BURMA

With the junta-style elections imminent (today), I was wondering how I felt about Aung San Suu Kyi’s pleas to boycott the election, as any outcome would lead to no change – the military have a final say over election results and have the power to veto any piece of legislation.

Having been under house arrest for the best part of twenty years and unable to stand for the National League for Democracy in this election (the first since her ignored victory in 1990), Suu Kyi has recommended Burmese voters to keep away from the elections as they are clearly undemocratic. The government has banned many local candidates to stand for the legislature (the Kachin State Progressive Party has been forbidden from participating), and in some cases has completely disenfranchised whole towns . In this way her pleas make sense – if there is no point doing something, then it is a waste of time doing it. Instead, time should be focused on improving situations via other means – part of Suu Kyi’s Nobel Peace Prize money funds London’s Project Burma, offering higher education grants to Burmese students. Also, Obama’s demand for her release shows an increasing international effort to better the lot of the oppressed Burmese. ‘The Lady’ has a point – those who want real democracy are better off acting outside the box and ignoring the election in the same way the junta will ignore the results.

However, there are hundreds of independent candidates fighting for the slim chance of a seat in the closed-off and rich capital city of Naypyidaw, a city only used by government officials with the architecture and grandeur of an MEDC (a feat unmatched by any other part of the country). These pro-democratic political hopefuls who are so oppressed that they cannot hold meetings of over five people without government permission are surely a fantastic example of grassroots protest – a phenomenon that should be encouraged. Generally members of the chattering classes, these candidates are not allowed to outwardly criticize the junta, but 40% government spending on the army and 1% on health and education are figures that speak for themselves. No matter how many votes they receive it is unlikely that any of these people will be permitted to win a seat, but surely any stand counts for something, and a reasonable turnout to support these democratic candidates is an undeniable signal of unrest (not to be compared with the unrest shown by monks in 2007 – any election result is still within the junta’s legal boundaries).

As I see it, Aung San Suu Kyi’s denunciation of the elections is rational as they count for nothing apart from increasing an oppressive regime’s mandate. However, my inherent instinct would be to vote. I firmly believe that if you are offered participation in an election, that right should be fulfilled. This is irrational, but I cannot help the way I feel. In this way, I hope that many Burmese people vote for independent candidates as this is their only possible safe act of defiance (this is of course assuming that the junta have no way of identifying whose ballot is whose). To conclude, the Burmese elections are an insult to democracy, but any vote is a vote and should be used regardless.

TEA PARTY

In light of the House of Representatives changing hands in US Congress, I thought I’d write what I think about the Tea Party, the grass-roots movement from the right of the Republican Party that has risen up into a media phenomenon in the last 18 months.

The media has chosen to represent them as a scary crackpot group with crazy ideas – and the Tea Party has given them excellent reason to do so. When the movement endorses such candidates as Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell and Sharron “destroy all social security” Angle, it is difficult to see past them. It is even harder when some members are quite clearly racist and horrifically narrow-minded – Glen Beck’s devout Christianity (shared by a significant proportion of members) as well as the Church’s backing of the movement as a way of “getting Islam out of the White House” provides examples of extremist views that the liberal media laps up to denounce the Tea Party.

However, the Tea Party is a movement, not a political party. In this way, it incorporates many views without a specific agenda; extreme social conservatives can align with disillusioned Democrats as a by-product of the disconnect felt by the American people. The Tea Party is predominantly filled by fiscal conservatives – people who believe that if their domestic books need to be balanced, then the least government can do is do the same; they are highly opposed to wide-scale public spending. 55% of Tea Party members are women, the traditional domestic accountants in US culture, and the backbone that binds the few psychos with the large number of sensible unhappy middle-class Americans are ‘pocket-book issues’ plain and simple.

The Tea Party can be seen as a reaction to the Obama administration, a democratic protest against his public spending and left-leaning policies. Although to call his actions “socialist” or even “unconstitutional” is ridiculous, it is true that his financial interventions are too much for America. To UK citizens, the outcry about Obamacare is alien to our culture, but the Tea Party have a point. We must remember that although we share a language with the USA, we do not share a culture, and the American way is a way of small government and a lot of almost utilitarian freedom for its citizens. The Tea Party do not see healthcare as evil – they do not in general even decry further regulation of healthcare systems – they just do not want to be told what to do. As a nation of grafters and entrepreneurs, any form of government intervention is met with suspicion, a suspicion that as members of the most successful liberal democracy in the world they are fully entitled to.

Although bad for Obama, the main victim of the Tea Party is arguably the establishment Republican Party – it is a fact that any shift to an extreme makes a party less electable. The factional divide of the Republicans has exposed huge weaknesses in their opposition to the present administration, at a time when they should be strong and united; without the split the Republicans would seem a preferable alternative to the mojo-less Obama.

As I see it, it is good that the Republicans have won the House in terms of democracy – the people are generally unimpressed by the last two years and have used their right of franchise to convey this. However, as the Tea Party has simultaneously weakened both mainstream US parties, 2012 looks to be a year of distinctly weak Presidential candidates. Who will stand for the Republicans is unclear; it is said that Tea Party poster girl Sarah Palin is not taking the traditional actions of an expected candidate and is unlikely to stand. Whoever does, the race between the Tea Party and the establishment Republican will be an interesting one – watch this space.

NOT FAR ENOUGH

The Lib Dems, as part of the coalition deal, have brought about a referendum on the Alternative Vote system, hoping to bring a more proportional element to our system of government.

However, AV is NOT proportional. Although more fair than our present First Past The Post system, AV will not present a just outcome to represent the true mood of the nation. For example, should the Lib Dems receive the same number of votes as they did in May 2010 (and I hope that they do), an AV system would give them somewhere in the region of 75 seats, as opposed to a proportional system, which would warrant 149. This is a frankly massive difference and the Lib Dems could probably have argued further for a better system – I’m sure the Tories were pretty desperate at the time...

Now, not being old enough to vote yet (I’m seventeen in eleven days), I am fortunate in that I don’t have to make a decision about which way to vote. As I see it, if AV receives a good reception, it will be accepted into our system and no more will be said, thereby spoiling any chance of an even fairer system. On the other token, should a majority reject the idea, it could be seen as a mandate to retain the current FPTP system, again destroying the possibility of proportional representation.

The only solution as I, a somewhat precocious and potentially ill-informed teenager, see it is to vote ‘No’ on the ballot, but ensure a strong media coverage of the motives behind voting – therefore showing Mr Clegg with his ‘suggestions on a postcard’ mentality that the public would like an even more radical change than the Alternative Vote.

This could be backed by all points of the political spectrum – Green party socialists, Lib Dem liberals, UKIP conservatives and BNP fascists. Only power-hungry members of the two main parties have a reason not to want a fairer system, and even some of them may be able to muster up the moral courage to vote for proportionality!

Anyway, pluralism and proportional representation are the way forward, so don’t let the Tories play the ‘benevolent’ card – the Alternative Vote may be a step in the right direction, but it’ll take a few more than that for us to have a truly free democracy.

LEAVE THEM ALONE!

Right, ever since the Lib Dems agreed to a coalition government, the national opinion of them has been absolutely scathing. I went to a Radio 5 Live session at the Lib Dem conference and to say the mood was hostile is understating the matter. Now I don’t see the problem with the yellows, and here is why:

Firstly, the decision for the coalition was the best possible outcome of a farcical election and was best for Britain. A minority government is about as appealing to investors as Ann Widdecombe in a thong and would mean that economic growth would be impossible, no matter the size or speed of public spending cuts. As for the ‘Rainbow Alliance’ concept, it sounds frankly ridiculous – it would mean essentially every party but the Conservatives in power, restricting the decision-making process and resulting in a similar investment situation as a minority. Also, apparently Gordon Brown rejected any possibility of working with the Lib Dems, so the left have only themselves to blame if they’re still clinging on to the possibility that that Alliance would’ve worked. Therefore, no matter how reluctant the Lib Dems may or may not have been to enter joint governance, it was the ONLY feasible option.

Secondly, now that they’re in power, with 57 seats to 306, (ignoring the obvious discrepancy from votes to seats thanks to our failure of a voting system) the Lib Dems are well and truly the minority half of government – the Watson to Cameron’s Holmes if you will. Because of this, it seems only fair that the majority of the Conservatives’ policies remain intact – compromise is everything. The progressive Liberals have already ensured that the 1 million lowest earners have been lifted out of tax thresholds, thereby making it only fair that Gove should have his free schools and Trident can be replaced. I am as sceptical about these policies as many on the left, but I understand that it is only democratic to let them occur – the Tories received by far the most votes after all. People say “well no-one voted for this - they have no mandate”; well actually they do. Obviously nobody crossed a box marked coalition when voting, but it’s pretty clear that the decisions made in the week following May 6^th were in our national interest.

I digress. Thirdly, the way in which the two parties have handled such a blow to their egos and such an alien situation as a UK coalition has been positively heart-warming. Clegg could be criticised for dropping his principles at the door of Number 10, but he knows that he can only speak out for his beliefs in moderation. He is in government, an institution that shares a collective responsibility to maintain unity and stability, no matter what; the Lib Dems have Simon Hughes to give their true opinions on coalition policy anyway. Both parties have acted in a surprisingly grown-up way and deserve a congratulatory pat on the back rather than the stab that Lib Dem voters have chosen to give.

Finally, the concept of the Big Society is fantastic. If it works (which it has to as after the cuts it’s local responsibility or nothing!) then our communities will thrive, our Dunkirk spirit will return and the general attitude of the UK will be one of enthusiasm – it is our chance to take our freedom and rejoice, not sniff at the lack of government support; we don’t need it!

So come the local elections don’t wipe out the Lib Dems out of spite for their decision – those on the left tend to forget pragmatism when it comes to such situations. Without them we will be left with just two parties, destroying any chance of a pluralist democracy once and for all. We need the Lib Dems – it is their presence and sense that provides a possible end to our adversarial out-of-touch system of politics. Think long term, centre-leftists, and vote with your heads – not your broken hearts.

THE VOTES HAVE BEEN COUNTED AND VERIFIED...

So, the race between the polished monkey and the Sesame Street puppet is over, and the heavily-weighted audience has chosen – the next Labour Party leader is the geeky, younger Miliband – Ed.

Shocker. I honestly didn’t expect that outcome – discovering it via text in the middle of Leicester did not soften the blow. Although I do not support, agree with or even like the Labour Party, it saddens me to see a member of the UK’s already non-pluralist democracy take a gun to its ‘democratic-socialist’ head and pull the trigger in the form of a union-biased collegiate voting system. Let’s face it – he’s there because the unions have backed him. There’s nothing expressly wrong with that (the Labour Party was built on union principles), but it does seem strange that more Labour MPs and Shadow Cabinet members preferred David. Union members were able to vote several times for ‘Red Ed’, opening up huge flaws in the Party’s process – whatever happened to One Man, One Vote?

Now they’re stuck with the next Foot, Kinnock etc. who doesn’t stand a cat in Hell’s chance of winning a general election (especially now that David has valiantly stepped down from the Shadow Cabinet, opening up the Chancellor spot to Ed “let’s all max out even more credit cards” Balls).

However, I do like the fact that the Labour members seem to have voted ideologically. I welcome some conviction in politics, and I find that since I’ve been old enough to know what’s going on, there have been very few politicians who say what they believe in – it’s all about the media coverage and looking voter-friendly (with the notable exceptions of Ken Clarke, Simon Hughes and, dare I say it, Diane Abbott). I do therefore encourage a more left-wing ideology to enter the mix, having been disheartened last election thanks to all three parties sounding the same (not that I’d ever vote for a socialist!). If we had a nice proportional voting system, not the proposed Alternative Vote (scarcely better than First Past The Post) then we could see a wonderful cross-section of beliefs – and yes that does mean taking the oaf that is Nick Griffin seriously – to try and quote Voltaire, “I detest what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – over half a million people voted BNP in May and they therefore deserve multiple Parliamentary seats. Proportional representation, although offering a platform to some highly unsavoury characters and beliefs, is the only fair way of judging the actual thoughts of the electorate.

Anyway, the future of the party looks bleak for the time-being. Balls, Burnham and Cooper seem set for Shadow Cabinet duty, Diane Abbott probably warrants some sort of ‘Social Affairs’ non-job, and look out for new-comer Luciana Berger; I've met her a few times and ambitious has nothing on her – expect a Home Office Junior Minister or something at age 28.

All’s I know is, after a crap few weeks things are looking up for the Right Honourable David Cameron...