THE POLITICS OF ANGER – WITH A FRENCH TWIST

In the French presidentials, the establishment candidates were dismissed in the first round. But here, for reasons difficult to explain, there had been a political realignment giving voters who wanted to reject the establishment a centrist alternative to go to. We have perhaps thought that the politics of anger must find its outlet on the extreme right or extreme left, but that may not necessarily be the case. France is showing the way – who would have thought?

There are two dimensions to the politics of anger. One goes to the substance of public policy. There is a failure to respond to the pressures of modern capitalism with a credible agenda of fairness and social justice. Economic progress trickles up but not down, resulting in a landscape of affluence on one side and public poverty and exclusion on the other side.

The other dimension goes to the way politics is made. Citizens are able to vote but otherwise feel, or many of them do, that they have no say in public affairs, that they are not involved and not invited to be involved.

For now, we have no good answer to the challenge of social justice. Following the economic crisis of the 1930s and World War II, advanced democracies invented welfare states that were effective as a civilising influence on industrial capitalism. Now we need a similar civilising influence on post-industrial capitalism, but that is yet to be forthcoming. In Britain, for example, where the Labour Party was the leading force in the welfare state revolution, that movement is now without ability to confront the fact of a very different capitalist order.

To the question of how politics is made, however, we probably do have an answer. The reason many citizens feel excluded from influence, is that they are excluded from influence. “Populism” is hardy a wave of irrational anger, but a reasoned reaction to the gulf of distance that separates “them” up there and “us” down here. The way to respond to “populism,” then, is not by blaming angry citizens for not understanding their own good but by rebuilding structures of policy-making for less distance.

Democracies with decentralised governance are more successful than centralised ones in terms of cohesion between political leaderships and citizenry. It is easy to understand why. When public policy is made in a balanced way between central and local decision-making, citizens have more opportunities for involvement, and for involvement in matters that are near and relevant to them. If you are on the losing side in national elections, for example, that is not the end of the line for you. There are still real and meaningful local arenas to be involved in.

The age of deference is over and citizens expect to be taken seriously and to be involved in public matters. The more governance is centralised, the more citizens have no other way of “participating” than by airing anger in demonstrations, protests, manifestations and the like. Hence we get the paradox that many young people in particular are involved and ready to spend time marching, but cannot bother to vote.

Much of the answer to the how-politics-is-made dimension in the politics of anger, I am suggesting, lies in local government, local democracy and a setting of real local authority and responsibility. In trying to understand matters such as democratic culture, it is generally advisable to assume that people are as they are and good enough and to look to how they are treated. If citizens have arenas of meaningful involvement, we can expect social peace. If all that is available to them is to respond to removed and centralised governance, there is no involvement within reach and no other “participation” than in the venting of anger.

An optimistic reading of the French situation, one week ahead of the final round of the presidentials, is that the new centrist force is responding to both challenges of populism, both the substance of policy and the way policy is made. That is perhaps a very optimistic reading, but there is at least some hope for a non-extremist alternative to the politics of anger. Looking out from Britain, it is good to have a straw of hope to cling on to. Here, too, we face elections, but so far the campaign gives no promise of any innovation, neither in the substance of policy nor in the way policy is made. In the country in which the politics of anger made itself felt with such force that the constitution is in turmoil, it is as if there is nothing to be learned form that experience.

THE DESPERATE NEED FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORM

From a previous blog: “The trouble for democracy, at this time in history, comes from our own poor ability to reform.”

Here is a short list of pending reform issues:

We need systemic economic reform. Societies that define themselves by security and inclusion cannot live by deprivation and division. Globalization and automation, the targets of the politics of discontent, come with enormous benefits in the form of affluence and quality of work and life. But we have not found a way of combining this progress with inclusiveness. To underwrite democracy under advanced capitalism, we need a new social contract. The shallow individualism and small-government gospel of Reaganism and Thatcherism has shipwrecked. Before inclusiveness in public policy must come inclusiveness in mindsets. It is a matter of nothing less than the reinvention of democratic political culture.

