Some media outlets both local and foreign have classified the recent riots in London, which later spread to other parts of England, as “race riots”. Their analysis is based on misplaced interpretation of information. It is true that the mayhem started as a result of shooting of a black man by London Police, but based on evidence available as of today, Mark Duggan was not shot due to some known institutionalized race-based policy of London Police. The Los Angeles riots of 1992 were race riots, as the African-Americans perceived the beating of Rodney King as a result of LAPDs racial bias against them. It is pertinent to mention here that black communities in other parts of Britain, including Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have reacted calmly and peacefully. Furthermore, the rioters have come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, burning and looting properties belonging not just to the white, but non-white as well. The killings of three British-Pakistanis in Birmingham, presumably by a black person, however could be classified as racially motivated, but not the riots that “awoke” Britain on August 7. So if they were not race riots than what were they? Three disciplines, economics, sociology and law can help us interpret what really happened in London and beyond.
Most of what we saw on television was groups of teenagers looting, destroying, fighting, putting property on fire, etc. These teens looked uneducated and unemployed, from their behavior and body language. These trouble makers are popular known as “Scallies” in Britain. A scally is the one who is an urban-dweller, with next to no education, no job and worst, no chance of ever making it respectably in society. Scallies however aren’t blind. They see new and expensive electronic gadgets, branded trainers promising to make you fly, amongst other things that a “good” life promises to everyone in Britain except them. A scally does not have a good life, yet he wants iPod, iPhone and Nike. The absence of law and order provides him with that golden opportunity to make these hot commodities his prized possessions, which he otherwise could not have. It was also his way of getting back at the society which has nothing to offer him and whose economic values and practices are of simply no value to him. In short, what we saw in London was the rise of the “have nots” for a few days, sort of a triumph over the “haves” of the British society.
However this mayhem should not be seen purely through Marxist binoculars. Not every trouble maker was a Scally. A man, allegedly involved in rioting, was arrested who was actually a school teacher. Here one must remember that in the absence of law and order, not only “have nots” but also sub-cultures and counter-cultures in the society rise to take their place, albeit for a short period of time. One does not need to make a certain amount of money per annum to be an adherent of mainstream social values. The executives of now defunct Enron Corp., who were multi-millionaires, did not believe in mainstream American values of honesty and fairplay. The person who allegedly hit and killed three British of Pakistani origin in Birmingham may have had grudge against the Pakistani community for long, which came out on that fateful night. If he was also the owner of his car than presumably he did not belong to the bottom of the pit of Britain’s economic class. He was not a Scally. He did not believe in mainstream British social values like respect for the life and property of fellow man and obedience and respect of law.
Whether the law enforcement agencies particularly police should have more powers or less is an age old debate both in the British Parliament and society, in general. It is particularly of interest in the academic circles. The police in Britain under different times and circumstances have enjoyed varied powers to quell social disturbance. What however, matters in the end is not the law but that one trigger-happy police officer on the street who in the spur of moment decides to shoot rather than restrain himself. That one officer has the power to jeopardize all law reforms in Britain and in fact in the rest of the world. So police training is quintessential, rather than just legal reforms.
The riots might have taken place thousands of miles away, but there is a lesson in them for us too. Our state must transform into a welfare state, as envisaged by our religion and the founding fathers. Leaving a large chunk of the society to fend for itself is a sure recipe for disaster.
