While our institutions demonstrate their deep flaws, modern democracy is being dismantled from under our noses

Democracy, so it has often been said, showcases the best in society. Its free market control and fair elections place an emphasis on personal choice. The state acts in a supervisory role, encouraging and strengthening us like a schoolteacher would a young child. Authoritarianism on the other hand, is painted as the polar opposite, evoking thoughts of an intimidating Stalinist USSR and in contemporary times, the reticent state of North Korea. But right now, as the major institutions in the UK weaken in front of our eyes and our freedom of speech is threatened, maybe these aren't so mutually exclusive as we have been led to believe.

When reading bad news in the media, I often comfort myself with the thought that the notable tragic events making headlines aren't comparable to the unreported positivity that humankind demonstrates every day. And that is true, for it is easy to get lost in a cycle of negativity, focusing on events that illustrate the worst in how people behave. Avoiding news is part of a resolution I am trying to keep, because of the distorted picture of the world it paints.

But even so - it's been particularly unpleasant, and indeed worrying, recently. It has made me ponder the scale of challenging prejudice in the institutions that have so much influence over the UK. And whilst those systemic failings make the headlines, legislative action casts a dark shadow underneath.

Now two weeks ago, Meghan Markle's much-anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey aired in the UK, shining a light on her and husband Harry's reasons for stepping back from the royal family. In two hours, they revealed the extent to which racism from the tabloid media and within the royal family had impacted them, to the extent that Meghan had suicidal thoughts - and was told she couldn't seek help by part of the monarchical institution. 

Only the day after Meghan's interview, the Metropolitan Police announced that a serving officer had been arrested over the disappearance of 33 year-old woman Sarah Everard six days earlier. The resulting days have born the news that she was tragically killed and has sparked outrage and conversation around the UK about the need to challenge behaviour towards women. Online performative activism has died down - but again I hope media isn't representing real life.

After a planned vigil for Sarah Everard in Clapham Common on Saturday night was cancelled due to lack of police support and COVID restrictions, it was inevitable, no matter how legal and with the raw emotion of the week, that many people would attend anyway. The police who were present tried to disperse this, and using overly heavy-handed tactics, clashed with the peaceful mourners. Public trust in institutions was, to put it mildly, very low.

Credit: Yahoo!News

Meghan's allegations that Buckingham Palace had told her she couldn't seek mental support are damning on their own. When Piers Morgan went on national television the very next day to tell people that he "didn't believe a word" of Meghan's suicidal thoughts, a precedent was set that will scare anyone who's suffered with those worries. Much of social media echoed his scorn and continued a pile-on into a woman who the tabloids have convinced them they are supposed to hate.

There is blind loyalty to the monarchy, and as proven, some will go to every possible length to defend them. Aside from what they have or have not said about Harry and Meghan's children, at its very deepest root, the existence of a monarchy is racist. Venerating a certain group of individuals based upon their bloodline or heritage is as you'd expect, a mechanism that allows privilege to snowball and inequality to be deeper entrenched in society. 

Naturally then, with its existence, people fight to know their place in society. The all-white Windsor family are the gold-standard, so can it be a surprise that many white people regard themselves above any people of colour? Having a public display of what we "should" revere only serves to foster hatred and distrust in anyone who looks visibly different to that elite.

    

If the monarchy and members of the media are willing to show outright prejudice, both towards a deeply-embedded systemic issue like racism and a growing problem of mental health disorders in society, are they really trustworthy? Are they honest and accountable? Are they fit for purpose? The answer seems no.

Credit: www.tripsavvy.com

 

Much like in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder back in late May last year, social media in particular exploded with feminist activism in the sake of Sarah Everard's murder, with women imploring men to recognise the suffering they have endured for their whole lives. It is up to men to challenge these assumptions in our own circles, educate ourselves and change our behaviours. Because in a truly fair world, walking late at night should never be difficult.

The resistance on social media feels striking to me. What resonated with me last summer was how white people wanted to be educated by people of colour, and the same is ringing true for men now. Sitting on the other side of the metaphorical privilege fence this time, I realise the extent to which men try to bury their heads in the sand and proclaim what is or isn't sexism. Do that all you want, but it misses the point - look at your own behaviour and question yourself. For as an oppressor, there will always be things you have done wrong. And it is up to you to learn from them, because the burden shouldn't fall on women to fight the problem.

That the murder of Sarah Everard was committed by a serving police officer troubled many, as they are supposed to be those who protect victims. It is understandable to see why the event has struck a chord so close to many women and girls, given the regularity and normalisation of sexual harassment in society. 

With trust in the police so low, why did they seek to intervene aggressively in Clapham Common on Saturday evening? Why were they more concerned with peaceful mourners than a woman who was flashed on her way home from the vigil? Was the fallout not inevitable - and was their action really necessary?

Pandemic aside, the vigil was an expression and a way for many to put their suffering into action. It was their possibility to come together, rally around an event that should never have happened. Both the police and government subsequently shifted blame as to who ordered the overly harsh law enforcement, but that's too reactionary. The damage to trust has already been done.

Credit: The Shropshire Star

As it happens, the police trying to crush protesters is nothing new. We saw it in the US with alarming regularity in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, but the majority decried it as an American problem. We saw it in Russia after Alexi Navalny was arrested, but that's just authoritarian Russia we said. We'd never do the same. Well, I have some news for you - and it ain't good. 

While the media have obsessed over Meghan Markle and denounced the aims of the Reclaim The Streets movement, our democracy is under severe threat. Not only does Home Secretary Priti Patel's new Policing and Crime Bill increase the already wide police power, it criminalises the right to protest peacefully.

The Bill allows Patel herself to define what is "serious disruption" and the police to enforce draconian action based off her say so. It has drawn critics from many human rights groups, who argue that the right to protest without threat of arrest is what underpins a democratic society. 

It is hard to find the words to express just what this means. Patel has made no secret of her dislike of Extinction Rebellion's anti-HS2 protests, and was critical of the Black Lives Matter movement in the summer. She was more silent when anti-lockdown protestors and "statue protectors" have congregated in London - because they're the people voting her in. 

There is a certain irony in lockdown-sceptic Toby Young having set up a "Free Speech Union" to help defend people's right to freedom of speech - but only when it suits his political agenda. It appears that freedom of speech to the Union, and indeed the government, when it is something outwardly bigoted that they need to stop the "woke, leftie cancel culture" from infringing.

But for a second, if we put aside political persuasion, the implications of this Bill are harrowing, because they accelerate the journey to an authoritarian society. 

Democracy has been on a slippery slope for a while already. It has been hijacked by kleptocrats who have convinced people that Brexit is necessary, a decision that will inevitably isolate the country from those who should be our friends. It furthers a cultural divide fostered by those in power which has normalised racism, sexism and homophobia. Through simple rhetoric they have capitalised upon deep-seated xenophobia to make us feel more powerful. The UK may be a small island, but we have heightened our sense of importance in the world. 

 

Constitutionally, our democracy is flawed too. For some reason we insist on the First Past The Post system of voting, which benefits the major political parties. The Conservative government are also changing mayoral elections to FPTP, as to increase their chance of success. It's easier to suit your needs when you have less resistance - that is what Patel wants.

Credit: Sky News

The past few weeks have shown how flawed the institutions in this country are and how their structure and power should be revisited. Institutional racism and sexism has plagued the police for years, at the cost of many lives. Their controversial response to the vigil has illustrated the work they face to legitimise themselves amongst the general public.

It seems inevitable as well that, at some point soon, the monarchy will be scrapped. Queen Elizabeth's popularity and the nationalistic nature of older Britons seem the only things keeping it going. But with the controversy surrounding Prince Andrew's behaviour and the Queen herself vetting bills on the sly, social media voices for a republic will only grow louder. 

Democracy means "power to the people". The only people with power in this democracy are the few at the top of the food chain; the government, their cronies and the billionaires that donate to them. The only public voice the ordinary person has is through petitions and protests - it is how we are able to mobilise and fight against injustice. 

But what use is a voice that when democracy won't allow us one? If the Policing and Crime Bill is fully enshrined into law, we can't protest for a fairer society. We will be nothing but pawns on a chess board.