Scouting for Change. By Melinda Mabbutt
Last week (14th – 20th May) saw the return of the infamous Scout’s volunteering week, albeit in a revamped form. “Scout Community Week” is the new name for the original “bob-a-job week” which came to an end about 20 years ago. So why the name change? Well apparently it was time for a bit of re-branding in the Scouting community.
The previous idea of Scouts going house to house doing “odd jobs” for individuals has been tweaked so the Scouts are now being encouraged to do projects which will benefit whole communities. It’s volunteering on a larger scale, but the Scouts are working together in groups to get more done and they will be able to see the effect their hard work has on their local area. It also shows people unconnected to the Scouts that the movement is teaching children to selflessly give their time to help the communities they live in. Speaking prior to the start of the week, Chief Scout Bear Grylls seemed excited by the impact he believes it will have on the UK as a whole: “Working together we’re going to make a huge difference to communities up and down the country.”
They seem to have taken on board the Coalition Government’s “Big Society” idea, and why not? It fits very well with the Scouting ideals of helping others: Bear Grylls has been promoting the volunteering week by emphasising, “Volunteering is at the very heart of Scouting.” It is also of added benefit to the original concept of “bob-a-job” as this way it doesn’t run the risk of either letting the children pester their neighbours or leaving them vulnerable to any dangerous adults out there – something that some of their parents I expect would have been overly worried about otherwise.
However, perhaps this re-branding of the Scouting movement needs to be expanded to cover its membership, not just its projects. The National Secular Society has recently helped to highlight this need. The Society wrote an open letter to Bear Grylls which stated that the Scouting Association’s outdated Christian stance, including an induction which includes promising to “do my duty to God”, needs to be changed as it has been preventing atheist children from joining.
It’s interesting to note that the Scouts have already become more accepting of children from other, non-Christian, religious backgrounds. This can be noted from the increasing number of children from Muslim families joining the movement. However the National Secular Society now wants to see that welcoming nature extended to children from atheist families by allowing them to omit the “duty to God” line found in the Scout promise.
However one concern I have is that it is the parents who are speaking out – not the children. Aren’t children too young to be making the decision to believe (or not) in a God anyway? Trying to make them ‘pick a side’ is a bad idea as it implies they are old enough to make this type of decision, but most of them won’t be in a position to at that age.
Perhaps the best way to resolve the situation is to remove the line “duty to God” for everyone, even if they are from religious families. Parents may be pushing their beliefs on their child anyway (even unintentionally), plus the omission for all will help to avoid creating a divisive atmosphere from the outset as all the children will be taking the same promise when they join the movement.
Bear Grylls has previously stated: “Scouting has something to offer everyone, no matter your religion, ethnicity or belief, and I’m so proud that we offer an environment for people of all backgrounds to come together and enjoy themselves.” Now if this is truly something he, and the rest of the Scouting Association, believes in, all that needs to be done is to get that tiny mention of ‘God’ removed so that it becomes a truly inclusive movement.
It’s strange to think how one word, or one phrase, can make such a difference to how something is viewed, but it does…
Shortly after David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative party he published a grandiose policy statement, titled Built to Last in which he trailed the new compassionate conservatism that he hoped would define his leadership. The party’s 2010 election manifesto did indeed build upon the foundations that had been so broadly laid in Built to Last. The four year interval witnessed David Cameron rebrand the conservative party, moving it beyond the post-Thatcher slump while simultaneously attempting to appeal to a Thatcherite coalition with the rhetoric of a socially-aware Conservative party.
His success has been in transforming the political agenda from the behemoths of electoral politics – the welfare state, taxation, immigration, unemployment etc. – to a doctrinal approach based on values such as hard work, community spirit and the family structure. Of course, this is not a revolutionary idea; both Margaret Thatcher and John Major acknowledged the political currency of Victorian values. Thus far, Cameron has done a much better job of keeping the rhetoric of these values at the fore in times where the political debate could so easily have descended into a one-dimensional and predictable battle between left and right, austerity and growth, neo-Keynesianism and monetarism. In other words, the very same debate that every political generation has had since the 1930s.
Cynics may argue that the only reason Cameron has stuck to his socially liberal agenda is due to pressure from their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. This may very well be the case, but must remain a hypothetical scenario, for the consequence of a coalition founded on principles of social equality has been a marked success in bringing British politics off its pedestal and into the daily lives of the public.
Two episodes in the past week have demonstrated the coalition’s attempts to elevate and politicise basic political issues and attempt to seize the initiative on valence-issues as yet unclaimed by the major parties.
Firstly, David Cameron announced that he plans to increase availability and funding to parenting classes. Appealing to reason and common sense, Cameron claimed he wanted to make the courses as important as driving lessons. He pre-emptively struck at his critics, concluding this was not the nanny-state, but the sensible-state. It hasn’t quite got the tabloid-friendly zing, but nevertheless this is a savvy move to promote conservative values and renew the momentum behind the floundering Big Society campaign. This is simply the latest in a long line of under-the-radar initiatives that the government has triumphed in a bid to rewrite the rules of politics and prove that the big issues are not the only issues (Please see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2012/may/08/big-society-achieved-a-lot-really-claim-ministers for a list of policies that fall under the umbrella ‘Big Society’ campaign).
Not content with changing the rhetorical agenda, the government this week announced its intentions to bring politics to the people by urging ministers and civil servants to make use of social media. Bureaucrats are being asked to engage the public in crucial debates from the comforts of their armchairs as it is believed this will reconnect the electorate with the decision-making process at the highest levels. At first inspection, the benefits of embracing new forms of social media appear debatable. Firstly, there is the obvious, albeit rather crude question over whether the public really care about the daily grind of lowly civil servants. Of course, ministers and senior departmental figures have something genuinely interesting and important to offer the general public in the form of social media. But it will be self-defeating and inefficient if this results in every Joe Bloggs from every department spending hours debating the crucial questions with all of his thirty-eight followers on Twitter until 2 a.m.
Furthermore, the process of Whitehall decision making runs contrary to the reactionary and confrontational nature that seems to be the essence of social media, Twitter especially. ‘Debate’ in 140 characters very quickly descends to unprintable insults and may only serve to further alienate the public from decision-making. To counter this, civil servants have been advised to ignore all controversial topics, and not engage in argumentative discussions with their followers. However, the potential for embarrassment remains great.
There is always a whiff of pandering and dumbing-down when politicians try to engage with the emergence of new forms of communication. Something akin to your dad signing up to Facebook, or your grandparents trying to navigate their way around the Sky+ remote – you don’t want them to learn, and they don’t want to understand. Nevertheless, the government’s acknowledgment of the importance of new media forms has been quick and is part of a broader scheme to humanise politics. In this respect, David Cameron is harnessing the power of individuality to promote his new low-brow, common-sense approach to domestic politics.
My research project for my masters’ dissertation focuses on the policy responses to the 2011 English riots and I am shocked at how little policy developments have taken place as a consequence of the disorder especially in relation to social policy. This is particularly true when you consider the initial level of activity and the amount of policy ideas which were flirted with.
The government’s flagship policy is their Troubled Families Programme headed by former respect ‘tsar’ Louise Casey and aims to ‘turn around’ the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families by the end of this Parliament. These families are identified by Councils according to the number of criteria the meet which includes things like persistent truancy, school exclusion, criminal convictions and unemployment. It is hoped providing families with a single caseworker and a tailored plan of action will help them tackle the root causes of their problems. However concerns have been raised in regards to funding with the government only stumping up 40% of the costs, with councils and the third sector expected to find the remaining 60% but this is at time when their budgets are being cut by 9%. There are even fears that government money will not cover the intended 40%.
