Anti-social behaviour, state terrorism, representative democracy

I hear several levels of argument about the middle east. Some are just claims and counter-claims about who fired first and who's to blame for doing this or that. These don't get us very far and we have to go to a deeper level, where we find gnarly and challenging issues like the international arms trade, the rights of civilians, codes of behaviour in war, propaganda and so on.

At the more profound level, there are two key issues to do with the nature of democratic citizenship.

First, there's the power of the Israeli lobby to distort US policy far beyond what is acceptable, which illustrates the classic difficulty in systems of representative democracy, of ensuring balance. As we think through the practicalities of neighbourhood governance rather closer to home, there is no harm in keeping this grotesque example in mind.

Secondly we have the curiously overlooked point that terrorism can gain no purchase in a society which takes justice and equality seriously. What's happening internationally, as I implied before, helps us think locally, and vice versa. We see anti-social behaviour plus inadequate stewardship plus insufficiently accountable policing in the international arena, as we do in the local context.

I'm not saying that injustice and inequality explain or excuse anti-social behaviour. But the nature of human social behaviour means that, in a community where equality and justice and inclusive policies are genuinely espoused and become culturally-embedded, anti-social behaviour cannot take hold and cannot reach a critical tipping point.

So it is I believe with terrorism in any country. Terrorism will only gain footholds and accumulate formidable momentum where people experience high levels of persistent inequality and injustice. It's no good responding 'but definitions of fairness and justice vary - people make unreasonable claims about being treated unjustly' if there is no debate about these concepts. And if we reflect on the long and painful historical process of getting power holders in the west to allow such debates to take place, it helps to explain the difficulty that western leaders have in accommodating this issue: they don't tend to do empowerment if they can avoid it.

Whether it's promoting a culture of aggressive enforcement rather than providing a sense of respectful support for young people; or condoning arrangements for poor foreign people's homes and neighbourhoods to be smithereened, I sense a complete political failure to grasp this fundamental principle. Some of our politicians have shown ignorant contempt for the central and interlinked importance of home, neighbourhood, equality and justice.

The pic is of folk from the Day Mer community centre at today's anti-war march in London.

Comments

[Paulie]

I'd suggest an alternative reading to this Kevin. That a perceived injustice can spring from differing levels of representative democracy.

I'm surprised that you're using George Monbiot as a witness for any argument - he's just not a respectable commentator. I don't recall him ever using his column to ackowledge a counter-argument to his own position, and this one is no different. Nowhere does he acknowlege the stated aim of Hizbulah and it's supporters to destroy the state of Israel, or the comments of it's leader that all Jews (not just those in Israel) should be killed.

Ask yourself this: If the UK found itself in a similar situation with one of it's neighbours, would it behave any differently to the way that Israel responded? I'm not arguing, btw, that Israel's actions are entirely morally defensible. It's just that commentators should deal with the totality of power relations and not treat nation states as ahistorical individuals.

You can't ask yourself 'what would I do in this position?' and then apply your conclusion to a democratically elected state. Israeli politicians don't have any such luxury. That is the nature of democracy.

Monbiot's arguments - like so much liberal opinion these days - appear to be more interested in promoting appeasment of forces that are antagonistic to democracy as long as it supports the simplistic world-view that the US is the root of all problems.

In reality, we, in the UK, would behave in the same way that Israel has done because representative democracies have highly developed self-preservation instincts. No elected politician would survive five minuites of equivocation in the face of incoming missile attacks on civillians - whatever the alleged provocation.

The support, or lack of it, from the US would have little effect on our actions.

Indeed, I'd go further in promoting the balance of power-relations within representative democracies as (paraphrasing Churchill, I think) 'the least worst' system open to us.

No two functioning representative democracies have ever been to war with each other. It would be too messy. There's never been a famine within a developed representative democracy. If you had an earthquake straddling the border of two countries - one a democracy, and the other not, many more of the inhabitants of the latter country would be crushed under the collapsing masonry because there would be fewer building regulations and less commercial pressure from insurance companies to build safely.

And representative democracies go to greater lengths to defend themselves. They do so with more credibility. They mobilise their allies more effectively. They have levels of economic growth that make them valuable partners to other countries.

There is no way that Israel would have been able to attack Lebanon in the way that it did if Lebanon had a developed and articulate civil society.

The conclusion that must be drawn from this is that no half-way houses can be acceptable. The world community must channel it's efforts into promoting genuine functioning democracy in Israel's neigbours. Not pseudo-democracies run by gangsters and religious fanatics. Not compromised democracies that are held hostage by unaccountable private armies.

And where does this fit into the community cohesion question?

Well, firstly, I'm not qualfied to pontificate on what public policy should be in this area any more than Monbiot is qualified to comment on complex questions of international relations. But, if we are taking conclusions from one situation and applying them to another, the conclusion that I would draw from the international conflict in the middle east is as follows.

The main goal of public policy should be empowerment of excluded communities. Do anything possible to provide the poorest sections of society with the ability to advocate for themselves within the framework of the law. If someone falls foul of the law, they should be able to call upon the highest standards of legal defence. If the law is an ass, you have a duty to improve it and make it fair. But, at the same time, use aggressive enforcement on questions such as anti-social behaviour. Provide a big stick, but make sure that it's used fairly.

And, just as importantly, the state should allow no intermediaries. Having unelected 'community representatives' asking for special pleading will only prolong the problem.

Not that you can respectably draw conclusions from international relations and apply them to local issues, of course.....

;-)