Watching the Egyptian Revolution (has anyone started calling it that yet? Â BBC slowly moved from “Egypt unrest” to “Egypt crisis” but I don’t remember seeing “revolution…) got me thinking a bit about democracy. Â Sure, we take it for granted here, but in recent weeks we’ve seen the South Sudanese vote for independence from the north in a referendum and protests in Tunisia, Egypt itself, Algeria, Iran and Yemen aimed at toppling regimes and installing democracy.
Thing is… aren’t they twenty years too late?
In 1989, Francis Fukuyama published a much-debated paper entitled “The End of History”, which, three years later was expanded into a book titled “The End of History and the Last Man”. Â Fukuyama’s central argument was that, with the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War, liberal democracy had won and established itself as the central principle which would inform how all states would be run. Â Now, of course there are plenty criticisms of Fukuyama, and I myself have always been more oriented towards Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations” theory (without the inherent racism apparent in some sections) but the point I’d make is that, at the time of Fukuyama’s writing, he did have some evidence for his thesis.
That’s not to say that “we’re all liberal democrats now” (note the lower case) in any form – and I don’t think that he’d argue that we would be, just that we are all on that trajectory. Â But in the 1980s and 1990s we did see a major shift towards liberal democracy (predominantly in Eastern Europe) in line with Fukuyama’s theory. Â States who had never seen democracy began to embrace the concept, replacing totalitarian communist states with varying degrees of democratic institutions.
But while these new democracies began to, if not love the concept then at least learn to live with it, modern western democracies began to fall out of love with democracy – or at least in the way they themselves practised it. Â Witness falling election turnouts in Britain (1992 onwards), US Presidential (1960-2008) and Federal (1962-2006), French Parliamentary (1945-2007) and the general malaise about political representatives and apathy about our political systems. Â Okay, I’m using figures which emphasise my point (and you can find states which will contradict me – Italy’s turnout has increased, though you’d hardly call that a model western democracy) but you see what I’m saying. Â We’re getting to be fed up with democracy just as these states are understanding why we loved it in the first place
But maybe its not democracy that we’re fed up with, but how we practise it. Â Maybe representative democracy has had its day, and we need to move to more direct or deliberative democracy. Â Yeah, I know – trying to get a chamber of 129 MSPs or 650 MPs to decide agree on anything, how do you get a population of 5 million or 60 million to make decisions? Â But it doesn’t need to go that far.
In case you couldn’t tell, this is feeding into some of my research at the moment.  I’ve been reading more about deliberative democracy – Habermas,  Rawls, Fishkin and Dryzek mostly, since you ask – but it is mostly a theoretical concept, with no real practical application for political systems, except for a handful of ideas, which include ideas like deliberative polling and citizen’s juries.  But the principle is, I think, something we should be looking at – more public engagement in democracy through some of these innovations, and focusing more on the deliberative aspect of decision-making, on letting the arguments convince more than the political up or downside.
Of course I realise this is naive.  We can’t do politics without the politicians (or can we?).  But we’re losing our will to love our own democracies, which if we don’t remedy, may endanger the new democratic projects in the Middle East and Africa.  Perhaps we need to be less apathetic not for our own sake, but for the sake of global stability?  That’s a big, pretentious bull-s*** thought to finish on.
Vote in the AV referendum to save the democratic world? Â As a campaign slogan, it’s got its merits…
#1 by Douglas McLellan on February 15, 2011 - 1:35 pm
It is an interesting post. I think that it isnt really the democratic process (so AV itself is not a solution) that is a problem. I think that it is more to do with the nature of society.
It can be argued from a certain perspective that the Labour Party has actually achieved a great deal of what it set out to do. The abject poverty that existed then does not exist now. In theory, anyone can become an MP or MSP so no-one is disenfranchised. The Tories who want to be relected will not move their party to far to the right as they know the middle ground is where the votes are. Devolution offered a frission of excitement for a while but every party just offers a different way of doing the same things.
But the I think key point is that the bulk of the population has the same needs, aspirations and desires as each other so there can be no real differences between the main political parties. The phrase ‘the politics of contentment’ might be trite but there is a huge element of truth in it. Most of the electorate are in the centre and get disturbed by the politics of both the more right (uncaring?) and left (anti-aspiration?) wing elements of society.
