Download As PDF

UK political parties developed to compete for control of central government. They offer national programmes, seek national majorities and promise to apply broadly similar policies throughout the country. This made sense during an expanding industrial economy. A growing state could collect more revenue, build national systems and distribute resources from the centre.

A shrinking economy will change this. As energy, materials and financial resources become less affordable, central government will find it increasingly difficult to fulfil national promises. Political parties may continue to argue about how the economy should be managed, but none will be able to restore the conditions on which their traditional programmes were based.

The important political question may therefore cease to be: “Which party should govern the country?” It may become: “How should each locality organise itself with the resources available to it?”

From national ideologies to local choices

National political parties divide society into large ideological camps. Socialists, conservatives, liberals, nationalists and greens each offer a different theory of how the whole country should be governed.

Localism does not require every locality to follow the same theory.

A locality may base its modus operandi on whatever its inhabitants consider suitable. One locality might favour co–operative ownership of land, workshops and essential services. Another might depend mainly upon family businesses, privately owned farms and voluntary associations. A third might organise much of its economy through extended family ownership, most would probably develop a mixture of all three.

This variety would not be a defect. It would be one of localism’s greatest strengths.

Localities differ in their geography, history, culture, skills and natural resources. A fertile agricultural locality should not be organised in the same way as a former industrial town, a fishing community or a densely populated city district. National uniformity can disregard these differences. Localism begins with them.

Politics would become practical

National politics is largely concerned with abstract questions. Should taxation rise or fall? Should an industry be privately or publicly owned? Should economic growth be encouraged by borrowing, investment or deregulation?

Local politics would be more immediate.

How much land is available for food production? Who owns it? How will elderly people be cared for? Can houses be repaired with local materials? Is there enough water? Which roads and buildings can still be maintained? Can waste become a useful resource? What skills must be taught to the young?

These questions do not always divide naturally along party lines. A Conservative gardener, a socialist engineer, a liberal shopkeeper and a green smallholder might agree completely about the need for a local bakery, a repair workshop or a reliable water supply.

Political allegiance would become less important than knowledge, competence and trust.

The possible decline of political parties

Political parties might not disappear, but their influence could diminish. They might remain important at the national level, where decisions would still be required about defence, currency, taxation, national transport, telecommunications and specialist medicine.

Within localities, however, national party labels might become increasingly unhelpful. Candidates could instead stand as individuals or as members of temporary local groups formed around particular needs.

There might be a food and land group, a water association, a housing co-operative, a traders’ council and a care organisation. These would not necessarily try to control the whole locality. They would contribute knowledge and undertake particular responsibilities.

Representation might grow out of useful activity. The person who successfully organises a community orchard, maintains a workshop or establishes a care network would possess practical authority. This would be different from the career politician whose main abilities are winning elections, following party discipline and appearing in the media.

UK-wide political parties might gradually become looser associations. Their role could be to express broad principles rather than impose detailed national programmes. Local members would be free to adapt those principles to local circumstances.

Different localities, different arrangements

A locality should be able to choose its own form of organisation within a simple national framework of law and fundamental rights.

Some localities might elect conventional councils. Others could make greater use of public meetings, citizens’ assemblies or occupational representation. Farmers, carers, craftspeople, teachers, traders and young people might each contribute to decisions affecting the locality.

One locality might provide communal allotments and shared machinery. Another might lease smallholdings to individual families. One might operate a local currency or system of credits. Another might rely upon sterling, barter and informal exchange. One might own its energy and water systems collectively. Another might contract these services to local enterprises.

Even neighbouring localities might adopt very different methods.

This would allow ideas to be tested on a manageable scale. If an arrangement worked well, other places could copy it. If it failed, the failure would be contained. National government would no longer have to impose a single experiment upon millions of people.

Freedom needs limits

Local autonomy could also have dangers. A powerful family, landowner, employer or faction might dominate a small community. Local majorities might treat minorities unfairly. Personal disputes could become political disputes.

Localism must therefore be accompanied by safeguards. National law could still protect fundamental rights, ensure access to justice and prevent exploitation. Higher authorities might intervene where a locality became corrupt, oppressive or incapable of meeting basic obligations.

There would always be tension between local freedom and national protection. It could never be removed entirely. The object would be to keep decisions at the lowest level capable of making them, while retaining enough national authority to protect people from abuse.

Localism is not the abolition of the state. It is a change in the division of responsibility.

Politics without a single destination

Modern political parties present history as a journey towards their preferred destination. For some, the destination is greater equality. For others, it is a freer market, faster growth, national strength or environmental sustainability.

Localism need not offer one final destination. It accepts that society will develop differently in different places. It is evolutionary rather than doctrinal.

People will adopt arrangements because circumstances make them useful. A co-operative may emerge because no private business can afford the necessary equipment. A privately owned workshop may prosper because one person has the skill and determination to run it. Shared grazing may return because individual holdings are too small. Informal care networks may grow because national services can no longer provide everything.

The resulting economy will not be purely socialist, capitalist or conservative. It will be shaped by necessity, custom and experience.

A different kind of political debate

National political debate asks which ideology is correct. Localist debate would ask what works here.

That small word, “here”, changes politics profoundly.

It replaces general promises with visible consequences. Decision-makers live among the people affected by their decisions. Resources cannot be treated as figures in a national account. They are particular fields, woods, buildings, streams, workshops and human abilities.

Failures become harder to conceal. Success becomes easier to recognise. People may still disagree strongly, but their arguments will concern circumstances they understand and results they can observe.

The future of politics may therefore lie less in the triumph of one political party than in the gradual weakening of party thinking itself. National parties will survive where national decisions remain necessary. Below that level, political life may become more varied, practical and personal.

A locality will not have to wait for the correct national ideology. It will be free to develop its own modus operandi, drawing upon whatever combination of private enterprise, common ownership, voluntary effort, custom and public authority best meets its needs.

In a shrinking economy, this freedom to differ may be essential. The future will not be planned successfully from one centre. It will be discovered, locality by locality.