Philosophy
Human beings are social animals whose lives overlap and weave together in many different contexts; the family home, the school, the neighbourhood, the town or city, the college, the workplace and pub being just a few examples. Each, in its own way, could be described as a community.
While each type of community serves a specific purpose, to function well each must meet two basic human needs.
First, it must allow us the freedom to express ourselves joyfully, lovingly, creatively and articulately, including (by implication) freedom from practical and emotional obstacles to this.
Secondly, it must give us an equitable share of responsibility for the well-being of others, as this generates a sense of connection, human warmth and self worth.
This combination of freedom and responsibility is important in all of the communities we inhabit. One of the most important in this respect is the local neighbourhood, as it is vital to feel that we are living among friends who care for us, rather than strangers who couldn't care less whether we live or die. How strange it is that our legal system defines community service as a punishment.
Combining freedom with responsibility is inherently problematic in any type of community, for if responsibilities are simply imposed on us, they automatically undermine our freedom. To overcome this difficulty, we need to find ways of reaching a consensus with other members of each community we inhabit over what those responsibilities should be. If we can achieve this, even the fulfilment of our responsibilities becomes part of our freedom of expression, forming a fusion of the two elements. Only in this fusion can we find our place in the World.
In the context of a neighbourhood, the fusion of freedom and responsibility requires the creation of democratic forums that bring its people together to plan their shared social, economic and environmental future. Such planning must include the negotiation of mutual responsibilities. By working together like this, we can foster mutual understanding, empathy, trust and friendship. This is especially important in today’s multi-cultural society.
Genuine local democracy must also provide pathways for the transmission of power upwards through higher levels of governance, enabling neighbourhood communities to influence all decisions affecting them. At the same time it must incorporate democratic safeguards to ensure those same pathways are not used to impose authority from above in a dictatorial manner.
The question is: does modern-day Scotland provide the sort of local democracy described above? The answer must be a resounding “no”.
Over the past century Scotland’s communities have been stripped of all control over, and responsibility for, their own governance and well-being. For example while a third of England's population have parish councils with considerable powers and budgets, Scotland's parish councils were abolished altogether in 1930. The process of centralisation continued with the abolition of Scotland's town councils in 1975 and the transfer of their powers to district councils.
As a result, Scotland’s communities have neither freedom to harness their creative energies nor responsibility for their well-being beyond litter picks and flower basket planting. Neighbours no longer have any need to know each other. Similarly, different ethnic and religious communities have no need to mix.
The toxic effects of this centralisation include isolation, lack of trust, interracial tension, mental illness, drug and alcohol misuse, violence, suicide and of course mind-numbing boredom.
Perhaps though, the most insidious effect of over-centralised governance is that it turns the focus of our lives inwards so that we lose the ability and the instinct to act co-operatively. This has grave implications for the future of our planet, which will depend on co-operative action to avert the most serious consequences of global warming.
Our goal must be to create a society in which people work together and help each other constructively and compassionately. This must begin with the creation of a system of participative democracy with roots that run deep in our neighbourhood communities, enabling collective decision-making and the exercise of negotiated responsibilities. The alternative is an increasingly fractured society that ultimately will require the strictures of a police state to survive.
While each type of community serves a specific purpose, to function well each must meet two basic human needs.
First, it must allow us the freedom to express ourselves joyfully, lovingly, creatively and articulately, including (by implication) freedom from practical and emotional obstacles to this.
Secondly, it must give us an equitable share of responsibility for the well-being of others, as this generates a sense of connection, human warmth and self worth.
This combination of freedom and responsibility is important in all of the communities we inhabit. One of the most important in this respect is the local neighbourhood, as it is vital to feel that we are living among friends who care for us, rather than strangers who couldn't care less whether we live or die. How strange it is that our legal system defines community service as a punishment.
Combining freedom with responsibility is inherently problematic in any type of community, for if responsibilities are simply imposed on us, they automatically undermine our freedom. To overcome this difficulty, we need to find ways of reaching a consensus with other members of each community we inhabit over what those responsibilities should be. If we can achieve this, even the fulfilment of our responsibilities becomes part of our freedom of expression, forming a fusion of the two elements. Only in this fusion can we find our place in the World.
In the context of a neighbourhood, the fusion of freedom and responsibility requires the creation of democratic forums that bring its people together to plan their shared social, economic and environmental future. Such planning must include the negotiation of mutual responsibilities. By working together like this, we can foster mutual understanding, empathy, trust and friendship. This is especially important in today’s multi-cultural society.
Genuine local democracy must also provide pathways for the transmission of power upwards through higher levels of governance, enabling neighbourhood communities to influence all decisions affecting them. At the same time it must incorporate democratic safeguards to ensure those same pathways are not used to impose authority from above in a dictatorial manner.
The question is: does modern-day Scotland provide the sort of local democracy described above? The answer must be a resounding “no”.
Over the past century Scotland’s communities have been stripped of all control over, and responsibility for, their own governance and well-being. For example while a third of England's population have parish councils with considerable powers and budgets, Scotland's parish councils were abolished altogether in 1930. The process of centralisation continued with the abolition of Scotland's town councils in 1975 and the transfer of their powers to district councils.
As a result, Scotland’s communities have neither freedom to harness their creative energies nor responsibility for their well-being beyond litter picks and flower basket planting. Neighbours no longer have any need to know each other. Similarly, different ethnic and religious communities have no need to mix.
The toxic effects of this centralisation include isolation, lack of trust, interracial tension, mental illness, drug and alcohol misuse, violence, suicide and of course mind-numbing boredom.
Perhaps though, the most insidious effect of over-centralised governance is that it turns the focus of our lives inwards so that we lose the ability and the instinct to act co-operatively. This has grave implications for the future of our planet, which will depend on co-operative action to avert the most serious consequences of global warming.
Our goal must be to create a society in which people work together and help each other constructively and compassionately. This must begin with the creation of a system of participative democracy with roots that run deep in our neighbourhood communities, enabling collective decision-making and the exercise of negotiated responsibilities. The alternative is an increasingly fractured society that ultimately will require the strictures of a police state to survive.