There is no such thing as society.” In the autumn of 1987, in the ninth year of her long premiership, Margaret Thatcher gave an interview to Women’s Own, a magazine that usually featured recipes and knitting patterns. It was an unlikely place to find a statement of political doctrine, but “there is no such thing as society” stands out, nearly a quarter-century later, as one of Thatcher’s most famous assertions—and one of her most misrepresented. Understanding what she meant, and what people thought she meant, is critical to the future of the Right in Britain.
Crudely, Thatcher was taken to mean: you’re on your own, there is nobody but you, and you are all that matters. Of course, she meant nothing of the kind. Immediately after the famous words about society came these words, almost never quoted: “There is a living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us, by our own efforts, is prepared to turn round and help those less fortunate.” Thatcher, then, was suggesting less that society didn’t exist than that there wasn’t an entity that existed separate from our efforts as individuals. We have a duty to look after ourselves and our families first, and then to turn outward and tend to the less fortunate. The implication, too, was that it was wrong to say that your problem was somehow the fault of an amorphous “society” and thus that it was the government’s job to put it right. Thatcher wanted us to rely on one another as a community.
But both Thatcher and her party were widely understood not to care about the common good. The myth became a serious political impediment to the Tories. In polls, policies that had obtained support when advanced without a party label would lose it once they were labeled Conservative. In the years that followed the Women’s Own article, Tory leaders made repeated efforts to correct the popular impression of Thatcher’s words. These efforts proved a total flop.
Enter David Cameron. In the 2005 speech that won—snatched, really—Tory leadership from the favorite, David Davis, Cameron declared that the party had to confront its image problem head-on. It had to convince the British people that Conservatives were not narrow and greedy. Feebly protesting that the party was being misrepresented would solve nothing. And so the new Tory leader produced his own formulation of Thatcher’s statement: “There is such a thing as society; it’s just not the same thing as the state.” Until now, Tories had argued for reducing the size of government. They hadn’t talked much about how a stronger society might emerge from that reduction. Cameron changed this, promoting what he would soon call the “Big Society.”
Cameron’s idea has three broad strands. The first is decentralization—what an American might think of as states’ rights. In the postwar era, more and more government functions became centralized in London. Conservatives accelerated this process in the 1980s in response to left-wing local councils that taxed businesses and residents heavily to finance politically motivated projects—community centers, for instance—for activist groups. Local councillors complained that they had almost no freedom to determine policy in their own areas. The Big Society would change this, putting an end to “ring-fencing,” the practice in which councillors are told how their national-spending grants are to be used. Residents’ groups would get a formal say in area plans. And if a controversial measure still making its way through the legislature is adopted, police commissioners would face elections, rather than being appointed by local authorities.
The second strand, and probably the most important, is the promotion of independent community organizations. Britain is restructuring the way it provides public services, in order to allow participation from many more local groups. Charities and mutual associations of employees, for instance, will be encouraged to bid to become service providers. Parliament has passed legislation allowing the creation of “free schools”—a British version of American charter schools—set up by individuals or parents’ groups but retaining public funding. Hospitals and existing schools will gain more freedom in how they operate; their increased independence, it is hoped, will make them more effective. The government is also establishing a Big Society Bank, which will use abandoned bank deposits to fund social entrepreneurs’ initiatives addressing a range of social problems—poor school attendance, for example.
The final strand is self-help. This involves subtle changes to the relationship between the state and the individual, such as encouraging donations on tax forms; automatically enrolling workers in pension-saving programs unless they opt out; and prompting applicants for driver’s licenses to choose whether they want to be organ donors. Also contemplated are measures to strengthen marriage, perhaps with a special tax break.
Most of these initiatives are likely to prove successful, and they add up to a coherent program. If he sees them through, Cameron will have strengthened community in Britain, just as he promised. Politically, however, things are more difficult. To start with, the British government has run out of money. The central goal of the Cameron government is to reduce the budget deficit, an objective that, in some particulars, directly conflicts with the Big Society. Left-wing opponents, meanwhile, charge the opposite: that the Big Society is itself a money-saving exercise. More seriously, voluntary organizations, some of which have become overly dependent on public funding, have complained that the Big Society won’t work because local authorities are cutting their budgets.
These political obstacles are not insuperable. A more stubborn problem is that no one quite understands what the Big Society means. The rationale for each policy item may be clear, but people struggle with the overall vision; indeed, it has become commonplace in Britain to joke that the Big Society is meaningless. Cameron is devoted to the concept because he believes—as he argued at his party conference last year—that not all our relationships are transactions. But his view may not be shared by many in today’s Britain. The Conservatives won because British citizens began to believe that they were being duped—that law-abiding, decent citizens were contributing to society with no discernible effect. They came to see their tax dollars precisely as a transaction, one in which they weren’t getting a fair return. The Big Society, meanwhile, asks people to become more involved in duties traditionally performed by government without making obvious what the return will be.
