November 07, 2016

Simple, sensible Susan

editor:	Gurmeet Singh

Being a fool is easy. Being an effective fool is super difficult. Just ask Suzanne Evans, a UKIP figure vying for its leadership, once beloved of party stalwarts (including Mr. N. Farage), she has since fallen from grace from the party leadership eyes, and is now positioning herself as the "sensible candidate" for the UKIP party leadership.

That would be all well and good, if she didn't frequently say and do and defend ridiculous things. While we've all become used to Trump, Farage, Le Pen and others only opening their mouths to let whatever Einstein-level thought come tumbling out, what we hear from Suzanne Evans is proof that ridiculous, foolish ideas have entered the realm of the sensible.

"Why shouldn't judges have to account for interventions frustrating referendums or manifesto commitments? No demands but we should debate", she tweeted recently, after her appearance on flagship current affairs BBC Radio 4 show, "Today Show", where she appeared to be reading prepared remarks to presenter John Humphries, claiming that the recent high court ruling on Brexit showed that judges needed to be "accountable" for their actions.

In effect, this means - because Suzanne Evans didn't like what the judges said (that triggering article 50 - the mechanism to initiate the UK leaving the EU - will have to be decided by parliament, not the executive branch), she is willing to call out the judiciary for bias, lack of accountability and normative-decision making. This is foolish. This is ridiculous. This is what fascism looks like - sure there were evil monsters rampaging across Europe some 70 years ago, but we have to remember Arendt's description, that evil is banal. It's boring - it's normal - it's sensible. It's people simply doing their jobs and doing them well, right - because if the system is producing results you don't like, you say that the system should be changed, right? Sensible, see.

However, the long process behind the separation of powers of judicial, executive and legislative is one of the most impressive and important legacies of the englightenment. We're entering days where you don't have to be an orange billionaire or a nutcase defender of the people from the City of London to get national coverage, questioning the legitimacy of institutions for the results it has produced - not because it may very well be systemically flawed. We're in days when it's totally normal now, to say that judges should be sacked if they, well, follow the law and do their job. When the law is inadequate, improve the law - don't decimate the people. Suzanne Evans is a fool. And that's super easy to say - but defending sometimes difficult institutions - that's super hard, and super necessary.