Tonight, following the BBC News at Ten I will be glued to the television screen to watch this evening's edition of "Question Time", the slightly bland yet brilliantly partisan current affairs show which allows members of the public to interact with influential Cabinet members, opposition politicians and other "people-in-the-know", such as journalists, writers and academics. And tonight will be a very memorable episode - the night when Nick Griffin, leader of Britain's far-right British National Party (BNP) will be making an appearance. Also on the panel will be Jack Straw, Justice Secretary and one of only two Labour Cabinet members I like (the other being Alan Johnson, Home Secretary), Conservative Baroness Warsi, born to immigrant parents from Pakistan, Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman and Bonnie Greer, a playwright who has worked mainly with ethnic minorities and women. Also, it has been reported that the show's long-time host, the simply fantastic David Dimbleby has been given free reign to push and challenge Griffin on the BNP's views and beliefs.
So yes, a superb cast of characters that will make for a very intense, memorable show. But one may wonder why I am so excited about this particular "Question Time". Many of my friends have either signed petitions to try and ban Griffin's appearance due to his extremist views or have declared that they simply will not watch the show because they perceive it as the BBC giving the BNP a legitimate platform for a party that is desperate to win legitimacy and acceptance for its absolutely God-awful views. Their rationale is; "we know their views, I think they're horrific, so why should I watch a show that is giving them publicity on a nationwide level? Ignoring them is surely the better option." The latter I agree with - we all have the right to ignore other people's views. It is our choice of course whether or not we watch the show. But the former viewpoint, that they should be outright banned from appearing is frightening in itself.
Fundamentally, I do take the belief that we simply cannot censor views that are found repulsive by the majority of citizens. Even the minority have a right to express their views. To censor the BNP would be hypocritical, undemocratic and would give ourselves one thing in common with the horrid, authoritarian regimes which regularly censored with brutality any view that was contrary to their political creed. Yes, democracy is a political creed, but its uniqueness, unlike oligarchy, tyranny or even anarchy, is that it is a creed that allows itself to be criticised openly by its citizens. This is not just regarding the political structure of institutions or the behaviour of elected officials within the democracy but the very philisophical nature of democracy itself can be open to criticism and even attack. To those who argue that democracy should be protected from its foes, as the radical members of the Socialist Workers Party have argued with me on the campuses of LSE and UCL when trying to get me to sign their petition, I scoff at them - democracy can perfectly survive by itself and the historical record has shown this to be the case. Yes, Europe descended into fascism in the 1930s but democracy prevailed, even though it took an enormously destructive war to ensure this victory. Then democracy fought a forty-year stand-off with Soviet Communism and also prevailed. With this, one argues that democracy's strength lies in its robustness, its ability to be fluid and adaptable to the changing needs of society, which is something that no other political ideology can equal. This is why it was victorious before and this will ensure its continued victory well into the unknown future.
Thus, I implore anyone to tell me how dangerous the single appearance of the leader of a fringe, radical party on a late-night panel show really is to British democracy - if anything, the expenses scandals that have consumed the mainstream parties is much more dangerous to democracy. Of course, I'm not saying that we should be complacent. It is very worrying that the BNP have notched up not only more local councillors to their tally in recent elections but also two MEPs, but one must look at the facts. Where the BNP won their Euro seats, it was not because their support had suddenly shot up. No, it was the fact that it was the Labour vote that slumped to such a low that the proportional representation system used in EP elections allowed the BNP to sneak in.
On the Today programme this morning, I found it very interesting to learn that it was an appearance on a similar-format show to "Question Time" in 1984 that caused the French far-right party Le Front National to become a mainstream party and subsequently double its share of the vote (approx. 7%) in that year's elections to the European Parliament. In 2002, Le Front National's leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen actually fought the second round run-off with Jacques Chirac to become French President. This shocked and horrified not only the French but the entire world. In a nutshell, Chirac won by a comfortable majority. The French had recoiled that they had allowed their democracy to be put under such risk and although Chirac was far from the ideal president in many French voters' eyes, they voted for him to defend the ideals that French democracy holds so dear.
The means in which the Today programme reported the similarities to Le Pen's 1984 television appearance seemed to be implying an ominous warning for what may happen after tonight's "Question Time" - the legitimisation of the BNP in mainstream politics, a surge in membership and greater electoral success in the future. However, 1984 was a long time ago and even 2002, events and processes have moved forward. Today, Le Front National, under younger, fresher leadership is even starting to moderate its most radical, far-right policies in an effort to be seen again as a viable mainstream party. So although Le Pen came within an inch of clinching victory in 2002, democracy and the democratic process in all its fluidity may be having a moderating effect on extremist parties the more they are in the political limelight and the more scrutiny they are exposed to. Le Front National is not the only example of this - even Italy's troubled democracy (see article below) has seen the moderation of some of its most extremist parties in recent years, such as La Lega Nord.
This, I am certain, will be the same for the BNP. The more they are exposed and challenged on their hideous views, the more marginal and discredited they will become and will have to moderate themselves. The alternative would be electoral oblivion. Yes, this may not happen immediately and the short-term effects may look pretty alarming and in their favour. But democracy is very self-confident. It knows that it will prevail eventually and that it has many weapons in its arsenal in order to exterminate the scourges of extremism and totalitarianism.
"Question Time" is just one of those weapons. So let Nick Griffin appear. Let him have his moment in the spotlight and let him try to convince us that the deportation of all non-Caucasian citizens back to their country of origin is a policy that we should embrace. Let the other panellists and audience members tear him to shreds. And let us sit back in our living rooms confident that democracy will surely know the right course of action to take with such a disgusting, small, horrible little man and his equally disgusting, small and horrible party. We may not see the results immediately, but the process moving towards that result is already underway and going strong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment