By any measure it's been quite a week for the virtues of democracy. Following on from the relatively harmonious elections in Afghanistan, India's 815million eligible citizens began heading to the polls in what has been described as the largest collective democratic act in history.
This is rightly laudable, although the likely victory of Narendra Modi of the BJP has caused considerable consternation given his murky past and his continued association with Hindu nationalism. But he is, by all accounts, a straight-talker, shrewd and, unlike his principle opponent Rahul Gandhi, untainted by corruption.
The Indian economy is slowing, and with the astonishing statistic that around half of the 1.2billion population are under 26, measures clearly need to be made to ensure continued employment and productivity. Politics is often said to be merely a series of reactions to perennial and cyclical events that occur. Parliamentary democracy is often too removed from regional concerns, and far too akin to an oil tanker trying to change course, to actually affect real change to people's lives.
The scale of India, its size, its population and its diversity is unfathomably enormous (this is a nation with a burgeoning space programme whilst millions still have no access to clean water). I can't help but wonder whether the nation as a whole wouldn't be better served by a more decisive fragmenting into separate regions of representation that might be freer to instigate actual progress for its civilians, as opposed to all being held under the leadership of one man and his personal foibles and ideals?
Such a colossal election process though is nothing if not symbolic, as the purported 'most democratic nation on earth', namely America, looks intent on eroding away any remaining vestiges of real democracy existent in the system. Money in American politics is everything. This is not saying anything new.
In 2010, the ratio of lobbyists to legislators was 131 to 1; politicians are little more than the finger puppets worn by the tightly-clenched fist of private capital. Until last week though, the donation limit from individuals to candidates or parties stood at $123,200. The Supreme Court have now opened up the sluice-gates for vastly increased political donations, further enshrining the 2010 Citizens United ruling that corporations were to be legally considered as 'people' therefore entitled to free speech and to spend whatever amount they wish on political campaigns.
As the canyon of inequality in America becomes weathered wider and wider, and election campaign costs skyrocket out of all proportion, this development can only be seen as patently undemocratic. According to The Guardian, '30% of diplomatic posts in Obama's administration have gone to friends and donors', and buying into ambassadorships of foreign countries are now valued in the millions of dollars.
And of course, this level of corruption and undue corporate influence can only serve to disenfranchise and alienate those whom politicians should be aiming to help most - the poor and the stagnating middle class.
-----
Perhaps the crux of the concern levelled at Modi's victory in India is his divisensss between Hindus and Muslims, and the lessons that recent history teaches us of fractural disharmony within the fabric of a society. This week marked the 20th anniversary since the beginning of the Rwanda genocide, the legacy of which now serves as the moral shackles that bind Western nations to their supposed commitment to prevent similar horrific occurences taking place in other beleaguered global quarters.
Attending an exhibition at Somerset House, 'Death then : Life Now', the vibrant affirmation of life, community, family and work was striking. It provided a defiant representation of a nation, beset in the past by European imperialism that did nothing except enflame pre-existing tribal divisions, trying to move away from its past and into a more promising future.
All of which should serve to put the dominating UK news, that of Maria Miller finally being forced to leave her post as Culture Secretary after yet more fiddling of expenses, into some kind of perspective. In truth, it should scarcely register as valuable news at all.
That said, for me it raises two preponderances. Firstly, that the publicity such a fall-from-grace generates has negative implications for politics as a whole - in that it allows the gratefully outraged public to chow down on yet more futile politico-bashing bait, and diverts attention away from things genuinely worthy of scrutiny; for instance, Iain Duncan Smith's woeful PIP benefits scheme that is currently failing disabled claimants.
Secondly, I'm not entirely convinced the government's already quite broad remit need necessarily extend to culture. Why do we actually need a Culture Secretary at all? They should instead make the Arts Council, the museums, and so on, independently managed and at the start of each financial year simply hand them their allotted budget share. Can't be any more problematic than the notion of giving British cultural policy to a former banker with Deutsche Bank who has no issue with the idea of ticket touting...
No comments:
Post a Comment