What's the problem with the BNP?

I'll probably try to watch Question Time tonight, but can't understand why people are so offended by the BNP. For me the BNP represent three things:

1. Promoting "British" interests
2. Socialisation of the means of production

As someone who advocates free immigration and a free market, it's obvious why I disagree with the BNP. But having watched the conferences of the three "major" political parties, there's no fundamental difference between their views and the BNP. The only real debate is what you count as "indigenous Britain" - the trouble the Tories and Labour face is defining the "Britain" they promote. At least the BNP are clear on this. Yes, Nick Griffin is odious. But he's a politician. If you are repulsed by listening to the BNP on this week's Question Time, you'll realise how I feel every week.

Comments

[Jim]

I know you're just trying to be contrarian but seriously, grow up. And learn what 'The perfect is the enemy of the good' means.

[aje]

All I saw was a panel and audience demonstrate their complete ignorance about Nick Griffin and the BNP, and front-line politicians criticise a man for (i) squirming when facing hostile questions; (ii) toning down his true beliefs to try to get elected. The fact that every single question turned into an attack on the BNP just showed how pathetic the whole thing was.

The part I enjoyed was the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour arguing about which would be tougher on immigration, and how it was a mistake to allow so many Eastern Europeans in!

As I said, I am in favour of free migration, and this is why I find the immigration policy of all political parties nationalistic and unfair. Whether the BNP are especially nationalistic or not is a minor issue, and I suspect that it's merely their honesty that makes them stand apart so much.

Seriously though, the feelings you have for Griffin I have for most politicians. At the end of the day that's all he is - one man who wants to inflict his odious opinions on others.

[Jim]

"As I said, I am in favour of free migration, and this is why I find the immigration policy of all political parties nationalistic and unfair. "

But you're saying there is no significant difference between the immigration policies of the BNP and the mainstream parties, i.e. somewhat restricting immigration is *just as bad* as completely halting it and trying to bully or beat all non-white people out of the country. That to me suggests an indifference to the human impacts of migration policy which is rather odd for someone who says he cares about it so much.

[aje]

Depends whether you equate "significant difference" with "just as bad", which is obviously a misrepresentation of what I said.

You're quite right that the BNP have a more despicable immigration policy than the mainstream parties, but I find them all despicable. Not equally so, but despicable all the same.

Therefore I find it ironic and hypocritical that Chris Huhne claims moral one upmanship over Nick Griffin whilst berating the government for allowing so many Eastern Europeans to enter the country. And it's ironic and hypocritical that the Tories berate the BNP whilst presenting themselves as the party that will tighten up the borders. And I find it reprehensible that Labour have adopted a points based system to make sure that only the "best and brightest" are able to come and live here, actively encouraging a brain drain from poorer countries.

The thing I'm amazed about is how fickle people are when it comes to democracy. If you genuinely believe that democracy is an end in itself, you have to accept that lots of British people are racist, leaders of racist political parties should be allowed mainstream airtime to articulate their views, and - if they get voted into parliament - we have to abide by their opinions. Supporting democracy on the assumption that only parties you support will be elected is just dishonesty. The rise of the BNP show that the mainstream parties do *not* support democracy, and they do *not* support free speech. Bonnie Greer was the only panelist that seemed interested in education. The others just bombarded him with misquotes and self-indulgent tirades. They support democracy in as much as it's a root to power and influence. If they're not the ones benefiting from it suddenly they believe in censorship.

This is the reason I do not think democracy is an end in itself, and why I don't want to be governed by it. But those of you who do believe that I should abide by the elected government, purely because they have a majority of popular support, are in a real pickle. You should all be celebrating the BNP being on Question Time and prepared to live in a militant fascist state if that's what the majority want. The fact that you don't exposes you as frauds.

[Jim]

Okay, so when you said there was 'no fundamental difference' between the BNP and the mainstream parties on migration, what you actually meant was there is a difference, just not important enough for you to care about? Just checking.

