In the last two days, I have been lucky enough to be able tuck away my conscience and watch 2 movies (I should be working and not watching movies), back to back, that triggered a bout of some (rare) thinking. They were Mel Gibson’s Braveheart and The Patriot. Of course I had watched them before, but on realizing that no one had filched them yet from my collection all this time, I figured it was time for a refresher.

One thing that was staringly obvious immediately I watched them was that at the period they depict, something was obviously sickly wrong with the British. Of course I would like to be politically correct and use more acceptable language, but pardon me for now and let’s carry on, you’ll understand the semantics as you read on.

Braveheart was about Scots fighting for their birth right – their land, that little tip of the United Kingdom that they had long fought keep despite the level of corruption, plunder and murder from His Majesty’s kingdom. Taking into account that all movies are recreations of events, some totally fictional, but some based on recreated fact, it was interesting to see how the British ruled the Scots.

They used the very same tactics that they would use to divide and conquer Africa many centuries later. In fact, at one point, the British Monarchy was so under-handed; they decreed that at any wedding, the Scottish Nobles had the right to sleep with the new bride on her wedding night as the husband stood by. Of course the Scottish Nobles fell for it; haven’t we all?

They thought that since they were men of privilege, it was only another piece thrown into the pot. What the British were actually doing was to ensure that the Nobles would dilute their own blood by getting bastard children everywhere, and eventually Scottish nobility would be nothing but a battle ground when all these bastards realized that they had entitlement. The Brits and silly nobles were eventually beaten though – William Wallace taught them that you could conquer a man, but never his spirit.

Fast forward to The Patriot and we are at it with the British again. This time, it’s a bunch of immigrants, (many of them British running from their own feudal, repressive systems) vs. the King and Country.

Anyone who didn’t swear allegiance was a traitor. And traitors deserved to die in the most painful way possible – kill their women and children, burn entire villages in churches, slaughter innocents, all so that the King could get some glory and rule. Of course this bunch of ingenious immigrants who had arrived in America with nothing but the clothes on their backs put up a fight with all they had – it was knives and home made guns vs. British trained troops who had rifles and shotguns. The British were beaten – another ideal time for them to learn that you can never conquer a man’s spirit no matter how hard you try.

Fast forward again, and this time we are in Africa, and the cake is there for whoever has a fork, a plate, and the appetite for it. Of course the rest of Europe followed the British (what little brother doesn’t want to be like Big Brother), and they sliced and diced, they raped and ruled but before long it was time for them to be taught once again that supremacy against fellow man could never last.

The whole thing took me back to an idle conversation I had at an airport once with an Egyptian man. I can’t quite remember what led to these particular comments, but I remember starkly that he said “Look at every place the British have set foot. There has never been peace. Even America itself is under delusion – they think that to be powerful is to mind everyone else’s business and police that world. There is no greater delusion to peace than that”. I never got to know his name or who he was, just a traveler like me. But I remember exploring the topic a little and he gave numerous examples and I couldn’t help but agree that he was spot on.

Look at Kashmir and Pakistan. The British went in, in the name of King and Country and drew a border straight through homes where brothers, sons and fathers, daughters and mothers lived. The border would determine social status, religion and you had to get permission from the very Brits to go and see your brother across the other side of a barbed wire. If something went wrong on your side of the border, it was the people from the other side who had done it? My own brother, sister, mother? Perplexing.

Look at the Nile – it’s a tale beyond telling. Land’s not enough folks, lets go after the rivers now, and lets slice them up in the same ratio we cut the cake at tea time.

Look at Kenya, look at Nigeria, look at the Middle East – there might be a remote possibility that if Britain had not sought supremacy in the issue of Jewish resettlement and pushed a UN vote, it might be a different world altogether today.

Eventually of course, King and Country must have studied history and seen that no one had conquered the world, sought supremacy and held on for long. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the Romans, all those civilizations that tried to quash the freedom of another man mean simply because they had better means, better weapons and better way to travel were eventually brought back to where they belonged – with the rest of us. The British started to cede supremacy somewhere in the middle of the last century, and today, they are almost reluctant participants in world politics.

Hitler tried it – the world did not give him more than 20 years to try out supremacy before it taught him a harsh lesson that left Germans marked forever. They too, are simply rich, but today, they show no desire to conquer or be superior to anyone. We now love them mostly for soccer and we are fine with that.

Of course nature abhors a vacuum, so in comes the Americans, that very bunch of immigrants who beat the British because they tried to conquer them. By the time they gather a little strength, a little military power, they are trudging the same route that all those to-be conquers did. Without of course seeing that it has never worked, will never work and is not supposed to work that way.

All men are built equal, if not in riches and wisdom, but in strength of will to be free. To enter another man’s spirit and tell him he is less is to challenge him to the core of his belief. To enter his house and rape his wife and kill his children is to rouse a demon in him that will never die until you die. And the worst thing about that kind of power and anger is that no matter what kind of weapons you have, so long as one amongst us walks with it in their heart, the conqueror must always be afraid.

Through trying to own the Middle East, America has brought chaos to the whole world. When you try to conquer men who have lived for centuries on that dry, rugged earth and you tell them that they are terrorists because they blew 2000 of your people to death, but only after you have been killing their children, their women, their brothers and sisters for years, they react only out of anger, pure, silky hatred that comes as a result of supremacy at any cost.

Until we as mankind realize that we cannot dominate each other in terms of freedom, that we cannot rule another’s free will, we shall repeat history, maybe more promptly and more often than in the past.

Mutuo Mbilla

Article by Mutuo Mbilla - www.goodarticlewriter.com Mutuo is a professional article writer and IMer who likes to occasionally emerge from her work and catch up with the rest of the world. Her articles here are mainly from what she sees when she sticks her neck out :-).

Website - More Posts

“In the grand discovery of modern times, the system of representation, the solution of all the difficulties, both speculative and practical, will perhaps be found. If it cannot, we seem to be forced upon the extraordinary conclusion, that good Government is impossible.” – Utilitarian Philosopher James Mill (1).

In his ‘Essay On Government‘, the Utilitarian philosopher James Mill, salutes representation as ‘the grand discovery of modern times’. Andrew Heywood (2) states that representative democracy is a ‘limited and indirect form of democracy that is based on the selection of those who will rule on behalf of the people’. The defining characteristics of limited and indirect clearly shows the nature of representative democracy that recognizes the impossibility of all citizens being involved in every decision making process, and the necessity of the election of representatives of the people to government. Thus, representation can be seen as a necessity of modern politics.

If so, how is it possible to prevent the representatives from themselves following their interest at the expense of the interests of the community? Do considerations of scale, expertise and knowledge of political matters make representation inevitable in any large-scale political community and does this then open up the danger of a gap between representatives and represented? Would representative democracy give way to oligarchy and elitism? Can a representative system realize freedom as it promises? In fact, representation is one of the most problematic concepts in the interpretations of democratic theory. This raises the question of whether the concept of representation is a living political idea.

On Representation

In his book of ‘The Prince‘, the Italian political philosopher, Machiavelli argues in favour of a strong leader to govern a nation according to his own decisions and observations by using the example of a disease in society stating as “(…) by recognising from afar the diseases that are spreading in the state (which is a gift given only to a prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to the extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any cure.” (3)

For Machiavelli, ‘necessity’ is the most concept for him and he uses it to determine military might in foreign policy as well as strong leaders in governments. In his book of the Discourses, Machiavelli states the twofold role virtuous individuals play in political culture. The first function of virtuous men is to inspire and beget virtue in others, and citizen virtue as well as military virtue is vital in protecting the republic from internal as well as external dangers, thus individual leadership is necessary in some particular affairs. The second function of virtuous men is to prevent corruption. All peoples tend to become corrupt in time due to the gradual loss of fear and respect for the law, thus a founding father figure is needed to perform “excessive and notable” executions to refresh people’s memories. (4)

Similarly, in his writings of The Utility of the union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection, American Philosopher, James Madison argues in favour of the role of leaders. He states that public views could be refined and enlarged through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. (5) He also believes that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves. For Madison, the representative government could overcome the excesses of pure democracy because elected few are likely to be competent and have a capability for the interests of the people and the government ought to be led by the best men.

To the contrary, in his book of ‘The Social Contract and Discourses‘, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues that representation and sovereignty are mutually incompatible because sovereignty cannot be delegated and represented. In his view, sovereignty lies essentially in the general will, and will does not admit of representation, then the deputies of the people are not and cannot be its representatives (6). On his line of thought, the election of representatives puts an end to the liberty of the people.

Alternatively, the eighteenth-century philosopher and politician Edmund Burke rejects the idea of representative as a delegate, that constrained to keep strictly to the views of those whom they represent and advocates the opposite idea of the role of the parliamentary representative. In his classical speech to the electors of Bristol, Burke strongly opposed the idea that representatives are bound by instructions or a mandate from their constituents. In his view, authoritative instructions, which the Member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though the contrary to to the clearest conviction of his judgement and conscience; are things unknown to the laws of the land and which arise from a fundamental Mistake of the whole order and tenour of the Constitution.(7) Therefore, he advocates that parliamentary representatives must decide on issues in accordance with their own judgements, after hearing the debates in the representative arena.

For James Mill, representation was the grand discovery of modern times and a necessity of modern politics. However, he observes the problems that could give rise from the idea of representation and the possible conflicts of interests if representatives themselves follow their private interests at the expense of community interests. Mill, thus, highlight the solution that lay in the institution of checks and controls over the representatives that allow them to hold office only for limited periods. In his ‘Essay on Government ‘ (8), he clearly stakes out the principles of accountability of representatives to be represented and the need for institutions to put this principles into practice.

