Although some commentators regard ‘governance’ as a relatively recent concept, it has been regarded since ancient times as the prime subject deserving of the greatest attention.
In the beginning, this was associated with the nobility who, having established or inherited their status to make decisions that affect the lives of others, recognised that it was important they learnt to approach the making and carrying out of such decisions in the most responsible manner. Later the very notion of the ‘noble’ transcended any title linked to family ties, and became the appellation for the highest characteristic of any person acting in the wisest and most considerate manner.
‘Nobility’ (in Latin), ‘Junzi’ (in Chinese), ‘Mahana vyakti’ (in Hindi) all went from being terms to describe the aristocratic ‘high-born’, to becoming terms of praise for the morally admirable, great and worthy. The noble-minded are not born, but developed through learning to gain a deeper understanding of how to facilitate effective governance over any domain entrusted to their stewardship. They are the ones who fulfil the duty they owe to those who rely on their guidance and decisions to chart a course that will serve the good of all.
To teach the noble art of governance, the most cogent ideas must be synthesized, and their application promoted as widely as possible. There are essentially three parts to this endeavour.
First, we need to engage the heart. Dramatisation of trends and events can move people to reflect and act more than mere factual accounts. From Shakespeare’s historical plays on the wisdom and folly of successive rulers, to modern dystopian novels depicting threats that need to be overcome to preserve well-governed societies, steering emotions towards a determination to counter injustice and pursue the common good is vital.
Secondly, we need to inform the head. There are many facts and arguments about how organisations and countries have prospered from effective governance, or degenerated as a result of misrule. Without a critical grasp of what differentiates between good and bad approaches to securing order and collaboration, the best will in the world may nonetheless end up heading in the wrong direction. A diet of democratic theory, political history, and socio-economic analysis is essential to keep misguided outlook at bay, and set out the correct vision.
Thirdly, we need to guide the hands. Beyond appreciating the importance of governing well, and recognising what it should entail, practical know-how is required to turn ideas into actions. Management and sociological studies have captured many examples of what works and what does not when it comes to motivating and communicating in order to get large groups of people to join forces effectively. Their lessons must be learnt to enhance leadership skills and strategies.
There is nothing nobler than to dedicate oneself to the advancement of good governance at the local, national or global level. Educators can play a major role in cultivating true nobility of character in raising interest in and understanding of what constitutes such governance.
--
If you would like to know more, see ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’; and see also the resources listed in the ‘Question the Powerful’ collection.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Reciprocity & Progressive Communitarianism
One of the oldest questions in philosophy is: how should we live?
On some reading of the history of philosophy, we are no closer now at finding an answer than when the question was first widely discussed across the ancient world two and a half thousand years ago.
But this is a misleading picture, reinforced in part by the common fascination with pointing to the differences between thinkers rather than paying more attention to their shared ideas.
Let us look again at the challenge before us: How should we live in relation to each other when there are divergent views and preferences? How should we organise social relationships and power structures? What would be the most desirable approach to adopt in governing our institutions?
One of the first things we may notice is that there is in fact a substantial consensus on what should guide us in working out our responses to these related questions. Admittedly this consensus does not cover individuals who are dismissive of ethical concerns for other people – they care only for their personal gratification, and regard any negative consequences the pursuit of their own interests may have for others as purely something to ignore if at all possible, either by having enough power to ride roughshod over others or by deceiving others into thinking they are not doing anything to encroach on their wellbeing.
For the vast majority of people, the guiding principle they should live by cannot be clearer – namely, the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. The selfish fringe may lack empathy for the feelings of other people, but humankind in general recognise that they should do to others as they would have them do unto them. It is true that not everyone lives up to this maxim all of the time, but it is the basis of our conscience in distinguishing what is to praise and endorse, and what is to blame and curtail.
Not only is the Golden Rule of Reciprocity embedded in the moral code of every civilization, it is reflected in the social interactions of human groups for thousands of years – people hunting and gathering food together and sharing them out without a few taking a disproportionate share while leaving others to starve. Developmental psychology has found that children instinctively share with others without discrimination, and expect to be treated on equal terms whenever they carry out tasks with others.
Even after the emergence of exploitative hierarchies, which enabled self-centred oppressors to take unfair advantage over others, the cultural judgement as indicated in literature and history shows disquiet over such oppression, and yearns for a more inclusive path.
Some authoritarian leaders have tried to justify their seizing greater power and wealth on the grounds that it is supposedly better for everyone. But studies comparing reciprocal cooperation with elite control have consistently found the former is incomparably better for everyone. From business productivity, workplace satisfaction, to conflict resolution and game theory analysis of divergent strategies, the findings all point to the superiority of reciprocity.
In practice, what actions and arrangements will lead to greater mutual benefits has to be ascertained through a reciprocal process of critical assessment. Since no one can claim that he/she is uniquely infallible and everyone else must accept whatever he/she declares to be true, an open exchange of evidence and reasons, backed by a shared commitment to consider arguments on an objective basis, is necessary to test proposals and revise them where appropriate. Even where some people may insist they are speaking for God it is obvious that there is no guarantee that the person is not delusional or mistaking evil commands from whatever source as the authentic voice of their deity.
Drawing on the centrality of reciprocity in ordering human interactions and the need for cooperative endeavours in establishing the reliability of claims and proposals, a group of thinkers have over time developed what has been termed the outlook of progressive communitarianism, which encapsulates these ideas in three core principles (see ‘Communitarians: an introduction’):
• The principle of cooperative enquiry
• The principle of mutual responsibility
• The principle of citizen participation
The first two principles deal with how people should work out what beliefs they can count on, and why they accept their responsibility for helping others as they would want others to help them, respectively. The third requires any decision that affects a group of people be subject to the deliberative input of those people.
Progressive communitarianism is the articulation of reciprocity as a guiding philosophy. It is neither authoritarian nor anarchic, but radically democratic in its emphasis on equal respect and opportunity for all concerned to participate in assessing beliefs and making decisions. It is not nostalgically conservative in rejecting new practices, nor is it casually iconoclastic in attacking past customs; but simply concerned with reforming what on the available evidence can become better. It neither romanticises any particular community as the source of all values, nor glorifies unencumbered individuals as bearers of inalienable rights to do whatever they want; but regards human relationships as full of potential for mutual enrichment provided the governance arrangements in place facilitate their development.
--
For an introduction to the kind of governance proposed on progressive communitarian grounds, see ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’.
On some reading of the history of philosophy, we are no closer now at finding an answer than when the question was first widely discussed across the ancient world two and a half thousand years ago.
But this is a misleading picture, reinforced in part by the common fascination with pointing to the differences between thinkers rather than paying more attention to their shared ideas.
Let us look again at the challenge before us: How should we live in relation to each other when there are divergent views and preferences? How should we organise social relationships and power structures? What would be the most desirable approach to adopt in governing our institutions?
One of the first things we may notice is that there is in fact a substantial consensus on what should guide us in working out our responses to these related questions. Admittedly this consensus does not cover individuals who are dismissive of ethical concerns for other people – they care only for their personal gratification, and regard any negative consequences the pursuit of their own interests may have for others as purely something to ignore if at all possible, either by having enough power to ride roughshod over others or by deceiving others into thinking they are not doing anything to encroach on their wellbeing.
For the vast majority of people, the guiding principle they should live by cannot be clearer – namely, the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. The selfish fringe may lack empathy for the feelings of other people, but humankind in general recognise that they should do to others as they would have them do unto them. It is true that not everyone lives up to this maxim all of the time, but it is the basis of our conscience in distinguishing what is to praise and endorse, and what is to blame and curtail.
Not only is the Golden Rule of Reciprocity embedded in the moral code of every civilization, it is reflected in the social interactions of human groups for thousands of years – people hunting and gathering food together and sharing them out without a few taking a disproportionate share while leaving others to starve. Developmental psychology has found that children instinctively share with others without discrimination, and expect to be treated on equal terms whenever they carry out tasks with others.
Even after the emergence of exploitative hierarchies, which enabled self-centred oppressors to take unfair advantage over others, the cultural judgement as indicated in literature and history shows disquiet over such oppression, and yearns for a more inclusive path.
Some authoritarian leaders have tried to justify their seizing greater power and wealth on the grounds that it is supposedly better for everyone. But studies comparing reciprocal cooperation with elite control have consistently found the former is incomparably better for everyone. From business productivity, workplace satisfaction, to conflict resolution and game theory analysis of divergent strategies, the findings all point to the superiority of reciprocity.
In practice, what actions and arrangements will lead to greater mutual benefits has to be ascertained through a reciprocal process of critical assessment. Since no one can claim that he/she is uniquely infallible and everyone else must accept whatever he/she declares to be true, an open exchange of evidence and reasons, backed by a shared commitment to consider arguments on an objective basis, is necessary to test proposals and revise them where appropriate. Even where some people may insist they are speaking for God it is obvious that there is no guarantee that the person is not delusional or mistaking evil commands from whatever source as the authentic voice of their deity.
Drawing on the centrality of reciprocity in ordering human interactions and the need for cooperative endeavours in establishing the reliability of claims and proposals, a group of thinkers have over time developed what has been termed the outlook of progressive communitarianism, which encapsulates these ideas in three core principles (see ‘Communitarians: an introduction’):
• The principle of cooperative enquiry
• The principle of mutual responsibility
• The principle of citizen participation
The first two principles deal with how people should work out what beliefs they can count on, and why they accept their responsibility for helping others as they would want others to help them, respectively. The third requires any decision that affects a group of people be subject to the deliberative input of those people.
Progressive communitarianism is the articulation of reciprocity as a guiding philosophy. It is neither authoritarian nor anarchic, but radically democratic in its emphasis on equal respect and opportunity for all concerned to participate in assessing beliefs and making decisions. It is not nostalgically conservative in rejecting new practices, nor is it casually iconoclastic in attacking past customs; but simply concerned with reforming what on the available evidence can become better. It neither romanticises any particular community as the source of all values, nor glorifies unencumbered individuals as bearers of inalienable rights to do whatever they want; but regards human relationships as full of potential for mutual enrichment provided the governance arrangements in place facilitate their development.
--
For an introduction to the kind of governance proposed on progressive communitarian grounds, see ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide
The effective governance of any group or organisation is essential to its success. No matter if we are concerned with how to run a firm (corporate governance), a neighbourhood or city (local governance), a country (national governance), or an international body (global governance), we need to have the most reliable approach for ensuring that all those involved will act in pursuit of their common objective.
Political, management, and psychological theories all point to a spectrum of ideas with an authoritarian system at one end and an anarchic model at the other. Between the authoritarian (which places the power to decide and command in an unquestionable elite) and the anarchic (which relies on decisions and actions backed by the unanimous agreement of individuals at every turn), there are communitarian approaches that combine democratic cooperation for making rules with universal enforcement to tackle irresponsibility and free-riding.
Communitarian governance rejects both handing power irrevocably to a few to dictate to others, and granting everyone a veto to block anything that does not on a given occasion suit them. Instead it relies on three tried and tested principles for enabling people to work together, namely the principles of mutual responsibility, cooperative enquiry, and citizen participation (see ‘Communitarians: an introduction’ for an outline of the three principles; see ‘Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship’ for a book-length exposition). And it applies these to the three key domains of group interaction, namely, problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system (see ‘Together We Can’ for further resources on how to develop a cooperative problem-solving culture; see ‘Against Power Inequalities’ for a historical review of power structures; and see ‘Responsibility’ for an analysis of the conditions under which people should be held responsible for their behaviour).
This gives us 9 essential communitarian elements for achieving the most effective governance:
Embedding mutual responsibility in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
1. Shared Mission
All members of the group need to have a shared understanding of their collective mission or purpose. They should see that the group is organised to enable them to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
* Measures of success: How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members? How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
* Signs of weakness: Disorder – individuals sense chaos, insecurity, indifference, constant conflict, and the sum being notably less than its parts.
2. You-&-I Mutuality
The benefits/resources generated by the group are shared on terms of genuine mutuality, and no individual or section is at liberty to amass what comes from the group’s collective endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
* Measures of success: Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits? Are all members confident the arrangements will operate reliably and impartially?
* Signs of weakness: Exploitation – some members feeling that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group, and they are constantly marginalised and deprived of their share.
3. Nimble Membership
There is a responsive and transparent membership system that underpins who is brought into the group and who may be excluded from it, and makes clear to all those who are on board what their rights & duties are in relation to the group.
* Measures of success: Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members? Do members know what is expected of them individually and that they will be held to account through appropriate reviews if they act irresponsibly? How clear is there a decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
* Signs of weakness: Unsustainability – with too few/too many members to function effectively; having unsuitable members to utilise the resources; or members distrustful of the process of determining their membership, and/or that for accepting/excluding new ones.
Embedding cooperative enquiry in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
4. Educative Collaboration
All member of the group are able to learn together what they should do and what changes would be suitable to make.
* Measures of success: Is there a culture of lifelong learning? Are members supported to engage in deliberative exchanges to inform their beliefs, policies, and practices?
* Signs of weakness: Thoughtlessness – members detached from thinking through why things are done in their group; they casually accept or reject ideas & instructions. There is a lack of interest in learning from each other or from other sources.
5. Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group does not privilege any doctrine or assertion as unquestionable, nor does it grant anyone the authority to make claims that others must accept without due evidence or reason.
* Measures of success: How confident are members in questioning claims put forward by those in more highly ranked positions? Is everyone aware that nothing (in the name of ‘tradition’ or anything else) can be ring-fenced from empirical analysis? Is open and critical discussion of current and new ideas encouraged and facilitated?
* Signs of weakness: Dogmatism – irrational beliefs taking hold & undermining intelligent considerations. Widespread feeling there is no point or scope in subjecting any activity to critical questioning.
6. Open Access to Information
There is a vibrant information system so nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared.
* Measures of success: How reliable are the communication channels in place to facilitate inspection, audit, whistleblowing, peer review to keep wrongdoing at bay? How easy is it for members to discover and access relevant and accurate information about the group’s past performance and future options?
* Signs of weakness: Concealment – the systematic or regular shielding of irresponsible actions; the deliberate refusal or obstruction to members seeking to find out more about what has been done in the group and why.
Embedding citizen participation in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
7. Participatory Decision-Making
The group respects every member equally in being entitled to participate in the making of decisions that affect them, and enables all members to contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
* Measures of success: Are the procedures for decision-making clear to all members? How extensive are training and participation opportunities made available? And how effective are they in ensuring that no one will be ignored or disrespected? How well are joint decision-making facilitated so it is carried out rationally and inclusively? Does the joint decision-making apply to how to divide and distribute the surplus generated by the group?
* Signs of weakness: Disengagement – a significant number of members either lack the information or skills to make sensible decisions, or decline to become involved in decision making altogether. Insufficiently thought-through or biased decisions systemically harm the organisation & its members.
8. Impartial Distribution of Power
The group abides by the democratic ethos so that no one is permitted to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
* Measures of success: Are there safeguards in place to stop individuals or sections in the group accumulating power? Is there a regular and effective redistribution of power so that even concentrated powers for emergencies are only granted on temporary basis? Are there checks and balances so that no one can hold others to ransom by threats?
* Signs of weakness: Oppression – the suppression of dissent and pervasive enforcement of reluctant compliance. Fear, resentment, distrust of the leaders.
9. Accountability for Action
The group is protected by a robust accountability system so those entrusted with higher authority to act on behalf of all members are unlikely to take actions that are against the wider interest of the group or are to benefit themselves solely without due consent from the group.
* Measures of success: Are there transparent electoral or selection process to replace those with positions of authority? How easy is it to detect unjustifiable actions? Are there reliable mechanisms for all to trigger to summon potential wrongdoers to account for their actions? Are members supported in being vigilant in challenging decisions that appear to be illegitimate?
* Signs of weakness: Corruption – some stay in positions of power regardless of concerns raised; some are suspected of placing their own personal interests and/or those who bribe them above the collective interests of members in general, and subvert the group for the gains of a few.
Conclusion
Anyone interested in the theoretical foundations for the nine elements we have set out can refer to the supplementary resources cited above. For those who want to focus on their practical applications, they can cross-check each of the nine elements against their own organisation’s governance, and mark each one out of ten. This will provide them with a snapshot of their relative strengths and weaknesses, and also how robust their governance is overall. Each element can be further specified with more detailed criteria. But for the purpose of offering a framework for assessing governance in general, this guide is a good place to start.
Political, management, and psychological theories all point to a spectrum of ideas with an authoritarian system at one end and an anarchic model at the other. Between the authoritarian (which places the power to decide and command in an unquestionable elite) and the anarchic (which relies on decisions and actions backed by the unanimous agreement of individuals at every turn), there are communitarian approaches that combine democratic cooperation for making rules with universal enforcement to tackle irresponsibility and free-riding.
Communitarian governance rejects both handing power irrevocably to a few to dictate to others, and granting everyone a veto to block anything that does not on a given occasion suit them. Instead it relies on three tried and tested principles for enabling people to work together, namely the principles of mutual responsibility, cooperative enquiry, and citizen participation (see ‘Communitarians: an introduction’ for an outline of the three principles; see ‘Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship’ for a book-length exposition). And it applies these to the three key domains of group interaction, namely, problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system (see ‘Together We Can’ for further resources on how to develop a cooperative problem-solving culture; see ‘Against Power Inequalities’ for a historical review of power structures; and see ‘Responsibility’ for an analysis of the conditions under which people should be held responsible for their behaviour).
This gives us 9 essential communitarian elements for achieving the most effective governance:
Embedding mutual responsibility in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
1. Shared Mission
All members of the group need to have a shared understanding of their collective mission or purpose. They should see that the group is organised to enable them to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
* Measures of success: How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members? How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
* Signs of weakness: Disorder – individuals sense chaos, insecurity, indifference, constant conflict, and the sum being notably less than its parts.
2. You-&-I Mutuality
The benefits/resources generated by the group are shared on terms of genuine mutuality, and no individual or section is at liberty to amass what comes from the group’s collective endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
* Measures of success: Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits? Are all members confident the arrangements will operate reliably and impartially?
* Signs of weakness: Exploitation – some members feeling that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group, and they are constantly marginalised and deprived of their share.
3. Nimble Membership
There is a responsive and transparent membership system that underpins who is brought into the group and who may be excluded from it, and makes clear to all those who are on board what their rights & duties are in relation to the group.
* Measures of success: Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members? Do members know what is expected of them individually and that they will be held to account through appropriate reviews if they act irresponsibly? How clear is there a decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
* Signs of weakness: Unsustainability – with too few/too many members to function effectively; having unsuitable members to utilise the resources; or members distrustful of the process of determining their membership, and/or that for accepting/excluding new ones.
Embedding cooperative enquiry in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
4. Educative Collaboration
All member of the group are able to learn together what they should do and what changes would be suitable to make.
* Measures of success: Is there a culture of lifelong learning? Are members supported to engage in deliberative exchanges to inform their beliefs, policies, and practices?
* Signs of weakness: Thoughtlessness – members detached from thinking through why things are done in their group; they casually accept or reject ideas & instructions. There is a lack of interest in learning from each other or from other sources.
5. Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group does not privilege any doctrine or assertion as unquestionable, nor does it grant anyone the authority to make claims that others must accept without due evidence or reason.
* Measures of success: How confident are members in questioning claims put forward by those in more highly ranked positions? Is everyone aware that nothing (in the name of ‘tradition’ or anything else) can be ring-fenced from empirical analysis? Is open and critical discussion of current and new ideas encouraged and facilitated?
* Signs of weakness: Dogmatism – irrational beliefs taking hold & undermining intelligent considerations. Widespread feeling there is no point or scope in subjecting any activity to critical questioning.
