Bringing future thinking back into democracy
Long-term thinking may be essential to help revive democracy
Before and after the government’s Budget there is always a depressing focus on “winners and losers” – short term gains or losses. Selective takes on what the important issues are, and how to address them. Edge tinkering framed as bold choices.
Of course, the Budget isn’t where policy is set, but it is a clear statement of priorities (or lack thereof), and illustrates the absence of real futures thinking.
An article earlier this year by Jonathan White, a politics Professor at the London School of Economics, discusses reasons why many governments retreat from thinking about the future in anything but managerial ways, and how this weakens democracies. Signs of this weakening include demonization of adversaries, intolerance of political disagreements, and unreasoned disputes about election results.
His diagnosis is that politics has given way to policies. (Hat tip to Andrew Curry for once again highlighting important sources).
White emphasises that it’s common now for the future to be addressed only in terms of reactive policies. Goals, such as emissions targets, GDP, debt reduction, etc, are preferred rather than big ideas. Managerial rhetoric rather than inspiring oratory. Pragmatism and necessity are the stated drivers, rather than a clear political vision of a better future, and how to move toward it.
“In their rhetoric and actions, politicians are said to be shifting toward piecemeal forms of problem solving and efforts to preserve a receding status quo.”
Politically and societally, it seems the future is increasingly seen as something to be fearful of. Policies are often about seeming to avoid the worst, while actually ignoring the harder choices.
What’s lacking, in White’s view, is a renewed form of future-oriented politics. He notes that over the previous two centuries, political parties and governments often defined themselves by future-oriented programs of reform. They offered guiding ideals and principles about creating a better future, rather than just addressing current threats. (Though of course, there were other leaders and parties who used oppression, terror, and extermination as methods to change societies too).
“Focusing on gauging the most likely outcomes and gravest risks tends to mean stepping away from a more questioning and encompassing outlook addressed to what is desirable in the round and how to pursue it systematically.”
The increased prominence of autocracies emphasises a political environment that is backward looking in the face of greater volatility and uncertainties – a return to the past. White notes that talk about a “glorious past” and a return to it is cheap. It relies largely on rhetoric, whereas a future-focus requires the imagining of alternatives, consensus building, considerably more resources, and a strategy. A failure for governments, and society, to consider alternate, more hopeful, futures increases the risk of democratic decline.
White provides three benefits from a future-oriented politics approach. Curry discusses these, and suggests a fourth:
Critical perspective – where a deliberate separation between the present and the future opens the possibility that change is possible and stimulates consideration and exploration of alternative futures.
Collective agency – creating a shared “we”, instead of a “them vs us”.
Commitment – having a shared future vision helps tolerate and navigate the difficult times that inevitably comes from systemic changes, as well as improving support for democratic processes and institutions.
Cohesion – Curry suggests a future-focused politics also contributes cohesion. This could be exhibited through cohesive policies and strategies, as well as stronger social cohesion due to a shared direction and tolerance for changes.
White then considers three types of skepticism that can prevent adoption of future-oriented politics:
Strategic skepticism – while accepting that the idea is attractive, it distracts from addressing more immediate concerns and challenges. It can also be viewed as reducing participatory democracy if only an elite get to craft the vision of the future.
Institutional skepticism – this sees the short election cycles as barriers to long-term thinking. Politicians focus on winning the next election by promising tangible short-term benefits – such as tax cuts – because they think those are what attracts the votes. In some cases, they are right, but there is widespread public support for more meaningful climate change actions.
Historical skepticism – views visionary politics as now obsolete. The focus is on the present and past because the future no longer inspires. Previous grand ambitions and promises haven’t worked out. “Been there, done that, didn’t even get a t-shirt.”
These skepticisms can lead to circular thinking – since there aren’t many future-oriented projects, they must therefore be unpopular or implausible.
However, as White notes, the economic, social, and environmental volatility and uncertainty we currently experiencing is creating “renewed social awareness of the open future.”
“Crises are a reminder that existing structures are not set in stone and that one can expect moments when the presence or absence of alternative visions will matter.”
A local example is Porirua City Council’s and Ngāti Toa’s recent citizens’ assembly to develop a plan to prepare for climate change. This feeds into the Council’s Long-Term Plan. Such public engagements in futures thinking are a start. But they need to avoid becoming one-off exercises that feed into planning projects. In Christchurch, the Ōtautahi Futures Collective is fostering on-going futures thinking.