[Written before the debt crisis ]
In 17 Thomas Paine published his runaway bestseller, Common Sense, the tract that lit the fire and the way for the American Revolution. After his success in North America he returned to his native Europe, where he took part in substantial measure in the American Revolution’s French counterpart, hoping to eventually push the movement even further to his home country of England. But it was not to be. Conditions in Europe being very different to those in France: the French Revolution became a power struggle, quickly souring into terror and chaos, immediately followed by the fascist leadership of Bonaparte, who restored a degree of order to the turbulent state.
By this time, subversive elements in Great Britain intent on bringing home Paine’s revolution were being locked up by the state, and all hope of a modern revolution in Britain faded into the shadows. The horror of the French experience had put paid to any chance of a clean break with the past in England. And so, in spite of the promise of America, and the great tradition of Liberty and constitutional innovation in England that helped inspire it, the revolutionary impulse in Europe remained elusive: many of the strictures of the old regime remained in place.
In Britain, the development of democracy continued to be stifled: the old hierarchies of church, king and the landed aristocracy, propped up by the Tories, remained. In France, temporary euphoria and poetic idealism were almost immediately replaced by counter-revolutionary force, leading to the authoritarianism of Bonaparte’s vulgar military empire. European capitalism was allowed to flourish, as it continues to do so today, but in the meantime the higher cause of European democracy was left to develop – as far as it was able, within the constraining hierarchy of the [old] English order and the [new] French one - incrementally.
The American Revolution could not be emulated in Europe. But perhaps this was no bad thing: both the French and the American Revolution’s failings show the danger of premature revolution, neither of them being examples of what one might call ‘velvet’.
By proclaiming the fine ideals of democracy, ‘Liberty under a Representative Government’, and Liberty, Equality, Fraternity; while owning slaves [as Jefferson did] or executing each other [as they did in France] the founding fathers of modern democracy began things badly. For all the incremental democratic improvements that have taken place to this day, we appear to have confused ourselves as to what constitutes a democracy. We do not live in a true democracy today. We have inherited a system that has prematurely called itself a democracy but, in reality, is not. Rather, it is a modern capitalist democracy. We’ve had the wool pulled over our eyes. We’ve allowed those in charge to justify their hierarchical, unaccountable position: they call the system of powers that props them up, ‘representative democracy’ when it is not, and by accepting the voting system ‘as is’ we have appeased this idea: a most dangerous state of affairs. It is our responsibility in a modern capitalist democracy to do the opposite.
Liberty under the law, democracy and the right of independent self-determination: the principles of reason that inspired these revolutions, are as important today as they were then, only more so. Only now the opportunity, and historical necessity are that much greater. Levels of education, knowledge and the ability to communicate ideas effectively have brought us the opportunity to develop democracy further. While the very powers we now possess [to destroy each other and the ecology on which we depend] and the lack of democratic accountability of our leaders mean that we must, as a matter of urgency democratise – which is to say ‘work together’ - to fix our culture. Let us return to the principle of liberty. Along with reason, liberty was the watchword of both the American and the French revolutions, though it appears both were quickly lost in the French terror.
Liberty under the law is the principle under which everyone’s maximum freedom is guaranteed by the proper workings of a democracy: a democracy in which everyone is included in the processes of decision-making so that the law, when framed, reflects the general will and aspirations of everyone, and not just the narrow class that helps to get a party elected. This should ideally begin where people live, in the local community, extending by way of a system of delegation and/or representation on into the local region, nation state and possibly beyond. This then is the most important principle about democracy and liberty, the right of self-determination. By ensuring that the right of self-determination is made real: that everyone is involved and included, a degree of multicultural consensus can be reached. There is then possible a degree of decentralised ownership of and accountability in the political process impossible under the current constitution with its rotten, unrepresentative voting system and emasculated local democratic structures. If we are to claim the most basic democratic right: the right of self-determination, it is essential that we now embark on our own revolutionary activity. We must take advantage of the opportunity and necessity that our times present us with: never before have the values and aspirations of the modern ‘enlightenment’ been so urgently required, and so possible. Paine’s revolutionary war was just the beginning.
Many arguments can be put forward on the need to fight to develop democracy in the West. But as a global war is taking already place in the world today, it might be useful to put the cause of the battle for greater democracy in that context, to recognise that what the world is engaged in is, for better or for worse, a ‘battle for the soul of the world.’
Of course, the previously so-called ‘war on terror’ is taking place for a whole variety of reasons. Prophetically, it may be argued that it is the final, globally televised battle [a ‘mirror to the nations’] sadly necessary in this global age for human beings to learn, finally – through the principle of ‘never again’ - to live by its hallowed principles. Whether religious or secular, I think this comes to the same thing: non-racial justice for all, fraternal good will and the right for all to self-determination, free of imperialist ‘from Above’ aggression and other systems of oppression. Suffice it to say that the various actors involved in the global battle appear to draw upon a number of these, and other factors, in their justification for their war.
But there is another war to be fought. It is a different war, much closer to home, but it’s not unrelated to the larger global one, in fact it is possible that the global war cannot be won without it: because the global war is in part related to exclusion, and because our revolutionary war is the war for democratic inclusion.
Modern capitalist culture has a well-known tendency to alienate and exclude while simultaneously speaking the opposite, democratic language of integration and multiculturalism. As a result of the rise of the Islamist resistance, in particular after the home grown suicide bombs and alleged terror plots, it has been noted that this tendency to alienation is particularly acute here, where ‘multiculturalism’ and immigration levels are quite advanced. There are as far as I can make out, two major reasons for this:
[1] There is a sickness in our society; our ‘Godless’ culture of mass-market consumerism and related mental/socio-pathologies [such as binge drinking, teen pregnancies, street violence, crime, cynicism, anti-social behaviour and general unspecific societal rage] are all symptoms showing that we have lost our way as a culture. Our culture is recklessly permissive, anathema to all good religion, which teaches moderation and a reduction in the pursuit of sensory stimulation, as the correct path to fulfilment. The complete opposite of our culture! And so, in the absence of any alternative, credible revolutionary politics, is it any wonder that some turn to politicised, traditional religion as a way forward?
[2] The complete disconnect between our national politics and the aspirations of most people. Career politicians set the agenda, from ‘Above’, and the ‘mass of sense’ - that genius that lies dormant amongst the people - does not participate, except in the charade that is the election: our clapped out, corrupted voting system. Nearly everyone, and not just Muslims – moderate or otherwise – is left out. Our culture is disintegrated, un-represented, disenfranchised: politically un-participative.
In short, for all its hard won tolerance and open-minded freedom, British democratic culture in a woeful state: domestically its people are politically passive and, simultaneously, internationally its leaders are unaccountable and deadly. It’s not really useful to say that we are living in a democracy any more, as this just legitimises the current, undemocratic order. Modern democracy is immature; whereas developed democracy is government by the people. We might say that we live in a capitalist democracy. But as there is no guarantee that capitalism and democracy are compatible, we must fight, as passionately as the suicide bombers fight, to tease them apart: for the post-capitalist revolution that is democracy.
Our war is then for as properly representative system of government [which ours is not, nor will it be, until we adopt some form of proportional representation] but also, it is for inclusive and participatory structures on the ground, to ensure active involvement and voice in all decision making for all citizens. And this principle applies equally in the workplace as in the community in which one lives. In modern Britain, we have none of these things.
These are not new suggestions, it is commonly accepted, even by the political class, that the [ ]% turnout for the last general election is an unacceptably low level of participation, hence the introduction of citizenship classes in schools. But beyond this initiative, the means by which voter and general political participation can be increased remains elusive. Proportional representation, or PR, would be a start, yet neither of the two major parties will touch it, as its implementation would threaten their power base. This fact in itself speaks volumes for the anti-democratic tradition of the political class. The moral of the story: parties with a stranglehold on power will not give it up without a fight. Therefore we must fight.
But what’s the solution? The whole political system needs to change, but how? One option is that we could form a party, or a pressure group, dedicated to improving the electoral system. Then we could raise awareness, do direct actions, even stand for office. But what would that achieve? At best we might be able to educate more people about the benefits of a better voting system, but we are very unlikely to make it happen. And besides, electoral reform is insufficient, such is the parlous state of our system and the demand of democracy. Real democracy is about much more than voter turnout, it is about participation.
