Political Personalism, a Brief Introduction. Part 3: Political Personalism.

by David Jewson

Political Personalism is about making life better for everyone, rich and poor alike. It is about the importance of protecting the individual and individual freedoms, so that no person should be sacrificed for the sake of the community. It is about nurturing the relationships between people so that everyone becomes more ‘connected’ so that people will naturally care about others in their community and will feel obligations to that community; they can then voluntarily restrict their own freedoms so that the community can flourish, while the community can likewise help that person to flourish and be happy. Everyone works for the common good, and in doing so finds their own happiness.

Previous Personalist Politicians

There have been several notable personalist politicians, but there are two that I will mention.

The first is Martin Luther King who came across personalism during his studies at Boston University, before becoming a civil rights leader in the USA, when he played a crucial role in achieving the same rights for black as for white people. The second is Archbishop Desmond Tutu who helped to replace apartheid in South Africa with a democracy that involved all races working together.

Both believed in forging better relationships between people. Both believed in the dignity of all people, black or white, rich or poor. Both believed that violence was wrong and that reconciliation and living a good and connected life together is right.

Personalist Policies

Policies are normally enacted by governments, but governments have increasingly seemed unable to respond effectively and speedily to challenges, often hamstrung but lack of knowledge, administrative protocol and political expediency. The recent Grenfell tower fire in London was a case in point, where very active community groups were seemingly able to do far more for residents than the politicians on the local council or in the government, in the immediate aftermath of the fire.

Personalist politics start with the individual and their relationships. This is enormously empowering as it means everyone can make a personal difference to the world and change the world through their network of relationships, even if that change is relatively small. If one person can cause several others to change, who, in their turn, cause more people to change, the effect can snowball into many people wanting the same change. Everyone becomes politically important. This is even more so now that people have the opportunity to easily connect through social media.

Decisions taken closest to people, within their own network of relations are likely to be the best for them, and the ones they feel best about. For most decisions in their lives, this is exactly what happens. However, for political decisions, except in an anarchist society (an idea which has its merits!), this is not practically possible, although decisions can be devolved to the most local level possible.

The Rich and the Poor

The rich person who works hard would seem to deserve their money. If they keep it in the bank, it provides capital for banks to loan out and keeps the economy functioning. Rich people are often the innovators and thinkers in society with ideas that can make society better, for example by providing better technology for better healthcare. Their money also provides security for them and their children. Rich people often have the time to get involved in work that really does contribute to society, usually for no pay at all.

However, rich people who are wedded purely to material things and consume more than a reasonable share of the world's resources by extravagant spending cannot be ‘connected’ to the rest of his community, or else they would not behave in that way. In a world of finite resources, if they consume more, others must consume less. They will divide society, simply by not being connected, and will quite likely be unhappier because of it. But I should be clear, this is not due to their wealth, but due to their excessive consumption. Excessive and lavish personal consumption is bad, not wealth in itself, and particularly exasperating as some studies have suggested increasing consumption actually reduces happiness, rather than increasing it.

Consumption to emphasise position and power, although a natural human trait, when taken to excess would seem particularly bad. However, there are some paradoxical examples of this. This British monarchy, for example, consume lavishly, but the Queen devotes herself to her country and subjects, connects with them, is loved by most of them and in many ways, makes our country a better place.

A rich person can be a happy and integrated part of a personalist society. They can have security, have assets, pass their assets to their children, have freedom, and be connected to the rest of their society; they just need to spend their money wisely and not always on themselves.

The poor, in a personalist society, would be defined as those whose lack of money is causing unhappiness, for example, due to lack of food or shelter. In a well-connected society those people would be helped, not only by the state but by those around them. But in our society now, there are probably many more things causing unhappiness than lack of money: stress, mental health problems, loneliness, drug and alcohol addiction, and criminality, for example, and often these things are also related to a disrupted network of relations: it is easier to steal off someone to whom you are not connected and regard as an ‘it’ rather than a person. These people are also ‘poor’ but in a different sense of the word, and perhaps now represent the greatest proportion of the ‘poor’.

People in a well-connected, personalist society, be they rich or poor, want to give as well as to receive, as that is a natural part of being connected to other people. The basic things that are important to rich people are just the same as poor people, as they are all human beings, so freedom and good ‘connected’ relationships. This is why Political Personalism is a politics for both the rich and the poor.

Policies

To put forward good policies requires a good understanding of the policy area and so not something that can realistically be a part of a summary of Political Personalism. However, an example of a policy might be helpful:

Unemployment

Current policies on unemployment concentrate on financially supporting the unemployed, helping them to find work, and influencing the economy so that unemployment does not occur in the first place.

It is interesting that unemployment is regarded as a time of waste and the unemployed are stigmatized. This can badly damage the ‘self-esteem’ and confidence of an unemployed person, who has also lost the relationships that are a product of working with other people. However, unemployment could be viewed differently, as a time of opportunity when you can do really useful things to help the people around you that you are connected to. So, instead of making ‘stuff’ for someone else that possibly would add little happiness to society, you can spend the time doing something really useful like looking after a sick or elderly member of your family. It is often when people retire, that paradoxically, they do more useful things in society. So, a Personalist policy would be to make the unemployed aware that they are not unwanted and useless, but this is an opportunity in their lives and to help them feel useful and connected in the time before they find another job.

In the film, ‘I Daniel Blake’, a man who is unable to work due to heart disease, deals with a faceless unemployment office (Job Centre) that treats him as a ‘customer’ or an ‘it’ rather than a person. The office does not try to understand or help him, rather it follows ridged rules forcing him to apply for work when he is clearly not capable of it. This leads to frustration, anger, feelings of injustice and a feeling of separation or ‘un-connectedness’ with the state. A Personalist policy would ensure that this connection with the state was personal. So, a ‘Daniel Blake’ would always deal with the same person in the office. That person would understand him and connect with him and acknowledge his problems and personal situation and try and help him in the best and most flexible way possible. That person would be there for him, not for the state. Daniel Blake wanted to help his community, indeed he spent a great deal of time helping a friend who he had met at the unemployment office, he felt a natural obligation to his community. A faceless state reflected by a faceless and uncaring unemployment office severs the personal connection between the state and the unemployed such that a culture can develop where the unemployed take their money as ‘a right’ and feel no obligation to work or to help their community at all. Unfortunately, methods to deal with this ‘unemployment culture’ have been based around rules compelling a person to seek and accept work rather than forging relationships that, the personalist would say, are likely to lead to a better outcome.

Political Personalism in Summary

Political personalism is not liberalism, it is not socialism, it is not some misfit merger of the two, it is a new political approach that gives importance to the things that matter most to people: their individual freedom and their relationships. It says that in a good and happy society it is healthy, connected relationships that are needed far more than ‘stuff’ to consume. Political Personalism is built around people, both rich and poor; it is the new alternative politics.