Canada - A Useful Comparison

Since his election in 2008, Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been a perfect demonstration to many of a politics where cooperation has been rejected. A look at Harper's second term in the top job is a useful comparison for the UK; a chance to see what Tory Ministers may have faced if they had gone it alone following the 2010 general election.

There are some challenges that Harper has faced that the lack of a working majority have turned from a matter of convincing a sceptical public into a persistent fight using every weapon he can muster. The most controversial of these weapons has been prorogation. According to Canadian constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister can ask the Governor-General to prorogue parliament, bringing a legislative session to a close for a length of time until parliament is recalled.

Harper has seen a number of controversies arise from his use of this convention. The second and most recent use of prorogation by the Conservative leader, in January 2010, saw the Canadian legislature suspended due to the expressed need for the executive to focus its attention on the Winter Olympics and the ongoing economic crisis (The Economist, 2010). Some have however suggested that the measures were taken for less pure reasons (The Economist, 2010), such as attempting to prevent scrutiny of issues that were difficult or embarrassing for the Minority Government.

There is, of course, nothing new about the tactical use of Prorogation to students of the history of Canadian democracy (Storrow Brown, 1872):

'The session of Parliament meeting in September, 1836, was opened by Lord Gosford with a speech, vague and meaningless, except in showing that no determined attention had been given by the Colonial Office to Canadian complaints. This could be endured no longer. Fourteen years of neglect, procrastinations, prevarications, and delusions, carrying trifling beyond all limits, had exhausted all patience, and the Assembly, rising in their dignity, in the name of an insulted people, replied to the address (3rd October, 1836) that they should adjourn their deliberations until his Majesty's Government should by its acts commence the great work of justice and reform; until grievances were in progress of redress, they would listen to no demand for supplies. This Parliament was prorogued at the end of thirteen days - not one bill having been passed.'

The Canadian people (and other ardent Democrats around the world) took to the streets to protest against what they saw as deliberate attempts to undermine parliamentary scrutiny and there-in democracy (Byrne, 2010). Numerous senior Canadian Politicians were out in full voice, including Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, New Democrat leader Jack Layton & Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.

After months of outcry and motions once parliament resumed, it was established that a constitutional amendment would be required to change the way prorogation could be used in future (Smith, 2010). Without the firm backing of a majority government, Harper had been forced to use every trick & constitutional convention to keep his ministry afloat and in doing so had managed to provoke discussions about the use of powers & prerogatives during future disputes (Elliot, 2010).

But taking on the difficulties of minority government does not liberate a government from the media pressure that always follows the top jobs. For Harper, his Premiership has been dogged by a constant combat with the media. Back in 2006 during the Conservative leader's first term, he had a persistent run-in with the press core in Ottawa (CBC News, 2006). This bad blood has been no secret and it was to no one's surprise when in 2009 connections were made between Harper's Conservative administration and an attempt to set up a right-wing news media network in Canada (Cheadle, 2009).

In a story that will seem very familiar to the rise and resignation of Andy Coulson in the UK (Wintour, 2011), Kory Teneycke, the former director of communication for the Canadian Prime Minister's Office, was connected to the news media project. This project seemed to have come to an end with Teneycke's departure from the Quebecor organisation following a spate of controversy (CNW, 2010) and several licensing issues (Brownlee, 2010). However the project, Sun News, is due to hit Canadian screens in Spring 2011 thanks to the success of its new license application with lessened demands (Sharp & Wilson, 2010).

Harper and his administration have come through these clashes with the media, albeit with a sullied record (Taber, 2010). Accusations of interference and pressure have followed the Conservative government through the affair. And it is a smear that has been hard for the Harper administration to shake off in any part of this term in office. In tune with an air of disappointment with the government's 'obsession with secrecy, stifling debate and manipulating information' (Brennan, 2011), it was reported that Canada had ranked last in a study that made an 'international comparison of freedom-of-information laws'.

Stephen Harper's democratic credentials have certainly not been helped by the prorogation debate, particularly back in 2008 during the first prorogation crisis when he moved for prorogation to avoid a confidence vote that could have toppled his minority government (CBC, 2008). The attempts at forming a coalition to replace Mr Harper fell through during the parliamentary recess (Clark & Taber, 2009). A particularly telling exchange during the dispute was Mr Harper actively denouncing coalitions as undemocratic usurpation (Harper in Campion-Smith et al, 2008), saying the coalition attempt was a:

'Backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters. They want to take power, not earn it.'

All the while Mr Harper was advising the Governor-General to prorogue parliament and suspend the democratic processes of Canadian legislators in order to keep his government in office.

For parts of the UK, particularly Scotland, the pains of minority governance are no new thing. The alternative is coalition. There are two benefits to a coalition government. The first and most often quoted is moderacy. Moderacy is something that has had a long absence from British politics and its absence has often undermined UK democracy. The second reason is that it drags government factional splits into the light. For the sake of party integrity, not to mention cabinet collective responsibility, the public face must always be the sweetness and light of party unity.

Coalitions however offer the potential for these spats to become public, dragged out into the public forum, where scrutiny of political motives, ideologies and policies can be brought to bear. Sadly, this has yet to be the case with the Cameron Ministry, besides the odd cabinet leak or indiscretion. But there are still four years to go...

The EU - The Importance of Being Landed

Rousseau saw great importance in understanding the precise meanings of words, lest they lose their impact and the ideas they provoke.

The words I wish to address are nation, country and state. They are often used interchangeably, but in reality they represent claims, each to a different status. A nation refers to a people, with a distinct cultural-linguistic identity, held collectively, often through symbols such as flags and banners, colours and coats of arms. A country refers to the territorial area claimed by said nation. The state refers to the body that governs said people and administers said territory.

The peoples of the Roma Nation were recently on the receiving end of discrimination that relied heavily upon the differences between these words. Being a nation with no territorial claim and as such necessarily living in scattered and roaming groups, statehood is a difficult concept to apply to them. It also makes them an easy target.

An even more alarming target where the Iroquois Nation, who were on the receiving end of some British State discrimination early last year (MacAskill, 2010). The Iroquois National Lacrosse team were heading to Britain to take part in an international tournament in Manchester. However they were not allowed to board their flights because they sought to fly under their own national passports, rather than American or Canadian alternatives recognised by the UK.

It seems that the modern world still takes all its decisions on the basis of land ownership. The Welsh, Scottish and Cornish nations have fought tooth and nail against British domination and in return possess the status of both nation & country, even state now with their own autonomous assemblies, if not the status of sovereignty.

The Iroquois (or Haudenosaunee) fought as the Ally of the British Empire, yet they no longer receive any acknowledgement from the British Government. Even in spite of the fact that they do receive nation status from the United States, a nation they allied with Britain to fight against!

It seems that there is no room in our economic climate for transhumance. Every citizen is a commodity of value to the economic power of the whole.

And that leaves no room over for individual liberty. In the 2010 UK General Election leaders debate, audience member Joel Weiner expressed that he had 'found that the [education] system is incredibly grades driven, so much so education for its own sake is often sacrificed'; Gordon Brown's response was:

'We need teachers with better qualifications... we need young people with aspiration to succeed... we're in this new world where we're competing with Asia as well as America and Europe and our young people have got to have the grades, the qualifications to meet the best in the world.'

It's almost as if he didn't listen to Mr Weiner's question. Asked to consider the issue of the trade off between making young people economically useful and teaching them to think critically, Mr Brown brushed aside the young man's view with 'we need young people with aspiration to succeed'; then continued to stress the need to focus on state economic strength.

As Rousseau points out, society only continues to work while our tacit social pact remains active; while the individual continues to benefit from the continuance of their association with the whole. If the one is always to give up the self for and to the strength of whole, how can there be room for the expression of the individual?

The argument is always returned that the individual will eventually benefit from the energy invested in the whole. That by buying into the importance of being landed you will eventually be reimbursed your investment through quality of life and freedom of wealth.

However in 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism', Wilde stresses that the duties and burdens of property and the economic supremacy of that institution only serves to alienate people from their liberty. To dredge up an idea older than Marx, are we not always going to be in conflict until all things are held in common? Thomas Paine certainly thought so (Paine, 1797). Furthermore Wilde posited that 'it is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair' (Wilde, 1891).

The EU aspires towards a kind of European commonality, if not absolute homogeneity judging by the actions of some of its member states. Are there not reasonable and humanist solutions that respect the rights of those who do not wish to join a globalising world?

==========
References:
==========
+ Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 'The Social Contract';
 Penguin, 2004.

+ Ewen MacAskill's 'Iroquois lacrosse team cleared to travel by America – then blocked by Britain';

- More on the Iroquois lacrosse team story:
Iroquois Lacrosse Team Denied Visas By UK, NPR.com
Iroquois lacrosse team denied visas by U.K., cbc.ca
Iroquois lacrosse team denied visas, Belfast Telegraph

+ Gordon Brown's response to Joel Weiner; 36min 25; 15th April; 2010 UK General Election Debate;
 ITV1, 2010.

+ Oscar Wilde's 'The Soul of Man under Socialism';
1891, (Forgotten Books, 2008)

+ Rev.John Ball, 1381; in Tony Benn's 'Big Ideas that changed the world: Democracy';
 Channel Five (UK); 21 June 2005;

+ Thomas Paine's 'Agrarian Justice';
 1797. (lulu.com, 2010)

Germany - No Quarter Given

I have asked if Britain agrees with Nick, but events seems to be conspiring to make Mr Clegg's opinion of a 'mature' Europe to aspire to (Clegg, 2002) a touch fanciful.

Back in August an immigration based row kicked off in Germany, courtesy of the opinions of SPD politician and boardmember of the Bundesbank, Mr Thilo Sarrazin (Hewitt, 2010). The issue having been provoked, Mr Sarrazin quit under pressure from many including Chancellor Angela Merkel (BBC, 2010).

A month later, however, Chancellor Merkel added her own opinion to the debate, offering that multi-culturalism had 'failed, utterly failed' (Evans, 2010). There is something inconsistent about this view point to me.

The issue at hand is integration. The issue at hand is breaking down the walls of cultural segregation. But these have never been the point of multi-culturalism. The point of multi-culturalism has always been tolerance.

Multi-culturalism did precisely what it would be expected to do. It created a situation where separate cultures were side-by-side with one another, co-existing. The evidence suggests that problems arise between distinct cultural, linguistic and even ethnic groups when times are hard. And times are hard everywhere these days.

Extremism is something we ought to be familiar with by now. It has sprung up many times in our history and usually centred on eras & places of intensive crisis, social & economic; and when it does it connects powerfully to perceived similarity. The hardships provoke tension and factionalism as people withdraw into their identity redoubts.

My concerns are:

+ Firstly that focusing the blame upon multi-culturalism simply concedes ground to intolerance, rather than seeking to overcome it. It avoids dealing with the true, usually economic, difficulties that force people to seek the shelter of a familiar, often idealised, community.

+ Secondly, that such scapegoating risks providing fodder to those who wish to build up walls around national identity as a way of imposing anachronistic, simplistic and stereotypical national characters upon the people; usually in  the name of their safety, usually at the expense of their liberty.

+ And thirdly, that these comments are designed to play to the notion of the nation-state and national identity as indivisible. That if you should reject your state in order to search for a better life elsewhere, you are also rejecting your history, your heritage and your culture.

As we seek to the respect the wishes of those native nations that wish for representation of their cultural identity, so too do I feel we ought to respect the rights of those who seek our aid & shelter without demanding they renounce everything they are in return for it.

Germany and Britain are already living testament to our ability to live peacefully in multi-cultural societies. Pan-national entities, like the German Federal Republic or the United Kingdom, are already conglomerates made up of many separate nations, with distinct identities.

Cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences are but are few of the plurality of more personalised issues gracing political voices in those states. The future of those states can not be about a suppression of what heritage has made us, but of what commonality and the contributions of diverse knowledge and experiences might make us.

==========
References:
==========
+ Nick Clegg's 'Don't mention the war. Grow up'

+ Stephen Evans' 'Germany's charged immigration debate'; [17/10/10]

+ BBC's 'Race-row German banker quits post' [09/09/10]

+ Gavin Hewitt's 'German angst over immigration'; [31/08/10]

The UK - Does Britain Agree With Nick?

Doctor Who's wonderful reboot series with Matt Smith in the boots of the eponymous Doctor, was helmed by Stephen Moffat. In an interview he spoke of how he found the inspiration for the scarier aspects of the series:

'Where the crack comes from is above my younger son Louie's bed, there's a crack along the wall. It's not there any more, but there was a roughly crooked smile shaped crack in the wall. Which I didn't point out to him because I thought he might never sleep again, but I thought, "Oh, that's good, cracks in walls, we should do cracks in walls".'
(Moffat, 2010)

The images he invoked also offered me a powerful visual image, representative of an anxiety I have towards an emerging pattern in our identity. A pattern that takes the familiar form of a crack.

These images connected well with the concerns I hold about the nature of British identity. In research on this subject I came across a particular pair of articles from The Guardian and The Observer addressing the question of what it means to be British. I feel that while these pieces sought to address issues of envy for the Americanised notions of a nation, as well as more difficult ideas of disillusionment with the perceived effectiveness of a multi-cultural society, my worries are that they failed to address the heart of that identity itself.

Today 2011, we are almost one year on from the most closely contested and open election beyond the memory of generations. Even households were divided along party lines and the extremism that pervades all political thought these days. As a moderate and permanent resident of 'the fence', extremism causes me all kinds of despair. However the most devastating blow felt was not the expected racist extremism of nationalists, or the party lines of in-group/out-group tensions, but at encountering 'extremist' element to the group occupying the middle ground; hearing divisive & aggressive comments and provocations by people supporting centrist parties.

On the surface this can be dismissed as the natural division of a party trying to straddle the centre, because of an 'unholy' alliance of left and right factions. But this, I feel, is an oversimplification by a public not just used to, but culturally indoctrinated towards a polarised opinion of us & them; where compromise and moderacy are regarded as mere weakness of will. Thanks to the relative weakness of the political voice of the centre and conflict between the right and left, sometimes literal, trying to address the growing social divide is seen often simply as wavering in commitment to the cause. This has allowed the fracture to exist, even be nurtured and to grow, unquestioned.

It is interesting how the human mind seeks to highlight points of fear through evocative connections within the imagination. In this instance Moffat's universe pervading 'Crack in Time' has given my mind's eye a perfect and tangible image for my concerns. When left unhindered to simply roll these troubles around my mind, it also threw up memories of articles I had read.

The most resonant amongst them was Nick Clegg's 'Don't mention the war. Grow up'; from during his time writing a column in The Guardian, which the right-wing press evoked to accuse him, of all things, of Nazi slurs. Clegg's article addresses the incredible cultural immaturity of Britain's national identity towards Europe and with this memory a prickly point of fear sharpened to a dreadful dagger.

You see, there are two key realisations I have made regarding my fears that I will share with you here:

+ First, that these fractures are old. Older than our total collective memory. In reality our memories only reach as far back as we are physically able to reach. This means that our realistic ability to assess our past only stretches as far as our grandparents. For my generation, this means that these fractures must date from at least as long ago as the defining events of the last century, the two world wars. For me this is evidenced in the cultural indoctrination to not, under any circumstance, question our status quo and our subsequent quiet acquiescence to such anti-reformist stances.
  (Halbwachs, 1992) (Assmann, 2005)

+ Secondly, that the events that have most readily defined modern Britain, that birthed and shaped its modern tensions, were those same global conflicts. Much has happened since, but the seeds were planted during those most terrible days of strife. Our subsequent attempts to reinvigorate our society through traditionalism, nationalism & immigration creating ever broader fractures.
  (Marr, 2007) (Smith & Thorpe, 2005) (Temko et al, 2007)

These thoughts chill me to my core. Taken as a connected series of observations, there is arguably a decent basis for the belief that this fracture, this crack in our society isn't just a social divide permeating our culture. That it is the very thing our entire society, culture and collective national identity is based upon.

In order to combat the dangers these fractures present, I think it is best to keep in mind some ideas to help minimise prejudice and promote more positive in-common aspirations:

+ First of all, surely tolerance is the foremost attribute of a democratic system? While we can look all around us and see the proofs of general human intolerance, this no condemnation of tolerance as an aspiration. Tolerance is what allows us to engage in meaningful debate of the issues with opposing view points.

+ Secondly, the grand notions we can aspire to need to keep in mind intense human self-interest. Personal Relationship studies have time and again stressed the role of attitude similarity and proximity in the forming of our groups (eg. Festinger et al, 1950). It seems to me that on an individual level, grand metaphysical concepts are difficult to apply to human life; therefore there is a need to keep broad identities, such as national, to much simpler concepts.

Considering these thoughts, I'm forced to invoke #iagreewithnick, and concepts such as fairness that seem to me to be more 'realistic', because of their focus on method. Fairness invokes the importance of means over ends. It is the presence of scientific methods in our everyday lives. Rather than beliefs in defined goals of equality or tradition to be achieved at any cost, fairness addresses the importance of the forum within which our ideas are contested.

In this recent election the emergence of a coalition government has been the most important outcome for me. I am no supporter of the Tories and voiced my support for a progressive coalition between parties of the left, such as Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, who were amongst the prospective candidates at the time. However I feel that coalitions offer the best means of finding cooperation right across the political spectrum and can limit the potential excesses of one polarised any one set of intolerances; and their ability to dominate its opponents.

==========
References:
==========
+ Stephen Moffatt, Doctor Who Confidential 'Blinded By The Light', Doctor Who - The Complete Series 5 (2010);
BBC, 2010

+ Nick Clegg's 'Don't mention the war. Grow up';

+ Andrew Marr's 'The Making of Modern Britain: From Queen Victoria to VE Day';
  MacMillan, 2009.

+ David Smith & Vanessa Thorpe's 'What does it mean to be British?';

+ Ned Temko, Jo Revill & Ameilia Hill's 'What does it mean to be British?';

+ L.Festinger, S.Schachter & K.Back's 'The Spatial Ecology of Group Formation';
  in 'Social Pressures in Informal Groups: Study of Human Factors in Housing - Chapter 4';
  Stanford University Press; 1950.

The UK - Barriers on the Road

This week LGBT History Month kicked off. With one of two parties in government being long-time advocates of LGBT rights, 2011 could prove to be the beginning of an important new chapter in LGBT history in the UK.

The governing party that has a history of support for the LGBT movement, the Liberal Democrats, put one of the major issues still facing LGBT communities at the centre stage of their party conference. Marriage and Civil Partnerships.

From a discussion amongst friends as to the challenges faced on this delicate topic came some observations. Particularly the discussion addressed the role that the Church of England plays in the advancement (or lack there-of) of LGBT partnerships.

The argument boils down to a scenario like this:

'Imagine a room. At one end is the door to the kitchen, at the other end is the door to the sitting room. In the middle of this room is an enormous Elephant.

Now over time the residents of this house have developed different feelings towards this elephant. Some like the Elephant, some do not.

Whether acting deliberately or not, those that do not like the Elephant believe it to be, none-the-less, obstructing their access to various liberties. These Elephant opposers are split into two camps as to how best to reduce the obstruction caused by said Elephant.

On the one hand there are those who think that everyone, the Elephant included, would enjoy a lot more liberty & freedom if it was moved outside of the house.

The other group ruin their tidy logic by pointing out with exasperated tones, "IT'S AN ELEPHANT!", in one swift move derailing a wonderful piece of rational thought. "The Elephant", they continue, "has been here so long and is so vast, that to remove it would involve tearing down the structure of the house itself."

This group instead suggests finding a way to reason with the Elephant, to liberalise it and to eventually get it to actively facilitate the processes it previously obstructed.'

The path faced is, I think, something like that. Except of course for exchanging the Elephant for the Church & the house/room for the state. The counter-argument leaves me feeling somewhat deflated. Its logic is sound, a simple observation of the pervasiveness of the church into our lives confirming the mammoth task facing those who would separate church and state.

And I think that brings me to what really gets to me about this counter-argument. It is a practical argument; it is an answer that presents a path of least resistance, a pessimistic appraisal that does not doubt the right of people to a freedom of conscience and liberty of action but accepts difficulty as insurmountable reality.

==========
References:
==========
+ http://www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/