Understanding political disenchantment in contemporary democracies

Gerry Stoker, Canberra and Southampton @ProfStoker

What I am not arguing

That citizens were ever enchanted with politics

That there is imminent crisis in politics

That anti-politics is conceptually unambiguous

2

What I am arguing

Decline and change are observable

Differences between countries but widespread

Differences over time

Differences between social groups

Complexity in and of explanation

Research beginning to offer new insights 3

Anti-Politics: What is it?

AMONG CITIZENS: Negativity towards politics rather than democracy

Attitudes?

Individual Behaviours?

Collective Actions? Trajectories of change measured these factors

FROM ABOVE:

let’s exploit it;

lets remove issues from

politics FROM

BELOW:: passive

and active forms Source:

Vittorio Mete, 2010

4

Five types of “decline” trajectory

Flatliners: Italy, Greece

Modest decliners: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany

Slow burning and deep decliners: UK, US

Abrupt decliners: Spain, Portugal , Japan, Iceland

Blessed decliners: Australia, Canada NB Other countries, other trajectories. In each case of course the story is

complicated 5

Three broad types of explanation

Inputs have changed

Processes have changed

Outputs have changed

6

INPUT: SOCIAL CHANGE 1/1 Input/ social capital

Decline in social capital ( and more broadly the quality of civil society) means loss of capacity to engage in associational activity and impacts on anti-politics as citizens support and independent dynamic to engage is weakened

1/2 Input/ decline of collectivism

Decline in collective institutions from trade unions, through churches and large firms reflects an individualisation of life ( more consumer focus and less citizenship focus). Expressed also through expectations gap

1/3 Input / inequality

Increased inequality given impact of economic globalization has created a more fragmented citizenry and led to the intensified exclusion of some from the political process

7

INPUT: ATTITUDINAL CHANGE 2/1 Input / Less deferential more critical citizens

As citizens have become more educated and information more freely available they have become more critical and challenging to all types of authority, including political figures

2/2 Input / More issue oriented, more on-line and less partisan

Citizens are less committed to one partisan perspective or party and more issue-driven and fragmented in their interests and more on-line therefore less loyal and more selective in their political engagement

2/3 Input / Impact of neo-liberalism and depoliticization

The dominance of neo-liberal ideology has weakened citizens’ sense of what government can do and what action in the public realm can address, thereby limiting engagement with politics and processes of depoliticization have removed a swathe of decisions from public input

8

THROUGHPUT 3/1 Throughput / political elites out of touch and managerial

Political leaders are drawn from an increasingly small pool, often lack a broader life experience. The declining social base of political elites in turn rests on the weak and declining membership and active capacity of political parties. Politics offered more managerial and less value driven

3/2 Throughput : media culture and spin response

The emergence of intense 24 hour media coverage of politics, and the parallel developments in social media has developed a sense that politics is obsessively short-term, focused on spin and presentation and lacks the substance to demand engaged public attention

3/3 Throughput: dominance of lobby politics and special interests

Politics is dominated by special interests and the lobbying of those seeking favours from government rather than any concern for the public interest. The nature of campaign and lobby finance, party funding and networks of influence and ties confirm that politics does its business with the few rather than for the many

9

OUTPUT 4/1 Output: Opaqueness of Governing System

The complexity of modern governance arrangements caused by the impact globalisation and other factors means that the system lacks a basic accountability or legitimacy, turning many away from politics

4/2 Output : Failure to tackle big or long-term issues

Politics cannot grapple with the big issues such as climate change or economic renewal; nor can it because of democratic myopia driven by electoral and other popular pressures deal with long-term issues such as care for the elderly

4/3 Output : economic austerity

Politicians and politics have presided over economic failings and loss of living standards and potentially worse still connived with bankers and others in making ordinary people pay for the problems caused

10

Comparison of Trajectories: UK and Sweden

UK Not 1/1- but all other

input factors

All throughput factors strong concerns

Concern about all three output factors

Sweden Not 1/1 , 1/3, 2/3 yes to

other input changes

Throughput factors weak concerns

Some concern over 4/1 but not so much other factors

11

There is something about politics

Trust and politics: a complex relationship

Civic culture: subject, parochial and active?

The nature of citizenship

12

Depth to issues of what troubles people about politics

Project 1: Anti-Politics: Characterising and Accounting for Political Disaffection ( with Colin Hay and Ruth Fox, Hansard Society)

Project 2: Popular Understandings of Politics in Britain, 1937-2014 ( with Will Jennings, Nick Clarke and Jonathan Moss)

13

Project 1 Based on focus groups/ new survey work

KEY LESSONS: Fast and slow thinking: how citizens think/talk about politics

The contingency of political attitudes

Folk theories, the media and anti-politics: towards a theory of how citizens think about politics

Reform preferences on the surface not too radical

14

Project 2: Mass Observation History Mass Observation

– Est. 1937– 1937-60: mass observers– 1937-65: panellists (day surveys, directive

responses, diaries)– 1970: est. of Mass Observation Archive– 1981-present: Mass Observation Project

Eight relevant directives:– Pre-1960s: Feb/Mar 1945, May/Jun 1945,

Nov 1945, Jul 1950, Nov 1950– Post-1960s: Aut/Win 1996 combined with

Spr 1997, Spr 2010, Spr 2014– Responses per directive: 98-369– Panel not formally representative but: it is

more representative than is often assumed; we can sample within it; this is not essential 15

Already clear from historical qualitative analysis

British citizens sceptical to some degree

Embedded “put upon”, “us and them culture part of context

Benefit of the doubt/mustn’t grumble/ useless idiots

16

History of anti-politics: survey work

tracking longitudinal trends in public attitudes towards politics with quantitative data limited by historical repertoires of question wordings (and contemporary concerns).

Developing and trialling new questions

Example of a creative solution: replication of Gallup question first asked in 1944 (and in 1972).

“Do you think that British politicians are out merely for themselves, for their party, or to do their best for their country?”

17

Evidence of decline/change

35

22

36

7

38

22

28

12

48

30

1012

0

10

20

30

40

50%

1944 1972 2014

Themselves Their party Their country Don't know

• Source: YouGov, 2,103 GB Adults, Fieldwork: 20th - 21st October 201418

Anti-politics: Having political impact now

Conservative voters are more positive: 34% think politicians out for themselves, 21% that they are out to do what is best for their country.

UKIP voters are most negative: 74% think that politicians are out for themselves, just 3% to do what is best for their country.

Modelling drivers of UKIP voting intentions shows negativity towards politics matches impact of demographics

19

What can change ?

Input factors can be seen as an opportunity as well as a threat …that is they could be (are being) exploited to change politics

Various institutional reforms could make a difference to throughput concerns and address some output issues

Parties and Political Class need to recognise the scale of change required

20

Devolving power: part of the answer

We have no national parties in Britain

Social and economic issues are dramatically different in different locations

Democratic innovation is more feasible and flexible at the local level

Real power, open engagement: still need to move beyond faux localism

21

Conclusions

Single club “solutions” unlikely to work

Politics may well be changing as much as declining

A party that finds a way could lead the way

The “Conversation” about change needs to develop, be open, evidenced-based, reflective and not dominated by established political actors

Universities could and should play a greater role

22