What's the world without politicians?

During an interesting discussion on writing and modern journalism recently, some of us wondered at the dearth, if not the absence, of good satire today.

Why do we need satire, asked one, when life itself is a parody. I didn't think this accounted for the lack of satire. True, life is a parody and we need to thank those who say they have been elected to govern.

I mean, what would we do for entertainment without the politicians and their lapdogs-official and unofficial- who create enough mischief and mayhem daily to keep the people in paroxysms of laughter and satirists unemployed.

At least one can say for the British media today, that while it is but a pale imitation of what it used to be under some of the great editors and columnists of yesteryear- it still retains the doggedness of the British bulldog to pursue a story to its bitter end, once it gets a bite.

In fact if one is looking for that satirical jab in the eyes, one needs to turn to Britain's electronic media rather than the print. The Royal Family, the prime minister and everybody else is grist to the mill.

But the problem with some of our own journalism is that, like our own politicians, we manage to jump ideological barriers, change sides and positions as often as we change clothes.

And to hide this political metamorphosis they begin their articles with quotations from the Bard to Bardot in the hope, perhaps, that such weighty thoughts would provide intellectual ballast and divert attention from their new stance.

If some journalists are quick to change sides, the British media is quick to change channels, so to speak. Take, for instance, the great story of the Terrorism Act 2000 which had occupied media attention in the days when it was before parliament last year. There had been plenty of criticism of this Act under which foreign organisations based in the UK could be banned if the Home Secretary perceived any of them to be "concerned in terrorism".

The Act was brought into force on February 19 but the Home Secretary did not make an order under Schedule 2 banning any organisation. One would have expected a country which claims to be so concerned about international terrorism and a media that thrashes the IRA at any convenient opportunity to ask the Home Secretary whether it was his contention that none of a long list of foreign organisations based in the UK would qualify as a group "concerned in terrorism". One would have expected the media to follow up the story by asking a whole series of questions that emerged from his silence.

Any reasonable mind would have found such inquiries very relevant in the context of the Blair government joining hands with the Bush administration to bomb Baghdad as a lesson to Saddam Hussein not to engage in terrorist acts.

The immediate reason for the bombing is the pretext that Bush and Blair (does sound like an old music hall duo) are trying to protect their pilots from being shot down.

To which the question is what the hell are the Americans and British doing in Iraq? They are operating no-fly zones inside Iraqi territory and preventing Iraq using its own air space without any legal authority and without the backing of international law.

And who is leading the charge against Iraq? President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, two leaders who are ever ready to lecture to the world about democracy, rule of law and political morality.

Would Bush have been president if democracy and democratic practices had not been subverted? The Bush presidency has no legitimacy because he was made president by the Supreme Court, not elected by the people.

Let's take a look at Tony Blair. His party promised an ethical foreign policy. In the first few months of his government that policy was abandoned and today not even the last vestiges of moral rectitude remain. His participation in the bombing of Iraq violating Iraqi sovereignty without a United Nations mandate, is nothing but the use of the military might of a state to terrorise a weaker state.

But even such action is justifiable only when the international community, through the UN, orders it and backs it. Does the Blair government have such authority? Surely if it raises the argument of self-defence, it must first establish that it has a legal right to be where it is to exercise the right of self defence.

Some ask whether the silence of the Blair government on naming organisations linked to terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000 which was brought into force last week, is because it is two sides of the same coin. While the UK practises state terrorism, others practise terrorism against the state and its people.

It is unfair to accuse the British government of state terrorism in this instance though there may be other examples of it. But its recent actions on several issues concerning terrorism and crimes against humanity have led to doubts about the government's sincerity in meeting its international obligations.

For instance Britain was a prime mover in pressing for the establishment of an international criminal court to try persons considered guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In short if somebody like former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet accused of numerous killings and disappearances came to the UK, it would be the UK's duty to try him if he is on the wanted list.

But the domestic law that the Blair government drafted avoids any responsibility on the part of the UK for bringing such persons to justice.

It would seem that in a number of cases the Blair government is trying to avoid its international obligations. Unfortunately the British media will hardly explore these avenues of inquiry and investigation.

But they will go after Tony and his cronies. Blair promised that New Labour would be cleaner than the cleanest. He has failed. So the media is taking Tony to the cleaners, and ignoring the larger and more vital issues of UK's international obligations under several conventions and treaties to which it is a signatory.

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents