In America the famous television debate between Mr Kennedy and Mr Nixon sealed the fate of the latter and ensured the victory of the former. In France television has made it possible for General de Gaulle to run government through referendums. Even in tradition-bound Britain we saw the cumulative effect of television at the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool last week as over 4,000 delegates discussed the personalities of the principal contenders for leadership in terms of the effectiveness of their image on what has been called the idiot box.
Two Levels
It was obvious that the conference was taking place at two levels in that the debate in the conference hall and even the behind-the-scenes developments in the open scramble for power were merely a prelude to the larger debate on the television screen. Not only were important speakers themselves only too anxious to provide a commentary on their performance and role at the conference in front of television cameras but delegates would rush back to their rooms to hear the debates all over again. They wanted to judge what impression the conference would make on the televiewers in the country.
Naturally the whole atmosphere was more febrile and heated than it need have been. Some commentators were reminded of Hitler’s infamous Nuremburg rallies by the atmosphere that prevailed at one rally where Lord Hailsham announced his carefully mediated and already leaked decision to give up the peerage. That very evening he was available in the television booths to explain what a great sacrifice he was making for the uncertain gain of becoming Prime Minister. If Lord Hailsham was setting the pace the other contenders were not unwilling to project their personalities on the screen. It was somewhat of a shock that in this oldest of democracies a man’s suitability for holding the highest office in the land should be judged in terms of his ability as a TV performer.
In this country politicians have so far made their mark first and foremost in the House of Commons. Both Mr Macmillan and Mr Wilson for instance belong to that tradition. But it is doubtful if the House of Commons will long remain the supreme national forum. To no small extent Mr Wilson’s own ascendancy in his party has been assured by his capacity to master the techniques of television performance. So much importance does he attach to this business that he made five appearances in different programmes on one single evening to comment on the Denning report. It seems that before long television cameras will be installed in the House of Commons. That will be a great day for television. I wish the same could be said for democracy.
In recent years there has been so much talk of “the nation” here that it becomes difficult to accept the evidence of one’s own eyes that here, as elsewhere, “two nations” still exist. This is to deny neither the benefits of the Welfare State nor the virtual disappearance of harsh poverty as we understand the term in India. If anyone had any doubts about the existence of a more or less rigidly defined class structure in this country one had only to attend the Labour Party conference at Scarborough and the Conservative Party annual fete at Blackpool to have them forcefully dispelled. These were truly two different worlds.
I am not referring merely to the fact that while the Labour delegates sang the “Red Flag” and called each other comrades, the Conservatives sang “God save the Queen” and opened their speeches with “My Lords, Ladies and gentlemen”. Nor am I just contrasting the vast expanse of drab often cheap masculine suits at Scarborough against the bright sea of womens’ colourful hats at Blackpool. The contrast was sharp and total.
Clear Contrast
The Labour delegates, mostly of humble origin and modest means, were tense in spite of the anticipation of victory. They behaved as if they found the smell of victory unfamiliar. The absence of wrangles made them somewhat uncomfortable. They love debates. In the midst of confusion and results of opinion polls forecasting doom, the smartly turned out Conservatives on the other hand behaved as if it was their divine right to rule Britain if not the world. They instinctively rejected Mr Reginald Maudling because he, and probably only he, does not equate labour victory with national disaster. The way they equally instinctively fell for Lora Hailsham and Lord Home spoke for itself. As for educational differences, excepting Mr Wilson himself, there was no one at Scarborough who could match the turn of phrase and irony of even young Conservatives.
The fact that corridors of influence and power were opened to Mr Macmillan mainly because of his marriage to the daughter of the Duke of Devonshire offers quite a commentary on the working of the Conservative Party. It is well known that Mr Butler, twice married into the famous Courtauld family, is a multi-millionaire and so are some of the other Cabinet Ministers. Mr Wilson lives in a house for which he is still paying the mortgage. Many Labour MPs cannot afford to take a taxi if the House continues past the last train and bus services. Dismissed Conservative Ministers make easy transition to big business. The Labour Party cannot retire its old and tired MPs because they have nowhere to go.
Now that the artificial atmosphere of moral indignation generated by the relentless publicity some aspects of the underworld received as a result of the Profumo affair has at long last died down, the old debate about marriage and sex has revived. There are two main developments which feed this debate in which even the headmasters of public schools are not on the side of the angels but on that of the advocates of a more liberal approach. The age of puberty has advanced from seventeen to thirteen and the teenagers out of schools easily move into jobs. Together they have produced a demand for reducing the legal age of marriage from 21 to 18.
In point of fact one in four of all girls in this country marry at the age of 19 or earlier. Nearly one-sixth of all children are born of mothers below 22. Yet under the law as it stands a couple recently went to jail for getting married in defiance of a court order which prohibited them getting married before the girl was 21 because her parents did not give their consent.
Peter Pan
Whether these demands are conceded or not there is no denying that the teenagers are a great social force in this country. In this age of mass consumption whole industries are geared to meet their need. Advertisement campaigns have helped to produce a stereotype of Peter Pan because they must conform to a pattern so that they yield big profits to mass production industries. The number of Peter Pans is placed at five and a half million in this country.
According to Dr Mark Abrams, well-known social research expert, at least three-fourths of a teenager’s income goes on conforming to the image. This means wearing the right clothes, riding the right sort of motor bike, buying the right records and hanging round the right coffee bar. If before the war teenagers wanted to be regarded as adults, their successors today spend heavily to stay the way they are. They do not accept the responsibility of growing up. One accompanying aspect of the British scene is the fourfold rise in violent crime. Against just over 5,000 cases in 1939 the figure has moved up well above 20,000. The graph has continuously risen since 1953.
The Times of India, 20 October 1963