Politics & the Need for Belonging

Progressives tend to have a common frustration – policies which on any objective analysis would improve people’s quality of life end up time and time again being sidelined because more voters give their support to politicians who reject those policies. Worst of all, what those anti-progressive politicians offer instead are actions that would cause greater harm and suffering for most people.

Repeatedly we see charlatans elected on the basis of their rhetoric about helping people take back control, regain their freedom, become great again – when in practice they invariably prioritise the use of legislative power and public resources to help corporate collaborators, and undermine services for the common good and cut support for those in need.

Right-leaning media and manipulation of social media play their part in political deception, but the deeper question is why large number of people are so susceptible to such lies.

At the heart of the matter is the need for belonging.

We all want to belong to something larger than ourselves – a set of mutually supportive relationships with family and friends; a group with shared interests, expertise, concerns; or a set of connections derived from common customs, beliefs, nationality. When people find themselves cut off from these, they tend to become more driven than ever to find something else that would include them as “one of their own”.

Since the 1980s, the rise of market individualism – encapsulated by phrases such as “there is no such thing as society” and “greed is good” – has led to large scale disruption of social connections. Actively supported by Thatcher, Reagan and other champions of the New Right, profiteering became the overriding force in takeovers, asset stripping, mass redundancies, with worker unions drastically weakened, and public infrastructure for collective protection privatised or dismantled.

Hit by rapid changes and constant economic uncertainties, more and more families came under mounting strain, schools were turned into training centres for corporate fodder, the workplace seized to be a source of social bonds, and communities were shattered by corporate decisions which served owners who lived far away with no concern for the socio-economic devastation they left behind.

Over the last few decades, as increasing number of people yearn to find substitutes for the connections that have been lost, the New Right has taken their celebration of egoism to the next level – now their mantra is Don’t let anyone get in your way of getting what you want, namely, the GOOD OLD DAYS. The ‘good old days’, it turns out, means a time when every man (yes, man) is free to do whatever it takes to pursue HIS dream, without any government getting in his way with taxes, immigrants taking away his livelihood, unions obstructing his employment choices, women demanding their rights, or ‘deviants’ trampling all over sacred traditions.

This ‘Good Old Days’ shtick – in its MAGA, Brexit, or other guises – has proven to be extremely attractive for a lot of people, making them feel that for all the important things they have lost, they have gained the precious status of belonging to a group who will stand together for a return to the time when a man can freely blame and insult whomever he wants.

The only way to help people get out of this fog of lies and misdirection, is to show them that there is something genuinely meaningful and valuable that they can be a part of – a community wherein they will be respected as they respect others, given a helping hand if they need one as they are ready to lend a hand to those in need, and able to attain a far better quality of life for themselves and their families than if people were left to the mercy of powerful exploiters.

Who Helps Wins

Progressive politicians keep bemoaning the challenges they face. The Right get more money to generate publicity, have no compunction with pumping out fake news, are devious with deploying misleading claims, and can always count on media moguls happy to divert public frustration towards a multitude of scapegoats. In response, progressives struggle to come up with strategies, slogans, narratives, that would win over the electorate.

But what people want is real help with their problems. They are not asking for a political vision to change their world. They are not waiting for a new narrative to reframe public debates. They are certainly not pondering as to which party can come up with a more convincing strategy. They just want help with what is making their lives difficult, and they are desperate to find out if someone will offer it.

In the US, the Democrats are dreading they will lose control of Congress because, among other things, they have not managed to pass the Build Back Better plan with its promise of nearly $2 trillion social spending. In the UK, Labour’s pinning its hope on the Tories imploding over Partygate while its own offer is still barely registered with the public. In France, the Left were not even able to mount a challenge to Macron in the presidential run-off when that was taken up by the far-right instead.

Again and again, progressives find themselves stuck in the shadow, hardly seen as the political force dedicated to solving problems inclusively and democratically, but mostly caricaturised as figures obsessed with issues tangential to people’s everyday concerns. What they must do is focus on giving people the help they really want – help with the setting up of thriving enterprise, obtaining decent jobs, meeting the basic needs for food and energy, securing an affordable home, having access to good healthcare, living in friendly and stable communities, and being well protected from bigotry and criminal behaviour.

Progressive groups should form social enterprise to offer goods and services at the lowest possible prices, organise community support networks to provide for those caught in poverty, and develop advisory and advocacy service to help people get what they need from private and public bodies (e.g., jobs, housing, utilities), especially if any of these prove to be unresponsive or discriminatory. Fund raising, income generation, and volunteer support would be channelled to sustain and where appropriate, expand these provisions.

Instead of asking for donations to run election campaigns which connect with people only once every so many years, this help-focused approach would create a day-to-day relationship for progressives and the communities they work with. As part of this process, they can readily explain that things can improve further provided key obstacles are removed through particular local and central government actions, and these will happen if the people themselves back the progressives in the elections to come.

There is no mystery to how community-based enterprise and support network can be successfully developed.  The book, Tomorrow’s Communities, is full of evidence and examples regarding how it can be done. The challenge is to integrate that into progressive grassroot politics. Make the offer of help an everyday experience for all who seek it.

Who helps wins.

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.