The term ‘revolution’ has many meanings. To a Marxist it signifies the class struggle that is expected to lead to political change and the triumph of Communism. To a historian it could refer to the battles fought in France, America or Russia in the name of freedom and change. To a politics student like me it could insinuate anarchy, rebellion and a forceful challenge to the status quo. Just over a week ago, this is what comedian-turned-actor Russell Brand was calling for. A revolution which would undermine the ‘tacit complicity’ we are currently accept – i.e. our failing democratic governing bodies and institutions.
Brand voiced his opinions in the revolution-special edition of the New Statesman, which he was asked to guest edit. These opinions were then given further acknowledgment during a Newsnight interview with the politician-bashing and always somewhat patronising Jeremy Paxman. Both the article (found here – http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution) and the interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk) have generated discussions and disputes over many issues, from Brand’s ‘right’ to call for revolution, to the problems within the current political system, to the search for a viable alternative. I’ll attempt to tackle some of these issues but must admit, much like Brand does, that I offer no alternative to the current political system mainly due to my lack of any official qualification to do so. But moreover, due to the reason I quite like the whole concept of democracy. Shock. Horror. How can I when there is a revolution to become a part of headed by an intellectual, funny famous person? Thus my opposition will only seek to instigate the onslaught of thousands of bird nest haired, flamboyant, womanisers flocking to undercut me. Just bear with me for a bit as I explain.
Brand comments on the dispiritingly large economic disparities and environmental troubles found nationally and globally, that are arguably a consequence of our consolidation of capitalism and involvement in the global neo-liberal world order. I agree with him that these are problems. The system is flawed, there is a lack of accountability and representation for minority groups and parliament is consistently governed by elites who ignore and exclude some of those most in need. Brand speaks of apathy and an indifference to politics, which he argues stems from the repetitive lies and disappointments shovelled down to us by Westminster. Thus he seeks revolution as the answer, the spark that will lead to utopia but offers no alternative to democracy or capitalism.
Fair enough. I wouldn’t expect an ex-sex and drug addict who uses unnecessarily large words and makes millions from jokes to be able to provide a solution to the global problems of poverty, unaccountable governments and disenfranchised populations. I’m fine with leaving that up to experts in the field. I am not fine however, with allowing Mr Brand to use his – seven million Twitter followers compared to David Cameron’s half a million – influence over, mainly, the youth population to ask for people not to vote. Voting is the single best thing about democracy. People have died and are still dying, to gain the right to vote. A citizen has no greater power than the ballot. It is also the youth vote that is most in need of acknowledgement. The youth are the most disillusioned, disenfranchised and ignored by the government. Their vote is not courted and they are not counted. Henrietta Hitchcock points out the paradox: ‘why would any party target its policies towards young people when they don’t vote? On the other hand, why should young people vote if they’re bored by politics in general?’ Arguably, the youth have no attractive role models to look to in politics. Apart from maybe Brand but he has never and will never vote, stating there is no party that represents his political beliefs.
I cannot accept the fact that out of nearly five hundred registered political parties, from Animals Count to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, Brand cannot find one he aligns himself with. Or, is it Brand’s suggestion that voting doesn’t change anything anyways that means he hasn’t found a political party that shares his views. This brings us to the true issue – the flaws in our system which protrude and exclude and make people, like Brand, abstain from voting altogether.
Winston Churchill once famously stated: ‘Democracy is the worst form of government, except all others that have been tried’. I still believe this to be true. If democracy is chosen and not forced, if it is obtained and legitimised through free and fair elections, if it provides accountability and universal suffrage then it can prosper and inspire. The working democracy in Britain undeniably has flaws. However, I advocate reform not revolution. Britain has only been working as a representative democracy since 1707 and universal suffrage was not granted until 1928, less than a hundred years ago. We cannot expect it to be perfect but we can use the powers at our disposal – the right to vote, the right to protest, the freedom of press and freedom of expression – to perfect it. Brand expressed disgruntled issues that, in the post financial crisis climate, many before him have commented on, which he has every right to do so. Brand has the right to slate the government, to write critical pieces on our political institutions and political culture and to call for and even provoke a revolution. He can do all this because we live in a democracy, where our opinions can be heard and our actions can be seen. It may be a far cry from perfect but it’s what we’ve got to work with and ultimately, where is a better place to start a revolution than from the inside out?
Image Source:
http://www.themonthly.com.au/files/imagecache/blog_image/Brand.PNG
Grace Brown