Another flagship initiative is the National Citizen Service (NCS) , a summer programme for sixteen year olds in which they complete a variety of tasks both in a residential setting and within their local communities. It is designed to act as a gateway to the Big Society and foster the skills and attitudes needed for participants to become more engaged in their communities. But NCS is also about preparing young people for the future. It will equip participants with the values, skills and confidence needed to succeed in life such as team-work, discipline and responsibility. Cabinet Office Minister Nick Hurd went as far to say; “No NCS graduate would have got involved in those riots.” The programme was piloted before the riots and following the unrest it was announced that NCS places are to treble to 90,000 by 2014, with Cameron envisaging that it will eventually be available to every sixteen year old and become a “rite of passage.” Another development in relation to youth policy is the announcement that the government has awarded a £10million grant over two years and a half years to increase the reach of youth services in areas of high deprivation where little similar opportunities currently exist. The grant is to be administered by Youth United, a coalition of youth organisations established by the Prince of Wales in 2009 and is expected to fund the training of 2700 volunteer leaders, making it possible for 10,000 young people to join and benefit from organisations such as The Scouts and Army Cadets.
In addition, the riot policy response has also taken the form of a £50miilion Summer Schools Programme which aims to stop struggling children from falling through the cracks in the transition from primary to secondary school. Yet not every measure has been as accommodating as the above. For instance, in regards to Education, following a review into attendance by behavioural expert Charlie Taylor the government announced it will increase the amount headteahcers can fine parents of persistent truants from £50 to £60. Moreover one of the more controversial riot responses involves increasing the amount of benefits that can be withdrawn from people who commit crimes in order to pay their fines. The proposals which will come into effect in 2013 will see the maximum amount that can be taken from recipients increase from £5 to £25, with the courts deciding on the exact amount. Finally, the government also added measures to evict convicted rioters from social housing to an existing consultation launched only days before the riots. It would mean a court may grant possession where a tenant or member of their household has been convicted of violence against property or violence against persons at a scene of violent disorder or theft. Crucially, there would also be no requirement that the offence had been committed in the locality of the property; it would include acts which occur beyond the immediate neighbourhood. In other words, some of the acts committed during the unrest.
Given the scale of the unrest I find myself asking is this it? Are these the measures which the government really thinks are going to prevent future riots from happening? Yet not only I am shocked at the short-term policies put forward by government but also by how the riots have slipped off the radar of all parties and for the most part, the media and public also. Unfortunately for British society it appears that to date (8 months after the event) the worst instance of social unrest in a generation has had little impact on the social policy agenda of central government but also the political/social agenda of the country as a whole.
Stand up, Speak up! By Sajidah Patel
The recent conviction of nine Asian men in the child sex-grooming case has again bought to light the reluctance of the police and the government to take a stand in the fear of being branded ‘racist’.
Political correctness is being taken to an extreme by the State. From forced marriages and honour killings to child sex-grooming, the governments reluctance to do something about these hideous crimes is beginning to affect the whole country at large. The government has no reason to fear being branded ‘racist’ because they are standing up for the right of every man, woman and child to live in peace without fearing for their safety. A crime is a crime no matter what the colour or ethnic background of the criminal is. Criminals should be judged on their crime, not their colour.
The governments and police stance on Political correctness is putting the lives of young girls at risk at the hands of men who believe they can treat girls inhumanly. Demeaning and using them for their dirty cravings. Men who pry on young girls just because they are not from the same ethnic background as them or do not follow the same religion as them should not be allowed to believe they will be able to get away with. Men can’t be allowed to get away with this kind of behaviour just because the government and police are afraid to take a stand. The police and government have to do more to encourage communities who know what’s going to speak out. They have to encourage members of the community to talk to the police instead of hiding behind closed doors in fear of ‘shaming’ their fellow community members. The government have to increase awareness of what’s going on inside certain communities, so the public can become more alert to what’s happening around them and report any suspicion they may have. Tougher laws and rules have to be made. Unless there is fear of being caught and held to account these atrocious crimes will continue and many more young girls will suffer.
Force marriages, honour killings and sex grooming can not be wiped under the carpet, it has to be stood up to and tackled. The fragility surrounding ‘political correctness’ has to be diminished to move forward and fight the problems our society is facing today.
@SajP10
Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged. By Melinda Mabbutt
This week, the Department of Justice announced plans which they hope will help make more women and black or minority ethnics (BME) become top judges. The plans would both encourage more people from these groups to apply (they would introduce more flexible working hours) and would assist them in the selection process (“positive action” would mean interviewers are encouraged to select someone from an under-represented group).
