POLITICS GO CRAZY

Groucho Marx, the famous American humourist came up with a cynically entertaining definition of politics: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it wrongly and applying unsuitable remedies.” Democracy seems to be taking a bit of a battering at the present time. In my personal view it is, conceptually, the optimum political system. One highly-effective component is the opportunity for fearless exposure of weakness, hypocrisy and dishonesty in governance. An expression from somewhere, duly modified today: ‘A politician is someone who has his hands in your pockets and gets you to die for his views.’ An invalid generalisation but with many individual examples, starkly visible on the world scene.

Change

We would love to have the individual power to directly change what we see to be wrong in any specific aspect of governance. The inability to do so is frustrating but a democracy does allow the impact of the personal vote. If what is wrong is clearly visible, the aggregate vote will reflect that and win the day. I have mentioned many times the magnificent role played by the United States of America as a friend, supporter and protector of the free world. It is the great democracy of our planet. I have not always agreed with the advocacy of its new leader, Donald Trump, nor his glamorous wife’s choice of hat for last week’s inauguration ceremony (lol). But the American people have elected him. Therein lies his credibility, responsibility and mandate. I reach out to the American presidency and pleaded for maintaining the generosity shown to developing countries. You get a lot of loyal friends, and a great deal of global respect, when you save a huge number of lives as you, America, have been doing; especially in Eswatini.    
Let’s cross the Atlantic and take two countries in Europe with a couple of issues that get the eyebrows twitching vertically. In France, former president Nicholas Sarkozy is being prosecuted for allegedly obtaining a 50 million euros (E1 billion) loan in campaign money nearly 18 years ago from the late Libyan dictator, Colonel Gaddafi; in exchange for favours.

coincidence

The case only came to court this week – a sign of the likely complexities and political pressures - but what a coincidence that the first chapter of a book shortly to be published describes how Gaddafi ran for his life (he didn’t manage to save it) in a motorcade of 75 vehicles screaming across the Libyan semi-desert on October 20, 2011.  And which country supplied the bombers, under a NATO decision, that knocked the living daylights out of that motorcade and trapped Gaddafi for an imminent death? It was France. Did Sarkozy jump the queue to duck paying his debts? We shall perhaps get the answer when the court case is further down the road. Meanwhile, public faith in French political leadership diminishes daily.

Definitions

Cross the English Channel and whisper the word ‘groom’ without explanation and you’ll see a few nervous glances. Normally used in the composite term ‘bridegroom’ there are many definitions of the word, one of which might reasonably be: “the male mandated to groom (as in: prepare) the bride for marriage.” Unfortunately, if you isolate the word ‘groom’ you are stepping into a highly controversial issue. In a lower income zone in the north-midland area of England, there have been many hundreds of incidents of underage white girls ‘groomed’ into sexual activity by groups of men of Indian sub-continent heritage. Some legal action was taken, but not enough; a situation that was allowed to continue for many years. In 2016, what reached the British public shortly before they voted BREXIT!! was that a group of these groomers had been brought to trial; but much too late in the day. And the social services of that town, to whom the offences had been earlier reported but ignored, stated in court: “We didn’t want to appear racist.”  People didn’t like that; hence BREXIT?

influence

The ignoring of criminal action or lightening of charges was crazy. A person’s ethnic identity or religious persuasion should not influence criminal justice one tiny bit, nor should such identity be isolated or accentuated disproportionately. But it’s precisely when an ethnic or religious group is shown this kind of timid favouritism, that racist animosity is activated. And, of course, victims were denied full justice. There has been much screaming for a fully-mandated public enquiry. It would get an 80 per cent public vote in a referendum. UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer said no! A Parliament vote (accompanied by a three line whip - a heavily underlined warning that if you vote against the motion, you risk getting thrown out of the Labour Party) supported him.

He argued in Parliament that there have been many reviews; it is current action that matters. But the public should have both – a full historical account and a plan of action. The financial and human resources are available. Anything to hide? Starmer was, after all, the Director of Public Prosecutions for five years in the middle of the criminal activities. One significant religious group constitutes six per cent of the UK population and normally supports Labour. And the Tory support for the public enquiry is lukewarm because they were in government themselves for nearly all those years. It’s getting messy; there’s politics for you. Starmer’s minister responsible rejected Oldham Council’s request for a public enquiry, saying it’s for the local authority not central government. Rubbish; with so many British towns affected, it’s a national disgrace! No more ducking and diving, please. Keep the majority happy, squire.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: