The one problem with democracy is that the government that represents you, may not be doing any such thing. We will shortly be seeing Israeli settlers being moved by their own army because they disagree on the definition of "Israel" (or perhaps on the definition of "theft"). We know there is a blue half and red half of the US. And Tony Blair seems to be opposed by many people - but not apparently by the official opposition.
So what is the relationship between "lawful" government and its citizens? Blair's attempt to have British citizens thrown out because they diss the state seems to imply the relationship my be de-coupled. In short, the government decides who its citizens are. This is a bit odd, as ordinarily the reverse is true.
To some degree the government does have the responsibility to damp democratic wishes where they are obviously just reactionary. Hence we don't have capital punishment, and haven't waltzed out of the EU. Its also nice if the government defends minorities, whose voice can be washed away by the majority. Despite all this, we still maybe about to dispense with human rights.
The unspoken link between the government and its citizens can be seen after a terrorist attack. Note that terrorist victims are described as "innocent". This term should never be more than a technical shorthand for victims being random non-combatants or purely collateral. But the term is also being used in a political sense. If I am a target of terrorism, so be it. I may not be a military target, but if I'm over 18 I'm not innocent with respect to the state; far from it. Apart from voting it in or out, I pay taxes to it. I obey the laws with in. I may chose to feign indifference towards the government - but that is my choice too. That terrorism is wrong is the only point here; this blessed "innocence" has some dubious religious connotation - or worse reduces people to children.
I kept hearing the argument for the invasion of Iraq (before W.M.D. became the vogue) was that the Iraqi people were "prisoners" of Saddam Hussein, and needed to be "liberated". In short it was not a democracy, and members of the free world were required to convert it into one. Again, this implied the people were "innocent" and Mr Hussein ruled with no consent. While its true that a regime can be held together by fear, at the minimum the majority have to tacitly leave it be. Whether that means they are fooled or know better is hard to discern.
Similarly the insurgency is portrayed as having its source beyond Iraq, according to the official sources. Again, this leaves the Iraqis as bystanders in their own history. This is more clearly rubbish, as Mr Hussein simply transferred weapons away from the regular army to the insurgents using them now. He also pretty much said he would do exactly that before the US had reached Baghdad. Civil war is usually the result when a government is unnaturally toppled.
In the US, a now famous mother of a dead soldier is attempting to hold Mr Bush to ransom. She now represents what the press needed - an excuse to question the war without appearing in any way intelligent. Cindy Sheehan is cast as close to Mary, mother of Jesus as is reasonably possible. This is not her choice, its simply that unless she is an Innocent she cannot represent those poor confused Americans who tacitly supported the invasion when they re-elected the incumbent.
The link between the citizens and the state is fairly arbitrary as it is. Its hard to seriously discuss the merits of PR or first-past-the-post if the Prime Minister is going to make faith based decisions anyway. What we now think of as the Neocon agenda did not appear in any Republican manifesto. But the quickest way to lose contact altogether is for citizens to wash their hands in the river, and pronounce themselves clean.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Brilliant writing - though having survived Quintin Kynaston, I have my doubts that even children can be described as "innocent". I'm sure the victims of various US playground random killings would argue the point too, if they still had the life to do so.
As far as being represented goes, well, these MPs we vote in are in parliament as our elected representetives, sure, but they don't have to re-present our view. They merely stand in our stead and usually do what the party whip tells them to. Or they lose their jobs.
As far as the US is concerned, well, most of the senate is comprised of criminals in one or more senses of the word and their vested interests lie with the lobby groups who give them the biggest back-handers. I know Dick Cheney and Haliburton get a good kicking in some circles, but we would be short-sighted if we didn't think such reciprocal pecuniary arrangements didn't extend to everyone else in US government.
What we have in the West is an elaborate facade. The only reason we don't do something about it is because up until recently, we were allowed, usually, to go about our business without being molested, or executed on the tube train. This has now changed. My guess is that this is just the beginning of an awful lot of change.
I won't pretend to understand the dynamics of Iraq, but let's face it, us British are partly responsible for it. There was no Iraq before we f***ed the Ottomans and Arabs over. Once we did, we decided to f*** the Palestinians over.
Now the Iraqis had a brutal dictator. But while there were no sanctions, life for the most part in Iraq was ok. People got on with it. They had water and electricity, which helps. Now they don't. Go figure.
Democracy has been a sham for some time. Dictatorships are not the answer, but if the leadership isn't working, invasion, occupation and oppression are not likely to fix things. It's best that people overthrow their own governments - one only needs to look at South Africa to see how a mess doesn't have to be catastrophic.
It might be a little strong to suggest that Cindy Sheehan is holding Mr. Bush to ransom. All she has asked for is an audience. She has already paid the ultimate price and all she wants to ask him is "why?"
As far as I'm aware, she is exercising her democratic rght and behaving legally. Although some have jumped on her bandwagon, not nearly enough are using her as their poster girl.
It's not that her son died. You join the army and you know what can happen. It's because she woke up and realised that the war was bogus, a sham. However, if she had studied her history more carefully, she would have seen that America has a long tradition in crap wars for crap reasons.
No leader can explain to a mother why her sons death is meaningful. Perhaps thats why I used the term.
I disagree. If the leader had been Churchill, if the enemy had been the Nazis, the answer would have been simple - to save many more lives.
Cindy Sheehan already knows that Bush cannot give her an adequate answer for the justifications for the war. I think she can hack it that her son died, she can't hack that he died for lies - especially the kind touted by a man taking a 5 week holiday while Iraq burns and while Cheney and Rumsfeld draw up plans to kill more American soldiers and Muslim civilians in their commercial jihad.
Post a Comment