Communities: the way we could be

Some people idealise past communities as what must have been the embodiment of a wonderful time – stable, calm, guided by reassuring traditions. Others dread the talk of ‘community’ because they find in so many communal/neighbourhood settings signs of prejudice, discrimination, and oppressive hierarchies. 

The truth is that communities have the potential for mutually supportive relationships and a positive sense of belonging which embraces diversity. However, that potential can only be realised if inclusive and cooperative relations are backed by the prevailing culture, rules and institutional practices. Otherwise, there is always a danger that marginalisation and exploitation could become the norm in a closed-off structure.

When politicians sing the praises of communities, we should go beyond the rhetoric to see if they are championing communities that are realising their social potential through collaborative working, or they are actually promoting the idea that communities riven by divisions should be left alone to deal with their own problems.

The latter type of politician, out of cynicism or naivety, will tell us that the more is left to communities to sort out for themselves, the better it would be for all concerned.  Public expenditure can be reduced, taxes cut, and people will learn to rely on themselves.  In practice, the more communities are deprived of wider political and economic support, the less likely they can ever escape from poverty, poor health, and their generally unenviable quality of life.  The mantra of pulling oneself by one’s bootstraps rings hollow to those who are having to walk barefoot down a stony path.

No one wishes to deny that communities can do a lot for themselves, but ultimately whether that is enough to lift them towards a better future is connected to the type of partnership arrangements they enter into with public bodies as well as among themselves.  This does not mean that there should be large-scale programmes set up in communities with centrally directed funding, targets, and intensive monitoring.  Instead, what the accumulating evidence of successful community-based transformation around the world tells us is that real partnership has to be built on the sharing of trust, information, and power.

With public investment and the proper statutory framework, community organisations have been able to develop community land trusts to provide genuinely affordable housing, set up anchor facilities to meet local needs, and run community enterprises that generate income to help pursue neighbourhoods’ priorities.  Mutual support schemes such as time banking thrive when they are financially backed rather than left to their own devices with no public funding.  Regeneration programmes deliver more cost-effective outcomes and higher satisfaction when public agencies ensure they are shaped by the informed input and continuous feedback from the communities concerned.

It is now widely known that suspicion and misunderstanding that so often undermine partnership working between government bodies and community groups can be significantly reduced through the use of inclusive dialogue techniques, responsive engagement processes, and shared objective-setting.  Community learning, backed by trained facilitators, can help people explore the real causes of the problems they face, and work together in formulating viable solutions. And trust can be built by replacing rigid target-setting and inflexible monitoring with adaptive planning processes and responsive evaluation.

Whatever the sceptics out there may think, the facts speak for themselves.  State-community co-production, guided by the aforementioned collaborative approaches, has led to a wide range of improvements such as: higher levels of both actual and perceived community safety; the development of multi-stakeholder cooperative models in the health and social care sector that result in better care and greater affordability; more effective outcomes and enhanced dignity in tackling food insecurity; and sustained progress in dealing with environmental challenges relating to energy, transport and air quality.

Communities should be encouraged to do what they can to improve their quality of life.  But how much they can actually do is inseparable from the political choices that are made.  Political leaders who want to work with communities as partners and are prepared to listen as well as propose when it comes to solving problems, will find that their joint endeavours have a much better chance of bringing about the kind of transformative changes informed citizens seek.  

--

Find out more from: 

Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons for community-based transformation in the age of global crises (Policy Press, 2021)

Con Politics & the Hate Parade

Con politics is a mutated form of conservatism.  Conservative thinking is generally cautious about big societal changes, and tends to oppose them unless most people have in time come to see that the changes are actually quite harmless, or indeed beneficial for society. Con politics, on the other hand, pushes without hesitation for big societal changes whenever these are likely to strengthen further the self-centred clique of powerful people who steer it – even if that would be harmful for others in society. 

The changes Con politics implacably opposes are those that could diminish its proponents’ wealth, status, or ability to keep taking unfair advantage of others – in such cases, it does not matter if most people are persuaded that the changes are necessary to reduce the suffering of those who have endured much pain and mistreatment, or there is mounting evidence that they will help improve life in general, Con politics would vilify such changes as utterly unacceptable. 

