One of the fundamental tenets of the Peace Party is respect for others.
This also has to mean that we respect, if not exactly their views, then at least their right to hold them. As Voltaire didn’t quite say: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
If we assume his “to the death” was a rhetorical flourish — and not to be taken literally — then it’s a sentiment with which we concur.
Sadly this admirably open-minded and tolerant attitude is in stark contrast to the febrile atmosphere we find ourselves in over Brexit. But not only over Brexit. Increasingly there is a sense that a person who holds opinions we believe to be wrong has no right to hold those opinions, far less to express them.
This is deeply worrying.
We are fortunate in the UK in having entrenched institutions that are, for all their faults, essentially democratic; that is to say, they are designed to ensure that our national policies are broadly representative of the wishes of the people. But if only certain views can be expressed this crucial principle is lost.
Certainly there are opinions that we quite properly deplore and that any reasonable and compassionate person must find abhorrent, but if we do not allow those views to be expressed we do not live in a democracy.
I am aware that alarm bells may now be ringing! History provides many examples of demagogues who have spread pernicious views resulting in the persecution, literally ‘to the death’ of vast numbers of people. The urge to power is a dangerous thing, and lethal when practised by a psychopathic demagogue.
But there is an important distinction between the legitimate expression of an opinion as an opinion, and what might reasonably be called ‘rabble-rousing’. If we lose the capacity to make this distinction we undermine democracy itself. Conversely, if we keep the distinction clearly in mind we should be able to prevent hate-speech and incitement to violence while at the same time nurturing a healthy democracy.
Are there exceptions? The Rebellion Extinction movement would presumably claim that there can be. Democracy moves slowly, and if — as seems to be the case — we are heading for extinction unless drastic action is taken pretty promptly, a strong argument can be made for ‘extra- democratic’ forms of protest. There are problems with this approach though. One is that it crosses a line and establishes a dangerous precedent; another is that the protest itself, not the message it seeks to convey, becomes the story.
But if, as George Monbiot argues, it is the only way that might produce prompt enough action, then I think these objections are overridden by the urgency of the case. But it’s a slippery slope and needs to be navigated very carefully indeed.
We must also recognise that even democratic institutions are inevitably imperfect. With the best will in the world we may not be able to stop a plausible demagogue from scape-goating specific groups in order to gain power. Equally we must recognise that our political representatives may not always be well-informed or even well-intentioned.
For these reasons it is absolutely essential that power — even democratically ratified power — must be limited. It should never, for example, have the right to take away life, to arbitrarily restrict an individual’s freedom, or to deprive individuals of any of their basic human rights.
An interpretation of these limits is set out in the UK Human Rights Act, 1998. Some of the more scurrilous media have sought to discredit human rights legislation, partly, one assumes, because it was introduced in response to the requirements of the European Union. Consequently there is still a certain amount of pressure to repeal it — an action which, we believe, would be completely misguided and would clear the way for anti-democratic populism.
Our Democratic Responsibility
It has often been said that we have a democratic responsibility to vote. If we don’t vote, the argument goes, we have no right to complain.
But an ill-informed vote is worse than no vote, and an entirely self-interested vote isn’t much better. So, yes, we should all vote, but we should take the act of voting seriously. Before voting we should make a point of being as well-informed as possible on the issues and their possible outcomes — for others as well as ourselves.
Which brings me to the point that got me started on this post, although I seem to have strayed a long way from it! There is a strong possibility that we will be called upon to vote in European elections on 23 May this year. That’s not far off!
In 2016 a referendum was held on whether we, the UK, should remain in the EU or not. The campaign was, not to put too fine a point on it, abysmal — the main casualty, as they say, being truth. Inevitably, the EU elections in May will be pored over by politicians and by political parties, and it’s important that we send them as clear a message as we can.
That means voting.
If you’re not registered to vote, for goodness’ sake register!