It’s unsurprising to hear these plans being introduced as we are often told measures are being considered to promote the need to employ people from a wider range of backgrounds. It’s not uncommon to hear someone coming out to say “there aren’t enough women on the executive boards of big companies” or “those from ethnic minorities are under-represented in certain professions”. But why is it such a prevalent concern?
The problem can stem from the persistent domination of cultural stereotypes, meaning fewer people from certain backgrounds will apply for certain jobs: for example, fewer women do manual labour and fewer men work in the ‘caring’ professions such as teaching and nursing.
Do judges really need to represent wider society though? Surely the most important thing is that they are good at their job? In fact, in order for a judge to remain unbiased, I think it would be much better for them to not try and find things in common with the people they are employed to judge. Those employed within the judicial system should be able to distance themselves from the cases they are working on. This ensures they maintain an air of professionalism and are able to act out their duties without being swayed by any emotional attachments they may develop if they started seeing themselves as a judge who was in place to represent women, for example.
Secretary of State for Justice, Ken Clarke, did point out that the government is aware of the need to “continue to recruit the very best judges”, but also expressed a desire to “do what we can encourage top applicants from a diverse range of backgrounds so that the judiciary better reflects society”. Looking at the bare statistics, it does seem as if certain types of people aren’t succeeding or are just put off going into the profession: less than 15% of senior judges are female and only 3% are of black or Asian heritage (source: BBC News).
However, whilst it is common for people to talk about whether certain industries represent society in physical attributes (gender, racial, disabilities), you never hear a similar discussion about more representation of homosexuals or certain political ideologies, mainly because they are ‘hidden’. In the same way, racial attributes take priority over religious representation because a Muslim who has an Asian skin colouring is more obvious to the outside world than someone who is a white Muslim (assuming they aren’t wearing anything that would identify them as a practising Muslim).
Another complaint which the media often like to bring up is that politicians should be more representative of the electorate. The current angle of this argument has been about how the majority of the cabinet went to public school and/or are Oxbridge graduates. Now, whilst I do agree that our politicians should be able to represent the public’s views, which may at times be in contradiction to their own, but they don’t need to have led the same life or to look the same (or to share the same religion, etc.) as the rest of their constituency. Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected to represent our interests, concerns, and viewpoints to the government, not our lives. MPs are our “delegates” – they speak and act on our behalf. We have recently started thinking that their representative role should encompass being physically representative of the society they represent, but this is simply not in the job description and it never was.
Also, even though those people who want measures such as “positive action” (sometimes known as “positive discrimination”) introduced as an aid to those who are under-represented in certain professions, particular at a senior level, these good-natured people might actually being more harm than good. As a woman, I can say that I would much prefer to feel that I got a job or received a promotion because I had shown that I was the best person for the job rather than always having the sneaking suspicion that I was there simply to “make up the numbers” and show that the company in question was trying to portray itself as one that will employ anyone from any background. Of course, I do believe in equality of the opportunity to apply for a job in any profession at any level, just not in equality of achievement as not all who apply will be deserving. After all, if everyone got a promotion, it would simply render your own promotion meaningless wouldn’t it?
This May the twenty eight NATO members together with invited organisations and thirteen NATO-partner countries convene in Chicago for what will be the largest summit since its foundation in 1949. The participants will discuss the transition of power in Afghanistan by 2014. Responsibility for the nation’s security will then be handed over to the Afghan government, while NATO contingents maintain a supporting role. But will the Afghan government be able to uphold if not improve the level of security and carry on with democratisation and modernisation of the country?
After over a decade of war and occupation, the Islamic nation introduced democratic structures and rule of law. But their implementation is limited, as many Afghan tribal areas established their own independent system of governance and the Taliban uphold strongholds in numerous areas. A high level of corruption and nationalist currents within President Karzai’s inner circle hinder the progress of fully introducing democracy, and Afghanistan’s human rights record remains poor. Due to the precarious security situation the general reconstruction of the country progresses at slow pace and most areas lack even the most basic infrastructure. This hinders the country to build a sustainable economy, although it could benefit from exploiting its national resource deposits. While the economic potential of Afghanistan remains untapped, its shadow economy flourishes: ninety per cent of the world’s opium supply is produced by the tribal nation, along with a considerable amount of hashish. While providing a livelihood for farmers and traffickers, the narcotic substances exacerbate the already strained relationships with Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries, in addition to border disputes and quarrels over Helmand river water supplies.
