With the
announcement of his resignation, Tony Blair's legacy will almost certainly be clouded by the Iraq war and the erosion of domestic civil liberties; both these themes are soundly captured in Mark Wallinger's
State Britain, currently on display at Tate Britain and has garnered a
nomination for the Turner Prize. It celebrates the efforts of a single man,
Brian Haw, who originally started camping outside the Mother of Parliaments in protest against the humanitarian disaster caused by sanctions imposed on Iraq from 1991-2003. The lone man standing firm against the system does seem terribly romantic but my own reaction was one of deep ambivalence. Can the lone individual actually bring about change? Can it actually be counter-productive?
(There's) Always Something There To Remind Me
In the wake of September 11, there has been a general trend towards the curbing of civil liberties in the UK. Hello, extension of periods of detention without trial. The majority of the population seems to acquiesce to such changes to the law, affirming that central insight from the dominant reading of Hobbes' Leviathan: that people are generally willing to trade off liberty for security.
Specifically due to the annoyance caused by Haw's protest to MPs within loudhailer distance of his protest site, the
Serious Organized Crime and Police Act (2005) had specific provisions introduced to curtail his demonstration - how's that for Sedition Act overkill. It seems that the flimsiest of excuses was used as a justification - that his protest site could be infiltrated by terrorists and thus posed a security risk to the Palace of Westminster. And thus far the law has stood up to legal challenges - a vivid Demonstration Alpha of the supremacy of the sovereignty of the Parliamentary institution over the rights of citizens. Provisions in SOCPA have banned all such permanent protest sites within a 1km radius of Parliament and that zone almost neatly bisects Tate Britain itself, with the exhibit being set up just outside the proscribed radius as shown in the banner promoting Wallinger's work.
The State Britain exhibit recreates, as faithfully as possible, Haw's protest site in all its g(l)ory before SOCPA was used to restrict the size of his protest size to a frontage of 3 metres. All the original materials had been confiscated by the police, including a potentially very valuable piece contributed by graffiti artist Banksy which juxtaposes the images of soldiers crouching on the look-out with one of them spraying on a peace sign. I couldn't help but feel that while the exhibit preserves the memory of the original site, it also memorializes it in a way that shows that the demonstration has been contained and that it can no longer grow - in short, it had the feeling of a funeral, a monument to a lost cause, rather than a celebration or an act of creative defiance. Even though there's still plenty of defiance in Haw and the small group that is camping with him to prevent his eviction.
Anyone Who Had A Heart
Almost paradoxically I found myself thinking that it would actually be counter-productive for the authorities to complete remove the protesters and their placards. In its current state, it's been safely regulated to the status of mere nuisance and eyesore to the powers that be. Keeping it there could be turned in the service of hegemonic interests - 'See, you still have the right to protest. But please do so in the way that won't bother us too much. Not like it's actually going to change policy even if it did. Haha, what are you going to do? Vote the
Lib-Dems into power? *guffaw*' In a sense, a big fat crackdown can be spur for politicization, of realization of how close we are to edge of the abyss. On the other hand, being ignored may not, in fact, embolden others to join in but may instead demonstrate the irrelevance, impotence and futility of protest. Yeah, yeah, whatev!
It wasn't the immensity of the ornate Parliament building dwarfing the tiny protest sight that was disheartening. Rather it was how, just a few metres from the protest site, vehicles were passing, going about their business, tourists taking pictures of Big Ben and then some of the protest site itself which has become an adjunct tourist attraction, and most striking for me of all was how small groups of young people were sitting on the grassy open space, enjoying the sunshine, not giving a hoot about the protest, even though I'm sure all of them would condemn the Iraq war and occupation if asked. And thus, protest is consigned to irrelevance not by the jackboot and the truncheon, but by slow legislative asphyxiation. But most heavily, by the crushing weight of apathy - life does just go on.
I Just Don't Know What To Do With Myself
'
State Britain contains images of human suffering which some visitors may find distressing.' What really bothered me about this sign was that it imposed an expectation that I should be bothered and so I was bothered that I wasn't bothered by the images of human suffering and had to trot out the usual stable of old (lame) rhetorical war horses: If I cared about everything, I'd be (even more) exhausted. I can't do anything about it. It doesn't really affect me anyway. Now where I have heard all of this (in my own head) before?
Comments (10)
Hi Ringisei,
Nice article. I was thinking of writing an article about UK politics, and how most political parties has successfully capture their electorate by position on the centre right, based on what Tony Blair did with New Labour. I thought that his final speech has an interesting point which he spoke in his last paragraph:
"It has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times I have succeeded, and my apologies to you for the times I have fallen short." - Tony Blair
I thought that he has somehow offered an indirect apology on Iraq even though he did not say it openly. That is very rare in a political speech for farewell. Unfortunately, despite, all the good domestic work he has done, Iraq has overshadowed everything for him.
Posted by Bernard Leong![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.singaporeangle.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 11, 2007 12:48 PM
BL,
Could it be that the centre right is the territory a political party needs to occupy to be able to capture the swing voter? I'd predicate this on a two-party system without compulsory voting (my guess about how this might work is due to the need to maintain core support but margin of victory is determined by swing vote). Could the opposition in Singapore prosper by offering a PAP-lite i.e. kinder, gentler PAP?
Blair still strongly qualified his apology by saying: "I have always done what I thought was right." The question of Iraq *should* overshadow everything else; Blair had framed it as an existential threat to the UK and now it's an issue that may determine the shape of world politics for decades to come.
Posted by ringisei | May 11, 2007 3:49 PM
nice article ringisei. But I dont think Iraq has clouded Blair's legacy. He has done a tremendous job in domestically, achieving a huge breakthrough in Northern Ireland. Blair has got charisma, something I doubt is very forthcoming from his successor. But even if one were to stick just to foreign policy, I think Britain's support for Iraq had more to do with its relationship with the U.S. rather than Iraq being a threat to Britain.
On a lighter note, the way you use 'existential threat' so casually in your comment above, will make Buzan and Waever very pleased :)
Posted by Double Yellow | May 12, 2007 12:09 AM
Double Yellow:
I don't know if the Iraq legacy is as little as you think. Put yourself in the shoes of an average Brits or Americans. If you know of a relative or friend that has died in /maimed by /depatched to the war in Iraq where the justifications for it in the first place are weak, why would you feel? If you have pay higher tuition fees from 1000 pounds to 3000 pounds, how would you feel? If you feel that the English affairs are decided by Scottish MPs, how would you feel?
I am not saying that many of Tony Blair's policies are wrong. In a sense, they might even by "right" polices necessary for the country. But what are these changes for? For Whom? From Whom?
The BBC's forum on Blair's Legacy is interesting:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6303&&&edition=2&ttl=20070513012608
Posted by Wayne Soon | May 13, 2007 8:32 AM
I echo the others above in saying I enjoy the write up.
It's a pity his party dumped him so fast. I enjoy 'watching' Tony Blair - he's like a fantastic actor on the stage of world politics. He manages to sweep up all the drama and emotion. I'm not sure if he was very clear what he's doing but with that big cheshire cat grin he does come across sincere and well-meaning. Perhaps he has really excellent spokespeople! :D
Posted by Eileen | May 14, 2007 8:19 AM
Hi Wayne,
I guess we differ in our assessment of Iraq. This, in part, lies in the viewpoints we use to assess someone's legacy. You say, put yourself in the shoes of average Brits and Americans. I say, the views of average Brits and Americans dont matter when it comes to foreign policy. Never did... I belive that in international politics, domestic public opinion counts for very little. Only very rarely have states shied away from pursuing their foreign policy goals because of opposition from the average man on the street.
For whom you ask? As far as foreign policy is concerned, its for England/U.K., the state. Not the average joe..
