tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post2314925577327090354..comments2023-10-27T07:50:27.411+01:00Comments on Next Left: What is democratic republicanism?Tom Hampsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05917325958130851128noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-38988485986487516272010-05-25T16:16:17.480+01:002010-05-25T16:16:17.480+01:00Dear Stuart.
What would a democratic republican a...Dear Stuart.<br /><br />What would a democratic republican approach to universal healthcare look like?_______https://www.blogger.com/profile/12750073111707564700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-47306567602900831312009-03-06T12:21:00.000+00:002009-03-06T12:21:00.000+00:00Paulie - you're spot on with this observation. To...Paulie - you're spot on with this observation. Too often "democratic innovations" in the sense of deliberative mechanisms as seen as simple add- ons to a core set of representative institutions that just need to be augmented. Hazel Blears is a good example of this - all for "participatory budgeting" and citizen's juries etc., but refusing to acknowledge the structural deficiencies of the institutions of representative democracy themselves.<BR/><BR/>Absolutely, there is an important and necessary place for introducing forms of participation that go beyond the simple act of voting. But this in no way negates the importance of imaginatively reforming the very nature of representative democracy itself, such that it's fit for the 21st Century. Things like the voting system are critical in determining how popular sovereignty gets articulated through a representative assembly. We need to be looking at how different political cultures of representation are emerging - for example in the context of devolution - and putting existing constitutional arrangements under serious critical scrutiny.Michael Calderbankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02856368006499730989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-59074295288724605182009-02-09T10:03:00.000+00:002009-02-09T10:03:00.000+00:00I'd agree completely with you about the necessity ...I'd agree completely with you about the necessity for social democrats to embrace a more participatory democracy - I'd go further and argue that the *only* thing that social democrats need to do is to argue for a more effective expression of democracy - everything else follows from that. Campaigning on individual issues is, in the long term, less productive than working towards an effective participatory democracy.<BR/><BR/>My problem with this (and it may be that you left something out in summarising here) is that there's little recognition of the need to renew and reinvigorate *representative* democracy. It's not at odds with the participative model you're advocating - indeed, done properly, it can provide the catalyst for a more participatory system. <BR/><BR/>The left - and Labour in particular - need to address the decline in the quality of representation and the power that has been stripped from representatives at all levels. I'd argue that this is easily our biggest immediate challenge.Paul E.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15234456385928668896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-29765234516231068782009-02-03T17:39:00.000+00:002009-02-03T17:39:00.000+00:00Sunder, I agree with your reservations. I see demo...Sunder, I agree with your reservations. I see democratic republicanism as (implying) a form of social democracy, as involving a radicalization of social democracy in certain areas, particularly around ownership. But I agree that others might want to read a different agenda into it, so vigilance is needed.<BR/><BR/>Over at the Demos website, Richard Reeves has posted a blog today linking republicanism to 'Red Toryism' via David Cameron's words about 'recapitalising the poor'. Of course, if the Conservatives did commit to some really ambitious program of universalising asset ownership, that would be great (from a republican point of view). But they haven't yet (to put it mildly). And even if they did, there are other aspects of democratic republicanism, as I understand it - like building up social funds - which just don't fit with Conservative philosophy.<BR/><BR/>But, as republicans say, vigilance is the price of liberty....Stuart Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05090728365798166746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-17756601722240329582009-02-03T17:23:00.000+00:002009-02-03T17:23:00.000+00:00Stuart,Many thanks for this. The emergence of this...Stuart,<BR/><BR/>Many thanks for this. The emergence of this theme has been a useful and important educative role played by our running this blog, for me, and so I hope by extension for other readers! In terms of my concern about keeping equality in, I can have no concerns whatsoeover about your desire to do that, and your articulation of the theory behind why that matters. <BR/><BR/>And this is part of what helps to convince me that this is a necessary direction of travel for the egalitarian left, though there are many questions about what this might mean.<BR/><BR/>But here it does seem to me that you place a heavier emphasis on issues of wealth and asset distribution, and on industrial democracy, than many (any?) of those who pick up these language and ideas and apply them in politics; and some of the sources of pressure politics too. (Marquand cites feminism; democratic reform movements - Charter88 and the Scottish Constitutional Convention). I think you yourself made a similar point about Bernard Crick's work.<BR/><BR/>This suggests the need for vigilance: some may say - I buy this, but without any economic component, thank you. And the rhetoric of anti-statism (we see this in Cameron clearly, but perhaps also from some New Labour voices - for example, Alan Milburn) then can worry me, given my Fabian instincts and commitments.<BR/><BR/>Finally, we are in a period of time when the state is expanding, and probably for good reasons. Of course, more state does not automatically mean more equality (cf George W Bush) but it seems to me important to articulate why eg Obama, from a democratic republican perspective, should see an extension of a state guarantee of health coverage as important to autonomy and liberty.Sunder Katwalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06671411534003530927noreply@blogger.com