Back to openDemocracy Email us Powered by TypePad  
political magazine Help bring democracy to the US
political magazine The New oD Today
political magazine China's modernisation and its discontents
political magazine openDemocracy widget
political magazine Goodbye Habeas Corpus
political magazine Dance the guns to silence?
political magazine Don't be a lawyer in China
political magazine Have we hit the ground yet?
political magazine The strange ways of Falungong
political magazine 2000 dead
political magazine April 2006
political magazine December 2005
political magazine November 2005
political magazine October 2005
political magazine September 2005
political magazine August 2005
political magazine July 2005
political magazine June 2005
political magazine May 2005
political magazine April 2005
My Photo oD Today
A weblog from the editors, staff and friends of

« Make One's Vote Count | Main | Windows on Uzbekistan »

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


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Galloway win in Washington? :


One of the things absolutely worth reading about Galloway is this by Johan Hari (thanks to Danny Postel for pointing this out yesterday):

"It is not the allegations that he was being paid by Saddam Hussain...that will destroy George Galloway. No, it is [his] book. In this strange, repetitive little manifesto - marketed as an autobiography by in fact a short and incoherent rant - Galloway does not just shoot himself in the foot; he machine-guns his own legs to pieces".

More at:

Posted by: Caspar Henderson | 19 May 2005 16:22:56

There's a great article in the Calcutta Telegraph likening George's specatacle with the ones performed 50 years ago by Indian foreign policy advisor to Nehru, V.K. Krishna Menon. Menon was famous for his outbursts, once ending a radio interview by responding to the question of whether he was a communist with, “But tell me, is it true that you are a bastard?”

Posted by: Solana Larsen | 19 May 2005 16:44:49

The comments to this entry are closed.

Back to openDemocracy Email us Powered by TypePad