Reflections on the Privatisation of Mental Health

Allen Ginsberg’s (1984) poem, Howl, famously begins with the line:

‘I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness.’

allen ginsberg
A young Allen Ginsberg (photo: youtube)

What we should glean from Ginsberg is that mental health is not simply an interior, it’s not an affliction of the deeper, inner, soul as much as a symptom of the society we live in. Suffering from bouts of mental illness himself as well as witnessing it being visited upon friends, Ginsberg deals with the issue with constant reference to 1950s American society. This is an important insight as Mental Health Awareness Week draws to a close. To concentrate wholly on the interior obscures the material and ideological structures that can initiate mental illness.

In stark contrast to Ginsberg, the contemporary debate on mental health seems to want to ignore or dismiss society entirely. It all becomes an issue for the private individual who must deal with it in ‘their own way’. It’s as if, to borrow Eagleton’s phrase (1991: 241), mental illness simply ‘drops from the skies’. The common view that notion that mental health is something that ‘can affect everyone’ (the presumption being it affects everyone equally) seems to somehow absolve the unequal, oppressive and stressful character of modern society. Mental illness can affect everyone but some are more at risk than others. Some are more able to access treatment than others.

The role of racism, poverty, sexuality or just the anxious, weird, cyber-fucked-world we inhabit cannot be ignored. Part of ending the stigma is the recognition that poorer sufferers, apart from the added stress of financial precarity, are unable to access treatment quickly and without financial cost. Go and see how long the local NHS waiting list for mental health treatment is in your area. The recognition that people of colour and LGBTQ+ people are more at risk is also required. Furthermore, there must also be a recognition that neoliberal economics requires a credit market which inflicts the mental distress of astronomical debts onto the general population (Harvey 2010: 17). Household debts are a record high in the UK right now. As Dawn Foster wrote in the Guardian, interventions from Royals and the like obscure the fact that the austerity policies of the Conservative Party have hollowed out the welfare state and the health service and exacerbated the conditions in which mental illness can fester. Warnings from mental health professionals have been ignored, even as the situation has worsened and suicides increased throughout the coalition government’s tenure.  The headline of a well-argued piece put it nicely:

‘Making efforts to break down the stigma around mental health means fuck all if there’s no funding’.

Similarly, research conducted by the homeless charity Shelter emphasise the disastrous impact housing pressures have had on mental health.

shelter
Infographic belongs to Shelter: http://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/housing_and_mental_health?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=MentalHealthEnter a caption

These housing pressures have been unaddressed by Tory governments keen to keep property prices high for the benefit of their property-owning members and voters. Even social media apps like Instagram, with its emphasis on ideal body types, have been shown to be harmful to young minds. Without the recognition of these societal factors, the issue becomes depoliticizes or ‘privatised’. Racism, poor housing, cuts to healthcare and welfare, toxic societal conceptions of gender roles and astronomical (student) debts have created a climate in which people can see no way out. Material and social circumstance cannot be ignored. As Megan Nolan wrote in Vice:

‘According to the symptom checklist, I suffer depression and anxiety. But even so, I couldn’t stop myself from saying to my doctor: I don’t think this is because I’m depressed. I think it’s because I’m poor. My anxiety about being poor makes it impossible to work, which makes me poorer, and the cycle continues.’

Mental health, in other words, is a political issue, not a private one we simply need to ‘destigmatize’. More needs to be done.

Before proceeding it’s worth noting the following: this piece simply wants to convey some reflections on mental health with a historical and literary perspective. It’s intent is to revaluate and politicize discourses of mental health, to illuminate historical perspectives that may have otherwise been in left the dark. Walter Benjamin (1973: 57) wrote that: ‘For every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably.’ It is in this spirit that the piece proceeds.

Before his recent and tragic suicide, Mark Fisher wrote about the important task of politicizing mental health. He wrote (2009: 21) that capitalist societies sought to ‘privatise’ mental illness:

‘as if [it] were caused only by chemical imbalances in the individual’s neurology and/or by their family background – any question of social systemic causation is ruled out.’ [my emphasis]

Mental illness and its proliferation among the younger generation and the treatments have been ‘medicalised’ as a ‘chemical imbalance’, yet it’s easy to see the benefits of this for capital. Individuals automatically blame themselves, thinking: ‘it’s all in your head’. It’s as if the external world the society we live in is completely irrelevant to the workings of your own mind. As Fisher acknowledges (2009: 21), depression is caused by a lack of serotonin but is it a stretch to imagine the society we live in might have something to do with that? Or, to take the point further, is it a stretch to wonder whether society’s response to mental health can often tell us more about society than it does about our own brains?

Foucault argues (1971), for instance that even the rational, scientific study of mental health as a phenomenon was a result of the contingent social and economic circumstances of modernity. His Madness and Civilisation (1988) elucidates the extent to which mental illness has been interpreted through various ideological frames throughout history. In the Renaissance, the mentally ill were afforded knowledge beyond the sane’s comprehension. In many cases, they were revered as an expression of the limits of human reason. In the modern era, the mentally ill have been rationalized, hospitalized or taken out of society all together. Many found themselves entrapped in what Foucault (1988: 38) called ‘the Great Confinement’ including ‘one out of every hundred inhabitants of the city of Paris’ who were forced to endure ‘arbitrary measures of imprisonment’. Foucault (1988: 45-46) explains how across Europe, workhouses, ‘hospitals, prisons and jails’ could ‘contain those condemned by common law, young men who disturbed their families’ peace or who squandered their goods, people without profession, and the insane.’ This continued into the 20th century. Opened in 1904, Storthes Hall near Kirkburton in Huddersfield had women who’d had children out of wedlock also confined within its walls. In many cases, the poor were conflated with mentally ill as ‘pauper lunatics’ they were treated as one and the same. Storthes’s Hall’s records are rather cryptic and antiquated but they give you a flavour for what could land you inside:

‘Domestic trouble 14

Mental anxiety and worry 27

Intemperance in drink 14

Adverse circumstances 5

Religious excitement 2

Fright and nervous shock 1

Self abuse (sexual) 3’ (Littlewood 2003: 29)

What this illuminates is how political and historically contingent the position of the mentally ill is. Apart from this, it also attests to the shaky foundations that uphold the relationship between the ‘mad’ and the ‘civilised’.

Another mentally ill contemporary of Ginsberg and Foucault was Sylvia Plath. As a woman, Plath offers us another avenue through which we can study mental illness and the societal response to it. The patriarchal character of 1960s society was also a key factor in triggering Plath’s mental illness and her eventual suicide. The Bell Jar’s (1966) political message may be far subtler than Ginsberg, Fisher or Foucault but its existence cannot be denied. She recalls how her university required nude photos from its female students and was more like a finishing school which tried to turn into students into nice ladies than critical and thoughtful creators and innovators (Plath 1966). Another particularly repugnant, all too real passage recounts a case of rape (Plath 1966). Recent revelations also reveal her entrapment in an abusive relationship with fellow poet Ted Hughes, inspiring such classic poems as ‘The Jailor’ which compared the husband to a prison guard (Plath 1965). Hughes and Plath separating after the former’s infidelity was revealed and Plath’s mental health worsened. The pills Plath was proscribed in winter 1963 – monoamine oxidase inhibitor – would never be given dished out to anyone with suicidal tendencies now since they can cause hyperactivity. This contributed to her eventual and infamous suicide in the gas oven of her London abode. Thus, once again Plath’s mental illness cannot be separated from the society in which it manifested itself.

To further explore mid-to-late twentieth century’s conceptions of mental illness, it’s worth retuning to Ginsberg. ‘Howl’ (1984) has themes of repressed sexual identities, particularly homosexuality. There’s references to men with ‘big pacifist eyes sexy in their dark skin’ and those ‘who let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy’. Howl is to Ginsberg in many ways a stream of consciousness. A consciousness that society, refused to let him have: it was still illegal to have or even talk about homosexual sex in public in the UK and the United States. The poem was banned in many places and Ginsberg was taken to court for writing it. Foucault was a contemporary of Ginsberg, a homosexual with a preference for sado-masochism. Much like Ginsberg, Foucault repressed his sexuality during his adolescence and in turn developed mental health problems which would come and go throughout his life. Much like Ginsberg, Foucault would often self-medicate hard drugs as a way of dealing with his condition. Having grown up in a nice bourgeois household, his family could afford to send him to one of the best psychiatrists in France, Jean Delay at the Hopital Saint-Anne in Paris. At the root of his mental illness though, which was ‘medicalized’ and ‘biologized’ by his visit to a medical professional, was French society’s less than tolerant approach toward his own homosexuality. In a later debate with Chomsky, Foucault said (1971):

‘Psychiatry, for instance, is also apparently meant to improve mankind and the knowledge of the psychiatrists. Psychiatry is also a way to implement a political power to a particular social group.’

Like Ginsberg, for Foucault, society’s homophobia was a major motor in the acceleration of his depressive states. For both figures, binaries of sanity and madness, gay and straight was compounded by their self-medicated drug abuse. Put another way, the society they lived in basically treated homosexuality as if it was a mental illness. Statistics show that LGBTQ+ people today still disproportionately abuse drugs as a self-medication mechanism. The solution, for both Foucault and Ginsberg, was a politicization of mental health which is undoubtedly task of both ‘Howl’ and Madness and Civilisation. As Foucault explained (1971):

‘It seems to me that the real political task in our contemporary society is to criticise the workings of institutions, particular the ones that appear neutral and independent, and to attack them in such a way that the political violence will finally be unmasked so that one can fight against them.’

Political violence for Foucault is surely broadly defined. Violence is undoubtedly inherent in; refusing to sufficiently fund mental health services, cutting welfare payments to disabled people, denying financial assistance to the mentally ill, straddling swathes of population with vast amounts of debt and allowing discriminative attitudes to perpetuate and reproduce themselves etc. These policies show that the government is not simply a ‘neutral’ arbiter. Fisher also saw that emancipatory politics could illuminate the inadequacies in our approach towards mental health. Foucault, Ginsberg, Fisher, even Plath, recognised there was a false neutrality to debates surrounding mental health. This neutrality absolved society of the blame for its causation. Fisher writes (2009: 17), almost paraphrasing Foucault:

‘… emancipatory politics must always destroy the appearance of a ‘natural order’, must reveal what is presented as necessary and inevitable to be a mere contingency…’

Understanding mental health as a political issue can therefore emancipate us from the inadequacies of the status quo.

  • Benjamin, W (1973) ‘Theses on the Philosophy of History’. in: Illuminations. Edited by Arendt. Trans. Zohn. New York: Fontana Collins.
  • Eagleton, T (1991) Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso
  • Fisher, M (2009) Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? London: Zero Books.
  • Foucault, M (1971) ‘Human Nature: Justice versus Power – Noam Chomsky debates with Michel Foucault.’ Available – https://chomsky.info/1971xxxx/
  • Foucault, M (1988) Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New York: Vintage Books
  • Ginsberg, A (1984) ‘Howl’ in Collected Poems, 1947-1980. New York: Available –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkNp56UZax4

  • Harvey, D (2010) The Enigma of Capitalism and the Crises of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford Books
  • Littlewood, Ann (2003) Storthes Hall Remembered. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield
  • Plath, S (1966) The Bell Jar. London: Faber and Faber
  • Plath, S (1965) Ariel. London: Faber and Faber

Review: Simon Armitage at the Brontë Parsonage Museum

The Unaccompanied

Simon Armitage (2017) The Unaccompanied. London: Faber and Faber

Simon Armitage (2017) Mansions in the Sky. Branwell Brontë Exhibit.Bronte Parsonage Museum. Haworth, West Yorkshire.

They say you should never meet your heroes but upon hearing the The Brontë Parsonage Museum was hosting Simon Armitage it was hard to resist. After greedily releasing two collections of poetry this week, his exhibit on Branwell Bronte, the ‘fail son’, opium-addicted, Bronte brother was also opened. His reading dealt with the complexity, speed and inequality of modern life, set against the background of West Yorkshire’s rolling Pennine hills. The eccentricity and telluric quality of Armitage’s writing was juxtaposed with the dizzying experience of the modern metropolis. You came away with a sense that this was a poet who, after translating and playwriting for many years, had come back to his stomping ground with a political point to prove.

Armitage filled the silences between his poems with a more improvised form of the wit we’ve come to expect from his prose works. Gig (2008), All Points North (1998) and Walking Home (2013) were written with what he describes as his ‘bleak sense of humour’. Yet he always manages to somehow keep it serious enough to avoid the trap of gimmick. Armitage typically combines hilarity with the dry and the dismal. ‘The Poets Hosts His Annual Office Christmas Party’, full of innuendo, is the stand out funny one of this collection. However, The Unaccompanied also demonstrates Armitage’s ability for a more systematic social commentary.

Reading in soft Huddersfieldian tones, he juxtaposes the rich with the poor, the rural with the urban and the tragedy with the farce. Armitage himself described the work as a ‘recession collection’, a ‘sociological’ recantation of British society since 2008. Or at least post-crash British society as he saw it through his gritty, Northern Realist lens. You can see where he’s coming from. It’s easy to think that in a decade where wage growth has been at its lowest since the invention of the steam engine, poetry is a self-indulgent piss-around for the moneyed-classes. Yet it remains as vital as ever.

Beginning with ‘Thank You For Waiting’, a satirisation not only of airlines but of the inequality engendered by neoliberal capitalism, he was subtle yet bitingly political. He amusingly portrayed the segregation of air travel by social class in the United States through the medium of substances from ‘Gold’ and ‘Silver’ to ‘Sweat’ and ‘Dust’. ‘Nurse at a Bus Stop’ speaks of a young woman who will always ‘hold the hand of cancer till the line goes flat’ even as the social and the political, indeed history itself, works against her. Risking being a ‘Jilted bridge of public transport’, she slogs every day to counter the ‘humanitarian crisis’ the Red Cross reported in British hospitals. The poem defended those who wear their NHS ‘fob watch’ as ‘a medal to your breast’. It vindicated those still left with the faith to fight for the NHS, even as successive governments have pulled the rug from under it. The audience’s collective murmur of miserable agreement capped off the poem, showing how well Armitage has managed to keep his finger on the public pulse.

In a sense, The Unaccompanied speaks for what has come to be known since Brexit as the communities left behind. That said, he’s not simply representing the Brexiteer. Rather his attention is on those left behind, socially and politically, in general. The clue here is in the title of the collection. We’re taken on a journey through almost anonymous West Yorkshire villages, to Poundland where we meet ‘a duty manager with a face like Doncaster’. Then there’s Wakefield Westgate railway station which recently moved, almost as if it was sick of being neighbours with the murderers and rapists that inhabit Wakefield’s high security prison. Armitage recounts his meeting with serial killer Robert Maudsley, which took place in earshot of the platform announcements, in ‘Solitary’. What comes through is Maudsley’s banality as well as his empty existence ‘in his glass case’. We are left pitying the life of those detained in solidarity confinement, if not Maudsley himself. Here we find that the miserable, macabre and mundane are transmuted by Armitage into the sublime.

His commentary on modernity steps it all up a notch. The Unaccompanied’s enigmatic and ambiguous cover itself is worth thinking about. When asked about it he recounts and explains the numerous and conflicting interpretations of the ‘cosmonaut’ set against the background of ‘embryonic pink’. Kept alive by a mechanic umbilical cord, it’s easy to relate to this anonymous, almost post-human figure, left stranded by the machinery of his own making. ‘The Emergency’s’ enigmatic last line ‘What is it we do now?’ is reminiscent of Marx’s definition of modernity: ‘All that is solid melts into air’. Perhaps the collection should be read as a search for solidity in a world of fluid and flux. ‘To-do-list’, the fastest poem he read, attests to this. A whirlwind of errands where to eat and breathe is ‘optional’, the poem’s theme of speed only seeks to reflect that of contemporary life. Similarly, ‘Old Boy’ reads like a rant from a Dad struggling to keep up with the news of the day, never mind technological advances. Yet we can relate to how the complexitity of modern life can make us feel like ‘a monkey with a jigsaw’. To appreciate the poem’s frustration fully, it’s worth listening to a fast-paced version from Armitage’s band, The Scaremongers, on the track ‘From the Shorelines of Venus’.

To celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Branwell Brontë, Armitage curated an exhibit at the Bronte Parsonage Museum where we adjourned after the reading. Even in these poems he wrote for Branwell Brontë, Armitage can’t escape the 21st century frame. This would seem anachronistic if it wasn’t so plain funny. In one fail swoop Armitage bounces from Wordsworth and the Brontës, to The Smiths and Premier League football. ‘William, It Was Really Nothing’ recounts a letter Branwell sent to William Wordsmith, who was more than uninterested in writing back. Armitage can’t resist mixing the low and highbrow and he seems to work to cultivate an ‘everyman’ reading voice. Contemplating his self-worth, a 21st century version of the Bronte brother pontificates about Manchester United shelling out £85million for Paul Pogba. ‘Wallet’ continues the theme, empty but for a condom and coke-covered credit card, Branwell’s character is brought to life through the prism of 21st century.

Armitage’s modesty and humble beginnings in provincial West Yorkshire can disguise the intellectualism that lays behind his poetry. His translations of poems from Ancient Greece and the Middle Ages show how well-read his. No doubt he would deny this. He is keen to create space for interpretation of his work that is safe from academic literary theory. While it garnered a few laughs, his joking cry of ‘help’ at the prospect of giving a lecture at Oxford can’t help but seem insincere. Indeed, his lectures at Oxford reveal him to be an avid and wide-ranging reader. The beauty and hilarity of Armitage lies in his ability to talk about the Odyssey and Poundland, Brontë and Pogba as if they were one and the same. His subtle yet germane social commentary in this new collection shows he’s still got a few aces up his sleeve.

Armitage sits on the bed in Branwell’s Studio© at the Brontë Parsonage Museum, Haworth. Photographer: Simon Warner.

Armitage at the Bronte Parsonage

 

 

Trump: the final death-knell of the Palestinian state?

religion-diplomacy-politics
Trump speaking at AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), the largest pro-Israel lobby.

The election of Donald Trump has had worldwide repercussions. Not least on the Palestinian question. Palestine, though not a state in practice, has been recognised as such at the UN with an overwhelming majority: 138 in favour, 9 against and 41 abstensions. Trump said in the primaries that solving the conflict would be a top foreign policy priority. He said it was:

‘… something I’d really like to do… As a single achievement, that would be a really great achievement… I’m going to be probably going over there pretty soon and I want to see him [Netanyahu], I want to see other people, I want to get some ideas on it.’

As with every issue Trump wades in on, there was a lot of confusion about his position on the Palestinian question. This was made worse by a blatant lack of knowledge on the topic, not knowing the difference between two of Israel’s Islamist enemies, Hezbollah and Hamas being one example. Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party and mostly-Shiite militia, Hamas is a Palestinian political party and militia.

Surprising in the primaries Trump balked at the question of recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital which is standard practice for both Democratic and Republican party candidates. Even to question Israel’s entitlement to all of Jerusalem is enough to render you an extremist to the American political establishment. This is despite the fact that no other country in the world recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, since half of Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian land that Israel has deliberately and illegally built on.  In contrast, as stated, most countries, including the the UK, recognise Palestine. Trump was skeptical of Israel’s commitment to peace. This is perfectly rational given that settlement construction is a colossal obstacle to peace, all you need to do is look at a picture of the West Bank. If you do, you will see that Israel illegally occupies vast swathes of Palestinian land and has continued to build on it, evicting and demolishing houses in the processs. This contravenes international law, effectively colonising Palestinian land. His position of cutting a more neutral line, was understandable, suprising but ultimately opportunistic.

israel-palestine
This map from The Funambalist shows that Palestinian land has been dissected by the illegal growth of Israeli settlements which include roads and facilities Palestinians may not use.

