Like many people, I am an avid fan of the West Wing. In one episode, dealing with the power of the state over the ordinary citizen, it was said that the 19th century was the battle over poverty and the town versus agrarian decline; the 20th century was about the battle between democracy and communism; and the 21st century would be that of the battle between the power of the state and the individual’s freedom.
While not a perfect description of our time, because the world faces so many major concerns at present, the threat to individual liberty is real – and rising.
I see it all around us. In politics after the Brexit vote, there were those who wished to overthrow the result, and still do.
In universities, the cry is for “safe spaces” and attempts to ban individuals from speaking at campuses. This has created legitimate fears about whether children and young people are receiving an education based on knowledge and openness or just a warped indoctrination.
In the world of medicine and NGOs, there are those who seek to ban everything from cigarettes to alcohol and sugar. Sure, one can be concerned about public health, but the instinct of the zealot is to ban rather than think of other more positive and less authoritarian ways of reaching the desired result.
In my party there is a long stated and fundamental core principle of protecting liberty, democracy and freedoms of religion, association and speech. However, since the decision by Nigel Farage to stand down as leader, there has been a dangerous clamour by some to be the champion of banning.
In arguing for the banning of the burka, it has been said by some in my party that we would help community integration and creating freedoms for oppressed women. Except it won’t necessarily achieve that and ignores those women who may want to wear the burka and are therefore denied their freedom to express their religion.
Yes, we must look at integration, the horror of FGM, support for home grown and international Islamic terrorism, but the urge to ban is not the British way. The idea of banning soon turns to increasing limits on freedom of speech or much worse. It is not what our party stands for. And this goes to the heart of issue – the battle over UKIP’s very soul and future.
We fought the EU on the principle that decisions on our laws should be in the hands of the people. Yet in the past few days we have seen an uprising of UKIP members – who over many years have developed a feeling of both anger and despair at the inaction or failed actions of our National Executive Committee and senior management.
Nearly 100 branches have had enough and want a new constitution, a new governing body and are using the party’s rule book to call for an Extraordinary General Meeting. This is an unprecedented show of member power.
However, instead of welcoming our own members’ democratic mandate, the NEC is seeking to quell it in any way it can by sending self-exculpatory letters and memos to members, using NEC members and officials to ask branch chairs to “see sense”, and writing articles defending their increasingly indefensible position. They are acting like heavy handed EU apparatchiks.
In my time as an NEC member I saw the committee’s weaknesses and limitations. Reform was not possible, nor would it have fixed the problems. That is why I have said we must abolish the NEC and replace it with a chairmanship forum, where chairmen of each region would be voted onto the committee by each local party branch.
If we do not take such radical action, I fear for the future of our party. I fear that we will no longer champion liberty and I fear that with such an amateurish organisational structure we will no longer be able to take the fight to the establishment parties.
But if the NEC goes and our party’s top tier becomes more professional, we can change the future of British politics for good.
This is a huge opportunity for UKIP. We either wither away – or we grow into a major political force for the long term. Let’s take this chance – and build on Nigel Farage’s success.
Let’s vote to abolish our National Executive Committee.