Zcom_simple




68

From the Bottom Up




Change Text Size a- | A+


A new mobilisation could revitalise politics in the UK - but only if you get involved.

For the first time in my life I resent paying my taxes. Until now I have seen this annual amputation as a civic duty - like giving blood - necessary to sustain the life of a fair society. Suddenly I see it as an imposition. Its purpose has reverted to that of the middle ages: subsidising the excesses of a parasitic class. A high proportion of the taxes I pay will be used to bail out companies which, as the Guardian's current investigation shows, have used every imaginable ruse to avoid paying any themselves.

I think that for many people this is the final blow: the insult which seals their alienation from the political process. The small Welsh town where I live, many of whose inhabitants are among the very poor, was once a haven of progressive politics, built from nonconformist religious sects and a long tradition of social solidarity. People from these valleys were transported to Van Diemen's Land for demanding the vote.

Now almost everyone I speak to says the same thing - "what's the point? They're all as bad as each other" - and I can find no argument to refute it. Had their forebears been told that, 125 years after the first agricultural workers got the vote(1), the poor would be bailing out the rich and (thanks to the first-past-the-post system) the votes of only a few thousand citizens would count, I doubt they would have bothered.

We are trapped in a spiral of political alienation. Politics isn't working for us, so we leave it to the politicians. The political vacuum is then filled with heartless, soulless, gutless technocrats: under what other circumstances could political ghosts like Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, Alistair Darling, Hazel Blears, Peter Mandelson or John Hutton remain in office? Unmolested by the public, corporate lobbyists collaborate with this empty political class to turn parliament into a conspiracy against the public. Revolted by these phantoms, seeing nowhere to turn, we withdraw altogether, granting them even richer opportunities to exploit us.

The government talks of re-igniting public enthusiasm for politics, of bringing out the vote, but balks at any measure which might make this happen. The reform of the House of Lords has again been postponed until after the next election, if at all(2). The promise, in Labour's 1997 manifesto, of a referendum on electoral reform is long-forgotten. It now looks as if nothing will be done to stop MPs from moonlighting, as our representatives argue that they cannot possibly get by on £63,000 a year (plus lavish expenses)(3). I wonder whether they have any idea how that plays in a town like this.

Consultations are rigged. Citizens' juries are used to lend a sheen of retrospective legitimacy to decisions already taken. The Big Conversation turned into a lecture. LabourList, mercilessly satirised by Catherine Bennett in this week's Observer(4), seeks to create a grassroots movement where no grassroots exist.

But I doubt that the government could revitalise politics, even if it had the best intentions. If the people of this country are to be mobilised, if new life is to be breathed into politics, we have to do it ourselves. As soon as you acknowledge this, you see the problem: we have lost our base. The affiliated trade unions have turned into the government's nodding dogs, continuing to fund the Labour Party even as it destroys everything they claim to stand for. The old social democratic and non-conformist movements have gone. All we have left are the NGOs and a series of informal direct action movements. They have proved to be good at raising public awareness, less good at building sustained, multi-faceted campaigns. We require a permanent mobilisation, and it might be just about to begin.

For several years, activists have been proposing a MoveOn campaign for the United Kingdom. MoveOn.org is an web-based coalition in the United States that has mobilised around three million people to demand progressive change. It was launched in 1998 as a petition to Congress "to censure President Clinton and move on", rather than impeach him(5). Since then, it has been credited with revitalising the Democratic Party and changing the face of American politics. Some of the claims its promoters make are exaggerated, but no one disputes that it has inspired hundreds of thousands of alienated people to re-engage.

At the beginning of every year, MoveOn polls its members on their political priorities and then mobilises them around those demands(6). It encourages them to bombard their representatives with emails and phone calls, to raise political funds and to propose new legislation. Every year it scores small victories, on issues as diverse as Medicare reform and Facebook privacy(7). It also appears to have contributed to some very large ones: some people claim that neither the candidacy nor the presidency of Barack Obama would have been possible without it. MoveOn has made mistakes - its position on the Iraq war, for example, has been hopeless(8) - but it's obvious that the model works.

