Progressive Politics
I have often wondered at the difference between the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. There everyone, no matter whom they are, views the Royals as being at best a quaint remnant of a bygone era (i.e. in support of a Republic as opposed to a Principality).
Indeed the very union of the Northern American States was at inception grounded in revolution against a distant English Crown. And so all of the founding fathers of America no matter where they stood on the broad political spectrum defined themselves in opposition to Royalism.
Royalists, Conservatives and Republicans.
Whilst in England the Conservative Party has traditionally been able to garner support from both the upper and lower classes. Joe Public's fascination and indeed identification with the Royals has been the prime reason for such paradoxical behaviour. And whilst Labour would seem the natural party for the worker class, it has traditionally garnered support from the more middling classes.
Then it always seemed strange to me being brought up on these isles that the Republican cause is most mirrored by the traditional Conservative party, who themselves have a strong Royalist sentiment. And that whilst Labour likewise is mirrored in the Democrat cause, the Democrat movement does not sound like a pro Worker movement.
Indeed the puzzle of these comparative politics was only heightened for me by the recent right Royal Snub that was afforded to the two former Labour premiers at Wills and Kate's wedding ceremony. But whilst Royalism and Conservatism sit well together in England, in order to understand their real import it is instructive to look across the pond to our cousins. There Politics is not complicated by the addition of the third royal factor, which defines a peculiar brand of patriotism based solely around the fortunes of one family.
Comparative Patriotism.
And even if we were to include the Patriotic element into our considerations we would note that Patriotism as a word and concept is more well-worn in the U.S than in England, where it essentially means a monolithic Roman-type Justice that "we (the U.S of A.) can do no wrong". To argue as Muhammad (saw) successfully argued, against the then prevalent Chiefs of Arabia, that to prevent a brother doing a wrong is to in fact aid and help him, is impossible within the U.S's Patriotic framework. Whilst in England Patriotism, being less well used, means many things to many people. It can mean, as recently evidenced, the fascination in the ongoing saga of one family, the support of our sporting heroes, the expulsion of foreign citizens or, as in the American case, the gung-ho support of our military adventures irrespective of the right or wrong footedness of them all. And so, mercifully, Patriotism as a political force is more moderate and more complex in the green gardens of England. Thus my wish to ignore it, in the belief that through simplifying the picture we can generate more understanding.
Progressives v/s Conservatives
What really helped answered the puzzle for me was reflection on the arguments for the Progressive Politics of both Labour and the Liberals in the previous electoral contest and in the run up to the referendum on the 5th of May.
Progressives stand in opposition to being Conservative. Both the Labour and Liberal camps claimed "progressiveness" for themselves in the recent election contest. But whilst each was talking the same language, they meant opposing things.
All progressives define themselves with reference to a regressive and blameworthy past. And it is what they see as blameworthy that is the crux of the matter.
The Conservatives see dependence on Welfare as such. Whilst it is undoubtably blameworthy it certainly cannot be called regressive. Rather the Welfare State belongs to a glorious past and a vision that was the then envy of the World. Even in the blandest of economic terms that views workforce as a commodity to be traded, the provision of a safety net, for those unable and incapable of work, is progressive.
The overt rise in the rampant abuse of our Welfare does not belong to our past, but has been exacerbated by our backdoor entry into Europe and the adoption of the European wide Human Rights legislation. Neither of those two ingredients have been successfully challenged by the now Conservatives. And indeed in these terms the only real regressive policy threatening today is the dismantling of the Welfare State.
This is precisely why the Cameronian reforms are doomed to failure, because they are themselves regressive. Whilst interestingly Cameronianism has never claimed a progressive pedigree.
The Labourian vision of a regressive past will not, at least not in words, try to dismantle Welfare. What they meant by progressive was an increasing participation of the private sector in public works.
Different words but essentially the same idea. And then the only question left to debate is whether or not the congruence of such policy would in fact cause the rolling back of the State, and whether or not such an eventuality might cause increasing disparity and injustice in our country.
The only party that really held a different progressive view for our country were the Liberals. For they saw Democracy as being in need of being saved. Small wonder given the expenses scandal.
Democracy constantly embattled
But if we look beyond that, the concept of Democracy constantly being embattled is core to Islamic Political Philosophy. When Abu Bakr as Sadeeq (as) first stood and said that he will wrestle the rights of the poor from the strong, until they have had their satisfaction, he was declaring a constant of human polity. Whilst it was Muhammad (saw) who, when asked by a stranger entering the Medinese Polity "Who is your leader?", replied "The one who best helps/serves the people" as a statement of fact. And so for Muslims representativeness is not sufficient if it does not lead to concrete public benefit.
And it seems that the progressive Labour camp forgot that the private sectors represents the haves whilst government is supposed to rebalance the tables which are weighted against the have-nots. Whilst the Conservatives stay true to their real import of weighting the game of life in favour of the haves.
That Royalism goes hand in hand with Conservatism is then no surprise when you consider the Royals to be one of the bigest blue chip dynastic companies that grace these shores.
The Case for AV
I started with a problem that has long been with me, and the above understanding clarified both the positions and names of the respective U.S parties. Republicans, as do Conservatives, believe in the smallness of the State because they are pro-business and anti-State or Federal interference in markets. Whilst Democrats feel as I do that the job of the State is to rebalance the table, to ensure that rights are upheld and that the Democracy of the small people flourishes through involvement and representation.
With this in mind there is no doubt that in the coming referendum I wil be voting for AV.
Our democracy needs saving.
