Parallel Universe of Politicians

It is a well-known observation that an elephant simply cannot understand the daily struggles of an ant. The difference in size will never allow an elephant to empathise with the ant. The ant is required daily to move swiftly from wall to wall in order to avoid feeling the wrath of a newspaper adapted by its reader to squish the life out of it to ensure its destruction. The elephant faces no such threat. In a similar manner, the ant will never be able to understand fully the struggles of an Asian elephant tamed in captivity and used for wholly unnatural purposes. The example of which appears to me analogous to the state of politics at present.

Put simply according to the definition given by the fountain of all knowledge in the 21 century, ‘Google,’ democracy is ‘a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.’ If you’re a Google sceptic then the definition given by Aristotle in 1995 is also sound. Aristotle notes in a democratic society, ‘the people [demos] are sovereign. . . .(it is) when the masses govern the city with a view to the common interest.’  What we must draw on here is that, in both definitions the people are sovereign.  Either through the medium of direct democracy whereby the whole population governs or indirectly through ‘elected representatives.’ Focusing on the latter in the case of the UK, democracy works by the people electing representatives who share the common interests of the people. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the elected representatives and the people seem to be much like the elephant and the ant. Neither seems to share an understanding of the other’s lives and those that believe they do, seem to be grossly misinformed.  

There has been a surge in the popularity of UKIP which could be a consequence of the party’s anti-immigration rhetoric and the failure of Prime Minister David Cameron’s election promise to cut immigration down to ‘tens of thousands.’ According to YouGov poll the electorate’s main priorities are immigration and the economy with 52 per cent of respondents listing it as a priority. However, many of UKIPs most recent supporters should understand that UKIPS members are, like all the party members, POLITICIANS. They are politicians who appear no different to their Conservative and Labour counter-parts who are much like ants unable to understand the grievance of the elephants.

Recently, I attended a talk by former Conservative MP turned UKIPPER Douglas Carswell, at the Oxford and Cambridge Club in Pall Mall. The event took place at the clubs opulent Princess Marie Louise Room with other UKIP members, politicians, journalists and the odd student in attendance. Once I had eventually snapped out of being bewitched by the enormous chandelier hanging above and the aloof feeling of being in a scene from one of Charlotte Bronte’s novels had left me. It dawned on me how grossly out of touch the speaker and indeed some of the guests were with the rest of society. The grandeur of this elite club and the discussion was a complete parallel to that of the realities of life in Britain today.

Rather ironically, Douglas Carswell spoke of how unrepresentative Parliament was today and advocated re-calling MPs which would allow the people to vote in a by-election whenever an issue such as ‘Cash for Access’ arose and MPs where found to be acting contrary to their code of practice. Whilst this sounds great it is the same spiel Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith has been advocating since 2010, the result of which was an idea MPs rejected by 340 to 166 following a free vote in the Commons. When Carswell was questioned by journalist about his party leader blaming immigrants for causing traffic on the M4, his cheeks flushed red and the embarrassment on his face said more than his response, which was like all good politicians, simply avoiding the direct the question and move swiftly on to a topic more suited to his own agenda.

Thus far, it is no wonder Russell Brand is calling for society to abstain from voting in the 2015 general election altogether, politicians are seriously out of touch with the people. Labour rather patronisingly feel as though pink buses are what female voters want.  While, David Cameron and his cronies have decided to dangle an election carrot in the form of pledging to build 200,000 cut price homes in order to help first time buyers under 40 who are plagued with masses of student debt, extortionate travel fares and increased living expenses. The proposals of which critics argue are incredibly ambitious. -A euphemism for a load of sh*t.  

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. - Voltaire

A sign of solidarity and support for the illustrators at Charlie Hebdo

The world, well most of it I hope, have woken up to the debate on freedom of expression sparked by heinous terror attacks in Paris which have left 17 dead and the rest of the western worlds security services on high alert.

Amongst the victims were 12 incredibly brave illustrators from Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine based in Paris, well known for its bold and controversial publications. Utilising satire Charlie Hebdo have ridiculed the Catholic Church, Judaism, Islam, and a host of politicians; in 2011 the magazine published an illustration depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed with the caption ‘100 lashes if you are not dying of laughter’ attached to it provoking outrage and leading to the magazines headquarters being bombed by Islamist extremists. Despite the bombing Charlie Hebdo’s illustrators were left undeterred, Stephane Charbonnier the magazine’s editor-in-chief who died in the Paris terror attacks said simply ‘we won’t let it get to us.’ Later in 2012 speaking at time of heightened tensions between Islamist extremists Charbonnier was reported saying ‘the accusation that we are pouring oil on the flames in the current situation really gets on my nerves... a cartoon never killed anyone.’

German Chancellor, Anegla Merkel

Angela Merkel held the incidents in Paris ‘an attack on freedom of expression and the press – a key component of our free democratic culture- which cannot be justified.’ One is inclined to agree with Merkel; this absolutely is an attack on a right, we as a continent, hold so dearly. The illustrators at Charlie Hebdo, despite the risks and threats they continued to receive, courageously exercised their right of freedom of expression by publishing incredibly controversial illustrations when many others, were simply too scared to do so. Whether it is fear for one’s own life which prevents them from being openly critical or fear of backlash from others, it seems the nonchalance; nerve the French illustrator possessed is not evident in much of society today. Yet, societies concerns regarding freedom of expression seem to be more evident now following the death of the illustrators, than ever before given the importance and scale of the debate. If we didn’t care, we simply would not discuss it.

Freedom of expression according to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights is a qualified right.  It requires a balance to be established between the rights of the individual and the needs of the wider community and state interest. The question arises whether one should do away with political satire and consequently freedom of expression to avoid antagonising the complex issue of terrorism? Thereby avoiding casualties? Whilst I see the merits in taking such a stance I’m of the opinion that the answer is a resounding NO.

Satire, which is the form used by the illustrators at Charlie Hebdo, is the use of humour, irony, exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticise people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. It dates back to 500BC Athenian dramas, which were played out during intervals to relieve the seriousness of tragic plays. The pieces were aimed specifically at opposing and parodying the tragedy. Many condemn absolute freedom of expression, former French President Jacques Chirac takes the view that ‘anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided.’ Opponents see satire and the publications of Charlie Hebdo as meaningless, scapegoating, bullying and stereotyping. As they say it is offensive and therefore, should be subject to limitations. However, the objective of satire is to allow people to engage in a contentious issue through laughter, to ‘lighten the situation up’ as it were which I am all for. Insecurities in the varying facets of society are always going to be prevalent, so why not use laughter and a light-hearted tone to approach what would otherwise being an incredibly awkward conversation.

While, the Catholic Church, Muslims, Jews and  those who have found themselves the subject of satire may strongly disagree and brand satirical publications as mere blasphemy. Guardian journalist Henry Porter, argues that it is ‘really important that we understand the difference between blasphemy and satire, there is a line to draw there not offending people just for the sake of it... we should regard ourselves as being responsible.’ It is easy for one to accept this view, but where does one draw the distinction between what is light-hearted satire and what is blasphemy? By imposing limitations on freedom of expression might society not become artificially tolerant, passive aggressively accepting one another’s views in order to avoid risking offence and thus, creating a false sense of harmony?

University College London Professor John Mullan notes, great satire wouldn’t get written if there wasn’t something wrong to write about. In the context of the French terror attack, whether one agrees or not with the publications of Charlie Hebdo, it is clear, that the illustrators felt passionate about their profession, so much so that they were willing to risk  their lives.  Although as Guardian Cartoonist Martin Rowson articulates ‘we (satirical cartoonists) aren’t engaged in constructive debates, that is not what we do, you don’t have constructive debates by drawing stupid cartoons of the prime minister with a big nose... that is an essential, foul mouthed part of the political process.’ Whether satirical publications engage in constructive debate or not, we cannot prevent a person from expressing their view simply because we disagree. If it were the case, one would have to question the democratic society we live in, which would be one where everyone is taught to think and feel the same things. Ultimately, it is only the person voicing the views who can take responsibility for them, and they should always have the right to do so. What’s more, one should not take offence when an opinion is expressed contrary to their belief, because it is neither fact nor truth. Despite Satirist seeming to tar everyone with the same brush, a genuine sense of security in ones beliefs should mean you are undeterred by criticism and willing to engage in public debate regardless.

In a diverse society, one can only hope to create cohesion through understanding, tolerance and frank discussion on matters of genuine concern. Satire paves the way to do this, by either making people laugh about a subject they would otherwise consider taboo or by prompting them to engage in constructive debate.