(for a far more concise critique of recent outbursts which says pretty much what I say below, just read this piece by Anne Perkins and save yourself a lot of time.)
OK, hands up – it’s been a while…
OK, hands up – it’s been a while…
…and
I still owe you a post on my 2014 plans!
The
bulk of that post has been ready for three weeks now. Should you care less,
that is. Just need to check it and publish it. Which I should manage within a
fortnight. But, for now… it’s not just about the running, right? This blog was
meant to reach beyond tarmac and trail, was it not?
Well
that was the plan… and, with that in mind, I want to comment a little on Russell Brand’s recent tirade against
modern politics and The System. That’s Russell Brand the comedian who successfully creates
confusion in the public mind between eclecticism and stupidity, who parades
himself as having a “Messiah Complex” but who is capable of more insightful
thoughts than many of his targets. Who is bright enough to stir up a storm for promotional reasons but probably doesn’t need to and genuinely harbours concerns about modern society and suggestions for improvement. A few quotes, for context – taken from
his “We
Deserve More From Our Democratic System” article in “The Guardian” on
November 5, which in turn followed an interview by Jeremy Paxman on
“Newsnight” on October 23 and an article
in the New Statesman which appeared on October 24:
 |
| Russell Brand. In the middle, that is. |
“The people who
liked the interview said it was because I'd articulated what they were
thinking. I recognise this. God knows I'd love to think the attention was about
me but I said nothing new or original, it was the expression of the knowledge
that democracy is irrelevant that resonated. As long as the priorities of those
in government remain the interests of big business, rather than the people they
were elected to serve, the impact of voting is negligible and it is our
responsibility to be more active if we want real change.”
“The only reason to vote is if the vote represents power or change. I don't think it does. I fervently believe that we deserve more from our democratic system than the few derisory tit-bits tossed from the carousel of the mighty, when they hop a few inches left or right. The lazily duplicitous servants of The City expect us to gratefully participate in what amounts to little more than a political hokey cokey where every four years we get to choose what colour tie the liar who leads us wears.”
“The only reason to vote is if the vote represents power or change. I don't think it does. I fervently believe that we deserve more from our democratic system than the few derisory tit-bits tossed from the carousel of the mighty, when they hop a few inches left or right. The lazily duplicitous servants of The City expect us to gratefully participate in what amounts to little more than a political hokey cokey where every four years we get to choose what colour tie the liar who leads us wears.”
“If we all collude and collaborate
together we can design a new system that makes the current one obsolete. The
reality is there are alternatives. That is the terrifying truth that the media,
government and big business work so hard to conceal. Even the outlet that
printed this will tomorrow print a couple of columns saying what a naïve wanker
I am, or try to find ways that I've fucked up. Well I am naïve and I have
fucked up but I tell you something else. I believe in change. I don't mind
getting my hands dirty because my hands are dirty already. I don't mind giving
my life to this because I'm only alive because of the compassion and love of
others. Men and women strong enough to defy this system and live according to
higher laws. This is a journey we can all go on together, all of us. We can
include everyone and fear no one. A system that serves the planet and the
people. I'd vote for that.”
Again, for the benefit of context: I don’t
dislike Russell Brand. Nor am I a great fan. I enjoy him in small doses and
when I succeed in casting to the back of my mind that he’s a West Ham fan. I
have fundamental and deep-rooted issues with West Scum fans lecturing about
justice and abuses by the privileged ruling classes. But let’s see if I can exclude
that little detail from this post…
…so, some observations:
“The only reason to vote is if the
vote represents power or change. I don't think it does.”
That
statement assumes change is necessary. Which isn’t necessarily the case: to be
so, the state of things would always have to be of inferior quality to the
alternatives. Change can be necessary, but not implicitly. And that’s without
commenting on the subjective nature of judgements about what needs changing and
what does not: after all, were this an objective area of discussion, there’d be
no need for discussions in the first place.
In
my time, I have voted for change and in support of the status quo. But I have
always voted since I became eligible to do so, for I firmly believe that those
who don’t are not entitled to complain about the outcome of an election or a
referendum. I respect the right to place spoiled or blank ballots in the box
(or, in my case, in the postal vote envelope), and believe that such expressions
can and should be viewed as significant expressions not of empathy (as is
abstinence) but rather of deep-rooted malaise.
“I fervently believe that we deserve
more from our democratic system than the few derisory tit-bits tossed from the
carousel of the mighty, when they hop a few inches left or right.”
