Unless action is taken, thereis every chance that a newpolitical era will be markedby neo-liberalism winningthrough, again, by default.

On the right, thinkers are already stakingout their territory. For example, in his Rise ofthe Red Tories, Phillip Blond argues that thetime is ripe for a new Conservatism basedon a repudiation of both social and eco-nomic liberalism (Blond 2009). On the eco-nomic side, Blond advocates greater eco-nomic localism, the regulation of markets toprotect small businesses and the wider dis-tribution of wealth. On the social side, itadvocates breaking with ‘liberalism’ whichhas allegedly ‘destroyed both middle andworking class morality’, with the supposed‘lazy moral relativism of the liberal profes-sional elite’ (Blond 2009: 33). This is oneway of breaking with neo-liberalism. Arethere others?

On 20 January 2009, Barack Obama wassworn in as the new President of the UnitedStates. In his Inaugural Address, Obamainvoked an old political philosophy as aguide for our new times (Obama 2009).Consider the very first words of his speechwhere he chooses to address his audience as‘My fellow citizens’, rather than, say, ‘Myfellow Americans’. It is an immediatereminder that the Inauguration is an eventin the life of a republic, where individualmembers of the state are not just individualswith a particular national identity, but par-

ticipants in a particular kind of politicalproject, with all the rights and responsibili-ties – the moral import – that this implies.In an insightful article, Karma Nabulsi hasalready indicated how Barack Obama cam-paigned as a republican (Nabulsi 2008). Inthis Address, Obama indicated how heintended to recover democratic republican-ism as a governing, as well as a campaign-ing, philosophy.

So what is this political project, this proj-ect of ‘the republic’? In our new book,Building a Citizen Society: The emerging politics ofrepublican democracy, Daniel Leighton and Ihave drawn together a distinguished groupof contributors to discuss republican democracyas a public philosophy for contemporaryprogressives (White and Leighton, eds.2008). We believe that it offers a much bet-ter theory of progressive ends and meansthan ‘Labourist’ post-war social democracy.In addition, it offers a compelling alterna-tive to the various new conservatisms wenow see emerging.

What�is�republicandemocracy?An obvious first question is: what do wemean by ‘republican democracy’?

In ordinary political language ‘republi-canism’ often refers to nothing more thanopposition to monarchy and commitmentto an elected head of state. Republicandemocracy, as we use the term, certainly

public�policy�research�–�March-May�200914

© 2

009

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

009

ippr

After�neo-liberalismRepublican�democracy�in�new�times

The�financial�crisis�and�resulting�recession�could�markthe�end�of�a�political�era�defined�by�the�dominance�of‘neo-liberal’�ideas.�Stuart�White asks:�what�will�the�newera�look�like?�And�what�will�be�its�agenda?

embraces this common-sensical notion ofrepublicanism. But there is much more torepublican democracy than mere opposi-tion to monarchy, and getting rid of themonarchy is not necessarily the most press-ing issue for contemporary republicandemocrats.

Let us go back to Barak Obama’sInaugural Address.

1. Popular sovereignty. Obama reminds his fel-low citizens that: ‘...America has carried onnot simply because of the skill or vision ofthose in high office, but because we the peo-ple have remained faithful to the ideals ofour forbearers, and true to our foundingdocuments.’ That phrase ‘we the people’ isa vitally important one. It expresses themodern, democratic republican insight thatlegitimate authority is based on popularsovereignty. The ultimate law-makers, theultimate bearers of responsibility for thelaws and welfare of the society, are not polit-ical leaders, but the people themselves. Inthe British constitutional context, it is oftensaid that Parliament is sovereign.Republican democrats disagree: the peopleare, rightfully, sovereign.

2. Common good. Obama states that: ‘Thetime has come to reaffirm our enduringspirit...that noble idea, passed on from gen-eration to generation: the God-given prom-ise that all are equal, all are free, and alldeserve a chance to pursue their full meas-ure of happiness.’ Interests in life, security,liberty and economic opportunity areshared and basic to all citizens, and thedemos must use its power, if it wishes to doso legitimately, to enact laws which servethese interests, treating the interests of anyone citizen as equally weighty to those ofany other. This is a modern, democraticway of understanding the idea that the statemust be oriented to the common good ofthe citizenry, rather than to some sectionalor sectarian good.

3. Liberty. As Obama’s words suggest, citi-zens’ shared interest in liberty is central totheir common good. According to contem-

porary republican philosophers, such asPhilip Pettit and Quentin Skinner, liberty isequivalent, in Pettit’s phrase, to ‘non-domi-nation’ (Pettit 1997, Skinner 1998). In his Onthe Origins of Inequality, Jean-JacquesRousseau says that ‘the worst thing that canhappen to one in the relations betweenman and man is to find oneself at themercy of another’ (Rousseau 1984 [1755]:125). Liberty, understood as ‘non-domina-tion’, is the state in which one does not live‘at the mercy of another’. To secure liberty,therefore, citizens must deny the state arbi-trary power. At the same time, they mustuse their sovereign power to make laws andinstitutions that prevent domination insociety at large, such as in the workplaceand the family.

4. Economic equality. According to Obama:‘...a nation cannot prosper long when itfavours only the prosperous. The success ofour economy has always depended not juston the size of our gross domestic product,but on the reach of our prosperity; on ourability to extend opportunity to every will-ing heart – not out of charity, but because itis the surest route to our common good.’Here Obama expresses the republicaninsight that pursuit of the common gooddemands limits to economic inequality. AsRousseau put it, ‘ the social state is advanta-geous to men only if all have a certainamount, and none too much’ (Rousseau1994: 62, note 1).

In part, this follows from the commit-ment to liberty: the dependence of the pooron the rich gives the rich power to interfere,according to their own will, in the lives ofthe poor. So the republican commitment toliberty implies a commitment at least tolimit economic inequality to the extent nec-essary to prevent domination.

In addition to this, as Obama suggests,economic opportunity is an important ele-ment of the common good in its own right.If a society works in a way that producesgreat inequalities of income and wealth,then there must be a question as to how farit is promoting economic opportunity as acommon good. ©

200

9 T

he A

utho

r. J

ourn

al c

ompi

latio

n ©

200

9 ip

pr

public�policy�research�–�March-May�2009 15

5. Participation and civic virtue. Republicanismemphasises the importance of active andresponsible citizenship. To be a citizen is notsimply to enjoy a legal status. It is to have adefinite moral personality. It is to have anunderstanding of the society’s commongood, and a willingness to act to promotethis. Without such commitment, then, asRousseau argued, the republic is corrupted,a prey to elite interests. This idea permeatesObama’s whole Address and it is statedvery clearly when he says: ‘What is requiredof us now is a new era of responsibility – arecognition, on the part of every American,that we have duties to ourselves, our nation,and the world, duties that we do not grudg-ingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm inthe knowledge that there is nothing so satis-fying to the spirit, so defining of our charac-ter, than giving our all to a difficult task.’

These, then, are the core ideas of republi-can democracy. But this is, perhaps, ratherabstract. So let us now draw out some moreconcrete implications and explain how theperspective of republican democracy con-trasts with ‘Labourist’ post-war socialdemocracy on the one hand and projectslike ‘Red Toryism’ on the other.

Differences�withLabourism1. Ownership for all. Post-war social democ-racy in Britain tended, at least in practice, todownplay issues around ownership ofwealth (as opposed to income). It rejectedthe traditional socialist commitment to takeall major industries into public ownership,but did not put much in its place.Republican democracy calls for renewedattention to ownership questions, alongsidemore traditional social democratic concernsfor income transfers and public services.

It is worth emphasising just how neglect-ed the issue of wealth ownership remains incontemporary political debate. Consider, forexample, the recent Government WhitePaper, New Opportunities: Fair Chances for theFuture, which sets out the Government’s

thinking on how to take forward its agendaon fighting social injustice (HMGovernment 2009). While there are manygood ideas in the White Paper, it has rela-tively little to say about policy towards thedistribution of wealth, despite this beingsomething that seems rather central to theachievement of ‘fair chances’.

Consider, secondly, the report of the NareyCommission on Social Mobility, an inde-pendent commission which reported recentlyto the Liberal Democrats (IndependentCommission on Social Mobility 2009). In thiscase, while there are again a number of inter-esting proposals, there is no consideration atall of how to tackle growing wealth inequalityor asset poverty.

Finally, consider the forthcoming book,Options for a New Britain, produced under theguidance of a research team at OxfordUniversity with financing from theEconomic and Social Research Council(Uberoi et al, eds. 2009). The book containslots of interesting ideas; but, yet again, verylittle if any consideration of how to tacklewealth inequality and asset poverty.

For republican democracy, by contrast,the distribution and control of wealth mustbe a central issue in politics.

For one thing, a much wider dispersionof wealth is essential to achieving liberty(for all). Without property of their own,individuals become reliant on others –employers, spouses, family – for vitalresources. But someone with property hascrucial bargaining power. They need notscramble desperately into this or that job,because they can, for a limited time at least,live off their property.

Widening asset ownership is also crucialto the interest in economic opportunitywhich is a part of the common good. Quitesimply, wealth confers economic opportuni-ty, for example, to set up a business, tomove, undertake new training or simply totake time out from the labour market sothat one can maintain one’s vitality.

For these reasons – to secure liberty andto make economic opportunity a genuinelycommon good – republican democracylooks favourably on proposals to univer-

public�policy�research�–�March-May�200916

© 2

009

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

009

ippr

salise capital ownership or to create near-equivalents like a scheme of unconditionalbasic income (Prabhakar 2008, Casassasand Birnbaum 2008). A representative poli-cy idea here is the proposal for a citizens’inheritance scheme. Under such a scheme, eachcitizen receives on maturity a capital grantwhich he or she is free to use as he or shewould like. The grant could be financed, inpart, by a tax on the transmission of wealthbetween generations (Paine 1987, Ackermanand Alstott 1999, Paxton and White withMaxwell 2006). The Government’s ChildTrust Fund policy has helpfully establishedthe basic principle of a citizens’ inheritance.1

Republican democracy calls for furtherdevelopment of policies expressing thisprinciple (Prabhakar 2008).

Further, and distinctly radical, implica-tions for the distribution and control ofwealth emerge when we think about howprivate ownership of capital interacts withthe commitment to popular sovereignty.While democracy and capitalism are partlycomplementary, they are in part at oddsbecause the private control of investmentflows by a (usually) small elite places defi-nite limits on what a democratically-electedgovernment can feasibly do: if it goes ‘toofar’ in a reformist direction, there will be acapital strike, and reforms will have to beabandoned to revive the economy.

To overcome this tension between capi-talism and democracy, republican democra-cy will want to consider ways of bringinginvestment decisions themselves under

greater democratic control and accountabil-ity (Cohen 1989). This does not mean givingcontrol over investment to central govern-ment. Rather, it means democratising theway in which investment funds are con-trolled from within society. In part, this is amatter of taking action to bring the controlof wealth that is already popularly owned,such as that in pension funds, back to thosewho formally own the wealth.

Another, complementary, possibility is tocreate new public capital funds, possibly forpension purposes, which are under the con-trol of trades unions and citizen groups(Blackburn 2008/9, forthcoming). As RobinBlackburn has suggested, these might beestablished by means of a capital levy onfirms, requiring them to issue a certainamount of new shares each year to a fund ofthis kind. The idea of establishing socialcapital funds in this way is one that theeconomist James Meade long advocatedand which former Liberal Democrat leaderPaddy Ashdown endorsed in his excellentbook Citizens’ Britain (Ashdown 1989). Tothis basic idea, Blackburn adds an insistenceon direct popular control of the socialfunds.

Ordinarily, such radical change would bevery difficult. But in the present economiccontext, radical change has become thenorm. The left needs to approach the crisisnot simply in a crisis management mode, asimportant as this obviously is, but with along-term strategic perspective. The leftneeds a vision of the kind of alternative cap-italism it wishes to see in the long run, andto think about how crisis-managementmeasures can assist movement towards thislong-term alternative – towards a system ofgreater popular control over investmentalong the lines sketched by such asBlackburn.

2. Participatory democracy. The vision of anactive civil society managing some portionof the community’s assets brings us to a sec-ond important point of difference between

© 2

009

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

009

ippr

public�policy�research�–�March-May�2009 17

1 Each child receives a grant from the Government at birth which is held in trust to accumulate as he or she grows up, withadditional Government payments at age 7 and a facility for parental contributions.

The�left�needs�to�approachthe�crisis�not�simply�in�acrisis�management�mode,�asimportant�as�this�obviously�is,but�with�a�long-term�strategicperspective

republican democracy and mainstreampost-war social democracy. This concernsthe nature of citizenship.

For the most part, post-war social democ-racy accepted – even encouraged – a rela-tively passive notion of citizenship.Politically, active citizenship meant voting,at least some times, in Parliamentary andlocal elections. To demand ‘participation’beyond this was, on the view of socialdemocrats such as Tony Crosland, certainlyunreasonable (because people have theirown lives to lead, their own gardens totend) and possibly even dangerous (becauseordinary people lack relevant kinds ofexpertise and, as Douglas Jay put it, ‘theman in Whitehall knows best’).

One of the major contributions of theNew Lefts in British politics (as elsewhere)was to challenge this conception of democ-racy in favour of a more active and partici-patory ideal. Republican democracy seeksto recover and develop this aspect of theNew Lefts.

There are a number of reasons whysocial democracy is likely to fare badly onthe basis of a passive citizenship. First, par-ticipation in collective decision-making canhave important educative effects in terms ofnurturing citizens’ skills and sensibilities.Here, social democrats might have some-thing to learn from an unlikely source:Alexis de Tocqueville. In Democracy inAmerica, Tocqueville argued that ‘theAmericans’ of the 1820s had rescued them-selves from ‘individualism’ – the immersionof individuals and families in their ownaffairs to the neglect of a concern for thewider society – by devolving governmentalpower down to localities (Tocqueville 2003[1835]). This, he argued, pushed people outof the narrow circle of their private con-cerns, increased their sense of interdepend-ence, and their sensitivity to the interests ofothers. In short: participation in collectivedecision-making, he argued, helped to nur-ture a sense of civic membership and con-cern for the common good. EchoingTocqueville, contemporary theorists ofsocial capital, such as Robert Putnam, arguefor a revival of local government institutions

to boost political participation and activecitizenship (Putnam 2000).

This argument can apply not only tolocal government in the traditional sense,but to a range of contemporary, ongoing‘democratic innovations’ that have recentlybegun to shape policy discussion and socialcriticism (Smith, forthcoming). At one endof the scale we have familiar (but arguablystill underutilised) proposals for citizens’juries and related deliberative forums.There are various proposals for ‘co-produc-tion’ in the public services, in which serviceusers combine with providers to help designservices (Needham 2008). There are pro-posals for forms of ‘empowered participato-ry governance’ in which local, deliberative-ly democratic units hold real decision-mak-ing power, for example, in the allocation oflocal budgets (Fung 2003, Fung and Wright2008, Fung and Wright, eds 2003).

Participation matters also because of itspower effects. As the level of popular partici-pation in political life changes so, too, canthe balance of power in society. Statedcrudely, ‘people power’ can emerge as acounter-weight to the power of money.Particularly interesting here, for republicandemocrats, are the new citizen-organisingmovements, like London Citizens, whichseek to bring church groups, unions andother organisations together to campaignfor policies like Living Wages and bettertreatment of asylum seekers (Howarth andJamoul 2008).

One might also think here of the grass-roots and community-based organisationsbehind Barack Obama’s successful campaignfor the US Presidency. It would be a mistaketo see their significance as lying only, or evenprimarily, in their role in getting Obamaelected. At least as important is the buildingof such an active citizens’ movement in itself,as something that can continue to shape theenvironment in which elected politicians suchas Obama work (Younge 2009). Without thesupport and constraints created by popularmovements such as this, progressive politi-cians are vulnerable in the face of the pres-sures and constraints imposed by other, prop-ertied social forces.

public�policy�research�–�March-May�200918

© 2

009

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

009

ippr

Differences�with�‘RedToryism’In developing the contrast between republi-can democracy and post-war social democ-racy, some readers might see an emergingcommonality between republican democra-cy and that strange, new-fangled beast onthe contemporary ideological landscape:‘Red Toryism’. Both seem to express a cer-tain suspicion of the central state. Both cele-brate an active civil society. Both have acommitment to spread asset ownershipmore widely.

