The August Riots: a question of responsibility?

The riots that occurred throughout London and other cities in the UK following the fatal shooting of Mark Duggen by police seem certain to leave a heavy scar in the British psyche which will continue to smart long after the mess is cleaned up and the damage repaired. Indeed, the scenes witnessed had that palpable air of a watershed moment for British society. What the real legacy of the riots becomes is yet to be decided and how we react and move forward as a society will determine what that will be. Either we let it turn the cracks of divide along generational, racial and economic lines into chasms, or we take the riots as a sign of some endemic problems in our society and come together as a community to address them via dialogue, compromise and greater understanding.

Let me start by saying this: I sincerely feel for anyone who was attacked or intimidated, who lost their homes, livelihoods and in some cases loved ones as a result of the riots. I cannot even begin to understand the pain of what some of you are going through. I won’t however, be shedding a tear for the banks or big businesses who had property damaged; they are insured up to the hilt anyway and I sincerely doubt this will adversely affect them. More than any shop windows, or stolen goods it’s our communities that have been really damaged and for that there can be no excuse. Ultimately, because they have free will, each individual who was involved in the riots is personally ‘responsible for the predictable consequences of their own actions’ and I believe the majority were misguided and their anger misdirected. But these actions do not take place in a bubble, detached from society, so it seems only right for us to examine the cultural, political and economic conditions which made so many British people feel so incensed or at least inclined to go on such a destructive rampage. These conditions are the responsibility of every one of us.

What follows is some of what I believe to be the general contributing factors. It is worth noting that these factors cannot account for every individual involved, perhaps some of the rioters and looters were not affected by any of these issues, perhaps it was case of getting ‘caught up in the moment’ or of sheer opportunism for some, but I would imagine they would be in a VERY small minority.

No respect for authority

It seems fairly obvious that most people involved in the rioting and looting had diminished respect for at least some forms of authority. But can we really blame them? David Cameron et al have spoken of a breakdown in the moral fabric of certain sections of society. I would agree wholeheartedly, but it is the bastions of authority in this country as much as any who have shown themselves to be anything but ‘moral’ or ‘decent’; setting a precedent for the rest of society which is supposed to respect them. For some, the shooting of Mark Duggen was viewed in the context of a string of deaths at the hands of police with zero accountability; there have been more than 333 deaths in police custody since 1988 but not a single conviction. This has eroded an already strained relationship between police and certain communities. The Met’s involvement in the hacking scandal has done little to ameliorate its reputation.

Of course, certain sections of the media- another bastion of authority in our society- had their morally bankrupt underbelly laid bare for all to see in the said scandal. Politicians if anyone are surely meant to set an example to the general public; what kind of message did they send out when hundreds of them thought they could get away with defrauding the taxpayer? Is it any more moral to commit theft by fraud than by looting? Nick Clegg was even convicted for arson aged 16 and David Cameron and Boris Johnson whilst in the infamous Bullingdon Club, were ritualistically involved in public disorder, including smashing windows and starting fires. Given this, their harsh words about rioters are more than a little hypocritical. Finally, bankers and business leaders hold positions of authority; in the city a cut-throat approach to business is positively encouraged, business leaders like Phil Greene have looted millions in taxes and ‘reckless behaviour’ by investment bankers is rewarded with bonuses. Do any of these things justify rioting or looting? No. But they do explain why, quite rightly, many people question the legitimacy of certain authorities.

Lack of prospects

Whilst not all of those involved are in such an unfortunate position, it seems safe to assume that many of them are stuck in situations where they have few options available to them. When you feel you have no prospects it engenders frustration, boredom and a sense of hopelessness each of which are surely contributing factors in causing such people to loot and riot. The current job market is a vicious place. For anyone who is unemployed they face fierce competition for even the most menial jobs; there is currently one vacancy to every ten unemployed people.  Take a second to digest that. That means that even if every unemployed person were driven, well qualified and well educated nine out of ten of them would still be jobless. In reality many are despairing, with no previous experience and poorly educated; what chance do these people have of securing employment? A majority of those so far arrested in connection with the riots are under 18. This age group have just taken a blow to their educational prospects in the form of the scrapping of EMA and the tripling of student fees, not to mention a slashing of up to 80% of youth projects’ funding. Whilst it could be argued that these policies have yet to really ‘bite’ their mere existence feeds into the notion for many young people that they have no future and that politicians and wider society don’t really seem to care. If you felt trapped in a room with no doors open to you and the only ‘windows of opportunity’ were those stuffed with consumer goods you were told to want but you couldn’t afford, is it really so unfathomable that you might lash out? When someone feels so hopeless, so powerless that the only power they feel they have left is that of destruction the acts of rioting and looting can be seen as a desperate attempt to feel powerful, even if just for a few fleeting hours. 

