Democracy is right - invasion is wrong

Democracy is right but invasion to install democracy in authoritarian regimes are wrong.

Invasions are idealistic.  In a hypothetical situation, the plan would be to send a military force to country X to firstly, topple the regime and then secondly, oversee the introduction of free and fair elections.  Both these hurdles are insurmountable.  The first aim is difficult: regimes under Gaddafi and Mugabe are well-planted.  After possibly decades in power, the regime often command the loyalty of the army and are able to put a bloody resistance.  Even if the leader is removed, no doubt his cronies will replace him.

The second aim is even more difficult (if you manage to even get to that stage): removing an authoritarian regime by force creates a power vacuum.  If the authoritarian regime has been in power for decades (as is often the case), the country has no experience of democracy.  Political parties are non-existent and there are few established leaders.  The result? Civil war.  Competing factions emerge giving rise to insurgency, and guess what, more bloodshed.  This is a lose-lose situation; democracy is not effectively installed and lives are lost.  Even if democracy were installed, is it really worth the cost of thousands of lost lives?

Reforming the license fee

The BBC license fee is the closest thing we have to a regressive poll tax – used to line the pockets of Graham Norton, Dara O Briain and Anne Robinson.

The BBC criminalises the low-paid – by taking those who do not pay the license fee to court.  The opportunity cost for a single mother, earning the minimum wage, to pay the licence fee is to spend less on buying her children books to read, or food to put on the table.  It is clear to see where her priorities lie (and rightly so.)  Thus, it is immoral for the BBC to then proceed to prosecute such a person.

My second problem with the license fee is that it puts this state-run monopoly in a uniquely privileged position.  They are able to retain the stars of entertainment world and keep them away from the likes of ITV and Channel 4, who rely on advertising revenues.  In the recession that has just gone by (I hope!) revenues from advertising fell.  As a result, those channels that rely on this market-based approach were harmed, but not the BBC.  This is unfairly privileged position to be in.  Other channels are unable to compete and attract the talent they want.

However, perhaps the state does have a role to play in broadcasting.  If the BBC are to ‘inform, educate and inform’ (as promised in its Charter), then it requires a constant revenue flow to fund The Graham Norton Show and Planet Earth – the programmes we love to watch.  Therefore, its privileged position can be seen as an unavoidable, unintended consequence of achieving this aim – it is a necessary evil if the public want high-quality programmes.  However, funding the BBC through the general taxation system may be a better solution.  It would be progressive (well, that’s only if you agree that our current taxation system actually is progressive) and hence, fairer.  Those on incomes less than 16k per annum (approximately the threshold for the Working Tax Credit) should not pay.

In the name of quality, the BBC license can be justifiably raised – we all benefit from a broadcasting service free of cheap, copycat programmes.  However, this rise should not be at the expense of those on low-incomes – the funding system itself needs to be reformed.

The BBC has frozen any increase in the license fee (currently at £145.50) for the next six years; which is a 16% real cut in their funding.  This does not go far enough.  The BBC need to provide a high quality programmes like the Graham Norton Show (arguably) but not at the expense of the single mother struggling to bring up her kids.