Two recent events have
shown Britain
and Ireland
overwhelmed by the idea that democratic
politics is about excluding large sections of our populations rather than
including as many of them as possible in
our political processes . In the heat of argument many politicians even forgot to praise themselves under the burning necessity of condemning
others.
Jeremy Corbin could ,
it was said, cause the terminal decline of a labour party simply by being
elected head of it; in Ireland Sinn Fein could cause the downfall
of everybody not because of what they
might do but because of what they might
have been.
Curiously, an argument was implicit that Tony Blair who had
led people into war was more acceptable
than Jeremy Corbin who hadn’t, while in Ireland republicans who had led
people out of war were less acceptable than anybody at all.
Such clear evidence of the awe-inspiring decline of rational
discourse in our politics may well be the only advantage we get from either of
these two events.
A curious element in the Irish situation is , we now accept
that the police can pronounce judgement on the character and possible actions of a group of citizens, cast
a pall of doubt and suspicion on them regarding particular crimes while still only
gathering evidence, evidence whose disclosure could prejudice a court
case. What effect may this have on
future court cases ?
We may feel the same unease reading that
police have opposed bail in court because of “fear of further offences
being committed” when a defendant has not
been proved to have committed this one.
We may have thought the function of police is to guard people and property,
help prevent crime and find evidence or opinion to offer not in
a BBC radio programme but in a court of
law approved by the people. A statement by a policeman, however senior, can cause political unrest in an already delicate situation and a threat of breaking down an administration which many people worked
very hard to create and whose fall many
more people believe could be followed by something worse.
We may also feel unease that more academic lawyers who are
educating young people to act justly in courts that are just do not discuss critically
and publicly whether police and courts should be allowed to pronounce moral judgments
as well as administering the law. Referring to identifiable people as
criminals, thugs ,people unworthy of full citizenship – as members of government for example –without due
process should be , one would think, an item for discussion.
Doubtless many voices may be raised to say that uncomfortable things are required “for the
common good”. Or, as we say now when we redact this or keep quiet about that,
“in the public interest”, phrases conveniently vague that they reassure some of
us, frightening the others.
It is refreshing to remember that in the long run it is only
the democratic votes of dignified people that will decide who shall govern and who shall not ; and that elections are about
identifying the best, not arguing about who
is worst.
Not refreshing however is the thought that in the United States of America
politics seems like a game for the super-rich more than a life-enhancement for
the rest.
The most grim indication that we share an international aim
of politics by exclusion is the millions of people turned out of their own
countries by unnecessary wars and kept out of other peoples’ countries by
concrete and barbed wire.
Ah yes, but that could never happen here.
