The true meaning of socialism

This year, 2004, was the year "values" made a comeback. George W. Bush fought a presidential campaign on them.

His opponent, John Kerry, was deemed not to have enough of them. Tony Blair laid claim to cherishing them - perhaps a bit too desperately - as he defended his political reputation. And the Taoiseach seemingly discovered them - a set of values which he eagerly labelled "socialist".

Politicians are nothing if not good at sensing a change in the public mood. The rush towards "values" reflects a growing demand from the electorate for some form of vision - one that rises above political opportunism or cute hoorism.

Such talk of ideology had been banished from the political sphere since perhaps the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the 1990s, a politician with an ideology was either a religious nut or a leftover commie. So we were led to believe in a world where market forces would inevitably steer us towards happiness, and where social partnership and a political consensus in Ireland would deliver both social harmony and peace.What has changed since then?

The terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, undoubtedly contributed to a global rethink about values. Those believing in the importance of human freedom and the sanctity of life realised they had to assert a fresh moral vision to challenge religious and secular intolerance. At home, worrying social trends that coincided with the declining influence of the Catholic Church have prompted a new search for values.

The Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, Emily O'Reilly, spoke for many this year when she called for a moral awakening in Irish society.

But whose values should influence public policy? And what vision should Ireland promote? Well, what about this one: "It is my belief that even if we are strangers in many ways, dispersed by geography, diverse because of race, differentiated by wealth and income . . . we are not and we cannot be moral strangers for there is a shared moral sense common to us all . . . We cannot be fully human unless we care about the dignity of every human being."

Who spoke these words? A priest? A prophet? No, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. What was extraordinary about his speech earlier this month at the relief agency Cafod's annual lecture in London was that the sentiment was backed up with substance.

Describing 2005 as a "make-or-break year for development", Brown promised to make Africa the central concern of Britain's forthcoming presidencies of the EU and the G8 rich nations club. He pledged Britain's support for a new financial package for the developing world, the largest cancellation of Third World debt and "the first ever world trade agreement to be in the interests of the poorest countries".

He said vested interests needed to be taken on and "the scandal and waste of the Common Agricultural Policy" tackled. He told aid agencies to hold the British government accountable and to "judge [ us] by what we achieve". He argued that humankind's "shared values" demanded nothing less than an international war on poverty and he drew support for his beliefs from the Bible, the Koran, Hindu scripture, John Stewart Mill, George W. Bush and Bono, among other sources.

It is easy to be cynical about politicians talking about morality but here is one who deserves the benefit of the doubt, not least because of his work already in gaining international support for debt cancellation. If the Government is serious about asserting "values", it could do worse than make Brown's crusade its own.

Affirming Ireland's absolute responsibility to the world's poor is a good place to start if we are to undergo a moral rehabilitation. In fact, it is the only place to start, given the significance - ethical and otherwise - of allowing 30,000 children to die each day (as estimated by the UN Development Programme) without a fight.

Of course, for the Government to do a Gordon Brown, it would need to spend less money on spin-doctors and public relations "experts" and more on scriptwriters and policy- makers of purpose. It would mean having a Minister for Finance who argues, as Brown does, that "you value your society not [ by] its wealth and power over others but by how it can empower the poor and powerless".

It would mean having a Taoiseach whose vision of "socialism" stretched beyond Dublin Zoo to the majority world. It would mean having a minister for overseas development who wanted aid agencies to hold the Government to account - unlike Conor Lenihan who lashed out at them for highlighting the Government's reneging on its aid commitments.

It would be a tall order, in other words. But, then, let me quote Gordon Brown: "Even when the path ahead is difficult, hard and long, let us not lose hope but have the courage in our shared resolve to find the will to act . . . Let us answer with Isaiah also as our motto for 2005: that we shall indeed 'renew our strength, rise up with wings as eagles, walk and not faint, run and not be weary'."