The social contract is under threat.

 

In his seminal “Foundation” series, science fiction writer (and proper scientist) Isaac Asimov portrayed a thrusting, entrepreneurial society – the Foundation – that became stifled by bureaucracy. A sclerotic legalism took over, which found it ever so convenient to prosecute and victimise enemies, dissidents, opponents and, finally, those who merely disagreed, denying them employment, social and financial services and, ultimately, means of earning a living. All in the cause of  ‘order! System!’

Russian writer Yevgeny Zemyatin’s book, “We”, published shortly after the Russian Revolution, imagines a society constantly under surveillance, with all activities – including sexual activity – under the control of the State, which is also in the process of building a giant spaceship that will bring other planets and societies under the self-proclaimed benevolent rule of the Benefactor. The spirit-crushing conformity is threatened towards the end of the book, with a series of apparently unrelated incidents leading to a revolution. The people simply get exasperated.

Obviously - couldn’t happen here. Although the revelations about the Attorney General’s attempt to extend unaccountable legalistic power over the civil service and government ministers might suggest that such repression is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Paul Embery recently warned, in a Substack article, of the dangers of “vigilantism and mob justice”, if due process is not followed by the legal authorities, including both police and the judiciary. His warning is not unplaced.

We in the UK have a dual contract in place, a societal or social contract, under which “we, the people” delegate law enforcement and administration of justice to the police, judiciary and powers-that-be and, in return, agree to refrain from lynch mobs, vigilantism, clan-based feudalism and tit-for-tat vengeance. The expectation is that dispassionate individuals, authorities and bodies, those who are not connected to, involved with or victims of criminal behaviour, will take a dispassionate view and enforce and administer justice without fear, favour, partiality or prejudice. 

If that confidence is undermined then there is a very serious danger that the system will be seen as failing. 

If the belief becomes widespread that the system is no longer neutral and cannot be relied upon to enforce the law - effectively, community standards, if you like - then resort to vigilantism will become more common - and, God help us, accepted. 

"Two tier justice" is extremely dangerous. There are people now in jail who shouldn't be (eg, Lucy Connolly) and there are people walking free who should be awaiting His Majesty's pleasure. Not unrelated is carte blanche being given to antisemitism on the streets, plus the formal introduction of thought crime - the criminalisation of silent prayer. 

We're walking a razor and I think we're on the wrong side of it.