It’s democracy, stupid

an agenda for self-government

Tom Bentley
Open access. Some rights reserved.

As the publisher of this work, Demos has an open access policy which enables anyone to access
our content electronically without charge.
We want to encourage the circulation of our work as widely as possible without affecting the
ownership of the copyright, which remains with the copyright holder.
Users are welcome to download, save, perform or distribute this work electronically or in any
other format, including in foreign language translation without written permission subject to the
conditions set out in the Demos open access licence which you can read here.
Please read and consider the full licence. The following are some of the conditions imposed by the
licence:
• Demos and the author(s) are credited;
• The Demos website address (www.demos.co.uk) is published together with a copy of this
policy statement in a prominent position;
• The text is not altered and is used in full (the use of extracts under existing fair usage rights
is not affected by this condition);
• The work is not resold;
• A copy of the work or link to its use online is sent to the address below for our archive.
By downloading publications, you are confirming that you have read and accepted the terms of
the Demos open access licence.
Copyright Department
Demos
Elizabeth House
39 York Road
London SE1 7NQ
United Kingdom
copyright@demos.co.uk
You are welcome to ask for permission to use this work for purposes other than those covered by
the Demos open access licence.

Demos gratefully acknowledges the work of Lawrence Lessig and Creative Commons which
inspired our approach to copyright. The Demos circulation licence is adapted from the
‘attribution/no derivatives/non-commercial’ version of the Creative Commons licence.
To find out more about Creative Commons licences go to www.creativecommons.org
 Summary

The goal of democracy is self government. This is the root of the ancient
democratic ideal, but it has been lost from the twentieth century western
models of politics.

Our current political institutions are not up to the job: as a result, politics is
disappointing citizens and forcing politicians to make promises they cannot
deliver. The disengagement of citizens from formal politics, which is going on
across the developed world, illustrates the scale of the problem. But twenty-first
century societies are facing a series of challenges which can only be met
through political action.

Real politics - the power, ideas and influence of ordinary people - is the
only route to real change. This politics is thriving in our homes, work places,
communities, social movements, businesses and civil society.

We need a new era of grown-up government, which treats people as

intelligent adults and expects them to do the same. It must distribute power
with responsibility. This is the only way to deliver a new political agenda
based on well-being and quality of life.

Such an agenda implies radical restructuring of the state and public

institutions. A combination of institutional inertia, short-term overload and
political aversion to risk mean that politicians have so far only tweaked at
the edges of the transformation we need.

Better health, education and iobs, a higher quality of life and genuine social
inclusion can only be changed by persuading people to change the way they
behave - government cannot deliver on behalf of the people.

This means forging new systems of cooperation, innovation and learning in

every sector. Democracy in practice must mean the chance to shape our own
lives, through systems which allow us to meet collective goals in a more
diverse, fluid and individualised society.

The avenues for progress towards this goal are clear. But they depend as
much on practical innovation in every sphere as they do on analysis and
communication.

1 /Demos
This page is covered by the Demos open access licence. Some rights reserved.
Full details of licence conditions are available at www.demos.co.uk/openaccess
 > Labour’s first term of government has, by most conventional measures,
been a success. So why is it politics still surrounded by anxiety and disap-
pointment? Why, even for those who are succeeding, does society still
seem to fraying at the edges? In short, why do we feel so bad?

The reason is that the model of politics we have inherited is not up to the
job. It traps citizens and representatives into outdated roles, and it forces
politicians into making promises they struggle to deliver. While it may
improve its own effectiveness at the margins, politics as a set of institu-
tions, cannot provide the transformation which politicians now feel com-
pelled to offer.

It’s time for politics to grow up. After a century where politics has been
marked by the struggle to gain democratic rights and freedoms for indi-
viduals, a new challenge is taking shape. The challenge is to make demo-
cratic participation mean something. We need government which treats
people as grown ups and asks them to do the same.

This means a new political agenda. Not just electing a different party or a
different set of leaders, but going much further. It means wholesale reor-
ganisation of the institutions through which we interact with each other
and make decisions. It means redistributing power away from centralised
organisations and small elites. It means equipping people in practice with
the responsibilities and the tools to shape their own lives.