To win votes, and avoid being exposed as callously self-serving, Con politics rallies support by weaponising hate against two types of target: the vulnerable scapegoats and the ‘do-gooder’ enemies.

Top of the list for scapegoats are immigrants and refugees, who will be routinely mentioned with the prefix ‘illegal’. The substantial contributions they can make to the economy must be ignored, instead they should be prevented from getting any paid work, and then blamed for being a drain on public resources. Resentment against ‘foreigners’ (even if their families have lived here for generations) and their ‘alien’ customs is to be stoked. Absurd schemes to deter people coming from abroad (except for the wealthy ones who are likely to donate to Con politics) should be concocted to keep them out, lock them up, or fly them away to far off land.

Next on the scapegoats list are people on low pay or unable to get a job, and have to resort to claiming benefits to make ends meet. They are to be indignantly denounced as ‘cheats’ and ‘scroungers’. Anyone denied decent pay is to be branded as ‘lazy’, the homeless are to be told they have only themselves to blame, and those who cannot work because of their illness or disability are to be slammed for lying about their condition and have all support withdrawn if they do not get out of their sick bed or wheelchair and start looking for work.

More scapegoats are to be found amongst those who live a ‘non-traditional’ way of life – women who want to have opportunities truly equal to those available to men, homosexual couples who want to get married, anyone not conforming to ‘conventional’ notions of gender and sexuality, etc – they are all reviled for violating precious principles and long revered customs.

Along with the scapegoats, Con politics targets the ‘do-gooders’ who dare to press for changes that will help the disadvantaged, and promote reforms that will alter power structures and prevailing practices to improve life for people in general. Trade unions that champion the workers’ cause, politicians who seek to bring in progressive policies, campaigners for the rights of those who are discriminated against, advocates for curbing corporate greed to protect the planet, lawyers who challenge oppressive measures, international organisations that uphold standards of fairness and decency – they are all presented as despicable enemies who should be loathed as dangerous radicals and shut out with perpetual disdain.

Why so much hate? Well, since sympathy with the plight of those who have the toughest struggle might lead to support for giving them help, Con politics wants to turn them into hated scapegoats that few will want to assist with public resources. As for the ‘do-gooders’, if people would listen calmly to their reasons and evidence, they might end up siding with them and their reform ideas. But manipulate people into hating them, that would ensure the case they make – however sound – would be rejected without even getting a hearing.

No wonder the rallying of Con politics is basically one long hate parade.

Citizen Democracy: what’s in a name?

For many people democracy is just about asking a defined group to choose from a number of options, and the option with the most votes would be selected for implementation. But if we remind ourselves that the purpose of democracy is to share power equitably so that those affected by an important decision can influence that decision, then it is clear that the conditions under which the process of identifying and selecting options is carried out matter greatly.

‘Citizen Democracy’ is the name for any power structure which meets the conditions needed for democratic influence to be distributed and exercised properly. These conditions are:

·      Shared Civic Commitments: without such commitments, people choosing purely on selfish, tribal, sectarian basis would lead to social and political fragmentation.

·      Mutual Respect: without safeguards against stigmatisation and discrimination, some would be held back from effective participation.

·      Engagement Capability: without the capability of understanding the issues, the options put forward, or how to make one’s views count, one would not be able to engage meaningfully.

·      Reliable Information: without reliable sources, exposures of false/misleading information, or deliberative processes to resolve conflicting views, one would lack an objective basis to decide.

·      Equal Participatory Opportunity: without support for equal participation, votes may not count equally in different areas, barriers could be erected against disadvantaged groups, while much greater influence could be handed to those with superior wealth.

·      Public Accountability: without robust accountability arrangements, irresponsible leaders could use corruption, intimidation, and secrecy to go against what people want to happen.

Although many developed countries not under authoritarian rule would describe themselves as ‘democratic’, what they have is a multi-party electoral system, which to varying degrees fall short on many of the six conditions outlined above. When critics complain that democracy can lead to undesirable outcomes, what they are bemoaning is a system which endorses certain political outcomes that go against the interests of the people, because it is not a functioning citizen democracy.

