What are the right-wing critics saying? That the police haven't been violent enough against the protesters? I suppose I could understand such a criticism, although I would disagree with it. I've heard more from the left so far.
Exactly! I wouldn't agree with it either, but it is what they would come up with. Just as Gusar pointed out, a lot of these rioters are children of immigrants. Instead of looking at the societal problems, many people would rather see the reason in immigrants as such, or to exagerate, "foreign blood". Also too weak action against all those "misfits" of society could provide a reason. What happened in France after the riots of 2005? Sarkozy also followed a stricter line against foreigners, Gypsies etc. in order to satisfy potential voters of the FN.
Another similiar riot I remember was the one of Los Angeles in 1992. The scheme was the same: violence after a racial crime done by the police, and riots broke out in order to release all this piled up frustration of societal reality. It both fed left and right extremists (black-haters), and after some while politics returned to business as usual. I'm sure it will be pretty much the same in Britain.
Well said, I agree. But I'd be willing to bet you that the next President of France will be a Socialist, not FN. I'd take 20-1 odds on that bet, in fact.
The FN doesn't take position to a specific type of economy, as long as it serves the (true-blooded-gaulish) French people only. Depending on current economic status and the needs of it's people, the FN can change it's position any time. And that is also what they will do in 2012, in order to become more popular and gain more votes: they will become socialists! I don't want to compare those two parties too deep, but that's exactly what the NSDAP (National
Socialist Pary) did, too!
It's odd that these sorts of riots are happening right now in England if the mistrust into the political system isn't so high. I suppose the rioters don't represent a significant voting constituency that would actually affect that sort of thing.
I think that the reason the UK has two major parties is that they're stuck with them due to their electoral system. Sure, a two-party system can create less extremism within governments, but it also creates a stagnation of new ideas and makes people outside of the two parties feel totally unrepresented. In the US, we're suffering from the drawback of the two-party system... we replace a bad government with another bad government because that's our only alternative. I would be willing to go to PR just to allow 3rd party voices in the government (although I'm probably biased, seeing that I frequently vote 3rd party). At least in the UK, they got a coalition, which I think is better than the Conservatives alone. The Lib Dems have helped the direction of the coalition.
If the UK got PR right now, I don't think they'd elect BNP or even UKIP significantly. The Greens are the most likely to grow IMHO (and Labour would probably make the same number of gains they're likely under the current system). The UK would probably get along about how they have been. So I think it's more of an attitude amongst the voters rather than the political system itself.
Again, I don't think that these riots will have too much impact on following politics. The points have already been said:
1. Left and right wing voters will end up in a draw.
2. the rioters themselves don't vote at elections
3. the middle-class average person, I suppose, is too level-headed to get influenced by some teenage statements
About the two-party system:
I'm not really sure about it, but sometimes I believe it doesn't make a great difference between a two-party system and a multiple-party system. Why? Take Germany for instance, there are three major parties which are considered left:
The SPD as the traditional worker's party, heading towards employees in general, promoting a social market economy under democratic conditions.
Die Linke, with higher radical socialist reforms, advocating the unemployed and those mourning about the loss of the former GDR.
And the Greens, whose voters usually are recruted from a higher education and left background. It is similiar to SPD, but with higher concerns about ecological and economical sustainability and ethic principles in general.
In a two party-system, all those in favor of one of those parties will with a higher probability go to the one and only major left party, which would be Democrats in the US or Labour in the UK for example. This means, within those parties there is a much higher variety of politicians and voters than in multiple-party states. As multiple-party systems also form coalitions, I think that the quarrels between those parties during elections and legislation periods are very similiar to those quarrels WITHIN the parties of the US or UK.
How close is Germany to the brink you're theorizing will happen? Do you actually see the NPD having any sway? I know the FDP is unpopular now, but that doesn't seem relevant. What else has been changing? Perhaps there is a different dynamic in Germany as well due to history, in their case, being deeply frightened of anything having to do with nationalism.
If the economy goes further down and inflation rises the next years, I believe that Die Linke will become popular as ever in eastern Germany, probably taking the majority of east German states and seats in parliament. The NPD will also become popular as ever, probably entering every east German state. Though they will not make the majority there and wouldn't get a governmental position.
In western Germany I believe that the Greens will rise even more, presumably overtaking SPD and CDU in more than one state (which is what they already did this year in Baden-Würtemberg). Even if it's just speculation, but I believe the next chancellor to be Green is not that unrealisitc anymore. The FDP will probably not enter any state anymore and become history...