13 What We Might Decide, If We Could Decide
‘There is one thing stronger than all the armies of the world; and that is an idea whose time has come.’
- Flyer for ‘Nation’ 15th April 1943 (from Victor Hugo)
‘Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.’
- William Shakespeare — ‘Measure for Measure’
Gandhi’s sin of Politics without Principle is again relevant to our discussions in this chapter.
My purpose here is to give a brief summary of ideas that have been raised in earlier chapters. Where we find ourselves, in most nations, is having very little say over anything, except via a vote every few years for a political party that might or might not reflect our views. If a system of participatory politics — Parapolity — were adopted, in whole or in part, then we would undoubtedly have a lot more say. Likewise, if a People’s Parliament were established as an additional house in our governance system (or a replacement for the House of Commons/ House of Lords/ Senate/ House of Representatives) then again we would be given a stronger voice. What happens then would be up to us, and to an extent we would get the kind of government that our participation, or lack of participation, deserves.
So, this chapter contains only suggestions, especially for the four areas that I have been concerned with in Chapters 8 to 11 — nature, place, compassion and pleasure. In considering these issues in this summary chapter, we will return again to five of our six key questions: Who decides? What do we own? What should we share? What should we make? How should we trade? We will touch a little on the sixth question — How should we live? — but that question will mainly be the subject of the next chapter.
A simple approach to politics might be to seek to learn what people really want. But, what if the things people say they want are things that will cause harm to others or to the planet? Who decides? The main proposal of this book is that we need to broaden the base of decision-making and allow everyone, so far as possible, to have a voice in governance. I referred to this as radical devolution in Chapter 4, and I believe that existing political structures in most countries could accommodate such a process without any sweeping changes being required.
Closely related to radical devolution is the principle of subsidiarity (and the similar idea of ‘municipality’). Subsidiarity is a tricky word with a simple meaning. It means that decisions relevant to a particular location are made in that location, whilst decisions that have national or international relevance are made by the wider circles of government. Again, this does not seem like too big a stretch for existing government structures.
Sociocracy is a governance system that aims to allow everyone an equal say in decision-making. Chapter 5, Community on a Small Scale, provides more detail. Whilst acknowledging our human tendency towards hierarchy and power relations, Sociocracy, so far as possible, tries to balance things out and make sure that even the most humble person involved will be able to speak their mind and know that their opinions will be heard and responded to. The easiest way to describe Sociocracy is as a series of linked circles, with the wider circles having more responsibility for tasks that have the broadest impact. There will always be a reciprocal accountability between the broader circles and the smaller groups that have the more small-scale functions. It is important in Sociocracy, as in any kind of governance system, to be mindful of the vision for whatever the particular organisation is engaged with, and this will, in turn, lead to clear aims that the organisation wishes to accomplish. Being able to take a broad view, recognising vision and acting responsibly towards its fulfilment, is part of each person’s progress as an individual, as well as helping the organisation to track its course and adjust its aims, as required through changing circumstances. Sociocracy is in use for businesses, charities, co-housing and voluntary groups, but not as yet, so far as I am aware, in use for any political organisations. However, its structure and methods seem entirely appropriate for small-scale governance and it is easily scaleable for application to all levels of government. I have a sociocratic structure in mind when discussing deliberative democracy below. To the question, who decides, Sociocracy answers, everyone.
In Chapter 6, Community on a Large Scale, we looked at a form of participatory politics, or Parapolity, that consists of a series of nested circles from the smallest community up to the largest national or international government. The structure is very much on the lines of Sociocracy, and with the same accountability between the smaller and the broader circles of governance. In many countries, the smaller levels already exist (such as community councils in the UK) although unfortunately these currently have very little influence. Wider circles — counties, regions, nations — are represented at the moment by people elected from political parties. The smaller circles do not have the ability to decide these posts. Chapter 6 suggested that this ‘representative democracy’ has the problem that those elected officials often make decisions without referring back to their electorate. They become, in effect, an oligarchy.