Disengagement is the problem

The clearest illustration of the problem is the steady decline, across the
industrialised world, of people’s engagement with formal politics. In eigh-
teen of the world’s twenty most industrialised countries election turnout
has declined since the 1950s, on average by 10 per cent. At the same time,
and with the same consistency, people have become far less likely to iden-
tify strongly with a political party.

3 /Demos
This page is covered by the Demos open access licence. Some rights reserved.
Full details of licence conditions are available at www.demos.co.uk/openaccess
 In the UK, we are entering an election period in which most agree there is
only one plausible outcome. But despite Labour’s dominance, and despite
the wave of energy and enthusiasm which accompanied their election in
1997, confidence in politicians and political institutions continues to
wane. More people voted in last year’s Big Brother TV polls than in the
Scottish, Welsh or European elections.
The greatest challenge is now the divide between people and the political
class. The sense of disconnection and disempowerment that many people
feel matters more than the divisions between left and right, and helps to
explain the strength of reaction to apparent abuses of power or position.
But there is also a deeper, underlying challenge. The world is changing in
ways which require political responses and solutions. But the same
changes are also helping to blunt the tools and mechanisms on which
governments rely to do their job. The challenge of a new politics is not
just to provide a language which can capture people’s values and aspira-
tions and clarify the issues of the day. The real challenge is to connect
those emerging values and priorities with systems of organisation which
can make a difference to people’s daily lives.
Is politics over?
Some argue that, despite the hype, politics has less to do now, and this
explains its decreasing relevance. According to this view, the triumph of
market liberalism, combined with rising living standards, has ended the
great ideological conflicts and made politics a question of administrative
efficiency and managerial competence. People are left free to get on with
what really interests them, while party-based cliques compete for the
chance to exercise what little power is left.
But this thesis is not borne out by reality. Despite wealth, peace, freedom
and technological progress, advanced industrial societies face a degree of
social fragmentation, environmental threat, economic uncertainty and
cultural drift which undermines their ability to face the future with con-
fidence. From global warming to personal privacy, genetic discrimination
to financial instability, population movement to ageing societies, the
twenty-first century presents a set of challenges which will only be met
through politics in some form. The triumph of markets may have given
business influence over more of our lives, but it has not eradicated the
need for political action, even where it has changed the way in which the
issues are framed.
4 / Demos
This page is covered by the Demos open access licence. Some rights reserved.
Full details of licence conditions are available at www.demos.co.uk/openaccess
And while formal politics - the worlds of legislation, candidates and gov-
ernment departments - may be struggling to deliver, political conflict is
thriving in many other locations. From ethical consumerism to anti-cap-
italism, family-friendly campaigns to fuel protests, new forms of politics
have asserted themselves in every sphere of life. Politics now takes place
in kitchens and classrooms, on street corners and in the media. Corporate
boardrooms host discussions of environmental responsibility, and volun-
tary organisations claim democratic legitimacy. The evidence is that we
want to believe in politics, but cannot bring ourselves to accept what politi-
cians tell us.
Just as politics, understood as a separate industry, a realm in which power
is won by competing for the levers of control over other sectors, is losing
its grip over what happens in the rest of society, so politics is reappearing
in every other sphere. In all these places, and more, a search is going on
for new ways to reconcile the competing pressures of modern life, to allo-
cate resources fairly, and to realise deeply held values.
Despite the decline in people’s willingness to vote, or to identify with a par-
ticular party, there is no reported decline in their levels of political inter-
est, or in how often they discuss political issues. And there are other ways
of having an impact. The UKs leading eleven environmental organisations
boast 5.4 million members between them. A recent survey in 25 countries
found that one in five consumers reported actively rewarding or punish-
ing a company for its perceived social performance. Protest and alternative
living movements are growing strongly, fuelled by the new forms of
organisation made possible by networked computer technologies.
The problem is not a lack of political issues. The problem, in a sense is
that there are too many. As societies have become more diverse, more
complex and more open, the range of issues and social groupings has
become far harder to corral into coherent policy platforms or voter coali-
tions. And as the channels through which people can effect change mul-
tiply, it becomes harder to convince them that they should respect the
options offered by formal politics. An increasingly heterogeneous politics
is ill-served by a three or four party system.
The new political agenda
As values and culture change over time, the goals of politics must also
change. While many still aspire to basic security and opportunity - secure
homes. sustainable income and the chance to raise families - a new set of
5 /Demos
priorities is also emerging. Quality of life is becoming the new goal - the
liveability of cities, a new balance between work and life, a radical shift
towards environmental sustainability, opportunities for learning and cul-
tural participation which go beyond the mass consumption and enter-
tainment of the twentieth century.
This agenda is gradually emerging from a broader context of uncertainty
and disruption. The bases of wealth and prosperity are shifting, as part of
the long transition towards and economy based on knowledge and ser-
vices. Family structures and relationships are also in flux, and individuals
value choice and freedom more now than perhaps ever before. In all of
these areas, established routines have been disrupted and destroyed by
technological change, competitive threat, or changing values.
These new issues are headed towards the mainstream agenda of politics.
Currently they are often treated as questions which can be addressed once
the basic questions of jobs, health, education, transport and crime. But
the new agenda cannot be separated from these well established prob-
lems. In fact, the basics can only be delivered in the context of the new
agenda.
People now seek forms of fulfilment and achievement which reflect their
own sense of self. They can access an unprecedented range of cultures,
ideas and lifestyle choices. Politics must go beyond material wealth and
security and help to deliver well-being if it is to sustain its legitimacy and
contribute to real progress.
But to do so, our political systems will have to go far beyond what they are
currently capable of achieving.
Overall, we are seeing a huge increase in the power and value of knowl-
edge - knowledge used to develop and sell new products and services, to
develop more complex medical treatments, to maintain diverse social net-
works, to improve individual life-chances through education, to restruc-
ture firms and global supply chains and to keep records of people’s behav-
iour.
The difficulty is that this knowledge creates new ethical dilemmas and
political challenges. Creativity - using knowledge in new ways to create
value - is now the key asset that societies possess. For politics to recover,
creativity must be harnessed to promote quality of life and well-being.
6 /Demos
This page is covered by the Demos open access licence. Some rights reserved.
Full details of licence conditions are available at www.demos.co.uk/openaccess
This means a new understanding of change -what drives it, how it can be
shaped, and where power lies in contemporary society.
Institutions out of place
The problem of delivery is not confined to government. Institutions in
every sphere are under pressure. Whether businesses, charities, broad-
casters, professions or corporations, we are surrounded by organisations
struggling to adapt to a changing environment. This struggle helps to
explain the pervasive sense of stress and insecurity which affects more
and more of us, especially at work.
But the institutions of politics and government, central to maintaining a
sense of order and reconciling competing challenges and demands, face a
particular strain. Expectations continue to rise, driven by politicians’
promises, by the media, and by the growth of a more demanding, con-
sumer-oriented electorate. Governments are trying to meet new, more
complex demands using tools and levers which have changed little in half
a century or more. The organisational systems on which they rely are
stuck firmly in the past. The creative destruction and renewal ensured by
market competition in the private sector is not matched by any corre-
sponding impulse in the civil service, the church, local government or
many areas of the voluntary sector. Our schools and universities retain
basic structures which are centuries old.
As a result, the potential for progress remains stifled by organisational
structures, cultures and history. In too many spheres, change is
approached through cautious incrementalism, building shakily on past
structures, rather than transforming and renewing whole systems of
organisation.
The rhetoric of change and modernisation have been adopted by politi-
cians across the world. In some cases they have led to concrete progress in
delivering specific objectives. But in general they have not connected
with a more tangible sense of improvement and progress in people’s lives.
Surveys show that while many people are optimistic about their own indi-
vidual prospects, they do not expect society in general to improve. Too
often they lack any connection to organisations which can give practical
expression to their wider concerns or aspirations.
In the UK we have seen a growing mismatch between the command of
media communication shown by the most talented politicians, and the
7 /Demos
 halting, uneven progress which they can deliver through the machinery
of government. The effort to make public services deliver, expressed pri-
marily through targets and central control, is increasingly at odds with
the complex, diverse and growing demands which public service organi-
sations face. The reliance on targets as a means of control, and on the
media as a source of pressure and transparency, is in danger of
paralysing the public sector’s capacity to innovate and restructure.
The truth is that public services cannot hope to meet the inevitable
growth in demand without more radical change to their basic structure.
But the culture of experimentation, learning and risk-taking required for
this to happen is held back by a combination of institutional inertia,
short-term overload and political aversion to risk.
Beyond market purism
In the last decades of the twentieth century, the great shift which ani-
mated change and focused political conflict was towards a view of society
based on markets. Where collectivism had failed, the dynamism and
diversity of market competition would provide new solutions. Individual
freedom became the paramount ideological value, and the injustice and
inefficiency of government and bureaucracy the chief enemy.
But while the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s cleared away much of the
old order, they failed to provide solutions for the great social challenges
taking shape. Parts of the neoliberal legacy are now largely accepted by
left and right across the world. But that wave of change failed to influ-
ence the basic nature, or even the size of government. More important, it
failed to diminish the underlying importance of the social and the com-
munal to achieving and sustaining progress.
The story which that era offered, of increasing freedom and prosperity
realised through individual competitive effort, ended in failure. The inse-
curity of a global economy and the distress and anxiety caused by poverty
and inequality undermined the optimism and energy which the new
right had sparked around the world.
As a result, today’s politicians are engaged in an attempt to humanise the
systems which neoliberalism left behind - to ensure fairness and opportu-
nity in market-based societies, and to reduce the damage caused by sys-
tematic social exclusion. They are trying to do this without questioning the
basic structures of market-based competition and economic rationalism.
8 /Demos
This page is covered by the Demos open access licence. Some rights reserved.
Full details of licence conditions are available at www.demos.co.uk/openaccess
--
- I
The left has learned lessons from its past failures: above all the need for
pragmatism, realism and effective communication. And while it has dom-
inated the landscape of politics, from Britain to North America, Brazil to
Scandinavia, its radical aspirations are streaked through with caution and
uncertainty.
The problem is that this caution holds back the potential for real, lasting
change. Because in many cases, politicians can only deliver on their
promises of better health, education and jobs, a higher quality of life,
and genuine social inclusion by being ready to overhaul completely the
systems of organisation through which government operates.
The changing nature of power
Where government and politics in the past have formed the nodal point
of societies, power and dynamism are now distributed far more widely.
New ways of thinking, working and organising now flow from the com-
merce, the media, and from the social sector far more reliably than they
do from the domain of politics and government. Ideas are generated in
practice through entrepreneurship and experimentation, and spread con-
tagiously through a communications infrastructure driven by a global
revolution in new, networked technologies.
Social and economic change are increasingly driven by international
forces, and policy problems do not respect national borders.
The stable social classes and groupings on which government has focused
its policies are more fluid and harder to communicate with. People are
less ready to accept institutional authority, less subject to direct control.
In this environment, not surprisingly, power is seen to have shifted to
other places. Businesses are held up as the drivers of real change, and
increasingly expected to provide solutions which go beyond their tradi-
tional role. Individual entrepreneurs and celebrities are revered and
media power is equated with other, more tangible forms of control.
But a network society still needs organising concepts and frameworks for
coordinating collective effort and common resources. The decline of def-
erence and hierarchy threaten a collapse into formless chaos as much as
they promise a new era of democracy and opportunity. The great danger
remains that the political sphere will become narrower in an attempt to
defend its own territory, that politics will become cut off from the cur-
9 / Demos
 rents which can renew and sustain its capacity to offer progress. Politics
and politicians have to engage with the very forces which are undermin-
ing their credibility.
Avoiding this danger, for leaders of all political colours, requires a con-
stant stream of challenging and radical ideas. Governments must be
willing to learn, and to accept vigorous debate as a necessity for identify-
ing solutions. But ideas alone are not enough to produce change in prac-
tice. Across whole societies, from industry to the media, religion to the
family, institutions are failing to keep up with the pace of change in their
external environment. The ability to connect new ideas and radical aspi-
rations with practical, concrete outcomes calls for far-reaching processes
of learning and transformation in all areas of organisational life.
It‘s democracy, stupid
But if politics is to change, we must go beyond just the recognition that
its old manifestations are dead or dying. While we can criticise those who
use outdated command and control structures in their attempts to
achieve social progress, there is little point if we cannot suggest any con-
structive alternative. This points us to one of the most important charac-
teristics of politics in the twenty-first century: there are no predeter-
mined solutions.
Political action, for centuries, has been predicated on the idea that a par-
ticular source of knowledge can provide progress for the whole of society.
Whether that source is science, or the market, religion or ideology, poli-
tics has been dominated by narratives in which leaders have attempted to
govern through certainty, drawing on their own access to privileged
knowledge in order to make decisions on behalf of the people.
The great shift of contemporary politics is the realisation that there is no
one source of certainty - and that progress in a post-political age depends
not primarily on the design or management of institutions, but on the
ways in which they draw on and interact with the people they serve. In
other words, politics cannot go forward without another wave of democ-
racy.
Democratic progress is conventionally characterised in one of two ways -
making those who govern more subject to those who elect them through
various channels of accountability, and consulting people more often on a
wider range of decisions, for example through focus groups or the internet.
10 / Demos
This page is covered by the Demos open access licence. Some rights reserved.
Full details of licence conditions are available at www.demos.co.uk/openaccess
But both of these options ignore the real foundation of the ancient demo-
cratic ideal: that the goal of democracy is not accountable or responsive
