| |
New
Living Diary
Index
New participatory democracy
Taming
the Corporations
My Welsh socialism
My New Socialist
Settlement
Globalise the left!
Bevan re-visited
|
|
|
item0044A 740, 741
740
23 June 2003
Rise of the
Dicastocracy
I believe that are
society is becoming more dicastocratic. The modern citizen seems to
prefer the appointment of neutral adjudicators or regulators of some kind,
to the imposition of other forms of authority. “Dicastocracy” simply means
rule by judges. Don’t complain if you can’t find in the Oxford
English Dictionary - it won’t be there yet, because I invented it
only last year. Dikastis is the Greek for judge, and
kratos the Greek for power, authority - as in all the other -ocracies.
This week produced three further examples of this trend.
First, the
introduction of a UK Supreme Court, quite separate from the House of Lords.
And the long-awaited demise of the absurd office of Lord Chancellor. It
will of course be a Supreme “UK-kind-of” Court – not like the
American or Continental Supreme Courts, with jurisdiction to override the
Legislature, to invalidate Acts of Parliament. Even though the change will
make little difference in practice, the symbolism is important. It will
consolidate and strengthen the authority of the judicial system, of the
dicastocracy.
Second,
Parliamentarians have called for a new “privacy” Act, spelling out what
principles should govern the protection of individual privacy, balancing its
considerations with the freedom of the Press. I predict that there
will be no such Act. It would be far more sensible to allow the
judges to develop the case-law, using Common Law and the liberal principles
of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights – which is precisely
what they are doing already. Even from the cases already brought,
precedents are being formulated, forged in the cross-fire of the Courts – I
would prefer that approach. It would be fiendishly difficult to draft a
regulatory statute, and I favour leaving it to the judges.
Thirdly, a new
Regulator is looming up, on the horizon. I hold no brief for this new
creature, to be called the Fair Access Regulator, and who will
chase Universities who fail to recruit enough “working-class” students.
I think the whole idea of statutory intervention of this kind is ridiculous.
But I pray this example in aid, only to show that these days – whenever he
wants to create an “authoritative” figure – the politician creates a new
“judge” or neutral adjudicator.
As the authority of
the professional political
salariat
continues to wane, I predict a new
dicastocratic
phase of the UK Constitution.
Dicastocracy will bring new tensions, new rivalries - have you thought about
them? Drop me a line
<
Back to Home Page
741
30 June 2003
Localism Ascendant
 "Communities in
Control" is a new Fabian pamphlet by a rising Blairite Minister Hazel
Blears. It is clear that she has been given, by Tony Blair, the
necessary "licence to advocate" the New Localism. And so
the pamphlet carries considerable political weight, as a "straw in the
wind", aclue to the theme of the next Labour manifesto. Speeches by
David Blunkett and the Treasury's Ed Balls have echoed the same theme.
But this "essay" is otherwise very slight, insubstantial. The
objective is one which many will share, at least in abstract -
- "This pamphlet is written to make the case for greater local,
community control over public services, for greater mutual and
cooperative ownership over assets and activities, and for a new spirit
of active citizenship backed by a new national body, the Citizens'
Participation Agency" (p.5)
But the approach is dangerously vacuous, "communitarian" theory without
intellectual substance. Blears dismisses "territorial" community - "Communities
exist beyond geography: they encompass a whole range of social ties and
common interests which go beyond which go beyond proximity or common
residence" (p.11) That is true, but it is only
communities of territory,
based on universal suffrage and universal entitlement, that can generate
the authority necessary for the difficult collective decisions. In
the political context, the concept of territorial jurisdiction performs a
unique function, and cannot be so quickly dismissed. If taxes are to
be raised, if difficult public discretions are to be exercised - "the authorities"
need the legitimacy of territoriality, of universal suffrage. While
cooperative and mutual models can work
for other
functions,
they cannot be sufficient for any substantive government functions. Hazel Blears ignores that principle, and gives the impression that
communities of affinity could bear the responsibilities of state. That is
simply wrong, it is sloppy thinking.
Unfortunately, that sloppiness permeates current Government thinking. The
Foundation Hospital
formula is a good example: if Board members are elected by a
self-selecting electorate of patients, the Hospitals will not have the
necessary authority to take the difficult "rationing" decisions. Nor would
they be able to raise local taxes, generating a real sense of local
responsibility. School governing bodies are an example of a
local "affinity group", appointed by cooption or elected by affinity
suffrage (teachers, parents) - and carrying no relevant authority
at all. I would like to see that authority strengthened, but that
could be achieved only by the deployment of universal suffrage: Charles
Clarke is clearly considering some form of "school board" structure,
bypassing the existing local authorities and creating new elective
single-function institutions.
Hazel Blears also confuses
"mutuality" and "cooperation" with the pursuit of the "public interest".
Ed Mayo (formerly, the New Economics Foundation) also makes the
same error, and it a dangerous one. A mind that is focused on the pursuit
of "the public interest", the neutral interest of the community as a
whole, will pursue a different path from the mutual, the cooperative.
Don't get me wrong:
I
favour
the civic involvement which mutuality can engender. Indeed, I am Chairman
of the Mutual Aid Centre, which was formed by Michael Young - inspired by
those same ideals. They are to be cultivated and encouraged, as part
of
active citizenship.
But they do not offer a way of
discharging
state
functions. Mutuality and cooperation are variations upon the theme
of private ownership, deployed for the benefit of members -
not the wider community,
of everyone. And our understanding of the public interest is not
assited by the doctrine of state "ownership",
which Hazel Blears is right to disparage. But the solution is to
dispense with the concept of "ownership" altogether, when applied to
public functions. "Ownership" derives its meaning only from private
property concepts - it is useless in the design and description of public
service systems. And it is misleading to build a new political
strategy, as Hazel Blears does, upon images of "local ownership".
That is fine for the voluntary sector, but useless for the design of
coercive political institutions.
Finally, the idea of a national
Citizens Participation Agency
is simply a piece of Stalinist nonsense - surely pinched from Animal
Farm... Just imagine such a quango, stuffed with second-rate staff lacking the necessary political
perception and sensitivities to "teach" others - they would be as
ineffective as the armies of second-rate "business consultants" who,
having dropped out themselves, foregather to wreck the chances of future
generations of young businesspeople, getting paid consultancy fees into
the bargain. We must fervently pray that this ridiculous idea does not get
to see the light of day.
This
slight essay is however important, not because of its content, but because of its
political provenance. It comes with the imprimatur of both No 10 and
No 11, and must therefore be taken very seriously. As it
stands. it
fuels my worst fears that Ministers are committed to an outright
and devious
campaign to bypass the present system of local government, all local
councils. For local councils (even the town and parish councils) are
territorial institutions, bearing the full authority of universal suffrage
What do you think? Drop me a line
<
Back to Home Page
|
|