Sunday, February 28, 2010

Ribbons and Bows: The Political Package

“We can’t go on like this.”[1] Never one to shy away from platitudes, David Cameron may have inadvertently stumbled upon the very reason that voting in this general election has become more about the personality than the policy.

During the run up to the 2010 general election the majority of the electorate has already decided who they are going to vote for. This decision has been made a lot easier by political packaging. The struggle between the two major political parties in the UK has been less Herculean and more like a limp struggle between two inebriated IT specialists. Not exciting. Certainly not parabolic. Just political packaging. Each party attempts to win over the electorate with glossy campaign posters, relying heavily on the stereotypical image of their party. David Cameron’s right, we can’t go on like this.

But year on year we do go on like this. The same voters turn up and vote for the same party, determined to fight for democracy. Unfortunately, the reality falls far short of this ideal. The strong relationship they have built with their party suffers as they become increasingly disillusioned by the flaws beneath the thin veneer of political assuredness. Nothing much changes to improve “our number one priority”- the NHS.[2] Nothing much changes to eradicate the education budget cuts. Absolutely nothing changes in the bid to economically overtake our neighbours and reclaim our gilded throne where siteth the financially gifted (eth). Instead, the perception we have built up of Dave and Gordie has been destroyed by the reality of their inadequacy. However, at each general election we are sucked in again. Fooled by the way sparkly rhetoric seems to glide off the page and into our heads. Fooled by the promises of a “future fair for all”.[3] Fooled by our own inclination to vote for the political packaging.

As we begin to recover from the glare of the sun striking the promises of yesteryear a frightening thought spurs us into inaction. What happens when the party we vote for changes but its image stays the same? Last year another important general election occurred, this time in South Africa. The African National Congress maintained their political stronghold in the country, winning 65.90% of votes.[4] “The ANC's key objective is the creation of a united, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic society.”[5] Yet, by placing the ANC in power for another term South Africans have condemned themselves to rule under a man accused of bribery, rape and corruption- Jacob Zuma. Because of what the electorate feels the ANC represents they vote, irrespective of how the party has changed under Zuma. A ray of hope for Black marginalised South Africans has been extinguished leaving only political packaging. A traditional Zulu man with a natural propensity to smile and a scummy residue of chauvinistic charm to conceal his incompetence. A package.

Sitting in our centrally heated houses, complaining about our free healthcare and subsidised education, it is easy to assume that this plight is another African problem engendered by corrupt leaders and rotting institutions. The future of democracy is affected by neither. Politicians will continue to be shrouded in a cloud of personal and political scandal. However, it is our duty to ensure that we vote with our heads and not our heart, that we make the informed decision and not the easy one, and that the people in power represent the future of our country. No country in the international community can afford to bury the corpse of democracy during a time where political and economic development is vital to our survival.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 25, 2010

To Serve and Protect: The Lisbon Treaty

The EU has been an ever expanding organism since its birth. What started as a loose trade alliance between a handful of countries based on the key industrial materials of the mid-twentieth century, coal and steal, eventually grew into an economic behemoth. A breadth of treaties and legislation apply uniformly across the continent bringing national economic players and institutions into closer alliance and partnership. Despite many successes, the external security the union is one area where the EU has failed to properly integrate and the 27 member states retain control over their own foreign relations and security matters. While the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) exists, it has to date been largely disorganised, ineffectual, and superficial in clout.

Internal security is another matter. Europol is the intelligence agency of the EU and began operating over a decade ago, in 1994. However, the idea for an integrated cross-border policing organisation was first promulgated in Europe as far back as before World War I.[1] The Europol office in The Hague, The Netherlands is a hub of information pooled by all twenty seven of the EU’s member states. The added benefit of the organisation is that it can conduct meta-analysis of data and information, identifying trends and understanding patterns, by looking at a wider picture than national police forces.

The so-called Europol Council Decision, which came at the same time as the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, is much more direct than the reforms in the treaty proper. It made Europol and EU agency, rather than a body funded by member states. Our examination reveals steep increases in Europol’s implemented budget in recent years: €52 (2005), €52m (2006), €55m (2007), €65 (2008), €68m (2009), €80 (2010). [2] [3] [4] This is a significant change in the funding and organisational structure of the body. At the time of the decision a spokesman for Commission Vice-President Jacques Barrot said,

“This is a veritable transformation, not merely a cosmetic one. Europol will become a full EU body, with the tools to support law enforcement agencies in the Member States even more effectively. As a result, European police forces will cooperate more closely.”[5]

The Lisbon Treaty influenced the direction and advancement of Europol indirectly through the EU’s second internal security organisation Eurojust. A department of public prosecution, the agency fills a similar role to that of the district attorneys office in the US, and was established in 2002. The Lisbon Treaty expanded the list of crimes subject to judicial cooperation, by proxy expanding the mandate of Europol.[6]

The Telegraph journalist Philip Johnston points out that this is the vital step in expanding a system that “was designed in the first instance to deal with offences against the EU's financial interest.” Johnston stands opposed to the developments heralded by the Lisbon Treaty arguing that the fundamental difference in judicial system of the UK and Ireland (common law) to most of the rest of Europe (civil law) means that these advances are incompatible in principal and, secondly, are detrimental to sovereignty. [7]

However, some critics decry that the Lisbon treaty did not go far enough to coordinate policing and justice in the union. Hugo Brady, a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, argues that having two organisations complicates operations and duplicates duties, causing confusion and distrust of the current system. These problems have not been properly addressed by the Lisbon treaty and Brady argues that it is essential that further moves should be made to merge the two organisations.[8]

The development of the law enforcement and judicial capabilities are sure to be a contentious issue in Europe going forward. For some the EU is going to far, and other’s it is not going far enough. The intricacies of the issue lie in the fact that the sprawling and interconnected nature of European legislation means that a development in a seemingly loosely related field may have unintended consequences that may expand or contract the capabilities of the justice and law enforcement bodies of the Union.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 22, 2010

Independence and Interdependence - Politics of the English Independence Party


I take a keen interest in the current debate on Scottish independence. At some point this year, Scottish people will vote in a referendum on whether Scottish devolution should continue in its current form, should be extended to full devolution, or should transmogrify into full independence: effectively ending a Union which has existed for over three hundred years. I’m fascinated by concepts of national identity- what it means to be Scottish in the 21st Century. The SNP is careful to avoid the negative connotations of nationalism- appeals to a sentimentalised, romanticised past, an identity based on ‘the other’; what we are not; and commensurate notions of ethnic purity. Therefore, notions of Scottish identity are complex and fluid. Scotland is a nation which was not only colonised but also participated in a global colonisation project. I am reminded of this every time I pass Buchanan Bus Station in Glasgow, named after one of our ‘Tobacco Lords’, who made his fortune in Jamaica from slave labour. Furthermore, I am also interested in English national identity: what it means to be English, the concept of Englishness and political debates over English independence. In this pursuit, I discovered the website of The English Independence Party (EIP).

The party is committed to furthering the welfare of the English and combating widespread institutionalised discrimination against the English. However, we recognise that where elected, we will also have to represent the interest of all who are lawfully living England. We will observe this obligation which is an essential part of a representative democracy. We regret that others have felt no need to represent our interests’ (1). Thus, immediately, Constantine makes an important distinction: there is a difference between ‘the English’ and those ‘who are lawfully living in England.His concession that, if elected, the party will ‘have to’ represent the interests of this lawfully abiding group is reminiscent of a bone being gradually twisted from a bulldog’s jaws; an English bulldog of course; not a British one.

Constantine subsequently clarifies the difference between ‘The English’ and ‘all who are lawfully living in England’. It seems that there are two types of Englishness in his England- ‘civic Englishness’ (2) and ‘ethnic Englishness’ (3). ‘Civic Englishness’, for the EIP, is ‘determined simply by an association with England, perhaps by residence or birth. Anyone, regardless of ethnicity, can assume this identity’ (4) whereas, ‘ethnic Englishness’ is ‘founded on a sense of community and a way-of-life. We English are an ethnic group and a nation. We are a group of people sharing ancestral roots, a history, a language and a sense of belonging together. We are of English origin, descent and heritage’ (5)