If we want the proto-democratic arrangements that are in place to be developed into a system of citizen democracy that truly leads from people’s thought-through concerns to the most supported public policy outcomes, then we must press for substantial improvements in education, regulation,and organisation to get us much closer to fulfilling the six conditions.

Education needs to do much more to raise critical understanding of, not just political institutions and processes, but how to assess sources of information, deliberate in collective enquiries, navigate the language and procedures of public bodies, and engage in policy development.

Regulation’s priorities would include removing iniquitous barriers that hinder disadvantaged groups from voting, curtailing the influence of wealthy donors, eliminating unfair advantages set up by partisan legislatures, restricting the spreading of malicious misinformation, and penalising those who abuse the power of their office.

Organisational improvements are required in terms of training in inclusive engagement for those in public office, provision of suitable participatory options, support for community development and partnership working, rooting out discrimination, and cultivating shared objectives.

Citizen democracy does not presume all decisions should be made via direct, representative, or deliberative democratic arrangements. It does not set down what kind of majoritarian threshold is to be applied in all cases. What it demands is that power structures affecting people’s lives should enable people to influence in a fair and meaningful way how the power in question is assigned and exercised.

--

‘Citizen democracy’ has also be termed ‘civic-communitarian democracy’ or ‘communitarian democracy’. For example, see Time to Save Democracy.

Pathways to Human Connections

History has taught us that only through learning to cooperate do human beings get to improve the chances of their attaining a better quality of life together. It is vital we explore and adapt different forms of structures, rules, customs, and so on, in order to discover what kind of social, economic, and political connections would help us meet the challenges we face more effectively than if we were left to our own devices.

In her book, Journey to Hopeful Futures, Helena Kettleborough sets out a series of pathways to take people forward in developing those connections that would displace despair by hope. It is an impressive and wide-ranging work that brings together reflections on diverse cultures, examples that illustrate a variety of ways to thinking through complex issues, and exposition of an array of techniques that should be applied to personal and group learning.

At one level, this exemplary handbook introduces readers to the many forms of learning that are vital for better connections to be built, and mutual understanding to be enriched. It provides a most accessible guide for anyone interested in finding out more about the significance and utilisation of value-based learning; inter-disciplinary learning; orientation towards problem-solving; participatory engagement; lifelong learning; and action research. Instructively, it treats them, not in silos, but as interwoven strands of a holistic approach – well illustrated (in chapters 7 and 12) by the approach of North West Together We Can, where Kettleborough worked in the 2000s.

At a deeper level, Journey to Hopeful Futures articulates an outlook which is rooted in what may be termed a naturalistic notion of spirituality. For people with whom such a notion resonates, the book acts as a companion in exploring the emotionally charged steps that may be taken towards that spiritual worldview. They would find references that range from the tiniest creatures on earth to the cosmic vastness, from personal experiences to cultural memories, illuminating in helping them see everything in the ‘Sacred Earth and Cosmos’ as connected in a spiritually meaningful way.

However, it should be pointed out that ‘spirituality’ may not always work well as a unifying notion. Some people’ spiritual experience is framed in terms of their relationship with a sentient omnipotent being who cares only for humans (or in some cases, only the ‘chosen ones’). Some people care for others but see that as a matter of being true to their human nature, and not related to anything beyond interpersonal relations. Some people can be persuaded to cooperate through enlightened self-interest but not out of deference to some cosmic ideal. Some people support biodiversity but would not worry too much if disease-carrying mosquitoes were about to become extinct. 

Kettleborough recognises that not everyone relates to a spiritual worldview, and her book encourages readers to create their own journey through exploring creative learning exercises, ongoing individual reflection, and tapping into other resources that are signposted. Importantly, the book’s exposition of participatory learning in its diverse forms shows how people with different worldviews can work together even if they persist with holding onto their own worldviews. People do not have to have a spiritual sense of awe and wonder about the world in order to engage in forms of learning that enable participants to raise their shared understanding and assessment of what can be reliably believed and acted on. With the help of Journey to Hopeful Futures, they will discover much more about how they can in cooperation with others better tackle issues such as the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, and multiple social challenges

It is empirically established that cooperative learning is more dependable than any other approach in problem-solving. And whatever worldviews people hold, they can adopt this approach to learning. Of course, there may well be people who, irrespective of the evidence, insist on invoking groundless assumptions and arguing arbitrarily, but where that is the case, rather than trying to appeal to their sense of spirituality, the focus should be on learning what can be effectively appealed to for them to recognise the need to engage in cooperative problem-solving.

--

To find out more about Journey to Hopeful Futures: a handbook, by Helena Kettleborough, (Centre for Connected Practice, 2023), go to: https://c4cp.net/blog/project/journey-to-hopeful-futures-a-handbook/

More on cooperative learning and participatory engagement can be found in ‘Lessons for Tomorrow’s Communities’:  

https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2021/07/lessons-for-tomorrows-communities.html

Tomorrow’s Communities: renewing our democratic infrastructure

Our democratic infrastructure comprises the cultures, rules, systems, and practices that facilitate collective deliberations and cooperative problem-solving across society. It involves far more than electoral arrangements, and covers opportunities to engage, learning, communications, adjudication, support, and enforcement that can impact on people’s ability and disposition to engage with others on an informed basis to shape outcomes that affect their wellbeing. 

Politicians who rely on the support of plutocrats and fundamentalists have increasingly sought to weaken our democratic infrastructure – propagating lies, ensuring the wealthy dominate elections with their campaign donations, widening power inequalities, spreading malicious conspiracy theories, raising barriers to voting by the poor and disadvantaged, cutting support for inclusive community action, undermining political education, adopting authoritarian practices. This has helped them blocked many policies which are needed to deal with numerous pressing social, environmental, and economic problems. If these regressive tactics are to be overcome, reformists should recognise that our democratic infrastructure must be renewed and sufficiently strengthened so that people can engage effectively in formulating the collective actions needed for their wellbeing, and pressing for their implementation.

What would such renewal entail? For the group of writers behind the book, Tomorrow’s Communities, and many others who share our outlook, the elements that are integral to any robust democratic infrastructure – participatory decision-making, collaborative learning, openness, power sharing, safeguards against deception and intimidation, mutual support, processes for transparency and objectivity, state-citizen partnership – constitute a holistic set that should be advanced together. These elements should not be treated in silos as subsidiary issues, but developed as inter-connected components of a top priority reform programme.

The effectiveness of any democratic infrastructure is to be judged on how well it supports informed, sustained, cooperative interactions. Such interactions have been found to be most conducive to mutual improvement in human communities – as confirmed by anthropological studies, game theory experiments, examinations of cultural convergence on the golden rule of reciprocal behaviour, findings from developmental psychology, and projections of evolutionary adaptations. We have also learnt from outcomes in diverse fields that success is generally dependent on three conditions: 

·      Mutual responsibility – whereby people appreciate that they need to give respect and support for others as they want respect and support from others, and recognise the pursuit of their common wellbeing can help avoid divisive dispositions.

·      Cooperative enquiry – whereby people can rely on objective exploration of claims through transparent processes of collaborative exchange and learning, structured adjudication with built-in capacity for re-examination, and protection from manipulative distortion and malicious rumours.

·      Citizen participation – whereby people can give informed and meaningful input into shaping decisions that affect them, and are assured that their influence is safeguarded by arrangements that uphold accountability, counter corruption, and curtail power inequalities.

In order to bring about these conditions for robust democratic infrastructure, we need to engage in a programme of continuous improvement that gives ongoing support to and removes barriers from their development in education, media management, science and research, democratic institutions, law and order, public service provision, and community action. In each case, the challenge is to promote better understanding and relationships, facilitate objective and critical learning, and ensure that everyone – especially the marginalised and vulnerable – can influence how decisions affecting them are made.

The approaches that can help advance the development across the different policy areas are set out by the contributors to the following books: 

·       Tomorrow’s Communities – what lessons should be learnt from democratic collaboration that has brought about effective community-based transformation.

