A "Shared Society"?

London, 9 January 2017

Today the British Prime Minister will expand her thoughts on the "Shared Society" during her speech at the UK's Charity Commission, parts of which she trailed over the weekend in media interviews. Before digging into what she might mean, two initial thoughts spring to mind. First, just about every Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher (who famously commented that there was "no such thing as society") has felt the need to come up with some kind of concept, whether it be John Major's "Citizen's Charter", Tony Blair's "Third Way" or David Cameron's "Big Society". The mere fact that these leaders have all felt the need to express some kind of social contract with the British public is in itself interesting. The second initial thought is that, to many ears in other countries, Shared Society might sound like a truism, or even tautological - how can a society not be shared?

Whether Theresa May will recognise the fact today or not, she (or her advisers) did not come up with the concept of "Shared Society". In fact several years ago, the "Club of Madrid" (a network of former world leaders) developed their own "Shared Societies Project" endorsed back then by Nelson Mandela. For Madiba, the concept resonated with his own experience of apartheid - clearly a period of history where there was no shared society in South Africa (arguably there remains little shared identity even today). For for the Club of Madrid, at least, Shared Society is about freedom of expression balanced with the "integration of all voices into the broader population". It is about "dignity and human rights".

Perhaps then this is why the concept of "shared" is an important qualifier in the UK too - we perhaps also have parallel societies co-existing together divided by factors such as class, opportunity or education. You need only look into the Oxford English Dictionary to see that the second definition of society is indeed that of "high society" - the "society pages" of several London magazines and newspapers are about a particular type of society - an elite social minority. It is perhaps because Britain is losing its common sense of identity that Prime Ministers feel the need to stress and re-stress the bonds that keep us together - and undo the damage that Prime Minister Thatcher did when she perhaps spoke the part-truth: that our communitarian bonds are weakening. Thatcher chose nationalism and patriotism as ways of binding (parts of) the nation - but always against the "other", whether that be the enemy within (e.g. the trade unions) or without (e.g. the Argentinians).

I have admired the new Prime Minister's commitment to ending human trafficking, and will be pleased to hear today that she is equally committed to issues such as child mental health and care of the elderly. Unlike her predecessor, she seems willing to signal that Government has a central role to play in maintaining the good health of society - including through regulation as or when necessary. The UK does indeed need to focus on the nature of its underpinning social contracts at a time when it is set to leave the European Union, and the issue of Scottish independence (and therefore the end of the UK itself) remains very much influx. She is right to push these arguments avoiding the ugly nationalism that we saw during the Thatcher period. A "shared society" must be exactly that - it must include everyone.

But my worry is that in a year's time the Shared Society might be parked on the same dusty bookshelf of social policy frameworks alongside all those that came before under previous leaderships. For it to have staying power, it must be meaningful and it must demonstrate impact within the next 12 months. If a number of legal and non-legal initiatives can be advanced under this umbrella over the months to come, and if these initiatives can start to change the way that housing, health, education, transport and other services are delivered, then the concept might stick. The organisation which I lead also awaits eagerly to hear more about her thinking on corporate responsibility. But I worry that the Prime Minister's interest in the return of "Grammar Schools" (dividing state education at the age of 11 based on ability) does not align easily with any interpretation of "shared society" and that she might not see human rights as its glue in the way that Nelson Mandela and other world leaders have done (I still fear that she has the European Convention on Human Rights in her sights if she needs a populist political moment). Shared Society will, however, need some kind of normative content if it is withstand any serious analysis.

Perhaps to end on a note of irony and humour. The Club of Madrid's work on shared societies has been co-funded by the European Commission. This is one credit that I think might well be overlooked during her speech today.