Dark antidemocratic forces, we thought we'd banished to history, seemed to reappear in 2017. It's up to all of us to stop their rise.
Although for many politically active people 2016 was a dark year, for me 2017 was the year that made me fear for the stability of our political system.
I moved from distress about Brexit and concern for the inadequacies of our electoral system to a conviction that we are actually in a battle for the very soul of democracy, both nationally and globally.
Brexit has unleashed tyrannical behaviour that we thought was committed to history.
Leading the charge for intimidation has been the Daily Mail, first undermining the independence of the judiciary with its attacks on the Supreme Court judges who determined that Parliament had to vote for the triggering of Article 50; later vilifying Conservative MPs who dared to vote against an ideological hard Brexit and deliberately inciting violence against them.
The parallels with activities of the same paper in the 1930s and the echoes of fascist propaganda have unsettled many in political life and more widely.
The techniques used by tabloid newspapers and by ersatz fascists on Twitter are not intended to make positive proposals for change. They merely destabilise confidence in democracy as a system that meets people’s needs, as well as their shared sense of reality.
We live in times of great change and democratic politicians are struggling to find solutions to the problems this generates. The fascist response is to point to these weaknesses and create fake news to undermine democratic politicians.
This is why Hannah Arendt, German Jewish philosophy and anatomist of Nazism wrote that:
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”
These developments are disturbing but we need to respond with courage, not fear, and we need to begin by recognising that democracy is not inevitable and needs our active support.
In the UK democracy has a history of about 200 years, and only 100 years for women. In many parts of the world its history is rockier and shorter, but everywhere we should recall how much we have to lose and not take our democratic rights and human rights for granted.
We can recall the strength and courage of those who fought for the empowerment of working people, like Tom Paine with his timeless slogan ‘eternal vigilance is the price of freedom’.
We need to make 2018 the year that we revitalise our democracy.
There are already signs of hope. When my colleague Jean Lambert stressed the importance of having a written constitution during a rally in London, she was greeted with enthusiastic cheers!
Meanwhile Green peer Jenny Jones is making progress with her proposal for a fully democratic House of Lords.
And most importantly, the campaign for a fair voting system, where every vote counts and votes are translated fairly into seats, is gaining momentum, thanks particularly to the extraordinary energy of the Make Votes Matter campaign and the excellent work of the Electoral Reform Society.
I send all these campaigns a fair wind for greater success in 2018.
So what can you do? Well, supporting any or all of those campaigns is a good start, but permit me to suggest a few other new year’s resolutions.
Join, support and nurture a society or organisation. I’m not suggesting joining a political party – although you might consider that – but that civil society organisations are the glue that holds a democratic society together, as well as the places where we practice the skills of democratic action.
This was the reason why the totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe always persecuted or co-opted such organisations.
Be yourself and don’t be afraid to stand out from the crowd. I was recently in Berlin and saw the famous photo of the huge crowd of workers enthusiastically giving the Nazi salute while the lone resistor, August Landmesser, resolutely folded his arms.
This was a risky gesture that led to reprisals from a tyrannical regime and our acts of resistance are likely to be smaller and less dramatic.
But holding your opinions, or even your style, in the workplace or social setting calmly but confidently gives other people permission to be different and it is this difference that enables democracy to flourish.
Democracy assumes that, as citizens, we are often in disagreement and seeks a deliberative and mutually acceptable route out of that conflict.
So the territory of reasoned and respectful dispute is vital to the survival of democracy. This is why the spread of echo chambers created by social media is so unhelpful.
As we risk falling into warring ideological camps, perhaps the best piece of advice for the new year comes from the short booklet of Quaker wisdom Advices and Queries: ‘Think it possible that you may be mistaken’.
Molly Scott Cato is Green MEP for the South West and Green Party speaker on Brexit. She tweets here.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
8 Responses to “The last year made me fear for our democracy itself — 2018 must be a turning point”
Dr Paul Stott
It seems strange to be lectured on democracy, by an MEP who cannot accept the largest mass vote in our people’s history. Every vote counts for Molly, except when those votes reject membership of the European Union.
