30.5.07

An Idealist, a humanist and an individual walk into a bar... what happens?


A walk through Coptic Cairo made me wonder about the conflict between respect, change and individualism. I walked down an obscure alleyway, tempted by the delicious taste of discovery and the ornate entrance, as I stepped through this dark passage I reached a door with beams of bright light shining through. I pushed it and walked out, I waited for my eyes to adjust and for my senses to adapt to the intense heat coming from the cruel sun and the burnt earth. I had fallen upon a cemetery. A Christian one. As I looked up streched before me were the silhouettes of a mosque and a synagogue. I looked back down and saw industrial red brick tombs being used by young dust covered children playing football with a brown paper bag, as goalposts. I saw grey, delapidated, buildings between these tombs from which came the sounds of life, a veiled woman cooking, an old man in a long blue Galabeyya bending over to pick up his walking stick, a young girl wearing a torn Minnie mouse shirt sucking a lollypop skipping past me. This as stricking as it may be, didn't make me contemplate these notions. I saw two young women walk past me, as i sat on a stone bench covered in cardboard under a tree, one was veiled, the other was not.


To a westerner's eyes one was a sign of progress, the other was a sign of an archaic and unfair tradition. But maybe it isn't what we think, maybe the young girl wears a veil by choice, after all most women veiled in Egypt apparently choose to wear it, or at least want to. But at the very base of it the symbolism and the meaning of the veil, even on the most subconscious level is that of submission, of conformity and tradition. How do you respect someone who practises something which is a tool for repression? Do we respect the human, realising the inner-potential of that individual and forcefuly encourage them to throw away the chains of oppression, because they deserve better? or on the other hand do we, regardless of wether or not we respect her choice to wear the veil, let things be, because it is a cultural trait, and as a westerner i'm using my western values to judge her's which are dissimilar, and anyway it's not my business? or can she "free" herself through her sheer strengh of caracter and the power of self determination which is inherent to all humans? Respect for a human, respect for a person or tolerance, they appear incompatible. However it is possible and necessairy if we all are to reconcile the three and resolve conflicts.


It is a difficult question and it can be enlarged to a the conflict between liberal interventionism, classical idealism and pragmatism . But the very fact that this conflict of ideas can be distilled to the most real of situations, and manifest itself outside the artificialities of political speeches and party manifestos, shows how difficult a question it is, how real and serious the repercussions of regulation, legislation or even confrontation on veils, on racism and the deportation of fundamental clerics (for exemple) can be. It also shows how a non-blinkered approach must be practised if we are to live peacefully side by side.

It's too easy to choose one or the other. The consequences of respecting a human over their person (or vice-versa), or not even caring, are dangerous. The hard part and probably the appropriate and most effective solution would be a synthesis of the three. It's an incredibly hard balancing act, giving people and civilizations (even governments) enough space to change things for themselves, but at the same time giving them the tools and capabilities to progress in an otherwise stagnant situation, while making these acts beneficial to the givers. Yet it must be all three if progress is to happen.

Certain international situations have been mishandled because, i believe a lack of one or more of the notions which can bring about progress and respect. In the case of Iraq for exemple an outright invasion was a bad idea, the regime change in Iraq was not brought about or at least in part by an internal force, imposed regime change could never have worked, what lacks here is a respect for the person. In the case of China, we have a selfish interest in China, in terms of the economic profit we can draw from it, what lacks here in pushing forward a greater democratisation of China, a strong enough pressure within the international community to make China repect the human. What I'm trying to say is for there to be a progress and a willingness to make others do so, the condtions of respect for the human, the person and a personal interest must be met.

This dynamic would create a climate from wich we all benefit, a sort of cycle of progress, enlightenment and cooperation, but this process is incredibly difficult as one can all into the trap of favouring one of the notions too much. One can be tempted to be ethnocentric, one can fall into moral relativism and accept the status quo, or one can take advantage of the status quo to draw a profit from it. Many politicians have blinkered themselves because it is the easier way, the toughest challenge would be to keep the balance, maybe it's impossible.

International relations is so often entrenched in the game of power politics that even the best intentions turn out or turn into twisted compromise and deals. Surely the sheer exeptionality of Tony Benn becoming more left wing after being in both the governments of Wilson and Callaghan, highlights the perversion of politics on even the most hardened Idealists and Humanists. Or maybe it just highlights the inescapable truth that abandoning idealist convictions is an integral part of the maturing and empirical process during one's life? But it is important that we move away from this mentality. It is imperative to have hope and to fight, this is the clincher which makes all possible, which makes the interaction, of the notions of personal and human respect along with self interest, a reality.

