 
|
« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 » MSF Workers Arrested in SudanPaul Foreman, the Dutch head of the charity Medicins Sans Frontieres in Sudan was arrested and released on bail yesterday for "crimes against the Sudanese state", and the BBC today reports that a second aid worker has been arrested. This is in response to a report on rape in the Darfur region of the country released by MSF in March 2005. "The Crushing Burden of Rape: Sexual Violence in Darfur" is based on the treatment of 500 women over 4 and a half months. Sudan's attorney general Mohamed Farid told reporters that authorities had opened a criminal case following MSF's failure to hand over evidence on which the report was based; the charity says the information is confidential. The aid agency is backed by the UN, whose representative in Sudan, Jan Pronk said "[it is] a non-political document only based on humanitarian concern of MSF which has done an excellent job of helping victims of rape." The Sudan Tribune has published a press release from MSF in reaction to the arrests, together with other news and views on Darfur and the fragile peace process. The Genocide Intervention Fund also lists some useful news and links for more information on the region. May 31, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack What brain drain?African Bullets & Honey offers a very different perspective on the African "brain drain" issue. The writer is a "stressed doctoral candidate" in the UK of Kenyan origin. He/she puts it bluntly: "If You Think Africa is Suffering From a Brain Drain, Your Brain is Drained". The comments below the post are worse perusing. There are some very poetic responses from other members of the Kenyan diaspora: "When we are away we afford the diginity of life and hope of progress for our loved ones. Our toil yields in itself a seed that is planted when a brother is educated, a home or rent is paid. Our exodus is not one of sheer defeat but an energising hope to fight to realise our dreams and give our loved ones those opportunities that have long been stolen..." Via Global Voices May 31, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack Historic day - ouch!Today is a turning point in European history and I find myself in disagreement with Neal Ascherson AND Will Hutton AND Timothy Garton Ash AND Danny Cohn-Bendit! The first two signed the Chris Bobinsk letter he wanted the English to post to the people of France - an idea he wrote about rufully in openDemocracy. Now his letter has been published on the oD site and also in the Financial Times. Tim Garton Ash went to France to report and meditate upon the campaign and wrote a strong piece in the Guardian calling for a French Yes. But none were as eloquent or forceful as Danny Cohn-Bendit, whom I have followed more or less since 1968, writing in the International Herald Tribune. "I am a realist who believes in social justice, human rights, environmental protection and a strong Europe that can deal withthe challenges of globaliation and project its power peacefully." Well said! But does it follow that if the French vote 'no' Danny as warns, this will all be at risk and, "the French will lose the things they really want: real European solidarity, a true European democracy; in short, the creation of a European Republic"? European democracy will not follow from the constitutional treaty. On the contrary, a 'yes' will convince the Brussels Eurocrats that if they scare the children they can always get their way. I am against a British 'no' if the French and the Dutch vote 'yes'. That debate is for another time - perhaps. But a French 'no' will be good for Europe and especially for the prospects of European democracy. It will be an honest rejection of a dishonest political elite.
May 29, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack Watching Iran from afarOver the past weeks, I've been helping to coordinate openDemocracy's blog on the Iranian elections, Iran Scan 1384. It's piqued my curiosity for the politics of the region immensely, and as the elections on June 17th draw closer I encourage everyone to peek in and feel the heat. In Iran, presidential candidates can only run if they are approved by the "Guardian Council". At first the Council only approved conservatives and a fundamentalist - and no reformists. This caused outrage among pro-democracy advocates in Iran. Then, Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, ordered the Guardian Council to reconsider two reformist candidates, Dr. Moin and Mr. Mehr-Alizadeh, using a constitutional law/tool called the "Sovereign's Decree". As it happens, Dr. Moin (the only candidate who keeps an active weblog) has long campaigned against the Sovereign's Decree, and many of his supporters are saying if he accepts the candidacy they will consider him a hypocrite. Hossein Derakshan polled his readers, about what they thought Moin should do and he reported the result in Iran Scan 1384. The whole election is a tangled affair. There is widespread apathy and lack of faith in the validity of the elections, but also glimmers of hope which are worth celebrating. Hossein says the elections are inspiring an unbelievable amount of political discussion and opinion in newspapers and on the web, and even joked today over lunch that he wished there were elections there every day. I'll temper the optimism by sharing a link to Reporters Without Borders' Blog Awards. They have a whole category for Iran. Just scroll down to see how many of the short listed bloggers and journalists have been imprisoned. Depressing. These Iranian activists deserve our attention. May 28, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack Africa's Brain DrainThe London Independent today dedicated its first five pages to a special report on the escalating crisis of health services in sub-saharan Africa due to the West's "poaching" of trained medical professionals. To read their coverage, go here. For more info, the BBC also reports on the increasing problem of the "brain drain" as highlighted by UK doctors. Although it is easy to view the practice as a cynical extension of Britain and the developed world's imperialist attitude (200 years ago it was slaves, now it is the medical workforce), there is another side to the story. Many Africans want to leave for the West, where they can earn more money in order to invest and send remittances to family back home. David Styan has an interesting article on this topic, and the role of Africans in the global economy. The Independent's report comes in the midst of the hype surrounding Tony Blair's "year of Africa"and the continuing Make Poverty History campaign. With the forthcoming G8 summit in Gleneagles, the British prime minister is in a rush to convince the world's leaders to get on board with the project, and the announcement of the British Medical Association will try to focus talks in Edinburgh on the realities of the thousands of African workers shoring up the G8's health services. James Johnson, the chairman of the British Medical Association points out that global travel has always been a strength of health workers, whose transferable skills can be shared and developed collaboratively, but this he says, is now a dangerously romantic view. The continued migration of health workers is creating an untenable situation in countries such as Malawi, Zambia, Namibia and Nigeria, and of course it is not only to Britain that workers are coming. It is an ongoing concern of African health ministers who met at the World Health Assembly earlier this month, and there is further concerned comment here from the editor of the American Journal of Bioethics.
May 27, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack China's "Great Game"Following the bloody - and still murky - events of 13 May in Andijan, president Islam Karimov's official visit to China comes as no surprise to many observers. China pledged its support for the Uzbek government's handling of the protestors, and yesterday reiterated its own long running crackdown against Muslim Uiqhurs in the western province of Xinjiang. The IHT reports on the implications of a West / East split over events in Uzbekistan, and the consequences of Russia and China's conspicuous support for President Karimov. Conspicuous maybe, but entirely predictable say some. Nathan Hamm comments on the economic ties between China and Uzbekistan, likening the political manouverings to Kipling's 'great game', and links to an interesting article at Radio Free Europe. Another blog, Korean News and Analysis also discusses the $600m China-Uzbek oil deal. Both countries of course insist the visit was planned way ahead of the events of 13 May, but with the increasing unrest in the 'stans and China's ongoing repression of muslim Uighurs, perhaps there is more than oil in it for the Chinese government. With the continuing "war on terror" and the seemingly easy task of scaring the US administration into supporting repressive regimes against the threat of "muslim extremists", their alleged human rights abuses can go unnoticed and the campain to squash the separatist movement in the province of Xinjiang is bolstered. May 26, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Non not OuiLike a good conversation writing a blog can be a voyage of discovery to your own views. I was against a French ‘Non’and want a ‘Oui’ in their referendum on the European Constitution - for a convoluted reason that was perhaps shamefully local. Polls that ask people in Britain how they will vote show support dropping like a stone if the ‘yes’ argument is led by Tony Blair. He simply cannot win a referendum in the UK. Therefore, I wanted there to be a referendum here. Because I felt sure this would force Blair out relatively quickly as Labour cannot afford to lose it.It follows, sorry I warned it was convoluted, there had to be a French ‘Oui’ as a ‘Non’ means there will not need to be a British vote at all, and thus the Prime Minister would be let off the hook. Now I have changed my mind. You only need to try out this argument to see that it evades the central question, how should the French vote - or, to put it another way, what should Europeans, including the Dutch who vote on 1 June, think of the constitutional treaty being put before us? When I learnt that President Chirac had decided to call for referendum a shudder went through me. I recalled something Tom Nairn wrote back at the start of the ninties after the French voted by the slimmest majority to endorse the Maastricht Treaty. He commented that it was a final warning. The French were saying, ‘OK’, let us do it if we have to. But they were also saying ‘No’ to a Europe from above. Europe had to change accordingly and democratically, Tom stated, Brussels had been warned. Obviously, it had not heeded the warning or changed its ways. Hence my shudder of alarm. But I betrayed myself by reacting in the responsible manner of those with vested interests in the status quo. You can see a well-written and well-informed example of the kind of argument I probably would have agreed with in the new piece by Gwyn Prins in openDemocracy. He actually wants a similar, paper-think majority in France - in other words a repeat warning. But everything he writes points vividly to the opposite conclusion. The time for warnings is past. The French should vote ‘Non’, Brussels does not deserve public endorsement. This simple and convincing argument has been laid out by Frank Vibert in his openDemocracy contribution. Rejection would not create a castastrophic vacum, it would be a healthy opportunity for a much needed re-think. It will only be the end of the world for that part of the world which needs to be ended. Constitutions ought to be a moment to generate democratic legitimacy not the reverse. A highly manipulated, paper-thin ‘Yes’ of the kind Prins hopes for is the last thing that Europe needs. And Vibert has put his effort where his mouth is and helped draft what he thinks is a much better, clearer, simpler constitution to the one on offer. In my earlier entry I wrote about my conversation with John Berger and how the spirit behind the Non’ movement in France was to reject and defy the whole damn charade of conventional media politics. A call for the real in the face of the spectacle. Now I am saying more than this. A French ‘Non’ followed by a Dutch ‘Nee’ could be the start of a welcome European argument without which there cannot be a European public. This is why British anti-Europeans fear a French refusal. They want the UK to reject the whole European process - the last thing they want is for it to become alive. A British ‘No’ in the face of a continent-wide ‘Yes’ would be narrow and destructive. A French ‘Non’ can open the way to the kind of arguments a constitution and the continent ought to have. Even if it does let Blair off the hook, it will only be for the time being, and it is a price well worth paying. May 26, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack On the Crisis of Being FrenchMuch has been written of the political and emotional state of a nation ahead of Sunday's referendum on the EU constitution. Called by President Chirac, the French referendum is being touted as the deciding vote on the future of the EU, and looks like backfiring on the government. With the "non" vote gaining the ascendence through an unholy alliance of far left, far right and dissident gaullists, Krzysztof Bobinski writes on the injustice of such French self-importance for the rest of Europe, and the cowardice of the British in relying upon it. Johannes Willms argues that the debate in France reveals a nation torn, and exposes deep-seated fears over national identity, whilst Frank Vibert urges the French to do us all a favour and ditch a constitutional "turkey". The BBC's correspondent in Paris John Simpson says the result is too close to call, but that its clearly touched a nerve in the ongoing debate on national life. The BBC also offers a breakdown of arguments for and against here. There is a lot of talk about identity, but the French crisis must be about more than a threat to baguettes non? Europe news offers a selection of reports from all over the world, whilst European Democracy has some interesting discussions of the implications union-wide. May 25, 2005 in News related | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack Lessons from Charter 88Comments from: Saturday’s Independent published on its front page a huge list of the four thousand people who had sent in their names to support its Campaign for Democracy. The bottom right hand corner was turned up, in homage, intended or not, to Charter 88. I remember how Keith Ablitt, the exceptional typographer and designer who created the original Charter and the many adverts that followed, carefully explaining his concept of the upturned corner and its impact on potential signatures. Few forms of flattery are more sincere than imitation. But the imitation I look for most of all is support in depth. The problem with all ‘campaigns’ which focus on a single issue like voting reform is that the strength of their simplicity becomes a weakness. The government thinks it can just sit it out. Once initial support has peaked, where does it go? Once it starts to falter, it appears to lose momentum and soon becomes yesterday’s news. What are the conditions for a campaign to become a success? One option is money: lots and lots of it, hiring PR merchants and advertising agents, shaping opinion as columnists are dined and unusual outlets, especially in broadcasting, targetted. The Indepdent does not have this kind of money and anyway it has branded the campaign as its own. The alternative to money is ideas. There has to be an internal richness if there is external scarcity. The campaign must not become boring. Another, brilliant campaign also taking place now, which has gained a high profile in Britain is Make Poverty History. This has a rich hinterland of potential argument to keep it going, from trade to sustainable development. The constitutional agenda as a whole also has this potential. So indeed does “democracy”. It is about identify and nationality, about globalisation and locality, law, myth, culture and, in the United Kingdom, a new ‘settlement’ as well as the delivery of a fair voting system. Will the Indie grasp this and embrace the larger arguments, or will it make the mistake of thinking that because the outrageous election outcome was the original “story” it must stick to this and this alone? May 23, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack Darth Vader and the NeoconsI hope I'm not giving away too much of the plot, but there's one scene in the new Star Wars film where Darth Vadar says, "If you're not with me; you are my enemy" and Jedi Master Obe Wan