Coalition Government

The new coalition government seems at the moment to be going strong. The partnership between David Cameron and Nick Clegg is clearly one that works, reflected in David Davis' colourful (according to Nick Clegg) comment that the coalition is a "Brokeback Coalition". There was even talk in the newspapers this weekend of a merger between the Tories and the Lib Dems, or even the possibility of candidates contesting the next election as coalition candidates. However many Lib Dems are against such a move, and see the possibility as having nothing in it for their party.

Some people seem more than confident that the coalition can last the duration of five years, not least Cameron, Clegg, and most of the cabinet, however many also feel that it is not a case of if the coalition breaks up, but when.

Torture and Terror

The recent announcement by David Cameron will hold an inquiry over the British intelligence service and their alleged complicity over the gaining of information from terrorist suspects by torture is a welcome one. However the announcement is also one that will redefine the way we think about the role of the intelligence services and the limits to which they can go in order to gain vital information. In the war against terror Britain and her allies will need to retain the moral high ground in order to defeat terrorists who are helped rather than hindered when the countries they seek to attack engage in morally questionable actions themselves. Britain and its western partners cannot claim to be defending democracy, the rule of law and the freedom of the individual if they are engaged in or aware of the fact that torture is being used to gain information from potential terrorists.

However as has been pointed out in the Times newspaper today, the British government must not impose too much red tape over the workings of the intelligence services in its quest to ensure that the services are not complicit with regard to the underhand and immoral tactics used by foreign allies in the gaining of information. There is a delicate balance to be struck between securing the right to remain innocent until proven guilty and the right of the individual to be free from torture on the one hand, and the security of society as a whole from the threat of international terrorism on the other. By announcing this report Cameron and the coalition government can hopefully clear the air over such a contentious issue and restore the credibility of the highly effective and professional British intelligence services. This is not only morally necessary but will be instrumental in making sure we are nearer to victory in the ongoing war on international terror.

General Election 2010

This year's election build up is now really starting to get exciting. Before Christmas, it seemed the Conservatives were set to record an historic overthrow of Labour in the national vote, however their poll ratings have fallen from double figures in December to within 2 points just last week. Brown was being written off as late on as February, however now the press seem to have changed their tack. It's interesting to see the change in the view of Brown's leadership position by looking back over various political reports from the past few months. The economist last week compared Brown to Mohammad Ali, and cited the possibility that "Mr Brown might bounce off the ropes to deny David Cameron his victory".

However this quote alone is very interesting in itself. It doesn't imply that Brown and Labour will secure a majority at the next election, which raises the possibility of a hung parliament. I believe this would be an interesting development in British politics, and myself would not be against seeing such respected politicians as Vince Cable in a coalition cabinet (his views on the economy have been drawing praise from all quarters). However there are all sorts of implications with a hung parliament, not least the fact Nick Clegg, as likely "king-maker" should there be a hung parliament, has made it evident that he could not work with Brown as leader.

In the end it will all come down to how the tories do in the marginal seats. A poll last week for one of the major broadsheets didn't make comfortable reading for Cameron, with many people saying that although they wanted change, they didn't see the Conservatives as the party they desired to bring about this change. Baring in mind also that the tories need a bigger swing than both Thatcher in 79 and Blair in 1997, the result of the election no longer looks like such a foregone conclusion...

Durodie on Fear and Terror in a Post-Political Age

Just read through a really good article by Bill Durodie on the reaction to and attempted explanations of the suicide attacks on London in July 2005. He says that whilst many explanations seem to emphasise causes such as alienation or revenge for British foreign policy, the deeper and more potent explanations for such attacks lie closer to home.

He analyses many cultural factors that have developed in recent years that have gradually eroded people's belief in human capacity to respond to the problems they fact in society, and the fact that growing individualism and a lack of social capital in today's society means that people are increasingly passive in the political process, and therefore delegate all responsibility for dealing with these problems to the elite, political leaders and governments.

Durodie argues that these societies increasingly lack a sense of direction and also a sense of community and mutual trust, thus making their capacity to respond to such issues as Terrorism less powerful. Indeed, Durodie argues that the terrorists that attacked London in 2005 were not influenced by any extreme religious doctrines or even by Islamic texts such as the Koran, but because the society in which they grew up (UK towns and cities) failed to provide them with "identity and a meaning to their lives".

Durodie asks "what it is about our own societies and culture that they fail to provide aspirational, educated and energetic young individuals with a clear sense of purpose and collective direction through which to lead their lives and realise their ambitions, that they are left looking for this elsewhere, including, for some, among various arcane belief systems". I think this is an important question to ask of our society and culture today, but one which a response to may be difficult to find. However, I think that by promoting a sense of community again, with a common purpose that we can share as a society, as well as a reassessment of what "risk" means in our society, and how we respond to such risks (Durodie also explains this in his article), will go a long way towards helping to reduce the likelihood of young individuals falling into lives of terror and resent of the society that they live in. If social capital is built up once again between individuals, and a sense of community and responsibility is fostered, then the collective optimism, strength and courage that is presently only seen amongst people in the aftermath of suicide attacks or natural disasters, can flourish at all times. In a society that is united and together, risk will become something that we can respond to collectively as a community, and not delegate to elected leaders, who themselves are weakened in their capacity to act through their own perceptions that they are isolated from the people they were elected to represent.

It seems that Dubodie's article calls for a radical reevaluation on behalf of everybody in society of the role they want to play within the society that they reside, and the direction that they want their society to reach. Individualism, and self interest, will only lead to people acting for themselves, at the expense of others and to the detriment of the ability of their society to respond to real risks and problems that may arise. This is not a doctrine against success, self-acheivement and human progress, but a pragmatic viewpoint that suggests we cannot respond to threats that are cultural and societal in nature, individually.

The article can be found here: http://www.durodie.net/pdf/FearAndTerror.pdf

A Potent Image

These images can be found on a quick search for "democracy" in google:

Democracy and Authoritarianism

I've been reading a book called Democracy Kills by Humphrey Hawksley. It is a really interesting read and takes a whole new approach to the view that Democracy is the best form of government, as is often commonly cited today. The first chapter looks at Democracy in Africa, and in particular the cocoa industry in the Ivory Coast. The amount of child labour in that country is shocking, and the poverty equally as bad. Humphrey lays the blame not with the institutions of democracy as such but with the multi-national companies and the individual government of the country. This is a common theme throughout the critique of democracy. Many people claim democracy is a bad form of government, that "Kills", however where their anger should be directed is at the leaders in power within particular so called democratic regimes, who are happy to exploit the election process in order to gain power and legitimacy, but then pay little heed to the principles of democracy such as individual freedom, equality and basic human rights.

Other focuses of the book are the middle-east, in particular Iraq post 2003. Many Politicians in Iraq seem to fail to recognise the importance of democracy to a stable country, and it seems one of the biggest US failures post-invasion, when organising elections, was to assume that a country that had had its civil society destroyed by a brutal dictatorship could make the smooth transition to democracy. Many of the Iraqi politicians still feared the consequences of losing in the elections, not seeming to understand that in a democracy the loser is not killed or humiliated, but is a necessary element in providing effective criticism of those in power and their policies.

Overall from reading the book the conclusion I have drawn is that implementing and supporting democracy in countries not used to such forms of government, and in many cases not hospitable to such forms of government is a process that cannot be forced on countries from outside. Change must happen from within, with the support of the people and the willingness to cooperate from those participating in such a system.

Whilst many Authoritarian regimes have experienced economic boom in the recent decades (most notably communist China), I think many critics lose sight of the value of democracy. A democratic government necessary if individual rights, freedom of expression and individual development within society is to gain any momentum. A flourishing people will, in turn, lead to a flourishing nation and more often than not a peaceful nation.

Democracy

We are often said to be living in one of the most consolidated democracies in the world here in the UK. But as campaigns such as Liberty's "I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist" show, our rights are constantly under attack. Is this the way democracy works?

(Photo from liberty-human-rights.org.uk)

My aim through this blog will be to explore a number of regimes throughout the world, analysing the level of individual freedom of expression as well as civil and political rights.