Jayne Dowle: Brand of politics that chimes with the disaffected

YOU might dismiss him as a two-bit celebrity, best known for his role as the modern-day spiv in the remake of St Trinian’s. If you don’t know much about Russell Brand, it’s easy to take him on face value. His involvement with the Guy Fawkes protests which caused chaos in London probably strike you as opportunist. His rantings on Twitter probably leave you wondering whether anyone with an ego should be let loose on social media.

However, in the words of George Bush, don’t “misunderestimate” the appeal of Russell Edward Brand, born in 1975, in Grays, Essex, the son of a photographer. He’s the classic rebel, telegenic, rarely does formal interviews, has a terrible reputation as a womaniser and is unashamedly set on shaking up the status quo. George Clooney toying with the idea of running for office accompanied by a fragrant wife he is not.

I hesitate to say the word “power”. He hasn’t got any power. And that’s what makes him so dangerous as he is accountable to no one but himself. He’s an actor and comedian and author who has made no secret of his past, which includes a period addicted to heroin. And for a time, he was married to Katy Perry. On the face of it then, he’s not exactly cut out to challenge a bunch of public school cronies in grey suits.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He makes much of his “anti-intellectualism”. Yet, he is a clearly a very intelligent man who has to understand intellectual thinking in order to break it apart. And he is prepared to defend his beliefs, which are essentially that the established political system has outlived its usefulness and a new world order is required. And that “capitalism”, which he tends to mix up with “corporatism”, should be destroyed. There’s nothing new here. He’s like Citizen Smith with better hair.

I once showed a clip of his appearance on Newsnight, when Jeremy Paxman both hauled him over the coals and gave him valuable airtime, to some students. A room full of 19 and 20-year-olds, usually unable to keep their attention focused on anything for five minutes, fell into silence.

Some of them knew who he was, some (to my surprise really) hadn’t got a clue. Most of them though were mesmerised by his rhetoric, impressed by his conviction and taken along with his colourful command of the English language. He has produced three books, and writes well; his essay on drug addiction in The Spectactor, and his work on the death of Margaret Thatcher, the murder of Lee Rigby and his day in Parliament stand out as the sort of pieces which can influence hearts and minds. And increasingly, his once out-there opinions – that addiction should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal matter, that the established political hierarchy does nothing but serve those in power – are beginning to chime with wider political debate. Especially as momentum gathers towards the General Election.

It is intriguing, but not surprising, that he has found a fan in Nigel Farage. The Ukip leader has written recently of the “kudos” which Brand represents, and agrees with his arguments that democracy is not being represented in traditional politics. He points out the similarities between his own political rallies and the kind of hysterical connection that is evident whenever Brand takes to the streets or the platform. And he concludes, rightly, that this is characterised by ordinary people who feel disenfranchised from, and disaffected by, the Establishment.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

And that’s where Paxman put him on the spot. If established politics has run its course and traditional leaders are failing to come up to the mark, what would be the ideal replacement? Indeed, how would a democracy actually work if no one voted, as Brand advocates? Would a leader and those who could run the country emerge as if by magic, through some as yet nebulous, but potentially dangerous means? Brand, as yet, didn’t appear to have the answers. Paxman regarded him with the raised eyebrow of a university don who has stumbled upon a smoky roomful of students putting the world to rights.

Brand’s mission, it seems, is to provide a focus for discontent. In the process, whether he has willed it or not, he has become a figurehead. When his star fades, as inevitably it will, he will remind us of one important thing though. Modern politics is a desert of fresh thinking and new ideas, lacking individuals who are prepared to stand up for what is truly in their heart. And plants which thrive in deserts are not usually the prettiest or most palatable.

I wish him luck stirring up our moribund political system though. It needs voices to shout above the parapet, even if what they are saying sometimes gets lost in the scream of police sirens and the mindless chants of idiots who just follow a crowd. However, I’ll say this to Brand. And I’ll say this to anyone swept up by his appeal. Be careful what you wish for, because should you get it, you might not have a clue what to do with it.