There have been campaigns a bit like this in the United Kingdom, but they have tended to concentrate on a single outcome and to disperse or relax when it has been achieved. The Big Ask, run by Friends of the Earth, mobilised 200,000 people to demand a climate change bill - and got it(9). The Local Works coalition drove the Sustainable Communities Bill through parliament(10). The closest relative of MoveOn in the UK so far is Unlock Democracy, which, with far smaller resources than its American cousin, has already changed the way we are governed. Last month, for example, working with groups like enoughsenough.org and mySociety, it managed to stop MPs from hiding their expenses from the public(11).

Today Nick O'Donovan, a British academic working in the US, launches a movement in the United Kingdom built overtly on the MoveOn model. Dosomethingaboutit.org.uk is a rolling petition which seeks to ensure that the people who sign up don't lose touch with each other. When there's an important vote in parliament or when the government is threatening to shut down a useful public service or to waste our money on subsidising the rich, it will set up a petition and mobilise its members. Like MoveOn, it will also poll them over the issues they want to champion. At elections it will help people to decide which candidate in their constituency to support, in order to avoid splitting the progressive vote. Its purpose is to strike fear into the hearts of our self-serving technocrats and, it says, to make "the moral high ground electorally viable"(12).

I hope O'Donovan and his colleagues know how much they are taking on. They will be fighting party machines which have refined every dirty trick in politics; the hopelessness that arises from 12 years of broken promises; a labour movement that seems to have abandoned every political aim except driving foreigners out of the workplace; an electorate that has ceased to believe in itself. But none of this is a reason not to try.

Dosomethingaboutit is a bold and wildly ambitious scheme. Can it work? That's up to you.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. The Representation of the People Act 1884. This extended the vote to some rural men, but only if they owned land worth £10 or paid £10 a year in rent.

2. George Parker, 14th July 2008. Straw seeks to defer Lords reform. Financial Times.

3. Sam Coates, 2nd February 2009. Peers can carry on lobbying despite payments row. The Times.

4. Catherine Bennett, 1st February 2009. Does Labour really think John Prescott is the new Obama? The Observer.

5. http://www.moveon.org/about.html

6. http://pol.moveon.org/2009/agenda/results/?rc=homepage

7. http://www.moveon.org/success_stories.html

8. Norman Solomon, 13th March 2007. The Pragmatism of Prolonged War. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3054 <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3054>

9. http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/success_stories/climate_law_world_first_16014.html

10. http://www.localworks.org/

11. Unlock Democracy, 21st January 2009. People power forces Government to back down on MPs' expenses. http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?p=1808

12. http://dosomethingaboutit.org.uk/dowhat.php

 

Published in the Guardian, 3rd February 2009

The user who created this comment no longer exists.


The user who created this comment no longer exists.


609227

Right...and Wrong Again

By Gramnes, Jens at Feb 12, 2009 06:44 AM

(Just posted this on my own blog, but it really belongs here as a reaction to this article)

Monbiot Gets It Right...and Wrong Again

Opening my inbox this morning I found Z’s Daily Commentary, today courtesy of George Monbiot and entitled “From the Bottom Up”. Feeling that I pretty much know what I am going to get from Monbiot, I was about to skip down to my next e-mail when I caught a glimpse of the first sentence of the text: “For the first time in my life I resent paying my taxes”. As first sentences go, this was a real grabber – intrigued, I continued reading, and, to my surprise, found that the first four paragraphs held a very accurate description of the absurd joke that parliamentary politics is and the obvious alienation it generates in all (well, most) people who live their lives in these Western ‘democracies’.
 
Characterizing the purpose of taxes as “subsidising the excesses of a parasitic class”, Monbiot reaches the peak of his reality-as-sick-and-cruel-satire description with the following nugget: “Unmolested by the public, corporate lobbyists collaborate with this empty political class to turn parliament into a conspiracy against the public. Revolted by these phantoms, seeing nowhere to turn, we withdraw altogether, granting them even richer opportunities to exploit us”.
 