·       Whose Government is it? – why and how cooperative relationships between citizens and state organisations are to be renewed to improve our common wellbeing.

·       Who’s Afraid of Political Education – what kind of learning is needed to raise civic competences and the level of democratic participation.

·       Time to Save Democracy – why we need to reinvigorate democratic culture and practices, and what changes should be implemented in nine key areas of socio-political development.

There are other works that provide more evidence and guidance as to the kind of policies and arrangements that should be brought in to improve our collective capability for solving the most pressing and difficult problems we face. For too long, community initiatives, collaborative learning, participatory decision-making, and other related practices have been seen as adjuncts to the ‘key’ political commitments, when in fact the democratic infrastructure they connect together is the indispensable foundation of all societal problem-solving. It is time we recognise them as a cohesive set of developmental ideas that should be implemented for the sake of Tomorrow’s Communities.

--

From now until 31 October 2023, Henry Tam’s democracy-related books will be available at 50% discount when purchased directly from Policy Press using the code TAM50.

Battling Disempowerment: a 9-point plan

Here’s a question: why is it that whenever people are given the opportunity to discuss in an informed and reasonable manner what should be done about the most serious problems around, they reach agreement about policies to tackle poverty and the widening wealth gaps, pollution and the climate crisis, crimes against vulnerable people, the underfunding of public services, the lack of sustainable economic development, etc., and yet so often the politicians who are opposed to such policies nonetheless win power?

The answer lies with the insidious move of systemic disempowerment – eroding safeguards that are needed to enable people to back the politicians and policies meriting their support in light of the evidence.

Disempowerment tactics are increasingly deployed – from Republican state legislatures in the US to and the Conservative government in the UK, they have included raising barriers to voting by the poor and disadvantaged with the quite unnecessary photo ID requirement; devious redrawing of constituency boundaries; helping the wealthy dominate elections with their campaign donations; issuing partisan edicts on what should and should not be taught in schools about political issues; cutting support for social inclusion; defending the propagation of lies and misinformation; stopping charities from expressing views about public policies; and interfering with the supervision of elections.

Yet even politicians who value democracy are prone to say that there are more urgent issues to deal with than tackling anti-democratic disempowerment. What they forget is that to get the public backing they need to address those very issues, they need democracy to function well. Otherwise, they may not win power, or can only do so with watered-down policies to satisfy a misled public. 

Set out below are nine groups of initiatives that should feature prominently in any political programme concerned with strengthening democracy against the ploy of disempowerment.

[1] Invest in Community Development:

Invest in the provision of tried and tested forms of community development, including community organising and community mediation, to help people overcome divisions, experience the benefits of collaboration, and develop a shared sense of common interests.

[2] Root out Discrimination:

Discriminatory activities have been emboldened by the toxic rhetoric of anti-political correctness and anti-woke, and a firm stand against these activities must be taken and clearly explained in terms of fair treatment for all, backed by transparent rules and dependable enforcement.

[3] Clarify Civic Responsibility:

The right to take part in democratic processes has been mired in confusion – with different criteria for eligibility in different cases. In addition to determining what the justifiable exclusionary factors are, citizens should be made aware of their responsibilities in taking part.

[4] Support Learning in Democracy:

All educational bodies should facilitate learning in democracy – both in terms of inculcating open, deliberative learning, and increasing knowledge of public policy issues and the operations of government. Teachers should recognise that impartiality does not entail rejection of the most up-to-date consensus findings.

[5] Reinforce Objective Investigation:

Countering the attempts to undermine scientific expertise, professional assessment, and judicial impartiality, there should be formal support and protection for arrangements that secure objectivity and independent scrutiny in all major processes for determining the acceptability of claims.

[6] Regulate Irresponsible Communication:

Akin to the prohibition against communicating false or misleading information in commercial transactions, expression that can incite criminal behaviour, and sensitive materials that can harm a country’s security, regulatory restraints should be applied to irresponsible communications that affect public behaviour.