In Considerations on Representative Government (9) , John Stuart Mill also argues in favour of the concept of ‘representation’ by highlighting the weaknesses of the ancient Greek idea of the polis. According to Mill, there are obvious geographical and physical limits to the place and time of open meeting as well as the problems posed by coordination and regulation in a densely populated country. Therefore, the notion of self-government of government by open meeting and any form of classical or direct democracy could not be sustained in modern society. He then recommends a representative democratic system along with freedom of speech, the press and assembly, that has distinct advantages of providing the mechanism whereby central powers can be watched and controlled as well as establishing a forum (parliament) to act as a watchdog of liberty and centre of reason and debate through electoral competition, leadership qualities with intellect for the maximum benefit at all.

For John Mill, the ‘ideally best polity’ in modern conditions comprises a representative democratic system in which ‘people exercise through deputies periodically elected by themselves the ultimate controlling power (10). He believes that representative democracy could combine accountability with professionalism and expertise and both democracy and skilled governments are the conditions that complement each other. He argues in favour of skilled governments and political leadership. However, in his book of Liberty, he also argues in favour of the use of a utilitarianist doctrine in a democracy in which a political leader’s action is right only insofar as it is useful or directly benefits the majority. (11)

The debates on representation involves not only the above antithesis between direct democracy and indirect democracy, the gaps between representatives and represented, the roles of representatives and the principles of accountability of representatives to be represented; but also the problems of what is to represent and the problems of inclusion and exclusion. In her book of ‘The Concept of Representation’, the American Philosopher Hannah Pitkin argues that a representative government must not merely be in control, not merely promote public interest, but must also be responsive to the people. (12) On her lines of thought, the people must not be passive objects of manipulation, nor would it be enough for a government to be responsive to public opinion only on occasions when it is possible. Instead, there must be a constant condition of responsiveness, of potential readiness to respond and some forms of institutional arrangements for government responsiveness. She also argues that the notion of representative government seems to incorporate both a very general, abstract, metaphorical idea (13) -that the people of a nation are present in the action of its government in complex ways- and some fairly concrete, practical, and historically traditional institutions intended to secure such an outcome.

However, Pitkin also asserts that there could be some tensions between the practice of representation and the democratic principles of accountability and control that were similarly highlighted by elite theorists like Robert Michels. In his ‘iron law of oligarchy’, Michels points out that popular sovereignty could never be achieved, and the masses, elevated by democratic theory to the highest role, in reality could only give way to oligarchy. On his lines of thought, social revolution would not affect any real modification of the internal structure of the mass, as the majority of human beings, in a condition of eternal tutelage, are predestined by tragic necessity to submit to the dominion of a small minority, and must be content to constitute the pedestal of an oligarchy (14). These views raise the debates about what it is to represent in terms of the democratic theory.

The contemporary debates on representation also involves the problem of inclusion and exclusion. In his book of In Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, Robert Dahl distinguished political regimes by two axes – the degree of political competition and the degree of political participation. For Dahl, the axis of political competition was rooted from monopolistic regimes in which power is concentrated in the hands of a narrow elite to pluralist regimes in which power is dispersed among groups and institutions while the axis of political participation was referred by the proportion of the population that is entitled to participate in a more or less equal plane (15). The higher the proportion of the population that plays a part in decision making the more inclusion of the regime type and the lower that proportion, the more exclusionary the regime type.

In contrast, Anne Phillips argues that the defining characteristics of representative democracy, as Robert Dahl has clarified, are grounded in the heterogeneity of the societies that gave it birth and it was the diversity of citizenry that made the earlier practices of Athenian democracy so inappropriate to the modern world (16). She, then, suggests the need for a ‘politics of presence’ which could give voice to a number of groups excluded or oppressed or marginalized by the individualist representation of liberal democracy. In her views, demands for political presence have often arisen out of the politics of social movements, which reflect differences in social class such as the ‘representation of labour’ and inequalities such as the civil rights movement, women’s movements and autonomous organizations that speak for oppressed or disadvantaged groups. By putting the role of social movements on the agenda, she challenged the traditional modes and ideas of representation in liberal democracy that might not be adequate to ensure reflections of different groups, identities and minorities. By drawing on the historical accounts of how the conceptions of ‘representation’ has developed over time, the idea of ‘representation’ could be said to be a living political idea. It, then, raised the question of the livingness of ‘representation’ in politics.

Interpretations of living political ideas on the development of representation

Kenneth Shepsle regards ideas as purely interest-oriented vehicles or instruments used by politicians to further their own ideas . In his view, political actors only recur to ideas to justify things which have been decided on interest grounds long before Institutions and incentives are the really decisive explanatory variables . He makes clear in summarizing his position: “My own view on the force of ideas is to see them as one of the hooks on which politicians hang their objectives and by which they further their interests.” (17) Similarly, Stephen Krasner put forwards ideas as the servants of the interests that play a purely subordinate and instrumental role. In his views, ideas have not made possible alternatives that did not previously exist (18) and they have been one among several instruments that actors have invoked to promote their own, usually mundane, interests.

Alternatively, Tompson, Huysmans and Reokhovnik do not view ideas as purely interest-oriented instruments used by politicians. In their views, ideas are political when they are used to mobilize people behind some sort of political action; when used in political debates, when they have consequences for a wider society; when they are about the nature and limits of politics as well as part of a general vision of how the world should be organized. (19) However, not all ideas are politically alive.

Ideas live in politics only when they inspired and informed different world views that could mobilize people politically. Moreover, they must keep being drawn on, i.e., recycled in political arguments over time, whether being changed, adapted or re-appropriated in Politics. Furthermore, ideas could rarely be dead once institutionalized in political institutions like parliaments and less obvious political institutions like the family, the Church, the law, the prisons and even in medicine and public health matters. However, living political ideas could have significant political implications and possible socio-economic consequences as sometimes people live ideas to their perils or to their limits. Nevertheless, as Raia Proljovnik (20) states, ideas circulate in both political theory and in practice. These different interpretations of the livingness of political ideas might be applied to the development of representation.

Machiavelli’s ideas on representation in favour of strong leaders in governments are kept alive because they have been used to justify power politics with a focus on pragmatic evaluation of what will keep politicians in power. Machiavelli has become famous as a sinister and ruthless politician because of the philosophy he expressed in The Prince since then. On the other hand, Machiavelli’s concepts formed the basis of nineteenth-century liberalism, a political philosophy that advocates change for the good of the state and its citizens. His ideas on representation regarding the preference for republican than monarchical governments have a profound influence on the political developments in Europe during the 19th century. His ideas not only circulate in political theory, but also in practice.

Similarly, Madison’s ideas on representation are recycled in political debates on representative governments, principles of popular sovereignty, common goods, constitutional matters and so on. His ideas are always implicitly or explicitly played out in political debates and institutional practices. He is taken to stand for the ideas of separations of power and controlling majority’s faction effects and the controversies they generate. His ideas were also criticized by anti-federalists and modern philosophers. In his book of ‘Explaining America‘, Garry Wills asserts the role of minorities by criticizing Madison: “Minorities can make use of dispersed and staggered governmental machinery to clog, delay, slow down, hamper, and obstruct the majority. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or non-factious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or non-factious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such.” (21) Thus, it is obvious that Madison’s political ideas are alive as inspirations and have consequences for the society as a whole.

On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s remarks on the frictions between the government and the people still represents as living political ideas. The demand that all citizens should participate in popular assemblies is unique to Rousseau in the modern world. His critics on representation are still alive in both political theory and political practice and his alternative concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity have inspired different views that mobilized people politically. In fact, “Liberty, equality, fraternity” was to be the motto of the ‘French Revolution’, which drew a great deal of inspiration from his ideas. Likewise, James Mill’s ideas on representation regarding the principles of accountability and institutional requirements were taken seriously in debates in good governance and being institutionalized in political institutions and international organizations.

In a modern era, John Stuart Mill’s ideas on proportional representation, in which “the champions of unpopular doctrines would not put forth their arguments merely in books and periodicals, read only by their own side; instead the opposing ranks would meet face to face to hand with proportional representation, and there would be a fair comparison of their intellectual strength, in the presence of the country” (22) , are still alive and being interpreted, adapted, and re-appropriated in politics. They have been firmly institutionalized into constitutions and governance structures in modern politics as well as being alive in political debates. Some scholars like Burns and Ryan (23) argue that Mill’s consistent viewpoints throughout his political writings were not strictly democratic. Others like Robson and Bobbio (24) believe that he was. On their lines of arguments, it is clear that Mill’s ideas have been adapted in current debates on electoral reforms, democratic forms of governance as well as contemporary social and political thoughts.

The ideas on representation inspired by Hanna Pitkin have also helped shaping the next generations of empirical research into the practice of American Democracy. Hanna Pitkin made the radical move of de-centering political representation from the intentions and acts of individual subjects and, so, breaking with the assumption that a political representative, like a lawyer, delegate or trustee, stands in a “one-to-one, person-to-person relationship” to a principal. As Lisa Disch points out, her argument have had the paradoxical effect of encouraging empirical and normative researchers to persist in thinking about political representation in the very terms that Pitkin set out to revise: as a one-on-one relationship between a representative and a constituency (25) . Obviously, her ideas live in politics as people rework them to revise the concept of ‘political representation’ and have consequences that go well beyond the defined responsibilities of the governments.

On the other hand, the ideas examined by Anne Phillips on the problems of representation of the poor such as the integration of the issues of class into a presence of politics, have inspired politicians and political theorists to articulate how this integration of class and a politics of presence is to be done. Her ideas inspired some political theorists to argue for the necessity descriptive representatives to be selected based on their relationship to citizens who have been unjustly excluded and marginalized by democratic politics (26) , whereas, some to emphasize empirical research on the benefits of having descriptive representatives.

