Monday, December 30, 2019

Brexit: the end of the beginning

 
Brexit has not been 'done': anyone who has followed the plot at all will know January 31 2020 is only the date when negotiations between the UK and the EU start at last. But at least the date marks a new situation, the release Britain's democracy reportedly longed for, so let us pause and look at events so far.
 
In the end it was as simple as Boris Johnson has always striven to make it appear. What was necessary was a hand-picked cabinet of right wingers, Mr Dominic Cummings' hard-faced control and power to dismiss or ruin anyone who did not stay on message, and Mr Johnson's ability to reduce any serious matter to a laugh.
 
His 'oven-ready' Brexit recipe ('Gas Mark Four in the Microwave' was Mr Johnson's populist pleasantry on the campaign trail to spice up a more indigestible hash than the one he had earlier turned his nose up at and replace his original appetiser of your-cake-and-eat-it - but why not another culinary trope if it works?) was then swallowed gratefully in the general election.
 
There is no arguing with an election; that is liberal democracy even if a dated, simple-majority, advisory referendum presented as a mandate is arguably not. So what went wrong, if indeed anything went wrong? Again, it is simpler than both sides will now make out.
 
The record does not show Jeremy Corbyn supporting Europe; socialism in one country perhaps better describes his position. But whatever his personal views or those of the wing of the Labour Party that supports him, Mr Corbyn could not declare for Remain or Leave. His party, mirroring Labour voters throughout the country, was divided top to bottom on it.

The Tories, still in government following Theresa May's resignation, had to decide on a new leader and they had decided on Mr Johnson. When he said Leave was do or die, he was for once serious: that is exactly what it was for them all politically. Mr Corbyn in Opposition, lacking the conviction and leadership qualities to make a bold stand, sat on the fence to the end.
 
And a bitter end it is. Mr Corbyn is being blamed for something any political analyst could have told him: that 'the workers' can vote Labour all their lives but still be social conservatives (note the small 'c'). When to get Brexit done they were even ready to join the Conservatives with a capital 'C', how could a radical programme of tax and spend, earnest pledges to accommodate the many in a new, kinder world, win the day?

Yet no form of Brexit can make those questions disappear; for now that must be Labour's consolation. Democracy is the best form of government, not a guarantee of the best outcome. 
 
 
 
 
 

Friday, December 13, 2019

The British General Election: The Money Is Mine



One-Nation Conservatism under the Boris Johnson government?

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Can the liberal vision of one world ever work?


One of the most elusive and disputed mysteries of life, if not the fundamental mystery, is how homo sapiens has a sense of identity and what its nature is.

We understand that a medieval European peasant - or nobleman - did not think as the new middle and mercantile classes began to think in the 17th and 18th Centuries and that none of them could have seen things as we 'moderns' see things today.

But the explanation for such differences is open to any interest and agenda. It is Religion - no, it's Science. It is Capitalism at work - no, Marxism. It is Society, Culture, IQ, Race. It is Progress. No, it's not - there's no such thing as Progress.

Or could it simply be we live as and with different types of people?

The conservative view today that technocratic governance is stifling individual freedom, and the claim that a common humanity is the fabrication of a left wing elite for its own purposes, need  to  be interrogated, not taken for granted. As should the nativist idea that a man or woman cannot be German or Afrikaans and also feel Austrian and South African, wider still European and African, and beyond that, a member of the human race.

People have more identities, more ideas of themselves on offer now, than the medieval peasant or educated nobleman could ever dream of. Is it possible, in the way of things, some have moved further than others since the 12th, 18th or 20th Century and haven't stopped yet?

Monday, August 26, 2019

Why do South Africans go on voting for the African National Congress?


Why would anyone vote ANC, given the party's record of corruption followed now, under President Cyril Ramaphosa, by division, bitter in-fighting and deadlock? It is more a mystery than a question, considering the negative coverage the ANC gets in the media.

