Learning from the Civic Cooperators

Since the turn of the century, the disillusionment with conventional politics has intensified, leaving many people to either give up on democratic processes as irrelevant, or put their faith in irresponsible leaders and policies that turn out to be highly damaging for their country.

Yet as political strategists and commentators ponder what can be done differently, they continue to overlook one of the most important trends unfolding before them. From 2000s on, a growing number of practitioners, theorists, and organisations have been demonstrating how improvements to people’s quality of life can be achieved through the development of cooperative relations in and across social, economic, and political institutions.

These civic cooperators draw from the insights and practices of community development, community learning, cooperative enterprise, time banking, deliberative engagement, participatory budgeting, co-production, restorative justice, community empowerment, etc to advance a holistic approach that enables people to work effectively together to solve the problems they face.  The impact – at different levels (local, national, global) and in different sectors (private, public, voluntary) – has been substantial, both in terms of improved quality of life and a greater sense of efficacy as citizens who matter. 

Too often politicians have neglected the vast potential of communities (based in a neighbourhood, a workplace, or a shared network) to drive positive change.  Some overload them with top-down targets and controls, others leave them to flounder with neither support nor guidance.  By contrast, civic cooperators recognise that substantial evidence has shown that in order to engender the cooperative working to formulate and attain shared objectives, we need to facilitate three kinds of inter-related development.  These are:

[1] The Nurturing of Mutual Responsibility

Civic cooperators are keenly aware that leaving people to do whatever they want could end up with some being free to hurt others.  But merely invoking a list of rights and wrongs is not an adequate solution either.  Instead, through community learning, outreach, familiarisation, perspectives-sharing, the importance of mutual responsibility is to be inculcated.  Those involved may then come to see that the respect and concern they can expect from others are inextricably linked to the respect and concern they show others.  The unacceptability of discrimination and abusiveness is reinforced through relationship-building, while a sense of togetherness is built by the identification of shared interests and common objectives.

[2] The Support for Cooperative Enquiry

In parallel with coming to acquire shared concerns, any group of people seeking to address those concerns will also need to be able to reach agreement as to what are credible facts and ideas to rely on.  Civic cooperators acknowledge that neither imposing some unquestionable authority nor leaving everyone to arbitrarily accept/reject any view they please can provide a way forward.  Their answer is to give sustained support to cooperative enquiry – a much tried and tested mode of objective exploration of claims, evidence, theories, etc through transparent processes of collaborative exchange and learning, structured adjudication with built-in capacity for re-examination, and protection from manipulative distortion and groundless claims.

[3] The Promotion of Citizen Participation

The third development is to help people participate in shaping the decisions that will affect them.  The mechanisms can vary from direct voting, through engaging in deliberations in formulating policy options, to entrusting someone who will make and account for the decision taken.  What civic cooperators focus on is to ensure that the most effective means for obtaining a meaningful input are adopted in different circumstances, and that the conditions necessary for those means to be utilised fully are as well met as possible. This can involve devising participatory arrangements, organising feedback, pressing for accountability, exposing corrupt influence, instigating regulatory safeguards, and curtailing unequal power distribution.

Civic cooperators have in many parts of the world taken forward the development outlined above through the provision of advice, organisational support, and collaboration with private and public sector backers.  Political leaders should view them not as disruptive usurpers or passive agents, but as vital partners who can energise democratic working in society and enable citizens to have a positive role in improving their lives.

--

You can find out more about the ideas and practices of civic cooperators in the book, Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons for community-based transformation in the age of global crises: https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/tomorrows-communities

You may also want to explore the work of Citizen Network: https://citizen-network.org

What is Conservatism?

There is an endless supply of articles and books about the ideas and doctrines that might have shaped the politics of those who embrace Conservatism (in the sense that encompasses Conservatives in the UK and Canada, Republicans in the US, the Liberal Party in Australia, and the National Party in New Zealand). But while the works of Burke, Oakeshott, Hayek, and Scruton may provide some post-hoc rationalisation here and there, Conservative politics has never been about theoretical doctrines, but is above all a strategic agenda for defending and expanding power advantages in society.

If we look closely at what the political leadership of parties aligned with Conservatism has sought over time and in different countries, the one common feature that stands out is the focus on securing public office to help entrench arrangements that will continue to safeguard the greater wealth, status, privileges of those in dominant positions in society.  And so long as a group can gain that dominance, their interests will become paramount for the champions of Conservatism – remember how 18^thcentury Tories looked down on merchants and manufacturers but held them in high esteem in the 20^thcentury.

Correspondingly, what Conservatism stands against is any political idea, campaign, movement, or party that may challenge that dominance.  It does not matter what the reason is behind that challenge – the opposition to inequalities, concern for the environment, liberation from oppressive customs, the fight against poverty, objection to corrupt practices – so long as it poses a threat to the advantages possessed by the dominant ones, it will be a target for Conservatives to discredit and defeat.

Conservatism is not inherently kind or nasty.  Where showing kindness can promote gratitude and contentment amongst those who might otherwise start supporting their political rivals, kindness may be readily bestowed – so long as it does not undermine the overall power structure of society and the ‘have plenty’ can stay well above the ‘have little’.  Nastiness, similarly, could be brought into play if it would help to win political battles.  Stirring up prejudices against foreigners and minorities is one of the oldest tricks.  Blaming the poor for their own predicament is another favourite.  Fuelling ‘culture wars’ is a natural extension of the familiar divide-and-rule tactic.

 

Writers seeking philosophical doctrines or political theories that supposedly define (or ought to define) Conservatism may find it a diverting pastime. But ultimately, while some Conservative politicians may genuinely appreciate the intellectual respectability that such talk may confer, Conservatism is best understood as the relentless manoeuvring to protect and strengthen hierarchies and practices that serve those who have gained the most from them.

Learning to Question

When we have claims or proposals put to us, it matters if we accept them on good grounds or not.  And to establish their acceptability, we need to question them properly.  The problem is that questioning, if done arbitrarily, is no better than blind acceptance or kneejerk rejection.

Our response to a police investigation, a proposed medical treatment, a politician’s claim, or a report on economic trends, can have significant consequences for ourselves and others.  So how should we go about questioning them when no one can possibly possess the expertise to assess the myriad factors involved.

 

One thing that all citizens should learn, beyond the areas they have acquired specialist understanding about, is how to gauge the reliability of assertions when they do not possess the relevant expert knowledge themselves.  This would broadly encompass three areas of general assessment each with three tests to be applied: 

 

Structure of Content

[1] Clarity

Is what is said sufficiently clear?  Do we really know what we are being asked to give our backing to?  Is it actually fully of pseudo-profundity?  What is the substance beneath the rhetoric?

 

[2] Coherence

Does it make sense?  Does it in fact contain contradictory elements which leave it with no coherent assertion?  Can it be rephrased to that what it claims or demands is unambiguously set out?

 

[3] Correctability

Is it a circular statement in disguise?  Does it beg the question by offering, not an answer, but simply an assumption that the question has already been settled?  Is it framed in such a way that no evidence can count as disproving it?

 

These tests can reveal if any claim is ultimately vacuous, or if it has real content that one can consider with the help of other assessments.

 

State of Mind

[4] Deceitful

Are the people making the claim known for their honesty or deceitfulness?  Are they more prone to lie and misdirect to gain advantage for themselves at the expense of others? Are they accusing others with contrary views of being deceitful when past fact-checking would undermine that stance?

 

[5] Delusional

Are there signs that the people in question are susceptible to imagining what is not there? Are they known for sincerely believing what is overwhelmingly contradicted by the evidence?  

 

[6] In Denial

Have the people invested so heavily in a set of beliefs that they cannot bear to face up to the fact that those beliefs are unfounded?  Do they react in frustration and anger if any fact or argument is cited that goes against those beliefs?

 

These tests can reveal if any claim should be taken seriously, or if it should be treated with caution because of its unreliable source.

 

Standard of Reasoning

[7] Expertise in Assessment

What relevant expertise is possessed by the people making the claim? If they do not have the requisite expertise, are they drawing on what is set out by experts with an established record in the field in question?

 

[8] Evaluation System Robustness

Are there evaluation systems in place – peer reviews, watchdog, investigative reporting, audit arrangements, further research, appeal processes, etc – that can check on the robustness of the claims under consideration? Are those systems respected and operating well in the given case?  Or has the claim been made in a free-for-all forum with no independent evaluation at all?

