Sceenshot: Citizens Assembly of Ireland, YouTube. April, 2017.
Brexit has morphed into a messy divorce that has exposed not only deep
political divides but competing visions of Britain and what they should look
like. Whatever the political outcome,
the referendum has laid bare a fractured country, where the problems are deeper
than the issues of Brexit and speak to nations divided about their identity and
future priorities.
In this febrile atmosphere, is there a place for national dialogue? In
Britain this dialogue could be used as a preventative tool, to navigate away
from our current poisonous atmosphere, enshrining dialogue as part of the
political culture. Convened in the spirit of reconciliation, it could provide
an opportunity to bridge our deep fault lines and diffuse our shrill debate;
going beyond the current political divides, to deeper conversations relating to
how we should live, how resources should be allocated and what the nature of
tolerance and pluralism should look like in the twenty-first century.
Across the UK, anxiety looms; most recently, this insecurity was
devastatingly expressed by the governing classes when Theresa May’s Brexit
plans experienced the worst parliamentary defeat in living memory. This
unravelling of the political class is by no means exclusive to Britain; indeed,
it has become symptomatic of democracies once idealised on a virtuous pedestal.
In France the gilets jaunes protests have paralysed French politics and
President Macron has called for a grand national debate; while in the US, the
polarised recriminations surrounding the building of a wall on the Mexican
border have led to a government shutdown. Politics must recognise that its own
continually shifting landscape is exacerbating people’s anxiety. And so a more modern
politics is required; one that better connects the government to the people.
Those who voted to leave the EU
did so for many reasons and from all walks of life, but many came from the
poorer regions of Britain. There is a striking disconnect between the government and the
people: many who voted felt they were not
being heard, and angry hinterlands spoke to a deep sense of marginalisation that had been exacerbated by economic policies of austerity.
The UN rapporteur Phillip
Alston’s critical report on poverty was clear, ‘British compassion for those who are suffering
has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited and callous approach’. Moreover,
according to the report, the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of
society will take the biggest hit from Brexit. Poverty cannot be ignored; to
leave it unaddressed can only exacerbate resentment between different social
groups.
But the picture is complex and there are
multiple sources of discontent amongst those who voted for Brexit. Whilst poverty
is undoubtedly on the rise, some corners of Britain are richer and more
comfortable and supposedly more connected than at any time in human
history. Something more profound is happening where individuals are feeling more
isolated, adrift and purposeless than ever before. Our societies
are continually in flux; they breed creativity but at the same time they are
acutely vulnerable to disruption. The bonds that held us together, be it the
infrastructure of religion or the generational support within families, are fast
eroding. Socia media promised new forms of community and connectivity,
and yet, paradoxically, it seems to have
fostered distance; exploiting our differences and breeding superficial
relationships, devoid of intimacy.
National dialogues are becoming an increasingly popular
tool for conflict resolution and political transformation in broadening the
debate about a country’s trajectory beyond the usual group of elite
decision-makers. A key strength of national dialogues is that they operate
outside the permanent institutions of government; the dialogue would seek to
move beyond the Westminster bubble and listen to the communities who feel
disconnected from government.
The dialogue may be most effective if it were
to be convened by a respected institution, such as the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation. Rowntree would be a relevant home for such a dialogue as it has had
a reputation as a force for social
good throughout the twentieth century, and may well correlate
in people’s minds with values of fairness, equality, community and reform. Its legacy continues to resonate today. This Quaker family
had a huge impact on social reform and justice and was a major influence on shifting
our focus and understanding to the root causes of poverty and not just the treatment of its immediate symptoms. As a radical and visionary, Rowntree introduced an
eight-hour day in 1896,
a pension scheme in 1906 and a 44-hour
working week and works
councils in 1919. Rowntree
had a profound impact on shaping
social policy in the early twentieth century; and it is
clear that, more than 100 years later, this
kind of creativity is once again required.
National dialogues would provide the space for such
creativity and the consultation process may well propel new versions of such
radical enlightened thinking.
The imprimatur of the Queen or a senior member of the
Royal Family would give increased legitimacy to such a process. She has
not as yet called for a national dialogue, carefully attempting to avoid the
politics of Brexit. But speaking at a local Women’s Institute she said "As we look for new answers in the modern
age, I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes, like speaking well of each
other and respecting different points of view, coming together to seek out the
common ground and never losing sight of the bigger picture …….to me, these
approaches are timeless, and I commend them to everyone.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Justine Welby may also be helpful in terms of setting the climate for a
national dialogue. He has urged the
country to start 2019 in a ‘new spirit of openness towards each other’ and
attempt to overcome the struggles and divisions of recent years. Importantly,
the religiously diverse nature of the UK today would need to be reflected;
involving voices from Rabbinic leadership and senior Imams in the Muslim
community. But a secular voice will also be important and there
could be a role for public figures who speak to large groups of people with cultural capital, who themselves could showcase a model dialogue
process.
Public engagement would likely adopt a mixed-methods
approach, involving online and in-person dialogues, perhaps housed in town
halls and community centres. Careful
consideration would need to be given to those chairing the in-person dialogues.
These should not be led by the usual ‘great and the good’, but those who are rich
in a new form of power: those who are respected and trusted by the diverse membership
of their community. To help elicit a collaborative dialogue, as opposed to a
more oppositional debate, specialist training may need to be carried out: there
is a need to break down the posturing, pervasive in too many of our current
sterile conversations, to encourage communication hallmarked by more genuine
listening.
While it
may not be the government who leads on delivering national dialogue, it has a
responsibility to support the conversation and act on its recommendations. Practical ideas and their implementation would be the
ultimate objective, with an overarching question of ‘what would improve
community relations and what would create a strong sense of social cohesion?’
In the short-term, this must speak to the immediate divides uncovered by Brexit
and in the long-term, this must look to building a more cohesive society. A
structural shift is necessary, but
there is also a need for deeper transformation:
a shift in mind-sets, where individuals are personally invested in their
community.
A coherent vision is needed that speaks to three decades of change,
globalisation and automation. It will require the kind of creativity that
crosses party lines and comes up with new and imaginative solutions that
address not only structural decay, but some of the deep-rooted problems that
led to the current fertile bed of discontent.
Currently,
divisions are becoming more entrenched and the glue that has held us together is in danger of dissolving. The
country will face an enormous challenge to come together again after the dust
of Brexit has settled. What is needed is a concerted effort to hold a dialogue
at all levels that seeks to promote greater understanding between our vastly
polarised communities. This dialogue can help articulate our common interests
and priorities and propel visionary, progressive and implementable long-term
change to build consensus across the UK. It can embed a political culture
that is more relevant to the twenty-first century; connecting the people and
the government, where voices at a grassroots level are heard and integrated
into policy making.
