Another night, another meeting. Chin propped on hand, I struggle to maintain a facade of interest. How many of these meetings have I been to in my life? Dozens now, first as participant, now as observer. Slithering down the meeting food-chain, I’ll be putting the chairs out next.
All of us present know the routine from so many other meetings held in cold, dark rooms on windswept nights: minutes, matters arising, agenda, any other business, date of next meeting, home. Through the motions we go, once more with apathy.
What is the purpose of this meeting? The cause of course. And a noble cause at that. The participants radiate goodness, so humane, so dedicated to the thankless task of making the world a better place. In the moral cesspit that is our planet, these people look like they agonise over the morality of squashing a fly. They are so fundamentally decent that you couldn’t dislike them and that’s just the problem. They are altogether too nice.
The schedule calls for small group work. If I was in the chair, the group would be split up as I saw fit inside five seconds. But this is a left-wing group so such autocracy is unthinkable. No, let’s discuss this. Groups of four? Five maybe? How about six? Eventually, groups of eight are formed and five minutes of my life has gone forever. This is no way to change the world. All that’s needed for evil to triumph is for good men to hold meetings.
In their octets, they discuss how to advance the cause. One participant suggests a letter-writing campaign. I rack my brain for an example of a government policy change brought about by a letter-writing. None come to mind.
As observer, or perhaps that should be voyeur, convention constrains me from intervening in the proceedings. I want to say: "Look, if you want to advance your cause, you’ll have to do more than write a few letters. Nothing says ‘listen to what I have to say’ like a petrol bomb."
Call it immoral, call it amoral, but you can’t call it incorrect. Violence is a very effective awareness-raising tactic. Tap a man on the shoulder and he may ignore you. Punch him in the face and you’ll be assured of his undivided attention. The notion that ‘violence achieves nothing’ is as noble as it is false.
The political system must shoulder some of the blame for this state of affairs. Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable, as JFK once observed. Right across the western world, faith in the system’s ability to facilitate peaceful change is eroding. Voting is becoming a hobby for the eccentric few, while politicians battle it out with estate agents and journalists for the title of Most Despised Profession. Cynicism abounds as the ordinary punter thinks, justifiably, that voting changes nothing and that politicians are only in it for themselves.
Most people shrug their shoulders at this and get on with their apolitical lives. But what of the few who are so motivated, or so desperate, that a life of apathy is impossible? What happens if these people conclude that all the voting, demonstrating and letter-writing in isn’t going to help them? The answer is obvious.
But the media can not escape from its share of the blame. If it bleeds, it leads, runs the old saying. Take a few hostages and all of a sudden the world knows your beef. Of course, the media have always focused on the violent and sensational over the mundane and worthy.
But the situation has got worse in recent years. Political discourse has become so cheapened that there is far less mature debate of the issues. The media fixate on the personal. David Cameron cycles to work. Tony Blair used to beat the kids but he doesn’t anymore. Ming Campbell is bald and bald is bad.
By not covering issues in a serious manner, the media encourages those who want change to resort to drastic measures. "We’re only giving the public what they want" cries the media, with some justification. But the media does not just reflect society, it shapes it.
One of the advantages of getting older is the ability to compare the world of today with the world of your youth. Provided you can avoid rose-tinted spectacles syndrome, you have the chance to weigh up the changes which have happened in your lifetime, both good and bad.
Planet 2006 seems to me to be a greatly more trivial place than the world of my youth (only fifteen years ago). Politics has been cheapened to the extent that a man can become Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, not on the basis of his policies or experience, but simply because he looks the part. Television news has been trivialised by garish graphics and pointless ‘look at me’ pieces to camera by reporters. There are still some fine correspondents out there, but there are many others whose pretty little heads seem unencumbered by intellectual rigour.
In a world such as this, what use is a letter? After all, it takes more than ten seconds to read.