Democracy and the drugs debate

By Darrell Goodliffe

Bob Ainsworth’s article yesterday on LabourList certainly caused a stir. Sadly, a lot of the reaction is a depressing commentary of the state of Labour as a democratic political party and in many ways has cruelly exposed limitations of our wider democracy. Hopi Sen, a well-known Labour blogger, says he supports the position of the leadership which condemned Ainsworth as ‘irresponsible’ for three reasons:

“First, what Bob has said is not, and will not be, the policy of the Labour Party.”

“Second, the public massively disagree with Bob Ainsworth on this. Political parties have to take account of what the public thinks. (These are both the reasons why Bob was right not to speak out when in office. As a minister, you ask questions and debate internally, then accept the verdict of your colleagues or resign. You don’t get to have both power and freedom of speech, sadly).”

“Third, although there is some evidence of good outcomes from drug decriminalisation, the experience in Portugal (where possession of more than 0.2g of cocaine or 2.5g of marijuana is still subject to criminal charge. People get the wrong idea about that) certainly doesn’t show any major reduction of drug use.”

One is making a massive assumption and is effectively closing the debate which is somewhat paradoxical because Hopi moves onto to welcome Bob starting the debate. It’s particularly sad that both Hopi and the leadership have taken this anti-democratic stance and in the case of the leadership’s professed aim of a radical policy overhaul it is in opposition to their stated aspiration. The second point may or may not be true (I think polls could be found to prove the counter case) but it says more about the controlling interest exercised by vested interests in determining the contours of public debate than it does ‘public opinion’ (something of a construct itself). The third point is again widely contested but the terms of the debate on the drugs make for an effective pre-exclusion of ‘good outcomes’ by defining them in terms of a dominant discourse and not in terms of the interests of the affected group.

Within our democracy certain groups – like those most affected by drugs policies – are deemed not worthy of representation while others, like media outlets, have a highly magnified voice. This is a deep-seated flaw in our democracy that is causing a slow burning crisis of decay and rot. If you want proof this crisis exists then look no further than the recent student protests which – the tip of an iceberg of disaffection and alienation from a democracy that simply doesn’t go far enough to satisfy people’s needs and demands anymore. This is something Labour should address with a radical program of social justice and consistent democracy. To do this it first must get its own house in order.

A political party has to be more than a mirror that the public look into and see themselves. It has to be something with a living link to the communities it represents. Communities are diverse and, crucially, include minorities. One of the problems with our democracy as it stands is that it is dominated by 40% of the population and the tyranny of their views is enshrined as self-interest dictates politial parties chasing them. Reform of the existing system would be one way to remedy this but the likelihood is also new forms of more direct democracy will arise. If this occurs then these new forms should be supported.

It is my personal view that Ainsworth is broadly speaking right. However, when we engage in this debate we have to remember that it reflects wider problems with our democracy – as well as highlighting our own internally poor commitment to democracy.