Olympic Ideal - Rise, Fall, Struggle and Redemption

There has been much said already about the inspiration to be drawn from Team GB's medal haul last Saturday. However, Saturday did not have a monopoly on important Olympic moments. There is also some good to be taken from the 100m Olympic semi-finals and Dwain Chambers.

It stands as a major achievement because, for a long time, it didn't look like Dwain Chambers would ever run at a major championship ever again. Chambers was banned in 2003, for two years, after testing positive for a performance enhancing drug (Mackay, 2003).

But Chambers also faced a lifetime ban imposed on him by the British Olympic Association (BOA) - the organisation that select and run the British Olympic team.

Chambers' original ban punished the act of cheating - and the breaking of Coubertin's ideals: The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

So what then was the lifetime ban punishing? By seeking to block Chambers from having a shot at redeeming himself once his ban ended, the BOA were taking a deeply reactionary response to Chambers - a reaction that aimed to make an example of him. In doing so the BOA failed to treat the athlete as an individual, or his case with due regard for the rules, and so found itself failing to comply with the spirit of the games - all in its hurry to make a point quickly and 'hysterically'. The lifetime ban was finally overturned (Guardian, 2012) - just months before the London Games - when it was also found to have failed to comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency rules.

Altogether Chambers' career has followed the path of the tragic heroes: the rise to prominence, the fall from grace - but also the chance for an act of redemption. Previously punished for cheating, he earned the right to compete once more; proved his fitness and qualified.

So while 'Super-Saturday' was a great moment for British sport, Chambers' answer when asked to sum up the whole occasion was also worth seeing (BBC, 2012):

Chambers:    I'm happy to be here man. I really am.
Interviewer: Was it worth all the heartache in the build up?
Chambers:    Yes. It was worth every moment of it. To feel that roar and be in this atmosphere again - money can't buy that and I'm glad I've fought so hard to get to this position.'

Chamber's answer reflects the importance that Coubertin placed upon the struggle over the triumph - and that through striving well there is more to be earned at the Olympics than medals.

==========
References:
==========
+ Duncan Mackay's 'UK's top sprinter in positive drug test'; 22 October 2003.

+ The Guardian's 'London 2012: Wada accuses BOA of making "hysterical statements"'; 30 April 2012.

+ BBC's 'Athletics: Finals'; from 1:11:00; 5 August 2012.

Presidents and Electoral Colleges

Last month, the European Union's slow meander towards a unified federation was brought a step closer to reality. President of the European Commission Mr José Manuel Barroso, the head of Europe's executive branch, heralded work done by the European Council and the challenge it presented to doubters of the EU's ability to get the necessary done (BBC, 2012).

As the EU takes these steps, the European Commission and the office of President are only going to become more influential. The office, holders of which have included former Italian Prime Minister Sig. Romano Prodi and British politician Mr Roy Jenkins, has faced some criticism over the indirect way in which the office is appointed - its indirectness insulating it from democracy (Mahoney, 2008).

However the indirect election of heads of state is not rare - the most famous being the Electoral College of the United States that elects the President. Also a similar case is Germany, where its Bundespräsident is elected by a grand convocation of both chambers of the German parliament.

In the US, delegates are appointed by the votes of the presidential election, and they in turn choose the next president. In both Germany and the EU, the delegates are the members of the respective legislatures.



Both the American & German systems have faced problems that call in to question how those offices are elected. Germany has only recently seen the resignation of President Wulff over corruption allegations (Pidd, 2012). And the United States has certainly faced controversy, with accusations that its electoral college is undemocratic - its process, which allows delegates to nominate a president against popular support, has received some criticism (Amar & Amar, 2004). Such problems might suggest that such models are not the best for the EU to emulate - that instead a more direct method of election might be preferable, and increase accountability.

As a means of balancing out and outmatching the often limited powers of these Presidents, there usually sits a body of elected representatives in whom is collectively vested the power to make law. For Europe that body is the European Parliament.

The European Parliament recently demonstrated the power of an effective assembly of elected representatives when it refused to ratify the ACTA Treaty, stopping the establishment of the treaty after massive public outcry across Europe. In doing so it went with public opinion over the will of the 22 member state government who had individually chosen to sign the treaty (RTE, 2012).

However, an alternative body with the power to offer checks and balances is not the same as an organisation that itself is accountable. With thoughts along those lines, steps have already been proposed to make the European Commission more democratic (Mahoney, 2010).

So, along with Germany and the United States, the European Union has an effective means to balance the potential power of its relatively insulated executive office. But as with those other offices, it must be proactive in raising its visibility and increasing its accountability - lest it become mistrusted for the indirect democracy by which it is appointed.

==========
References:
==========
+ Helen Pidd's 'German president resigns and could face prosecution in corruption scandal'; 17 February 2012.

+ Honor Mahoney's 'Barroso admits legitimacy problem for commission president post'; at euobserver.com; 28 February 2008.

+ Akhil Reed Amar & Vikram David Amar's 'The Electoral College Votes Against Equality'; September 8 2004.

+ RTE's 'MEPs reject anti-counterfeiting trade agreement'; 5 July 2012.

+ Honor Mahony's 'EP president wants future EU commissioners directly elected'; on euobserver.com; 23 March 2010.

Opposition and the blame game

In 'On Liberty' John Stuart Mill claimed that, for the good functioning of a system of government, two opposing forces must always be represented:

'It is almost a commonplace that a party of order or stability and a party of progress or reform are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life, until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away. Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.'

Here we have, not the ideological divisions of parties, but the opposing forces in a reasoned argument - the argument for the status quo versus the argument for change. And they are roles that cannot be played to their full measure through specific and persistent ideological polemics.

Few parliaments of recent memory have represented such an abstract division.

Britain is largely split between implacable rivals - Conservatives and Labour. So too is Germany - between CDU and SPD. The recent French elections, despite carrying hope for the French centre, have only further entrenched their left and right camps.

As for opposition parties: in the US, there have been suggestions (Cohen, 2012) that Republicans may have stepped a long way beyond merely keeping the government honest, and in the UK Labour has faced criticism (Lucas, 2012) for only beginning to develop prospective policy two years into this parliament (Wintour, 2012).

So why do these parties play the opposition role as they do? Why do they approach opposition as part of the strategic manoeuvring needed to challenge for the leadership?

It shouldn't really be a surprised that parties choose to build towards victory at the next election. But we should still be wary when parties offer little in the way of policy before elections - beyond the vagueness and vagueries. Because, in its own way, this absence of substance is tied directly to those aims of victory - the lack of policies making the party a less easy target to pin down.

All of it this is rooted with the primary problems of majoritarian democracy - there is power to be won. When held with a majority then the opposition becomes moot, a consolation prize for the loser. So the sides face-off to secure the all-to-often occurring majoritarian tendency of uncontested rule; where there are winners with power and losers without - rather than the representation of people in all the decisions of their lives that stands as the democratic ideal. And while they compete with tactical and strategic point-scoring, a great many things of importance are allowed to slip onto the back-burner in the name of victory in some greater ideological conflict - and this trend is troubling.

Particularly when it allows parties to conceal their policies and governing intentions while in opposition - then, if elected to office, to govern piece-by-piece through legislation; forcing journalists and others to act as translators and interpreters between these fragments and our attempts at building a macro-impression of that party's intentions.

And so, as these things cloud our vision, we're robbed of the oversight for which Mill described opposition as necessary.

==========
References:
==========
+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

+ Michael Cohen's 'Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?'; in The Guardian; 9 June 2012.

+ Caroline Lucas' 'Labour's lack of alternative vision'; in The Guardian - Letters; 15 January 2012.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Jon Cruddas to co-ordinate Labour's policy review'; in The Guardian; 15 May 2012.