Retribution & Reform

Much about a society can be learned from how it responds to threats against its body, whether the whole or the individual. From liberal reform to conservative deterrence, approaches to quelling rebellion, sedition and crime differ in both their approach and how they are represented.

Two of Britain's most famous authors, Shakespeare and Tolkein, have looked at this in their works. Two prescient examples are Shakespeare's eponymous Macbeth and Tolkein's Saruman from The Lord of the Rings. Both Macbeth and Saruman face tragic falls into evil - holding high and noble appointments before falling into plots and betrayals.

In Macbeth, we begin with the successful and fêted protagonist riding high. However, the revelation of a prophecy pronouncing him the future king triggers a descent into paranoia and ambition. Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings sees Saruman introduced as a wise and highly trusted counsellor, later to be twisted by the arcane writings he turns to for the power and knowledge to save middle earth.

In Macbeth, evil is presented as a simple seduction. In Shakespeare Uncovered, Ethan Hawke (2012) discusses how Macbeth and his fall are presented to the audience:

'What's so unsettling about this play, is that the one characteristic that undoes Macbeth is simply ambition. What's scary about it, is what lives inside each one of us, and not all of us want to be King, but there's a tonne of actors out there that would lie, cheat and kill their mothers for an Oscar. We have these ambitions and we want to set ourselves apart, so much, that we're willing to forgo all kindness and the best parts of ourselves in the name of achieving the goal.'

The Lord of the Rings presents evil in a similar way. Saruman is much alike to the Dark Lord himself in the seduction and fall. Neither where always evil.

The seduction is achieved by tantalising the subject's ambition with the possibility of that which they want most. Whether want, need or duty; desperation and necessity are provoked to twist a person's actions towards an utilitarian extreme - where only the end result matters and can be used to justify the means of getting there.

So if a fall can be so quiet a thing, that can happen to anyone and at any time, then how do we respond to it? And how do we prevent it?

The conservative doctrine would look to suppression - to deter those who might be tempted through threat of punishment or sanction. To set up balances of power that pre-emptively watch and check each other; all in fear that there will be times where we might not watch ourselves. Those who break those barriers face retribution for their victims.

The liberal doctrine would be reform - to seek pre-emptive, ongoing and after the fact attempts to educate towards and set positive examples of self-discipline. Through this the aim would be to encourage people to think for themselves. By doing so their understanding of the rights, wrongs and whys of their actions can be trusted in to remove the fear that when people find themselves unguarded they would turn to criminality. For those who fail more eduction and support is provided.

Macbeth commits crimes of terrible brutality in his fall and his tragic tale ends in death at the hands of an avenging enemy - retribution for his crime. Alternatively, Saruman is offered chances for reform despite joining with the enemy of the free peoples and making war upon them. But the attempt ultimately ends in failure, after hopes for reform first from Gandalf and later from Frodo, when his death comes at the hands of an oppressed servant.

Can we take from this - from balance restored by retribution against Macbeth and the failure to reform Saruman - that deterrence and punishment are just and that reform is not worth bothering with?

We write our heroes down the road of reform: Gandalf, Frodo, Luke Skywalker, The Doctor - all of these try to save their enemies from themselves rather than seeking vengeance. The way we avoid our heroes seeking an eye-for-an-eye solutions suggests that vengeance is flawed. Maybe the fear is that no matter how much crime is met with retribution, sooner or later reform will have to be our course, lest we be subject to oppressive supervision and an endless cycle of revenge.

==========
References:
==========
+ Ethan Hawke on Macbeth; 'Shakespeare Uncovered' series for the BBC; 26 June 2012.

The Ballad of Church and State

Certain senior individuals within the Church of England have recently been very vocal in their opposition to changes to the UK's marriage laws; changes designed to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry (Malnick & Moreton, 2012).

Their stance opposes the coalition junior partner Liberal Democrats, whose leader Mr Nick Clegg has affirmed that equal marriage is a matter of 'when not if' (Grice, 2012).

The conflict brewing here has all facets of a self-made problem - one likely to afflict any state church. Once established at the heart of a nation, particularly at the heart of a democracy, it becomes bound to the tides of those people. For the Church of England, its struggle is with a core ideal of democratic society - that those who have to obey the laws have the right to make them.

Continued opposition to reforms that fit that democratic basis - in this case by denying a group the right to peacefully express themselves (in love of all things) - only serves to question the validity of that establishment's own authority.

The deeply conservative landowning class that dominated the House of Lords discovered this in opposition to the Liberal welfare reforms of the early 1900s - their attempts to use their unelected institutional power to trammel democratic reforms resulted in reforms of the House of Lords that largely stripped it of its powers.

The best defence of liberty has always been defending the liberty of others. To support each individual in their right to think, speak and live freely & peacefully. The arbitrary outlawing of individuals or entire groups within a society flies in the face of this and is a dangerous road for any democracy to travel down.

There have already been calls to disestablish the church as part of the British state (Jenkins, 2012). The upcoming general synod of the Church of England will be an important event for the church - where it must largely decide whether to reform, to challenge or to depart from its privileged position within the UK's establishment.

==========
References:
==========
+ Edward Malnick & Cole Moreton's 'Bishops rebel against Church marriage policy'; in The Telegraph; 24 June 2012.

+ Andrew Grice's 'Moves to block gay marriage "a waste of time"'; in The Independent; 21 June 2012.

+ Simon Jenkins' 'The marriage of church and state is anything but gay'; in The Guardian; 12 June 2012.

Vince Cable: Man of the People?

The Business Secretary Mr Vince Cable made headlines last month when he took a stand against Tory attempts to press on with worker-unfriendly policies. In the struggle to stimulate economic growth, the Tories have supported proposals to roll back labour rights under the auspices of loosing businesses of administrative burdens. Mr Cable responded by saying (Telegraph, 2012):

"Some people think that if labour rights were stripped down to the most basic minimum, employers would start hiring and the economy would soar again... This is complete nonsense."

As if to emphasize the point, Mr Cable also succeeded in negotiating a deal, alongside trade unions, to keep a major car production facility in Ellesmere Port open, active and employing (BBC, 2012). The Liberal Democrats, taking the opportunity to build bridges and cooperate with unions, are a far cry from the Labour Party, who seem to be self-destructing as they try to reorganise political power within their party.

Labour leader, Mr Ed Miliband, announced last summer his intention to encourage more of the party's membership to join directly as members rather than indirectly as part of a union voting bloc (Helm, 2011). The move involves changing how voting takes place and who can vote in party leadership elections - in what is apparently an attempt to cut the unions out of their middle man role (Wintour & Mulholland, 2012).

This all seems a symptom of the Labour Party's decades long tack towards conservatism, all with gaining the support of the centre-right and major financial institutions as the aim. But in the attempt to take the electoral fight to Tory turf, their traditional base amongst the unions has been increasingly isolated.

So it comes as poor timing for Labour that, as the unions attempt measures to assert their strength within the Labour Party (Rath, 2012), those same unions are also fostering a useful cooperation with the Liberal Democrats.

And, in turn, the Lib Dems have also made strong overtures towards the unions in recent months. Particularly demonstrative of this was Chief Secretary to the Treasury Mr Danny Alexander's strong overture to the unions in his speech at the GMB Conference:

"It was of course a Liberal Prime Minister, William Gladstone, who legalised trade unions almost 150 years ago. And together, the Trades Union movement and the Liberal Party were at the very heart of some of the key economic, political and social reforms for this country. Regulating working hours. Improving working conditions. Extending national insurance. Laying the foundations of our welfare state with the Beveridge Report."

So, at a time when Labour's closest activist members and its longest term potential political ally are working so productively together; at a time when opinion polls are hugely favourable towards Labour; it is particularly astonishing that the Labour Party can seem to be in such utter disarray.

The party has started to take some steps to address the issues it faces. The appointment of MP Mr Jon Cruddas as policy chief is a beginning (Helm & Coman, 2012). But people need to see more positive action from Labour and less score settling. There is still a long way to go before it can challenge Mr Vince Cable, and return to its place as the worker's champion.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Telegraph's 'Plans to cut employment rights "complete nonsense", says Cable'; 21 May 2012.

+ BBC's 'Vauxhall's Ellesmere Port plant to build new Astra'; 17 May 2012.

+ Toby Helm's 'Ed Miliband set for collision course with unions over Labour block vote'; in The Guardian; 25 June 2011.

+ Kate Rath's 'New Labour group Progress rejects GMB union "outlaw" threat'; on the BBC; 15 June 2012.

+ Toby Helm & Julian Coman's 'Labour's new policy chief: we must be bold and radical'; in The Guardian; 16 June 2012.