I thought this article by George Monbiot was quite interesting because it is starting the fight back for democracy. A couple of books I’ve read recently, and reviewed in this website, have been undermining the very foundation of democracy and this a refreshing change.
He does look at the idea of deliberative democracy, although with some caution it has to be said. But the real advance, I think, is his reference to the German system of trying to ensure that voters are well informed. This problem is at the core of those who either oppose democracy or argue that we should drastically reduce our expectations of it. It should be said that in addition to my review of Against Democracy, Brennan imposes an impossibly high hurdle of knowledge that he thinks the electorate should have to enable it to make informed decisions. They would need to know social sciences, political philosophy and so on. At the other end of the scale he acknowledges that those who vote do know slightly more than those who don’t but only by a few percentage points. Also his research focuses almost entirely on the American system with its largely two party system, so we don’t know what the situation is in the UK – although I suspect it’s not much better if at all.
Brennan does not, however, address the paucity of information provided to the electorate nor the appalling misinformation spewed out by politicians who should know better and certain sections of the media. If simply voting improves ones political knowledge, albeit slightly, could not a massive state sponsored system of objective political information provision have a much greater effect? The BBC and the OU already collaborate in a number of areas and this could be the framework for such a provision. I think the BBC is already working on a fact check programme.
Perhaps it could be linked in with the UBI being conditional on some form of engagement with such an educational programme. Proof of engagement, rather than having to pass an exam, might be sufficient to avoid demographic bias, with all the usual caveats and exemptions – although as I write this it does seem to be a little condescending.
Dickie Bellringer
Dickie
The notion of an epistocracy, as opposed to democracy, seems to me to be fraught with difficulty and simply replaces what is currently an ability to influence political affairs through money with an ability to assert undue influence through access to education. I prefer the German approach alluded to by Monbiot which seeks to educate everyone so that they can make an informed choice. In 2012 I wrote, together with a couple of academic friends of mine, Steven Coombs and Jack Whitehead, a book in which we put forward the idea of Living Global Citizenship. The book was aimed at educationalists and was about citizenship education but we were fully aware of the political applications of the ideas. The idea of Living Global Citizenship is that people actively take part in activities that demonstrate their values as citizens. In doing so they contribute to the flourishing of humanity. This goes beyond the normal citizenship programmes that feature in most schools and requires that participants explore each others values, find common ground and then engage in activities which seek to influence their own lives, the lives of others and the social formations that they are encountering. In this way they engage with the world and develop as global citizens. We have been to various conferences to promote the ideas in the book and their is a burgeoning social movement around living educational theory research of which it is part. We firmly believe that such an approach can produce well informed citizens that are capable of participating in the democratic process.
LikeLike
Hi Mark, all my instincts agree with what you say and reading these two books has been hard. Nevertheless, they do perform the function of making you think about what may be unjustified assumptions. I too prefer the German approach but simply preferring something doesn’t make it true, as you know of course. So it makes you think about those underlying assumptions and my method, if it can called that, is to initially assume that what people like Brennan say is true because I am aware of my cognitive bias. Once that bit is over I begin to see if there are any flaws in Brennan’s argument – and there are many. Not least of these is his belief, based on rather flimsy evidence according to Tom Clark in Prospect, that people tend to vote altruistically. He takes this on board almost without question (presumably because of his own bias) and uses it to justify epistocratic councils that may be stuffed full of rich, white and well educated citizens. Indeed, he goes as far to say that it may be just what poor ethnic groups need!
That said, as I wrote in my review of Against Democracy, he does lean towards what he calls Universal Franchise and Epistocratic Veto, which is moving towards a deliberative approach that Monbiot toys with.
I think this is exactly the sort of deliberation that could form the core of the Democracy Café that we are planning. What do you think?
I assume that Living Global Citizenship is the name of the book you wrote. If so I shall order it. I could do with a bit of a morale booster. By the way I am currently reading The Alternative, a book promoting the idea of a progressive alliance, which includes a chapter by Neal Lawson. A bit of light relief after Democracy for Realists and Against Democracy.
Dickie
LikeLike