The Case for Communitarian Democracy

It is not uncommon to hear phrases such as ‘we must defend democracy’, ‘that is undemocratic’, or ‘democracy is not good enough’, but how often are people clear about what they mean by ‘democracy’?

‘Democracy’ means many things – a multi-party electoral system; majority rule; power sharing amongst all citizens; accountable government; participatory decision-making; equality of political status; one person, one vote; every vote carrying the same electoral weight.  When some want to promote democracy, and others lament its shortcomings, they might not so much be contradicting each other as talking about quite different forms of governance.

What is distinctive about communitarian democracy is that it addresses the vulnerabilities of relatively superficial forms of electoral politics, and formulates requirements which would maximise the equal and deliberative input of all members of society in shaping how they are governed.

It has three main components, and each of these has three conditions, giving a total of nine requirements to meet to secure effective democratic governance:

[A] TOGETHERNESS: citizens should be connected through a sense of mutual responsibility; they need to recognise each other as interdependent members of society with common concerns.

[1] Shared Mission:

Solidarity should be cultivated by facilitating people in developing a practical understanding of what they seek together – such as the pursuit of security, the improvement of living conditions, or other objectives that matter to everyone.

[2] Mutual Respect:

There can be little trust in any collective decision-making arrangements if certain groups and individuals are discriminated against.  Mutual respect must be taught and safeguarded against exclusionary tactics such as targeted insult and intimidation, or the promotion of racial or cultural divisiveness.

[3] Coherent Membership:

Responsive governance needs those under its jurisdiction to understand and appreciate why they benefit from that common jurisdiction.  Citizenship should be grounded on the awareness of their rights and responsibilities, and the conditions for bringing in new members as well as the criteria for suspending membership terms.

[B] OBJECTIVITY:citizens should be able to reason and judge through cooperative enquiry; their deliberations must be protected by safeguards for impartiality and enforcement against deception.

[4] Collaborative Learning:

To steer clear of both the autocracy imposed by some know-it-all and the anarchy of perpetual disputes, we need cultural and organisational arrangements to advance extensive collaborative learning to build a shared and dependable knowledge base.

[5] Critical Re-examination:

A system of critical re-examination, that will review ideas in the light of the evidence and cogent arguments, is needed to minimise the likelihood of people stepping back from reasoned deliberations with others, or holding their own views as unquestionable for all time.

[6] Responsible Communication:

Reliable governance calls for safeguards against irresponsible communication which might otherwise undermine objective deliberations and cast a shadow over the prospect of citizens attaining a shared understanding of what they should do as a group.

[C] POWER BALANCE:collective decisions should be made on the basis of citizen participation; arrangements and reforms are needed to enable citizens to have an equal say in shaping public policies.

[7] Participatory Decision-Making:

Inclusive governance requires the adoption of tried and tested participatory practices that make it possible for citizens to engage deliberatively in a wider range of pubic decisions, and give everyone a fair share of influence so that none may come to dominate others.

[8] Civic Parity:

There should be no unbridgeable gulf between the influence different groups of citizens can bring to bear on the rules and practices that affect them all, and this necessitates limits on inequalities in wealth, political connections, and social status.

[9] Public Accountability: 

Collective self-governance requires a distribution of power that will enable any given group to hold to account anyone in that group whose actions impact on the lives of others. This needs to be sustained by an effective system of public accountability.

Instead of defending or denigrating ‘democracy’ when it merely refers to some superficial form of electoral system, we should focus our energy on developing the kind of governance that we really need as a society – that of communitarian democracy.

--

For a detailed exposition of communitarian democracy, see Time to Save Democracy: https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/time-to-save-democracy

Persuading Al Capone

Whenever someone suggests introducing legal restrictions on a particular type of behaviour, even where it is generally agreed that the behaviour is dangerous and harmful, it may be questioned if we should rely on persuasion rather than regulation to contain it.

We can all accept that if persuasion can by itself stop the undesirable behaviour in question, then it would be preferable not only because it is a less costly option, but also because it is a better moral outcome if people choose to do the right thing in accordance with what they accept as correct, and not just out of fear of punishment for breaking a rule.

However, there is clearly a limit to persuasion. The problem with the mantra of placing total reliance on persuasive approaches alone is that it ignores the consequences of those approaches falling short – taking too long, not reaching enough people, or simply not halting the harmful behaviour.

Some people just would not listen to arguments. Imagine in the name of ‘freedom’, there is no legal rule governing driving.  Anyone can drive if they want, though they are told that it would be safer for everyone if they would pass a driving test first.  Inevitably, there will be those who drive without having taken any lesson, speed along narrow roads, get drunk before their journey, or take dangerous risks as they head towards a zebra crossing.  

From organised crime to callous individual acts of spreading dangerous diseases to vulnerable people, there are countless cases of people engaging in harmful activities even when there are legal restrictions against them.  Only a fantasist could suppose that in the absence of all regulations, such people would suddenly acquire a sense of responsibility, and stop putting their own greed and impulse above the wellbeing of others.

One may wonder why some politicians still insist that persuasion is the limit of what we should do to curtail harmful behaviour. Do they know some secret persuasive technique they have yet to share with the rest of us?  Are they in possession of a style of communication that can change the most self-centred or thoughtless individuals into socially minded citizens?

In truth, there are two reasons why these politicians champion persuasion as the only acceptable policy tool – in very specific cases.  One reason is that they do not actually in the cases in question want the harmful behaviour to stop.  Be it climate change, pollution, threats to health and safety, job insecurity, etc., they directly or indirectly (through links to donors and potential benefactors) have an interest in ensuring there is no legal impediment to corporations maximising their financial gains at the expense of other people.  In short, they want to stick with persuasion when anything with legal force would curtail the activities in question and hence impinge on their own pecuniary interests.

The other reason is that with harmful behaviour such as racist, sexist, bigoted, intimidatory acts, these politicians calculate that siding with the perpetrators of these acts by keeping legal intervention at bay, would help them gain electoral support.  By constantly speaking out against the ‘threat to freedom’ of any legal restriction against these types of harmful behaviour, they present themselves as defenders of the ‘right’ to spew hatred and prejudice.

There is little point in trying to convince these politicians that persuasion may not always be enough.  In those cases where they insist on persuasion as the limit to what any government should do, the task for society is to expose their self-serving interests as the indefensible basis of their position.

Political Impartiality in Schools?

Schools are told they must be politically impartial in what they teach and discuss.  But what is political impartiality, and who decides?

In the US, an increasing number of Republican states have taken the approach of telling schools what they must not teach (usually anything connected with raising awareness of racism, sexual prejudice, and social injustice), and what they must not prevent from being discussed (any views which, in the name of ‘balance’ challenge concerns with racism, sexual prejudice, or social justice).

In England, the Conservative Government has issued guidance to schools in an attempt to push a similar agenda but to appear less overtly reactionary.  However, one has to wonder if its lack of clarity is deliberate in facilitating the advancement of reactionary ideas, albeit in an obfuscating manner.

For example, the guidance says that topics “which are particularly contentious and disputed” (such as historical events, especially when these relate to “empire and imperialism”) should be taught “in a balanced manner”.’  But what is ‘balanced’?  There are Conservatives who have been adamant that detractors of Britain’s past imperial triumphs should not be allowed to put forward their views in schools.  Should the guidance be interpreted as requiring any criticism of imperial oppression be ‘balanced’ by a glowing account of the glory of empire? Yet do the two sides always balance out?  We cannot assume that every contested issue can simply be resolved by the ‘balancing’ act of giving equal weight to both sides of the conflict.

The advice offered by the government guidance maintains that when it comes to “significant” political figures – “including those who have controversial and contested legacies” – teachers should “focus on teaching about what these figures are most renowned for and factual information about them if teachers think pupils may not be able to understand the contested nature of more complex analyses of their lives, beliefs and actions”.  Many Conservative politicians are unhappy with figures such as Churchill being criticised for any views or actions when he should just be idolised as a national hero.  But if ‘contested’ is taken to cover any view which is rejected by some politicians, then politicians can stop any idea from being taught or discussed just by contesting its validity.  More widely, none of us would learn much about our past if our knowledge is to be fossilised by what historical figures/events were once ‘most renowned for’, regardless of what new research might bring to light.  Should we, for example, look back on the Opium War as a shining example of British military prowess and commercial expansionism, or consider it a regrettable use of force to impose the sale of a harmful narcotic on a country that wanted to stamp it out?

The problematic invocation of ‘contested’ goes beyond history to contemporary affairs.  Schools are assured they can teach climate change, but “where teaching covers the potential solutions for tackling climate change, this may constitute a political issue”.  And the implication is that, since a political issue is by its nature a contested issue, no policy solution (for climate change or any other societal challenge, for that matter) should be explored with pupils unless there is no political argument about it at all.  

Ultimately, if any politician – who is misguided, poorly informed, prejudiced, or holding extremist views – can stop any topic from being considered in schools by contesting it, then nothing much that is sensible about politics and society can be taught.  

The Education Secretary (Nadhim Zahawi) may insist that “no subject is off-limits in the classroom”.  But in adding the critical proviso that it must be done “without promoting contested theories as fact”, he is allowing even facts to be taken off the table so long as someone is prepared to contest them.  Of course, one way to deal with this conundrum is to allow established scholars and recognised experts to differentiate credible claims, reasonable hypotheses, disputed assertions, and dubious statements. Their consensus will form the basis for determining what is reasonable to consider in schools.

By contrast, the views of partisan politicians would be the last thing we want in grounding political impartiality.

-

See ‘Guidance on political impartiality in English classrooms ‘confusing’ say teachers’ unions’

Richard Adams, Guardian, 17 February 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/feb/17/guidance-on-political-impartiality-in-english-classrooms-confusing-say-teachers-unions

The Importance of Being Reasonable

You would think that being reasonable is an essential requirement in any discussion that aims to resolve disputes about any issue. If either side can forget about being reasonable – ignoring evidence, flouting logic, making groundless assumptions – then no informed agreement can be reached.

Yet we hear more and more people insisting that reason is overrated.  What is key apparently is what people happen to attach the greatest importance to. This could turn out to be all kinds of thing, and whatever it is, we are supposed to accept that it is something special and not subject to reason.

One familiar example would be individuals with some religious affiliation declaring that what they say must be accepted, and any attempt to question them by secularists (or people of other faiths) has to be automatically dismissed.  What they proclaim could be about how they want to (mis)treat their children, interfere with other people’s lives, or (mis)lead others into giving them money. In all cases, they shield their position by invoking their religious righteousness as beyond anything such as reason.

Another type of example can be found with those who denigrate reason as a western middle-class obsession.   For them, the practices of indigenous tribes should not be criticised for being unreasonable in making flawed assumptions.  And they also want to defend marginalised people who want to talk about their feelings and experiences without considering the reasons (or lack of) for some of their beliefs.  Unconsciously patronising, they want to canonise the disengagement from reasonable discourse, rather than support opportunities for all people to take part in reasoned dialogues.

Lastly, we have the unadulterated egoists who do not bother with invoking religion, culture, class, or anything else when they just come right out and say, “I believe this; I know I’m right; nothing anyone else says will make the slightest difference; and that’s the end of that.” Obviously, there would be no reasoning with them about anything.  And a simple reminder of what it would be like if such a stance is permitted in a court of law, is sufficient to show without reason, disorder will ensue.

Of course, there are occasions when people express poetic sentiments, practise rituals, share stories, or manifest suppressed emotions, without making any declarative claims on what others must accept as true.  In such cases, so long as their behaviour is not injurious to others, it would not be necessary to raise questions of reasonableness.  But just because there are times when reason would not be a central issue, it should not be forgotten that in settling any disagreement over conflicting beliefs, reason has a vital role to play.

Reason calls for external validation, objective evidential examination, coherent inference, consistent probability assessment, weighing of the strengths of arguments, etc.  It is rooted in the critical faculty of society where the effectiveness of everything from engineering design, scientific exploration, conflict resolution, to medical treatment, criminal investigation, and historical authentication, depends on the extent to which careful reasoning has been carried out.

