Rebuilding a collaborative society

One of the requirements of a working democracy is the willingness of the people to consent to the outcome, even if they disagree. In most elections, grudgingly perhaps, that consent is usually quickly granted. 

Following the EU referendum it has not been. Worse than that, collective consent has not even been sought. Polar opinions have become deeply entrenched and powerfully divisive. That division shows more than anything else that, whilst the referendum was run under democratic principles it has been fundamentally undemocratic in its process. During the campaign it was characterised by lies and hyperbole, and, as we now know, illegality. Subsequently it has been characterised by the absence of proper scrutiny, planning, or agreement, not even by those charged with implementing whatever it is. The interpretation of the result has not been from a national conversation, but by the imposition of the will of the European Research Group of MP’s, and a Parliament seemingly unwilling or unable to debate a different view, to explore consensus and seek agreement. I think that is unprecedented. 

The last big divisive issue, the war in Iraq, was at a time of a large majority for the ruling party and yet still the debates in the Houses of Parliament were passionate, and open. Ministers resigned, because they opposed the policy. Most accepted that their views were being aired in the national conversation even if ultimately the decision had to come down on one side, even if they felt passionately wronged. Not so today. Remain supporting MPs are being threatened, with murder, with rape, called “treasonous” and “enemies of the people”. During the referendum campaign one sitting MP, Jo Cox, was murdered. Ministers now seem to resign because the policy of their party isn’t extreme enough or fast enough. It’s a fetid landscape of bile and threat, and bullying, and anger that I have never seen. 

It has become, not an example of democracy working, of the people speaking to find a common voice, but of division, and of politicians seeking to maintain their self interest by pandering to the extreme edge of one side of the argument. This is ochlocracy taken to an extreme, it dismantles a core tenet of democracy, that it is for all the people, and ultimately that could cause an absolute failure of democracy, of society, in the country. 

As Orwell is said to have observed, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” I worry that the truth we may come to know is that we are but a couple of poor decisions away from revolution, whether violent or more subtle, and an irreversible breakdown of our society.

I think it must be time for us all to choose to reflect, on a national scale, for a while. To have a (different) national conversation on the nature of our democracy, our constitution. This may happen rapidly if society fractures around a no deal, or slowly if something is cobbled together, but it will happen. Better now, than then. 

To be a truly great country, we need a strong covenant between the politicians and the people. It must have trust, and be built on a collaborative spirit across the whole of society, for everyone. 

That demands a more open conversation; without name calling and pointy fingered accusation; where we each take personal responsibility; creating opportunities to cooperate in community based, local, regional and national projects. It needs vision and leadership and with that we can restore systemic trust, connectedness and a sense of national unity. 

Now that would be a Great Britain.