Given that the bulk of the population wants tomorrow to be like today but only a little better how, or indeed why should there be, excitement about politics when there is nothing to be excited about? Of course, this is now. In the future when there are more conflicts over resources (water I would guess) then perhaps models of representation will adapt.
#2 by Malc on February 15, 2011 - 2:28 pm
So what you are saying is that everything is good at the moment and we don’t vote because we are content? I suspect some of the “anti-cut” brigade are going to shout you down for that one…
There is, I think, at least some truth in that though (and I know I’ve kind of taken what you said slightly out of context). Certainly, prior to the 2010 election, you could make the case that with New Labour and the Conservatives being quite similar and advocating similar things economically, combined with the relative weakness of other parties (and the institutional bias in their favour as delivered by FPTP) that there was a general contentment with their politics… but whether that holds now is doubtful.
#3 by Douglas McLellan on February 15, 2011 - 3:07 pm
I knew that some people may respond when I wrote that. The point is though that how many people are anti-cut enough to engage in ways of protesting effectively against it?
I currently view the ukuncut movement as something less effective (but more drawn out) petrol price protests (year 2000 campaign). But look where we are now in terms of petrol prices a decade later (more than a 5% increase year on year since the protests). Yet not a meaningful squeak anywhere about the prices of fuel now.
I predict the same for the ukuncut movement. Targeting people and organisations for acting well within the law will never resonate beyond the handful of people that are interested in it just now. I, as a shareholder in vodafone, could easily that the company to court as failing me as a shareholder if it opts to give the government more money that it is legally supposed to. However large protests against the government to close any loopholes that the ukuncut movement deems unacceptable may have more effect. But that would require the number of people interested to increase by several orders of magnitude. It would also need to be a far more civilised protest.
Note the backtracking already about the proposals to change ownership of the forests. Not a single window was broken as protests were held. Not a single police officer was hurt. Nobody harassed innocent shoppers with loud megaphones. Nobody tried to stop someone going into the forests. Yet changes are already afoot due to public pressure. That is effective and civilised political engagement.
Ken Clarke may have it right. The middle classes may be unaware of what is happening. But it will not be service cuts that affect them. It will be higher taxes (which the ukuncut movement wants so there is no solidarity there), inflation, poor returns on investments and lower, if any, wage increases. All of this is a disappointment but is it real motivator to get involved in politics? I dont know but I am doubtful.
#4 by Richard on February 15, 2011 - 1:51 pm
“Democracy is a mechanism to ensure that the people get the government they deserve” – Not sure who said that originally, but I like it.
Seriously though, it’s all very well having a revolution and “people power” toppling a totalitarian regime, but what happens after that is critical. Witness 1979 in Iran, it wasn’t the Ayatollah who caused the revolution, but he took advantage of the power vacuum created and stepped into the breach.
Lets hope that the democrats in these countries now undergoing changes (Bahrain’s the latest to join) are strong enough and organised enough to lock out the extremists.
I agree with your points on growing malaise and popular dissociation from politics, often blamed on sub-standard M(S)Ps, or on their very similar policies. I’m not sure if this is an indication that we have a pretty comfortable standard of living, and therefore Joe Bloggs has no pressing issues on his mind?
#5 by Malc on February 15, 2011 - 2:24 pm
I think the Iran thing is a good point (and I made the aside to a friend that if they do have another Iranian revolution, how do we distinguish it from the previous one? Revolution II – This Time Its Personal? Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water… etc).
Incidentally, the US was delighted to see democracy brought forth in Palestine… until Hamas won the elections. So perhaps we best be prepared to work with whatever democracy brings.
#6 by Kim on February 15, 2011 - 2:07 pm
You say that election turnouts in Britain started falling from 1992 onwards, I think it started earlier than that. Certainly in the 1980’s there was a feeling that it wasn’t worth voting because the nature of our electoral system means that just a few key marginal seats determine which party holds power. Not only that, but there was a massive (and continuing) centralisation of power, which at the same time undermined local government.
AV might be a step in the right direction, but it is far from being a solution, and a reduction in the size of parliament is defiantly a step in the wrong direction. Such a proposal could only come from an anti-democratic element.
#7 by Malc on February 15, 2011 - 2:21 pm
Actually, I think you’ll find from the link that voter turnout in the 1980s actually INCREASED from 72% in 1983 to 77% in 1992 (and has fallen more dramatically since 1992, hence my use of that starting point). So your point about the 80s and value in voting doesn’t seem to tally with the evidence – though I do take your point that turnout was much higher before then. Its just, as I say, it has been more marked since 1992.