Brexit was a revolt of the little man against the European project. It was also a firm rejection of the EU’s pseudo-democratic model – consider technocrats had already taken charge in Italy and Greece when those countries dared to step outside the rules of the troika.
Brexit knocked David Cameron and George Osborne off their perch, and may yet lead to the abolition of the House of Lords if Lord Adonis and his chums use their ermine to thwart the will of the people.
Leaving the European Union offers us the chance to revitalise our democracy from the local level upwards, moving away from the top down process beloved in Brussels. It ends at a stroke the excuses of our own politicians, who can no longer blame their own failings to deliver x or y, on the EU.
How the Green party, who once believed in localism, came to be the most rabidly pro-Brussels of our political parties, desperate to stay in the single market, is perhaps an issue for those writing histories of political ‘capture’.
But let 2019 be the year we remind ourselves that democracy, if it means anything, means delivering for the people. And that means a full, clean Brexit where the soverignty of the British people is restored.
Tim Thomson
While I fully understand Dr Scott’s position regarding Molly’s enthusiasm for Europe, I don’t believe we should be blind to the implications of what she has said about democracy. The vote to leave the EU was not specific as to how. The myth that ‘sovereignty will be restored’ is just that, unless we choose an isolationist path. Any agreements we make with other countries will impose rules upon us. Furthermore, our current Government has been trying hard to dissipate the sovereignty of Parliament which is where sovereignty should lie. The damage being done by the two dimensional bipolar debates in the social media is stifling reasoned debate and constructive solutions. As an ageing cynic, I question the motives of many who voted ‘leave’, while accepting the decision taken in the referendum. But to opt for a departure format which loses jobs, damages our services and makes our country significantly poorer would be foolish. The referendum reflected the collective view of those who voted. Parliament should not be compelled to ignore the views of those who voted remain. We were forced to take a binary view on a multifacetted matter, and we must therefore make the best of that, which can surely only be done by supporting an effective democratic system.
Veronica-Mae Soar
I am with you Tim, Without dwelling on the vote (yes, big turnout but small majority) my personal view is that many people were fooled into thinking that it was something which it was not. I would question how many people actually had an in depth knowledge of how the EU worked, believing it to dictate to us. Yes there is a lot wrong with EU but if the boat is leaking you can either stay and help to plug the leaks, or you can abandon ship. But if you do you leave, you had better be very sure you have a serviceable life raft.
What Molly has said resonates with me. I am tired of voting for the person I want and NEVER getting them. I feel I have never been truly represented.
As for the Lords, let’s just call it the second chamber, then recognise that what creates those who get on the gravy train and do nothing is the system , It is the system which need tightening.
What I would dearly like to see (but will never get) is the ancient Roman senate idea of voting for the best person, not for the party – and after x years they must retire.
And we are long overdue for a written constitution. That will keep the lawyers busy for very long time.
Rod Nelson
Paul Stott’s comments bother me very much. He decries the technocratic oppression of the EU, yet a modern society requires standards and protocols in order to function, and we are a technological society. We can’t just go back to the 1930’s and expect the world to be impressed with our strength of character. That world is gone. Much of what he wants swept away with such nationalistic puff is actually the very stuff that protects us. It bothers me greatly that, for instance, the EU’s principled stance against the covert introduction of GM technology will likely be overturned in the interests of obtaining a trade deal with the US. This is but one of dozens of examples. It is the sad likelihood that the very people who were hoodwinked by lies and the cant of the red top press into supporting Brexit will suffer the worst from it. This is already happening.
Will
Over the past few years I’ve found it increasingly difficult to debate with people holding different views ( not just on Brexit) as they often seem to have a set of “facts” to back up thier arguments, citing figures and sources I’ve never heard of and which often have uncertain provenance and are consequently difficult to disprove even when they are contrary to my “facts”.
Rational debate is becoming impossible. Strange, illogical and dangerous policies are being followed, opposition or contrary views are dismissed, not because they are wrong but because they have been decided irrevocably by referendum!