In a nutshell

This week’s column from The Economist’s Bagehot section argues that British politics has become dominated by an “idolatry of victimhood”, leading to poor policymaking. The piece notes that the term “victims” has been mentioned in Parliament more frequently since 2020 than “Brexit” or “immigration”. This trend, while stemming from a necessary correction of past state callousness, is now seen as problematic.

The column contends that politicians are now “petrified” by victims’ groups , causing normal standards of “risk, cost, [and] proportionality” to be discarded. As an example, it cites “Martyn’s law,” which is projected to have high annual costs for businesses but low benefits, a trade-off that became impossible to debate. The article concludes that this “autocracy of lived experience” turns collective societal problems into individual ones and represents a “final dereliction of duty” by the state.

Our Take

The Bagehot column identifies a crucial mechanism of institutional disruption. The 451 Institute framework focuses on how external pressures can compel an institution to violate its fundamental duty, thereby undermining its core mission. In this case, the institution is Parliament, and its core mission includes creating proportional, effective laws for all of society. Its fundamental duty is to balance competing interests and apply evidence-based standards—a key component of decision legitimacy.

The article illustrates how intense emotional and political pressure—an “autocracy of lived experience” —can cause lawmakers to abandon this duty out of fear. This dynamic bypasses the essential checks and balances that protect against disproportionate policy. While empathy for victims is a critical democratic value, allowing this focus to short-circuit due process and proportionality creates a new form of “tyranny”, as the article itself implies. Protecting our governing institutions from such politicized disruptions, regardless of the source, is central to our mission.