Knowledge is power, but only if someone’s listening
stephen clarke, 27 October 2011
By Emily Clarke
The recent media interest in the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy London Stock Exchange movements has certainly been mixed. From sympathy to contempt to exasperation on the part of St Paul’s cathedral staff at least, the protests and people’s reactions to them are proving difficult to pin down.
Besides the recent accusation that protestors are at best “part-timers” (based on thermal imaging evidence that is somewhat disputed), there is also an accusation that the protestors are not putting forward any concrete, viable demands. The diverse reports about the protests and the many generalisations that seem to be made about those engaging in them, is perhaps indicative however of a deeper problem: the inability of society to engage successfully with government on the major issues of the day. Rather than dismissing the protest movement as utopian or aimless therefore, perhaps it is time that the government not only introduced more ways to inform the wider population about the banking reforms under discussion, but also gave them the incentive to learn by opening up avenues through which people could make their suggestions for improvement heard.
Although the media makes a valiant effort to explain developments in the financial system, it is little wonder that large swathes of the public either don’t understand or don’t trust the recommendations housed within the 3000 pages of the Dodd-Frank Bill and the 300 pages produced by the Independent Commission on Banking. Not only are the reforms set for completion in a distant future, but there is little faith that the Dodd-Frank Act in particular will improve financial stability given the influence the banking sector itself had on its creation. The government might be wise therefore to attempt to include a wider spectrum of people in the drawing up of future reforms and in the implementation of ICB recommendations.
During the 18th century, if a controversial issue was raised in Parliament, it was not unusual for the British government to specifically request that petitions and further information be sent by constituents to their MPs. This meant that groups likely to be affected by the particular issue would be encouraged to come together in order to write to their MP explaining how the proposed legislation would affect them, either for better or worse. In this way, government could put together a clearer picture of “public opinion” on the matter at hand before debating it fully. Although the definition of “the public” may have changed since then, the spirit is still laudable and perhaps it is time that this spirit of public involvement was revived. The recent e-petition scheme is a step in the right direction but there is still a considerable level of scepticism amongst MPs that the petitions it might generate will be worthwhile – this attitude must change to prevent total disenchantment with the democratic process. The wider population deserves to be given more opportunities to make their voice heard without being branded as inconvenient, ill-informed, insincere or necessarily anti-capitalist. After all there is a great difference between being against capitalism and being against a banking system that favours banks considered “too big to fail”.
It is true that protestors need to spend more time defining their demands and finding like-minded people, even if this means splitting into smaller groups. The risk otherwise is that they will all be classed under the same umbrella and be judged as too disparate a group to possibly talk with a coherent and valuable voice. However, the government can also improve the situation by spending more time informing a woefully uneducated public on the complexities of the financial system and showing greater willingness to listen to them. They might achieve this by encouraging petitions or by encouraging MPs to hold information-gathering exercises within their local constituencies, which local businesses or members of the community could attend in order to put forward their opinions on the banking crisis. The process might not be perfect but it could at least signal a step towards a more successful engagement between a public who knows what it wants and a government that is prepared to hear what they have to say.