Homo politicus (1)

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

15 March 2013

 

WHAT PEOPLE GENERALLY THINK OF POLITICIANS

 “For most of us, political decision-making, even active political involvement, is something we delegate to others….What is curious is not that we are content to delegate to others the hard business of taking decisions, but that we choose to give authority over our lives to people who so many of the population seem to think are a bunch of charlatans.

“In much of the public mind, politicians are all the same. They’re a bunch of egotistical, lying narcissists who sold their souls long ago and would auction their children tomorrow if they thought it would advance their career. They are selfish, manipulative, scheming, venal. The only feelings they care about are their own. They set out to climb the greasy pole so long ago that they had lost contact with reality by the time they were in their twenties. You cannot trust a word any politician says and if you shake hands with them, you ought to count your fingers afterwards. They are not people you would want your son or daughter to marry.”

Extract from page 13 of “The Political Animal” by Jeremy Paxman published by Michael Joseph in 2002.

This summary of the contempt in which politicians are popularly held by the general public seems to be borne out by a vox-pop interview carried out by commentator Zoe Williams that was published in the London Guardian on 16 February 2013.  Williams interviewed a selection of random voters at Eastleigh in Hampshire in the run-up to a parliamentary by-election there on 28 February 2013.

Williams asked voters what they thought of the candidates competing to succeed Chris Huhne, who had precipitated the by-election by resigning as Member of Parliament for Eastleigh after pleading guilty in court to lying over a speeding offence.

This is her report:

‘There is one matter on which the people of Eastleigh are in complete unison.

“This lot”, says [Joyce] Talbot, “I just think they’re in it for themselves. They’re lining their pockets, and sod the rest of us.”

Terri Smith, asked what she thought of Chris Huhne, said: “I hope he goes to jail. What was he even in parliament for anyway? He doesn’t need the money, he’s a millionaire many times over.”

“I don’t think a lot of any of them,” Bernard said sadly. “You never get the truth, they do something wrong, there’s a scandal, it fades away. If that were you or me, we’d be out.”

“I’m fed up with all of them, said Kelly, [aged] 28. “I did like Chris Huhne. I did think he was probably a good thing for Eastleigh. But it’s obvious now that they’re all just covering their own backs and nobody’s thinking of the general public.”

“The problem with the big parties,” said [Nazrin] Wilkinson, “is that it’s all about success. Their connection and their bonding with real issues have gone.”

I don’t know how much it means. But I know that I’ve never been anywhere and heard so many different people say in effect the same thing’.

Readers who want to look into this further might like to check out Antigone1984’s essay “Partitocracy v. Democracy” in section 2 below. This fits the low esteem enjoyed by politicians into a party-political context.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

Posted in Politics, UK | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Eye-watering luxury

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

14 March 2013

In the western media the Arab Spring is no longer front-page news these days.

So what’s happening out there?

How’s this for a taster?

A report by Patrick Kingsley in the London Guardian on 23 February 2013 began:

“Egypt spent the equivalent of £1.7 million on 140,000 US-sourced teargas canisters last month, despite the Egyptian government nearing bankruptcy, amid a wave of police brutality that twenty-one human rights groups this week labelled a return to Mubarak-era state repression.”

Of course, we all know the feeling. When money for the essentials has run out, people can usually still find the means to pay for life’s little luxuries.

The report continues:

“Opposition activists questioned the purchase of teargas at a time when Egypt’s foreign reserves have more than halved since 2011, the government has run out money for fuel subsidies, and officials have yet to agree the details of a much-delayed IMF loan of $4.8 billion (£3.1 billion). They also see it as yet another example of the government’s unwillingness to rein in the police force.”

The newspaper quotes Hussein Abdel Ghany, a spokesman for the opposition National Salvation Front, as saying: “It’s the same tactics the Mubarak regime used – spending taxpayers’ money to kill the sons of taxpayers.”

Kingsley says that teargas has been repeatedly used during protests this year against President Mohamed Morsi, his Muslim Brotherhood party, and police malpractice.

According to his account, twenty-one Egyptian rights groups were now claiming that police brutality was as serious as – or worse than – under ousted President Hosni Mubarak. Since the start of the unrest, it is claimed that at least 70 protesters have been tortured and hundreds detained without trial.

The report concludes:

“Allies of Morsi say it is unreasonable to blame him, as it will take 15 years to reform institutions as intransigent as the interior ministry and its police force.”

Morsi is obviously someone who believes in the wisdom of the Latin proverb “Festina lente” (Make haste slowly).

It makes sense, too.

After 15 years under the present regime, all the protesters will have been disposed of, one way or another, so there will no longer be any need for the police to resist reform.

A big thanks, too, to Morsi’s international backers.

You will have seen that the teargas is said to be “US-sourced”.

It’s nice when your friends come to your aid when you need a helping hand.

It’s what international solidarity is all about.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

Posted in Egypt, Police, USA | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Secret courts and partitocracy

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

13 March 2013

We have frequently criticised the stranglehold over political life exercised by the leaders of the main political parties in western so-called democracies.

