YouTube is currently trending with an interview conducted by BBC Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman with Russell Brand, who alongside being an actor and comedian spent the last week editing the New Statesman, a political magazine. The interview would have been fairly basic fare (although likely still receive a lot of applause from Brand's fans) had it not been for the revelation that Russell Brand has never participated in a general election. Paxman picks up on this and seems to express exasperation at Brand's reluctance to utilise his vote, tying it into his dominant query about why Brand believes he can talk about politics with such authority.
Before I launch into this, I do want to quickly say that Brand does make good points in his "flicking-frenetically-through-a-thesaurus" manner, and I'll come back to them later, but first this:
Within hours of the interview going live, I saw about ten of my friends on Facebook sharing the video accompanied with some comment about how Paxman's an arse and Brand's a hero, which annoyed me thoroughly. Why is it that even after over twenty years, people still do not understand Jeremy Paxman?!
This is what he does, and it's the sign generally of a journalist doing his job, and also for me highlights the hypocrisy of both tails of the political spectrum (which Brand rightly admonishes in the interview) that it's fine to rail on somebody at the opposite end, but either unpatriotic or bourgeois to do the same to somebody on your end.
Admittedly, Paxman probably didn't need to call Brand "trivial" or "facetious", but that's just the way he is. Everybody criticising him for his brashness seem to not understand his particular type of journalism: in several interviews easily accessibly on YouTube his style tends to be to try and get an emotional reaction out of his subjects, and in the case of Brand, he did actually succeed. I doubt somehow that Paxman walked away from the interview thinking he'd lost - interviews are not meant to be about victories between the interviewer and the interviewee; the only victor or loser is the truth - he walked away from the interview thinking that he'd successfully done his job by evoking an emotionally truthful reaction from Russell Brand. The job of journalism is not to pander to a particular point of view: it's to hold every perspective accountable.
Plus, Brand seems to be more ready to deride his position than Paxman. It's Russell that suggests his view holds less weight than others due to his standing as a "comedian" or "actor": Paxman is merely asking why we should "take [him] seriously, when [he's] so unspecific".
Now then, as far as Brand's views are concerned, I'll admit I'm tempted to actually buy the current issue of the New Statesman - mostly to read about the views of the other people who may actually have a coherent theory for an alternative political constitution. Just because Brand doesn't have that, doesn't mean we should idly dismiss him, so I think it's a good thing that he has taken on the responsibility of editing a platform for such discussion because at least this does give him some legitimacy: like he says, he's not apathetic to the issue, but rather exhausted with it, and that is perfectly valid. I feel the same way.
Voting may not further legitimise my ability to speak on political issues, but it's still important nevertheless. Brand is frankly being irresponsible by telling the youth - the people most likely to vote for alternative parties - not to do so, and instead wage civil unrest to topple the current political class. If that demographic, as a collective, stopped going to the polling booths then we will see a rise in conservatism in the House of Commons: with truly progressive parties like the Greens or the handful of non-partisan MPs losing seats (along with the loss of faith in the Liberal Democrats, which I think is unfair and instead should be directed at Nick Clegg above the rest), then we'll start to see groups like UKIP and the BNP gain momentum, and the Conservatives will push further to the right to save their backbenchers.
Revolution may sound grand and glorious, but history has shown time and time again that revolutionaries invariably make terrible politicians. If it isn't hijacked by the powerful who turn it into a system that favours their position, it instead corrupts the leaders whilst economically devastating the masses. Real change, as history has also shown, usually comes with gradual adjustments within the existing framework: from the rise of the Senate's power over the executive magistrates in Ancient Rome; to the abolition of slavery in Britain, a battle hard-won in a Parliament that still stands today; to the suffragettes, who still had to rely on men to vote in favour of women's rights; and so on.
If you want change, then start a revolution, but I guarantee you it will not last very long because new governments do not require a pre-existing notion of sovereignty and so have free reign to create their own that end up serving similar purposes to the system they overthrew. If you want change with longevity, then it can come, unfortunately it just happens slowly.
Voting is only worthless if it is not used at all, and politicians that seek to undermine popular consensus rely on the complicity that Brand perpetuates, which can come either in the form of a person choosing not to cast a vote or by blithely accepting the situation and voting for the least controversial candidates. I, unfortunately, do not have the benefit of the platform that Brand stands upon, but I urge you: listen to him, consider his point of view, understand what he is saying, but I implore you, whilst making certain it is for progressive movements...
Vote.
