Democratic Reform

Protecting Animals in Democracy (PAD) is calling for the replacement of existing policy-making bureaucracies that ignore and sacrifice animal wellbeing with a new Animal Protection Commission that gives animals a fair voice in government. Our award-winning animal protection policy expert Dr Dan Lyons explains why:

It's important to understand that the structure of a decision-making process - for example, who makes the decisions and their backgrounds, beliefs and associations - has a major effect on who those decisions favour.

It is a fundamental principle of democracy that those affected by government decisions should have some say in those decisions. But the government bodies who wield power over the fate of almost a billion animals every year have become dominated by the industries and institutions that knowingly cause suffering to animals. In each department, secretive and exclusive policy cliques, comprised of civil servants and powerful business and professional interest groups, take important decisions that further their self-interest. While government departments promote the interests of animal farmers and researchers, there is no government body whose primary purpose is to protect animals, leading to a lack of concern for animals within government.

In this cosy 'club government', advocates for animals are effectively excluded from the policy process, and so the perspective that shapes policy-making corresponds to the commercial values of industry that prioritise short-term, selfish financial gain over other goals. As a result, laws and regulations fail to take proper account of the welfare of animals or the concerns of the public. To make matters worse, those laws that do exist are not implemented. (1) Industry lobby groups have nurtured privileged, insider relationships with government, which help them to evade regulation and resist public pressure for change. The cliché of Britain's 'strict animal welfare regulations' is nothing more than a convenient political myth designed to con the public.

Institutional reform is essential if animal protection policies are to have any sort of democratic legitimacy. PAD proposes the abolition of existing bodies that make policies affecting animals. They should be replaced by a new Animal Protection Commission, answerable to Parliament via a Minister, with a remit which includes:

• the ongoing examination of the ethical status and rights of animals and how they are affected by policy-making - an ongoing animal welfare audit
• the facilitation of genuine public participation throughout policy processes which affect animals, and
• the development of a cross-government agenda for animal protection

An Animal Protection Commission could give animal protection the priority it deserves and provide opportunities for public participation. The precise structure and composition of such an institution should be developed further to ensure that vested interests do not come to dominate the new body.

To this end, the 21st report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2) offers a promising model for the prioritisation of public ethical values in the policy process. One of the ways it does this is by making a distinction between the amoral self-interest of 'stakeholders', and the moral values that people have as concerned citizens. The effect of this is to allow principled objections to some practices to be given significant weight in the decision-making process, rather than commercial self-interest being the overarching goal. The other key innovation recommended by the Commission is the role of public discussions that allow reflection and examination of different values and opinions, rather than mere arms-length consultation exercises that characterise existing practice. The 'Deliberative Mapping' project on xenotransplantation, carried out by the Policy Studies Institute, provides a possible template for such democratic public participation. (3)

Will you support the establishment of an Animal Protection Commission with overall responsibility for all policies affecting animal wellbeing?
YES / NO

REFERENCES:

1. See for example, the Imutran xenotransplantation research programme at www.xenodiaries.org.
2. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Twenty-First Report: Setting Environmental Standards, London, The Stationery Office, 1998, Cm 4053. See also Weale, A. (2001) 'Can We Democratize Decisions on Risk and the Environment?', Government and Opposition, 36 (3): 355-378.
3. www.deliberative-mapping.org

^