Harri was
arguing for a free and open democracy, but Terry was a little more
hesitant. He was concerned that a Plaid
government, having led Wales to independence, could subsequently lose power and
that some of the Labour Party’s Unionist dinosaurs would come to power and undo
all Plaid’s work. Kinnock, Abse and Thomas
were the names specifically mentioned as I recall.
Harri’s
response was typically robust.
“Oh”, he said, “we will have shot them in the first week. Then we can have a free and open democracy.”
I’m not a great
believer in the idea that shooting people changes anything very much, and I never
really believed that he was serious – although one could never be entirely sure
with Harri. The conversation was
brought to mind again recently by a number of apparently unconnected stories.
The first was
the result of the Australian election, which the opposition won convincingly. One of the factors believed to be behind the
scale of the election victory was that the opposition promised to scrap the
hugely unpopular carbon tax. (There’s a
parallel in the UK of course, with some politicians calling for scrapping those
environmental measures which are perceived as being constraints on economic
growth. It is a call which might even prove
popular.)
The second is
the debate about the proposed high speed rail line in the UK, and the growing
suspicion that the cross-party consensus (at UK level anyway) in favour of the
project is rapidly disintegrating for short term electoral considerations.
The third,
returning to that discussion outside the Leisure Centre, is the question of the
continued decline in the usage of the Welsh language, and the issue of what, if
anything, can be done about it.
And the fourth
is the increasing belief in government circles that our behaviour can be
‘nudged’ in a particular direction rather then forced that way by legislation. Number 10 even has a ‘nudge unit’,
apparently.
The thing that
links all these strands is this; bringing about real long-term change depends
on winning hearts and minds and creating a new consensus. Winning an individual election is never
enough; it’s the arguments which need to be won. Almost anything which can be easily done by
one government can be equally easily undone by the next. Failure to convince people of the merits of a
particular policy or direction enables others to take an unpopular stance
against that policy or direction, and undermine the longer term commitment
which is necessary to bring about real and fundamental change.
Whatever the
issue, for any long-term policy the work of convincing people that it’s the
right thing to do is the key to success, not the result of an individual
election, nor the passing of laws, nor even the gentle ‘nudging’ of our
behaviour - let alone shooting people. And in the same way, ‘success’
isn’t measured by election results – it’s measured by the extent of change.
Much of what
passes for political debate seems to ignore that, and seek short term electoral
success on the basis of populism. In the
real world, political short term electoralism is the enemy of real change; it is not the
route to achieving it.
No comments:
Post a Comment