SNP MP Mhairi Black recently delivered a four-minute speech in the Commons warning of the threat presented by the “F word”. No, not that F word. Fascism and anti-democratic tendencies in general were what she had in mind.
Her argument was coherent and passionate, qualities usually absent from what passes as oratory and debate in parliaments north and south of the border. At a basic level, it was a notable piece of anti-Tory invective; it was a pity that it was delivered to near empty government benches.
Reaction was mixed. Fellow columnist Kevin McKenna for example felt she spoke simply to win further approbation from her social media followers. He added, as an occupant of the SNP glass house, Ms Black should be wary of throwing stones about latent fascism in other places.
Whatever one feels about what Ms Black said and how she said it, her words were a reminder that democracy is on the back foot in virtually every part of the world. Authoritarian and anti-democratic regimes in Russia and China seek to restore or expand their spheres of influence in Europe, Africa and the Pacific. Regimes with similar tendencies have emerged in Hungary, Turkey and Poland. Populists are increasingly voluble in parts of western Europe including France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
These voices are a reminder that democracy is fragile and cannot be taken for granted. In How Democracy Dies, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt offer four indicators of authoritarian behaviours that threaten democracy. These include a refusal to play by the rules (for example, rejecting the outcome of elections); accusing opponents of criminal acts; encouraging or refusing to condemn violence; curtailing civil liberties and undermining media freedom and independence.
In her book Putin’s People, Catherine Belton describes how Vladimir Putin muted opposition and criticism by targeting and then seizing control of the media. Similarly, ex–President Trump attacked The Washington Post and CNN, describing the media as being “amongst the most dishonest human beings on earth”. Critical media coverage became “fake news”. The legitimacy of political opponents including President Obama and Hillary Clinton, was disputed. In Mr Trump’s eyes, President Obama wasn’t an American citizen and Mrs Clinton should be “locked up”. Mr Trump was ambivalent about violence of the so-called Proud Boys and appeared to condone the roughing up of hecklers and, oh yes, the Mussolini-like march on the Capitol.
Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that Trump’s election was a milestone in the loss of what they describe as “mutual toleration” and “institutional forbearance”. These being the unwritten rules and norms that lubricate the workings of democracy. When there is mutual toleration, politicians recognise opponents’ views are legitimate and opposition is not necessarily subversion.
Institutional forbearance prevents weaponization of the institutions of state such as elections, parliaments and assemblies, the law and the courts to frustrate or supress opposition voices. Democracy is in trouble when the unwritten rules and norms are overridden for partisan gain. In the USA for example, Supreme Court appointments became a partisan battleground, intended to stymie opponents.
I hear you say, this is the UK not Russia, China or even the USA. We’re exceptional, aren’t we? Perhaps, but in the absence of a written constitution, the unwritten rules and norms of democracy, what can be described as gentlemen’s agreements, are particularly important. Are ours robust enough to swim against the rising tide of worldwide authoritarianism and populism? There’s little room for complacency.
A 2022 survey of “Democratic Wellbeing” by Carnegie UK suggested that more than 40% of people in England believe democracy isn’t working. They feel strongly that politics and politicians can’t be believed and have lost our respect. In the words of Hannah Arendt, “truth and politics have never been on good terms”.
There is ample evidence that the all-important political mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance in the UK are being eroded. They were worn down by the Scottish independence referendum, Brexit and loose talk of “enemies of the people” and “traitors”. Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament for five weeks in 2019 was an attack on institutional forbearance. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act limits the democratic right to protest. Proposals for compulsory photographic ID at UK polling stations would disenfranchise an estimated 25% of the electorate lacking the necessary documentation and unlikely to be Tory voters.
As the Tory party melts down, there is genuine danger that the authoritarian right will seize control and reassert the opportunity to introduce regressive social and economic policies that represent a threat to democracy. Democracy only flourishes when there is dialogue and politicians engage, respect and listen to one another.
The preservation of democracy is far more important than the divisiveness of partisan politics. As Mhairi Black pointed out, democracies don’t expire because they are extinguished by revolutionary authoritarians. They die because norms and safeguards are eroded step by step. In time they become so weak they are unable to resist the emergence of populist strong men and regimes. Even in the “exceptional” UK, we need to heed the lessons of history.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel