Public Scrutiny

Over a very nice dinner and a disproportionate amount of wine, I’ve ended up in a discussion with friends, some from the media, who were defending the role of the press in exercising public scrutiny of politicians. I believe public figures should be scrutinised with regards to the legitimacy and soundness of their actions, and that they should be held into account for how they carry out their public duties. But why are the media so obsessed with politicians’ personal lives? A politician’s sexual life, sexual orientation or use of drugs is not a public matter and I cannot see how it could be in the interest of democracy (much as I like keeping up to date with the party’s goss).
To claim that the personal life of public individuals matters smacks of hypocrisy, questions on sexuality signalled a prudish concern for a sexual morality of a bygone era. Questions relating to the private dimension of one’s life violate the right to privacy. It is our right to privacy that protects us from being asked similar questions at a job interview, for example. I wonder how my journalist friends would answer such questions, after all journalists too are public figures.
So, while the media were busying themselves revealing the scandalous lives of Lib Dem MPs, a Bill passed with very little clamour. It was the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (the most controversial legislation is generally hidden behind harmless and boring sounding titles).
The Bill makes possible for a Minister to reform any legislation by making an order and without going through Parliament. The Bill allows the Minister to amend, repeal or replace any legislation as the Minister ‘considers appropriate’. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation, although the bill itself can be subject to reform.
The Government, at first, reassured the Commons that they would not use orders for ‘controversial’ laws; however this has already been restricted to ‘highly controversial’ laws.
Being a matter of constitutional law, most MPs didn’t bother and neither did the press. Very few raised their voices, such as Lib Dem MP David Howarth and Daniel Finkelstein of The Times, and made it to the papers, although concerns had been expressed as in the paper from the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords (although perhaps not the most exciting reading).
After all, there has always been a belief, among the general public and the media, that the Government are acting for our own good, for our protection, and that they would not abuse their powers. That is why many find no fault in the current plans for ID cards (that have no constitutional safeguards), or terrorism legislation. The media are generally very tame and often cower under the blanket of ‘impartiality’. They play the government’s game, because terrorism makes good TV and anyway they are too busy ‘scrutinising’ the sex life of our MPs.
Has the Government convinced us all that we are under threat and that we need protection? A writing on the wall of a POW camp read:

Freedom is the feeling the protected will never know.

Paranoid Niall Ferguson - Complexity is the stuff of life

Not so long ago I was sent an article by Niall Ferguson entitled The origins of the Great War of 2007 and how it could have been prevented
The article relies heavily on the trite argument that a reluctant attitude to engaging in conflict with oppressive regimes is appeasement and has the potential for erupting into a ‘great war’. In effect, Ferguson is advocating a war against Iran in the name of spreading democracy, Iraq – part two. He’s a firm believer and does not seem to accept any other reality, like the descent of Iraq into civil war, the reluctance and obstruction of the US to allow democratic elections in Iraq and so on. Somehow I’m fascinated by such blind faith that sees no evil (in one camp at least) and reiterates its basic tenet of democratisation through the war on terror now re-branded ‘the long war’. Ferguson, alongside his neo-con friends, gives signs of paranoia. Unlike them, however, he’s an historian and historian should refrain from playing politics. His call to arms (against Iran) erases complexity from past and present reality with the brush of ideology. Ferguson argues in his work for a liberal empire (read USA) spreading democracy to oppressive regimes (albeit not those with nuclear capability) through active engagement (read ‘bombs’).
To spread democracy by waging war delegitimises democracy and takes away its very meaning. Democracy is founded on civil and political rights such as free speech and freedom of assembly; on a free press and an exchange with the outside world, and is exercised by civil society.
The ugly reality of oppressive regimes makes the process of democratisation difficult and particularly slow. Democratisation is not, alas, for the impatient or the obstinate. Ferguson is to historians what celebrity chefs are to professional chefs, they make up for their lack of talent with shouting.
If the neo-cons, like Ferguson, opened their eyes, they would see the discontent and frustration of Iranian youth, their aspirations for freedom, and the democratic reforms and moves (albeit weak and patchy) achieved in Iran in recent years, partly due to the efforts of the EU.
In fact, if European member states worked together in foreign policy instead of against one another, much more progress would have been made by now through ‘soft power’ to spread democracy. Iran has a complex reality (see article on Prospect) that needs not radicalising, but Ferguson likes simple ideas like the one of pre-emption to be implemented more or less only by the US on the alleged grounds of being a ‘liberal democracy’.
Simple ideas are dangerous. They essentialise certain aspects of reality while obliterating others. All is seen through the kaleidoscope of ideology with no regard for complexities, contradictions and plurality, the very essence of democracy. I’m reminded of a parable, of Nimrod wanting to build unity through dominance and control, through the tower of Babel. The only way out of anarchy was the annihilation of diversity, of different points of views and lifestyles. And God intervened and confounded their speech.