government by representative leaders, but selfgovernment.
Overcoming a false choice
This realisation casts new light on many familiar policy dilemmas.
Today’s politicians are trapped in a contest between two inherently
limited models of policy delivery. The left offers the promise of strong
public services, developed and managed by a strong political centre, using
new technology to customise and individualise the service each citizen
draws upon. This view depends on the effectiveness of the state in a tra-
ditional form - and it helps explain current efforts to make public ser-
vices subject to performance targets and media-based accountability. In
Britain, New Labour is trying to restore the legitimacy of the state by
proving its competence in delivering modest, relevant improvements to
the public services people care about.
The right, meanwhile, continues to offer the chimera of a minimal state,
with social need met by private action - a combination of market-driven
services and philanthropy, with the rules and basic functions maintained
by a state which returns the maximum possible wealth to citizens in
reduced taxes. This position depends on the fragile argument that social
need can be met largely through private action, and that markets are so
responsive and self-regulating that they can eventually find ways of
solving all major social problems.
The striking fact is that both models continue with the myth that gov-
ernment can deliver on behalfofthe people it serves. The truth, of course,
is that politics cannot change society unless it can persuade people to
change the way they themselves behave.
For example, health and education cannot be improved indefinitely
simply by increasing public spending - they depend far more on changes
in lifestyle which engage the citizen actively in living more healthily and
making use of learning opportunities. Carbon emissions cannot be
reduced without changing the way we choose to use cars. Jobs cannot be
created without harnessing people’s own enterprise and imagination. The
safety of public spaces depends not just on the level of electronic sur-
veillance or the number of police officers, but also on the flows of people
through those spaces, and the ways in which they are prepared to inter-
act with each other.
11 /Demos
Increasingly, government can effect real change only by working through
partnerships and networks, and helping to inspire changes in culture,
rather than simply trying to regulate and control. Many of today’s politi-
cians are groping their way towards this realisation, often in response to
intractable policy problems. It is crudely expressed in the desire to
strengthen people’s responsibility in specific areas like jobseeking and
neighbourhood renewal and the offer of partnership from the state. To
work, it must go far further than this, defining democracy by the direct
contributions which free individuals make to solutions which work at
mass scale, whole systems involving millions of interactions which
nonetheless depend on ethical commitment and personal motivation.
In other words, we must now move towards grown-up government - institu-
tions which respect the intelligence and self-determination of individu-
als, but which expect people to take active responsibility for producing
collective solutions.
But democracy in its current form can easily be described as part of the
problem. For many citizens, the experience of participation is meaning-
less, because the act of voting does not result in any real change. Our
models of representative government reinforce political competition at
national level, when many of the most significant problems require inter-
national or local coordination and cooperation. Consultation and polling
are often obstacles to progress, discouraging long termism and slowing
down the process of change.
And the alternatives on offer still seem weak and unsustainable. While
direct action may produce alternative sources of motivation and generate
media coverage, it does not offer a lasting, positive agenda. Real solutions
can only be found if they are built through systems of organisation
which can operate in the real world. The retreat into isolation or denial,
whatever its motivation, is not a realistic option for most people.
These conclusions lead us to a new political agenda. It is based partly on
the need for leadership in thought - seeking new ways to understand and
interpret the world, and to use the power of ideas to shape future alter-
natives. But it is also based on practice, and on harnessing innovation and
entrepreneurship to create the organisational knowledge we need to
make progress.
12 / Demos
This page is covered by the Demos open access licence. Some rights reserved.
Full details of licence conditions are available at www.demos.co.uk/openaccess
There is now a clear agenda, focused on reshaping politics, and connect-
ing people with the support and resources they need to shape their own
lives for the better. It rests on seven avenues of progress, which interlink
to provide a path towards sustainable twenty-first century societies in
which well-being is a realistic goal for all.
> Building new forms of democracy
A bill of rights and responsibilities could form the foundation of a new,
active role for the citizen. Compulsory voting would be the universal
obligation towards a healthy politics, combined with more responsive and
participative systems for involving people directly in public decision-
making at every level. Citizens would expect to be called for a form of
jury service, and given time from other responsibilities to allow for their
contribution. A right of initiative would create the opportunity for
groups of citizens to put items on the national political agenda. New tech-
nologies could be harnessed to create deliberative networks through citi-
zens could debate and decide. New forms of democratic election and
involvement would be developed at local and international levels. Votes
could be issued at birth, and held in trust by parents until children reach
voting age.
> Reshaping the state into grown up government
