Mike O’Donnell argues that institutionalising people’s involvement in matters that affect their daily lives would surely act as an antidote to the apathy and disengagement that blights liberal democracy. It would also serve to create a more equitable society, one where government is not dominated by wealthy elites. The challenge, though, is in initiating reform

O'Donnell, Mike

English

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/04/30/institutional-democracy-odonnell/Institutional democracy will strengthen our society,engaging citizenry and distributing power equitablyApr 30 2012Mike O’Donnell argues that institutionalising people’s involvement in matters thataffect their daily lives would surely act as an antidote to the apathy anddisengagement that blights liberal democracy. It would also serve to create a moreequitable society, one where government is not dominated by wealthy elites. Thechallenge, though, is in initiating reform.In a previous contribution on this site I suggested that British democracy is not sofine a model that it is beyond radical improvement. I argued that what I terminstitutional democracy offers a significant route to democratic enhancement and reform.Institutional democracy exists when all those with a major stake in an institution or network ofinstitutions have significant decision-making power in determining its values and goals and in themain aspects of its operation.Here I briefly consider why there is a degree of complacency about British democracy and extendthe arguments supporting institutional democracy. The reasons for complacency differ reflectingspecific traditions of political thought. The emphasis of liberal philosophy remains on representativedemocracy. In a recent lecture in honour of the late David Butler, Peter Kellner gave an impressivedefence of representative democracy but said little about how democracy might be extended toenable people to access power more routinely and effectively than in the present system. Apart fromthe very occasional and specific employment of certain forms of direct democracy Kellner is contentto let ‘expert’ elected political elites exercise power.Liberal constitutional reformers have been effective in promoting human rights legislation and inadvocating replacing the House of Lords with a more democratically representative institution. Iagree with the thrust of these policies but reform at the grassroots is also needed. Institutionaldemocracy would complement representative democracy and has the potential to revitalise it.Institutionalising people’s involvement in matters that affect their daily lives would surely act as anantidote to the apathy and disengagement that blights liberal democracy.Historically, socialist philosophy has been defined more as the pursuit of material equality andequality of cultural access than as a vehicle for promoting democracy. That has been its tragedy,most particularly in the Soviet bloc. The main achievement of Western socialist parties has been inpromoting the welfare state although it has been no bar to recent sharp increases in inequality. Awide distribution of power is an end in itself, promoting engagement and responsibility and as asafeguard against elite self-interest and corruption.However, a redistribution of power would be likely to assist the pursuit of equality. It is naïve andcontradicts historical example to imagine that elites might substantially redistribute their wealth aslong as they have the power not to do so. The best prospect for the redistribution of wealth is theredistribution of power. Assuming that the majority would act in their own interests just as the elitesdo, they would seek a redistribution of income and wealth albeit that this may be a gradual andcumulative process.Social democracy, reflecting the traditions of liberal and socialist reformism, has relied on the stateto introduce a more equal society. The introduction of institutional democracy would require the roleof the central state, but it is the institutional changes themselves that would entrench the promotionof equality by empowering the majority of citizens on a routine basis. The wealthy elites seem wellable to counter the fiscal measures parliament takes to raise a more adequate contribution fromthem and will very probably continue to do so.In the context of the growth of national and global inequality, it becomes a pertinent to ask whetherparliament really is fully ‘in power’? Recently the fiftieth anniversary of the independent radicalCharles Wright Mills has stimulated a reconsideration of his thought including his contention thatparliamentary/congressional institutions predominantly operate at a middle level of power ratherthan at the apex which, in his view, is dominated by the economic (including commercial press),political and military elites – the power elite. The relevance of this analysis to our own period hardlyrequires labouring.If national governments seem unable to do much to change rampant inequality, what chance has theimplementation of institutional democracy to do so? The answer, in the short term, is not much. Theintroduction of institutional democracy is not a short-term fix but a long-term policy based onpracticality and principle. What parliamentary legislation can do is to change the system to releasethe people’s latent energy and competence.There are a number of difficulties. Firstly, the implementation of institutional democracy acrossindustry, including finance, the public services, pre-eminently in education, and in the voluntarysector (where some organisations have adopted directorial models) will require the committedsupport of a political party. The Labour Party is the only feasible possibility. For it to do so willrequire a change in its culture. The Blair-Brown era, despite some progressive constitutionalreforms, was dirigiste in its mode of government. Apparently untrusting of democracy, they tried tocontrol it. It is not clear that Ed Miliband has the conviction or even the confidence to implement apolicy as radical as is suggested here. Secondly, the implementation of legislation introducing thispolicy would take a considerable time, including training.Thirdly, doubtless many will regard institutional democracy will as naively utopian. In fact it is basedon hard experience and realistic thinking. The hard experience refers not only to the recalcitrance ofelites but to persistent public political indifference. Yet, if people feel powerless to act against elitedomination it is partly because they are. Institutional democracy on the scale advocated heretransfers significant power to individuals who previously have had little. Collectively they will have theopportunity to make a difference that is meaningful to them.However, disengagement is also the product of lack of knowledge and experience as well asopportunity. Much educational philosophy, including Dewey and Freire, argues that experience isthe best teacher. To return to Mills: far from indulging in romantic populism, he thought it obvious thatthe dual impact of an inadequate education system and a largely low-grade media undermined theknowledge and competence of the population. What was apparent in the nineteen fifties America isequally so in twenty first century Britain. The introduction of institutional democracy from schoolsoutwards will be a giant step to addressing these issues.The recent unrest among many young people reflects a desire to make an impact, to affect andeven occupy power. However it is easy to exaggerate the potential of social media and streetprotests in achieving change. Radical change still requires what Rudi Dutschke referred to as ‘thelong hard march through the institutions’. For that the coming generation will require the services ofa political party.Please read our comments policy before posting.Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics andPolicy blog, nor of the London School of Economics. About the authorMike O’Donnell is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at Westminster University, London. He haspublished journal articles on ethnicity and globalisation, social theory and on nineteen sixtiesradicalism. His most recent publications include an edited four-volume collection of articles titledStructure and Agency (Sage, 2010) and Sixties Radicalism and Social Movement Activism(Anthem, 2010) co-edited with Bryn Jones.You may also be interested in the following posts (automatically generated):1. Feminist scholarship has shown us that not only does gender matter, it is diverse andinteracts with other hierarchies of power in society.2. Is Britain becoming another European consensus democracy?3. Workplace democracy – allowing workers to vote alongside shareholders – may help redresssome problems of the growing financiarisation of our economies4. We are not ‘all in this together’: British democracy is suffering from the disconnect betweenpoliticians and the wider public

Institutional democracy will strengthen our society, engaging citizenry and distributing power equitably

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online