outsidein »

• Poverty tourism

  September 30, 2009 @ 9:21 am | by Bryan

  

  A view of the “informal settlement” of Mathare at Nairobi, Kenya. Photograph: Frederic Courbet.

  This isn’t new. It happens in parts of South Africa, and I’m pretty sure it also happens in other places. Kenya is now home to a new kind of income generating scheme – poverty tourism.

  That’s right, poverty tourism. People pay to see the misery of others and then… I don’t know what happens then to be honest. I’m sure the whole thing isn’t meant to be sadistic. I imagine that those paying to see these slum dwellers do it for noble reasons, like the desire to understand how the other half live, so they can more effectively campaign for them. But to me, it smells like the horrible product of a George Orwell and Stephen King collaboration.

  What’s next, Survivor Khayelitsha? A show in which regular folks from various rich nations get to spend twelve weeks in South Africa’s largest township with nothing but the average income of the typical shanty town’s resident? Following District 9’s lead, the contestants might have to supplement their diet with rats and who knows, maybe cat food? At what point does concern and empathy become vulgar voyeurism?

  In a fascinating report from Kenya, Fintan O’Toole shared a debate between two Masai men on modernisation and the future of the tribe. Arguing for the path of modernisation and integration into the wider Kenyan society, O’Toole reports that Leina Mpoke, programme director with Concern, said the following:

  …Masais are kept in the same category as wildlife. Even when tourists come to look at wildlife, without the Masai next to a giraffe or a Masai village near the lions, it’s not complete. I refuse that kind of consumerism where the Masai is rated the same way as a beast. But the Masai man of the old time is not the same as today. The Masai warrior insisted on facing his enemy man-to-man and believed that even arrows were for cowards. And they got killed.

  Unfortunately, the path favoured by Mpoke isn’t much brighter. The majority of those Masai who ‘integrate’ end up in slums. History suggests that it will be years before that group works its way up the social ladder. Until then, those who escape the humiliation of being photographed as part of the wildlife may very well end up being captured by the camera lens of another kind of tourist. This time, as the wildlife itself – part and parcel of the urban safari experience.

  Comments (23)

• Silvio … again.

  September 29, 2009 @ 1:54 pm | by Bryan

  

  US president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle welcome Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi to the welcoming dinner for G20 leaders in Pittsburgh last week. Photograph: Getty Images.

  The question I asked my Italian friend still stands: does this stuff really play well in Italy? How? How has Silvio Berlusconi managed to maintain his domestic popularity?

  Comments (8)

• My local TD

  @ 1:50 pm | by Bryan

  I must confess that until now, I’ve had mixed feelings about the dual role of the Irish TD – national lawmaker and local issue handyman. I would never have gone as far as Peter Sutherland, who recently described local politicians as being ‘too parochial’. That said, I’ve had plenty of sympathy for those who believe that national politicians should focus solely on national politics and leave fixing streetlights to local representatives.

  Recently however, I was confronted with an issue that I felt I couldn’t resolve on my own. My local TD’s office is on my street (I live in the middle of town), and on my way home one day, I noticed that his clinic was open. On the spur of the moment, I decided to go in and see what would happen.

  Maybe that in itself is problematic. Maybe elected representatives shouldn’t have to deal with whatever issues their constituents impulsively decide to dump onto them. That said, I had a problem (and not even a communal one like a broken streetlight or pothole), I felt an important person like a TD could successfully intercede on my behalf, and as it turned out, he was willing to try. My issue was quickly resolved. I’m not sure how much of that was the result of my TD’s intervention, but I’ve been converted. Accessible, down-to-earth national politicians who are intimately acquainted with the difficulties of their constituents can only contribute positively to a healthy political system. I think.

  I’m torn. On the one hand, I frequently ask those who know about the Irish political system how a cabinet minister who shall remain nameless got re-elected the last time the country went to the polls. That minister’s department is frequently criticised, as is the minister in question. If this minister is as attentive to the needs of their constituents as my TD, my question has at last been definitively answered. Only, if said minister deserves the criticism that is hurled at them, then maybe accessibility isn’t always good for the political system.