Theoretically, it is the party membership that calls the tune and elects leaders to represent its views.

In practice, it is the leaders that call the tune, securing the obedience of party members to leadership diktat by offering bribes of various kinds, such as the opportunity to represent the party in national and local elections as well as the offer of official party posts to members on whose loyalty they can rely.

It is true that most parties hold an annual membership conference which, in theory, is the party’s supreme organ responsible for formulating party policy.

However, in practice these conferences are stage-managed in advance by the party leadership, which uses procedural devices, such as leadership-appointed resolution approval committees, to ensure that no motions distasteful to the party leadership are debated on the floor of the conference.

Human nature, however, sometimes manages to intervene to upset apple cart – and then, greatly to the embarrassment of the leadership, things do not go according to plan.

Thus it was last weekend at a major conference of Britain’s Liberal Democrats party.

Since the last parliamentary election in 2010, the UK Government has been a coalition between the Tory (Conservative) Party, the dominant party in the coalition, and the Liberal Democrats.

Now the coalition is railroading a bill through parliament to establish secret courts.

The reason for this is that an avalanche of recent court cases has exposed the alleged involvement of UK military personnel in the abuse and torture of suspects, particularly Muslims unhappy with the occupation of Islamic countries in the Middle East and Central Asia by imperial armies from the west.

What to do about this?

Stop the abuse and torture? Stop invading foreign countries which have nothing to do with us?

You must be joking!

No, the answer is to create secret courts to hear any charges of abuse or torture behind closed doors, with incriminating evidence kept out of the public realm and not even disclosed to plaintiffs claiming redress for mistreatment.

No matter that secret courts are traditionally associated with despotic regimes. Think Joe Stalin or Mao Zedong. No matter that such courts flout the basic legal principle that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. No matter either that the bedrock of legal process is the disclosure of all the evidence to all the parties to a dispute.

The real problem is that alleged British military involvement in the mistreatment of suspects has been receiving widespread coverage in the media. As a result, Britain’s high moral standing in the world – don’t laugh! – has been seriously jeopardised.

Clearly, this must be stopped.

The establishment of secret courts is the solution adopted by the UK’s coalition government.

Unfortunately for the Liberal Democrat leadership, however, which generally rubber-stamps the decisions made by its Tory overseers, the membership at the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference last weekend threw a spanner in the works by making crystal-clear its overwhelming opposition to secret courts – secret courts being at variance with the core human rights values that the party has supposedly espoused since at least the mid-19 C.

Oh dear! Rebellion by the party rank-and-file! “Theirs not to question why, theirs but to do and die”.  The lower orders in the Liberal Democrat party had had the brass neck to resile from this basic principle of partitocratic control.

Nor was the rebellion restricted to the party rank-and-file. Three eminent lawyers active in the human rights field also resigned from the party in protest.

There has been no indication so far that the Liberal Democrat leadership will take a blind bit of notice of the opposition to secret courts expressed at the conference.

However, a tendentious letter in the London Guardian today 13 March 2013 explains why the rebels have – supposedly – got it wrong. The letter is from Michael Meadowcroft, President of Leeds West Liberal Democrats. It is of general significance since it encapsulates a practice observed by all political parties.

The key passage in the letter is as follows: “We are seeing a reinstatement of the important distinction in representative democracy between the party and its elected representatives. Legitimately the two have different agendas and it is a healthy tension.”

So there you have it. Out of office the party leadership depends on the membership to canvass and fund-raise. The membership can even make suggestions to the leadership (preferably about minor local matters, such as street-sweeping and rubbish collection). It may even be allowed to say a word or two about the content of the party manifesto prior to an election.

Once in office, however, at the same time as it bins the election manifesto,  the party leadership can also say toodle-oo to the membership. We’re in government now, we don’t need you any more and, in particular, we don’t need your views, thank you very much. Nice knowing you. Goodbye.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Justice, Politics, Torture, UK | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Royalty and rendition

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

12 March 2013

Charles, Prince of Wales, heir to the British throne, and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, were officially welcomed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan today 12 March by King Abdullah II and his wife, Queen Rania.

This was the first full day of a three-day trip to the Middle East by the Prince and Duchess.

The Jordanian monarchy was set up in 1921 with Britain’s help.

Jordan is a staunch ally of Britain and America in the “war on terror”.  It is frequently referred to in the media as allegedly a destination of choice among western intelligence agencies for the interrogation of terror suspects under torture. An unknown number of suspects are said to have been “rendered” – forcibly transported in secret – to Jordan by western security operatives for this purpose.

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned Jordan’s role in the interrogation under torture of rendered suspects.

Commenting on an Amnesty International report, published in July 2006, alleging the torture of suspects rendered to Jordan, Amnesty official Malcolm Smart said:

“Jordan appears to be a central hub in a global complex of secret detention centres operated by the US in coordination with foreign intelligence agencies. It is into this complex that suspects ‘disappear’ – and are held for interrogation indefinitely, outside any legal or administrative process.”

The Jordanian authorities are understood to deny all such allegations.

The High Court in London yesterday 11 March heard an appeal by the UK Government against a decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to block the deportation of Islamist cleric Abu Qatada from UK to Jordan to face terror charges.

SIAC had ruled that Abu Qatada would suffer a flagrant denial of justice in Jordan since evidence obtained under torture would be used against him at his trial.

According to a report in the London Guardian today 12 March, at the High Court hearing yesterday, Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, reminded the UK government counsel that torture was endemic in the state security system in Jordan.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Jordan, Torture, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The people have spoken, the bastards!

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

Special editorial note

We have gone to town in the following article on the Italian elections. This is because of the hope we vest, perhaps rashly, on the breakthrough made by the radical Five Star Movement. The article is divided into six parts: (1) an introduction focused on the repudiation of the results by the democracy-hating European elite; (2) the election results, highlighting the fictive “bonus” seats that are created out of thin air – a sort of electoral quantitative easing – to boost the score of the leading party; (3) the defenestration of  “Super Mario”, Mario Monti,  Italian Prime Minister and blue-eyed boy of Brussels, Frankfurt and Washington; (4) the Five Star Movement and the dangers that beset it; (5) Beppe Grillo, Dario Fo and Pinocchio (6) a round-up of press reaction to the election result; and (7) finally, by way of an epilogue, a rant about the euro.  

In order to allow the article time for maximum exposure, we shall not blog again for a week. Our next post, therefore, will be on Tuesday 12 March 2013.

 

5 March 2013

“The people have spoken, the bastards!”

These are the immortal words of Dick Tuck (b. 1924), an aspirant for nomination as Democratic Party candidate for the 1966 election to the California State Senate, on learning that he had lost to George Danielson.

Tuck’s remark chimes perfectly with the howls of rage and disbelief that have emanated from the gullets of the European elitocracy at the news that, in a parliamentary election on 24 and 25 February 2013, the voters of Italy had had the brass neck to elect the upstart anti-party Movimento 5 Stelle (Five Star Movement) – hitherto without any national political representation – as the largest single party in the lower chamber of the bicameral Italian Parliament (if the votes of overseas Italians are excluded).

The German political class is said to have reacted with the wish that Italy had a different electorate. Perhaps a German electorate? The German social democratic party (SPD) deputy chairman Peer Steinbrück said he was appalled that the election had been won by “two clowns” (Silvio Berlusconi and Beppe Grillo).

In public, most other European leaders prudently refrained from commenting directly on the outcome of the election, but in private comments, made public via the media, they made plain their shock and outrage at the upsurge of “populism” among voters who refused to toe the line of Italy’s established pro-austerity political parties. The message of the Euro-elite relayed by the usual pliant media was that Italy may have chosen a new parliament but the policies that this parliament adopts must remain the same (continued austerity and belt-tightening) – or else!

The idea that politicians are elected to represent the views of the voters who elect them is an alien concept in Brussels or Frankfurt. To the Eurocrats, democracy means that a tiny handful of senior establishment politicians fix policy among themselves behind closed doors and then rely on docile media and biddable party underlings to persuade a passive electorate that there is no alternative.

Writing in the London Guardian on 27 February, contrarian commentator Simon Jenkins said that “wildcat populism always terrifies the existing order”, adding that “if there is one thing a politician dreads more than a central banker, it is an election”.

But what is this “populism” of which they are frit?

It is simply means that those aspiring to public office undertake to represent the views of those who put them there. Instead of imposing on people policies which they do not want, it means listening to what the voters say and giving them what they want. It is in fact nothing other than our old friend democracy, to which the powers-that-be pay lip-service in public but do everything they can to thwart in practice. In theory democracy means “rule by the people”. In practice, it means “rule over the people” by a tiny elite of political bosses who have manoeuvred themselves into public office via the springboard of political parties which they themselves control.

RESULTS OF THE ITALIAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON 24 AND 25 FEBRUARY 2013

Result of the elections to the Italian Parliament on 24 and 25 February 2013. The figures relate to blocs (alliances of individual parties), not to individual parties, except in the case of M5S, which is not allied to any other party.

Senate (315 seats)         Chamber of Deputies  (630 seats)

123    31.6%      Bersani centre-left bloc                 345     29.5%

19        9.1%       Monti centrist bloc                          47      10.6%

54      23.8%     Grillo non-allied M5S                    109      25.6%

117     30.7%      Berlusconi centre-right bloc          125    29.2%

2          4.8%       Others                                                 4       5.1%

_____                                                                        ______

315  seats                                                                    630 seats

Bersani is Pier Luigi Bersani, Monti is Mario Monti (Prime Minister since November 2011), Grillo is Beppe Grillo and Berlusconi is Silvio Berlusconi (who was Prime Minister three times: 1994-1995,  2001-2006 and 2008-2011).

These are the definitive results from the Italian Interior Ministry as published in the Corriere della Sera on 27 February 2013. They cover all constituencies, whether inside Italy or overseas. However, the figures for the Senate do not include the four current Senators for Life. The latter are by definition not involved in elections but have full voting rights and so can swing the balance in a close vote.  The percentage is the percentage of votes cast for each bloc (alliance of parties) or non-allied party (M5S). The votes and seats are the total received by each bloc or non-allied party. They are not broken down, in this table, into the outcome for the separate parties in each alliance. M5S is a special case in that it is not allied to any other party. Moreover, while legally classified as a party for the purposes of the election, M5S regards itself as a movement rather than a party.

Turnout was about 75% – the lowest it has been since the foundation of the Italian republic after World War II. According to commentators, apart from bad weather, the high abstention rate reflected widespread disillusion with political corruption and stagnation.

Both Houses of Parliament have equal powers, which means that laws must be approved in both houses before they can take effect.

Electors vote not for individual candidates but for lists of candidates drawn up behind closed doors by the political parties.

The voting system is said to be proportional but in fact it is nothing but.

The keen-eyed will have noticed that, in the Chamber of Deputies, Bersani’s bloc gained 345 seats with 29.5 % of the poll, whereas Berlusconi’s bloc has only 117 seats, despite having won 29.2 % of the vote. This is because, according to an electoral law adopted in 2005 (Legge Calderoli), the bloc with the highest percentage of votes in the poll gains a minimum of 340 seats, thereby demolishing at a stroke any pretence at proportionality – or even democracy.

An undemocratic bonus of seats is also allocated in the Senate elections but on a different basis than in the Chamber of Deputies. In the Senate it is the party with the largest proportion of votes in each of the 20 regions that garners the jackpot of bonus seats.

Only two other countries in Europe have an electoral system which involves the creation of “bonus” seats out of thin air – Greece and San Marino.

Two previous parliamentary elections have taken place under the Legge Calderoli – those of 2006 and 2008 – but the law has aroused controversy from the start. Now that it has resulted in gridlock, since no bloc has an overall majority in the senate, there are calls from all sides for it to be amended or replaced. The law is popularly known as the “porcellum”.  This is because of a comment made by the Minister that drafted it, Roberto Calderoli, who subsequently became disillusioned with it and said: “La legge elettorale? L’ho scritta io, ma è una porcata.” (The electoral law? I am the person who drafted it, but it’s a dog’s breakfast.)

In the elections to the Casa dei Deputati, M5S gained 8.7 million votes in mainland Italy, compared with 8.6 million for Pier Luigi Bersani’s centre-left Partito Democratico and  7.3 million for Silvio Berlusconi’s Populo della Libertà.

However, if the votes of overseas Italians are included, Bersani has the edge with 8.9 million votes for the Partito Democratico, 8.8 million for M5S and 7.5 million for the Populo della Libertà.

To sum up, Bersani’s centre-left coalition and Berlusconi’s centre-right bloc both gained around 30 % of the vote in both chambers, while M5S, contesting the election as a single party which is not part of any coalition, gained about a quarter of the votes cast.

THE DEFENESTRATON OF SUPER MARIO

The all-time loser in the election was “ Il Professore”, Mario Monti, dubbed “Super Mario” by his admirers, the so-called “technocratic, non-party” candidate, who has been Prime Minister since November 2011. Monti was the candidate favoured by the triad – Brussels (European Commission), Frankfurt (European Central Bank) and Washington (International Monetary Fund). Since becoming Prime Minister, he has worked slavishly to impose on Italy the programme of austerity and tax hikes dictated by the triad. In the election on 24 and 25 February, Monti was humiliated, his centrist coalition gaining only about 10% of the votes cast in either house.

Of course, Monti was never simply a technical non-party Prime Minister. He is a card-carrying member of the European political establishment with impeccable credentials as a pillar of the status quo. A Member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, of the shadowy ultra-conservative Bilderberg Group and of the Atlantic Commission, he has also been an adviser to Goldman Sachs and Coca-Cola. As far as Europe is concerned, he has been associated with the Friends of Europe, the Bruegel think-tank, the Spinelli Group and the “États Généraux de l’Europe” civic forum.

A rightwing economist who was a member of the European Commission from 1995 to 2004, Monti has always been at the heart of the ideological project to create a United States of Europe based on free-market capitalism one plank of which is the euro currency union. If this required hardship from the citizens of Italy, Monti was not the man to flinch from imposing it. The Italians appear to have had enough of hair-shirts, however. Their rejection of the triad’s man in Rome is a slap in the face for Brussels, Frankfurt and Washington.

It is amusing to consider the lamentations attributed to Bill Emmott, former editor of the far-right Economist business magazine, as the election results became known: “What a disaster for Monti! A huge communications failure.” Monti, according to reported comments by Emmott, was “the only choice” for the country. Italians, in the event, thought otherwise. We mention Emmott since the remarks attributed to him represent the classic response of the political establishment to defeat at the polls. For them, it is not conceivable that it is their actual policies that the electorate rejects. It is simply “a communications failure”.

“Voters could not have failed to endorse our policies,” they bleat, “if only we had been better at getting them across.”

No, mate. They knew precisely what you were about and they wanted none of it. Failure of communication had nothing to do with it. They got the message fair and square – and rejected it.

THE FIVE STAR MOVEMENT (M5S)

The significance of  M5S lies in the fact that it has brought the voice of protest out of the streets and into the heart of the political establishment. Whereas recent popular movements such as “Occupy” and the “indignados” splintered their lances against the ramparts of the citadel and then fizzled out, M5S has managed to make a breach in the walls and ensconce itself in the heart of the enemy camp. There is no precedent for what will happen next, but dangers beset the intruders on every side.

M5S  is a revolutionary political creation emblematic of our dotcom 21st century. Formed during the last decade, it was the fruit of collaboration between Beppe Grillo, a comedian, and Gianroberto Casaleggio, a software whizz-kid sometimes referred to as the Italian Assange. Grillo is the frontman, while Casaleggio beavers away in the background, but both are equally important to the movement.

By the beginning of 2013 M5S is reported to have had more than 250 000 members and almost 650 local groups. However, we have not been able to verify these figures.

M5S originated with the realization that the internet made conventional media superfluous. Interactive direct contact was now possible between writers and readers. Moreover, readers could become writers and writers readers. The distinction between the two had broken down.  Accordingly, with technical support from Casaleggio, Grillo started a political blog, which soon attracted a huge readership among an audience disenfranchised by the hermetic nature of conventional politics based on stitch-ups inside the closed circle of Italy’s tiny log-rolling political elite.

Encouraged by the success of the blog, Grillo and Casaleggio then used the social networking portal “Meetup” to promote the formation of local M5S groups. These local groups subsequently ventured into the political arena and put up candidates of their own. Members of the groups vote on line to select their candidates. Because Italian television is largely in hock to established political interests, it is generally shunned by M5S.

Because of the existence of the internet, M5S takes the view that conventional political parties, which stand between the electorate and the authorities, are now redundant. M5S is pioneering direct democracy based on the elimination of all barriers between citizen and state.

What policies does M5S espouse?

This is not easy to find out but the Five Stars are said to refer to: (1) publicly owned water, (2) better transport, (3) development, (4) internet access and (5) environmentalism.

Not, at first sight, an eye-catchingly radical programme.

However, further goals appear to include:

  • A reformed electoral system based on genuine proportional representation. The number of parliamentarians should be halved. Parliamentarians should take only a part of their salaries and should serve for two terms at most. The public funding of political parties, which are private bodies, should be ended. The voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16 for the lower chamber and from 25 to 18 for the senate. Coalitions with the established political parties, which have brought Italy to its knees, are ruled out: these parties are all the same and should be run out of town (“Vaffanculo” is Grillo’s rude injunction to the politocrats). Italy’s parliament, it appears, is stuffed with politicians who have been convicted of crimes.  Hence, no supporter of M5S who has a conviction can be a parliamentary candidate. That includes Grillo himself, who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after a fatal accident.
  • Free internet provision.
  • Support for renewable energy.
  • A referendum should be held on whether Italy should stay within the eurozone.
  • Sympathy with the demands of international protesters associated with the “indignados” and the “Occupy” movement.
  • Support for Fair Trade and Slow Food.
  • Tax cuts for small businesses and the self-employed.
  • Distrust of trade unions (presumably because, like the discredited social democratic parties of which they form the industrial wing, they have become an integral, largely passive part of the capitalist establishment, whose role, if they any longer have a role, is to nip any rumblings of discontent in the bud, keeping workers docilely in line rather than encouraging them to shake off their chains).

Looking ahead, a number of questions arise.

1. Will the anti-austerity momentum be maintained in post-election Italy? If political stalement leads to fresh elections, possibly this June, will M5S lose or gain support?

2. Will the new electoral system likely to be cobbled together by Bersani (centre-left) and Berlusconi (centre-right) be skewed to the detriment of M5S and smaller parties? A silly question, of course, as that will be the primary object of the exercise.

3. Grillo refused to become a parliamentary candidate for his own movement on the grounds that he has a conviction for involuntary manslaughter following a road accident. According to the movement’s rules, no one can be a candidate if they have been convicted of breaking the law.

However, is it possible that Grillo will be able to continue to guide the movement’s parliamentarians without a seat in parliament? We have grave doubts about this. The parliamentarians elected on the M5S ticket – “i grillini” may lack technical political experience but they are where they are out of conviction. Many of them are extremely well educated. They will not want simply to be Beppe’s puppets.

4. Puffed up by the electoral success of his movement, Grillo may assume that he has the right to dictate to the grillini what they must do in parliament. He may be tempted to try to exercise quasi-dictatorial powers over them, particularly if, in his eyes, the grillini are straying from the true path. This would be a major mistake. Having decided – mistakenly, in our view – to stay out of parliament, Grillo can now do nothing more than advise his supporters. Otherwise, the M5S parliamentarians could be accused of taking instructions from a non-elected pressure group (Grillo and Casaleggio) instead of representing, according to their lights, the views of the people who elected them.

5. Given the universally acknowledged corruption in Italian politics, the inexperienced M5S parliamentarians just elected are entering a den of vipers. Low tricks, double-dealing, treachery backstabbing, insincere flattery, attempts at bribery and false friendships are the common coin of politics everywhere and no less so in Italy. Will the grillini have the grit to resist the threats and blandishments that will now assail them from all sides.  How long before some of them are invited to weekend bunga bunga parties at the country estate of a certain well-known establishment politician on the Emerald Coast of Sardinia?

6.  Grillo is under a lot of pressure from within the movement (including the playwright Dario Fo) to join forces with Bersani, leader the centre-left block. In point of fact, in Sicily the movement’s locally elected representatives are already working in tandem with the centre-left. In our view, if Grillo succumbs to the pressure to extend this practice to the national arena, he might as well wrap up and go home. His movement will have lost its credibility, its independence and its integrity. Bersani will eat him alive.

7. Is there any hope of contagion in other European states whose peoples are currently being crushed under the steam-roller of sado-monetarism? One thinks instinctively of Portugal, Spain and Greece. Is it possible that groups similar to M5S could thrive outside as well as inside Italy? After all, the problems – austerity, zero growth, unemployment, partitocracy – are very similar everywhere. As it happens, in Portugal, two actors, the Duarte brothers, have formed a group called “Homes da luta”, which they hope to transform into a political movement on the lines of M5S. Greece, too, in “Syriza”, has an anti-establishment party, but we were severely disappointed on our fact-finding trip to Athens last summer to find that this party was hoping, naively, to negotiate an end to austerity with the European Union, the very organization that is imposing the cutbacks. 

BEPPE GRILLO, DARIO FO AND PINOCCHIO

 

Giuseppe “Beppe” Grillo, shaggy-haired and habitually tieless, is an Italian comedian, actor, blogger and politician, who was was born at Savignone near Genoa in 1948.

Trained as an accountant, he subsequently became a comedian and a political satirist.

Having attacked leading politicians for corruption – including the Socialist Prime Minister of the time, Bettino Craxi – he was barred from television.

In 1980 Grillo was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after a road accident. He was the driver of a car in which three passengers lost their lives.

At some point in the past decade – some reports say it was in 2009 –  Grillo and Gianroberto Casaleggio founded the Five Star Movement.

Nobel-winning Italian playwright Dario Fo, long-time a supporter of Grillo, says a surreal fantasist like Grillo is needed to rescue Italy. In an article by Tom Kington on the London Observer website on 2 March 2013, Fo is quoted as saying that Grillo “is from that school of medieval minstrels who played with paradox and the absurd”.

According to the Observer article, Fo believes that the key to understanding Grillo is not 21st century Italy but Italy of the 13th century, when storytellers – giullari – roamed Italy, entertaining crowds in piazzas with lewd and ancient tales interwoven with satirical attacks on local potentates.

“He is from the tradition of the wise storyteller, one who knows how to use surreal fantasy, who can turn situations around, who has the right word for the right moment, who can transfix people when he speaks, even in the rain and the snow,” explains Fo in the article.

Even the internet-based forums where Grillo’s followers argue over policy have their roots in the Middle Ages, according to Fo. He told Kington: “We had extremely democratic town councils in medieval Italy which knew the value of working together and every now and then, down the centuries, this spirit returns.”

The real trap for Grillo, warns Fo, is the danger that he will be beguiled by flattery. Turning again to history, he cited Cola Di Rienzo, the charismatic son of a tavern owner in the 14th century,  who wooed Romans with his oratory and became the city’s leader, setting his sights high and ousting corrupt noble families, only to see his support slip away before he was murdered by a mob as he sought to flee in disguise.

Grillo is Italian for the insect called a cricket in English. Commentators sometimes compare Beppe Grillo with the Grillo Parlante (talking cricket) in Carlo Collodi’s 1883 children’s story “The Adventures of Pinocchio”. The cricket features in the book as a sage adviser to the puppet Pinocchio, who is constantly getting into scrapes. M5S watchers believe there is a moral there somewhere.

A SELECTIVE  ROUND-UP OF PRESS REACTION TO THE ITALIAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON 24 AND 25 FEBRUARY 2003

On 21 February 2013, three days before the election, a leader in the centre-right London Guardian newspaper grandly announced that Beppe Grillo was an “essentially irrelevant figure”.

They now have egg on their face.

On 26 February, when the mould-breaking results of the election came in, the paper’s Europe editor adopted a more sombre tone: “…the strong performance by the Berlusconi camp, coupled with the even stronger outcome for the maverick Five Star movement of the comedian Beppe Grillo, is certain to set off alarm bells across austerity-strapped Europe. More than half the Italian electorate voted for politicians viewed by the governing elite as unashamed populists.”

Another report in the same issue said:”European leaders have been desperate to see a stable government in Italy, and are likely to be horrified at the triumph of populism in the eurozone’s third biggest economy”.

Another Guardian leader, after the elections, on 27 February 2013 found “some hope for the future” in efforts by Bersani to tempt Grillo into a coalition. Grillo’s response was a resounding niet. M5S has said it will simply consider each bill presented to parliament on its merits.

The editorialist goes on to speculate on the possibility of fresh elections and asks “how would the established parties avert an even greater triumph for Beppe’s people?”  There you hear the authentic voice of the European media claque parroting their masters’ voice:  how can we maintain the status quo and keep this maverick out of power?

On the same day, the Financial Times reported from Rome that “neither of the main parties want to go back to the polls and risk outright victory by the Five Star Movement”.

No, that would be just too awful!

On the other hand, the Guardian leader writer on 27 February has the nous to admit that the election “was a verdict on the German-led austerity policy which is Europe’s current remedy for its common currency and other economic ills…This was an Italy saying no to austerity.”

Simon Jenkins, the Guardian’s own maverick commentator, went further. Writing in the paper on 27 February, he said:

Oh happy day. The Italian election result is a triumph for democracy…Congratulations, Italy.”

Jenkins argues that “if there is one thing a politician dreads more than a central banker, it is an election”, opining that “wildcat populism always terrifies the existing order”.

He adds: “The most spectacular victor is Beppe Grillo, a rollicking satirist but with a clear message: that austerity, the euro and corruption are jointly to blame for Italy’s ills…Grillo’s chief victim is the short-lived prime minister, Mario Monti. He was pushed into office by the banks a year ago to impose unlimited suffering on the Italian economy, so as to shore up the euro and thus protect German and other bank loans from devaluation.”

According to Jenkins, European finance ministers advocating endless austerity but no growth are “like Aztec priests at an altar. If the blood sacrifice fails to deliver rain, there must be more blood.”

Writing in Le Monde on 28 February, Arnaud Leparmentier recalls how voters in France and the Netherlands who had had the barefaced cheek to reject the proposed European Constitution in referendums in 2005 were derided by the Euro establishment for supposedly having failed to understand what the vote was about.

We may add that the Irish and the Danes were similarly criticized when they had the temerity to reject the diktats of Brussels.

“These people, our citizens, are stupid,” is the message from on high. “Why involve them in things they don’t understand? Indeed, why hold referendums at all?” Give them bread and circuses, by all means, but let’s keep politics within the four walls of the club.

Actually, it may be that the people understand only too well.

Le Monde’s Rome correspondent, Philippe Ridet, however, was having none of this. An article by Ridet published on 1 March 2013 carried the headline: “Italian unease with austerity does not signify a rejection of Europe”. A message with which the leader in the Financial Times on 27 February had earlier concurred: “It would be wrong to interpret this result as a vote against the euro.”

This message was repeated in stronger vein by Sylvie Kaufmann in Le Monde on 5 March.

In a fanatically pro-establishment article, she made the astonishing counter-factual claim that the new European protest movements of right and left, including M5S, “are not seeking to overturn the established order”.

“They have no policies (apart from the French National Front) and no real solutions,” she added. “They are protest movements, not revolutionary movements.”

M5S, in particular, she claimed, was not seeking to leave the European Union or even to abandon the euro.

She goes on to quote a political scientist who argued that such movements were akin to political hackers who wanted to wreck the existing system but had nothing to propose in its place.

So that’s all right, then. Notice that, for Kaufmann, even if these movements have solutions, they are not “real” solutions.

As to M5S not having any policies, we have given a long list of them elsewhere in this article.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE EURO?

In his article in the London Guardian on 27 February, to which we refer above, commentator Simon Jenkins, referring to Beppe Grillo’s proposal for a referendum on the euro, says that “leaving the euro is the key that unlocks the prison door”.

Official seasonally-adjusted Eurostat figures published on 1 March show that 10.8  % of the workforce was unemployed in the 27-state European Union inJanuary 2013. In the 17 states of the European Union that have adopted the euro as their official currency, the figure was higher at 11.9 %.

Unemployment in a few of the northern European states is still relatively low: 4.9 % in Austria and 5.3 % in Germany. In France, the figure was worrying at 10.6 %.

Italy fared slightly worse at 11.7 %. According to recent press reports, more than 100,000 small firms shut up shop in Italy in 2012, while the number of graduates leaving the country reached a million.

Elsewhere in Europe, the unemployment figures were atrocious: 27 % in Greece, 26.2 % in Spain and 17.6 % in Portugal.

By way of comparison, in January 2013, the unemployment rate in the USA was 7.9 %. In Japan, in December 2012, the latest date for which figures are available, it was 4.2 %.

Writing from Rome on 27 February, Tony Barber told FT readers that “since Italy’s entry into the euro in 1999, the central economic problem has been lack of growth”.

