As I say, the media’s track record has been remarkably consistent over the years. Let’s, for now, take one example: the Iraq war. In the run-up to the invasion, any historical context was virtually invisible in the mainstream media. There was virtually no discussion of the “genocidal” sanctions that had killed up to a million Iraqis or of the U.S.’ and UK’s long history of imperialism and bloody colonialism. Information that cast doubt (to put it mildly) on the warmongerers’ claims about Iraqi WMD was suppressed. There was no questioning of Bush and Blair’s motives - the debate was limited to discussion of tactics, or of whether or not humanitarian intervention justified the war, or of whether or not Saddam’s WMD arsenal did pose a threat. There was no doubting that the war was indeed about WMD or humanitarian intervention. The ‘free’ press, obliging as ever, simply accepted the war on Bush and Blair’s terms. An Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) study into the media performance during the Iraq war concluded that many report about the military campaign 'favoured the coalition' and 'all media outlets became more deferential towards government'. Coverage 'served mainly to reinforce official justifications for war' - the 'tendency was for news media to accept the official position and this enabled the coalition's moral case for the war to go by default.'
It is clear that democracy in Britain is in severe crisis. There is no need to dispair. A free press is entirely achievable, and it is entirely possible to have a true democracy (or atleast something very much approximating it) - in fact, if we look at countries like Bolivia, we can get a good idea of what true democracy looks like. As Noam Chomsky explains:
‘[Bolivia] had a real democratic election last year, of a kind that you can’t imagine in the United States, or in Europe, for that matter. There was mass popular participation, and people knew what the issues were. The issues were crystal clear and very important. And people didn’t just participate on election day. These are the things they had been struggling about for years.’
It would, however, take a monumental effort to push through the democratic reforms necessary to truly allow the British (and American) people to govern themselves. Powerful establishment forces - to whom, of course, the very idea of true democracy is anathema - would have to be fought every step of the way. It would require mass, sustained public action. That, of course, is what true democracy is all about.
Article comments
1 - Josephine White
You make some valid points but I feel you have failed to grasp the very essence of democracy itself. It needs a demos to survive and thrive. You have omitted the "Elephant in the Room"..the crucial factor in Britain's ailing democracy, the European Union. There never has, is, and never will be a "European" Demos.
Democracy can only exist and flourish effectively if the loyalties shared by government, opposition and the electorate as a whole, are rooted firmly within the nation state which they all share.
National loyalty is what binds us all to each other. It is what gives us a stake in our nation's territory, and what makes us accept the rights AND the responsibilities which stem from our citizenship.
It means we accept the laws made in our name and embrace them as ours - even if we don't like them. It means we WANT to vote.
The nation state is the only form of social body which has ever shown itself able to sustain true effective democracy, because it is the best body to sustain its people in return. The EU cannot - and it will eventually collapse, inevitably dragging our freedoms and rights down with it. God knows what totalitarian regimes will emerge in its place to repair the damage!
Furthermore, how are the electorate supposed to confidently vote for any British MP, councillor or party when there is no clear ACCOUNTABILITY. With all British institutions and bureaucracies now interlocked at national, regional and local level with those of the EU , how are the public supposed to figure out just who is responsible for what??? And why should they vote? Because of Britain's subservience to EU Law in most policies, they are now powerless to effect any change. And they know it. They aren't yet sure WHY this should be.. but they know it, nevertheless.
Until proper effective Representative Democracy is restored to Britain, contempt and disinterest for politicians and the political process will continue.
JO
2 - STM
Jo is right up to a point, but she might also be labouring under the misconception that what you post here on this site is always Gospel truth.
If Britain is a democracy in crisis, it's only in the minds of the raving, loony left (and the raving loony right, as well).
I wouldn't place too much faith in your pollsters Jamie: the best way to find out what people really think in Britain is to go to the pub and get on the squirt with the locals.
If you do, make sure the ones you go to are outside Greater London.
I think you might find a raft of attitudes very different to the ones you've selectively thrown up here.
Democracy in crisis? In Europe generally, maybe. But Britain? Democracy in action, more like it.
