A Great Political Comedy vs. A Bad Political Joke. And the Freedom of Speech (II)

by Laura Lai/ Comment

The fact of having laws like the one against ‘instigation to violence’ does not mean that the state is authoritarian and that it does not allow freedom of speech. It does allow it, but it watches – as a state does – over the ways the freedom of speech is expressed, particularly formally and in public space. Comedians like Jo Brand and all public figures, in general, have a public platform attended by large audiences. This comes with a certain responsibility in choosing the expressed words while exercising one’s right to freedom of speech, because the public platform and the large audience is also a privilege to be able to bring a change – in better, not in worse – or to make the public think, ask itself questions – in a constructive way, not a destructive one. Therefore, I disagree with Kisin’s view that a comedian does not know whether a joke was bad or good, but after it was said, because of the responsibility that public figures should make prove of while speaking, let alone the fact that all humans think while or before they speak. Kisin may also be right, but analyzing the reaction of the audience that laughed at this joke, one might say that it was a good one. Then analyzing the general reactions to this joke, it looks like being a bad joke.

‘Yes, Prime Minister’ is an example of a highly appreciated and very funny 1980s British comedy. It identified things that are ridiculous about politicians in or about certain political processes. Comedy does that by definition: it makes fun of the arrogance, of the hypocrisy, of the stupidity etc.  I personally find ridiculously complicated the European Union decision-making process. And I would like to make this a laughable part for everybody, without suggesting any ideas. The script writers of ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ must have counted on both the public and the politicians having a sense of humor. Many from the audience have reflected on the topics and asked themselves if politics was really that way. And we all had a healthy and good laugh with this comedy, without being provided ideas about how politics should be. Nigel Farage declares himself to be a politician with a sense of humor. In an interview for the Sun he declares not having any problem being ‘cartooned, mocked to make the subject of all kinds of jokes. I don’t really mind. In fact, to be honest with you, I quite enjoy most of them.’ But he perceives this bad joke of Jo Brand as a possible future threat to his security.

And when a politician or a citizen feels intimidated to express its point of view, in this case on what’s best for Britain, this also raises questions about a country being democratic, without the state having censored anything. The initial reaction of the British Metropolitan Police using the law against ‘instigation to violence’ was intended to actually watch over citizens’ right to freedom of speech (and Nigel Farage has his right to freedom of speech, too), without being intimidated with ideas of violence, so that the United Kingdom to continue to be a democratic country, where both supporters and opponents of an idea or a vision to be able to freely express their points of view.

All in all, it is not human typical behavior to react by throwing things at people, but to articulate words and make out of them great arguments. Democracy is about supporters and opponents of an idea or a vision. Democracy encourages the differences of all kinds, including the difference of opinion. Democracy tolerates differences of all kinds, including the difference of opinions. And when in a political race within a democracy, it is exactly democracy that encourages the battle of ideas and of the arguments.

 One knows a politician who makes good use of technologies to promote its achievements and its vision? Democracy offers its opponents the same possibility to make use of technology, too – maybe the very same platform! – to come with a better idea, a more elaborate argument and even a greater vision. This can be constructive and beneficial for everybody. But democracy is not toleration of any physically or verbally violence. Having laws watching over our lives in a society means that we do not live anymore in a state of nature where everything is allowed, but in a state of law, where one is free as long as its freedom does not overlap with somebody else’s right to enjoy its freedom.