  How do you square those two interests – the individual’s interests and those of the whole? Is the functioning of the political system not too different from the economic one? Does efficiency have to give way at times, to some of our higher values? Is having a few bad cabinet ministers a price that we must pay for a system that allows us to be governed by people who regularly interact with, and serve us, in some very mundane ways?

  Comments (4)

• Picture of the week

  September 27, 2009 @ 8:16 pm | by Bryan

  

  A huge outback dust storm blanketed eastern Australia yesterday, disrupting transport, forcing people indoors and stripping thousands of tonnes of valuable farmland topsoil. Photograph: Tim Wimborne/Reuters.

  Comments (7)

• Hooray for the G20?

  September 25, 2009 @ 1:50 pm | by Bryan

  

  “The fact that 20 or so individuals right now are determining economic trade policies for four to five billion people just isn’t right,” Mr. Griffith said. “That’s why we’re here.”

  Most news organisations are making a big deal over the fact that the G8 is being replaced by the G20. The fact that a handful of the most powerful ‘developing nations’ are being added to the elite club that gets to set the economic rules for the rest is supposed to represent the dawn of a new inclusive era or something. It does no such thing.

  Let’s take a look at some of these ‘developing nations’. China. India. South Africa. Turkey. Brazil. These aren’t exactly the nations that I would pick were I trying to get a good understanding of the concerns of the typical state in the South. China is China. India, while being home to some of the world’s poorest people, is also incredibly wealthy. So much so, the Indians not only sent a rocket to the moon, they were also the ones who recently discovered water there. They’re not exactly Malawi or Haiti – nations trying to come up with a formula for growing enough food to meet domestic needs. As for Brazil, the OECD has been trying to woo them for a while. The OECD, you may have noticed, have not expressed much interest in Cuba or Paraguayi. The G20 is so inclusive that neither Nigeria nor Egypt, Africa’s second and third wealthiest nations, were deemed worthy. And yet, just about all of Europe is represented there by the EU. But just to make sure, France, Germany, Italy and Britain get their own special seats. The same is true of North America – the US, Canada and Mexico are all members.

  So just to re-cap, the G20 is made up of Europe, North America, and everyone else with too much economic clout to ignore. And what happens when only the powerful get to make the rules? Let’s look at the response to the recent financial crisis, shall we? As was recently demonstrated on the excellent three part BBC television series, The Love of Money, the politically powerful got together with the economically powerful to craft a solution to the crisis. Unsurprisingly, it was decided that to avoid catastrophe, the economically powerful could not be allowed to fail. Equally unsurprisingly, the chosen mechanism of their rescue was a transfer of wealth from the rest, to those deemed to large to fail. Could it be that the proposal to transfer wealth to struggling mortgage holders instead of, or in tandem with the banks bailout, would have got more of a hearing were struggling mortgage holders part of the deliberations? Hoping that China, Brazil or even South Africa will represent Malawi’s economic interests is like expecting AIB or Bank of Ireland to ask the Finance Minister to consider my local credit union’s needs, and give some of the taxpayer money allocated to the banks to St. Anthony’s Credit Union instead. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  Like Trevor Griffith, I have serious problems with a small group from the most powerful nations making potentially life and death decisions for the rest of the planet. If however, that’s the direction the world is going to take, then at least let’s be completely honest about it and get rid of the charade that is the United Nations General Assembly. Maybe let’s get rid of the UN altogether? It can’t be that important if the real decision makers use it as a pit stop en-route to G20 meetings.

  Comments (19)

• Ireland’s future immigration debate

  September 23, 2009 @ 1:05 pm | by Bryan

  Ireland is again experiencing net emigration. More people are leaving than are arriving on these shores. I wonder how that will colour the immigration debate going forward.

