2011 June 02 » 21stCenturyFix.org.uk

That was in 2009.

Tonight, my mother – a most creative, wise and loving soul – sent us an email which contained only one poem. It is a poem which she has just written. It is a poem about her sister Tugomila. Tugomila and my mother each have a great faith in God – a faith which has served to sustain both of them over the past two years, through many events and challenges.

I sometimes find it difficult to share their faith. I am in awe of it, in fact. I would like to share it. Maybe one day I will.

This, then, with my mother’s permission, is Tugomila and Mama right now.

A moment of profound and heartfelt observation in an evermore burdensome and complicated world. A poem from the soul of the person I am proud to call my mother. A poem by Dubravka Williams-Podhraski.

Tugomila

My sister lying quietly in her bed.
The room is quietly dim,
the window shaded from the sun.
Her face white, her eyes closed,
most of the time.
I will her to open them.
She opens them briefly, asking for water,
taking a sip or two.
She wearily turns over, without a moan.
She is in pain, but she says ‘only a little’.
Like a lamb, she makes no sound.
Oh, Lamb of God, have mercy on her, I pray…

I open the window.
The sun is shining bright.
The refreshing breeze stirs the leaves on the trees
and the curtains inside.
Oh, so enticing to be out.
The cars, all shiny and noisy, and new,
race past, chasing each other’s tails.
The busyness of life outside -
Such a contrast to subdued air inside,
‘… when all our strivings cease’.
It is her time, but not mine, yet.
Oh, Lamb of God, let us allow her to go, I pray…

Sleep well, my sweet sister,
At least for tonight.
I am happy for you to go, though I shall miss you so…
We had wonderful times in years past,
And though I know you are ready to go,
You worry about your family and their pain,
But they are in God’s safe hands…
Sleep well, my darling sister,
You gave much love to me
Though we did not always agree…
You gave much love to our children too.
May Your will be done, oh, Lord, I pray…

ZAGREB, 2nd of June 2011.

This came my way via Paul’s Facebook feed today:

[...] Mussolini is said to have made the trains run on time. I am on a plane, so I cannot check whether that is true, but if it is, it would be an example of efficiency without democracy. On the other hand, an endless meeting may be democratic but is not efficient. Given the complexities of administering large institutions, it seems that democratic values should predominate when major decisions are made (usually in elections and legislation). Efficiency should become paramount at the phase of implementation or administration, when the people’s will is enacted by professionals.

But where Peter is really interesting is in this next paragraph where he seems to be bordering on suggesting that democracy is actually not democracy if it is not also essentially efficient:

[...] if there is a tradeoff between equality of voice and efficiency, the conflict is internal to democracy. We may sometimes have to bite the bullet and reduce equality to enhance efficiency, in the name of democracy. On the other hand, if we value both, we should work to reduce the tradeoff. When equal voice enhances efficient outcomes, we have a clear win.

Or perhaps it might be more accurate for me to observe that a democracy which is not also efficient is a half-hearted democracy at best.

Finally, the conclusion he comes to as a result of his desire to couch all our political actions in terms of the concept “problem-solving” (perhaps a more appropriate corporate-speak here would actually be “issue-resolving”) is most empowering and, at least for me, quite heartening too (the bold is mine):

[...] there is no good reason to distinguish between legislation and administration, or deliberation and implementation, or talk and work–because all these are problem-solving activities. The same pair of values, equality of voice and efficiency of outcomes, should be maximized at all times. Concretely, that means promoting public engagement in administration as well as in law-making unless efficiency suffers excessively as a result.

“Maximising equality of voice and efficiency of outcomes.”

As a definition of what we might term “Good Democracy”, this phrase sits marvellously well. As a replacement for that irritatingly piebald “Good Society” which Labour has dragged out as a response to the Tories’ equally hollow “Big Society”, these two wonderful markers in the sand – equality and efficiency – could serve a refound Labour Party very effectively in the future. They could, in fact, be our two golden rules for defining – quite objectively – whether a policy, from conceptualisation to agreement to implementation, was an example of such a Good Democracy or not.

The problem, of course, with the Big Society/Good Society dichotomy is that it allows our politicians to focus on selling the grandly marketed ends of their actions – whilst at the same time, on both sides I have to admit, making it easy for them to shy away from providing proper and concrete means which, when the time comes, are going to bear up to democratic inspection.

To be able to change the focus from the result (the Big Society/Good Society) to the tool (Good Democracy) (that is to say, the process) would be a tremendous and consensualising step forward in our body politic.

I just wonder if we’re up to the job.