So the euro has been completely useless – and yet the Eurocrats, manipulating their puppets in the national governments, are still prepared to crucify the man in the street in order not to lose face and abandon it.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Europe, Italy, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Skydiving without a parachute

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

24 February 2013

“While we were at Stratford we had lunch with a man I’ve known since primary-school days, but only see every ten years or so. He was telling me about one of the boys who grew up ‘down our road’. He was an aggressive lad who enjoyed stone fights. I expect that a long time ago I told you about my having met him somewhere in 1972-3 when he had passed out of Sandhurst and into the army. He was then in N. Ireland and the particular story he mentioned was an interrogation technique during which they would take a blindfolded IRA suspect up in a helicopter and threaten to throw him out if he didn’t talk. One would then be thrown out, screaming, but only six feet or so above the ground. I suppose this was to encourage a second suspect in the helicopter to talk.”

 

Antigone1984:

We have just received the charming anecdote above in an email from an old friend.

No doubt any suggestion of wrong-doing would be firmly denied by the British Army. It always is.

Stratford is  Stratford-upon-Avon, Shakespeare’s birthplace.

Sandhurst is the academy at Sandhurst in Berkshire at which British army officers are trained.

Throwing “Charlie” – US slang for captured Vietcong freedom-fighters – out of helicopters is said to be a practice perfected by the US military during the Vietnam War (1955-1975). The only difference is that this was not done to encourage reluctant prisoners to cooperate when interrogated. According to press reports – doubtless categorically denied by the US authorities – it was for real. You could regard it as non-voluntary sky-diving without a parachute. We remember reading at the time that one of the military bureaucrats involved was a fervent Roman Catholic who used to attend Mass every morning before going about his day’s work.

Nice work if you can get it!

 

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Ireland, Military, Police, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Conservatism in a nutshell

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

18 February 2013

“Any change at any time for any purpose is highly to be deprecated.”

Remark attributed to George William Frederick Charles (1819-1904), second Duke of Cambridge, grandson of King George III, Earl of Tipperary, Baron Culloden, Field Marshal and Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, chief personal aide-de-camp to Queen Victoria, President of Christ’s Hospital and Ranger of Hyde Park. Born at Hanover in Germany, he was naturally opposed to innovation.

King George III, who reigned from 1760 to 1820, was the British monarch who went mad after losing his American colony to rebel tax-evaders led by George Washington.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Politics, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

De senectute

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

17 February 2013

 

DE SENECTUTE

 

The first sign of farewell to life

Is the turning inside out of all one’s tastes.

The great drinker stops caring for wine,

The traveller wants only to be left where he is.

My life-long passion was my love of company,

And the more my visitors talked, the better I liked them.

But ever since my illness came upon me

At the first word I stop up my ears.

And worse still, when my wife or children come

I cannot bring myself even to wave a hand.

I know that this is a very bad sign;

My old body has almost done its task.

But strangely enough I go through my old books

With as great a delight as I did in former days.

And ill though I am I still write poems,

Chanting them aloud till the night is far spent.

Shall it be “push the door” or “knock at the door” ?

I weigh each word, each line from beginning to end.

I see to it that every phrase is alive;

I do not accept a single dead word.

Perhaps the fact that this habit has not left me

Shows that I still have a little longer to live.

Yuan Mei (1716-1797), Chinese poet, hedonist and garden lover. The translation cited can be found on page 198 of the biography, “Yuan Mei”, written by the celebrated English populariser  and translator of Chinese literature,  Arthur Waley (1889-1966), an outlier of the Bloomsbury Group. Of Yuan Mei himself, a literary connoisseur with a roving eye, it is said that “he was that rare phenomenon, a professed hedonist who actually succeeded in being happy”.

 

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in China, Literature | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In praise of idleness

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

16 February 2013

LEISURE

 

What is this life if, full of care,

We have no time to stand and stare.

 

No time to stand beneath the boughs

And stare as long as sheep or cows.

 

No time to see, when woods we pass,

Where squirrels hide their nuts in grass.

 

No time to see, in broad daylight,

Streams full of stars, like skies at night.

No time to turn at Beauty’s glance,

And watch her feet, how they can dance.

 

No time to wait till her mouth can

Enrich that smile her eyes began.

 

A poor life this if, full of care,

We have no time to stand and stare.

 

W.H.Davies (1871-1940), Welsh poet who spent many years as a hobo or tramp in Britain and north America, an experience recalled in his book “The Autobiography of a Super-Tramp” published in 1908. The poem “Leisure” was published in 1911.

 

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Literature, Politics, UK, USA, Wales | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Diamonds in the sand

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

15 February 2013

If we manage to lead a good life, we make our lives tiny diamonds in the cosmic sands”.

Ronald Dworkin (1931-2013), liberal philosopher of law, born Worcester, Massachusetts, and educated at Harvard and Oxford (Magdalen College), who died yesterday.

Antigone1984:

Dworkin’s epigram elegantly epitomises a key aspect of the “Philosophical Background” of our Mission Statement, which can be accessed under our logo at the top of this page.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Justice, Philosophy, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments