|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: The times they are a changin' . . . eventually
David Goodhart The Guardian
Wednesday 22 Aug 2001 Something has shifted in the drugs debate. In the past few weeks, a procession of politicians (including members of the government), senior police officers and opinion formers of every stripe have endorsed the de facto decriminalisation of soft drugs - and some have gone a lot further. But why is this happening now? The best explanation I have heard is based on that powerful subterranean force in political and social change: the generational time lag. The time lag works like this. At any given time there are three (even four) generations with the vote, so in theory their views should carry equal weight with politicians. In practice, however, the views of the older two generations carry much more weight because the over-45s provide the bulk of politicians, opinion formers and people that matter in the running of most organisations. This means that causes supported by the younger generation and a half - even when they represent a numerical majority of the population - often take 20 years or more to become law. This is what seems to be happening with the decriminalisation of soft drugs. The argument was won among the younger generations in the 1960s and 1970s, but we have had to wait until now for those people to acquire critical mass in the dominant, older generations. It may be something of a truism to say that the baby-boom generation are now in power so their values are prevailing. But you can play the generational time lag game with all sorts of policies at all sorts of times. The argument on homosexual law reform, for example, was probably won in the early 1950s with the various scandals of that time, but it took until the late 1960s for Roy Jenkins to change the law. Going even further back, the argument over women's suffrage was really won in the 1880s, but it took another 30 years and a world war to become law. And what about the future? Will all those people who seemed to turn against the House of Windsor at the time of Diana's death be voting for a republic in 20 years' time? But surely with the enormous influence of youth culture - especially in the media - the generational time lag has been abolished or even reversed? It seems not. The reason is that youth culture is largely a commercial, not a political, phenomenon. Indeed, if anything the older generations seem to be consolidating their hold on power. I am not one of those people who believes that the low turnout at the last election was a terrible disaster - when politics is no longer about national survival or social transformation but rather about good administration and piecemeal social reform the incentive to vote is much less. But if I were 25, and concerned about my voice being heard, I would be worried about the low level of political participation among my peers - when only 40% of 18- to 24-year-olds bother to vote, they cannot expect politicians to pay much attention to their concerns. Oddly enough, this may be good news for liberals. The mainly liberal baby-boom generation who are now in power can expect to face less of a political challenge from the rising generations who are showing signs of more conservative values but can't be bothered to impose them on the system. So, rejoice - Guardian readers will rule the roost for the next 50 years.
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!