It seems as if the initial goals of the NATO forces for Afghanistan, democracy and rule of law, respect for human rights and a stable security situation are still far from being reached. The upcoming NATO summit might not contribute significantly to their implementation, at least not in the foreseeable future, as the electorate of NATO member countries grows increasingly weary of the on-going conflict at the Hindu Kush. This might impact the extend of direly needed foreign aid, on which Afghanistan is still heavily depended and which could be used as a leverage for improving the human rights situation and investment in infrastructure. The joint statement signed by President Obama and his Afghan counterpart at the beginning of this month does not commit the US to a specific amount of financial help or number of troops remaining in the country after 2014. If the participants of the upcoming NATO summit negotiate equally vague agreements, a stable future for Afghanistan will remain distant and once more, western nations have failed to bring about lasting stability to the so-called graveyard of empires.
No more sick and hide Mr. Officer. Internet and para-state mechanisms in Greek elections. By Spyros Kouvoussis
Most of you might read or heard the result of the Greek elections which took place a week ago. The analysis is pretty obvious, Greeks fed up from their regular politicians chose to send them home and gave much power to the left and the Nazis. In this article, I will focus on how the Nazis managed to get high votes in areas where not a single immigrant lives and the way internet influenced these elections.
Nazis entered the public debate in Greece the last couple of years when they started creating a “citizens committee” in central Athens with high criminal rates and a lot of immigrants. They created a militia that “protects the area” from immigrants and petty-thief and they help the elderly, mainly by protecting them when going to the bank or carrying their shopping from supermarkets. They also beat immigrants or Greeks which do not look “clean cut”. So, what you would expect is scoring high in areas populated heavily by immigrants. Generally, that was true. In the centre of Athens their percentage was almost double their national. If you look closer though in the results published by the Ministry of Interior, the image is a bit different. The highest percentage they received was not in central Athens but where police officers vote there along with other citizens. The electoral system in Greece gives the right to any voter to chose where he wants to vote declaring it way before the elections. If you do not want or cannot go to the place you are registered, you can ask and vote in the area you live in. This is the case for most police officers stationed in Athens as most of them come from other cities but vote in Athens for reasons of easiness. Statistics are shocking to anyone unfamiliar with the situation; in places where police officers voted, the Nazis received even 4 times higher percentage than their national. Related to the number of police officers registered in each elections station statistics show that the majority of police officers in cities, where they vote all together in special catalogues, actually voted the Nazis by 45%-59%. The police acted as party mechanism spreading the ideology and convincing people to vote for them. This explains the appeal of the party in islands which depend massively on foreign tourists or in rural areas in Northern Greece where local farmers invite immigrant workers with fixed contracts from Albania.
An element that played a crucial role in these elections was Internet. Not so much to advertise politicians or parties but to inform older and less politically active voters what was really happening in major cities with protests and social movements. Last two years have seen huge social unrest with huge protests which even reached 800,000 people in Athens, a city of 3 million inhabitants. Government has reacted violently with clashes taking place in Athens and other major cities. Pictures and videos from the clashes and police brutality never made it to mainstream Media. The reason is simple. Mainstream Medias are part of bigger corporations which have specific interests to support the Memoranda. Videos with police brutality, unprovoked attacks and vicious “law enforcement” made it to most voters rapidly delegitimizing mainstream Medias and the political leaders of the two main parties who insisted on talking about “small minorities”. Especially the Conservatives’ leader, Antonis Samaras, played the card of “law and order”. He insisted talking about “small minorities who protest and don’t let us go to work” and that “the ideological terrorism of the Left gave rise to anarchism”. He insisted that he would use plastic bullets, water cannons and all possible laws to minimize the effect of protesting. His speeches showed that he was either out of reality or he wanted to rally behind him voters who thought that protests should put down. It did not work. Videos of protesters in their 50’s or 60’s being beat up by armed police officers, 8year old kids being terrorized by the police and every kind of police brutality you can imagine went public through social medias. Facebook, twitter, and other social Medias showed that accusing the police of brutality is not something “left wings do” but it was a real accusation with hundreds examples. These two years hatred towards the police in general and especially towards the riot police mounted so much that even police officers started accusing the riot police for being too violent or keeping distances from it saying “we are not all like that”. The Conservative’s leader could not or did not want to see that. The result was devastating. In 2009 his party scored 33,50%, the worst ever up to that day. In 2011 it scored 18,85%. Seems to me protestors are not a minority Mr. Samaras.