People who want to privilege the claims they make as beyond the scrutiny of reason (on the grounds of their ‘religion’, ‘culture’, ‘tribe’, or personal status) are basically trying to get others to accept what they say without any reasonable consideration of the issue.  They will play the ‘You’re not respecting my [religion/culture/tribe/me]’ card, but if they fundamentally want to keep reason out of a discussion of what they want everyone else to accept, then there is actually nothing further to discuss.

Who Should Play What Role?

Which actor is cast for which role has become a hotly contested issue.  Ethnic minority actors, already finding most roles defined by conventional ‘white male’ characteristics which are then cited as reasons for not auditioning non-white actors, are rightly aggrieved when the odd role of an ethnic minority character comes up, it is a white actor who ends up being cast to play it as well.

Similar feelings are experienced by actors who have to rely on using sign language or a wheelchair, finding out that roles associated with those disabilities are given to actors who can speak or walk without aid in their everyday life.

It is clearly unfair that people are not only told they cannot play the part of X because they lack key characteristics associated with X, but also that despite having the characteristics associated with the part of Y, that part too is denied them and handed to people with X rather than Y characteristics. 

There are at least two ways to respond to this. One may be termed ‘identitarian’, and the other can be called ‘cosmopolitan’.

The identitarian response is to demand that roles with certain defining characteristics must be played by actors who actually possess those characteristics.  This has led to calls for characters with disabilities only to be played by actors with those disabilities, Jewish characters to be played by Jewish actors, gay characters to be played by gay actors, and so on.  The argument often used is that only actors who share key characteristics with the roles in question can bring out what those roles require.  

Identitarian thinking is problematic when it appears to hold that acting is above all about relating one’s own experiences as a person with certain characteristics to performing a dramatic role with those characteristics.  Does that mean only someone who has lost a child should play a character who has lost a child? Should only people who are pathologically sadistic play a dedicated torturer?  Should roles about geniuses be limited to actual geniuses?  Should roles about, say, Texan, heterosexual, or Catholic characters be as a matter of principle be denied, respectively, to Cherokee, gay, and Muslim actors?  Not only is identitarian thinking contrary to the power of imaginative expression that lies at the heart of acting, it could end up providing inadvertent cover for prejudiced practices that deny even more opportunities for actors who are already marginalised.

The cosmopolitan response, by contrast, holds that the essence of dramatic arts is to celebrate our imaginative powers to transcend all mundane barriers.  With CGI, make-up, and alternative reading of text, any actor should have the chance to play any role.  Female actors have played Hamlet; black actors have played white historical figures; gay actors have played womanisers; and CGI has done away with any limitations on how any actor may appear or what physical ability they can exhibit on screen.

Ultimately, identitiarian thinking is self-defeating. It limits the horizons of those for whom it tries to promote wider opportunities; whereas the cosmopolitan outlook embraces diversity and opens the door to all talents to express themselves in any role.  This is, of course, pertinent to the world beyond acting.  Identitarian politics boxes people into sealed off categories. Cosmopolitan democracy paves the way for power sharing amongst people with multiple and overlapping backgrounds.

What do you mean by ‘God’?

Of the people who left Europe for North America in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, there are two notable types who have gone on to have a significant impact on their new home – those who could not stand other people disagreeing with their religious views and hence wanted to go where they could establish themselves without challenge from others; and those who were fed up with vicious and futile religious disputes and wanted to go where religion would be a private matter and never intrude into the public domain. 

The first type can be fanatical about their beliefs and intolerant towards others who won’t subscribe to their doctrines. The second type are wary of theological conflicts and want tolerance for diverse ideas about God.  

In time, this will feed much of the polarisation in the United States.  One side hankers after a quasi-theocracy based exclusively on their version of ‘God’. Puritanically they strive to declare all but their ‘God’ is the true one and whose will – according to their interpretation – should therefore command everyone without exception.  Anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy of God.

By contrast, the other side tries to remind everyone that the Founding Fathers explicitly declared that matters of government and religion should be kept separate.  They champion cultural diversity and religious tolerance.  Invoking the name of ‘God’ (or not), people are expected to pursue their ideals so long as they do not threaten or undermine the wellbeing of others. 

