On giving the BNP a platform

Following the BBC’s revelation that it is considering inviting Nick Griffin of the British National Party onto Question Time, there has been much angry debate. Sunny Hundal is firmly against it, and in the Guardian summarises the liberal “myths” that are posed as good reasons to have him on the show. The first and perhaps most obvious of these is: “the BNP’s arguments can be defeated through rational argument.” That in itself is not a myth: their arguments can be defeated through rational argument. After all, most reasonable people rightly think that the BNP’s views and policies are unjustified and evil. What Hundal means to say is “the BNP’s supporters can be converted through rational argument.” I have very little doubt that Sunny Hundal’s view on the matter is correct: there is no possible use of logic that can convert someone committed to such illogic. The BNP’s supporters, as he rightly says, are driven to their position by emotion, not reason—but they were driven to their position in the first place. Hardly any politician convinces by logical reasoning: why not apply their rhetorical and political skill in this case?

Certainly, a one-hour public debate can do but little to change the views of anyone. But is this reason enough not to invite Griffin on? It seems to me that it is not. Democracy is based on the fundamental principle, whether true or not, that the people are capable of coming to their political positions with all the information at their disposal. BNP supporters probably don’t much listen to any of the major three parties. Perhaps if Griffin came on, they would at least listen to them, and thus have more information to chew on.

The major parties probably don’t do much talking to Nick Griffin’s fan base. Although they are still (and will probably remain) a small minority, and perhaps a waste of time to try to dissuade, some engagement could have positive results. Without engagement, it is difficult to know the causes of their views. One can spend years publishing pamphlets and making speeches, and make no discernible difference. But with direct engagement, one can at least cause BNP supporters to question the basis of their beliefs. Is it so naive to think that some may see these foundations for how shaky they are? If any BNP supporters make up part of the audience on Griffin’s possible appearance, then presumably there is a possibility that they do want to hear opposing views, if only to shut them down more vociferously. That may be better than wanting only to hear Griffin’s views, un-contrasted with those of other politicians. It is generally the attitude of a politically minded person that they would like to hear their spokesperson defend their view, if only to become better able to defend it themselves.

In any event, Question Time is hardly the ideal forum for such noble-minded examples of democracy. For all its pretensions of being a serious debating program, it patently is not. Topics are rarely discussed in any depth, and whenever they are in danger of doing so, the ravenous nature of the crowd puts a disappointing halt to it. Almost certainly, the BNP will be violently mocked and insulted by those who hate them, and valiantly defended by those who don’t. A more serious political debating show would hardly be better: it would presumably only be watched by the sort of person who does not take the BNP’s views seriously anyway.

Whether Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time (yet to be secured) will have a positive effect is doubtful. However, it is equally unlikely that the effect will be negative. Indeed, the only likely negative consequence is the fury from those who are against his appearance as a matter of principle. Yet it is surely a matter of even greater principle to allow Griffin on the panel. If we have any faith in our democracy, let us seek to prove it. Surely it is strong enough to withstand such a minor shock to its system.