 

[9] Evidential Support 

Is the claim backed by evidence?  How does that compare with the evidence that may support what goes against that claim? Is the evidence subject to examination? Is it open for further evidence to be obtained?

 

These tests can reveal if any claim has a high or low degree of reasonable support based on current levels of expertise and findings.  Together with the other tests mentioned above, they should be applied to claims and assertions that are put to us, especially in politics where our subsequent action (or inaction) can have major consequences for our lives.

Insanity, Terrorism, & Callous Endangerment

Does it make sense to divide people who are disposed to cause callous endangerment to others, into the distinct categories of ‘insane’ and ‘terrorist’?  We are talking about people who are prepared to end other people’s lives regardless of the arguments that go against such a course of action.  They simply shut out any objective information which shows that those they endanger ought not to be so treated.  Their empathy and reasoning have been short-circuited.

 

There is a significant overlap between the those who threaten others as a result of their coming to imagine that the murder of certain innocent people is desirable, and those who threaten others as a result of their embracing some doctrine that declares that the murder of certain innocent people is desirable?  Why should we classify a person as insane if he insists that he must kill because a voice in his head tells him to, but classify a person as a terrorist if he insists that he must kill because his God commands him to? There is no coherent basis for regarding the motive to sacrifice others for the glory of a mighty deity as a terrorist ideology, but the motive to sacrifice others for the sake of appeasing a merciless devil as a mentally disturbing fantasy.  In both cases – unless one accepts the absurd premise as a rational one – any person acting on it has to be considered as dangerously deranged.

 

Subjective intent is not relevant either.  A person acting out some deadly fantasy may think he is saving people from a corrupt world by locking them in a burning building.  Another person may think he is following the teachings of a holy figure by ending the mortal lives of a group of people he has recruited so that they can attain eternal joy more swiftly.  It is the objective harm such people can bring that must be anticipated and prevented. 

 

What about the ‘lone wolf’/‘loyal soldier’ distinction?  If the issue is the scale of operation needed to tackle the threat, then an individual acting on his own with no connection to any wider network might be easier to stop than an organisation with many members involved in multiple plots.  But depending on the weapons and the targets of attacks, one individual could in some situation pose a greater threat than a group of people.  It should also be noted that ideas that feed callous endangerment do not necessarily follow direct command structures.  Ideas that promote blind hatred and remorseless violence can encourage individuals with no formal links to organisations propagating these ideas, to vent their anger and hurt others.

 

The insanity/terrorism demarcation seems to imply that while the former is an illness that should be dealt with through psychiatric treatment, the latter is carried out on the basis of a rational commitment.  In other words, if someone commits an apparent terrorist act because of his insanity, then he is not really a terrorist.  But we understand that many who are manipulated into carrying out terrorist acts are radicalised into embracing notions that they would otherwise have rejected. Indeed, there cannot be many simpler tests of a mind’s soundness than to check its readiness to terminate the lives of innocent people [Note 1].  The extent to which the propensity for callously endangering others can be cured (deradicalised, or de-cultified) will vary in different cases.  What is needed is a unified system to identify, assess, counter, contain, and treat (if that is an option) anyone who exhibits such propensity.

 

--

Note 1: One can legitimately debate if, for example, shutting off one section of a submarine knowing that would lead to ten people being trapped behind and drowning, when it is necessary to save the whole boat from sinking and killing the entire crew of sixty on board.  However, the losing lives/saving lives issue does not apply when the ‘benefit’ invoked to justify the loss of lives only exists in the mind of the killer.

The Basis for Developing Communities

Community development has a key role to play in bringing about more inclusive and cooperative communities.  However, it is often overlooked and underfunded.  One underlying problem is that commentators, policy makers, and the general public do not readily see what basis there is for changing societal structures and relations in line with community development practice.  This can be rectified through four strands of activity: 

Making the Argument

Political discussions cover many views about what communities should be like.  At one end of the spectrum there is the individualistic conception of community as a loose collection of people who look to their own interests, and rely primarily on the market and charities to deal with unmet needs. At the other end there is the hierarchical model wherein dominant groups will determine the ‘traditional’ rules and customs everyone else should have to follow.  In between these conceptions, the case for what community development aims to achieve needs to be made.  Cogent arguments should be put forward for nurturing social relations in the direction of mutual respect and thoughtful cooperation.  

(For example, see: Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship ; and The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas )

 

Raising Awareness 

By its very nature, community development requires people to play an informed role in shaping their communities, and this will not happen if people think it is some marginal process that has little to do with them. All too often, people have insufficient understanding of how wider policies and practices may impact upon them, or worse, they are misled into supporting what are in fact damaging for them. We should raise public awareness through a variety of means - lifelong learning, satirical literature, social marketing, imaginative campaigns – to stimulate interest in questioning prevailing societal arrangements, and exploring alternatives for bringing about more satisfactory outcomes in terms of fairness, contentment, progress and sustainability.

(For example, see: The Anti-Con Novels;  

‘Kuan’s Wonderland: a novel exploration of inequality’ ; and the group learning resource, What Should Citizens Believe )

 

Improving Community Engagement

The degree to which members of any community can influence the key activities affecting that community is down to the effectiveness of engagement arrangements put in place.  Large groups of people, with diverse ideas and concerns, constrained by the time and resources they have, are unlikely to be able to deliberate and arrive at informed views about what is to be done for their common good – unless they are supported by the most appropriate community engagement practices in resolving their differences and exploring shared objectives.  We should ensure lessons from what works (and what does not) in the design and implementation of community engagement are taken on board in giving people a meaningful say about collective decisions that affect them.

(For example, see: ‘Together We Can: a resource guide’ ; ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society' ; and Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons for community-based transformation in the age of global crises )

 

Tackling Inequalities

Inequalities have a major impact on how individual citizens can participate in exerting collective influence.  Those with more power in terms of wealth, status, and connections can push their preferences with no regard for what others might think, while many others, as a result of their socio-economic, physical, and/or cultural predicament, possess little power to make their concerns count.  It is essential to curtail the concentration of power in those who can increasingly dictate terms to others without being held to account, and to improve the conditions for those who are held back by the disadvantages they have had to endure.

(For example, see: Against Power Inequalities ; and Time to Save Democracy )

 

State Expectations: contrasting left and right

At their extremes, what ‘left’ and ‘right’ designate can border on the indistinguishable. The authoritarians who want to rule without constraint in the name of the people, and the authoritarians who want absolute control for the sake of the nation, are as oppressive and unaccountable as each other.  On the other hand, the anarchist left and libertarian right both want to do away with being monitored and regulated by government.  Neither want to be told what to do by others – whatever the consequence.

So, are the labels of left and right redundant?  Well, for the majority of people who don’t subscribe to extreme views, what they generally think their government should do (or not) – their ‘State Expectations’, if you like, goes some way to characterise their political dispositions as Left or Right.

Let us look at five sets of issues and consider how those on the Left and Right are likely to respond to them in terms of the role they feel government institutions should play: 

 

People disadvantaged by particular conditions

The issues: people are disadvantaged by poverty, their isolated location, their disability or fragile health, or the discrimination they face as a result of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, customs, or religion.

Left: The government should protect people from the consequences of being so disadvantaged, and help them secure equal respect and adequate support in overcoming the disadvantages in question as much as possible.

Right: The government should leave these people to sort out their own problem. It is down to them to make a living for themselves, and to fit in with how others are inclined to interact with them.

 

Threats posed by corporate practices

The issues: many corporations enhance our social and economic wellbeing, but some pose a threat in the way they mistreat employees and suppliers, promote and sell unsafe products, or harm the environment.

Left: The government should support the business sector to develop responsibly and bring in appropriate regulation to deal with those which might otherwise hurt others for their own gain.

Right: The government should leave businesses to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences themselves.  Government intervention will more often than not end up damaging the business sector.

 

Foreign relations

The issues: concerns are raised when the governments of other countries engage in activities that may be at odds with our country’s own interests; any increase in the number of immigrants and refugees may lead to tension in some areas; and foreign religious ideas may clash with our prevailing culture.

Left: The government should differentiate between what ought to be welcome and what needs to be guarded against, and act accordingly.  It should tackle real threats but also ensure that what are harmless or indeed beneficial should not be opposed.

Right: The government should be wary of foreign influences – be these commercial or military problems posed by those in another country, or instability fuelled by immigrants and refugees, and their alien customs and beliefs. The government should take a tough stance in curtailing any form of foreign intrusion into our way of life.

 

Standards in quality of life

The issues: People want access to decent health service, housing, transport, dependable utilities, protection from crime and pollution, and good education for their children. But these are not always readily available.

Left: The government should ensure sufficient resources are invested in providing and improving vital services so that everyone can have a minimally acceptable quality of life.

Right: The government should cut taxes so that businesses and individuals can thrive and look after themselves.  The less the government is involved in public services, the better it is for everyone.

 

Control over individual behaviour

The issues: No one can have the absolute freedom to behave irrespective of the impact on others.  From taking others’ property, injuring them physically, to causing emotional distress, or driving recklessly, there must be limits to individual behaviour.

Left: The government should identify unacceptable behaviour – based on the likely harm it would cause – and introduce policies that will be strictly enforced to minimise its occurrence.  The measures to be deployed – fines, incarceration, restitution, rehabilitation, treatment – are to be guided by what-works evidence.

Right: The government should do as little as possible about people smoking, drinking, spreading a dangerous virus (through not wearing a mask), speaking as they wish about minorities, or [in the US] buying guns. But the government should use as much force as possible to tackle thieves or drug users, do more to stop abortions, and [in the US] be prepared to sentence people with mental disability to death.

 

In conclusion

On the whole, people’s State Expectations point to their Left/Right orientation.  Those who would like to have a responsible government that will support people in attaining a better quality of life – especially those who are disadvantaged by factors beyond their personal control – lean left.  Those who would prefer to have a tough government that will on the one hand be inclined to use force in dealing with foreign powers and resort to severe punishment for criminals, and on the other, be resolute in not interfering with inequalities, business practices, or individual behaviour that is ‘traditional’ – lean right.

Abusivism: the politization of nastiness

In politics, ‘isms’ used to consist of doctrines setting out why and how society should be steered towards a better future.  People backed or opposed particular political parties because they broadly subscribed to those doctrines.  Sometimes, when circumstances change, people might come to lose confidence in a given doctrine (e.g., when it turns out that lowering taxes repeatedly do not lead to the creation of well-paid jobs; or extending prison sentences in general does not reduce crime rates).  But the clash of isms was on the whole based on disputes over ideas, which were subject to challenges from reasoned analysis and objective evidence.

One of the most disturbing development at the dawn of the 21^stcentury was the displacement of political ideas by the politization of nastiness.  Abusivist (to coin a term) politicians began to present their wild rants as ‘plain speaking’.  They style themselves as ‘ordinary folk’ who dare to talk back to ‘the establishment’. They despise reason, experts, evidence, compassion, empathy – for all they care about is what they ‘know’ to be the ‘truth’, and that ‘truth’ amounts to nothing but abusive attacks on any vulnerable group they feel like picking on.  

 

The targets of their groundless vitriol share one core characteristic – their plight stokes a twisted sense of self-righteous validation in people who, unsurprisingly, admire the ‘no nonsense’ aggressiveness of abusivist politicians. In general, anyone with a modicum of empathy wants to see help given to victims of domestic violence, immigrants desperate for a better life; refugees escaping from wars and chaos; people disadvantaged by their disability or poverty (or both); or individuals harassed and discriminated against as a result of their religion, race, gender or sexuality.  By contrast, followers of abusivist politicians get angry when they learn of these people getting help, and they want to retaliate – which their leaders promise to deliver for them in the form of laws and policies that not only cut any help provided, but would make vulnerable people’s lives even harder, especially through propaganda that misrepresents them as liars and threats.

 

Abusivism does not pretend to operate through reason, and it does not attempt to be civil. It labels as enemies those least able to defend themselves and proceed to attack them – both by promoting distrust and hatred against them, and by using the power of the state wherever possible to hurt them.  It dismisses people who care as ‘do-gooders’, ‘politically correct’, and despairingly ‘woke’. It rallies its supporters to obstruct and intimidate them in the name of some ‘culture war’.   

 

Theresa May once warned about the Conservatives becoming the Nasty Party, but when she had the power to chart a new course, she introduced the ‘Hostile Environment’ policy to drive immigrants away. In the end, she merely paved the way for Boris Johnson, whose casual abusivism has been a defining feature of his career.  In the US, Donald Trump has dedicated himself to reducing the Republican Party to nothing but the Nasty Party.  Not all conservative politicians go along with abusivist politics.  But if they want to save their party’s soul, they had better take action soon to pull it back from the brink.