Bystanders Affect

On taking up the Presidency of the United States of America the Obama Administration (unlike the Bush Administration), decided it was time to return to the table of international politics and take part in the UN Human Rights Council.

On the international stage, the entrance of the United States into the UN Human Rights Council is a big step for the United Nations. As part of its commitment the US recently submitted its first Universal Periodical Review (UPR), taking a step towards multi-lateral decision making. It is also the first sign of a possible shift in the United States' historical stance to events not American.

Back in 2003 Ms Samantha Power, Director of Multilateral Affairs for the National Security Council, wrote a detailed piece on the history of United States foreign policy towards genocide. Ms Power showed a consistent invocation of isolationist stances by the US, even where lives were very likely to be lost. There is even a suggestion that the resolve of the aggressors was strengthened by American inactivity (Power, 2003). I find it worrying to see resolve can be strengthened by an inactive vigilance.

Particularly so since, as individuals, studies have often shown us to be no more disposed towards intervention. Studies show our chances to help are often dependent upon a whole variety of factors and tripping over any of them can trigger a non-responsive behaviour (Latané & Darley, 1970; Davidio & Penner, 2004).

Some studies also show that self-perceptions of our own competence and qualifications when dealing with situations can affect our response (Baron & Byrne, 1991). This all provokes some questions:

+ Can some combination of cost-reward analysis and a perceived lack of authority go some way to explain US bystander disinterest in all things not American?

+ Is a standing policy of intervention necessary to counter those who would use violence or intimidation and other abusive threats to get what they want?

+ And finally does intervention in a situation always mean physical or violent counter-threats? Is it ever enough to make those who threaten aware they are being watched?

Whatever the explanations, with one gesture the United States has changed things. In joining the council it has thrown its not inconsiderable power behind United Nations led, peaceful, diplomatic resolutions. This act gives hope to individuals the world over in their struggles. The task before the US and the world now is to determine how effective these resolutions can be.

I'd like to think it could be enough to make the world aware that we're watching, but I am wary lest I let the Bystander Effect transform into 'Bystanders Affect'. Some examples of organisations I can think of in Britain today that are promoting active watchfulness are Bridlington's Community Wardens, the Met Police & CSOs on the beat and of course cameras. It has been said that the price we pay for democracy is our vigilance. But how effective can our vigilance be?

===========

References:

===========

+ Report of the United States of America... In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review

For more on United States participation in the UN HRC:

- United States Elected to Human Rights Council for First Time...

- United States Wins Seat on U.N. Human Rights Council

- State, Arizona and the UN , The Guardian

+ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

+ Wikipedia page on the United Nations Human Rights Council

+ Samantha Power's '"A problem from hell": America and the Age of Genocide'; Harper Perennial; 2003. See an extract at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2003/05/b228409.html

+ Bibb Latané & John Darley's 'The Unresponsive Bystander: Why does he not help?'; Apple-Century-Croft; 1970.

+ J.F.Davidio & L.A.Penner's 'Helping and Altruism'; in M.B.Brewer & M.Hewstone's 'Emotion and Motivation'; Blackwell Publishing; 2004.

+ R.A.Baron & D.Byrne's 'Social Psychology (6th ed); Allyn & Bacon; 1991.

+ The work of Bridlington's Community Wardens:

+ Jon Stewart discusses Safety; Daily Show clip from March 9 2010 with Marc Thiessen

+ Jon Stewart discusses Safety; Funny Guy Jon Stewart Makes Deadly Serious Points, Newsweek

+ John Philpot Curran, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" from the speech 'Right of Election', 1790; Published in 'Speeches on the late very interesting State trials', 1808.

Constitutional Niceties

It's now past 100 days of the Coalition government. So far it has survived its fair share of scandals and reached the traditional time to review the early days. Here I wish to point out something that occurred to me following the post-election negotiations.

Constitutionally, Mr. Brown & Labour won the election. That fact appears indisputable. Our constitutional 'tradition' posits that if no other leader is able to muster a parliamentary majority at an election, then the sitting Prime Minister 'wins' (BBC, 2010; Blick, 2010). By that, of course, I mean he remains Prime Minister as a constitutionally appointed duty. It is also then his responsibility to form a workable government.

So when Mr.Clegg chose to disregard constitutional precedent in favour of the moral authority of 32% of the population (52% of a 65% turnout), what he in fact did was set in motion a coup d'état.

Now let me clarify that a little bit before I start a mass panic. Our constitution is often referred to as being 'unwritten'. That is not necessarily the case. It is more that it is not contained on any one piece of paper. We have one, it is however the sum of a number of separate laws and traditions.

These traditions are what we have to thank for Mr.Clegg's actions not sparking civil panic. They are what allows the press (Telegraph, 2010) to call for a candidate who has not strictly won, to have a chance to construct a majority. Some however see this not so much as one of the positives of a flexible system, but the result of an impenetrable and convoluted collection of constitutional traditions that leaves us manipulated in the dark (Blick & Wilks-Heeg, 2010).

Now, the Conservative Party, being broadly supportive of traditionalist stances, which includes the maintenance our current governing system; have taken power by that system. However the supporters of a republican style written constitution, more broadly to be found on the Labour left, did not implement that form of constitution while in power. Had it been introduced by the party for the 2010 UK General Election, it would have solidified the sitting Prime Minister's position, giving Labour the firm backing to declare victory.

This is the particular point I wish to address. With the sitting Prime Minister's constitutional role enshrined on paper, would there have been an outcry against Mr Brown remaining in Downing Street when no other majority could be found? Would we now be under a Lib-Lab or Progressive Coalition?

This I think exposes the strengths and weaknesses of our constitutional system compared to a written model:

+ The 'unwritten' model allows room for negotiation and flexibility in situations requiring adaptability.

+ However they can also create 'constitutional crises' in the event of differing or competing interpretations.

+ The written model provides a stable and accountable document demonstrating the divisions of power and constitutional roles.

+ Some written constitutions have been criticised for a perceived inflexibility and the potential for highly subjective stances to be enshrined. Arguments suggest these might be exploited as much as 'unwritten' documents, yet be harder to counter, eg. The Weimar Constitution of 1919.

The questions seems almost to come down to one of preferences. A question of comparison between a looser set of traditions & precedents, adaptable to the realities of the political situation, against a set of inflexible rules that are laid out and cover the chain of political power and everybody's roles, rights and liberties.

For me the jury is still out. However, it is nonetheless comforting (as someone who can safely be described as a NON-TORY) to know that, from a certain point of view, David Cameron is Prime Minister courtesy of a anti-constitutional coup d'état.

==========
References:
==========
+ The BBC's 'Election 2010: First hung parliament in UK for decades'; 7 May 2010

+ Andrew Blick's 'Changing the Rules by Stealth: the UK's Constitution is being written as the public follows the election'; 28 April 2010

+ Andrew Blick & Stuart Wilks-Heeg's 'Governing without majorities - coming to terms with balanced Parliaments in UK Politics'; 16 April 2010

+ The Telegraph's 'General election 2010: Labour has lost and the Conservatives deserve a chance to govern'

+ Anthony King's 'ANALYSIS: So why didn't the Tories reach the summit?';

+ The Weimar Constitution of 1919

Condemnation & Recognition

This is not the article I wished to begin with. I find it, however, to be unavoidable. So I will use my first post here to roundly condemn Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, the 23rd President of the French Republic, for his 'ethnic' policies towards the Roma people.

These policies, as reported last month, involved orders to target the ethnic Roma people for eviction and expulsion from France. Investigations are already under way to determine whether it is in violation of International Human Rights. It is most certainly in violation of all decent morality, not to mention European Union Freedom of Movement laws.

This kind of cynical abuse of a minority in order to bolster flagging political support, as is the accusation levelled at Mr Sarkozy by his critics, is outrageous.

The only light that can be found in the murky depths of this issue is the bravery of the EU Justice Commissioner in standing up to the French State on this issue. Ms Viviane Reding's actions have been nothing short of admirable and gives hope I think both for the future of the EU and for the peaceful and satisfactory resolution of this issue.

==========
References:
==========
For more on these serious events:
- Nicolas Sarkozy rounds on critics and vows to keep dismantling Roma camps (The Guardian, Sept 16 2010)
- Orders to police on Roma expulsions from France leaked (The Guardian, Sept 13 2010)
- Nicolas Sarkozy tells Luxembourg to take in Roma (The Guardian, Sept 15 2010)
- Germany contradicts French statement on Roma camps (BBC News, Sept 16 2010)
- Reding did not mean the Holocaust, but the 'Great Devouring,' Andor says (EU Observer, 17 Sept 2010)
- European Commissioner likens France's deportations of Roma to Nazi genocide (Telegraph Blogs, 18 Sept 2010)
- Angry Nicolas Sarkozy pledges to deport more gypsies (The Metro, Set 16 2010)

For more on International Human Rights:
- http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx
- http://www.amnesty.org/
- http://tinyurl.com/2vze6cm