The Power of Inequality…

So many questions arise when considering the riots that have engulfed Britain over the last four days… Who’s to blame? Why are they happening? What can be done? When will they stop?

I’ve witnessed a multitude of responses to these questions in the press, social media, conversations with friends, family and colleagues. One of the most common has centred around the condemnation of the rioters, who in the eyes of many are clearly the ones to blame. While on the face it this would seem like a common sense answer I would contend that this is an all to lazy response that ignores anything other than the immediate reality on the ground. And if we want to find answers to the questions about how to make sure this doesn’t happen again we need to look at the events in a broader context…

One of the features of modern Britain is our embrace of individualism, it pervades all elements of our culture. It centres around the idea of personal responsibility and self reliance within an environment that offers individual freedom. It extols the virtue of free choice and light touch regulation, it lies at the core of consumerism (the right to choose what we want to consume and how we want to consume it). Yet it is this pursuit of this agenda that lies at the very heart of the breakdown in society that has led to the riots.

Politically individualism is embodied by the Conservatives and it enshrined in two key principles they pursue relentlessly, both of which drive inequality:

• Free-markets – though “free” is used under advisement this principle centres around the idea of minimising regulation of the mechanisms employed to facilitate the sale and purchase of commodities. The idea being that this provides the most efficient way of allocating available resources. However, another key feature of this arrangement is the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few; as the old saying goes, money makes money… And the more you have the more you’ll make. The bi-product of someone making loads of money is that it is at someone else’s expense.
• Low flat rate taxes – low taxes mean a smaller government, this is desirable in the eyes of conservatives as it believes the individual is better placed to figure out how best to spend the money they have available. However, this ignores the fact that some services governments provide are there to level the playing field (e.g. social housing, healthcare, education, etc…). Flat rate taxes are supposedly fair as they apply the same level of taxation to all. However, if we reflect on the inherent unfairness of free-markets flat rate taxes only exacerbate the gap between the haves and have nots.

We can choose to reject either one or both of these ideas at the core of individualism, but if we continue to accept both the level of inequality will only continue to rise. And it is inequality that lies at the heart of the matter.

What evidence is available to support the view that inequality lies at the heart of the riots? Looking specifically at the prominence of rioting itself we can look to other developed nations and their position in terms of inequality there is startling evidence to support the contention that the riots should be expected in countries such as Britain. Take the USA (the most unequal country in the developed world) do you think this could happen there? Well, there are 10 riots recorded in the US in the last decade alone! What about Japan (one of the most equal societies in the developed world)? The last riot in Japan was in 1970 (ironically it was in protest at the US military presence and was put down by US military forces). More generally the impacts of inequality in society are set out pretty definitively in The Spirit Level (by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett), it shows the impact of inequality on society (NB Britain is one of the most unequal societies), as well analysing the underlying behaviours that inequality creates.

Accepting that the riots are a result of the gross inequality in Britain, there is still a question about whether or not the riots actually represent a form of protest. Many hold the view that the riots are simply a result of opportunism and group-think, refusing to countenance the possibility that there is any political basis for the rioting. If we look back to the 1980s to find the last time there were riots of a similar nature in Britain in Toxteth and Brixton many people including the media recognised they were at least in part political protest. So what differentiates these riots in the eyes of the world?

Clearly the nature of the riots is different, looting is wide spread, and there is little or no dialogue with the rioters. However, there are good reasons the mode of rioting is different, the participants in the Brixton and Toxteth riots were drawn from a much heterogeneous set who were able to articulate their grievances about unemployment and heavy handed police tactics. Today’s rioters do not seem willing or able to articulate a similar message, but should we therefore assume there is no reason for their actions beyond opportunism and thuggery? After all their reality is rather different. Remember most of the community in Toxteth had been skilled manual labourers from the docks and manufacturing who were part of an established community; whereas today’s rioters are the product of generations of long-term unemployed, living in atomised communities with only minimal education. As a result they are unable to articulate their anger other than the wanton destruction of property and conflict with the police. But despite the justifiable objection of wider society to the rioters means we must recognise their anger is authentic and justified.

So what is to be done?

If we are to follow the individualist’s agenda we find a dearth of solutions. Perhaps we could lock them all up as they refuse to follow societies norms? This doesn’t sound like a particularly practical or effective solution. It doesn’t address the underlying causes and the idea of prison as a deterrent doesn’t seem particularly credible given our ever increasing prison population. Other solutions available to individualists seem few and far between, although I’d be happy to hear from any readers with any ideas of this particular oeuvre.

The alternative… We could consider targeting deprived communities, providing funding for eduction and training, provide financial support community based groups (remember funding has been cut by more than 50% for most of these organisations). More radical solutions might include:

• Government sponsored set-up of new green industries in former industrial town and districts, creating jobs and a hub for communities to gravitate to; or
• A social housing programme to address the chronic shortage of housing for the disadvantaged (currently 16,053 households are on council house waiting lists in Haringey with only 740 new lettings becoming available per year).

 

But what of the cost? Well its a pretty simple equation, you can spend the money and avoid having your property damaged and enjoy feeling safer and more secure, or you can choose not to spend it and face an increasingly uncertain and insecure future. Perhaps the time has come to recognise that even our own interests are best served by some compassion and altruism for other?

I’ll leave you with a quote from someone who understood what’s happening better than most and a couple of recommendations for some reading on inequality…

 

‘When you cut facilities, slash jobs, abuse power, discriminate, drive people into deeper poverty and shoot people dead whilst refusing to provide answers or justice, the people will rise up and express their anger and frustration if you refuse to hear their cries. A riot is the language of the unheard.’

- Martin Luther King Jr.

 

Recommended reading…

Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists – Daniel Dorling

Chavs – The Demonisation of the Working Class – Owen Jones

The News… You’re Screwed!

News International‘s damage limitation exercise kicked in with a vengeance this afternoon as James Murdoch announced that Sunday’s edition of News of the World would be its last. On the face of it this sort of decisive action may appear to be an act of contrition that shows just just how seriously News International (read Rupert Murdoch) takes the string of phone hacking revelations that have shocked us all. However, we must stop and realise that the motivation for this move is governed not by any sense of moral duty but the overriding priority for Murdoch to maintain his vast wealth and influence.

Before I say much more about Murdoch’s motives lets begin by making it absolutely clear who’s responsible, ergo who should be held to account. The extent of the phone-hacking operations was so wide spread we can be absolutely certain it was not just the work of a couple of “rogue operatives” but a mode of operation that was deeply engrained in the culture of News of the World. Rather than being a damning inditement of the rank and file this suggests: at worst senior management (i.e. Rebecca Brooks, Murdock snr and jr and the other News International apparatchiks) actively encouraged such behaviour and colluded to cover it up; and at best demonstrated gross negligence through their complete failure of oversight and the absence of sufficient internal controls. In either event both must be considered completely unacceptable and grounds for senior management’s immediate dismissal and most probably criminal charges.

So if we are to assume that the closure of The News of the World draws a line under this whole sorry affair what amens does it bring? From what I can discern there will be very little. First and foremost lets remember that the closure means that 168 employees, few of whom worked during the period of Hacking-gate worked at the paper, their redundancy doesn’t seem to provide any sort of solution. It would seem that a phoenix will soon emerge from the flames (given reports that the domain name for sunonsunday.com was purchased two days ago) as a new Sunday paper arrivea on the market filling the same space in the marketplace with the very same culpable leadership in control. So far so little to protect the public from those responsible or bring them to account.

Lets now consider Rupert Murdoch’s motives for the move and what he might gain from the closure of The News of The World… As I’ve already mentioned the objective of the closure is to draw a line under events, if successful this would mean:

• The take-over of BSkyB would proceed, providing even more control of our daily media intake and even greater means to influence the public and control the agenda to Murdoch’s will
• Avoidance of a full public enquiry chaired by a judge where any lies or cover-ups would be punishable with the full force of the law (there can be no doubt none of the board of News International have any appetite to face a custodial sentence)
• Limit the reputational damage to other News International businesses as a result of a long drawn out scandal

All of which mean Murdoch is able to fulfil his overriding objective to maximise return to shareholders (remember this is the primary objective of any publicly listed company). This objective throws up problems in the eyes of many for all corporations, as shareholder interest takes precedence to all of its other stakeholders, be they employees or customers. And to some extent is a justification of Murdoch’s behaviour. Therefore we must consider whether this widely accepted mode of behaviour can be tolerated any longer. Particularly, in the case of the media which unlike other business has a duty to not only deliver its product to the market place to satisfy customers needs but to hold government, business and wider society to account. Clearly if the media is owned by very few players, for whom the priority is to maximise their returns a conflict exists. For who will hold them to account, if it is not in their own interests to do so. For this reason we must fundamentally reconsider who media is owned and regulated, placing its role as the 4^th estate at its heart.

Despite these facts we cannot lay this solely at the door of the capricious owners of News International and the working culture they fostered at News of the World and the wider stable of News International publications. The wider public who embrace the journalistic agenda of these publications must think twice about what it seeks from the media, and recall its most important role in society as the 4^th estate. In this age of intrusion, the public’s seemingly insatiable appetite for the intimate details of celebrities and other notable figures (whether they be victims of murder, rape or other heinous crimes, soldiers) we are guilty

Lets follow Liverpool’s example following the hideous lies the very same News International Group printed about the Hillsborough disaster and vote with our wallets, boycott all News International publications, drop your Sky satellite subscription, write to your MP demanding a public enquiry presided by a judge and ask for the proposed take-over of BSkyB to be blocked. We cannot stand idly by any longer and let Rupert Murdoch poison the fabric of British society, we can and must say no more. And if you think this all sounds a bit harsh on poor old Rupert, remember he’s is and will remain a very rich man.

For more insight into the ills of the printed media look no further than Noam Chomsky who’s written extensively on the subject, you can check out his website which will provide an eloquent and damning analysis (http://www.chomsky.info/).

Is there no alternative?

More and more often I find myself asking why so many people are attached to the orthodoxy of believing there is to alternative to the market-based capitalist model we find in Britain and the USA today (and to a lesser extent the rest of Europe)? After all, the facts that support the case against such a model are well documented. And even those who doggedly insist there is no alternative would acknowledge there are many ills as a result of this system that touch their lives right now. Whether it be high levels of personal debt, rising prices, job security, or limited access to healthcare and other vital elements of social welfare. They would also find little argument in the assertion that more significant existential threats lie in wait as we face the prospect of global warming and the depletion of the earth’s natural resources.

So why given they accept these problems do people cling to the current mode of government and its economic model? I would contend this can be considered by answering two questions:

1. Is there reason to believe the current model can succeed in providing solutions to the problems we face today and tomorrow?
2. If we can agree that capitalism doesn’t possess these answers, why do so many people feel this is the only option?

To answer the first question we must spell out the issues that must be addressed and consider how the markets based capitalist system can respond. These issues are manifold, but let us assume that we must answer the most significant of them if we are to succeed in our objective. I’ve already referenced two of the biggest:

• The threat to our environment as a result of global warming; and
• The depletion of the earth’s natural resources.

As with the issues themselves there are many reasons the current market-based capitalist model is unable to respond, this includes but is not limited to the following:

• Market-based Capitalism is dependent on commoditisation. For a market to function it must have a commodity to trade, whether it be a apples, computers or coal. Without resources to create commodities (something that is inevitable if we exhaust all of the world’s resources) market-based Capitalism cannot function. As we see more and more consumers come on-line around the world (something that Capitalism embraces as more consumers means more buyers; thereby increasing the volume and prices of commodities that are sold) the rate at which the available resources is exhausted inevitably increased. Market-based Capitalism has no mechanism to control this process.Market based Capitalism’s promotion of low levels of regulation and objection to public services.
• The vested interest of Big Oil companies in maintaining their grip on the energy market means there is little opportunity for investment in renewable resources to thrive.
• The short-termism of elected governments who have a 4/5 year time horizon, precluding any appetite for governments to make significant investments (e.g. renewable energy projects or green transport) that will see no return in the life of their parliamentary term.

Let us now consider the second questions I posed, why do people feel market-based capitalism (given its inability to provide solutions to the issues I’ve outlined above) is the only option available. Two of the key reasons for this view are:

• The capitalist controlled mass-media’s promotion of market-based Capitalist orthodoxy and non-existent coverage of alternatives
• Two party politics, that is only differentiated by very little in terms of their key economic policy. (Remember the Labour Party was and still is pro-city (i.e. deregulation of Financial services), accepts the need for cuts to public services to address the national debt, and proposes a tax regime that is very similar to the Tories.)

So how are we of the political persuasion that doesn’t fall into the narrow spectrum of two party politics to advance the cause for a more just and equal world that is able to face up to the problems effecting our lives today? Three options that I can discern that are available right now are:

1. Use social media to spread the word to your peers, circumventing the capitalist controlled mass-media. The number of active users of social media sites offers a platform that can reach as many people as the capitalist controlled mediums. Spread personal testimony about how your own life and those around you have been effected by the current system, and promote alternative solutions whether local or global.
2. Bring together the a broad based coalition of anti-capitalism and environmental groups under a single banner. Building a political party with a big enough membership / voting base to secure national media attention and financial resources. I would contend the Green Party is the most appropriate place to build from, as it embraces both environmental and anti-capitalist agenda, without the dogma that longstanding parties of the left still cling to. In Germany the Green Party is now competing with the two leading parties!
3. Internationalise these issues. The globalised nature of the threats we face as well as the mechanisms of market-based capitalism dictate that we need to build coalitions that reach beyond national boundaries. Get involved in Anti-globalisation forums and groups that span nations (see http://www.thezeitgeistmovementuk.com/ or http://www.oneworldgroup.org/).

Its in your hands… Blog / tweet / status update; join the Green party, reach out and make friends with people from outside your own community.

If you’d like to read more detailed analysis of some of the issues I’ve covered in this article I’d recommend the following books (I accept that I’ve provided slim evidence for some of my assertions but brevity is the name of the blog game)…

Heat – George Monbiot (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heat-How-Stop-Planet-Burning/dp/0141026626/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309731297&sr=1-4)

The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone – Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0241954290/ref=oss_product+)

23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism – Ha-Joon Chang (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1846143284/ref=oss_product)

Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet – Tim Jackson (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1849713235/ref=oss_product)

Lip Service

I’ll begin with  an assumption… Ed Miliband is right, we need more responsible behaviour from the boards of directors of companies in Britain. But its all very well for Ed to call for more responsible behaviour in the boardroom but this call is only lip serivce. For as anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of how public companies operate knows, two objectives override all else:

• The board (aided by their chief executive officer) must ensure they maximise return for shareholders;

• The baord will seek to maximise their own remuneration (a remarkably simple task in comparison to the same goal for ordinary workers as they are responsible for agreeing their own renumeration).

So it follows that any amount of rhetoric about responsibility will fall on deaf ears with no hope of leading to any meaningful change in behaviour. Particularly as the mass media has shown little or no willingness to engage in the debate; why would they when they are companies owned and run by the very same network of privileged individuals who sit on the boards of Britain’s bluechip companies?

What we really need to change behaviours in the board room are new rules that will enforce responsible behaviour. Of course this will be resisted quite simply because it will impinge on the primary objectives I’ve already set out.

Not coincidentally boards of director have an developed and deployed a number of extremely effective mechanisms to combat any efforts to make such a case. These mechanisms (e.g. lobbying ministers (I’m not sure how you or I would go about getting such an audience), media campaigns (it helps when you’re kin are the media owners), and the art of distraction) are used to promote a line of argument that maintains

regulation will seriously inhibit “free enterprise” and “wealth creation”. But these arguments are at best tenuous and at worst down right lies. There is no data available to support the claims of chief executives and their boards that sky high rewards represent effective means of incentivisation that drive performance; nor the contention that if we are to impose too much regulation companies and talented individuals will take their businesses out of the UK. Leading to less innovation, job creation and tax receipts.

This particular scare tactic is particularly dangerous as it appears to hold sway in the public consciousness, however, it is another deceit. If we first of all consider the prospect of talented individuals leaving the country and believe for a moment their departure would be a threat to our shared prosperity we overlook the very nature of competition and capitalism. Yet just as the Hydra in Greek mythology, when you cut off the head another one will inevitably grow back. The skills we’re talking about are not those of a professional footballer who is born with certain set of physical gifts; the skills of business can be taught. And in all of the most competitive environments where rich rewards await be they fame or wealth there is always cast of willing and able understudies waiting in the wings.

With respect to the prospect of entire companies departure, we can sleep easy as the process of moving a company, particularly if its primary market is the country in which it is based, is not only difficult legally and logistically but in most cases uneconomic. There are of course exceptions, primarily finance companies (NB some hedge funds have already taken this course of action), however, these companies employ relatively few employees and the argument that their spending supports other jobs is not clear-cut, as most accumulate their wealth and do not spend it on manufactured goods and services that create jobs for wider society. Instead they spend on investments in property (inflating prices), and other assets.

So what can be done if we are to do something meaningful rather than utter meaningless soundbites? Four complmentary solutions I’d propose:

• Setting up a high pay commission, that is empowered to make meaningful proposals for limits on rewards that will it the statue books.

• Limiting the number of directorships a single person can hold. This would prevent the cross pollination that means boards are comprised of a cosy pool of hacks striving for their own selfish ends.

• Limiting the time someone can sit on a board. This would further re-enforce the previous suggestion.

• Give shareholders a more meaningful mechanism of engagement in decision making by setting out more frequent and empowered shareholder meetings rather than one well manicured AGM where voting decisions are limited to take it or leave it options.

So come on Ed, don’t just tell us about how you’d like boards to behave, tell us how you’re going to make them behave!

Apathy Rules?

There is a real sense among many of the people I meet in my day to day life that there is little point engaging in a discussion about politics and even less in actually voting. This is born out by the figures for general election voter turnout, which from bobbling around between 70% and 80% from 1945 until 1997 have dropped precipitously with only 59.4% turnout in 2001’s election to 65.1% in the most recent election.

This is not new information. All of the main political parties have been talking about how they intend to go about re-engaging with the members of the electorate who chose not to vote. There are undoubtedly a multitude of very specific and often personal reasons why people chose not to vote, however, these specific reasons can be grouped into one of three broad categories:

1. The party they would have voted for stands no chance of winning in their constituency;
2. There is no one party that sufficiently represents the views of the voter to merit a vote; or
3. There is no point in voting as there is no discernible difference between the choices available.

If we agree that the first point is a symptom of the first past the post system, as there are inevitably a number of “safe” seats where a particular party maintains an unassailable lead (think Beaconsfield where the Tories won 61% of the vote at the last general election, or Bootle where Labour won 66%). It follows that we may assume this would account for a significant proportion of the electorate who chose not to vote in elections predating 2001 when the sharp drop in voter turnout began (we’ve been stuck with first past the post since universal suffrage arrived in the UK). Furthermore, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume the voters in the second group, i.e. those who do not feel there is a party that suitable represent their views to merit a vote, are not a new group either. The UK has operated a virtual two party politics since 1945; again this would suggest there is no catalyst for a change in voters in this category (accepting the difference between the main parties is more or less constant, although the overall political position may oscillate (think Heath to the left of Thatcher, or Blair to the right of Foot). On that basis I’ll park both of these groups of non-voters to one side as there seems to be little to suggest these groups of voters are particularly disengaged or changing in composition or number and focus on the final bullet point.

Based on the assumptions made above this final group can be said with a reasonable degree of confidence to account for the increasing numbers of non-voters. This group represents the increasing section of the electorate do not believe government can offer any answers to the challenges they face in their lives. Lets call this group the disengaged voters.

Disengaged voters offer big rewards to political parties of all persuasions, afterall demographics dictate the margins between winning and loosing in the UK are minuet. However, as we’ve already noted it appears as though rather than making the most of this opportunity to win new voters, who do not carry the baggage of affiliation to another party, it is being missed in spectacular fashion. Again we must search to find any common strands that unite these disengaged voters:

• They do not believe existential threats (e.g. global warming, economic collapse, etc…) are issues that will make a directly impact on their lives.

And even where disengaged voters accept the existence of a threat:

• They do not believe the issues can be addressed via government.

So what? We no they don’t care because they don’t think it affects them, or if they do care they’re too cynical to entrust government to do anything about it.

Here’s one for you… What if they’re right? Or, at least partially right?

I do not doubt that many of the threats I may perceive can quite fairly be characterised as insignificant to many, particularly when viewed over a short time horizon (e.g. 5 years). Moreover, I do not doubt that the mode of government we have in place today is not in anyway suitable to address the most critical issues we face.

What am I saying? Should we all be moving into the disengaged voters camp? Emphatically NO!

But the common ground those of us with a more radical perspective share with these voters is significant. We do not subscribe to any particular interest in the issues our governments present as key, and we do not believe the current mode of government employed is fit for purpose. So where existing governments find this group unreachable, all we radicals need to do is convince them:

1. The issues we believe are existential are indeed such; and
2. We can work towards an alternative mode of government that can address the “real” issues.

Its not a slam-dunk to convert these guys, there is a whole lot of persuasion to be done, but we have science on our side and the immutable truths only it can present will support our cause and re-enforce the message that action is the only option. More and move of this evidence keeps stacking up (e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower), emphasising the urgency with which we must act. And once we have persuaded people of the issues, we can move on to the discussion about how we can tackle the issues via government.

So what are you waiting for, get out there and persuade your friends, colleagues, associates, or whoever that the issues matter, they are a matter of life and death.

Evidence for freewill?

The world, all of nature, operates in harmonic symphony. All encompassing,  balancing the needs of mineral, plant or animal ensuring equality of resources and needs. Lovelock‘s Gaia so brilliantly describes this machine I’ll leave you to read his word on the subject (http://www.jameslovelock.org/).

So if we agree the hypothesis of Gaia, how have we come to find the world so unbalanced, stripped of its resources?

The answer, humanity distinguishing feature: free will.

The birth of the individual has led relentlessly to this point. An unforeseen mutation of DNA, it’s wrought destruction versus the rest of DNA’s evolutionary missteps. The consequences of this twist of the helix means not just our own self-destruction. We’re going to bring the whole house down!

This relentless path we tread towards apocalypse runs deep, and is as we’ve seen the rest of nature and its infinite beauty. For evolution’s very nature, its multitude of self replicating machines; the software DNA. Everything owing their uniqueness to the system’s failure to perfectly fashion a carbon copy. But instead an impressionistic self-portrait. The simple introduction of these errors, so random, the microscopic world of DNA’S yin to the yang of its offspring: the precisionate balance of nature, bringing  with it such perfect equilibrium to all varieties of life it creates.

But remember where I started. It’s not as perfect as it might seem. Survival of the fittest is of this randomness‘  very nature. And free will is surely the clearest and most tragically successful manifestation of the fittest?

Retractions

Anyone can make mistakes and this blogger is one of them. My last post advocated the west implementing a no fly zone over Libyan air space. Following the launch of the UN sanctioned mission, marked by the launch of 112 tomahawk missiles I’m reminded of the folly of western intervention. War is chaotic and although the intent may be to intervene in the most restrained manner with the enforcement of a no-fly zone (already the intervention seems to have gone beyond this), there is no way to control what will happen next. There is a very real prospect that we may end up in a situation where the west is embroiled in yet another conflict that may continue for many months or worse years.

The consequences of inaction may seem unpleasant, it wouldn’t be unfair to suppose that Gaddafi would crush the nascent revolution. However, we must remember that this is often the brutal nature of revolutions, the good guys don’t always win, or at least not at first. That said any movement that captures the popular support of a nation will in the course of time secure its rights, and without foreign intervention the outcomes and settlements reached are more sustainable and better aligned to the will of the people.

Many Libyan’s may die and we must ensure all we can do to provide humanitarian support. Our condemnation of Gaddafi must be clear, and appropriate economic sanctions are a vital part of any response that we make. But we must let this revolution run its own course, it is not our fight, and though we may have a large burden of responsibility in enabling Gaddafi to inflict such unspeakable harm to Libyan’s we cannot atone for this bringing our military might to bear.

The lesson we must take forward is to ensure we stop our support for dictators and their regimes (we’re still doing it today in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen) both military and financial. The late Robin Cook was quickly dismissed from his role as British foreign secretary when he urged a more humanitarian approach to foreign policy, but we must heed this advice and reconsider how and with whom we engage with the rest of the world.

Here to Help

It seems increasingly clear that the attempted revolution in Libya is transforming into civil war, and with this turn of events the western world is presented with a very different question of how to respond in comparison to the successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. In the case of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions western governments only needed to decide if and / or when they would endorse the revolutions, whereas the situation in Libya confronts them with a question of if and how they should intervene.

I believe there are four clear principles that should be observed in any intervention that is considered:

1. Do not provide arms to the opposition. Although it may seem a no brainer to provide the opposition with the means to defend itself, this can often lead to unforeseen consequences both in the short and long term. A well armed opposition that may be better able to defend itself could in turn intensify the fighting. In the longer term as has proven to be the case so often the arms supplied to rebel groups is eventually used to suppress. The Taliban in Afghanistan who’s origins can be traced to the Mujahideen, armed and supported by the US.
2. Listen to the Libyan opposition and support their requests wherever possible (noting the previous principle). At present it is clear that the Libyan opposition want a no-fly zone to be enforced, a request that should be supported at the earliest opportunity. What the opposition are clear on is that they do not want any foreign troops to enter Libya, a wish that should be respected. That said if a point comes where there is a request for military intervention on the ground this should be accommodated, but it is imperative that this is co-ordinated via the UN rather than any unilateral actions taken by the US and its allies.
3. Maintain a focus on humanitarian aid and ensure all of the resources at our disposal are made available to the Libyan people. Aid agencies are at full stretch and badly in need of resources to respond to the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis.
4. Wherever possible encourage and support any efforts to facilitate a dialogue between opponents. This may not be practical in the case of the Libyan civil war as it seems clear that Col Gaddafi is of unsound mind. However, there may be opportunities to open dialogue with other senior members of his regime.

If the west follows these principles it will not stop the bloodshed tomorrow or the next day. Unfortunately the reality is that this tragedy must play itself out. The opportunities to avoid this were missed long ago, as the western world maintained a policy of acceptance and support to dictators such as Gaddafi and Mubarak, facilitating their iron grip on power. What the application of these principles will ensure is that the people of Libya have the best chance of emerging from this conflict with freedom and unlike so may countries where the west has intervened a stable platform on which to rebuild their nation.

Established…

An unbroken silver thread of privilege connects tyrants like Muammar Ghaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, and Ben Ali, their family, generals and apparatchiks to the mobsters and oligarchs of Russia, and the super rich in Western nations (In the United Kingdom the super rich are perhaps best characterised by a visit to the pages of the Times Rich list… Selecting the top 250 entries we find wealth equivalent to 177% the current UK deficit, or put another way an equivalent wealth to 19% of the UK’s annual GDP! Perhaps unsurprisingly similar figures apply to their equivalents in Arab North Africa and Russia.).

All three of these groups represent what is variously described as the ruling class, the elite or the Establishment; for the purposes of this piece I’ll refer to them as The Establishment, which is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

“The Establishment is a term used to refer to a visible dominant group or elite which holds power or authority in a nation. The term suggests a closed social group which selects its own members (as opposed to selection by inheritance, merit or election)”

Their common agenda to maintain their own hegemonies that ensures the sliver thread binds them together. This determines why we in the West must take inspiration from the events in North Africa and pursue the removal of The Establishment.

On the face of it there may be little obvious comparison between the Establishment in the United Kingdom and Libya, Tunisia or Egypt, yet there are a number of startling economic and social realities that exist in both worlds. These realities are in each instance a result of the dominant role and relentless self-interest of The Establishment parts of the Arab world recognises must be addressed, this includes:

• Youth Unemployment – this is a feature that has been much vaunted catalyst for the wave of revolution spreading across North Africa, however, this is a feature that mirrors the situation in Western Europe. The UK currently has a youth unemployment rate of 20.3%, while Egypt reports a similar rate of 21.9%. This attests to the similar behaviour / strategy adopted in each country where those furthest from the means of contributing to and increasing the wealth of the Establishment (i.e. those with fewest skills and experience, or platform to protest) are the logical choice as fall guys when there are few jobs around.

  (NB There is one key distinction between youth unemployment between the UK and Egypt, under 30s make up 61% of the population in Egypt whereas only 37% of the UK’s population is made up of under 30s. Critically this means there is a much more significant group in the Arab nations able to express their dissatisfaction.)

• Income inequality – This is a long acknowledged indicator for the presence and strength of The Establishment. This is perhaps most easily understood using the Gini co-efficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) that identifies the inequality of income distribution. Once again we find comparable figures, Egypt scores 34.4, Tunisia 39.8; while the US achieves 40.8, and the UK 36.0 (NB figures for both Egypt and Tunisia can be expected to be understated, reflecting concealment of wealth appropriated by their regimes).
• Ownership of the press – Though these is a clear distinction between the means of ownership of the press in the UK vs. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, it cannot be disputed that in each case the ownership is firmly ensconced within the establishment. Whether it be Rupert Murdoch’s media empire or Egyptian state media. In either case the free expression of the media and most critically its ability to hold the Establishment is seriously impaired in each scenario.

Beyond these realities the silver thread connects and binds their interests. And although it would be an overstatement to say the Establishment of either the western world or for that matter Arab States are entirely dependent on the other, they do share a number of interests that deliver significant benefits, such as:

• Natural Resources – Western nations buy oil from Arab nations (although this is subsidised by the licences for extraction being granted to western oil majors) supporting their dependency on oil, required to power technology that supports generation of wealth. Meanwhile the Establishment of Arab Nations filling their coffers with the revenue generated, much of which will in turn support the purchase of weapons.
• Weapons – Here the purchase and sale is flipped, the sale of weapons are a means to provide further wealth for exporters such as the United Kingdom (UK “defence” exports accounted for £7bn in 2009). While the purchase of weapons provides a means of intimidation an control for the purchasing nations. It beggars belief that David Cameron is on tour right now in a long arranged weapon sales tour of the Middle East, yet he has the audacity to avoid censure of Bahrain, congratulate Egypt, and continue to sell arms to all on the same trip!

In each example the wider population of the countries derive little benefit, and in many cases pay a significant price whether it be via state sponsored acts of terrorism or environmental damage.

Clearly there are some differences that separate reality of life in Arab North Africa and Western Europe that have contributed to changes we are witnessing:

• State sponsored violence
• Democratic elections
• The relative poverty of the poor

Each of these points undoubtedly represent key issues / catalysts dictating the necessity of change in Arab North Africa rather than the West. However, these issues cannot disguise the key driver for change: the removal of the Establishment and the social justice it entails. Where on the face of it we may have less reason to demand a change to the Establishment that governs in the United Kingdom, as a result of these differences. This is like saying its better to be cheated of £50 in a game of cards than £500. While on one hand it is true that it is better to loose £50 than £500 you are still being cheated in either instance.

We need to realise that in reality we face a much more difficult struggle as the Western Establishment is able to deploy far more sophisticated mechanisms of control. This is the masterstroke of “free market capitalism” and its ability to maintain control despite democratic elections, and other supposed checks and balances.

So what do these profound changes to the arab world mean for us in the west? First and foremost we must recognise the common issues we face as a result of the Establishment. We must hope that our youth must follow the bold example of those in the Arab world, and mobilise. But assuming we in the west do not have the stomach or motivation for a confrontation with the establishment there is still a benefit to the ever wider reach of democracy, for with more countries governed in such a fashion there are more opportunities for the emergence of fairer democracies, dominated less by the Establishment and representing all the people who form their electorate.

Ntokozo’s Journey

I first met Ntokozo at the centre one morning curled up in a ball in the rec room writhing around in feverish blur, completely naked. It was clear that he was in a bad way and after talking with a couple of members of staff about what we should do, it was agreed I’d get him showered and clothed and take him to visit a doctor.

To see a child suffering is never easy but from the minute I picked him up in my arms to carry him into the shower it occurred to me that Ntokozo would be suffering alone in an alley somewhere on the streets of Durban if Umthombo wasn’t here. Once I’d cleaned him up I carried Ntokozo through the streets to a nearby doctor someone suggested would be able to help.

On arrival it quickly became clear that the man we supposed was a doctor had only a rudimentary knowledge of medicine. His diagnosis was vague, suggesting that the child was most likely suffering from food poisoning, administering a muscle relaxant to ease his nausea and suggesting a course of antibiotics. Almost as soon as he offered his diagnosis Ntokozo asked to go to the bathroom, perhaps unsurprisingly the doctor was unwilling to let him use the bathroom, providing a plastic container as an alternative. To my alarm Ntokozo’s urine was dark red with blood. My basic knowledge of medicine is sufficient to know food poisoning doesn’t cause such symptoms, yet the doctor offered no alternative diagnosis; more concerned about who would clean the vomit from the floor.

Without any clear diagnosis I decided it was time to leave the “doctor” and return to the centre, and figure out which hospital I should to take him to. On my return Eugene the health worker was at the centre and he offered to take me to the Addington Hospital, Durban’s only significant public hospital which offers free care to all who come. Unfortunately the hospital is not up to the standards associated with the western world, it has only two junior doctors covering its A&E unit, and chaos prevails. I managed to get a doctor to see Ntokozo pretty quickly on arrival as a result of the apparent seriousness of his condition. Although as soon as the doctor performed an initial triage, administered some pain relieving injections, and took blood and urine samples the waiting game began.