As bleak as this picture is, it is always refreshing to read something truthful, so I was invigorated by Monbiot’s sudden understanding of our current political system. Unfortunately, this good feeling didn’t last for long, as he immediately fell back into his own/old self when proposing what to do about this utterly disgusting situation, asking people to follow the lead of MoveOn and “bombard their representatives with emails and phone calls, to raise political funds and to propose new legislation.”  In short, where there is no movement at all apart from direct action factions or NGOs, he wants us to build a movement - to pressure politicians! And if we’re lucky, it just might reinvigorate the Labour Party to the point where a British Obama comes forth! Wow. You are indeed a true visionary, George!
 
At this point I’d like to acknowledge that it isn’t exactly a good point of departure for serious discussion to make fun of other points of view. Still, I’d ask the reader to show understanding for the frustration underlying my recourse to irony: how long, exactly, are we going to continue walking into the same dead end? How is it possible that after an absolutely scathing indictment of the system, represented accurately by the parliament-as-conspiracy quote above, the author goes on to suggest we mobilize and organize to – pressure parliament! It beggars belief.
 
Perhaps it is easier to understand if we make it small scale: imagine a small community, perhaps a Welsh one at that, of 100 people. 2 of them control almost all the resources; the little that is left is owned by another 8 of them, and another 10 or so work in quite close collaboration with these people at the top, while the rest work for them (forgive me if I skip a few layers of class-stratified society). Then, at a certain point in time, the workers become quite unruly demanding better conditions, so those at the top (after having 3 workers working as policemen kill a couple and jail ten of their fellow workers) decide to institute a committee of five people, and allow the community to vote to elect the members of this committee. Then…. I could go on, but you’re probably bored by now. Use your own knowledge to fill in the blanks of who does what and what will happen to this little community if it is a miniature of our society and its development during the 20th Century. Then ask yourselves: would the answer to the problems of this community be to a) strip the owners of their control over the resources and dissolve the committee and institute a system of allocating resources and making collective decisions where everyone has equal say in matters where they are equally affected, or b) to start making phone calls, writing letters, or – since this is small scale – making house calls to the committee members trying to pressure them into making better decisions?
 
Isn’t the response kind of obvious? Can you then understand my frustration at the fact that this obvious response completely eludes the author and he manages to choose the wrong one of the two options above?
 
Sure, you may say that it is not so simple to ‘strip the owners of the control’ etc – fine, I agree, it is not simple. But you know what: meaningful change is never going to be simple, and any change at all will have to be preceded by substantial organization, so why not – why on earth not!? – organize around and for something that can actually accomplish meaningful change?
 
And here’s a thought: maybe, just maybe, it is not just me that gets completely turned off by Monbiot’s lame suggestions and, for this reason, keep retreating into myself and my own life. Maybe, just maybe, this is a general problem applicable to an important part of the disillusioned and currently passive population: we need something we really believe in to start fighting, something to make the effort worthwhile. If the suggested course of action is to ask the “soulless technocrats” in Monbiot’s text to be a bit nicer towards us, then perhaps we cannot be bothered. Maybe we feel that the raging insanity of the current order calls for a better response than asking those responsible for it to behave better, like Shell cleaning up an environmental disaster they caused in the first place, or a pedophile working kindergarten to make amends, or whatever simile you prefer. Maybe we feel they should be behind bars and we should be making the decisions ourselves.
 
And maybe, just maybe, if enough people started demanding that goal, people like me who are currently not very active but do have a predisposition for activism might get involved. And if enough people like me start organizing around a goal like that, maybe some in the greater mass of disengaged people might be motivated to join in….
 
Like I said before, all change requires organizing. The real question is what we organize around and for. And it is my strong belief that quite apart from being the right thing to do (shouldn’t we always demand freedom rather than partial slavery?), organizing around what is called much more ‘radical’ goals also stands a better chance of motivating people. For contrary to the logic that says ‘people will only be motivated if they see that the goal is within reach in the short term’ and so we have to focus on tiny reforms, I believe in the logic of ‘people will only be motivated if they think their participation contributes to something really different’ - as they are already completely alienated by both big 20th Century options: capitalist parliamentary ‘democracy’ and communist command economy in a one-party state. They, we, want something radically different, something with a serious, credible and plausible possibility of filling big words like democracy, freedom, justice et al with meaning again. No more empty politicians, soulless technocrats or corporate lobbyists. No more corporations. No state, in its current conception. Coordinated self-management.
 