In Europe, the mindset of reform needs to include the European Union. British and European leaders should swallow their pride and sit down to devise a reformed union that can embrace all of Europe. The European Union is already a structure with many different forms of adhesion, from Swiss and Norwegian types of quasi-membership, via various combinations of inside and outside of the Schengen and the euro, to the comprehensive arrangements of the full-membership countries. Flexibility has proved to work and is now needed in respect to Brexit and to pre-empt other possible exits. Brussels may have to sacrifice a battle to win the war, but better that than to lose the war.

In Britain, the time is over-ripe for constitutional reform. It is a misunderstanding that Britain does not have a written constitution just because constitutional provisions are not collected into a single document with “constitution” its heading. But the constitution is poorly protected and open to political manipulation. The Brexit referendum was called by Prime Minister Cameron ahead of the 2015 general election for opportunistic party-political reasons. If they can, politicians of the day will manipulate the constitution for their own advantage. That should not be possible. By coincidence, the week after the vote, the Chilcot report of the inquiry into Britain’s participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its aftermath was published, with deep criticism of a dysfunctional system of decision-making which resulted in colossal mistakes both on the entry into war and post-war management. Britain does not have a safe system of political decision-making.

In America, what burst through the surface in 2016 was the pent-up pressure from a long, relentless, step-by-step erosion of political culture in which big business has fortified itself as the power behind the throne. The reason there is gridlock in Washington is that the holders of office, in Congress in particular, are not free to make policies for the public good. When big money is allowed to transgress massively into politics, those who control it gain power to decide who the successful candidates will be—those they wish to fund—and what they can decide once in office—that which is acceptable to those who hold the purse-strings. The representatives, or most of them, may not be personally corrupt, but the system in which they work is one of deep collusion between big politics and big money. It is a misunderstanding that politicians chase money; it is money chasing politicians.

Read the full article in the Cairo Review.

BREXIT – FLAWED PROCESS MEANS FLAWED RESULT

Britain does not have a safe system of political decision-making. Important decisions are made unilaterally by the government, the prime minister really, with Parliament having next to no role, except to finally ratify the government’s decisions. Prime ministerial whims prevail.

It is a law of public policy that good decisions depend on good process. If the process is flawed, the outcome is likely to be flawed. If you want good decisions, take care of the process.

The reason the British system is unsafe is that governmental decisions are not adequately deliberated on, scrutinised and tested. That’s why public policies are a parade of blunders, small and large.

In preparing for Brexit, the prime minister’s whim is to protect the prime ministerial system of government. This is the system once famously branded an “elective dictatorship” (by Lord Hailsham, in 1976). It is the system that allowed Britain to stumble into the invasion of Iraq on the then prime minister’s whim. In this system alternative views to that of the government count for nothing. Public policies are the government’s dictate rather than the outcome of national compromise.

In her Brexit speech yesterday, the prime minister made clear that decision-making is to be in the government’s hand and that Parliament’s role will be to ratify the outcome. This is an unsafe process towards a likely flawed result.

The process has already caused visible damage. Brexit is being made infinitely more confrontational than needs be. The divisions at home from the referendum campaign are not being healed. The views of the 48 percent count for nothing. Britain is causing a monumental fall-out between the democratic countries of Europe in an acrimonious divorce. Once Brexit was a fact, a coming together at home would have been possible, as would a rational collaboration between European friends towards an amicable settlement. But the process the prime minister is clinging on to is leading us to conflict on both fronts.

It is not too late to improve on the process. But it depends on Parliament not accepting yet again to be side-lined. It is for Parliament to temper the prime minister’s whim. It is not good enough for MPs to sit around on their backsides, sulk, and beg to be consulted. Parliament needs to assert itself.

BREXIT – OPPORTUNITY OUT OF CALAMITY

Brexit changes everything. With a bang, the opportunity has presented itself for the formation in Britain of a new political party of the centre-left and for that party to take hold. Now is the moment to grasp the opportunity. It will not come again.

The outcome of the referendum has been described, not without justification, as a political revolution. The immediate effect was a collapse of political order, with parties in turmoil and no one in control or authority. The leaders in the campaign have departed the scene en masse.

The Conservative Party is regaining its footing. The Labour Party is however going into destruction, Brexit having become the catalyst for the centre wing to try to wrench back control from the left wing, something they are unlikely to achieve or can only achieve at suicidal cost. The Scottish nationalists are likely to again press for independence. The two-party system, long wobbly, has now collapsed.

Continue reading