Thoughts on the 2011 London (UK) Riots

Although relatively few observers admit to fully condoning the riots and looting that took place (or are still perhaps taking place) in England, many have argued that (in addition to protest against the police shooting of Mark Duggan and others like it, and those doing it for fun or due to crowd psychology) they are a result of economic disadvantage in the affected communities. (See, for example commentary like these: The Guardian, The Telegraph, Euronews). I have even heard some say that although they may not condone them they also do not condemn them or blame the perpetrators. One striking fact about the riots, looting, and destruction (including the burning of vehicles and shops, which frequently also took nearby homes), is that they took place in the poorest neighborhoods, generally the same neighborhoods where the perpetrators reside. Why would they their own neighborhood?

Imagine the following conversation:

Observer, to looter: "What do you think is the cause of these riots? Is there any justification for the looting?"

Looter: "It's obvious. It's because we don’t have opportunity. We have no opportunity or ability to open a business; we can’t find work; the rich have millions but we can’t even afford a car or home, or any of the nice stuff sold in the stores we looted..."

Observer: "So you hit the businesses, cars and homes of those who have succeeded in your neighborhood? You’re thieving from the ones who have succeeded in your own area..."

Looter: "Come on - we've mainly targeted big multinational chain stores - the super-rich! They can afford it, and they're the ones making millions off the backs of the poor and working class!"

Observer: "But, by hitting big companies aren't you also making it harder for those who don't have work to find any work at all? At least they offer some kind of job..."

Is there any sense to the looter's rationale? They complain they have no jobs, opportunity to open a business, or property of their own - cars, or homes. Perhaps, rather than just opportunistically thieving from the rich, there is a political point: perhaps what they are trying to say is that they are willing to sacrifice the successful from their neighborhood, and the opportunities that do exist, to declare that it’s not enough. It's like saying "look, you can keep your petty offering, it’s an insult."

Of course, if what kids today have still is not enough, with all the social programs and opportunities of England in 2011, the high living standard of even the poorest, then what will ever be enough? It seems more likely to have emanated from a cultural or political (but non-economic) issue - parental, council-estate (public housing, drug wars etc), a bad entitlement/consumerism mix, a sense of being in a police-state, crowd-psychology of course, a problem of too much leniency, or a sense of having no voice. Most likely some mixture, I'd guess. Here is an interesting discussion of some.

There are also important lessons from Tsars in Russia, and other imperialist rulers: responding with more police, cracking down on protesters as a policy solution, often only makes it worse, even when combined with some concessions. This is a major reason for the collapse of the last Russian Tsar.

For much the same reason, CCTV might help find the perpetrators this time, but that would likely be the first thing to go next time - rioters would be sure to take the cameras out at the very start - and the public would likely be made more terrified when they are taken out, seeing it as a portend of doom, while the rioters might be further energized, infused with violent or chaotic energy, responding to the police-state atmosphere.

The experience of the Russian Tsars teaches us that you can’t quell riots by cracking down, increasing police response and reducing freedom and privacy - unless you take it to terrible extremes. You have to change the conditions that caused the riots somehow. However, it seems you cannot just buy people off with concessions of social programs. They will have to continually expand, because the people become accustomed to every new level. Then any reduction, no matter how high the baseline rises to, is a travesty. Social programs create a sense of entitlement, and when they are no longer entitled to something, no matter how small a thing it is, and no matter how well off they remain, they may becomes incited to riot.

Final thought: I was genuinely surprised and interested in the idea of banning gangs from public housing - can government actually help reduce such violence through their provision of public housing? Could it offer an opportunity unavailable if housing is only private (whether subsidized or not)?