outsidein

• Get rich, or die trying?

  October 29, 2009 @ 12:03 pm | by Bryan

  I had an interesting conversation in a Belfast classroom last night. A debate over which leads to a better society, individualism or something more communitarian, led to the question of national purpose.

  A self-identified Brit (who I think comes from somewhere in Northern Ireland) claimed that what separated the Britain of the past from other nations, like America or the Republic of Ireland, was that it used to have a sense of national purpose. A sense which, according to this individual, immigration has unfortunately undermined (I think that purpose was the expansion of empire, of which inward migration from acquired territories is a natural consequence, but that’s another debate).

  Do most nations have a sense of purpose? Is there a collective vision that the modern nation state subscribes to? Would that even be a good thing? In response to those questions, someone from Limerick claimed that Ireland did indeed have a collective purpose, he just couldn’t say exactly what that was.

  Another Irishman jumped in at that point. The nation’s collective purpose over the last few years, claimed Cillian, was, “Get rich, or die trying.”

  50-cent would have been proud.

  Comments (10)

• Good news?

  October 28, 2009 @ 1:01 pm | by Bryan

  Today’s Irish Times poll asks the question, “Should cuts in social welfare be introduced in the forthcoming Budget?” Thus far, a surprising 62% believe that they should. Does that result reflect the socio-economic standing of the average Irish Times reader, online poll respondent, or the prevailing mood in the country?

  I’m surprised because I assume that few people in today’s job market are completely confident that they will have their current job this time next year; or that should they be made redundant, they will easily get alternative employment. That being the case, it seems reasonable to assume that even those who are currently employed are sympathetic to the plight of the jobless. Not only that, people who are currently employed could think of tax as a form of insurance against the loss of earnings that would follow future unemployment.

  So, if the employed are paying contributions towards the national safety net, and if there is a realistic chance that those same contributors will need that safety net in the not too distant future, why do 62% want to see a reduction in welfare benefits? Is there a national consensus on the desirability of income inequality? Does Ireland generally hold that the poor should be x% poorer than the person on the average industrial wage, so that if the average wage is falling, the income of a family on the dole should fall proportionately? I’m struggling to come up with rational explanations for the poll result. Surely in this economic environment hardly anyone believes that most people who are out of work find themselves in that position through idleness, do they? If it doesn’t serve the medium-term interests of the employed, and definitely not those of the unemployed, why do we want to see the dole payments reduced?

  A simple answer might be that we all agree that the payments are too high and the country can’t afford to maintain the social welfare budget. But that assumes (providing the poll reflects the national sentiment) that 62% of people in Ireland would voluntary opt for a smaller social welfare payment than is enjoyed today, should they be made redundant tomorrow. I doubt that’s the case.

  Maybe this poll is a cause for celebration. I can only assume it means that job security is much greater than I imagined. The only way that result makes sense to me is if the the bulk of that 62% doesn’t really think they’ll need to go on the dole tomorrow, or any time in the near future.

  Comments (12)

• The war crimes trial gimmick

  October 27, 2009 @ 12:15 pm | by Bryan

  

  Radovan Karadzic supporters drink and play gusle, a traditional instrument, in a bar in New Belgrade, Serbia, yesterday. Photographs: Amel Emric, Srdjan Ilic/AP.

  Former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, brought proceedings in the Hague to a standstill yesterday. He decided not to attend the opening of his genocide trial, claiming that he was unprepared. Karadzic is representing himself and the trial couldn’t go on without defence counsel. Big anticlimax.

  But maybe that’s the problem. These big war crime trials bear a striking resemblance to what I can only imagine medieval public executions looked like. I’m not sure how much they have to do with justice as opposed to public retribution. It’s as though the ‘international community’ needs to demonstrate, as visually as possible, that ‘international justice’ really exists and really works, and that - to quote a former US president who had a way with words - ‘evildoers’ really get their comeuppance in the end. I’m not sure.

  I don’t like Karadzic and what he represents. I think the people responsible for acts like Srebrenica make an incredibly strong case for capital punishment. At the very least, they should be tried quickly and if found guilty, locked away somewhere for good. But I also think that the likes of Karadzic, Slobodan Miloševic before him, and Saddam Hussein are right when they say that these genocide trials are gimmicky public spectacles rather than genuine attempts at delivering justice. Were justice the real aim, Karadzic apprehension would not have been the result of a political settlement nor would the massacre of thousands be attributed to just a handful of suitable villains. Also, assuming that justice is blind, the criteria for who counts as a war criminal would be less selective and less dependent on political considerations.

  Still, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT will eventually get underway. If he doesn’t inconveniently die during the process (like Milosevic), Karadzic will almost certainly be found guilty of something serious - crimes against humanity, violations of the laws of war, something. Some will celebrate the decision as a mark of progress. Others will hold their former leader up as a martyr. The news cycle will roll on. But I’m not sure very much substantive justice will have been done.

  Maybe this is why the African Union don’t want the International Criminal Court getting involved with the situation in Sudan or Uganda.

  Comments (17)

• The role of the mainstream in curbing the extreme

  October 22, 2009 @ 10:29 am | by Bryan

  According to David Adams, the focus on whether the BBC should host the far right British National Party’s (BNP) Nick Griffin, is neither here nor there. Leaders of mainstream political parties need to confront the BNP head on and tackle issues from which they have previously shied away. Issues like immigration reform.

  Gary Younge takes this line of thinking even further. He claims that we have New Labour to thank for Griffin’s scheduled appearance this evening. As far as Younge is concerned:

  Economically, its neoliberal policies have resulted in growing insecurity, rising unemployment, child poverty and inequality that have alienated the poor and made the middle class feel vulnerable. Politically, its lies over the war, stewardship of the expenses scandal and internal bickering have produced widespread cynicism with our political culture. The ramifications of its role in the war on terror in general, and Iraq in particular, were to elevate fear of a racialised “other” to a matter of life and death at home … Meanwhile New Labour’s race-baiting rhetoric gave the state’s imprimatur to the notion that Britain’s racial problems were not caused by racism but the existence of non-white, non-Christian and non-British people … Having inflated racism’s political currency, New Labour vacated the electoral market so that others with a more ostentatious style might more freely spend it. Once they had made these ideas respectable it was only a matter of time before a party reached a position where it too would earn sufficient respectability to appear on prime time. (More…)

  The problems highlighted by Adams also apply to Ireland. Presumably in order to avoid any slip ups that could see one labelled a racist, Ireland’s mainstream political establishment has kept as far as possible from meaningful debate on immigration and race. What Ireland has had, to its credit, is a variety of non-racist social and political groups which represent the interests of the indigenous poor and middle classes. Maybe that is why there isn’t an Irish BNP.

  Then again, it could also have to do with the fact that the non-white segment of the Irish population does not yet feel entirely secure. Once properly ‘integrated’ and with a sense of entitlement to a just slice of the national pie, who knows? A sufficiently large segment of the indigenous population might feel sufficiently threatened by some of their fellow citizens to give rise to a BNP-like entity.

  In any case, how Britain responds to Griffin and those like him will be instructive.

  Comments (23)

• Trying to see beyond my ghetto

  October 21, 2009 @ 11:50 am | by Bryan

  

  Malone Road, in the vicinity of Queen’s University Belfast. Photograph: Bryan Mukandi.

  Integration. I don’t think I’d heard that word as frequently as when I first moved to Ireland. ‘Integration’ seemed to be the word around which the country’s entire strategy on immigration, and a growing multiculturalism, would hinge. But for all that the word was thrown around, I don’t think anyone really knew what it meant, or how one goes about integrating. I suppose the civil servants who plucked it out of a dictionary - or more likely some other country’s policy paper - I suppose they decided the immigrants would figure it out.

  I’m having to figure out how to integrate all over again. Being an ‘international student’ at Queen’s (a category that officially includes citizens of the Republic of Ireland) is an interesting experience. It only takes days to be ‘integrated’ into the university community. It seems as though the area surrounding the university was purpose built for students. So without much effort, you can be part of a vibrant community that is predominantly populated by other students. It all leads, I think, to a very posh version of the ghettoisation that Irish policy-makers sought to avoid by promoting ‘integration’.

  I’m sure there are plenty of local students with dual citizenship. They get to be part of the posh ‘ghetto’ as well as living in the real world of Northern Ireland, posh or otherwise. For the average international student, that is seldom the case. Yesterday, someone suggested that I go on a Belfast bus tour if I want to see the ‘real Belfast’. My response was that I don’t like doing the tourist thing and would prefer to learn about the city and its inhabitants as they really are. At which point, a local guy told me that the closest I would get to knowing the city beyond ‘the ghetto’ would be the bus tour.

