democracy

Orwell, Freedom of Speech and the Meaning of Liberty

In these turbulent political times, what can we learn from the man widely regarded as one of the most important voices of his generation?

Politics feels particularly tribal these days with little room for balance or nuance around today’s main discussion topics. In Britain this polarisation has become glaringly apparent in the aftermath of the last year’s EU referendum and the recent general election.

In the United States, the political earthquake that was Donald Trump’s election to the White House, shortly followed by the “alternative facts” debacle, led to an increased interest in the work of George Orwell. We were living, it seemed, in a post-truth era and Orwell was the man who could offer the literary antidote.

After all, this most prescient of authors had written of this almost seventy years earlier in his dystopian classic 1984. Sales of this book, incidentally, soared in the wake of the alternative facts revelations.

It is tempting to theorise what Orwell would have made of the current political scene, but such an analysis would likely require more than one article.

There is, however, one area in which it is not hard to hypothesise about Orwell’s views and that is the current trend for No Platforming – that is, the banning of those with supposedly ‘unsayable’ views from expressing them in public.

Whilst this always dubious practice has historically been used to suppress those with violent, fascist tendencies, this is no longer always the case. Nowadays, it takes much less to get no platformed, as people like Julie Bindel, Peter Tatchell and even Richard Dawkins can attest. The no platforming of Tatchell, a prominent gay rights activist for many decades, is particularly absurd. An indication of the direction this policy has taken. People are now being made into pariahs for misjudged or ill-advised comments that fall foul of the prevailing liberal orthodoxy.

Another incident, not quite no platforming but along the same lines, came when Katie Hopkins, the notorious shock-jock, was subject to a mass walkout when speaking at Brunel University in 2015. It is necessary to insert a caveat here. Katie Hopkins’ ‘views’ are deeply unpleasant and purposely provocative. But then, isn’t this the point? Would it not be more effective to demonstrate these facts within a debate? Any competent debater could comfortably dismantle and discredit Hopkins’ arguments within a few minutes. No platforming such people validates their views in a way they do not deserve. It gives them the opportunity to accuse opponents of being afraid to debate them.

Take the example of former BNP leader Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time in 2009. Given a platform by the BBC, Griffin proceeded to deliver a flustered and unconvincing performance which prompted criticism from all sides, including his own supporters. Surely this proves that, rather than ignoring such individuals, giving them the opportunity to discredit themselves is preferable? After all, when you’ve just beaten yourself in a debate, who else can you blame?

(Article continues below)


More from Ethical Surrey:


 

Freedom of speech is an essential part of any civilised democracy and no platforming in its current incarnation is becoming a threat to this. Britain’s universities shouldn’t be places where students are shielded from views which might upset them. Instead they should be places in which they are free to rebut, repudiate and counter their opponents. You cannot win a debate by muzzling your adversary.

All of this brings the conversation back to Orwell. What would he have made of the current state of debate in the UK? In attempting to answer this question, perhaps we should turn to one of his best-known utterances, namely: “if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” The beauty of this quote is that it works both ways. People should have the right to tell us what we don’t want to hear, because their right to do so guarantees our right to do the same. This is the foundation of freedom of speech.

If we want to build and live in a fully inclusive society we must be willing to be exposed to views with which we disagree, sometimes even vehemently oppose. Provided people’s opinions do not incite hatred or violence then they must be guaranteed the right to express them. Failure to assure this right is not conducive to inclusive discourse and will inevitably foster resentment, tension and a generation of people who crumble when confronted with views which do not mirror their own: an echo chamber generation. To quote Orwell again: “threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”

As Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, one of the most divisive political figures in recent years, said during Labour’s recent general election campaign: “everybody we meet knows something we don’t and everybody can teach us something.” Politicians, journalists and everybody else should not be afraid to be proved wrong, to learn and to improve. Admitting we are mistaken is not a demonstration of weakness, but of strength. After all, failure to concede we have been proven wrong does not hide the fact that we have.

