Interdisciplinary Approach to Politics: Theater Politics - Report Example

Presentation and Analysis of a Political Script: What Next? Scrip What Next? Cast of Characters UK Independent Party (UKIP) Cast Ninga Forage Party Leader Saul Nutty Deputy Party Leader Masters Taker Political Strategist Conservative Party Cast Daud Camera Party leader and UK Prime Minister Gear Sharp Deputy Party Leader 1 Loud Fieldman Deputy Party Leader 2 Luka Sant Political Strategist Labour Party Cast End Minibar Party leader Hurry Hermana Deputy Party Leader Nico Clogg Party member. Dung Kolp Political Strategist SCENE I (Location: UKIP Party headquarters in London) Set in UKIP headquarters in London where they are celebrating poll victories. Ninga Forage, the UKIP Party leader, is in his office watching the breaking news of their victory avidly. He is seated behind his desk. Enter Saul Nutty, the UKIP deputy party leader, and Masters Taker, political strategist. Saul Nutty: (speaking to Masters Taker as they enter the office) …we all put our backs into the campaign and it paid off. Labour and Conservatives, watch out! Here we come… Hi Forage… Ninga Forage mutes the television set and turns to look at Nutty and Taker as they enter his office. Ninga Forage: Oh hi! Come in and take a seat. Shut the door. We have the government right where we want them. They will be running scared for the rest of the season. Nutty and Takers shake hands with Forage, before Nutty takes the seat on Forage’s left side while Takes has the one on the right. Masters Taker: Yes! I guess so; they will be running for the rest of the season. But we cannot afford to rest since they are likely to strategize and come back at us with all guns blazing. Ninga Forage: You are obviously right, but we have our 1 minute of glory. We can afford to gloat for one day and get serous tomorrow. Saul Nutty: We can’t afford to be complacent. We are the underdogs and have a long way to go. Forage, are you ready for the press conference? Ninga Forage: My victory speech was prepared yesterday, though I may have to go over it one more time. Saul Nutty: You may not have the time for that; the press is already hear and clamouring to hear your speech. Masters Taker: Remember to address our liberal state, though you may have to leave out the abortion debate. I noticed that we have alienated the people with conservative ideas. They feel that we are too progressive and a threat to the society. Our ideas on abortion and reform don’t appeal to them. I feel that they are not really voting for the Liberals and Conservatives, rather they are voting against us. Ninga Forage: I hear your point Taker, and feel that you may be right on that score. What is your take Nutty? Saul Nutty: Taker is right. We have alienated the conservatives, though we may not really need them to win elections. After all we won the elections. Citizens are increasingly dissatisfied with the government performance and are considering alternative governments. I believe that if we are consistent with our policies and outline more detailed plans on the reforms we intend to initiate the citizens will be obliged to vote us in. The Labour and Conservative parties have clearly failed at governing this country. Masters Taker: We are in agreement then? The phone on Forage’s desk rings and he grabs it to answer. Ninga Forage: Hello…..Yes………..I’ll be down there shortly. (Addressing Taker and Nutty) That was the receptionist, gentlemen we have a press conference to address. Saul Nutty: What are we waiting for? Let us get this show on the road. The three men rise from their seats, straighten their jackets and head out the door. Masters Taker: Do I get a raise and contract renegotiation when the elections are done? Ninga Forage: We will see about that. Nutty did you………… End of SCENE I SCENE II (Conservative Party headquarters in London) David Camera, Gear Sharp, Loud Fieldman and Luka Sant enter an empty conference room while in conversation. David Camera: …What happened out there today? We got ambushed and were beaten hands down. When did we drop the mean, I mean I thought we were the power house, but that was just… Sant, what happened? Luka Sant: I know it was bad, but… Gear Sharp: You know! Sharp, it was you job to ensure that we came out on top. We were beat by a ragtag outfit and you think that was bad? It was epically catastrophic. How come we never saw this coming? All the men take seats around the conference table, with David Camera seated at the head of the table, Gear Sharp and Luka Sant are seated to his right, while Loud Fieldman is seated to his left. Loud Fieldman: Sant, what happened out there today? Luka Sant: Well, I tried telling you that things were not okay. The voters were losing faith with us; they wanted us to address the issue of a failing economy urgently. David Camera: Yes Sant, you told us all that. But we are a coalition government, and the people should understand that we are doing our best to stabilise the economy. Luka Sant: I know, but the voter wants results not excuses, and we have of late been full of excuses for government failings. We need to act now to stem UKIP’s popularity growth and gain some ground with the voters. We could maybe support the abortion bill or shift the voters focus to Ireland’s call for autonomy or Scotland’s calls for reforms. As long as the economy is failing and the media focus is on the failing economy, we will continue to lose support among the voters. Loud Fieldman: Our supporters may not be ready for the abortion debate, but we could think about other topics. Gear Sharp: You are all forgetting the issue at hand; we lost to a relatively new political outfit. How do we address the media and voters now? Daud Camera: The press address is due any minute now and am sure that they will ask use how we intend to proceed after losing so much ground with this election. We can’t be vague with the answers because we will be seen as indecisive and shocked, while definite plans draw the lines for the next elections. Gentlemen, we need to have a strategy now. Luka Sant: The first statement should be to congratulate all the people who participated in the elections, thank the voters for turning up to vote and congratulate those who won political seats. Do not talk of UKIP or congratulate them for winning more seats, but you could congratulate the Labour Party for giving us a good political contest. Gear Sharp: I don’t think it will be possible to fail mentioning UKIP in the press address. A reporter is surely going to ask for your opinion on their increasing popularity. That could even be the first question the media asks. Luka Fieldman: Sharp is right, it is either we mention UKIP voluntarily and control the conversation, or we let the media ask us and control the conversation. You are all aware that they will paint us as sour losers who were unsporting if we do not mention UKIP in the press address? Daud Camera: But the publicity will surely further their cause and popularity? Luka Fieldman: Yes, it will. But we have no other alternative. The intercom beeps, to signify an incoming call, on the conference table. Camera clicks it and answers. Daud Camera: Yes! Voice on the intercom: Sir! The press address is set to begin, they are waiting for you. Daud Camera: I am on my way. (He clicks the intercom to end the conversation). Gentlemen, we are out of time and I must address the press now! The all get up and exit the room while still in conversation. Luka Sant: I still think it is a terrible idea… End of SCENE II SCENE III (Labour Party headquarters in London) Scene opens in kitchen scene where End Minibar, Hurry Hermana, Clogg Nico and Dung Kolp and having a coffee break. They are seated around an oval kitchen table with steaming cups of coffee in front of them. A television set is on in the background with the sound muted. End Minibar: I never thought I would ever have the occasion to say this, but were walloped by a relative non-entity. It will take us a while to get used to the idea that there is a third major player in UK politics. This is unbelievable and sincerely catastrophic. Dung Kolp: I know it’s bad but the pre-election polls showed a worse scenario. I think we did well. Nico Clogg: Doing well is not good enough, we need to be exceptional. Hurry Hermana: I am still reeling from this election shock. Where did we go wrong? Nico Clogg: I think our being part of the coalition government meant that we shared some of the blame for a failing government, worsening culture and deteriorating culture. End Minibar: I am not getting the point you are putting across. Do you mean to say that we should dissolve the coalition and leave the government? Dung Kolp: That option is no longer viable, but we could consider distancing ourselves from the more controversial government plans. Hurry Hermana: Would someone please explain to me the point Kolp is trying to put across? Dung Kolp: I mean that the voters are dissatisfied with government and feel that there is need for a change of government for reforms, which could turn their lives around, to be initiated. We are the government, even though we occupy a minority capacity in a coalition government. The implication is that the government failings are attributed to our party. Calls for reforms would involve us not part of the next government in any capacity. End Minibar: Can we dissociate ourselves from the government? Nico Clogg: That is not possible at this point. If we withdraw our support for the coalition government the government will collapse and fresh elections will be called. UKIP would definitely take the day. End Minibar: Let me get this straight. The government is losing popularity and the voters want extensive reforms to be carried out? Dung Kolp: Yes, the voters feel that the government is underperforming and they could always do better. End Minibar: Given our association with the government, we are also losing popularity? Nico Clogg: Yes. We are partners in the coalition government. The voters feel that the government failings are our failings. As long as we are the government, the reforms will not be possible. Hurry Hermana: Does that mean that we are being voted out, and not that UKIP are being voted in? Dung Kolp: Yes, the voters are doing away with us. Given that UKIP is the only other alternative, they will be voted in by default. Hurry Hermana: How do we turn this around? Nico Clogg: Since we are part of the government and can’t just walk away, we must initiate urgent reforms to address the voters’ needs. We could initiate economic reforms to address rising inflation, cost of living and unemployment. End Minibar: Easier said than done. Are you forgetting that we are the minority partner in the coalition government? We can’t just initiate reforms; we must consult with the Conservative Party and get them on board with the reforms before any such reforms can be initiated. Don’t forget that they will take all the credit for successful reforms while we share blame in any government failings. Nico Clogg: Getting the Conservative Party to support the reforms won’t be that difficult. We appeal to their logical side but if that strategy fails we just threaten them with walking out of the coalition government. They won’t want to see us walk away. Hurry Hermana: What if they call our bluff of walking away from the coalition government? Dung Kolp: They won’t let us walk out; they will accede to the reforms as it will ensure that they have time to prepare for the next elections. All the four phones start beeping at the same time. They all take their phones out and click them. End Minibar: Gentlemen, it is time for the press statement. We will have to meet later and discuss this strategy further. They all get up from their chair, turn their cups into the sink and exit the room. Hurry Hermana: Minibar, hope you have your speech ready? End Minibar: My press address is ready… End of SCENE III Script Analysis Play Summary The play is a satirical literature to show that according to the voters, there was no great difference between Labour and Conservative parties as is evidenced when Labour and Conservative Party politicians are lumped together. The play is intended for politicians and political activists in the UK. The play will make the audience more aware of the implications of UKIPs win in the recently concluded EU parliamentary elections. The play presents the scenes in UKIP, Conservative and Labour Parties headquarters following UKIP winning the European elections of 2014. UKIP, relatively small and unknown political party, upset the political scene when they beat big wigs like Conservative and Labour Parties to win the most seats. There victories were across the country and a representative of their national appeal. This is the first time in the history of a democratic United Kingdom (UK) that neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party has won such an election. The plot follows the reactions to UKIP winning the elections (Wintour & Watt 2014). The play is a political drama that encompasses a plot, characters and themes particular to politics and the current political scene in the UK. The play is based on fact; UKIP won the most number of seats in the European elections of 2014, but focuses on presenting conspiracy theories on how the political parties’ bigwigs reacted to the election results. Plot analysis The play has 3 scenes following a multidimensional plot. In Scene I, the UKIP party members are celebrating their win. In Scenes II and III the Labour and Conservatives are analysing their performance and strategizing for the next election. The state of equilibrium of the play is UKIP’s election win. The scenes have no climax but there are clear resolutions on how to proceed. The scenes have been designed to reflect the parties’ fortunes with the first scene set in a simple office with only two visitors’ chairs. The second and third scenes are set in opulent settings reflecting the political fortunes of Conservative and Labour Parties (Freshwater 2009, pp. 18-19). Character analysis All the characters in the play are politicians and political strategists. They present insight on the issues they are discussing with everyone’s opinion treated with equal weight (Kolleher 2009, p. 25). Genre analysis The play is a political play with all the characters depicted as equals. They seat around the same setting and present ideas equally. Although the characters have been designated positions as leaders and members, they are on equal footing. The play also presents UK politics as being democratic in nature. An election has been conducted and results accepted, opinions have also been presented and discussed equally (Patterson 2006, pp. 12-16). Style analysis The play applies a realism style with a multidimensional plot. The characters present the current political reality in the UK (Chamberlain 2008, p. 57). Theme analysis The play’s central theme is changing political fortunes and how politicians react to these changes. The title, ‘What next?’, is a rhetorical question that is answered by the characters as they discuss how to proceed with politicking (Pavis 2003, pp. 35-36). Language The characters have used informal language. These reflect the informal discussion that they are having. Politicians are normally known for using formal language that reflects their educational background and public setting (Keefe & Murray 2007, p. 47; Rozik 2008, p. 18). Assessment of the play’s political message The results of EU parliament elections were a clear indication that the anti-EU parties were gaining popularity in the EU region. These results had even greater implications when it was determined that UK’s voter turnout was 35.4%, up from 34.5% in 2009. Though the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and European Peoples Party (EPP) retained supremacy when the overall elections results were considered, the two customarily predominant political parties in the UK – Labour and Conservative parties – lost political ground the relatively new and unknown UKIP, a political movement that is sceptical of the EU and whose foremost goal is to withdraw the UK from the EU. UKIP won 24 seats (32%), up from 13 seats they won in 2009, while the Conservative Party won 19 seats and the Labour Party won 20 seats (BBC, 2014; European Parliament, 2014). UKIP winning more seats than in the previous election of 2009 was not surprising, but it would still cause political upheavals. UKIP has been very vocal in their call for the UKs withdrawal from the EU, and while they don’t have the majority to advance their agenda in the EU parliament, the current trend shows that they may have the majority in the next elections and thus successfully push for the UKs withdrawal from the EU. The course of UKIP in the EU parliament is certain to hold public interest. The results were also indicative of the voters’ assertion that the traditional parties lacked credibility, evidenced by their deteriorating governance performance, and the voters were thus putting their faith in new parties. The voters were clearly discontented with the current political situation in the UK. UKIPs win and its anti-EU agenda increases the possibility of a referendum to decide UKs position on staying in the EU. The results have also set the tone for the 2015 UK general elections with the Labour and Conservative Parties candidates reiterating the need for the UK to stay in the EU (European Parliament, 2014). The election results point to the fact that the anti-EU movement now has the ability to affect policy changes and shift EU parliament discussions towards their agendas such as immigration and economic policies. Though they still don’t have a majority, they have increased in number and could even assume the chairs of some of the parliamentary committees (Hewitt & Price 2014). The results have shifted attention from the EU economic crisis to a looming political crisis. Trends analysis has shown that the EU parliament is highly adaptable and would easily survive the shifting political landscape, the same does not apply to the national parliaments. There will be an increasing need for coalition governments formed by the traditional parties to check the advance of the new political parties as seen in the case of the UK where Labour and Conservative Parties had to form a coalition government to counter UKIPs advances (Hewitt & Price 2014). It must be noted that despite its popularity, UKIP is not a coherent political force, was borne solely from Euroscepticism and tend to use the EU Parliament as a podium to advance their views to UK nationals; but are less interested in the EU parliament operations. It is, therefore, their influence at the national level which is of more importance, incidentally slowing down the process of EU policy making, as the UK government and the traditional parties would adapt their political stands to match some of UKIPs rhetoric. For instance, the Conservative Party is now calling for a referendum to allow UK citizens to decide whether they want to stay in the EU or withdraw from the EU (Phillips, Sparrow & Quinn, 2014). UKIP win is a strong political message, it reinforces UK anti-EU sentiments and if they continue in the same trend would eventually influence a UK in/out referendum over EU membership. Voters sentiments in Scotland’s referendum (set for September 2014) on whether they should withdraw from or remain in the UK could be influenced by the UKIPs win and agenda, bearing in mind that if the an increasing number of UK voters are considering leaving the EU, then the Scottish referendum could very well be a choice between withdrawing from or staying in the EU (supposing that a self-governing Scotland would be allowed to stay either stay within the EU or withdraw irrespective of UKs position and sentiments; Hewitt & Price, 2014). The transformation of the EU parliament make-up is anticipated to create a ‘true’ opposition in the Parliament, as the EU supporters are still a majority at approximately 75% while the Eurosceptics are gaining popularity. This could also turn into a trend with Eurosceptic parties eventually having a majority in the EU parliament (BBC, 2014). Summary The presented play has reflected the current political setting of the UK. After UKIPs election win, the Labour and Conservative parties are shaken. They are aware that if the current trend continues then UKIP will form the next government while they will be relegated to the backbench. It is clear that the main reason for their loss is voters’ perception that they have failed at governance. References BBC 2014. European Parliament Results. BBC[online] Available at: [Accessed 24 June 2014]. Chamberlain, F 2008, On the Art of the Theatre, Taylor & Francis Publishers, London. European Parliament 2014. European elections in the UK - first signs of a shift in politics?European Parliament[online] Available at: [Accessed 24 June 2014]. Freshwater, H 2009, Theatre and Audience, Palgrave Macmillan Publishers, Basingtoke. Hewitt, G & Price, M 2014. Eurosceptic earthquake rocks EU elections. BBC[online] Available at: [Accessed 24 June 2014]. Keefe J & Murray S 2007, Physical Theatres: A Critical Introduction, Routledge Publishers, London. Kolleher, J 2009, Theatre and Politics, Palgrave Macmillan Publishers, Basingtoke. Patterson, M 2006, Strategies of Political Theatre: Post-War British Playwrights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pavis, P 2003, Analysing Performance: Theatre, Dance, and Film, University of Michigan Press, Michigan. Phillips, C. Sparrow, A & Quinn, B 2014. European election results 2014: UKIP sweeps to victory in the UK. The Guardian[online] Available at: [Accessed 24 June 2014]. Rozik, E 2008, Generating Theatre Meaning: A Theory and Methodology of Performance Analysis, Sussex Academic Press, Eastbourne. Wintour, P & Watt, N 2014. UKIP wins European elections with ease to set off political earthquake: For the first time in modern history, neither Labour nor Conservatives have won a British national election, The Guardian [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 June 2014]. Read More