It’s a few days old, but Tom Bentley wrote in The Guardian You can’t impose democracy from above
[...] democracy in Britain is in crisis [...] we need to understand that the idea that genuine democracy can be advanced simply by creating more formal rights, more freedoms, more procedural rules, is fundamentally misguided [...] compare this to Lewisham Listens, an internet based consultation programme for young people run by a London borough [...] We should be looking, not at the formal institutional structure but more at the informal spread of relationships, conversations and ideas. The technology and the organisational structure make it possible, but they are not the democracy [...] These new processes of interaction do not achieve change unless they are connected to the use of power; that is why formal politics continues to matter. But it is the connections between institutional function and everyday behaviour that generate the potential for change, not the properties of the institutions themselves
November 11th, 2002 at 22:10
Battles for democracy I think historically have come out of a quest for justice, out of connection and belief in what can be better. It seems that the Labour party members have not sustained a connection with people in the areas where life is not good, easy or fair.
In areas where there is struggle within society – as grass roots protest, such as Anti-Globalisation campaigns, the authority never takes up the contribution and energy contained. The parties simply enforce mainstream and status quo mediocrity, so that large sections of the population move into conflict with it.
For instance, within the education system, whilst the literacy hour, numeracy hour, and the national curriculum and assessments may have value, the methods of implementing them are traditional: control, conformity, obedience – kids arent encouraged to be empowered or to question. Some kids probably find the culture of individualism very hard to cope with, where everyone has to look our for himself or herself. With the emphasis seemingly upon enforcing law and order, rathen than nurturing it, where classes of kids can be described when badly behaved as ‘bastards’ by adults, then there’s a breakdown of communication. In terms of facilities: neither the teachers or kids have provisions they need in some instances: the plastic open-tables for student centred learning seem lacking in providing any privacy, storage space, or an area over which a kid has control and ownership. Where the majority of a playground is used of a playground is used for a concrete football pitch, it has been shown it can harbour bullying, as those who cannot join in are marginalised and have no alternatives. Removing the ability of a teacher to act from their own judgement to enforce discipline my encourage the practice of over control, because any disorder cannot be effectively dealt with, without fear of disciplinary action against themselves.
I think education is an example of an institution people have strong views about, yet we are told there are answers without being convinced this is the case. In the Reith lectures on Radio 4, Onora O’Neill talks about the goal of change being to lessen the culture of suspicion, which a ‘revolution in accountability’ has not reduced. A politically inactive population, being nonplussed by ‘abstract institutional design’ as Tom Bentley calls it, could therefore be indicative of an increase in mistrust.
November 11th, 2002 at 22:35
I think you may be right about a politically inactive population being indicative of an increase in mistrust. For me another likely reason is one you also touched on – the learned inability to think for ourselves and have authentically human conversations in a societal context.
December 21st, 2002 at 21:55
To prove the point, I am wondering how one knows if one thinks for onself ? Is it by going against the grain ? or by living a philosophical argument ? How to confront situations that need changing without alienating the people involved ?
What do you mean by ‘authentic conversations in a societal context ? Is an authentic conversation – honest ? genuine ? emotional ?
I heard it said that to be spiritual meant to have the right to make up ones own mind what one believes. I think that to think for oneself can be alarming, because it can be so far from what is accepted thinking. For instance, if one starts from the premise that to use a gun against another person is a betrayal of human dignity and respect. Or if one accepts that every human being has a deep curiosity and questioning ability into the life about them.
The papers print that a child dies from abuse – because everyone is scared to act. It is sad that a system set up to assist, can let so many people down. I am sure those who work for the social services also feel let down. How can a system like that be ‘authentic ‘ ?