  When I first arrived here, I was struck by what I saw as inconsistencies in the immigration discourse. I remember there being optimism that Bertie Ahern would be able to come up with some settlement for the ‘undocumented Irish’ in America. At the same time, there was a chorus of voices calling for immediate action on the large number of Eastern Europeans in the state, and the removal of ‘illegal immigrants’. I soon came to realise that the ‘illegal immigrants’ concerned included asylum seekers, those granted refugee status, and on a bad day, anyone who looked like they were from a different part of the world (with the exception, of course, of Americans and Australians).

  Since then, a lot of public attention seems to have moved away from immigrants. That could be an artefact – similar to the way in which people who live on busy streets gradually learn to block out the sound of traffic. But I don’t think that is the whole story. I think it is, at least partially, a response to falling numbers of migrants and a preoccupation with more pressing matters. The fact that migrant workers are losing their jobs at a faster rate than their Irish born counterparts should keep the remaining immigrants off the list of top national priorities. Provided, that is, the foreign born do not become too much of a feature at social welfare offices and dole queues.

  How will the general public feel about immigration and immigrants in the coming months and years? After other Europeans returning home, Irish people trying their luck elsewhere represent the largest component of the new migration trend. I am tempted to believe that a country that is sending so many of its own abroad will be understanding of those who leave worse off places in search of a better life within its borders. Then again, this is the same country that referred to others as ‘illegal’ while calling its own ‘undocumented’.

  Comments (44)

• Charity or Justice?

  September 22, 2009 @ 2:33 pm | by Bryan

  Trócaire, the Irish Catholic Church’s official overseas development agency, has the following appeal up on their website under the heading No More Aid Cuts:

  The amount of money given internationally to bail out banks in the past year is ten times greater than all development assistance provided to poor countries in the last 50 years.

  The Irish government has slashed the overseas aid budget for 2009 by 24%.??Ireland’s aid is making a real difference to people in the developing world. Take this action and tell Brian Cowen you
  -don’t want any more cutbacks in aid in the December budget.
  - you think his government should keep their promise to the world’s poor by spending just 0.7% of our national income on overseas aid by 2012.

  An important debate in the development sector centres around whether development should be viewed as a matter of charity or justice. How you answer that question plays no small part in your views on campaigns such as No More Aid Cuts in the middle of a recession.

  If overseas development assistance is a charitable act – and I believe the majority of people in Ireland believe that to be the case – then it is reasonable to take the view that charity begins at home. It is reasonable to reduce the proportion of the nation’s income that is given as development assistance and divert that money to Irish schools and hospitals, for example.

  It seems that through this campaign, Trócaire is expressing a justice view of development. They are contrasting the value of human life with that of the financial system, and that’s an important debate to have. More questions need to be raised. Were the likes of Martin Luther King right when they said that our obligation to each other as human beings extends beyond nationality? If it does, how far does that go? Is it enough to merely ensure that the basic needs of those who are far away are met, or do we need to work at ensuring that their quality of life approximates that of the average person living in Western Europe?

  I really hope that Trócaire go all out with this campaign. It’s one thing to hint at the charity/justice debate and get people to sign a petition. In many ways, that’s the smart thing to do because were there a referendum on the issue today, my money would be on the charity side winning hands down. But I hope that doesn’t keep the development sector from honestly and openly making a case for development as justice. If nothing else, an open debate on the subject will strip both the development sector, and the public at large, down to our true, basic beliefs. That can only aid the development process.

  Comments (19)

• Pre-emptive And Effective Buggin’ Out

  September 19, 2009 @ 3:06 pm | by Bryan

  

  One of my favourite movie characters of all time is Buggin’ Out from Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. Giancarlo Esposito is a great actor and plays the part well, but what really gets me is the symbolism behind the role. He represents well meaning, passionate social and political activism that is misdirected and therefore ultimately futile. Hence the name, Buggin’ Out.

  I’ve been trying to think of what Buggin’ Out’s cousin would be called. How would Spike Lee depict behaviour that is just as animated, but whose purpose was to shut down any meaningful discussion on a given topic? Try as I may, I can’t come up with a Lee character that personifies the kind of response that met Jimmy Carter’s observations this week.

