The recent local elections prompted me to reflect on the meaning of the ballot box. When I went to vote last week, a tarnished and rather battered box lay humbly on a chair: how, I thought, could this humble object be both fount and symbol of British democracy? And if it is under threat, which it appears to be, in particular from postal voting, does this subtly change the latent understandings of what our democracy is?

By ‘latent’ I am emphasising a psychological approach to ideas. Namely, the idea of democracy like any idea, has some underlying meanings, which are perhaps not often very explicit or conscious.

On 28^th April, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust published a damning report into called Purity of Elections in the UK: Causes for Concern. It shows how the mechanics of UK elections have been tampered with to the extent that the UK now has the lowest public confidence in free and fair elections in Western Europe. Voters can now obtain a postal vote by simply requesting one, whereas they used to have to demonstrate they needed one because they would be away from home, or because of work commitments preventing attendance in person. Now, instances of poll rigging are not rare; the Rowntree report refers to 42 convictions for electoral fraud in the last 7 years. Rowntree is not alone in its criticism; the Council of Europe, the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society have all highlighted serious defects. The clearest way to clean up the system is individual registration. But crosses on postal votes for a whole household can easily be made fraudulently by the nominated householder.

So the danger of postal voting is that individual voters are denied their vote. The Rowntree report says that cheating is not exclusive to any one party or group, but that in the cases of some groups, extended family and kinship networks are mobilised to secure support for particular candidates, and patriarchs and ‘community leaders’ find it all too easy to collect the votes of weaker members of their group. Only 46 per cent of British Asians regard postal voting as safe, according to the report. When there was a parallel concern in sectarian Northern Ireland, postal votes were limited to those who could prove genuine inability to get to a polling booth; and each voter registers individually. But, the government says that postal voting is ‘more convenient’.

So, what is the meaning of voting and what part does the ballot box as a technology of democracy play? As Tony Benn has often said, election day is a great day because only then is every one of us equal in power. You can vote or spoil your paper in privacy. Your vote counts no more and no less than anybody else’s. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights stipulates ‘universal and equal suffrage, held by secret vote guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the elector’.

A vote concerns the expression of views on a collective state of affairs and so it follows that these must be collectively addressed. Elections are a modern version for the meeting place in which citizens gathered to decide the issues of the day. In a world of large populations, citizens can no longer gather together in one place, so they elect proxies – representatives – whose legal standing depends on virtual gatherings: periodic collections of votes by the non-present body of citizens. From painted balls in the clay jars of antiquity to the glass, wooden, and then metal boxes of more recent centuries, voting systems have always signified a self evident simplicity and directness. A real, physical piece of paper, the ballot, is dropped into the box. So long as you know your own vote will both be counted and count towards the final outcome of the election, the system is legitimate.

The psychoanalyst D.W.Winnicott wrote perceptively some decades ago about democracy, saying that it can be defined as society well adjusted to its healthy individual members. That is, it assumes maturity for its members; but I’d turn this around to say that the very act of voting in a public space is what helps to create maturity. What are the accepted qualities of democratic machinery? he asked. In his view its essence is the free vote by secret ballot. This ensures the freedom of the people to express deep and private feelings, to vote someone in or to vote someone out. The secret ballot provides a space for individuals to take full responsibility for themselves.

One final thing occurred to me when I went to vote: the act of going to a place to vote brings one into an encounter, however brief and perfunctory, with one’s fellow citizens as citizens. The latent meaning of the ballot box is that it makes people gather, however temporarily. Thus it both symbolically and actually constitutes the very idea of a link between how individual people vote (a vote) and the aggregate (the vote). A vote is a gathering. But postal votes are surely part and parcel of the mantra of consumer choice in which the conception of public, shared space where all are equal is unimportant.

About the author

Jessica Evans is Senior Lecturer in Sociology, in the Faculty of Social Sciences, and a member of the Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance at the Open University.

