Paul Miller

March 06, 2006
POWER to the people

The POWER inquiry was launched last week and got a heck of a lot of coverage. I went along to the drinks bash having read the executive summary and I've now had a chance to read the whole report. It took a while but was worth it. I like their direct style of writing and I certainly like their diagnosis of the problem.

The generally warm response the report has received is very different to a couple of years ago when Tom and I wrote about the decline of political parties in our FT Magazine piece called 'Party Poopers', and before that when Tom wrote It's Democracy Stupid and people didn't really get what he was talking about.

Our FT piece prompted John Prescott to call us Mekons on the Today programme, saying we were out of touch with what was really going on. He argued that Labour party membership figures were climbing again and that our assertion of the problem of falling trust in political parties was overblown.

John's been a bit quiet in the follow up to the POWER inquiry.

The most interesting criticisms of the inquiry I've seen come from the ever-excellent David Wilcox. He's decided it was all a bit top-down and I think I agree but I still think they've performed a valuable role by raising awareness of the problem.

My overall feeling is that the POWER inquiry's analysis fits with my experience of the current state of democracy in the UK and although I think their prescription is a bit limited, I'm glad they've got a proper conversation going.

The question that I'm now turning to is what comes next. I think we need to accept that political parties are never going to be as dynamic and vibrant as they were in the 1950s and 60s and that voting is only a part of democratic life. As Paul Ginsborg points out, "we will perhaps vote (an activity of some three minutes) 12 times at a national level and the same number at a local one - some 72 minutes in all, perhaps one-third of the television viewing we do daily."

What I'm interested in is people who are taking democracy into their own hands. People who are delivering democratic outcomes outside of formal politics by either taking decisions or delivering services themselves. Hopefully it's going to turn into a long-term project for me - watch this space.

Some POWER inquiry links:

The legends at MySociety have already produced a version of the executive summary of the report that you can comment on.
The good folk at Make My Vote Count have set up a linkdump of all the UK coverage the report has recieved last week.

Posted by Paul Miller at March 6, 2006 03:12 PM

Comments

Thanks for you comments on the Power Inquiry report and for the useful work you did on parties.

I have a question. You suggest, like Tom Bentley, that the next phase of democracy is to expand the ongoing democratisation of everyday life which is occurring beyond formal politics. Do you see this as an addition or an alternative to the sorts of proposals we made in the Inquiry report?

I ask because the Power Inquiry report was clear that it is vital citizens are re-engaged with formal democracy. The risks of not achieving this are potentially huge. Undermining the constitutional and political legitimacy of government could lead to some very unpleasant outcomes. The Commission's concerns are presented on p.32-36 of the report.

Adam Lent
Research Director
The Power Inquiry

Posted by: Adam Lent at March 10, 2006 10:52 AM

Hi Adam,

I see everyday democracy (let's use that as a shorthand for political activity outside of traditional representative democracy) as being in addition to the kind of things you guys recommend in the report. But having had a bit of time to think about it now, I think the question is which is going to be more important for the future of democracy?

My slight problem with your concerns on pp 32-36 is that these things have already happened. It's not a question of trying to slow these things down by tinkering with the rules of political institutions that came into being in the 19th and 20th centuries. We need to recognise that we live in a vastly more connected and complex society than even 25 years ago. People are far better educated. They live longer. They have much greater material wealth. They have very different attitudes to family and work. British society is much more diverse. And none of those things are going to go away.

But, as you guys point out, formal politics hasn't kept up at all.

I think changing the rules in Westminster is going to have a very limited effect. For example, I personally like the idea of voting reform but don't think it's going to solve the problem of disengagement. An important point to note is that it's happening in pretty much every country - no matter what their voting system or funding mechanism for parties.

As a political leader in the 21st century, getting people to vote for you is the least of your troubles. You need their help to achieve change 365 days a year and they won't do it if you just tell them to - command and control doesn't create sustainable solutions. Until politicians realise and use this fact they're in trouble.

I'm not saying that representatively elected Government isn't important. It is, don't get me wrong. When terrorists attack the city I live in, I'm damn grateful for Government. But to solve the kind of problems that we have to live with in the 21st century we need something much more ambitious than formal politics will be able to muster. A vibrant democracy will be more decentralised and active, rather than centralised and passive. More Wikipedia, less Britannica.

I guess the thing that disappointed me about the recommendations of the report is that they concentrate on the relationships between the centre and individuals rather than the potential for democratic relationships between people which are more independent of the centre. I think the latter is where there is much greater possibility for dynamism and positive change.

Posted by: Paul Miller at March 14, 2006 06:33 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)