Protecting Animals in Democracy

Defending those who cannot defend themselves

PAD is a historic and groundbreaking campaign - initiated by leading UK animal protection group Uncaged - to enable citizens to engage with the political system and elections in order to defend animals from abuse. The project is led by Dr Dan Lyons who, as well as being Campaigns Director at Uncaged, has conducted award-winning research into the history of animal research policy and is an Honorary Research Fellow at Sheffield University's Department of Politics. Here, Dan explains why PAD is such a vital initiative:

PAD consciously seeks to achieve political representation for non-human animals and for the public's concern about their welfare and rights. We also aim to encourage informed public debate about the moral status of non-humans.

PAD was launched with a project to put animal protection on to the 2005 General Election agenda. PAD empowered and informed voters, and encouraged tactical voting that protected the historic ban on hunting with hounds, while helping candidates and parties who opposed the Government's callous policies on factory farming and animal testing. By showing that votes are won and lost on animal issues, we are forcing politicians to start taking cruelty to animals seriously.

The authoritative, comprehensive and effective nature of our 2005 campaign was acknowledged by the British Library's decision to archive the election website, as they consider it to be an 'invaluable primary source material for current and future political science researchers'.

Since the 2005 Election, PAD has continued to empower citizens to lobby their political representatives on behalf of animals. We have helped secure thousands of MPs' signatures for Parliamentary motions aiming to help animals. PAD has now embarked on a major campaign to make animal protection a key issue in the forthcoming 2010 General Election.

Why PAD?

We have to acknowledge that protecting animals from entrenched, profitable, industrialized abuse - that takes place on a global scale - is a complex task with no easy or clear-cut solutions.

But our experience at the cutting edge of campaigning, in conjunction with our pioneering research into how historic changes occur, means we are developing credible, democratic strategies to achieve progress in the struggle against cruelty to animals.

Government betrayal

One of the motivations behind the establishment of PAD was the historic pattern of Government failure to honour pre-election animal protection promises and to implement laws and regulations designed to give animals some degree of consideration and respect.

For example, before New Labour came to power in 1997, they claimed "Labour has consistently shown itself as the only party to trust on animal welfare." But in practice, whenever commercial greed has threatened animals, the Labour Government has behaved the same as its predecessors, ignoring public concern and putting profit before pain, even over-riding the concerns of many Labour MPs.

Confidential documents leaked from primate research firm Imutran and the Home Office reveal that New Labour, like previous Conservative administrations, has exploited the enormous secrecy surrounding animal experiments to hide extreme policy bias and outright law-breaking. Before coming to power, the-then Labour leader Tony Blair claimed he was committed to the reduction and eventual elimination of animal experiments. But, in fact, over a million more animals were sacrificed in 2008 (the last year that figures are available for) compared to the year when New Labour came into power. Even when more humane 'alternatives' have been available, the Government has failed to ensure that they are used instead of the traditional animal test.

Hunting for votes?

So how did we reach the point where hunting with hounds has finally been outlawed? What's interesting about the hunting issue is that it is the exception that proves the rule.

In the debate over hunting, the Government - centred on the previous Prime Minister and his inner circle at No. 10 - made it clear that their preferred option was for a so-called 'middle way', with hunting continuing under licence. Apparently lacking any firm moral position on gratuitous violence towards animals, the Government was simply trying to manage a heated political conflict. But hunting was banned through a combination of public pressure brought directly to bear on backbench Labour MPs (many of whom are thoroughly alienated from the amoral style of the New Labour project), and the traditional 'free' Commons vote on the issue.

This happened because of the genuine animal welfare concerns of many backbench MPs, and their worries about losing their seats at the 2005 election. A continuing failure to deliver the promised hunting ban - supported by 76% of the public - would have been generally unpopular and undermined trust in Labour. Furthermore, the pro-hunting lobby, although it is bullying, aggressive and bankrolled by the landed aristocracy, has nothing like the massive influence over the Government compared to the vivisection and intensive farming industries. Therefore, the Government, which has control over parliamentary procedures, finally allowed the legislation to pass through all of its stages and become law.

Unfortunately, policies that affect hundreds of millions of animals in farming and research are dictated by Government rather than backbench MPs. The Government essentially controls the laws that Parliament debates. Furthermore, instead of a free vote, MPs are normally subjected to what is known as a 'three-line whip', which means that they must vote as their party leaders order them to, or face serious disciplinary action. Therefore, any electoral strategy to help animals in these massive areas of cruelty and abuse must take into account, not just the views of the particular MP, but of the party as a whole. To give a pertinent example, 105 Labour MPs signed a Commons Motion calling for an independent inquiry into compelling evidence of gross Home Office misconduct in relation to primate experiments. But, despite a great deal of pressure, the Labour Government did not budge on the issue one iota.

So, an electoral strategy to help animals needs to preserve the hunting ban - a small step in the right direction - while striving to save the millions of animals who continue to suffer in vivisection laboratories and factory farms. Therefore, PAD is carefully researching the parties' animal protection policies, the positions of MPs and candidates, and balance of votes in each constituency. We will then make that information available to voters and provide a recommendation in each constituency based on these factors.

Political animals

Essentially, there are four campaigning 'arenas': the personal, the cultural, the economic and the political.

What happens to animals, at the end of the day, is decided in the political arena: Parliament and Government. Politics is largely a creature of the wider cultural and economic forces in society. Despite the best efforts of animal abuse industries and their friends in the mass media, animal rights and welfare campaigners have had substantial success in the cultural arena, meaning that public opinion has shifted dramatically in our direction over the last two generations. Indeed, both the Home Office and the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs admit that they receive more correspondence on animal issues than any other.

But, unfortunately, public opinion is routinely ignored by Government in favour of big business and other powerful vested interests. What's significant is that the leading theories of politics [1] all provide similar explanations for this bias against animals and the public interest. This is because the key decisions that affect the lives of millions of animals are made by entrenched bureaucratic cliques dominated by powerful industries and 'experts' with a vested interest in the abuse of animals.

The different theories also reach broadly similar conclusions regarding possible solutions to this illegitimate and undemocratic situation. Achieving real change requires external shocks that destabilise the entrenched policy cliques. Changes in public opinion are necessary, but alone they cannot break up the cosy insider relationships that business and professional interest groups enjoy with successive Governments.

In fact, the task for animal advocates intent on positive changes is clear: we must skilfully harness public opinion as a political force in order to alter the character of the governing party or coalition. Part of that task must involve democratising the electoral system to make it more proportional and hence representative of the public's wishes.

You are the animals' voice

Ultimately, unless the animal protection movement can harness public sympathy through the political process, then we have little in the way of power with which to pressurise effectively in defence of animals in the policy process.

One of PAD's core aims is to increase the political significance of animal welfare and rights, thereby giving our movement the leverage that policy-makers will be forced to take into account.

"It is absolutely vital that we show politicians that disregarding animal issues will mean losing votes. All power to PAD's excellent initiative." Professor Andrew Linzey, Director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.

Why sign-up for PAD action?

By signing-up to get active with PAD, you will be joining the new network of animal advocates across Britain, united in our determination to work through the political system to achieve historic improvements in animal protection.

Registered members of the PAD network will receive regular email updates about hot animal protection issues that are on the political agenda, and get active for animals by:

• lobbying their MPs on issues that affect the lives of animals,
• raising public awareness in their constituencies and nationally about the need to protect animals,
• giving animals a voice at election times,
• raising vital funds to build a powerful, democratic force to defend animals

Through these activities, you can help to make a real difference for animals through peaceful, positive and democratic action. Click here to sign-up for PAD action.

Notes

1. E.g. Policy Network Analysis and the Advocacy Coalition Framework.

PAD is officially registered with the Electoral Commission (registered under 'Uncaged Campaigns', the parent organisation).

^