The BBC have, understandably, caused quite a stir in the past few days with their announcement that the BNP may be invited to field a guest on Question Time.
The controversy is between those people who take the view that the BNP should not be allowed a voice and those who believe they should. Funnily enough, both arguments are (apparently) arguments built up from the principle of free speech.
On the one hand, you have the people who argue that whilst the BNP is – as some would put it – a scar on our country’s liberal ideals, they should not be denied a platform to speak, but instead should be encouraged to share the same platform as the mainstream parties and defeated by reason as their policies are exposed and unravelled.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that the BNP is a revolting party and so shouldn’t be given the light of day.
I have to say, I have never agreed with the latter argument – although I admit am in the minority when it comes to those on my side of the political spectrum – why does that not surprise me? I am no fan of the BNP, let’s be clear about that. I don’t agree with very much of their policy platform. Their approach to immigration goes against the entire history of the British Isles and immigration. However, the BNP is not a banned party, they have been democratically elected and thus constitute a legitimate political voice, and, like it or not, they should be represented as such.
It really is as simple as that, no matter how deeply and personally uncomfortable that is. Yes, they may not allow people who are not “ethnically British” to join their party, and that may rest uncomfortably with people, but as it stands, such a policy is not against the law. Furthermore, no matter how much I dislike that policy, it should not be outlawed either, for that would set a dangerous precedent; for we allow black-only membership or certain organisations, we allow women-only membership of others and we allow trade-only membership of yet more. If you say that is is not acceptable to have white-only membership of a particular organisation, then where do you draw the boundaries? What do you do with the National Black Police Association? Are they racist? No-one would call that unfair. What do you do with the Women’s Institute? Is that sexist, and therefore unacceptable? Few would seriously argue that. Should churches allow non-Christians as members? It defeats the point of such an organisation or community!
I can imagine the counter-argument – these are minority organisations. However, that in itself is not a legitimate reason to disallow an organisation. All organisations have a purpose. All groups, whether we agree with them or not, have their own aims. Quite often, completely open membership is not appropriate. With community organisations, we do not have a problem with requirements for membership.
So, the question is, should it be any different for political entities? I can see that many would argue that it should – after all elected politicians are there to represent the people – and that is a fair point.
I, however, do not agree that it should be any different. Labour MP’s have to represent Conservative-voting constituents, and they manage to represent those people even though they will not always agree with their constituents. But, as a representative, you don’t need to. Your legitimacy does not derive from agreeing with everyone, but from the fact that of all the candidates who stood, you won the most votes. At this point, you have more legitimacy than any of the other candidates. That is the nature of our voting system.
That, as far as I am concerned, is a true “progressive” view. I can disagree, but still allow. I can put faith in the people to decide for themselves. I have faith in the ability of people to make up their own minds, faith in the victory of sound reasoning. Thus, as long as political entities work within the constraints of the law as it stands, they should be allowed the right to be heard on an equal platform to others. For anything that is legal under the law should be treated in other instances in the law as value-neutral. Whatever we think. Thus, when the BBC is committed to unbiased coverage, then the BNP should, as a legitimately elected party, be entitled to their moment in the spotlight to be scrutinised.
Let them have it. Let them lay their platform down. Then see how long they last.