6. Open Access to Information
There is a vibrant information system so nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared.
* Measures of success: How reliable are the communication channels in place to facilitate inspection, audit, whistleblowing, peer review to keep wrongdoing at bay? How easy is it for members to discover and access relevant and accurate information about the group’s past performance and future options?
* Signs of weakness: Concealment – the systematic or regular shielding of irresponsible actions; the deliberate refusal or obstruction to members seeking to find out more about what has been done in the group and why.
Embedding citizen participation in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
7. Participatory Decision-Making
The group respects every member equally in being entitled to participate in the making of decisions that affect them, and enables all members to contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
* Measures of success: Are the procedures for decision-making clear to all members? How extensive are training and participation opportunities made available? And how effective are they in ensuring that no one will be ignored or disrespected? How well are joint decision-making facilitated so it is carried out rationally and inclusively? Does the joint decision-making apply to how to divide and distribute the surplus generated by the group?
* Signs of weakness: Disengagement – a significant number of members either lack the information or skills to make sensible decisions, or decline to become involved in decision making altogether. Insufficiently thought-through or biased decisions systemically harm the organisation & its members.
8. Impartial Distribution of Power
The group abides by the democratic ethos so that no one is permitted to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
* Measures of success: Are there safeguards in place to stop individuals or sections in the group accumulating power? Is there a regular and effective redistribution of power so that even concentrated powers for emergencies are only granted on temporary basis? Are there checks and balances so that no one can hold others to ransom by threats?
* Signs of weakness: Oppression – the suppression of dissent and pervasive enforcement of reluctant compliance. Fear, resentment, distrust of the leaders.
9. Accountability for Action
The group is protected by a robust accountability system so those entrusted with higher authority to act on behalf of all members are unlikely to take actions that are against the wider interest of the group or are to benefit themselves solely without due consent from the group.
* Measures of success: Are there transparent electoral or selection process to replace those with positions of authority? How easy is it to detect unjustifiable actions? Are there reliable mechanisms for all to trigger to summon potential wrongdoers to account for their actions? Are members supported in being vigilant in challenging decisions that appear to be illegitimate?
* Signs of weakness: Corruption – some stay in positions of power regardless of concerns raised; some are suspected of placing their own personal interests and/or those who bribe them above the collective interests of members in general, and subvert the group for the gains of a few.
Conclusion
Anyone interested in the theoretical foundations for the nine elements we have set out can refer to the supplementary resources cited above. For those who want to focus on their practical applications, they can cross-check each of the nine elements against their own organisation’s governance, and mark each one out of ten. This will provide them with a snapshot of their relative strengths and weaknesses, and also how robust their governance is overall. Each element can be further specified with more detailed criteria. But for the purpose of offering a framework for assessing governance in general, this guide is a good place to start.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
What Has Politics Ever Done for Us?
INTRODUCTION
No one has given politics a bad name more than professional politicians – they never tire of trotting out the inane comment, whenever some important event is unfolding, that “we must leave politics out of this.” Perhaps what they mean is that on those occasions they should stop for a moment trying to score points against other parties, but politics is precisely what they should be engaging in.
Unfortunately, politicians have alienated the public so much that more and more people just give up on politics – they are consumed by an ever-present sense of futility, and they are convinced nothing they do would make any difference.
But that of course is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once people give up on politics – and I don’t just mean voting, but sharing ideas and collaborating on bringing about changes – we cease to be a body of citizens, and become fragmented, isolated, vulnerable individuals.
Politics is in fact the only antidote to powerlessness. It is the practice whereby citizens in a shared domain come together and work out what is to be done for their common wellbeing.
If one or a few simply impose their decisions on everyone else, there is dictatorship, not politics.
If everyone goes his or own way and never accepts any general rule as binding on them, we have anarchy, not politics.
Only politics give us the opportunity to deliberate as a group, to dispute and agree without resorting to violence, and establish common rules and policies.
And one of the most pressing tasks of lifelong learning is to remind everyone what politics has helped us achieve, and why we must act politically to protect our common interests. And the more powerful the opponents we face, the more necessary it is to tackle them through effective political engagement.
Let us look back at six examples and see what we have had to rely on politics to achieve for us. And as we’re often told that it’s important for our national identity to remember key dates, we’ll pick out 6 years that hold a special place in our political history:
One. 1215 (Magna Carta)
In the past, people who were displeased with their ruler would try to seize the throne from them, or force them to abdicate, or even kill them. But a group of barons in the 13th century decided to use a political approach instead. They devised a charter and collectively pressed King John to agree to it. John gave his consent and though he rejected it soon afterwards, it became a focus for a shift in structural power, leading to the election of representatives in the Parliament championed by Simon de Montfort.
Political Achievement 1: Limit the Abuse of Power
Two. 1605 (The Advancement of Learning)
As late as the 15th and 16th centuries, there was no systematic science or technology to speak of. There would the odd inventions or discoveries made by individuals working on their own. Francis Bacon, a leading politician who would become the Lord Chancellor, put forward a comprehensive reform programme in his book, The Advancement of Learning, and presented it to King James I, who sarcastically dismissed it as “Like the peace of God, it passes all understanding.” But Bacon did not rely just on the King; he networked extensively, and it led to the founding of the Royal Society, with a royal charter from Charles II (James’ grandson). It became a model for the cultivation & promotion of cooperatively tested empirical knowledge.
Political Achievement 2: Improve Knowledge & Rationality
Three. 1776 (Common Sense)
The so-called Glorious Revolution was a settlement between the monarch and the wealthy elite of the country. And after 1688, the government refused to listen to any request for allowing every adult to have a vote in electing their representative in Parliament. One political activist turned to pamphlet and book writing to stir up popular demands. And when Tom Paine went to America, his ideas provided just the catalyst the people who had settled there needed. They would not accept some hedged settlement with King George III, but cut their links with the monarchy altogether, and became a democratic republic instead. Paine then used the success of the new political system in America to promote change in France and Britain. And while extremists in France and ultra reactionaries in Britain derailed progress in their different ways, democracy was to advance through the 19th century in both countries.
Political Achievement 3: Open the Door to Democracy
Four. 1851 (The Sheffield Female Political Association)
Back in America, the slaves were not given a vote. And when Anne Knight joined the campaign to end slavery, she discovered two things: one was the importance of changing public attitudes about slavery when slave owners would go on and on about the economic costs of abandoning it; and the other was that the problem of deep-seated prejudice affected women too.
When she went to the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London in 1840, she found out that women were not allowed to participate in the discussions. She established in 1847 the first organisation to campaign for women suffrage and inspired subsequent feminist demands to eradicate unequal treatment of women (it was 1918 that women over 30 with property got the vote, and only 1928 that women aged 21+ got the vote).
