As an American, I always thought of the British monarchy as a sort of showpiece. As the monarchy is no longer a source of hard political power, I've always thought of it as more of a symbol of British tradition and history. When we Americans think of political power and Britain, we think of Number 10 Downing Street. When we think of beefeaters, the Tower of London and double decker buses, we think of the Queen and Buckingham Palace. So on first thought I was quite surprised at the strong reaction at the attack on Prince Charles and Camilla's Rolls Royce during student protests at the tuition increase vote.
While the attack was outlandish, outrageous and foolish, it didn't strike me as the sort of rabid mob that was intent on physically harming the royals. It was more of a protest designed to strike a blow, perhaps deface, a symbol of established order. It was simply a protest. I didn’t see any indication that Prince Charles or Camilla were ever in any immediate physical danger.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson had this to say: “The officers who were protecting their royal highnesses showed very real restraint. Some of those officers were armed.”
The Mayor of London Boris Johnson gave this reflection: “It is very regrettable that in the heart of London the heir to the throne can be surrounded by agitators and his wife can be put in a position where she’s plainly alarmed.”
The Prime Minister David Cameron had this to add about the student protests in general: “we want to make sure that the people who behaved in these appalling ways feel the full force of the law of the land.”
While I agree with Cameron I think all three comments demonstrate a generational disconnect and a misunderstanding of the political worldview of the protesters, whom, again I do not defend.
To Cameron, the photo above is a shocking example of disrespect to his nation. While to the protesters, the attack was just as shocking as the burning the Christmas tree in Trafalgar square. In other words, the power of the symbol, Queen, country, empire, is totally lost. Nowhere was this more evident than when a student protester (interesting trivia in that he is the son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour) climbed the Centograph war memorial.
So while the police commissioner hints that security would have been justified at shooting protesters who threw paint at a passing car, students were running roughshod over some of Britain's most treasured monuments. Both groups, I believe, think of the monarchy in the same way that Americans do, that is, in largely symbolic terms. They differ, however, in terms of the status they afford to symbols such as the monarchy.
Why I find this interesting is because I believe it highlights a growing anarchical trend among young people in today's political discourse. I think this is a reaction to the growing interconnectedness of media, culture and language coupled with the growing complexity of economics, politics and society. The seemingly fragmented and regimented world of old, monarchy, class, empire, doesn't make much sense to young people today.
Looked on in this respect, wikileaks is a part of the same genre of anarchism. State secrets, diplomacy, these things are irrelevant within a chaotic movement designed to break down all walls. In this way, wikileaks seeks to create an entirely disorganized and hence unstructured society.
I don't advocate anarchy or wikileaks but they are worth trying to understand. As this generation grows, we will see more mainstream attempts to upset the social order. The response from government officials and diplomats thus far? Well it's written all over Camilla’s face.
Interesting reading:
WikiLeaks is delinquent and anti-democratic, Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph.
Europe, Look Outward Again, Op-Ed, I.H.T.
1 comment:
I just added your blog site to my blogroll, I pray you would give some thought to doing the same.
Post a Comment