Take the power back

Richard Nixon, when asked why he hadn’t done much to strengthen small government (in fact he did the opposite), said: “Sure I didn’t. I’m not a knucklehead. People back home holler that they want less government. Give it to ‘em and except in the South they’ll go out and vote for the Democrats.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4368095.stm)

Nixon may have been a power-mad fascist, but he wasn’t stupid.

Library shelves have been filled with books about the nature of power and how power interacts with human nature, but it is exceptional to find a political figure or movement that has taken power and fulfilled its promise to give it away. [Portugal’s Carnation Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution) is possibly the most remarkable exception.] And the process of national government is a constant reminder of this power dynamic, as stated so pithily by Nixon.

Devolution—power redistribution as a principle and in action—is therefore unlikely to be espoused or happen in any meaningful way through a national administration. The parameters for polling public opinion and the scope of localised democracy will always be defined in a way that undermines the ideals and goals of the project. Devolution is not a principle or a right espoused in the UN Charter, arguably because national sovereignty is the first principle of the Charter, but presumably because very few national governments would concede any validity to their regionalist movements.

So, if you believe in people’s right to reclaim their sovereignty, how do they overcome the inherent opposition of central government?

Let’s assume there is no barrier to the dissemination of your ideas (although centralised media tend to reflect the mindset of the centralised governing elite) and look at what local political activists might achieve. Further, let’s assume that there is a majority of like-minded local representatives that therefore hold the local council.

The first step would be to identify the issues that are impossible to solve within the constraints set by central government. If you believe there is a need for devolution, you must also be able to identify symptoms of the failure of centralised government. One example might be the provision of facilities for the homeless, which under budgetary and legislative restrictions, the local council could not provide a service that allowed either a dignified existence or a realistic opportunity to achieve self-sufficiency.

The second step would be to confront the government with a plan to address the problem by redistributing and/or marginally increasing local taxation. If government conceded, fine, but it is quite likely that the plan would be recognised as a “thin end of the wedge” and be rejected.

The third, most difficult but crucial step would be to implement the plan anyway, and to reject all fines imposed as a result. This confrontation, and the resulting support from local inhabitants and likeminded people around the country, is what would make the break towards devolution work. The government rules by the consensus of more than just the ballot box. It needs the support and acquiescence of all the other institutions of governance in the country.

Redistributed power is possible: it is our power anyway. We just have to take the power back.