The way out is fairly simple. Cameron must explain the Big Society as a way of improving services, making them more efficient and more personal. He should emphasize how it will broaden the pool of contributors, getting more people in civil society involved with the provision of services so that everyone will get more out. Such an argument is less high-minded, true, than Cameron’s previous explanations, but it may prove more politically effective.
Building a strong society that grows as the state retreats is the great conservative goal. David Cameron has a program that stands a chance of achieving it. What he needs now are the words that will make the vision clear.
"Mwaka wa 1987 Margaret Thatcher alipokuwa akifanya kazi ya kwanza ya uongozi wake, alitoa mahojiano kwa jarida la ""Women's Own"" ambalo kwa kawaida lilijumuisha mapishi na mifumo ya kushona." "Hiyo ilikuwa mahali ambapo haikuwa ya kawaida kupata taarifa ya mafundisho ya kisiasa, lakini ""hakuna kitu kama jamii"" inasimama, karibu robo karne baadaye, kama moja ya Thatcher ""mashtaka maarufu zaidi"" na moja ya yake zaidi misrepresented." Kuelewa kile alichomaanisha, na kile watu walidhani alichomaanisha, ni muhimu kwa siku zijazo za Haki nchini Uingereza. Kwa ukatili, Thatcher alichukuliwa kumaanisha: wewe ni peke yako, hakuna mtu ila wewe, na wewe ni wote kwamba mambo. Bila shaka, hakusema jambo lolote kama hilo. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kitabu cha Thatcher, ""Kuna tapestry hai ya wanaume na wanawake na watu na uzuri wa tapestry kwamba na ubora wa maisha yetu itategemea jinsi kila mmoja wetu ni tayari kuchukua jukumu kwa wenyewe na kila mmoja wetu, kwa juhudi zetu wenyewe, ni tayari kugeuka na kuwasaidia wale wasio na bahati.""" Tuna wajibu wa kujilinda sisi wenyewe na familia zetu kwanza, na kisha kugeuka nje na kuwahudumia wale wasio na bahati. Maana yake pia ilikuwa kwamba ilikuwa ni kosa kusema kwamba tatizo lako kwa namna fulani lilikuwa kosa la "jamii" isiyo na umbo na hivyo kwamba ilikuwa kazi ya serikali kulirekebisha. Thatcher alitaka tutegemeane kama jamii. Lakini wote wawili Thatcher na chama chake walieleweka sana kuwa hawajali juu ya manufaa ya kawaida. Hadithi hiyo ikawa kizuizi kikubwa cha kisiasa kwa Tories. Katika uchaguzi, sera ambazo zilikuwa zimepata msaada wakati zilipopitishwa bila lebo ya chama zingepoteza mara tu zilipokuwa zimepewa lebo ya kihafidhina. Katika miaka iliyofuata makala ya Wanawake Wenyewe, viongozi wa Tory walifanya juhudi za mara kwa mara kurekebisha hisia ya watu wa maneno ya Thatcher. Jitihada hizo hazikufaulu kabisa. Kuingia David Cameron. Katika hotuba yake ya mwaka 2005 ambayo ilishinda uongozi wa chama cha Tory kutoka kwa David Davis, Cameron alitangaza kwamba chama hicho kililazimika kukabiliana na tatizo la picha yake. Ilibidi iwasadikishe watu wa Uingereza kwamba Wanashauri hawakuwa wenye upendeleo na wenye pupa. Kupinga kwa udhaifu kwamba chama kilikuwa kikionyeshwa vibaya hakungesuluhisha chochote. "Kama ilivyoelezwa na kiongozi wa chama cha Tory, Thatcher alisema: ""Kuna kitu kama jamii, lakini si kitu sawa na serikali.""" Hawakuwa wamezungumza sana juu ya jinsi jamii yenye nguvu inaweza kutokea kutokana na kupunguzwa huko. Cameron alibadilisha hili, akitangaza kile ambacho hivi karibuni angeita "Jamii Kubwa". Wazo la Cameron lina nyuzi tatu pana. Ya kwanza ni haki za kutokuwa na mamlaka - kile ambacho Mmarekani anaweza kufikiria kama haki za serikali. Katika kipindi cha baada ya vita, kazi nyingi za serikali zilianza kukusanywa huko London. Wanasayansi wa zamani walifanya hivyo katika miaka ya 1980 wakati wa upinzani wa vyama vya upinzani vya kushoto vilivyowapa kodi wafanyabiashara na wakazi kwa fedha za miradi ya kisiasa, kama vile vituo vya jamii, kwa makundi ya wanaharakati. Washauri wa mitaa walilalamika kwamba walikuwa na karibu hakuna uhuru wa kuamua sera katika maeneo yao wenyewe. Jamii Kubwa ingebadilisha hili, ikikomesha "kufunga pete", zoezi ambalo