How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?

The controversial statues debate shows how Britain's democratic channels have failed us

Question: How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?
Position1 of 3›: We have every right to take the statues down
Argument‹5 of 11›: The controversial statues debate shows how Britain's democratic channels have failed us

Formal channels of protest have failed. Tearing down statues is forcing those in power to listen to the needs of those at the bottom.

The argument

During the Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020, the statue of Edward Colston had been toppled and thrown into the Bristol Harbour. Ministers quickly responded by condemning the behaviour as criminal, suggesting that more appropriate legal mechanisms may have been employed. Since the 1990s awareness about Edward Colston’s past of making his fortune through slave trading has caused significant controversy. There have been numerous petitions with many signatories and campaigns seeking to remove the statue in Bristol for twenty years, as well as to have other statues such as those of Robert Milligan in East London, and Cecil Rhodes in Oxford removed. Legitimate mechanisms have been adopted, exhausted and have failed. The failings in these democratic processes have caused people to become frustrated at the lack of agreement, progress, and engagement, leading to people taking the opportunity at hand to achieve what they had been petitioning for throughout an exceedingly long time. It was not until after Edward Colston's statue was toppled, that swift reviews took place, leading to the removal of Robert Milligan’s statue in Tower Hamlets. This was unlikely to have been attained without the public having taken matters into their own hands.

Premises

[P1]When citizens exhaust legitimate democratic channels over decades without progress, they retain the right to take direct action to achieve change. [P2] Campaigns and petitions to remove statues of slave traders like Colston, Milligan, and Rhodes had been pursued for twenty years through legitimate means and consistently failed. [P3] Direct action proved effective where democratic channels had not, as Colston's toppling triggered the swift official removal of Milligan's statue. [C] Therefore, we have every right to take these controversial statues down ourselves.

Counter-arguments

There are more than 800 public statues around the UK which mark moments of history and convey the values that society held at the time that these were built. Although one segment of the populate seek removal of these on the basis that these statues promote racist, sexist, homophobic values, another part of the population considers these statues to be valued artefacts which we can learn from. Democratic channels achieve a balance between these views. In Poole, there is a statue of Lord Robert Baden-Powell who is associated with racism, supporting Hitler, and holding homophobic views. The statue, under police advice was to be removed for its protection following the toppling of the Edward Colston statue. A petition against its permanent removal gained traction with over 10,000 signatories. Local councils therefore must engage with the populate's multiple conflicting views to consider what actions to take with monuments that some see as problematic, and others see as a valuable historic monument, or even a learning point from history. Democratic channels have not failed as they aim to build consensus amongst conflicting perspectives.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise states as a right the very thing the argument has to establish. That a campaign has not succeeded over decades shows that it has not yet persuaded enough people, which is an outcome democratic processes are designed to be able to produce. [Rejecting P2] Failing to win is not the same as exhausting the channels. The reviews that followed show that decisions were still available to be taken through councils, and a substantial part of the public opposed removal — as the counter-petitions raised over other monuments demonstrated. [Rejecting P3] That direct action was followed by official removals shows it was effective, not that it was legitimate. The same reasoning would license any sufficiently determined group to remove monuments that others value, which is precisely the objection the opposing positions raise.

Proponents cited

Chloe Chaplain
“had democratic means been an effective option, protesters may not have felt the need to forcibly remove the figure...The story of these two statues – one in East London and one in Oxford – show how long and unproductive many attempts to remove statues have been, but also how quickly change can happen when the right person approves it. It’s all very well telling people not to pull down figures and to, instead, pursue the correct process – petitions, letters, campaigns, protests. But what about when these are exhausted and no change is being seen?Labour MP and shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy told ITV on Wednesday that what the country was witnessing was people reacting to repeatedly feeling like their voices are not being heard. “Why was that statue removed in the way that it was removed? Because for 20 years, protesters and campaigners had used every democratic lever at their disposal, petitions, meetings, protests, trying to get elected politicians to act, and they couldn’t reach a consensus and they couldn’t get anything done,” she said.”