Marginalisation and disenfranchisement

Judging from the footage and the arrests made so far it seems that the vast majority of people involved in the riots were either young, poor, non-white or any combination of the three. Each of these categories of society have faced considerable marginalisation over the last few years (if not decades). Astonishingly, a black person is 26 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than a white person. Additionally, black people on average get paid 18% less than white people and are more likely to be unemployed. Rather than blaming this on some fault of black people, which would be incredibly racist, we must accept that it is at least partly attributable to a residual societal prejudice, which may be unconscious and extremely subtle at times. The marginalisation of young people is very similar to that of black people; studies have shown that the public perception of youth involvement in crime is severely over-estimated. The media also have a part to play in this, with one study suggesting that a whopping 71% of media coverage of young people was negative despite the fact that this week, our young people once again produced the best A-level results ever for the 29^th year in a row. Finally, poor people, those in receipt of benefits especially, have been subjected to a vicious smear campaign by both politicians and the media accused of being lazy scroungers, many of whom commit allsorts or ridiculous benefit fraud. In fact, fraudulent claims make up less than 1% of the total benefits bill and are on average 31 times lower than an MP’s expenses overclaim. This has fed into a wider perception in some sections of British society that poor people are ‘vile’, ‘scummy’ ‘chavs’ (see Owen Jones’ Chavs: the Demonisation of the Working Class) and for this we are all partly responsible.

I know from my own experience as a youth worker, that if you treat people as if they are badly behaved they will act as such, whereas when you treat them as if they are responsible and mature they more often than not earn those labels. The same goes for the young, the poor, and non-whites; treat them like criminals by stopping and searching them and overestimating their criminality they will be more inclined to act as such. Call them lazy, vile, scum they will often earn those labels. When people feel marginalised by society they begin to feel that they have no stake in that society. If they feel that society doesn’t care about them then they will reciprocate those feelings by not caring about society, making rioting and looting seem less wrong. Added to this, many people (not just rioters and looters I might add) feel disenfranchised; like the political processes do not represent them nor are they able to have their voices heard through these means. The fact that over 80% of the cabinet are millionaires and only one of them is not white is just one indicator that perhaps our politics is not as representative as some might claim. Disenfranchisement makes people feel they don’t have a voice which can lead people to express their discontent in other ways.

Culture of greed and violence

Some senior politicians have blamed a culture of ‘greed and violence’ for the riots and it certainly seems reasonable that those desensitised to violence are more likely to riot, those who are ‘greedy’ more inclined to loot. I would vehemently agree that greed is a problem that riddles our society and violence does tend to be glamorised constantly in popular culture. But Mr. Cameron blames rap music and ‘gang culture’ for these problems which strikes me as more than a little crass. Admittedly, some rap music is overly materialistic and does reify some sickening consumerist excesses but this is merely a reflection or comment on wider society. Blaming rap music for ‘rampant consumerism’ is like blaming a rape victim for giving birth to their attacker’s child. If materialism is to blame surely the finger should be pointed at the companies who bombard us with thousands of adverts every day, leaving almost no public spaces unbranded. Even worse, many brands aggressively market their high-priced goods to poor demographics, like Nike whose primary target audience is black ghetto youths. Similarly, gangster culture is overly glamorised, fetishised even, but anyone who is actually living that lifestyle will be the first to tell you it is far from glamorous. I see no-one pointing the finger at Hollywood for the endless reel of gangster flicks that are churned out. Even if the politicians were blaming the Nikes and the Hollywoods it seems a vulgar contradiction coming from a government who sanctions the dropping of bombs on foreign soil that routinely kill innocent civilians; a government only too happy to allow the world’s largest arms fair to take place in London next month. It sticks in the throat to hear these millionaires talk about greed when they’ve recently effectively handed banks and businesses that already make billions the biggest tax break in living memory. Human behaviour is learned and it stands to reason that greedy, selfish societies that glamorise violence will inevitably produce some individuals who act accordingly.