Both elements show that the political scene in Greece is changing rapidly. A politicized police of that degree and extremism can only go hand to hand with brutality, repression and even more violence. Internet and its wide spreading use acts as a channel of information against that brutality and extremism. Not surprisingly, the Conservative’s leader had said before the elections that he wants to pull down sites hosted in university campus, mostly leftwing. Sunday showed that it was the “small minorities” who pulled down the Conservative’s dream.
Foreign flags at La Bastille. By Philippe Labrecque
The results came down officially at 8pm on May 6th, confirming what most predicted. Incumbent French President Nicolas Sarkozy was defeated by the Socialist candidate, François Hollande.
The defeat of Nicolas Sarkozy and it’s center-right party, the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), meant that the victorious celebrations by newly elected François Hollande and the left wing Socialist Party would be held at Place de la Bastille, emblem of the French Revolution and a memorial of the taking of the fortress that many consider the symbol of the end of the French Monarchy and the Old Regime.
I was present at La Bastille on May 6th and anyone else there for the celebrations could not help but notice that France’s flag, the Tricolore, was scarcely seen, while flags from multiple countries and every political party from the left were numerous and flying high. The next morning, Nadine Morano, Minister of Learning and Vocational training and member of the defeated Sarkozy administration, as well as Louis Aliot, Vice president of the far-right National Front, criticized the number of “red flags and foreign flags” and the absence of the Tricolore at La Bastille.
It didn’t take much to ignite the debate and, sadly, the French media reverted quickly to its left and right wing biases as the left attacked the right with poorly veiled insults of xenophobia while the right denounced the clannishness of French society and politics. Although one could explain the revolutionary red flags’ presence due to the victory of the Socialist party, the presence of foreign flags made many feel uncomfortable.
It is fair to say that it was not the Greek, Spanish or even the Québec flags that made some feel uncomfortable but the Algerian, Tunisian, Moroccan, Turkish, Palestinian and even the Syrian and Iraqi flags that created the polemic. Some saw this display of internationalism as positive and a success of the left’s ability to unite people of many origins as oppose to the divisive strategy of the right based on patriotism and a mild form of nationalism during those presidential elections. There is, however, a more profound issue beyond the mere display of foreign flags than what the mainstream left and right care to argue beyond their typical, mutual insults.
Indeed, it was no coincidence that they were no Israeli flag flown over La Bastille while many flags from predominantly Muslim countries could be seen. Pierre Bréchon, professor at Sciences Po Grenoble argues in the national newspapers Le Figaro, that religion is, by far, the most important factor in explaining the results of the elections. The Figaro reported the day after Hollande’s victory that 92% of eligible voters in Israel voted for Nicolas Sarkozy, while in Ramallah, in the Palestinian territories, Hollande received the support of 83% of eligible voters. In France, polls show that nearly 80% of practicing Catholics voted Sarkozy while 93% of practicing Muslims gave their support to Hollande.
Such numbers are not entirely surprising. Sarkozy led campaigns in 2007 and 2012 that many judged hostile to immigration in general but especially to people of Algerian, Tunisian and Moroccan origins. What’s interesting, is that those same polls demonstrate that voters that identified as practicing Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews, share similar conservative values in line with the right’s values when it comes to sensitive issues such as gay marriage, abortion and strong family values to name only a few. However, numbers show that of those four religious groups, only Muslims vote massively to the left, most likely due to the latter more positive and less confrontational attitude towards immigration from the Maghreb and Sub-Saharan Africa especially.
As Pierre Bréchon mentions, if anything can be taken from the Muslim vote in France, it’s its rate of abstention that is much higher than average. Perhaps, the right and the left are mutually responsible for that high abstention rate amongst Muslims. One could argue that the left’s ideological barriers prevents it from matching the conservative views of practicing Muslims. The right’s return to its traditional role of defender of the French identity that often includes its Christian roots combined with its increasingly anti-immigration stance at least since Nicolas Sarkozy became Minister of the Interior in 2005, leaves immigrants from the last 30 or 40 years and practicing Muslims with very few options when it comes to voting.
Even non-religious voters waved their flags frantically during the night of May 6th, but their flags were those of the different parties of the left as Pierre Bréchon reports that 70% of self-identified non-religious voters supported Hollande. If many here in France argued that Hollande was elected to fight unemployment, then the religious influences would most likely be less important as economics cuts across all classes and religious groups. Perhaps, non-religious voters were the most influenced by economic issues and judged Sarkozy’s tenure as President as a failure while Hollande could take on the economic crisis more efficiently and re-start the French economy.
The foreign flag controversy, therefore, was not merely an innocent occurrence but highlighted the religious fault lines that cut across French society. If France is to tackle its issues with identity, its colonial heritage and its large Muslim population, then maybe it is time to acknowledge that neither the right nor the left nor the media, has done anything in the last few years to truly help break sectarian divisions amongst the French.
The race for the presidency of the United States of America has begun. Mitt Romney emerged as the presumptive candidate after defeating his opponents one by one, many admitting defeat and suspending their campaigns, unwilling to fight until the end. He now sits as the Republicans opponent to the incumbent Obama. It’s a race, which currently the polls place very close; it’s a race of the incumbent vs. the conservative. With no clear winner, the following months until November 2012 are set to be full of intense campaigning, heated debates and cut-throat commentary but who is ready; if either, for the presidency.
After his defeat in 2008, it was only right that Mitt Romney would emerge as the presumptive candidate for the Republicans, the rule goes that those defeated in previous campaigns wait in line for the next time, Romney has done so successfully. He was always seen as the main contender and only real candidate from day one. But his sceptics have remained throughout. The fears that he is not conservative enough buzz through the Republican party, he does little to deter this image with a moderate stance on homosexuality and abortion, as well as the notorious health care bill that resembles much of Obama’s. This bill continues to haunt and dog Romney as does the calls of his suspected Mormon values.
But that aside, Romney is seen as strong. Starting with the basics, he perfectly fits the look of a traditional president, he has a strong political route to this day, his father famously lost the Republican nomination and he has been a governor for some time. He also boasts credentials as a successful businessman. He is noted to be a technocrat and would run the US like a company, the CEO-President some say. Something many feel is needed in the harsh economic times. Romney’s campaign is based on creating jobs and stimulating the economy, repairing the US to growth and development. A successful businessman who will run America as a technocratic entrepreneurial president with the knowledge of how to kick start the economy. Further Romney also does possess a regarded quality. His resilience. After being defeated in the 2008 Republican presidential campaign by Jon McCain, Mitt still pursued a second attempt to which he has now emerged as the presumptive winner.
Further to that, he has faced barrages of scepticism, hunt’s for alternatives, demand for a different approach and through it all, he stands as the candidate to oppose Obama, with such resilience so far, he looks set to fight to the very end, for every vote.
Romney is looking strong, similar to that of Obama in 2008, he is carrying momentum, which is increasing daily. Opponents from his own party are beginning to rally behind him knowing the only way to the white house is to support the more liberal conservative. And most importantly Romney’s campaign is aided by the fact that Barack Obama hasn’t exactly had the most impressive term in office, amongst high unemployment, low economic growth and huge opposition from a dominantly Republican House, Barack has had few moments to celebrate as President. He has lost much of the support that landed him into office in 2008, and he has little to promote his 2012 campaign with.
