Looking beyond the riot: Role Models and Knee-Jerk Reactions It was very convenient for the government

to blame young people for the riots this week, but quite why senior politicians and coalition prime ministers felt justified in making such unfounded claims is at the heart of the deepening crisis in Britain, with riots only a small seismic shift in what may signal bigger tremors to come if the government doesnt step out of denial and into democracy; such knee jerk reactions are not acceptable within the corridors of
power.

Yet, the riots should not really have come as a surprise. Speculation over civil unrest amongst bloggers has been rife for some time. Britain has already had its fair share of ominous tremors over the last few years, some large, reaching the upper limits of our political and social Richter scales and some smaller flashes in the political pan. But those events have not gone un-noticed. Our economy is weak. On the surface it looks as if the sub-prime mortgage crisis is the agitator, a US led movement responsible for artificially propping up banks both in America and here in England and who have become so much a part of the establishment that no one questions quite how and why they are allowed to issue money and what the implications of that relationship going unchecked means today. What is particularly fascinating about the subprime mortgage crisis when considered in relation to the erosion of democracy is the erosion of trust between the banks themselves, which was at the heart of the crisis. From credit rating agencies, designed to analyse the quality of the banks loans to governments including ours, who actively failed to regulate the banks activities, we begin to see that the real agitators are opportunists in the system and they make the rioters look feeble in comparison. And it is these very same agitators who are, this week calling on Britain as a nation to fight gang culture and the Something for Nothing School of thought. The irony of this is both hideous and depressing. And how could we forget the parliamentary expenses scandal in 2009. Responsible for causing a massive loss of confidence in politics, it was angered members of the public who called on the government to act. In the end, the Speaker of the House of Commons, cabinet ministers, Labour back benchers, Conservatives and peers were all subject to resignations and sacking. The creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was set up to keep MPs expenses separate from the House after the event, but the scandal was initially exposed by the press and members of the public. When we reach a point where we must rely solely on the media and the public to police our politicians we have reached an all-time low. The question then must surely be, why are our democratic checks and balances failing? And the answer can perhaps be found in the reaction of our leaders to the scandal. Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire bemoaned the media spotlight, likening the scrutiny to a witch hunt and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams felt that humiliating MPs who had taken advantage of the expenses system would damage the faith we had in democracy. Nevertheless, David Cameron was highly critical of MPs like Nadine Dorries who did not have sympathy for the publics perception. (Shortly after, David

Cameron was ordered to pay back expenses he had also pilfered). Startlingly, those MPs sentenced and convicted for false accounting received surprisingly lenient sentences. In stark contrast, the current outcry over the handling of those who have been remanded in custody over the riots and charged only to find themselves serving vastly disproportionate sentences to those normally handed down for crimes like rioting and theft is another indication that our government is no longer living by democratic principles. When there is one law for MPs and another for the public, what example does the government hope to set? The loss of legal aid for significant sectors of society, especially families, sends out another message: we, the government, do not value family. Or put another way, if it doesnt make immediate returns its not going to get attention. This fast-food approach to the countrys social welfare, this need for immediate gratification is in everything our government does. It is almost as if politicians simply enter government to take as much as they can and then leave, leaving behind devastation and destruction for future governments to tend to, but who fail to and who simply perpetuate the cycle of seat and steal. Our governments are no longer manning the democratic machine; they are raping it and leaving it to fend for itself. It is hard to gauge at what point we started to neglect the very processes designed to protect us, but this phenomenon has had a far reaching impact. Even the face of British education has suffered, with the acquisition of diplomas and degrees seen as the Holy Grail of schooling, rather than substance of the teaching itself. It is all about making Britain look educated rather than educating Britain and actively trying to generate as much profit as is possible at the same time. In the end, governments who actively encourage theft on a massive scale through banks and other institutions, who steal from the public purse and who point the finger at fledging members of our society are not democratic organisations. But the infrastructure is there and a new generation are watching to see what our politicians will do next. It is foolish for any government to think that children can ever be the root cause of deep-seated concerns in society. Young people do not set the tone we do.