Kenobi responds that only Siths (bad guys) "deal in absolutes" and proceeds to (try to) kill him with his light saber. The dialogue in the movie is so construed, I couldn't help wonder whether it was subsversive nod to Bush's mantra on good and evil. Apparently others are making similar connections. Laura Rozen from War & Piece invites her readers to chuckle at an opinion piece by Ami Eden at The Forward that asks whether Darth Vader was the Galaxy's original Neoconservative. May 22, 2005 in News related | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Taiwan a pawn in Pope's pursuit of ChinaThe NY Times today reports thawing relations between the new Pope and the Chinese government. Eager to help persecuted Chinese Catholics and of course expand the market of the Church, Pope Benedict XVI has signalled willingness to sever Vatican ties with Taiwan in order to make buddies with China. Getting Taiwan struck from the lists of international organisations helps confirm China's argument that Taiwan is not a real country but a breakaway province. Witness the battle over Taiwan's status in the World Health Organisation (particularly heated during the SARS crisis in 2003). May 22, 2005 in News related | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack A two-sided self-interested stitch-upSo, a few days after a flock of protestors gagged themselves outside Downing Street, how goes the old electoral reform campaign in the United Kingdom? Not so great, it seems. Hot on the heels of the assertion from Prime Minister Blair's official spokesman that "There are no plans to change the current system," Lord Falconer (or Charlie, as everyone appropriately calls him), who poses as both the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, appeared this morning on BBC Radio 4's flagship Today programme to announce that there's "not a real groundswell for change", so the first-past-the-post system stays. (Listen here) "If the Government is not proposing change," Falconer said, "there is no point in having a referendum." Presenter John Humphries referred to the poll in the Independent which suggested 62% of Brits are gagging (sorry) for a proportional electoral system. Charlie reminded him that the same poll indicated 57% of Brits thought the election result "fair". Perhaps a compromise can be reached between the two opinions - a coalition of the content and disillusioned, with a fair representation of both sides? Anyway... I recently heard Falconer at an LSE event proclaim that "We've done the things that other government's drop the moment they get into office." What rot! Holding a referendum on electoral reform, a manifesto commitment in 1997, was ditched after the Labour Party realised the current system is stupendously stacked in its favour. Falconer pretends there was "a detailed debate" after Lord Jenkins produced his doorstop report. If there was, I must have been sick that term of office. Still, Falconer isn't a complete Charlie. He admits that "the consequences of change would be significant for the way we are governed." He likes the way we are governed. We are governed by him. Nevertheless, the anti-Falconers are also not to be trusted. Lord Lipsey, the big cheese of the reform outfit Make Votes Count, is also focusing on "Labour's self-interest". His plan is simple: "We'll try and convince Labour MPs that they won't be in power unless they change the system." I maintain that this movement for UK electoral reform is a decidedly undemocratic plot by the "progressive left" and you can read my wider thoughts (and polemical accusations) about this here. May 20, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack The Hoodies are in 10 Downing StreetThe new editor of the New Statesman asked me to write a column for him. But I addressed its readers in the first person, saying those of us Saddam haters who are not Gallowayites but who opposed the war are the majority and should not fall back into comfortable opposition. I didn't address the news of the day and it wasn't right. By the time I did so - and read the Queens speech in full - I was late and only half got carried. So here is the full thing, punch-line and all. "There is an edge and anger in the air. It feels like one of those moments when the public sentiment changes at a deeper level than fashion and is shaped by what Raymond Williams called the “structure of feeling” to distinguish what is a matter of opinion from mere opinion, and recognise it as a material force. The hyper-activity of the legislative programme in the Queen’s speech is designed to deny and defy this tide. There was a moment for me when I knew it was not going to work. It was somewhere way past number 30 in the long list of commitments in a programme dedicated to re-injecting “respect” into our civil society. Those of us still breathing - after a diet of ID cards, cuts to incapacity benefit, more private capacity in the health service, and more security crackdowns - learnt that the government will legislate to “encourage greater voter participation in elections”. This goes along with the Prime Minister’s headline approach of attacking anti-social behaviour. For him the main lesson of the election is that British people, especially young and disrespectful ones, especially those wearing hoods - and now known as hoodies - must learn how to behave. And if they can’t learn they must be taught. And if their teachers and parents can’t teach them, then the government will. In pre-war days when spin was spin and no lives were lost, one might have written with amusement at the eagerness of Tony Blair to