Recovering a healthy grassroots vision -May 21, 2006


This is an expanded version of an article looking at wider lessons from the English local elections which appears in the June 2006 issue of Third Way magazine.

Psephologists are among the first to argue that local election results are usually wobbly guides to national political trends. The May 2006 mid-term polls across England have been little different in that respect.

But while the major parties spin and squabble over what it all portends for the next Westminster showdown, an underlying picture emerges of widespread disillusionment among the electorate itself – and of the further erosion of local democracy.

As the writer of Proverbs might have said under cross-questioning from BBC television’s Newsnight programme, “without vision, the people grumble.”

Post-ideological politics – which is what you get when the main players all have to dance the deafening rhythm of the market – is a bit like a fat balloon. Squeeze it in the middle and what you find is that it pops out in odd and unexpected places.

This means that those seeking enlightening ‘signs of the times’ are unlikely to find them in well-rehearsed arguments about whether New Labour, the slightly newer Liberal Democrats or the much newer Tories did as well or as badly as the pundits predicted.

To discover where the action is, we might turn instead to symptoms of long-term decay in our local institutions, to what blocks the growth of more ‘associational politics’ – and, first, to those social and economic factors which assist the rise of the far-right.

Much has been made of the unpleasant growth of the British National Party, which has doubled its number of English councillors in spite of outspoken criticism from the churches, other parties and community campaigners.

The problem of re-sprayed racist populism posed by the BNP is not to be underestimated. But it is also important to get it into perspective. Actually, the British National Party’s overall share of the nationwide popular vote decreased slightly in May.

What has been happening is that its poison has spread in fits and starts. It gains a foothold in one place, then loses it and moves elsewhere. The upshot is that the BNP still has only 50 out of 22,000 councillors in England – though that would be significantly higher under a proportional voting system.

The sore of Barking and Dagenham, where Nick Griffin’s shock-troops claimed 11 seats, will be felt for some time, for sure. Alarmingly, the BNP is now the ‘official opposition’ in the East London borough.

But the counter lesson of inner-city Southwark is that the politics of fear can be stemmed when people see how bankrupt it is in practice, and when the social problems which breed the kind of resentment embodied in the far-right are taken seriously.

For what the BNP’s opportunistic gains illustrate above all else is the corrosive impact of a winner-takes-all economy on those disenfranchised in the marketplace. This is exacerbated by a catastrophic collapse in affordable social housing and by tabloid hate-mongering about asylum and immigration.

The ‘mainstream political debate’ reinforces these problems in two major ways. First, sustainable electoral success for the main parties is now mortgaged on policies which require an ever-widening income gap and an almost superstitious belief that there is no alternative to doing whatever big finance dictates.

Second, the unspoken consensus on immigration, going back to the 1950s, is that a stiff dose of racism at the front door will somehow quell prejudice inside the country. The evidence suggests otherwise. The ‘get tough’ approach not only fans fear, it ignores the reality of migration as a global trend which no longer fits easily into nation-sized boxes.

For me the worst moment during TV coverage of the 5 May elections was when a senior Tory, otherwise humane in her approach, expressed sadness that BNP voters had not noticed how parties like hers were “facing up to the [immigration] issue” – that is, promoting prescriptions which fit the very mindset they are supposed to be against.

Instead of pandering to the immigrant blame-game, which has become almost hysterical in the wake of the Home Office’s recent prisoner release bungles, now is the time to combat it. Migrants (including guest workers and students) make up only 3 per cent of the British population and contribute disproportionately to our wellbeing overall. It is communities, not fences, which need mending.

Meanwhile, many argue, the core fabric of local government and local democracy is in danger of continual erosion through the centralising instincts of the present and previous ruling party – and by the over-determining power of inadequately accountable trusts, contracted services and private finance deals.

The outcome is that not a few local councillors end up tackling a thankless, hand-wringing job, while the electorate makes its key decisions at the supermarket not the ballot box. Even on a ‘pretty good’ turnout, 6 out of 10 people decided not to vote at all in May.

Regarding the choices on offer, one interesting development was the growth of non-aligned candidates and smaller parties. Respect and the Christian People's Alliance (to choose just two examples) may not be everyone's cup-of-tea, but they certainly liven the political landscape of East London.

However, we should not over-emphasise this trend towards independence. The Greens made only modest gains, the tendency towards balkanisation among the major parties continued in some areas outside London, and in Blackburn the ruling group clung to power by swinging a non-party candidate.

There is a big missed opportunity here. For while national politics remains a samey two (or at best three) horse race, the possibility for a more diverse and radical impetus coming into the system at local level remains significant. The grassroots offers space where real change can develop.

However, without a reformed electoral system the chance of a truly ‘associational’ politics emerging – one based on local concerns, multi-issue alliances, cross-party action and proportional influence – still seems remote. The major franchises hold powerful sway.

Community-based organising can certainly inject new energy into local politics, mobilise people across social boundaries, and make a positive difference on specific issues. It is part of the needed regeneration.

But left to its own devices, it can also end up reinforcing the culture of parochialism and minority activism which it sets out to address. A wider base for civic discussion and participation is required.

So what do the churches, among others, have to offer?

A non-perishable Christian vision sees the world as gift rather than possession, stresses relationships before ownership, and arises from cultivating global hope through the social practice of diverse local gatherings.

At present some ‘faith communities’ seeking a fresh focus in the face of their own institutional decline are being tempted by government to take on local service provision contracts which tap their massive reservoirs of voluntary endeavour to meet wider community needs.

But in so doing they not only risk becoming adjuncts of a failed political franchise; they are also in danger of being seen to operate as a privileged sectional interest upon whom others are being made dependent. This is a poor model for community development, let alone for the Gospel.

A better route would be for churches to become bridge-building sites: places which cultivate distinctive practices (like conflict transformation and economic sharing) and which simultaneously create civic space alongside others for generating alternatives to the prevailing orthodoxies on work, homes, family, culture, investment and hospitality.

This requires renewed models of mission and partnership which are about sharing rather than accruing power, developing vision rather than planning for survival.

They are part of a post-Christendom agenda in which the locally mobile ought to gain fresh impetus over the top-heavy, in both faith and politics.

Simon Barrow (www.simonbarrow.net) is co-director of Ekklesia. His background is in journalism, adult education, politics and theology, and his weblog is: http://faithinsociety.blogspot.com