In chapters 7 and 8 we examine the role of the elected local leadership in France and Britain. Local councillors are situated, in both countries, at the point where the various local political forces interact. Councillors play both in democratic theory and, as we shall see, in local political practice a number of different parts.

In the first instance the local council is the body which ‘receives’ the political demands which are generated in the locality by individuals and groups. Councillors are the targets at which much participatory activity is directed. This may be a matter of an individual contacting the councillor in order to obtain some objective such as assistance with a housing problem or with a building permit. Or it may be a group which seeks to engage the support of the councillor for some project which is for the benefit of the collectivity as a whole or of a particular section of local society. Examples would be campaigns for improvements to the local environment or for the provision of a community centre or place of worship for an ethnic or religious minority.

These are instances of the councillors as recipients of relatively spontaneous demands. Councillors, however, also have more active parts to play in the local political process. They do not merely respond even to these spontaneous demands. They have to act as ‘brokers’ seeking to reconcile demands which may be in direct conflict with one another, for example if the demand for a religious community centre faces objections from local residents, or more indirectly through competition between projects for financial resources.

There is a gap of ten years between the Local Government Act of 1972 and the Act of 1982 dealing with ‘the rights and liberties of communes, departments and regions’, which is more usually called the ‘decentralisation act’. The style and scope of the two reforms look very different: local government in Britain was to be tidied up and simplified, whereas local government in France was to undergo radical overall reorganisation. London's concern with the efficiency and technical capability of local authorities contrasts with the declared political and ideological determination to decentralise expressed in Paris. Conversely, a profound change took place at the territorial level in England, Wales and Scotland, whereas in France the picture presented by local and regional levels of action remains practically unchanged. These contrasts are striking, but they are deceptive, since they do not really disguise the resemblances between the two systems, even if the arena of local politics is marked out in different ways, and power at the local level is unevenly distributed.

EVOLUTION: FROM CONTRASTS TO ANALOGIES

It has probably not been sufficiently recognised that the disparities, and even the contradictions, between the two local traditions have been greatly reduced by changes in social conditions, such as to produce in recent years an unusual degree of convergence between the British and French systems of local government.

Differences in the two politico-administrative traditions

History has produced in the two countries local political cultures which are firmly established and practically polar opposites.

The theme of this chapter concerns the character of local political participation. This is an important subject, raising, as it does, questions about the democratic nature of political life at the base of the whole system. Equally, it throws light on how citizens contribute to decision-making about those matters that most directly affect the quality of their daily lives. So what are the local issues that are raised by citizens? How do these personal concerns get translated into interventions by them in the public affairs of a given locality? And what types and levels of interventions are involved here – demonstrations, or pluralist-style group activities, or is it more a matter of individualistic, one-to-one contacts between ‘citizens’ and local ‘leaders’?

In assessing the cumulative impact of citizen participation, we also have to consider how those concerned view the local political domain. Which issues and actions do they see as falling within this ambit and which do not? This set of cultural assumptions, seemingly neglected in other studies, must shape in subtle but important ways the whole character of local political life. More concretely, however, we also need to examine what type of person is most active. Is it the case, as has been found on the national scale in other countries, that participation tends to advantage those already advantaged in other ways? Or is the immediacy of the local system sufficient to equalise matters?

The idea that local democracy is properly rooted in something called ‘community’ has a long history in western thought. It has had its protagonists in French political thinking, although its most notable exponents, Rousseau and Tocqueville, are in certain, if differing, respects outside some of the mainstreams of French political argument. However it is, as one of its critics has said, ‘primarily an Anglo-Saxon theory (in the Gaullist sense)’ (Bulpitt 1972:282). The prime components of the theory (also termed by Bulpitt ‘territorial democracy’) are, first, the view that communities are not the artificial constructs of central authorities, but natural units which arise out of the habitual patterns of social life. Secondly, such units should, ideally, be small allowing people to develop mutual knowledge and understanding. This will, thirdly, encourage a concern for the area and its people which will result in higher levels of participation, especially where the community has a genuine degree of autonomous governmental control over its affairs.

It is of course fundamentally a normative theory but it is in a form to which empirical evidence about the attitudes and practices of people in local life is pertinent. To the degree that localities are seen by their inhabitants to be communities one should be able to discover higher levels of participation.

The focus of this chapter is on the process by which issues and problems are raised in local government and the roles which councillors play in that process. This entails a consideration of how councillors fit into the social and political milieu in which they operate and how they perceive that milieu since these perceptions will shape their own conduct. Councillors, central as they are to local government, are not the sole group with political influence at a local level. Accordingly, the analysis makes a broad but essential distinction between councillors and other elite individuals with influence in local affairs. They, in turn, are also collectively contrasted with both the groups and private citizens who comprise the local grass-roots populace.

We begin by examining a number of social and political characteristics which throw light on the degree to which elites and citizens differ in background or in the extent of their integration into local life. We then move on to consider similarities and differences in the perceptions of local issues possessed by councillors, other influentials and by the population at large. Finally, the chapter will look at the kind of role councillors play in reconciling and integrating the various groups and forces operating in local political life.

THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LOCATION OF COUNCILLORS

In order to examine the role of councillors in the management and processing of demands we must first locate them, and the citizenry, within a common framework of significant social and political characteristics.

The underlying theme of this study is the notion of local democracy. This notion rests on a fundamental ideal of political liberty. Tocqueville not only grasped the significance of this ideal, but also many of its contradictions, which manifested themselves in the course of the political developments of the nineteenth century. The idea of local democracy was, to a considerable extent, undermined by the processes of centralisation and modernisation, as well as by the rationalisation of political authority typical of the modern period. And yet this ideal rose again from the ashes at the end of the 1960s, and in Western countries, especially France and Britain, produced a set of attitudes which was widely shared. ‘Participatory democracy’ was very much the vogue, and if the expression, with its abstract tone, is more familiar to the French than to the British, it nonetheless became one of the major preoccupations of the great commissions on government reform which were set up in both countries (in Britain the Redcliffe–Maud Commission in 1969, and the Layfield Committee in 1976; in France the Peyrefitte Commission in 1975 and the Guichard Commission in 1976) aimed, amongst their objectives, at adapting the system of local government to new democratic circumstances. In Britain, it had been thought that the effect of the new system introduced in 1974 would be to increase citizen participation at the local level, to improve the quality of the elected representatives, and to build up new communities which would in many instances bring together the town and the countryside.

In certain situations, individuals organise themselves into groups, elaborate demands and express them in a collective form. They act in concert in order to force the political system to take account of these demands. Groupings which already exist, or which are brought into being for a specific purpose, seek to create or to reactivate a sense of identity and solidarity which is capable of lasting a long time and of being relatively firm. In this sense, political participation is not necessarily a continuous and permanent phenomenon. It can differ both according to the issues which are generated by collective action, and according to the level of decision-making, so that its extent and its intensity may vary considerably.

A WORKING DEFINITION OF POLITICAL MOBILISATION

As we shall argue, the concept of political mobilisation is not simply a form of participation which has been initiated from outside. Indeed, as a working definition we here take it to mean the processes which are intended to create or to reactivate a commitment or an identification, with the purpose of promoting collective aims. In more concrete terms these aims are to influence public decisions or to put forward new values by means of actions defined according to three distinctive criteria:

1. (a) A collective dimension: individuals form groups on the basis of common objectives so that their demands will be taken into account in one way or another by the local politico-administrative system. Unlike some approaches to the study of political participation, it is the action of the group which becomes the object of study, and not the behaviour of individuals.

2. […]

An examination of the two sets of case studies reported in chapters 5 and 6 shows that the difference between them are sufficient to require that one should exercise due caution when mounting comparisons. Nevertheless, whilst these differences may restrict the possibility of a detailed, point-bypoint comparison, they also help to suggest certain reflections on the possible links between the process of mobilisation and the nature of the locality.

It should first be noted that the decisions studied are not exactly of the same type. The contribution of the French team dealt with mobilisation movements of a reactive kind, i.e. those which opposed a specific type of decision linked to large-scale public works projects. For its part, the British team studied a protest movement opposed to a socio-economic decision and an organisation whose activity was directed much more positively towards the defence of a cause: the use of the Welsh language.

No doubt this difference in the nature of the decisions analysed goes a long way to explain why, in France, mobilisation against public works was, in three cases out of four, purely local. Proximity to the problem played an essential part, and this may help to explain why the movements studied appealed to so few people. The number of people who were potentially concerned in any direct way was, by definition, limited.

In their ordinary day-to-day political life, communes reflect three essential features. First and foremost, they form discrete territorial areas in which a number of social, economic and cultural activities take place. The communes also provide administrative services, through which they interact to a greater or lesser degree with the various areas of their environment. They are, finally, a political arena in which the parties are increasingly competing in order to gain positions of influence. These aspects are similarly manifested in local policy-making. This is conducted in the name of a constructed and identifiable local entity, and provides a certain number of services, thereby defining the various sectors of the communal administration. It is also guided by party political ideologies which, indeed, can structure the general pattern of local political activity.

The role of the council in the integration of the local community can be analysed along three main dimensions of its activity. In these terms, one can distinguish here between a territorial dimension (representing the commune and its various socio-spatial zones); a functional dimension (the various tasks for which the council is responsible and which are formalised by the professionals); and finally a more partisan dimension (involving the representation of different views and the formation of strategies for action along party political lines). It is the combination of these key dimensions which enables conflicts to be settled, and the divergent interests resulting from the effects of local council policy to be reconciled.

