« Acknowledgements | Main | Studying the Bible »
November 16, 2003
Democratic demonstrations
Democracy and demonstration are two words which seem, these days, to come in for both use and abuse. Could someone tell me when demostrations became democratic? Surely this means that those on it have allowed someone (presumably themselves, since I don't seem to get asked) to vote on what will be said, done, shouted or perpetrated on a demonstration? And when did the demonstrators assume the right to speak for anyone not on the march? By what authority do they suddenly have the right to declare that anyone who dares to have a different view, is a Fascist?
This question has once again reared its head, in my mind at least, as I have watched the usual bunch of straggly bearded, arrogant and supremely dictatorial twerps trotting onto television to declare that President Bush is the greatest threat to world peace, stability, the environment, democracy and freedom since Adolf Hitler or Ghengiz Khan (Funny, they never mention Uncle Joe Stalin). It amazes me that they, in the name of democratic rights, can claim that they have the right to refuse Mr Bush entry to the UK or anywhere else. To listen to them, you would be forgiven for thinking that they were addressing the problem of some violent dictator invading the country to spread some radical right wing political agenda.
Now I know that there were some interesting questions about the election that brought him to power, but those are, in my view a matter for the American people, not for a bunch of supposedly left wing liberals in this country. By the very complex voting system used in the States to elect a President, Mr Bush is the man the Americans elected. They can have another shot at voting him out in a couple of years.
I used to wonder what the anti-apartheid (most of them couldn't even spell it!) mob would do when the apartheid regime went. Now I know, now there is a racist, facist, chauvinist and ony other kind of -ist under every (pardon the pun!) bush. Every company, organisation or institution is "institutionally" racist, sexist or something else-ist. Express a view in dissent of any view promoted by this all powerful lobby and you are likely to find yourself being crucified as something left over from the Nazi Party of 1933 - 1945! There is no debate permitted, no reasoned argument, you are simply howled down by the raging mob, egged on by the ranting of the bearded geniuses who are always on hand when a mob needs some pseudophilosophy to encourage it. The arrogance of these agitators is nothing short of breathtaking, they are good with words, weasel words, always appealing to "reasonableness", and "human rights", and "democratic" process, but there is never a ballot paper, much less any reasoned debate, in sight when it comes to quoting a "majority" view.
These are usually based on a "representative" sample in some street corner poll. The problem with these is that if you stand on a street corner and ask a thousand people if they think that the hunting of foxes should be banned, most will not wish to be exposed as "uncaring", so they will give what they think is the answer the pollster wants, ie: Yes. Most reputable poll taking companies acknowledge this and frame their questions very carefully to allow for it and screen it out. This is not, unfortunately, true of some organisations who engage in this activity!
I once refused to sign a petition that was being rather forcibly promoted in Trafalgar Square. In full view of a policeman - and undoubtedly within his hearing - I was treated to a stream of verbal abuse and threatening behaviour by the lout demanding my signature. The abuse stopped when he made the mistake of calling me a facist, racist pig. My reply was "It takes one, to know one!" I walked off while his jaw was still dragging on the ground in surprise.
It is this that really annoys me about these people, you are now automatically accused of being reactionary when you do not identify with their cause, yet are their "causes" actually of benefit to society as a whole? Usually not. This is one of the biggest problems with "single issue" politics. It simply does not recognise that things inevitably are interwoven, move one domino and you have a cascade. The final state may well not be what was intended, but it is too late to stop it.
We are supposed to live in a democracy (actually we don't, but THAT is another debate altogether!), and the dictionary definition says that this means that we exercise power in government through elected persons who represent our interests. Nowhere can I find a definition which says that unelected demonstrators have a mandate to argue for banning foxhunting, live animal transport, visiting heads of state, new road building, airport runways or mobile phone antennae. Nor can I find anything that gives these people a mandate to burn trucks, bomb research establishments, release hordes of non-native mink into our countryside, cripple horses and attempt to kill huntsmen, sabotage earthmoving equipment and generally obstruct highways. Yet the law seems powerless (or perhaps the politicians are to gutless) to stop this mayhem and instill sensible order. Indeed, it seems to go the other way - if you are the target, don't even consider defending yourself, the law in the form of the entire constabulary and the courts will be down on you like a ton of bricks for daring to interfere with the "right" to attack you.
Perhaps what we need is a new law that requires the demonstration organisers to have a secret ballot of the inhabitants of the area they plan to hold their demonstration in. If the vote goes against them, then the demo is off! Simple solution to a costly problem. And its democratic too!
There are many causes that get my hackles up and there are many that I would be prepared to take up arms for, but they do not include matters dealt with in the ballot box at a local or national level. Nor do they include any matter in which there has been an opportunity to present a reasoned and rational debate on the pros and cons for any issue. However, most of the demonstrations I have witnessed since my mis-spent youth have been led by anarchists who did not believe in reason or debate. Their attitude seems to be that there is only one point of view and it is theirs. I wonder if they realise how undemocratic that is.
One of the most important lessons I have learned about poltics is that there is no "left" or "right". It is a circle and go far enough towards either extreme and you find that there is no discernable difference between them. So, Stalin was Left wing and Hitler was Right Wing. Or were they? Seems to me that both operated secret police, some pretty extreme policies on dissenters, gipsies and others they didn't like, both kept the state under massive degree of centralisation and both headed puppet "democratically elected" parliaments. Both operated death camps, both operated massive slave labour organisations for "the greater good" of the "masses". Clue number two, anyone who refers to his or her electorate as the masses is not to be trusted with the trappings of power! At the end of the day the only difference between them was the scale of the murders they committed. Hitler 10 million, Stalin 40 million. Oh, one other difference, Stalin was on our side so, according to some, he was a "good guy". So, apparently, was Saddam. At least in the minds of those who will be out throwing things at G W Bush and fighting with the police for their "democratic right" to prevent him from coming to the UK.
Anyone who thinks we live in a democracy should maybe take a look at the original model. Then go and look up the meaning of "Oligarchy".
So, can anyone tell me who gave the demonstrators this mandate to speak for the nation?
Posted by The Gray Monk at November 16, 2003 09:53 PM