| In light of the move to privatise the NHS in the UK, which is perilously close to achievement now, I have to withdraw the assertion I made in the previous post. Getting too far out of line with public opinion is an important constraint: but it is not a sufficient one, patently. In this instance (as with many which are based on ideology) there is good reason to suppose that those promoting the change have recognised the difficulty and have been prepared to move in small steps towards their goal over a long period, while denying they are doing so. They have engineered a situation whereby they are making a radical change to the nature of the state itself, and have left little to no scope for effective opposition. There are those who will say that is a conspiracy theory: it is not. It is the expected outcome of an ideologically driven view of the world. It could not happen unless the world view was widely shared, and that has also been achieved. The neoliberal nostrums have stood unchallenged at their core for a long time now in this country: and indeed are gaining ground world wide. That is obviously not because they are correct: the global crisis demonstrates that beyond doubt, IMO. But I think that the ex-left which has replaced the true left here and elsewhere believe one can be a little bit pregnant. That is in one sense what the post war consensus was about: and it worked ok while there was a consensus. There has not been such a consensus for at least three decades, however. The project has consciously moved away from what used to be the centre ground. That was not recognised, and so the centre moved step by step: it is like when a south american has a conversation with a brit at a party: they cross the room because of a difference in the size of personal space required by the different cultures. At least that is the best metaphor I can think of.
In this situation I see the benefit of the hybrid Scandinavian system: if we are not to adopt the more radical idea of the "jury parliament" then at present there does need to be some constraint on the sovreignty of parliament between elections. I have no idea how matters go to referendum in Scandinavia nor how the outcome is implemented (if it is). I do know that the mechanism is there in the UK, but has only been used once when the issue was seen as a matter of the constitution and national sovreignty.
To me, the neoliberal project now presents itself in precisely those terms, and that is perhaps difficult to argue within the limits of the current mindset. It is assumed that in a democracy the elected government does represent the will of the people, and as stated in the OP, universal adult suffrage is meant to ensure that. It does not. always do that, however, and the example of Greece is instructive. I think it is perfectly rational to think that the Greek government does not represent the interest or the will of the people at present: it represents the corporations and international financial institutions instead. If there were an alternative party that might not matter: but as here and in America, there is no such alternative, so far as I can see. And this has been achieved through influence, rather than debate.
What I am therefore arguing is that in large parts of europe the actual constitution comprised a mixed system whereby the state contracted to ensure the people's basic rights to the essentials of life: and to regulate vested interests in order to do that. Since that is not overtly enshrined in any constitutional document I am aware of, it was a somewhat subconscious expectation. It is true that the people have voted for many of the changes which have gradually subverted that expectation. I suspect that it was because they took for granted those constraints would be there, and that all proposed changes were predicated on that shared assumption. But the neoliberals do not share it. In the context of a mixed economy changes to improve prosperity through the market are not anathema: and if you think that the basics are safe you will not recognise an attack on them readily: especially when the attack is specifically and vehemently denied ("the NHS is safe in our hands" is an example of one such big lie, which many were primed to believe, on the basis of what I have just outlined). And the divide and rule strategy of "othering" the poor reduced the scope of the basics which were taken for granted, too.
But to me it seems clear that this is the actual debate: and the neoliberals are scrapping the constitution. In handing all power to the bankers and financial institutions they are also ceding sovereignty. And that is a matter of huge concern. Thus I now think this is an issue which should be subject to a referendum, if anything is.
Vninect has indeed pointed out the difficulty of framing a question: but in this case, though the debate could and should cover the core question of the constitution and sovereignty, the acid test is easy: we can address the introduction of private companies into the NHS with relative ease. It is a proxy for a much wider debate: but it is not an inappropriate one. And the need is urgent for there is nothing left of our constitution if this is conceded: we will have irrevocably adopted plutocracy and turning back will not be easy
|
