A Summer of Discontent

By Sir Malcom Rifkind

In western countries as well as elsewhere civilisation can sometimes seem to be little more than a thin veneer concealing turbulence and a predisposition to violence and mayhem. This year the British people have been forced to ask themselves whether their society is as stable and as mature as they have liked to believe, and as most of the world have been prepared to accept.

For five days and nights in August there was an orgy of rioting, looting, mugging, arson and assault first in London and then in Manchester, the Midlands, Merseyside, Bristol and elsewhere in England. Five people died, almost 200 police officers were injured and 3,100 people were arrested, most of them young, some still children. While the middle east was experiencing the Arab Spring was Britain suffering an equally unpredicted autumn? As shops and businesses were looted with some being burnt to the ground, the nation was shocked, parliament was recalled, and the prime minister, David Cameron, faced an extraordinary national crisis of confidence.

The riots began because of an incident in Tottenham, a working class district in north London. The police had shot and killed a local man whom they believed to have a firearm. Two nights later a demonstration against the police erupted into violence followed by looting and arson. Over the next couple of days copycat riots broke out elsewhere in England by people who had no connection with, or particular interest in, the original grievance. The police at first failed to realise the national seriousness of the situation but after several days, with massive government and public support, they got back in control of the streets, over 3,000 rioters and looters were brought before the courts, and peace returned. The mayhem appears to have disappeared as swiftly as it arrived.

There is no evidence that the riots had any political purpose or that they were directed against the government. This was not Paris in 1968 nor the United States during the Vietnam war protests. Nor were these race riots. Although many black people were involved so were many white youths. Many of the victims whose shops were looted and set on fire were themselves black or asian. The vast majority of those arrested were in their teens or early twenties. A significant minority can best be described as children.

There were, in fact, two different kinds of offenders. Much of the rioting was done by young, unemployed black and white youths who might have felt they had nothing to lose, and who were antagonistic to the police and to authority. But in looting shops they had vandalised they were joined by many others who could not resist the temptation to help themselves to clothes and consumer goods. Of this second category a substantial number were in employment with good incomes. Some came from respectable, middle class families.

These aspects of the riots have caused much soul searching in Britain. The widespread looting was a consequence of greed rather than poverty. Traditional British self-restraint and respect for law seemed to have been abandoned. This has led some to suggest that the rioting and looting may, in some way, be linked to a decline of traditional moral values which is not confined to the lower rungs of society. Some have argued that when bankers are showing extraordinary greed in their demands for massive bonuses and when many members of parliament have been unscrupulous in their misuse of parliamentary expenses and allowances it is not surprising that some of a younger generation feel little guilt in their vandalism and rioting. In truth, there is no actual evidence of any connection between the riots and such other recent controversies but the debate in Britain is far from over. But it is a national debate rather than a party political one. The likelihood is that these riots were a disturbing spasm which will not be repeated now that the public have shown their overwhelming demand for a strong and effective response by the government, the law courts and the police. Comparisons with the Arab Spring and the turmoil in the middle east would be, frankly, absurd. However, there is one striking similarity.

As with young demonstrators in Egypt and Syria, so too many of the rioters and looters co-ordinated their activities with their mobile phones, through Facebook, with Twitter and other electronic messenger services that would not have been available in the past. Some of these riots were not spontaneous and the police soon realised that they, no longer, had a monopoly of modern technology. In this respect, as in so many others, the future is not what it used to be. That is true in Cairo and Tripoli. We better get used to the fact that it is also true in London, Paris and Washington.

(Sir Malcolm Rifkind is the Member of Parliament for Kensington. He was a cabinet minister from 1986-97 and served in several posts including minister of defence and foreign minister.)