A friend of mine once told "If everyone believe's in it (socialism) and fights for it, it can happen", though socialism is not what i'm defending here, I agree with her to a certain extent. The idea that belief and hope can make men do some of the worst things, clearly shows that it can make men do some of the greatest things, because nothing exists without it's opposite. I really do think it's possible, that people can educate each other and rise above the pettiness and greed of the human condition, while still benefiting from it, to truly respect each other and change, it can't be easy but we must fight and believe otherwise we will endlessly repeat the mistakes of our predecessors, we shall all be but a wave beating on the beach for eternity.

28.5.07

Being anti-Sarkozy is not enough.



The moment Segolene Royal uttered the words "I wish the next President of France to..." my heart sank. What I already knew had happened, all I had hoped destroyed. I thought France knew better, I was wrong, but at the same time I knew that it couldn't have happened any other way. Now as M. Hortefeux pays immigrant families to leave France, Le Pen inspired ministries pop up and the European door smashes firmly shut on Turkey, the left in France has never faced a tougher internal and external challenge. The left must act now or face extinction.

ELECTORAL DEFEATS

The French socialist Party has not won a Presidential election since 1988 and after losing to the right wing Nicolas sarkozy a few weeks ago, they are likely to receive another bloody nose in the parliamentry elections this july. This twinned with the deep introspection and subsequent paralysis after the humiliating defeat of Lionel Jospin in april 2002 by the National Front candidate Jean Marie Le Pen, makes the future of the party look bleak. Some have blamed the latest shortcomings on a lack of ideological modernity within the party, a failure to grasp the new challenges which face our society and an unwillingness to accept that socialism died in 1991. Others on the other hand fear the party has lost it's electoral base, that it isn't looking out for the "little guy" which explains the trickling away of votes to the extremes and that it has betrayed the values and principles of the traditional left. These two currents within the party threaten to split it in half, one half defering to the center and the rest swinging the party to the left and crossing a political desert similar to that of Labour party under Micheal Foot.

CONSTRAINED BELIEFS AND INEXPERIENCE

Segolene Royal who mainly presented herself as the anti-sarkozy candidate during the election, contrasted strongly with a Sarkozy who seemed to draw strengh from a wide base of contrasting personalities and a strong backing from his party, advantages which Royal did not benefit from. The sheer strengh of a reinvigorated right wing with an incredibly controversial yet popular and hard talking leader, intimidated a damaged and unsure party with a inexperienced leader whose real social democratic beliefs were constrained by the very people who chose her.
She was laughed at for proposing to heavily sanction criminal youths by military training and for praising Tony Blair's economic and political record. From the very start she was given no leway for imposing her beliefs and was forced to present an old style socialist agenda with a tinge of social authoritairianism to pander to the extreme right, with hindsight it was a tragic and comical farce.

HUMILIATION AND DESERTION

Nicolas Sarkozy's appointment of Bernard Kouchner, a leading member of the socialist party, as minister for foreign affairs, was the coup de grace in splitting the french left. Though the post is devoid of much responsability, because it is the domain of the President and his advisor (Jean David Levitte, a famed atlantist), M. Kouchner's acceptance of the post was a huge blow to the center left cause. The vilification of the Sarkozy camp and the subsequent "desertion" by a leading social democrat to the Fillon Government, will paralyse the center of the party as they will be presented as pragmatists and moraly corrupt. So Strauss-Kahn's calls for an "effective, credible and concrete left", along with Royal's calls for the left to "rise above the old battlefields of the left", in effect calling for the socialist party to follow the third way, will fall on deaf ears. Former Prime Minister and disciple of Mitterand: Laurent Fabius cries for a left "to be proud of being anchored in the left" will appeal more to the defensive and humiliated party members.

THE LAST STAND

If the party falls into the hands of Laurent Fabius, the internal feuds continue and the social democrats do not rally together, the party will vanish. The 2007 election presented itself as the last stand of the old Socialist party, it now has an oppotunity to shake away the shakles of Mai 68, and renew itself by accepting change, real change. It must accept that the 35 hour week is an absurd piece of legislation, it must realise that the state and taxes are not the solution to everything. However it must continue in its fight to preserve France's internationaly renound services, to defend civil rights against the dangerously authoritairian nature of Sarkozy's social policies and most importantly it most continue European integration (including Turkey).
The new socialist party must be proud of its convictions and strong enough to bring its fight to new levels, or tomorrow we will mourn the death of the left in France. Being against something does not define you, nor do old hat ideas, dynamism and conviction define you. Today only Sarkozy seems to posess those qualities.

23.5.07

Grodon Brown's flaws (non-psychological)



The date has been announced. The cogs set in motion, all internal opposition (well credible) silenced, the keys to 10 Downing Street will almost certainly fall into the hands of our Chancellor Gordon Brown. He seems ideal. Modern enough to stay within the New Labour fold, a sufficient red streak within him to satisfy backbenchers and extensive cabinet experience. But the A.B.B. (anyone but brown) movement highlights certain discrepencies as to his seemingly moral and serious persona. Many skeletons in the closet of number 11 threaten to hinder his route to number 10.



His actions as Chancellor of this country show at once a worrying tendency within Mr.Brown to relinquish responsability and, to put it bluntly, lie. The latest pensions scandal clearly shows this, he knew in 1997 the cost of removing tax credits on share dividends would have on future pensions, yet did not alert the nation of the 150 billion pound gap that would ensue. The document which proves he knew only released (under the Freedom of information act) the day after his meeting with Treasury officials in April, that being the last oppotunity for him to be questioned about it before he becomes Prime Minister in July.
As for his 1997 promise not to tax over 40% of the nation's GDP in what he called a pledge for "sustainable investment", to keep inside this self imposed quota, Mr.Brown seems to have fiddled with the figures. He has managed to keep outside of the Budget spreadsheets P.F.I (Private finance initiatives) which in 2001 were worth an estimated 100 billion pounds. Considering the amount one can assume the underevaluation of tax withing GDP to be significant . The OCDE now estimates taxation to represent 42,4% of British GDP, this figure includes the P.F.I.s conviniently left out of the Treasury's estimates.

Tessa Jowell's plan to build a supercasino in Manchester was opposed by Gordon Brown, he is said to be moraly against this perversion. He even increased the tax burden on new casinos in Britain. Yet he has allowed an exeption for "smaller casinos" (the definition of small turning out to be rather large),as well as letting betting shops set up virtual betting and slot machines. Not surprisingly bigger casinos now want the same rights, will Mr.Brown stand in the way of extra tax money? or will his "morality" prevail?

Another flaw appears in his handling of Iraq. Mr. Brown has been hailed by his fellow Brownites as a more pragmatic man then his predecessor, someone who supports the United States but doesn't bow down to them. He voted in favour of sending British troops to Iraq, not only that but he very recently stated that Iraq was a "good idea". Yet rumours have circulated that in fact he is against the war in Iraq, the only reason he didn't publicly denounce the government's plans in 2003 was because he wanted to stay in Government. With his government standing and his influence within the party he could have thrown a huge, if not deadly spanner into the works of Blair's war machine. Speculation aside, this man was ready to compromise his beliefs for self promotion.

I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the anti-christ or that he's not fit for the job. Just he seems as entrenched in the game of politics and punctual thinking as his conservative opponent David Cameron, which is a shame.

London

Since when did London become so ugly and sinister? Since when did I not care, notice, or care to notice the blackness of London, the flipside of this gritty, urban and cosmopolitan city?
The tired and edgy businessman sipping his skinny latte with chocolate sprinkles, spewing his customer relations blabber even to his friends on the tube. A fat and grumpy looking track suit clad woman with Golden earings curtosy of Asda, frowning and pondering her Gemini Horoscope as if it were really complicated algebra. The eastern european men, who walk the streets very early in the morning, with their small rucksacks and huge heads. The sloanies, chatting on their motorola about who' s fucking who at the moment, in their faux arty dress, eating pret a manger salads (with no dressing of course) which will probably end up at the bottom of some toilet, forced out by the image of Kate Moss advertising Rimmel London. Old men and women dressed in beige, moaning about hooded children and getting mugged, before finaly appearing on the front page of the Daily Mail which reads the caption "Ethnic thugs batter old lady". The young woman walking towards you and who avoids all eye contact with any passers by, because of the sheer act of aggression it would represent if she looked at anyone.
The worst is it seems normal..