Posted by Double Yellow | May 14, 2007 7:03 PM
Hi DY:
Even if they don't matter, how about looking at it from the soldier's and their family perspective?; many American and British soldiers are dying and wounded daily. 3401 American soldiers have died. 148 British soldiers have died. 33 Italian Soldiers have died. 20 Polish soldiers have died. 2 Thai soldiers have died. This is not counting the amount of Iraqi people who have died in the war. I don't think they are mere digits. They too have families and friends. They too have the right to live just as much as we do.
What are the results of the Iraqi war? Do we see a stable democracy in Iraq now and the future? Can the society function on a "civil war" basis?
Even at home in the UK, the labour party suffered severe losses at the polls in the English, Scottish and Wales Election. The Scottish National Party won big at the recent Scottish election. Recently, the Democrats took back the house and senate from the Republican with the Iraq war at the top of the minds of voters.
In a democracy like UK and US, I daresay the voters matter. More importantly,isn't one soldier dying one too many?
Posted by Wayne | May 15, 2007 6:40 AM
In a democracy like UK and US, I daresay the voters matter. More importantly,isn't one soldier dying one too many?
I get your point but wouldn't the cause matter? If there is a problem with the war, it can't just be because "one soldier dying is one too many" but because one judges the sacrifice not to be justified by the stakes. Otherwise, there wouldn't be independent democracies in the UK (think "Operation Sea Lion") or the US (think "Boston Tea Party"). In any case, it just seems too early to talk about results in Iraq: the British took much longer and many more lives to overcome the Malayan Communist Insurgency--a much smaller and less intense conflict. There's no reason to expect that it would not take a comparable amount of time for Iraq to find some stability--and all this is quite apart from the intrinsic rights and wrongs of the war, or the rhetoric of all parties involved.
Posted by Huichieh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.singaporeangle.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 15, 2007 9:03 AM
Double Yellow,
Existential threat. Yeah, Buzan and Waever would be even more pleased to see that I also think that Blair did securitize the WMD issue as such via his speech acts. I don't agree with all of Copenhagen School but their theoretical toolkit is oh so usable and without epistemological angst. ;)
Eileen,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with your observation about the Labour Party dumping it - it reminded me that Blair's departure also has a lot to do with the erosion of his own power base in the party and, more importantly, Gordon Brown's desire to be top dog.
Wayne and DY (on public opinion in foreign policy),
I tend to see public opinion as a context rather than a cause for foreign policy decision-making. This is because as DY points out, it's rare for elites in politics, bureaucracies, business, academia to formulate policy based on what popular opinion though they are often cognizant of it. The US and UK cases cited by Wayne could also be seen as cases where rival elites have successfully mobilized public opinion to their own electoral benefit.
Huichieh,
I'm so reminded of that Zhou Enlai quip about his assessment of the French Revolution (link). :)
Posted by ringisei | May 15, 2007 6:15 PM
Huichieh,
Sorry for the delayed response. It's still not over yet for a trimester college system like mine. Argh.
In any case, I agree with you. My remarks were in response to Double Yellow's overly rosy description of the Blair's legacy. It was in response to the notion that ordinary people don't matter in foreign policy making. Thus, I directed the attention to the soldiers - who actually fight the war in Iraq and are based in the community back home before, during and after the war. In which, the stories of these soldiers then affect the opinions of their own countryman back home. A side point - Should be interesting to see Michael Moore's "Sicko" on the issue of veteran benefits even though it would be somewhat bias.
Ringsei,
Interesting point, foreign policy making is always very interesting to me - seems like what you are saying is a manifestation of the Rousseau strain. Every time some elite makes the foreign policy, it is for the "good" of their people; we (the elites) internalize the general will when it comes to making foreign policy. But who actually fights the war - the soldiers - who then have to have the general will internalized in them.
Posted by Wayne | May 20, 2007 7:35 AM