To the extent that there is overlap: welland good. However, before we concludethat the two perspectives are in some wayconvergent, it is important to acknowledgesome fundamental differences.

First, while republican democrats are sus-picious of the central state, they neverthelesssee it as having a crucial role in realising thecommon good. The point is not to eschewthe state as such, but to limit its power to actarbitrarily and to restructure it so that it ismore open to popular participation. At thesame time, the state – including the central state– must be used to combat economicinequality and, thereby, to protect individ-ual liberty, make economic opportunity agenuinely common good, and secure effec-tive popular sovereignty.

Second, republican democrats certainlydo celebrate ‘civil society’. But it is not cele-brated simply as an apolitical realm of natu-ral freedom in contrast to that of the state.Civil society – Edmund Burke’s ‘little pla-toons’ – can have its own parochialism, andit is important to have public forums andencompassing social movements that drawpeople into engagement with society’swider, common good.

Third, republican democrats certainlyseek a wider distribution of wealth. But incontrast to ‘Red Toryism’, they have plen-ty of genuinely radical ideas about how topromote this: the aforementioned citizens’inheritance proposal under which all citi-zens receive a capital sum at birth or onmaturity financed from inheritance tax;compulsory capital-growth sharingschemes under which firms are required

to set aside a proportion of their profits inthe form of new shares to be held byworkers’ trusts; or popularly-controlledsocial funds, as discussed above, whichcould provide dividend payments for allcitizens.

A deeper, underlying difference with‘Red Toryism’ is that republican democracydoes not set itself up in opposition to some-thing called ‘liberalism’. Liberalism has con-tributed enormously to our understandingof what liberty and equality, so central tothe common good of the republic, require.Republican democracy comes to realise lib-eralism, not to bury it. Religious commit-ments will of course motivate many to par-ticipate in politics (as they do, for example,in organisations such as London Citizens).But the core values of the public sphere ofpopular sovereignty, liberty, equality andcivic responsibility – the core values towhich Barack Obama appealed in hisInauguration speech – are independent ofspecific faith traditions; and it is in terms ofa shared commitment to these political val-ues that a sense of common citizenship isproperly built.

ConclusionPost-war social democracy found itself fac-ing a deep social crisis in Britain (as else-where) in the 1970s and it was confrontedwith a self-confident alternative in theform of the various theories of the NewRight. Neo-liberalism subsequently dis-placed post-war social democracy as thedominant social vision. If neo-liberalism isnow itself facing a serious social crisis, inthe form of severe economic recession and(let us never forget) tightening environ-mental constraints, then the alternativemay lie in what we have termed republi-can democracy.

A critic might argue that this is to missthe spirit and needs of the time. The time isone of economic crisis. Who cares aboutsomething called ‘republicanism’ when jobsand incomes are at stake? What we need –all we need – is simply a big heave of cor-rective, central state power. ©

200

9 T

he A

utho

r. J

ourn

al c

ompi

latio

n ©

200

9 ip

pr

public�policy�research�–�March-May�2009 19

This criticism ignores the fact thatrepublican democracy is not a narrowpolitical theory, but also a social and eco-nomic one. As we saw above, in discussingthe idea of popularly-controlled social cap-ital funds, republican democracy providesconcrete ideas as to how we might recon-struct our economy to prevent the kind ofproblems we have experienced in the pastfew years. Moreover, it presents a picture ofan alternative which goes beyond simplyreasserting the merits of the state againstthe market.

