If we are to believe certain oracles of crafty political views, a little revolt is desirable from the point of view of power. System: revolt strengthens those governments which it does not overthrow. It puts the army to the test; it consecrates the bourgeoisie, it draws out the muscles of the police; it demonstrates the force of the social framework. It is an exercise in gymnastics; it is almost hygiene. Power is in better health after a revolt, as a man is after a good rubbing down.
Victor Hugo - Les Misérables (1862)
This is a strength of what is effectively the UK two party political system. Voters occasionally vote out the governing party and vote in the party which previously formed the 'opposition'.
Such a little revolt, such a very little revolt but it still creates a frenzy of excited media comment before and after then on and on until the next little revolt.
System: revolt strengthens those governments which it does not overthrow.
4 comments:
Voting for them makes them legitimate. If the 'Conservatives' had taken power in a revolution, but did exactly the same things they are doing now, the people would be out in the street rioting, but as we have democracy, the people will let them get away with anything
I am of course, playing fast and loose with the words, legitimate and democracy. It's more like they are offering the illusion of those things
My comment on Samizdata:
You could argue that the cozy post war socialist consensus ‘worked’, at least well enough, for some time. But I have argued elsewhere that any long lived organisation will have its original purpose perverted and corrupted by the careerists who rise to the top and run the organisation in their own interests. Usually they are supported by second rate bureaucrats who fawn on them, mostly for the patronage that the top bosses dispense. This all takes around 70 years.
At one time people were aware of this, at least unconsciously, and used democracy to strip out the self interested careerists on a regular basis – but this only works if there is a viable alternative. Arguably the rise in ‘populism’ is partly due to the realisation that the cozy post war socialist consensus has a strangle hold on political life and alternatives *must* be found.
‘Original’ socialism and ‘original’ conservatism seem like a dream to me now.
But perhaps not forever.
The current system is a bit like the "Lord of Misrule" tradition, or those "no uniform" days in schools. People are encouraged to express themselves and have their say on Twitter and via comment pages in the press, and my guess is that the powers that be are basing this upon some research into how this tends to defuse conflict in the long run, and stops grievances building up. It's certainly a lot cheaper than more effective surveillance and control.
My hope is that because we are all in uncharted waters, the government and its supporters are merely hoping, and the outcome for them will actually be far worse than they imagine.
Bucko - yes it is an illusion, there is no democracy in there if they can simply impose Net Zero, mass immigration, EVs and so on with no genuine public debate.
DJ - I'm sure you are right about the 70 year problem. Step one would be to acknowledge something like that as a basis for political debate about the declining viability of the status quo. Step two could be a debate about how to introduce some kind of compensating dynamism. Maybe it will be forced upon us by circumstances.
Sam - it's not easy to see what a bad outcome for the government and its supporters would look like, but it could be an accumulation of lesser setbacks which with luck Starmer may inherit. Nothing big, but endless niggling frustrations which never go away and magnify failures and setbacks.
Post a Comment