Skip to main content

Day: 4 December 2013

Voting and Russell Brand’s revolution

So far in my life I have always thought of the right to vote with pride. As something which people had sacrificed their lives for, I was not going to give up having a voice in our democracy easily. But after watching Russell Brand a few weeks ago on Newsnight and then reading into the debate which has ensued, I started questioning what my eagerly anticipated opportunity to vote in 2015 would actually achieve. I felt naïve in my fervent attitude towards the whole process. I also felt disheartened; would my vote be able to make the slightest difference?

When Paxman questioned Brand’s reasoning for never voting, he replied “I’m not voting out of absolute indifference, weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations now.” Brand continued his argument in an article for The Guardian; “The only reason to vote is if the vote represents power or change” stating that at the moment we get to “choose what colour tie the liar who leads us wears.” For students, the overwhelming lack of choice for 2015 rings loudly. We may choose between a party who has given us five years of austerity; a party who left the country in an economic mess or a party who have lost every student vote they gained at the last election after completely u-turning on their fees pledge. The option of not bothering seems increasingly appealing.

But, what will disengaging from the democratic system achieve? How do we stand with a voice for change in our democracy if the government does not need to do anything at all for our vote? Paxman, who was initially dismissive of Brand, has now come out and revealed that he once did not vote because the choice was “so unappetising.” He went on to add that he felt “uncomfortable” after doing so and that “we ignore the democratic process at our peril, because otherwise power is wielded by the rich and strong for the benefit of the rich and strong.” We need to stay involved in this democratic system, precisely because it still is in some part a democratic system, which has to listen to calls for change. If we ignore it then it will move further away from the democracy we dream of.

Much of the current disillusionment with the weight of a vote stems from a flawed voting system. People should stay involved in politics precisely so they can change this. The appeal of abstention is much due from the lack of parties that represent our interests – why, then, can we not select ‘none of the above’? Some countries have already made this an option in their own elections, most famously in Russia, where such votes led to new elections in 1991, breaking the Soviet Union. Personally, I believe that democracy is not reputable without the option to vote against as well as for the existing parties. This would mean we could actively, democratically call for change. Politicians would be more motivated to actually represent the views of the people who could reject them.

None of this can be achieved unless we work within the present system, remain heard, and then use that voice to bring about change. After ticking a box on the ballot paper, we should no longer remain silent for the four years; we should lobby for electoral reform and change. If we don’t vote, what cause do those sitting on the benches of government have for listening to our petitioning for the better world we dream of?

One of Brand’s main reasons for doubting the electoral system is that democratic choice has collapsed through the influence of corporate powers. Major corporation’s interests are now fundamental in pretty much every decision our “democracy” makes. This past week the Guardian revealed that the government’s new subsidy system for gas-burning power stations is being created by an executive for ESB International – who builds gas-burning power stations. G4S’s contract to run immigration removal centres was extended, despite ongoing allegations of fraud. In the light of these scandals it is no surprise that Brand’s assertion that our democracy is a charade has resonated so extensively.

I worry that by giving up we will be green-lighting big businesses to continue dominating politics. Russell wants to create a revolution that will stop this kind of morally corrupt behaviour. We live in a country so focused on profit that it gives the businesses that create it free reign to work how they choose, a country which cuts welfare benefits while these businesses grow and a country where disparity between the rich and poor is overwhelming. This won’t end if we separate ourselves from the democratic process.

Change is desperately needed. But the change will only come about if we work first of all, however much we detest it, within the restrictions of the present system. The government will do everything it can to maintain the status quo and the easiest way for them to do that will be if we all disengage ourselves from politics. But let’s surprise them; let’s force them to listen to us.

 

Should students be responsible for their friends’ anti-social behaviour?

 

Currently being reviewed in the House of Lords, the new and improved version of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill looks set to become law by Christmas 2013. The UK government is making the controversial decision to criminalise behaviour that is considered as simply a “nuisance or annoyance” to the dismay of many.

As a result of a Manchester City Council suggestion, one of the more controversial amendments to the proposal is the possible measure to punish tenants holding a party whereby their party guests indulge in anti-social behaviour afterwards. The offence would extend to post-party antics that do not involve the tenant or the house itself.  Irfaan Bhankarally, current third-year student in Actuarial Science and Maths agrees to this idea in principle, “I would not want to be held responsible if anyone coming from a party at my place does not behave according to norms even after leaving, but if I induced this behaviour in any way, by for example providing alcohol, I have to hold my hand up and be held accountable to a certain extent.”

Silviana Patrascu, a postgraduate student in Translation and Interpreting Studies vehemently disagrees, “It does sound a bit extreme. Warnings and fines are probably the best way to implement punishment on such occasions. Getting kicked out of your house for something you have not done?  No way that’s fair!”

However, the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill, goes even further in antagonising young people. It offers a pledge to obliterate anti-social behaviour from the streets but in more ways than one. The scope of actions included as anti-social has unequivocally been widened and this has not gone unnoticed by campaigners who are against the bill. “We are concerned that children and teenagers will get into trouble with the law just for being annoying, and that it will penalise them from doing things that all children do as part of growing up – playing in the street, kicking a ball around in a public space or hanging around with their friends,” responded the chief executive of the National Children’s Bureau, Dr Hilary Emery, when asked about the proposal.

The thought of children as young as 10 being liable to such public disturbance reprimands raises many questions about the future use of ASBO style responses under the new bill. Rather than creating a safer environment for the community, it can have an adverse effect and increase the communication barriers between the police and youngsters. Cleveland’s chief constable Jacqui Cheer even points out the fact that some of the public nuisance created these days might be a result of previous legislation to close down places where teenagers could gather, “What is anti-social to one person is just what I did and what many young people do. We’ve closed down a lot of places that people are allowed to go to. We’ve fenced off school grounds, but where do people collect? I’m not saying that we will tolerate behaviour that is harassing, that is making people feel fearful… that is our job. But we need to be careful where the line is.”

The generation gap between the current Parliament and the young population is becoming glaringly obvious with this legislation and others like it. It does make sense to increase protection for the community, but that would mostly be useful for actual crime rather than being overly dramatic about public disturbance and ephemeral anti-social behaviour. As Conservative MP James Wharton suggests “I would be concerned at anything that might send out a message to young people to commit anti-social behaviour. I speak to people in my constituency who experience this kind of behaviour and it can have a significant impact on communities. I am confident that the new legislation will give the police the discretion they need and I will be voting for it.” As Mr Wharton is one of the youngest MPs in parliament, this shows just how far off the mark they might be in assessing the current situation. It would rather make sense to review each significant case over and above a more flexible baseline legislation to protect against anti-social behaviour.

Mistakes happen, even more so when growing up. Criminalising such actions can only go as far as providing immediate peace and quiet.