A response to No Platformers

By Olly Deed

Every single system of representation has its flaws. Each has an unpleasant facet that induces revolution amongst the represented. Winston Churchill famously said that ‘democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.’ Never has this quote resonated more for me within the context of discussing the British National Party and the current No Platform policy employed by various different political parties.

Democracy requires a degree of pluralism. This pluralism often manifests itself in strange and unpalatable ways. In our case, that has come through the election of neo-fascists to the European Parliament. I was as appalled as the next person at the sight of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons lauding it up after their election. However, I didn’t and still don’t believe this to be the time to cling on to an admirable yet ineffectual policy that hasn’t worked. It pains me to say it, but the election of extremists is symptomatic of a pluralist democracy in which we have failed to defend the role of migrants within our society.

The most popular argument that comes up in favour of No Platform is that sharing a platform with extremists legitimises their existence. Well, two points on that. Surely the election of two MEPs and nearly a million votes at a European election suggests that they are a legitimate political party. Legitimacy is not an emotive term; I would argue it is an an empirical term that shouldn’t be bounded about willy nilly.

The legitimacy argument also shows a lack of understanding of the political situation at the moment. The BNP were effective during the last election because they kept inferring that voting for them was somehow punishing mainstream politicians who had so fundamentally let us all down.

No Platform legitimises this claim. It turns these racial nationalists in to the ultimate protest vote, when voting for them should be reserved for the minority of racists we have in this country. Or are you trying to tell me that the 900,000 or so voters who put their cross next to the BNP segment are racists? Because No Platform implicitly alludes to this.

So why should we banish No Platform to the doldrums? Well, we live in a democracy. Whether we like it or not there’ll always be an element within it that supports extremist views. Taking an authoritarian approach to this issue plays in to the hands of the authoritarians. A more pragmatic approach is needed to address the rising popularity of extremism. Whether that be an impassioned defence of migrants living in this country or a coherent rebuttal of all the arguments extremist representatives put forward on Question Time, it doesn’t matter. A sustained, transparent and brave attack on extremist ideas is what we need. Swapping eggs for arguments would beat the BNP and until we realise this we have problems.

So, to the producers of Question Time. If nobody else is willing to sit on the stage with a member of the BNP, I’ll do it – because leaving that seat empty would be a damning indictment of the democracy we live in today.

Related posts:

1. A response to Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome: The economy
2. A response to Tom Harris
3. A measured response to expenses outrage
4. NEC Vice Chair’s report and response to your letters
5. The government response to the wildcat strikes: a full briefing for those interested