Surrendering to eco-anarchists threatens democracy itself

By the time you read this it might be clear whether the negotiated peace deal between Extinction Rebellion (XR) and the London Marathon is holding. Representatives from the two powers have apparently been engaged in back channel talks for some days in the hope of averting a dangerous escalation of the fight for control of the nation’s public spaces. As I write, however, XR seems to be distancing itself from any commitment to control the actions of its ally, Just Stop Oil, who refuse to rule out making incursions into Marathon territory when the two forces “intersect”.

Yes indeed, this is what it has come to. Official authority, in the form of  elected government, Parliament and the forces of law and order, has withdrawn from the field so visibly that the organisers of disruption can now behave like autonomous rulers bargaining privately with officials who preside over civic events. 

Given the pious pronouncements by XR’s media savvy spokesperson which made much of the worthiness of the agreement that they brokered, I am assuming that such talks did actually take place. In which case, we must ask why the representatives of the Marathon did not simply say, “How can you have the right to offer a special dispensation for us to make use of the public highway to which we are legally entitled? What gives you the authority to make that offer?” 

Presumably, the protection that the law should be expected to provide for the Marathon did not even come into these discussions, perhaps because it is now largely regarded as a useless irrelevance. Having granted its august permission for the Marathon to proceed unimpeded, XR has now, believe it or not, issued an ultimatum to the government: if their demands are not met by the Tuesday morning after their four day occupation of Westminster, they will step up their actions in unspecified, but presumably catastrophic, ways.

One of these demands is for the creation of “citizens’ assemblies” to decide climate policy. Whether these bodies are to be elected, appointed or just spontaneously convened by local activists is unclear. What exactly would their remit and powers be? Would they be able to make decisions that took precedence over elected local councils? Would they be funded by taxpayers? Who knows? But the government must agree to create them by next Tuesday – or else. 

So absurd has this situation become that public opinion may regard it as too risible to take seriously, and thus overlook the larger significance of what is happening. A self-appointed mob, clothed in assumed righteousness, is pushing democratic institutions and the freedoms that the rule of law should guarantee, effectively out of its rightful jurisdiction. XR’s offer of protection in the streets to whomever they choose to favour is depicted as a virtuous concession rather than just an arrogant presumption by groups of disparate activists (often with incompatible goals) who were elected by no one.

Forget for a moment the evidential questions about climate change. Whatever your views about fossil fuels and their effect on the future, are you prepared – right now – to relinquish the most fundamental principle of a free, democratic society? To surrender the power which should only come with an electoral mandate, to a collection of people about whom you know nothing except that they wilfully obstruct the lives of law abiding citizens on arbitrary pretexts whenever they choose?

Rather oddly, there seems to be some confusion within the climate protest movement on the historic legitimacy of their tactics. They compare themselves grandly to the Suffragettes who chained themselves to railings and generally created public havoc in their demand for the vote. But those women committing what were seen at the time as anti-social, sometimes criminal, acts were demanding the right to participate in the democratic process, not trying to supercede it. It was precisely because they understood the great value of democratic accountability that they did what they did. In fact, the historical precedent for the climate protest movement is not any sort of suffrage campaign – not the US civil rights movement or the anti-apartheid campaign in South Africa – which were all based on the principle that everyone in a society should have an equal say in who has the power to make laws. What the climate protests more closely resemble is the anarchist campaign of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries whose most memorable achievement was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand  which led to the First World War.

What could well be approaching – at a time of growing hardship and economic uncertainty – is an aggressive reaction against the infantile, irresponsible actions of what are seen to be privileged people, especially if their demands threaten greater deprivation for the less privileged majority. In America, this kind of thing provokes street war. In Britain, I suspect, it would simply produce more cynicism and disillusion with a governing system that requires the willing participation of the population. It is no simple thing, finding an adequate response to unacceptable behaviour when it presents itself (and is presented by the media) as morally unimpeachable. This may get easier if the antics of protesters succeed in alienating popular opinion. Ironically, the cause itself may have its credibility damaged too thus making genuine green policy initiatives harder to justify.

British politicians are generally very good at avoiding the trap of authoritarianism as an antidote to what may be a momentary fashion for delinquency. But these are bad times in which to let entitled brats run amok at popular sports events and in the streets. The survival of democracy requires trust in the concept of freedom under the rule of law. Perhaps the prison sentences handed down to the two particularly pestilential Just Stop Oil members who put Dartford Crossing bridge out of use last year will be a turning point. What is clear is that if  the government – and the courts – are not seen to get a grip, the loss of public confidence will take a very long time to recover.