BRITAIN: The new protest movement

Issue 

BY JOHN PILGER

LONDON - Graham
Greene once described a "subterranean world, where the hopes and dreams
of the mass of the people reside, unconnected with the rarefied world above,
until those above take one step too far". There is a stirring in this people's
world as those above take many steps too far.

In the United States, according to the Institute for Policy Studies,
there were at least 400 major demonstrations against an attack on Iraq
up to mid October. "There is a rising tide of activism", reported the October
27 Washington Post, "a burgeoning national anti-war movement that
is gaining momentum by the day... They talk of protesting by people who
have never protested before."

The acknowledgement was unusual. One measure of the strength of popular
anti-establishment movements is their suppression as news. Millions of
people took to the streets in Italy last month, yet the main political
news in Britain the next day was the latest Machiavellian utterances of
[Labour chancellor of the exchequer] Gordon Brown.

On September 28, the historic demonstration of 400,000 people in London
was considered worthy only of trivialisation by the Observer. Nowhere
in the begrudging reporting of that extraordinary day was there recognition
of a new, diverse and growing constituency of angry people no longer interested
in the small circuses that fill tombstones of column centimetres, such
as the diddum tears of [education secretary] Estelle Morris.

My guess is that a great many people would agree, for very different
reasons, with Peter Mandelson's prediction that "the era of representative
democracy is coming to an end". That has long been demonstrably true in
the United States.

It is a truth that has eluded many journalists and broadcasters, understandably,
as the main function of so much political reporting is to run a cigarette
paper between the parties and to channel spin.

The public understands this, which is why the audience for political
news on television has slumped. Blaming the public for its "lack of interest
in politics" is the self-deluding excuse of media executives who claim
an insight into the popular mood, yet are contemptuous of it.

In truth, the public has never been more interested in real politics,
which it does not associate with the deceptions and gossip of an elective
oligarchy.

Certainly, Tony Blair's obsession with Iraq has provided the fastest-emerging
public arena. But it runs deeper than that. Public anger at the demise
of true democracy has long been misjudged by the media as apathy, in the
same way that the public's "compassion fatigue" was invented to cover the
failure of broadcasters to report the lives and struggles of the majority
of humanity.

That Blair is prepared to tear up the United Nations' charter and attack
a country that offers Britain no threat, transparently so that America
and Britain can get their hands on Iraqi oil, is perceived as an offence
to basic decency and to democracy itself.

People understand, I believe, that a government which has no popular
mandate for major policies covering war, health, education, privatisation
and transport is not democratic.

A prime minister who is prepared to use the royal prerogative, "the
divine right of kings", to attack another country illegally against the
wishes of the majority of his people, is clearly not a democratic leader.

The last British general election was misrepresented as a "landslide"
when, in reality, it was the lowest vote since universal suffrage began.
People were not indifferent. They were angry or dismissive, and they went
on strike on election day.

Under Blair, a process spanning two decades, from the creation of the
Social Democratic Party in 1981 and Labour's "policy review" six years
later which embraced Thatcherism, has reached its conclusion. The two main
Westminster parties have effectively converged. Britain is now a single-ideology
state with two principal competing factions. Both agree on all major domestic
and foreign policies.

For the first few years of Blair, those who clung to Labour struggled
with the nonsense of a "modernising third way" whose promoters, such as
Anthony Giddens, disingenuously persisted in calling it social democracy.

Mavericks elsewhere in the political spectrum were on to Blair. "There
is nothing anomalous about Blair's cultivating Formula One racing millionaires,
gangster-style newspaper proprietors and spiv businessmen", wrote A. N.
Wilson. "[H]e puts the Murdochs into positions of absolute power and brings
into being a sub-American world, in which everything is wrecked - the past,
the natural world, our sense of decency."

One shame-faced MP recalls, "Remember the media triumph of single-mother
benefit cuts? On the night that Blair's babes waltz through the lobbies
taking A37.50 out of the purses of single mothers, we have Blair drinking
champagne with that arsehole Chris Evans in Downing Street! How do you
think that plays back in the constituencies?"

Three weeks ago, four eminent geographers explained to the Policy Studies
Association how the Blair government lied - manipulating and omitting statistics
on just about everything: education, health, the economy.

Does anyone believe Blair over Iraq? Lying about its war aims has been
a feature of the government, whose adventures have been dressed up as "humanitarian
intervention" by Blair's courtiers, hoping to preserve the taboo that makes
the link with British imperialism. Not only are there the oil interests,
but Britain is second only to the US as an owner of overseas investments.

This is a government of death. Britain under Blair exports chemical
weapons to 26 countries - so much for the hysteria about Saddam Hussein.

The two most important roles played by the Blair government are preventing
any concerted opposition in the European Union to Bush's war plans and
lending respectability to the Americans' ruthlessness. As the figleaf in
an American "coalition", the government has spent a billion pounds bombing
Iraq; a criminal act by any reading of the relevant conventions.

"To be corrupted by totalitarianism", warned George Orwell, "one does
not have to live in a totalitarian country." There is a growing understanding
of this among British people. Every day now there are packed political
meetings somewhere in Britain: from the thousand or more at one recent
event in Birmingham, to an overflowing hall in Salcombe, Devon.

Where I live, in south London, there is something major every evening.
The energy and organisation are far advanced on the 1960s, rather like
the political awareness of people themselves, especially the young.

For all the achievements of the movement against the Vietnam War, it
did not get underway until four years after the Americans had invaded.
Today, under countless banners, from the anti-globalisation movement to
the Stop the War campaign, the new movement, drawing millions all over
the world, may well be the greatest. We need it urgently.

[From .]

From Green Left Weekly, November 6, 2002.

Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
 

If you like our work, become a supporter

Green Left, a vital social-change project, makes its online content available without paywalls. But with no corporate sponsors, we rely on support and donations from readers like you.

For just $5 per month we’ll send you the digital edition each week. For $10, you’ll get the digital and hard copy edition delivered. For $20 per month, your solidarity goes a long way to helping the project survive.

Ring 1800 634 206 or click the support links below to make a secure payment.