washauri wanaambiwa jinsi ruzuku yao ya matumizi ya kitaifa inapaswa kutumiwa. Vikundi vya wakazi vingeweza kusema rasmi katika mipango ya eneo. Kama hatua hiyo ya kutisha bado inapitia katika bunge, kamishna wa polisi watakabiliwa na uchaguzi badala ya kuteuliwa na mamlaka za mitaa. Sehemu ya pili, na labda muhimu zaidi, ni kukuza mashirika huru ya jamii. Uingereza inabadilisha njia ya kutoa huduma za umma ili kuruhusu ushiriki kutoka kwa vikundi vingi vya mitaa. Mashirika ya misaada na mashirika ya wafanyakazi, kwa mfano, yatahimizwa kutoa zabuni ili kuwa watoa huduma. Bunge limepitisha sheria inayoruhusu uundaji wa "masomo ya bure" toleo la Uingereza la shule za mkataba za Amerika zilizoanzishwa na watu binafsi au vikundi vya wazazi lakini kudumisha ufadhili wa umma. Hospitali na shule zilizopo zitapata uhuru zaidi katika jinsi wanavyofanya kazi; uhuru wao ulioongezeka, inatarajiwa, utawafanya wawe na ufanisi zaidi. Serikali pia inaweka Benki ya Jamii Kubwa, ambayo itatumia amana za benki zilizoachwa kufadhili mipango ya wajasiriamali wa kijamii inayoshughulikia idadi ya matatizo ya kijamii - kuhudhuria shule duni, kwa mfano. Sehemu ya mwisho ni kujisaidia. Hii inahusisha mabadiliko madogo katika uhusiano kati ya serikali na mtu binafsi, kama vile kuhamasisha michango kwenye fomu za kodi, kujiandikisha kwa moja kwa moja kwa wafanyakazi katika mipango ya kuokoa pensheni isipokuwa wakiacha, na kuwachochea waombaji wa leseni za kuendesha gari kuchagua ikiwa wanataka kuwa wafadhili wa viungo. Pia kuna mipango ya kuimarisha ndoa, labda kwa kutoa msamaha wa pekee wa kodi. Wengi wa mipango hii ni uwezekano wa kuthibitisha mafanikio, na wao kuongeza hadi programu thabiti. Kama atazifanya, Cameron atakuwa ameimarisha jamii nchini Uingereza, kama alivyotoa ahadi. Hata hivyo, mambo ni magumu zaidi kiuchumi. Kwanza, serikali ya Uingereza imekosa pesa. Lengo kuu la serikali ya Cameron ni kupunguza upungufu wa bajeti, lengo ambalo, katika maelezo fulani, linapingana moja kwa moja na Jamii Kubwa. Wapinzani wa mrengo wa kushoto, wakati huohuo, wanashtaki kinyume: kwamba Jamii Kubwa yenyewe ni zoezi la kuokoa pesa. Zaidi ya uzito, mashirika ya kujitolea, baadhi ya ambayo yamekuwa sana kutegemea fedha za umma, wamelalamika kwamba Big Society si kazi kwa sababu mamlaka za mitaa ni kukata bajeti zao. Vizuizi hivyo vya kisiasa haviwezi kushindwa. Tatizo gumu zaidi ni kwamba hakuna mtu anayeelewa kabisa maana ya Jamii Kubwa. "Mtazamo wa kila hatua ya sera inaweza kuwa wazi, lakini watu wanashindana na maono ya jumla; kwa kweli, imekuwa kawaida nchini Uingereza kuchekesha kwamba ""Jamii Kubwa"" haina maana." Cameron ni kujitolea kwa dhana kwa sababu anaamini - kama alivyosema katika mkutano wake wa chama mwaka jana - kwamba si mahusiano yetu yote ni shughuli. Lakini huenda maoni yake yasishirikiwe na wengi katika Uingereza ya leo. Wahafidhina walishinda kwa sababu raia wa Uingereza walianza kuamini kwamba walikuwa wakidanganywa - kwamba raia wanaotii sheria, wenye adabu walikuwa wakichangia jamii bila athari inayoonekana. Walianza kuona dola zao za kodi hasa kama shughuli, moja ambayo hawakuwa wakipata faida ya haki. "The Big Society, wakati huo huo, inawaomba watu kushiriki zaidi katika majukumu ya jadi yaliyofanywa na serikali bila kufanya wazi nini kurudi itakuwa. """ Njia ya kutoka ni rahisi sana. Cameron lazima aeleze Jumuiya Kubwa kama njia ya kuboresha huduma, kuzifanya ziwe na ufanisi zaidi na za kibinafsi zaidi. "Alichangia pia kupanua ""kikundi cha wachangiaji,"" na kuingiza watu zaidi katika jamii ya kiraia katika utoaji wa huduma ili kila mtu apate zaidi." Hoja kama hiyo ni ya hali ya chini, ni kweli, kuliko maelezo ya awali ya Cameron, lakini inaweza kuthibitisha kuwa yenye ufanisi zaidi kisiasa. Kujenga jamii yenye nguvu ambayo inakua wakati serikali inapoondoka ni lengo kubwa la kihafidhina. David Cameron ana mpango ambao una nafasi ya kuufikia. Anahitaji sasa ni maneno ambayo yatakuwa na maono ya wazi.