RED BARON'S WORDS

Well this blog is prompted by an interesting point that bobred raised namely that in a democracy no-one is satisfied because everyone has to make compromises whereas in a dictatorship at least the one in charge is satisfied. OK this was in part I suspect a tongue in cheek remark but nevertheless it raises the question of what is the best method of government if there is such a thing or is it a case of looking for the best of a bad lot? I’m no expert but since this is my blog and not that of Vernon Bogdanor I shall put my views forward.

Let’s tackle those we know first and look at the pros and cons and see if that leads anywhere.

Democracy: In democracy the enfranchised (it would be a mistake to use a generic such as ‘everyone’ or ‘the people’ because this is almost always wrong from Greece to present day US/UK) vote their representatives into government to look after their interests, and therein lies the first problem, this structure already is fundamentally reactionary, for the enfranchised elect representatives for their own interests not primarily for the good of the majority. Thus those outside the system do not necessarily have any method of a voice for their interests. The disenfranchised can lobby for increased rights in a number of ways, they can seek to win round those already in the system to widen the scope of the franchise. This can usually take 2 forms, the genuine altruistic radical who fights for the equality because s/he believes it is correct to do so or the pragmatic rebel who believes it is necessary to throw the occasional bone to the masses in order to preserve the structure of the existing status quo. Another form of social change can be brought about by revolution, this doesn’t have to be a Russia 1917 style, it can be minor insurrection or civil disobedience or such like. Now the severity of this and the prospective success are not linked in the way one might think. In fact the effectiveness of such action is determined by how secure the ruling classes feel. Should their hold on power be strong they have many ways to avoid having to change such as politics and in a worst case scenario the military. If, however their grip on government is weak they will often try to put down any trouble in a more conciliatory way. Sometimes these mini-concessions are provided before such trouble, it is part of a strategy of social control, because the more pro-active the establishment is the easier it can shape social consciousness to prevent such rumblings below from ever happening.

Dictatorship: Now what we would assume is meant by dictatorship is a sort of inverse pyramid structure with a despot at the top who has in practise absolute power. In reality there are few circumstances where this simplistic view really holds water. Firstly one person cannot ever pull all the strings regardless of how much they might want to, they simply do not have the time. Thus what is generated is a series of mini-dictators who look after an individual area of policy, they have on a day to day basis autonomy but report to the dictator at the top on larger matters and at his/her bequest. This was certainly the case of Hitler in 1930’s Germany who had such a convuluted beaureacratic structure that it was often impossible to get day-to-day things done, there was a party structure which ran almost parallel to a state structure. Whilst my knowledge of the intricasies of Stalin’s time is less I suspect the MO was similar. The problem with Dictatorship is that you are dependent on the nature of a few select people, in certain matters they may be perceived to be benign, many Germans alive in the 1930’s thought that Hitler did much to ease the economic situation and provide employment. However they attributed this change to him and the NSdAP rather than looking at the global economic cycle and how war-footing economies work etc.

So what’s the difference, well in dictatorship people often do not have the illusion of a representative democracy, this means they have very little way of expressing their grievances but is the situation much different in a democracy? I would contend that it is simply a shift in who and how many hold the power, the actual representative side is a sham. look at Britain now, if you do not agree with middle-class neo-liberal politics and there are plenty of people who do not who would you vote for in an election, there is no real choice at the moment. [I hasten to add I sincerely hope that RESPECT will be able to offer at least some hope for this] If you take the US the way their system is structured the candidate in the presidential election who was voted for by the popular majority was not elected (and this is disregarding the Florida fiasco, the vote numbers issue is not under discussion) the way the electoral system is set out the final say rests with a fundamentally reactionary group hence the appointment of Bush. And yet where are the UN and EU election observers -if this had been in an African country you can bet your arse they’d be scrutinising the current election. Finally it’s not as if this is the first time irregularities have happened in the US, and Britain doesn’t even have a secret ballot so forgive me if I don’t buy into the democracy principle.

Next week: Communism and Anarchy

I was going to title this blog, what have we become but that would imply that we were once different and I don’t think we were.

I have watched 2 programs yesterday evening, one on Iraq after the invasion and the other on a racially motivated murder that took place in Texas in 1998.

My thoughts: Iraq first, the program was looking at the rebuilding of the country and the policing etc. The British military were having problems sorting out the situation in Basra because the people did not have the confidence in those who had been members of the previous police force but the British were having to use them because they were the only ones with the requisite training. It’s a sticky wicket I’ll grant you, but I would have liked the program to ask the ultimate question. WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT? You remove all the hierarchy and bomb the infrastructure out of a place how do you expect it to look and function. Did the US and the UK think that somehow things were just going to return to normal or what? I really don’t get it. It seems clear to me that the primary objective was to free-boot into the country remove the leadership secure the oil (and notice neither of these objectives have been as chaotic as the aftermath for the people of Iraq) What happened to the people and the country after the objectives were achieved must have been foreseen, if not then one must ask serious questions regarding the competence of the military leadership. Basically my theory is the did what they wanted knowing that they’d just busk the rest, it wasn’t so important and it’s not as if the Iraqi people can make too much of a fuss about it. Well, it appears the people are making as much fuss as they can in protest.

The second program was more disturbing perhaps because of the seeming ordinariness of the people in it. It detailed the murder of a black man by 3 white racists the actual facts of the murder were very distressing, suffice to say those who may be aware of Steve Biko in South Africa will understand the MO. They had a white film crew with the white population of the town and black film crew with the black population. I have to say the black population seemed more well-adjusted than the whites, there was none of the racism black to white that one might have expected. On the white side there was a lot of the old “I don’t think they should paint him (the victim) as this saintly man, don’t get me wrong I don’t agree with how he died but he wan’t the man they are painting him out to be.” This exact arguement I came across in Eltham after the murder of Stephen Lawrence some years ago. I worked there for a bit and worked with someone who knew Lawrence vaguely and their statement was almost word for word the same. It shocked me at the time, I have become a little more sanitised to it now as I have heard it in a number of cases since. One of the white guys was plastered in white supremacy tatoos, all over his upper torso, what angered me most of all was that his wife had a number of children from another father, this guy cannot fail to pass on some of his ideals or basic sway of his beliefs to these children, young children one just a baby. It makes my blood boil that this poor baby who is born with such innocence is likely to be polluted with the racist shite and like as not due to the tacit acceptance by many in the white community in such places this lunacy would never be beaten out of him before it took hold. Now I’m not going to put everything on the shoulders of this one guy, racism is not the product of an individual’s consciousness it is the product of a failing society. This guy as it happens appeared to go through something of a conversion towards the end of the program and apart from inter-racial marriage he claimed not to ‘have a problem with other races’. How sincere this is only he and his family may ever know.
The thing that caused me concern from the black and non-racist white community was their reaction to the sentencing. People celebrating the passing of a death sentence regardless of the circumstances fills me with deep discomfort. What of the relatives of the condemned? They are naturally given the same punishment as the relatives of the victim, both parties innocent but the second party put into this punishment because the state doesn’t really know what to do with the perpetrator. I cannot sanction the state taking a life of someone when they have condemned them for the crime of taking a life it just seems ludicrously simple an arguement to counter. Furthermore a deterrent? Well correct me if I’m wrong but the US has an extremely high murder rate despite capital punishment and many other countries have less of a problem despite the lack of this ultimate solution, or should that be ‘final solution’? Sorry is that a bit too extreme?

What I see is that society appears to make no progress in trying to increase understanding between communities, between races, cultures, creeds etc. this leads to a position of mistrust and insular behaviour on all sides and purely gives strength to the extremists who either benefit from people’s lack of desire to stop them or from the ignorance leading to heightened mistrust and fevour against one side or another. Look at the BNP in this country, they would like you to think that the reason life is shit is because Johnny Foreigner has come over here and taken the jobs and the benefits that would otherwise come to you. Granted they don’t say it in such stark terms anymore but try telling me that’s not what they think. Yes there are problems on all sides, yes the asian community in this country do often seem threatening because they cocoon themselves away from what is comically known as the ‘indigenous population’. Ask yourself why this may be? How many people when going to another country for a period of time more than just a holiday will buck against the trend to get to know the ex-pat population to combat homesickness? Do the British abroad learn someone else’s language, no they are one of the worst countries for not doing this. The concession British people abroad seem to make is if you don’t understand what I have said to you in English I’LL SAY THE SAME THING LOUDER, and…….possibly……slower……ac-cen-tu-a-ting-the-words-ver-ry-pat-ron-ising-ly, obviously if you are a foreigner in your own country you are deaf or a little slow or both. I quite understand the asian people in this country forming their own communities and helping each other etc. after all the Irish/Italians and Jews tend to do much the same. It is a community thing and THAT’s why the Brits don’t understand it. The danger is that too much time insulated from other cultures promotes the same mistrust and feeling but I think the Carribean and Asian 2nd generations have actually done a good job on the whole balancing what they perceive to be their British identity with their foreign heritage. The gift they give back is difficult to measure after all how many British meals did you eat this week using british ingredients as well? Do you only ever listen to music that eminated here? Even the classical stuff? Name more than 5 British classical composers, ok you can have Handel if it makes it any easier he’s kind of naturalised! Finally how many people who claim they’re British have any idea what their actual heritage is. You say you’re British… so do you mean a Celt or a Roman in which case you’re Italian, or an Anglo-Saxon (German) or a Jute (Danish) a Viking (Scandinavian) a Norman perhaps (French at the time of 1066 but previously norse). Good old followers of St. George eh, who was St. George then? He certainly never came anywhere near England and I think he was a Turk or such like tho’ I can’t remember exactly. You want an English patron Saint, you can’t have him, we already bagged St. Patrick ho ho ho!

Original Comments:

Bob Red made this comment,
a couple of dis-jointed points for you to consider, if they make any sense. Please read the first one carefully otherwise it may make me out to be something that im not.
What angers me is the fact that ‘johnny foreigner’ came over to our country to work when we needed them the most (ie. during the war) and then when it was over, all the brits expected their jobs back. Racism and stereotypical beliefs ensued, branding foreigners, muggers and thieves, whist the vast majority of foreigners continued to do exactly what they had been doing in this country for so long:
Working hard to dispel these rumours and myths, build communities, and generally try to get along with everyone.
Until, the younger generation came on the scene. This younger generation decided that they quite liked to be thought of as muggers and criminals, because it gave them respect. They thrived upon the fact that people were afraid of them, and generally went round with a huge chip on their shoulder, citing reasons for their attitude as slavery, even when they havent got a fucking clue what those times were really like. Single handedly they have torn down everything their parents and grandparents have worked so hard over the years to uphold, and that, quite frankly, is appaling. the question is, whos fault is it? is it the younger generation for being naieve, or have we as a country let them down by being so damn selfish?
I know where of I speak, my dad was one of those ‘johnny foreigners’ who came here and worked his arse off, and had to suffer the racist taunts and abuse.

Another point, and by no means am i setting any political preference here, is this:
Which clock is more accurate? One that is stuck at 12:00 all the time, or one that is 10 minutes fast?
The answer, is the clock stuck at 12:00 as twice a day, it will be spot on.
Apply that to the political scene:
Which is more fairer to the public? a democracy, or a dictatorship?
In a democracy, no one ever gets everything they truly want, but in a dictatorship at least one person does… the one in charge.

Maybe something to think about…

comment added :: {ts ‘2004-03-21 11:22:45’} GMT+01

Well, my last little rant felt good, I enjoyed it and felt liberated. I don’t quite know where the bile came from for this next one it sort of crept up on me.

Housing – Now this is obviously something everyone can give their 1/2p worth on so here’s mine. The situation regarding housing in this country is a shambles. Rents are too high for many people, landlords have far more rights than tennants and yet what is the alternative. Sure if you’re already on the housing ladder or you’re blessed with a credit balance of at least 5 figures it’s all tickety-boo but if not then the general opinion appears to be who gives a ….

There are a couple of things on renting that get my goat, the security deposit for one, you have to hand over money in case you trash the place, fair enough, but ostensibly because you’ve already paid the money and the landlord cashes it you are treated as having already trashed the place. I can’t think of another example where someone can take your money like this. The landlord can then turn around when you leave and claim that you did all this stuff to the property and you have precious little recourse to protest other than take them to court, more money outlaid on spec. It seems de rigeur now for lanlords to take money for general wear and tear which is not supposed to be the tennants responsibility. What about the council tax, make the bloody owner pay it, they own the house they will benefit from the proceeds of sales etc. ok perhaps a bit too extreme, but if it is someone’s second or subsequent house then it’s often just a moneyspinner, make them pay. Maybe you could bring a threshold in so that houses over a certain value the tax is paid by the landlord that would seem fair.

Buying a house, yeah good luck, heaven help you if you live in London, or your credit rating is dodgy or you just don’t want to take out something 6 times your salary etc. etc. What’s the politician’s answer, we’ll build “affordable housing’ in key areas, affordable to whom, I haven’t seen any figures and affordable is a very relative term. Who’s going to control the affordability? If an estate agent offers a house at an affordable price who’s to stop some git coming along and paying far more than the asking price? What about the facilities in the areas, are they being looked at. Where I live is one of these targetted areas and there already isn’t a GP list that hasn’t stopped taking patients and there are no NHS dentists who’ll take registration. The hospital has had a poor report, the council in their latest review has come out as one of the worst in the country, council tax last year went up by one of the highest percentages in the country and this is supposed to be an area they want to entice people into living, not bloody likely, most of us incumbants are looking for a way to get out!

And then you have the countryside mob, don’t build on our green fields etc. etc. Now I’m all for protection of the environment I really am, renewable enrgy and that. What winds me up is that most of these countryside lot are just nimbys they aren’t positive lobbying for housing for the poor on brown field sites and many of them don’t kick up a fuss when it comes to building luxury penthouses and the like it’s just that they don’t want the riff-raff. Now I don’t wish to generalise here, I’m not talking about the fluffies and the spikeys the direct action greenies etc., it’s the countryside alliance and the range-rover parish council brigade that I want shot. “56% say keep fox-hunting” my arse, 56% say keep fox-hunting as long as the hounds hunt the squire rather than the fox, now that I’d pay good money to see…tally-ho!