Russell’s [Misguided] Revolution
Why Russell Brand’s impassioned interview on Newsnight doesn’t wash with me. Well… not completely.
In an industry full of vapid, tedious, and indeed trivial personalities that use their opinions to either blatantly or inadvertently mould the public’s outlook on life; someone as unapologetic, brash, and vibrant as Russell Brand comes along and manages to do the one thing that most personalities can’t: get people talking about the state of political affairs.
By now, you've no doubt seen or heard about the BBC Newsnight interview where Jeremy Paxman quizzed Brand after he had been made guest editor of the New Statesman. In the interview, Paxman directly criticised Brand for not participating in an election by way of voting to which Brand expressed (if not echoed) the apathetic sentiment held dear by many within the UK’s electorate. Brand himself would vehemently deny this, saying “It’s not that I’m not voting out of apathy. I’m not voting [due to] absolute indifference, weariness, and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, and deceit from the political class that has been going on for generations now…”
Last I checked, one of the synonyms for apathy? Indifference.
Brand made some decent points, particularly about how addiction levels are in part exacerbated by apathetic politicians who are meant to represent their constituencies instead of syphoning tax money so that they can pay for energy bills on their second home (among many other things). Bloody good point made, Russell. I was on the same page… until he defended abstaining from the vote. “Until that [utopian system] comes along, pfft. Don’t bother [voting].” Oh, Russell.
I wonder how many people can afford to wait until that corrupt political class we all know and loathe get bored of playing Lord & Lady to the rest of us serfs in this neo-feudal system we’re all implicated in. I wonder how many politicians we have to abstain from voting for until the almighty political messiah comes; means what he/she says; says what he/she means; and makes good on promises delivered. I do wonder just how things will change if no one is willing to tread the toxic muck that is the state of democracy today. Above all that, I wonder how are we meant to change the system if we’re unwilling to use the most crucial of all the political tools we have at our disposal.
Civil war isn't really a good option. We tried that already a long time ago. Rioting won’t deliver the desired political change so many of us want, certainly not when the vast majority of popular news media is in the pocket of the elite. Protesting works to a certain degree but in this political and economic climate, it’s not as effective without harnessing that energy and putting it in the form of a vote.
Chances are those that say voting doesn't change anything haven’t bothered to vote or have given up on voting because the current voting system (First Past The Post) means their strength isn’t replicated in the numbers needed to make the change they voted for made manifest. They have their reasons for abstaining, of which I’m not trying to invalidate. However, I won’t give those that abstain from voting a pass because abstaining from voting suits these corrupt bastards we know as our MPs and MEPs right down to the ground.
Abstinence means they don’t have to campaign or work as hard because they know the majority of people aren’t going to vote for anyone. Corporations that spend millions (if not billions) will be well chuffed with how little they have to spend convincing politicians to pass laws that directly benefit them and their cronies. Crucially though, I think abstaining from voting means that unless we use this antiquated system, we stand little chance of ushering in a new one. In 2011, we had a golden opportunity to change the voting system. It might not have been the grandiose change that people were looking for but as the old saying goes “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” In the end only 42% of people turned up to vote yay or nay and I’d be willing to bet that politicians everywhere breathed a mammoth sigh of relief.
Voting is the best way to make your voice heard. For all the talk about two and three-party systems, people that have ever voted for one of those cliques (myself included) have to take their share of responsibility. Instead of abstaining from the vote, why not do some research? Why not find out about the other fourteen parties that might be the David to the LibLabCon Goliath but no doubt speak to your political beliefs a whole lot more than the latter ever did? Why not take a page out of Ghandi’s book and be the change that you wish to see? If you don’t want to vote, campaign yourself — either as an independent voice or form your own party.
If democracy is of the people and for the people, surely that means people have to take part. Shouting at politicians who screw things up for us non-wealthy folk is only one-twelfth of the battle won. When so much inequality; rampant, unabashed greed masked as privatisation & capitalism; and a severe lack of empathy is making things worse for us and not better, do we really have time to abstain?
Or should we be getting our hands dirty? I certainly think so. After all, broken vehicles don’t repair themselves and since no one has the money to pay the political version of Kwik Fit, I’d rather roll the ol’ sleeves up and get to work than wait around and witness the further deterioration of the country I know and love.
