It is seventy years since Aneurin Bevan addressed Fabians in Livingstone Hall on 13th October 1950. Seventy years since Bevan spoke of both the need and purpose of democratic values, valuing democracy, and democratising value. Seventy years and the message he proclaimed retains its relevance and vibrancy.
Bevan’s oratory begins with a delicious disclaimer familiar to all those who have been compelled to start speeches with the phrase ‘in a personal capacity’ wherein he states that he has not yet written his speech (all too relatable), he has not consulted the Prime Minister about it (same), and that his views are “entirely my own” (predating similar assertions on Twitter by over half a century).
The context given for democracy are worth attention alone. For Bevan democracy was not an abstract ideal nor was it something that had been achieved in a very real sense until comparatively recently. For Bevan democracy in Britain “only arrived about 25 years ago [Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928]” with equal suffrage for women and men and the abolition of property requirements. The relative youth of democracy is taken into account with a deal of verve “it is very necessary if we are to maintain a buoyant and optimistic spirit against the vicissitudes of the times, that we always keep in mind that ordinary men and women have only worn the purple for a very short time”.
For Bevan there was a deep-seated link between the electorate, their representatives, and the power the latter wielded on the former’s behalf. In part this was due to Bevan’s own ascent to Parliament. He was his community’s tribune being of the community and representing their interests.
If there is a central conceit to Bevan’s Fabian lecture to those assembled at Livingstone Hall it is that in order that democracy be fully realised it must have sufficient tangible power over that which it ostensibly governs.
“In fact, democratic parliaments under private property, under capitalism, are the professional public moaners for private economic crimes. So long as parliaments divest themselves of economic power, then democratic institutions are bound to be always the whipping-boys for private enterprise.”
It is my understanding that Bevan wishes not for Parliament per se to have a broader control of economic levers but that those levers must be made democratically accountable and the machinery for such accountability at the time of his speech were to be found within the House of Commons.
Throughout Bevan’s writings and speeches there is an acceptance of realpolitik that to my mind speaks of his background as a trade union activist. The trade union movement has been the traditional proving ground for those that see things as they are yet have the belief and conviction to fashion things to that which they should be. For Bevan there is no waiting for the perfect conditions to change things for the better but only a series of moments where we must all be striving towards that improvement. Following a seemingly exhaustive list of events which count against the idea that democracy could wrest order back to the world Bevan laconically enjoins: “Therefore we must face the task, difficult thought it may be, of trying to introduce some plan into this social chaos.”
By what means may this plan be enacted amidst the social chaos? For Bevan it was a “socialist democracy” simultaneously both means and purpose. Nowhere would this be more apparent than in the National Health Service. It would scarce be a speech by Bevan without his referencing the foundation of the NHS.
“the most important socialist achievement of this country in the last five years has been the National Health Service. There you have got what a socialist really means by socialism. There is a practical illustration of “From each according to his capacity; to each according to his need.” That is a first fruit, because every socialist believes ultimately in what has been sometimes awkwardly described as a distributive society.”
The National Health Service was Bevan’s democratic socialism made manifest. The democratic process had delivered for the collective needs of the community. Nye sought to expand this principle to other sectors of the economy. Indeed, it was only through such expansion that the nascent democracy that had only just emerged could be preserved. Bevan was, if nothing else, an ardent democrat in the truest sense of the term.
“So I regard it as an absolute perquisite for the defence of all the principles of democracy, for the maintenance of the best of the liberal inheritance, that elected governments in the modern world should arm themselves with effective economic powers; because unless they do that, then the people who complain, and properly complain, will cut out the roots of democracy themselves. That is the reason why no democracy in the modern world is safe until it becomes a socialist democracy.”
All too often it seems that the amount of time devoted to a democratic process is the inverse to the power which the post wields. I was proud to have been elected Chair of the GMB Young Members Network some years ago but even I am prepared to acknowledge the process by which I was elected (a discussion was held on who was eligible to vote in the vote that would decide who could vote in the vote for Chair) was at odds with the power of the office to which I ascended (essentially chairing a stack of meetings which resulted in some great work but only through a considerable amount of collective effort. Supreme executive power it was not and nor should it be).
Such discussions that do exist on the state of our democracy are frequently confined to the relative merits of voting systems and the composition of constituencies. While these discussions are important the debate must also encompass the nature of the powers that those elected wield. As Bevan observes “That is the reason we must always be on our guard, and realise all the while that you cannot maintain a healthy democracy supinely, that you can only do it by continuous education and by continually bringing all the people into as much consultation as possible.” It is perhaps no surprise that an individual renowned for his oratory is in favour of as much consultation as possible.
Bevan’s concluding passage strikes an optimistic and ostensibly uncharacteristic self-effacing note. I have taken the liberty of quoting the section in full:
“Therefore, if I am asked to give the criteria of progress, I would say that progress is measured by the extent to which the goods and services that are made available pass into the distributive rather than the commodity sector of the population; and the more and more things that we are able to enjoy without their having to pass through the price system, the more civilised and less acquisitive human society becomes.
Madam Chairman, many others are going to give lectures in this series. I have done my best at the outset, to set out what my views are, being careful all the time to express myself with sufficient ambiguity where the ice looked very thin. I hope, however, I have said sufficient to be able to stimulate some of you to pursue this thing much further.”
Aneurin Bevan may not be the first person to come to mind when people think of those who have addressed the Fabian Society. Bevan’s socialism was decidedly red in tooth and claw – an overtly lupine Fabianism. Yet there existed a profound commonality in the mutual belief that a tangible change in society could and should be made. Bevan saw a value and a worth in giving a Fabian Lecture. Seventy years on it is fair to say that there are those within the Fabian Society, the Labour Party, and the wider union movement who are prompted by the words and deeds of Bevan and are prepared to “pursue this thing much further”.
David Hamblin is a Fabian Society member.
The lecture may be read in full here.
