Does British politics need rebranding? (Part I)

Occupy London: Some people still get passionate about politics (©Max Nash/PA Wire)

On Saturday I was invited to represent Catch21 at a Bite the Ballot debate on rebranding politics at the Youth Enterprise Live event at Earls Court. The key issue was how politics could evolve to be less elitist and more appealing to people in order to create a fuller democracy, and whether young people could lead this change. The discussion was audience led and there were some very strong opinions put forward. Although by no means unanimous, there was a generally held view that politics was elitist, out of touch and needed to be seriously modified to reconnect with people.

My fellow panellist Shaun Bailey, who came from a council estate to having the ear of the PM, told the crowd “you don’t know how good you’ve got it” and came close to being heckled. He argued that compared to other, far more corrupt systems of government elsewhere in the world, we in Britain had the power to really change things for the better, but it was down to the individual to do this. The murmurs of discontent were understandable from an audience who sees the current system as synonymous with the highly stratified society we live in. When a teenager in the riots gets six months for swearing at a police officer, is it any wonder that London’s politically aware young people get mad when David Cameron backs Andrew Mitchell over pleb-gate?

Of course, both sides are correct. Politics does need to be rebranded and reinvigorated; it needs to be more representative of society, and matter more to more people. Undeniably however we are also blessed with a (relatively) uncorrupted system in which citizens can make a difference. Labour MP Gloria de Piero has conducted a study into why people ‘hate’ politicians and identified some core problems. She argued that the man in the street did not believe that politics particularly affected him, or that he could really change anything or get involved. She also said that people did not see politics or parties as representative of the public.

The latter problem is already well known; governments on both sides (but particularly on the right) are always keen to get more people from business into politics, in an attempt to break the cycle of career politicians. But how to do this? Party politics is not an overly appealing prospect for top business chiefs used to the freedom of dynamic private sector businesses. The former of Ms de Piero’s issues could simply be a matter of marketing. However I think both are symptoms of a bigger problem in our party political system.

Unfortunately, this problem is not likely to change very fast. British politics is a zero-sum game. The winner gains power for five years and has control of policy. It is therefore in the parties’ interests to do whatever they can to work against the other. Through this, complex issues are given black and white answers. Answers that should require nuance become a simple choice of ‘us versus them’; parties promise one thing, and then find that the reality makes their actions more complicated. Politicians defend their failure if they are in power, or condemn success when they are in opposition. All sides come out looking like liars.

I would obviously not make a good politician; I’m probably a bit too honest for my own good. I think if we saw a bit more honesty from politicians however, a bit more willingness to admit mistakes, and a bit more cooperation across the parties, the public may think that they are less out for self gain and more working in the interests of the country.  The effects may not be as damaging as politicians would fear: An interesting article from Matt Paris has argued how the cliché ‘a week is a long time in politics’ is only really applicable to a select clique of interested observers. For Joe Bloggs, ten years is a more appropriate length of time to judge parties on. The conclusion is that things such as ‘pleb-gate’ or departmental cock-ups like the West Coast rail franchise affair may not be noticed by the public as much as everyone in the inner circle fears. To draw a tangent, you could argue that if politicians were more down to earth and honest, they could gain more in their successes than they lost in popularity from their failures.

So we come back to the issue, and perhaps the solution – how to get more ‘ordinary’ people into politics; how to make more politics more representative and prevent the majority from feeling isolated. There seems to be cross the board agreement on this need. But neither ‘ordinary’ people nor business chiefs are going to be interested in playing the party game when it’s so messy and mired in slander.

In part two of this discussion, I will look at some more practical measures to draw in young people and the population as a whole, things like devolution, elected mayors and media. Finally I will look at how the nasty side of politics can actually be turned into a strength: Politics is exciting and you only have to look back a few decades to see how invigorated and passionate young people used to feel about politics. Maybe it could just be an issue of connecting politics with young people in a way that they find exciting and appealing. 

Read more from Iain at: http://www.catch21.co.uk/blog

Pussy Riot: Misguided Martyrs?

It could have been worse: Unsurprisingly, members of the all-female Russian punk band Pussy Riot were jailed this week to two years in custody, but the prosecution had been pushing for three. President Putin may be hoping that his statement in London that the three should not “be punished too harshly,” will be interpreted as benevolent intervention; in reality, the trial has only served to draw media attention back towards Russia’s increasingly autocratic and repressive political system. It is becoming increasingly apparent that free speech is not something that the Russian political elite are keen to hand out.

Across central Asia and the Indian sub-continent in Burma, a country that until recently matched the repression of Russia in its Soviet heyday, the military junta has astonishingly announced a lifting of the press censorship laws. Simultaneously, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy out of fear of extradition to the US, for blowing open American secret diplomatic and military documents. Whatever you say about Assange, and the sex charges he faces in Sweden, the likelihood of him ever emerging from a US jail if he enters are slim. All in all, a big week for free speech; but did Pussy Riot’s protest have any positive effect?

As seems to be consistent with Putin’s approach to the rights of the individual in Russia, he did himself no favours with Pussy Riot. As The Economist has argued “the longer the members of Pussy Riot sat in pre-trial detention, the greater their profile—and their legend—grew at home and abroad.” Since successfully winning a rigged election, Putin (and his regime) have taken several steps against opposition groups, from a law introduced in June upping the fine for street protests to £12,000, to charges being levelled against opposition leader Alexei Navalny for embezzling a state timber company.

The Pussy Riot trial is certainly not an isolated incident therefore. What they have achieved, in quite dramatic fashion, is to bring a fresh dose of infamy to Putin’s regime within the international community. Everyone from Madonna to the Sex Pistols has been queuing up to support them. However such an outspoken international reaction may only play into the regime’s hands: Inconspicuous amongst the regime’s recent laws is one that forces all foreign NGOs in Russia to label themselves ‘foreign agents’; a move indicative of the Cold War ‘foreign conspiracy’ mentality used by the regime to justify its authoritarian existence. International support for the band will only add to this.

This is especially so when the group’s actions and the charges laid against them are considered: The group chose to stage their anti-Putin protest in the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, and were found ‘guilty of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.’ Though highly successful in shocking the regime and bringing a wave of international interest to Russia, the group has received relatively little domestic support. Although recent polling by the Levada Centre shows that many questioned the court’s objectivity and saw the hand of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Kremlin in the prosecution, fewer are ready to support Pussy Riot: 51% held negative or hostile views toward the group’s actions, another 20% were neutral or indifferent (The Economist). The most significant divide is generational; support for the band almost entirely resides with the country’s young – their actions may thus serve to galvanise elderly support for the regime.

Moreover Pussy Riot may have accentuated a trend already occurring under Putin; the collusion of the United Russia party and the Russian Orthodox Church. As The Observer has said, Putin and the Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill I, have “struck a deal”. Putin has returned state support to the church with aid for the restoration of churches destroyed by the communists, and the return of priests to schools and universities. Kirill returns the favour by “making support for the Kremlin kleptomaniacs a quasi-religious duty.”

Pussy Riot performed a valiantly defiant protest against the growing squeeze on civil liberties in Russia and will become martyrs for the cause; however the likelihood is that they have only given ammunition to the reactionary forces in power.