Transforming politics
It struck us that Kat’s idea about what politics is for might not be the description many would immediately go to. Where Kat talked of politics as an exploration of human nature and needs and the realisation of a collective flourishing, we might hazard that the general perspective of politics is as a jockeying for power between competing parties. If we take the latter perspective, politics simply is whereas if we take on Kat’s view, we have the space to imagine a politics that serves a desired end - in this case, growth in human understanding and wellbeing. This is a transformation that we believe will be integral to the work we are doing: not only to imagine politics as serving new ends and designing the system accordingly, but using this as an opportunity to redefine the role of who does politics and what are their relationships and responsibilities.
Who does the system serve?
Kat invited us to consider two competing thoughts: that politicians benefit from and are being failed by the system. While the system brings them power and prestige, it can also be psychologically damaging. Research shows that politicians tend to experience higher than average rates of mental ill-health, a symptom of the long hours, constant intrusion, conflict, moral injury, and limited agency. Eddie and Kat both noted, too, that there is no fun in politics - it is a deeply serious, fearful culture which limits creativity and risk taking.
New advocacy
This perspective can challenge what we think about the nature of change-making and advocacy.
Firstly it encourages us to ask: why, when the political system is so unsatisfactory, is it maintained? Of course in part this will be because there are still benefits that come to those who attain power through politics - but it is probably also because we hold a dominant idea about what politics is (and many people withdraw themselves from even engaging with it for that reason) that we struggle to imagine it being any different.
Secondly it could lead us to think more deeply about the nature of power. The description Kat gave - and that we have also encountered through our own political work - is that many politicians are in power but not in control. Or, perhaps more accurately, they have privileges not available to most but very often a limited capacity to effect change. The power of the politician is to some degree located more in the private realm than the social. How did we get here?
And, importantly, how do we get out? Kat’s points about the culture of fear in politics prompts us to consider that certain adversarial forms of advocacy might not be the most effective - they can simply push decision-makers further into threat, limiting their capacity to change. That said, Kat also pointed out that the privileges that can come from being in office will be very difficult for many to give up and this is a driving force for them to maintain the status quo. From all that we’ve said so far, working with politicians outside of their “political” mode and the behaviours and mindsets that brings and connecting them to new forms of resource and agency (relational, equitable, collective) that makes them less reliant on old forms of privilege might be the place to start.
New politics
These kinds of changes could help lead us into a politics that looks very different from the model we’ve inherited. We would, as Kat discussed, look at politics as a shared effort of community work and of realising human flourishing. This, as we’ve discussed elsewhere, is a core part of our approach and the outcomes we seek. While the job of doing society is largely outsourced to an archaic political system that few people want to engage with, we will be stuck. But when we can connect people to a new kind of politics - one where they can see themselves and their lives as inherently social and where politics is not just about making decisions but the process of socialising and sense-making - we could bring about radical change.
Redefining resourcing
And, as Kat explained, that politics could be built on a significantly expanded notion of resource and resourcing. Resources in our current frame are limited and, once gained, are to be defended. Resourcing in a future politics would be more fluid, shared, and abundant. We would recognise that resources include knowledge, care, community, and values. And we’d see that these are things created together - if someone else has more of these resources, then I too have more. How do we shift our understanding so that these are the resources we invest in and grow?
Far right
Our talk with Kat ended with reflections on one of the most pervasive conversations in politics right now: the rise in popularity of the far-right. In one sense, given all we’ve said so far, this clearly should not have come as any great surprise. A politics that denies people agency, feels inherently unstable, and seems to be cut off from the values and lives of the public will generate significant anger, leading to backlash against “established” parties. As Kat pointed out - these parties do well because they seem, at least, to be listening to people.
The more complicated question is what to do about this. It’s not clear, for example, how many of the people who back these parties at elections do so due to a genuine alignment with their policies and values versus a visceral desire to lash out at the status quo. And while many of the approaches we’ve discussed here are likely, in the long-run, to lead to a more inclusive, energising, and productive politics for all, the jury is out on whether people in a state of anger, fear, and threat would be open to what we are seeking to do. More likely, the approach could seem so alien as to put them off entirely.
Of course, one solution might be to ignore constituents of people who are inclined towards this kind of politics and seek instead to invest in and build the type of politics we want to see elsewhere - hoping that serves as an example that others gradually gravitate toward. In one sense, this will always be a part of the strategy - we need to show more than tell - but we aren't in the business of leaving people behind either. And if we can’t find a way to relate to and engage people who feel so aggrieved by our current politics, whatever we build in its wake risks having its foundations built on sand. While we don’t have solutions now, it’s likely that the transitional phase will have to involve bringing people out of threat and fear and a different emotional space. It will have to involve allowing them to build new identities so that they do not feel too painfully the loss of an identity built around the far-right. And it will need community and connection to model and reinforce ideas of care, reciprocity, and inclusion.