Such democratisation could not take place without radical reform of the
basic structures of the state. Administrative discretion and decision-
making power would be devolved towards the level of service delivery,
and the central state reshaped into a core of information provision, and
systems designed to promote innovation, learning and continuous
improvement. New career structures and models of accountability for
public servants would reinforce the drive to make real outcomes, not
remote numerical targets, the test of their performance. Responsibility
for solving problems and delivering outcomes would be developed to
autonomous teams within the public services who would be contracted to
achieve specific goals.
> Reinvigorating civil society
The institutions of civil society would become more directly involved in
producing social outcomes. Service delivery and new organisational
models would be pioneered by a far wider range of social organisations
and entrepreneurs. The media, in its new and old forms, would become
more actively involved in responding to citizens and in providing the
infrastructure for civic participation. Social entrepreneurs would be
13 / Demos
backed by investment and evaluation to create new ways of delivering
social outcomes and involving people directly in civic life. Devolution of
power and resources to neighbourhood level would take place at a far
more radical level than anything yet proposed. The transfer of El00 billion
of public assets and revenue streams to community organisations and cit-
izens’ groups, over a period of seven years, by starting with E l billion in
the first year and doubling the amount in each subsequent one, would be
one way to achieve such a shift.
* Unleashing a new business agenda
Businesses would be released from the competing pressures of share-
holder accountability and social responsibility by reshaping their contri-
bution to sustainability and quality of life, while freeing them to use
enterprise in creating wealth. Corporations face many of the same prob-
lems as governments, in responding to increasing demand, more fluid
and diverse customer bases, and the need to deliver at mass scale. Their
rhetoric of autonomous ‘teamwork’is often contradicted by the reality of
authoritarian management hierarchy. Companies desperately need their
own forms of democracy and self government to sustain the commit-
ment and contribution of workers and customers. They increasingly rely
on social infrastructure and the overall quality of life to attract and
retain the right workforce. The ethical concerns of consumers are begin-
ning to shape the markets in which businesses succeed or fail. A new role
for business could begin with new opportunities for companies to deliver
public and social services, and with a tax regime which taxed companies
not on profit but on their overall contribution: to sustainability, learning
and skills, and social inclusion. New cooperative institutions would
enable businesses to collaborate, for example in specifying and delivering
training and skills development.
* Education for creativity
Education systems would be radically restructured to provide every child
with a sound foundation for lifelong learning, and all adults with
ongoing opportunities to learn. Curricula would emphasise creativity and
life skills alongside formal disciplinary knowledge, and a far wider range
of organisations would provide learning opportunities. Schools would be
open 24 hours, and investment would focus more on the under fives,
where it makes most difference. Public investment in education would
double over a decade.
14 / Demos
This page is covered by the Demos open access licence. Some rights reserved.
Full details of licence conditions are available at www.demos.co.uk/openaccess
> Towards environmental sustainability
Governments, firms and NGOs would collaborate to create new standards
of environmental performance, using innovation in every sector to
achieve sustainability. The UK would set the goal of recycling 100 per cent
of household waste within a generation. International markets would be
created in reduction of harmful emissions, while productivity would be
defined more and more by improvements in resource efficiency. Tax
systems would reflect the hierarchy of environmental impact of different
activities.
* Putting well-being alongside economic growth
Governments would prioritise well-being alongside income as a measure
of progress. New time rights would enable people to control their own
working lives and balance them against other responsibilities. National
accounts would measure well-being and fulfilment along with economic
growth. Stress and depression would become the focus of cross-sector
public health strategies. A national ‘competence account’ would be estab-
lished, to assess the readiness of people and organisations to face the
future with confidence.
A chance to shape the future
In the long run, this means an entirely different political landscape, and
a series of profound shifts in the way we understand and relate to politics.
But perhaps, most important, it means that there is a huge opportunity for
politics to be reshaped by people and organisations which are prepared to
test out in practice their responses to the issues which matter most.
The forms of practice and innovation which can develop this agenda are
already distributed across our societies. The challenge is to learn from
them and shape them into new systems of self-government. We will need
new examples of leadership, and new forms of ownership and organisa-
tion, in order to meet it.
With them we can reshape the space in which public business is done, to
create not just a new list of political issues, but also a new set of tools
with which to resolve them.
This is the true challenge for politics in the twenty-first century. It must
create a new language which can capture and mobilise the aspirations of
diverse, fluid societies, but it must also shape the wholesale transforma-
15 / Demos
tion of the organisations through which we interact with others, access
resources, channel our energies and create wealth and knowledge.

