Beliefs

…of optimism – if I may (though not, sadly, for the short term!).

Political events on either side of the Atlantic over the past months have left those of centre and left of centre persuasions reeling. The next few years are going to be bloody; there is no getting away from it. There is also, sadly, little that can be done to improve matters in the short term.

It is, however, time to start looking beyond this immediate grim future… and therein – I believe – will be discovered the tender shoots of optimism. By way of explication of this unlikely notion I must first needs muse a while on that oft abused ‘philosophy’ – Neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism has its roots considerable further back than the 1980s, but it was during that harsh decade that it reappeared renewed in its most virulent and corrosive form. The petrol crisis of the early 1970s that ended the long boom of the post war years led directly to the 1973/74 stock market crash and the 1974/75 recession. The years of discontent that followed unbolted the door to conservatives on both sides of the pond and they gleefully kicked it in. Carried to power on a now familiar wave of populism Thatcher and Reagan led the forces of the right on a rampage through the economies of UK and the US respectively – slashing regulation, selling off the family jewels, disposing of the unions and setting in motion the destruction of long established manufacturing industries.

So powerful was this tidal flow that in the UK the left was swept away on a tsunami of free market ideation. For a decade and a half it looked as though there would never again be a route to power for left and centre left parties. In the end the Labour party re-imagined itself (as did the Democratic Party in the US – though it had considerably less far to travel) as a party of the centre by adopting much of the ideology of the right. The much vaunted ‘third way‘ claimed to offer the benefits of both sides – the market discipline of the right with the social conscience of the left. Once the Tory Party in the UK had succumbed in its usual manner to avarice and corruption this cocktail brought New Labour victory in three successive elections.

The problem was that the ‘third way‘ was not actually a third way at all, but one of the original two ways with a slightly better user interface. In fact the centre parties on both sides of the pond had actually swallowed Neoliberalism hook, line and sinker. It may perhaps be that some thinkers on the left (and of the centre) thought that the creature could be tamed. They were to discover to their cost that it could not.

Though the true nature of the beast might have been determined from the start had anyone looked closely enough it took the financial crash of 2008 to finally bring home the repellent side effects. By opening the world to unfettered global trade (much aided by advances in technology) Neoliberalism enabled corporations and individuals to effectively detach themselves from individual nation states and thus to remove themselves from political influence and control. This trend has had many unpleasant consequences, not the least of which is that those concerned now pretty much only pay taxes when, where and to whatever level they feel inclined. This inevitably only increases the ever growing divide between the less than 1% and the rest of us.

The financial crash itself was enabled by totally inadequate regulation of the worldwide financial system; a result of decades of compromise and of paring back. This only encouraged the arrogant beliefs on the part of those immediately concerned that the credit bubble by which means growth had been ‘sustained’ into the new millennium might be extended indefinitely through sharp practice…

…which brings us smartly up to date with Brexit and the US Presidential Election. The unexpected outcomes of those ballots were not only the result of the lost millions expressing their anger at being left behind by the ever increasing inequality, but more so that those souls (along with many others who might themselves actually have done reasonably well) were left feeling utterly powerless to influence events through the democratic process, since that process itself – as a direct result of the Neoliberal agenda – was no longer able so to do. Little wonder then that when an opportunity presented itself to raise a finger (or two) to those seen as representatives or lackeys of the ‘elites’ the electorates grasped the chance with both hands.

Yes – I do realise that this peroration has thus far not exactly exuded optimism. Well – here’s the nub…

What has transpired this year has been a massive wake-up call. In neither the UK nor the US can politics carry on being ‘business as usual’. That model is broken. What now needs urgently to happen is that the centre and the left of centre must start over and build themselves completely afresh – learning not only from what has happened, but also from how and why it happened. This represents a huge opportunity – such perhaps as has not been presented since the end of the second world war. And – concerning that prospect – I feel optimistic.

Thinking caps on…

…flame off!

And you may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
And you may ask yourself
Where does that highway go to?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right?…Am I wrong?
And you may say to yourself
My God!…What have I done?!

