Curb Their Lobbying Enthusiasm

How does political lobbying work? In theory, anyone can speak to their elected representative to present their views in the hope that they will be taken into account. In practice, access to elected representatives (especially those holding key government positions) is very limited, and politicians pay far more attention to the small number of people who possess a vast amount of influence.  Of these influential people, the most powerful are those with substantial wealth that enables them to offer campaign donations, prospects of future directorships, generous perks, valuable connections with others in their circles, and countless other benefits that money can always buy.

These plutocrats consider lobbying as their prerogative to press their preferences on people in public office.  They know that there are quite a few who will be receptive to their approach because they have gone into politics to advance their own material interests.  Even when they come across politicians whose priority is to serve the public, they may still be able to intimidate them by threatening to give more money to their opponents in electoral contests unless they trim their policies.

Lobbying enables plutocrats to subvert democracy by getting politicians to do their bidding at the expense of what the wider population require. Legislation to reduce preventable deaths have been blocked or delayed by tobacco companies, fossil fuel producers, and makers of sugary food and drinks. Measures to cut air pollution and environmental damages are constantly halted or substantially watered down by those who profit from acts that ruin the health of others. Regulation to stop irresponsible gambling on the financial markets that has repeatedly caused economic crises and wrecked innumerable lives, is pushed back by corporate interests that thrive on chaos for ordinary people.

What can be done about it?

We propose two restrictions:

[1] Any member of the legislature in receipt of something of tangible value (financial or in kind; on-going or one-off; directly or via their spouse/civil partner) from any individual or organisation must register it, and not be allowed to vote on any proposed legislation that can significantly affect the individual or organisation which has provided the benefit in question. Any member who voted and subsequently found to have not disclosed their prior pecuniary connection with relevant individual(s) or organisation(s) shall be prosecuted for committing the crime of subverting democratic proceedings (with expulsion from the legislature as a penalty for serious cases).

[2] Once a bill has been introduced, any contact with any member of the legislature to discuss elements of the bill must be made through a formal process that is open and supervised. Arguments for and against parts or all of the bill will be presented at one of the sessions organised by an independent administrative body. Written submissions can be sent directly to politicians, but face-to-face (or via video link) presentations will only be allowed in one of the official, public sessions. Any personal contact to set up or take part in a private meeting will constitute a criminal offence in subverting democratic proceedings. Any member of the legislature agreeing to or participating in such private meetings will also be prosecuted (with expulsion from the legislature as a penalty for serious cases).

In case anyone tries to bring out the old ‘this is restricting our freedom’ slogan, let us not forget that there has never been freedom granted to bribe politicians. Using one’s wealth to bend legislators to one’s will is not acceptable.  It’s time we close the gaping loopholes.

Communitarianism: don’t let it be misunderstood

Since the 1990s, the terms ‘communitarian’ and ‘communitarianism’ have found their way into media commentary as well as academics texts. This is not surprising as it was around that time that ‘communitarianism’ came to be applied to the ideas of a number of philosophers who criticised certain individualistic conceptions of morality and justice [Note 1], and ‘communitarian’ was used by a range of social and political theorists in the UK and the US to describe the approaches they were putting forward [Note 2]. On the basis of these writings, a distinct outlook can be discerned and indeed traced back to precursors in the 19^th and early 20^th century [Note 3].

One would suppose that commentators and academics using the term ‘communitarian’ in their writings would base it on the actual ideas expressed by the thinkers we alluded to above [Note 4]. Unfortunately, many of them seem to connect it simply to anything that is about community. If someone has written a reactionary book lamenting the loss of traditional communities, they refer to the book as ‘communitarian’. If a politician gives a speech about communities, rather than the state, must deal with their own problems, they say that is a ‘communitarian’ speech. But to use a word so casually, cut off from its intellectual roots, is irresponsibly misleading.

Based on the works of the thinkers who can legitimately be regarded as exponents of distinct communitarian ideas (and not just anyone who has written about communities), the following misunderstanding ought to be cleared up once and for all.

Traditions

While there are commentators who associate communitarianism with nostalgic attachment to old traditions, even though these may be oppressive, the fact is that none of the communitarians identified above can be accused of having such sentiments. On the contrary, their emphasis is on the evolving experiences of communities and how traditions should be preserved and celebrated in so far as they enhance people’s sense of their wellbeing, but should be revised or even ended if they are found to cause harm and instability for community members. As for the much-quoted dichotomy of Gemeinschaft (tightly knit traditional community) or Gesellschaft (loose association of self-centred individuals), communitarians reject both and call for strong cooperative communities based on mutual respect and shared intelligence [Note 5].

