Politics and Society

Promoting democracy abroad

In a speech earlier this week entitled 'The Democratic Imperative' foreign secretary David Miliband re-asserted Britain's role in bringing democracy to other countries, using military power if necessary.

In his response in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins was wise to propose that if Miliband wants to honour Britain's pride in democracy he should "prove it works at home better than any other [by] working tirelessly to refresh it" (This zeal for intervention is imperialism in new clothes, Guardian, February 13, 2008). Despite many such attempts, the reality is that New Labour's promotion of democracy abroad grows in proportion to the British electorate's disengagement with contemporary politics and democracy. And its promotion of freedom abroad is in stark contrast to its cavalier attitude to British citizens' hard won freedoms at home.

Of course, when one can't inspire one's citizens at home one can understand the attraction of trying to impress them by making grand gestures towards the oppressed masses abroad. The oppressed masses have no way to answer back, but inspiring them is just as difficult when the example one sets at home is so languid.

Timothy Garton Ash is less substantive in his response, but he makes a good point:

The imposition of democracy, or what we claim to be democracy, following a military intervention made mainly for other reasons, is quite different from the peaceful promotion of democracy - which, as Miliband himself observed, necessarily "grows in the soil of the nation" concerned. It's the difference, if you will, between supplying fertiliser to nourish fragile grass and laying Astroturf over conquered ground. (To strengthen Miliband's case for democracy, drop Iraq, add Europe, Timothy Garton Ash, Guardian, February 14 2008

In letters in response, Lancet editor Dr Richard Horton points out that "The critical underpinning idea of human development, as articulated by economists such as Amartya Sen, is not democracy but freedom... We can have lack of liberty in democracies. And liberty can still exist in non-democracies". Peter Emerson suggests we need a better definition of terms. And Jeanne Warren notes that "Tony Blair's supposed mentor, the philosopher John Macmurray, said the exact opposite, that there is no moral imperative to impose a way of life on others by force". (Letters: Democracy is a dangerous export, Guardian, February 14 2008)

'Food factories' are a step forward

Many of the reasons Eric Schlosser gives to explain his distaste for the fast food industry I find rather re-assuring (Stuff the kids, Guardian, April 24).

It is worth noting that within living memory many Britons (let alone the Asian children with who Schlosser begins his story) couldn't afford a decent meal every day, and what they did get was unvaried, often low quality, and (when they got meat) sometimes actually poisonous. By contrast, the fast food restaurants of today will sell you a decent meal at all hours, at the cost of half an hours work at minimum wage.

And within living memory, food served to ordinary Britons in public eateries was prepared by un-trained 'cooks' in un-hygenic and un-inspected kitchens. Compared to this, Schlosser's description of fast food suppliers having "turned restaurant kitchens into little food factories", with their "origins in the assembly-line system" and their hefty training manuals sounds like a step forward. As does food that "always tastes the same" -- and is relatively unlikely to make you sick.

Of course, it would be great if everyone could afford the money and time to prepare meals from food purchased at Borough Market. For now, let's accept that McDonald's and Co. represent a step forward, and ensure everyone's living standard continues to rise, so they can eat better still.

Taking on the terrorists politically

Tony Blair has been to right to argue that the London atrocities were not directly linked to injustices in the Middle East of Iraq, pointing out the contemporary nature of the phenomenon but the longevity of the supposed grievances. He is also right to empahsise the need to confront the 'evil ideology' behind contemporary terrorism.

For these very reasons, new anti-terror legislation and Blair's meeting this week with Muslim leaders both miss the point. Contemporary terrorism is a product of de-politicisation and the hollowing out of political institutions. as a result, a largely hidden anger pervades this country. While the forms it takes vary, it cuts across boundaries of creed, generation, and race.

To address this we do need to engage in the 'ideological struggles' of which Blair talks. But his talk rings hollow coming from a government that appears to have no core values, and which has systematically undermined many of the most inspiring values Britons held in common.

There are a few steps Blair's administration could at least take. Let's have fewer grand but empty gestures, and more practical but ambitious engagements with real challenges at home. Less sanctimonious lecturing about our supposed foibles, and more solidarity with and trust in ordinary people. And fewer pleas for us to have faith in our leader's conscience, and more well-informed and thoughtfully-reasoned arguments.

Published in the Guardian, Letters 'The forces behind terror', July 20, 2005

The democratic deficit

It appears that the turnout of registered voters in the election in Iraq has exceeded 60%, while the turnout at the UK general election this year is likely to slump to a peacetime low of around 50%.

Odd that a country so disenchanted with its own political system should be so enthusiastically imposing democracy on others. And truly ironic that this enlightened act has served only to reinforce the British electorate's cynicism about those in authority.

Published, in edited form, in the Guardian, Letters 'Fighting for democracy ', February 1, 2005

A Harry Potter politics

Denis MacShane is quite right to deride the lack of confidence of the British in their own solutions (Comment 'A Harry Potter politics' Denis MacShane, August 12, 2004). Bevin, Attlee and other historic Labourites certainly achieved lasting, home-grown reforms. The trouble with New Labour is its inability to devise, argue for, and push through grand reforms. Instead it gets distracted by the next 'big idea' as it tries to keep up with what it perceives to be voters' concerns. The biggest distraction has been the re-invention of Iraq – a very modern twist on MacShane's concept of 'finding salvation everywhere except in their own country'.

MacShane worries about past Labour governments' failing to rein in rhetoric that alienates voters. Instead New Labour is unwilling to argue for any of its policies in a coherent and mature fashion. It lacks knowledge and awareness of political and social history, and the rhetorical skills of its spokespeople are parlous. (Witness Home Office minister Hazel Blears discussing police powers on the Today programme this week [1].) Moreover, New Labour lacks wisdom, warmth, enthusiasm, an enquiring disposition and a sense of enjoyment. These are all aspects of MacShane's progressive theory and practice that need renewal. While the Tories continue their farcical opposition New Labour can survive as it stands – but political culture won't.

[1] Home Office minister Hazel Blears and Sharmi Chakrabati of Liberty on whether the police need more powers, Today, BBC Radio 4, 12/08/2004 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_police_20040812.ram

Published, in edited form, in the Guardian, Letters 'Why we lack confidence in New Labour', August 17, 2004

Disillusioned Muslim youth

My letter to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme in response to a piece about the disillusionment of young British muslims (requires RealPlayer) was read out in the Saturday weekly letters slot on 3 April (requires RealPlayer, may go offline after 9 April). In the piece radical Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed and Shaheed Malik, a member of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee, were interviewed.

Malik argued that we need a parallel war on the causes of terrorism. He contended that young British muslims don't feel accepted after September 11, and are alienated by the rise of the far right and the BNP, which has had a psychologically destabilising impact. Malik noted the hypocrisy around UN resolutions and attitudes to Sharon's actions, and argued that people felt there was one rule for muslims and one for non-muslims. He also argued that Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed should not be interviewed as he was unrepresentative of British muslims.

In my letter I wrote that: Shaheed Malik claims that the disillusionment of young British muslims stems from the treatment of the Palestinians and the rise of the BNP. However, the Palestinians have been oppressed for two generations without a corresponding response from any British muslims. And the National Front in the 70s was a much more serious threat than the BNP today.

A political inquiry

We don't need any more inquiries around the war in Iraq, but there are a few political issues into which we might inquire. How did the plucky Brits, who survived the Blitz and were nonchalant about the IRA, end up fearing a clapped out regime that was once an ally, and which we had spent over a decade bombing? Why do we end up exporting our domestic political crises to obscure regions of the world? And how is it that the most profound explanation for our governments' aggression is that it was a war for oil -- a resource that is notably absent from Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and most other nations in which they have meddled in the last decade.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)

Flabby thinking

Janet Street-Porter writes about the issue of the moment: obesity among children (Sugar, salt and fat - the real weapons of mass destruction, 29 December 2004 [paid for access]).

In Britain today flabby thinking is a more worrying issue than obesity. Street-Porter's tirade against her fat fellow subjects was concluded without attempting to put this phenomenon in context, citing any statistics, or quoting any authorities. Without this intellectual groundwork you can't even make a case that there is a problem, let alone propose solutions to it.

Street-Porter is a classic miserablist. She is unable to acknowledge the fact that Briton's today, unlike most of their grandparents, have access to a wide variety of cheap and good quality food. We can eat a substantial and well-balanced meal from McDonald's for a few pounds, and food shopping and preparation no longer dominate women's lives. As a result we have the choice to engage in other activities -- including eating too much.

What uplifting visions for self-improvement do our miserabalists have for us when all our terrible modern afflictions have been cured? Not many in my experience. It is not much of an incentive to eat better and live longer if we will have to suffer the faux concern of these self-righteous snobs for still more years.

Published as a letter in the Independent on Sunday (UK)

Saddam was 'one of ours'

In the coverage of the invasion of Iraq, and since the detention of Saddam Hussein, I have come across almost no discussion in the British media of the West's ambiguous relationship with Saddam. It is well known but is rarely mentioned that Saddam was supported by the West from his seizure of power through the first Gulf War, up to the tacit endorsement of the invasion of Kuwait by then US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie.

Saddam was 'one of ours' and when he attacked Kurds at Halabja he used chemical weapons supplied by the West and, as John Pilger recently uncovered, with US military advisors in the field. For reasons apparently unrelated to his regime's abuse of its citizens, or its militarism, Saddam became a political tool for our leaders, and they turned against him. But we should acknowledge their complicity in his worst crimes.

To his credit BBC correspondent John Simpson highlighted some of these issues in his reports on Sunday evening, though by Monday evening had abandonned this theme.

Our leaders' machinations in the rest of the world are rarely motivated by the desire for the freedom of its peoples. While Iraq is likely to be a more tolerable place to live post-invasion, this is in part because it brings to an end ten years of Western sanctions. The quality of improvement deserved by peoples elsewhere will only be achieved when they (and we) tell Western leaders to stop meddling in their internal affairs – including the propping up and knocking down unaccountable leaders.

Developed from feedback sent to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme

Praying for the worst

George Monbiot's role in life appears to be to denigrate human intentions, desires and ingenuity (Bottom of the barrel December 2, 2003). He is so keen to demonstrate how humanity has blythely squandered its God-given resources that you would thinking he wanted us all to suffer an energy famine to prove his far-sightedness. However, unlike the prophets of old he offers us no redemption (though the afterlife would probably be less resource intensive than our mortal coil).

As we have in the past, we can harness human energy and ingenuity to move from the use of one human-created resource to the next. But this progression threatens to be stymied by the irrational and misanthropic way of thinking championed by Monbiot. If he really thinks humanity would choose a new set of matching tableware over its own survival you wonder why he still considers us worth preaching at.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)