Comedian and actor Russell Brand set out to bring attention to what he felt was a major issue last month when he appeared on Jeremy Paxman’s talk show. His argument, as summarized in a follow up he wrote for The Guardian, was that “democracy is irrelevant” because the priorities of the government don’t seem to line up with those of “the people.” However, given the seemingly endless struggle of countless numbers of people throughout history to achieve the very democracy he so willingly disregards, I believe that his line of thinking is fundamentally flawed.
To Brand, voting is a useless endeavour since the government’s priorities, as he told The Guardian, “remain the interests of big business, rather than the people they were elected to serve.” As a result, he wrote, “the impact of voting is negligible and it is our responsibility to be more active if we want real change.”
In his rant-like piece, he goes on to state that, “the lazily duplicitous servants of The City expect us to gratefully participate in what amounts to little more than . . . choos[ing] what colour tie the liar who leads us wears.” Among the strong words and seemingly unrelated examples, however, he seems to be missing any sort of action plan for how change can be brought forth without the democratic process.
It is easy to understand, at least, where Mr. Brand is coming from. Many of our political representatives do tend to come from affluent backgrounds, and some do have ties to major corporations. I don’t think there is a system more fundamentally fair than democracy, though.
How would we possibly elect more favourable leadership without democratically choosing it?
In case Brand has forgotten, democracy involves citizens being voted into office by their fellow citizens. Sure, multinational corporations and special interest groups can throw millions of dollars into the process, but at the end of the day, it is not money that touches ballots. Nearly anyone can run for office and, given the support of their constituents, win a position to represent their fellow citizens. The question following Brand’s outburst remains, then, how would we possibly elect more favourable leadership without democratically choosing it?
On the heels of Remembrance Day, it is difficult not to think of the millions over the course of human history, and most notably in the 20th century, who have laid down their lives to secure the right to vote. Though Brand and similarly politically indifferent individuals may be too far removed from such situations to consider this, many people still struggle every day for the basic freedom of democracy. It is one thing to not enthusiastically support a specific political party or candidate, but to declare this political system irrelevant or unimportant simply when one’s choices don’t seem good enough devalues the ongoing sacrifice given to attain it.
The only way to save democracy is through democracy. Neither outlandish rants on talk shows nor staying home on election day will cause even a single instance of real change in society. Brand can continue to call for a ‘revolution’ as election periods all over the world pass him by and, ironically, if he gets his wish, the same subset of people continue to be elected to office.
The reason for this is not a corrupted system, but rather that those voting are engaging the political system and making their selection based on their collective interests. If major political change is in the minds of the majority, that result should, and hopefully will, come about from ballot boxes rather than on set in front of a camera.
In light of the struggle and sacrifice necessary to attain it, while the democratic system may be flawed, that is no reason to abandon it all together.