The processes of political participation that are the subject of the case studies to be examined in this chapter, rest on a number of preconditions which need to be considered, at least in general terms. In the last analysis, it is very difficult to explain why a collective protest movement occurs at a given time and place and a single ‘primary cause’ is not to be found. Nevertheless, our aim is to discover, first, what forms of action and what kinds of legitimising devices protest movements employ in order to put pressure on the public authorities to take account of their demands. Secondly, we shall seek to assess the effects of the processes of mobilisation on the politico-administrative system in order to discover to what extent they influence its workings.

THE CONDITIONS FOR LOCAL POLITICAL MOBILISATION

Why, and under what conditions, do individuals group themselves together at a particular moment and organise themselves to oppose a public policy decision? Not every public decision leads to collective participation. For this to occur, the potential negative consequences of the decision have, first, to be recognised; leaders have to establish and organise a collective movement; the relevant interests have to be activated. In this way, processes of mobilisation might be considered to depend on a number of pre-existing conditions which, at least in part, constrain the form which they can take.

This section will, therefore, look at a number of these pre-conditions for a process of mobilisation to develop and, in particular, at the nature of the decisions involved, the role of the activists and, finally, the reasons why the various participants became involved in the movements.

These two chapters have been concerned with processes which are common to all political systems – the articulation and aggregation of demands and the integration of society through the reconciliation of interests. In both Britain and France local councillors play an essential part in these processes. They facilitate the expression of demands as well as being receivers of demands from individuals and groups, thus performing a double role. On occasion they are in effect the initiators of action. By a process of downward mobilisation they themselves activate groups in the local population to put forward demands.

The capacity of councillors to reflect priorities and also to bring about reconciliation of interests is partly related to the extent of their own integration into the locality. One indirect measure of integration is the degree to which councillors are socially representative of the local population. This is not an entirely satisfactory measure since it does not follow that councillors who are drawn from a similar background to the electorate necessarily mirror the views of the population nor that they are the best advocates of the views of the local population. The background of leaders is, therefore, often more an indication of social opportunities. Nevertheless, any social ‘bias’ in the composition of councillors may reflect the capacity of political institutions to activate different sectors of the local population.

This chapter will look at two instances of mobilisation occurring in Carmarthen and its surrounds in order to explore different patterns and styles of mobilisation. The first involves dairy farmers, the second Welsh language activists.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

The milk quota issue

When the European Economic Community introduced milk quotas in April 1984 as a means of reducing milk production, the British government, which was responsible for the implementation of these quotas, devised a scheme on the basis of an across-the-board quota equal to 1983 production levels less 9 per cent. Over-production was to be penalised by a levy. This method of implementing the quotas was seen as having an especially detrimental effect on the small, rather than the large, dairy farmer. Dyfed's dairy farmers work small family farms and therefore felt themselves to be particularly harshly treated by this system of quota implementation. Many of the farmers took the view that their livelihood was under threat and called for the government both to change the system of quota allocation, and to introduce measures to alleviate the farmers' financial problems. (For the impact of quotas on French farmers, see Naylor 1986.)

The vast majority of Dyfed's farmers, alarmed at the threat to their livelihood, expressed a determination to challenge the government's policy. The farmers' reaction was particularly intense partly because they felt betrayed by their own government. During the late 1970s and early 1980s the British government had encouraged dairy farmers to expand their milk production and, in response to this, many borrowed considerable sums of money in order to equip their farms with the necessary facilities.

There is a long-standing theory, of which Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill are joint progenitors, that local government is the school in which political understanding and participation is learned (see Parry 1972: 3–38). Knowledge of local problems and interest in their solution would enhance local participation, with beneficial effects for both individual and society. Despite the longevity of the theory and its popularity, particularly amongst those radical democrats who favour de-centralisation, the empirical evidence in favour of the link between locality and participation is scanty and contradictory (Verba and Nie 1972: 229–32). To some degree this state of affairs arises because of uncertainty about the central terms in the discourse (Rossi 1972) and about the way in which individual participation is mediated by locality.

According to one view, participation will be enhanced to the extent that individuals live in ‘communities’, which are, at a minimum, localities characterised by a certain sense of solidarity and common identity. In such ‘communities’ residents are likely to have ‘an intention … to act in certain ways towards one another, to respond to each other in particular ways, and to value each other as a member of the group’ (Plant 1978: 89). Such intentions are actualised, it is hypothesised, in higher levels of local participation. The major problem with this ‘community identification’ theory arises from the deep ambivalence of the notion of community which is a prime instance of the ‘essentially contestable concept’ (Gallie 1955–6) in that a person's notion of a community is inextricably related to that person's ideological stance on a range of other values.