Some may think of this divide as one between the faithful and the godless.  But actually it is between those who hijack ‘God’ as a cover for their own ends, and those who respectfully recognise that what God means for people is to be found in the many relationships diverse people have with the supreme ideal in their lives. 

The holier-than-thou hijackers are prepared, in the name of their ‘God’, to condemn people to be executed on questionable evidence, force victims of rape to carry any resultant pregnancy through to birth, threaten others with deadly weapons, obstruct life-saving vaccination, or prolong the excruciating suffering of terminal patients who want to end their lives.

In the opposite camp are people who would not presume to claim absolute and exclusive knowledge of God; people who appreciate that God is about love –manifested in kindness and fairness, in countless ways in different situations in life; people who care about living together, appreciating their complementariness, and learning through the growth of shared understanding.

This clash in the US has been deepening. Those who have little time for a loving God, have become more arrogant and delusional in insisting their hatred and prejudices are sanctified by the inner voices they hear.  Resisting the spread of their influence are people who, regardless of whether or not they use the word ‘God’ every time they speak, want society to be fair and inclusive so that everyone can be in communion with moral goodness that is worthy of the appellation ‘divine’.

Ultimately, who gains the upper hand in this clash will have sweeping consequences for the US, and indeed the world.

The Evidence-Denial Complex

In politics, in business, in everyday life, there have always been people who try to take advantage of others by conning them – with lies, distorted reports, cunning misdirection, etc.  What they fear most is being exposed for their dishonesty. But in recent decades, they have been able to access support from an increasingly powerful network of misinformation – the Evidence-Denial Complex.

The rise of the Evidence-Denial Complex can be traced to two late 20^th/early 21^stcentury development: the undermining of public interest journalism in conventional media; and the spread of ‘social’ media that is relieved of all public interest duty.  The first has happened through a mix of takeover of media outlets by those allied to the Right, and the persistent and deliberate weakening of impartial public broadcasting (e.g. reduced funding for and heightened attacks on the BBC, privatisation of Channel 4).  The second has come about because governments grant commercial operators of internet platforms the right to host any information posted by participants, without any responsibility to check its veracity.

The net result is that while there are fewer and fewer opportunities in conventional media to carry out in-depth investigations (because they generate relatively little money for the media owners, or worse, they threaten the interests of those owners or their associates in politics and business), systemic liars can use conventional media owned by their plutocratic allies as well as troll farms working across social media platforms, to pump out false and misleading stories to displace warranted beliefs by groundless ones.

At the most pernicious level, they work in concert to attack the credibility of objective evidence.  Since evidence – scrutinised by scientific procedures, gathered by impartial investigators, assessed by experts – is critical in separating out credible assertions from unfounded claims, the fostering of a culture of irrationality becomes an underlying goal.  The very notion of ‘evidence’ is treated as fake.  

For the sake of profiteering from economic chaos, promoting attachment to authoritarianism by fuelling a sense of insecurity, or diverting attention from plutocratic iniquities by attacking vulnerable scapegoats and liberal ‘do-gooders’, evidence-denying campaigns are launched to deceive as many people as possible to win political power.  

Familiar faces can be found amongst those who declare there is no evidence that the climate crisis requires radical action; that racism is still widespread and harmful; that safety measures are necessary to protect people in the midst of a pandemic; and that withdrawal from strategic partnerships with neighbouring countries is damaging politically and economically. They cluster around these lies because their preferred tactics is the con, and their con only works if people can be routinely nudged into looking away from the evidence.

What can be done about the Evidence-Denial Complex?

There are three courses of action that should be taken forward:

·      Education: ensure teaching at all levels helps to develop a good understanding of evidence – what it means, how it is gathered and assessed, its use in different practices, and examples of its collection and false evidence being refuted.

·      Regulation: effective rules and enforcement must be brought in to stop large scale deception continuing. See, for example, ‘Five Categories of Irresponsible Communication’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2018/12/five-categories-of-irresponsible.html

·      Publication: we must not allow falsehoods to spread unchallenged; so objective findings and analyses should be widely shared and discussed through scholarly works, objective media outlets, civic information networks, etc.