  Because of what is probably a sense of inadequacy, I don’t think of myself as a journalist. Having said that, I have the privilege of writing for a fantastic newspaper. And I spend most of my time in Belfast. It seems to me that the logical thing would therefore be to engage with the city and learn more about it than the tidbits tour operators serve to tourists.

  Here’s the question, how do I do that? How does one integrate into a place like Belfast where it’s infinitely easier to stay in one’s own ghetto? And if it’s a really posh ghetto, is it even worth trying?

  Comments (14)

• Behind a veil of ignorance

  October 20, 2009 @ 12:22 pm | by Bryan

  John Rawls, an American philosopher, came up with an interesting way of thinking about justice in the early 1970s. While I was initially sceptical of Rawls’ approach, comments on this blog have forced me to rethink my position.

  It seems as though most of us struggle to separate justice from self-interest (see for example comments on Puzzled). According to Rawls, the way to determine what a just society would look like would be to engage in a small mental exercise. Imagine that you were placed ‘behind a veil of ignorance’. Behind this veil, you have no idea what your station in life is, what social standing you hold, your job title, how much you earn, or for that matter, how much anyone else earns. Now imagine being asked to come up with the rules for how society will be ordered. You don’t know where you’ll fit in to the social structure you’ve proposed once the veil of ignorance is removed, so you have a big incentive to ensure that even if you end up at the bottom of this new structure, life is, at the very least, bearable.

  Ralws’ thinking was what should come first in the construction of a just society, are some fundamental rights, followed by basic, ‘fair’ societal rules. By nature most of us tend towards social arrangements that benefit us the most, even if they are not particularly just or moral. For that reason, he proposed that we try to think of how we might structure society if our position in it wasn’t guaranteed. His conclusion, in his hard to read but incredibly valuable book, A Theory of Justice, was that we would opt for an egalitarian society in which inequality would only be tolerated if it was to the benefit of the least well off.

  One of the challenges of living in a ‘post-religious’ society is that there is no universal moral code you can fall back on to make your arguments. Were this Iran, we could settle our differences on the basis of our various interpretations of the Qur’an. Were we living in an Ireland of the past, the Bible or the Pope’s last Easter message might carry similar weight. But in our present situation, if the ideas of Rawls and others on justice, which basically ask us to put other things before self interest - if these don’t sway us, then what are we left with? A society in which what is right is determined by the desires of those with the greatest economic and political power?

  I was in a lecture yesterday in which a political scientist said, “We who live in OECD countries are the world’s aristocrats.” In terms of global economic and political power, I think he was right. Since none of us is able to really go behind Rawls’ veil of ignorance, and since justice has an annoying propensity for taking from the most well off to give to those with the least, perhaps it is little wonder self-interest trumps justice. Even on harmless blogs such as this.

  Comments (26)

• Let’s all join the BNP?

  October 16, 2009 @ 12:57 pm | by Bryan

  

  British National Party leader Nick Griffin.

  Great news! Progress, tolerance and all of that. It looks like the British National Party (BNP) will finally start accepting non-whites! It makes perfect sense. What could be more convincing than a black guy or Asian woman telling other racial minorities that they are wrecking the lives of decent, hard working Anglo-Saxons and Celts, and that said minorities should leave Britain? Nick Griffin must be kicking himself for not coming up with the idea.

  Seriously though, that the BNP have been forced to remove their racial restrictions to party membership is good for progress. Granted, the first non-whites who join may have to tolerate all manner of verbal abuse. Personally, rational or not, I would be worried about a party zealot following me home and leaving me a welcome to the club gift, like a burning cross. But despite those challenges, I can only imagine that there will be no shortage of people previously excluded from the BNP, who will choose to join the group and ‘change it from the inside’.

  A multicultural BNP can only be less venomous than today’s version of the party. The worst elements of the group will leave when faced with prospect of sitting down with those they perceive to be the source of their troubles. And who knows, in time, the party may change beyond recognition, if it doesn’t shrivel up and die.

  Welcome to the mainstream BNP.

  Comments (12)

• Puzzled

  October 15, 2009 @ 11:44 am | by Bryan

  I think I first heard about the plight of the ‘undocumented Irish’ in the United States about six months into stay in Ireland, and I was puzzled. In fact, I still am.

  I was puzzled because within a few weeks of my arrival here, I had learnt a new vocabulary that revolved around immigration. The words ‘illegal’, ‘problem’ and ‘asylum seekers’ were the most prominent and frequently used, but there were others. By my sixth month, I thought I had understood all there was to understand about Ireland’s take on immigration. Simply, where absolutely necessary, the skilled, and a chosen few among those who fled life threatening situations (and had the presence of mind to carry sufficient supporting documentation) could stay. Everyone else was essentially a problem.

  That line was, in my opinion, tough, unkind, verging on immoral even, but ultimately, just about justifiable. Enter Bertie’s pleas to the former US administration on behalf of the ‘undocumented Irish’ with the full backing of the Irish public. Following on in that tradition, Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin, who is currently in the US, was quoted yesterday as saying, “For us it is an important issue, given the fact that a number of Irish people have been undocumented for a very long time and it’s causing real trauma and hardship on families.”

  On this issue, I lean towards the side of St Augustine who said that an unjust law is no law at all. If a person cannot earn a decent living in Zimbabwe, I don’t think they should be criminalised for jumping over a fence and looking for work in South Africa. The same goes for the person who overstays their holiday in the United States because it offers them opportunities to make a living that they feel are absent in Ireland. I cannot condemn people who take these extreme measures, especially because I have never been in a situation in which I felt my options were so narrow that ‘criminality’ was the only way out.

  Having said that, I understand and appreciate the arguments of those who believe that a nation’s territorial integrity and laws should not be broken under any circumstance. Fine. What I don’t get is how they are ‘undocumented’ when they are your lot, and ‘illegal’ when someone else’s.

  I’m trying to picture the Irish response to a Nigerian delegation’s suggestion that not only should any ‘undocumented Nigerians’ in Ireland be given a path to citizenship, but that some bilateral temporary worker program should be implemented. I’m sure undocumented Nigerian, Indian and Iranian workers in Ireland are a source of as much ‘real trauma and hardship’ on their families as Irish ones are on theirs.

  Back to what puzzles me, how does the nation’s collective conscience square this issue up? How can there be simultaneous calls to intercede on behalf of the ‘undocumented’ Irish and calls to get rid of ‘illegal’ immigrants at home? How can those two terms even live side-by-side, ‘undocumented’ and ‘illegal’? And how can there be support in Ireland for US immigration reform that lets people in, while at home legislation is being advanced to keep people out?

  I’m puzzled.

  Comments (55)

• Adichie, Ballantine and the chip on my shoulder

  October 14, 2009 @ 2:16 pm | by Bryan

  I’ve been accused, perhaps accurately, of having a bit of a chip on my shoulder about the ‘ownership’ of the developing world in general, and sub-Saharan Africa in particular. That’s not how I would describe it.

  I would say that I share the sentiment frequently expressed by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, author of Half of a Yellow Sun. Like her, I think that if you really want to know about a continent, ask its inhabitants. More than that, if its inhabitants only play a relatively minor role in telling their stories, the audience is bound to get a distorted picture. It largely comes down to what I think philosophers call ‘ontology’ - the way we see the world. One’s view of the world colours one’s interpretation of ‘facts’.

  That said, I’m not an ‘absolutist’ (if that’s even a word). I wholly believe that different perspectives can enrich everyone’s understanding. One of the non-African perspectives on the continent that I find most enriching, is that of Carol Ballantine. I don’t always agree with her take on things, but if you want to learn about development from an Irish development practitioner’s perspective, I don’t think you’ll find a more honest, considered and rounded view than this:

  …In Sierra Leone and Rwanda, I met with so many people, and I tried not to stare at their visible scars. I am a lousy reporter, because I can’t dream of asking people about their experience during the war: I have no right to. After years of doing this work, so that now I’m introduced in meetings as the “expert” (on governance, or democracy, or monitoring and evaluation), I still have no idea how to fathom collective trauma …

  When I came home, some of my friends asked me if I would blog about my experiences. But there’s so much about the countries I have visited that I don’t understand, so little that I saw and could report back fairly. I look through the window of a 4×4, and I’m looking through the lens of countless newspaper articles, tv documentaries, prejudices and assumptions. I simply cannot fathom what life is like, even for the middle class colleagues that I visit in some traumatised countries… (Read on)

  I hope she continues to blog.

  Comments (11)

• Negotiating with the Devil

  @ 11:00 am | by Bryan

  

  The Green Party’s Minister for Communications Eamon Ryan with Fianna Fáil Ministers Mary Hanafin and Noel Dempsey, Green Party Senator Dan Boyle and Green Party TD Mary White, following the conclusion of talks between the Coalition partners on the Programme for Government at Government Buildings last Friday.
  Photograph: Cyril Byrne

  I remember Sibs, an old mentor of mine, saying, “The moment you sit down to negotiate with the Devil, you have already lost.” Granted he was so uncompromising that some would have called him extreme, but there is at the very least some substance to that statement. It’s a thin line between compromise and capitulation.

  According to the picture Fintan O’Toole paints, the Greens have well and truly crossed that line and are dancing merrily on the other side. Well, maybe not dancing merrily. They’re doing their damnedest to pretend that they haven’t crossed over and acting as though they are still the quasi-social activists that entered government not too long ago. I’m sure they will go down as another cautionary tale told to all little parties tempted to bed a big party, but that is a pretty well recognised phenomenon at this stage. I wonder if the real lesson from the greens isn’t about the nature of the relationship between the government and civil society?

  There are exceptions, but most civil society groups believe that there is a lot to be gained by having more than an adversarial relationship with the state. So much so that trade union leaders, business leaders, NGO association heads… all these now have chummy relations with their government counterparts. They may not behave that way in public for obvious reasons, but who is your trade union boss more likely go have a round of golf with, the Minister for Enterprise, Intel Ireland’s CEO or the most lowly paid member of their trade union?

  According to Gramsci, civil society is a locus for ‘the construction of cultural and ideological hegemony’. In other words, civil society groups tend to be a place where the dominant views of government and business leaders are propagated and where radical alternatives are quashed. This tends to happen, according to this theory, because civil society groups mirror the social structures of wider society, including business and government. The pay and social capital of the heads of the largest Irish trade unions are as distant from ‘the least of their brethren’ as the heads of medium or large Irish corporations are from their lowest paid employees. If that is not true in absolute terms, it is in relative terms. And by that logic, the closer the Greens got to the political establishment (first by becoming a political party and then by becoming a junior coalition partner), the greater the likelihood of people who used to cycle to work taking €2,200 limousine rides.

  I don’t think any political party, or any state, is the devil. Necessarily. But Sibs’ principle applies when a group goes to bed with a more powerful one that holds to very different beliefs. Trade unions with business leaders and the state (and some would argue the opposite, that is, the state getting together with trade unions), NGOs with the state, and of course, the Greens with Fianna Fáil.

  In all those cases, the ‘junior partner’ was doomed the moment they said, “I do.”

  Comments (4)

• Belfast

  October 13, 2009 @ 9:58 am | by Bryan

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm0bzLN1mAg&rel=0

  Last week, I moved to Belfast to study at Queen’s. Before that, my only other experience of the North had been a two day field-trip to Derry (I’m always amused by the politics of that city’s name - Derry or Londonderry depending on one’s political persuasion). To be honest, I was a little apprehensive.

  Let’s face it, the only time Northern Ireland gets any significant airtime or column inches in the Republic’s media is when something bad has happened. Someone has been shot, some group has threatened to take up arms, or some minorities are being abused. I suppose we could also throw in Bertie, or now Brian Cowen going over to meet someone, with that cordial meeting being taken as a sign of progress. But that just adds to the negative stereotype. How bad must a place be if having a cup of tea and a quiet chat with some of its leaders is seen as a sign of significant progress?

  It was with this baggage that I arrived in Belfast, only to be surprised by how normal a place it is. Granted, I spend almost all of my time in and around the university, but still… Belfast comes across as a perfectly normal place. It even seems like a pretty friendly place; much friendlier, in fact, than some parts of the South.

  In the short space of time that I’ve been here, only two things have alluded to its past. The first was an enlightening conversation with a retired PSNI (police) officer. I would share parts of it, but he seemed like the kind of person that could make me disappear, so I won’t. The other was Hillary Clinton’s visit. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a concentration of armed people in bullet-proof vests in one place. And other than on TV, I had never seen police-officers on roof-tops monitoring events on the ground below. The atmosphere was festive, and when the US Secretary of State’s motorcade drove past, most people waved and cheered. Still, it wasn’t too hard to imagine a time when that kind of police presence would have been accompanied by a very different mood.