To repeat, liberty under the law is the principle under which everyone’s maximum freedom is guaranteed by the proper workings of a democracy: a democracy in which everyone is included in the processes of decision-making so that the law, when framed, reflects the general will and aspirations of everyone, and not just the narrow class that helps to get a party elected.
In conjunction with a new electoral system, willing political participation or direct democracy from below must be our aim. This combination is the surest solution to the problem of our dysfunctional democracy, but as a goal it will always, by its very definition elude the elite political class. It cannot be legislated for, devolved or imposed. Neither can it be talked into being, through exhortation from above. The only way it can happen, by its very definition, is by being built, from the ground up, by ‘us’. And again, by its very definition, the seizure of power that in a democracy is rightfully ours, this must be seen as a challenge, a fight or even a revolutionary war against ‘it’ – the system - and ‘them’, those who prop it up, ‘the above’ up there. In this sense the jihadis are right, the struggle to which all of us should be pitted, is the one against the vertical system of powers. But in their attempt to attack the system via its civilians, they are wrong – our war is not with ‘flesh and blood’ but rather it is with a system that is ‘not fir for purpose’.
And so, because real democracy, or liberty, is about participation, the very opposite of exclusion, the active development of democracy is the most likely solution that we have to the modern problems of alienation, social exclusion/disintegration and global war. This solution must come from us, this building of democracy, inclusively, from the ground up, as a multicultural coalition.
The question of democratic participation is ultimately about class, multiculturalism and integration. I use the word ‘class’ here in its Marxist sense – relating it to the struggle for universal representation and, ultimately, self-determination. But also I want to use the word ‘multiculturalism’ in a way that it is not always used, in the sense that it relates to the classic political quest for a multicultural polity that is integrated, and therefore united, in common endeavour: namely, the building of the good democratic society.
In the good democratic society each person’s aspirations will enjoy voice equally among others, and those who today face disenfranchisement from the political process and a sense of impotency and outrage at the culture they are forced to inhabit, and the unaccountable decision making of their leaders, will instead be able to help shape it, and live their lives, in ways that today are not even dreamt of.
The goal of multiculturalism, instead of being done away with, should be extended so as to resolve it’s fragmenting tendencies. In fact, it should go beyond race, by being linked to our movement in mixing people of different races, but also of different aspirations, on an equal footing, involving them in a new political process. There are as many different individuals and groups in the world as there are races. Race is really the wrong word to describe our ideal common humanity and ultimate endeavour: it is unhelpful in that it is fundamentally egotistical with its implication of competition and struggle between each other, as opposed to a true struggle against the system of powers leading to an equal sharing of power, greater co-operation and a movement towards global justice and peace.
Good multicultural policy is about facilitating a multiplicity of groups and individuals with different backgrounds to work together. As a group, Islam presents the greatest challenge because its worldview is the most entrenched, disenfranchised and radicalised. And so, as with all groups in the multicultural coalition we must strive to meet religionists at a point of mutual recognition: viz that their concern about the state of western style democracy, in other words ‘late capitalism’, is shared – so that we can make common cause in the essential struggle, or jihad, the battle to build a better world. Simultaneously, in areas in which Islam is on shaky ground, as with other groups we must not allow ourselves to appease them: homophobic, misogynistic, racist and other closed-minded, mean spirited or self-righteous worldviews must be challenged, wherever they are found, in white and black alike.
Britain, and by extension the west, can pull itself out of its hole, by way of a constitutional transformation. We can emancipate ourselves, but this will require at least two things on a large scale: clarity and discipline. Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army instigated the original English Revolution and we must now replicate the discipline this must have taken. As for clarity, if Al Qaeda and its network – and the state backed violence we have witnessed, to our horror in response – we need an army of light, the New Model Love Army, focused on the need for a new form of government, by the people. It must make policies inclusively together, for everyone and organised from the ground up, non-hierarchically and without prejudice. A forging of a new democratic process by a living statement of belief in democracy: a pact between believers.