There’s
a common complaint… that parties are becoming harder to tell apart… that Labour
and Tory policies in the UK can hardly be told apart…
…well,
here’s the thing. I grew up in 1980s Italy, where some of the parties could be
told apart very easily. With a proportional system that meant that 1% of the
vote got you 1% of the Parliamentary seats, you had parties with all sorts of
different agendas. The Partito
Comunista’s (yes, Communist Party’s) share of the vote hovered around 30%,
and at the opposite side of the spectrum you had the Movimento
Sociale Italiano, fascist in all but name. In between you had parties for
pensioners, for German-speaking secessionists in Alto Adige / Südtirol, for
Democrats, for Liberals, for Socialists, for Social-Democrats…
…the
result was a system of government based on faltering alliances, whereby there
were ten
different governments formed in the 1980s. In the name of compromise, the
Prime Minister (or “Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri”, to be correct) sometimes
came from a minority party, such as Giovanni Spadolini, whose “Republican Party”
won 3.0%
of the share of the vote in 1979 and who yet found himself leading the
country from June
1981 through to December 1982. So if you think David Cameron hasn’t got a
mandate to govern the UK…
…anyway,
that was Italy under its proportional system in a Cold War context. Everybody
knew it wasn’t great, and many looked to the UK and the US with their bipolar,
first-past-the-post system. This was introduced in 1993 but has since been
reworked to reintroduce some elements of the proportional system. I’m no expert
on it (simple it
ain’t for a peasant with just one degree): I do know, however, that the
past two decades have squeezed the more marginal parties out of Italian
politics and forced those still stand to engage in more clear and lasting
coalitions. It’s the nature of head-to-head politics, in which two giants do
battle and the smaller competitors either blend in or fade away. A nature that…
…
inevitably, pushes parties towards the centre. Brand may regret that “the few
derisory tit-bits tossed from the carousel of the mighty […] hop a few inches
left or right”, just like many staunch Labour supporters were up in arms about
Blair’s removal of Clause IV
and the ensuing move to the centre ground. Realistically, that move was a
necessary pre-requisite for electoral success, which had eluded the party when
it was even more closely aligned to the trade unions; and the same holds true
for Cameron’s polishing of the Conservative Party and its softer (or quieter) views
on Europe and Immigration that helped return the Tories to power after thirteen
years at the last election. Because elections are not determined by the backing
of lifelong supporters at either side of the spectrum, rather by the mood of
those who floatingly populate the middle ground. Hence the way parties too far
from the centre rarely fare well in first past-the-post systems: as so often in
democratic politics, the deviants are ousted, leaving us with a plethora of
seemingly undistinguishable characterless characters.
…
Of
course, the grass always seems greener on the other side. In the UK, for
example, we sit increasingly less comfortably with the notion of the two
leading parties holding a disproportionate share of parliamentary seats because
of a system that was introduced centuries back. Unsurprisingly so: here are
some stats from the 2010
General Election:
|
|
Tory
|
Labour
|
LibDem
|
|
Seats won
|
306
47.1% |
258
41.5% |
57
9.1% |
|
Seat change
|
97
|
91
|
5
|
|
Popular vote
|
10,703,654
|
8,606,517
|
6,836,248
|
|
Percentage
|
36.1%
|
29.0%
|
23.0%
|
The
lack of correlation between the share of the vote and the seats won is key to
the dominance of the Conservative and Labour parties, and more than a little
chagrin for the Liberal Democrats – although, with no absolute majority, they
found themselves in the strongest position of the three. For once.
So
what did this unease engender? A referendum on an
Alternative Vote system. Maybe because the concept was never made
sufficiently clear, maybe because it just didn’t resonate with British voters,
this countrywide Liberal Democrat motion (part of the deal to support the
Conservatives) was defeated. In the process, however, democracy itself took
another blow, with a turnout of just 42.2%.
It’s nothing short of embarrassing that a country that prides itself on being
the mother of modern democracy (in spite of the fact it’s still a monarchy)
could not get at least half of those entitled to vote to do so. We vote on
Thursdays in the UK, and this was in May, so it’s not even as if it clashed
with “The X Factor” or summat daft like that.
When
Italians campaigned for a UK/US-like system, one of the arguments was that it
would make each individual vote more important, more connected to the choice of
the local MP who would therefore have to show a keener connection to their seat,
whereas a proportional system does not establish a clear relationship between
an elected politician and any given geographical area. In theory, perfectly
true. In practice, millions of votes under this system carry little weight.
Take mine…
…my
local constituency is North Somerset. The 2010 election returned as its MP Liam Fox, with 49.3% of the
votes and a 7,862 majority (out of 57,941) against the Liberal Democrat
candidate Brian Mathew. The socioeconomics of this rural, relatively affluent
area mean that a Tory win is as predictable as all of Sheffield United’s play-off
defeats to date (but we’re going up this year – sixth in the League and
storming through those extra three matches!). The level of the majority may
fluctuate, but the colour of the seat is unlikely to change anytime soon…
…and
we know that. Regardless of one’s choice of candidate, residents round here and
in other areas of the UK are conscious that their singular vote is not going to
have any detectable impact on the end result. But if, like me, you value the
struggles that people have gone through over the ages to allow us to take for
granted a democratic election, you take the time to mark it down. You may feel
that your grandparents “were
conned” when they fought in two World Wars for us to hold on to that right,
but it’s a right to which I still dearly cling onto. Besides, it’s the
communion of votes that enacts change – not widespread abstinence. Voting is a
democratic right but also a moral duty.
…
What
Brand doesn’t appear to grasp (or maybe simply refuses to accept) is that this
is not an exclusive characteristic of 21st Century British politics. It is an
integral component of first-past-the-post systems, admittedly accentuated in
recent decades by the fall of the Iron Curtain and the ensuing decline in the relevance
of extreme ideologies and parties representing them. This leads us onto what is
ultimately the crux of the matter and the source of Brand’s malaise:
Democracy is not the optimal form of
leadership
Democracy
is a compromise. Allowing every man and woman a vote is fundamentally fair and
proper. But it’s hardly a conduit to optimal governance. It is a conduit to
compromise, to candidates engaging in theatre-style politics to win the
majority of votes… but that’s hardly the ideal scenario.
Now,
the ideal scenario is a dictatorship. A benign, enlightened dictatorship. A
system where a man or woman of visionary intellect rises above personal interests
to truly serve the greater good of the nation. A system which is not dependent
on the electorate to fathom what’s best for them and for the nation amidst a
range of candidates who may conceal some of their most insightful views through
fear that they will prove unpopular. However, there is a little bit of a problem
with that…
…namely
that such a system goes against every single grain of justice and fairness. We deserve
the right to determine who rules us. A system placing all power into a single pair of hands can be deployed in environments where
timely and clarity of decision-making is of the essence, e.g. the battlefield
(armies can’t go into ‘shutdown’ mode), but not where a country’s leadership and
legislative institution are concerned. No one individual of this age has the
right to self-proclamation, although admittedly Greece was in a better state
when they did. But the recent track record of dictatorships suggests someone has turned out the light. Besides, if someone of enlightened intellect and moral calibre were
to emerge, you’d like to think they’d get elected. Then again… erm, OK, let’s
move on.
Oh, before we do so: again, for the sake of
context, it troubles me not that Russell Brand makes his case for social
justice whilst sitting on a fair few bob. As far as I know those bobs have been
earnt in a perfectly legitimate manner and so I begrudge him them not. He
himself questions how he might “dare, from [his] velvet chaise longue, in [his]
Hollywood home like Kubla Khan, drag [his] limbs from [his] harem to moan about
the system? A system that has posited [him] on a lilo made of thighs in an
ocean filled with honey and foie gras’d [his] Essex arse with undue praise and
money”. And you thought I used long words..!
…besides, if I started to take the view that folk with a few hundred million dollars in the bank (of which, presumably, Brand is not one – yet) have no right to empathise with those living below the poverty line, I’d have to rethink my entire outlook on life. Not because of Mr Gates and his foundation, but because of Bruce Springsteen – the voice of America. And, given that Springsteen is one of the 7S upon which my essence is built, my moral compass in this rocky storm we call life, I just can’t afford to do that. Besides, he was part of a movement called “Vote For Change” – appropriately. He couldn’t get Kerry in, but he helped with Obama – the man who has gone on record to say: “the reason I'm running for president is because I can't be Bruce Springsteen”. Top Lad, is Barack.