The type of Parapolity envisaged would allow for the broader circles to be chosen from the smaller circles of local government, and could wholly or partially replace the current system of elected officials. I am suggesting then that something such as a People’s Parliament could sit alongside elected officials as an intermediate step to Parapolity being fully implemented. Parapolity then, is not an all-or-nothing suggestion. If many or most people choose not to be involved then representative government would continue much as it is today in most nations. If, however, folk find a benefit from participating in local politics then the scale-up to a People’s Parliament is entirely possible.
A further idea discussed in Chapter 6 is to form Citizens’ Assemblies, with representatives chosen randomly from the whole community. The Citizens’ Assemblies may be temporary measures, for specific issues, but may also become a further and more permanent estate of government and possibly replacing one of the existing houses — to make another form of People’s Parliament — one where the delegates are chosen by lot, a process known as ‘sortition’, and take up a role in governance for an extended period — perhaps two or three years. Citizens’ Assemblies and People’s Parliaments, are both forms of deliberative democracy. They take power away from political parties and protect against the kinds of vested interests, dodgy deals and favouritism that can be the bane of party politics. We would get the kind of government we deserve. To the question of: Who Decides? Parapolity, a People’s Parliament and Citizens’ Assemblies answer: Everyone decides — if they want to.
What do we Own? What should we Share?
The questions of what we own and what we should share were discussed mainly in relation to the commons. Critical to an understanding of the commons and the use of land is the shift from taxing earnings to relating taxation to our shared use of land and other aspects of the natural commons. Chapters 3 and 7 looked at a Land Value Tax (otherwise called a Community Land Contribution) as a possible replacement for local taxes and even for income tax. There may be incentives for uses of land that the local community considers beneficial. Where a land use seems necessary but potentially detrimental to local residents then some of the Land Value Tax may go directly to those neighbouring households. All such matters rely on the efficient working of Parapolity, especially at the smaller levels, so then the ‘owners’ of land and property recognise themselves as custodians with a responsibility to local people and local nature.
Sometimes what I’m suggesting is described as taxing capital rather than income, but this is a rather ambiguous phrase. I therefore distinguish income from three sources. The three sources are the ‘economic rent’ already described in Chapter 2 — money from land, money from the labour of others and money from money itself. Perhaps the most obvious solution is simply the re-distribution of land. (The most famous example is the Biblical year of jubilee, when every 50th year all debts were cancelled and land and property returned to its original owners. Probably this was never actually practised — when the Jews were exiled to Babylon, their land was granted the ‘rest’ that it had failed to receive from the previous several hundred years.) But to physically re-distribute property in this way would be horrendously difficult. The interim solution is to recognise property rights and therefore ‘ownership’ in terms of being custodians of land. Security of tenure has enormous benefits, but along with the rights derived from tenure there are also responsibilities. So taxes on land, on ‘profit’ (that is, money derived from the labour of others — arguably this genuinely is ‘capital gains’) and taxes on financial transactions seem like good means of achieving fair re-distribution, as they directly draw on the process of ‘economic rent’.
Chapter 3 considered a carbon ‘fee and dividend’ scheme as a response to the exploitation of non-renewable natural commons — oil in particular. This would mean oil companies paying a fee into a common fund for the extraction of oil, and this money being equally distributed amongst the adult population of the host country.
Chapter 3 also considered ‘sovereign wealth’ funds as part of a wider strategy that would see those responsible for the exploitation of non-renewable natural commons and/or damage to wild nature recompensing those directly affected. (Sovereign wealth funds and fee and dividend schemes are sometimes referred to as ‘pre-distribution’, in contrast to re-distribution. The idea is that we all have a right to the commons, therefore our wealth should come directly from there, rather than from the proceeds of those who have exploited the commons — often to the detriment of other people and the environment.)
Chapter 5 suggested local currencies as a means of keeping wealth within communities. This ties in closely to the relationship of business and the places where they are based.
Chapter 7 considered the introduction of a tax on financial transactions — known as a Tobin Tax.
Chapter 7 also suggests splitting up the banks so there is no longer a problem of financial institutions that are ‘too big to fail’. Bringing money back closer to its links with goods and services means that the false economy of financial speculation — derivatives, hedge funds and the like — can be dismantled. Making banking more local and personal will mean that local businesses will benefit most. Returning banking to being a service will benefit everyone and not just the few. Taxing the dividends received from shares is another possibility. Another idea in Chapter 7 is money that is de-valued over time, so could, for instance, require some kind of stamp attached to it in order to bring it back up to its nominal value. Chapter 7 also suggested a minimum duration for the ownership of shares so that shares could go back to being genuinely about supporting business rather than a casino lottery on the variations in share prices and currencies. A further idea in Chapter 7 is to stop creating money by borrowing it into existence. The private loan, for instance, is often for the purchase of land or and property — it is not a loan against the future increase in production, as the borrowing of money was once understood to be about. Borrowing, as it occurs today, tends to increase the value of land and property and adds to disparities in wealth. Instead governments could create wealth by investing in large infrastructure projects for the public good — a concept known as ‘sovereign money’. In answering the question of what we own, the commons and Parapolity suggest that we are all owners. We need to spread that wealth rather than allow it to be appropriated by just a few.
In Chapter 7, and elsewhere, we also looked at alternative business structures such as businesses run as co-operatives. I hope that the message got through there that owning is less important than what we do with what we have and how we share with others. Businesses have a responsibility in their use of the natural commons, their relationship to wild nature, to their local communities and to their employees. Co-operatives that share their profits seem like an obvious step as part of meeting these responsibilities.
Chapter 10 considered that it is inappropriate for wealthier nations to be lending money to poorer ones, then allowing those nations to fall into debt trying to pay off such loans. More genuine means of helping poorer nations need to be strengthened, whilst existing debts could be cancelled.
In Chapter 10, we also looked at the free movement of people. If we were really serious about alleviating poverty then the world would have no borders. I recognise, of course, the chaos that would be unleashed for wealthy nations and indeed for poorer nations that might lose their younger, brighter citizens through economic migration. Nonetheless, free movement is part of a vision for a fairer world and an aim that could be implemented gradually. The developed world has massacred, raped and pillaged its way, as it ‘colonised’ poorer nations, and the big businesses of developed nations continue that pillaging today. In asking what should we share, co-operatives, free trade and free movement answers that we have a responsibility of giving every citizen of the world an equal opportunity for dignity, for education and for work. And Parapolity answers that we have a responsibility to share the resources of the natural commons and the benefits of our work equitably with everyone.
What should we Make? How should we Trade?
A participatory economy, or Parecon, is very much a follow-on from the kind of Participatory Politics described earlier in this chapter. In the absence of a Parecon, we have, for the most part, a market economy. In Chapter 6, we noted that there is a certain overlap however, in terms of a country’s infrastructure. Infrastructure projects are very much political decisions and it is here that a Parecon starts to have an influence, and this, in turn, starts to influence business and markets. Defence spending, power grids, railways and roads come to mind especially. From here, it is only another small step towards, for instance, considering the type of heating and cooling that buildings might use, the types of vehicles that might be manufactured, where our food is sourced and how it is grown. The market economy can be transformed into a planned economy as much or as little as we are willing to allow, if we manage to install a governance system in which we can all participate and make decisions about our making and our spending. In answer to the question, what should we make, Parapolity and Parecon answer that we should make what people genuinely need and want and not what big business tries to sell us.
How should we trade? We touched on free trade in Chapters 7 and 10. Just to reiterate that the meaning applied to the term here is trade without tariff barriers rather than trade without regulations (‘free market’), as neo-liberalism may prefer. (Or rather, as we saw, neo-liberalism’s actual behaviour is about promoting regulations that protect big business.) There are arguments for tariffs both ways. Strong tariffs can nurture a fledgling economy and also help a country towards local rather than international trading. This also reduces transport costs and so aids in the prevention of climate change. The absence of tariffs, however, may be a way of helping poorer nations, in line with the open borders discussion above. Another concern is that free trade would not see the benefits accrued to poorer nations spread evenly across their populations. It may be the rich in poorer nations who benefit most, whilst the poor would get nothing.
