Government of the technocrats, by the technocrats, for the technocrats

Democracy must not be regarded as merely an optional extra when solving economic problems.

Greece and Italy now have new Prime Ministers. Neither of them have had to endure the indignity of actually standing for election. New Italian PM, Mario Monti, is a former European commissioner and an economist. Lucas Papademos, the new Greek Prime Minister, is a former Governor of the Bank of Greece (there is a great irony in a central banker being imposed as Prime Minister following a debt crisis fuelled by poor central bank decisions and a collapse of the banking system).

The European debt crisis has been almost as damaging for democracy as it has been for the economies of the Eurozone. In Greece and Italy, democratic legitimacy is clearly regarded as an unaffordable luxury.

If democratically elected leaders do not satisfy the markets, the IMF and the European Commission, they are now, in effect, summarily dismissed, without any reference to the wishes of the people. The unsubtle message coming out of Greece and Brussels is that international bodies believe that democratic governments have failed to tackle the economic crisis and should be replaced with more reliable (and controllable) technocratic governments.

Rule by technocrats has replaced rule by the people - with unelected, economically orthodox international bodies like the European Commission and the IMF working with unelected technocrats now heading up national governments to implement tough austerity measures that have never received public backing. The democratic deficit at the heart of Europe has become a democratic chasm.

The events of the past week are immensely important. For the first time in a generation, European countries are now headed by individuals who have had no popular endorsement at the ballot box. It is difficult to see why the people of Greece and Italy should see their new governments as representing their wishes when they have been imposed from above.

If people no longer see their Governments as being democratically legitimate and no longer see the ballot box as a legitimate way to express their grievance, they may be more likely to consider other ways to express that grievance. This is particularly dangerous at a time of painful austerity and falling living standards. Technocracy will have no answers for growing popular discontent.

The growing power of international bodies has steadily diminished democracy. Rule by place men has gradually replaced rule by democratically elected individuals who have been elected and can be removed. To an extent, the imposition of technocrats on Italy and Greece is the apotheosis of the technocratic concept that runs through bodies such as the IMF and European Commission

Indeed, Tony Benn famously warned of this threat in a mighty speech during the Maastricht debate, pointing out that, to a democrat, a good King is never better than a bad Parliament. He said:

We are discussing whether the... people are to be allowed to elect those who make the laws under the which they are governed... Secondly, we say to my favourite friends, the Chartists and suffragettes, "All your struggles to get control of the ballot box were a waste of time. We shall be run in future by a few white persons, as in 1832."

Government of the technocrats, by the technocrats, and for the technocrats is hugely undesirable and, by its very nature, bad for democratic legitimacy. It is not a long-term solution and should not have been considered as a short-term one. Democracy must not be regarded as merely an optional extra when solving economic problems.

If politicians do not bring their people with them, they risk creating extreme alienation and discontent. If politicians do not trust the people, why should the people trust their politicians? When they are working to solve the economic crisis engulfing Europe, the continent's leaders must be very careful that they don't create a new crisis of political legitimacy, which will have even more serious long-term consequences.

David Skelton is Deputy Director on Policy Exchange, an independent think tank. You can follow him on Twitter @djskelton

David Skelton is the director of Renewal, a new campaign group aiming to broaden the appeal of the Conservative Party to working class and ethnic minority voters. @djskelton

Show Hide image

No, single men do not have a “right” to reproduce

The World Health Organisation’s new definition of infertility enshrines a man’s right to do to women what patriarchy has always done to them – own their bodies.

Last year, Katha Pollitt wrote an article for The Nation in which she asked why the left was simultaneously making progress with equal marriage while falling behind on abortion rights. “The media ,” she wrote, “present marriage equality and reproductive rights as ‘culture war’ issues, as if they somehow went together. But perhaps they’re not as similar as we think.”

She highlighted the ways in which the right can afford to cede ground on marriage equality while continuing to deny females bodily autonomy. She is right to do so. While both reproductive choice and gay rights may be classed as gender issues, each has its own very specific relationship to patriarchy.

A woman’s desire to control her reproductive destiny will always be in direct opposition to patriarchy’s desire to exploit female bodies as a reproductive resource. The social institutions that develop to support the latter – such as marriage – may change, but the exploitation can remain in place.

This has, I think, caused great confusion for those of us who like to see ourselves as progressive. We know that the idealisation of the heterosexual nuclear family, coupled with the demonisation of all relationships seen as “other”, has caused harm to countless individuals. We refuse to define marriage as solely for the purpose of procreation, or to insist that a family unit includes one parent of each sex.

We know we are right in thinking that one cannot challenge patriarchy without fundamentally revising our understanding of family structures. Where we have gone wrong is in assuming that a revision of family structures will, in and of itself, challenge patriarchy. On the contrary, it can accommodate it.

This is why all feminists – and indeed anyone serious about tackling patriarchy at the root – should be deeply concerned about the World Health Organisation’s new definition of infertility. Whereas up until now infertility has been defined solely in medical terms (as the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months of unprotected sex), a revised definition will give each individual “a right to reproduce”.

According to Dr David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, this new definition “includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women”:

“It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It’s a big change.”

It sure is. From now on, even single men who want children – but cannot have them solely because they do not have a female partner to impregnate – will be classed as “infertile”. I hope I’m not the only person to see a problem with this.

I am all in favour of different family structures. I’m especially in favour of those that undermine an age-old institution set up to allow men to claim ownership of women’s reproductive labour and offspring.

I am less enthusiastic about preserving a man’s “right” to reproductive labour regardless of whether or not he has a female partner. The safeguarding of such a right marks not so much an end to patriarchy as the introduction of a new, improved, pick ‘n’ mix, no-strings-attached version.

There is nothing in Adamson’s words to suggest he sees a difference between the position of a reproductively healthy single woman and a reproductively healthy single man. Yet the difference seems obvious to me. A woman can impregnate herself using donor sperm; a man must impregnate another human being using his sperm.

In order to exercise his “right” to reproduce, a man requires the cooperation – or failing that, forced labour – of a female person for the duration of nine months. He requires her to take serious health risks, endure permanent physical side-effects and then to supress any bond she may have developed with the growing foetus. A woman requires none of these things from a sperm donor.

This new definition of infertility effectively enshrines a man’s right to do to women what patriarchy has always done to them: appropriate their labour, exploit their bodies and then claim ownership of any resultant human life.

Already it is being suggested that this new definition may lead to a change in UK surrogacy law. And while some may find it reassuring to see Josephine Quintavalle of the conservative pressure group Comment on Reproductive Ethics complaining about the sidelining of “the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman”, that really isn’t the problem here.

“How long,” asks Quintavalle, “before babies are created and grown on request completely in the lab?” The answer to this is “probably a very long time indeed”. After all, men are hardly on the verge of running out of poor and/or vulnerable women to exploit. As long as there are female people who feel their only remaining resource is a functioning womb, why bother developing complex technology to replace them?

Men do not have a fundamental right to use female bodies, neither for reproduction nor for sex. A man who wants children but has no available partner is no more “infertile” than a man who wants sex but has no available partner is “sexually deprived”.

The WHO’s new definition is symptomatic of men’s ongoing refusal to recognise female boundaries. Our bodies are our own, not a resource to be put at men’s disposal. Until all those who claim to be opposed to patriarchal exploitation recognise this, progress towards gender-based equality will be very one-sided indeed.

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.