Political Achievement 4: Rally Against Prejudice
Five. 1905 (Progressive Government)
Through the 19th century, even as there was growing acceptance (though slow it was) that everyone, men and women, should have the vote, and be given equal respect politically, there was a parallel trend that not only condoned, but celebrated the widening gulf between the rich and the poor – and dismissed that there should be any equal respect when it came to economic interactions.
The turning point came with the Liberal victory of 1905, which heralded the systematic redistribution of common resources to bridge the divide between the haves and have-nots. For example:
• Free school meals
• Workers compensation for suffering from accidents at work
• In 1908, introduced pensions for those over 70.
• Spending significantly increased to alleviate unemployment.
• The National Insurance Act (Part I) passed in 1911 gave workers the right to sick pay
It was by no means easy, as Lloyd George remarked: "the partisan warfare that raged around these topics was so fierce that by 1913, this country was brought to the verge of civil war."
Political Achievement 5: Build Economic Solidarity
Six. 1942 (Beveridge’s Report - The Slaying of Giants)
Beveridge’s Report set out a vision for slaying the five giant evils of Want, Idleness, Disease, Squalor, and Ignorance. In tackling ignorance, there continued to be many obstacles. For example,
• teachers were from time to time threatened with pay cut of 10% or more;
• women teachers were not only paid less but had to stop teaching once they were married;
• & parents could stop sending their children to school once they were 14.
The National Union of Teachers campaigned in public, organised strikes where necessary, and also collaborated with politicians to change the law, and the status of teachers and respect for education reached a high point.
Political Achievement 6: Safeguard Education
CONCLUSION
Since 1980s, market individualism has grown and collective politics declined.
Now all six political achievements are under threat.
It is important to remember what they are and that we should revive politics to defend them.
• Magna Carta inspired the development of human rights; now this government is planning to abolish the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Instead of supporting the general advancement of learning, research grants are increasingly directed to meet corporate interests.
• Democracy is put into reverse – stopping people voting is the new game in town: prisoners, changing registration system which could reduce the number of people who can vote, and look at America, where the Republicans have concocted numerous ways to stop the poor and ethnic minorities from voting.
• Prejudice against immigrants, against disabled people, against the poor are stoked on a daily basis. And equal pay for women is still a battle to be won.
• Economic solidarity is being jettisoned, the welfare state is being dismantled, and income inequalities, after falling in the post-war years, have kept widening since the 1980s.
• And education is reduced to a sifting machine to pick out the few for top jobs and package the rest for compliance and low expectations.
For those of us who live in the six counties within the East of England, there is a further significance to the six examples we considered:
• Before the Barons presented the Magna Carta to King John to seal in 2015, they gathered in the previous year before the shrine of St Edmunds to discuss and agree their tactics in dealing with John. The shrine was of course in Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk.
• The great political advocate for ‘The Advancement of Learning’, Francis Bacon, was ennobled as Viscount St Albans, because his family home was in St Albans, Hertfordshire.
• And arguably the most influential political writer of all times, Tom Paine, was born in Thetford, Norfolk.
• The tireless critic of slavery and champion of women rights, Anne Knight, came from Chelmsford, Essex.
• The Liberal Government that came into office in 1905 was led by Henry Campbell Bannerman, one of 14 Prime Ministers who graduated from the University of Cambridge in Cambridgeshire.
• And the man who led the National Union of Teachers as their General Secretary from 1931 to 1947 was Frederick Mander, who earlier on in his career was the headmaster of a school in Luton, Bedfordshire.
We have in the East of England an immensely rich political heritage, and we should with confidence and pride build on it and extend political education to as many people as possible so that they can exercise their power as citizens to counter money interests and corrosive prejudices, and help enhance our common wellbeing.
--
[This is a summary paper based on the speech I gave to the WEA (East of England) Annual Meeting, on 8 November 2014]
No one has given politics a bad name more than professional politicians – they never tire of trotting out the inane comment, whenever some important event is unfolding, that “we must leave politics out of this.” Perhaps what they mean is that on those occasions they should stop for a moment trying to score points against other parties, but politics is precisely what they should be engaging in.
Unfortunately, politicians have alienated the public so much that more and more people just give up on politics – they are consumed by an ever-present sense of futility, and they are convinced nothing they do would make any difference.
But that of course is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once people give up on politics – and I don’t just mean voting, but sharing ideas and collaborating on bringing about changes – we cease to be a body of citizens, and become fragmented, isolated, vulnerable individuals.
Politics is in fact the only antidote to powerlessness. It is the practice whereby citizens in a shared domain come together and work out what is to be done for their common wellbeing.
If one or a few simply impose their decisions on everyone else, there is dictatorship, not politics.
If everyone goes his or own way and never accepts any general rule as binding on them, we have anarchy, not politics.
Only politics give us the opportunity to deliberate as a group, to dispute and agree without resorting to violence, and establish common rules and policies.
And one of the most pressing tasks of lifelong learning is to remind everyone what politics has helped us achieve, and why we must act politically to protect our common interests. And the more powerful the opponents we face, the more necessary it is to tackle them through effective political engagement.
Let us look back at six examples and see what we have had to rely on politics to achieve for us. And as we’re often told that it’s important for our national identity to remember key dates, we’ll pick out 6 years that hold a special place in our political history:
One. 1215 (Magna Carta)
In the past, people who were displeased with their ruler would try to seize the throne from them, or force them to abdicate, or even kill them. But a group of barons in the 13th century decided to use a political approach instead. They devised a charter and collectively pressed King John to agree to it. John gave his consent and though he rejected it soon afterwards, it became a focus for a shift in structural power, leading to the election of representatives in the Parliament championed by Simon de Montfort.
Political Achievement 1: Limit the Abuse of Power
Two. 1605 (The Advancement of Learning)
As late as the 15th and 16th centuries, there was no systematic science or technology to speak of. There would the odd inventions or discoveries made by individuals working on their own. Francis Bacon, a leading politician who would become the Lord Chancellor, put forward a comprehensive reform programme in his book, The Advancement of Learning, and presented it to King James I, who sarcastically dismissed it as “Like the peace of God, it passes all understanding.” But Bacon did not rely just on the King; he networked extensively, and it led to the founding of the Royal Society, with a royal charter from Charles II (James’ grandson). It became a model for the cultivation & promotion of cooperatively tested empirical knowledge.