Shafi
Published on my Blogger and on MySpace
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
I have often wondered at the difference between the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. There everyone, no matter whom they are, views the Royals as being at best a quaint remnant of a bygone era (i.e. in support of a Republic as opposed to a Principality).
Indeed the very union of the Northern American States was at inception grounded in revolution against a distant English Crown. And so all of the founding fathers of America no matter where they stood on the broad political spectrum defined themselves in opposition to Royalism.
Royalists, Conservatives and Republicans.
Whilst in England the Conservative Party has traditionally been able to garner support from both the upper and lower classes. Joe Public's fascination and indeed identification with the Royals has been the prime reason for such paradoxical behaviour. And whilst Labour would seem the natural party for the worker class, it has traditionally garnered support from the more middling classes.
Then it always seemed strange to me being brought up on these isles that the Republican cause is most mirrored by the traditional Conservative party, who themselves have a strong Royalist sentiment. And that whilst Labour likewise is mirrored in the Democrat cause, the Democrat movement does not sound like a pro Worker movement.
Indeed the puzzle of these comparative politics was only heightened for me by the recent right Royal Snub that was afforded to the two former Labour premiers at Wills and Kate's wedding ceremony. But whilst Royalism and Conservatism sit well together in England, in order to understand their real import it is instructive to look across the pond to our cousins. There Politics is not complicated by the addition of the third royal factor, which defines a peculiar brand of patriotism based solely around the fortunes of one family.
Comparative Patriotism.
And even if we were to include the Patriotic element into our considerations we would note that Patriotism as a word and concept is more well-worn in the U.S than in England, where it essentially means a monolithic Roman-type Justice that "we (the U.S of A.) can do no wrong". To argue as Muhammad (saw) successfully argued, against the then prevalent Chiefs of Arabia, that to prevent a brother doing a wrong is to in fact aid and help him, is impossible within the U.S's Patriotic framework. Whilst in England Patriotism, being less well used, means many things to many people. It can mean, as recently evidenced, the fascination in the ongoing saga of one family, the support of our sporting heroes, the expulsion of foreign citizens or, as in the American case, the gung-ho support of our military adventures irrespective of the right or wrong footedness of them all. And so, mercifully, Patriotism as a political force is more moderate and more complex in the green gardens of England. Thus my wish to ignore it, in the belief that through simplifying the picture we can generate more understanding.
Progressives v/s Conservatives
What really helped answered the puzzle for me was reflection on the arguments for the Progressive Politics of both Labour and the Liberals in the previous electoral contest and in the run up to the referendum on the 5th of May.
Progressives stand in opposition to being Conservative. Both the Labour and Liberal camps claimed "progressiveness" for themselves in the recent election contest. But whilst each was talking the same language, they meant opposing things.
All progressives define themselves with reference to a regressive and blameworthy past. And it is what they see as blameworthy that is the crux of the matter.
The Conservatives see dependence on Welfare as such. Whilst it is undoubtably blameworthy it certainly cannot be called regressive. Rather the Welfare State belongs to a glorious past and a vision that was the then envy of the World. Even in the blandest of economic terms that views workforce as a commodity to be traded, the provision of a safety net, for those unable and incapable of work, is progressive.
The overt rise in the rampant abuse of our Welfare does not belong to our past, but has been exacerbated by our backdoor entry into Europe and the adoption of the European wide Human Rights legislation. Neither of those two ingredients have been successfully challenged by the now Conservatives. And indeed in these terms the only real regressive policy threatening today is the dismantling of the Welfare State.
This is precisely why the Cameronian reforms are doomed to failure, because they are themselves regressive. Whilst interestingly Cameronianism has never claimed a progressive pedigree.
The Labourian vision of a regressive past will not, at least not in words, try to dismantle Welfare. What they meant by progressive was an increasing participation of the private sector in public works.
Different words but essentially the same idea. And then the only question left to debate is whether or not the congruence of such policy would in fact cause the rolling back of the State, and whether or not such an eventuality might cause increasing disparity and injustice in our country.
The only party that really held a different progressive view for our country were the Liberals. For they saw Democracy as being in need of being saved. Small wonder given the expenses scandal.
Democracy constantly embattled
But if we look beyond that, the concept of Democracy constantly being embattled is core to Islamic Political Philosophy. When Abu Bakr as Sadeeq (as) first stood and said that he will wrestle the rights of the poor from the strong, until they have had their satisfaction, he was declaring a constant of human polity. Whilst it was Muhammad (saw) who, when asked by a stranger entering the Medinese Polity "Who is your leader?", replied "The one who best helps/serves the people" as a statement of fact. And so for Muslims representativeness is not sufficient if it does not lead to concrete public benefit.
And it seems that the progressive Labour camp forgot that the private sectors represents the haves whilst government is supposed to rebalance the tables which are weighted against the have-nots. Whilst the Conservatives stay true to their real import of weighting the game of life in favour of the haves.
That Royalism goes hand in hand with Conservatism is then no surprise when you consider the Royals to be one of the bigest blue chip dynastic companies that grace these shores.
The Case for AV
I started with a problem that has long been with me, and the above understanding clarified both the positions and names of the respective U.S parties. Republicans, as do Conservatives, believe in the smallness of the State because they are pro-business and anti-State or Federal interference in markets. Whilst Democrats feel as I do that the job of the State is to rebalance the table, to ensure that rights are upheld and that the Democracy of the small people flourishes through involvement and representation.
With this in mind there is no doubt that in the coming referendum I wil be voting for AV.
Our democracy needs saving.
Shafi
Published on my Blogger and on MySpace
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