AV was a throwaway remark, but it seems to have gotten a few folk riled. I’m no fan of AV, and in no way support it. My point was simply that the act of voting – whether in elections of referendums – is probably required to show confidence in democracy. Whether you vote for it or against it – as long as you vote – you are supporting the theory behind it.
#8 by Mike Shaughnessy on February 15, 2011 - 2:53 pm
Personally, I’ll be voting no to AV, despite it being official Green party policy to support it. I think if adopted, AV could saddle us with ConDems for as long Mubarak was in charge in Egypt, see my posts http://haringeygreens.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-av-much-of-alternative.html
and
http://haringeygreens.blogspot.com/2011/01/tory-lib-dem-electoral-pact-on-cards.html
for some real democracy, join the revolution….
http://haringeygreens.blogspot.com/2011/02/revolution-will-be-televised.html
#9 by Malc on February 15, 2011 - 2:57 pm
Mike,
For what it’s worth, I don’t support AV either, and I probably won’t vote for it. But you will note that I didn’t say vote FOR the Alternative Vote. Just vote in referendum to save democracy. Or something.
#10 by Mike Shaughnessy on February 15, 2011 - 3:17 pm
Good on yer Malc.
I think one of the main reasons why people don’t vote so much anymore, is that the choice on offer is so limited. Even in 1997 UK GE, turn out was only 70%, and in Labour areas, considerably lower. A lot of left voters just didn’t bother, and haven’t come back yet. AV will do nothing to redress this, only a proportional system would have any impact on this.
#11 by Manny on February 15, 2011 - 4:05 pm
In the run up to the last general election I watched an episode of Question Time, the Tory was saying “Don’t vote Lib Dem, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Labour”, the Labour guy was saying “Don’t vote Lib Dem, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Tories”.
It makes a mockery of our democracy, if voting for who you want will only get you someone you don’t want, then what’s the point in voting, you could just as easily stay at home and still get someone you don’t want?
#12 by Phil Hunt on February 15, 2011 - 5:37 pm
People who don’t vote are content enough with the system that they don’t bother trying to change it.
#13 by Malc on February 15, 2011 - 5:48 pm
Really? I’d have thought that most people who don’t vote would say they are NOT content with the system, but don’t see any point in voting because it won’t change anything. I see Douglas’ – and indeed your – point that it can be interpreted that way, but I don’t think that is the case.
#14 by Douglas McLellan on February 15, 2011 - 6:59 pm
If they are not content with the system then they would do something about it, wouldn’t they?
Is the cry of ‘my vote makes no difference’ really only about a voting system and thus means that people are not voting? Have there been studies on this as it seems very counter-intuitive to me. I would happily be corrected but surely the lack of real choice, the lack of real need for anything different and even the lack of need for something different means that the majority are content.
Cynicism plays a part of course. Even prior to the Lib Dem/Tuition Fee stushie the public were weary of political promises for anything different.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country are not engaged politically apart from the short amount of time leading up to polling day. And if they are it often stems from one small area of interest and beyond that area of interest they are not really that interested.
Despite the scary headlines, for most of the people in this country the basics of their way of life are not under threat so it is unlikely they see the need for change.
#15 by Malc on February 15, 2011 - 7:16 pm
I agree with most of what you say – particularly that “the overwhelming majority of people in this country are not engaged politically” but where I disagree is the logical conclusion of your argument.
In any other walk of life, if I’m unhappy about something, and I have a choice between acting (and it having no effect on the outcome) and not acting (and it, too, having no effect on the outcome) why would I go to the effort of acting? Only if I genuinely believed that my action would have an effect on the outcome would I make the effort to act. So why do you think it is different with politics – that people don’t act so they are happy or content? I’m not saying I’m right, and that there are studies to prove it, I’m just saying I find your logic more difficult to follow.
I also don’t think that “my vote makes no difference” is only about an electoral system. Its about a system of representative politics whereby the electorate feel disengaged with their representatives, where each of their prospective representatives stands for the same things and where voting for one or other of them makes no difference because they are so similar to each other. Again, I’m not quoting studies on electoral behaviour, just saying what I think the situation is.
