Schrödinger’s Plaid
Bubble — By John Dixon on September 10, 2010 7:00 am
Vote Plaid. It's purrfectly alright
MY FIRST General Election as a voter was in 1970. Had it been in 1964 or 1966, I would unquestionably have voted for Wilson’s Labour Party. But by 1970, the “white heat of the technological revolution” was looking a bit like a damp squib, the promise to scrap Polaris had been abandoned, and there was, of course, the defining issue for the youth of the time: Vietnam.
In retrospect, Wilson’s position on Vietnam looks a lot stronger and more principled than it felt at the time. I may yet become a revisionist. But without the contemporary comparator of Blair and Iraq and Afghanistan, the feeling at the time was that Wilson was simply too close by far to the US.
There were three candidates for the Barry Constituency that year: the sitting Tory, Sir Raymond Gower; a Labour councillor from Swansea, John Allinson; and, for the first time ever, Plaid Cymru contested the constituency, in the person of Euryn Ogwen Williams. I couldn’t vote Tory and was disillusioned with Wilson’s Labour Party, so I set out to find out more about this other party, attending the public meeting they organised in a classroom in Dinas Powys Primary School.
The audience was not massive; I don’t believe it reached double figures. And I suspect to this day that not only was I the only one present who was not a party member, but that the others were rather surprised to see any of the public actually turning up to their public meeting. There were two speakers – the candidate himself gave a speech which, inter alia, talked about the need to attract foreign investment into Wales, and the supporting speaker, the late Illtyd Lewis, expounded the virtues of workers’ control of industry.
When they’d finished, I asked what to me was the obvious question – how on earth could they reconcile two such obviously divergent views? They both had a go at answering, but I can’t say that either answer was terribly convincing. It did persuade me, though, that the party was about more than the language and flying the Welsh Dragon, and that there was a strand within the party which was looking at alternative economic models as well. On that basis, coupled with negative views about the other parties, I cast my first vote for Plaid Cymru.
Of course, it came later that I discovered that there have always been a number of different strands of thought within Plaid.
One way of highlighting one of the differences was the question Phil Williams asked in his minority Commission report in 1981. The point he made was that, if asked directly whether Plaid was a party seeking sudden revolutionary change or a party seeking gradual slow reform, the party at that time would always reply with the former. But if the same question was asked more indirectly about specific issues, the response would always betray the true reformist nature of Plaid.
The modern-day equivalent still holds true. As an example, a party seeking an immediate move to independence would argue for fiscal autonomy now; only a reformist party would get hung up on continually demanding a change to the Barnett formula.
When looking at Plaid’s internal tensions, people typically refer to two main strands, but I think that there at least three. And that’s a view developed after years of trying to ensure that the party maintains a balance between some very different perspectives.
The first strand is based largely around culture and language; it’s an instinctive form of nationalism which doesn’t necessarily require the establishment of particular – or indeed any – institutions. It’s more to do with defending and strengthening a sense of nationhood; sometimes even one particular definition of nationhood.
The second is based around the concept of self-government (or Independence or Full National Status – choose your own words), free of any ideological commitment to a particular kind of economic or political society, treating that as an issue which can be discussed and settled after independence is achieved.
And the third sees economic, social and political liberation as being an indivisible whole, with the sort of society which we wish to create in an independent Wales being every bit as important as independence itself. From that perspective, political emancipation for the nation is pretty meaningless without economic emancipation for its people.
I generally try and avoid terms like left and right, but they are terms often applied by others, and in that sense, the third strand is generally characterised by the term ‘left wing’. That does not mean, however, that the others are therefore ‘right wing’. That’s not to say that there are not political and economic conservatives in those strands, merely that that is not the defining characteristic of either. A better, but still largely irrelevant, description might be ‘not specifically left’.
For many years as a member, I saw these three interpretations of our purpose as being conflicting. Eventually, one had to win out, which meant that the other two had to lose. But my view on that changed over time. For a while, I saw the reconciliation of the three as being mostly about timing; they were three different stages through which we could move sequentially, which provided a rationale for continuing to try and balance the different strands.
But more recently, I’ve come to the view that Plaid may be a bit like Schrödinger’s theoretical cat. It actually exists in all three states simultaneously, and can continue to do so until someone opens the box. At that point, the probability waves will collapse into a single observed reality. From that perspective, balancing the different views has been a bit like trying to keep the box closed.
The problem with that view is that the lid can’t stay closed for ever. Being in government has imposed serious strains on the lock, and coupled with that, it seems to me that there are some who want to force the box open, believing that they will be able to enforce their own perspective on the reality which emerges.
That is, however, simply not the way in which quantum mechanics works. And I don’t think that politics does, either. It’s difficult to see which version of reality will eventually prove to be the correct one, but I increasingly suspect that we may be obliged to find out sooner rather than later.
Tags: conference, Plaid Cymru
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
11 Comments
This is a typically, beautifully written, scrupulously argued article that, unsurprisingly, doesn’t answer the question he proposed to himself so long ago: why vote for Plaid?
It’s almost (must be Pope on the mind time) a plea for ‘faith’ that will somehow – in the nasty, turbulent world of politics – sort itself out in the end with a ‘better’ Wales. I long since gave up my choir-boy belief in the ever after, not sure I can wait for a political second coming either.
A very interesting and well written pice. But what worries me is that we don’t actually know, by the end of the article, what John Dixon belives himself which is symptomatic of Plaid in general.
I’m a cultural nationalist but my nationalism is certainly not instinctive, it’s well worked and thought out and cultural nationalists, since the days of Michael D. Jones, have argued that we do actually need institutions to maintain and develop our unique national characteristics. Are not Welsh medium Schools institutions? S4C and Radio Cymru? The Welsh Federal College? And we do believe, in the end, that the language and culture are best served by a Cardiff Senedd than a London one, but there are big but’s I’ll get on to in a bit.
Plaid’s problem is that it has been lead to belive that it has to choose between the strands John has noted above. It can either care for the Welsh communities of Gwynedd or march forward to win ‘socialist’ votes off Labour in majority English speaking areas. Since devolution it is perfectly clear that Plaid’s agenda, be it purposely or circumstantially, has been to ‘win’ the Valley’s rather than ‘save’ the Fro Gymraeg. Plaid’s lack of interest and policy development regarding the issue of economic inward migration to the Fro shutting local people out of the market is a glaring example of this. It’s a purely economic issue wich has a knock on effect on language and culture but Plaid shy away from tackling the issue because they’r afraid that Labour and others will capitalise on the issue and use the ‘racist’ card again.
Personally I think it’s a shame that Plaid have been force to choose between the two strands. Ond glaring example of a person who has bucked the trend is Leanne Wood AM – she’s on the forefront of the win the Valles agenda but has been vocal in her support for Cymdeithas yr Iaith campaigns and has shown a personal commitment to the language.
Simon Brooks latest musings in bARN and on different blogs is helpful I believe. Simon’s been reminding us of Saunder’s warning that the attitude the nation holds as she gains her freedom will be the attitude she’s frozen in from that point forward in history. To me therefore I’m in no haste to march towards more freedom. I think there’s issues and policies in regard to the Welsh langage and Welsh communities which need to be addressed before we turn our attention to moving devolution forward. Education for example is already devolved but there are massive issues with regard to the Language which are still to be address, Treganna is a case in point. Also, the draft Welsh Langue measure, as I understand, does not make full use of the powers which has already been devolved to it in the LCO. Finally, Local Authorities already have powers which they don’t use to control the housing market and curb the out pricing of locals from the market.
Plaid’s big thing during their coalition years has been ensuring that we get this referendum on further law making powers. I’ll be voting ‘yes’ in the referendum of course; but I would have wanted to see Plaid giving priority to other more pressing issues. When we get the latest figures about Welsh speaking communities we will see clearly what the cost of Plaid’s silence of the issue during the past decade, 4 of those years in Government, has been. Sure Simon Glyn and Cymuned went around it in the wrong way, but Plaid had a responsibility to address a real problem in a sensible and a coherent way, it failed to do that and shy’d away back to Cardiff Bay.
Rhys Llwyd puts forward a compelling argument, and one with which I have considerable sympathy (and if you haven’t come across his blog, it is well worth a visit). Many rural parts of the UK suffer from chocolate box inward migration (and Gwynedd is one of the most lovely of them all), but the Fro faces added difficulties in the diminishing use of the language in the community and every day use.
Where I do depart from his argument is over what I infer are his priorities. Nothing is more important in this country right now than fixing the economy. And while we have Gogledd cultural nationalists and Hwntw socialists in Plaid, all of Wales is facing a tough economic future, even if the reasons why each of the country’s many little geographies arrived at this point are many and varied. if we return to Gwynedd, while I believe that culture and the economy are overtly symbiotic in that part of the world, the same thing happens in the rest of Wales, even if it is less obvious.
