Who will guarantee those with mental health conditions legitimate representation?

A few months ago I posted a short piece discussing Russell Brand’s revolution narrative. I criticized him for essential duplicity: he calls for revolution, he calls for disengagement with the political establishment, but he fails to understand true democracy and the implications for social cohesion as a consequence of revolution as a form of protest. It leaves the vulnerable more vulnerable. True democracy should represent the people – all the people. If we don’t vote, we have no representation and those who are vulnerable, for these purposes those with mental health conditions, slip to the bottom of the political ladder. In a world where a political voice is a voice of abstention, democracy fails. And it fails all strands of the community, especially those whose voice is often overlooked or deliberately discarded.

What social entity should we expect if we don’t vote? Indeed if we all abstain and reject our democratic right to voice our preference we do forfeit our place in the traditional political forum, but, yes, perhaps we do then command a change in the landscape of political discourse. But if we don’t vote we must also have an idea of what future political arena we hope to bring about. Must we accept a minimal state as a starting point to craft a new future (a utopia) for politics? If we do, are all of us going to be treated as ‘inviolate individuals’ (Nozick, 1974, p.33)? Who would protect the dignity of all individuals when the louder the voice, the more they are heard? And what is louder than deliberate silence? But silence is precisely what those with mental health conditions experience on a daily basis: either through fear, through misunderstanding or because those with a mental illness simply feel disconnected from politics. I have a mental health condition and the first thing I ask for is simply respect; we should expect a life where we can ‘realise our ends and our conception of ourselves, insofar as we can, aided by voluntary cooperation of other individuals possessing the same dignity.’ (ibid, p.33) This is what we should expect now, but we don’t. Nozick explores the features of utopia and the effects of a minimal state (what is anarchy and what is utopia) but Brand seems brazen in his call for a revolution without framework, without legitimate manifesto and without empathy. So I agree with John Lydon when he referred to Brand as a “bum hole” – simply put, but essentially apt.

It reminds me of a statement made by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan:

For who is so stupid as both to mistake in geometry, and also persist in it, when another detects his error to him?’ (The First Part, Chapter 5)

Brand wants to persist in his error and for us to persist with him. He wants to turn an admittedly crippled political system into a corpse to be picked over. And on the cadaver that remains who sets the new agenda, because there must be one? I am equally cynical about and disgusted by modern western democracy, precisely because the real tenets of democracy are being trampled and circumnavigated. I am under no illusions about the power of my voice. I have experienced stigma as the result of being in mental crisis; the perception of me as unreliable and unstable has played a huge part in the course my life has taken and the presence of my voice has been diminished. I do not want further and wider instability. My political input is driven, as a result of lived experience, by an agenda to ensure that those with mental health conditions can maximise their voice in the public sector. But in a world, yes, gone mad, I would not feel safe to exercise my democratic right. Neither would I feel the price of a new political narrative would be affordable for those who experience mental distress. Who has the greatest voice in buyer’s market? Who sets the price? Rising up together as a community may be seen as an opportunity to encircle and entrap the ‘unstable’ leading to the very disenfranchisement Brand seems so adamant we protest against. This world of nebulous values and murky goals the vulnerable are more vulnerable because building a society from the putrid corpse of failed democracy is simply inevitable.

We need some kind of Lockian ‘Treatise on Government’ to recognise what is governed and what is ungovernable. But this is more complex an issue to tackle in the midst of, or directly after, a revolution. John Stewart Mill asked us ‘to enquire what form of government is best fitted to fulfill [particular] purposes’ (Mill, 1859, p.1). I am unsure whether Brand’s revolution can adhere to any principle of a best-fit government. If it does, I defy him to explain how it would bring about justice, equality and representation for all. For a best form of government must accept that it is a process of compromise. And, yes, compromise may be the root of many ills. I make compromises with myself: I accept that my lifestyle must be curtailed in certain areas and, however unjustly, is subject to the vagaries of political point-scoring. Nick Clegg promises to put mental health on the frontline of the 2015 Liberal Democrat manifesto, but what does that really mean? I don’t want to be a “issue” to be tossed around like a political beach ball. And I am deeply cynical about his intentions. I am cynical about any government or party whose vocabulary is loaded to make the most impact with the least effort. And that is what I assert the Brandian rhetoric does.

It makes me feel more vulnerable

It makes me feel more isolated

It makes me scared

I have bipolar disorder and I cannot be in an environment where the future is thrown aside by noises that speak of change, but advocate an upheaval that introduces more chaos and uncertainty. I will vote and I will continue to ask people with mental health conditions what matters to them and to acknowledge that a hell of a lot more needs to be done without a sound-bite revolution can be given any political legitimacy and representation. There will be no preservation of sovereignty of persons who cannot protect themselves from forces outside their control (both literally and psychologically). The revolution is a lie.

“Bum hole”

***

References

Hobbes, Thomas. (1651) Leviathan

Locke, John.  (1689) Two Treatises on Government

Mill, John. Stewart. (1859) On Liberty

Nozick, Robert. (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia