US / UK attitudes on election morning

“Don’t you start about my president this morning. I’m getting enough ribbing in the lab right now!” Mike is a Republican and McCain supporter from Texas, who missed out on voting this time around because he was out of the country, even given the possibilities that now exist for voting in advance. “Godammit McCain got an asswhipping. How many seats on the electoral college did he get? 120?”
“156,” I replied. “And there are still some states to announce. But Obama was on 356 as of this morning.”
“So it was an asswhippin’ then. Obama has won and we’ll just have to give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s our president now and I wish him well.”

I think the last phrase is very telling. In the UK we don’t tend to think any better or worse about a particular person just because they made it to be Prime Minister. But the Americans are different. No matter how fiercely the election is fought, how nasty the tricks; when the man wins, he becomes the President and the vast majority of Americans rallies around him. I could never understand why this should be though. That is until Mike said his piece. Under the American system, the President is head of state. To be disrespectful of him (and so far, despite Hilary Clinton’s best efforts, it remains a ‘him’) is to be disrespectful of the institution too.

In Britain we often think the American attitude quaint. But aren’t we actually the same? Of course, prime ministers are lampooned without mercy. But what about the monarch? Recently in the television programme Mock The Week, it was reported that a particularly distasteful joke was made our own good Queen Bess the Second. Apparently many people complained to the BBC.

Now there are some in Britain who openly speak of the monarchy as being parasitic and that the whole thing should be scrapped. This is not the majority of the British people though. Each country finds it’s own way in addressing the issue. Personally I prefer an apolitical head of state. It allows for a greater freedom of political criticism for one thing. But when Britons are tempted mock the Americans for the reverence they show their politicians, and especially their president, it is well to pause for a moment and reflect how we treat our own head of state. Maybe we are not so different after all.

The Archbishop and Shari'a

In an interview for The World at One, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the world-wide Anglican church, put forward the argument that elements of Shair’a law should be introduced into British law. This was in order to avoid Muslims having “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Naturally, the Archbishop has been jumped upon from all sides of the political…(I was going to write “spectrum” there but upon reflection the political spectrum seems rather monochrome these day. But I digress..). More predictable will be the tabloid rants that will follow in the morning. Both The Sun and The Daily Mail are going to have a lot of fun at Dr. Williams’ expense.

So, what did the Archbishop actually say? A lot more than is being reported, even on the BBC. Dr. Williams is taking part in an ongoing debate in the future of multi-culturalism. This latest contribution is an attempt to address and expand the role of multi-culturalism in the framework of the nation-state.

Crudely put, the premise is thus: we are currently living in a post-Enlightenment world. People live in a multitude of over-lapping communities, each with their own culture, tradition and values. How do we allow people in such a society to follow their own way of life without compromising the rights of their fellow human beings, both those in their own cultural group, and those in adjacent groups?

By highlighting one specific aspect, that of Muslim communities and Shari’a, Dr Williams is effectively attempting to role back the nation-state, although not in the simple-minded way that doubtless will fill the newspapers tomorrow. The Archbishop also raises the dangers of human-rights abuses that can and do occur under Shari’a, abuses that simply are not to be tolerated under a Western democracy (and, I would argue, under any regime).

But it seems to me that Dr. Williams is a believer, but not of the Enlightenment. Although grateful for “the wake up call” that the Enlightenment has given religion, he is no great believer in what he sees as extreme examples of Enlightenment government in action, singling out Revolutionary France and China of the1970s. To my mind, neither is a great example. France descended into anarchy and bloodshed after the overthrow of the monarchy, and China was just rid of Mao, whose brutality exceeded none and whose permanent revolution was based on nothing more than state-encouraged violence.

What would be the future role of the State? It seems to be the guarantee of last resort for “human dignity”: a baseline which, it is believed that all can agree too. An individual would have rights guaranteed by the State, but would be free to suspend these if they so choose. But also one would be free to act upon those rights; nor could anybody stop another acting upon their rights if they so choose. Under Shari’a, that would effectively mean that apostasy could not carry the usual penalty (i.e. death). It would also mean that communities would be free to draw up codes that would have legal weight, especially in the areas of finance or civil disputes.

As things stands in Britain today, I think that Dr. Williams’ suggestions, although interesting, rather over-complicate matters. He is right to raise the issue of law and the plural society but Britain has always had a tradition, until very recently, of the citizen having negative rights. What I mean by this is that in Britain, if there is no law saying that a citizen is forbidden from doing something, then the citizen has the freedom to do it. This state is in contradiction to the European model of positive State rights: if there is no law allowing a certain act, then it is forbidden.

As applied to this debate, there is already room for groups to live how they choose. But if any religion has a set of laws that can be seen to have benefit to a community, why limit it to just that community? There is a political process in Britain that allows any citizen or group to put forward ideas, regardless of which philosophy the given idea is based upon. Let the suggested law be upheld to public scrutiny and, if it is a good law, then let it be passed into statute. That way, instead of being a more fragmented society, Britain becomes a lot more inclusive for all.

Bush in the Middle East

After seven years in the White House, Bush is finally turning his attention to the problems of Israel and Palestine. At least that is the headlines in the media. In reality, Bush is visiting not only Israel / Palestine but also Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In other words, this trip is less about peace and more about oil.

Saudi Arabia, described by the US as moderate (ie. sympathetic to US policy) is in a difficult situation. There is nothing moderate about Saudi domestic policies, which has led to a great deal of internal unrest. Much of the population is relatively poor which, in the largest oil producing country in the world and the price of crude at over $100.00 a barrel, is a complete outrage. The money is going somewhere and my guess is that the royal family of Saud have a symbiotic relationship with both the USA and Britain. The West needs oil but the House of Saud needs the West in order to maintain power. Hence the wealth of the country is funnelled back to the West in the form of arms deals and various forms of military and security support. This visit to Saudi Arabia is the most important aspect of the whole tour but will receive the least publicity in the media.

The media focus will be on that one part of the tour which is probably the least important, at least to the participants. One can be sure that there will be no benefit for the Palestinian people. The Bush administration has no record in trying to help the Palestinians. I think the reason for his visit here is a lot closer to home.

Last night the New Hampshire primaries saw Hilary Clinton narrowly edge victory over Barack Obama, with the Republicans seeing John McCain as their clear winner on the night. 2008 is the year of the presidential elections. There is a large Jewish vote and the Republicans have got to be seen to earn what support it can.

Don’t expect the Bush trip to make any real difference to the Middle East, least of all to Palestine. I suspect the television coverage it generates is designed primarily for US domestic consumption.

The rest is business as usual.

Voting Russian Style

Over Christmas I dined with several Russian friends. After one such dinner the talk turned to politics (for a change it wasn’t me who raised the subject). Our hosts are Putin supporters and the reason is that Putin delivers a better standard of living. Fair enough I suppose but what I didn’t expect was to have to defend the liberal democracy. The question was asked “surely you still don’t believe in voting?” As if I had just confessed to lingering doubts about the non-existence of Father Christmas.

In light of recent events in Pakistan and Kenya, who can blame them? Democracy as understood by the vast majority of the world is for the few. The recent thirty eight page dossier produced by the Pakistan People’s Party (formerly led by the recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto) apparently gives details the ruling party’s subversion of the democratic process. (I have tried to find a copy of this document, it would make interesting reading). It seems that Mwai Kibaki in Kenya has been less sophisticated, relying on simply delaying the count while using the time to stuff the ballot boxes. Putin on the other hand has been the most successful. He has been allowed to do this because he has genuinely sought to be popular. And in the main that popularity has been achieved by returning order to Russian society.

After the fall of the Soviet Union the rule of law broke down in every level of society: the democracy that was brought in with Yeltsin was in fact the rule of robber barons. As long as the President’s family was in on the deal, gangster-capitalism ruled. I could go to the endless media examples to illustrate this point but instead I turn closer to home.

A friend of mine in St.Petersberg is an excellent chemist and food technologist. He was the head food technologist in a small business. In the evenings he worked on new technology processing sunflower oil. After two years the new method was perfected and the patent was drawn up. Celebrations all around! Or it would have been if my friend hadn’t received an unexpected visit from two men he did not know.
“We like your patent. Sign it over to us or we will kill you.”

Putin hasn’t put a total stop to this kind of theft but for many, life is a lot more stable since 2000. After the criminal excesses of the Yeltsin years, that is good enough. Also Putin has restored pride to the country; going from 80’s superpower to 90’s beggar was a bitter pill for most but in recent years the trend is being turned around. High oil prices and flexing of military muscle means that the feel good factor is back for the average Russian.

There is always a price though and in Russia’s case it is freedom of speech. Journalists (except in the tiny English language press) have returned to Soviet-style self-censorship, encouraged to do so by state persecution and even murder of colleagues. Oligarchs who have refused to bend the knee to Putin have either been imprisoned or fled into exile. They are not mourned by most Russians, the fortunes of the oligarchs were created during the corruption of the Yeltsin years. These times also saw Russia making many deals with western companies which with hindsight were seen as bad deals. Hence Russian moves to repossess assets such as Shell’s fields off Sakhalin Island and similar moves against BP in Siberia. It is this pressure against foreign corporations (especially British) that has led to degradation of Anglo-Russian relations, perhaps even more that the Litvinenko poisoning. I digress but all this conflict with foreign companies plays well at home for Putin.

Now we must look forward to the Presidential elections in March. I'm sure we'll see more of the vote-rigging ploys: ensuring managers recommend the correct candidate to their workforce, mind-games with internation polling verification organisations and patrols of students to prevent "Orange-style" popular uprisings as happened in neighbouring Ukraine. All these measures happened during the latest parliamentary elections.

But in my opinion these 'safeguards' are no longer necessary. As the father of another of one of my Russian-born friends said when asked by his daughter who he intends to vote for, he replied:

"I don’t know. Putin hasn’t told us yet.”

Reforming the House of Lords

I was listening to Radio 4 the other day when I was annoyed to hear an idea being praised by some academic. It was on the selection for the House of Lords and the idea was that citizens should sit on juries to select peers. The reason this annoyed me is that I floated this very idea some time back. This is how it came about.

Remember New Labour’s “Peoples’ Peers”, the label applied to the Independent Appointment’s Commission chaired by Lord Stevenson? Members of the public were nominated, with the Commission receiving over 3000 applications to join the House of Lords. There was widespread outrage when Lord Stevenson announced the names of the successful applicants. Among those newly ennobled, six knighthoods and five other honours had already being awarded. What is more, Lord Stevenson suggested that normal people, such as hairdressers, would be uncomfortable being in the Lords.

This was November, 2001. At the time I happened to be listening to the Jimmy Young Show on BBC Radio 2 and decided to contribute to the debate. I was fortunate enough to get through to a producer (possibly with the name of Chris?) who was courteous enough to listen to my idea which was this:

The Independent Appointment’s Commission was effectively a selection jury made up from the Great and the Good. Is it any wonder therefore that they had selected new peers from their own social background? Therefore if the IAC was truly to represent “Peoples’ Peers”, the selection committee would have to be made up from normal people. How could this be achieved? By selecting the members of the IAC on the same basis as juries are selected for court cases. The individuals selected would be part of the panel for the duration of that selection round.

Now, I was on the telephone for about four minutes putting forward this suggestion. The gentleman on the other end seemed genuinely impressed and questioned me on aspects of the plan. After the conversation ends I listened to the rest of the programme in the hope that my idea would be mentioned. It was not. And there matters rested until I heard the same suggestion being praised the other day.

I am not accusing anybody of stealing my idea. It is almost certain that whoever came up with it recently had arrived at it independently. No matter what the provenance of the idea is, I reckon it is still a good one.

The problem with selection of the House of Lords is that it is tied too much to the justly criticised patronage system. IAC was a flawed attempt to balance the system. I am against the direct election of the Lords for the simple reason that it will undermine the independence of the House. Peers will be in the power of the political parties rather than independent as they are now. An elected Lords will also undermine the constitutional supremacy of the House of Commons. In recent years the Lords have been a centre of effective resistance to government attempts to pass through illiberal, not to say draconian measures such as the extension of the term of detention that the police can hold a suspect without charge. The Lords also acts as a centre of expertise and specialised knowledge that is simply not available to the Commons. This is all the more important with the increasing professionalisation of the political classes. In my opinion, a House of Lords made up of entirely elected members will fatally wound the institution and inevitably it will become a rubber stamp for the executive in power.

The power of the Lords is that its members, once they join the House, are life members. The government no longer has direct control over them. Certainly many still take the whip and sit loyally with their political party. But still the Lords is a rigorous obstacle that contentious bills have to pass through.

The key to reforming the Lords lies in reformation of the selection system. Whether made up members of the public or more specialised members (such as politicians, academics or religious leaders) or even a mixture of members, juries may offer a simple and elegant solution as to who becomes a Lord.

Vladimir Putin: Almost There

In August I wrote a blog about Vladimir Putin (Putin – Frost in August http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-PB8HL2c4KvWeAHaufGxndyYD?p=314 ) Events have continued apace since then, pretty much as expected. Iran is still enjoying Russian support for its nuclear aspirations. The rumours of assassination attempts on Putin during his trip to Tehran naturally came to nothing. Since the majority of Muslims from Chechnya are Sufi and Iran is Shia, Iran has little interest in aiding the continuing insurrection against Russia in its southern provinces. (In fact I would not be at all surprised if the whole story of the murder plot originated from some Western spook house, aided and abetted by tame journalists, in an attempt to sour the cosy relationship between Moscow and Tehran.) But I digress… It is at home that Putin’s conquest of Russia is nearing completion.

As outlined in Frost in August, Vladimir Putin’s wooing of the Russian people continued apace before the elections. An excellent example of this during the pre-election phase was Putin’s appearance as guest-of-honour on broadcaster KVN’s television comedy show celebrating its 45th anniversary. Naturally Vladimir got to have a speech at the end (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDaDfEwtGb8), an opportunity which I hope he felt was worth the wait as during most of the show he wore the fixed smile of a guest watching his hosts’ children at play and being expected to enjoy the experience. But now Putin can rest from such trifles and return to the real business of power: the elections for the lower house of parliament, the Duma, which started this week.

Being as cautious and methodical as always, the Kremlin has restricted the number of observers from the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) from 450 in 2003 to “up to seventy people” for the December elections. Putin has also endorsed his party, United Russia, and put into place this year Viktor Zubkov as current Prime Minister. Zubkov is expected to run for the presidency following Putin’s mandatory retirement from the role in March next year. Should Zubkov win (and I don’t think anybody would bet against that), Putin is expected to take the role of Prime Minister.

From there, I reckon it could go in two directions. The current plan in the media is that Putin would be able to stand in the presidential elections for 2012. There is another option though. Under many states, the role of President is one of figurehead, wielding no actual power (the ex-Soviet Union was one such state for example). It may be that the constitution will be changed, in the name of democracy naturally, devolving much of the current presidential role down to the Duma and its prime minister, which would happen to be one V. Putin.

Now the name of this article is “Vladimir Putin: Almost There.” All these parliamentary manoeuvres are as naught compared to what is happening in the country-at-large. First of all, a law has been passed for the compulsory teaching of religion at all schools. The religion of choice and of nation is Russian Orthodoxy. This form of Christianity is rather illiberal (especially on women: long skirts, headscarves etc) and the usual Sunday service (although they are rather beautiful) is in the order of three hours long; standing only. This isn’t the problem though. In the past Russian Orthodoxy has been totally loyal to the regime of the Tsars, with the same level of loyalty being expected from United Russia. Other forms of worship are being actively discouraged if not suppressed. The second factor is coming from the Russian people themselves. They have stopped talking politics on the telephone. Discussions are starting to be limited to small groups in individuals’ homes.

The transition to totalitarian state is almost complete. Almost there, Vladimir, almost there….

An Open Letter to Ming Campbell

Dear Sir Menzies,

You have done the right thing. Thank you so much for standing down as leader at this time. But it is my sincere hope that you do not stand down too far.

We in the Liberal Democratic party need your wisdom, knowledge and statesmanship in the House of Commons. Please offer your services to the new leader, whomever that may be. Your place is on the front benches of our party.

Thank you for your hard work and efforts as leader.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Veart.
Member of the Liberal Democratic Party.