Many people might say that the best political decisions are only made by skilled politicians, others by skilled technocrats who are expert in their field. Fans of democracy would suggest the best political decisions should be made by the entire community of people for whom the decisions are made.

This is a crowd. You are always part of one.

What is the ‘best political decision’?

I would suggest that the best political decision is one which is both fair and appropriate. To suggest a very basic example – in my view, the perfect political decision would be one where the full spectrum of interests are genuinely taken into account. Fundamentally, the perfect decision is fully moderated by all opposing viewpoints until a neutral decision can be found.

In practice, it would very likely be impossible to include literally everyone into every political decision. Not only that, but I would suggest that it would also be impossible to find a group diverse enough to get a perfectly equal balance of views where the result is perfectly moderated. In short, therefore, there is no such thing as a perfect political decision. We can however try to get near to that.

The Crowd

It is clear, then, that one of the best ways a good political decision can be made is by diverse ‘crowds’. In a way, I believe that humanity is naturally inclined to this approach, only so long as the group is varied enough. In a group with little diversity, the ‘crowd’ does not make good political decisions, because they not only may be biased, but they will be biased.

So you might conclude that forming together in crowds that represent just one section of society is a bad thing. I’d disagree, but only so long as that group has genuine opposition and moderation in the legislative body. A one party state clearly would not make the best legislation, because only one section of society is fully represented. Fringe sections would be excluded.

Parties and Party Politics

In more democratic systems, with party politics, majority governments also would not make the best political decisions. Again, only one section of society would be represented in government. They would, however, be held to account by opposition parties in adversarial systems. This is only so good, however, because as I just mentioned, many political decisions would be made with the interests of only a partial section of society.

I would suggest that this may explain why the ruling party / ‘crowd’ shifts every couple of terms in these systems. First of all, any one party (left or right wing) would not be making good enough political decisions, so problems will always erupt eventually. Second of all, as I mentioned before, we all strive to moderate the decision makers, so we moderate past ineffectiveness with a ‘crowd’ from the other side of the spectrum.

While this may be sustainable, I believe that the problems caused by the majority inclusion of just one section of society could be avoided. I would suggest that the best political decisions which could be made in any realistic sense at the moment is by coalition governments. It’s simple – all sections of society would have to make concessions thereby neutralising, centrising and moderating their policies – making them fair.

The Individual

What I don’t want to suggest is that the individual is not important here. While I have suggested groups, I am saying that groups are just collections of individuals with individual interests. Any, all and every individual should have their views protected and promoted. Only this way can a suitable ‘crowd’ of diverse opinions come into existence.

In this, even extreme groups have a place because they would have an opposite. The two groups would moderate each other’s policy come decision making time. One danger could be that extreme ideology can be attractive to the ignorant, but I would hope that in a society where individual views are promoted, people may be less prone to jump on the bandwagon of extreme groups, and would be less susceptible to falling for propaganda.

Summary

I don’t want to make this too long, because I will write other articles to develop or review this. So, in summary, I would suggest that the best political decisions are made by a diverse group of individuals. Ideally, the group / ‘crowd’ would include the broadest range of opinions possible, so that as many opportunities for bias are eradicated early on, and the process of decision making is moderation in itself.

The reason this would create the best political decisions is based mainly in terms of fairness. If each section of society has to make concessions then it will no longer target or exclude other sections of society. Exclusions and unfairness are, in my view, what cause divisions and problems in society, and good political decisionmaking should not cause any unfairness or problems in this manner.

The government line on this seems clear. The Prime Minister David Cameron and the Home Secretary Theresa May have condemned the riots as ‘pure criminality’ without any form of political statement having been made. The government line is that the riots are purely a form of opportunism and greed expressing itself. While it seems clear that to some degree the looting would imply a sense of opportunism, at the core there are other factors at play.

For instance, many of those interviewed in the areas nearby the rioting have expressed their frustration at what they believe is a lack of understanding of their causes. They say that they feel disenfranchised by the political system, and that the police are not out to defend them or their property, rather that the police and the state are hostile to them. Others believe they are left behind by the state entirely, and in the midst of cuts with youth centres closing etc., one can empathise with that position.

Of course, I would in no way want to appear to allow this excuse as some sort of justification for the rioting. As I have said previously, causing damage to private property is simply not a legitimate way of making a public political point. Unfortunately there are those who feel disenfranchised and left out by the state, but there are peaceful means of protest which could have been used to make the point more effectively.

Government Responsibility?

It is inevitable that large sections of the public will put the responsibility to fix the problems on the government. On one hand, their concerns are legitimate. The government, for the sake of openness, should most certainly make more of an effort to in some way include those disenfranchised sections of society to raise their levels of confidence within the system.

In addition, the police need to find a way to improve their relationship with the people they have sworn to protect. I have no doubt that the police, in general, have the best intention at heart in their activity, but sometimes that does not come across. Here I think understanding is what needs to be reinforced, not cracking down even harder on those who feel victimised by the police.

What the government should not do, however, is create emergency legislation to deal with the situations that have arisen. In times like these, the government has to avoid a knee-jerk reaction which will only serve to limit the freedoms of the majority of the population who actually abide by the laws of the land. Legislation should only be made as a last resort. There are other ways that the government must explore to fix the issues at hand.

What do I think?

Fundamentally, I would say the cause behind the issues we’ve seen on our television screens is a big mixture of many issues. On one hand, it looks as though the riots were fuelled by two main factors. The first being principles, which I disagree with, but principles people hold nonetheless. They feel victimised and ignored, and they wanted to make a big point out of this sadly at the cost of private individuals. Second, I believe there were others who joined in merely out of opportunism. They saw the chance to try to make bit of cash out of breaking the law and stealing, and I am glad that so many of those people are now being brought to justice.

Reports of disturbances in several parts of London tonight, as well as Birmingham and Manchester. Reports of violence in other areas via twitter but most of this is false rumours sent around. Number of police injured over the last 3 days put at 111 officers and 3 police dogs. Looks like tonight is going to be a long night for police forces across the country and London in particular…

A good way to keep up to date with events in london is at The West Londoner‘s blog here on WordPress.

—

After the third night of chaos took hold across London, burning down and looting several buildings, cars and leaving one man dead, violence has begun to spread to other UK cities.

It has now been reported that, last night, rioters took to the streets in Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol and possibly Nottingham to cause similar trouble. Many arrests have been made, with the Metropolitan Police stating that arrested individuals are having to be stored outside of London after running out of capacity for new inmates.

The Prime Minister returned home from his holiday break this morning to help deal with the situation, and has held meetings with the relevant authorities including the police to discuss ways of tackling the issues. Tonight, it is expected that 16,000 police will be deployed to the streets of London, a significant increase from last night and the nights before.

Sony Distribution Centre Ablaze. Media coverage last night was far better than the night before.

Why?

It appears that there is still little in the way of a common motivation or reason behind this criminal outburst. The government maintains that this is an outburst of ‘pure criminality’, however I think there are deeper issues at play here which several commentators have raised. For example, we’re dealing with a generation of disenfranchised youths here, who (due to economic circumstances) do not have much hope for the future nor do they feel their voices are heard.

This is not a justification for such violence. It’s utterly disgusting to see images of individuals being mugged, stories of private residences being broken into and looted even while the owners are present. It’s not even as though the shops that are raided are big chains which can afford the loss. Family businesses have been destroyed, along with charity shops and homes.

Cleanup Operation

Perhaps the silver lining today is the speed at which the cleanup operation has gotten underway. Aside from the official cleanup operation managed by councils, other volunteers have been helping to clean the streets. This is surely a sign that while there is a minority that is willing to cause trouble and destroy property, there is a majority that is willing to clean up.

If you’re interested in helping out with the cleanup operation in London visit http://www.riotcleanup.co.uk

So far, blame has been largely attributed to the Blackberry Messaging service, which has been used by rioters to coordinate attacks. Also, however, there is a feeling that twitter itself has been a cause of some violence. In a sense, I suppose it generates what could be considered a self-fulfilling prophecy if people claim a riot is happening somewhere. Locals may try to join in after reading that information, and if there was never a riot happening in that place, one would begin there.

I don’t believe twitter users (or the service itself) can, however, be blamed for people committing these crimes. It reverts to the playground argument ‘If x told you to jump off a cliff, would you?’

There is no excuse for one night of violence like this, let alone three. But I suppose there are messages which can be brought from it. For example, I would suggest that the main perpetrators are unemployed youths with little else to do. Hopefully lessons will be learned from these riots, and people brought out of unemployment, or at the very least boredom as soon as possible.

The areas affected by the violence last night include Enfield, Brixton, Walthamstow, Westfields and other areas across North, East and South London, with some reports of violence in areas of central London. Many businesses were looted and torched, along with something like 35 police officers wounded after making more than 100 arrests.

Image courtesy of TheWestLondoner on WordPress. Click to visit.

Alleged Media Blackout

In my view, one of the more interesting aspects of last nights trouble was the mainstream news media’s coverage, or lack thereof. For example, Sky News and BBC News only broke the news at least three hours after significant disturbance was reported in Enfield and elsewhere. In fact, the only way I was able to keep up to date for most of the evening was to follow the trending #enfield tag on twitter.

I found that pretty much the only semi-reliable mainstream news source that provided some information was the Guardian, but aside from that I had to be lucky and find good news sources such as The West Londoner here on WordPress, who provided a very good live blog with updates and images given as they came in.

While I am not sure what the reasons are for mainstream media’s seeming lack of ability to report on the disturbances in London, I am a little bit skeptical as to whether the ‘blackout’ was intentional. There’s plenty of evidence out there to show that, on the night of the Tottenham riots, news teams were harassed and attacked by protestors. It may just have been that the media were scared to follow the events live for their own safety.

‘Opportunistic theft’

The government responded to the second night of disturbances in the usual way with generic statements condemning the disorder and violence. The Home Secretary Theresa May has, however, returned from her holiday to try to help deal with the issues, and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg responded to the night’s events calling ‘opportunistic theft’ as the driving force behind them.

And this is another ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

It seems clear to me that these riots and disturbances have very little political fuel. They do not have any demands. This is no political protest, or a protest in any case at all. These events were only indirectly spurred on by the killing of Mark Duggan by police. Instead, I would suggest that for the most part, Nick Clegg is absolutely right to say this is all opportunistic theft – taking advantage of the situation.

For that reason, it is very disheartening to see what looks like so many people involved in the violence and looting. I am glad that many of the scumbags who took part in this were arrested. My only fear is that the local community of innocents who had no part in this are the victims of these crimes. With so many shops and businesses destroyed, cars set alight, it is ordinary people who are picking up the pieces and feeling the hurt.

My only hope is that the violence does not continue and spread tonight and tomorrow morning.

The night’s events began as a peaceful protest by the family of Duggan over questions being unanswered about the circumstances surrounding his death. Soon, however, opportunistic individuals began to escalate the violence causing the peaceful protestors to leave and a battle to break out between the police and the mob.

It is deeply disturbing to me that what began as a peaceful protest could escalate so quickly and so violently into an incredibly costly criminal outbreak. Is there no respect for property anymore? I know the community in Tottenham wants answers to their questions, but answers will not come from criminal damage.

One would hope and expect the main culprits behind the events of last night were not locals to Tottenham, instead opportunists looking to cause trouble in general, to ‘get at’ the police, and to loot valuables from breached shop and business premises. And that is worrying in itself, that there are people who have so little decency that they would totally devalue the right to protest.

At least, or I would hope, the perpetrators behind these crimes were captured. It simply does not matter whether the economy is doing badly, or the government is making cuts, or whether people feel victimized by the police. None of these examples are justification for destroying the businesses of private individuals who have to pick up the pieces and count the cost.

People have died to guarantee, or at least expand, political rights in this country. If people don’t like something, they should use the legal means to achieve their ends. Martin Luther King didn’t torch his hometown because black people were, and really were being persecuted. He used the means available to him and he was successful.

Violent protest is not the answer.

EDIT: It looks as though there will be rioting in Enfield tonight. Already there has been some disturbance. If it’s in Enfield then I think it would be hard to justify as part of the Mark Duggan ‘protest’. This seems due to unemployment and boredom among a disenfranchised youth generation.

While capital punishment has not been used in the UK since 1964, it would appear that it still has some supporters.

As of right now, the current number of signatures of the major pro-death penalty petition is 1,593 signatures, while the number for the major opposite is 3,548 signatures.

If either reaches 100,000 signatures, Parliament has the option to discuss and debate the merits of the petition and take necessary steps from there.

Should it be brought back?

The short answer I would give to this question is ‘absolutely not’. Aside from the fact that the United Kingdom would need to abandon the EU Convention on Human Rights (which incidentally is also petitioned for) to use the punishment again, it just doesn’t seem to me as though it provides much use except a form of brutal, aggressive form of revenge. Revenge is not justice.

Not only would putting someone to death create more victims (ie. the condemned prisoner’s innocent family and friends), but it would also not be an effective punishment. When I say this, I refer to the potential thata jury may be less likely to convict someone if they know they could be condemning that person to death. In practical terms, life in prison is a ‘worse’ punishment. Not only this, but it is cheaper to keep a person in prison for life than to execute them.

The arguments that the prospect of the death penalty is an effective crime deterrent in my opinion is weak. There are many prisoners on death row in some states of America who committed their crimes knowing that they could recieve the death penalty. In fact, in some states with the death penalty in place, crime rates are actually higher. And as I said earlier, putting someone to death to get revenge for another crime is, in my opinion, not the same as getting justice.

Suffice to say, I will be signing the anti-capital punishment petition.

Still defiant and despite his ill health, Mubarak appeared on a hospital bed flanked by his two sons to deny the allegations put against him. Once the powerful autocratic ruler of Egypt, now caged and weak.

No doubt such images will be causing fear among other autocratic leaders in the Middle-East, North Africa and throughout the world. For once, there is hard evidence that a powerful autocrat can be brought down, and hopefully brought to justice.

I’m not going to say that I believe democracy is perfect, but I think it is the freedoms that are born from democratic systems that are desirable. An autocratic ruler who crushes any form of rebellion simply does not have legitimacy to rule. Rule should be based on free consent, not oppression. If an autocrat has to rely on oppression they are not legitimate.

I’m going to keep this post brief, but I just want to try to link this to Libya somewhat. I think the case in Libya is slightly different. I’m not going to complain that I think the operation there was fluffed up, in the sense that I believe the rebels have failed to win legitimacy outright. From the pictures I am seeing, Colonel Gaddafi would appear to have some sort of (if minor) public support.

If this is the case, I do not believe international forces should be taking sides in this issue. In my view it is meddling too much in the affairs of another state; fractured or otherwise. Yes, it is necessary for international forces to prevent the massacre of civilians, but it seems clear to me that the UN and other supranational organisations have taken sides in Libya, as an example, which I do not believe is right.

The main difference I would like to highlight here between Libya and Egypt is that Egypt’s revolution appears more legitimate. It took eighteen days of proper protest without civil war and international intervention. Libya, by contrast, has descended into a civil war which would suggest that neither Gaddafi or the rebels can claim legitimacy.

If neither side can claim legitimacy, then I believe it is also not legitimate for international bodies to interfere in the conflict by taking sides other than to protect civilians from abuses. In fact, it would be slightly hypocritical for a foreign state to claim Gaddafi is not the legitimate ruler of Libya, if that state is supporting an equally not legitimate ‘transitional council’ or rebel force.

The perpretator of both attacks, Norwegian citizen Anders Behring Breivik, surrendered at the site of the killings on the island of Utøya.

Motivated by what he saw as the Norwegian government’s unacceptably lenient attitude towards immigration and multiculturalist policies, Breivik sought to strike at the core of the ruling Labour party.

But what was the role of the internet?

In this case, the part the internet played in fostering his extremist ideas is clear. While Brevik leaned towards the right since his youth, in a way more commonly associated with Islamic extremism – to use a popular example – he was radicalised by the internet.

However it does not appear that Breivik posted messages on extremist websites, but there is evidence to show he was heavily involved with Norwegian Islam-critical website document.no. I haven’t read a large number of the comments he made on the site; but it is apparent after browsing a few examples that a pattern of criticism against multiculturalism and Muslims exists.

And I have yet to comment upon his 1,500 page manifesto, in which he appears inspired by anti-Islamic writer Robert Spencer, Dutch politician Geert Wilders and many other islam-critical, neo-conservative, right with authors / personalities. Not only this, but he appears to imply in the manifesto that he had been a part in the establishment of a new ‘order’ aiming to rid Europe of Muslims altogether.

Spreading a message?

It is this final part which concerns me the most. If Breivik was radicalised and inspired by content he had found on the internet, then consolidating that into a single document is significant. There are no shortage of blind islamophobia out there throughout Europe, and the UK’s English Defence League (admired by Breivik) is but one example.

I think Breivik’s mission was clear; to make the biggest noise possible and bring attention to his cause. When I say he has succeeded in his mission, I am not going to say it was avoidable. If you commit acts of terrorism, people are bound to ask for your motives. This is deeply worrying, because the chances are that someone, somewhere, is reading and being inspired by his manifesto.

So whether or not Anders Breivik was radicalised by the internet, it is evident that his intention was to use the internet to radicalise others. This is something I think will be taken seriously by security services across Europe and the world, because in my view people are more or less the same and if Muslims can be persuaded towards Jihad, I believe we are naive to think that Christians cannot be persuaded into something similar.

I had hoped that Nick Clegg would not end up becoming arrogant after an increase in popularity during this general election campaign, but now it seems that he feels qualified enough brand the election a two-horse race between his party and the Conservatives.

This seems to me a far cry from the Clegg we knew some time ago, who maintained that this election was not a two-horse race, and that the Liberal Democrats have a real chance to feel success this time around.

Now things have changed. With a drop in support for Labour, Clegg considers this a message from the public which speaks clearly; change is what the country is after, and the two parties representing change are the only parties with a realistic chance.

‘Going for gold’

As much as I am not a fan of Labour in any way, I’m not foolish enough to suggest (especially with our unfair electoral system) that the Liberal Democrats have gained, and Labour lost, enough popularity for Labour to get the least seats of the big three.

In this way, I am not exactly sure what kind of ‘gold’ Clegg is talking about, surely he knows that in our electoral system that the possibility of winning more seats than Labour is a foolish fantasy?

That said, I think it is entirely possible that in terms of the popular vote, the Liberal Democrats may just have the edge to outshine Labour. I still believe that the Conservative party will attract the biggest share of the popular vote.

Even so, I do not think they will get enough of the popular vote to win a majority. For that they would need to pull off one of the biggest swings in british politics and to be honest they just don’t seem popular enough.

No landslides

Unlike in 1997 where Tony Blair led the Labour party into a resounding landslide victory, I do not believe any such thing will happen for any party. For the Conservatives to take power with a majority that is the kind of think they would need.

That said, there is still a little while to go and many potential gaffes to be made, but with the debates having had their effect early on, I do not think we will see much of a shift in public opinion other than what we see in the opinion polls.

Make no mistake that the election night when the results come through will be exciting; there is no predictable winner – it simply seems too close to call it between the parties in terms of seats and the popular vote.