3 - STM
Jamie wrote: "in fact, if we look at countries like Bolivia, we can get a good idea of what true democracy looks like."
Some of what you wrote made sense, then I saw that. Now I'm convinced you're off your tree.
Bolivia.
Hold on while we all get out and lobby the grand old instititions of that wonderful old country you live in, with its grand history of struggle for democracy, freedom and justice, and tell them that all these years, they've been on the wrong bloody track.
All along, they've needed to be more like Bolivia, that great bastion of free thought ... please, Jamie, give us a break from this nonsense.
Or is this all part of a plot to silence your opponents by reducing them to fits of hysterical laughter?
4 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"Democracy can only exist and flourish effectively if the loyalties shared by government, opposition and the electorate as a whole, are rooted firmly within the nation state which they all share."
But why not just replace the words 'nation state' with European Union in that sentence? Why couldn't I make an argument that loyalties are 'rooted firmly within counties like Sussex and Surrey' and so there can be no democracy in a nation state?
Of course there can. Naturally, if people don't trust the EU or don't think it will properly represent them then there will be problems. But if you they think its a good idea then there's no reason why democracy can't work on a suprastate level.
Indeed, the evidence is that people do take international laws very seriously. Opinion polls in the U.S. show that a great majority of the American people only support military action when in response to an immediate threat to national security or is authorised by the UNSC, as per the UN Charter.
I haven't seen any similar polls taken in England, but I think the results would be pretty similar. Blair evidently thinks so, which is why he resorted to lies and deceipt to convince us that the war was legal.
"I wouldn't place too much faith in your pollsters Jamie: the best way to find out what people really think in Britain is to go to the pub and get on the squirt with the locals."
Well, that's obviously wrong. Those opinion polls were not 'selective' - I simply decided to look up opinion polls carried out by the respectable polling organisations on certain major issues (e.g. climate change) and this is what they found. Opinion polls aren't everything, but they are certainly a good indicator of public opinion.
You state that you disagree with me (and the power Inquiry) that democracy is in crisis, but you don't say why...?
5 - STM
"Well, that's obviously wrong. Those opinion polls were not 'selective' - I simply decided to look up opinion polls carried out by the respectable polling organisations."
One of them was a Greenpeace poll. Not everyone thinks Greenpeace is a respectable polling organisation.
6 - STM
"You state that you disagree with me (and the power Inquiry) that democracy is in crisis, but you don't say why...?"
Mainly, that's because you always argue like a grammar-school debating captain, and it gets really tedious.
The other is because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.
When was the last time you got pissed in a pub with some real Britons? (and I don't mean left-wing, university-educated trendies).
If I were kind, I'd say you were talking through your hat, which has to be infinitely more polite than another area I can think of.
7 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Greenpeace released the poll, but it was conducted by MORI, a respected polling organisation.
Anyway, you're obviously not interested in a serious discussion of the issues - apparently, in order to get a true idea of the state of democracy in England you just have to get 'pissed in pub'. Wow, I wonder why the Power Inquiry researchers didn't think of that? Forget opinion polls, forget analysing the electoral system...all they needed to do was go down the local and down a few. You make no sense.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie,
I'm glad you picked a topic closer to home this time. I know too little about English (or Scottish or Welsh politics, for that matter) to argue effectively, but I direct you to STM's comment:
"you always argue like a grammar-school debating captain, and it gets really tedious."
I have to agree completely with him here. I've seen this tendency in your other articles, and it is infuriating at times.
While, with what little I know, I tend to agree with you in the general sense; that is to say I agree with you that Britain has little more than a notional democracy, this is not said out of a deep well of knowledge.
I agree with STM that going to a pub with some folks who are real people instead of the trendy types in London would do you some good, even if it wouldn't give you sterling data. You need more than a Greenpeace poll to do the job for you.
You don't have to get pissin' drunk. I never did. But standing for a pint or two to get understanding is always helpful...
9 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
STM: (sorry, I didn't see this until now) "All along, they've needed to be more like Bolivia, that great bastion of free thought ... please, Jamie, give us a break from this nonsense."