  Hopefully, by the end of my year in Belfast, I’ll understand the significance of statements like ‘The INLA has ended its armed struggle’ (I didn’t realise that there was still an armed struggle on). More fundamentally, since from what I can tell people here don’t discuss their politics or religion publicly, I’m curious about how Protestants and Catholics tell each other apart on the streets. I’d also like to know where the demographic known on official forms here as ‘belonging to neither the Catholic nor Protestant community’ fits in to the general scheme of things.

  Comments (18)

• Nobel Peace Prize

  October 11, 2009 @ 3:22 pm | by Bryan

  Having thought about it for a couple of days, I still think the Nobel Committee made a mistake.

  Disclaimer: I’m a huge fan of Barack Obama. I’m critical of his foreign policy because thus far, I’m not convinced that it is substantively different from that of his predecessors. That said, his methods are very different from those of people like Dick Cheney, and that in itself is admirable. But does that stylistic difference warrant a Nobel Peace Prize?

  At the end of the day, hasn’t the Nobel Committee set the bar for American heads of states ridiculously low? Their stated reason for awarding Obama the prize was,

  …his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

  There’s a good chance that I’m just uniformed, but which ‘efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation’ are they talking about? Is that a reference to the speeches the American president has made to the non-American world? He has been extremely conciliatory and his approach has been a huge departure from that of the Bush, but again, the words that come to mind are ‘low standards’. Effectively apologising for the bad behaviour of the past eight years shouldn’t warrant a Nobel Peace Prize, should it? A smile, a hug, a ‘welcome back’ party, sure, but a Peace Prize?

  And what happens if he sends in more troops to Afghanistan? What if things with Iran don’t get resolved and the Americans decide that since they’re already in the neighbourhood, they might as well bomb and then occupy another gulf state? Or, what happens if in his second term he sorts out the Middle East and plays the decisive role in establishing a viable Palestinian state that has good relations with Israel? He has already won the Nobel Peace Prize, what do you give him if he goes on to accomplish really big things? A super-Nobel?

  What I don’t get is why the Nobel Committee was so impatient? Like many, I think Barack Obama will leave his country in a better state than when he took office. I think he may even do some truly great things, domestically and internationally, while in office. But because I think that, I personally wouldn’t have given him that kind of award before he has had a chance to do those things. What was the committee afraid off? That he go and mess things up by finding some war to start or worming out of the closure of Guantánamo?

  Comments (18)

• Picture of the week

  @ 3:00 pm | by Bryan

  

  John O’Donoghue leaving the Dáil on Tuesday night after his announcement to resign his position as Ceann Comhairle. Photograph: Dara MacDonaill.

  Comments (0)

• What’s going on?

  October 9, 2009 @ 10:20 am | by Bryan

  Harry McGee’s fascinating account of the events surrounding the resignation of John O’Donoghue from the position of Ceann Comhairle is both encouraging and a little worrying

  It is incredibly encouraging that public action and opinion were directly responsible for a major political occurrence. I’m more cynical than most about the workings of a democracy, but when it does work, when ordinary people make demands that are heard acted upon, my cynicism dissipates, albeit for just a short while. I think both the elected representatives, and those who elect them, need the occasional reminder of who’s really supposed to be in charge. And in that respect, this week’s events have been extremely encouraging.

  That said, I share the same concern that Elaine Byrne expressed on last night’s Prime Time. It’s all very well finding out an individual who has some seemingly indefensible expense claims. And it’s completely understandable that people want to see some heads roll, especially at a time when many are hurting financially and many more fear their time is coming. But the dealings of one individual are neither here nor there if the structures and the culture that allowed them to happen are left in place.

  I suppose my concern, with respect to this affair and other political issues that have caused public outcry in recent days, is this: are they indicative of a growing culture of civic engagement and political structural reform, or are they just the response of an angry, frightened mob? Only time will tell. The test will be whether or not a few public floggings and one or two executions satisfy the public. Personally, were it a case of either/or, I would forgo the floggings and take reform. I think that was the point Dr. Byrne was making on last night’s show and I presume on the radio this morning.

  Comments (4)

• Mutually assured destruction?

  October 7, 2009 @ 10:52 pm | by Bryan

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gXY3kuDvSU&rel=0

  Not too long ago, as part of a film course, I got to watch the 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. This hilarious satire pokes fun at the cold war notion of mutually assured destruction.

  As Stanley Kubrick brilliantly illustrates, mutually assured destruction was not too different from a bunch of powerful politician and generals playing chicken with nuclear weapons. The idea was that if war could be made to inevitably result in ‘mutually assured destruction’, keeping a finger on ‘the button’ would keep the other side from striking first. Put simply, no rational person plays chicken if they know for a fact that it will lead to their demise. In Kubrick’s film however, mutually assured destruction comically leads to just that.

  There is something almost as comical in the latest climate change controversy. The Americans don’t want to be bound by the Kyoto protocol if it means that China gets to continue polluting. At first glance, that position seems almost honourable, but it’s not. This isn’t a principled stance by the US against acts that may lead to the irreversible damage, if not destruction, of the global commons that is the environment. No, this is much more like a 3 year old’s “Me too!” tantrum. If China and India are going to keep on wrecking the planet and making a buck in the process, then no little thing like international law, international public opinion, principle or even common sense will be allowed get in the way of the superpower doing likewise.

  I’m tempted to sensibly look at both the American (with the EU playing the role of sidekick) and Chinese (together with the vast majority of the rest of the world) perspectives more deeply. But why bother? When all is said and done, there is very obviously a widespread lack of understanding, concern or both, about the results of man’s poor stewardship of the planet.

  Kubrick was definitely onto something. There comes a point at which the best response to the absurd, no matter how important, is to shake your head and laugh.

  I wonder if anyone is going to make a film or write a book with the subtitle How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global Warming.

  Comments (5)

• Money makes the world go round?

  October 6, 2009 @ 5:07 pm | by Bryan

  

  Yes campaigners celebrate outside the main count centre in Dublin Castle on Saturday after the convincing Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. Photograph: Cathal McNaughton/Reuters.

  Let’s face it, there was only ever going to be one result to Lisbon II. It has been said that it is evaluated experience, rather than simply experience itself, which is the best teacher. So let’s evaluate the referendum’s outcome. Why was there such an overwhelming ‘Yes’ vote? In my opinion, it all boils down to money.

  What did the ‘No’ camp have to offer? Legitimate concerns about sovereignty, the spirit of democracy, and justified anger. Anger at not only being asked to pass a reworked version of a document that was well and truly rejected not too long ago, but also being asked to rethink what officialdom considered the lapse in judgement that resulted in Lisbon I’s defeat. These legitimate concerns were unfortunately shrouded by various elements on the ‘No’ side, in nonsensical non-issues.

  The ‘Yes’ camp also put forward their fair share of nonsense. But at the heart of their appeal was economic survival. In short, their message was, “Mess this up and you will literally pay for your mistake.” I have no idea if that proposition was correct. But that’s irrelevant since at the end of the day, a large majority, staring economic uncertainty in the face, chose not to risk irritating those nice Europeans who have over the years invested significantly in Ireland.

  When this issue is stripped bare of niceties, isn’t this the lesson: money really does make the world go round? Couldn’t we also say that in the hierarchy of societal ideals, financial security trumps the finer questions around constitutionality and even democracy? Were that not the case, there surely wouldn’t have been such an all encompassing effort to circumvent the safety mechanism worked into the Nice Treaty that called for unanimity? Lisbon I’s Irish defeat would have sounded the treaty’s death knell.

  Why then, does the Western political establishment make such a big deal about Hugo Chávez calling for a vote to remove term limits, or Kagame establishing himself as a de facto military dictator? In both cases, the vast majority of the local population has decided that the prospect of economic stability trumps constitutional concerns. Just like the majority of the population here, they would rather be prosperous than rigidly stick to the tenets of some piece of paper.

  Both here and elsewhere, money really does seem to make the world go round.

  Comments (10)

• Lisbon prediction

  October 2, 2009 @ 7:19 am | by Bryan

  

  The scene on O’Connell Street in Dublin yesterday as demonstrators blocked a working taxi driver during a protest by taxi drivers that lasted most of the day and caused major traffic disruption.

  Today, the country gets to vote on the Lisbon treaty. Since all politics is supposedly local, is this referendum going to be about the governance or Europe, or feelings towards Ireland’s governance? Held on the backdrop of strikes, a bank bailout that supposedly isn’t a bank bailout and a widespread uncertainty about the future, it will be interesting to see how the results are be interpreted.

  Here’s my one prediction. The side that loses - be that the ‘Yes’ or the ‘No’ campaign - will claim the electorate voted on some of the issues above, rather than on the treaty itself.

  Comments (20)