define his swansong in such a tough-guy manner – the five times a night bravado designed to impress media barons, intimidate the rest of us and defy dissent. The fact that proper punishment could not follow at the polls has, if anything, deepened the sense of humiliation. The election verdict was rejection of a Conservative message that frightened and alienated, of a Liberal Democrat alternative that proved ultimately feeble, and of a war Prime Minister who garnered little over 35 per cent of the vote – and 22 per cent of the available electorate – a record low for a “victorious” party. Real name comments welcome or email anthonysblog@opendemocracy.net May 20, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Windows on UzbekistanThe world is still scrambling for a window on the mounting conflict in Uzbekistan - not just what's going on but why. At our morning meeting today, the previous night's editon of the BBC's Newsnight was a topic of discussion: reporter Tim Whewell had travelled away from Andijan to the border town of Korasuv, where a disaffected people had driven out authorities and were ruling for themselves. This morning, however, reports surfaced that the town had been taken back by force. I for one will be watching Tim's second report, due to be broadcast at 21:30 GMT. May 19, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Did Galloway win in Washington?A note on the brouhaha over the theatrical US Senate appearance of British MP “Gorgeous” George Galloway. Three days before Britain’s General Election, I followed Galloway and his supporters around his East London constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow. GG won the seat, overturning the seemingly comfortable 10,000 vote majority of the high-profile former Labour MP Oona King. Read my report of this messy contest here. Galloway flew to Washington at his own expense (he can well afford to travel First Class) promising to offload “both barrels” to the Senate committee who were accusing him of receiving generous payments from Saddam Hussein’s regime through dodgy oil deals. crooksandliars has the show, watch it here – it’s well worth it. The barnstorming performance from Galloway has provoked a ton of comment on the stylistic and democratic difference between the British and American political arenas. The general verdict is that Galloway (and Britain) won easily on points. “Brit fries senators in oil,” blasted the New York Post. “How did one maverick MP manage to outgun a committee of senior US politicians so successfully?” asked Britain’s Independent. The Times of London described “one of the most extraordinary political confrontations” as “a clash of institutions … the brawling methods of British politics suddenly sprawling across the decorous political stage.” Writing in today’s Independent, US correspondent Rupert Cornwell takes this idea further, describing “the mother of all culture gaps between the parliamentary traditions of Britain and America.” “[Brits] tend to see politics as a public bloodsport,” Cornwell reckons, “with the exception of Bill Clinton – every recent American president would have been slaughtered weekly if he had to face Prime Minister’s Questions.” Norm Coleman, the Republican Senator who took Galloway on, is judged as having been “way out of his depth … proceedings only served to underline the average senator or congressman’s ignorance of the world beyond America, be it the underlying realities of the Middle East, or the polemical ways of British public life.” Galloway spun the same line, saying afterwards on CNN, that “British parliamentary tradition won.” But which tradition is that? And what do we all mean when we say he and his tradition “won”? Two things. First, Galloway is not so much a part of Britain’s democratic tradition as a highly controversial fringe-member. Whatever one thinks of his politics (and let’s not go there) Galloway’s record as an MP is atrocious. He may be a great orator, but he attended a total of 1% of votes as an MP in Britain’s Parliament. Second, as he waxed lyrical about American lies and war crimes, Galloway answered none of the questions (instapundit has the verdict of the Scotsman on this). This is also a common aspect of the tradition of British parliamentary rhetoric. Yes, the Senators sounded plodding next to Galloway’s invective, and they should never have given the man such an elevated platform from which to bellow, but this is why Senate committees tend to get to the bottom of things. Britain’s Parliament definitely produces better spectator-sport (“the best show in town” etc.) but the emptiness of Galloway’s oratory doesn’t wash in the US Senate. This won’t end here. Meanwhile, as an aside, Galloway needs these grandstands. Without them, he can’t function. Perhaps to really understand British political tradition it’s best to look at the spat between Galloway and Christopher Hitchens. Hitch asked “Gorgeous” George if he had any evidence that he’d begged the Senate committee to let him present his case before its (guilty) verdict. GG responded with this: “You are a drink-soaked, former Trotskyist popinjay. Your hands are shaking; you badly need another drink.” In today’s Independent, Hitch describes how Galloway “hosed me with vulgar abuse”. He then goes on to describe Galloway as “a thug and a demagogue, the type of working-class-wide-boy-and-proud-of-it who is too used to the expenses account, the cars and the hotels – all cigars and back-slapping. He is a very cheap character and a short-arse like a lot of them are, puffed up like a turkey.” Those US Senators must be green with envy. May 19, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack Make One's Vote CountJust back from the vigil for reform outside Downing Street. The Queen was opening Parliament. I thought she went the other way. But no, much to my surprise I scrambled for my camera as Horseguards marched past followed by her Majesty and her husband in their horse and cart. Here they are coming towards us.
The turnout was not as large as the 200 the organisers hoped for and although it was also very cold for May it was nothing like Kiev. David Marquand's orange revolution still awaits us. * May 17, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack The American Left 6 months onOver at the Daily Kos, Bill in Portland Maine thinks George Bush's track record makes him nothing better than a hack psychic - and he wants his money back from the 62 million Americans who voted for a second Bush term. Well, as Todd Gitlin points out in today's openDemocracy piece on America six months after the US elections, it's time for the Left to put the election behind them and renew their struggle for control of American hearts and minds. As one of the core memebers of the SDS in the 1960s, Gitlin is an authority on the topography of prolonged struggle. And while we're on the subject of the American Left, Stirling Newberry has an excellent potted history of the US Democrat party here. May 16, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Coverage of Uzbekistan troublesThe news of violent riots in the eastern town of Andijan in Uzbekistan has had international media outlets scrambling to find on-the-ground coverage. Many international news outlets, including the BBC, have been unable to field correspondents any closer than Tashkent, the country's capital roughly 300 miles away. The situation means there's a lag in good coverage: the most recent reports I can find are at msnbc and agence france presse. There's also a gruelling collection of photographs from the scene, hosted at muslimuzbekistan.net. It is at times like this that the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, which is dedicated to training reporters in areas of conflict, shows what it's here for. Check here for eyewitness accounts as they come in. But the surprise sources have been the blogs, particularly registan.net, scrapsofmoscow (where you can find translations of the latest Russian reports) and thinking-east.net, run by ex-openDemocracy star Ben Paarman. And whilst you're searching for the facts, don't forget there is still the truth to be found too. Our 2004 piece by Sabine Freizer is a good place to start. May 16, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Get Lord Scarman's Train“Hold on!”, says Andreas Whittam Smith. He takes a similar but in one crucial respect very different approach to mine in his cautionary column today about the Campaign for Democracy in the Independent, the paper he founded and now writes for. He says that reformers must not single out voting reform. “By all means let us push strongly for PR but…” Good points about his buts: Andreas compares the British constitution to a large and old machine, he calls for a list of its parts (stand by), he is eloquent on the need for a democratic culture not just different rules and institutions. He is also great on the corrupt way the government is changing the role of Britain’s second chamber. And then he calls for… vigilance. Sorry, Andreas, this is not good enough. Yes, of course, stay vigilant. Should we sleep while our masters play? But we already know what years of vigilance have witnessed. It is a system – the old machinery - that is broken and rulers unable to resist the temptation this offers them. The old machine is a humpty-dumpty long fallen off its wall. Why look at it any more? It won’t grow or inspire a new culture. It can’t. Therefore, there needs to be a democratic, written constitution brought about through an open process that inspires an honest public culture which can lay claim to it. Electoral reform, like second chamber reform, needs to follow this and be part of it, or it will become (this is where I share Andreas’s caution) yet a further piece of the eggshell. There is no panacea within the old machine, or to be found amongst the eggshell, that will right the worst of democratic wrongs and thereby put Britain back together again. Not even super-laser vigilance. In 1992 I organised four Sovereignty Lectures for Charter 88. They were given by Gordon Brown, Shirley Williams, Ferdinand Mount and Lord Scarman (perhaps the country’s most distinguished retired judge). Mount, then speaking as a Conservative, said he was for constitutional reform but argued that we should get off the train before the last stop of a written constitution. In the following lecture Lord Scarman made a lucid call for staying the course and taking train to its destination. Why is it that so few of the political class are still unwilling to get into his carriage? So here is a question for Andreas. In the same issue of the Independent Peter Facey of the New Politics Network and Ron Bailey co-director of Charter 88 publish a letter calling for a wide “mass movement” for reform of the system - and they want a written constitution. Would this qualify for his unqualified support? May 16, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack A Sunny WarningJust a quick post - and a warning - on a sunny May morning. There is a gathering of what has been called ‘Britblogs’ in the wake of the meeting that launched Storm for Reform. Many of us will be there in the flesh for the vigil on Tuesday 17th May at