New Generation Network vs. the Popular Front - 6 comments
I should note that in the time between starting and finishing this post, Tom Freeman snuck in with his own post on the subject (this happens to me a lot). It looks good, as we'd expect, but I've avoided reading it in detail until I've finished this.
I read the New Generation Network's [NGN] Manifesto for the first time on Saturday evening. It's an excellent and well-written piece, and it's definitely worth spending a few minutes reading the whole thing. From the introduction:
Thirty years since the passing of the Race Relations Act, Britain faces a crisis of discourse around race and faith. These have always been sensitive topics, but the debate has hit new lows of simplicity and hysteria in the past few years. People want to talk. They need to talk. But how do they engage in a discussion which has been manipulated by recent governments to demonise minority groups, while being increasingly hijacked by self-appointed "community leaders"?It'll be interesting to see how it fares in comparison with the Euston Manifesto, with which I have been involved (though played no part in drafting). Both have come out of the Web - partly written, and mostly promoted by bloggers; and both have been inspired numerous articles of widely varying quality at Comment Is Free [CiF]. Both documents are strong on principles, principles that - on the surface - it should be hard to disagree with; and they criticise both the actions of Governments and certain strands of opinion that claims to be liberal - or centre-left - that attract an unreasonable amount of coverage in the mainstream media, and which are exploited by religious conservatives, and demagogic politicians.
We, the signatories to this manifesto, today call for a new approach to tackle discrimination and prejudice and forge a fresh approach to building a modern Britain. We are optimistic that people of different backgrounds and faiths can live together in our society. Thus we want to ensure that the national conversation is not dominated by our fears or polarised voices.
We need an approach that discards the older politics of representation through government sanctioned gate-keepers. One that rejects prejudice from both majority and minority communities, especially religious intolerance, and finds a common cause in equality and social justice with all Britons.
Responses to Euston overwhelmingly consisted of paranoid speculation about the origins of the Manifesto, about the personnel "behind it", their possible motivations, and which shadowy groups must evidently be running the show - by close-minded ideologues who hadn't read or considered the actual document, some of whom hoping a big name and a photo at CiF would add credibility to their (I think it's fair to say) cynical and pointless criticisms. Will the NGN attract the same level of ire? Probably not, though the "Bush/Blair/neocon" weapon is now used so indiscriminately that anyone who attacks the lazy "liberal" consensus mentioned above must expect to hear that that's what it's really all about.
Critical articles have already appeared, from Madeleine Bunting and Soumaya Ghannoushi at CiF - two contributors with little remaining credibility among liberal, democratic secularists. Sunny (from Pickled Politics, and an author of the NGN's Manifesto) has already had to rebut misrepresentations and misunderstandings in the Comment sections.
The point of Soumaya's florid and evasive piece seems to be that the Manifesto doesn't reflect reality, in the sense that it doesn't address "structural" reasons for cultural tensions and equalities, but who, exactly, is implying that unemployment and inequality is not a factor?
As Euston-supporting bloggers found themselves stating again and again, a Manifesto is a statement of principles and aims, not of detailed prescriptions. A good Manifesto is one where a problem has been fairly and honestly identified, and the proposals follow from that, logically, and - at least for this mainstream audience - compatible with liberal, pluralist principles. Setting out clear and coherent principles is valuable and worthwhile in itself. These are not invalidated by the lack of a specific programme of policies, and the lack doesn't in itself justify - or oblige us to accept - alternatives that are muddy, incoherent, compromised, or just plain wrong.
Criticising a Manifesto for not covering a topic beyond the remit, the limits of the experience and expertise of its writers, or that the writers themselves feel is a distraction, implies either a misunderstanding, or an attempt to mislead the likely audience away from a tricky area and towards a safe (or profitable) one. Criticising a Manifesto for not being "realistic", or "wishful thinking", either suggests an even more ridiculous misunderstanding of what Manifestos and principles are, or an attempt to rubbish the document - and any philosophy you don't favour - towards, quite possibly, a simplistic and philosophically unjustifiable one of your own preference.
Like something that talks about "arrogant secularist rhetoric founded on belief in the supremacy of reason and absolute faith in science and progress", for example.
Madeleine also goes down the "air of unreality" route, criticising the Manifesto as a distraction from what she takes to be the real task of building a coalition, and of antagonising (diddums) potential partners in the struggle against racism.
Sorry, why do we need a "popular front" against racism? Is there some doubt as to whether it's acceptable in our politics? You either oppose racism in all its forms or you're banished to the extremes - that should be how it works. Maddy's evasive manoeuvre might have some credibility if the "wider platform" we must pursue includes organisations that are themselves contaminated by racism. That's just one problem with trying to build mass coalitions around an issue: there's a temptation to maximise the size of the coalition, and therefore the anticipated political weight or power of the group, rather than its clarity and its integrity. Political factions will seek out such coalitions, keen to gain (often) undeserved credibility for themselves, maneouvre for influence and positions, and pick up members from a large group of moderate supporters.
The NGN's sole responsibility is to stay true to its principles and, if it does seek political allies, they should be ones that do not conflict with those principles, whatever the short-term advantages. Hopefully they will be able to maintain a vocal campaign (these things require money, time, and manpower), influence the Government (though it is already going down this road), and at least remain at the back of our minds as we go about our blogging business.
Update: fixed a typo.
