The fragile society
When politics is about cricket it is a sign that the English are taking their politics seriously. And, certainly, the issues sur- rounding the forthcoming South African tour this summer are of the highest import- ance. But while it is widely agreed that this is so, there is, regrettably, considerably less agreement about what those issues are.
The view of the emotional left was succinctly expressed in the Observer's leading article last Sunday: 'The simple fact is that the mcc's invitation to a team of white South Africans is an implied ap- proval of the racialist regime in South Africa.' Simple, certainly; but scarcely a fact: were there any force whatever in this assertion (which does not even aspire to any process of reasoning) it is inconceiv- able, for example, that Mr Basil D'Oliveira —let alone the officials responsible for non-white cricket in South Africa—would have welcomed the tour, as both he and they have done. The plain truth is that in- viting the Springboks to England no more implies 'approval of the racialist regime in South Africa' than an invitation from Covent Garden to the Kirov Ballet implies approval of the totalitarian regime in Russia. To assert otherwise is at best muddle-headed, at worst an incitement to racial antagonism in Britain.
But the real issue will only be faced when it is recognised that, even if (by some arcane process of interpretation) the tour were to constitute implied approval of the internal policies of the South African government, it would still be wrong to call off the tour (and last week's decision to curtail it was bad enough). For the South African regime has scarcely changed since 1965, when the Springboks were last here and enjoyed a trouble-free tour. Nor have the changed circumstances been brought about by the peaceful protest of a con- cerned minority: the tour is now to be confined to a few more easily-defended grounds, but it is not against banners that the other grounds' defences are considered inadequate. It is not as a barrier against words that the barbed wire now surrounds the pitch at Lord's. Cancellation of the South African tour, were it to occur, would be due to one reason and one only: the threat of violence from the tour's opponents. And a victory for violence here would inevitably be the signal for its use in any other cause in which strong feelings are aroused. For nothing would be easier. The nineteen-year-old leader of the 'Stop the '70 tour' campaign, Mr Hain, boasts of how, in a short space of time and with a minimum of organisation, he and his col- leagues have become a force in the land, creating a problem with which a hard- pressed police force can barely cope. But there is nothing clever in this. The size of this country's police force, and the nature of the laws it enforces, are grounded in the assumption that ours is a society in which we have agreed not to settle political differences by violent means. If this assumption—which is one of the defini- tions of a civilised society—is shown to be no longer valid, then it is obvious that the old institutional framework will be unable to cope.
But such is the overriding need for order, without which society cannot exist at all, that it is equally obvious that the response would sooner or later he more restrictive laws and a substantially en- larged police force. And so the first step away from the civilised society, and to- wards the police state, would have been taken. That is what is at stake. It sounds dramatic, because we have come to take the stability of our way of life for granted. But in fact nothing could be more fragile. since it is founded not on power but on consent.
It is against this background, coinciding with a dramatic growth in the numbers of crimes of violence (for personal rather than political ends), not to mention aim- less vandalism or the burgeoning—and terrifying—drug problem. that the Conser- vatives have chosen to highlight the ques- tion of law and order in Britain. For this they have been excoriated, both by the Labour party and by considerable sections of the press. Mt Wilson has gone so far as to argue that the Tories would actually pro- duce greater violence and crime, since they would diminish 'social justice'. and the two are inextricably linked. Would that it were as easy as this. The plain fact is that the past twenty years have seen an unpre- cedented increase in 'social justice' in this country—and an even greater rise in crimes of violence and violence in general..
The press. by contrast, suspects the Con- servatives of making an election issue out of something they can do little about. and over which the two parties can hardly be said to differ. There is, of course, an ele- ment of truth in this. The present Govern- ment is uniquely culpable in having im- posed restrictions on police recruitment at a time when the demands on the police (whether to combat crime or contain demonstrations) have soared, and resigna-. tions from the force before retirement age have multiplied. This week's warning by the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire on the low state of police morale was fully justified. Again, it is difficult to believe that a Tory government would have been as equivocal as this one has been over the Springbok tour.
On the other hand it is equally true that the Conservatives have no legislative panacea to offer the public—and that, while the causes of violence are unknown, their consequences are. in general, as much deplored within the Cabinet as within the shadow Cabinet. But this is no reason whatever why the issue of law and order should not have been raised. In purely electoral terms. in any event, the public sees parties not in terms of rival legislative programmes but rather as embodying different attitudes, with the Tories appear- ing more convincing on defence and law and order. and Labour on 'social justice', whatever the factual records of the parties in office may actually show. But this is not what really matters. What matters is that here is an issue of the utmost importance. and one which is felt to he so by a growing section of the public. whom it is liable to affect in a most direct and dramatic way. It is necessary that politicians should ad- dress their minds to it. It is essential that it should he brought into the forefront of political debate if democracy is to have any meaning whatever.
Nor is it surprising that no easy legisla- tive remedies are on offer. For within the framework of a civilised society it is not legislative remedies. an order imposed by the state, that should be our first choice. It is a government's job to set an example as best it can. It is the politicians' job to alert the public to the issues at stake, to the consequences of present developments, and to the dangers that lie ahead. It is then up to the people themselves to decide, know- ing this, whether they wish to heed the warnings, to abstain from violence and to ostracise those who use it. to accept or to reject the remedy that lies in their own hands.
Previous page