Achieving this kind of progress will be difficult in the extreme. It is a

paradox that living in an age of unprecedented knowledge, with the tools
and power to accomplish tasks unimagined by past generations, makes
life more complex and daunting. Determining how we handle knowledge;
who owns it: who controls it; who is able to protect knowledge about
themselves is hugely difficult. The moral dilemmas become more
complex, and the range of choices more bewildering, as we learn more
about what we can do.

Resolving these dilemmas will remain the task of politics, because no

other sphere can do the job. The frameworks for making such decisions,
setting rules and solving problems across whole societies, can only come
from institutions which reflect and draw on the diverse resources and
interests of those societies.

And in the long term this definition also helps to show the depth of polit-
ical challenge. The task is to go beyond just humanising the market, just
trying to soften the consequences of capitalism, and instead align the
economy and human needs so that the two work in tandem. Rather than
politics running behind, it must help to shape the future, so that firms
are motivated to train workers, protect the environment and support fam-
ilies; so that innovation and cooperation reinforce each other, and so that
the way people develop and express their own identities also equips them
to contribute to wider social goals.

This is the challenge which Demos is taking on. It has shaped a wave of
change in Britain and beyond, but its long-term agenda remains unful-
filled. It aims to produce the ideas which will shape twenty-first century
politics, and to stimulate practical innovation which can help provide
hard-edged organisational solutions <

16 / Demos
This page is covered by the Demos open access licence. Some rights reserved.
Full details of licence conditions are available at www.demos.co.uk/openaccess
__1-- ~