#16 by Douglas McLellan on February 15, 2011 - 7:57 pm
This is interesting. Are you linking a lack of engagement with being unhappy? I am saying that people are not engaged with politics because they are happy enough and see no need to change. This can be expressed as either satisfied with the current system or even a lack of satisfaction over any potential alternatives.
Individually your option to act or not to act frankly makes no difference (no offence!). Sheer weight of numbers not acting when they could (and would thus make a difference) however says to me that people are not engaged politically because they see no need to be engaged due to being satisfied with what they have available.
History in the UK has shown that when enough people want change it happens. From the abolition of slavery to the end of the poll tax politics has been informed and influenced by public opinion and thus reacts to settle the public down. If people actually wanted something different they would seek to get it.
#17 by Malc on February 15, 2011 - 8:32 pm
Apologies, I was using “content” and “happy” as analogous terms, thus “unhappy” and “discontent” would be analogous too. I wasn’t try to use semantic differences – I just used a different word – so we were actually talking about the same thing.
But in the end, I think we fundamentally disagree, whatever term we use! I’m equating apathy with discontent (or unhappiness, to use the term I used) whereas you equate it with contentment (or happiness with the system).
On a side note, I know acting or not acting doesn’t make a difference individually – but its the perception of whether you feel that by acting you are think you can make a difference.
I don’t disagree on your last point, which might be an inconsistency in my argument. But I think the problem with apathy (as discontent, in my model!) is that people don’t think ENOUGH people will show up to change something, which is why they don’t try to do something. I think we can look at the anti-war demos in 2003 as a good example. They have probably meant that people now think it doesn’t matter how many people show up, the government doesn’t listen anyway, and it doesn’t make a difference.
#18 by Douglas McLellan on February 15, 2011 - 9:18 pm
Yes, I think we will have to agree to disagree on what the current levels of apathy equate to. You think discontent, I think contentedness.
I did think about the anti-Iraq was demos and I felt that the anti-cuts demos may suffer (and have suffered already?) from the same problem. Which is the idea that, in this case, the enemy of my enemy is totally not my friend. Whilst being against the war generally how many people did not engage with protests due to the unpalatable people they would be having to march with? There is a strange link between left-wing groups and Islamic groups that would turn off many mainstream people who then didn’t protest for fear of associating with those groups. How many people are anti-cuts but fear that the protesters beside them will don masks and attack the police? Or vandalise war memorials?
The Suffragette movement had the same problem. The argument that allowing women would not result in madness was really challenged by Emily Davisons actions and she did set the movement back a little.
We have a massive centre ground in this country that shuffles to the left or right according to the prevailing winds but really doesn’t display discontent until really challenged (poll tax was probably the last time that happened).
Either that or no-one has yet been able to either offer or convey something better.
#19 by Malc on February 15, 2011 - 10:11 pm
That kind of supports both our arguments, though perhaps mine more than yours – ie, in that perhaps people are DISCONTENT with the current system, but apathetic because they don’t think acting will make any difference, either because not enough folk will join them, or the wrong people will. But yes, I appreciate the problem – I was going to use the anti-cuts movement as my example, but though Iraq protests made the point better, which was what you said.
I suppose your argument rests on discontent being displayed when “people are really challenged” whereas mine rests on discontent being enough to stop action. But yes – agree to differ.
Boy – this is a more civilised argument than I’m used to!
#20 by Indy on February 16, 2011 - 12:16 pm
Were you at the anti-war march in Glasgow? 100,000 people is a big number for Scotland. It went way beyond “the usual suspects”. The usual suspects were all there of course – but there were many many more and a lot of people who had clearly not been on a demo like that before And I think the march ended up being a lot bigger than it was estimated as well, as many people joined in spontaneously as it went through the city centre.
Having said that, that march was very much the exception rather than the rule. It was one of those rare events where you could actually say that the people of Scotland were giving a message to the Government because such a wide spectrum was represented. In the vast majority of marches/demos I agree that they don’t really represent mainstream Scotland.
#21 by Indy on February 15, 2011 - 7:14 pm
I think it is just a question of familiarity breeding contempt.
People don’t value democracy because it is not under threat. We argue about how it can be improved but we don’t feel that there is any real danger of our society collapsing into anarchy or the army taking over etc. It’s a laughable idea isn’t it? A military coup in the UK.
Even in the context of a financial catastrophe and cuts in government spending most people don’t feel that there is any danger of democracy collapsing – and they are right to feel that way.