I started the article by saying that those involved in the riots were responsible for the predictable consequences of their misguided actions. Now hopefully, we are equipped with the context within which those actions took place. But if we are to expect the rioters, many of whom are from underprivileged positions in society, to accept responsibility for their actions it is surely only fair to expect the same of the most privileged in our society. This is not to suggest that the riots were necessarily a ‘predictable consequence’ of any individual or collective action, however, some sort of reaction was surely to be expected. Politicians have a lot to answer for, both individually and as a group. They seem aloof of the realities of normal people’s lives, robotically dodging questions with the same scripted answers making them unaccountable; this fuels the feeling of disenfranchisement experienced by so many. The expenses scandal has eroded trust in authority figures more generally and set a terrible example of criminality. The Government’s cuts are choking off the already limited prospects of many. Greed and violence are explicitly endorsed by facilitating the greed of the City and dropping bombs on innocent Libyans, Afghans and Iraqis. The police too must surely have expected some sort of consequence for their unaccountable and unlawful killings. Business elites and bankers enshrine the culture of greed and rampant materialism but we all participate in it to a degree. Finally, society as a whole but the media in particular, must accept some responsibility for the marginalisation felt by so many young, poor and non-white people. Essentially it is the responsibility of us all to not only rebuild our communities but to make them stronger and together to tackle the underlying issues discussed.

The Real Politics Behind 'Realpolitik'

The Western response to the unrest in Egypt and Libya seems like classic Realism at first glance but something deeper lurks beneath the surface...

One of the first things Politics students are taught about in international relations is that time-honoured paradigm, Realism. You’ll often hear statesmen, such as David Cameron, talking of the need to ‘strike a balance between idealism and Realism’ in foreign policy. But what is Realism? Realism as an academic theory is older than International Relations itself. Its basic premise is that the international system is anarchic, that is, there is no central power or global government. Under these conditions, according to Realism, states can and should act in their own self interest, whether that be through economic or military coercion (a luxury reserved only for dominant powers) or by making organisations, trade agreements and security pacts (such as the UN, EU and NATO, respectively). No matter how cosy states become with other nations they should always act in ways that maximise their own interests, any state claiming that it doesn’t comply with this iron law of Realism is either lying or extremely naive and will not last long in this cut-throat world.

That’s all very well and good but after lesson number one some serious holes start to appear in the whole notion of Realism. For starters it claims to be an objective ‘social scientific’ approach; analysis based on cold hard facts with no opinionated or normative elements. At the same time Realism has always prided itself on the fact that most competent statesman involved in foreign policy are heavily influenced by Realism...hang on a second, what was that about objectivity? Secondly, Realism focuses purely on material indicators of power such as resource abundance, economic might and military force, when in reality most commentators acknowledge that it is increasingly ‘soft power’ elements such as culture, ideology and ideas where states really exert their power in the modern age. Thirdly, in treating states as these perfectly coherent, unitary actors, Realism overlooks the significant forces at work both within and between states, such as class. It is almost irrefutable that the ruling classes of one nation often act in the interests of other ruling classes regardless of nationality (think the US propping up autocracies in South America for the last 60 years). Fourthly, Realism practically ignores other actors in the international system, including Multinational Corporations, many of whom have greater economic power than even some of the larger states. Finally, (though this list is by no means exhaustive) Realism creates a self-fulfilling prophecy by saying that states can and should behave in self interest and then advising statesman to do just that.

All of which, explains why Realism is pretty unfashionable within most British academic circles. And yet, in looking at the successive actions and responses of Western governments’ to recent events in Egypt and Libya it is clear that Realism still informs the policy of almost every Western power. Let’s take a closer look. For decades the British and American governments have had no problem with Mubarak’s autocratic regime in Egypt because he provided ‘stability’ in the region and they were able to trade with Egypt under his rule. The British even sold weapons to Egypt as well as Libya. It was only once the tide had firmly turned against Mubarak and it was clear that he was going to be ousted that both the British and American governments came out in condemnation of Mubarak’s autocratic rule, demanding democracy be set up for the ‘good of the Egyptian people’. David Cameron even publicly commended the Egyptian protestors for their bravery, whilst just weeks earlier he demonised protestors in his own back yard as ‘feral mobs’ bent on ‘violence’.

The response to Gaddafi has been similar, with both US and UK governments again ‘strongly condemning’ the brutal violence against his own people, and this week there has even been talk of intervention to stop him. Many in the international community are applauding the decisive action and strong message the West has sent out to Gaddafi. But it does really beg the question as to why they haven’t thought to intervene or condemn Gaddafi earlier. His part in the Chad conflict and funding of Terrorism has resulted in many thousands of innocent deaths. Instead, Gaddafi was brought ‘back into the fold’ by Blair and co. despite his track record. So why condemn him now? Well of course as Realism will tell you, because it is now in Western states’ self interest to be seen to oppose Gaddafi and Mubarak so that they are cast in a good light by those that replace them. Not to mention both Egypt and Libya are in key strategic areas and the latter especially has vast oil reserves.

At this point you may be wondering where I’m going with this, all I’ve done is highlight how once again, Realist analysis has got it right and that Realist policies have been adopted. Except it’s not that simple, precisely for all the problems I listed above. Viewing the actions of the US and the UK through a Realist lens actually obscures what is really going on. The ruling classes in the US and UK (that includes Cameron, Obama etc.) are perfectly happy for the lower classes of Libya and Egypt to be repressed, it is only once power is changing hands from one elite to another that they must be seen to be condemning the actions of the outgoing ruler. Plus there is the added bonus that it makes them look like moral supporters of democracy, which is an essential legitimating component of capitalist ideology.

Similarly, both US and UK governments are withholding judgement about the opposition in both Egypt and Libya, claiming they won’t endorse anything other than a Western style democracy. Western ‘democracy’ is not much of a desirable outcome for either Libya or Egypt, because all it does is legitimate elite rule through the illusion of choice: How democratic is Britain when 80% of the cabinet are millionaires? How democratic is the US when Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 cost over $500 million? Ergo, politics in Western ‘democracies’ is still by the ruling classes, for the ruling classes.

The spectre of Islamic extremism has been oft-quoted in the media coverage of both Egypt and Libya, held up as a bogeyman for the West to be wary of. The West only wants democracy if it picks the right winner. Again this is a question of ruling class interests; Islamic Extremism is one of the biggest threats to consumer capitalism, more culturally than militarily, however.

Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony stipulates that the success of the ruling class lies in the promotion of capitalist culture and ideology, which become so common sense and internalised by society that the subordinate classes actually consent to their own exploitation. It also posits that in order for this culture and ideology to remain coherent and convincing it must absorb dissident elements, co-opting opposition views and actions and bringing them into the mainstream (a great example of which is how the seditious culture of Hip Hop has been successfully commodofied and essentially neutered of its social critique). This is exactly what the likes of Cameron and Obama are doing when they applaud the uprisings and subsequent calls for democracy. This in effect absorbs these movements, (which make no mistake, are truly inspiring displays of people power), and attempts to co-opt them by equating them with Western notions of ‘democracy’ and by extension with the hegemonic interests of the ruling classes.

These amazing bottom-up movements are brave and bold examples of what can be achieved by ordinary people when they are determined to overcome oppression. Other oppressed and marginalised peoples and movements all over the world must show solidarity with the people of Egypt, Libya and all the other countries where the unrest is spreading to. However, we must be wary. These movements cannot succumb to the soothsaying of Western hegemonic interests, and I sincerely hope they will not. Equally, they cannot replace one tyrant with another; whether they are pro- or anti-Western is irrelevant. What these movements must strive to do is work towards real grass-roots democracy, where the people govern themselves, free from the shackles of oppression. And that includes classist capitalist oppression by which Western ‘democracies’ are typified: where the super-rich run things behind the facade of democratic choice, legitimated by corporate media which helps perpetuate the situation by selling it to the oppressed as ‘freedom’. The only way to battle this oppression is through education, direct action, solidarity between and within movements, and perhaps most importantly, by constructing a coherent, convincing and democratic counter-hegemonic culture that can become the new ‘common sense’.