Mal Fletcher comments
Any political party that has been out of power for more than
13 years will naturally want to bring with it a big idea when it next
fills the government benches.
For David Cameron
and his Lib-Con marriage of inconvenience, that big idea is called the
Big Society.
In part, I suspect, the title represents an
attempt to contrast the new regime with the Big Government ways of its
predecessor. It is also, of course, a response to the urgent need for
cuts in spending on social services - in the hope that, at the same
time, at least some services might be maintained if not improved by
volunteers.
Whether or not the Big Project becomes
more than just a grand idea will depend largely on three
things.
The first is whether the government can
stay the course. In any enterprise or industry, it is always easier to
launch something then to maintain it. This is especially true in
government, where multiple, urgent crises and shifting public opinion
on major issues conspire to distract politicians from finishing what
they start.
The success of the Big Society project will
also rest on whether the government can think strategically beyond the
limits of its planned five year term.
"The politician
thinks of the next election," it's been said, "but the statesman
thinks of the next generation." Ideas that produce significant
cultural change require statesmanship, which seems sadly to be beyond
the reach of many of today's political classes.
The third and possibly most decisive factor for David
Cameron's big idea is whether politicians and voters alike can
recognize the limitations of politics when it comes to producing
change.
One of the reasons for the breakdown of
social fabric today is that citizens have stopped participating in
many of the activities that traditionally bonded a community together
and gave it a sense of identity.
Little more than a
generation ago, local sporting events, youth and children's clubs and,
for some, religious activities contributed to a feeling that we are
responsible for and to each other. They provided opportunities for
people to involve themselves in something larger than the family, yet
smaller and more accessible than the "society".
In most
places today, these activities play a much less prominent role in
local life. In their absence, we often find ourselves feeling
essentially powerless to address social problems. Except, that is, via
the ballot box, through political processes.
Politics,
once something that operated at the periphery of our lives, has now
moved much nearer to centre stage. In some ways, we've come to the
point where we and the politicians we elect actually believe that only
politics can reshape society for the good; that the only worthwhile
solutions are political ones.
Yet the very best
governments are those that don't try to do everything.
For an idea like the Big Society to work, politicians must play
the leadership role, continually articulating the vision for community
involvement. At the same time, they must provide the environment in
which this can flourish - which will in this case mean deliberately
and boldly reducing the role of the government machine.
When it comes to public services, government can facilitate, promote
and measure results, but it can't do all that needs to be done on the
ground.
In the end, two pressing areas of social need
will provide an important measure for the success of the Big Society
project.
It's been said that we can judge the health of a
society by how it treats its most vulnerable members, especially the
young and the very old.
In the past week, Mr Cameron has
shared his plans to involve the young in social change. His plan for a
national citizen service is designed to teach 16-year-old
school-leavers a sense of social responsibility.
Our
extensive generational research has shown that this generational
cohort are, generally speaking, much more civic-minded than their
Boomer or Generation X forebears. A national citizen programme might
connect well with the drive within the Millennial generation to marry
blue skies thinking with down-to-earth activism.
As yet, though, the government has made no specific
announcements on how it wants to improve care for the aged under the
Big Society umbrella.
With this in mind, a BBC
Panorama programme on Sunday looked at the plight of the elderly in
British society, as the first wave of baby boomers moves toward
retirement.
I can't help feeling that we might do
well to have a version of the national citizenship service tailored
for the elderly.
Perhaps we need to stop thinking of the
elderly merely as recipients of care and start seeing them as powerful
potential contributors to a stronger community fabric.
Whether they live at home or in residential care, most old
people I've met hate the idea of being a burden on society. Throughout
their lives they've made a huge investment into their communities and
into society as a whole, by raising responsible children, working in
productive jobs, saving for financial independence, supporting
community projects and paying their taxes.
Despite the
limitations placed on them by diminished physical stamina - and, in
some cases, mental sharpness - they still long to be recognised for
their experience and respected for what they can contribute in the
present, for the future.
My elderly mother lives in
Australia, which faces some of the same challenges with elderly care
as we do in the UK. She suffers a mild form of Alzheimer's and after
the death of my father, we were able to place her in an excellent care
facility set in rolling countryside outside of Melbourne.
The move has helped to bring her a whole new lease on life, for
several reasons. Firstly, the facility doesn't feel like an
institution. The staff work hard to promote a homely environment for
their guests. They succeed in part because of the work of committed,
young locals who volunteer for specific roles in providing hands-on
care.
Here in the UK, groups like the Community Service
Volunteers organisation, use volunteers in the same way - to provide
companionship and practical support for the elderly. Volunteers are
trained and then released to organise walks, health education
programmes, home visits and "dinner partnerships" for folks living
within care facilities.
Volunteers also play an important
role in helping the elderly on visits to hospitals. According to CSV,
where volunteers are involved with the direct support of elderly
patients in hospitals, prescriptions drop by 30% and hospital
appointments by 36%.
On a national scale, it says, taking
up this practice could save the government £3 billion per year.
The third reason my mother is thriving in her new environment
is, I think, the most important. The facility and the community of
which it is a part provide active opportunities for elderly people to
invest their skills for the wider good.
My mother has
always been particularly gifted in and passionate about working with
children. So the opportunity to coach remedial students in reading at
local primary schools was something she grabbed with both hands.
Were the UK government to launch a national citizenship
service for the elderly, perhaps through coordinating the efforts of
CSV-like organizations, the benefits would be enormous for the young
as well as the old.
Young volunteers who work
with people like my mother learn a sense of responsibility to others,
plus a sense of their own value and skills. They also get a sense of
what it takes to run the long race in life.
In an age of
rapid and often random change - not least to the family - children and
young people need voices of experience, people who can help them
develop perspective and a sense of their place in history.
Helping young people to see the longer view and their responsibility
to shape the future might have a potent impact on our problem with
teenage binge-drinking and the party culture.
Allowing young people to bolster their self-esteem by
adopting and caring for a granny might help reduce our booming teen
pregnancy rate - still one of the highest in Europe.
The passing on of life's wisdom is just one part of the unique
contribution the elderly can make. They should not be seen merely as
recipients of care, but as providers of unique services too.
The Big Society must reach out first to society's most vulnerable.
In the end, we cannot have a Big Society without adopting a big heart.