We just take it for granted that the UK and Europe in general will continue to toddle on uninterrupted. It’s maybe something for the eurosceptics to think about because the stability that the EU has delivered is surely a factor there.
#22 by Malc on February 15, 2011 - 7:21 pm
Unquestionably the impact of the EU – and other supranational organisations such as NATO and the UN – after WW2 has led to considerable democratic stability in Europe over the past 60 years. Can’t fault that logic.
But I guess I’m not thinking about threats to democracy – and you are right, the idea of a military coup here is extreme. I’m just thinking that we’re… well, we’re beginning to see what Churchill meant when he said that democracy was the worst system, except for all the others that had been tried. It is absolutely not perfect, but its better than almost everything else, so we’ll get on with it.
#23 by Indy on February 16, 2011 - 12:08 pm
Yes I think that is right. The thing is that a lot of people really don’t care about politics. There is an assumption that this is a bad thing – but is it? People have a right not to care and to take the approach of saying I’ll let other people decide this as I am not really bothered who wins or loses this election. I think you have got to accept that. There’s no point trying to force people into taking an interest.
One of the reasons I am against compulsory voting for example is that I don’t want people who have no political opinions or interest being made to vote, when they will just do it at random basically.
Voting should be something that you choose to do because you care about the outcome, just as getting involved in politics should be something you do voluntarily.
#24 by Malc on February 16, 2011 - 12:20 pm
Yeah, my wife was trying to convince me of this last night, and I’m not sure I bought the “people don’t really care about politics” bit. Sure, people don’t take an interest in their representatives, PMQs, FMQs, voting etc – but for me, that’s just one part of politics.
People care about having to pay taxes – and if they are going to be raised. They care about services they use – and if they are going to be cut. Any maybe they don’t care about what the banks have done to the economy, but they still get pretty annoyed by the bonuses they are getting.
I’ll accept the point that people perhaps don’t care about the intricacies of politics – the voting, the MPs themselves etc – but I think they care about the outcome of those things, and its impact on their lives. Which is why the disconnect between what representatives do and how they are elected is so important in my mind.
#25 by Indy on February 16, 2011 - 6:38 pm
You only care about your tax being raised if you pay tax.
You only care about services being cut if you use those services.
That;s a sweeping generalisation I know – people do care about things which do not directly affect them as well as the things that do – but there is a truth in it,
For many people their world is all that matters – it’s a bit like that advert for British Gas with little families living on their own little planet. I am not saying everyone is like that – far from it – but there are a substantial minority who are. And even for those who do vote and are interested in politics, things that affect them directly are far more important than things that don’t. So the issue that gets raised most often on the doorsteps right now is not fiscal autonomy or the crisis of capitalism or even the release of Megrahi – it is potholes.
The frustrating thing for political activists is trying to get people to make connections between the state of our roads and the state of the economy- and between the state of the economy and the political framework that governs Scotland etc..
#26 by Malc on February 16, 2011 - 7:01 pm
I’ll grant you some of that Indy… but how many people do you know that DON’T pay tax and don’t use ANY services?!
#27 by Richard on February 17, 2011 - 10:11 am
I think what Indy meant was that generally higher earners, who pay more tax and are less dependent on services, would rather the savings come from cutting services, while lower earners, who pay less tax and are more dependent on services, would rather the books are balanced by raising taxes.
Every Joe Bloggs has their own agenda, whereas the government has to look at the bigger picture, while struggling to please everyone – another unfortunate consequence of the popular disengagement from politics.
#28 by Malc on February 17, 2011 - 10:52 am
I’m not sure you can read what Indy said (“You only care about your tax being raised if you pay tax. You only care about services being cut if you use those services.”) and come to the conclusion that what he meant was people who pay high tax/ don’t use much services would rather cut services than pay more tax.
I mean, that would make sense, and as a position it is fairly logical – but I’m not sure that’s what Indy meant!
But yeah – I agree with you.
#29 by Erchie on February 15, 2011 - 11:58 pm
You guys seen what has been happening in Wisconsin in reaction to some very weird authoritarian stuff by Governor Scott Walker?
there’s hope for folks in the West
#30 by Richard on February 16, 2011 - 3:06 am
…and after the recent defence cutbacks, the army doesn’t have enough resources to stage a coup!
Pingback: On the legitimate use of force « Better Nation