Political Achievement 2: Improve Knowledge & Rationality
Three. 1776 (Common Sense)
The so-called Glorious Revolution was a settlement between the monarch and the wealthy elite of the country. And after 1688, the government refused to listen to any request for allowing every adult to have a vote in electing their representative in Parliament. One political activist turned to pamphlet and book writing to stir up popular demands. And when Tom Paine went to America, his ideas provided just the catalyst the people who had settled there needed. They would not accept some hedged settlement with King George III, but cut their links with the monarchy altogether, and became a democratic republic instead. Paine then used the success of the new political system in America to promote change in France and Britain. And while extremists in France and ultra reactionaries in Britain derailed progress in their different ways, democracy was to advance through the 19th century in both countries.
Political Achievement 3: Open the Door to Democracy
Four. 1851 (The Sheffield Female Political Association)
Back in America, the slaves were not given a vote. And when Anne Knight joined the campaign to end slavery, she discovered two things: one was the importance of changing public attitudes about slavery when slave owners would go on and on about the economic costs of abandoning it; and the other was that the problem of deep-seated prejudice affected women too.
When she went to the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London in 1840, she found out that women were not allowed to participate in the discussions. She established in 1847 the first organisation to campaign for women suffrage and inspired subsequent feminist demands to eradicate unequal treatment of women (it was 1918 that women over 30 with property got the vote, and only 1928 that women aged 21+ got the vote).
Political Achievement 4: Rally Against Prejudice
Five. 1905 (Progressive Government)
Through the 19th century, even as there was growing acceptance (though slow it was) that everyone, men and women, should have the vote, and be given equal respect politically, there was a parallel trend that not only condoned, but celebrated the widening gulf between the rich and the poor – and dismissed that there should be any equal respect when it came to economic interactions.
The turning point came with the Liberal victory of 1905, which heralded the systematic redistribution of common resources to bridge the divide between the haves and have-nots. For example:
• Free school meals
• Workers compensation for suffering from accidents at work
• In 1908, introduced pensions for those over 70.
• Spending significantly increased to alleviate unemployment.
• The National Insurance Act (Part I) passed in 1911 gave workers the right to sick pay
It was by no means easy, as Lloyd George remarked: "the partisan warfare that raged around these topics was so fierce that by 1913, this country was brought to the verge of civil war."
Political Achievement 5: Build Economic Solidarity
Six. 1942 (Beveridge’s Report - The Slaying of Giants)
Beveridge’s Report set out a vision for slaying the five giant evils of Want, Idleness, Disease, Squalor, and Ignorance. In tackling ignorance, there continued to be many obstacles. For example,
• teachers were from time to time threatened with pay cut of 10% or more;
• women teachers were not only paid less but had to stop teaching once they were married;
• & parents could stop sending their children to school once they were 14.
The National Union of Teachers campaigned in public, organised strikes where necessary, and also collaborated with politicians to change the law, and the status of teachers and respect for education reached a high point.
Political Achievement 6: Safeguard Education
CONCLUSION
Since 1980s, market individualism has grown and collective politics declined.
Now all six political achievements are under threat.
It is important to remember what they are and that we should revive politics to defend them.
• Magna Carta inspired the development of human rights; now this government is planning to abolish the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Instead of supporting the general advancement of learning, research grants are increasingly directed to meet corporate interests.
• Democracy is put into reverse – stopping people voting is the new game in town: prisoners, changing registration system which could reduce the number of people who can vote, and look at America, where the Republicans have concocted numerous ways to stop the poor and ethnic minorities from voting.
• Prejudice against immigrants, against disabled people, against the poor are stoked on a daily basis. And equal pay for women is still a battle to be won.
• Economic solidarity is being jettisoned, the welfare state is being dismantled, and income inequalities, after falling in the post-war years, have kept widening since the 1980s.
• And education is reduced to a sifting machine to pick out the few for top jobs and package the rest for compliance and low expectations.
For those of us who live in the six counties within the East of England, there is a further significance to the six examples we considered:
• Before the Barons presented the Magna Carta to King John to seal in 2015, they gathered in the previous year before the shrine of St Edmunds to discuss and agree their tactics in dealing with John. The shrine was of course in Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk.
• The great political advocate for ‘The Advancement of Learning’, Francis Bacon, was ennobled as Viscount St Albans, because his family home was in St Albans, Hertfordshire.
• And arguably the most influential political writer of all times, Tom Paine, was born in Thetford, Norfolk.
• The tireless critic of slavery and champion of women rights, Anne Knight, came from Chelmsford, Essex.
• The Liberal Government that came into office in 1905 was led by Henry Campbell Bannerman, one of 14 Prime Ministers who graduated from the University of Cambridge in Cambridgeshire.
• And the man who led the National Union of Teachers as their General Secretary from 1931 to 1947 was Frederick Mander, who earlier on in his career was the headmaster of a school in Luton, Bedfordshire.
We have in the East of England an immensely rich political heritage, and we should with confidence and pride build on it and extend political education to as many people as possible so that they can exercise their power as citizens to counter money interests and corrosive prejudices, and help enhance our common wellbeing.
--
[This is a summary paper based on the speech I gave to the WEA (East of England) Annual Meeting, on 8 November 2014]
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Find out more about: Together We Can
Together We Can is a series of practical resources for cooperative problem-solving named after the policy programme developed by Henry Tam when he was the Government’s Head of Civil Renewal (Home Office), and later Deputy Director in charge of Community Empowerment Delivery (Dept for Communities & Local Government) between 2003 and 2010. The resources outlined below include both reports/advice that grew directly out of his policy work, and supplementary papers and presentations by him to highlight the key lessons for community activists and public policy makers on how citizens can cooperate together to solve the problems they face.
Together We Can: resources from the civil renewal programme
• ‘Together We Can’ action plan: the cross-government plan with commitments in the key public policy areas.
• Annex to ‘Together We Can’ action plan: with details of the proposed initiatives.
• ‘Together We Can’ 2005/2006 review: reports from the Secretaries of State and Ministers on progress in 12 Government Departments.
• ‘Take Part’: resources for ‘Active Learning for Active Citizenship’.
• ‘Guide Neighbourhoods’: how communities can learn cooperative problem-solving and civic activism from each other.
• ‘Civic Pioneers’ first report and second report: collaborative working between local authorities and citizens to improve local quality of life.
• ‘Participatory Budgeting’: resources to expand the use of participatory budgeting in deciding how to allocate public resources.
• ‘Quirk Review’: report on community management and ownership of public assets).
• ‘Asset Transfer Unit’: resources to support the transfer of assets to community-based organisations.
• ‘Active Citizens, Strong Communities – progressing civil renewal’: a pamphlet setting out the Home Secretary’s core objectives and policies.• ‘Councillors Commission’: report with recommendations on how to improve the democratic role of elected local councillors.
Together We Can: supplementary resources by Henry Tam on cooperative problem-solving
• ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment’: a review of the Together We Can programme (Forum Journal, Vol 53, Number 3, 2011)
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving & Education': on the evidence for suggesting why cooperative problem-solving should be taught more widely (published by the Forum Journal, 2013).
• 'The Cooperative Gestalt': an essay on the cooperative mindset and progressive lifelong learning (Question the Powerful, November 2013)
. ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’: including a joint statement with academics and practitioners on key elements of successful cooperative problem-solving (Question the Powerful, October 2012)
• ‘The Case for Cooperative Problem-Solving’: a statement of why cooperative problem-solving is needed in tackling social, economic and environmental problems (Question the Powerful, May, 2012)
• ‘Awareness, Agitation, Action’: presentation to WEA Oxford (May 18 2012) – Part 1 & Part 2
• 'The Importance of Being a Citizen’: in Active Learning for Active Citizenship, ed. by John Annette & Marjorie Mayo, (NIACE, 2010)
• ‘Together We Can tackle the power gap’: presentation on Innovations in Participation: Citizen Engagement in Deliberative Democracy, at the ‘Frontiers of Innovation Conference: Celebrating 20 Years of Innovation in Government’ (the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 1 April 2008, Harvard, USA) [from 33.40 on]
• ‘Civil Renewal: the agenda for empowering citizens’, in Re-energizing Citizenship: Strategies for Civil Renewal, ed. by Gerry Stoker, Tessa Brannan, and Peter John, (Macmillan Palgrave, 2007).
• Serving the Public: customer management in local government, by Henry Tam (Longman: 1993)
• Marketing, Competition & the Public Sector, ed. by Henry Tam (Longman: 1994)
Together We Can: resources from the civil renewal programme
• ‘Together We Can’ action plan: the cross-government plan with commitments in the key public policy areas.
• Annex to ‘Together We Can’ action plan: with details of the proposed initiatives.
• ‘Together We Can’ 2005/2006 review: reports from the Secretaries of State and Ministers on progress in 12 Government Departments.
• ‘Take Part’: resources for ‘Active Learning for Active Citizenship’.
• ‘Guide Neighbourhoods’: how communities can learn cooperative problem-solving and civic activism from each other.
• ‘Civic Pioneers’ first report and second report: collaborative working between local authorities and citizens to improve local quality of life.
• ‘Participatory Budgeting’: resources to expand the use of participatory budgeting in deciding how to allocate public resources.
• ‘Quirk Review’: report on community management and ownership of public assets).
• ‘Asset Transfer Unit’: resources to support the transfer of assets to community-based organisations.
• ‘Active Citizens, Strong Communities – progressing civil renewal’: a pamphlet setting out the Home Secretary’s core objectives and policies.• ‘Councillors Commission’: report with recommendations on how to improve the democratic role of elected local councillors.
Together We Can: supplementary resources by Henry Tam on cooperative problem-solving
• ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment’: a review of the Together We Can programme (Forum Journal, Vol 53, Number 3, 2011)
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving & Education': on the evidence for suggesting why cooperative problem-solving should be taught more widely (published by the Forum Journal, 2013).
• 'The Cooperative Gestalt': an essay on the cooperative mindset and progressive lifelong learning (Question the Powerful, November 2013)
. ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’: including a joint statement with academics and practitioners on key elements of successful cooperative problem-solving (Question the Powerful, October 2012)
• ‘The Case for Cooperative Problem-Solving’: a statement of why cooperative problem-solving is needed in tackling social, economic and environmental problems (Question the Powerful, May, 2012)
• ‘Awareness, Agitation, Action’: presentation to WEA Oxford (May 18 2012) – Part 1 & Part 2
• 'The Importance of Being a Citizen’: in Active Learning for Active Citizenship, ed. by John Annette & Marjorie Mayo, (NIACE, 2010)
• ‘Together We Can tackle the power gap’: presentation on Innovations in Participation: Citizen Engagement in Deliberative Democracy, at the ‘Frontiers of Innovation Conference: Celebrating 20 Years of Innovation in Government’ (the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 1 April 2008, Harvard, USA) [from 33.40 on]
• ‘Civil Renewal: the agenda for empowering citizens’, in Re-energizing Citizenship: Strategies for Civil Renewal, ed. by Gerry Stoker, Tessa Brannan, and Peter John, (Macmillan Palgrave, 2007).
• Serving the Public: customer management in local government, by Henry Tam (Longman: 1993)
• Marketing, Competition & the Public Sector, ed. by Henry Tam (Longman: 1994)
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Find our more about: ‘Together We Can’
Together We Can is a series of practical resources for cooperative problem-solving named after the policy programme developed by Henry Tam when he was the Government’s Head of Civil Renewal (Home Office), and later Deputy Director in charge of Community Empowerment Delivery (Dept for Communities & Local Government) between 2003 and 2010. The resources outlined below include both reports/advice that grew directly out of his policy work, and supplementary papers and presentations by him to highlight the key lessons for community activists and public policy makers on how citizens can cooperate together to solve the problems they face.
Together We Can: resources from the civil renewal programme
• ‘Together We Can’ action plan: the cross-government plan with commitments in the key public policy areas.
• Annex to ‘Together We Can’ action plan: with details of the proposed initiatives.
• ‘Together We Can’ 2005/2006 review: reports from the Secretaries of State and Ministers on progress in 12 Government Departments.
• ‘Take Part’: resources for ‘Active Learning for Active Citizenship’.
• ‘Guide Neighbourhoods’: how communities can learn cooperative problem-solving and civic activism from each other.
• ‘Civic Pioneers’ first report and second report: collaborative working between local authorities and citizens to improve local quality of life.
• ‘Participatory Budgeting’: resources to expand the use of participatory budgeting in deciding how to allocate public resources.
• ‘Quirk Review’: report on community management and ownership of public assets).
• ‘Asset Transfer Unit’: resources to support the transfer of assets to community-based organisations.
• ‘Active Citizens, Strong Communities – progressing civil renewal’: a pamphlet setting out the Home Secretary’s core objectives and policies.• ‘Councillors Commission’: report with recommendations on how to improve the democratic role of elected local councillors.
Together We Can: supplementary resources by Henry Tam on cooperative problem-solving
• ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment’: a review of the Together We Can programme (Forum Journal, Vol 53, Number 3, 2011)
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving & Education': on the evidence for suggesting why cooperative problem-solving should be taught more widely (published by the Forum Journal, 2013).
