Aftermath and beyond

In the aftermath of elections across the UK, but particularly in Scotland and Wales, I am again seeing the term ‘untenable’ being applied to the assumption by the ruling elites of England-as-Britain that it is inherently and unquestionably superior to the annexed territories which form its periphery.

Untenable means incapable of being defended or justified. But the ruling elites of England-as-Britain are not required to defend or justify their position of superiority. That is the nature of established (or conventional) power. Established power becomes established power by becoming the standard against which others are compared. It becomes established by inculcating in relevant populations the idea that it is the default – the ‘natural order’. It is those who would challenge established power who must do all the work.

Established power just is. Established power just does. Established power prevails, and as it prevails, it defines the space in which countervailing power must operate. Thus, it defines or very strongly influences the nature and form of countervailing power. Countervailing power is and does what it must given the constraints imposed by prevailing power.

Where the constraints of established power are stringent, we call it totalitarian. Totalitarian regimes seek to eliminate countervailing power altogether. They seek to enclose and confine countervailing power, leaving no way for it to function other than by violence.

Democracy has developed as a system in which established power seeks to manage rather than eliminate countervailing power. Democracy reduces the risk of insurgence by affording countervailing power alternative means of expressing itself, such as permitted demonstrations and the ballot box. So long as these alternatives to violent revolution are or are perceived to be valid and effective, countervailing power’s challenge is contained. If the totalitarian regime is a penitentiary, democracy is an open prison.

In the strict meaning of the term, England-as-Britain’s power relationship with Scotland and Wales (and Northern Ireland) is not untenable because there is no question of established power being required to defend or justify its status. It is countervailing power which must defend and justify itself. And it must do so in terms determined by established power. Countervailing power can only be perceived as legitimate to the extent that it resembles prevailing power. Success for the countervailing power is defined by it becoming established power.

This is, of necessity, a simplified—not to say simplistic—description of what is a massively complex and dynamic process. The advantage of such an explanation of power in operation is that it points us in the direction of how we must shape countervailing power if we aspire to its being transformative rather than substitutive. For example, countervailing power might use one of the ‘safety valves’ provided by democratic regimes or elements of the socio-economic system by which established power is maintained in ways not intended by the regime. Elections may be contrived to serve as plebiscites. Economic activity might be turned into direct action by large-scale boycotts. Countervailing power must be imaginative. Leave dogmatism to prevailing power. Political parties need not conform to expectations.

Politics is the management of power relationships. We are all politicians. We are all ‘doing politics’ from our time in our mother’s womb to the day the collection of organisms we call ‘us’ ceases to be viable as a vessel for the phenomenon of life. All of living involves unceasing negotiation with all the collections of organisms we think of as ‘them’. The dynamic of prevailing and countervailing power exists everywhere. We are all caught up in that dynamic whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not. There is no way of opting out of politics other than by being not alive.

Only by developing a moderately sophisticated understanding of how power works can any political movement be effective as a countervailing power. I desperately want Scotland’s independence movement to be an effective countervailing power. It most emphatically is not presently an effective countervailing power. It lacks an understanding of power. It has lost the knowledge of how to combine so as to turn strength into power. It is not nearly imaginative enough in devising ways to use its strength as power.

The election just passed forcefully confirms my point. There was a great deal of work going on within the independence movement throughout the election campaign. But it has had little or no effect. The most remarkable thing about the new parliament is how unremarkable it is. Much is being made of the fact that the parliament has the biggest pro-independence majority ever. But can that larger majority be any more effective than previous smaller majorities? How can it be? A majority is a majority. For almost all purposes, a larger majority is no more effective than the smallest. Where matters are decided by a simple majority, they are decided by a single vote. All the subsequent votes have no effect at all.

Scotland’s cause made no progress as a result of this election, nor shall it. What will determine whether there is any progress in the future is not the politicians but the movement. Either the independence movement shapes itself as a force that can make things happen, or nothing happens.