Disaffection is a perennial problem for politics; the way democracy is understood contributes to that problem
Disaffection is a perennial problem for politics; the way democracy is understood contributes to that problem
The OECD reports that voting rates are falling in member nations and shows that turnout for the last UK general election, at only 61%, was well below the OECD average of 70%.
A House of Commons Library note describes ‘a large decrease in reported membership of UK political parties over the post-war period’ and how, since 1983, the proportion of the population who are members of political parties has fallen from 3.8% to 1%.
Trust in governments is low: a Guardian/ICM poll found that ‘European citizens do not trust their governments’ and, according to Democratic Audit, only 55% in the UK feel that ‘people like them’ could ‘change the way the UK is run’ if they were to get involved in politics.
Yet, as formal participation in politics falls and a sense of disempowerment becomes rife, political leaders talk up democracy and their own democratic credentials. The gap between what people hear from politicians and what people feel about politicians is a problem. It is a problem for government, and all centre-ground political parties, but is a particular problem for the centre-left: it leaves a gap for a populism that is not progressive.
The last Labour administrations felt and tried to address this problem. ‘Democratic renewal’ was a powerful and recurring idea for Labour in government. It was a phrase that it attached to many of its reforms of government. Why, then, does disaffection and its symptoms remain? Partly due to the actions of the present coalition government, of course, but given the long term trend, the malaise also runs deeper than that.
Previous research I’ve carried out (see here and here) reveals important absences in the way that professional politicians tend to describe democracy. Very often democracy is spoken or written about with no reference to ‘the people’ (or any similar phrase) and so fails to acknowledge that democracy is about those groups which are beyond government and are without formal power.
It follows that there is also an absence of any recognition that democracy is a specific type of relation between government and the people: one in which the powerless ‘bite back’ at those with formal power and that when they do so they do it with good cause.
Conversely, professional political use of the term has tended to see ‘democracy’ as taking place only within the institutions of Westminster and as being a property of government rather than something to which government might be subject.
Holding this view, even when attempting to renew democracy, makes deep rooted reform improbable. Labour could change this but in order to do so it must not fall for those prevailing ideas about democracy which have undermined it.
It must recognise that government and democracy are not the same thing as each other. A distinction between the legitimate, mandated, business of government on the one hand and the potential for democratic action from beyond government means two things for a party in government.
First, it means that the business of a party in government must be founded on the values of the party, values which resonate with its broader constituency. It must defend those values and the policies for which it has a mandate and it must resist the lobbying and conniving of opposing vested interests.
It also means, though, that when it gets decisions wrong – and no government can be right always – it must find ways of being open to democracy. This can be done not by trying to change democracy – democracy is beyond government – but by changing the practice of government to actively seek out, listen to, and engage with the objections and arguments formulated amongst the powerless. And when those objections and arguments are sound, the party in government must act accordingly.
Michael Farrelly is a lecturer in English Language at the University of Hull and author of Discourse and Democracy: Critical Analysis of the Language of Government, Routledge
35 Responses to “Disaffection with democracy and what political parties must do about it”
Leon Wolfeson
No problem. Electoral study and math is strongly related to Game Theory, which I use professionally, and I’m interested in.
Dave Roberts
How do you work out that Gary Scott is opposed to democracy?
Dave Roberts
Which reminds me of the ” Game Theory” discussed by Nick Cohen in his excellent ” What’s Left”. A couple of researchers invented a game theory by an equally mythical professor and tested it on various academics who all said that it was a useful tool to them in their particular fields.
It was a “Kings New Clothes” situation. The world is full of sycophants and nowhere more so than in academia. That reminds me, I must retrieve my copy of ” What’s Left”, absolutely brilliant.
wj
Some of the Quango Kings/Queens move from one tax paid for position to another on a Golden handshake merry-go-round – that’s really helping the poor, isn’t it. Unaccountable, unelected, and having access to the tax payers pockets – Democratic???
People are being deliberately disenfranchised – policy is being set by NGOs.
No wonder the people are cynical.
littleoddsandpieces
In the UK the population of all ages and income level have lost any concept of what government and politicians are for. All with or without money do not watch politicians on TV or read about them in newspapers. News in general is not watched. Let alone a party political broadcast. The word politician gives an image of someone saying economical untruths, being in the role for their own personal greed and being a remote aristocratic elite.
The UK is not in a democracy and never has been, with the existence of the unelected upper house of parliament called the House of Lords.
Democracy is from the Greek inventors of people voted government, and means Demos – the people and cracy, the state. In others words, the government is the people. That occurs nowhere.
Explain to me, please, why Labour is a carbon copy of Tories?
Why Labour cannot simply cannot move to a winning stance of gaining the 15 million who did not vote for any party in 2010
Why Labour could even gain 41 new seats in England or Wales in 2015, using the Scottish Labour MPs, with the loss of a Free Scotland forever escaping Tory rule, when Scottish parliament never votes in a Tory administration?
How?
If Labour in its 2015 manifesto pledge gave the 23 million over 50s, that include half of over 50s within working poor and 50 per cent unemployment rate of over 50s outside London as well as 40 per cent of over 50s being disabled / chronic sick:
– revoke pension bills 2010-2014 leaving women and poorest workers with
NIL STATE PENSION FOR LIFE
women born from 1953 and
men born from 1951
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
– payout women’s state pension at 60 in 2015 (back-dated to 2013 when begun loss)
– equalise state pension for men at 60 in 2015.
And Labour added the Greens’ 2015 manifesto pledge of:
– universal non-means tested Citizen Income, non-withdrawable, in or out of work.
Anybody?