• 'The Cooperative Gestalt': an essay on the cooperative mindset and progressive lifelong learning (Question the Powerful, November 2013)
. ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’: including a joint statement with academics and practitioners on key elements of successful cooperative problem-solving (Question the Powerful, October 2012)
• ‘The Case for Cooperative Problem-Solving’: a statement of why cooperative problem-solving is needed in tackling social, economic and environmental problems (Question the Powerful, May, 2012)
• ‘Awareness, Agitation, Action’: presentation to WEA Oxford (May 18 2012) – Part 1 & Part 2
• 'The Importance of Being a Citizen’: in Active Learning for Active Citizenship, ed. by John Annette & Marjorie Mayo, (NIACE, 2010)
• ‘Together We Can tackle the power gap’: presentation on Innovations in Participation: Citizen Engagement in Deliberative Democracy, at the ‘Frontiers of Innovation Conference: Celebrating 20 Years of Innovation in Government’ (the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 1 April 2008, Harvard, USA) [from 33.40 on]
• ‘Civil Renewal: the agenda for empowering citizens’, in Re-energizing Citizenship: Strategies for Civil Renewal, ed. by Gerry Stoker, Tessa Brannan, and Peter John, (Macmillan Palgrave, 2007).
• Serving the Public: customer management in local government, by Henry Tam (Longman: 1993)
• Marketing, Competition & the Public Sector, ed. by Henry Tam (Longman: 1994)
Together We Can: resources from the civil renewal programme
• ‘Together We Can’ action plan: the cross-government plan with commitments in the key public policy areas.
• Annex to ‘Together We Can’ action plan: with details of the proposed initiatives.
• ‘Together We Can’ 2005/2006 review: reports from the Secretaries of State and Ministers on progress in 12 Government Departments.
• ‘Take Part’: resources for ‘Active Learning for Active Citizenship’.
• ‘Guide Neighbourhoods’: how communities can learn cooperative problem-solving and civic activism from each other.
• ‘Civic Pioneers’ first report and second report: collaborative working between local authorities and citizens to improve local quality of life.
• ‘Participatory Budgeting’: resources to expand the use of participatory budgeting in deciding how to allocate public resources.
• ‘Quirk Review’: report on community management and ownership of public assets).
• ‘Asset Transfer Unit’: resources to support the transfer of assets to community-based organisations.
• ‘Active Citizens, Strong Communities – progressing civil renewal’: a pamphlet setting out the Home Secretary’s core objectives and policies.• ‘Councillors Commission’: report with recommendations on how to improve the democratic role of elected local councillors.
Together We Can: supplementary resources by Henry Tam on cooperative problem-solving
• ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment’: a review of the Together We Can programme (Forum Journal, Vol 53, Number 3, 2011)
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving & Education': on the evidence for suggesting why cooperative problem-solving should be taught more widely (published by the Forum Journal, 2013).
• 'The Cooperative Gestalt': an essay on the cooperative mindset and progressive lifelong learning (Question the Powerful, November 2013)
. ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’: including a joint statement with academics and practitioners on key elements of successful cooperative problem-solving (Question the Powerful, October 2012)
• ‘The Case for Cooperative Problem-Solving’: a statement of why cooperative problem-solving is needed in tackling social, economic and environmental problems (Question the Powerful, May, 2012)
• ‘Awareness, Agitation, Action’: presentation to WEA Oxford (May 18 2012) – Part 1 & Part 2
• 'The Importance of Being a Citizen’: in Active Learning for Active Citizenship, ed. by John Annette & Marjorie Mayo, (NIACE, 2010)
• ‘Together We Can tackle the power gap’: presentation on Innovations in Participation: Citizen Engagement in Deliberative Democracy, at the ‘Frontiers of Innovation Conference: Celebrating 20 Years of Innovation in Government’ (the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 1 April 2008, Harvard, USA) [from 33.40 on]
• ‘Civil Renewal: the agenda for empowering citizens’, in Re-energizing Citizenship: Strategies for Civil Renewal, ed. by Gerry Stoker, Tessa Brannan, and Peter John, (Macmillan Palgrave, 2007).
• Serving the Public: customer management in local government, by Henry Tam (Longman: 1993)
• Marketing, Competition & the Public Sector, ed. by Henry Tam (Longman: 1994)
Sunday, April 12, 2015
10 Books on the Progressive Tradition
What is the progressive tradition? What is that mindset that inspires people to challenge misguided thinking and oppressive practices so as to open up opportunities for future improvements? Between early 17th and mid-20th century, a new philosophy of life emerged to drive scientific, social and political reforms. Below are ten books which examine key aspects of how this tradition has developed, the opposition it encountered, and what lessons contemporary progressives may draw from the struggles. For anyone looking for some general background reading on what being progressive is really about, this selection should help:
Enlightenment: An Interpretation (Vols 1 & 2), by Peter Gay (Wildwood House: 1973)
Witch-hunting, Magic & the New Philosophy: an introduction to the debates of the scientific revolution 1450-1750, by Brian Easlea (Harvester Press: 1980)
Uncertain Victory: social democracy and progressivism in European and American thought 1870-1920, by James T. Kloppenberg (Oxford University Press: 1986)
The Scientific Intellectual: the psychological & sociological origins of modern science, by Lewis S. Feuer (Transaction Publishers: 1992)
The Republican Moment: struggles for democracy in nineteenth century France, by Philip Nord (Harvard University Press: 1995)
The Five Giants: a biography of the welfare state, by Nicholas Timmins (Fontana Press: 1996)
Atlantic Crossings: social politics in a progressive age, by Daniel T. Rodgers (Harvard University Press: 1998)
Enemies of the Enlightenment: the French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity, by Darrin M. McMahon (Oxford University Press: 2001)
The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America came to be, by Michael Lux (John Wiley & Sons: 2009)
Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle, by Henry Tam (Birkbeck: 2010; new edition: 2015)
Enlightenment: An Interpretation (Vols 1 & 2), by Peter Gay (Wildwood House: 1973)
Witch-hunting, Magic & the New Philosophy: an introduction to the debates of the scientific revolution 1450-1750, by Brian Easlea (Harvester Press: 1980)
Uncertain Victory: social democracy and progressivism in European and American thought 1870-1920, by James T. Kloppenberg (Oxford University Press: 1986)
The Scientific Intellectual: the psychological & sociological origins of modern science, by Lewis S. Feuer (Transaction Publishers: 1992)
The Republican Moment: struggles for democracy in nineteenth century France, by Philip Nord (Harvard University Press: 1995)
The Five Giants: a biography of the welfare state, by Nicholas Timmins (Fontana Press: 1996)
Atlantic Crossings: social politics in a progressive age, by Daniel T. Rodgers (Harvard University Press: 1998)
Enemies of the Enlightenment: the French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity, by Darrin M. McMahon (Oxford University Press: 2001)
The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America came to be, by Michael Lux (John Wiley & Sons: 2009)
Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle, by Henry Tam (Birkbeck: 2010; new edition: 2015)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)