Inside Track Election 2011
Keeping it civil
John Sturrock Chief executive of Core Solutions Group
As the election campaign gets into full swing, some lessons on keeping your cool
With the elections to the Scottish
Parliament on the horizon, there will be considerable interest in how the campaign is conducted. Recently, much has been written in the United States about the need for a return to civility in public life or, to use Os Guinness’s description in his well-regarded book, Te Case for Civility, the need to restore the metaphorical “civil public square”. Perhaps the efforts of President Obama to inject a more thoughtful and reflective tone into political discourse, following Obama’s memorial service speech in Tucson, herald a change of mood. Guinness and others worry that the
propensity to resort to name-calling, insult, ridicule, caricature, accusation and denunciation has become such a feature of Western political debate that we scarcely notice or challenge it. But such behaviour – the art and trade of negation – comes with a cost: the trivialisation and distortion of important issues, a lack of real engagement about what matters most, and a self-fulfilling demonisation of the other side, whoever they may be. Polarisation of views, a tendency to antagonistic partisanship and the absence of constructive deliberation and debate are familiar – and deeply destructive – characteristics of twenty-first century public and political discussion. Vaclev Havel, the Czech dissident,
intellectual and first post-Soviet era President, confessed that he feared the deterioration in public civility more than economic decline. He argued that improving the civility of everyday life could, perhaps paradoxically, accelerate economic development. He noted that the symptoms of deterioration were to be found in unrestrained ambition, unwillingness to recognise personal error and a lack of tolerance, understanding, taste, moderation and reason. Havel observed that one politician would
28 Holyrood 28 March 2011 Vaclev Havel © Martin Kozák
“The way we discuss and debate our differences is
a crucial indicator of our maturity as a nation”
undermine another’s work just because he belonged to a different political party. Partisan considerations would take precedence over pragmatic attempts to arrive at reasonable and sensible solutions to problems. Supporting a government in a good cause would be regarded as shameful, whatever its merits. People’s fears and anxieties would be played on, making the situation worse. Objective analysis would be replaced by scandal- mongering. Let’s pause for a moment: do any of these have a familiar ring in modern Scotland? If so, with what effect on public morale, confidence and commitment? Havel made a plea for “tolerant co-existence”
and for the development of commonly shared standards, obligations and values. As we approach these elections in Scotland, what are our expectations of the quality of public and political debate in the weeks ahead and of the manner in which it is conducted? What do recent exchanges tell us? In order to gain political ascendancy in our small country, is it necessary for there to be unrestrained aggression? How might things be different? How might we measure a different way of conducting the campaign? What are the characteristics we might look for in a more civil conduct of these elections? How might Scotland stand apart from the seemingly
prevailing mood in political discourse? Some of our benchmarks might be these:
• Respect shown for individuals by candidates and supporters, coupled with courtesy towards those of a different persuasion, whatever their views
• Rigorous, robust and honest analysis of the issues
• Consistency and clarity of message and a willingness to face up to and address ambiguities and changes in policy
• Sincerity, integrity and transparency, and a recognition of the value of earning the confidence of those voting
• Willingness to listen, to engage empathetically and with compassion and to change views if that seems the right thing to do
• Taking responsibility for that which has not worked out, as well as acknowledging successes, whatever their origins
• Demonstrating a sense of service, where the common interest is promoted above mere partisan preferment or short term individual gain, and where trust between the electorate and the elected is recognised as being beneficial to the longer-term future of our nation.
Te way we discuss and debate our
differences is a crucial indicator of our maturity as a nation and of our ability to pursue and strengthen the idea of a good society, confident in how it addresses and accommodates diversity. Might those engaging in the next two months’ of serious political activity be invited to endorse benchmarks along the lines set out above as a kind of framework or covenant with the Scottish people? Why not? Why endorse the cynicism which would accompany the all too ready acceptance of things as they are? Os Guinness spoke of the need to find
a leader or leaders (and not just in politics) who restored civility, stood out and stood for what is right and wise, speaking, acting and organising in a way that opens a new path through the battle-scarred terrain of what he called the “culture wars”. Americans may have found such leadership. Can we?
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80