Respecting the vote

You may have missed it but there’s a General Election taking place in the UK on June 8th. 

Now, it is not my intention to tell you how to vote. I’ve previously suggested that we might want to think about a more compassionate politics, and that we should prioritise the eradication of poverty, I’ll leave it to you to decide which party is most likely to achieve those things. (Hint: probably not the Tories though.)

We know that, generally speaking, politics and politicians are not held in high esteem. Despite this, you might think that, of course, most people vote. Very few people admit to not voting, and those that do are not usually proud of the fact. But, at the last General Election (in 2015) 15 million people (some 34% of the electorate) did not vote. At no election in recent history has turnout exceeded 80% (it was 78% in 1992). And, whilst that figure might sound high it means that somewhere between 10 and 15 million potential voters do not vote in General Elections.

Is this something we should be concerned about?

After all, voting is not compulsory in the UK. Surely it is a persons’ right to decide not to vote? It is worth noting however that where voting is compulsory, such as in Australia, turnout still doesn’t reach 100%. Having said that over a comparable time period turnout at General Elections in Australia never fell below 91% and is usually around 95%.

Voting is not just the process of putting a cross on a ballot paper every few years, but a reminder that the voter is a member of a social and political community. Democratic processes are a means, albeit often flawed, whereby ordinary citizens get to shape the kind of society they live in.

According to the political philosopher John Rawls in his highly influential books A Theory of Justice and Justice as Fairness, the most important of what he termed primary goods was ‘self-respect’. Self-respect matters to people for as Rawls says in its absence “nothing may seem worth doing, or if some things have value for us, we lack the will to strive for them. All desire and activity becomes empty and vain and we sink into apathy and cynicism.” (Rawls, 1971: 440)

Of course, when we think about voting it is not usual to think of it as related to self-respect. It is more often seen as a ‘device’ to choose representatives, parties or particular policies. 

Which of these depends on the type of vote and the voting system employed. Robert Dahl’s excellent book On Democracy points out that democratic systems rely on voters and votes being equal. Each voter has one vote and each vote is equal to any other vote. Nobody’s vote counts more than anybody elses and nobody has more votes than any other citizen. Ordinary citizens have exactly the same say as the rich and powerful. 

The advantage of such a system was described as long ago as 431 B.C. by Pericles who reportedly said: “Our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters.”

The idea that each vote is equal is the basis of a recognition that in democracies all citizens are, nominally, equal. Being an equal citizen in terms of rights (and responsibilities) reminds us that despite differences in wealth, income and life chances we each have a stake in society. As Rawls notes our self-respect is a recognition that “what we do in everyday life is worthwhile.” (ibid. p.441) Voting is one way in which self-respecting citizens present themselves as equal to others in their community.

A person who fails to use their vote is doing more than abstaining from the democratic process they are undermining the basis of their own self-respect. What is important in this sense is the way in which our self-respect is, in part, a reflection of the respect we perceive from others. In the act of abstention a non-voter is usually not making a positive critique of democracy. If they wanted to do so they could ‘spoil’ their paper. Rather, they are saying that their vote does not matter. That all the democratic decisions taken in their name, from going to war to reducing (or increasing) the benefits of those in poverty, do not concern them. Or, if they do, they have no right to a say in them. In effect, they are saying that they are not a mature, self-respecting member of their political community. By undermining their self-respect they infantilise themselves in a way which is inconsistent with their being the type of person who should be respected.  

This may sound a rather harsh judgement as there may well be good reasons for not voting. The non-voters may feel that their decision is rational and, in some cases, even a political act in itself. A survey by Survation in 2014 finds that in many ways non-voters are similar to voters in terms of their general attitudes. The reasons they gave for not voting included not believing that their vote will make any difference, that the parties and candidates are all the same, a lack of interest in politics, and not having enough information or knowledge to choose. In addition to these factors, a large percentage of those who did not vote in the last election and do not intend to vote in the next election said their main reason for not voting was that their beliefs are not represented by the parties and candidates. All of which sound like good reasons.

There is certainly a sense that in some constituencies the same party always wins, or that there is very little difference between the parties (though that is certainly not the case in the forthcoming election), but it is also instructive to note that in the last four general elections, the number of non-voters was significantly higher than the number of votes for the winning party. If the non-voters had got together, formed their own party and stood they would probably have won! Of course, that would never happen partly because of the lack of self-respect that non-voters have and partly, perhaps more importantly, it is unlikely that non-voters would be able to agree a platform that all of them could sign up to.

