Steven Friedman Worm’s eye view The elections were, for two reasons, a fitting end to the political year. First, they allowed voters to pronounce on the government strategy which has dominated much of 2000. Second, because the electorate’s message seems to have been misunderstood as it has been for much of the year.
The substantial stayaway by African National Congress voters has been interpreted predictably as a demand for greater “delivery”.
If governing party politicians agree with this analysis and decide to heed this “message”, we will have no change to the approach to governing which we have seen this year. On the contrary, we will see even more of the same.
This year has been dominated by a government approach dedicated to “getting things done” rather than “wasting time” on negotiating with citizens’ groups or strengthening links to voters. It is this strategy on which voters pronounced last week and the verdict was less than enthusiastic.
But what were many ANC voters upset about? Purely the fact that they were not adequately “delivered” to? In that case the answer would not be to shift strategy but to implement it more vigorously. Next year would, then, bring more centralisation of power, more reliance on “experts”, both of which are said to make “delivery” easier, and less interest in deepening people’s participation, which is said to delay it. But the problems which prompted many to stay away will then deepen.
There are two reasons for insisting on this. First, even if it was clear that voters are disenchanted with not being “delivered to”, the year has ended with a message from the electorate that the current strategy does not work. Ironically, the obsession with “delivery” rather than democracy does not ensure delivery, both because the government can only “deliver” in partnership with citizens which the current strategy makes very difficult and because ignoring the voice of voters means that there is no way of knowing what people want “delivered” to them.
Second, it is not at all as clear as the commentators suggest that voters are reacting to the lack of “delivery” if that is understood merely as the ability of the government to provide people with goods and services. Some surveys suggest that the problem is a lack of trust in government, a sense that it does not speak for voters.
That does not mean that most voters do not care about living standards: on the contrary, there is also survey evidence that people, understandably, expect democracy to bring better conditions. But it does seem to be saying something important about the kind of relationship many want with the government one in which they feel they are being treated with respect and are not reduced to passive recipients of “delivery”. In that case, the year has ended not with a voter message that the “delivery” strategy should be pursued more vigorously, but with a pronouncement that it has failed that people want a style of government which respects their wish to participate.
The attitude to governing which the ANC took into the local elections and which many of its voters seem to have rejected illustrates the problem perfectly.
In its campaign ads it urged a partnership between it and the electorate. But, if we listened carefully, the “partnership” on offer was much the same as that between a supermarket and its customers the voters, the ANC suggested, would contribute by voting for it; it would then do its bit by “delivering” to them.
This suggests that, the moment the election is over, so too is the partnership, as voters sit back and wait for “delivery”. Which is, broadly, what the government has been offering citizens this year.
Media comments on the poll suggest that voters want this sort of relationship with the government, but feel more goods and services should emerge from it. Is it not more logical to assume that many ANC voters were unhappy with the type of “partnership” on offer?
If the ANC leadership is prepared to heed the message voters have sent it, it may need to look for a real partnership between it and its electorate, not the pallid variety on sale last week. This would entail working with voters in pursuit of common interests. And that, in turn, would mean taking grassroots people and the democracy through which they speak seriously.
If the ANC wants to know what partnerships between elected representatives and citizens are possible, experiments in settings as diverse as the Greater London Council during the 1980s, the Indian state of Kerala or some Brazilian cities suggest that democratic governments can work in partnership with their voters to “deliver” improvements, but to strengthen and deepen democracy at the same time.
Some of these experiments may be romanticised. But, while no exercise in governing is perfect, the evidence from these experiments suggests that, if democratic governments take their voters seriously, there is no conflict between deeper democracy and delivery. Not only does partnership make delivery easier it also answers voters’ need to be treated like adults by those they elect, a dimension which this year’s government strategy has ignored.
The local election could be an appropriate end to the year if it marks the death of a strategy which was already running into trouble as its implementers found more resistance among interest groups and within government than they had expected, and which has now also failed to impress many voters. It could, therefore, ensure that next year sees the beginning of a new approach, which will seek to attract voter support by working with citizens rather than “getting things done” on their behalf.
But that will only happen if we hear the voter message accurately. The cry that voters want more “delivery” rather than respect from those they elect will lead us down blind alleys and ensure that disaffection with the current government and with democracy deepens.
So the year could end with a significant change of course as the governing party hears last week’s message and enters 2001 determined to connect with those who elected it. But that can happen only if it understands the local election as a sign that grassroots voters want to be treated as adults not that they want more goodies from their elders and betters in government.