Today, there are very few people who divide opinion in such a controversial way as Russell Brand. A great many herald him as a hero, and just as many others decry him as villain. Brand is a complex character, he is, as he has said countless times, only human, so why does he matter so much in today’s political sphere?
Brand is connecting to people; be it through his YouTube channel, his new book or his various appearances on television. He is serving as a voice for the voiceless, a representative of those who have gone unrepresented and for this, he deserves countless plaudits. He promotes a brand of politics disengaged from our political system, preferring, instead, grassroots movements and power to the people through devolution and protest. Brand is an intelligent man and I genuinely believe he wants a better world. Young people throughout the United Kingdom and across the globe are connecting to him and his issues. This raises the question: Why is a comedian-come-political activist making more waves, challenging more young peoples’ views, and creating a greater reaction in the wider media than the leaders of the political parties themselves?
Brand, like UKIP, is a reaction to the unique political situation that the UK now finds itself in; the two party system – that which our parents voted and lived in, of labour and conservatives – is slowly crumbling. Fringe parties such as the SNP, Greens and UKIP, are growing ever stronger as people, and the young especially, become disillusioned with the political system and the parties they associate with it. Brand, for a great deal of young people, is the solution. Witty, intelligent and altruistic, willing to challenge those already part of the establishment, he’s the rock star politician of the YouTube age, preaching of his reLOVEution and the social inequality running rampant across the globe.
Brand however, within his current behaviour is not the solution. In his promotion of important issues, he is vital, but his disengagement from the system, belief in what can often be taken as whimsical conspiracy theories and unwillingness to actually play the political game, mean we will never see any radical change due to his ‘revolution’. His channel on Youtube, The Trews, currently holds 714,000 subscribers, and his influence on the young and politically disillusioned cannot be understated. If you’d like an alternative to the news we see every day, I would truly recommend the Trews, for me, the channel is Brand’s saving grace, but Brand fails to recognise the responsibility he now holds.
On The Trews, he often talks of the media conspiracy, and highlights how most of the major newspapers are owned by conglomerates or multi billionaire moguls who always appear to have less honourable motives. What Brand fails to promote is that not all newspapers are this cesspit of corruption and immorality that he believes. Papers such as The Guardian, The Independent and various others offer a concise and truthful version of events; they offer the true news just as much as his Youtube channel, but have to do it in a profitable and readable way. Again, he often preaches of the broken political system, failing to mention or promote parties which, surely, he must support, such as the Green Party of England & Wales. One can’t help feel, that Brand prefers the pipe dream revolution he promotes in his book, at grass roots, in lieu of attempting to take on the behemoth that is our current political system and see real change.
We need political reform, we need public spaces for debate and engagement, and, we do need change, but too often Brand promotes a sort of political nihilism which inhibits any change whatsoever. Brand’s refusal to play the system, refusal to take interviews seriously or actually allow himself to be interviewed, and near continuous decrying of our capitalist society, inspires nothing more than hopelessness. Yes, we need grassroots movements and charity and goodwill and basic humility to our other human beings, but change is never fast and it rarely comes via unofficial channels.
Brand would do well to wisen up to this fact; he’s a charismatic and intelligent speaker, and with his help we could see young people become engaged in politics, in voting and political discourse, but at the moment we’re seeing close to the opposite. In 2010, we only saw 43% of young people go to the polls and vote. Less than half. Less than 1 in 2 people chose to exercise their democratic rights and choose who would lead their country and their local area. Voting is how we express our voice as young people, and we aren’t doing it. This lets politicians treat us as if we barely matter, instead chasing the more valuable votes of pensioners.
In 1992, 60% of the 18-24 year old demographic voted, in 2015, it’s forecast that only 24% are certain to vote. Democracy as an ideal is a system of government where the general population are represented by elected representatives; if you don’t have young people voting, they aren’t represented and it stops being a genuine democracy. Instead, we’re left with politicians chasing votes from older demographics, and what emerges is a gerontocracy of sorts.
There are, however, people trying to break down this final obstacle. Charities such as My Life, My Say and Bite the Ballot are encouraging young people to explore political issues and parties, Rick Edwards has launched an indiegogo campaign to fund a Voters Advice Application so young people, and those who aren’t informed, can inform themselves on whose policies suit them best. The tide is slowly turning, but with Mr Brand’s help, it would go much more quickly.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlYpMGI6iNQ&w=740&h=422]
The system is not broken. Not yet at least. But, if Russell Brand continues to inspire political nihilism, and inaction at a voting level, it may yet buckle and break. Our democracy needs the population to vote, in order to succeed and to change. So perhaps we need Russell to cast a vote himself?
Words by Harry Coloe