UKIP Philosophy: A Clash of Views. Dr Anthony Fallone
We are still under ten years old as an organization and even less as something that could be called a functioning political party. It follows that there are strongly differing views about how we should function. Essentially, there are two ways to run a political party:
1) The commands come down from the central office or charismatic leader and the foot soldiers obey with very little possibility of objection, adjustment or even prior consultation.
2) The decision-making is democratic and allows consultation with the foot soldiers before anything is decided; communication flows freely in both directions at all times.
Obviously these are the two ends of a continuum of ways to organize and run a party; they could be exemplified by the older, Thatcher-era Tory party (1) and the more collegiate and referenda-minded Liberal Democrats (2). An even better example is the difference between the systems and organizations of government to be found today in France (1) and Germany (2).
A more abstract and theoretical view of the differences between 1 and 2 is that of ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ processing. These terms are used in neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience and cognitive psychology to describe flow of information in processing. A bottom-up process is usually thought of as without higher-level direction, whereas the top-down process has a high level of direction by more cognition, providing goals and targets.
Top Down
‘Top down’ is stereotypical of the visionary, the person seeing the larger picture, the overview, focusing on the big picture and gathering from that the details to support it: ‘seeing the wood’. The party leadership makes a decision. Using their authority, this approach is passed on to lower levels in the hierarchy who owe allegiance to them. Top-down approaches can be viewed positively due to their efficiency and higher-level overview. Alternately, they can be seen negatively if changes, reforms or demands are seen to be imposed ‘from above’; it can be difficult for lower levels to accept them (e.g., Bresser Pereira, Maravall, and Przeworski, 1993). This seems to hold true whatever the change (e.g., Dubois, 2002). The French government uses a top-down approach: public servants have no other task than to carry out decisions given to them by their superiors. The cabinet gives advice and consultation to these superiors that is different and separate from that of the regular ministry staff. Those not members of the cabinet have no right to make any suggestions or to take any political or policy decisions. This seems to resemble the de facto running of Blair’s ‘sofa government’. The grassroots feel disenfranchised and excluded, even demotivated because no one higher is much interested in their expertise, thoughts, ideas or projects. UKIP at the moment tends to work more like the French government, decisions being made at a high level and demanding and expecting that the grassroots should obey, without question, tout de suite.
Bottom Up
‘Bottom up’ focuses on detail, not the landscape: ‘seeing the trees’. This approach is one that works from the grassroots, a large number of activists working together from whom decisions emerge due to their joint involvement. For activists in the lower echelons of a party the bottom-up approach allows for more trial and error work and a better feeling for what they need. If UKIP were a bottom-up organized political party decisions would be prepared by experts (those knowledgeable about local matters or trained to deal with specific technical matters), defining, out of their expertise, the policy or project thought necessary. If the grassroots cannot agree or find compromise, the problem or idea would be taken to the next higher hierarchical level for a decision. Finally, the executive of the party would take the decision. Information always moves upwards from the inferior to the superior. As soon as the grassroots agree on some project, policy, idea or solution to a problem, the head of the party only needs to provide his or her “face″ as the authorisation for action to be taken by them.
The German political system stands out as operating on bottom-up principles. There is a Federal Act on Public Service that insists that any inferiors consult and support their superiors. They must follow only “general guidelines" from their superiors, while remaining fully responsible for their own acts while in office. Formal complaints procedures must be followed if the legality of an order is in doubt. German politicians have often left office when it was alleged that they took wrong decisions while refusing the advice of the expert opinions of inferiors (beratungsresistent). If UKIP wanted to change its way of doing things to bottom up then the German one is a good model. Germany has bitter experience of two dictatorships, fuelling calls for the principle of personal responsibility for decisions made. This has led to the bolstering of the bottom-up approach, requiring maximum responsibility from those in a superior position. Hitler may have built marvellous autobahns and Mussolini made the Italian trains run on time but both were wholly irresponsible about where they led their respective countries; neither would ever listen to ‘the little people’, a psychologically illuminating phrase used recently by the man running BP.
UKIP History and Leaders
After reading ‘Cranks and Gadflies’ by Mark Daniel (2005) it is clear that UKIP members are judged to be more eccentric, individualistic and plain ornery than the members of other political parties. They are obviously highly receptive to a bottom up organisation and will never take kindly to a top down one. And yet, time after time, they seem to choose charismatic, dictatorial, egotistic leaders; Kilroy is perhaps the most notorious but Nigel Farage is another charismatic, who inspires adulation in his followers. Earlier leaders have been almost as egotistical and media loving as Kilroy. UKIP seems to lust after the ‘Strong Leader’, the Moses who will lead them out of the wilderness and into positions of power. The local branches of the party submitted to a total stripping of their financial assets for a recent election, on the orders of Nigel Farage, to help raise the £2,000,000 to fund the campaign. This meekly endured plundering would not have been possible if anyone other than Nigel had asked. And yet I have been a witness to furious wrangling over a few hundred pounds at local level, it being required by a body a step or two higher up the hierarchy. The reason why such anger and table banging occurred was that there had been no consultation and the local branch had not had a chance to participate in decisions. In the interests of speed and efficiency the decisions had been made at the higher level and the costs were to be extracted from the funds of the local branch, without prior notice. Given the nature of the typical grassroots UKIP member this was bound to cause trouble.
Conclusion
Although the official leadership has changed, photographs of Nigel still form the covers of the party magazines and other publications. Lord Pearson is the new leader, assisted by Lord Monckton and Lord Willoughby De Broke; we still like noble individuals to whom we can look up, it seems. It is highly likely that the grassroots would follow such exalted leaders, obey without question whatever they order as long as we believe that they will help us find the political Promised Land. It is in the middle cadres of the hierarchy, however, that perhaps there is a disconnect. Casual arrogance coming from there will always cause anger and resentment because we are not the French, who are used to such behaviour in their masters. Still less, UKIP is not a happy breeding place for the top down, pseudo-military giving of orders that must be obeyed. Volunteers who are money donors, too, never react well to being ordered about like minions in a large corporation, salary slaves who have to do what they are told for fear of losing their jobs. Throughout the organisation there seems to be a lack of communication, the up and down flow of information, the timely inclusion of the grassroots in decisions and projects in which they will be expected to have a part, including giving financial support. Perhaps it is time for the Great and Wise to consider just what sort of political party this is going to be, a Type 1 or a Type 2? If we shamble on as we are then inevitably there will be schisms and splinter groups as has happened in the past (recorded in Mark Daniel’s book) with the grassroots becoming increasingly alienated.
References:
1. Bresser Pereira, Luiz Carlos, José María Maravall, and Adam Przeworski, 1993. Economic reforms in new democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Dubois, Hans F.W. 2002. Harmonization of the European vaccination policy and the role TQM and reengineering could play. Quality Management in Health Care 10(2): 47-57.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_and_bottom-up_design
4. Cranks and Gadflies: The Story of UKIP (2005). Daniel, M. Timewell Press; London
No comments:
Post a Comment