Conclusion

Due to the paradoxical nature of conceptions, political ideas contain different and conflicting views as well as multiple and competing dimensions. Not all political ideas are alive. Ideas live in politics only when they inspired and keep being recycled in political arguments over time, whether being changed, adapted or re-appropriated in Politics. Ideas could also rarely be dead once institutionalized in both political institutions and non-political institutions. Moreover, living political ideas could have significant political implications and possible socio-economic consequences as people sometimes live ideas to their perils or to their limits. Furthermore, ideas are alive when they circulate in both political theory and in practice. In terms of these interpretations of living political ideas to the development of the concept of ‘representation’, representation can be said to be a living political idea indeed.

End Notes

1. Mill, J. (2004) ‘Essay on Government’ in Blaug, R. & Schwarzmantel, J. (eds.) Democracy: A Reader, Edinburgh,Edinburgh University Press, p. 154, Originally written 1819-1823
2. Heywood, A. (2002) Politics, 2nd edition, New York, Palgrave Macmillan
3. Machiavelli, N. (1987[1532]) ‘The Prince’ in Bondanella, J. & Musa, M. (eds) The Italian Renaissance Reader, New York, Penguin Books
4. Machiavelli, N.(1983) The Discourses, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books
5. Madison, J. (1987[1788]) ‘The utility of the union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection’, The Federalist Papers, No. 10, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, p. 126
6. Rousseau, J. (1968) The Social Contract and Discourses, Everyman’s Library, Dent, London, Book III, Chaoter XV, pp. 78, Originally written 1762
7. Burke, E. (1996) ‘Speech at the Conclusion of the Poll, 3 November 1774′, in Elofson, W. and Woods, J. (eds), The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, Vol. III: Party, Parliament and the American War (1774-80), Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 68-70
8. Mill, J. (1992) ‘Essay on Government’, in Ball, T. (ed.) Political Writings, sections VI-VII, pp. 21-24, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Originally written in 1819-1823
9. Mill, J.S. (1951) ‘Considerations on Representative Government’ in Acton, H. (ed.) Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government, Dent, London, p. 175- 195, Originally written in 1861
10. Mill (1951) p. 228
11. Mill, J.S. (1982) On Liberty, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books
12. Pitkin, H. (1967) ‘The Concept of Representation’, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 232
13. Pitkin (1967) pp.236
14. Michels, R. (1962) ‘Political Parties: A sociological study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, trans. Eden and Cedar Paul, Free Press, London, pp. 356
15. Dahl, R. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
16. Phillips, A. (1995) The Politics of Presence, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 5
17. Shepsle, K. (1985) ‘Comment on Derthick and Quirk’, in Noll, R. (ed.) Regulatory Policy and the Social Science, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 235
18. Krasner, S. (1993) ‘Westphalia and All That’, in Goldstein, J. and Koehane, R. (eds.) Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, Ithaca, Cornell University Press
19. Thompson, G.; Huysmans, J. & Rrokhovnik, R. (2008) ‘What makes ideas political?’, audio transcripts, courses on Living Political Ideas, Open University
20. Thompson, G.; Huysmans, J. & Rrokhovnik, R. (2008) ‘How do political ideas live?’, audio transcripts, courses on Living Political Ideas, Open University
21. Wills, G. (1982) Explaining America, New York, Penguin Books, pp. 195
22. Mill, J.S. (1951) “Of True and False Democracy; Representation of All, and Representation of the Majority Only.” in Acton, H. (ed.) Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government, Dent, London, p. 175- 195, Originally written in 1861
23. Burns, J. (1968) “J.S. Mill and Democracy, 1829-61” in Schneewind (ed) Mill: A collection of Cirtical Essays, pp.328, Ryan (2007) ‘Bureaucracy, Democracy, Liberty: Some Unanswered Questions in Mill’s Politics’, in Urbinati and Zakaris (eds.) J.S. Mill’s Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp.158
24. Robson (1968) The Improvement of Mankind: The Social and Political Thought of John Stuart Mill, London, Routledge, pp. 224, Bobbio, N. (2005) Liberalism and Democracy, London, Verso, pp.57
25. Disch, L. (2007) ‘Representation “Do’s and Don’ts”: Hanna Pitkin’s The Concept of Representation’, Online, http://www.univ-paris8.fr/scpo/lisadisch.pdf (assessed on 8/6/2010)
26. Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?” American Political Science Review 96: 745-754.

Bibliography

Related Blogs

• Blogging Innovation » Great Leaders Make Decisions
• ETF DAILY NEWS » Possible Gap Fills and Extended Correction To …
• French environment ministry coming out in favour of a green CAP …
• Would we better off without political parties? – Beyond The …
• GAP Faux Fur Vest | Outerwear | eBay
• A Blow Struck For Freedom | RedState
• Prince Harry Opens A Memorial Field To Fallen British Soldiers …
• Medical decisions should always be about the patient — db's …
• Gap's Facebook Places Giveaway: Success or Failure?
• New research on Voting System Preferences | Lindsell Marketing …

Khin Ma Ma Myo

Khin Ma Ma Myo spent most of her years on Burmese Democratic Movement as a Director of Democratic Federation of Burma, an elected Joint-General Secretary (1) of Free Burma Federation and Director of Strategy and Policy of the National Council of the Union of Myanmar. She has written numerous articles for Burma Digest Journal, Renaissance Journal, Burma Today Journal, Women Rights Journal, Journal of Burmese Studies and various political journals. She works as a Chief-Editor for Freedom Journal of Burma and co-author of 'Handbook of People Power Movement', 'Fighting for Freedom' and 'Anti-Dictatorship Struggles'. Khin Ma Ma Myo holds degrees and professional qualifications from Thames Business School, University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, University of Aberdeen and Chartered Institute of Security and Investment (UK). She is currently pursuing LLB degree from University of London International Programmes and Ph.D. in Political Studies from University of Aberdeen . She has a variety of experiences as a security officer, financial analyst, Visiting Lecturer on Government and Politics and researcher on National Security and Counter-Terrorism.

Website - More Posts

Parliament is the highest legislative authority in the United Kingdom, and is made up of three constituent parts: The House of Lords, The House of Commons and the Monarch.

UK Youth Parliament takes to green benches of House of Commons.

Parliament has gradually taken control over many of the powers previously exercised by the Monarch, and although the Queen acts as the head of Parliament, in practice, this role is merely ceremonial. The Crown will always act on the advice of the Prime Minister and other ministers, who are in turn accountable to the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Duration

Parliament has a maximum duration of five years. At any time up to the end of this period, a general election can be held for a new House of Commons.

Functions

The major functions of Parliament are:

1. To make all UK law (legislation). All three constituent parts of Parliament must agree before a new law can be passed.
2. To scrutinise Government policy and administration. This work is carried out in debates, parliamentary questions and through Select Committees. These procedures compel the Government to publicly explain and justify their policies.
3. To control finance. The House of Commons grants the Government permission to control taxes, decide what taxes are collected, and how this money should be spent.
4. To protect the public and safeguard the rights of individuals. Parliament safeguards the interests of the public as a whole, and MPs can also help to protect the rights of the individual.
5. To examine European proposals before they become law. The House of Lords and House of Commons both have committees that examine European proposals, which allows Parliament to prepare and alter its laws to bring the UK into line.
6. To hear criminal and civil appeals in the House of Lords, the highest Court of Appeal in Britain.
7. To debate the major issues of the day. Both Houses of Parliament hold general debates on matters of national and international importance.

Get Involved

The UK Youth Parliament (UKYP) enables young people to use their energy and passion to change the world for the better. Run by young people for young people, UKYP provides opportunities for 11-18 year-olds to use their voice in creative ways to bring about social change. Follow the UK Youth Parliament on Facebook or Twitter

The best way to get involved in politics in the UK, if you’re not so young, is to join one of the political parties. These all operate at the grass roots levels and welcome junior members, or indeed, not so junior.

By getting involved in the local party, you get exposed to the more mundane elements of politics, but more importantly, build a profile and a network of contacts, which is really what politics is all about. Never think that it is about what you know as much as who you know, getting on with the right people, and being savvy about managing your profile and career.

If you have no particular political affiliations, the party political system can make it hard to get that involved with politics, but there are a few independents out there, however, these usually start with one of the main parties then branch out when they have the profile to sustain it, or simply, when they get disillusioned.

However, the best start is to definitely get involved with the running of a party at local level, become a councillor eventually, and then, hope to get through a selection process to be a candidate for selection as a member of parliament (MP)–then hope to have a safe or swing seat and run a good campaign.

Your opinion is appreciated. Please leave a comment below with any practical suggestions on how young (and not so young) people can get involved in politics.

Related Blogs

• How to Select the Ideal Car Loan Duration | United Car Loan
• Paul Uppal to head Parliament property group | Public Property UK
• Gloucestershire UK Youth Parliament make history in Northern …
• Return. Two weeks in Syria with a duration of three days in Jordan …
• ASEE Student Constituent Committee » Upcoming ASEE/IEEE conference
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to Examine …
• Opinion: “Court of Appeal overturns Reynolds defence in Flood …
• The sentiments of men often differ with regard to
• Parliament Declares the End of Bullfighting in Catalonia : World …
• Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill

Jack Dee

I've been an IT consultant for over 15 years. Strange to get paid for doing what you love. May be in danger of being called a geek... but who cares? I actually enjoy every opportunity to drive through the concepts, design, and creative framework on even personal web-based projects. My other passion is travel: 72 cities in 35 countries at the last count.

Website - Facebook - More Posts

There’s no need for a long introduction…this article will “speak” for itself. The following is a list of Barack Obama’s connections to socialism, communism, Marxism, racial divisiveness, and political corruption. If you can ignore this and still support the man who refuses to disclose much of his past, then you should not be voting in November.

The Early Mentors and Influences

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. – Barack’s father was an African socialist. While he was not with his son for much of Barack Jr.’s childhood, they did keep in touch through routine correspondence according to the memoir, Dreams From My Father.

Stanley Ann Dunham – Barack’s mother was a 60′s liberal feminist and an atheist – all the makings of a rebellious, 60′s-era, left-wing radical. There is little written about Barack’s mother and her political views, but from what is known, she was certainly on the left of the political spectrum.

Frank Marshall Davis – “Frank,” as Barack Obama refers to him in his book, Dreams From My Father, was a member of the Communist Party (USA). He was also a former community organizer in Chicago. As a youth, Barack was treated to many of Davis’ rants about white supremacy, white Christianity, and undoubtedly was aware of Davis’ pro-Soviet writings. In his memoir, Barack merely says he was “intrigued” by Davis.

Saul Alinsky – Mr. Alinsky was an avid and open socialist and the king of social activism, commonly called the “father of community organizing.” He created many organizations that relied on street agitation tactics, such as the Industrial Areas Foundation, which trained Obama in organizing tactics. He wrote the book, Rules for Radicals, which outlined many of the tactics used today in community organizing campaigns. Barack Obama worked with the Developing Communities Project and the Gamaliel Foundation – both inspired by Saul Alinsky’s tactics and socialist philosophy. Barack even wrote a chapter on community organizing in the book, After Alinsky. Saul Alinsky’s son, Lee David Alinsky, recently praised Obama on his ability to perform Saul’s tactics, saying that Barack “learned his lesson well.”

John L. McKnight – Referred to as Obama’s “community organizer mentor,” McKnight taught Barack about community organizing while they were both working with the Gamaliel Foundation – a Saul Alinsky production. John McKnight is also a former ACLU director and sits on the board of the National People’s Action (NPA), another leftist community organizing group. He teaches at Northwestern University  and he wrote a letter of recommendation to Harvard for Obama.

Radical Faith Testimonials

Reverend Jeremiah Wright – “Uncle J” was Barack’s former pastor and mentor at Trinity United Church of Christ. The philosophy of the Church is based on the teachings of James Cone’s black liberation theology. Cone admits that his theology is a mix of “black religion and Marxist philosophy.” Wright’s fiery anti-white, anti-capitalist, and anti-United States sermons landed him in a media controversy that eventually led to Barack’s denouncement of him in the spring of 2008, after 20 years of friendship. Wright had married Barack and Michelle and had baptized their two children. The pastor has also worked with Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, and his church’s magazine, Trumpet, has given Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award with praise coming from Wright.

The black liberation theology that is practiced at Trinity is based on James Cone’s version of the religion. He has stated that Trinity represents the most accurate interpretation of his theology. Among the ideas expressed by Cone is the notion that “black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society.” He also believes that “to be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores.” Recently, reports have stated that Cone believes nothing Barack Obama has said or written in his books and speeches contradicts Cone’s black liberation theology. Obama has simply blunted the more “radical edge.” On the other hand, Reverend Wright seems to have a firm grasp on what his theology represents – and he was able to influence Barack Obama with it for 20 years.

Father Michael Pfleger – This seemingly out-of-place white priest with a predominantly black congregation in South Chicago has had a relationship with Obama for nearly 20 years as well. He has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in earmarks and foundation grants from Obama and has contributed to Barack’s multiple political campaigns. He had appeared on Barack’s campaign website under the “Faith” category, but he has since been removed. Much like Wright, Father Pfleger spews fiery racial sermons and gives his support and admiration to Louis Farrakhan. According to Wright’s Trumpet magazine, Pfleger also claims he “got very educated by the [Black] Panthers – very educated.”

Domestic Terrorism and Social “Reform”

William Ayers – Mr. Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist and an anti-capitalist. He was a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the 1960′s and one of the militant spin-offs, the terrorist Weather Underground organization. These organizations were comprised of communist (“small ‘c’”) and anti-capitalist radicals. Part of Ayers’ Weather Underground strategy was to align with black revolutionary organizations like the Black Panther Party because among other things, they felt “white America” exploited black people and they were taken to the military-like discipline exhibited by those groups. Their activities included bombing police stations, the Capitol Building, and the Pentagon. In recent years, Ayers has publicly stated that he is not sorry for what he did and wishes that he had done more. He has been photographed stomping on the American flag and says the idea that the United States is a fair and just nation “makes me want to puke.” He has also given speeches in Venezuela praising the efforts in education that the Hugo Chavez regime has been making…efforts that he has been trying to implement in the Chicago school system for decades.

Bill Ayers served for six years on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) with Barack Obama. Both men headed up separate branches of the CAC that worked together on project funding. He also served on the board of the Woods Fund with Obama for three years. In 1995, Ayers hosted the event at his house which would become the kick-start to Obama’s political career. In that “meet-and-greet,” Alice Palmer handed over her Illinois State Senate reins to Barack (more on that later). Ayers wrote a book on the juvenile justice  system which Barack endorsed warmly, then the two were on a panel set up by Michelle Obama to discuss the merits of the book and current (at the time) legislation on the subject – which both Ayers and Obama opposed, as well as Bernardine Dohrn. Barack also taught classes at the University of Illinois-Chicago, where Ayers is a faculty member. In 2002, the Black Radical Congress (BRC) hosted a panel discussion at the University of Illinois-Chicago called “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis.” Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, and three endorsers of the BRC were on this panel. Contrary to the protestations by the Obama campaign, Bill Ayers is more than “just a guy” who lives in Barack’s neighborhood.

Bernardine Dohrn – She is the wife of Bill Ayers and a former radical herself. Dohrn was the leader of the Revolutionary Youth Movement of the SDS and the Weather Underground. She was also a signatory of the Weather Underground’s “Declaration of War” against the United States. She was a communist (Marxist-Leninist) and is a convicted criminal for her actions in the violent radical groups she was involved with throughout the 60′s and 70′s, particularly the aforementioned bombings. Dohrn later obtained a position at Sidley & Austin, the law firm where Michelle Obama worked. Dohrn’s father-in-law, Tom Ayers, owned a company which had received long-time outside counsel from Sidley. She obtained her position at Sidley & Austin through Howard Trienens, a senior partner. Trienens, Tom Ayers, and Sidley partner Newton Minow, all served on the board of trustees at Northwestern University. Dohrn is now an adjunct professor at Northwestern.

Mike Klonsky – He was a Maoist, a former SDS national chairman (1968), and formed the “October League” when the SDS broke into several factions. The October League later became the Beijing-recognized U.S. Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), of which Klonsky became a leader in the 70′s, traveling to China and praising the Maoist leadership. He took over the Small Schools Workshop which was created by Ayers, when Ayers headed up the CAC in 1995. The CAC, with Barack as one of its chairs, continued to fund the Workshop throughout the CAC’s existence. Klonsky was also an official blogger for the Obama presidential campaign website in 2008.

Marilyn Katz – She oversaw security for the SDS, where she met Ayers. She was part of the Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which organized the 2002 anti-war speech in Chicago where Barack Obama famously spoke out against the Iraq War. Katz is a signatory of the Progressives for Obama website and the founder of Chicagoans Against War on Iraq. She also happens to have played poker games with Judson Miner, the liberal lawyer who hired Obama upon his return to Chicago after graduating Harvard Law School. Obama met Katz through the Miner Barnhill & Galland law firm. Miner was also a law school classmate of Bernardine Dohrn at the University of Chicago in the 60′s. Katz has held fundraisers for Obama in her home and is a media advisor for the Obama presidential campaign.

Carl Davidson – He was a former leader of the SDS and a Maoist, like Klonsky. He was also one of the organizers for the 2002 anti-war speech. Davidson is the webmaster for the website, Progressives for Obama, which posts blogs from other 60′s radicals like Tom Hayden and Bill Fletcher, who created the website and its agenda.

Bill Fletcher – As mentioned, he was a 60′s radical (a Maoist) and is one of the creators of the Progressives for Obama website. While there is no evidence of a direct connection to the Obama campaign, he has endorsed the call of the Black Radical Congress along with Obama advisor Cornel West and has connections to others that are directly involved with Obama and his campaign.

Incestuous Relationships and Friendly Donations

Woods Fund – In 1993, Barack Obama became a board member with the Woods Fund. A man named Ken Rolling was a program officer with the fund at the time. During the late 80′s the Woods Fund gave grants to the Developing Communities Project, where Obama had worked as a community organizer. At the time, the Woods Fund was supporting the Chicago Local School Councils (LSC’s) which were created from the 1988 Chicago School Reform Act. Bill Ayers was involved with establishing these LSC’s along with his brother John, who was a leader in the LSC’s and became head of the Leadership for Quality Education (LQE) in 1993. The LQE was a group formed at the time of the Reform Act and was supported by a local business lobby that wanted to use the LQE as a means to train the LSC’s. Ayers joined Obama on the board of the Woods Fund in 1999 and they worked together there until 2002.

Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) – Bill Ayers played a seminal role in the creation of the CAC. One of the main goals of the Challenge was to build on the 1988 Reform Act and the LSC’s, which he supported and in which his brother was involved. In 1995, the CAC began its operations with Barack Obama as Chairman of the Board. Bill Ayers was co-chair of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one of three branches of the CAC – the Board being another. Ken Rolling was brought in from the Woods Fund as Executive Director. In the first year a 5,000 grant was awarded to the Small Schools Workshop which was founded by Ayers but control was turned over to fellow radical, Mike Klonsky, once Ayers began the CAC. Obama and Ayers worked together in the CAC from 1995 until its end in 2001. That year, the CAC came to an end but handed startup funds over to Penny Pritzker and the Chicago Public Education Fund (CPEF). Pritzker is now part of the fundraising operation in the Obama campaign. In 2003, the CAC’s own report admitted that the ultimate goal of the CAC – to improve academic achievement – was a failure. Regardless of the outcome, it is plain that the goals for Ayers and Obama were similar…and knowing Ayers’ past, it isn’t something that should be taken with a grain of salt.

Sidley & Austin – This is the Chicago law firm that brought in Obama as a summer associate in 1989. It’s also the firm where Michelle Obama worked and reportedly met Barack for the first time. Sidley had been outside counsel to Tom Ayers’ company, Commonwealth Edison. Howard Trienens, the partner that handled Commonwealth Edison, hired Bernardine Dohrn at Sidley. Trienens was on the board of trustees at Northwestern with Tom Ayers, Dohrn’s father-in-law, and Newton Minow, another Sidley partner.

ACORN – Obama has extensive ties to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, as do his two prominent spiritual influences, Wright and Pfleger. Obama’s Developing Communities Project and his “Project VOTE” campaign worked closely with ACORN. Both the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation – where Obama sat on both boards – gave frequent donations to ACORN. He filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of ACORN to enforce the “motor-voter” law in Illinois. Madeleine Talbot, a former ACORN leader in Chicago, hired Obama to train her staff on organizing tactics. Talbot was arrested for a protest that broke into a Chicago City Council session in 1997. In return for training Chicago ACORN leaders in community organizing techniques, Obama received their help with his political campaigns. Obama had also joined with ACORN to try to overturn Indiana’s voter I.D. laws, but the Supreme Court rejected their complaint.

What is ACORN’s record? In St. Louis, eight local ACORN workers were indicted on charges related to voter fraud from fake information on registration forms in 2006. One of the eight pleaded guilty in March. Seven workers were indicted on felony charges in Seattle because of phony registration forms and some of the workers already had criminal records. Three workers pleaded guilty in 2007 and ACORN eventually settled the largest case of voter fraud in Washington State history, paying ,000 in restitutions. Similar problems are being investigated in at least twelve other states. ACORN’s political action committee (PAC) has endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Notable Friends and Advisors

Linda Darling-Hammond – Currently an education advisor to the Obama presidential campaign, Darling-Hammond has some less obvious connections to the leftist agenda, so it will take a little longer to define them. She has writings and has supported the notion of an “education debt” which is said to plague minority communities. This concept is a product of another educator, Gloria Ladson-Billings. Ladson-Billings is one of the pioneers of the phrase “education debt,” which is apparently the by-product (at least in part) of a reparations agenda pushed by people like the factually-incorrect and racist, Randall Robinson and books like, The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks. In 2006, Ladson-Billings gave her Presidential Address to the leftist-tainted American Educational Research Association (AERA) in which she spoke about repaying the “education debt.” She also announced the selection of Darling-Hammond to the Association’s governing council that same week. As it turns out, Bill Ayers was recently elected as an AERA vice-president (but for some reason, he no longer appears on their website as a VP of curriculum studies.)

Darling-Hammond and Ladson-Billings also appear together in two different liberal education programs, the Forum for Education and Democracy (FED) and the Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) “Bold Approach.” Both of these programs preach the concept of “social justice,” which seems to be code for socialist redistribution programs. And they both have more connections to Bill Ayers. Ladson-Billings has contributed writings for Ayers-edited books, she’s been a co-editor with Ayers, and wrote a forward to another of his books. Darling-Hammond, who has taken up the agenda of the two liberal programs, including the notion of the reparations-inspired “education debt,” and is a long-time member of the AERA, has also had her writings appear in an Ayers-edited book. Ayers obviously supports the liberal agenda of both of these educators, the two programs, and the AERA, as does Mike Klonsky, who is a co-signer of the “Bold Approach” agenda.

Laurence Tribe – Mr. Tribe was one of Barack’s professors/mentors at Harvard. He co-founded and is on the board of advisors of the American Constitution Society (ACS), a leftist counter to the Federalist Society. The ACS defines itself as promoting the “progressive” agenda in law. Mr. Tribe has been accused of plagiarizing in one of his books and believes animals should have legal standing to sue humans and businesses. He is on a short list of possible Supreme Court nominees if Obama wins the presidential election and is currently an advisor to his campaign.

Charles Ogletree – He is another one of Barack’s Harvard professors/mentors and an advocate for reparations for slavery, despite the fact that he believes reparations could cost the government trillions of dollars – and the fact that those trillions would come from the taxpayers, including other black people. He has also been accused of plagiarizing, like his colleague Laurence Tribe, and is currently an advisor to the Obama campaign.

Cornel West – Mr. West defines his political ideology as “non-Marxist socialist.” He is an anti-capitalist and honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. He is a contributor/signatory to the Progressives for Obama website and has endorsed the Black Radical Congress’ (BRC) call for a “renewed struggle.” He appeared together with Reverend Jeremiah Wright on a panel called “Faith as a Weapon: Spirituality and the Role of the Church in the Radical Movement” hosted by the newly formed BRC in 1998. West was also involved in the Million Man March and has many other connections to the racist and anti-Israeli, Louis Farrakhan.

Alice Palmer – She is a former executive board member of the U.S. Peace Council (a communist front group), which is an affiliate of the World Peace Council (a Soviet front group). In 1983, she attended the World Peace Council’s Prague Assembly. Palmer wrote an article in the People’s Daily World – a CPUSA newspaper – describing how impressive the Soviet system was when she attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. When she decided to give up her Illinois Senate seat in an effort to win an election for U.S. Representative, she identified Barack Obama as her successor in the State Senate. She held a “meet-and-greet” at the home of Bill Ayers for Obama’s introduction into the Illinois political arena.

Antoin “Tony” Rezko – The relationship between Obama and Rezko goes back to 1990. That year, Tony Rezko offered Obama a job with his housing development business, but Obama declined. They remained friends ever since and Rezko became one of Obama’s biggest campaign contributors. Over the years, Barack has obtained millions of dollars in grants for Rezko to build inner-city housing. However, many of these properties have been plagued by financial misdeeds and problems with infrastructure and maintenance. One project for a senior-citizens complex garnered million for Rezko and his business partner, Allison Davis – an Obama fundraiser and former boss at the law firm then named Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland. At the time Obama’s letter was written asking for legislative support for the project, Cottage View Terrace, Obama was a lawyer with Miner Barnhill & Galland – the same law firm but without Davis as a partner. The firm had several companies owned by Rezko and Davis as clients, but not New Kenwood LLC which was in charge of Cottage View Terrace. Tony Rezko was recently convicted of several felonies involving corruption and kickbacks to various Chicago politicians.

In June 2005, Barack Obama and Tony Rezko purchased adjacent properties on the same day and from the same owner in Chicago. Obama paid 0,000 below the asking price while Rezko paid full price. At the time, it was already known that Rezko was under investigation for criminal charges. In January of 2006, Mrs. Rezko sold a ten foot strip of property to Obama. When asked about the questionable circumstances surrounding the purchase of the two properties, Obama apologized and said his actions were “boneheaded.”

Rashid Khalidi – Mr. Khalidi is a Palestinian political activist and a professor at Columbia University. For six years in Beirut, he was the director of WAFA, the official Palestinian press agency where his wife had also worked as chief editor of the English section. Mr. Khalidi has also worked with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the height of its terrorist campaigns in the Middle East. While in Chicago, the Khalidi’s created the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), an anti-Israeli group, and received ,000 in grants from the Woods Fund when Obama and Ayers were on the board. Khalidi has also held fundraisers for Obama and the Obama’s have had many dinners at the Khalidi’s home in Chicago. Khalidi also started the website Electronic Intifada – an anti-Israeli site – with Ali Abunimah, another Obama associate. Both Khalidi and Abunimah have considered Obama a friend and ally to their cause.

Robert Malley – This former “informal” foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign resigned in May 2008 due to allegations that he was meeting with members of the terrorist organization, Hamas. Malley dismissed his meetings with these contacts as simply being part of his job. But he is also anti-Israeli with a long list of op-ed articles – some co-authored by former Yasser Arafat advisors – with a revisionist slant and intent to denounce Israeli attempts for peace and security. Not surprisingly, Malley’s father was a fervent anti-Western, “Third-Worldist” who wrote about liberation “struggle” – leftist code for anti-capitalism and pro-socialist/communist movements.

Other Supporters of Obama and/or His Policies

Hugo Chavez – Venezuelan dictator
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – President of Iran
Fidel Castro – Cuban dictator
Party of European Socialists
Louis Farrakhan – Supreme Minister, Nation of Islam
Democratic Socialists of America
Communist Party USA (CPUSA)
Frank Chapman – Member of U.S. Peace Council Executive Committee (an FBI-identified communist front group)
Mark Solomon – National co-chair, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
Joel Wendland – Managing editor of CPUSA online magazine Political Affairs: Marxist Thought Online
Pepe Lozano – Leader in the Chicago Youth Communist League and editorial board member of CPUSA newspaper, People’s World Weekly

Closing Thoughts

These are not just associations. All of these connections are family members, close friends and “mentors,” and affiliations/organizations that Obama willingly participated with and in – and financially supported. If Barack doesn’t know about their past and their political ideologies, then he is oblivious to his surroundings and does not belong in the White House as the leader of our country. If he knew about these things but didn’t think they mattered, then he is beyond naïve and does not belong in the White House. If he knew about these things and openly welcomed it, then he’s just downright dangerous and does not belong on a local school board, let alone in the White House.

All of these incestuous relationships directly place Barack Obama deep inside the socialist/communist movements in Chicago. His plans and policies are radical and his associations and partners are mostly on the very far left of politics. Socialism and communism are not – and shouldn’t be – acceptable philosophies in this country, especially from a person running for president. This isn’t simply a matter of “guilt by association.” These relationships are long-lasting and ingrained into Barack’s political philosophy and ideology. There’s a reason why he will do anything and everything it takes to ignore, deny, or denounce every one of these associations once they are brought to the public’s attention.

Is this guilt by association? Not at all. These associations demonstrate a pattern of relationships with leftist radicals, criminally corrupt developers, and racially divisive activists. These relationships are not a matter of happenstance either. Barack sought out these groups from his early days. He did not grow up in Chicago – he chose to live there. His associations are a direct result of his decision-making and his chosen path to political power. He willingly participated in socialist-minded groups and worked with radicals and unrepentant criminals. He is beyond dangerous to this republic of ours and his policies are beyond destructive.

For all of the voters going to the polls in November to vote for change:

You have been warned.

Related Blogs

• Commentary » Blog Archive » Campaign Finance Reform? Just More …
• Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » “You Haven't Freed Nobody”
• Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services deeply involved in …
• Rules for Reactionaries: Lie, distort, misinform…. (reposted from …
• Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis was a sex pervert who …
• DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » 'What Would Saul Alinsky Do?'
• Barack Obama's Connections to Socialism, Communism and Racial …
• World Wide Waddie – FACEBOOK WAR: Lady Gaga Vs. Barack Obama
• Barack Obama: Corrupt-ocrat | RedState
• A combined opposition cannot just be anti-PPP : Kaieteur News

Jack Dee

I've been an IT consultant for over 15 years. Strange to get paid for doing what you love. May be in danger of being called a geek... but who cares? I actually enjoy every opportunity to drive through the concepts, design, and creative framework on even personal web-based projects. My other passion is travel: 72 cities in 35 countries at the last count.

Website - Facebook - More Posts

Black and Asian people are disproportionately targeted by police in a surge of the use of stop and search under counter-terrorism laws in the wake of the failed 2007 London bomb attack, according to official figures published in April 2009.

The Justice Ministry statistics showed that the number of black people being stopped and searched under counter-terrorism laws rose by 322%, compared with 277% for Asian people and 185% for white people.

If you recall, back in late October 2003, the bell rang out on round two of the ongoing battle between the government and the BBC, with the screening of the shocking, and much-talked-about documentary The Secret Policeman.

The BBC promised to show us damning new evidence of racism in the police force that would be impossible to ignore, valiantly bringing the issue into the open, and forcing a fresh public debate. Our man in blue examined the fallout, and while it was certainly as infuriating and sickening to watch as promised, the title of the programme was telling. The Secret Policeman – but secret to whom exactly?

Ballistic Turbans? Is it even possible?

I doubt that there were many black people rubbing their eyes in disbelief as the programme aired, many Asian people fretfully wringing their hands around the water cooler the next morning. Indeed, the satisfaction that many blacks and Asians may have felt at finally seeing the racism, that they have long known still infects the police force, so powerfully attested to on screen, will have been mixed with frustration and anger that only now is mainstream society taking their complaints seriously. Now they have seen it, they believe it. “Well,” some might say, “we have been telling you this for years. Welcome to our world.”

Star of this particular show was North Wales’ PC Rob Pulling, who, with minimal coaxing from undercover BBC report Mark Daly bragged about his fantasy of killing a ‘Paki’, said that Stephen Lawrence ‘deserved to die,’ and branded Lawrence’s parents ‘spongers.’ But Pulling was ably assisted by a strong supportive cast of like-minded heavy-browed knuckle-dragging colleagues, who spoke openly of the hatred of ‘Pakis’ and their and their discretionary application of B.A.T when dishing out on-the-spot-fines to ethnic minorities (Black Added Tax).

No surprises that the report became a national talking point and a tabloid cause celebre. Rarely had police officers been caught on camera being so openly, viciously racist. However, the shock was more profound because so many wanted to believe that, post- Macpherson, racism in the police force wasn’t a problem any more. After the bungled Stephen Lawrence enquiry, society nodded solemnly, learned to speak the language of institutional racism, and put the whole unpleasant incident down as a learning experience. Mr and Mrs Decent of Middle England tutted one last time, thanked God that all that horrid racialism business had been sorted out, and buried their heads safely back in the sand.

But now they have been wakened from their slumber again in the most sensational, and satisfyingly narrative, manner: by a brave, crusading journalist, who put himself on the line to root out the horrible truths that no-one else had the guts to pursue; by astonishing covert camera footage of new police recruits mimicking – in scenes nauseatingly reminiscent of the Stephen Lawrence suspects – the assault of an Asian colleague. PC Pulling provided the headline-grabbing climax by cutting eye-holes in a pillowcase in an approximation of a KKK hood.

The furore was aggravated by the inelegant intervention of the government, with a senior Home Office civil servant allegedly attempting to suppress the film. David Blunkett himself condemned it as a ‘stunt’ days before it was screened, and without any knowledge of its contents, only to backtrack embarrassingly after the broadcast, admitting that his comment had been ‘a mistake.’

However, the willingness of the normally bullish Home Secretary to make such a public U-turn was surprising. Was he forced into it because the contents of the programme were so patently indefensible that it would be suicidal not to? Or did he, with his experienced politician’s nose for an opportunity, sense that he might turn the whole incident to his advantage?

For, disturbing, arresting stuff as The Secret Policeman was, what did it actually reveal to us? Did it provide a genuine insight into the ongoing problem of bigotry in the police force?

Or was it ultimately a sensational grab for the moral high ground that – though well intentioned – will ultimately play into the hands of the ‘few bad apples’ brigade who have sidelined the issue of police racism for decades?

As a gripping good-against-evil narrative, the film was a triumph: the courageous white hero, boldly uncovering wrongdoing, and unmasking the reassuringly, telegenically grotesque villains – the ‘bad apples’ who can quickly be expunged with a quick-fix of purging, public soul-searching, and promises to do better. But, ultimately, doesn’t this just play into the hands of the likes of Blunkett who, with his stance on asylum seekers, has done as little as any Home Secretary in recent memory to further race relations in this country, and for whom the ascendancy of Jean Marie Le-Pen in France was an excuse to cosy up further with the Daily Mail-re a ding classes, and trot out the old line that, unless we take a ‘hard line’ on issues of race and nationality, the doors will be left open to the ‘real’ extremists.

But, regardless of how quickly and cheaply it might placate the masses; a quick fix will never be enough. Regardless of what we might wish, the odious goons caught on camera in The Secret Policeman were unlikely to be the most racist officers in the country. Just the most unlucky. And the most stupid.

You didn’t have to be an investigative reporter to know that none of those featured had turned their backs on promising careers in rocket science or brain surgery in favour of donning the bell-shaped helmet of justice. By focusing their investigation on the most jaw-droppingly vile individuals they could train a camera on, the BBC has allowed society to look outside itself once more for the root causes of racism – to believe that it is a problem caused solely by a handful of skin-headed, Sie-Heiling zealots, rather than by a cancerous, pervasive mistrust and fear of ‘the other’ that lives in the hearts of all of us, white or black.

This is the everyday reality of racism; a reality that made Tony Blair’s claim, in the days after the documentary was screened, that, “the vast bulk of police officers are…not in any shape or form racist,” at best naive, and at worst wilfully dishonest. As is his wont, Blair was re-iterating the comforting illusion that racism is defined by calling Asians ‘Pakis’, blacks ‘niggers’, and enjoying the work of Jim Davidson. The truth is that the real agents of racism are nice/decent people, who, unlike PC Tony Lewin, would never smilingly confess, “I’m a racist bastard.”

Given that the police draw their ranks from a racist society; can we really expect them to be better than the rest of us, no matter how much we need them to be? The answer is no. But, what we cannot tolerate is for them to be worse than the society they are charged with protecting. And the worrying truth is that they are. People often speak of a ‘police culture’ – it is a handy label, often glibly and lazily applied. But the ‘police culture’ does exist. I know, because I have been a part of it.

For just under 18 months, I worked as a civilian, but in an operational role, for a large regional police force, and in that time, I met no one even remotely as contemptible as the likes of PCs Pulling and Lewin. I met a lot of deeply pleasant, civilized people, and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I heard racial epithets being used. And yet, I still came away disappointed, believing that the police force is a racist institution.

One thing that was illustrated by The Secret Policeman is that, for all their faults, those at the top of the policing hierarchy seem to be doing their best to drive out racism. The problem is amongst the rank and file, who are a fiercely protective, inward looking unit, overwhelmingly comprised white males. They are supported by a union – the Police Federation – that has learnt the language of ‘political correctness’, and uses it to their advantage, while simultaneously muttering darkly about how it hampers them in their work.

Political correctness is the modern bête-noire of the police force. I soon lost count of the number of times I spotted a disgruntled officer shaking the pages of his Daily Mail in disgust, and repeating their dreary, charmless mantra: ‘It’s political correctness gone mad!’ The overwhelming feeling was that the drive to eliminate racial profiling in every d a y policing (with the monitoring of Stop and Search records etc) and to be transparent and accountable in all they do, flew in the face of ‘common sense’, and stopped the officers from doing their jobs effectively. On a more general level, the sense was that the imposition of supposedly ‘PC’ values in language and so on, represented a ‘sissification’ of an institution that needed men to be men.

The irony, of course, was that politically correct language actually hampered the quest to root out racist practice. It was notable from the BBC film, and from my own experience of the training received by officers, that the overwhelming emphasis was on what you could and couldn’t say. While it goes without saying that a police officer who uses words like ‘coon’ or ‘Paki’ is unfit for the job and it is made abundantly clear that use of such language is a sacking offence, the overwhelming emphasis on language is turning the pursuit of racism into a phoney war. All that is being taught is a new, safe vocabulary, such that the political correctness that causes so much consternation amongst the rank and file ends up acting as a safety blanket.

Justice Ministry statistics for 2009 shows that black people stopped and searched rose by 322% under counter-terrorism laws, compared with 277% for Asian people and 185% for white people.

I witnessed first-hand how the language of political correctness ends up becoming a parody of itself, ultimately serving only to sugar-coat the same boorish, racist sentiments. One thing the police are great at is inventing jargon. In this spirit, they have created a number of alphanumeric codes to represent different ethnic groupings. Naturally, white people are IC1, while black people are labelled IC3. But what use is a dispassionate, alphanumeric moniker, when it is used in the kind of ways I heard when I was a ‘civvie’: When two known black offenders from another area are rumoured to be local: “If you see any IC3s walking down the street or driving about, you fucking pull ‘em”. Or, quite simply, when talking about a black suspect for a robbery: “Fucking IC3s!”

Are we meant to feel better that officers can be advised – formally or informally – to target ‘IC3s’ or ‘African- Caribbeans’ for Stop and Search? That some officers sit around wearily discussing IC3s and their love for ‘wacky backy’? What has changed except the language?

All the same, while overt racist attitudes exist in the police force, as they do in every sphere, the idea that it is no more than a uniformed arm of the BNP is dead wrong. The real toxicity of the ‘police culture’ is its overwhelming emphasis on machismo and conformity. In truth, the problem of racism in the police is a mere corollary of these two things.

While some people might be attracted to the police force out of some unpleasant authoritarian impulse, I still believe that most do so out of a desire to serve the public, and that the vast majority of these people are decent, honest folk. However, so strong is the ‘police culture’, that all but the strongest recruits inevitably finds themselves swayed by it. Ultimately, you have to conform to survive, and almost everyone ends up reverting to a default position of macho, no-bullshit, boys’ club posturing. Unfortunately, what might be termed as ‘traditional’ attitudes on race and colour are as much a part of this as ‘traditional’ attitudes on gender, sexuality, religion, and countless other issues, and it takes a brave individual to rock the boat.

So, in a way, Tony Blair was right. The overt, loutish racists, like those captured on The Secret Policeman are in a tiny minority in the police force. But, it has a far larger problem on its hands, in the poisonously macho, conformist culture that holds sway amongst the rank and file – a culture that stifles progress and dissent, that wilfully and crassly shuts out that which doesn’t fit in with its white, male-dominated credo, and which encourages potentially good officers to do nothing in the face of bad practice. And that is a problem for which there is no quick fix.

Related Blogs

• Clegg blasts rivals' cut plans in TV debate | Public Property UK
• Prince William's First SAR Posting – North Wales! | British Royals
• Pakistan hospital bomb blast kills nine – AFP « Web Hay News …
• Hospital bomb attack kills at least 10 | the very latest news
• Disbelief and Enemy of the Sun new songs available online …
• Weho Daily » fountain la brea is man assaulting woman – male …
• Park Police Seek Vandal Allegedly Writing Racist Messages – City …
• Cowboys & Turbans Indian Mexican street food fusion
• World star Cesaria Evora to lead secret Chinese center? | The …
• The Absurd Report » William Ayers' Wyoming Debacle Highlights …

J Hill

The need to urgently address the systemic under-representation of Black and minority ethnic (BME) communities in our local, regional and national democratic institutions in the United Kingdom is imperative. The lack of BME representation within our elected Chambers leave many people from within BME communities to believe that whether by design or default there is little or no place for BME communities to have an equitable voice.

Of 646 MPs, only 15 are from BME communities. Of those, only 2 are women, and to date, there has not been an Asian woman MP. Justice and equality are the driving forces behind achieving representative democracy for BME communities. A closer reflection of society would be nearer 60 MPs of which over half would be women.

Operation Black Vote in partnership with the Communities and Local Government (CLG) are delighted to re-launch the dynamic MP Shadowing Scheme. The aim of the cross-party project is to address the deficit of BME individuals in all areas and at levels of political life and nurture a generation of BME leaders

Building upon the unprecedented success of Operation Black Vote’s award winning Shadowing Schemes – Councillor, National Assembly for Wales, Magistrates, and Parole Board – this project aims to help tackle the under representation of BME individuals within parliamentary life and also demystify the functions of our elected institutions.

Programme aims and objectives:

What does the programme comprise of?
The cross-party programme will enable 25 dynamic BME individuals aged 18 years upwards to shadow Members of Parliament from constituencies around Britain. Participants will gain an invaluable experience of parliamentary politics at Westminster and in the local constituency. The programme will comprise of approximately 10-12 non-consecutive days over a six-month period and individuals will participate in a mixture of shadowing days and training sessions.

The initiative will focus on giving participants first hand knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of MPs and an insight into Parliamentary systems and procedures. Our aim is that upon completion, this leadership programme will equip and motivate participants to engage in political activities. Participants will also be encouraged to become Community Ambassadors, explaining and promoting the benefits of political engagement and encouraging others to also become involved in democratic and civic life. The scheme will also give MPs and Party officials an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of BME communities. OBV view this process as essential to involving BME communities in the wider scope of activities within the decision making process.

Learning Seminars:
Shadows will attend learning seminar sessions in addition to politician’s briefings.

To include:

The Process
OBV in conjunction with the CLG will select a total of 25 BME men and women to participate in the programme. Candidates will comprise a mix of BME communities and will shadow MPs from Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the SNP.

Participants will follow a programme devised by OBV that allows a unique perspective of MPs, both at Westminster and in the constituency. On completion of the scheme, shadows will have gained a better understanding of the political process to consider putting themselves forward as candidates for elected office.

Requirements of Applicants:

Is there a fee?
No. There is not a cost to participate on the programme as OBV are keen to promote political engagement in political life.

Travel and food costs will be reimbursed for shadowing and training days.

What happens when the scheme has finished?

OBV’s Shadowing Schemes and leadership programmes have received numerous awards for their ability to inform and inspire. Many graduates have become Cllrs, Magistrates, School Governors, with others creating political history as political firsts.

Our aim is that upon completion, this leadership programme will equip participants with the skills and motivations to engage in public life. All participants who successfully complete the programme will be awarded with a certificate of recognition.

In addition, participants will join OBV’s Alumni programme, which will provide assistance, support and networking opportunities to further develop your political aspirations.

What is the next step?
If you are interested in applying to the programme, please complete the application form and return it to OBV by Monday 1st February 2010 at 12 noon.

Print this page and download an application form.

Please note that interviews will take place in London at the end of February/ beginning of March 2010.

For any further information, please contact:
Francine Fernandes, Head of Shadowing Schemes, Operation Black Vote (020 8983 5426).

Jack Dee

I've been an IT consultant for over 15 years. Strange to get paid for doing what you love. May be in danger of being called a geek... but who cares? I actually enjoy every opportunity to drive through the concepts, design, and creative framework on even personal web-based projects. My other passion is travel: 72 cities in 35 countries at the last count.

Website - Facebook - More Posts

This is a reflection on the nature of British democracy in an increasingly sceptical age, where votes cast in elections are on the slide and disengagement with party politics is up. However, it can also be considered an open letter to Peter Hain, Diane Abbott and all the MPs who have criticised the BBC’s decision to invite Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP) to appear as a panellist on Question Time, the prime time political discussion television programme.

Let me first nail my colours firmly to the mast. The BNP is a fascist organisation, which is necessarily antidemocratic. Its policies are as illegal as they are illogical. Many of its prominent members have criminal records, for violent crimes and the incidence of racist violence increases wherever it enjoys electoral success or assumes a raised public profile. I am implacably opposed to their very existence. Having said all this, the BBC’s decision to give Griffin a platform on Question Time was inevitable and criticising the BBC for doing so is aiming at the wrong target. Allow me to explain why I consider this to be the case.

The BNP enjoys the status of a legal political party. As long as it does and subject to it crossing the threshold of electoral significance, the BBC had no credible choice but to provide them with a platform. The BBC Charter, approved by Parliament, obliges the BBC to give political parties the right to speak to its audiences. The criteria used by the BBC to determine the BNP’s electoral significance was exactly the same as that which applied to the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party), Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Nationalists), Green Party and UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party).

So here is an idea, Messrs Hain, Abbott et al: instead of bleating at the BBC, why not do something which is in your powers but (quite rightly) outside of theirs, namely ban the BNP? Now, some of you may well be asking: what is the case for such draconian action against this organisation? There are several good reasons for the it to be outlawed. Firstly, a political point: they are necessarily antidemocratic; it is therefore absurd that they are allowed to hijack the democratic process to pursue their antidemocratic objectives. History repeatedly teaches us that this never ends well. Secondly, many of their actions are unlawful: they discriminate on racial grounds on who is eligible for membership. Following a recent legal case brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, they are obliged to consider changing this and to suspend acquiring new members until they do so. However, even if they make such a dramatic transformation, this will not change the third reason for outlawing them: their policies are illegal. They are committed to paying legally settled ‘immigrants’ and their descendants money to leave Britain. Ironically, this is discrimination on racial grounds against white Britons, who would be offered no such inducements to head for America, Australia, Canada, or elsewhere. Additionally, they are committed to unilaterally reneging on Britain’s obligations to refugees, which are governed by international law.

The legal case for outlawing the BNP, is I would contend, a compelling one. However, what are the democratic implications of such a move? Would this be the first step on a slippery slope towards banning all political parties that the powers that be find objectionable? Absolutely not, for two reasons. The first of these is the antidemocratic nature of the BNP; it is paradoxical to argue for the continued legal existence of an antidemocratic organisation on the grounds of democracy. The second is the malign effects of their electoral success and public profile. However objectionable some people may find the policies of the SNP, say, or the Greens, their success does not put families and communities at risk of violence. In sharp contrast, violence follows the BNP like flies following a bad smell.

Let me make it clear that I have no issue arguing with their opinions, which, intellectually and morally bankrupt as they are, present little challenge. However, the terms of any such debate must change, to protect the lives and wellbeing of people likely to be subjected to the violent excesses of their knuckle dragging hard core members and hangers-on. As long as they are legal, the lives of children, young people and women in particular are at increased risk, because like most thugs, those who commit unprovoked racist attacks are cowards, likely to prey on ‘soft’ targets.

A common counter argument to outlawing the BNP and its ilk is that, forced underground, they may become more dangerous. It is better, so this argument goes, to have them openly active where they can be seen. This is unsupported by the facts. The violence that surrounds the BNP is seldom out in the open, except in occasional street confrontations with organised anti fascist and anti racist opponents. Racist thugs, in common with all criminals, wish to do their work undetected. On the other hand, the democratic legitimacy conferred on the BNP by being a legally recognised political party hands them two gifts: publicity and respectability.

We would all do well to remember that the banning of political organisations in Britain is nothing new. Simply being a member of some Irish republican organisations is a crime. Several so-called Islamist organisations have also been outlawed in recent years. If a political party was established to promote the sexual exploitation of children, would banning it from standing for election be an affront to democracy? I would certainly hope not. The BNP is just as dangerous to many children as paedophiles and their claim to political legitimacy is just as suspect.

I am therefore calling upon democratic politicians of all parties and none to do the job you should have done a long time ago: ban the BNP now! And I am calling on all voters who oppose racism and fascism to write to your MPs, demanding that they stand up for democracy and community safety.

Cyril Husbands

The Saint Lucian government had been pushing for increased tourism on the island, and so as editor of Drum magazine, I went to have a look.

I met up with the Right Honourable Phillip J. Pierre – Minister for Tourism, Commerce, Investment and Consumer Affairs – to discover his philosophy on sustainable tourism and economic development in the region.

I wanted an opportunity to sit with the Minister and talk about some of the things that were of interest to our Drum readers. They wanted to know about sustainable development. I wanted to find out how Drum could help to encourage more travel to the Caribbean and have a presence in the area. One of the obvious benefits would be in helping to develop a stronger skill base (and economic potential) to counteract the usual Caribbean brain drain.

Returning nationals can only be a good thing, or so I thought, either by way of investment and business, or simply as a beautiful country in which to live and enjoy life.

What we so often see instead is foreign nationals investing in the Caribbean who don’t always have the people’s best interests at heart. I was playing Devil’s Advocate now.

The minister smiled and nodded his agreement but before turning to tourism, I wanted to challenge his perception of a changing Saint Lucian youth culture blighted by the ever-present effects of Uncle Sam.

So does American TV and culture really influence the behaviour of young people in Saint Lucia?

The question and the challenge we have is how to get through to our young people. If you walk in Castries now, you can see that the influence of American television and culture is international, and you could be anywhere in the world. The style is the same, the music the same, the dancing the same, everything. The problem that we have is how, if possible, to stem that flow. How to reach out and reclaim our young people? And it’s partly down to the media.

What has happened is that the press in this region has become political. The press believes that its role is to attack Government. They don’t look at issues like the cultural dynamics, negative influences from abroad, or the bridging of different Caribbean interests; their role is to attack Government. The press has a responsibility, and its responsibility is to inform, not to pressure. The press has become like a pressure group.

So how do you persuade the press to act more responsibly?

Well, you see, anybody can become a journalist in Saint Lucia. People leave school, they have a CSE in English; they become press people. It is the only occupation that you need no qualification to enter in Saint Lucia. So, the press now becomes an imposition of the personality, or the group, which owns it. You guys have a variety of press, left, right, centre, and whatever. You don’t have that problem.

Why do all the top jobs in big hotels seem to go to foreigners?

For the simple reason that we entered the tourism industry late. We made our money in bananas. The best brains did not go into tourism. That’s a fact. A hotel owner would prefer to hire a Saint Lucian because he pays him less. He doesn’t have to give him a house. He doesn’t have to bring his wife and children down. We’ve been late in the tourism industry. We are a banana people. Bananas made our money. When I was in school, I had the best brain but I would never go into tourism. I studied economics.

And your friends?

My friends all studied physics and maths. We became historians, got degrees in science, studied English Literature–while some of the other guys did medicine. So what happened when the country entered the tourism industry is that the guys, all due respect to them, who didn’t pass exams–they all went into tourism.

So there you have your answer. Now, there is a new generation of hotel managers emerging. Bright young people who have studied hotel management and can pass exams. And further, in the hotel industry, you must start from the bottom.

Does the government encourage foreign investors to empower local people through training and educational grants and bursaries?

Of course we do. I’m a Pan-Africanist. I’m a fellow who really believes in black empowerment and the collective interests of our people, but I will not tell you that this or that action is deliberate. I will tell you that there might be barriers put in the way. It’s like the bar might have been a little higher sometimes because in the tourist industry you basically serve white people. I never wanted to serve white people.

So can advertising aimed exclusively at white holiday makers really encourage returning nationals or other black frequent flyers like myself with a natural connection to Saint Lucia and the rest of the Caribbean?

I know what you’re getting at. You see, we have not planned the vertical change in the tourism industry. We do not control the source. We are only at the level of the service.

We’ve got to economically empower ourselves, and what empowers us is money. Black people because of our lack of education and access, and I don’t mean degrees, but we are always working for other people. This is a serious problem that is not easily solved.

My brother, if you look at it superficially, you will see that what has happened to us is that we have not gone where money is. If you look at the black families in Saint Lucia who had money in the past, they have no money now, because they didn’t put it into wealth creation and emerging industries.

How does Saint Lucia support returning nationals?

This government has helped returning nationals a lot. You come back here; you get all your stuff duty free. Once you’ve lived ten years in England and you come back to Saint Lucia, you can bring in all your belongings duty free. You get your car, your equipment, your tools, you get everything duty free. We welcome you back home in order to help create a more stable environment for our future.

Do you sometimes find your hands tied by the workings of the US?

Part of the problem is that we cannot legislate for the majority because we get buckled by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

So your economic policy has to be across the board otherwise I get called by the US State Department because we want to only import 25% of chickens from abroad. We have our own chickens! But I get called by the State Department all the time because they tell me we are flouting WTO rules.

In other words, Uncle Sam still has power over developing economies through organisations like the World Bank, IMF, WTO and others. So now, as Caribbean people in the region, we have to be strategically prepared, and decide that we’re working together, and forget partisan politics.

Can a British magazine like Drum provide any real help in this climate?

First of all, you have to up your circulation in this region. I noticed that you’ve had some very interesting articles. I’ve been getting it. Did you see a copy in the waiting room outside? It’s very striking.

I saw a few topics there that are real. You had something called Men on the Downlow, about men who go out with men. That’s a real topic. A topic that plenty in Saint Lucia wouldn’t want to believe exists because most people are still homophobic. If a guy in Saint Lucia wants to pay you an insult, he’ll call you, “Bulla” (gay). Though you’re probably not a homosexual and he knows nothing about your lifestyle. “Bulla,” he’ll shout.

So you see where we are – education, education, education! Whether it’s Barbados, Saint Lucia, Antigua or Jamaica, there are a number of similar issues that we need to face and come together and work on in the Caribbean. Other people do it. Why not us? But it takes guys like you who have transgressed, guys who have gone that step further, and can be role models to our people.

They’ll listen to you. No one listens to me, I’m a politician.

Word on the street was that the Honourable Phillip J. Pierre could be the next Saint Lucian Prime Minister. In the general elections that followed months later, his party was ousted from power. It seems that no one was listening.

Related Blogs

• Turks and Caicos Islands: Caribbean Paradise secret beach | Travel …
• Caribbean travel | Find the best places for your tour destination
• Antigua:Caribbean Travel-Travel Video PostCard | Find the best …
• Quote the Devil's advocate? » GetReligion
• Uncle Sam's Sandwich Bar, Pittsburgh's Take on the CheeseSteak
• The Deforestation In Latin America | Video Music Television
• Uncle Sam: The Son of Three Fathers « Symon Sez
• A savage and beautiful country « Letting go
• Rocket USA Uncle Sam Register Bank – Nickel Color | articleandinfo …
• Doctor brain drain reversed – Need to know – Macleans.ca

Paul Boakye

Writer, editor and marketing specialist who sat on The Power Inquiry. Former editor and CEO of the consumer lifestyle magazine, Drum (UK), and author of five plays published for an academic audience by Alexander Street Press, USA. Recipient of business and writing awards, including prestigious accolades such as advising British government, BBC radio and TV commentator, and invitation to meet Queen Elizabeth II in 2007. Currently works as a communications professional, creating contagious ideas to help great brands change the conversation to their advantage, across the entire Central and West African region.

Website - Twitter - Facebook - More Posts