New Labour and Associative Democracy: Old Debates in New Times?
- PDF / 180,987 Bytes
- 25 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 82 Downloads / 249 Views
New Labour and Associative Democracy: Old Debates in New Times? Stephen Mereditha and Philip Catneyb a
Department of Education and Social Science, University of Central Lancashire, Livesey House 107, Preston PR1 2HE, UK. E-mail: [email protected] b Department of Town Planning, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. E-mail: p.catney@sheffield.ac.uk
The recent arrival of interpretive approaches in political science, particularly in the area of political ideologies and public administration, has asserted the importance of understanding the role of ‘dilemmas’ and ‘traditions’ in shaping the nature of contemporary political ideas and movements. This paper explores the diverse historical roots of New Labour’s approach to decentralisation within the British state. In particular, it locates modern debates and dilemmas over the redistribution of power in the state within long-standing and frequent debates of social democracy between centralisation and decentralised, participatory forms of ‘political’ community. The paper argues that New Labour’s approach to sub-national governance needs to be understood through an exploration of the ideas of associative democracy that have a genealogy in the debates of social democrats about the structural organisation of the British state. British Politics (2007) 2, 347–371. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200063 Keywords: New Labour; interpretive approaches; local governance; decentralisation; associative democracy; guild socialism
Introduction Ideas are consequences, but also have consequences (Wright, 1983, 1). Decentralisation is a concept that has aroused considerable debate within the Labour Party in both past and present incarnations. It is a concept that has been at the heart of many disagreements within the party over the nature of statecraft, political and social equality, popular democracy and empowerment. The objective of this paper is to explore the diverse roots of New Labour’s rhetorical and ideational approach to decentralisation within the British state. In particular, it locates modern debates and dilemmas over the redistribution of power in the state in the long-standing and frequent debates within social democracy. The paper argues that in order to understand New Labour’s
Stephen Meredith and Philip Catney New Labour and Associative Democracy
348
approach to sub-national governance, attention needs to be afforded to the historical traditions, ideas and policy paradigms within which the current government operates. In doing so, we aim to offer a ‘sympathetic critique’ of Mark Bevir’s interpretivist approach to understanding New Labour. While the paper agrees with Bevir over the importance of dilemmas, it departs from his view on the particular traditions that New Labour has drawn upon. Where Bevir sees pervasive centralism in New Labour’s approach — often with good cause — the paper suggests that Labour has not ignored peripheral traditions that emphasise decentralised and participatory forms of political organisation. Indeed, the thrust of the argument set out in this paper
Data Loading...