…
So,
Mr Brand – I, for one, don’t believe we need a new type of politics. But a new brand, a refreshing jolt to The System… something that gets people as interested in voting for their country’s leader as they are in voting another talentless act to be imposed upon the nation… why not? It does no
harm to the current system for the likes of you to actively engage in it and
maybe help people feel a greater connection and a lesser disillusion with it,
however that may happen. But it’s not the system that’s broke. We don’t need a
new vehicle, although new drivers who can bring better leadership are always
welcome. So, if you are reading this (which you are not, I know), just remember this:
1)
Not voting is not the answer. Spoil your ballot, leave it unspoilt of any
preference whatsoever – but vote. Always. Or shut up.
2) Change can always happen – but its place is within the existing democratic channels. It is early days to estimate whether the Movimento Cinque Stelle in Italy will be able to deliver change, for example: but this grouping of disillusioned citizens led by a comedian (no, not Berlusconi – Beppe Grillo, who is intentionally a comedian) is only in a position from which it can at have a shot at change because it took its disillusion to the voters in the shape of an organised, democratic movement. Just like the Lega Nord, a.k.a. “The Northern League”, did around two decades ago, when it was energised by a genuine passion for change and before it became a disappointing mockery of its original vision. I say that as a previous card-carrying activists, by the way: we always had a few, indeed many, whose view of the core values was distorted at best, and some of those were in high places, but I still look back unashamedly on the original vision for political reform. We didn’t achieve everything we set out to do, but we did have some impact. And it was crosses on pieces of paper than empowered us to do this.
3) Democracy is inherently flawed. It’s the best compromise going. It fairly, duly and necessarily allows everyone the right to express their opinion. Just don’t expect such a fair system to prove efficient in giving the top job in the country to the most suitable candidate. Have you never attended a residents’ meeting?
4) West Scum are just that. The next time you want to mouth off about justice and fairness, let’s talk about how you robbed Sheffield United F.C. of our rightful place in the Premier League, earnt through the type of hard work you are so quick to praise elsewhere, and how the interests of a few who cozied to the unelected ruling class were protected even when every last shred of evidence shouted to the rooftops that laws had been broken in the brightest of daylights.
2) Change can always happen – but its place is within the existing democratic channels. It is early days to estimate whether the Movimento Cinque Stelle in Italy will be able to deliver change, for example: but this grouping of disillusioned citizens led by a comedian (no, not Berlusconi – Beppe Grillo, who is intentionally a comedian) is only in a position from which it can at have a shot at change because it took its disillusion to the voters in the shape of an organised, democratic movement. Just like the Lega Nord, a.k.a. “The Northern League”, did around two decades ago, when it was energised by a genuine passion for change and before it became a disappointing mockery of its original vision. I say that as a previous card-carrying activists, by the way: we always had a few, indeed many, whose view of the core values was distorted at best, and some of those were in high places, but I still look back unashamedly on the original vision for political reform. We didn’t achieve everything we set out to do, but we did have some impact. And it was crosses on pieces of paper than empowered us to do this.
3) Democracy is inherently flawed. It’s the best compromise going. It fairly, duly and necessarily allows everyone the right to express their opinion. Just don’t expect such a fair system to prove efficient in giving the top job in the country to the most suitable candidate. Have you never attended a residents’ meeting?
4) West Scum are just that. The next time you want to mouth off about justice and fairness, let’s talk about how you robbed Sheffield United F.C. of our rightful place in the Premier League, earnt through the type of hard work you are so quick to praise elsewhere, and how the interests of a few who cozied to the unelected ruling class were protected even when every last shred of evidence shouted to the rooftops that laws had been broken in the brightest of daylights.
You
read The Guardian, don’t you Russell? You even write for them? Then make sure
you learn this piece by heart:
(Sorry – I tried to gloss over that, but I can't manage… To clarify, my issues are with the institution itself, not those who support it. As opposed to modern-day politics, I suppose you might say.)
As
for the rest of us, we should read (albeit not necessarily learn by heart)
Brand’s piece in The New Statesman. There are some good questions in there, as
well as some interesting answers. And questioning is always good. Revolution
can also be good. Let’s not just assume that revolution implicitly requires a
new system. Heck, whatever your views on the original Messiah, the lad Jesus
changed the course of history – and some may argue he only tweaked the Hebrew status
quo around him, rather than throw all history and infrastructures (of beliefs,
of society) away and start absolutely anew… because not everything that has happened before is wrong. And no, that’s not an open invitation to harp on about 1966.
Cheers
Russell – next pint’s on you and your Hollywood millions,
Giacomo
No comments:
Post a Comment