I'm not talking about Bolivia's history, I'm talking about the last year's elections. They were about real issues, the population got involved and elected one of their own ranks. It was a breathtaking example of real democracy in action.
Ruvy: "I have to agree completely with him here. I've seen this tendency in your other articles, and it is infuriating at times."
Yes, I know - you and he often say that. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with it, though, since you never explain what you mean and I have no idea myself. What I do know is that the issue is important, and that if STM has any real opinions on it he would be better to engage in actual debate instead of typing apparently meaningless statements like describing me as a 'grammer-school debating captain'.
10 - S.T.M
Ruvy said: "While, with what little I know, I tend to agree with you in the general sense; that is to say I agree with you that Britain has little more than a notional democracy, this is not said out of a deep well of knowledge."
Sorry Ruvy, but you need to do your homework here. Britain was in fact one of the earliest democracies; it is far from notional and given its common law constitution that changes and evolves constantly, may even bestow more rights upon the citizen than the US written deal. I have certainly heard some very convincing arguments from either side of that fence.
That this country too gave the world parliamentary democracy (with the US two-house model being based to some extent upon it) should also not be forgotten. It was in fact one of the first genuine democracies, with rights set in stone under common law going back many centuries - it is absolutely not notional.
The US Bill of Rights and the Constitution draw very heavily on English common law (as does American common law) and the English Bill of Rights.
Google 'em old boy for hours of fun.
This is why I believe Jamie's argument here is nonsense: Britain's democracy evolved over many, many hundreds of years and isn't going anywhere fast.
And I guess if it ever was in crisis, that could only serve to strengthen it.
11 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"Sorry Ruvy, but you need to do your homework here. Britain was in fact one of the earliest democracies; it is far from notional and given its common law constitution that changes and evolves constantly, may even bestow more rights upon the citizen than the US written deal. I have certainly heard some very convincing arguments from either side of that fence."
Ah, so your sole argument that Britain has a healthy democracy today is that it was 'one of the earliest democracies'?
"This is why I believe Jamie's argument here is nonsense: Britain's democracy evolved over many, many hundreds of years and isn't going anywhere fast."
So did feudalism - so what? The point is that our current system falls woefully short of true democracy. I've detailed why above.
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Stan,
I did study history and comparative politics with special emphasis on the parliamentary system of government, and have a detailed understanding about how Great Britain emerged as a reasonably democratic nation at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. In the case of Great Britain, this understanding goes back to King Canute commanding the waves to stop in order to teach his people that even a king does not have absolute power.
This said, I also understand that the vast majority of Brits languished in terrible poverty until after WWII, and that a power structure controlling the country despite the will of the voters has emerged, centered on an extra-governmental council similar to the American Council on Foreign Relations (which controls policy in the United States regardless of what the voters may think they are saying at the polls).
When I say I do not have a deep well of knowledge, I mean that I have not followed British politics for the last 40 years or so. Tremendous changes have taken place in Great Britain that I have no knowledge of at all.
Broadly speaking, the right of free speech in the UK has appeared to me to be somewhat more circumscribed than the analogous right in the United States (until recently anyway). But this has to be balanced against the fact that the United Kingdom has been dealing with an active terror organization (the IRA) since the Troubles broke on out the Emerald Isle 40 years ago.
I believe that if Jamie does his homework, he'll find that "extra-governmental council" at the center of his complaints about British "notional democracy."
13 - JockMcPomwhacker
Josephine White does not know what Democracy means, because she threatens and bullies those with whom she disagrees!
As to Demos, she likewise has a twisted concept. Probably it does not mean the 'roping in' in the Agora of old Ellas.
Who knows!
To her and her kind the problem is not Demos but Empire, the now failed and dead British Empire. To them is was a bayonet in the belly or a bullet in the head if you did not let the British steal your country, eraze your culture, and steal your wealth.
If in doubt ask the Scots today about it.
They don't care a toss about what Josephine and the English WANT in Europe. They just want the bloody Poms to piss off! Later Scotland will decide what they want to do.