The duality of feminism and liberation: There can be no freedom until there is gender equality

There is little that has more consistently undermined idealistic movements than inequality. The United States faced this in the sixties, when it was forced to see that it couldn't claim to be the purveyor of freedom when it disenfranchised people at home on the basis of skin colour.

One issue that is often sidelined, and yet continues to plague progressive movements, is gender inequality. The persistent failure of many civilisations to treat women fairly has often been excused on the grounds that other issues have priority. But such arguments miss the point: if anyone remains subject to oppression, no one else can truly be free. As Oscar Wilde's points out in The Soul of Man, they continue to carry the burden of that suppression and to feel its negative effects (1891).

Gender equality is absolutely essential if we are to move forward. Our most pressing task is finding a way to overcome the prejudice against, and subjugation of, women around the world. That prejudice is at its most dangerous when it becomes mundane and accepted as part of the routine of normality. It is also the hardest form to tackle and overcome.

One group, which was active during the Spanish Civil War, called 'Mujeres Libres' or Free Women, considered the emancipation of the people and the emancipation of women a dual struggle. Mujeres Libres campaigned for the liberation of women as an intrinsic part of the general spirit of revolution and so sought ways to break through the toughest forms of sexism (O'Carroll, 1998). Their campaign made two particularly important points:

• The first point is that women are subjugated by something deeper than open oppression. That they are trapped by a socially conservative imposition of traditional roles, rituals and expectations. That this subjugation distorts society so much, that even those who benefit from it would find it impossible to liberate themselves from the most corrupt and corrupting parts of our society, without ending this inequality.


• The second important point is that people must first be made aware of the subjugation. The response of Mujeres Libres was to organise a network of groups that gathered information on sexism in order to study it and understand how to respond. They also developed a platform, in the form of a magazine of their own and columns in other magazines, from which to expose the sexism and promote their responses.

These points are, sadly, still relevant today. The most pressing foe of equality remains, as ever, everyday sexism. Following the same course adopted by Mujeres Libres over eighty years ago, the blog Everyday Sexism works to lay bare the affect that sexism has on the lives of everyone. Its work is essential to challenging a dangerous and illiberal status quo that still holds us back.

We see how essential that work is when those who claim a place on the political left struggle to overcome these dangerous sexisms. Progressive political parties still largely fail to achieve equal representation of gender in electoral candidates (Ferguson, 2013; Mason, 2013) and horrendous stories of hypocrisy and male chauvinist exploitation (Muir, 2013) show that there is still a long way to go.

If we are to break free of oppression we must be vigilant for sexism in all its forms. We must educate ourselves about it, share what we find with others and use our awareness to challenge this dangerous orthodoxy. We must acknowledge the reality that we cannot break the stranglehold of corruption and inequality until the basic standards to which people are held are fair for all, and equal for all.

==========
References:
==========
+ Oscar Wilde's 'The Soul of Man under Socialism'; London, 1891.

+ Aileen O'Carroll's 'Mujeres Libres'; from 'Workers Solidarity' No 54; June 1998.

+ Mark Ferguson's 'Why aren’t more women winning “open” Labour Party selections?'; on labourlist.org; 15 March 2013.

+ Rowenna Mason's 'Liberal Democrat minister rues party's record on female MPs'; in The Guardian; 18 September 2013.

+ Hugh Muir's 'Diary: Adieu, Comrade Delta. The SWP leader at the centre of sex abuse allegations departs'; in The Guardian; 29 July 2013.

Social networking has pros and cons, but still has the potential to be a tool of liberation

Throughout history, the advent of new technology has often been a double edged sword. The development of social networking over the last decade has not been exempt from that pattern.

Social networking arrived with the promise of a world that was better connected, better informed, and freer from the divisions caused by boundaries and borders, corruption and ignorance. Unfortunately, those same tools that were to provide us with faster, cheaper and surer connections, have also become the tools by which surveillance and monitoring are enhanced. The traditional forms of control, interference, and intimidation have made use of the break down of personal privacy that has been widely accepted as part and parcel of bringing people together.

So, in the face of that technology being used to infringe liberty, it is refreshing to see that those tools are still being used also to seek liberty.

In Ukraine,  Pro-European protesters are campaigning hard against the government's decision to abandon the path to EU integration (BBC Trending, 2013), as well as showing solidarity with opposition leader and former-Premier Yulia Tymoshenko (Smith-Spark et al, 2013), whose continuing imprisonment has been a source of controversy and embarrassment for Ukraine. Many world leaders refused to attend the Ukrainian hosted parts of the 2012 European Championship in protest of Ms Tymoshenko's internment.

The Ukrainian campaigners and protesters have taken to social media to promote their movement and to share the experience with people around the world. Social media is showing itself to be a valuable means of sharing information, gathering support and for organising co-ordinated action.

This certainly isn't the first example of social media being used as part of a protest movement. The Green Movement in Iran (Esfandiari, 2010); The Arab Spring across North Africa (Srinivasan, 2012); The Occupy movement around the world (Benson, 2013); all of these have made use of social media.

But what the situation in Ukraine shows us is that social media is not just a campaigning fad. Use of it for connecting people politically is persisting. Furthermore, it is connecting people across traditional boundaries, barriers and borders.

If we are to get away from the restrictions that prevent us from living free and in peace - restrictions such as violence, intimidation, and coercion - then communications and connections have to be made. We need individual space for rational critical thought, and then a means of bringing those individual voices and thoughts together in co-operation.

The internet and social media have brought us the means of connecting which will help us to co-operate, but it has yet to perfect the privacy that protects our right to think freely for ourselves. But there is promise, even though online campaigning is still only in its infancy. If we can be responsible in our use of these powerful tools they might still become everything that we were promised.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC Trending's '#BBCtrending: How social media is shaping Ukraine's protest movement'; 3 December 2013.

+ Laura Smith-Spark, Victoria Butenko & Marie-Louise Gumuchian's 'Ukraine's Tymoshenko ends hunger strike at pro-EU protesters' behest'; on CNN; 6 December 2013.

+ Golmaz Esfandiari's 'The Myths And Realities Of New Media In Iran's Green Movement'; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; 11 June 2013.

+ Ramesh Srinivasan's 'Taking power through technology in the Arab Spring'; on Al Jazeera; 26 October 2012.

+ Thor Benson's 'Occupy has become a social media campaign'; on the Daily Kos; 2 November 2013.

Doctor Who and the X-Men try to show us that peace is the braver course

If you were to describe what it means to be a hero, based on how they are portrayed in western movies, books and comics, you would have to conclude that fighting is an essential component. It is rare for that narrative to have any competition.

However, there are alternatives out there. Two such examples are Marvel's X-men and the BBC's Doctor Who. Both try to present heroic characters who seek solutions through non-violence, reasoning and discourse. Though they aren't always perfect examples - with some large inconsistencies, such as the pacifist idealist Professor Charles Xavier having his own team of fighters - the fact that someone is trying to present alternative courses is important.

It is becoming inevitable that movies see their disputes settled with violence (Blair, 2013). That is a pattern that needs to change. Western culture has become so immersed in the idea of the 'action hero', that is becoming blind to the dangers of the violence, blind to the cost of violence, and blind to the bravery required to be peaceful.

In Marvel's X-Men, this struggle is best represented by the competing methods of Xavier and Magneto. Xavier seeks to be a teacher, while his friend and rival Magneto seeks to be a liberation fighter. Both of them struggle for the same cause, but via very different end goals. Xavier wants a peacefully integrated world in which his people will be safe, while Magneto seeks to ensure his people's safety by possessing the power and dominance to enforce it.

The problem they face is that, on the surface, violence is the easier course. In fact, Xavier runs his own team of fighters, trained to defend humanity. More often than not, it is this team that saves the day in a fight, rather than Xavier's own ideals.

The troubling part is that this kind of failure, in real life as well as pop cultural portrayals, is taken as proof that idealism is flawed and that violence is ultimately necessary. That troubling interpretation is itself missing the point. As a monk tells X-Man Wolverine in an episode of the X-Men animated series:

'It is often the braver man who chooses not to fight.'

The dangers you face multiply greatly when you reject fighting and violence. You expose yourself to a great number of dangers that might be easily subdued with violence, but you do so to avoid the long term damage wrought by such actions.

Doctor Who is one of the best shows on television for demonstrating this struggle. The Doctor, the time travelling, regenerating, protagonist, stands against violence and war wherever he finds it. But the show doesn't shy away from the difficult situations that are created for The Doctor by his unwillingness to use violence.

The Doctor Who 50th anniversary episodes, 'The Night of the Doctor' and 'The Day of the Doctor', really lay bare his commitment to non-violence.

In 'The Night of the Doctor', the Paul McGann portrayed Doctor is an idealist. He refuses to fight. He identifies himself by his unwillingness to take up arms, even as the Time War is beginning to rip reality to pieces. That path, however, leaves him isolated, faced with prejudicial hatred he cannot overcome, and eventually leads him to his death in an attempt to rescue a single person.

His successor, John Hurt's Doctor, lays down the title Doctor, in order to become a warrior and fight in the Time War. He is able to find a way to stop the threat to the universe that the war presents, in one cathartic act of violence. But violence is never that simple. He must make a utilitarian decision: kill everybody belonging to the two warring factions, including his own people, or watch the whole universe be consumed in the flames of war. The choice he makes, to kill, is a decision that haunts him for the next four hundred years.

These narratives get to the heart of the matter: to fight is the easier path for the immediate future, but there will be consequences. Every 'victory' will be won at great cost, possibly at the cost of things irreplaceable.

When you choose the path of violence and destruction, you destroy not only the danger of the present, but also the innocent possibility and enormous potential of the future. Both X-Men and Doctor Who attempt to show us the forces at work in this struggle. By taking the path of violence, an aggressor takes upon themselves the burden of all of the lost possibilities. The burden of the peaceful is the fear, the intimidation and the threat of death, for themselves and their loved ones; fears they can only face with ideas, reason and compassion.

The difficulty, and the fear, that comes with peaceful ways is what makes it the braver path. As X-Men and Doctor Who both try to show us, there is plenty for our art and culture to explore in terms of heroes, without resorting to the short term cathartic satisfaction of violent resolution.

Dangerous financial recoveries and false economies

Even as the people of the UK are told that the country is heading out of recession, there are those who see the prospect of recovery as tinted with danger. The fears of these critics lie in the possibility that the path chosen to lead us out, lays no foundations that might prevent us from falling right back in again (Elliott, 2013).

The trouble is - and this is something that will nag at all three major parties, who have all pledged support for austerity and for a leaner state - the critics have a point.

The problem is that Britain's wealth is not underpinned by any form of industrial infrastructure. All effort has been geared, almost entirely, towards financial speculation, and the UK's industrial base has been allowed to stagnate and waste away. With it too went the working class jobs that paid wages and created consumer demand.

Going into the 2010 UK General Election, the Liberal Democrats had plans for government investment to set about undoing these problems. Their plans included putting into place the groundwork for a green energy industry, which would convert old shipyards into centres for green energy production (The Independent, 2010).

Such plans would have paid off both in the short and long term: new jobs, reduced dependence upon importing external sources of energy, plenty of new and lasting industrial manufacturing work in green energy technology, and on top of all else, a more environmentally friendly future.

However, destructive corporate investment habits have forced the UK down a different path out of the mire. Rather than the road paved by human attempts to positively interfere, nature's unrestricted course has been taken instead. Attempts to improve the world are being cut away in favour of competition. In favour of the survival of the fittest. But this choice betrays only a short memory.

The sovereign debt crisis, the core of the present troubles and the foundation upon which stands the architecture of austerity's justification, was not the result of wanton helpfulness. Neither was it the result of irresponsible levels of offering healthcare, nor the deplorable excesses of offering bread and shelter to those who are starving and homeless.

It was the result of the collective resources of the people being turned into a colossal investment fund with which to create the single largest financial bailout in history. It was the result of money gathered together for the building of roads, and hospitals, and schools, and for insurance against sickness and savings for the future; it was all of that money being redirected to prop up a marketplace that had put all of those things in jeopardy in the name of selfish profit. Because the selfish profiteers had become too big to fail.

The state was damned if it did, and damned if it didn't.

Particularly so, since those who benefited from that bailout, and continue to profit, still have influence. That influence is being used to ensure that the very states by whom they have been rescued, stay firmly out of the way next time.

The withdrawal of the state, along with the ever ongoing weakening of the power of the labour movement, has left capital excessively powerful and virtually unchecked (Hughes, 2011). Fears are that a new, false, economy will be constructed out of the wreckage of the old one, and, like a car constructed out of two broken chassis, there will be too much focus on just getting to a particular destination that the condition in which the passengers arrive there, if they arrive at all, will not be sufficiently considered.

We must plan for more than just escaping the present situation. We must also think about the future and ensure that the welfare of the people cannot be so threatened again.

==========
References:
==========
+ Larry Elliott's 'UK economic recovery built on shaky foundations - again'; in The Guardian; 27 October 2013.

+ James Tapsfield & Joe Churcher's 'Conservative Party Conference: David Cameron defends Tory plan for seven more years of austerity'; in The Independent; 1 October 2013.

+ James Chapman's 'I won't reverse the cuts if I become PM, says Miliband: Labour's election pledge to keep austerity budgets'; in The Mail; 22 June 2013.

+ Rowena Mason & Patrick Wintour's 'Nick Clegg persuades Lib Dems to stick with austerity'; in The Guardian; 16 September 2013.

+ The Telegraph's 'Nick Clegg wants disused shipyards to become production centres for wind turbines'; 11 February 2010.

+ David Harvey's 'Crises of Capitalism'; RSA Animate on YouTube; 28 June 2010.

Liberals, co-operatives, and the dangers of a tarnished image

The ongoing saga of the Co-operative Bank's financial trouble is sad for everyone. It is also a threat, since, in the sad way of the world, the failure of one example can tarnish a whole branch of thought (Peston, 2013).

The immediate danger is that, while its fragilities are revealed, the chance will not be taken to improve the co-operative economic model. That the opportunity for progress and improvement will be missed in the desperate scramble to create a profitable now.

But there is something further to be considered. When parts of the co-operative and mutual models are tarnished, it risks also damaging the image of anything else connected to it. In particular the ideas of a democratic workplace - ideas that offer a real possibility of solving the corporate corruption and distorted distributions of wealth that created the financial crisis - depend very much an avoiding traps such as this.

It is an odd form of contradiction that western nations have fought wars in the name of democracy, and yet should be so reluctant to extend democracy beyond the very limited choices that people have in political settings. The workplace has proven to be the area into which western society has been most reluctant to accept democracy. Trade unions and the labour movement have been heavily suppressed in many countries, and the rights of workers to protest, and how they can protest, their working conditions is still a heavily debated topic (Hope, 2013).

Recently, amongst the main parties, it has been the Liberal Democrats who have been the most vocal in arguing for co-operative values. Their party leader Mr Nick Clegg has called for a movement towards a John Lewis economy (Clegg, 2012), and the popular former-deputy leader Mr Vince Cable stated his belief that co-operatives might be a way to address the major failings of the banking world that played such central role in the financial crisis (Co-operatives UK, 2009).

This is an important step in the pursuit of self direction and personal autonomy, which are central to personal growth. It is also an important step for Liberal Democrats. For that party, untrusted amongst left-wing voters for years thanks to their attachment to capitalistic market economics, a move in the direction of mutualism will certainly help them to forge their own position. It offers them a chance to differentiate themselves from the small-state capitalist Tories, and the big-state social democratic Labour. Furthermore, the preamble to the Liberal Democrats' party constitution is very compatible with these ideas (Donaldson, 2013):

'We will foster a strong and sustainable economy which encourages the necessary wealth creating processes, develops and uses the skills of the people and works to the benefit of all, with a just distribution of the rewards of success. We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary.'

For democratic states to be able to claim any kind of kudos for being democratic, democracy will need to be a general rule, rather than an exception consigned to the political arena. Democratising the economy, democratising the workplace, is the only way to end the ideological inconsistencies of western society, and it is a direction that comes with benefits.

'Every man must be left quite free to choose his own work. No form of compulsion must he exercised over him. If there is, his work will not be good for him, will not be good in itself, and will not be good for others.' (Wilde, 1891)

By working for themselves, to aims that they hold dear, with the freedom to choose, individuals have the potential to become so much more. In fact, the right to choose and be self-directed is at the core of our development into beings of greater comprehension, understanding and reasoned action.

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.' (Mill, 1859)

Unless competition serves to enhance these purposes, it is no more than a distraction; at best a holding pattern, a check on greed and corruption, a novelty; and at its worst is intensely divisive, turning people against themselves and their own interests.

Liberals are arguing, from within the Liberal Democrat party, that co-operatives and the democratic workplace present a solution to the economic and political crises we currently face. It is to be hoped that when the dust settles on the Co-operative Bank saga, sense and progress will have prevailed. That the ideas liberals are supporting will not be tarnished by the failure of one bank. That what comes out of this exposure of weakness is a better, stronger, and more refined solution for tomorrow.

==========
References:
==========
+ Robert Peston's 'Co-op pays for past sins'; BBC; 29 August 2013.
and Robert Peston's 'Nationwide: 'Don't call us Co-op''; 15 November 2013.

+ Christopher Hope's 'Boris Johnson: I give up trying to persuade Coalition to bring in anti-strike laws'; in The Telegraph; 22 May 2013.

+ 'Nick Clegg calls for a 'John Lewis economy'' on the BBC; 16 January 2012.

+ Cooperatives UK's 'Vince Cable calls for co-operative solutions to the economic crisis'; 2009.

+ Iain Donaldson's 'Opinion: Liberal Democrats have a unique position on co-operatives. We should use it.'; on Lib Dem Voice; 22 September 2013.

+ Oscar Wilde's 'The Soul of Man under Socialism'; London, 1891.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

Eleanor Roosevelt, Labour and the Living Wage

The living wage has recently been the subject of debate in Britain. The UK Labour Party has made a point of putting it at the centre to their response to the ongoing economic struggle, should they win the 2015 General Election (BBC, 2013). However, Labour are not the first to see the positives of the living wage.

Eleanor Roosevelt - who campaigned for the civil rights movement, for gender equality, for human rights, and for the New Deal when First Lady of the United States - also made the argument for a better standard of wages:

'Refusing to allow people to be paid less than a living wage preserves to us our own market. There is absolutely no use in producing anything if you gradually reduce the number of people able to buy even the cheapest products. The only way to preserve our markets is an adequate wage.'

The Labour Party, in trying to ensure the acceptance of this more 'adequate wage', are trying to sweeten the deal with tax concessions for employers who adopt it (Wintour, 2013). However, there arguably shouldn't be a need for such incentives.

The Roosevelt Institute have sought to debunk as a myth the idea that there are negative effects to a living wage (Chong, 2013). The myth claims that minimum wage schemes reduce the likelihood of full employment, by over-inflating the amount that businesses have to pay workers for unskilled labour. As a result, the myth concludes, the numbers trapped in poverty will increase as there will be less work to go around.

The Roosevelt Institute's own investigation suggests that that the 'higher wages = fewer jobs' argument is not backed by economic studies. The studies they cite suggest instead that there is no real downside to rising wages, but some real positives. Employees with more money make it easier to keep profit making enterprises afloat and flourishing. And by guaranteeing a minimum acceptable quality of life for even those with no skills, there is a guarantee also that they will be healthy enough to develop skills in the future.

Certainly from the Keynesian viewpoint, rising wages pose far, far less of a threat than falling wages. John Maynard Keynes' theories proposed that when an economy was suffering from the effects of a recession, the government aught to intervene to save what it can; in order to alleviate unnecessary suffering and maintain the existing infrastructure for future economic use.

Part of that process means propping up demand. By ensuring that there are always people with enough money to be able to spend and consume, there is also always an assured market for the products of paid labour. For Keynes, the failure to prop up demand would only exacerbate the problems caused by recession.

Fundamentally, the Institute's argument presents treating employees fairly, by paying them fairly, as ultimately economically beneficial, both in the short term - by creating a solid customer base and fighting off poverty - and in the longer term - by ensuring the health, time and space needed to develop more complex skills.

These arguments certainly back the UK Labour Party's advocacy of the living wage. But they do not suggest further financial incentives to be necessary. As Eleanor Roosevelt argued, what is needed more is a better settlement for everyone involved in a society; a settlement based on fairness.

'It seems to me that all fair-minded people will realize that it is self-preservation to treat the industrial worker with consideration and fairness at the present time and to uphold the fair employer in his efforts to treat his employees well by preventing unfair competition.'

That should mean policy-makers tackling better regulation of unfair practices; and furthermore searching for ways to extend and enhance consideration and fairness in both the economy and society at large. Only through the extension of a fair deal for all can people be ensured of the health, time and space needed to develop more complex skills and innovate.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Ed Miliband pledges living wage tax breaks for firms'; 3 November 2013.

+ Eleanor Roosevelt's 'The State's Responsibility for Fair Working Conditions'; in Scribner's Magazine; March 1933; from Eleanor Roosevelt & Allida M Black's 'Courage in a Dangerous World: The Political Writings of Eleanor Roosevelt'; Columbia University Press; 2000.

Also quoted in Crash Course US History; 'The New Deal'; 18 October 2013.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Ed Miliband sets out tax rebate plan for living wage'; in The Guardian; 5 November 2013.

+ Emily Chong's 'Debunking the Minimum Wage Myth: Higher Wages Will Not Reduce Jobs'; Roosevelt Institute's Next New Deal Blog; 7 August 2013.

Doctor Who's 50th Anniversary will celebrate a show with a simple concept and an idealistic message

Doctor Who, ostensibly a show about travellers running away from rubber monsters, down corridors and around Welsh quarries, has reached its 50th anniversary. While the basic concept of the show itself is fun enough, to have run for 50 years takes something more. And it takes something special to be, as Craig Ferguson put it:

'...beloved by geeks and nerds. It's all about the triumph of intellect and romance, over brute force and cynicism'.

At least part of what sets Doctor Who aside is that it possesses an idealistic streak. The half-century of stories about the renegade Time Lord, known as the Doctor, are about idealistic people from idealistic worlds. Explorers who seek out wonder, beauty and adventure. And in those adventures, violence is never shown be particularly ideal. So much more than many shows, particularly within the sci-fi and fantasy genres, violence is most often shown to be the particular tool that defines individuals as villains.

There are numerous examples in the rebooted series. In the two-parter, The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances, the Doctor celebrates when 'everybody lives', including those who had been his enemies. In the series two episode New Earth and in the series three finale Last of the Time Lords, the Doctor does not seek vengeance against villains but rather justice, and retains hope for their reform.

In the series six episode A Good Man Goes to War, there is a particularly telling moment. The Doctor raises an army to free and protect his friends in a strategy that ultimately proves futile. As the dust settles the Doctor is confronted by his friend and ally River Song who challenges his pursuit of these war-like policies and his intervention against dangerous villains. River warns the Doctor about the affects that inspiring fear in others may have on him and his enemies.

That point in reinforced when the Doctor first meets his current companion, Clara, in the series 7 episode Asylum of the Daleks. The Doctor admits that he has been trying to stop fighting the Daleks fire with his own, when a Dalek-converted Clara points out that fear of the Doctor has only made the Daleks stronger.

Doctor Who does something incredibly important. The show offers us heroes whose heroism is usually in the face of violence rather than wielding it. Violence is rarely glorified, and where matters come to violence there are usually negative impacts that go beyond the immediate - for those who wield it as well as those who suffer at its hands. Furthermore, it often finds a way to create drama and find resolution without resorting to violence.

Doctor Who presents us with diplomatic and intelligent heroes, who seek to find diplomatic and intelligent solutions to the problems they encounter. Those are the kind of examples the world sorely needs.

Welfare Reductions and False Recoveries: Why Natural Liberty Isn't Enough

There is a line in the United States Declaration of Independence that runs:

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' [ed - emphasis mine]

During the Age of Enlightenment, the idea that human beings had a fundamental right to certain unalienable freedoms served as a powerful force in combating the established power and rights of monarchs. However, the idea of 'natural' liberty also bred a problematic distrust for organisations, particularly government.

'Natural' liberty only allows for the removal of restrictions, leaving people to the struggle that lies beyond. In that struggle people are vulnerable to the inequality and unfairness of a way of life without safety nets, and where people are only restrained by the limits of their own power.

These concerns are as vital as ever as we see the ideology of natural liberty being brought to bear in government policy. The government's welfare reforms, criticised as 'overambitious and poor value for money', and involving deep cutbacks, have finally started to roll out in earnest (Sergeant, 2013). The reduction of safeguards would be bad enough at any time. However, when there is a weak - what some have even denounced as false - economic recovery under way, individuals and communities are placed in great danger as the weakening of safeguards threatens to send them back into trouble (Elliott, 2013).

Enlightenment writers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau were amongst those who argued that there were limits to the freedoms that natural liberty could offer to individuals. They argued that what was needed instead was a social contract - an agreed set of laws that could govern a state by protecting the ability of individuals to exercise their rights without infringing upon those of others.

John Stuart Mill called this the harm principle. Mill set out that this limitation of the absolute freedom of people was of great importance. That, without checks, the exercise of unrestrained action on the part of one could override the ability of another to exercise their rights.

In On Liberty, Mill laid out why ensuring the liberty of all individuals is essential:

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.'

The essence of negative liberty, freedom from restrictions, is not enough. People must be free to choose, and to think for themselves, because in that freedom, in those choices, is the path along which people develop into rational and critical thinking individuals. And those skills are essential for innovation, for remaking the world in better forms.

To find that path, a more positive liberty is needed - one where people are enabled. A social contract, with the harm principle built in, that seeks to construct the right surroundings for humans to find and develop the absolute best of themselves. Enlightenment thinking, inherited by the ideology of liberalism developed in the 19th century, described those free institutions as those that left people free to make their own choices and protected them against those things that might prevent them from doing so (Collins, 1971). At times those impediments might even be the structure of the system itself. As Thomas Paine described:

'Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.'

We need to foster the development of systems of government that address the domination of individuals and subversion of their freedom. This means restraining the ability of the strength of one, some, or many, to overmaster the essential right of an individual to decide for themselves, about their own lives. But in doing so we must not forget the weakness of natural liberty and of focussing only on removing restrictions: the suffering, poverty, and exploitation imposed by competition. We must not forget those who need enabling action on the part of others to exercise those same essential rights.

==========
References:
==========
+ Mike Sergeant's 'Universal Credit scheme rolls out'; on the BBC; 28 October 2013.

+ Larry Elliott's 'UK economic recovery built on shaky foundations - again'; in The Guardian; 27 October 2013.

+ Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 'The Social Contract'; 1762.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

+ Thomas Paine's 'Agrarian Justice'; 1795.

+ Irene Collins' 'Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe'; The Historical Association; 1971.

Letta's success in surviving Berlusconi is not conclusive, it is only the beginning of a better path.

The survival of Prime Minister Enrico Letta's Italian Government, in the face of the political controversies surrounding Senator Silvio Berlusconi, is an important moment for European politics. But that success is not conclusive, and is only the beginning of a better path.

Letta, leader of the Partito Democratico (PD) and head of the left-wing bloc of parties, was forced by the 2013 Italian elections to form a coalition with Berlusconi's Il Popolo della Liberta (PdL), which headed the right-wing bloc of parties. The controversial PdL Senator, Berlusconi, had sought to wield his supporters against the government over their fiscal policy, in order to redress the balance of the coalition in his own favour (Davies, 2013).

However, support for his threat - resignations should his demands not be met - dwindled in the face of the potential instability that the fall of the government might bring, and Berlusconi was forced to back down and support the government's position (Davies, 2013). But those in favour of a sensible and moderate resolution to Italy's problems, without this kind of 'brinkmanship', should be wary of heralding such a moment as a victory. Such a statement would be entirely premature.

Facing down personal interests in favour of greater goals can be a brave move in politics. And this time it has bought a government time to get its house in order. But the continued presence of the Movimento 5 Stelle, Italy's continuing financial difficulties, the continuing indecisive division of Italian politics between two large left and right blocs, and above all the continuing need to find a cure for political disaffection, means that there is still a lot of work to be done (Toscano, 2013; The Guardian, 2013).

Ultimately, then, these moments - as with this one for the Italian Premier Letta -  are only beginnings. That is important to remember. And remember it we must if we are not to delude ourselves into complacency by putting too much faith in particular symbolic events, or symbolic victories, as heralding some sort of magical transformation.

Psychiatrist Carl Jung described these kinds of construction as 'archetypes'. These archetypes, based on existing objects and roles, and then shaped by culture and history, in turn shape our reactions to the things we encounter. They serve to simplify our navigation through the world. However, strictly adhering to these 'instinctual' relations to objects, persons or events - particularly when success or victory are involved - limits us. Buying into these archetypes - stereotypes or cultural constructions - only encourages an unhealthy lack of scepticism towards our own reactions to the world and far too great an amount of certainty.

A much healthier alternative is to find hope in moments such as Senator Berlusconi's climbdown, not as a conclusive transformative event, but to find hope in it as a beginning. Taking hope in beginnings means still cherishing successes, but without relying on it to magically transform us. It instead encourages us to see success as work done, in our ongoing efforts to transform ourselves.

==========
References:
==========
+ Lizzy Davies' 'Silvio Berlusconi makes humiliating climbdown in Italian parliament'; in The Guardian; 2 October 2013.

+ Lizzy Davies' 'Silvio Berlusconi U-turn keeps Italy's grand coalition afloat'; in The Guardian; 2 October 2013.

+ Alberto Toscano's 'Italy's latest coalition crisis is a morbid symptom of deeper political malaise'; in The Guardian; 1 October 2013.

+ The Guardian's 'Italy: Red Letta Day'; 2 October 2013.

A liberal case for staying in the European Union...

The debate about Britain's future in the European Union got under way in earnest this week, with Mr Nick Clegg setting out the Liberal Democrat position. The core of Mr Clegg's argument revolves around economics, which will also likely be the heart of the ultimate debate on Europe.

However, there are important reasons to believe in a European Union beyond the financial benefits. A federation of the European Union's sort also offers protections of liberties that are beyond a singular nation's ability to offer.

As Mr Clegg is trying to build a pro-Europe coalition, he has kept his focus on the most politically relevant and visible reasons for the UK staying in Europe. That has meant putting front and centre the matters that will most affect jobs, growth and general economic well-being, issues on which he has the apparent support of British businesses (Macrory, 2013). Amongst these matters are certain factors that will have an impact on the country's financial health, namely, time consuming nation by nation trade negotiations and a diminished standing in international relations should Britain break with the EU (BBC, 2013).

Opponents, rather than challenging these points, instead tend to focus their efforts on different issues - sovereignty, the cost of EU institutions, and the 'repatriation' of labour laws to allow domestic businesses greater leeway with regards to how they treat their employees, from the minimum wage to dismissals.

But beyond the important benefits that Mr Clegg stressed - like the international diplomatic value of being part of something bigger than just one country - there are reasons to be positive about being part of a supra-national federation of nations:

• General protections and freedoms to prevent the exploitation that is allowed by competing national systems of labour law;
• General protections of political and civil freedoms, including courts of appeal against arbitrary or unjust treatment;
• Broad legal protections against big businesses dodging tax through federation-wide regulations;
• Freedom of movement, both in leisure and work, so as to give individuals the liberty to escape civil, political and corporate tyrannies;
  

 ...and these are but a small cross-section of the benefits offered by such a federation.

And where the promised benefits of this system are unable to find realisation, the solution is not to be found in dissolution but rather in reform and improvement. Dissolution would only be a backward step, likely only to lead to the re-emergence of old evils chained by a federal system.

We must give heed to calls from pro-Europeans such as Mr Clegg to trust in engaging positively with reform and improvement. As we do, we must also remain wary of attempts to unmake our protections and safety nets, efforts that only drag us backwards. Our hopes lie in engagement and co-operation, in breaking down borders, building up friendships and uniting our efforts across and between nations.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'EU exit would be economic suicide, warns Nick Clegg'; 8 October 2013.

+ Sam Macrory's 'Nick Clegg playing with fire on Europe'; from totalpolitics.com; 7 October 2013.

Agents of SHIELD: Do our protagonists need to be good people?

Joss Whedon and Marvel have made a brave move in making SHIELD the protagonists of their new series. So far in Marvel's new movie and tv franchises they have been involved in, and okay with, stealing research from independent scientists (from Jane Foster and Erik Selvig in Thor), and lying about secretly developing massively destructive weapons (in the Avengers).

In the first episode of the new SHIELD series, we have now seen black-bag-over-the-head kidnappings and secret motives, and in the second episode we have seen an idealistic new recruit immediately asked to do things against her ideals. It is a brave move to make these dangerous, deceptive, and complicated people the protagonists.

Flawed protagonists are nothing new though. Shakespeare liked to offer his viewers complex characters, tragic heroes mired by fatal flaws. We have seen violent anti-heroes like Wolverine, serial killers like Dexter, the unstable drug kingpin Walter White, and the vain, delusional, psychopath Patrick Bateman.

Agents of SHIELD presents you with the eponymous agency in the role of heroes - heroes prepared to do whatever is necessary - and openly asks you to cheer for them. When it comes to such problematic characters, that is not an easy thing to ask. But, it is important that somebody does.

Trying to understand complicated people, even those with ideas antithetical to our own, is at the core of how we learn empathy. By expecting us, the audience, to make the leap, imperfect protagonists challenge us to imagine other perspectives from which we might perceive the world.

But there are dangers here that should not be ignored. By presenting characters in contexts and roles normally reserved for the heroic, or at least generally good, their methods and their values can be normalised to an audience watching uncritically.

As has been said before, that is not a responsibility of the artist. It is however something to always be kept in mind when considering the context in which people are presented. Narrative, story, context - these things matter. When facts are set within narratives, the details of those stories can subtly alter how facts are interpreted by observers. We, the audience, need to be vigilant; we need to be alert to the possibility that those people presented to us as heroes, who we think of as heroes, may very well not be.

Who really benefits from the spat between Miliband and the Mail?

In the last week the Daily Mail's appalling ad hominem attacks upon Mr Ed Miliband and the reputation of his father Ralph Miliband caused something of a storm. It has now come to light that the Daily Mail had also sent a reporter to gatecrash the funeral service of a member of Mr Miliband's family for reaction interviews to the controversy.

In response, Mr Miliband has written a letter of complaint to the proprietor of the Daily Mail, Lord Rothermere, demanding action be taken over the newspaper's practices. Despite an apology from the Editor of the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail thus far appears to have no intention of changing tack - today making an odd, and you would think unhelpful, comparison between the response of 'the left' to Mrs Margaret Thatcher's death and it's own attacks on Ralph Miliband (Glover, 2013).

The question that has to asked is who will ultimately benefit from this confrontation?

Well it certainly won't benefit the Daily Mail, although it will also be unlikely to hurt them. Without the serious threat of punitive legal action or a stern regulator, they have little motivation to change their business model. And the views of those already reading the Daily Mail and voting Conservative are unlikely to be changed by a debate that is taking place far from the Daily Mail's pages.

The same goes for those reading other newspapers and voting otherwise. The real effects of this incident will be upon floating, undecided, voters. The real winner on that front - not likely planned on the Daily Mail's part - will be Mr Ed Miliband himself and the Labour Party. The Daily Mail's image is so tied in the minds of many to the nastier side of Toryism, that this whole mess will only drive floating voters away from the Conservatives and reinforce Labour's position at the polls.

Hopefully such an outcome will prove to be a stern warning as to the dangers of bringing ad hominem type tactics to the political arena. Not only is there a dangerous chance that, speaking to a purely practical level, these tactics will backfire, but they also muddy the pool and lower the standard of debate.

==========
References:
==========
+ Stephen Glover's 'How typically hypocritical of the Left, who danced on the grave of Mrs Thatcher, to be upset about debate over Red Ed's Marxist father'; in The Daily Mail; 3 October 2013.

Around the World - UK: Conference season offers the best and worst of party politics...

Political party conference season is in full swing in the UK and political parties are gathering at public arenas up and down the country. While these conferences often serve as a decision making body that elects leaders and sets policy, this is often secondary to the opportunity it provides for controlled publicity.

For parties like the Liberal Democrats, who have spent the last few years in government, this has meant an opportunity to restate their ideals. As a party in government, but with little power therein, the Liberal Democrats have been shackled to the unpopular policies of government with little opportunity to celebrate their own successes.

The Lib Dem conference affords the party an opportunity to present their case, a chance to push, while the world are watching, for their ideals (Lindsay, 2013).

It is not, however, always that simple. For smaller, less established parties like UKIP, conference season presents a real opportunity to simply raise public awareness of their existence as an alternative. For that reason, even scandals, such as Mr Godfrey Bloom's sexist comments and lashing out at a journalist, unfortunately have their use (BBC, 2013).

For the major parties, conferences are a rare opportunity to control the message they send out to potential voters. Yet that opportunity is most often used as part of a pragmatic political long game rather than a respite from that competition, and a chance to make clear the things that they believe in.

The opposition, such as the UK Labour Party, use that platform to strike a blow against the government in an arena where it is difficult for them to respond. However, even using the conference platform for some something so focused is rarely a simple task. For example, at this year's Labour conference, Mr Ed Miliband's speech received plenty of coverage for being radical or profoundly leftist - yet, others have pointed out that the proposed policies are still firmly restricted politically by very orthodox language and practices (Bland, 2013).

The government, in this case the Conservative Party, will try to use this controlled space to present their direction in government as representative of the general will. As such they will want to avoid any sort of controversy or scandal, like for instance there being any suggestion that they were attempting to stifle public opinion (Sephton, 2013). Such a suggestion might lead people to think that there was a dissenting opinion that posed enough of a threat to need stifling.

Conference season is one of those rare opportunities in politics where idealism can take to the stage. But more often than not it drowns in pragmatism's swelling tide. It isn't often in the political world that you have a chance to so entirely stage manage a political event; to control the message, control the audience and control who says what to who and when, and that tends to lead to idealism being ignored in favour of pragmatism. The opportunity is just too great to pass up.

In a talk for the RSA, The Divided Brain (2011), psychiatrist Ian McGilchrist warned against the trapping effect caused by becoming too enamoured of the practical or the technical. When discussing the difference in the roles of the two spheres of the human brain, he stressed that at various points in western cultural history the balance between those two roles has slipped away from a perfect equilibrium towards the narrow focus of the left side of the brain. In that overindulgence of the focussed, practical and technical, we can lose context and perspective which only makes it harder to change, even for the better.

 'There is a sort of hall of mirrors effect. The more we get trapped into this, the more we undercut and ironise those things that might have led us out of it and we just get reflected back into more of what we know about what we know about what we know. And I just want to make it clear: I'm not against whatever it is the left hemisphere [of the brain] has to offer. Nobody could be more passionate in an age in which we neglect reason, and we neglect careful use of language, nobody could be more passionate than myself about language and about reason. It's just that I'm even more passionate about the right hemisphere [of the brain] and the need to return what that knows to a broader context.'

The danger is in us becoming so focused on the pragmatic, the practical, the immediate necessity that we lose all sense of context. That our sight becomes so short and narrow that we cannot even imagine a different path or a better future.

==========
References:
==========
+ Caron Lindsay's 'The best speeches of Liberal Democrat Conference'; from Lib Dem Voice; 20 September 2013.

+ BBC's 'Godfrey Bloom quits as UKIP MEP after "sluts" joke row'; 24 September 2013.

+ Archie Bland's 'An in depth look at Labour conference week: Ed Miliband's speech - did you hear what I heard?'; in The Independent; 29 September 2013.

+ Connor Sephton's '50,000 rally outside Tory conference amid "censorship" row'; in The Metro; 29 September 2013.

+ Ian McGilchrist's 'The Divided Brain'; for RSA Animate; 21 October 2011.

Around the World - Italy: Berlusconi, scandal, and the weakness of personality politics laid bare...

In the ongoing aftermath of the financial crisis, and following on from an indecisive election, the last thing Italy needed was a political scandal. Enter Senator Silvio Berlusconi.

Senator Berlusconi's conviction for tax fraud has turned into a major political story (Davies, 2013), not only due to his own decrying of the Italian courts with the possibly unfortunate word 'uncontrollable' (Davies, 2013). Concern rests also with the potential ramifications for Enrico Letta's governing grand coalition should Senator Berlusconi's conviction lead to his being expelled from the Italian Senate by a vote of his peers (The Guardian, 2013).

The threat of political instability caused by the conviction of one individual - even a very wealthy, influential and powerful individual - is troubling.

The threatened instability is caused by a conflict of interest created by the fairly unusual set of conditions. As a result of his conviction, the Italian Senate must vote whether to expel Berlusconi. However, he is the leader of the second biggest party represented in the Italian legislature, the conservative Il Popolo della Liberta (PdL), and that party is at present part of the governing coalition. Their coalition partners are their main political opposition, the social democratic Partito Democratico (PD).

The vote to expel Berlusconi could destroy that tentative alliance (The Guardian, 2013). The PdL may well abandon the partnership in protest of the result should their leader be expelled - particularly as that result could only be achieved with a significant number of votes from their rivals and partners the PD. However a failure to expel Berlusconi might spark a similar reaction amongst the PD members who may not tolerate such a concession. While attempts have been made to stymie such a vote (BBC, 2013), attempts to stall it at the committee stage failed and the vote will go ahead in the coming weeks.

Yet, despite the concerns presented by this more immediate situation and the instability it could create in a country with many outstanding issues that are already in need of resolution, there is a bigger worry. The actions of one individual have been allowed to put in jeopardy the functioning of the government of an entire nation.

The attraction of personality, of basing leadership on the qualities of singular individuals, is in the opportunity to borrow on the strength and power marshalled by that individual. But that attraction is a trap. The problem with what Max Weber (1994) called charismatic leadership is its inherent instability (Hughes et al, 2003).

Despite the determination of many organisations to take advantage of the short term boosts to things like popularity or authority provided by this personality and charisma, they buy those boosts at the cost of stability. Basing an organisation on the qualities of an individual means not just rising with them, but also falling too when their individual popularity wanes. The failures of that person reflect upon the organisation as a whole and creates the beginnings of a conflict of interest. When corruption, revelations or failures threaten those powerful individuals, the larger system is also threatened by the loss of, or damage to the reputation of, one of its senior members, and it is forced to close ranks around them to protect itself.

The true test of progress in Italian politics will be how the country's institutions weather this storm. Surviving the fall of one powerful figure is a true test of the validity of any free, constitutional and democratic process.

==========
References:
==========
+ Lizzy Davies' 'Italian president says Berlusconi's conviction must be respected'; in The Guardian; 14 August 2013.

+ Lizzy Davies' 'Berlusconi rails against "uncontrollable" judiciary after criminal conviction upheld'; in The Guardian; 2 August 2013.

+ The Guardian's 'Silvio Berlusconi: supping with the devil'; 2 August 2013.

+ BBC's 'Silvio Berlusconi step closer to expulsion from Italy Senate'; 19 September 2013.

+ Max Weber's 'Basic Concepts in Sociology'; Chp 4, Pt 4: Bases of Legitimate Order; Citadel 1994. [Buy Now]

+ John A Hughes, Peter J Martin & Wes W Sharrock's 'Understanding Classical Sociology: Marx - Weber - Durkheim'; Chapter 3: Max Weber; Power and Forms of Domination, Pg 112; Sage, 2003. [Buy Now]

Around the World - Germany: Why the federal elections are important outside of Germany...

Germany has become a dominant force in Europe. Its position has been forged with a strong manufacturing sector that has made it one of the the world's largest exporters. Those exports bring in massive amounts of capital, which Germany then spends primarily in Europe, providing a major source of funds for the economies of other European nations. Furthermore, Germany is also Europe's most populous nation and that makes polling the opinions of  its people seriously relevant to understanding the future of Europe as a whole.

These factors make German economic policy important far beyond the borders of the German federal states and the near future of those policies is now up for debate as Germany goes to the polls for its Federal Elections on 22nd September.

The main contenders for the election are the incumbent Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU), led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), led by former Finance Minister Peer Steinbruck. Behind the two biggest parties are three smaller third parties: the Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP), Die Grunen (The Greens) and Die Linke (The Left).

Germany is currently governed by the CDU, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, in coalition with the FDP. That government is much comparable with the UK's coalition government, an alliance between majority conservatives and junior partner liberals. On coming to power back in 2005, Frau Merkel and the CDU had aimed to bring in a number of conservative and free market reforms - including tax code simplification, tax cuts and reduced public spending (Economist, 2013; BBC, 2005) - however events have largely gotten in the way of attempted reforms.

Initially Chancellor Merkel's time in office began in a grand coalition between the CDU and the SPD, which limited the ability of the CDU to pursue conservative policies. The subsequent financial crisis has since brought further restrictions. However, it also brought political opportunities. Chancellor Merkel has been a prominent player in European Union politics. She has been a strong advocate of a conservative, austerity-based, response to the financial crisis and courtesy of Germany's influential role has managed to get austerity placed at the heart of the EU's response (Vasagar, 2013).

And that role in EU austerity measures is one primary sticking point between the CDU and their major opposition, the SPD. A social democratic party led by Herr Peer Steinbruck, the SPD are Germany's oldest political party, founded with much the same purpose in mind as the UK Labour Party; championing the rights of workers. Herr Steinbruck, whose reputation for 'straight talk' and blunt language seems to have harmed his chances more than helped (BBC, 2013), has been keen to pounce upon Chancellor Merkel's role in EU austerity and push for a more growth oriented strategy.

Like other social democratic parties in Europe - such as the UK Labour Party and the Socialist Party in France - this means reducing or restricting austerity in favour of more public spending. Herr Steinbruck points to the success of the Marshall Plan, implemented following the Second World War, in using massive investment to support the recovery and development of allied nations (BBC, 2013).

The success of one of these parties in establishing or confirming their economic policy in Germany will have a profound affect upon the policies of European nations over the next few years. But that will only happen if either of the main parties can successfully form a coalition. Germany has seen coalition governments after every election since 1949, a product of its electoral system that seeks the stability and representation offered by proportional representation.

That system means that parties have to find things in common on which to work together, in order to gather sufficient support to govern. This is most easily achieved by one of the major parties allying with one of the third parties. The most successful amongst the third parties is the FDP. A free market liberal party, in recent years they have tended towards siding with the CDU - as they currently do in a coalition government - with whom they share economic policies (BBC, 2013).

Opposing those positions are the two other third parties: The Greens and the Left.

The Greens are likely to find common ground with the SPD, with whom they share concerns for social welfare. Important issues for them include the implementation of a national minimum wage, an issue that the SPD has also campaigned on. The Greens also benefit from the general adoption by the other parties of their policy  favouring the abandonment of nuclear power by 2020. The likelihood of Red-Green alliance between the SPD and Greens is increased by both prior alliances at the federal level - having previously governed together between 1998 and 2005 (BBC, 1998) - and recent regional elections where they have formed coalitions.

The other third party, The Left, are a party representing the far left of the political spectrum. While the party has much in common with both the SPD and the Greens, it has also carried an unfortunate reputation as an extremist group. With a history rooted in communist East Germany's governing party, its history since reunification has been mired by its past and by the controversial surveillance of certain party members on suspicion of extremism (Handelsblatt, 2012).

The outcome of this election will be incredibly important to all other European countries and many other countries around the world. From the financial crisis in Europe, to the talks to establish an EU-US free trade agreement (Rawlinson, 2013), to the President of the European Commission's stated belief in the EU's State of the Union debate that the time has come to closer bond the nations of Europe (BBC, 2013), the priorities set by Germany's election will affect the path forward at a crucial time.

However, debates within Germany have veered away from the idea of the country's larger role in European and world affairs (Hewitt, 2013). Germany's role in financial rescue efforts in Europe is a difficult subject, and both sides have preferred to focus on domestic concerns with clearer divides such as employment law and the minimum wage.

Yet the far reaching influence of this upcoming election cannot be denied. Its economic strength, large population, and influence within the European Union, make what happens in Germany relevant to people in many other countries. Like the Italian elections this spring, and the French elections the previous spring, what happens in Germany will have wider consequences.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Economist's 'Angela Merkel: A safe pair of hands'; 14th September 2013.

+ BBC's 'Merkel defends German reform plan'; 12 November 2005.

+ Jeevan Vasagar's 'Angela Merkel's rival accuses her of 'deadly austerity' in TV debate'; in The Telegraph; 1 September 2013.

+ BBC's 'Steinbruck rude finger irks Germans in election run-up'; 13 September 2013.

+ BBC's 'Profile: Peer Steinbruck'; 13 September 2013.

+ BBC's 'German election: Potential coalition "kingmakers"'; 12 September 2013.

+ BBC's 'SPD approves red-green coalition'; 25 October 1998.

+ Handelsblatt's 'CSU-Generalsekretär bringt Verbot der Linken ins Spiel'; 30 January 2012.

+ Kevin Rawlinson's 'NSA row: Merkel rival threatens to suspend EU-US trade talks'; in The Guardian; 26 August 2013.

+ BBC's 'Barroso's state of union: EU must not delay reforms'; 11 September 2013.

+ Gavin Hewitt's 'Europe "on hold" over key German election'; on the BBC; 11 September 2013,

+ Sheila Pulham, Chris Fenn, Garry Blight & Guardian Research Department's 'Left, right, left: how political shifts have altered the map of Europe'; in The Guardian; 9 May 2012.

Around the World - Syria: What must be considered when deciding whether and how to intervene?

Democracy in the UK appeared to be in good health in the past few weeks when Parliament, in tune with public polling, voted against the Government's wish to prepare for a military intervention in Syria (Cowling, 2013). However, not everyone seemed to find the results of this democratic display particularly satisfying.

Mr Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats - and Member of the the House of Lords for that party - spoke out against the isolationism he claimed that the outcome displayed (Ashdown, 2013). He and party leader Mr Nick Clegg agreed that Britain should be unafraid to protect liberal values and international law through humanitarian interventions and 'targeted military action' (Clegg, 2013).

The views of these senior figures within Britain's main liberal political party presents a poignant picture about the political orthodoxy when it comes to the role of a modern state within an international community. But, when a country's main liberal party presents intervention as an obvious policy - should conditions be right - it raises an important question: have we become so wrapped up in the question of whether or not to intervene, to ask whether we even have the right to ask that question?

Ashdown and Clegg, and in many ways also the leadership of the Labour Party (Guardian, 2013), hold similar views on international interventions to the Conservatives. Some leading Tories have presented openness to unilateral intervention in Syria - in co-ordination with the United States - as being an integral part of a 'a big open and trading nation' 'upholding the international system' (Mason, 2013).

With all of the parties displaying similar opinions towards intervention, the main debate between the parties, over whether or not to intervene, was essentially overshadowed by a secondary debate. Accompanying the main vote, where Cameron sought permission to involve the UK in the United States' unilateral intervention (BBC, 2013), was a debate over the wording of the grounds upon which Britain would become militarily involved in any intervention. Despite the different wording, the approach of all sides amounted to requiring a clear, legal, internationally sanctioned intervention to be agreed before Parliament would allow for British military action.

While it is positive that one nation is deferring on a unilateral decision in favour of multilateral debate, the international debate - taking place within institutions such as the United Nations and NATO - will however likely focus upon the same principles. The questions asked there will likely be the same as those sovereign nations will be asking themselves, with the same predetermined acceptance of intervention where the right conditions are in place.

More questions need to be aimed at how readily interventions, particularly military solutions, are accepted as an option. It is without doubt that when one country defies, ignores, or rejects international law and human rights to commit terrible crimes, the choice not to intervene takes on terrible weight.

But the opposite, the choice to act becomes no less fraught with danger. Do we use the same sort of aggressive actions to stop rogue nations and bring them back into line with international law as they have used to forge their criminal path - as British Diplomat Robert Cooper (2002) put it:

'Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.'

Is that the solution? When one country deviates from the course determined by the combined will of the international community, the others intervene to impose their values? Does playing a role within an international community of nations mean intervening militarily in other countries, with or without the consent of the rest of that community, to uphold that international system when it is threatened? Is it right that one state does not have the right to unilaterally decide to interfere with another state, even with the best of intentions; yet that standard can be removed under particular conditions? Can the whole community enforce human rights on an international scale through agreement to intervene, together?

Until we ask these kinds of questions, and until we can find convincing answers to them, we should not be eager to even begin the debate about when we will or won't intervene. The fact is that responding to the kinds of crimes that Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime is accused is too important - these questions of law, legitimacy and just action are too important - to respond with anything less than the most carefully considered, planned and scrutineered actions.

==========
References:
==========
+ Roy Greenslade's 'David Cameron humiliated - the newspaper reaction to his defeat'; in The Guardian; 30 August 2013.

+ David Cowling in the BBC's 'Syria crisis: MPs "right to reject military action" - BBC poll'; 2 September 2013.

+ Paddy Ashdown on The Guardian's 'Paddy Ashdown: Syria intervention vote 'a bad night for Britain' - video'; 30 August 2013.

+ Nick Clegg's 'Letter from the Leader: Our Priority is Syria'; on Lib Dem Voice; 1 September 2013.

+ The Guardian's 'Labour frontbencher opposed to Syria military action 'full stop' resigns'; 29 August 2013.

+ Rowena Mason's 'George Osborne: UK should not turn its back on world after Syria vote'; in The Guardian; 30 August 2013.

+ BBC's 'Government loses Commons vote on Syria action'; 29 August 2009.

+ Robert Cooper's 'The new liberal imperialism'; in The Observer; 7 April 2002; Originally published as 'The post-modern state'; in Reordering the World: the long term implications of September 11; The Foreign Policy Centre; 2002.

- More on the UK Parliamentary debate
Cameron's language in the debate, BBC, 2013; Cameron's case for intervention, BBC, 2013; Issues to consider for a rerun of the vote, BBC, 2013; Cameron loses the vote, The Guardian, 2013.

Truth in Art: Facts are not the responsibility of the artist. That responsibility is ours...

Through its various forms, the role of art is expression. It seeks to find clear ways to express all parts of human existence: emotions, feelings, jealousies, passions, ideas and experiences. This search for clarity of expression takes place within a distorted reality, where twisting facts is an acceptable means of expressing with clarity what the events of the real world could not. Yet, this twisting of the truth for clear expression can have unfortunate side effects.

One famous subject of this distortion is Mozart's rival Salieri. The two composers were contemporaries in late 18th century Vienna, composing music for the imperial court of the Hapsburg Emperor Joseph II. By inhabiting this same sphere, they obviously came to contest similar posts and opportunities.

The play, and later film, Amadeus is based on stories of such rivalries, given new heights largely based on Mozart's letters that suggested Salieri and a group of Italian composer was blocking his works. The play and film turn Salieri into a jealous, and vicious, rival to Mozart, a distortion that could have destroyed his reputation.

If consumed uncritically, such distortion of fact might be seen as threatening to corrupt or pervert perceptions. But underneath the surface of famous names, places and times, lies another layer of text. On that layer the players on the surface do not matter. They merely act out and give shape to simple stories about the nature of being - of love and admiration, of jealousy, of talent and hard work, effort and reward, faith and hubris.

In seeking out better ways to convey these underlying truths, art plays with truth and perception. Art searches for clarity of expression without allowing for restrictions. Nor should it. Art should not bow to the limitations created by an irrational world, any more that science should.

An irrational world builds up walls around what it finds inconvenient, asks too few questions, and accepts all too readily the facts it is offered without proper scrutiny. In a rational world such things would not be a cause for concern. The problematic nature of art's distortion of truth comes not from a deficiency within art but a lack of critical reasoning on the part of the viewer.

Art does nothing to conceal the actual facts. Quite the opposite: it finds them, discusses them, uses them. They remain in their original sources to be found and assessed. It is not the purpose of art to be our go between to reach them. Instead it is up to us to source our facts sensibly, and to have care and vigilance in our consumption of art., in what sources we trust, and why.