Dave Gardner
It is often proclaimed with pride by politicians and their media in the UK that we are privileged to live in a ‘Liberal democracy’ unlike the unfortunates in countries such as the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China who languish under ‘authoritarian regimes’. We enjoy a variety of competing political parties, freedom of expression and public display of political views, a pluralist media and freedom from fear of expressing our views. A key feature of a liberal democracy is that it cultivates and values critically alert citizens, whose vigilance keeps politics in liberal democracies in a healthy state. A critically alert citizen does not take an assertion at face value but evaluates the evidence and arguments that back it up before making an informed judgement.
Let’s look at these claims in more detail. We do have competing political parties but they tend to share very similar view, particularly on foreign and defence matters. Those who stray from a consensus that sides with Israel, against Iran and Russia and is sceptical at best towards China are subject to ad hominem insults which imply that they are traitors, at best unconscious, at worst conscious. Freedom of expression and demonstration still exists but is under pressure. The liberal application of terror and bribery legislation, liberally interpreted, makes dissidents fearful about how they express themselves. And justly fearful: people have been arrested, debanked or imprisoned for expressing political views. In practice, public media only tolerate a narrow band of views and those who dissent from this narrow band do not have their views represented. In addition, and perhaps even more important, the media are selective in what they present to the public and are certainly not above misrepresentation, distortion and outright lying. This is particularly evident in treatment of the war in Ukraine, but can also be seen in scare stories about vigilante bond markets, poised to strike if narrow economic orthodoxy is breached in any way.
This last feature of our political life is particularly important for the ‘critically alert citizen’ as this person cannot be critically alert without access to all the relevant arguments and evidence that relate to the question about which they wish to form their views. Be they ever so good at dissecting arguments and distinguishing rhetoric from argument, they need accurate information in order to form their own views. Unless they are prepared to depart from the mainstream media, their ability to consider questions rationally will be limited.
There is one gap in the defences of the political class. Total control of the sources of opinion forming have fortunately been frustrated by the existence of independent outlets on the internet. The existence of these outlets angers the political class and their funders as they have little or no control over them. They are constantly dismissed as ‘conspiracy theorists’ and peddlers of ‘misinformation’ who will disorient the poor critical citizens and lead them astray. Suddenly those prized critical abilities, developed within our education system, count for nothing against the onslaught of a few bloggers.
What really angers the opinion formers of the political class is that they may no longer be able to manipulate public opinion as easily as they used to. For them this is intolerable as prized projects such as the Ukraine war may become unpopular. This would threaten plans to develop war hysteria, the conversion of large parts of the economy to arms manufacture and the eventual introduction of conscription to provide cannon fodder for the next war on Russia or Iran.
We are now at the cusp of legislation to make the deliberate spreading of ‘misinformation’ or ‘acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power’ illegal. This can already be done if it is accompanied by payment from a foreign agent. But since most dissidents work independently of foreign powers and are proud of doing so, they cannot be caught in that net. But other nets will be provided.
The last thing the UK government and its sponsors want is a critically alert citizenry. As there is a growing danger that they may get one, they are taking steps to ensure that this does not happen. We have been warned. Liberal democracy does not tolerate dissent.
[See below an example of the use of the Terrorism Act 2000 to stifle dissent, in the case of Tony Greenstein.]
