To the Editor:
As far back as ancient Greece, mob rule was identified as the intimidation of lawful authority. Yet in its benign form, it's called democracy.
In Rome, the mob was feared, as there were always more of the ruled than guards, soldiers and governors.
The population of the Roman Empire was kept under control by "bread and circuses." Keep the people fed, keep them distracted, and human nature will submit to being ruled.
It's no different today. And neither is the uprising of the discontented. We do it at the polls, without bloodshed.
But underneath our layer of civilization lies anger, resentment and discontent, the recipe for mob rule. The list of mob violence in recent times is a litany of modern, democratic cities: Vancouver. Montreal. Toronto. London. Nothing is new.
Why, then, do we express stunned surprise? Why do we consistently put a new spin on an old scenario - the ability of seemingly ordinary people of all ages, races, backgrounds and culture to turn into a howling mob? Because "we" would never be "them"?
It is contentment that keeps the public quiet. Combine that with compliance and conformity, both of which are necessary for a peaceful city, and our peers and our communities keep us from running riot.
I reject the notion of "human decency" as the reason most people living in close proximity do not rampage through the streets. When people are kept in comfort - albeit the definition of what constitutes "comfort" is moot - nobody riots. When voices are silenced, when legitimate grievances, whether against authority or privilege, are ignored, the recipe for a riot is stirred.
We obey a legitimate authority and it is the people who confirm that legitimacy. And that is the difference between a mob in Cairo and a mob in Tottenham.
As the Arab Spring was unfolding, it wasn't without death, destruction or dismay. The world watched and approved of uprisings against what we believed were autocratic rule. We condemned the leaders of nations such as Syria and Libya who have fired upon and killed their own people. Their citizens were protesting for a better life.
But, we watched the riots across England and deem them illegitimate - mindless and destructive rampaging. They were criminal and heinous.
Do we ever stop to consider the very people who ran amok through the streets of London and its suburbs, through cities like Manchester and Birmingham, may themselves consider their actions a legitimate protest against what they see as their utter lack of a contented future? In a country still beset by a rigid class system, where an accent acquired by dint of birth and education can confer respect or disdain, hundreds of thousands of Britons live on the bottom rung, deprived of self-esteem, self-worth and a sense that the future will be different. Few see opportunities; fewer care to look.
When there is no hope you give up, or you lash out. Last week saw the latter.
We recoil at a young woman describing her involvement in the London riots as exciting, fun and a middle finger to the police. She clearly does not understand the historical precedence her reactions mirror. The rule of law can only be enforced if those being ruled agree to obey, as rulers down through history have realized.
It is rather disingenuous of those of us living in peace, quiet and some luxury - defined as enough food, work, and money to provide a little "circus" - to express shock and horror at what we ourselves might do if faced with a bleak life of no employment, no hope and little or no opportunities to change our circumstances.
When you have nothing left to lose you are truly free, to paraphrase Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster, who wrote the lyrics for Me and Bobby McGee, an anthem for the broken-hearted. If someone defines that freedom as the "right" to riot and loot, to toss aside all vestiges of civilization and destroy the lives and livelihoods of themselves and others, we in turn have an equal "right" to impose legal justice.
The real surprise is that there is so little show of public rage and anger in our cities, hockey games in Montreal and Vancouver notwithstanding.
The police and government in the English cities half-destroyed by the yobs and morons who believe destruction is the highest form of civic unrest will work diligently to identify and bring to justice those responsible. They deserve what they get. I am not arguing for leniency, but for a few minutes spent asking how the riots happened.
Better still, why does it not happen more often in societies where the gap between the rich and the poor is deep and glaringly obvious?
Catherine Ford, Troy Media Corporation.
