debates of emotion

I feel so rusty commenting on politics; burying myself in theoretical political science seems a distant memory. But that doesn't stop the homo politicus, the innate political man within me react to what I chanced upon today.

I stumbled upon a BBC recording of the parliamentary debate between Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Labour Party's Harriet Harmann. This debate was regarding the recent uproar in England over the raising of university fees-cap by nearly 3 times.

As I was watching this 30-minute clip, I found myself enjoying it so much. The verbal sparring between the two candidates was not only hilarious, but also engaging in a very British way. It really reminded be of the heart-stopping days of debating for Warwick at Varsity Debates. Thrilling, those. Some may consider pompous; intellectual sparring just for ego-kicks and not necessarily providing compelling ways forward on the issues we spit and yell at each other over. The House of Commons was jeering, cheering as thousands protested outside Parliament over this issue.

But wait a minute. Hang on. This verbal sparring between the two, filled with emotion and passion, quick retorts, peppered with sarcasm, wasn't Varsity Debates. This was Parliament of a first-world, archaic as the terminology may be, democratic country. This was a debate, amongst others, a debate of emotions. Sure, the points they made made reasonable sense, but I am certain under such circumstances of crowds jeering, it was all about winning the point of the argument, of the debate, rather than working towards a solution for the betterment of the nation.

So are parliamentary debates just a political circus, where politicians stage a show to their constituency voters that they are passionately fighting for their stands, or are parliamentary debates truly the basis for policy making? If its the later, I'm worried.

Perhaps you've got to watch the clip yourself to understand my concerns: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11724842

The way both party representatives take jabs at each other, mocking, sarcastically, it would take a saint to ignore these, rise above and talk about finding real solutions in a dispassionate scientific reasoning; isn't that what we were thought scientific societies are built upon. reasonable and rational individuals?

Since the time of the Greeks, fair and reasonable logic is meant to permeate the laws that would govern the democratic people who have given the government a mandate to rule over them.

But what I saw in the debate today was one of emotion and pride. Perhaps that is the way things are meant to be in the real-world, and I should just pack my ideals and go home. Or perhaps, just maybe, the governance of England has been in shambles in the last few years because of degradation into the elites in society taking their turn in ivory-tower ego-sparring, at the cost of its people.

Perhaps. I sure hope I'm wrong.


Uncle T