The contempt for democracy
We'll read a lot about these student protests tomorrow. Much of the rage will focus on the fact that an elderly chutney maker had his car kicked in by some people on his way to see Michael McIntyre and Cheryl Cole perform in his honour. Some will deplore the breaking and burning of things by those whom Kay Burley would label as 'insurgents'. Some others, maybe a smaller number, will wonder if it's a tremendously excellent thing to charge at children with police horses or drag other people out of wheelchairs, or bash them over the head with batons, and all of that - but probably conclude that, yes, sadly, it's actually OK.
One thing that might come up a few times is the idea that a protest of this nature shows 'contempt for democracy'. If it is, you have to ask the question as to who showed contempt for democracy first.
Is it contemptuous of democracy, for example, to tell people that you have certain policies, become elected because of their votes on the basis of what you've said, then once you're safely in power for five years, turn around and say, look, I'm awfully sorry but things have changed - that manifesto which we said was our manifesto is more of a 'holding manifesto' to be broken open in the unlikely event that we ever get elected with an overall majority; and it is to be entirely ignored if we become part of a coalition, when we can cheerfully reject some or all of our promises?
Is it contemptuous of democracy, for example, to not tell people that you're going to introduce something like tuition fees in the first place, but then, once you're safely elected, and having given no indication that you're going to introduce tuition fees, introduce tuition fees?
Does it say something about politicians' contempt for democracy, perhaps, that the country can go to war with a foreign power that poses no threat to their country, based on no legitimate evidence whatsoever, and that no citizen of that country should have a say in the matter; that entirely peaceful protests should be completely and utterly ignored because it is history, not citizens, who are the real judge of a Prime Minister, and besides, god told him it would all be all right?
No, of course not. Have a patronising pat on the head and a biscuit to make you feel better. None of that is contempt for democracy at all; that's just part of the rich ebb and flow of parliamentary life, which is so very vital and important to everything getting done. Well, if people told you what they were going to do, or did the things they told you they were going to do, how on earth could things function then? It would almost be as if you were voting for parties based on certain principles, or values, and that they would stick to them, or something. And that would never do.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
December 9th, 2010 - 23:28
“Is it contemptuous of democracy, for example, to not tell people that you’re going to introduce something like tuition fees in the first place, but then, once you’re safely elected, and having given no indication that you’re going to introduce tuition fees, introduce tuition fees?”
But surely you realise that life is protean and fluid? That circumstances change, and that being flexible is a sign of maturity rather than weakness? What do you suppose happens when a bunch of opposition politicians suddenly becomes a bunch of government politicians? The Civil Service shows them where the bodies are buried. Whatever an incoming government from a previously opposition party might have said in their manifesto, the actual circumstances on the ground render it all so much landfill.
In any case, the ship to which you refer has not only already sailed but has also been towed to Gadani Beach, since tuition fees were introduced by the last government over twelve years ago.
December 9th, 2010 - 23:34
Yes, that is the introduction of tuition fees to which I was referring.
December 10th, 2010 - 23:02
In the context, then, rather old news, no? I mean, I know that tuition fees are all the rage this week, but their introduction is as cold as a corpse.
Anyway, I like your stuff, so ignore.
December 11th, 2010 - 10:33
I was trying to make the point that the introduction of fees in the first place wasn’t mentioned by Labour before coming to power. Which it wasn’t. Which I think is relevant, particularly in this context.
December 10th, 2010 - 08:20
Had off!
December 10th, 2010 - 13:09
Rotwatcher: But surely you realise that life is protean and fluid? That circumstances change, and that being flexible is a sign of maturity rather than weakness?
——————————–
Those circumstances being that the LibDems got a whiff of power and decided, “Mmmmmm, we like this, fuck our promises, let’s hang on to power no matter what!”
Flexibility is one thing, a complete volte face another.
December 10th, 2010 - 00:30
You’ve managed to distill in to sensible, reasoned words that which I can only express as “but.. they said… hnnnngggh… how… no… what… fucking bastards… ggrrrr…”
Thank you Mr Vowl.
December 10th, 2010 - 10:28
What he said.
December 10th, 2010 - 12:21
I’m spartacus too.
December 10th, 2010 - 09:32
An excellent case study as to why we might not wish to increase the probability of future coalitions.
You are against PR/AV etc I presume?
December 10th, 2010 - 09:34
The question should be: is democracy merely contempt for humanity?
December 10th, 2010 - 10:18
Perfect! Thank you.
December 10th, 2010 - 10:22
I agree with your post, but it is worth keeping in mind that there is a fine line between democracy and mob rule.
December 10th, 2010 - 10:31
They never gave us biscuits
December 10th, 2010 - 10:55
Well said.
December 10th, 2010 - 11:14
What pisses me off is that all the rioters and people fighting with police are middle/upper class.
We need some people from my yard to come down!
December 10th, 2010 - 15:13
This is all a tad simplistic… It’s not remotely contemptous to make a decision once in government that wasn’t in your manifesto. We elect the government to govern… And if you’re the minor partner in a coalition, of course you’re not going to be able to uphold all your manifesto promises.
Lies and exaggerations were told to parliament in the run-up to the Iraq war – *that’s* contempt for democracy. On tuition fees and many many other issues, I don’t expect the Lib Dems to magically implement their manifesto. But I would have expected them to put up something resembling a fight.
December 11th, 2010 - 00:14
Of course, I can’t help but imagine what the missus in the car was telling the driver in that photo. Perhaps something along the lines of telling the driver that she would be damned if she was going to get killed in the back of a bloody car just like his first missus …