  Former President Carter shared his opinion that the majority of the most vocal, the most fierce opposition to Obama, comes down to racism. There are some people who do not believe a black man should be the president of the United States, said Carter. That was always going to be a controversial position to take. But rather than give the elder statesman the benefit of the doubt and look into the claims thoroughly, most have dismissed him as a bumbling fool. Not only that, there has been quite a bit of ‘buggin’ out’ in the process. The derision of Carter has been quite animated.

  It is interesting how every society has its taboos. It appears that in the US, it is taboo to imply that the nation fails to live up to its ideal of itself. That taboo is maintained by a lot of hollering, kicking and screaming (buggin’ out). It’s an effective means of ensuring that most people remain well within the acceptable bounds of public discourse. And even when the likes of Jimmy Carter, Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Maureen Dowd do speak up, they are successfully drowned out by the hollering.

  ‘Pre-emptive And Effective Buggin’ Out’ is too much of a mouthful. It would never work as the name of a movie character, Maybe Spike will come up with something better in his next film.

  Comments (12)

• Much ado about nothing

  September 17, 2009 @ 6:36 pm | by Bryan

  
  Eugene Sheehy, chief executive of AIB, entering the Department of Finance on Tuesday night where he and other bankers met with the Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan to discuss Nama. Photograph: Aidan Crawley.

  Recently, I had a telephone conversation with a friend who is a bit of a political activist. Though we share similar feelings on many broad subjects, there is one fundamental difference between us. My friend believes that the status quo is generally sound, it just needs constant fine tuning. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that what is needed is a complete rethink of things.

  To be topical, let’s take NAMA. In some ways, it seems like much ado about nothing. At the end of the day, a bunch of politicians (sorry Dr McCaffery), business people, senior academics and the rest of the kings and queens of the land, are trying to redistribute wealth. Not only that, they are trying to find the best way of accomplishing their goal while simultaneously furthering their own interests and ensuring the long term viability of Ireland Inc. When all is said and done and the dust settles, even if the ‘public’ get the best possible outcome under the current terms of this debate, wealth is still going to be transferred from the many to the few. Funnily, the many might actually be grateful because this donation on their part is supposedly being undertaken for the sake of their children and grandchildren.

  It is incredible how similar people can be, regardless of geography. Noam Chomsky has, on several occasions, stated his belief that the United States is more authoritarian than some supposed dictatorships. I think I’m finally starting to understand what he means. I see in Ireland today the same dynamics at work that I grew up with in Zimbabwe. Power in Zim was concentrated in the hands of a few who were associated with a political party. In Ireland, that few are bound together more by socio-economic status than by party affiliation. Yet even here, it is a few who rule. In Zim, the few tried to make decisions based on what would benefit themselves personally, while at the same time maintaining the viability of the country (so they could continue to benefit). I see the same here. Zim’s few wrapped their actions in populist rhetoric. Here, ‘the taxpayer’ is constantly invoked in policy debates. The difference between the governance of my former home and my current one is a matter of degrees.

  That being the case, I cannot help but feel as though we are all missing the point and barking up the wrong tree. It doesn’t matter which faction of the few gets to decide how to transfer money to the banking system if the relationships between the many, the few, and various institutions aren’t addressed. It is like believing that real change can come from substituting Robert Mugabe with Morgan Tsvangirai, without an overhaul of the political system which leads to significant societal change.

  NAMA, nationalisation, the good bank … as things stand, all seem to me like much ado about nothing.

  Comments (9)

• Amusing Ourselves to Death

  September 15, 2009 @ 2:03 pm | by Bryan

  Concluding another excellent piece of writing in today’s Irish Times, Fintan O’Toole makes the following plea:

  …can we perhaps conduct the crucial debates on Nama and Lisbon without conjuring bogeymen to give force to our arguments?
  