Republican democracy envisages anactive state acting to disperse property anddecision-making power throughout society.At the same time, as part of this process ofdispersing power and increasing accounta-bility, it calls for the transformation of thestate and politics itself through greater citi-zen participation in and around policy-making. The state, the market, and civilsociety all have their place, but each mustbe put in its place. Only in this way can webuild a society which, in Obama’s words,recognises the ‘price and the promise ofcitizenship’.

I would like to thank Sally Davison, DanielLeighton and Guy Lodge for very helpful commentson an earlier draft of this paper.

Stuart White is director of the Public Policy Unit,a lecturer in the Department of Politics andInternational Relations, and a tutorial fellow inPolitics at Jesus College, Oxford University

Ackerman B and Alstott A (1999) The Stakeholder Society NewHaven: Yale University Press

Ashdown P (1989) Citizens’ Britain London: Fourth EstateBlackburn R (2008/09) ‘Pressing the Limits’, Red Pepper,

December 2008/January 2009, available at:www.redpepper.org.uk/Pressing-the-limits

Blackburn R (forthcoming) Using Pensions for Social Control ofCapitalist Investment London: Verso

Blond P (2009) ‘The Rise of the Red Tories’, Prospect,February 2009, pp.32-36, available at: www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10608

Casassas D and Birnbaum S (2008) ‘Social Republicanismand Basic Income’, in White S and Leighton D (eds.)Building a Citizen Society

Cohen J (1989) ‘The Economic Basis of DeliberativeDemocracy’, Social Philosophy and Policy 6

Fung A (2003) Empowered Participation: Reinventing UrbanDemocracy Princeton: Princeton University Press

Fung A and Wright EO (2008) ‘Empowered Participationfor the UK?’, in White S and Leighton D (eds.) Building aCitizen Society

Fung A and Wright EO (eds.) (2003) Deepening DemocracyLondon: Verso

HM Government (2009) New Opportunities: Fair Chances forthe Future London: HM Government

Howarth C and Jamoul L (2008) ‘Strangers into Citizens:The New Citizen Organising Movements’, in White Sand Leighton D (eds.) Building a Citizen Society

Independent Commission on Social Mobility (2009) Reportfrom the Independent Commission on Social Mobility London:Liberal Democrats

Nabulsi K (2008) ‘Obama’s Old Virtues’, The Guardian,April 3, available at: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/03/barackobama.uselections2008

Needham C (2008) ‘Participation, Citizenship and thePublic Services’, in White S and Leighton D (eds.)Building a Citizen Society

Obama B (2009) ‘Inaugural Address’, available online at:www.guardian.co.uk/world/audio/2009/jan/20/barack-obama-inaugural-address

Paine T (1987 [1797]) ‘Agrarian Justice’, in Foot M andKramnick I (eds.) The Thomas Paine ReaderHarmondsworth: Penguin

Paxton W and White S with Maxwell D (eds.) (2006) TheCitizen’s Stake: Exploring the Future of Universal Asset PoliciesBristol: Policy Press

Pettit P (1997) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom andGovernment Oxford: Oxford University Press

Prabhakar R (2008) ‘Assets and Citizenship’, in White Sand Leighton D (eds.) Building a Citizen Society

Putnam R (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival ofAmerican Community New York, Simon and Schuster

Rousseau J-J (1984 [1755]) Translated by Maurice Cranston:A Discourse on Inequality Harmondsworth: Penguin

Rousseau J-J (1994) Translated by Christopher Betts: TheSocial Contract Oxford: Oxford University Press,

Skinner Q (1998) Liberty Before Liberalism Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

Smith G (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions forCitizen Participation Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress

Tocqueville A de (2003 [1835, 1840]) Translated by GeraldBevan: Democracy in America Harmondsworth: Penguin

Uberoi V, Coutts A, MacLean I and H D (eds.) (2009)Options for a New Britain Basingstoke: Palgrave

White S and Leighton D (eds.) (2008) Building a CitizenSociety: The Emerging Politics of Republican DemocracyLondon: Lawrence and Wishart

Younge G (2009) ‘It’s About to Get Nasty: Time forObama’s Movement to Get Going’, The Guardian, March2, available at: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/02/obama-administration-ambitions

public�policy�research�–�March-May�200920

© 2

009

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

009

ippr