Aimee Howarth brings you an interview with The Yorker directors on the final day of the advent articles
Aimee Howarth speaks to YUSU's sabbatical officers about their Christmas Day routine for day 17 of the advent calendar
For the final time this term, Vicky Morris updates you on this weeks film news
50 years after the publication of 'James and the Giant Peach', the works of Roald Dahl continue to celebrate success.
The society out of which our political system grew no longer exists; British politics seems to be experiencing a democratic malaise. Parliament may be the rightful forum for democratic deliberation but, when less than two-thirds of the country turns up to vote, questions must surely be asked.
Britain is undergoing a period of formal disengagement. Party identification is eroding and electoral turnout is decreasing. British citizens are playing a less effective, and less efficient, role in the policy process. Low turnout, weakening Parliament's mandate and legitimacy, is causing parliamentary sovereignty to become an increasingly questionable concept.
Consequently the workings of citizen politics in the UK have stagnated. Since the advent of the new millennium numerous Referenda have been proposed, but the vote for a North East Regional Assembly has been the only one to come to fruition. Both representative and direct democracy are in decline.
An answer needs to be found; inherent dangers lie in simply ignoring the problem. The 'Power Inquiry' predicts that unless formal disengagement is halted, Britain runs the risk of losing "political equality" and effective "political recruitment". These may lead to both "the rise of undemocratic forces" and "the risk of quiet authoritarianism".
It is worrying that it was discovered that some political commentators already believe that general elections are becoming "empty rituals". The British public are losing their voices.
To fix this problem there are numerous schemes in development, but democracy shouldn't just manifest itself at four year intervals. E-voting and text voting aim to increase electoral turnout, building on the successes of trialling postal voting, but by focusing solely on elections they seem to misdiagnose the true matter of the problem.
Both assume political apathy to be the cause of formal disengagement, but conversely it has been shown to increase turnout. The University of York bore witness to this following Mad Captain Tom Scott's participation, and his ultimate victory, in the 2008 YUSU elections. Student turnout increased as a consequence of the 'joke' candidate's campaign. Political apathy is not responsible for formal disengagement.
The continuing strength of grass-roots politics in the UK reaffirms that formal disengagement is not simply a consequence of the population being uninterested in politics. In recent years alternative methods of political engagement have dramatically increased in popularity. Membership of campaigning organisations, charities, community groups, public bodies, demonstrations, internet blogs and online forums are all signs of a politically active British public.
It is through informal participation, over the occasional pint or a coffee, that the real political discussions, debates and deliberations are taking place. I often overhear political debate in the corner of a many a Yorkshire pub. Politics may only be the responsibility of elected experts, but it seems the national legislature could learn a lesson or two from these organisations and the local drinking house.
The New Generation Society, a non-partisan political society at the University of York, builds on this informal political culture with its weekly Thinking and Drinking sessions. Thinking and Drinking presents an opportunity for one of the members to set out his or her ‘new thinking’ on a particular issue and then for other members to analyse and develop the idea.
An open and informal environment provides every member with the opportunity to formulate and express their views, as well as learning from the insights of others. In this informal environment political discussion is far from stagnant.
So the solution to Britain's disengagement is working out alternative methods of connecting a nation of lively political thought to the processes of formal government; to introduce a popular, and not an executive, democracy. Regular elections create a mandate, but leave little room for regular discussion. The increased use of focus groups, public consultations and polling companies is a promising start.
All three major political parties seem to be making an effort in recent years. Nick Clegg's nationwide public meeting format, taking direct questions from the public, is a prime example of this re-engagement. David Cameron has staged similar public consultations.
The use of Citizens' juries, a mechanism of participatory action research that is effectively a formal focus group, further builds on connecting the views of the people to the processes of government. In July 2007 Gordon Brown stated that Citizens' juries were his "big idea" for allowing citizens greater influence over policy choices and decisions.
Whether these advancements are simply the illusions of democracy remains to be seen. However in the meantime, until these bridges between power and the people have been built, it is necessary to continue the political debate outside of formal politics. So why not have a couple of drinks in the name of democracy?
Thinking and Drinking is every Thursday, 8pm, Goodricke Senior Common Room.
To join the NGS facebook group click here.
