Magazine article Renewal

The Problem of Britain

Magazine article Renewal

The Problem of Britain

Article excerpt

Before it was blown off course last autumn, the Brown government seemed to want to start a new public conversation about the British state and its role in obstructing, or supporting, the aspirations and collective goals of a diverse, dynamic, but still too divided society (1).

The social-democratic rationale for such a conversation is clear--as Cameron and Clegg converge on an anti-statist 'pro-social' agenda, the government knows it needs to make a different kind of argument for a different kind of active, democratic, enabling state that can empower individuals, grow social capital, and promote a common good (see also Rogers and Muir, 2007). The evidence is on its side (see Paul Skidmore in these pages on the findings of the Everyday Democracy Index, or Theda Skocpol's historical argument for the productive interaction of national representative politics with grassroots civic activism in the USA (2000)). But the perceptions and emotions of the British voters (and, increasingly, abstainers) are not. The state is felt as alien, imposing, procedurally opaque, unable to deliver.

Perhaps the most creditable aspect of the original New Labour project was its (accidental?) marriage of a modest rehabilitation of social regulation, redistribution and investment with a partial, but not insignificant, package of constitutional reforms. But if Labour itself rarely made the link, relating each plank to distinct constituencies of supporters, it isn't surprising that the public didn't. And the inadequacy of these measures to the scale and recalcitrance of the pathologies they claimed to address--the stubborn centralism and elitism of our governing machinery and political culture, the social strains of an increasingly unequal and imbalanced economy--combined with the over-selling of the spin-doctors to further feed cynicism and disaffection. The past few months have raised even more concerns about the state's integrity and competence, the economic conditions for further advancing social justice, and the populist lures of the right and far right.

For the left, additional problems arise from the fact that 'the state' can for most intents and purposes only be a nation-state (or attempted approximation) within an international states-system, with its logic of, internally, elision and suppression of difference, and externally, exclusion, competition, and realpolitik. And the British state has proved a particularly poor vessel for the progressive aspirations of those it governs. As Gerry Hassan stresses, this has been all too evident in the still unanswered questions about Britain's relation to the US, the EU, newly industrialising powers and the global South; and in Labour's disturbing forays into a rhetoric and politics of securitisation, 'identity management', border control, and outright flag-waving and xenophobia. Hence Arun Kundnani's charge that 'the state has so far chosen to bind itself to the people through fear rather than hope; through national security rather than social security; through the politics of a phoney Britishness rather than a genuine universalism' (Kundnani, 2007, 7) (2).

Dismayed by the British scene many now look across the Atlantic for distraction and cheer to, according to political taste, the Bolivarian experiment in Venezuela (discussed in these pages by Louise Jefferies), or the popular momentum apparently building behind Barack Obama (of which more in our next issue). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.