Feminism and the importance of dissenting opinions

International Women's Day saw a familiar argument raised (Morgan et al, 2014). What role does dissent play in feminist debate? One of the day-to-day struggles faced by feminists - on top of struggling against a patriarchal establishment and trying to gain a visible platform - is finding a way to coexist with those belonging to other branches of the feminist movement (Freeman, 2014).

Infighting between the various strands of feminism has been called 'tragic', and damaging to feminism (Filipovic, 2013). However, the strength and health of the movement comes from that diversity of perspectives. As with all progressive debate, the many perspectives serve to build the bigger picture.

'Disagreement that escalates into attacks should be expected on the left, where we value dissent and diverse opinions. The right, too, sees its fair share of in-fighting, but – being conservative – it can be somewhat insulated from it by a resistance to change and a cultural deference to authority. Progressive movements lend themselves more readily to discord – which, in the big picture, is a good thing.' - Filipovic, 2013.

Dissenting opinions are of immense importance, not just to feminism, but to all forms of progressive thought. To challenge establishments and status quo, the things we take for granted. To make arguments and look for the evidence.

Those ideas are at the core of what it means to be progressive. To not just look for what is new, or to just cast out what is old, but to champion what is evidentially better. To find those things you need perspective. Or rather, perspectives.

Diverse perspectives means allowing many voices, many eyes, and many ideas. But to be successful there needs to be civility and toleration. In trying to find that, feminists are dealing with the same problems as all progressive movements, and are aspiring to the same ends.

Getting there means welcoming diversity and open debate. This is the challenge ahead of all progressives, ahead of all those who cherish reason and liberty, and want a better, freer settlement for everyone.

==========
References:
==========
+ Robin Morgan, Charlotte Raven, Amrit Wilson, Selma James, Gail Lewis and Nawal El Saadawi's 'International Women's Day: In defence of feminist dissent'; in The Guardian; 7 March 2014.

+ Hadley Freeman's 'Feminist infighting only takes our eyes off the real struggle'; in The Guardian; 25 February 2014.

+ Jill Filipovic's 'The tragic irony of feminists trashing each other'; in The Guardian; 2 May 2013.

Trudeau kicks out his senators to end partisan politics, but is it enough?

In a strange and unexpected move this January, Canadian Liberal Party leader Mr Justin Trudeau effectively kicked his own senators out of the party caucus (Cudmore, 2014). This sudden action was taken as a commitment, on behalf of the party, to political reform.

The Liberal leader's move was intended to represent the first step in political reform of the senate. That meant ending the Liberals' involvement with senatorial partisanship. Reforms would then be advanced further through legislation if the Liberals were to win the next election. While suggested by Mr Trudeau's opponents to be a cynical act and a 'smokescreen', it was nonetheless a very real move in a political world often lacking in discernible action.

Liberal leader Mr Trudeau stressed that he was trying to 'do the right thing', to fight political corruption that he felt was rooted in the partisan division of the political arena. In particular he claimed that the senate, a chamber which is supposed to act as a 'sober, second thought' in the legislative process, had lost sight of its purpose in the mire of party partisanship.

Partisan party politics developed, in this case within the Westminster style of government, partially as a matter of practicality and partially as a matter of patronage. The heads of government could only come to power with a majority of support in parliament. Political parties were the easy, efficient and effective way to manage a problem. How do you build a stable platform of support for government?

As a lack of democratic legitimacy has eaten away at unelected parliamentary upper houses, so new replaced the old. Out has gone the role of representing the interests of the aristocracy. In has come the role of oversight. It is suggested that the spread of political party divisions into the upper house, with the increase in democratic representativeness, has disabled the institution from fulfilling its new purpose. Oversight is being limited by affiliation and patronage.

As a gesture, as a symbol or a token of intention, such a move goes a long way. The newly independent senators have already begun trying to change the way that Canada's upper house works (Bryden, 2014).

But are these gestures enough?

Party partisan politics is divisive by nature. It simplifies, marginalises and creates conflict - conflict destructive to the calm, reasoned, approach needed for legislative oversight. But is it the cause or a symptom?

Ending the disputes between parties may not be enough to fix the core problems of corruption, lack of democratic representation, accountable law-making, and above all, the need for composed oversight.

If the political parties are merely a symptom of a broken system, then ending partisanship will only be a stop-gap measure. And there will be no quick fixes to a broken system. That will mean constitutional and institutional changes, all of which will have to be sold to the public. Mr Trudeau's gesture could be serving to test the waters of public opinion towards reform and maybe to attempt an easier path than might a more comprehensive overhaul.

For now we must wait and watch to see if the system be adapted, or if reformers must tackle the much more difficult task of uprooting the established institutions.

==========
References:
==========
+ James Cudmore's 'Justin Trudeau removes senators from Liberal caucus'; on CBC News; 29 January 2014.

+ Joan Bryden's 'Five ways Senate Liberals aim to change upper chamber'; on CTV News; 26 February 2014.

Tony Benn is gone, but the campaign for democratic rights must go on

This week will see tributes from parliamentarians to the former Labour Politician and political campaigner Tony Benn who passed away on Friday (Wintour & Mason, 2014). His passing is especially sad news for those who believed in the causes he fought for, whether it be for a constitution, for the recognition and representation of women, or for championing of democracy in political circles and amongst the people.

The world Benn hoped for was not contained in formal institutions, or in this or that form of social, governmental or economic organisation. It was an active, persistent and vigilant democracy, something generated by, and determined by, individuals able to actively choose for themselves how to live their lives and engage with the world around them.

'I think democracy is the most revolutionary thing in the world. Far more revolutionary than socialist ideas or anybody else's idea. Because if you have power, you use it to meet the needs of you and your community. And this idea of choice which capital talks about all the time, you have got to have a choice. Choice depends upon the freedom to choose. And if you're shackled with debt you don't have a freedom to choose. The people in debt become hopeless and hopeless people don't vote. So they will say that everyone should vote, but I think if the poor in Britain or the United States turned out and voted for people who represented their interests, it would be a real democratic revolution.'

It is sad that he did not live to see a democratic revolution become a reality in Britain.

What should however offer us inspiration, is that he never stopped believing it was possible. When he retired from his active career in politics, standing down as an MP and as a member of the Labour Party, he famously said he was retiring 'to spend more time on politics'.

It was ever Benn's belief that the institutions of power, such as parliaments, were only places to which power had been gathered, gained, won, or stolen. That people are the true source of power, and its rightful wielders. He challenged power wherever it was concentrated, with his 'five little democratic questions':

'If one meets a powerful person - Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates - ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.'

Benn leaves behind him the causes he fought for, as tasks still left unfinished. But he also left us tools with which to challenge the powers and obstacles that obstruct progress, and lingering hope that success in those struggles is possible.

==========
References
==========
+ Patrick Wintour & Rowena Mason's 'Tony Benn, veteran Labour politician, dies aged 88'; in The Guardian; 14 March 2014.

+ BBC's 'Tony Benn'; on BBC History.

+ The Guardian readers and James Walsh's '10 of the best Tony Benn quotes - as picked by our readers'; in The Guardian; 15 March 2014.

+ Michael Moore's 'Sicko'; 2007.

+ Tony Benn's page on Wikipedia.

+ Articles covering Tony Benn's passing, obituary's and analysis of the impact:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/14/tony-benn-obituary
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/tony-benn-socialism-epitaph
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/tony-benn-the-history-man-editorial
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/14/tony-benn-rare-breed-idealism
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/14/left-after-tony-benn-bob-crow

Labour uses their conference to rebrand themselves as democrats and push away trade unions

A Labour Party special conference was held last weekend to debate reforms to the party's structure (Sparrow, 2014). The new measures, backed by party leader Mr Ed Miliband and presented in the The Collins Review released in February, were passed by a large majority of the party membership.

The special conference proved to be a coordinated display. Through the use of colours, symbols and policies, the Labour Party sought to herald the success of the most recent in a long series of attempts to transform itself. Under the banner 'One Nation', an idea born out of Labour's conservative 'Blue Labour' faction, the conference was to herald the latest stage in a transformation from a party representing the interest of the workers into a democratic party drawing upon much more general support.

Symbolic of its intention to change its image away from that of the party of the unionised masses, was the distinct absence of the party's traditional colour of red. The stage and set were instead dominated by the colour blue, a colour more usually in Britain associated with conservatism.

That colour itself was a poignant statement on Labour's political direction. Shortly following the 2010 UK general election the party saw the emergence of Blue Labour as a new faction. While it at first seemed to quietly disappear after its policies were criticised for their conservatism, it instead seems to have evolved into the 'One Nation' movement.

Through the idea of 'One Nation', Labour's parliamentary party sees the potential for greater public support and a broader appeal. To further that aim, this special conference was called to vote on rearranging the relationship between the trade unions and the party along the lines of 'one member one vote' (BBC, 2014).

The trade unions, who were deeply involved in the party's founding, have, since the beginning, held considerable influence over party decisions. That influence came from the nature of the Labour Party's membership. Rather than joining the party directly, many of Labour's members were simply automatically affiliated to the party through their trade union. As such, influence over the politics of the party membership belonged far more to the unions than to the parliamentary party.

Last weekend's vote aimed to redress that balance. In the name of clarity of political decision-making and transparency of funding and influence, the party sought to bring its membership out from under the (what might be seen as overshadowing) influence of the trade unions and into the party mainstream as individual members. But above all it meant centralising the running of the party under a single elected leadership.

The party leader Mr Miliband has become closely associated with the One Nation faction and its policies, and the One Nation brand made a very prominent appearance at the conference, where it took centre stage surrounded by a blue Union Flag. That scene seemed to represent a victory by the 'modernising' parliamentary party over the trade unions in the struggle to secure central control over the party membership.

Previously, internal party politics had been dominated by deals, manoeuvres and compromises, all designed to buy the unions and their members around on mass. Following the strikes of the 1980s and the weakening of the unions at Mrs Thatcher's hands, the parliamentary party became more bold. From Mr Neil Kinnock, through Mr John Smith and his proteges Mr Tony Blair and Mr Gordon Brown, the central body at the heart of party became more confident it its pro-establishment proposals.

That body, the parliamentary party, then became more open in seeking to make private market capitalism work for socialist ideals through taxation and regulation. Gone completely was even the language of confrontation with capital, of socialist struggle. It was replaced by the intent to try and use the capitalist model for other ends, even expanding its involvement into everything from healthcare to education.

All the while, this was done with continued deference to the unions. However, the loss at the 2010 general election, and the derailing of the New Labour modernising project, seemed to shake the party's confidence. Rivalries within the party; between the the parliamentary party, the constituency based party organisations, and the unions became an open struggle to decide the party's shape and direction.

This latest vote constitutes a great strengthening of the parliamentary party at the expense of the trade unions, symptomatic and typical of the Labour Party's approach to modernisation. It fits in well with the long term drift towards social democracy and democratic politics over the trade unionism of the party's heritage, and the socialism of many members at the local and individual level; and with the long term drift towards establishing some sort of central authority to govern the whole party.

Immediately following the vote at the conference, major trade unions announced that they were reducing their financial contributions to Labour (BBC, 2014; Watt, 2014). However, Labour's use of the conference to seemingly try and rebrand itself suggests they will be little concerned with a further withdrawal by the unions. For Labour's parliamentary elite, weening itself off of its relationship with the unions was always going to mean accepting the loss of funding that they bring.

As Mr Miliband stood and addressed his party (New Statesman, 2014), backed by a wall of blue, the party's approach to its rebrand, the staging and the policies enacted at that conference, all gave the party more of a resemblance to an American political machine, than to the nearer neighbouring European social democrats. And maybe that's the point.

The party has used this occasion to once more confirm its drift towards being a party of democrats rather than of socialists, of democrats rather than of trade unionists. One Labour, draped in blue, looks ready and willing to drop even its oldest partners for electoral success on the back of the broader support that being a party of democrats could offer them, just as they've dropped their colours.

==========
References:
==========
+ Andrew Sparrow's 'Politics Live Blog: Miliband wins vote on Labour party reforms with overwhelming majority'; in The Guardian; 1 March 2014.

+ Labour Party Announcement: 'Building a One Nation Labour Party: Special Conference 2014'; on labour.org.uk.

+ Ray Collins' 'Building a One Nation Labour Party: The Collins Review into
Labour Party Reform'; February 2014.

+ BBC's 'Unite union cuts Labour funding by £1.5m'; 5 March 2014.

+ Nicholas Watt's 'Unite union cuts Labour funding by £1.5m'; in The Guardian; 5 March 2014.

+ BBC's 'Labour approves union membership reforms'; 1 March 2014.

+ New Statesman's 'Ed Miliband's speech to Labour's Special Conference: full text'; 1 March 2014.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Hitchhikers, Futurama and Quests: What we take with us when we set out amongst the stars

The trailer released a fortnight ago for Guardians of the Galaxy, the latest addition to Marvel's movie universe, promises a classic questing story. An ordinary person gets displaced - if what looks like a classic Walkman playing Blue Swede's Hooked on a Feeling is any clue - in time, space or social status, and learns some enlightening lesson about themselves.

The questing story has served to propel many beloved characters from their staid and ordinary worlds into fantastical adventures. How those characters acclimatise to their new surroundings can often tell us a lot about the world they left. And when the world they leave behind is our contemporary present, those characters become a fascinating social critique.

Characters, fuelled and shaped by the ideas and social structures of our times, but set free from the bounds of social norms, say a lot about how we see ourselves. They hold up to the light the things that we value, and our potential and limitations. Two stories in particular come to mind that show the effectiveness of this approach.

In Douglas Adams' The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Arthur Dent from England in the 1970s is swept up into an improbable adventure. His friend Ford Prefect reveals himself to be an alien while rescuing Arthur from the destruction of the Earth. In Adams' novelisations, Arthur struggles with the galaxy he encounters. He never settles or finds himself comfortable amongst the impulsive and adventurous people he meets - often to their chagrin.

His character is in stark contrast to Trillian, née Tricia McMillan, who seems effortlessly at ease. From floating parties to improbable physics, Trillian, who seemed only to eager to escape Earth's shackles, always seems to adapt with ease. Dent, on the other hand, finds himself forever shackled and hindered by his own cowed timidity and closed-minded bafflement. What Arthur's hitchhiking amongst the stars shows us more than anything else is how deeply ingrained the customs of Dent's England could become, to the point of being essentially self-inflicted.

Matt Groening's Futurama shows us something else. Taking for its subject Philip J Fry, a man from New York in the nineties, we see a down-on-his-luck slacker with no prospects cast into a spacefaring future. For Fry, the possibilities and prospects offered by the future are not the same as those offered by the world he left behind. They are not material gains and selfish ambitions. In a future of spectacular diversity, he finds an acceptance and companionship that he had failed to foster in the rigid, frigid, world of the twentieth century.

In his new environment Fry finds room to grow. He is able to display his bravery, his compassion and even his romantic nature in a way that New York in the nineties would never allow. Trapped within the cold ambitions of the twentieth century Fry was stifled, bored. His new life in the future offers him a world that looks very enticing to kids of the nineties: excitement, adventure and companionship, freed from cold, complex, mundane, reality.

The question with Guardians of the Galaxy is what will Peter Quill, aka Starlord, say about us? What will the freedoms or restrictions he finds away from Earth say about the world we live in, and about our own potential?

==========
References:
==========
+ Simon Brew's 'First trailer lands for Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy'; on Den of Geek; 19 February 2014.

+ Douglas Adam's 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'; 1979.

+ Matt Groening's 'Futurama'; 1999.