Progressive London: power, democracy and the left

One of the key themes of Progressive London was around the nature of the democracy we'd like to see and the relationship the left should take with the rest of the population - specifically the electoral left.

I think this was best summed up in the first session I attended by Lib Dem Assembly Member (!) Mike Tuffrey who explored ideas around whether we're looking to take power, or disperse it. As to whether there were firm suggestions on the balance between empowerment and what I suppose we'd call "good governance" I think there was generally a split between those who thought elected representatives should be more in touch with the electorate and the smaller number of people who promoted the idea of people having a direct say in their communities.

Part of that discussion is, of course, about economic and social exclusion which combines these two related ideas. Council housing may not be participatory democracy but not being crushed by your rent or mortgage certainly puts you in a position to participate. Likewise initiatives like the London Living Wage, turning London into a city of sanctuary for refugees, the sustainable communities act, distribution of information on rights, challenging the monopoly of the right wing press, and a whole host of other issues don't constitute democracy but can help give it meaningful content.

One Labour councillor (Paul Dimoldenburg), describing how ineffectual many of our structures were, highlighted the fact that without money they have no power, and therefore why should people engage with consultations or bodies that, in reality, have no real weight. However, where I'd disagree with his very interesting thoughts, is that essentially representative democracy is a passive relationship, and improvements in transparency and accountability are good - but I'm sure they really deepen the ability for people to run their own society.

I'd look towards a more participatory solution which often happens through civil society, which is something Green councillor Romayne Phoenix talked about, and is not simply about "them" listening to us but about us making decisions for ourselves. Not that being listened to is a bad thing - half the anger over the Gaza crisis or the third runway came from the idea that people were not represented by their government, or, it turns out our "unbiased" BBC.

Why do so few people take part in consultation exercises? Because they think, often rightly, that they will simply be ignored - that these procedures take place in order to get through decisions that have already been taken - often by unelected officials.

If you counter-pose this to things like the transition towns movement civil society's job is to not wait for the government to green light their ideas but to make things happen for themselves - as Samuel Moncada, the Venezuelan ambassador, said "in Venezuela we're not dreaming, we're doing." That's empowerment, but it requires the ability to actually take part - to understand that we can't have everything done for us.

Eric Hobsbawm was interesting when he discussed the fact that full time politicians, by the nature of their work, become disassociated with those they seek to represent, if they do indeed seek that. But I've always been slightly uneasy about this idea of 'losing touch with the people' because it seems to imply some sort of homogeneity - I mean how can you represent equally the views of the racist and the anti-racist?

One of the refreshing parts of this thread that ran through the day was that there was a light touch to it - without anyone claiming to have all the answers worked out already. It's for that reason that the breadth of the platforms (which did make me wonder sometimes) was a very useful tool in drawing that out.

Of course there were lots of aspects that could have been explored far more thoroughly, in particular the role of trade unions in a democratic society - but as a starting I thought it was a worthwhile enterprise.