Most regular journalists seem to avoid exploring it. They may feel it somehow undemocratic, even running a risk, to argue there is no real option. Or they know perhaps they can rely on the social media these days to come up with an answer.

On Twitter and in the comment columns of news and political websites, explanations are never lacking: people who vote ANC either have their noses in the trough or are looking to have their noses in the trough. Alternatively, they have been bought or are unintelligent. There are many learned exchanges on the proof furnished by IQ tests.

There’s no doubt some truth in it all, as in politics everywhere. But like all generalities, it also makes one wonder. Is there really no hope, not an honest ANC man or woman anywhere? Not in the Revenue, for instance? Not speaking out at the Zondo Commission? And can’t the people - the voters - vote ANC simply because they want to or choose to? Is that really the same as being stupid?

Another popular explanation is people vote ANC because of identity politics, sometimes termed identitarian politics to make the matter weigh more significantly. Liberals tend to bridle at this, seeing it as a threat if not racist, and they may have a point. All politics is identity politics because there has to be a sense of mutual identity to identify with anything. There is the consideration too, since the population of SA is 80% black, that the majority can hardly avoid colouring the party they vote for.  

That leaves the President Cyril Ramaphosa factor, the New Dawn that he promised South Africans, but which, the ubiquitous doomsayers insist, is a False Dawn.

This piece, however, is not to get into that debate yet again, to claim that Mr Ramaphosa may or may not be trusted, or that he is weak and not moving fast enough. It is to put another view entirely.

There appear to be three reasons people vote - or don’t vote - as they do: habit, loyalty and reason.

Habit, a very powerful human instinct/motivator, is clearly at work in people who vote for the same party all their lives - because their parents did, or the local community does, or because they just can't ever be bothered.  These include those who 'don't trust politicians' and it also explains those who don't vote at all, and why they often are the ones that grumble most at the terrible state of affairs.

It's like putting the cap back on the toothpaste: you either do or you don't.

Loyalty is hard to tell apart from habit and no doubt often overlaps with it, but it may be a more elevated form of behaviour, or more stupid, depending, ironically, on your loyalties.

Loyalty seems straightforward enough: we naturally take sides and, having taken them, we stick with them come what may; it may be related to not wanting to be proved wrong. It generally has little to do with logic and nothing whatever to do with right and wrong and it is therefore puzzling why people sneer at others who stick with a particular political party or politician, when they themselves never desert their favourite soccer or rugby team however often it disappoints.

Then there's reason. Now that's the hard one. We all have Reason; that stands to reason. We think that anyone capable of reason would never vote ANC. In the same way, we reason no one would ever vote DA and anyone who votes for Donald Trump has taken leave of their senses. Yet there are people who do it, who would vote Hitler or Stalin still, or Barak Obama, or Emmanuel Macron and give you reasons for it. After all, people even vote for Nigel Farage.

Reason, the organising principle of democracy, is as deceptive a guide as any other. It does not lead us all to do the right thing or the best thing. And it definitely doesn't make us all do the same thing.

 

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Yellowhammer - the British Government's Brexit assessment, not the bird


The leaked Tory government report Yellowhammer, setting out the risks of fuel, food and medicine shortages following Britain leaving the EU without a deal on October 31, is causing yet more outrage and denial in a gravely divided country. However, it is conclusive on at least four issues:
 
It shows Brexit is little or nothing to do with 'trade', but is ideological. No rational government aware of these risks would otherwise persist in running them.
 
It shows talk of fulfilling 'the will of the people' is a sham. A government that respected 'the people' would give the people a chance to review the situation in the light of Yellowhammer, its own and latest assessment. That would mean, at the very least, holding another referendum on Brexit.
 
It shows the claim voters would lose faith in democracy if cheated of Brexit by politicians is also a sham. If the people are 'not stupid', as politicians always like to say, the people will be intelligent enough to understand the need for them to re-consider and reaffirm their earlier opinion of June 23 2016. Indeed an intelligent 'people' would now insist on the opportunity to do so.
 
It proves Brexit is and always has been about the Tory government and party's interest, not the national interest. The fact that Labour and other opposition MPs and voters support Brexit does not alter this. It shows that opposing the Conservatives does not necessarily rule out being politically and socially conservative.
 

Saturday, August 10, 2019

On Covid, global warming and other heated arguments


Every scientific hypothesis and theory attracts debate and dissent and people often think that is 'proof' the science is 'wrong', or even some kind of conspiracy or swindle.
 
That is a misunderstanding of science, which is not in the business of 'proving' or 'disproving' things, but rather of pointing to tendencies and causalities that may be taken to exist until they are shown by further testing and evidence not to exist.
 
In other words, all scientific knowledge is provisional and the opposite of dogma and belief.
 
People who doubt science on Covid and global warming often cannot see that to anyone thinking scientifically, the dissenting view may also turn out to be unreliable. The heated disagreements that follow settle nothing because they are the result of a difference in people's thinking and understanding.

So what is the answer then? How do you know which side is right?

The question is wrong. Outcomes in a scientific debate rest strictly on testing and evaluation that may take many years and, in the case of Covid, global warming and our own natures and origins, may never arrive at a complete answer.

On many subjects we have no alternative but to apply to people who specialise in them. The scientific question to ask scientists is: What is the weight of scientific opinion on this, not Who is right or wrong. There will always be dissidents.

 

Monday, July 29, 2019

Will Brexit be the end of liberal democracy?


Someone asked me in the Comment section of a political website, What is liberal and democratic about this type of politics?
 
He was referring to the poisonous stalemate, the 'circus' as some call it, the divisions to the point of madness that Brexit has brought to Great Britain. I replied:
 
I think the answer to your question is that what you see happening, with all its twists and turns, backstabbing, backsliding and blatant hypocrisies, is liberal democracy. This is how it works, this is it in action. What you get is what you see. But you have to cast off illusions and wishful thinking and look straight at realities.
 
Someone else asks in a comment addressed to me, What was the purpose of the referendum? To me, it was quite clearly to solve the Tory party's internal and electoral problems: its intractable Euro-sceptic wing that existed before Britain even joined the Common Market, coupled with the alarming rise for the Tory party of the far right UKIP.
 
We can argue about this, all of us, about the meaning of 'right' and 'left', about how the other side is wrong on each and every issue as it crops up and continue arguing as long as we like. But if there's any such thing as the truth, that is the truth: the referendum was called to solve the Tory party's problems as the leadership of that party saw them in governing under the British party system. 
 
The ramifications of that decision are proving enormous, splitting the parties and country and threatening the traditional workings of the constitution, one of the oldest representative democracies.
 
That is liberal democracy, or at least liberal democracy going through one of its crises. It isn't the first and won't be the last.
 
Those who don't like it need to consider the alternatives.

So if Boris Johnson takes the UK out of the EU on 31 October 2019, you will endorse the decision as liberal and democratic?

If Mr Johnson manages to take the UK out, I will never endorse that decision, but I do not think we should overthrow the system or start a war. And because there are millions like me, the argument will continue.
 
 


Sunday, June 30, 2019

First Love


Dear Elizabeth

Please read this with all your care.

There's nothing unpleasant in it, only two questions at the end only you in all the world can answer. They come from a time when your life had not really begun. Or mine.
 
I took you to the opera at Sadler's Wells. Carmen.
 
It was in 19--, in February, I'm sure it was.
 
I remember scattered fragments from the evening, five or six moments like old black and white photographs kept in a drawer over a lifetime.
 
Can you remember? Do you remember me, Paul Whelan? If you do, you must remember we never met or ever talked again.
 
I've always wondered. Was I of any interest to you at all? And if I wasn't then, could you perhaps have become interested if I'd tried?
 
Forever those questions. Please don't think you have to be polite or tactful. Take your time.
 
If you are able to say and don't mind my asking, please tell me now.
 
Best wishes.
 
 

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Brexit: after parliament says No to everything


As Britain displays every symptom of an advanced stage of madness, the key symptom being political paralysis, can anything be done?
 
Assuming Theresa May’s deal does not pass in the next week, Brexit should be extended sine die, a diplomatic ‘revocation’ of Article 50 that all sides except the diehard right might find acceptable now if only to gain a breather.
 
This should go hand in hand with a General Election. Only a new government and parliament have a chance of renegotiating with the EU. The task is somehow to start again. It sounds awful, but what option is there?
 
A general election throws all the cards up in the air, which is what is needed. May would go, Corbyn might well go. Maybe Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg would go. Who can tell? If MPs of all parties and especially the government are terrified of a GE, you can be sure that’s what the country needs. Democracy must be allowed to work.
 
On no account should there be another referendum, a People’s Vote, or any plebiscite called by any other name you care to call it. Have done with referendums forever from here on, until and unless their use is carefully prescribed in law. They are nothing to do with the British way of government.
 
It is not that it is hard to discover the ‘will of the people’: there is no such thing as ‘the will of the people’. And even if there were, 'the people' do not pass laws or run a country. If we have not learned that at least, everything has indeed been in vain.
 
Meanwhile we seem to be looking at a fair chunk of the rest of our lives. A sort of Twenty First Century Thirty Years War.
 
We live and learn or are nothing.

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Is a referendum 'real' democracy, like people say?


No government, it may confidently be said, would hold a referendum it expected to lose.

And, of course, that is how referendums have been used historically and up to the present: as instruments of the executive. Napoleon III of France - sometimes seen as the originator of this style of 'democracy'  - used them to get his way, Mussolini and Hitler to get theirs.

So the first point to grasp about the Brexit referendum is that British prime minister David Cameron lost it. It happens sometimes. It happened, for instance, in February 2000 when Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's referendum produced a No for his new constitution. 'The people's decision' did not suit the autocratic President Mugabe, who ignored it and seized the farms anyway.

However, Cameron's failure and the ensuing calamity are of a different kind altogether, as not only democratic Britain but Europe and the wider world now bear witness. Why has it gone so wrong? Referendums are democracy in action, the people getting the chance to express their will directly. That is proper democracy. Isn't it?

In fact, democracy in practice means representative democracy, not direct democracy, a popular term for a form that does not exist and is never defined or critically examined beyond claims for it being 'real' or 'true' democracy. Like they had in Ancient Greece.

But what institutions can direct democracy draw on today? Referendums on everything? If referendums are not held on everything, who would select what they are held on?

Workers councils or soviets? Demands by petitions, demonstrations, street marches? These are democratic already and, in any event, must still be organised by some leader, party or committee acting as executive on behalf of others. By representatives. 

Underneath it all, 'the will of the people', the idea on which direct democracy relies, is a deception. It is a metaphysical concept impossible to prove or disprove and open to co-option by any interest rich enough to push a facile message across broadcast, press and social media. Social media have not only liberated people and opinion. They have recruited them more effectively than ever.

What we are really talking about when we speak of the will of the people is the current majority for or against something. And we forget majorities change over time. There was a time when the majority was against votes for women. Before that, it was for votes for propertied men. There was a time the majority favoured laws criminalising gays. We are living through that changing right now.

The populists' reply to these objections is essentially rhetorical: an entrenched elite are accused of having contempt for 'the people', of pursuing their own agenda and power through institutions that are broken and media that have been bought. Populists love to say the elite treat ordinary people as stupid.

It's a familiar get out, skipping the question of how direct democracy would or could work institutionally to improve on representative democracy. It's the standby of the left and right in suggesting there's an easy solution to everything, without ever saying what it is.

Today we seem content to leave it there, not to address the obvious objection that if the present 'elite' were replaced it could only be by another one - not to question what that new elite represents and whether its values are democratic at all.

Such contradictions reflect the political divisions of our time rather than contribute to an understanding of how human government does or could work for a better future for all.