 That's what I want, and I dare say I'm not alone. Can you understand that, George?

 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

585160

Re: Right...and Wrong Again

By Corbett, Jean-Francois at Feb 13, 2009 05:16 AM

It's rather narrow-minded to flatly call Monbiot's suggestions "wrong". What if pressuring parliament actually succeeds in bringing forth some minor reform whose effect is to make it easier to organise a radical movement? The two things aren't necessarily in opposition but rather can, if done right, facilitate each other.

You ask: shouldn't we always demand freedom rather than partial slavery? Yes, of course, total freedom is the objective. But it's not enough just to state that.

The question is, how do you get there? Would it be easier for us to get there if we were in a state of "partial slavery" with, say, freedom of assembly every evening and two days a week unchained, rather than our current "total slavery"? Maybe, in which case this "tiny" reform would make sense in view of our radical goal.

In any rational strategy in human affairs, the road towards the long-term, radical goal, is peperred with many small, short-term goals. In this light, it makes no sense to diss an individual small reform just because it's a small reform -- but only if it's likely to take us further away from, or distract us from, or seriously delay the attainment of,  the radical goal. And not every single parliamentary reform fits that criterion of absolute badness!

That being said, I think Monbiot focuses way too much on the reform side of the equation, and unfortunately doesn't place it in the larger framework of radical change!

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

609227

Re: Re: Right...and Wrong Again

By Gramnes, Jens at Feb 13, 2009 09:25 AM

Thanks for commenting on my text.

Perhaps some clarification is warranted: I am not against reforms in principle, if they are the right reforms achieved in the right context.  But yes, there is a reason I used the word 'wrong' and really put the two options against each other. Or two related reasons:

1) Way too few people speak out for real liberation, while way too many limit themselves to speaking in terms that are within the system's mold. This, I believe, constitutes a serious obstacle to more fundamental change, as people are unaccustomed to thinking outside the mold, and very few writers and debaters help them. As everyting starts inside people's heads, we need much more people with a changed mind-set.

2) We all have to sell our labor to survive, so the time and energy we have left over for political struggle is very limited indeed. Our time and energy is a scarce resource. So if Jane Doe uses her time and energy petitioning politicians, she is unlikely to be involved in more radical struggle at the same time. And when the majority of Jane Does choose this option, urged on by people like Monbiot, that too becomes a real obstacle to more serious change (compared to if she'd chosen my other option). Because rather than helping people think outside the mold, she is then helping to reinforce the system's definition of legitimate activism and legitimate solutions. Why do you think the NGO industry has flourished since the upsurge of the 60s and 70s? It is simply a large 'activist reservation' for system-approved political action. I would venture saying that the overwhelming majority of NGOs and politician-petitioning organizations fail to meet the criteria that could make their reforms 'non-reformist' (in Albert's phrase), meaning that they would operate in a context and with a consciousness making their reforms just one more step ahead on the route to liberation. On the contrary, real liberation is scarcely present in their work or propaganda, thus helping to marginalize that option in the minds of all people. In this sense, yes, I am opposed to their work.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Img_9835

Re: Re: Re: Right...and Wrong Again

By Andrews, John at Feb 14, 2009 10:01 AM

Jens

The problem that George Monbiot sees is that climate change is happening now. He does not believe that there is time to deconstruct the current political systems of the world and create new ones. He is well versed in Anarchist and Parecon thought but he does not think it can be achieved in the time that we have left before climate change becomes irreversible and runs away.

Trying to change the current system quickly is seen by GM as the lesser of the two evils with climate change being the single greatest threat to continued life on earth.

Best wishes

John Andrews

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

609227

Re: Right...and Wrong Again

By Gramnes, Jens at Feb 15, 2009 20:20 PM

Thank you for clarifying that John. I don't agree, of course. Putting faith in the ability of  MoveOn-type organizations to really deal with the enormous ravages of the system (climate change certainly included) seems way more off the chart for me than actually starting to organize to put something else in its place....

Reply this comment

Loading_border