Alternative Editorial: Making It Easy
Anthony Gerace / New Statesman
On our three hundredth editorial, we're grateful (in some ways) for the current government. They illustrate so clearly, week by week, the party-political system that demands an Alternative. One that is not only ineffective, but dangerous for the future of humanity.
Only this week the front pages of our newspapers have been taken over by the news that Rishi Sunak has decided to scale back the UK's current commitments to Net Zero for 2030 and 2050, a decision that was almost entirely motivated by what was, in reality, small-scale electoral and community reactions to regulations on air quality.
Because these reactions included visible acts of vandalism - destroying cameras on open streets - that made the front pages of British newspapers, our Prime Minister concluded that it would be a vote winner to change national policy. Not dissimilar maybe to a parent responding to the most violent child in the family instead of holding the space for everyone - including the more vulnerable ones - to be heard. Imagining maybe, that all the children would be violent, given a chance.
In so doing he revealed himself to be a rather partial visionary. Claiming to champion the needs of those struggling with the cost-of-living crisis, he hopes to gain their votes: the multi-millionaire who can judge the priorities of the poor. He seems unaware that it is only 20% of car drivers who are not ULEZ compliant. Yet it is closer to 75% of people who are deeply concerned about pollution and climate change, a higher percentage amongst young people.
There are many of course who will quote the evidence that UK emissions taken as a whole will not make much difference to the outcomes at a global scale. But that is another example of narrow thinking. It's true that Britain is a relatively small island and population. However it not only has a very large imprint (being the 5th largest economy in the world) but it is still dominant in terms of narratives arising from the northern hemisphere.
Its power of attraction is evidenced in the hundreds of thousands of migrants who risk their lives to come here every day. In other words, it's not measurable, mechanistic hard power that’s operating here but the soft, immeasurable power of influence. What Britain does matters for global outcomes.
Partly due to the English language, Britain can spread its views and decisions far and wide, making it much more likely that others will be emboldened to follow Sunak’s poor example. After all, it's the easier way forward for business and politics: much less has to change, if your strategy is to cleave to traditional British values.
But even Boris had a much better grasp of the soft power opportunity in being a global leader of environmental innovation. He saw the stage and stepped right up to it, often to the annoyance of climate activists (who doubted his sincerity).
We can only hope that Starmer and others will jump into the climate-change gap that Sunak has opened up, for the sake of our common future. However, both leaders and parties have experienced ratings drops in the wake of this debate. In the run up to the next election, Starmer too will face the same temptation to choose newspaper headlines over real evidence of what the people want.
The problem is that no one can claim to know what the people really want because there are no reliable mechanisms for finding that out. Polls and even citizens assemblies can do a fraction of that work; the bigger issue is, still, that we have a very ineffective democracy. Maybe even bigger than that is the problem of not having any kind of context within which our democracy could improve.
By this we mean - and have been describing for 300 editorials - that politics as we know it cannot be the primary focus for a better future. If we continue to look at the current party-political system and use our energies simply to attack it, given the relative lack of resource and visibility for alternatives, we will continually face a brick wall.
However if we think about the much wider evidence that the public space itself is changing and developing, it could give rise to a better political system from within (if it successfully self-organised).
The evidence that we have been documenting through the Daily Alternative is that in at least six key arenas - social politics, regenerative economics, individual self-development, news media, community agency networks and storytelling - change has been following a steep curve over the period that we have been watching.
The way that the newspapers might describe it is an increasing polarisation between the left and the right. However on closer inspection we might also look at it as a wider shared and collective waking up to the crises that we're all facing. And that combined with a new awareness of the dysfunctionality of the structures and institutions that were always supposed to protect us.
Those traditionally identifying as progressive might be calling for green policies, shorter working weeks and a universal basic income. Those described as populist or right facing, are calling for more freedom, less regulation of their daily lives and more tax cuts (money they can call their own).
Are these not simply different expressions of the same demand? Both are asking for a guarantee of a better future while also asking for the development of their own space and agency within that. Free to live a better life, securely.
This kind of shared agenda is difficult to craft in a public space that is pre-divided by our politics and news media. Which is why we emphasise the need for this work to happen on the ground, where people can experience a shared need for the flourishing of the community they share.
There is also much more chance of a sense of belonging and trust to emerge between them, happeing in real time and space. That can still be difficult when people have very little bandwidth to listen to each other—because of all the hurt and frustration they carry into any space of debate, or even more carefully facilitated conversation.
For that reason we are increasingly emphasising the power of the arts - music, dance, visual creativity, poetry - to create the container within which people can meet. Trust arises from conviviality and friendship; flourishing visions of the future arise from that trust.
When people begin to associate that feeling of social positivity with building the future, then we have the conditions in which mechanisms like citizens assemblies, polis, and other forms of technologically enhanced deliberation and participation can thrive. Able to construct a democracy worthy of the name.
In addition to that is the possibility - in communities that are beginning to struggle with material resources, including food - of people combining such gatherings with working more closely with nature. Local groups growing food together, whether through the gardens project (blogged here), allotments or on bigger pieces of land and small farms. Not only does that provide a concrete response to the cost-of-living crisis but this kind of work has proven to help people with their mental health, bringing them closer to nature in a deeper way.
Together, these two enhancements in the way the people gather, will add up to what David Bollier and the late Silke Helfrich described as the ontological shift (or Onto-Shift) – our way of being on the planet – a shift we so need to move us into a better future. In their book Free, Fair and Alive, David and Silke explore this as a coming-back-to-life at a civilizational level.
More recently Jeremy Lent and his partner Lisa Ferguson have held gatherings - in California, London, Bristol, Greece - exploring that same rich seam. Jeremy is finishing his book Future Flourishing, which will lay out the policies and strategies that will get us to an ecological civilisation.
While these intentional community projects - cosmolocal in their culture and connectivity - are still the province of the ambitious few, they are growing in number. Our sense is that the more our politicians prove themselves to be inadequate to the task of sorting out the mess they made, the more people will turn to each other for solace and inspiration.
In so doing, they will discover a ready-made wealth of ingenious initiatives, as well as warm and welcoming spaces of connection, belonging and action to be part of. In itself, this would be a new political system.