I’ve just returned from two weeks in the US with my colleague Dr May Tan-Mullins. Each day we read reports of the passage of the beleaguered Olympic torch on its inappropriately named ‘journey of harmony’. And even as I write this, protestors have clashed with the authorities in Seoul. In cities across the globe we saw diversions, protests, and heavy-handed ‘torch guards’ man-handling people out of the way. In my last blog I was talking about China’s role in Sudan and Darfur. The issue now is Tibet, although it’s often wrapped up together with China’s broader human rights record at home and abroad. 

The Tibet issue is complex, but is seen as an internal issue with many Chinese supportive of their state’s stance on Tibet. When I was in the US various head of state pulled out of the Games’ opening ceremony. Hardly outright condemnation, but a symbolic gesture nonetheless. Others have called for a boycott of the Olympics to shed light on China’s occupation of Tibet.

Darfur protests in Washington. Photo: May Tan-Mullins

The call for a boycott is coming from a wide range of groups, including US Senators, Hollywood actors, international journalists, Tibetans in exile, Burmese activists, and Taiwanese political parties. They all use China’s human rights abuses domestically and internationally as the reason and believe a boycott would highlight these and shame China into reform as well as hurting China economically through lost revenue. But would a boycott work?

First, we need to look at the interests and agendas of some of these groups. For some in the US, while the headline is human rights abuses, there is list of other misdemeanours which go beyond human rights and are about US strategic interests (e.g. China’s support of Venezuela’s left-wing President Hugo Chavez, China’s blocking of sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council, and the fact that China has allegedly been ‘spying’ on the US). And some sections of the Taiwanese Olympic boycott lobby have deeper political roots going back to China’s ‘One China’ policy and its denial of the legitimacy of Taiwan. So, in looking at a potential boycott let’s also look at the geoeconomic and geopolitical motives behind the proponents.

Second, history suggests that Olympic boycotts (in 1956, 1976, 1980 and 1984) haven’t achieved much, and often don’t achieve what they set out to do. If the issue is human rights abuses then how can anyone know that a boycott will lead to democracy in China and more ethical foreign policy? In the Tibet case an international boycott might only strengthen the Chinese peoples’ stance on Tibet, so more international dialogue might be better of the kind advocated by the Dalai Lama. Overseas, China’s role in the world is mediated bilaterally and multilaterally so how would a boycott of a sporting event work alongside these other, more lasting political institutions and relationships? A boycott might be a useful tactical device at a time of international attention on China, but if it is not part of a wider strategy then it’s unlikely to work.

Third, there is also an argument that beyond the high level state agendas and lack of apparent reforms that the Olympics have in fact led to a political and cultural shift in urban China, with a blossoming of civil society organisations that have been critical of the state. So, if we look at the actual political changes, as opposed to those represented in Western media, it may be that China is changing as a result of the Olympics.

Finally, there is the hypocrisy of scapegoating China to serve western agendas. If we are serious about boycotting China then similar public actions need to be taken against all rights abusers and not just China. Once again, singling out China in this manner serves to reinforce the spurious democratic credentials of many western governments. Moreover, the western firms who are heavily involved in the Olympics (e.g. GEC, Visa) are wary about upsetting a lucrative market and so would not support a boycott.

About the author

Giles Mohan is a senior lecturer in development studies. He teaches on the Open University’s development studies programme as well as in geography. Giles’ research examines politics in Africa, particularly ways in which rural communities access the government as well the role of diasporas in national politics.

In my last post I argued that people’s contributions can’t always be calculated and added up. That week there were two stories in the press – one about the value of migrants and the other about the value of housework that made me think that the attempts being made to put a figure on how much housework or migrants’ work contribute to an economy were inadequate. I felt that the incalculable worthiness of people too needs to be recognised.

I still hold by what I said there but the teacher’s strike on April 24^th made me wonder when and what kinds of calculations might be important, even necessary.

And this is why.

Ed Balls, the schools secretary wrote in an article Why Britain has the best teachers ever on Tuesday October 23, 2007 :

The best teachers show children and young people a world they never knew existed. They open doors of opportunity and inspire a lifelong love of learning.

I hope everyone can look back on at least one teacher who really made a difference to them. We all want our children to be taught by people who not only help them to learn and progress, but also make a real difference to their lives and aspirations.

He offers a ringing endorsement to the teaching profession. He recounts, if you like, their incalculable worthiness.

However, at least according to the National Union of Teachers (NUT), this worthiness definitely remains uncalculated in the current pay offer that the government has made to teachers. At 2.45% it is well below the retail price index of 4.1%. The NUT therefore calculates that their wage increases are well below the inflation rate. They see this not only as a mark of Government failure to reward teachers with appropriate pay increases but also as signalling the wider worth given to teaching. Poor pay leads to a feeling of unworthiness among teachers and can result in falling standards amongst those who are drawn into the profession. In short, unless teachers are paid as if they are the best, the ‘best’ will shun teaching.

At the heart of this issue is an interesting paradox. Ed Balls clearly values teachers but he does not (at least according to the NUT) place an appropriate financial value on their contributions. The teachers ask for, what they consider, rightful financial remuneration – the incalculable worthiness recognised in Ed Balls’ speech seems to be inadequate. They want appropriate commensuration for their work.

Perhaps, it is worth stopping off here to explore a little what exactly we mean by commensuration. Commensuration is the process by which different qualities are made comparable by quantifying them. Of course, this process of quantification is inherently a way of ascribing value. It is not an end point but part of a system whereby you have some expectations about the contributions that might be made by teachers.

Commensuration as a practice always simplifies complex realities by eliminating heterogeneity and selecting comparable elements. It fixes, through the process of revelation, particular aspects of their existence as valuable, while obscuring others. For Plato, this process of simplification made it easier to navigate the world. It was a necessary part of rational living as it would remove passion and emotion from processes by which we value goods or people. It would stabilize our decision making by giving less room for subjective variations in what we value. His student, Aristotle, on the other hand, thought that too much was lost in this process of simplification. Difference and uniqueness and valuing things for their own sake, were, for him, the qualities that made us ethical humans.

Irrespective of whether we support Plato’s viewpoint or Aristotle’s, the value of a teacher’s labour it appears has already been calculated. The main pay scale varies across 6 bands while the upper pay scale has three bands. Progression in the main pay scale is related to years of work while progression in the upper pay scale is based on the discretion of the governing body. The value of the teacher will be assessed by school governing bodies, in line with local priorities. In addition teachers can also apply for Teaching and Learning Responsibility Allowance, if they take up a responsibility beyond that required by others. And then there are the Advanced Skills Teachers with their own 18 point pay spine; Excellent Teachers with their salary scheme; and the Leadership group which includes head teachers and other school leaders who have a 43 point pay scale. Teachers can also apply for Performance Related Pay and some teachers will be eligible for special allowances for teaching in London.

By the time I waded through these ‘differences’ in how teachers’ pay is calculated and these marks of recognition of uniqueness, simplicity began to look decidedly appealing! Jokes apart, the recognition of what matters in a particular context is something to be lauded. Teachers may (in my mind rightly) object to the way in which they have been transferred from the old scale to the new, without pay protection, leading to a reduction of recognition of certain tasks that they do and an erasure of the value of others but the many different scales does suggest the difficulties in equating qualitatively different types of work undertaken under different conditions. So the calculation of value seems, in this case, to have been done with an eye on the diversity of conditions in which teachers work

However, what is at stake here is not just the recognition of differences between teachers but also that between teachers and other workers in the economy. Why do teachers, who are given charge of shaping a whole generation for a minimum of 12 years, get paid so much less than some other professionals? What does this tell students about respect and value? What is the metric being used to calculate value? And how does this compare with how other people’s work is valued and measured? This is where recalculation seems to be necessary and important, given the society in which we live. Perhaps Ed Balls needs to go back to school for some lessons on calculating and rewarding value!

About the author

Parvati Raghuram is Lecturer in Geography at the Open University. Her research interests focus on the ways in which the mobility, of individuals, goods and of ideas is reshaping the world.