I spent the next 10 hours trying to see a doctor or nurse to find out more about Ntokozo’s condition to no avail. I wasn’t even allowed into the ward to make sure Ntokozo was alright. Once more he was frightened and alone; his bed situated next to a woman crying out in pain less than 5 inches from his bed. Eventually a doctor agreed to talk with me and confirmed that the blood tests had come back negative, and only the results of the urine tests were now outstanding. He suggested this would be complete in the next hour, only to tell me that the test would now take another 3 days when I enquired an hour later! I do not recount this to criticise the doctor himself but to highlight the strain the staff are operating under.

Finally the doctor agreed to discharge Ntokozo and prescribed treatment for bilharzia (a parasitic worm that inhabits the bladder, damaging kidneys and causing severe pain), as a precautionary measure in lieu of the urine test results. I took an exhusted but more comfortable Ntokozo back to the centre and left him in the care of Siabonga the night manager at the centre who’s compassion and generosity towards the children in his care was a revelation to me; like many of the staff at the centre he is a former street child himself.

The next day Ntokozo seemed much improved and was restored to his bright and wilful disposition I grew more familiar with over the next few days. Up to this point I had little knowledge of Ntokozo’s circumstances, he was a sick child barely able to communicate, but like every child at Umthombo he had his own distinct story.

Ntokozo is 13 years old, and has been on the streets for the last couple of years, like most of the young kids who are more recent arrivals at Umthombo he had a serious glue habit. Not only this, he’d been the victim of a sexual assault around a year ago and like so many of the children most likely was HIV positive. The staff at the centre had attempted to return him to his family in Nanda township on a couple of occasions but each time he’d returned to the streets. The reasons for his return are various and hard to determine with absolute certainty but chief amongst them were his glue addiction and the hard reality of life in the townships. As a result many of the children at Umthombo find the centre a more appealing place to live than home in the townships. That said this is in no way the view of the centre and its staff, who endeavour to get children back with their families wherever possible; though this might not be practical until the children have been able to work through some of the issues they face, or where there are concerns about the child’s safety in the family home. Indeed it seemed in Ntokozo’s case there was little immediate prospect of returning him to his family any time soon, for a combination of these reasons.

Three days later something completely unexpected happened, Ntokozo’s aunt arrived at the centre, and asked if she could take him home. I sat in on the meeting with two social workers from the centre, Ntokozo, and his aunt to discuss his potential return. It quickly became clear that his aunt was a kind and compassionate woman who was concerned for Ntokozo and his brother’s welfare. Despite her warmth and enthusiasm Ntokozo was very reluctant to go home with her, and it was only after a great deal of pleading and encouragement we were able to get him to agree to return on the proviso that I would call his aunt the next day and visit the following.

I happily relayed this news to Bizza one of the social workers at the centre in charge of aftercare (follow up visits made to assess a child’s welfare once they have returned home), only to find that Ntokozo had made similar promises only to leave the township and walk back to the streets of Durban the same day he returned home. Feeling a little foolish and naïve about my optimism I prepared for the news of his departure the next day when I called his aunt.

I called the next day expecting the worst but to my astonishment his aunt confirmed that he was still at home! So the next day Bizza and I drove out the the township to visit Ntokozo and his family. Nanda’s a big township north of Durban nestled amongst green rolling hills, on first sight it appears a rather idllic setting with children walking through the narrow avenues and chickens and goats roaming around. This as with many first impressions is deceptive, on arrival at Ntokozo’s family home the true nature of poverty in the townships becomes clear. His large family inhabit a concrete shack with only two rooms, no running water or bathroom. Life in such circumstances is hard and despite the advances made since democracy arrived in South Africa millions still live in townships, isolated from wider society, trapped in a cycle of poverty that few can hope to escape.

His family were pleased to see Bizza and I and thanked us profusely for our efforts to help he and his brother. Ntokozo was rather more reticent and refused to talk with us. Even my attempted bribery with juice and candy failed to find any enthusiasm. His aunt explained that he wanted us to take him back to Umthombo, and as we were unwilling to do so he didn’t want to talk with us. We decided to leave and agreed that Biza would look in again the following week. As we arrived back at the car I was filled with a mixture of satisfaction he was staying put, tempered with my own selfish disappointment that he was unwilling to talk, Ntokozo appeared. Ever resourceful as all street kids seem to be, he wanted to make a deal. He would stay put at home if I bought him a bike, the deal was one I was willing to do so we agreed that if Ntokozo stayed at home for a fortnight I would buy him a bike.

Its now four days since the deal was done and I’m waiting to hear whether or not he’s still at home. I hope he’s still at home, I’d love to buy him a bike; but I’ll understand if he isn’t. One thing is for sure, the choices Ntokozo faces are stark, life in the streets is uncompromising and filled with danger; while the township offers a hard life where poverty is all encompassing. Few manage to escape from either of these lives, but the work Umthombo performs certainly helps improve the chances for children it reaches.