Month: August 2011

Why politics mustn’t die out

There was an article on the BBC website yesterday which stated that more people are members of the caravan club than of all the political organisations in the country. This is a shame. Partly because I find caravans really dull and partly because I believe that politics and all the social issues surrounding it is one of the most important elements of our society.

However, I’m aware that my views and those of the people I associate with are very different to large parts of society. In the AV referendum earlier this year, I think 98% of the people I know voted in favour of change while the actual percentage was closer to one third of the population. So I can only assume that I don’t have my finger on “the pulse” and that the large majority of people don’t share the view that politics is important.

To be honest, I did had absolutely no interest in politics until I was at university and did a module in social philosophy, so I can completely understand that others would have no interest as well. This is a shame and I think should be addressed by making politics compulsory at GCSE level to prepare you people for voting as the current citizenship syllabus obviously isn’t working enough.

Although it has picked up recently, voter turnout has been substantially lower since Labour took power in 1997. Lack of preparation of young voters is probably one cause of this.

More prominent though must be the disillusionment and distrust of the government.

“No matter who you vote for the government always wins.” – The King Blues

When politicians tell you one thing and then do another, it’s no surprise that the public at large becomes disillusioned with them and feels like their vote is irrelevant.Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats forming a coalition with the Conservatives may turn out to be the death of their party. After making promises on issues such as student fees and then backing down to get their share of the power, voter confidence in the party dropped and they will struggle to regain it.

If you feel like you are going to vote for someone who will then change their policies, what would incentive you to vote at all? The fact that voters see little change from voting and often between the political parties is what gives them this view.

There’s a great South Park episode about voting (people who know me well will know that I reference pretty much every debate to a South Park episode) where Stan is being asked to vote to choose a new school mascot. His choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. The conclusion – or at least my interpretation of it – is that every election is a choice between a douche and a turd but you have to go for the one which is least dumb.

There is also distrust at the way the government acts. The expenses scandal and the way they have treated the banks have meant that the public views them predominantly as selfish and self-serving.

The government is obviously interested in keeping democracy in place. What other reason can there be for giving 40% longer sentences than if they had committed their crimes at another time. The government seems to be scared that rioters will become political activists and attempt to overthrow the democratic system. I think this is an overreaction as revolutions need a leader and a poliical focus – something that the riots seemed to lack.

Britons also feel their voices aren’t heard. When a million people march against a war but have no effect, they will feel that their protests are in vain. When Climate Camp is heavily policed despite the fact it is basically just a bunch of hippies sitting in a field, they will start to feel that the police have a Big Brother presence and that they will soon be forced to believe that 2+2=5.

When there are harsh sentences for the discontented who riot but the bankers who plunge the country into crisis, the media who hack telephones and the politicians who illegally claim on expenses generally just receive a slap on the wrist, it is hard not to feel that the political structure is geared to looking after certain sections of society.

We need politicians, even when we take all of the above into account because they are intended to be there to take a considered view of all the arguments (even if they don’t always). If we didn’t have politicians in place but instead resorted to mob rule than anyone who is accused of crimes deemed most horrid in society, e.g. peadophilia, would get lynched regardless of whether or not they were guilty.

Without a ruling body, we would be forced to go with popular opinion which is often reactionary. We would have removed benefits from anyone who rioted recently, which in effect would incentivise them to riot further. We would have Jeremey Clarkson as Prime Minister and be killing off the planet quicker than we already are and several other such ridiculous things that the public have created e-petitions for.

We need our democracy and therefore politicians because there is no genuinely viable alternative. I know several advocates of anarchism but I feel that we are not ready to move into this sort of state with the way that our society currently thinks. Our society would need to be much more liberal and tolerant of others for anarchism to stand a chance of not descending into a chaotic dystopia.

Having said that, the governement does have too much power over us, and doesn’t speak for all us. Something needs to change, although I am not sure what.

The difference between reasons and excuses

When I was at school, one of my best teachers once told me: “There’s no such thing as a good excuse, only a good reason.” Or words to that effect. I wasn’t really paying attention.
I was struck by the words again when reading several of the reactionary comments that people have beening posting on Facebook over the 4 days since the riot in Tottenham kicked off what basically appears to be the end of civilisation as we know it. Or so some people would have you believe.
In my opinion and, I’m sure, the opinion of over 99% of the country, is that there is no excuse for what has been happening. Theft, arson, destruction, mugging and murder. These have been directed at members of the public and not at the target that would be most obvious if the motivation for all of this was political, if it was a protest at the death of Mark Duggan.
There is no excuse for these acts.
The explanations that have been given by rioters when they have been approached by the press have ranged from completely illogical (“getting our taxes back”) to honest (“because we can”).
Sure, some of these people are just nicking trainers and TVs because they are able to and they think they’ll get away with it. However, at the heart of this, there has to be some general underlying discontent which first caused these people to act in this way, even if they don’t know themselves what it is. This is what we need to uncover and fix.
 Obviously, the first priority is to prevent further riots and make the streets safe for everybody. Beyond this, we need to address the sociological issues which have caused the discontent. This will not be an easy task, as there is likely to be a myriad of complex reasons why everything erupted and indeed, the reason why one individual rioted may be completely different to the person standing next to them as they steal iPhones from Currys.
There has been a lot of reactionist calls to arms, which is the wrong approach. Several suggestions put forward will actually inflame the situation and potentially cause more and even worse riots. The petition to remove the benefits of any convicted rioters (The petition to remove the benefits of any convicted rioters) is one such example.
There are a number of flaws with these suggestions, aside from that fact that our prison system is founded on reform and not punishment  (which is also one reason why we don’t have the death penalty.)
The possibility of catching all of any one rioter is so small as to be almost laughable. The sheer numbers involved in the riots, the fact that most of them are hiding their faces and also the amount of work involved in identifying them render it practically impossible.
This proposed solution will actually make any individual who is caught even more impoverished and is therefore likely to make them even more likely to riot in the future.
Many suggested solutions, including this one, as to what the government should do are based solely on punishing those involved, rather than reforming these people and tackling the underlying causes in order to prevent any future riots.
Any reaction to these riots needs to be a fully thought out and reasoned solution and not based on the emotions that we have all been feeling as we have been watching our country burn to the ground.