I really enjoyed reading this article 
I always think it's quite interesting when I tell people I do history and politics at uni they respond with something like "Ooo politics... I'm not sure about that one. Bit risky and a load of rubbish really, isn't it? History's OK though!"
People seem to have forgotten what politics is and what citizens should be involved with in society. Perhaps the economic crisis will bring back active involvement... Who knows.
A well disguised advert for the NGS here...
But in fairness, a good article with some interesting points for contemplation...
'The vote for a North East Regional Assembly has been the only one to come to fruition'. And we voted against an elected Regional Assemby resoundingly (900,000:100,000), only to get an unelected Regional Assembly instead.
Is it any wonder nobody votes anymore?
Obama got the US back into politics. First time voters finally found someone to believe in, after years of feeling out of touch.
A presidential election could do the same for us here. I'd be fairly interested in a presidential election if Tony Blair ran against prince charles, ann widdecombe, george galloway, boris johnson, ken livingstone, ann-marie canning, tom scott, you...me......
Brown and Cameron stand for nothing. Neither do their parties. They won't change anything if it's bad for their own ministers or their own party. At the same time it's easier for some to get into politics than others. I'd quite like to be a Lord, but theres no way i'd ever get the chance. Such an antiquated system of privilege for the well-off and well-connected only leads to the old-school-tie appointments that land us with Lord Digby-Jones, Lady Thatcher and Lord Mandelson amongst a bunch of bishops and rich old men.
If we chose a president and had elections for senate and house of reps as well as, say, governors (mayors) of cities and regions, we'd be more involved.
Now Dubya has gone and it's cool to like America again, why not follow it's example and replicate the best democratic system in the world?
www.republic.org.uk
I was agreeing with the previous comment, until I read the conclusion.
America, the best democratic system in the world?
Sure, this is exactly what serves to describe a system where, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the candidate that has secured greater funding (i.e. promised favours to more oligarchs, lobbyists etc.) is the one to win the elections.
A system that has convinced the voters that their choice of leader will affect their lives so much that half of them do not even bother to cast their votes.
A system where the two major parties are so detached from what the general population wants and needs (national healthcare? Iraq war? bailouts?), where only a tiny spectrum of largely-similar opinions can be heard, and where the political class is primarily composed of and essentially ruled by a highly privileged elite.
Is that democracy? If it is, it doesn't sound too different from a one party state. The ruling party here is the business party and there are two different factions of it, the Democrats and Republicans, to keep up the pretenses and maintain a shred of legitimacy.
Not really sure how well disguised it is #2. While it is a fairly well intentioned (if self serving) article it seems to me to simply reinforce the problem.
While discussions in the pub or at organised meetings have their place a conclusion must be reached. Lobbying groups and activists can have some affect but by far the most powerful and easy thing a person can do to support their own interests and priorities is to pick a party and vote for them on polling day.
This is especially true for the majority of York students who live in one of the most marginal constituencies in the country and have an opportunity to really make a difference with such a simple action. Whether it's in a few months or left to the last minute next year go and vote!
#5 Americans have far more opportunities to call for change than we do here in the UK.
Elections are held more frequently for various positions of office, meaning the composition of the political class/elite is forever changing and adapting to the will of the public. Hence changing from a republican president and senate majority to a republican president with democrat senate majority to democratic president with democratic senate majority.
State governors also add more democracy to america's system. A system where Arnold Schwarzenegger can become state governor isn't really just about preserving the political class! Add town halls and state governance and mayors to that list in certain areas and it just reenforces the point.
More elections, more representation, more democracy.
And #5 have you read obamas policies? End the iraq war, free healthcare, financial stability without giving in to massive tax breaks for the rich, closing gitmo... seems very in tune with America's thinking. And americans know when their elections are going to be. Not just at a convenient time when the leading party is doing well.
But thats a distraction from the debate. Even if you don't agree with me on america, i still think a presidential election would do wonders for getting people back into politics and it actually making a difference. #6 is right, chatting in a pub does nothing to change anything. Of course people are talking politics to each other, but thats not a movement in itself. Debating outside formal politics as the article puts it, is futile if nobody in a position to do anything is listening.
It's good that groups like NGS discuss politics, but on a campus like ours thats no mean feat. Getting people involved in lobby groups, getting people along to council meetings to ask questions, getting people out into the wider community promoting their causes and engaging those who don't bother....that'd be progress. Not sitting down in a pub talking drunken political nonsense!!
Has Obama ever made a principled objection to the war in Iraq? Look closely and you'll see that he hasn't. The only thing he has ever said is that "it is costing us too much" and that "we should have finished the job in Afganistan".
Have we ever heard a moral objection to the killing of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians for no purpose whatsoever?
Of course it's an improvement that he will be pulling out the troops after all, but we do have to realise the extent of the differences between the two parties. Those differences are small and cynical; the debate on the war in Iraq was the kind of debate you would expect to hear in a totalitarian state. All the 'legitimate' views presupposed that the state's motives were unquestionably good. Equivalently, I am sure that there must have been those within the Kremlin arguing that the invasion of Afganistan would "cost us too much".
About Guantanamo, let us not forget that McCain also supported that it should close down. The extent of damage it has caused to the image of America can not be so lightly taken out of the equation.
We also have to distinguish between the rhetoric and the actual actions. Obama is slowly retracting his positions on national healthcare. Even if he does go along with it, we do have to realise that there are strong interests at stake here. The insurance companies are among the wealthiest American corporations and constitute an extremely powerful lobby. On the other hand, there are other powerful lobbies (industries with manual workers) that pressure FOR universal healthcare because of the damages they incur thanks to workers' accidents. What American politics is mostly about is the cynical clash of such interests.
Also, Obama said that the poor should not pay for this crisis; at the same time he is preparing new bailout packages handing out hundreds of billions to those who caused it. We've already seen that fiscal stimuli will not be curing the problem, as it is deeply systemic.
Let's be reasonable, I am sure that Obama is a great guy and everything, but that's besides the point. Politics is not about personalities. It is about the extent of change that is possible within a system. And in America, that is very limited. If Obama is to expect a re-election, would he not have to 'return the favour' to all the considerable funds that corporations gave to his campaign?
And also the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger, by all means a multimillionaire, became a member of the political class is in no way an argument against what I am saying. It is not nepotism that I was describing before; it is the kind of 'democracy' that exists to serve the interests of the rich at the expense of everybody else.
About everything else that you had to say, on people getting drunk and thinking that they'll change the world, I completely agree with you.
#8 I too am not one to fall for the personality politics we've seen in america. Obama's stadium speeches and empty rhetoric irritate me as much as they irritated john mccain and his supporters.
Since election Obama's set out his priorities and I personally think they're pretty bold, and are definately in line with what america needs and wants.
He is not just doing business for the money. Only the most cynical would think that. His insistance on energy independence marks a step away from being in the pockets of companies like AramCo and Enron. No company sponsors making peace with iran. The millions of online donors dont expect a seat at his side, only that the president does whats best for the country.
I believe there's no better system than the american one for the reasons i've outlined in the previous posts. Feel free to suggest a better system that's worked well in protecting rights, democracy and freedom. (Gtmo was a breach of this process, i acknowledge this and regret it, hopefully this period of constitutional vandalism is over soon)
The point i was trying to make without the controversial point about the US being the 'best' system (ignore that point if it makes the argument easier to understand) is that Obama re-engaged people who thought politics ignored them. Replacing our antiquated system of peerages and monarchs and barons and nobles could have that potential here.
If we had governors, representatives, senators, a president as well as town halls and councils, thats a lot more opportunity to vote and get your voice heard.
America also puts propositions with a certain number of supporters on a ballot. This allows citizens concerns to be voted upon and put to the politicians (although i concede 2008's elections were a very bad advertisement for proposition votes! prop 8 being the worst.)
Or maybe the reason we;re apathetic isn't to do with opportunity at all, but due to the fact we're not really that bothered because there's not that much trouble.
America had reasons to want change. New Orleans, Guantanamo, 9/11, leading the west into wars.... pretty big reasons. Maybe we just don't have trouble on that scale in britain. Our lives are comfortable, if we close the curtain and ignore gaza, darfur, baby P, MRSA, unemployment etc... do we really feel the need for change? I imagine a lot of us do not.
This will lead us nowhere so I just wanted to reply to one point. The fact that there hasn't been a better alternative yet, does not mean that a better alternative is not possible. Human history is not proof by induction.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report