Thursday 28th December 2006

Structures which get in the way of democracy?

“Don’t we need to move away from the sort of bureaucratic structures unions have to a system when many more members’ views can be heard?”

Susan, Birmingham University

We need to involve many more members actively in the union, but should beware we don’t, so to speak, throw out the baby with the bathwater.

For example, TV news today had Labour Party chair Hazel Blears explaining away a 50% drop in membership since 1997. We were assured that it is true that the numbers have halved but that it was highly exaggerated to suggest that the fall was as catastrophic in 2006 as was until recently.

Undeterred, Hazel Blears went on to explain how a new and exciting national panel of 100 people selected by a market research company would take part in deliberative fora to consider three major areas of policy.

No, you couldn’t make it up, as if there was no connection between the two items of news.

I’ve been involved in numerous campaigns that go beyond the “minutes, matters arising, long reports” format for meetings, and in my experience many UCU branches try to do the same, some with more success than others. It is certainly true we that networks, email groups and forums can play a very successful role in drawing in new members and sharing ideas and experiences.

But it is a big step to move entirely to this approach instead of any formal structures.

I’ve always been curious about how consultations which invite individuals to make suggestions decide which individual suggestions should be adopted. I’m not against them – often they draw in individuals that formal structures bypass. But in the absence of formal structures, all power is concentrated in the “leader” – be they prime minister, president or general secretary.

It is true that some committees are made up of the unwilling chosen from the unfit and doing the unnecessary.

But they don’t have to be. Networks, individual consultation, electronic fora and surveys can be invaluable organising and informing methods. But they are not a substitute for a formal and open structure which can hold “the leader” to account.

After all, why bother to go to any meetings if no one takes any notice. When I worked for MSF Roger Lyons used to argue he was accountable to the members not to any committee. In truth he should have been accountable to the members through the committees if they had worked properly.

It is no good listening if no notice is taken. It is no use by bypassing the “bureaucratic” structure if we end up with no accountability at all. Labour’s Big Conversation never once discussed Iraq, for example, and Labour’s structures are now so hollowed out that they are part-replaced by a “deliberative forum” chosen by a market research company.

We should remember what one UCU LA president said on November 24th HE conference about listening and consulting during the 2006 pay dispute.

“You listened and consulted but took no notice” she said.