styles of Olympic authoritarianism

I’ve argued before that Britain is part of an emerging bloc of authoritarian nations with a varied approaches to asserting control over the public. This piece from last week on the government security measures for the 2012 Olympics allows us to make some comparisons.

The government was accused tonight of giving itself draconian powers to clamp down on protests at the 2012 Olympics. Critics said the powers were so broad they would potentially give private contractors the right to forcibly enter people's homes and seize materials.

…But civil rights campaigners are worried about several clauses in the London Olympic Games and Games Act 2006. Section 19(4) could cover protest placards, they said, as it read: "The regulations may apply in respect of advertising of any kind including in particular – (a) advertising of a non-commercial nature, and (b) announcements or notices of any kind."

Section 22 allows a "constable or enforcement officer" to "enter land or premises" where they believe such an advert is being shown or produced. It allows for materials to be destroyed, and for the use of "reasonable force". The power to force entry requires a court warrant. Causing still further concern is a section granting the powers to an enforcement officer appointed by Olympic Delivery Authority.

This is supposedly directed at ambush marketing. Whatever. It fits in with one consistent thrust of government policy, namely to act as a kind of authoritarian franchiser, subcontracting enforcement to various groups either created by itself or operating essentially in the private sector. Just as “enforcement officers” can now break into private homes to enforce sponsorship rights, so nightclub bouncers can issue on the spot fines. Likewise, owners of malls and other private developers are allowed to use private security companies to enforce their own regulations.

By contrast, here’s how the Chinese handled Olympic security for 2008:

More than 600,000 "security volunteers," including retirees, guards and students, have been enlisted, in addition to the 90,000 police and thousands of military and border-control personnel that will be deployed, a spokesman for the Public Security Ministry said in a written response to questions.

Meanwhile, political activists say, police have arrested and detained prominent dissidents and stepped up telephone and e-mail surveillance.

A fairly classic centralized operation: high-tech surveillance at one end, a public mobilization at the other and the whole panoply of official security forces in the middle of the sandwich. Everything is ultimately controlled from the centre. Of course, as the 2012 OLymnpics approaches in Britain we can expect more surveillance and intelligence operatiuon against those identified as likely troublemakers too.

It’s hard to believe that the Chinese government would adopt a New Labour style role of authoritarian franchiser. It’s just not the way they do things, and it has uncomfortable echoes of early 20th century warlordism. And New Labour couldn;t adopt the Chinese style. There isn;t the same tradition or capacity in briotain for large scale, centrally directed mobilization. But both approaches express a shared conviction that no large scale event can go ahead without greater general control of the public. What’s at issue here are the forms of authoritarianism best suited to local political conditions.

Comments

[jim jay]

This is just incredible. What on Earth do they think they're doing?

[ejh]

I very much like

A government spokesperson said the laws, passed in 2006, were meant to stop "over-commercialisation" of the games.

I think "stop" actually means "protect", here, doesn't it?

[Nick L]

'Comparative Authoritarianisms', I'm sure that there's a research project and a fat cheque from the ESRC to be wrung out of the idea.

[Alex]

Regarding the 600,000 (or just hrair) volunteers, it's interesting to look at the difference in framing between Sydney and Beijing. The Aussies relied heavily on hordes of volunteers to make it work, but no-one saw that as a sign of the coming tyranny. In China, though, 600,000 blockwarts.

Meanwhile, I'm quite impressed by the degree to which the Government (and the establishment more broadly) has managed to convince me and the public at large that it's going to be a horrible experience we'd do better to keep away from. The Australians wanted everyone to take part; ours will be a sign reading "Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted", a sort of week-long green zone.

I note that in the era of Boris Johnson, criticism of the project is suddenly very unfashionable. Tories used to think it was an evil socialist megaproject, an example of ZaNuLabour's international squandermania, yadda yadda fill in the Simon Jenkins column here.

Suddenly, Jenkins has gone all silent and the boy lard is on telly marching over the construction site like a Sloane Speer, correcting the blueprints and exhorting the workers, and talking about how perhaps we shouldn't scale it down afterwards after all. Equally suddenly, the whole thing of including the contingency fund in case of cost overrun in the current costings, therefore justifying ever more contingency, has vanished. Hail the Construction Leader!

The site images on ITN London Tonight looked like they were being broadcast from Dubai or the Moon, whichever is more alien.

[ejh]

The Olympics, being a spectacular manifestation of public expenditure for the purpose of private profit, are pretty much an exemplar of what Conservative governance is all about.

[ajay]

It's a net financial loss to the country (despite the intangible benefits of Glory, Patriotism etc) but it's still a nice profitmaker if you happen to run a well-connected company in the right sector.

Bit like the British Empire, really.

[Charlie]

I suspect the prime motivation really is to have the power to remove 'unlicensed' advertising; there's bound to be someone in Stratford with a well-placed semi and the nous to cut a deal with Adibok when it's Nuke that's bought the rights. What's interesting, as you note, is the move to cut out the middle man; calling the council or calling the police runs the risk of bringing someone with a sense of fair play into the proceedings. What you need is your own cast iron contract with a security contractor; you want it so they won't give you any shit lest you take your business elsewhere.

Then again, I can imagine protest placards etc. getting squashed using the same mechanism simply because they create the wrong image for 'the brands'.

My view is that if you're able to turn your well placed home into a revenue source, good luck with that: a case where I'd actually like to see more advertising, not less. If you insist on holding your olympic games in a city; well, the unexpected is part of what cities are about. Cities have citizens in them.

[Martin Wisse]

I'm just hoping that this will be as big an unmitigated disaster as everybody expects it will be, so that the numbnuts who want to bring the Olympics to Amsterdam again will be discouraged.

[Alex]

It won't be a disaster; the Commonwealth Games weren't, the construction industry has done rather well at delivering big infrastructure projects in the last couple of years (CTRL, Wembley, Heathrow T5). It'll be a success for the wrong aesthetics, values, and methods.

[ajay]

Oh, I'm sure it'll all get built on time - it's still going to be a financial disaster though.

[ejh]

the construction industry has done rather well at delivering big infrastructure projects in the last couple of years (CTRL, Wembley, Heathrow T5)

What's Wembley doing in this list?

[Martin Wisse]

Or Terminal 5?

[ajay]

T5 was finished on time AFAIK, it's just that the baggage handling system was initially not well run - not really the construction industry's fault, but either BA or BAA.
Wembley, yes, a bit of a puzzler.

[Tom]

"What's Wembley doing in this list?"
Could Alex be confusing it with the Emirates (which, although a private operation, gave the Olympic stadium builders an unrivalled CV when it came to bidding for that job)? Wembley was a colossal fuckup from any angle.

You can add St. Pancras, Woolwich DLR extension and probably the East London Line to the list of 'recent projects the UK has completed to a good standard without fuss'. Actually, I think most recent road projects (of which there are more than you might think) are similarly fuss-free.

Simon Jenkins is still anti-Crossrail, of course, despite Boris being very pro. His fellow dickhead Andrew Gilligan, on the other hand, is still anti-everything and forever demanding that Boris sack anyone he doesn't like and adhere more loyally to the Policy Exchange/Tory Militant Tendency playbook.