Trump later backtracked entirely as his speech to AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) in March made clear. The semblance of neutrality vanished. AIPAC is a very strong pro-Israel lobby which has significant influence in Washington. By this time, it is worth noting, he had decided it was ‘appropriate’ to understand the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas. Trump stated: ‘We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.’ Moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would be to virtually deprive the Palestinians of their political and legal right to half of the Holy City. It further set a precedent that would make a Palestinian state nigh on impossible. In an interview with The Daily Mail in May he said that settlement growth should ‘keep going’ and ‘keep moving forward‘.Settlement growth that is likely to consign a Palestinian state to oblivion.

The prospects of a Palestinian state look all the more dim when we take a closer look at the people around Trump. His son-in-law Jared Kushner, whom Trump said could play a key role in negotiations, comes from a family that is friendly with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and who have donated tens of thousands to extremist settlements in the West Bank. His advisor on Israel, David Friedman, would be on the far-right in Israel, he believes in expanding the settlements  and annexing the West Bank entirely. Steve Bannon, Trump’s Chief of Staff and founding member of alt-right news website Breibart, demonstrates beyond all doubt that you can be both pro-Israel, pro-settlement-building and yet antisemitic. Rudy Guiliani, the former mayor of New York tipped to be involved in the Trump administration – potentially as Secretary as State – is openly against the idea of a Palestinian state, suggesting that it would undermine US security and cause terrorism. Newt Gingrich, also tipped for a top position in the Trump administration, called Palestinians ‘terrorists’ and also doesn’t recognise the right of Palestine to exist. 

In Israel, Trump’s victory was welcomed by many Israel. One of Trump’s key backers Sheldon Adelson owns Israeli paper Israel HaYom and the positive coverage it has emitted of him has meant that Israelis are generally supportive and optimistic about a Trump administration, according to polling. His victory was also welcomed by the Israeli goverment, the most extreme far-right government in its history. Trump and Netanyahu are natural friends, maybe Trump stole his idea for a wall on the Mexico border from the ‘seperation barrier’ that Ariel Sharon built deep inside Palestinian territory back in 2003.

nigelwallstory483
The ‘Seperation barrier’ at Qalqiliya where residents are seperated from their own land and travel is blocked off.  Picture credit, Nick Parry at Electronic Intifada

Israeli cabinet ministers who represent pro-settlement parties or who live on settlements themselves couldn’t resist chiming in. Education Minister Naftali Bennet was elated:

‘Trump’s victory is a tremendous opportunity for Israel to immediately announce its intention to renege on the idea of establishing Palestine in the heart of the country – a direct blow to our security and the justice of our cause.

This is the president-elect’s outlook as it appears in his platform, and that definitely should be our way. Salient, simple and clear. The era of the Palestinian state is over.’

This is not simply hot air, extreme-right-wing lawmakers in Israel moved fast to legalise Israeli outposts deep inside Palestinian territories. Emboldened by Trump’s victory, they worked ever-harder to undermine the possibilities of the Palestinian state even as Secretary of State John Kerry arrived for peace talks.Kerry hit back stating:

‘… more than 50 percent of the ministers in the current [Israeli] government have publicly stated they are opposed to a Palestinian state and that there will be no Palestinian state.’

It is worth noting that Obama and Kerry were publicly critical of the settlements, they did veto the condemnation of them at the UN Security Council. Nonetheless, Trump’s open and vocal support for moving the US embassy and settlement expansion would set a new precedent. As his spokesman said: ‘We are going to see a very different relationship between America and Israel in a positive way.’. Perhaps this really is the final death-knell of the Palestinian state.

Brexit: A Crisis of Democracy?

brexit-4

Figure 1 Picture credit: Reuters, Victoria Jones/Pool.

Six months on and despite Theresa’s May insistence, nobody really knows what Brexit means. Unsurprisingly, as a leaked memo shows, the government doesn’t know what Brexit means. All that we do know is that we are getting it. For most, Brexit has meant confusion. The concept of democracy has been caught up in this confusing mess. When it comes to the British constitution, Brexit has opened can of worms. Mostly remain representatives were voted into parliament during the 2015 General Election. Yet Britain (England and Wales being the only home nations with majorities) voted for Brexit in 2016. Clearly this is something to do with First Past the Post which fails to proportionately represent public opinion and reduces everything to a two horse race. But it’s more than that. The referendum highlighted how differently we’ve come to use the same word, ‘democracy’, to mean lots of different things on this issue.

Close to home, we’ve seen the rise of direct democracy as a result of the referendum. Having won the referendum, Brexiteers are convinced the people have spoken. All we need to do now is get on with it. They support the Theresa May’s attempt to appeal the Supreme Court’s decision, which, if successful, could allow the government to circumvent a parliamentary vote on activating Article 50. After continually emphasising British parliamentary sovereignty through the slogan ‘Take Back Control’, Brexiteers have come full circle. Now Parliament, chock-full of Remoaners as it is, can’t be trusted to carry through the will of the people. For them, a metropolitan liberal elite with their love of parliamentary procedure and independence of the judiciary, are just getting in the way. The Brexit tabloid press, The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Express have been keen to push this line about a liberal elite as the ‘Enemies of the People’. Nigel Farage has followed suit, his ‘betrayal’ rhetoric comes eerily close to the Nazi’s stab-in-the-back-myth about World War I. Farage is himself an emobodiment of the failure of parliamentary democracy to deal with 21st century politics. He has shown that you can radically alter British politics without even being a Member of Parliament. In short, referenda attempt to represent the people by asking for a simple answer to a complex question.

On the other side, Remainers are keen to emphasise the British tradition of parliamentary democracy. Previously more than willing to delegate power to the undemocratic European Union, paradoxically, many Remainers now find themselves defending parliamentary sovereignty. Liberal Democrats, and various figures within the Labour party, from Owen Smith to David Lammy, have emphasised that the referendum was merely advisory and was not legally binding. Parliamentarians, elected to represent the people, should choose whether to activate Article 50, the assumption being that many would opt against it. Similarly, these Remainers also reserve the right to call a second referendum on Brexit, the idea being that the referendum didn’t reflect the will of the people in the way they wanted, so let’s give it another try. This may appear undemocratic if we follow the logic of direct democracy. Thus, we see that direct democracy and representative democracy are in conflict. Nonetheless, it is worth remembering many ‘Remoaning’ MPs sitting in strong Leave constituencies, Tristram Hunt for example, are flying electoral kamikaze missions. In short, parliament is a machine designed to mediate between the conflicting, contradictory and often contrarian opinions of the general public: a complex (and often unsatisfactory) answer to a complex question.

When the referendum was first announced, many on the continent assumed that Britain would set up local forums to debate Brexit. This deliberative form of democracy stresses the importance of informed debate. The idea being to ensure citizens knew what they were talking about, had heard opposing arguments and were in touch with public opinion generally. The basic point is that democracy is a process. Its vital values, like engagement and participation, have to be cultivatedand nurtured. It’s not just, like football, a results game. As the referendum played out, it became clear how foreign this continental idea is to British political culture, where the arena of debate tends to be limited to parliamentary chambers, television studios and the columns of the national press. Without localised forums and deliberations, it is unsurprising that on a national level, the debate was polarised and involved almost no nuance. In such a climate, democratic politics therefore becomes decided by personalities. These personalities tend to be media constructions: the result of good media management and spin doctors. As a result, the referendum campaign was framed in the media as David vs. Boris, the ultimate final decider of a schoolboy rivalry, as The Guardian’s results and analysis coverage exemplifies.

brexit-3
Screenshot from The Guardian’s Results Coverage. Available –

We need some clarity about democracy. We need to move beyond the Brexiteer and Remoaner deadlock. We need to resolve the tension between direct and parliamentary democracy. Democracy is about people power. It is an ongoing process that doesn’t end with the result of an election or referendum. When it comes to Brexit, paradoxically, a European approach is in order. Working out what we want from Brexit will involve talking to each other, not just to our representatives in parliament, but on a local level. Yanis Varoufakis and John McDonnell were on the right lines when they toured Britain, setting up public meetings with space for dissent and discussion, arguing the case for a more radical, democratic Europe. Public engagements such as this need to become more commonplace to inform and politicize people. We need to improve the standard of debate, lift it out of the gutter, before we can get on with doing anything.

The Greek referendum is about democracy, not just economics

Upon hearing the debt crisis in Greece, it could be easy to urge the Greeks to grin and bear the imposed austerity and pay their debts. However, as Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis (with agreement from the IMF) has pointed out, this is frankly impossible, the debt must be at least ‘restructured’ as the IMF put it.

Athens street graffiti
Athens street graffiti

Others might suggest a cost-benefit economic analysis of staying could be appropriate but this referendum is about more than that. It is about the sovereignty and defiance of the Greek people in the face of international organisations which have attempted to turn the country into a ‘debt colony’ as Channel 4’s Paul Mason has described it. In January, after years of austerity and subsequent bailout deals (which include austerity as a proviso), the Greek people had had enough. The Leftist Syriza party was elected and went into coalition with ANEL party on an anti-austerity platform.

Tsipras reminds the troika that Greek suffering is not a game and the Greek people cannot simply be played.
Tsipras reminds the troika that Greek suffering is not a game and the Greek people cannot simply be played.

Since February, Varoufakis and Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras have been involved in negotiations with the IMF, the European Commission and the European Bank as well as leaders of EU countries, in search of a bailout package. This package Varoufakis has insisted, must not contain the ‘rat poison’ of austerity which has landed Greece in mountains of debt in the first place yet extensive austerity remains the main proviso to guarantee debt cancellation. Tsipras announced a referendum on the June 25th austerity/bailout offer with significant support on social media from across the world after what has been widely interpreted as an attempt at regime change by the IMF, European Bank and the European Commission.

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist in a recent article in The Guardian also suggests that the debt dispute between Greece and the ‘troika’ (IMF, European Commission and European Bank) is about ‘power and democracy much more than money and economics’. He argues the austerity measures which have been implemented are deliberately designed to the depress the economy, measures which will continue if the Greeks vote Yes in the upcoming referendum. Unlike British austerity, Greek austerity has been externally imposed and is substantially deeper and more severe. In a recent talk I attended at my university, the University of York, Amartya Sen (another Nobel-prize winning economist) set forth a case against austerity which was echoed in an long-read in The New Statesmen. Sen drew on the empirical cases of Britain in the post-war era and Bill Clinton’s administration in the 1990s to demonstrate that rapid economic growth, rather than deflationary austerity is in fact the best way to reduce budget deficits. Furthermore, he recognized the similarity between the current situation in Greece and the situation in Germany after the signing of the Treaty of Versailes in 1919. Sen drew on John Maynard Keynes’s criticism of Europe at the time as a place ‘torn by internal strife and international hate, fighting, starving, pillaging, and lying’ and stressed the resemblance of 1919 to 2015. This comparison serves as a clear warning when considering that the ‘legitimate grievances’ from the Treaty of Versailles were largely responsible for the rise of the Nazis and the outbreak of World War 2, an idea which is the central thesis of the A.J.P Taylor’s seminal work, The Origins of the Second World WarIMG_1681

The devastating extent of the austerity which has been imposed by the troika on Greece is obvious to people such as myself, who recently visited Athens and was left shocked at the poverty and deprivation in the nation’s capital. Homelessness was rampant, particularly among the disabled and the enormous 60% youth unemployment rate has left the country’s younger generation emigrating in droves. Even our guide around the city was recently made unemployed, despite holding multiple degrees from well-established institutions and demonstrating himself to be extremely skilled. Nonetheless, in Athens there was also a remarkable defiance against austerity which was depicted throughout Athens in graffiti form, particularly from the vibrant Leftist, anti-fascist and anarchist movements.

A theatre which was left unfunded by the Ministry of Culture was taken over by an anarchist collective
Embros theatre was left unfunded by the Ministry of Culture and was taken over by anarchists in 2011 for the enjoyment of the community

20150319_182643

There was also a significant amount of resistance against the Neo-Nazi party, The Golden Dawn, who have sought to capitalize on the anger of the Greek people radicalised by austerity. This was also portrayed through Athens’s street art –

20150320_204410

Golden Dawn supporters give Nazi salutes
Golden Dawn supporters giving Nazi salutes

Not unlike the Hitler’s brownshirts, the Golden Dawn has sought to harness support on the back of a perceived international conspiracy against their country. When they are not touring neighborhoods handing out food to people deemed ‘racially pure’, they are literally pulling immigrants out of hospital beds and kicking them onto the streets. Their violence on the streets of Greece has earned them the status as a criminal organization and many of the leaders have been prosecuted in recent years. The eerily resemblance to that of Hitler and his brownshirts is obvious, both use violence to attack political opponents and to scapegoat ethnic minorities. Even Golden Dawn MP Ilias Panagiotaros described Hitler as a ‘great personality’ on Australian TV. However, during my time in Athens, an anti-fascist demonstration took place in the city centre, brave protesters defied the politics of hate and violence which caused so much death and destruction in the last century. Nonetheless, Sen’s comparison of Greece to Germany is an apt warning against externally imposed austerity which can only be interpreted as economic failure and an attack on democracy.

Anti-fascist protest poster
Anti-fascist protest poster

Thus, I must echo Stiglitz’s words –

“a no vote would at least open the possibility that Greece, with its strong democratic tradition, might grasp its destiny in its own hands. Greeks might gain the opportunity to shape a future that, though perhaps not as prosperous as the past, is far more hopeful than the unconscionable torture of the present.

I know how I would vote.”

Varoufakis unveils radical new concept in the face of troika blackmail - 'democracy'
Varoufakis unveils radical new concept in the face of troika blackmail – ‘democracy’.

Ken Clarke is right, it’s not surprising the public are switched off by elections

As the UK 2015 General Election approaches, we are barraged with a set of candidates who, as always, ‘preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry’, as the late Howard Zinn once commented. The unpopularity of such candidates has been reflected in voter turnouts in Britain, which have been on whole decreasing: less than two thirds of the electorate voted in 2010 yet that was the highest turnout in a general election of the 21st century so far. There is also an undeniable correlation across the country in recent years between low voter turnout and poverty. The party most harmed by this was Labour, Blair’s centrist coup in 1997 and the consequent 13 years of ‘Third Way’ politics caused Labour to lose 5 million working class voters and forced members to leave in droves. In the 2010 Labour received the lowest share of the popular vote since 1918 and Scottish Labour in 2015 has been described as being ‘in meltdown’.

One of the overall reasons for this is because people are totally disillusioned by the political system, elections are fought less and less over issues which matter to people and more and more over the personality of the leader. Even at the heart of the Establishment, we had Ken Clarke, Tory cabinet minister for Thatcher, Major and Cameron commenting in The New Statesman

‘The public debate and the media, which is becoming increasingly celebrity culture, rather hysterical, sensational, and reduces the whole thing to theatre. Everybody’s election campaigns are presidential, everything’s attributed to the party leader. What matters is how the party leader eats a hamburger and all this type of thing. I mean, it does switch the public off.’

Clarke’s analysis seems on point, elections more than ever are based on the style and the personality of the party leader. David Cameron was recently filmed by The Sun, most of the footage concentrated on the Camerons having their breakfast at No.10 while trying their hardest to appear like normal people. Similarly, The Daily Mail interviewed Samantha Cameron for a personal insight into their family life, another clear attempt to humanize and normalise the Camerons. This ‘celebrity culture’ which has pervaded into the election campaigns is a symptom of our broken political system which breeds this ‘theatre’ kind of debate.

Paul Krugman touches on the economic aspect of this ‘theatre’ in his article in the New York Times where he refers to the ‘misleading fixation of budget deficits’, both Labour and the Conservatives have accused one another of making ‘irresponsible’ funding promises. Moreover, over the last five years the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and much of the media have lectured us on the necessities of cuts while borrowing went up and the economy almost slumped into a triple-dip recession.

This is the dominant narrative Krugman was referring to –

“In the years before the financial crisis, the British government borrowed irresponsibly, so that the country was living far beyond its means. As a result, by 2010 Britain was at imminent risk of a Greek-style crisis; austerity policies, slashing spending in particular, were essential. And this turn to austerity is vindicated by Britain’s low borrowing costs, coupled with the fact that the economy, after several rough years, is now growing quite quickly.”

Tories to match labour spendingBut this is simply not true. In 2007, George Osbourne said he would match Labour’s spending over the next three years, despite the fact that now he claims Labour overspent. Britain was nowhere near the so-called ‘Greek style-crisis’ and no other economy which borrows in its own currency was liable to such a crisis. Furthermore, the only reason the economy has now tenuously recovered is because Cameron held off reams of planned spending cuts. As Krugman points out-

‘if this counts as a policy success, why not try repeatedly hitting yourself in the face for a few minutes? After all, it will feel great when you stop’.Tories to match labour spending 2

While unemployment is decreasing, the jobs the coalition congratulates itself on creating amount to low-wage, low-skilled jobs and zero hours contracts. The ‘recovery’ narrative ignores the fact the coalition presided over the biggest decrease in average living standards for over 100 years. Meanwhile, the extremely rich, the so-called ‘wealth creators’, have benefited significantly and even received nonsensical tax cuts.

Unsurprisingly, this inequality comes at a price, The Telegraph and The Guardian reported that the life expectancy in Britain’s poorest areas is worse than Rwanda and on par with Botswana. This reality is completely ignored by the established narrative: ‘the recovering is working’, ‘we’re cutting the deficit’. A government could both cut the debt and improve living standards, they do not have to be mutually exclusive. Considering the money spent on benefits for people who’re in poverty-paying jobs, surely making employers pay the living wage saves the Exchequer money and stops the public subsidising low-wage labour?

It’s clear this pervasive narrative has also been a distraction from the privatisation of the National Health Service which the coalition have successfully downplayed by referring to it as ‘reform’ or ‘reorganisation’. The Health and Social Care act of 2012 has allowed companies to bid for NHS contracts, the biggest of which in March 2013… was worth up to £780 million’. According to RT News, it ‘will see 11 private firms perform heart and joint surgery, carry out scans and provide diagnostic tests for patients from mobile medical facilities’. Among the companies engaged in bidding for contracts is Lockheed Martin, an arms producer. To add further salt to the wound, this has been carried out while cuts are taking place to public-run facilities. While there has been a lot of rhetoric from Labour on the NHS, the reality is that Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) implemented by New Labour also privatised large chunks of it under the guise of a ‘public-private partnership’. The public, perhaps quite rightly, doesn’t know who to trust. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the US provides us with the perfect example of an expensive, inefficient and sub-standard health system run for private profit. In the States, those who can’t afford insurance can only receive treatment if they stay in Accident and Emergency, often for days on end, their family therefore is forced to stay with them to bring them food and care for them. Our politicians continue to push us further in that direction and away from most countries in the developed world.

Despite the important issues at stake, the childish squabbles refuse to cease, so you would be forgiven by me for thinking that it’s all just theatre.