Whilst non-voters tend to justify their inactivity it is difficult to know how to overcome their apparent apathy. If they have a lack of interest in politics it does seem that they have a lack of interest in decisions which directly affect them. If they claim not to have enough information in an information age it can only be that they are deliberately switching off from the barrage of information that is made available particularly at election times. It is more likely that they see themselves as powerless, and the decision to disengage politically would not be affected, on the whole, by politics being conducted in any other way.

Research conducted by the Hansard Society in 2002 following the low turnout in the 2001 General Election suggested that people who do not vote have made that decision long before the election. The election campaign, if they noticed it at all, made no difference to their decision to abstain.

We might argue about whether the present voting system (first past the post) is fair or not. We might argue whether those who stand for office are the best people for the job (almost by definition anybody who wants to be an MP is unsuited for the job!). We might argue whether the current political party system allows for minority views to get a hearing. We might argue whether the influence of the media (print and broadcast) is a force for good or not. In other words, there is a perfectly legitimate argument along the lines of ‘if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it’. Nevertheless, if a person is to be a part of a community and if they believe that they are equal to others in their community that comes not just with benefits but responsibilities.

A self-respecting person is one who feels that they are a legitimate member of society with all the rights and benefits that entails. One of the benefits of living in a democracy is the ability to both stand for office and vote for those who do stand.

Elections, whilst often conducted on the personalities of the leaders, are in reality about the shape of society. They ask the question: what type of society do you want to live in? Sometimes, and I believe it is the case in this coming election, voters are presented with alternatives that are very stark. For the sake of their own self-respect every potential voter should take sides.

Is it possible to have respect for the poor and hungry?

 “There are many complex reasons why people go to food banks”

This was the British Prime Minister, Theresa May’s response to TV journalist Andrew Marr when asked whether it was right that nurses should have to use food banks.

Whatever the reasons the use of food banks is rising. In 2008, the number of people using food banks was just under 26,000. By 2017, that figure had risen to almost 1.2 million.

https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/

It is estimated that the UK is the 6^th largest economy in the World. It is a highly complex and developed economy and yet the Office for National Statistics estimates that around 6.5% of the population of the UK were in ‘persistent poverty’ in 2014. This amounted to 3.9 million people, the 12^th highest figure in the EU.

In 2016, over 93,000 households were assessed as homeless in England, Scotland and Wales. The number of people forced to sleep rough every night in England was 4,134, an increase of 16% since 2015.

The United Kingdom has persistent and long-term poverty leading to homelessness and hunger. The fact that these figures are rising suggests that the underlying causes, whether complex or not, are getting worse rather than better.

It is not overly emotional to argue that it is a national disgrace that we have people, many of whom are in work, forced to use food banks. Nor, is it rhetorical to describe as a national disgrace that each night over 4,000 people are forced to sleep in the streets. But, beyond this what does it say about the kind of society we live in that we are growing accustomed to endemic poverty?

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states in Article One that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The Declaration’s preamble starts “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”

This treaty, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, could not be clearer that we recognise an inherent dignity within human beings and commit to ensuring that all human beings, regardless of gender, ethnicity or any other considerations are entitled to be treated with dignity.

What this means in practice is that Governments should not be indifferent to the suffering of others or enact legislation which has the effect of dehumanising or infantilising individuals. Josiah Ober argues that dignity is so important that it should be considered as the third core value of democracy, alongside liberty and equality. He says that to treat somebody in a dehumanising or infantilising way is to undermine their dignity, and thereby to undermine one of the pillars of democracy.

Homeless is on the increase

Aurel Kolnai says that “to respect ‘Human Dignity’ is a strict moral obligation”. Now if you are the type of person who is likely to buy a copy of The Big Issue, make donations to a food bank, or give money to people begging on the street, you may feel that you are showing respect to the people concerned. Whilst it is certainly true that you are not deliberately disrespecting them (as those who refuse to acknowledge their existence do), what you are showing is compassion not respect.

The phrase mutual respect is often used in the philosophical literature. Richard Sennett notes that there is something reciprocal in respect that makes it mutual. It suggests that in respecting others, we will be respected ourselves. Respect and being respected clearly matters. Our certainty of our place in the World is shown, in part, by the respect we receive and the fact that others want our respect.

This turns on how we think of respect. In broad terms, we can describe respect as taking another seriously. In the terms of Immanuel Kant, we recognise them as ends in their own right and not just means. When we give money to somebody begging on the street or donate to a food bank are we taking seriously the recipients? Are we treating them as moral equals?

Just to be clear here I am not arguing that it is wrong to give money to people or donate food or indeed to be more pro-active in charity work. In a situation where 4,000 people tonight have nowhere to sleep but the streets, giving them a couple of quid to buy a hot drink or something to eat is the least those of us more fortunate can do. My argument is that it has little to do with respect.

Part of the problem is that the redistribution of our wealth to them is random. Most of us have a limited budget on which to decide whether we can afford to give money or food or not. This means that the money is entirely in our gift. It is an impulsive act of kindness which benefits some random individual at the expense of others who may be poorer or hungrier.

Those who give to charity would no doubt, if they could, solve the problems that cause poverty, hunger and homelessness. Random acts of kindness, whilst better than indifference, do not solve the complex social problems, although they may alleviate some of the symptoms.

By giving charity we are not creating a situation where people’s dignity is maintained. We are not engaging in an act of mutual respect. We are reacting compassionately to the suffering of another, but that other is not our equal in any sense of the word. To be reduced to a state of beggary is to be stripped of your personhood, of your dignity, of your ability to give respect and to be respected.

In a situation of growing poverty and its associated misery it is right that we are prepared to redistribute wealth and one way of achieving this is by those of us who can putting our hands in our pockets from time to time. But, unfortunately this does very little to redistribute wealth from the richest to the poorest or to increase the opportunity for the poor to gain the respect of their fellow citizens. It does not allow for the poor to become fully functioning citizens in their own right. In this way, rather than creating autonomous individuals we foster, all be it unwittingly, a dependency culture and support growing wealth inequality.

In 2016, according to official statistics, the richest 10% of households in the UK held 45% of the nation’s wealth. The poorest 50% owned just 8.7% of the wealth. This is not just a British problem of course. In a report published by Oxfam just prior to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, it was estimated that the eight richest individuals in the World (all men incidentally) were worth a total of $426bn (£350bn), equivalent to the wealth of 3.6 billion people. Bill Gates, for example, has personal wealth of $87 billion. Meanwhile, people in dire poverty have to beg for the price of a cup of tea.

There is a strong moral case for alleviating individual poverty. There are stronger political reasons why we should care about structural poverty. Jewei Ci says that poverty has two obvious effects. First it affects the subsistence well-being of those denied biological needs for food, shelter etc. It is not the sign of a mature democracy to have citizens in such dire circumstances that they cannot take part in community life. But secondly, it also affects the psychological need for respect.

What he has in mind is what Stephen Darwall has called recognition respect. That is the recognition by our peers that we are a person with interests and a life worth living. It also affects the ability of people to take part in the reciprocal nature of mutual respect. Not because people in poverty are incapable of respecting others, but because their status is so low that they do not attract the respect of their fellow citizens.

It is easy to lose sight of the fact that many homeless, poor or hungry people have fallen through a safety net, whose holes seem to get bigger and bigger. They are not without status as a result of their own indolence, they are caught in a poverty trap which they are unable to escape.

These problems cannot be alleviated by the altruistic generosity of those who support charities. They are structural and require structural changes to society in order to put the opportunity to gain respect for every citizen before the interests of a tiny minority to accumulate ever more riches. At the very least at the national level it requires a government who rather than hiding behind meaningless rhetoric about ‘complex causes’ make it a political imperative to do something about inequality.

For those of us who are not members of government, nor ridiculously rich, our options are more limited. But there is a General Election taking place shortly in the UK. If we forget about some of the side issues (such as Brexit and whether the leader of the opposition is a ‘mugwump’) we should use whatever influence we can to raise the issue of poverty on to the political agenda. This means using social media to inform and question. It also means putting politicians on the spot when they go door knocking or appear in public.

In the meantime, we should continue to buy a couple of items extra in our weekly shop for the local food bank, we should give money to desperate people when we are able to and we should support the Big Issue sellers who are trying to escape poverty. But, in doing these things we should not lose sight of the fact that what those in poverty need is to be lifted from poverty, not simply have it alleviated.

Getting rid of poverty is not complex, though it might prove to be difficult. It is a question of having the political will to do so. When those candidates come knocking on your door, why not make your question “what will you do, if elected, to end the misery of poverty?”

References
Ci, Jewei (2013) 'Agency and other Stakes of Poverty' Journal of Political Philosophy, 21(2), 125-150
Crisis (2017) 'About homelessness'
Darwall, Stephen (1977) 'Two Types of Respect' Ethics, 88(1), 36-49
Equality Trust (2017) 'The Scale of Economic Inequality in the UK'
Kolnai, Aurel (1995) ‘Dignity’ in R S Dillon (editor) Dignity, Character and Self-respect (London: Routledge)
Ober, Joshia (2012) 'Democracy's Dignity' American Political Science Review, 106(4), 827-846
Office of National Statistics (2016) 'Persistent Poverty in the UK and EU: 2014'
Sennett, Richard (2003) Respect. The formation of character in an age of inequality (London: Allen Lane)    
Trussell Trust (2017) 'End of year stats'
United Nations (2017) 'Universal declaration of human-rights'