  I really wish we could, but apparently, that is just not going to happen. Let’s give NAMA a break and take the Lisbon Treaty as an example. I’m sure there is no end to the number of sensible arguments for and against it that one could make. But take a walk down any busy street and read the posters that have sprung up. Neither side is being very subtle. In bright colours and, at times, with provocative imagery, elements on both sides of the debate are trying to conjure up the scariest bogeymen possible.

  And just to ensure that we are entertained, both sides, and the media, are pushing their most glamorous stars forward. In the same way that Coke picks attractive young people; that Gillette shows off Thierry Henry, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer; and just as a circus promotes its trained monkeys in bright red suits, we’ve been given Ganley and O’Leary. Like in a true soap opera, we’re building up to a climax in which these two individuals go at it, dramatically exchanging the most outrageous claims possible.

  Hard as I try, I just cannot understand why there is this almost wilful desire to avoid confronting the substance of the difficult issues confronting us, but to engage in fringe or made-up controversies. I really don’t get it. Do we just not have the collective attention span required to ask difficult, boring questions of each other? Why do we feel the need to have individuals that come across well on TV and radio leading such important debates, instead of the most knowledgeable, sensible and courteous people? Imagine, a panel debate in which the aim is that both sides understand the other’s point of view and engage in a back and forth aimed at clarifying issues, not scoring cheap, publicity points. Unthinkable!

  I can only conclude that Neil Postman was right in his belief that our desire for ‘entertainment’ – be that in the discussion of the news and in other areas, such as education – would be our downfall. The title of his book, in that sense, was prophetic. Amusing Ourselves to Death.

  Comments (15)

• Picture of the week

  September 13, 2009 @ 4:12 pm | by Bryan

  

  A small house among the trees in Cork. Photograph: Gavin Mullan of HEADPHONELAND.

  Comments (19)

• Family or country club?

  September 12, 2009 @ 1:37 pm | by Bryan

  I like to think of myself and of this blog as being apolitical in the sense of not harbouring loyalties to, or even substantial opinions about any specific political party. Besides, this website has an excellent Politics blog whose authors, Harry and Deaglán, know more about the workings of the country’s political system and its actors than I ever will. With that in mind, I hope my reference to Labour Party TD Joanna Tuff (who has commented on this blog a few times) won’t be viewed in a partisan light.

  In a recent blog post, she makes the claim that the middle class is being forced to carry a disproportionately large burden on the road towards the country’s economic recovery. She also says that the wealthy benefited more during the good times than everyone else, and yet their current contribution is relatively less than that of middle income earners. Quite a lot of people that I know, people who generally fall into the ‘middle-class’ category, have made similar complaints in recent times.

  I suppose the underlying issue here is about the nature of the state. Is a country like a family in which everyone has an obligation to each other? If that is the case, what is the nature of that obligation and how far does it go? Or, is the state more like a country club where you’re entitled to different kinds of perks depending on which type of membership you can afford to maintain?

  If the state is more family than country club, Tuffy may be onto something. Maybe a ‘from each according to their ability; to each according to their need’ approach is the way to go. It makes sense then to expect the wealthiest to pay more taxes, or to contribute more in whatever way we come up with, to communal services and those who cannot provide adequately for themselves.

  If, on the other hand, we think the state should be more country club than family, then it is wrong to make those who have paid for the gold-class membership to also subsidise people who haven’t even paid for the basic membership. I don’t particularly subscribe to that school of thought, but there is some validity to the claim that the wealthy contribute to the common good even before they are taxed. Taxation could even be seen as a constraint on the ability of these groups and individuals, preventing them from creating more employment, for example.

  I hope I don’t sound like a broken record, but I keep thinking that we keep engaging in a policy debate when what is really needed is one on a more basic level. Until family/country club questions are posed, argued out and answered, it will be next to impossible to come up with a coherent set of policies.

  Comments (8)

• Reality TV

  September 10, 2009 @ 4:23 pm | by Bryan

  I had an interesting argument yesterday with a friend who runs a small community group. She is convinced that provided you make a strong rational argument, people – the general public – will make the ‘right’ decision. The right decision in that context was whatever best serves the public interest or the common good. I wish that were the case but I disagree.

  I think it was Kant who came to the conclusion that sometimes the rational position to take is not the moral one. But even when the rational conclusion is the ‘right’ thing to do, often self-interest pulls us in a different direction. Either way, gathering public support for something is seldom just a matter of making a logical case for that position. The US debate on health care reform is a good example.

  Yesterday, Barack Obama made a strong case for universal health care in his speech to Congress. He laid out the moral argument well. He also made a strong rational argument for reform, which was framed around cost and value for money. Why then, is enough of the electorate is so sceptical of the reform efforts that even some of the politicians in Obama’s own party might still oppose him?

  Similar questions could be asked of NAMA, the Lisbon treaty, Silvio Berlusconi’s presidency, climate change … the list is endless. People don’t vote based on what makes the most sense. I’m not sure if that is because we are all too busy to try to make sense of the health care industry or the Lisbon Treaty, or if we would just rather be entertained. Maybe that is what it comes down to. Maybe modern Western society is just one big reality tv show which we all passively watch, occasionally voting for our favourite performances.

  Maybe that’s it. If you watch the news the same way you watch American Idol or Britain’s Got Talent, you could just decide that the anti-health care reform group are the better act, especially if you haven’t had a bad experience with health insurance. Picking a position on Lisbon could similarly be about one’s feelings towards Brian, Enda, Brussels or job insecurity. As for Silvio and other far right political personalities and parties, who doesn’t want the guy next door to be the next reality TV big thing?

  Comments (10)

• A thought

  September 9, 2009 @ 9:33 am | by Bryan

  Because of Ireland’s unique set of circumstances, it may be some time before there are pronouncements here about the end of the recession. But it will probably be sooner than expected. And like in places where economists have already begun to announce the beginning of the end of the recession, reality may lag behind those pronouncements.

  The current consensus seems to be that the global recession is lifting, but unemployment will be a significant problem in most parts of the world for some time to come. The dissonance between some economic indicators, like GDP and industrial output, and the lives of ordinary people, is worrying. Worse is the possibility that the recession will be declared over without a significant shift in the dominant way of thinking about the economy.

  A lot of what led to the recession in the first place was a focus on numbers that were disconnected to reality. Mortgages were sold to people, but then those debts were then sold off to others who were completely disconnected to the original properties or their owners. Sums of money were allowed to float around which were not firmly rooted to real people and their circumstances. To borrow from the vocabularies of Hegel and Marx, this ‘alienation’ dehumanises commerce. And because commerce is now at the centre of social life, it dehumanises people. So much so, that news outlets release stories of the end of recession, acknowledging the jobs situation, without irony.

  For all that it is got right, Western society has a strange value system. It’s starting to look as if this recession won’t come close to remedying that. What a pity.

  Comments (11)

• Dirty linen – to air or not to air?

  September 8, 2009 @ 1:31 pm | by Bryan

  I’m almost afraid to raise this topic since it has a tendency of attracting all sorts of ‘interesting’ characters. But it’s a valid topic for discussion and I’m curious.

  Recent times have seen an increase in the support of Britain’s far right, whites-only BNP (British National Party). Not only did the BNP win two seats in the last European Parliament elections, they also hold some council seats. The party has done so well that the BBC will probably host them on their flagship show, Question Time. This has sparked an interesting debate: do you give groups with objectionable values a hearing in the public arena, or is the thing to do to ignore them and treat them with the disdain they show others?

  One of the things that impresses, and continues to fascinate me, is Ireland’s lack of a BNP equivalent. There are racist internet fora, but there doesn’t seem to be an organised far-right political group here that is comparable to the BNP. Is that because Ireland is just that much more civil a country, or has there just been an implicit decision to ignore phenomena as embarrassing as far-right groups?

  I have an almost idealistic view of the virtue of public debate. I like to think that when people are confronted with reason, there is a good chance that they will succumb to it. At the same time, I can’t imagine a rational basis for supporting the BNP, but I can think of a bucketful of irrational ones – for example, the need for a scapegoat and escape from feelings of impotence against the factors that really cause a person’s misery.

  Either way, I think hosting the BNP on the BBC will do more harm than good. Even if reason is the best remedy for questionable ideas, television does not foster rational debate. If anything, it is the perfect soapbox for the irrational. That being the case, maybe Ireland’s relative lack of racially motivated crime is the result of the absence of overtly racist messages from the public sphere.

  Comments (19)

• Picture of the week

  September 5, 2009 @ 9:00 am | by Bryan

  

  Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan arriving at the Department of Finance yesterday to answer questions on the proposed Nama legislation in front of a joint Oireachtas committee. The Minister said that Nama would take on 1,500 borrowers and 18,000 loans. Photograph: Frank Miller

  Comments (3)

• A thought

  September 4, 2009 @ 3:48 pm | by Bryan

  I can’t think of a better way to end the week than to think about John Waters’ brilliant piece in today’s Irish Times. Part of it reads:

  …the problem here is not fundamentally about banking or building – it is about our screwed-up sense of how human beings should live and of the role of the public realm in creating the right conditions. The unmentioned original wrong is that almost everyone involved in politics, banking, developing and building thought it a bonny idea to build several hundred thousand shoeboxes for people to live in. No thought was given to the humanity of the putative inhabitants of these shoeboxes. This is what we need to talk about.

  Absolutely.

  Comments (11)

• The Greens

  September 3, 2009 @ 2:53 pm | by Bryan

  

  The leaders of Ireland’s main political parties. The Irish Times: 03/09/2009.

  That there is a fair chance of the Green Party pulling out of government in the not too distant future goes without saying. The question is, should they even be there in the first place?

  (Let me make it clear at the outset that I really couldn’t care less whether the Greens stay in, or pull out of the coalition. I agree with Gerry Adams (I hope that doesn’t get me in trouble). Replacing FF and the Greens with FG and Labour is like substituting Tweedledum with Tweedledee. Little will change.)

  After the last general election, many commentators said that the Greens would be mad to pass up the opportunity to be in government and implement some of their policies. I disagreed then with that assessment, and I disagree with it even more now.

  That view, that real change can only be effected within government, is crazy. Let’s face it, different people take turns sitting in the various political offices, but the ideas that inform their decisions are collective ones. By that what I mean is the ‘political class’ generates (or appropriates) and debates the ideas that inform policy as a whole. The reason Tweedledum and Tweedledee are so similar is that they feed at the same ideas trough. Had Tweedledee been in power, NAMA would probably be an FG/Labour proposal and FF/Greens would have countered that with the ‘Good Bank’. Why? Those were the two main ideas floating around at the time. It makes a huge difference which of the two proposals is implemented. But regardless of who was in power, the government would probably have gone with a bad bank since that was the more accepted position internationally – the Economist, for example, had been advocating for bad banks for months before NAMA was suggested.

  That being the case, the Greens could have maintained their advocacy as an opposition party. They could have still pushed forward Green ideas and grown their base. Instead, they decided to enter into partnership with a party still wed to the Progressive Democrats, their ideological opposite. Why?

  I suppose power is to a politician what a flame is to a moth. The attraction can cause sense to fly out the window.

  Comments (12)

• Ali

  September 2, 2009 @ 3:59 pm | by Bryan

  

  Muhammad Ali in Ennis, Co Clare, yesterday ,where he became the first honorary freeman of the town. With his wife Lonnie, he visited Turnpike Road where his great-grandfather Abe Grady lived until the 1860s. The Irish Times: 02/09/2009.

  The creation of myths/legends after our liking is a process that fascinates me. I have come to understand that in many real ways, history is something that we create. Actually, it is something that the most powerful groups in society create. The principle mechanism by which that happens: selecting what is remembered and what is forgotten.

  Muhammad Ali is a fascinating case in point. Today, he is a universally acclaimed superstar. He’s ‘the greatest’. He has been played by a Hollywood’s A-list actor in a major biopic. Countless songs have been sang to, for and about him. There are posters, t-shirts, key-rings, bumper stickers and Lord knows what else that commemorate the legend. In all of these, it is Ali’s physical strength, his boxing prowess, his charisma and his incredible sense of humour that we honour. And yes, the fact that he refused to sign up for a war – one that in retrospect we abhor – that gets some notice and plays well with our idea of the well rounded super-hero. It also makes for a good story.

  A good story needs the hero to perform an act of redeeming self-sacrifice. In our version of events, Ali stood up to the bad government in an act that encapsulates both our new-found anti-war and pro-civil rights sentiment. But as Mike Marqusee reminds us in his book Redemption Song: Muhammad Ali and the Spirit of the Sixties, it was only in the 1990s that Ali the universal hero was invented. That process was made possible by a delicate process of selective forgetting, and commemorating what we chose to remember. Thus, there is a dissonance between Ali the man and Ali the legend.

  To labour the point, let’s imagine a modern day Muhammad Ali. Suppose Tiger Woods converted to Islam around the time of 9/11. Suppose he then refused to participate in the Rider Cup or US open (that’s the best I could do with my limited knowledge of golf) in protest over the US invasion of Iraq. Suppose he then went on to say the equivalent (in terms of public outrage) of, “I ain’t got no quarrel with those Vietcong. Ain’t no Vietcong ever call me a nigger.” What would that be today? I don’t know, maybe “If the US stopped meddling in the geopolitics of the middle east and other parts of the world, there would never have been a 9/11.”

  What about the equivalent of Ali’s ‘you’re my enemy’ statement?
  “…I’ve been in jail for 400 years. I could be there for 4 or 5 more, but I ain’t going no 10,000 miles to help murder and kill other poor people. If I want to die, I’ll die right here, right now, fightin’ you, if I want to die. You my enemy, not no Chinese, no Vietcong, no Japanese. You my opposer when I want freedom. You my opposer when I want justice. You my opposer when I want equality. Want me to go somewhere and fight for you? You won’t even stand up for me right here in America, for my rights and my religious beliefs. You won’t even stand up for my right here at home.”
  At the risk of never being granted a US visa, I won’t even try to come up with an imaginary radical Tiger Woods equivalent.

  The point is, in the US, were Tiger Woods to become a Muslim, were he to make statements as subversive as some of Ali’s, I suspect he would quickly stop being viewed as ‘Tiger’ and be cast as a traitor. I suspect there wouldn’t be a rush to trace his Irish ancestry either.

  Comments (9)

• Creating a revolving door?

  September 1, 2009 @ 5:20 pm | by Bryan

  At the end of last week, the Justice Minister announced that non-EU workers would be allowed to stay in the country for six months after losing their job. Previously, an immigrant on a work permit who was made redundant had three months to find alternative employment, or else leave the country. At the same time, employers could only hire non-EU workers for posts that had been advertised for at least eight weeks, during which EU candidates were sought. The minister also announced that those who have been on the work permit scheme for over five years would no longer need permits to live and work in Ireland.

  The new changes will be appreciated throughout the immigrant community. BUT, and it’s a big but, there is still a huge degree of uncertainty among migrants. It is as though the state has no idea what to do about us, and every now and again decides to make some new policy announcement, just to give the illusion of being on the ball. These shifting goal posts are a cause of no small amount of insecurity. So much so, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were an exodus of migrant workers in the future.

  While some might see that as a cause to celebrate, the people on work permits tend to be highly skilled, or from sectors in which there is a shortage of Irish workers. Wouldn’t it be ironic if, when the global economy turns around, Ireland finds itself again in the position of having to attract foreign labour? I can see it now – a debate in ten years on why there has been less progress than expected around immigrant integration.

  I wonder if anyone in my imaginary scenario will conclude that a set of policies that create a revolving door of migrants, as opposed to grafting them into Irish society, is at fault.

  Comments (16)