So, what is to become of the ‘civic English’ in the prospective dystopian England of the EIP? Will they be tolerated, exterminated, or will a system of apartheid be introduced? At this point, Constantine clambers aboard his white charger and belches his pre battle address to his troops- ‘They did not ask our permission when they systematically took from us our ability to live freely in our own land, and we shall not ask their permission as we set about taking back that freedom’ (6)

Anyone with an ounce of intellect would find EIP policies repellent. However, in times of economic crisis, we look to rid ourselves of ‘the other’ and synthesise a sense of identity based on who we are not. Those who are vulnerable and downtrodden are pushed into the arms of parties like the EIP and BNP. Western economic dominance was founded on the exploitation of the resources of indigenous cultures and the enslavement of their inhabitants. Furthermore, the perpetual economic enslavement of developing and third world economies is an integral and inherent component of our current system. Yet, when the corruption of that system is exposed by the current financial crisis, we do not examine our own complicity: we feel the pinch in our pockets and look for someone to blame, marginalise, demonise, and exterminate. In the words of Joe Strummer, ‘if Adolf Hitler flew in today, they’d send a limousine anyway’.

References 1-6: http://www.englishindependenceparty.org/index.php
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Time for the UK to Reform the Official Secrets Act?


In the UK, the moniker The Official Secrets Act does not actually refer to a single, stagnant document but rather it is an evolving and expanding body of legislation that has built up from the late 19th century. The first incarnation came into law in 1889, but was refined in 1911, reflecting the paranoia in Britain that German spies were operating in the UK and were carrying out clandestine intelligence gathering.[1]

The possibility of war with Germany was seen as a very real threat at this time. The novel “The Riddle of the Sands” by Erskine Childers was a very popular book and was widely read in the early years of the 20th century. It was published just at the turn of the century in 1903 and is regarded as one of the first examples of a novel with espionage as its primary theme. The main protagonist and his companion stumble across a German plot to invade the British Isles by sea.

The primary concern for Britain was that the unification of Germany, about three decades earlier, had led to German imperial ambitions. The colonial empire had began amassing a number of territories including what is present day Namibia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Burundi, and Rwanda, among others. These far flung dominions required an expansion of naval capabilities that threatened British dominance in the high seas. Thus there was a natural, if exaggerated, atmosphere of distrust in Britain towards Germany.

Since 1889, sections of the act have been repealed and replaced many times, with the most recent changes being applied in the Official Secrets Act 1989.[2] However, the primary purpose of the act, to prohibit the external passage of information obtained while in the employ of the Crown, has not changed in over the century since the act’s initial conception.

However, there is reason to believe that the legislation is inadequately equipped to the threats of the modern day, such as terrorism. For instance, the Canadian equivalent of the act, which was adopted in Canada almost verbatim in 1890, was replaced in December 2001 with the Security of Information Act which is part of the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act.[3] This new act expands the scope by acknowledging the threat posed by “new players (other than the governments of traditional states) [which] include governments-in-waiting, governments in exile and other foreign powers, as well as terrorist groups”.

Reform of the act in Britain has not been expedient since the 9/11 or 7/7 terrorist attacks. However this may have more to do with protecting the government’s policy actions rather than a simple neglect of important legislative reform. In a press release on the 26th of January, 2010, Liberal Democrat’s leader Nick Clegg implicitly made this case, stating:

“The number one responsibility of civil servants must be to the people of Britain, not self serving Ministers. That is why my party would amend the Official Secrets Act to restore the public interest defence for whistleblowers that was originally removed by the Conservatives. If that protection had been in place when the fateful decision was taken to invade Iraq Tony Blair and Gordon Brown might have been more openly challenged by officials who harboured real doubts about the war. But without cast iron protection for whistleblowers, it was too easy for this government to bully and cajole the civil service into remaining silent about one of the greatest errors of any government in the post war period.”[4]

Perhaps with the interest surrounding the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry, and the public scrutiny of the David Kelly affair, a new resilience will emerge to reform the outmoded act. Also, perhaps, if the much touted election reform referendum is passed next year and brings about a proportionally representative system รก la Duverger's law[5], the LibDems will have a greater pulpit from which to proliferate their message on the much needed revision of the act.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)