One of the most successful neo-collectivist inventions of recent years is that of “The Stakeholder”. Theoretically a "stakeholder" is anyone with an interest in a political project. He could be one single individual. But "stakeholders" are almost always understood as a group: residents’ associations, employees, consumers, etc. Government, especially local government, will consult "stakeholders" on virtually every decision. It is politically incorrect not to do so. Unsound Tory councils all over the land have happily bought into the system.
Consulting "stakeholders" bypasses the individual. As such it is collectivist in its purest sense. For the collectivist individual desire, ambition and choice is subservient to the group’s desires, ambitions and choices. It denies the value of individuality. As such it is de-humanising: to the collectivist the world consists of herds.
For the authoritarian politician, consulting "stakeholders" rather than individuals is a winner. Groups are easier to reach and are easier to contain. Appeasing groups ensures greater political success than appeasing individuals – the groups can organise support and praise for the politician. Meeting and pleasing groups is more visible than doing something for anonymous individuals at home.
Consultation of "stakeholders" will give legitimacy to a politician’s decision. Cynics will say that the high-profile public consultation of "stakeholders" is more often than not window-dressing. The politician is seen as “listening” when more often than not he will go back to his department and decide himself what he wanted to do all along.
"Stakeholders" would not be a problem, if only they represented every single view of every single member of their group. But they never do.
- "Stakeholders" always claim to represent more people than their actual membership. A residents' group will say that they represent “the people” in an area. Unless every individual in that area is a member, such a statement is a blatant falsehood.
- Even if "stakeholders" are a well defined group, for example a council estate’s residents, their views are rarely the views of every single member. It may be that it is the view of the majority of its members – but more often than not they will expound the views of a vocal minority. This may be one or two individuals.
- The views expressed by a representatives of a "stakeholder" at a public meeting or a meeting with politicians or civil servants, may not even be the "stakeholders’" views (as perhaps agreed in advance at a democratic meeting of the members of the "stakeholders' group"). It is likely that the representative who was sent by the "stakeholders’ group" will in fact season his statements with his own personal views – and make agreements accordingly.
So it is that "stakeholders’ consultations" are in reality consultations of a very small number of individuals’ views – posing as “the view of the community”.
"Stakeholders" are unnecessary. Politicians are elected to represent all individuals. Even if we do not trust politicians – after all they are driven by self-interest just like every other human – we can easily organise referendums so every individual can have an input. Information technology makes it very cheap and easy to organise. It is perfectly possible to allow every individual to take part in – say – monthly referendums from behind their desks. When pigs fly?
