Via Patrick Nielsen Hayden, this very interesting piece of commentary by Avedon Carol on the differences between civil liberties in the UK and US. Carol argues that civil liberties organizations in the UK are compromised because they’re in bed with the other side; people use office in the NCCL as a stepping stone to higher things in the Labour party. In the US, in contrast, the ACLU doesn’t have intimate ties with the government or political parties, and hence can be much more confrontational when it feels confrontation is necessary.
Now I don’t want to quibble too much with Carol’s main point - her description of the cosy relationship between Labour and purportedly “oppositional” groups sounds about right to me. But I do want to suggest that the US system has its own disadvantages. Civil liberties and consumer rights organizations are much more independent in the US than in the UK or Europe; they don’t have intimate ties with the big power brokers. But they pay a cost for this - they don’t actually have that much influence on decisions. They have some influence in Congress; there are certain members of Congress who are quite friendly to them, but even there, they’re much less powerful players than your average mid-sized business lobbying organization. They have very little influence indeed with the Executive, regardless of whether the Executive is held by the Democrats or Republicans. Furthermore, all but the best established associations in civil society face big problems in distinguishing themselves from the “astroturf” front-groups which are commonly set up by this or that business lobby group trying to enhance the credibility of its cause a bit (or, which is equally likely, to muddy the waters for its opponents).
Contrast that with mainland Europe, where civil society is often given a direct stake in decision making. Various European countries consult with rights groups of one sort or another while drafting legislation; sometimes these groups have a quite formal role in the legislative process. They’re still relatively disadvantaged vis-a-vis business, but they have an official stake in the process. Of course, the problem is that they get drawn into the system - it’s hard for them to start rabble-rousing in the vigorous way that say, the ACLU can do. In extreme cases, they become more or less completely compromised.
By Carol’s account, it sounds like the UK (like Ireland) is somewhere between the European and US approaches. And not unusually, it manages to get the worst of both worlds - compromising relationships without political clout. But the key point is that there is a tradeoff that all civil society groups face. On the one hand, they can constitute a sort of permanent opposition to the state. This means that they are able to keep their message pure, but often find that they are voices crying in the wilderness - other, better-connected groups have more success in influencing policy. On the other hand, they can integrate themselves to a greater or lesser degree in the policy making process; but when they do so, they risk losing their independence, and may end up becoming all too comfortable with the powers that be.
Posted by Henry at May 24, 2003 08:23 PM | TrackBackThat’s Avedon Carol, with one L, and she’s a she.
Posted by: Jim Rittenhouse at May 25, 2003 12:32 PMThanks and corrected(I presume you mean one ‘r;’ the number of ‘l’s I had right)
Posted by: Henry Farrell at May 25, 2003 01:37 PMOh, I dunno. With virtually no funds and no significant contact with anyone in government, Feminists Against Censorship turned the public debate on censorship around and ultimately was probably the single group most responsible for changing the British Board of Filmn Classification’s rules on allowing hard-core pornography. It’s not that Parliament actually listened to us, but we made just enough noise that more people were willing to speak up, and the press paid attention to us occasionally.
The US press is pretty conservative and has definitely reduced the profile it used to give ACLU - that probably makes a significant difference in itself.
Posted by: Avedon at May 25, 2003 04:00 PMMost of what I have to say is based on research I did on privacy regulation on both sides of the Atlantic, and thow consumer and civil rights organizations tried to shape it. There, at least, the US organizations (EPIC excepted) found themselves almost completely shut out of the loop of decision making, until the EU created a transatlantic forum where US policymakers were pretty well forced to talk to them. And EPIC was exceptional only because of personal contacts I reckon; its main guy is fairly confrontational, but is also extremely well plugged in to the DC policymaking elite. Groups on both sides of the Atlantic worked together quite a lot on this, but my impression was that they sometimes didn’t understand each other all that well. The US people accused the Europeans of being too afraid to bring people out onto the streets, while the Europeans thought that the US crowd were sometimes confrontational for the sake of being confrontational. I’ve always thought that the UK is somewhere between the two (probably closer to the US than, say, Germany though - I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong). My sister, whom I co-blog with, will almost certainly have things to say on this - she used to do a lot of work with civil liberties types in the UK (primarily trying to stop nasty Big Brother type stuff going through in Parliament).
On the US press and the ACLU - my (entirely unprofessional) impression is that the problem lies only partly with the US press - the main issue for me is the cravenness of Democrats in challenging anything that touches on national security issues. The Washington Post did a big cover page article on the use of torture in Guantanamo late last year - it sank like a stone. Nobody in “mainstream” politics wanted to debate it, or raise the issue - it was too politically awkward.
Posted by: Henry Farrell at May 25, 2003 04:27 PM“Civil liberties and consumer rights organizations are much more independent in the US than in the UK or Europe; they don’t have intimate ties with the big power brokers. But they pay a cost for this - they don’t actually have that much influence on decisions.
Contrast that with mainland Europe, where civil society is often given a direct stake in decision making. Various European countries consult with rights groups of one sort or another while drafting legislation; sometimes these groups have a quite formal role in the legislative process. They’re still relatively disadvantaged vis-a-vis business, but they have an official stake in the process.”
Oooh Henry,
I can see the Colin Crouch factor here. You’re using Tony’s inside the tent argument. Maybe you should take a second look at Marcuse’s ‘Negative Dialectics’.
Why isn’t there room for BOTH roles, cosying up on the one hand, and denouncing from the pulpit on the other.
Or does the monster only get to have one head? Remember: zigga zagga, it’s the winning play.
Incidentally, you may also be guilty of adopting a ‘formalist’ rather than a ‘transcendental’ critique. That’s why I buy Keynes over Krugman: he new how to be really dangerous.
Posted by: Edward Hugh at May 26, 2003 06:10 AMNice article
Posted by: Michael at October 21, 2003 06:55 AM