I left this lecturing thinking that we believe here in the West we live in a true democracy, a fair one. Everyone has the right to vote in the representative of their choice and also agree on issues such as is the AV. The recent Arab Spring only embellished our thinking that we have the best political system and it is flawless.
However, as David Lammy explains a democracy as translated from the Greek is the 'rule of the people'. Looking at our current system, it seems to be the rule of the state. I feel as though if David Cameron has decided tuition fees are going to increase then we all have to abide by that. Although, if we live in a true democracy where it is the rule of the people, Parliament should only be allowed to take decisions if the vast majority of people agree with them.
I recognise that is the point of having a system where politicians lay out manifestos and we vote in for the one we believe most appropriate. However, this is not a true democracy. In order to improve our democracy, I believe we should be having referendum on all issues.
I can see, though, that such a system is time consuming, costly and can lead to devastating long-run consequences and am therefore happy to abide by the system we have. What I have a problem is us living under the illusion that we are one perfect democracy - for reasons discussed above we are not - and feeling the need to be a part of the Arab Spring just so that we can influence them to form a political system which is not so perfect but is uniform to us.
As mentioned before I don't particularly agree with David Lammy that our democracy is a problem, I agree it is not ideal or a true one but I think it is suitable and appropriate. This brings me onto another one of Lammy's argument why direct action plays a significant role in our society.
The one drawback about having a not so perfect democracy is that a vast majority of decisions are not made based on the rule of the people but rather the rule of the state which is chosen by us. This leads to frustrations and in a sense an oppressed society. Direct action, by which I refer to protests and strikes, is therefore extremely important in making sure the voice of the people is heard. Examples of this include the Gay Pride protests and more recently the protests against tuition fees rises.
The reason for me to bring up Lammy's point on direct action is because I believe there is a different between direct action and rioting. It is important to note that both direct action and rioting may have just cause for which they are arguing but it is the way they are executed. When students protested against the tuition fees they went inside banks and shops and informed people that because such businesses engage in tax evasion thus students are having to suffer. They do not use their energy to intimidate other people or engage in violence. It is not criminal to participate in direct action that is after all why we have a democracy but to smash shops, steal from other members of the society and take part in violence is criminal. This is the reason why many people fail to understand the message that the recent riots in London were supposed to show. Instead by engaging in such activity they have just increased state power and control and will soon probably find themselves with a criminal record.
Below are photos from the event :)
 |
| David Lammy and I |
 |
| Where he was speaking |
 |
| Try to do a close up but my camera wasn't much good! |