Responsibilities & Rights

Communitarians are often alleged to have focused on the need for people to take responsibility for their own lives and neglected the importance of their rights. Based on their actual writings, it would be more accurate to say that they are concerned that people should take their social responsibilities seriously, especially those with considerable wealth and power as they accordingly ought to do more for their communities. At the same time, communities should ensure that appropriate rights to mutual respect and support are established for their members, and that these are honoured to avoid fragmentation and marginalisation. 

Community Autonomy 

Some conservative-minded writers have written about leaving communities to sort out their own problems regardless of whether or not they lack the financial resources to do so, or if those problems are rooted in local prejudices and oppressive arrangements. But for communitarian thinkers, no individual or community should be cut off from the outside world as though their fate is no one else’s business. Diverse individuals and communities form social connections, and it their shared experiences – not some ideology about what governments should or should not do – that reveal what level of cooperation and wider support are appropriate to deal with the difficulties they face. In practice, cosmopolitan engagement is more dependable than parochial seclusion.

Reactionary or Progressive 

Although some may still insist on calling any conservative writer who champions ‘traditional values’ or ‘small government’ a communitarian, the fact remains that the paradigmatic thinkers who used the ‘communitarian’ term to describe what they put forward, and those who have influenced their ideas, are all on the progressive side of the political spectrum. Jonathan Boswell and Robert Bellah opposed ‘free market’ ideology and referred to their own position as ‘democratic communitarianism’. Philip Selznick, Amitai Etzioni, and Robert Putnam summed up their stance as ‘liberal communitarianism’. David Miller and Charles Derber stressed that what they advocated was best understood as a form of ‘left communitarianism’. David Marquand wrote of his “vision of a communitarian ethical socialism”. And Henry Tam has used the label, ‘progressive communitarianism’ [Note 6].

Communitarianism offers important insights and approaches for dealing with a wide range of social and political challenges.  But the misunderstanding of it as some form of conservative thinking has become a barrier to more people exploring it.  Perhaps we can help to change that.

--

Henry Tam is the author of:

·      Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship (Palgrave Macmillan, 1998).

·      'Communitarianism', in the Encyclopedia of Action Research (Sage Publications, 2014).

·      ‘Communitarianism, sociology of’, in International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), (Elsevier, 2015). 

·      ‘Communitarianism’ in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Relativism, ed. by Martin Kusch (Routledge, 2020).

·      The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

·      Communitarianism: philosophy, politics & public policy (Bloomsbury, forthcoming 2025).

He is also the editor of the following books on communitarian arguments and policies:

·      Punishment, Excuses and Moral Development (Avebury Press, 1996).

·      Progressive Politics in the Global Age (Polity, 2001).

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

--

NOTES

Note 1: These include Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, and Michael Sandel, whose critiques of certain forms of individualism came under the general heading of ‘communitarianism’ in academic circles in the 1990s. None of them adopted the label themselves.

Note 2: These thinkers were from the UK (e.g., David Miller, Jonathan Boswell, David Marquand, Henry Tam) and the US (e.g., Philip Selznick, Amitai Etzioni, Robert Bellah, Robert Putnam, Charles Derber). Unlike those mentioned in Note 1, they all used ‘communitarian’ and ‘communitarianism’ to designate the ideas they were putting forward.

Note 3: Thinkers who have been recognised as precursors to the modern development of communitarianism include Emile Durkheim, John Dewey, L.T. Hobhouse, Jane Addams, and Mary Parker Follett. The intellectual lineage can be traced further back to the cooperative movement initiated by Robert Owen and his followers – indeed the term ‘communitarian’ was coined in association with Owenite ideas and practices in the 19^th century.

Note 4: For more details of these thinkers and their writings, see Tam, H., The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

Note 5: See the work of Durkheim, Dewey, and Hobhouse on ideas relating to the development of organic solidarity (as distinct from the mechanical solidarity integral to any form of Gemeinschaft).

Note 6: These are the paradigmatic writers who in the 1990s defined communitarian thinking with key texts in which they set out ideas they would explicitly associate with the terms ‘communitarian’/‘communitarianism’. There were of course conservative writers who put forward quite different views on community life, but they did not adopt the label ‘communitarian’, and there is no reason why they should be taken to be representative of communitarianism which is quite clearly non-conservative. Calling them ‘communitarians’ would be akin to coming across people who argue that one’s own utility/happiness is all that matters, and calling them ‘utilitarians’.