British
democracy is becoming competitive
Britain is fast becoming a myriad of competing groups and factions.
This is dangerous for democracy and reveals a foreboding vision of
the future. In recent months there has been much talk of an economic
recovery in the UK. Although an emergence out of the 2008 depression
is most welcome. The experience of economic catastrophe has revealed
a disturbing trend in modern British politics, that is slowly turning
Britain into an arena for various warring factions used by
politicians to divide society. Yet reducing the power of government
to produce money, creating real rights for individuals and voting
reform could remedy this worrying trend.
Of course it is true that politicians have to balance the demands
of different sections in society. Yet it appears that of modern
phenomena are beginning to intensify this trend. Traditionally the
British voter is supposed to have a relatively easy choice come
election time. In theory if you're poor, urban or northern you are
supposed to vote Labour. Whereas if you're rich, rural or and
southern you vote conservative. It is certainly true that
psephology is far from an exact science. But aside from a few swing seats this trend has largely stood the test of time. This partly explains the current ideological mire that plagues contemporary Britain. Yet new, factors are begging to intensify this pattern.
Firstly the rise of the internet has given a voice to millions of
people that previously never had one. It is true that the rise of the
internet itself does not change much without a significant mass of
individuals being aware about a particular issues and possessing a framework of understanding about politics. But there is no doubting that more instant access to information certainly increases
that sense of awareness. However it is fair to say that most people
in modern Britain do not spend time publishing their political though
online. Instead of a nation of dynamic and vocal bloggers, writers,
tweeters etc. that would constitute a Socratic paradise. We have seen the rise of a
sinister 'consensus culture'. This can be described as an obsession
for politicians to appeal to all section of society mainly through various
financial incentives. Essentially we are being bribed to vote a
certain way. Arguably this really took of during the 1997 Labour
campaign. A landslide victory for Labour that brought Tony Blair into
Downing street.
This focus on consensus proved a relatively stable election strategy
for Labour. Even after a deep depression, over ten years in power and
the ascendancy of the highly unpopular Gordon Brown. Labour still
gave the conservatives a run for their money in the 2010 election. In
recent years David Cameron's premiership has seen similar focus on
developing a consensus culture. With u-turns on almost every issue
and a sharp divides over Europe, immigration and foreign policy that
is slowly tearing his party apart. Blair's landslide victory in 1997
has given modern politicians the idea that with the right set of
ideas, sound-bites and lots of funding you can win almost any voter.
Yet this is starting to have some nasty consequences. Old ideas about
social identity seem to be crumbling as attitudes surrounding
identity have changed. Politicians often use catch all terms such as
'Alarm clock Britain', 'strives versus scroungers' or 'the squeezed
middle'. As the UK abandons its attachment to class. New divisions
are appearing. Young and old, private sector workers and public
sector workers and NIMBYs versus those in favor of development to
name a few. These differences existed previously, but are
increasingly becoming bitter factions in the political bear pit.
On one hand some may welcome this change. Sure a government that is
'proactive' and 'listening to its people' can be construed as a
positive change. However the more lasting legacy of the factionalism
that is quickly becoming a feature of British society is that
the state increasingly plays groups off against each other. For
example the current debate over immigration demonstrates how the
political elite ( including the mainstream press among others)
channel criticism away from the real issue at hand, in this case job
security. And direct it towards migrants, a group that has little
means of defending itself. A similar process has taken place with
'benefit cheats'. However both cases demonstrates how the primary
responsibility of the state is to bestow or deny certain financial
rewards on certain groups. This is sets a dangerous precedent for the
future.
Yet there are certain steps that can be taken, albeit slowly to
improve the situation. Firstly government should be reduced. The main
reason that groups cry out for government support is because society
has become essentially a subsidiary of the state. However 'rolling
back the state' in the traditional financial sense will at first be
insufficient and ultimately cruel on the poorest in society. By
reducing state interference in a literal sense would mean enshrining
in law principles that ultimately empower the individual. But this is
unlikely for as history shows us, once the state has a taste for
interfering in our lives, it becomes very hard for citizens to
reclaim their rights. Secondly a proportional representation system of
voting should be implemented to break up the monolithic political
clans that dominate Westminster, thus bringing an end to forced
consensus culture. Lastly an end to fiat currency would reduce the
state's ability to print its own money. It is no coincidence that a
state that has the ability to forge money out of thin air is rather
generous with the handouts it gives to keep its population fighting
among themselves. Yet these changes are long term and unfortunately
highly unlikely, but as long people are kept fighting among
themselves the more necessary these steps will become.
No comments:
Post a Comment