Recently after using a service, I received an email to provide some online feedback.  The questionnaire was asking about the services I received and to offer any suggestions on anything that could be done to improve services.  This seems to become common practice across the board regarding all types of services and commercial interactions.  This got me thinking…we are asked to provide feedback on a recent purchase, but we are not asked about issues that cut through the way we live our lives.  In short, there is value in my opinion on a product that I bought, where is the value in my views of how I would want my community to be.  Who’s going to ask me what society I want to live in!

Consumerism may be the reason we get asked questions about products but surely before and above being consumers, aren’t we all citizens?  I can make helpful suggestions on what I would like to see in services/products but not on government.  We profess democratic rule but the application of vote every now and then is not a true reflection on democracy.  As we can offer online surveys for virtually everything, we have ways of measuring trends and reactions, why not use these to engage in a wider public discourse on the way to organise our communities, discuss social matters and engage in a public dialogue about our society.  

Our political system is constructed to represent parties of different ideologies and practices offering realistic alternatives to governance.  An alternative vision about society that people can come behind and support.  This ideological diversion is essential for the existence of a “healthy political democratic process”.  This ideological difference seems to be less prevalent in public dialogue with the main political parties focusing their rhetoric on matters that do not necessarily affect society.  

Activism, a mechanism to bring about social change is becoming a term that sparks controversy whilst special interest groups maintain and even exert their influence on political parties.  This allows private special interests to take the “ear of the government” on matters that matter to them, whilst the general public participate in social discourses that never reach the seat of power.  

Asking citizens to be part of the social discussion, unlike customer service, is much more significant; it allows us to be part of the process.  Those who have no other way of participating in any part of the system will be castigated to cast their vote and may participate in some party political activities.  This leaves a whole heap of everyday issues unaddressed.  In recent years the cost of living crisis pushed more people into poverty, food, housing and transport became issues that needed attention, not to mention health, post-covid-19.

These and many more social issues have been left either neglected only to be given the overhead title of crisis but with no action plan of how to resolve them.  People affected are voiceless, having to pick up the injustices they suffer without any regard to the long term effects.  Ironically the only plausible explanation given now that “Brussels’ rule” and “EU bureaucracy” are out of the picture, has become that of the immigrants.  The answer to various complex problems became the people on the boats!  

This is a simplification in the way social problems happen and most importantly can be resolved.  Lack of social discourse has left the explanation and problem solving of said problems to an old rhetoric founded on xenophobia and discrimination.  Simple explanations on social problems where the answer is a sentence tend to be very clear and precise, but very rarely can count the complexity of the problems they try to explain.  There is a great disservice to our communities to oversimplify causes because the public cannot understand.         

Cynically someone may point out that feedback from companies is not routed in an honest request to understand customer satisfaction but a veiled lip-service about company targets and metrics.  So the customer’s response becomes a tradable figure of the company’s objectives.  This is very likely the case and this is why the process has become so focused on particular parts of the consumer process.  Nonetheless and here is the irony; a private company has some knowledge of a  customer’s views on their recent purchase, as opposed to the government and people’s views and expectations on many social issues.   

Maybe the fault lies with all of us.  The presumption of democratic rule, especially in parliamentary democracies, a citizen is represented by a person they elect every four years.  This representation detaches the citizen from their own responsibilities and obligations to the process.  The State is happy to have citizens that engage only during elections, something that can be underscored by the way in recent years that protests on key social issues have been curtailed.  

That does not sound right!  I can provide an opinion over the quality of a chocolate bar or a piece of soap but I cannot express my views as a citizen over war, climate, genocide, immigration, human rights or justice? If we value opinion then as society we ought to make space for opinion to be heard, to be articulated and even expressed.  In the much published “British Values” the right to protest stands high whilst comes in conflict with new measures to stop any protests.  We are at a crossroads and ultimately we will have to decide what kind of society we live in.  If we stop protests and we ban venues for people to express themselves, what shall we do next to curtail further the voices of dissent? It is a hackneyed phrase that we are stepping into a “slippery slope” and despite the fact that I do not like the language, there is a danger that we are indeed descending rapidly down that slope.  

The social problems our society faces at any given time are real and people try to understand them and come to terms with them.  Unlike before, we live in a world that is not just visual, it relies on moving images.  Our communities are global and many of the problems we face are international and their impact is likely to affect us all as people, irrespective of background or national/personal identity. At times like this, it is best to increase the public discourse, engage with the voices of descent.  Maybe instead of banning protests, open the community to those who are willing to discuss.  The fear that certain disruptive  people will lead these debates are unfounded.  We have been there before and we have seen that people whose agenda is not to engage, but simply to disrupt, soon lose their relevance.  We have numerous examples of people that their peers have rejected and history left them behind as a footnote of embarrassment.  

Feedback on society, even if negative, is a good place to start when/if anyone wants to consider, what kind of society I want and my family to live in.  Giving space to numerous people who have been vastly neglected by the political systems boosts inclusivity and gives everyone the opportunity to be part of our continuous democratic conversation. Political representation in a democracy should give a voice to all especially to those whose voice has long been ignored. Let’s not forget, representation is not a privilege but a necessity in a democracy and we ensure we are making space for others. A democracy can only thrive if we embrace otherness; so when there are loud voices that ask higher level of control and suppression, we got to rise above it and defend the weakest people in our community. Only in solidarity and support of each other is how communities thrive.