Skip to main content

Is Britain on the slippery slope to dictatorship?

Phil Hall

Sunday June 22, 2008

An 82-year-old former bomber pilot I met in the street the other day said: "Supermen. Ha! If Hitler had come over here we would have given him a proper kick up the jacksy." As Michael White suggests, British people are fond of the myth that they won't tolerate dictatorships, despite the fact that there were many fascist sympathisers in Britain in the 1930s.
Yes, we do live in a relatively free and secular country - just ask any young Afghani woman studying at a college here for her opinion. But there is also evidence around us that the British government is engaging in repression. And not just in Iraq or Afghanistan, but here in Britain. Perhaps those of us who have lived for a time under dictatorships can spot some of the warning signs:
• Inconvenient elections are avoided in the name of getting on with the job.
• Leaders of the opposition are character-assassinated by the state media.
• Institutions like the legislature begin to lose their independence and traditional role.
• Citizens are increasingly afraid to speak openly on certain issues.
• Citizens are observed and monitored on cameras and the government can tap into their conversations at will.
• Governments can snatch anyone from their homes or off the street and detain them without trial on charges of treason or terrorism.
• Ethnic and religious minorities are persecuted and are made into scapegoats.
• The state increasingly intervenes in family and community life in an attempt to control citizens' behaviour.
• The focus of discussion moves away from the issues and into a narrative of political rivalries and gossip spreads.
• Governments use bread and circuses to shut people up and distract attention away from their increasing political impotence.
• Public spaces for demonstrations are closed down and restricted.
• Large and ridiculous monuments are built to impress the citizens.
• Individuals have to carry ID with them at all times and the government holds large amounts of information on every citizen.

How does the British government rate on the dictatorship scale? How close are we to Zimbabwe under Zanu? How far away are we from, say, Norway?

I suppose we must trust the security services when they say there are dangerous Islamist extremists on the loose who want to do our society harm: we saw the proof on the July 7, 2005. But the measures the British state is taking "to protect us" are beginning to give a tangibly different feel to our society. Britain is slowly creeping up the pH scale from democracy to autocracy.

Aesthetically, at any rate, it does feel as if some of our science fiction dystopias are gradually coming true. In an estate near me, George Orwell's CCTV cameras are actually trained on the residents' doors and driveways. Ray Bradbury's wall-sized TVs flicker in small living rooms. Aldous Huxley's Brave New Labour government pushes through a bill allowing experimentation on embryos and all British citizens will have to carry an expensive ID card with biometric information on it linked in to humming computer databases in anonymous buildings.

There was something extremely familiar to me about this week's events. The way they closed down the whole of Whitehall for George Bush's visit reminded me of how, in Havana, they close the main highway every time Fidel Castro crosses from one side of town to the other.

There was also something unpleasant about the way many in the BBC turned the discussion away from the loss of civil liberties in Britain and instead began to present David Davis as an egotistical oddball, pulling a clever stunt simply to spite the leader of his party. Soviet TV attacked dissidents in the same way. This kind of media character assassination is even more reprehensible because once you destroy a politician's reputation, you might as well put him down - like a racehorse with a broken leg.


And then, while Labour berates African nations for not adopting Tony Blair's gold standard for liberal interventionism, Labour itself avoids holding the referendum on Europe it promised.
One gets the feeling that the current crop of neo-monetarist technocrats in power in Britain regard the whole democratic processes as an irritating stunt, not just David Davis's upcoming by-election. Certainly Labour politicians show very little respect for the electorate. Any appeal over their heads to the willful and ignorant population probably feels like insufferable interference to them.

So this is the thing. If I, as a citizen, and people like me, don't agree with the way we are being governed, where do we go to withdraw our consent to be governed? I don't want to simply switch to the Tories or Liberal Democrats, I want a new contract with my state as a citizen, one that respects my civil liberties.

Comments

  1. I agree with most of your comments, but I do not see the link between the main thread - more autocratic government - and the apparent side-swipe at embryo experimentation. The two are entirely separate issues, and the inclusion of the latter tends to turn a well-written piece into a rant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, but the side swipe is there because of the dangers of future privatisations.

    In my opinion, in the long run, this government wants to promote the exploitation of embryology.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aerogramme from Lisa and Richard

To: Mr & Mrs J. Hall, Box 49 Eikenhof (TVL) Johannesburg Afrique du Sud. 28.3.76 Dear John and Nola, Today a week ago we were still in New Delhi with Eve and Tony and the boys and the whole thing looks like a dream. We arrived on the 28.2 in New Delhi and were happy to see the whole family fit and in good health. The boys have grown very much, Phil is just about the size of Tony and the twins are above average. We stayed untill the 22nd March, as our visa ran out and we did not want to go through all the ceremony of asking for an extension. It also got hotter and I don't know how I would have supported the heat. The extra week would also have passed, so we decided not to go to all the trouble with the authorities and leave on the 22nd. I cannot tell you how happy we have been to see such a lovely family, so happy and united. It is rare to experience sucha thing and we have both all the reasons to be proud of them (when I say goth I mean you and us ). There is su

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov