Protesting against democracy?

Oh dear. The BNP have gained two seats in the European parliament, one in the North West and one in my own region, Yorks and Humber. It's not good- even UKIP are beginning to seem like moderates in comparison. Which in turn isn't good as it gets them more votes.

The historian in me isn't happy with the way they use 'British' in their title- I'm British, but my ideas of nationality are a long way from theirs. What is Britain, anyway? It's shape and people have changed over the years. What's so special about Britain? The historian in me isn't happy with the sickening claims of their leader denying the Holocaust. The historian in me isn't happy with their obvious lack of any knowledge of British history- we're a nation made up of immigrants, for goodness' sake! Why should people of Angle or Saxon or Scandinavian or Norman French (and the Normans were of Viking descent) immigrant descent have more rights than those of African, African-American, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese or other descent?

They say they don't hate people of other ethnicities, but by encouraging them to leave the country they are in effect saying that they are inferior to the ethnically British-if there is such a thing? What about the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish? And these countries are made up of different people groups too. Where do you draw the line? Do you force all people of Scottish descent to leave England, including the Prime Minister, presumably? Do you force Prince Philip to move to Greece, and the Queen to Germany?

I think I've made it clear that I disagree utterly with the BNP and deplore both their attitudes and the fact that they've won. But one of the many things that worries me about the BNP's victory is the reaction of some people who oppose them. Some of the tactics being used, advocated or suggested dismay me, and would/ will only inflame (quite possibly literally) the situation while loosing the moral high ground.

For example, party leader Nick Griffin's car was attacked as he tried- quite legitimately- to enter the building where the count was being held. Much as I dislike the BNP, they took part in this election legitimately. Violence against them will solve nothing and help no one. As soon as one side uses it, the other side can say they were defending themselves, and the whole situation will lead to escalation and violence. The BNP already use language calculated to encourage unrest and discord in the community. Playing them at their own game here only makes matters worse.

Not that all those campaigning against the BNP are encouraging or carrying out these sort of activities. I know it's only a small minority. But the danger is that in the eyes of the media- and of BNP members- they are all tarred with the same brush.

But the real problem I have is with the idea of campaigning against the BNP. Ok, campaign against their policies and the stupid things they say. But you can't campaign against them doing well in the elections. Little as I like it, the elections were free and fair. The electoral system might not be perfect but compared to many countries we can't complain that much. They've won, fair and square. We can complain but we can't say they haven't earned their seats or shouldn't take them up.

This puts me in something of a dilemma. On the one hand, I don't want to take the BNP's victory lying down, but on the other- it is legal. Protesting against an election result because it's not the one you would have liked is, from what I can judge, wrong. It defeats the point of democracy- that the country is run by the majority, not just those with a certain point of view. It's the first step on a scale that too easily ends with Robert Mugabe's refusal to accept that his country wants him out of power.

So I think we have to be careful about negative campaigning. Muck slinging between political parties and politicians attacking each other is one thing that contributes to turning people off politics- and contributes to the very problem under discussion. The BNP's share of the vote hasn't increased. What's happened is that fewer people have voted for the other parties, fewer people have voted overall; so that parties with a smaller number of votes have been able to gain seats. So surely the best way to stop this happening again- or to stop the BNP winning seats at Westminster, where they could do far more harm- is to encourage people to engage with political issues and to get out there and vote!

I have to admit I find it hard to understand the mindset of people who aren't interested in voting. Would you, as an adult, accept someone else deciding for you what to eat, what to do, where to go, because you didn't want to play any part in deciding yourself? I doubt it. Yet in a way that's what happens.

As a woman I'm always very aware that I shouldn't take the right to vote for granted. It's still less than a century since women gained the vote at all, let alone on equal terms with men. So I value my vote, my say in what happens in the country. Ideally that shouldn't be all our involvement in politics- I think we should at least try to have some understanding of the issues of the day so we can decide whether the people we have elected to run things for us are doing a good job- but voting- and not just in UK parliamentary elections, but European and local ones too- is at least a good start.

