Recently, Russel Brand — comedian, actor, producer, presenter — was asked to guest-edit the Oct. 24 Issue of the NewStatesman, a political magazine.

But why should you and I listen to Russel Brand, who does not vote or believe in the efficiency of existing political systems?BBC newsnight asked him exactly this and he said:

“I don’t get my authority from this preexisting paradigm which is quite narrow and only serves a few people,” Russell responded. “I look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity.”

(Watch the entire video below)

He did not address abortion in his talk, but we are choosing this as the quote of the month nevertheless, because he talks about the need for a revolution against a political system that serves more than the interests of the upper classes. He has been hailed as a revolutionary and as a messiah for this many calls for a revolution. I don’t know about that, but I do know that what he said about economic disparity and democracy striving to meet capitalistic ends are points that need to be heard and need to be recognized as germane to debates on reproductive health.

Why? Well, for one take countries where the abortion law in liberal. The government has in fact removed several impediments to the access of safe abortion and provided women (even if only implicitly) with some freedom of choice. But unless the government also takes on the task of actually making these services affordable, available and accessible by expanding the public sector and regulating the prices in the private sector, these promised services will remain elusive to poor women, women in rural areas and women in the lower classes. But since the interests of upper classes are largely served by the burgeoning private health industry, the government is able to ignore the situation unless and until civil society or media, mostly acting on behalf of these people, creates a ruckus! These are signs of a failing system, according to Brand. He would rather that the government took proactive measures once they are voted in, for the simple fact that without the vote of these classes, they would have no power.

This brings me to my second point: his refusal to vote, which sounds almost anarchist in the beginning, is a great example of the kind of subversion that might be required to bring change. When asked why he displays such apathy, he corrects the host and says that by not voting he is in fact only registering his protest against the apathy of the politicians to people from the lower classes. Here is what he wrote in his editorial:

“Apathy is a rational reaction to a system that no longer represents, hears or addresses the vast majority of people. A system that is apathetic, in fact, to the needs of the people it was designed to serve.”

This apathy is something women can definitely identity with, and in fact the recent Presidential elections in the US revealed that the incumbent Obama should in fact thank the Republicans for alienating the women voters with their misogynist arguments. (However, I am not sure what I feel about women choosing not to vote at all. Would that subvert their efforts at subversion, and in fact vote in a government that serves the interests of the men who voted?)

Brand’s arguments are nascent but they do provide a lot of fodder for thought. If the subversion he refers to could be applied to sexual and reproductive rights, and his anger could be appropriated, then women could engender enough passion to fuel the ongoing revolution for equality and equity for as long as is necessary to bring about change.