I’ve never been a Russell Brand fan, but I can’t deny that he talks a good game. Despite his extrovert personality and celebrity background, there’s an underlying clarity and passion in the way he speaks. There’s no doubt that he jousted well with Jeremy Paxman, and there’s no doubt that he made some good points. However, I fundamentally disagree with his central argument; I believe people should vote.
I’ve noticed with socialists that they are often very good at identifying the problems, but when it comes to offering solutions, strong questions marks occur. Brand argues that we “shouldn’t destroy the planet, shouldn’t create massive economic disparity, shouldn’t ignore the needs of the people”, and notes that there is a “huge disparity between rich and poor, where 300 Americans have the same amount of wealth as the 85 million poorest Americans”. A clear picture is painted here, but the solution is altogether more sketchy. Brand suggests “a socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations, and massive responsibility for energy companies and any companies exploiting the environment”, and thinks a “centralised administrative system” could achieve this, but when Paxman counters that a Government would be needed to do this, Brand responds with “Yes, well maybe call it something else. Call them like the adminbots so they don’t get ahead of themselves”. This may well be taken as a humorous response, but it calls into question how seriously we can take the argument.
Russell Brand doesn’t want people to vote, and again he appeals to the intuitive side by saying “why vote? We know it’s not going to make any difference. We know that already”. This really frustrates me. It’s pedalled all too often in everyday life, and whilst safe seats are a sad fact of political life (I should know, I live in one), you can’t change anything by not voting. I accept that there are numerous cases in history where change has been brought about by uprisings and so on (think the October Revolution in Russia), but the focus here is on the UK, which wasn’t susceptible to a widespread revolution even during the Industrial Revolution. If large swathes of the population were to be caught up in Russell Brand’s populism, it would be an open goal for the Conservatives to appeal to an even more narrow group of the nation and win. Of course there are issues with the current political system, and problems in society, but I can’t accept Brand’s argument that “there’s gonna be a revolution, it’s totally going to happen. I ain’t got even a flicker of doubt. This is the end”. Not only is that not the right solution, I don’t think it can be taken seriously as an argument.
The 1945 UK Election is a benchmark for how it should be done. People wanted change, so they voted for it and got it. Not only that, they got one of the greatest UK Governments ever, one which tackled poverty and income disparities, maintained low levels of unemployment and created the NHS. We live in a different age, but I’d still argue that many of the issues that Brand highlights were problems just before Labour came to power in the forties. It may be tempting to see abstention from voting as a great two fingers up against the political class, but what would it solve? The types of politicians that many people despise are still going to get elected. There will always be people who are still going to vote. I’m generalising a lot here, but I’m pretty confident that many of the people who will always vote are likely to be Tory voters. Brand attacks the Conservative Party in his interview, but for people not to vote would only be beneficial to them. It’s not plausible to consider that everyone in the UK will stop voting, so the system under heavy criticism from Brand will stay right as it is by his logic.
Vote for change; that’s the answer. Not enough interests and needs are truly represented in our Parliament; I absolutely agree with Brand on that. I’m also utterly convinced that we need a change in the electoral system. The kind of revolution we need is an extension and improvement of our democracy, and better democratic models. I’ve made this argument many times, but I genuinely believe that First Past the Post encourages the current system, and discourages many people from voting. However, that’s not an argument to decide to stop voting altogether. If some good can come out of UKIP’s recent success, it’s that electoral reform will be put back on the agenda (this is under the assumption that a good polling rating nevertheless results in zero MPs for UKIP in 2015). Proportional Representation would shake up the current system and make it fairer, and would make people feel that their vote does count, and can change things.
I did a blog entry on policies that I believe can restore some faith in politics (people, rightly, will never be 100% satisfied in the political system), and I’ll briefly list my conclusions from that here:
-Electoral reform
-Party funding reform
-Statutory register of lobbyists
-Reform/abolish expenses
-Votes at 16 and 17/better political education
Although there are difficult obstacles, these can all be achieved, and through democratic means. I think it’s appropriate to bring up the quote often attributed to Winston Churchill that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. Brand says there is an alternative, and he’s right. However, that alternative can be shaped and achieved through voting, not through a vague utopian mantra riddled with contradictions. You don’t tackle apathy with apathy.
No comments:
Post a Comment