“Once in a Lifetime” – David Byrne, Brian Eno, Chris Frantz, Jerry Harrison and Tina Weymouth

I have not been averse – within the bounds of these jottings – to venturing occasional comment on matters relating to current affairs. My motivation for so doing – it must be said – is usually engendered by feelings akin to horror and even despair at the manner in which at least some of the inhabitants of this fragile planet choose to conduct their (and by extension our) affairs.

I have made no comment thus far on the 2016 American Presidential Election. In common with many on this side of the border I find myself watching in fascinated horror the interminable slow-motion train wreck that has been what feels like the longest electoral contest in history. How can the observer not be rendered slack-jawed at the effect on the campaign of the extensive computer hacking by unidentified foreign agencies – or of the farcical on-again/off-again (but very public!) enquiry by the FBI into the modus operandi of one of the candidates?

In a race in which neither of the leading contenders inspires much in the way of confidence there is – amongst many to whom I have spoken here –  frank disbelief that the Republican candidate could even have qualified to stand for office – given the outrageous and frankly libelous nature of many of his pronouncements – let alone to be yet in the race for the presidency.

It does make one wonder at the hordes of apparently immutable devotees who seem so determined to deal a blow to the American political system that they could be so utterly blinded to the nature of the beast that they intend to install in the White House. It seems that no logic – no rational debate – no reasoning can get through to them. Truth is meaningless to those capable of holding contemporaneously such totally antithetical beliefs.

It is impossible not to compare the situation in the US with that in the UK, which has itself appeared over the last few years equally determined to self-harm to the greatest degree possible. I have ventured previously some horrified comments on the apparent willingness on the part of a small majority of the population to take a gigantic and unprecedented gamble on the economic and social future of the nation – again apparently based on the hazy notion of turning itself into some chimerical wishful-thinking fantasy version of the country that never was, nor ever could be.

The latest twist in this self-destructive saga came at the end of last week when the UK High Court ruled that the British Parliament should be consulted and hold a vote before Article 50 (the mechanism that would lead to Britain leaving the European Union) could be triggered. The executive had intended to put this into effect without any such consultation. This piece of democratic common sense was greeted by some of the more repellent UK newspapers with headlines such as “Enemies of the People” over images of the judges involved. The deep irony that a key feature of the Brexit campaign was supposedly the return of sovereignty to the British Parliament was utterly lost on those apparently unable to think clearly through the fog of their own rage.

Given the real tragedies that are being played out in the Middle East and elsewhere it seems wrong to fixate on the political idiocies of first world nations – however much their antics may cause us to rend our garments and tear our hair.

Bah!

Enough seriousness, though. My next post will feature photos of BC in the autumn (fall!).

Promise!

In the first part of ‘Not fit for purpose‘ I wrote of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and of how, through the later Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), many of the Islamic states effectively opted out of any agreement to comply with the articles therein.

Lest anyone think that this be a polemic against the Islamic world alone let me be clear that I extend my critique to all states – be they based in religious or political dogma – that wilfully ignore the efforts of the international community to evolve a modus operandi by which the nations of the world might live at peace with one another. Putin’s Russia – as an example – is certainly not alone amongst secular states in displaying a fine disregard for the rights of others.

My discourse on the UDHR was – however – intended only as an introduction to the topic that I really want to address… that of the urgent need to find a way to prevent extremists of any hue from being able to co-opt the tenets and principles of faiths or political movements to suit their own despicable agendas – as happened the week  before last in Paris. This does – of course – presuppose the veracity of the condemnations of such atrocities as expressed by those whose beliefs and ideals have been traduced. Far be it from me to suggest that there might be occasions on which those who denounce the terrorists in public secretly support their actions in private – or at the very least sympathise with them.

The routes to radicalisation are complex and varied, and countries around the globe have thus far struggled to find ways to integrate those of contrary racial and religious backgrounds in such a way that the resentments and discrimination that can lead to ghettoisation and violence do not find fertile ground in which to breed. Whether these attempts follow the paths of multiculturalism or integration the results have, frankly, not been promising. Prejudice and poverty can be all to easily exploited by the dark forces that seek to prey upon those vulnerable to indoctrination.

Whereas it would be entirely iniquitous to hold religions or political movements responsible for the actions of the misguided minority who violate their teachings or beliefs – or indeed to expect those who follow these tenets in good faith to offer a solution to a problem that is not of their making – it would certainly assist matters if it were considerably more difficult than it is currently for the extremists to debase doctrines and dogmas in pursuit of their own agendas. In an entirely rational world this would involve revisiting and revising sacred and political texts and screeds to ensure that they do not contain ambiguities that might be so exploited.

The suggestion that ancient religious scriptures should be reworked would doubtless raise howls of protest – particularly from those who believe their own faith’s tenets to be carved in tablets of stone… this in spite of the fact that in virtually all instances the texts as we now know them are demonstrably the work of multiple authors and only took their current forms considerably later than the time that it is purported that they were written. It seems somewhat ironic that such canons have become progressively less flexible with regard to interpretation as the pace of change throughout the world outside has increased.

If such revision proves – as seems inevitable – too much to ask, then we should at least require – in the event of this sort of malign traduction – that those who deem themselves to be the guardians of such beliefs issue definitive interpretations of the tracts concerned – so that those on all sides who might otherwise become innocent victims of the extremists be offered at least some protection.

Failure to take any action simply re-inforces the view that such scriptures, screeds and dogmas be no longer fit for purpose in the modern world.

My last screed – posted in the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris – posited that further comment should perhaps wait until there had been some time for calm contemplation. This – of course – because the initial surge of emotion experienced might just have caused me to asseverate something in print that I might later have regretted.

That time has passed. One and a half have million people have shown their solidarity – on the wintery streets of Paris – with the victims of this crime and with the principles for which they stood. Much of great wisdom has been said and written regarding these terrible events by those vastly more qualified so to do than I. Though there are no easy answers I am well aware that those who burn to understand how such a tragedy could have come about in this day and age in one of the world’s great capitals will already have spent much time reading and researching. They will learn little that is new or of value from me.

This will, naturally, not stop me from addressing at least one issue – so if you feel inclined – read on… if not – feel free to move on!

In the course of an address in October 1995 the then Pope – John Paul II – described the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as “one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time”. Indeed the document – drafted by more than a dozen representatives from around the world and approved by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948 by 48 votes to 0 (with only 8 abstentions) – has garnered general approbation throughout much of the world and forms the basis of the International Bill of Rights which has been signed and ratified by more than 150 countries. The UDHR has influenced or been adopted into most national constitutions drafted since 1948, and the International Bill of Rights has become a fundamental element of international law.

The UDHR is intended to be neither a Western nor a Christian document, aiming to be both supra-national and supra-religious and being at pains to emphasise its universality. In spite of these efforts such criticisms as have been levelled against it uniformly declare that it be both Western and Christian in origin, and claim that it does not sufficiently take account of non-Western religious or political contexts. This – incidentally – in spite of the fact that many of the countries from which such criticism has emanated are in fact themselves signatories – though their compliance with the declaration might at best be described as ‘patchy’.

The truth of the matter is clearly that those states – and indeed religions – that approve neither of democracy nor of freedom of thought and expression are almost inevitably opposed to a doctrine that endorses both as inalienable rights. Neither concept is perfect, of course, but the vast majority of the world’s peoples – if not nations – manifestly believe them to offer the closest that it is possible to approach thereto.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference adopted its own human rights declaration in August 1990 – the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) –  as a response to the UHDR. Whereas many of the articles of which the CDHRI is comprised might seem familiar – derived as they are almost directly from the corresponding articles in the UHDR – the most important amongst them (including those referenced in my last post) have had added to them clauses such as – “except as provided for in the Shari’a”, “in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah” and “in accordance with the tenets of the shari’ah”. The CDHRI culminates with:

Article 24.

• All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

This renders the declaration subject to Islamic beliefs rather than being the universal code that had been intended and is far, far divorced from the founding purpose of the declaration, the origins of which emanated from the immediate post-war desire that the nations of the world should be able to live in peace, and from the belief that all human beings have as their birthright the basic freedoms by which that aspiration might be fulfilled.

Well – this started out as a simple post. I fear that there is more to be said and that a second epistle will be required…