       An independent university system – which encourages tolerance and diversity

But such bodies are merely the skeleton of democracy – conversation and discussion is its lifeblood and is built on civility and respect

Take the fundamental issue of education about which the public has become increasingly vexed as international league tables have demonstrated national weaknesses in systems which are now seen as crucial for a country’s economic success…..To whom do we – and should we - turn for advice on such things?

- Politicians – who have the authority to make changes?

- Teachers – who have the responsibility for managing the system of schooling?

- Experts – who study the workings of the system?

- Parents – who have variable degrees of responsibility, activity and expectation?

- Pupils – who have their own expectations and attitudes?

When we ask such a question, the variability of the answers is quite amazing. Each country tends to have its own pattern – with the Finnish system regularly quoted as the most successful but outlier country in which highly-trained professionals are trusted to get on with the business. Most people would probably still respond to the question with a reference to the need for collaboration - few would trust the politicians. 

And yet that is precisely the situation in which most countries have landed!

Many of my generation are still marked by the critique of schools conducted from the 1960s by the likes of Paul Goodman, Ivan Illich, Paulo Freire, RF McKenzie and even Neil Postman. In that sense Ken Robinson is part of an honourable 50 year tradition which includes psychologist Howard Gardner of Multiple Intelligences fame. And it is to this strain of thinking I would like to devote a future post.