Obama as the incumbent has looked increasingly unsteady, recent polls differ with varying results, but all offer a close race. Obama is on the back foot, he has everything to loose, and with little credit to his last four years, Obama is seen as fumbling in opposition, attacking Romney rather than his policy. Many see past the charisma that carried him before, the speeches with humble messages of change. Obama has not delivered, and he shows no signs of future deliverance. From this analysis, the result seems clean cut, Romney as president, Obama has done little and fumbled, he is on the back foot. 2012 is Romney’s for the taking, he just faces one last problem, It’s not the choice between Obama of himself, the incumbent or the conservative. But the question for the American electorate is ‘Is America ready for a Republican President again?’
Through many decades, through many genres, there were songs with important points to make. From ‘Strange Fruit’ performed by Billie Holiday, and written about racist killings, to Bob Dylan’s ‘All Along the Watchtower’ in protest to the Vietnam War, to the Sex Pistols’ ‘God Save the Queen’, to pretty much anything by Billy Bragg. These songs were (and still are) seminal pieces of political commentary, but we would be hard-pushed to find such examples in modern popular music.
Has music lost its conscience? I am inclined to agree with this- at least in respect of the music that charts in the UK Top 40, which seems to exclusively be about superficial love, sex, teeny-bop fun, and getting wasted. You wouldn’t find Rihanna or Beyonce or Nicki Minaj or Chris Brown or Katy Perry or the various other interchangeable faces of vapid “music” writing a protest song about the War in Afghanistan, or austerity measures, or the plight of Third World child labourers. And yet these artists are happy to perform at charity gigs or meet underprivileged children for a publicity stunt. Unfortunately that is a symptom of the empty, vacuous, insipid, shallow, and superficial society in which we live.
In other cultures, where the plight is greater, so is the presence of politically-driven music. For example, there is a prominent punk movement in Central and Eastern Europe in response to the post-communist lack of economic prosperity that was thought to be guaranteed by overthrowing the Soviets. That said it isn’t as if we in the West have nothing to complain about- poverty, corruption, job losses, inequality, injustice, and so forth. We live in a bubble of apathy, pacifying fear, and ignorance- no one seems to care anymore.
Not all music should be political but is it so much to want for a social conscious or intelligent musical elite that really want to change the world with their songs?
There are sporadic rays of light, and I feel compelled to share my personal findings of exceptional political music with you. We have Frank Turner. He is probably the only musician to have successfully melded punk and folk- he plays acoustic guitar with the aggression of punk, with melodic and intelligent lyrics that bring both a sad clarity and an aspirational revolutionary spirit. Not to mention that he is gorgeous and could get anyone interested in politics with a wink and a smile.
We have Everything Everything, who are relative newcomers to music and a favourite of the NME and ex-Shadow Chancellor Alan Johnson. Their message is subtle and understated, but it is there. Obviously we still have Bob Dylan, Billy Bragg, the Sub Humans, and Beans on Toast. The problem is that those who buy music that charts are largely unaware of such acts and political messages in songs do not appeal to them. Protest songs mobilised great swathes of the population to action in the 1960s and struck a chord, but many do not seem to care or get fired up by world events any more. It is such a shame because those movements (fuelled by anthems such as John Lennon’s ‘Give Peace a Chance’) did change the world.
Call to arms through music can be extraordinary, and yet simple. For instance, the American folk singer Willy Mason wrote a song called ‘Oxygen’. It has simple rhymes and anthemic sing-along choruses urging an end to apathy and the need for direct action, as well as hope and encouragement to take responsibility for our own future. But has anyone heard it? Did it even chart in the UK or US main charts? How many people who have heard it does it resonate with?
All is not lost because when the apathy is overcome, magical things can happen. We need to get the kids listening and mobilise them for political action through a love of music. It happened at Christmas 2009 when I and others got Rage Against the Machine’s ‘Killing in the Name’ to number one in the UK Official Top 40 Singles. Granted it was a protest against the X Factor, several people who had not heard the song before now listen to Rage Against the Machine.
I know it sounds farfetched but we are in turmoil, and music is such an accessible and influential medium that can do so much good. So I order everyone to start buying political songs on iTunes and Amazon. There are several groups on Facebook on their own respective missions to get several political songs to number one, so with a concerted effort it can happen again! Let’s resurrect the political song for the good of the world!
@Lozipeg