[7] Extend Participatory Decision-Making:

In line with subsidiarity and deliberative engagement, more support and opportunities for participatory decision-making should be provided for citizens to be involved in a wider range of public decisions. On-going dialogues should be developed to sustain collaborative relationships.

[8] Curtail Civic Disparity:

The power of the wealthy to help win votes for their favoured outcomes should be reduced by tighter limits being set and enforced, and the electoral marginalisation of the poor by their economic insecurity should be countered by a civic guarantee (of basic income and decent public services) to enable them to participate in democratic activities.

[9] Fortify Public Accountability: 

The processes for electing people to public office must be protected from party political interference, and institutions tasked with overseeing their rules and operations must be free from appointments dependent on party political backing. Those in office should be accountable to independent bodies following an election.

Disempowerment works by depriving as many people as possible of the understanding needed to back the appropriate politicians and policies, and reducing the likelihood of the rest in exerting sufficient influence over elections or key decisions. The 9-point plan set out above draws attention to the key initiatives that should be developed to counter its pernicious effects.

--

For a detailed exposition of why and how we should respond to the threats against democracy, see Time to Save Democracy.

 

From now until 31 October 2023, Henry Tam’s democracy-related books will be available at 50% discount when purchased directly from Policy Press using the code TAM50.

Fiddlers on the Hoof: Con Politics Explained

In the 2010s, UKIP pulled Con politics in the UK further and further to the right. From 2016, Trump dragged Con politics in the US in a similar direction. Then Conservative parties across Europe and other parts of the world began to move too, away from declaring adamantly that they would refuse to join forces with far-right politicians, to being ready to form coalition governments with them. Why has this been happening? Is there some special kind of politics that is emerging?

 

The answer is this: strategically, no; tactically, yes.

 

Con politics is still in essence the same old quest to preserve (and wherever possible, enhance) the powers and privileges of the dominant few. But tactically, it won’t rely on one grand narrative about how things should be (as in the glorious old days), instead its focus is to attack opportunistically any positive thing which might bring about a better society for everyone. 

 

Con politics is driven by a self-obsessed elite who despise the idea that power inequalities should be narrowed. Their self-esteem is founded on looking down on the multitude who, in comparison with them, are hopelessly poor and vulnerable. They couldn’t enjoy being at the top of the pyramid if there weren’t so many stuck at the bottom of the hierarchy. For them, the worst enemies are ‘do-gooders’ (democratic, liberal-minded, progressive, caring) who try to bring in reforms that would make society better for all. These ‘do-gooders’ would keep seeking to improve the quality of life for everyone, prioritising those whose circumstances need improving most. And that threatens to undermine the vision of our modern-day pharaohs who just want to denounce the ‘do-gooders’ and quash their attempts at reform.

 

So the Con merchants seize any opportunity there is to turn people against what is actually good for them:

 

·      Brexit: being a member of the European Union is good for the UK economically, environmentally, and on every other measure; but leaving the EU offered a chance to stir up chaos and lower standards, so Brexit they backed.

·      Net Zero scepticism: despite the near universal scientific consensus on what urgently needs to be done to tackle the accelerating climate change problems, Con politics chooses to exploit any reservation about proposed actions to put a brake on their adoption, and allow damages to worsen for people who could do nothing on their own to avoid the dire consequences.

·      Xenophobia: welcoming migrants and refugees has always helped to build more open-mined and productive societies; whereas turning people (especially those disadvantaged by the reigning plutocracy) against those demonised as ‘foreigners’ would help to divert frustration and anger towards fictitious enemies.

·      Austerity: investing in public services would help everyone and revive the economy; but the Con line is to do the reverse, and keep cutting public services so that those with the least end up getting even less, and become even more at the mercy of those with the most.

·      Anti-Woke: showing kindness and understanding to others is a core measure of the civilised mindset; but the Con attacks it as ‘woke’, and promotes thoughtless animosity to facilitate the old ‘divide and rule’ trick.

 

Look around us, if there is any opportunity popping up for Con politics to slyly shift people from embracing sound policies to backing moves that would benefit the powerful few at the expense of the wider public, the fiddlers on the hoof will soon have another announcement to make.

--

From now until 31 October 2023, Henry Tam’s democracy-related books will be available at 50% discount when purchased directly from Policy Press using the code TAM50.

Counter-Enlightenment, Anti-Woke

The ‘Anti-Woke’ bandwagon has been picking up speed in stirring up anger and resentment against ideas that annoy reactionaries. Exposing prejudices, follies, exploitation has always irritated manipulators who fear that the more others know about what they are really up to, the less they could continue to take advantage of them. To retain their oppressive power and sense of superiority, they resort to weapons of mass deception.

 

In so doing, they are carrying forward the dishonourable tradition of the Counter-Enlightenment, which emerged to attack the thinkers who from late 17^th through the rest of the 18^th century, explained why better ways of understanding the world and improving people’s lives could be attained through empirical investigation, objective reasoning, and cooperative deliberations. They argued that knowledge could be more reliably advanced through scientific research than tying it to the teachings of priests and theologians; women should be given the same opportunities as men; no one should be treated as a slave; punishment should fit the crime; the power to rule should be shared more widely. 

 

These and many other ideas characterised the enlightening outlook that became increasingly influential. By late 18^th and early 19^th century, they had provoked reactions that came to be known as the Counter-Enlightenment. People who had their self-importance wrapped up in the status quo detested attempts to get people to see more clearly what was going on around them. These reactionaries championed darkness over light. Their impact spread through the 19^th century. Church leaders must be heeded over scientific findings. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was condemned and many schools were forbidden from teaching it. Calls for equality for women and men were mockingly rejected. In the US, the southern states fought a war when they thought they might not otherwise be able to retain their system of slavery indefinitely. In France, antisemitism rose to new heights as reactionaries rallied to back the false charge and wrongful imprisonment of the Jewish army officer, Captain Dreyfus. Harsh punishment for the poor was trumpeted alongside leniency for the rich. Attempts to extend the right to vote were repeatedly blocked.

 

By the 20^th century, these Counter-Enlightenment tendencies were hardening into fascism, religious fundamentalism, white supremacism, irrationalism, and misogynist politics. As the 21^st century dawned, theocratic politics, anti-science in relation to the environment and public health, defence of institutional racism, and anti-international cooperation, were added to the mix. Peel away the ‘Anti-Woke’ label, it is this pernicious cocktail that is being served up.

 

It is understandable that when one’s journey to visit a sick relative is held up for hours by protestors against fossil fuels on the motorway, or when one is criticised for reading to one’s child an innocuous story by an author who decades ago made an insensitive remark, one might be drawn to the rhetoric of the Anti-Woke brigade. But it is quite a different matter to give one’s political support to scoundrels who are determined to keep the public from realising that their agenda is to advance their own selfish interests at the expense of everyone else’s wellbeing.

The Theft of Political Clothes

From time to time, we hear one political party fretting about another party stealing their clothes. If people want their ideas and policies adopted, isn’t it a good thing that even their opponents are coming round to promoting them? On the surface, that might seem so. But more often than not, such ‘borrowing’ of ideas is not to be welcome at all. Here are four reasons to be wary.

First of all, the sheer incompetence of the other side can give any policy they adopt a bad name and end up discrediting it completely. After thirteen years of mismanaging public services, failing to build desperately needed homes despite repeated announcements of new initiatives, mishandling everything from the economy to policing, it is understandable that a Tory government picking up a new policy may well be followed by the most muddled, disorganised execution of that policy, creating the impression that the policy itself is inherently undeliverable. The Tory policy commitment to Net Zero is a prime example.

Secondly, when it comes to policies with major funding implications, one has to watch for the half-hearted mimics. One party may want to close the funding gap for the health service, or provide what is necessary to reduce flooding. But the other side could come out to say that they are tackling the funding shortfalls in headline terms, when in fact they are not making available even half of what is actually needed, then the public – hearing figures about so many millions, or billions being added to current budgets – might think the financial challenge is met, and come to believe that one must not “throw any more money at the problem”.

Thirdly, we have the time-wasting tokenistic gesture of adopting a well thought out policy so that the party which had formulated that policy is not viewed by voters as the one with a distinctly good offer. In reality, once people no longer associate that policy with the party that sincerely seeks to implement it, the copycat brigade would put it on the backburner, or hand it to a small team with neither the staffing nor financial support for its development. The policy will never see the light of day, and many would have forgotten whose idea it was anyway.

Last but not least, there is the tactic of cynical undermining. This works by one party welcoming a policy idea which it does not want those who devised it to get a chance to secure its implementation. Having ‘adopted’ the policy, the manipulators would proceed to give it ‘special attention’ – by setting up a commission, a review team, etc. to determine how it should be taken forward. After months and years, lots of obstacles would be identified, and recommendations would be drafted and then discarded. The process would eventually achieve its aim of associating that policy with numerous insurmountable problems.

Next time we hear progressive reformists complaining about reactionary parties stealing their clothes, we should not blame them. Rather, we ought to help raise awareness about the lack of honour amongst those thieves.

Crimes Against Democracy

Since 2010, democracy in the UK has suffered from numerous attempts by Conservative-led governments to undermine it. In 2014, the method for electoral registration was changed despite warnings that it would cause hundreds of thousands of potential voters – especially youngsters and those in poor, transient households – to drop off the register. That was exactly what happened. To put off even more people from getting electorally involved, the Conservatives brought in the Elections Act 2022 which required photo identification for anyone wanting to vote in person, knowing that young people and those on lower income are less likely to have a passport or driving licence.

The 2022 Act also put an end to the Electoral Commission’s independent status that had hitherto enabled it to challenge the government. Henceforth, the commission would be placed under the supervision of a government minister. It’s unlikely that it would in future publicly castigate a Tory government for breaching electoral funding rules as it had done in the past.

All this and more have been taking place with no major public outcry – not because people are content to have their democratic influence diminished, but because they are not aware of what is being done and what impact it could have. If only people had generally acquired an early interest and understanding in how politics works, gone on to listen out for what implications various policy proposals might have, and followed through to use their vote to steer power towards where it would make the most positive difference.

For that to happen, we need extensive, high quality political education. What we get from the Conservative government, however, is guidance to schools instructing them to refrain from teaching anything which could be regarded as breaching ‘political impartiality’. And is political impartiality to be determined by an independent body guided by non-partisan experts? No, what is or is not an issue that is too ‘contested’ to teach is to be judged by the Conservative Secretary of State for Education, advised by advisors aligned with the interest of the Conservative Party.

Climate change apparently can be talked about at school, but not the ideas concerning what could be done about it, since that might involve policy suggestions that the government would contest. Similarly, race inequality can be mentioned, but not ideas about what are the causes and what might remedy it, since that might also involve explanations the government would contest. In short, anything the government does not agree with, and thus is inclined to contest as mistaken would be classified as unsuitable to teach at school. Political education would then be reduced to passing on information that the government is happy to endorse, but it would be cut off at any point it raises awareness of any fact, arrangement or practice that the government prefers to keep opaque. 

But isn’t it impossible to teach politics without getting tangled up with party politics? On this, there are two important points to note. First, scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, historians, etc all develop expertise in their fields and pass on their findings and criticisms to others who seek to learn from them – regardless of whether or not the government of the day find it inconvenient to hear those ideas and thus wish to contest them. Secondly, apart from facts and analyses relating directly to political processes, there are many skills that political education would inculcate – critical reasoning, assessing the reliability of claims made on different media platforms, conflict resolution, consensus building, fact checking, group development, empathic listening, etc. Some politicians may be against the teaching of such skills – as that would make it so much more difficult to deceive and manipulate people – but anyone who cares about democracy would welcome their cultivation.

--

You can find out more about the reforms needed to strengthen democracy in Time to Save Democracy (by Henry Tam): https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/time-to-save-democracy

For more on why and how we should provide more effective political education, see this collection - Who’s Afraid of Political Education (ed. by Henry Tam): https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/whos-afraid-of-political-education

[this is a shortened version of an article I wrote for Policy Press’ Transforming Society]