By building the economy, and paying attention to what kind of support each part of Wales requires to allow it to flourish, then issues like the use of Welsh in the Fro will be assisted, because prosperity can answer problems of financial exclusion in the housing market, and so on. It isn’t the complete answer, far from it, but it will most certainly help.
We need to begin at school levels with better vocational skills, and I see no reason why this can’t go ahead on both English and Welsh medium schools.
And Rhys is spot on in his Saunders reference. We must achieve a greater responsibility for managing Wales. We can begin to achieve this through the tax-varying proposals put forward in the final Holtham report.
As Mr.Higgitt implies above … ‘it’s the economy stupid.’ Most of Plaid’s dichotomies could be resolved by focusing on the economic issues and by championing better financial infrastructure and regulation – this has the political advantage of being a popular (and relevant) cause with all residents in Wales, whether Welsh or not.
I love the Shrodinger’s cat meditation by John Dixon. Maybe he can come up with something to link politics and thermodynamics for Plaid? Can he cast IWJ in the role of Maxwell’s Demon?
I don’t see the problem John. There’s always a discussion about the long-term and short-term aims. You have to offer the electorate a vision of what you’d do now and how you’d like to do things in the future.
All parties have this problem, though, because Plaid, unlike the other British partes, has a stated long term constitutional goal it raises more long-term strategy (though, the long term constitutional goal of the British parties is the preservation of the British state). This is what makes Plaid a political party not a pressure group.
My only contribution to this is that I think Plaid could be a little more confident in its message. Please, no more ‘thinking differently’ – doesn’t mean a thing. If you’re going to pay for that adversitising space why not ‘Wales – a free nation in a united Europe’ …. or something which actually means something.
Excellent article by John Dixon, and good comments also. I too would be interested to know which camp John feels the closest to?
I may be an exception, born in the county with the highest number of Welsh speakers, but with also a strong industrial past (Carmarthenshire), because I believe that I fit all three categories in some way.
Culture and language is extremely important to me, but independence is also as important. Unlike Rhys, I am impatient, and would like to see independence today! I am also a passionate socialist, and until we get full self-government we should do everything possible within the current system to push for socialist reforms.
To use John Dixon’s words, I see cultural, linguistic, economic, social and political liberation as being an indivisible whole.
Hasn’t the first strand already disappeared into Llais Gwynedd? And hasn’t the second strand been swallowed up by the third!
RE: Plaid Gwersyllt.
No, the first strand hasn’t disappeared into Llais Gwynedd, Llaid Gwynedd was born out of hyper-local unique circumstances. I identified myself with the first strand but I would never join Llais Gwynedd because it’s a single issue party. Language and culture is a key consideration for me, but as Hedd noted above it can’t be treated as a single issue as economics, jobs etc… effect the health of the Language and Welsh speaking communities.
The majority of those in the first strand are still members of Plaid, or have left Plaid but when it comes to it we still vote Plaid. Although we’re disgruntled with Plaid Cymru we’d never consider voting for a unionist Party be it right or left wing, that’s what keeps Plaid afloat at the moment really. And that is the key point John was making – as the only non-unionist party in Wales it has to be everything for all and at present needs to be everything for all. But it’s a difficult balancing act and cultural nationalist have felt, since devolution, that they’ve been sidelined in this wide church.
Thanks for the feedback from those who have commented on this piece, and apologies for not responding sooner, but I was in Aberystwyth for some reason or other… I’ll try and deal, as briefly as I can with the questions raised.
Firstly, Peter, I’d just say that the intention of this piece was not to give people a reason to vote Plaid. It was more an attempt to explain what I see Plaid as being, and a rebuttal of the hopelessly oversimplistic analysis often presented as a party split between a socialist left and a cultural right.
Rhys and Hedd – I entirely agree that I left open the question of where I sit; it didn’t really seem relevant to the piece. I doubt, however, that anyone who has heard me talk over the past 40 years or read my blog more recently can be in much doubt that I see Independence as no more than a means to an end; a basis which enables us to build a different type of economy and society in Wales, one built around people and values such as sustainability and equality. Strand 3 in short.
However, it is also my position that there is no fundamental contradiction between the three strands; they can and do co-exist –with an occasional good argument over priorities – unless and until someone forces us to choose (or ‘opens the box’). The very strength of Plaid over many years has been precisely that we have been able to manage that balance; something which many other nationalist parties in other parts of the world have failed at. It is not (as a commenter on Heledd Fychan’s subsequent article seemed to suggest) a case of ‘anything to anyone’; more a case of three different views of what nationalism is about peacefully co-existing within a single party.
All three can continue to thrive and debate as long as the party retains a clear and proper focus on its long term aspirations; uses those aspirations as a context within which to place shorter term policies and programmes; and makes a conscious and deliberate effort to maintain the balance in a way that Rhys, I suspect, feels that we have not done recently.
That brings me to the article published last Thursday by John Osmond on ClickonWales, in which he raised the question as to whether Plaid’s role in the devolved future which we’ve done so much to create is to become a party aiming for power in government, or a movement with a highly distinctive purpose and a strong sense of direction about where it is going.
The first is primarily about winning elections; the second is primarily about winning the arguments. No doubt some – possibly even at least one of the editors of WalesHome – would take issue with this next point, but I genuinely believe that Plaid Cymru has had a huge influence on the nature of present-day Wales, and we’ve done that more by winning the arguments than by winning elections (although the threat of electoral success has also been a factor).
The two do not have to be in conflict though, as long as we are willing to be clear about the long–term focus, and be honest about when and where we are making compromises rather than trying to sell those compromises as being good ideas in themselves. But an attempt to become first and foremost a party of government would be the equivalent of opening the box – at least two, and possibly all three, of the alternative realities would evaporate. And that really would be a crisis for the party, and one which would leave many members wondering where to go next.
And that brings me back to Peter’s point about reasons to vote for Plaid.
In terms of our long term goals, my response would be that our task is to spell out our vision of a self-governing Wales, and persuade you and others that there lies the best future for Wales. If we succeed, then Plaid Cymru becomes a natural political home, and a force for which people will vote with commitment and conviction. Winning the argument.
But if we concentrate on the short term, we have to put forward an exciting programme for government in Wales within the existing powers of the Assembly, one which is significantly different from those of the other parties, and convince you that we have the ideas and talent to do better than the others. Winning elections.
The hardest thing of all is to try and do both, not least because it can sometimes sound as if we’re saying two different things. But, if we get it right, it’s also potentially the most rewarding, and the fastest and most certain route to where we want to go. I am completely convinced that we have to avoid making an easy choice, and instead take the difficult route of trying to do both things, at least until we have a parliament which is the equivalent of what they have in Scotland. That, I think, is more or less the point El Dafydd El makes. I agree; but I do not underestimate the difficulty in doing that.
In essense, my underlying point is that far from being split between two opposing factions (as often presented by the media), Plaid is actually stronger for being able to accommodate different views, and to manage the balance between the long term and the short term. The danger is if we allow the undoubted difficulty of doing that to push us into taking an easier path.
Cambria Politico: “Maybe he can come up with something to link politics and thermodynamics for Plaid? Can he cast IWJ in the role of Maxwell’s Demon?” Very probably; but why on earth would I want to?
Splendid article, John, that took several readings to convince me of its total beauty. But the following paragraph may well be one of the most elegant I have read on this site this year:
“But more recently, I’ve come to the view that Plaid may be a bit like Schrödinger’s theoretical cat. It actually exists in all three states simultaneously, and can continue to do so until someone opens the box. At that point, the probability waves will collapse into a single observed reality. From that perspective, balancing the different views has been a bit like trying to keep the box closed.”
Many thanks for sharing your thoughts.
My passion for Welsh culture and language has been the reason behind my support for Plaid Cymru throughout my voting years. I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately, I don’t see how these three strands can peacefully work together.
In my opinion, the cultural nationalists (myself) are fighting a losing battle. I believe the only way these three strands can work together is if self-governance is achieved. The most common argument against this is our low population. “How can Wales run itself with only three million people here?” To which I would normally argue, “by luring more people here through tax incentives for businesses, creating jobs etc”. The problem is, doing that will, whilst increasing the Welsh economy, dilute Welsh culture.
Unless independence is achieved, these two goals will counter each other, and I fear Plaid will have to abandon one side and that side will surely be the cultural side. It would probably be the correct move if Plaid are to represent the majority of Welsh opinion, but unfortunately, something that will make me and fellow cultural nationalists feel very alone and without identity.