Re democracy (a) supporting representative electoral democracy doesn't mean you think issues of fundamental rights etc are necessarily best settled by majoritarianism, as indeed they often are not in this country and (b) for all its failings it's still better then the alternatives. But I don't expect to persuade you of this.

[aje]

I mean a difference of scale not scope, which I think is pretty obvious.

The reason you'd have difficulty persuading me is because of the BNP. They are Exhibit A in why representative democracy/majoritarianism is not enough - why government's should protect rights above any efforts to satisfy public opinion.

Presumably the more success the BNP have, the less supportive of democracy you'd be. I think this is the best way to get you to understand why so many liberals are skeptical of the status quo.

[Quinn]

Anthony, you seem to be making a lot of generalisations and assumptions here over what other people believe regarding democracy and free speech, lumping a mish-mash of various disparate positions together as if there is some unified ideology which is contrary to your own, so much so that it is difficult to know where to start. So I'll restrict myself to one question if I may; what would be your alternative to democracy?

[Jim]

"They are Exhibit A in why representative democracy/majoritarianism is not enough"

Did you miss the bit where I said that issues around fundamental rights are not best settled by majoritarianism? Please actually read other people's comments before jumping to conclusions about what they're saying.

[aje]

Quinn: self-governance

Jim: My comments aren't directed to you alone. As Quinn has pointed out, I'm indulging in a somewhat vague and encompassing attack on various defenders of democracy... Regarding your point above, I was agreeing with you.

[Quinn]

Self-governance sounds interesting. What do you mean by it, in practical terms?

[aje]

Scaling down choices to as local a level as possible, so that instead of voting for politicians to make decisions, we can just make them ourselves.

[Quinn]

How is that incompatible with democracy?

[aje]

Because it's very unlikely that the actions I would like to take coincide with what the political party with a majority vote would want me to take.

Democracy is about electing officials to have powers that I don't think anyone should possess.

[Quinn]

Then I think you have a narrow view of what democracy is, and you are arguing against that rather than against democracy per se. In its simplest form, democracy surely means that certain decisions are put to a vote, and the alternative is that they aren't. Democracy needn't mean elected official having any more powers than you wish them to have.

I can understand that you believe that government does too much, and in certain regards I agree with you. But unless you feel that there is no role for government at all - not even to uphold the rule of law - then there will have to be a government in some form, and if its members aren't elected how do you decide who forms it?

[aje]

You're right that there's a difference between deciding what the government should do and how we decide who should do it. But I don't think we need to get into fundamental debates such as minimal state, etc.

My argument is very simple. Most of the mainstream argue in favour of "democracy" as if it is intrinsically valuable (agree?). The most common rejoinder to complaints I have about the violation of rights is that it's democratic, and since we live in a democracy I should like it or lump it. Well look where that gets you. By the same logic we should just accept that a lot of Brits are racists, and now there's a relatively mainstream party that represents their views. If democracy really is the end game then rejoice in the BNP. Democracy in action. Wonderful.

However it was blindingly obvious that the other panelists do *not* like democracy, and do *not* like free speech. Yes, they allowed him on. But they didn't listen to him. They didn't think that his presence was a good thing. They didn't believe that people at home should make up their own minds about who to vote for. It was a kangaroo court, and those folk (Bonnie Greer included) had no more respect for democracy than a kangaroo court has for the rule of law. Lip service, that's all it was.

So why do they detest Griffin so? Because his political beliefs are vile. That's enough for most people to say he *shouldn't* be allowed to exercise them. Most people believe that even if the BNP are elected to form the government, their policies are still vile.

Hence - and this is all i'm trying to say - I think this episode has exposed the mainstream political classes (and the vast majority of voters) as hypocrites and liars. They don't believe in democracy, they believe in whatever gives them power.

What you feel when you watch Nick Griffin on Question Time is what I feel *every week*. If you think to yourself "I don't give a shit how many knobheads voted for him, I don't want to be governed by his nasty, ignorant policies" then that's how I feel about *all* parties, and that's why democracy should never be considered an end in itself.

And what I don't understand about Jim's comments above it this - on QT they started an argument about *who would be tougher on immigration*. For fuck's sake! The only time the leader of the BNP was quiet was when Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems laid into each other on who's make sure there's less immigrants. They're all as bad as each other. Seriously.

[Jim]

"They're all as bad as each other. Seriously."

No they're not. Seriously. You are confusing Question Time rhetoric with actual policy.

Regarding local self-governance, won't that be bad for protection of rights, free migration and free trade? 'Localism' as practiced in the US and UK seems to manifest itself mainly as NIMBYism and the exclusion of undesirables, but it's large scale federal governance structures like the US and the EU that have actually done the most for internal free trade. See the role of the FDA in undermining state-level agricultural protectionism in the US, for example.

[Quinn]

First up, I didn’t watch Question Time, so I can’t specifically comment on what went on there. Secondly, I can only really speak for myself, not for others. So, with that in mind, yes, the mainstream view is that democracy is intrinsically valuable, and I agree. Not perfect, not a panacea, and there are wide variations in how democracies operate, but if it is a choice between democracy and the alternatives then yes, I think democracy is a “good”. That does mean that racists can coalesce into racist political parties but as you say, that is something we just have to accept. Remove democracy and there will still be racists; and as long as there is also a right to free speech and free association then they will still be free to spout their bigotry, they will still organise themselves into racist organisation and pressure groups, and their racist spokesmen could still appear on outdated and tedious political debating programmes. If the BNP’s existence is a dilemma for democracy, then it is similarly a dilemma for the concept of free speech. I personally think it is just a consequence of both; nothing to rejoice at, just an inescapable fact.

Regarding the other panellists’ opinions then, as I say, I can’t really comment. I’ve never favoured the “no platform” approach myself and I wholly support Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time. What others think is a matter for them. But I would just say that free speech does not mean you are obliged to listen to someone, especially someone who, by all accounts, spent most of his time lying, evading and dissembling (yes, just like many other politicians). But to detest Griffin, to think his polices vile and to gang up and round on him does not mean that you feel he should be excluded from television, that you oppose free speech or that you are anti-democratic. And according to the most recent poll, 74% believe it was right for him to appear on Question Time, so most people certainly seem to defend his right to exercise free speech.

I don’t see democracy as an end in itself, that is far too simplistic as there are wide variations in types of democracies and there are many changes I would wish to see made to ours; but to dismiss it as you seem to be doing also seems simplistic. None of the main parties represent my views on immigration either, and the desire to sound tough on immigration is deeply depressing to me, but to say that all the parties including the BNP are as bad as each other is just nonsense. The fact that none of them fully represent my point of view is just a reflection of life, not a black mark for democracy; if, as you said previously, one of your misgivings about democracy is that you think it “very unlikely that the actions I would like to take coincide with what the political party with a majority vote would want me to take” then the problem here seems more to do with the fact that your opinions are a minority view, and I doubt there is any system of governance where you can have everything as you want it. Unless you live in a utopian benign dictatorship, that is; and even then you’d have to be the dictator.

[Jim]

Quinn has inspired me to go back to a comment of yours which I didn't pick up on first time around.

You say "it was blindingly obvious that the other panelists do *not* like democracy, and do *not* like free speech."

Hold on there. There's a difference between believing that democracy and free speech are worthwhile institutions and *liking* every result of democracy and free speech, such as the BNP contesting elections and appearing on question time. The actions of other panelists - appearing on QT with Nick Griffin and then arguing with him - are entirely consistent with this. The choice is not to either condemn democracy or love the BNP - we can like a democratic system that accommodates parties we dislike.

So when you say "those folk (Bonnie Greer included) had no more respect for democracy than a kangaroo court has for the rule of law", I literally don't know what you're talking about. The BNP contest elections. Now they appear on Question Time and argue with people. That's democracy. That's free speech. You seem to offering up 'democracy' as a system in which we all agree with each other, which is absurd. The *strength* of democracies is their ability to allow disagreement. Of course that means that hardly anyone gets exactly what they want out of the system. But that would be stupid standard to hold it to.

[aje]

Jim - your point on localism is well taken - when I say "self-governance" I mean that: self-governance. The smallest scale is not the local community, it's the self. And this is what this all boils down to. The reason we need the EU to promote free trade within its borders is because national governments exist that restrict trade. If we had a free market there'd be no need to circumvent the NIMBYism. People would be free to trade with whoever they want. Supporters of the BNP would be free to bear the costs of not engaging in economic exchange with other races, but they would not be able to force me to do likewise.

I also think we need to separate democracy and free speech. These are two very different things. For those of you who purport to favour democracy as an end in itself, you should be campaigning for a more representation by the BNP - they are a legitimate voice of the people, and that's all democracy accomplishes.

I know the debate about PR vs. majority rule is a different issue (which, by the way, demonstrates that politicians support whatever is most likely to give them power as opposed to any system of democracy for its own merits), but democracy means we should all live, to some extent, by the ideas of the BNP. Not as much as by the ideas of the Lib Dems, but probably more than the Greens.

To once again try to boil this down to one key point, *if* we had a slightly different democratic system where there's a rotation of office to allow all parties to have a period in power in proportion to their share of the vote, we'd all live by the BNP and democracy enthusiasts must welcome that. My suspicion is that if the Tories and Labour knew that the BNP might have real power (at a national level) they would - and this is Jim's argument against my claim that they're all as bad as each other - be more likely to adopt free migration. They'd realise that if politicians have discretion to arbitrarily increase or reduce the amount of points immigrants need to come and live here, they'd not want that in the hands of the BNP, and change the law. For me this shows that there are certain political decision (e.g. how many points a migrant needs) that don't necessarily have to be under political control. You could easily turn this into self-governance and say "you can hire anyone you want, sell your house to anyone you want etc." Members of the BNP would be free to trade with white people, but I would be free to trade with whoever I want. Unlike now, I could recruit students based on merit, not nationality.

When I'm talking about self governance I mean that we're all free to choose whatever type of computer we want. There's no artificial reason that restricts my ability to buy a Mac on account of a majority opinion about Macs. We have relatively free markets for computers, so democracy is a moot point. There's no computer tsar so we don't need to worry about how to elect one. Immigration should, in my opinion, be similar. Choices about who should get houses, school places, jobs should be decided by market mechanisms. We shouldn't have politicians deciding on arbitrary quotas.

But - and here's the rub - if you insist on preventing me from recruiting foreign students on the grounds that it is our elected politicians that have decided on the rules for immigration you have *no* defense against the possibility that those rules are decided by people slightly more nationalistic than the current ones. And the stronger your opinion about the efficiency of democracy, the less this matters - simply the fact that we have racist Brits means that democracy will deliver racist policies.

I don't see why it's so hard for others to agree with me that people should be able to move freely - within countries and between them - and it doesn't matter what mechanism "elects" people the power to prevent this - they're *wrong*.

[Quinn]

I do agree with you that people should be allowed to move freely, although I guess I have less trouble understanding why others fail to agree with me. But if the final point you're making is that no one should have the power to decide on immigration quotas then that is a valid point regarding the role of governments and nation states but has nothing to do with democracy. The countries of the Schengen area, for example, are democracies, and it's quite possible that over time such agreements are extended and expanded until immigration is indeed put beyond government control. As a general rule I'd have thought that democracies are at the forefront of such liberalisations.

Finally, I;m sorry but your belief that supporters of democracy should wish for greater representation for the BNP is a non-sequitur, and your "slightly different" squad-rotation system of democracy completely unworkable.

[aje]

Rotation of political office isn't my idea, but I think you've dismissed it too easily.

But I just can't understand this hypocrisy - "we want to be ruled by the voice of the people*" (*assuming the voice of the people is similar to what I believe).

That's what you're saying, isn't it?!

[Jim]

Can't speak for Quinn, but that's not what I'm saying. There are many, many things I greatly dislike about this government and there will probably be even more about the next, but that doesn't change my broad support for the democratic system of choosing a government, details aside. It's fairly simple.

This brings me on to what I think is the nub of this issue. I don't really think it's about migration or even democracy so much as the problem of aggregating preferences in a large-scale society. You're saying that if we had 'self-governance' (which means zero government, I presume) then we wouldn't have the problem of governments we don't like. That's true, in fact it's a tautology - but we'd also have lots of new problems! Economics is full of arguments justifying the existence of government, which I'm sure I don't have to rehearse with you, but it seems you're just ignoring them and saying 'self-governance or nothing'. In which case there's not really any discussion to have, is there?

Now, if I'm misconstruing your argument and you're really looking for some better mixture of (less) government and (more) markets, then there is clearly a lot to discuss. But any role for government inherently involves it doing some things that some of us don't like, because we all have different preferences. If you think there is any role for government at all, then you have to live with that, whether or not the government is chosen by democratic or other means.

Finally:

"The reason we need the EU to promote free trade within its borders is because national governments exist that restrict trade."

But national governments enforce free trade within their borders, and without them we would have internal trade barriers, because the costs of trade shocks are localised whereas the benefits are diffused. You don't solve the problem by removing national governments, you make it worse.

[Quinn]

"That's what you're saying, isn't it?!"

No. You seem to have invented your own absurd idea of what democracy is and decided to find every democrat who doesn't agree with your distortion a hypocrite. That's nonsensical.

If you are to have any form of government then you are going to have to work out how how its members are made up. We could go with the hereditary principle, or feudalism, but it seems to me that the best way is for people to vote. That doesn't mean that everyone gets what they want, that's impossible - some wants, such as open or closed borders, are competing and cannot be reconciled - but it does at least mean that the public can exercise their preferences. You could decry the result as a tyranny of the majority, but that seems preferable to an unelected tyranny of the minority.

In short, what Jim said. I didn't vote for this government (I don't think there's a political party that even nearly represents my views since the Liberal Democrats decided to implode into an incoherent policy mush) but that's just tough on my part. That doesn't alter my belief that democracy is preferable as it reflects the opinions of the public, even if it can't reflect all opinions all the time, and it doesn't currently reflect many of mine.

Ultimately, of course, your reaction to my statement "If you are to have any form of government" could be "but we don't". In which case any argument about democracy is a side issue in your rejection of any idea of government, and so largely academic.

[aje]

the problem of aggregating preferences in a large-scale society

It is impossible to aggregate preferences, democratically or otherwise. The issue is whether there's vast amounts of political decisions that don't need to be made at a community level. Migration is one example I'm pushing here. Regardless of whether we think we need government for other reasons, I think it is morally wrong to restrict immigration. Therefore the mechanism by which we end up deciding who chooses how many migrants we let in, is wrong. Period.

If you think that a democratic system is an end in itself, then whether we have open borders or not is secondary to how that decision gets made. Genuine democrats would, I maintain, think that an elected BNP is preferable to complete freedom to trade. On this issue the fact that so many people think the vote share of BNP is irrelevant to the validity of their ideas underlines that democracy shouldn't be the goal. Something else should. It's not a choice between tyranny of the majority vs. tyranny of the minority. That only exists if we give some groups powers over other groups. If you don't give those powers, you don't have a problem. Tyranny is not inevitable. Freedom is possible.

[Quinn]

I think we're arguing at cross purposes. You seem to be saying that on the one hand we have freedom, self-governance and no borders, and on the other democracy and inevitably border controls. I think that is a fallacious argument.

You want a world in which no-one has power over immigration numbers. Fine; consider it done. Now, in such a world I'd still like the remaining decisions that are in a government's power to be made democratically. How would you prefer it were done?

As it is immigration controls are a function of our current set-up of nation states, and they exist in both democracies and autocracies alike. There is no contradiction in supporting both democracy and open borders, they are not mutually exclusive. Both can be the goal.

Now, you could argue that in a world that is both democratic and free of immigration controls you could have a political party that would run on a platform of re-introducing borders, and if they were elected then they could expand their powers to include border controls. True. But under any system of governance there is always the possibility that some group could expand its powers, including over immigration. Under your preferred system, how could you ensure that trade remains free, and that immigration controls are not re-introduced?