So I don't think we should spend time campaigning negatively against the BNP. If we treat them democratically I think they'll soon show their true colours and it will be obvious why they're not fit to govern. Instead we ought to be encouraging people of all ages, creeds, races to take an interest in politics and to get out and vote. Yes our politicians are a mess- but simply ignoring them and our constitutional duty isn't going to help anyone. Except the BNP.

The rise of the right

Last night's European election results underline an increasing trend towards the right that I've noticed across Europe over recent years. Even discounting the BNP, the rise of UKIP to second place overtaking Labour and the Lib Dems, and how well the Conservatives have done in these elections shows that this trend now includes the UK.

Perhaps UKIP's rise can be partly attributed to the fact that European elections are a time for protest voting, to the of anti-Europe feelings of many people who might not otherwise vote for a right-wing party, and of course to the expenses scandal that's damaged the three main parties. Being seen as a small party means you can avoid to some extent being tarred with the same brush. Now they've started to increase their share of the vote perhaps people will begin to expect more of them and to be more harsh where they fail- the same goes for the BNP.

I have to say that UKIP's griping that they lost out on votes because their party was at the bottom of a long ballot paper, and that because it was folded people couldn't find them really annoyed me. Do politicians really think that the electorate are that stupid? Or that they just give up because they can't be bothered to turn the page over?

Perhaps if that's how (some?) politicians think of us, it explains how they think they can get away with some of the things they've been doing lately. But perhaps it also gives us a clue how to solve the problem- we need to take an active, educated interest in what's going on, to actually look at the issues of the day rather than being guided by prejudice and what the newspapers say. We need to show them we're not stupid. As a former history student, you learn not to take anything you read at face value, a skill we all need to engage when we read the papers or listen to the news or anything politicians say.

The other thing that annoys me is their (UKIP's and Eurosceptics in general) claim that most of our laws (I heard 75% being quoted last night) are made in Brussels, mostly by unelected officials. From what I know, and despite having tried to do some research that's not a huge amount, I understand that yes, a lot of laws are passed but that the vast majority of them are fairly minor- food standards and safety, fishing rights. All important to some people, but really- I don't care whether someone in London or someone in Brussels decided if this or that additive is safe. What I want to know is that they're making the right decision, and that if they make the wrong one they are accountable to the electorate that put them there.

I think that touches on the real problem- the sense of disconnection with what goes on in Europe. People don't know what goes on, partly because it's not really reported much. The doings of celebrity popstars or footballers is much more interesting to the British public. The only European issue that gets coverage most of the time is the 'in-out' debate- which isn't even a question at the moment. A notable absence from this campaign has been anything to do with Europe. Partly this is because the whole campaign has been overshadowed by the MP's expenses scandal, but partly because people just aren't interested in how government actually happens. They base their vote (if they vote) to a large extent on who the media tells them to like. While of course politicians need to be able to communicate, we shouldn't be taken in by slick speeches and gimmicks but look at the policies behind them.

While there are things about the EU that I think need change or reform, I don't think getting out is the way to do it. The parties that complain most about the things that need reform are also the ones, I suspect, that do all they can to block changes on the grounds that we shouldn't be in the EU anyway. Well sorry, but at present we are, like it or not, so shouldn't we try to make it work? You can't eat your cake and have it.

In some ways, I can't help but feel sorry for Gordon Brown. The way politics are these days, he's under attack for not being able to manipulate people into believing in Labour's policies. But if public opinion has changed, if the country and indeed Europe as a whole is now more right-wing than 5 years ago (as seems to be the case) then is it really all his fault? True, some people will have been voting against Labour rather than for the other parties, but is it really all his fault? I don't think so. Yet I suspect he'll get the blame.


PS How can people still be voting for Berlusconi in Italy after everything that's happened recently?!
PPS My spellchecker just tried to get me to change Berlusconi to burlesquing. How appropriate.