Whatever the pros and cons, it’s the abolition of tariffs that would be the real ‘free trade’. If we are to take seriously the rights of people in every nation, then we would see the need to introduce this. The difficulties that would be faced by richer nations as a result, are little compared to the enormous benefits that would be afforded to poorer nations. Such difficulties could reasonably be alleviated by governments for those businesses directly affected. In the longer term, we in the wealthier nations would benefit from lower prices as goods from poorer countries would be cheaper. Although the caveat here is that business is increasingly international. It might be that these agreements between nations are simply outdated, and we need instead to fight for workers rights and good business practices across all nations and across borders, rather than focus just on tariffs. In answer to the question, how should we trade, Parecon says, as freely as possible.
Chapter 8, on nature, looked at the possibility of returning some land to a ‘natural’ state — sometimes referred to as re-wilding, or ‘negative development’. As humans become increasingly concentrated in cities, the opportunities for re-wilding increase, despite our growing population.
Chapter 8 also looked at the preservation of truly wild land. So far as this is possible, conserving fully natural environments should be a priority.
Chapter 8 also indicates that whenever a decision process in relation to wild nature is carried out we need to have human agents who will represent nature’s ‘interests’ for her in a formal and legal sense. Someone should speak for the land, the ocean, the air, the rivers, the fauna and the flora, whenever there are questions of our human activities disturbing a wild place.
Chapter 8 also suggests there is an argument for people to continue to live ‘wild’ and be exempt from the normal processes of government, should they wish. The chapter also considers people from ‘developed’ nations who wish to live a more ‘organic’, off-grid lifestyle. Such people need to be given the means to allow them to adopt the kind of lifestyle they want, without having to be bound to a fixed address, a telephone or internet connection.
In wealthy nations it seems ridiculous that there remain so many people who must just scrape by to provide themselves with even the basics of life. If part of the aim of good governance is for human flourishing, then this situation is surely wrong. We are human beings not just human doings. So arguably our societies should be about allowing people to find their full potential, whether this is through paid work or through learning or creativity or a combination of all of these. A large part of this is about giving people back their dignity. Chapters 7 and 10 considered arguments for a Universal Basic Income. Freed from the need to provide for basic survival, people are more at liberty to seek out a vocation in life. An alternative proposal discussed was ‘Universal Basic Services’, whereby the basics of life — food, shelter, clothing and public transport — are provided free by society, allowing people to live without money, should they wish. Rather like the ancient Charter of the Forest, Universal Basic Services seeks to provide people with all the resources they need to live a dignified life.
Chapters 7 and 11 also considered arguments for a shorter working week, partly because reduced hours would be a possibility as a result of a Universal Basic Income (or Universal Basic Services) and also to address issues around increasing mechanisation, robots and AI. These ideas are not a replacement for a welfare state. There is still a lot of care needed for people with specific health problems as well as for children and the elderly. But with UBI established and a good welfare service, we give people the opportunity to realise their full potential, to flourish and to live with dignity and self-respect.
The world seems set in its ways, and changes, if any should happen at all, needs must be tiny and incremental. Indeed, changes may be for the worse rather than for the better. I remind the reader of the current mess in British and American politics — neo-liberalism taken to extremes, ongoing preparations for war, little action on pollution, little action to avert the collapse of eco-systems and little action to mitigate climate change, or to prepare to adapt to its impact. Things cannot go on like this for too much longer. I think, therefore, that big changes are imminent. In fact, my concern in writing this book has been trying to finish it before events overtook me. If we do nothing, change will overtake us anyway. But there is plenty that we could be doing, and plenty of hope for the future. I think all of the ideas I have shared in this book and summarised in this chapter are ideas whose time has come. If some (or all) of the ideas seem far-fetched then I refer the reader to Alex Evans’ The Myth Gap, in particular, his discussion of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. I also refer the reader to the UN Convention of Human Rights.
So, to the question, how should we live, our initial answer can be with dignity and with respect for each other and for the natural world. The more complete answer is the new story — the alternative utopia that seems to combine all that is good in Privatopia, Cornucopia and Ecotopia and offer us a new way of seeing the world. This is the subject of our next chapter.