Orwell was a fierce opponent of totalitarianism in all its forms and it stands to reason that he would oppose any attempt to shut down debate. He believed in “the power of facing unpleasant facts.” In other words, he wasn’t inhibited by political tribalism and could see things for what they were. If something was wrong, he would say so, regardless of who was responsible. This was a man accustomed to overcoming ingrained prejudice, having spent much time ‘unlearning’ some of the views his upbringing had instilled in him in relation to, among other things, the working class.

We can take much from his example. As the United Kingdom faces up to the reality of Brexit, arguably its biggest challenge since the time of Orwell, a political climate which is as inclusive as possible can only be beneficial. Party rivalry will rightly always exist and we can’t all be friends, but the right to air these differences in a civilised and respectful way must be preserved.

It is interesting and rather apt that over the years both the right and left have made attempts to claim Orwell as one of their own. Regardless of where he would have sat on today’s political spectrum, we can all learn from his honesty and unflinching commitment to democracy and liberty.

Read More

Got an idea for an article? Click here to find out more about writing for us.

Democracy is not just dead, it was never alive

Imagine you are a vegetarian, and have a choice between a cheese burger and a steak; it will make little difference to you what to choose, you don’t agree with any so why bother? Then why is it acceptable in 2017 to have a democratic system based on a similar style voting system? We all know about the first past the post (FPTP) system; it gives constituents the choice between the two most popular parties in their constituency to represent them as their MP. However, this is not democracy. If you vote for something you don’t believe in just to stop something potentially worse you can hardly say that it is democratic. You are being held electorally for ransom.

Most people will have done the online tests that suggest who you should vote for based on policies alone. Many people will see high percentage of Green policies as something they agree with but despite this, no one ever votes Green. Why? Is this because no one trusts them? No. It is because the electorate know it won’t make a difference. Your choice is primarily Labour or Tory (with a few exceptions dependant on constituency). It is true that we no longer have this ‘Diet-Tory’-centrist-Blairite monstrosity that was Labour and we do now have a credible left wing alternative to the Tory right, so there is at least a difference between the two parties now. But that does not mean the system is now fair. In a democracy you should be able to vote for what you believe in and get that voice heard equivalent to the proportion of the public that agree with you. That’s just fair. That’s not being unreasonable. It is just being democratic.

Proportional representation (PR) is the best current way to solve this problem. A few examples; if Greens get 10% of the vote, they deserve 10% of the seats. If UKIP get 10% of the vote, they too deserve 10% of the seats. This is just what democracy is. One of the main arguments against PR is the increase in frequency of coalition governments. Yes, this is true; PR will likely damage the percentage of seats the two major parties hold. However, if you have a coalition of two parties that in total represented the largest proportion of seats, is that not better that having, for instance, the Tory party needing to bribe the northern Irish DUP with over £1billion to secure a larger amount of seats not even in proportion to the number of people who voted for them? We would not get situations like this with PR. If PR was in place for this most recent election Labour would have 40% of the vote to the Tories 42.5% enabling either side to form a coalition. But this would be a coalition based on the legitimate majority of our choice which would be a far stronger and in fact more stable coalition than whatever on earth is going on now.

It almost stands to reason that if you don’t feel represented you will lose interest in politics and voting altogether. When you get to the polling station on an election day you can either compromise your beliefs and tactically vote, vote for what you truly believe and affect nothing or just don’t vote. How are any of those options democratic?

The Tories would never relinquish a system that keeps them perpetually in power and I’m sure there are many in labour also against PR. It is the duty of anyone who genuinely aligns themselves with the minor parties or anyone who agrees in democracy to lobby for a change in the system. It does not matter if you are left, right or centre, you deserve to be represented in your own country. I urge you to write to your MP’s and begin the process of true change in this country, for a democratic Britain.

Read More

Got an idea for an article? Click here to find out more about writing for us.