David Cameron's Big Society, Part 2: Is Social Enterprise a veil for conservatism?

Is Social Enterprise a veil for fiscal and political conservatism? The sun-kissed optimism of Cameron's Big Society claims a large-scale energizing of "citizen volunteers" will revolutionize the local governance of everything from post offices to libraries. Critics, however, have a gloomier and grittier version of Cameron's vision. They contend that his ambitious re-imagining of British public life is a "cover" for massive cuts to social service programs and represents the de-legitimizing of the idea that government must ensure the well-being of its most vulnerable citizens. Cameron and his staff reject this characterization. The BBC reported the prime minister's response: "we need a government to help build a big society". They contend, moreover, that "We should not be naive enough to think that simply if government rolls back and does less, then miraculously society will spring up and do more." Cameron's vision is compelling and appears sincere, but contains policy contradictions. Many onlookers - especially British charities losing public funding - are suspicious of the ideology that drives Cameron's Big Society. In their eyes, Cameron might be construed as a Thatcherite committed to Ronald Reagan's memorable dictum: "Government is not the solution to the problem; Government is the problem".

Last Friday, the Labour party unveiled an audit that interrogates Cameron and the Conservative Party's implementation of the "Big Society". According to an article in the Guardian, the Labour party charges that the government is "cutting 734m from voluntary projects at the heart of the prime minister's mission." In a withering quote, Tessa Jowell, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, asserted: "What people want is not the vacuous promise of a big society but a good society where everybody does their bit and is helped to do so to improve their community and create benefits for everyone." In Jowell's juxtaposition of a big "civil" society vs. a good society, we discover a familiar plotline and cast of characters acting upon a stage of social enterprise, bold change management, and daring risk-taking. In this political drama, we find a clash between vocal members of the Labour party who support a larger, more interventionist state and the Cameron coalition that aspires to enlarge civil society by bestowing more "people power" to the residents of local political districts. Interestingly enough, both Labour and the Conservatives share a commitment to social enterprise. The dispute, then, is about how the two constituencies can pursue a policy agenda of social enterprise that both reduces budget deficits and meets public need. Is it possible to do both? Maybe. Maybe not. Both sides, however, should welcome policy experimentation that attempts to marry efficiency and equity.

Is Britain's public iteration of social enterprise a veil for conservatism? Not really. The Cameron administration's commitment to a smaller and less interventionist state, frugal fiscal policy, and emphasis on individuals, families, and voluntary organizations as the primary agents of social change are clear distinctives of conservatism. Nevertheless, the vision of social enterprise that undergirds Cameron's Big Society may become a governing example of compassionate conservatism - the stillborn promise of a certain President across the Atlantic.

Follow Andrew Wilkes on Twitter: @andrewjwilkes

Photo credit: Sadie Smith