Downing Street. Robin Grant of perfect has a great overview of the ongoing debate. Nosemonkey of Europhobiagives key quotes of what was said at the meeting (although I think real names should be used by reformers, to set an example for open government). There is an overview by Tim Hicks in Plone, who also takes the argument to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, while after a run in with software that vaporised his work (it happens to the best of us) Paul Davis of Make Votes Count links everyone including dedicated colleague Tom Steinberg of mysociety who has built notapathetic.com . This initiative seems to have been overlooked by Dominic Hilton in his terrific, must-read overview in openDemocracy.net of the rise of what should now be called targetted campaigning - rather than just tactical voting. But I just want to add my cautionary note to the focus on the electoral aspect of the British system. It is the whole system that is the problem not just its electoral pistons. In an impressive article in The Nation Naomi Klein describes how torture ‘works’. Its function, she suggests, is not to get information out of prisoners, it is to strike fear into the wider public and make us hesitate more than twice before questioning power. What has this got to do with electoral reform? Well, in his Channel 4 TV documentary on the election which I blogged at the time (26 April) Peter Oborne showed how computerised surveillance allowed parties to identify the most likely swinging voters within the marginal constitutiences that decide elections in Britain. The Conservatives found that two characteristics of those most likely to ‘swing’ are that they have moved recently and are heavily in debt. That is to say, people whose local attachments are weak and who live with the stress of debt, are those most likely to change their vote. And what will swing them? Answer: those who live in fear are prone to be swung by fear. This is a key reason why the Tories calculated that profiling the dangers of immigration and asylum might benefit them decisively. In other words, the first-past-the-post system makes the whole electorate vulnerable to the anxieties of the few. A population that is wise enough to be measured, even cool, about the risks of terror and immigrants finds itself a prisoner of those most vulnerable to being panicked. This, then, is a profound reason why Britain needs a fairer voting system that enfranchises all voters. But those who want electoral reform in the UK need to understand the first best response to the human rights violations that accompany torture and hyper-security measures is very firm and clear constitutional safeguards for fundamental human rights. Concerns about democracy and human rights in the United Kingdom, which outstanding advocates like Helena Kennedy have raised, parallel concerns over the voting system. A wide and successful campaign for reform needs to connect them and think in terms of a British constitution as a whole, no one reform can be an an adequate substitute for the others. This, I suppose, is where, after drawing a deep breath, I disagree with Billy Bragg. He argues that the next step is Lords reform on the grounds that ours is still a one-step-at-a-time time. It isn't. May 15, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack Who's blogging the NY Times?I don't think I've linked to this before. This very cool site is called The Annotated Times and it shows you who is blogging current New York Times articles on a mock Times site. It is mind-boggling to see it displayed this way. Here's a description of how it works. May 12, 2005 in Media & the Net | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Tele-activismHere's a bit more techie-optimism for you. Actually, I think some might call it cyberterrorism. It's a new technology that enables thousands of people to ring the US Senate from their cell phones at the same time. Forget the steady trickle of email and phone calls. Sometimes you need to act fast. People for the American Way are asking supporters to give them their cell phone numbers... At an important tactical moment, minutes before Senators are to vote, the switchboards will begin to implode with calls. I don't think this has ever been done before. The campaign is about saving the filibuster, a legal tactic which enables a minority to stall legislation indefinitely. The Right are keen to get rid of it, because it could prevent "their people" from getting seats in federal and supreme courts. That's the short version of the story. Read more. May 12, 2005 in Media & the Net | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack Iran blog launchThere are 70 million people in Iran. 70% of them are under 30. In June the world’s eyes will be on Iran as it holds its “democratic” presidential elections. Tapping into Iran’s massive (and massively wired) yoof culture, openDemocracy has launched IranScan, a unique blog written in English for a global audience by a gaggle of top-notch Iranian bloggers, journalists and activists. Iran Scan 1384 is led by Hossein Derakhshan, the legendary blogger ‘Hoder’. There are an incredible 75,000 active weblogs in Iran. Persian is the fourth biggest language on the web. The kids are getting busy. My colleagues tell me “Iran Scan will be the place for inside information, breaking news, informed comment, and serious debate about the democratic future of Iran.” Not to be missed. But don’t take my word for it. Solana Larsen knows better than I. She’s written a piece about the extraordinary explosion of Iranian blogging that introduces openDemocracy’s Iran Scan project. You can read her informed, optimistic and techie thoughts here. May 12, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Storm for ReformStorm for Reform Three things I forgot to add early this morning when I wrote about yesterday's potentially historic meeting. Action starts with the vigil at Downing Street when the new Parliament opens on the 17th. Its organisers have already decided it will continue to gather strength under the stirring banner, 'Storm for Reform'. Second, speaking of Conservatives waking up to the fact that modernisation can only mean they will never again govern in the old way (and if anyone has shown them that they shouldn't do so it is the present Prime Minister). Ferdinand Mount came out for voting reform in the Daily Telegraph. Not strictly a Tory - he did not vote that way in 2001 - he nonetheless wrote Margaret Thatcher's election Manifesto in 1983 and is, in a traditional sense, that difficult thing, a conservative thinker. Let's hope he is influential. Third, and as important as any of the above, the Independent has come out with a 'Campaign for Democracy' after its readers responded, or should I say 'stormed', it with letters, emails and messages to support its front page exposure of the electoral system. The British media monopoly that marginalised calls for a fair voting system may have been broken at last. May 12, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack A Historic MeetingA Historic Meeting I’ve just come from a historic meeting in the Houses of Parliament. No, not in the Commons, the so-called legislature of the United Kingdom, but a public meeting held in the Gladstone Committee room called at short notice by Make Votes Count and the Electoral Reform Society. It was packed. I sat on the floor with many others as over 300 of us listened to calls to bring the rotten voting system to an end. There were five good brief statements then plenty of points from the audience. Early on Peter Tatchell spoke up. He is a veteran campaigner for gay rights who once, wonderfully, tried to arrest President Mugabe when he visited Brussels. His website announces itself as ‘Gay and Human Rights Campaigns’. He told us that our leaders “will not listen to reasoned arguments”. Only popular pressure would do the job. The applause, I thought, was muted, respectful rather than enthusiastic. Most of those present were party members, mainly Lib-Dems, Labour or Greens. Then, towards the end of the meeting, two Tories were identified and given a special welcome. One of them, John Strafford from Buckinghamshire, Chairman of the somewhat loopy Campaign for Conservative Democracy said that he was astonished to find himself in agreement with Peter Tatchell and that he would take to the streets with him! This was cheered to the roof. Neither Strafford nor Tatchell represent ‘grass roots opinion’ whatever that is. But their combination suddenly made the meeting feel that they could move out of the committee room. And so we will. On the 17th, to coincide with the opening of parliament, there will be a mass vigil outside Downing Street. I’m not sure that the plan is to sit down and close the road, as I suggested in my blog two days ago. But having asked them, "Where are you now your country needs you?" I am very happy to report that Make Votes Count is on the ball and also that Charter 88 will be calling on its supporters to join them. Who else spoke? It was Chaired by David Lipsey, who I’ve had little time for, but who now seems to have risen to the occasion. Polly Toynbee from the Guardian led off. Billy Bragg argued we needed a proportional House of Lords as well as fair voting for MPs. Martin Linton, the only MP, was eloquent and factual in his denunciation of “the worst electoral system in the world” which is “poisoning the whole of our political system”. Chris Rennard, a leading Lib-Dem peer noted the anger and in his summing up cautioned us against any reliance on “noisy protests”. There was a palpable sense of injustice. The Labour government has been voted in by just over 20 per cent, a mere fifth of the electorate. Yet only hours before, I think in the same room, Labour MPs had given Blair a standing ovation in a closed meeting of the parliamentary Labour party. According to the Daily Mail, supporters of the Prime Minister said he had made short shrift of any doubters about his leadership. One minister emerged to say: "Whingers routed!" And Defence Secretary John Reid said: "It was a great meeting. The silent majority are silent no longer." It seems that “That loyalists had rallied round Mr Blair to drown out any protests… Everyone who appeared to say Tony Blair was less than perfect got shouted down." So it seems that in the same room, on the same day, tectonic plates moved in opposite directions. For this kind of talk and intimidation shows Labour becoming the old regime, bullying, silencing and toughing it out as opinion widens against it. The spirit of democracy, already coming to life in websites like perfect.co.uk and the sharpener to name just two, is now becoming tangible. May 12, 2005 in Blair's Bust - UK election | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack oD HQHossein Derkhshan (aka Hoder - the Iranian blogger) has posted photos of openDemocracy headquarters on his Flickr photo-sharing account from his recent visit to London. Ever wonder what we look like in action?
Here's Caspar Henderson, Dominic Hilton, and a sneak peak at Isabel Hilton (no relation to Dominic). * May 11, 2005 in openDemocracy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
