History is poised to judge us

History is a harsh mistress, and those who disrespect her pay the penalty regardless of previous ability and success — reference Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1942.

I am writing this on the anniversary of one such singular event. The Battle of Stamford Bridge, which might have been one of the defining moments in British history, is now almost forgotten because of what followed.

In 1066 Harold II of England, the most able Anglo Saxon king since Alfred, defeated an invading army of Northmen at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire, virtually ending the Viking era in one master stroke.

He fell upon the huge but unprepared host by making a forced march from the south, covering hundreds of kilometres at a rate unprecedented for the time.

But when William of Normandy landed a far smaller force on the south coast a few days later, Harold, instead of waiting for reinforcements, made the mistake of rushing his depleted and exhausted army back to meet the new threat.

As a result what should have been a mopping-up operation became a hard-fought contest between two roughly matched opponents which William narrowly won, so radically changing the story of what eventually became the United Kingdom.

So why am I writing this? Because I feel that 2020 may be another year in which the currents of history are flowing towards an international crisis which has the potential to threaten us all.

In the United States we have an erratic and self-centred President who is currently seeing everything through the lens of his re-election in November, and has even hinted he might not accept being beaten.

We have a European Union distracted and weakened by the United Kingdom’s ill-thought-out and damaging Brexit process, unable to respond to mounting atrocities on its own borders as the Belarusian dictator stops at nothing to remain in power.

In Russia a leader who is on record as saying that “democracy has had its day” is orchestrating social media chaos among those states who still try to hold free and fair elections.

China has, in recent days, been testing the resolve of democratic Taiwan (and those who might come to its aid) as it prepares to add to its already unashamedly expansionist ambitions.

The list of states that have failed or on the brink of failure is growing almost as fast as that of so-called strongmen who are squeezing the life out of nations that once proudly lived by the rule of law.

Add into this mix the world-wide disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences, plus a number of more local but no less devastating natural events, and we are living firmly within the Chinese curse of “interesting times”.    

Can it get worse? The dystopian scenarios of troops surrounding the White House to haul out a President who refuses to leave, of a second American Civil War, unthinkable only a few months ago, are now being seriously canvassed. Yes, it could get worse, but it need not.

What is desperately required in the democratic powerhouses of Europe and the US is for people to pay attention and stop being taken in by slick, populist slogans and easy answers to increasingly complex questions.

Never have true leaders — those who are prepared to take action not because it is popular but because it is right — been more in demand.

The next few weeks and months are either going to provide them, or we will all face a very troubled and uncertain future.

 

The repackaging of fascism

‘Fascism’ and ‘fascist’ are words that are being slung about with a great deal of abandon these days, almost always as a term of denigration for governments, policies and people that that are considered abhorrent.

They carry a great deal of emotional baggage, conjuring up frightening images of death camps and jackboots, but are they being used wisely, and do the actions of politicians deserve the description?

Before it became a term of abuse in the wake of World War II, fascism was widely considered as an acceptable form of government, not just in Italy and Nazi Germany, but among considerable minorities in most democratic countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia.

The thinking during much of the 1930s was that liberal democracies were ill-equipped to meet the rise of communism which was a threat to social order, and that something stronger, more authoritarian, was needed to stop its spread.

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini had their admirers. In the UK Sir Oswald Mosley was a particular fan of Mussolini’s style of fascism and if a General Election had been held in the late 1930s his British Union of Fascists may well have gained seats and played a pivotal role in Parliament.  

In the United States Charles Lindberg headed the America First movement, which opposed US involvement in the war against the Nazis and embraced polices that if not fascist, were certainly on the far right.

Today there are fringe groups that adhere to the legacies of Hitler and Mussolini, but no mainstream politician in their right mind would ever go to the electorate under the branding of fascism.

However, policies and actions can easily be disguised under more comfortable titles.

Philosophy Professor at Yale University, Jason Stanley suggests a few aspects of a political movement that might suggest it is masked fascism.

First is an appeal to an imaginary or glorious past which has been destroyed by the forces of liberalism, cosmopolitanism and globalism.  

“Through appeals to this mythical past, fascism establishes a hierarchy of human worth: Law abiding over criminal; hard-working over lazy; racially pure over impure; heterosexual over homosexual; able over disabled,” Professor Stanley says.

“Those deemed worthy are considered the nation’s true people; those deemed unworthy are singled out as threats.

“These false distinctions between worthy and unworthy are enforced through propaganda and anti-intellectualism that corrode shared reality, degrade language and create fertile grounds for conspiracy theories to flourish.”

It is not hard to find examples equating to fascism in countries around the globe. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin is the most blatant when he says liberal democracy is “obsolete” has “outlived its purpose” and that multiculturalism is “no longer tenable”.

Some three quarters of a century after his country won a war against Nazi Germany in which millions of his compatriots died, Putin espouses concepts that would not have been out of place at a Nuremburg Rally.

While not yet so outspoken as the Russian leader, Xi’s China, Erdogan’s Turkey, even Bolsanaro’s Brazil are heading in the same direction — but what about the bastions of the liberal democracy that Putin dismisses , the United States, The United Kingdom, the European Union?

US President Donald Trump’s suggestion that November’s presidential election be delayed because of the pandemic prompted condemnations of fascism, but he was not calling for the election to be cancelled, and he has not succeeded in silencing his critics, one of the hallmarks of a successful fascist dictatorship.

There is no doubt that Trump wants more powers than his office currently gives him — but wishing and getting are different things.

However, should he win — and win well — in November, he and his supporters might be emboldened to push harder against the restraints that have held him in check so far.

The EU is dealing with waves of what has been called Populism, but which almost always has its genesis in the ultra-nationalist far right, most prominently in Poland and Italy, but with supporters in most of the countries of the bloc. 

Most concerning is the path taken by the United Kingdom Government in the wake of its exit from the European Union.

Without the US’s system of checks and balances, the ruling Conservative Party has shifted to its extremes, destroying or subverting long-standing conventions in its bid to cement itself in power.

In its Brexit campaign it referred endlessly to the UK’s so-called glorious past, to the false claims that it stood alone against the Nazis in World War II, and how all this could be reclaimed if only it broke the shackles of the evil bureaucrats in Brussels.

In the weeks and months after the 2016 referendum many of its triumphant supporters taunted fellow citizens of colour, or who spoke with strange accents, calling on them to “go back to where you came from”.

Ministers routinely reject any advice, however sensible, that might be contrary to what they want to hear; instead they huddle around a select group of unelected sycophants plotting how they might target and neutralise those who stand in the way of their march to greater authoritarianism.   

Those who take this path maintain, as Putin said recently, that it is what the “overwhelming majority of the people want”, the problem being that under the system Putin advocates — and has largely succeeded in putting in place — there is never an opportunity for second thoughts.

The fire bells are ringing in the night. We ignore them at our peril.

AG’s decision threatens rule of law

For several weeks a team of United Kingdom activist lawyers have been trying to get answers over what it regards as one of the most worrying developments emerging from the way the Boris Johnson-led Government conducts its business.

The Good Law Project sensed concern when the Prime Minister supported his Special Adviser, Dominic Cummings who travelled hundreds of kilometres on non-official business with his family when the country was in strict COVID-19 lockdown.

The group watched “in growing disbelief” the justifications, or rather the lack of them, offered by Mr Johnson and other Ministers.

“What the British public want us to do is focus on them and their needs rather than on a political ding-dong about what one adviser may or may not have done,” Johnson said.

Cummings’ own convoluted explanation was that he and his wife “might become ill” during the pandemic and unable to look after their son, so they needed to travel to family in the north of England to get support — even though he had relatives nearby in London who might have been called on to help.

What horrified the law team was that these lame and spurious excuses were supported in a statement by the nation’s Attorney General, Suella Braverman who issued an opinion that Cummings had broken no laws and his explanations should be supported.

Founder of The Good Law Project, barrister Jolyon Maugham said he could not understand how Braverman could properly have given that advice.

“We believe that it is of vital importance — to preserve the integrity of her office, the integrity of the rule of law — that we find out,” Maugham said.

However, requests for the legal basis for the decision were brushed off by both the Attorney General’s Department and the Cabinet Office.

“In almost identical responses they refused to disclose the requested information because it would not be in the public interest to do so,” Maugham said.

“Instead, they have said that it is more important that the Attorney General can continue without fear of any adverse inferences being drawn from either the content of the advice or the fact it was sought.”

Or in other words, we do not have to justify whatever course of action we decide to take.

This is extremely dangerous reasoning.

Throughout history the Attorney General, the chief law officer of the land, has acted as a brake on Government Ministers; cautioning them from rushing into questionable projects that could prove to be an embarrassment or worse.

While the officer is a member of the ruling party, it has been generally accepted that their first loyalty must be to apply rigorous interpretations of the law to whatever the Government of the day does, or is planning to do, over and above any political loyalties.

The Attorney General’s office is not supposed to provide a tick-off for the convenience of Ministers — as appears to be the case here.

By making her decision, and then refusing an explanation of it by hiding behind a “not in the public interest”, Braverman is giving the Ministers free rein to make a plaything of the law — interpreting it to their advantage or, if necessary, ignoring it altogether.

History has shown that when Governments embark on this course, the only destination is dictatorship.

Placing a penalty on poetry

The latest change in Australian university fees is a sad reflection on the thinking — or probably lack of it — amongst our leaders.

Unlike some commentators, I do not believe that the massive increase in fees for humanities courses will deter those who want to pursue that line of study.

As higher education expert Andrew Norton pointed out, the choice of course reflects students’ interests.

“You are not going to do something that will bore you for three years and then bore you for another 40 simply because the course is cheaper,” Norton said.

He is right, but there is a more fundamental aspect to all this — the devaluing of the concept of education itself in the minds of the Ministers responsible for these changes.

The feeling that has now taken hold in the Government is that universities should be conveyor belts churning out graduates to fulfil its endless parroting of “jobs, jobs, jobs”.

Ministers demand that young people should be worshipping at the altar of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) and other subjects — history, music, art and so on — are not only less worthy, but penalties should apply for those who waste the country’s time by engaging in them.

There is no argument with promoting STEM subjects in schools as there will certainly be rewarding occupations for those who have an aptitude for them.

What should be vigorously rejected is that STEM is the only way to fulfilment and indeed acceptance in some mythical society of the future.

Australia does need more scientists, engineers and mathematicians.

It also needs its philosophers, musicians, ballerinas and sculptors.

The study of Shakespearian drama, the poetry of Blake, the history of art, and the ideas and influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau is not wasteful of our talents or irrelevant to our future.

It is through the study of humanities that we come to an understanding of the world and of ourselves. It has enriched countless lives down the ages.

In the past it has flourished because there were people who appreciated and cared for it. If neglected it may well wither and fade.

To put obstacles in the way of those who would seek that wisdom in the future is small minded and ignorant.

We should expect better of those we have chosen to lead us.

Keeping American democracy at bay

Public opinion polls in the United States consistently have President Donald Trump trailing Democratic challenger Joe Biden by an average of four per cent, in some cases as high as seven — so everything points to a change of Government in November. Right?

Wrong.

This is not to say that Biden won’t win, but simply polling the voting choices of individual Americans is not the way to predict the outcome of this election.

Trump could still be four points, even seven points behind in the popular vote on Election Day and still retain the presidency by a handy margin.

The reason lies in one of the strangest indirect systems of choosing a leader that has been devised — the Electoral College.

Americans may think they are voting for either Trump or Biden, but in fact they are voting for a member of this Electoral College in their State who may, in turn, vote for their choice — or not.

These electors, equalling the number of seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives for their particular State, will meet about a month later and their votes, and their votes alone, decide the presidency.

It would not be so bad if their voting pattern reflected that of the electorate at large, but sometimes it doesn’t. This is because no matter how close the race is in their state they cast all their votes for the candidate that finished ahead.

Whether that margin was just by a handful of votes, or by a landslide, it does not matter. In all but two of the states, the votes of the Electoral College are delivered on a winner-takes-all basis.

So it is easy to see how a candidate that won a plurality by small majorities in a significant number of States can defeat the candidate that won other States by big margins that puts them ahead on the overall national vote.

It happened in 2016 when Hillary Clinton gained 65.8 million votes to Trump’s 62.9 million, and was still beaten, quite handily in the Electoral College 304-227.

It has been argued countless times since about how the pollsters got it wrong. They didn’t. Their predictions were spot on.

The problem was that they were asking individuals how they would vote when the election was going to be decided by other means. They were comparing apples with oranges.

How has this potentially undemocratic way of choosing a leader in what is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy come about?

To understand it we need to look back at the nation’s Founding Fathers who drew up the country’s Constitution in the wake of the successful war of Independence against the British.

History has tended to romanticise this group as champions of democracy and the rights of man. They were anything but.

They were aristocrats; many were slave owners and having expelled the British ruling class were intent on filling the void.

As men of property, they considered that unrestrained democracy would be as bad as the tyranny they had just ousted; that giving equal votes to all would threaten their standing, their possessions, even their lives.

So putting men of discernment between themselves and the mob would mitigate their greatest fear of pure democracy — that the uneducated and unsophisticated masses might elect a demagogue who would sweep away their wealth and privileges.

Given the complicated processes needed to effect a change in the US Constitution it is hard to see anything different happening soon, but agitation will and should continue to abolish this antiquated system with its roots in factors that have no relevance to the citizenry of a powerful world state in the 21^st century.

Evidence of an unhealthy relationship

China has taken a great deal of criticism over its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak in recent days as its friends rushed to its defence.

Inevitably, these have included Australian captains of industry such as Kerry Stokes and Andrew Forrest whose billion-dollar businesses are very much tied up with the People’s Republic.

Stokes even took out an advertisement in the Western Australian newspaper (which he happens to own) quite baldly stating that if the country continued to attack Beijing the consequences for the Australian economy would be “catastrophic”.

In other words, he was saying that Australia should give in to what is straight-out blackmail by China.

Forrest added his opinion by stating: “I don’t know if this virus started in China or somewhere else and frankly, I don’t care.”

Both industrialists can be given full marks for their honesty — the fact they put economic gain over the consequences of a disease that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide, and the need to do everything possible to prevent it happening again.

In this they are firmly in the camp of the likes of United States President Donald Trump and Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro.

What they are not being so honest about is their own roles in getting Australia into a position where China’s economic clout can be used to bludgeon critics into silence.

China accounts for almost 29 per cent of Australia’s exports, more than twice that of the second largest destination. Japan, while all other nations are in single figures. How has this been allowed to happen?

There are other countries in the world that need what Australia has. What about India that receives a miserable 4.3 per cent of Australian exports? Admittedly India’s economy is not nearly the size of China’s but until COVID-19 it was expanding more rapidly, yet it has been virtually ignored.

What about the thriving economies of South-East Asia: Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam? Of course their markets are way smaller, but together they receive just 7.5 per cent of Australia’s exports. The Middle East? Only the United Arab Emirates features in the top 10 at 1.3 per cent. South America? Nowhere.

Over the years our exporters have treated these countries with disdain while growing fat on the ever-expanding demands from Beijing. Their laziness and greed has placed the country in the unenviable position of being little more than a client State to the People’s Republic.

In recent days there are signs that China is being more accommodating to global calls for an accounting of the causes of COVID-19. The Australian Government’s measured response in seeking some form international inquiry, while short on detail, is at least preferable to some of the hysterical accusations emanating from Washington. It deserves universal consideration if not support.

However, the fact remains that the Chinese Government’s aggressive stance to Australia has had its exporters jumping to attention. Beijing knows it is in a position to push Canberra around. Its response indicates the current relationship is not a healthy one.

There are other neglected places in the world where Australia should be doing more business. It will be harder work, and the results will be piecemeal, but it needs to happen.

Diversification should be Australia’s watchword in a post-pandemic world.   

Brexit: Still time for second thoughts?

In the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, best-selling author Sir Philip Pullman has reignited the debate over the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, saying the Conservative Government is more interested in appeasing “the foaming zealots of Brexit” than addressing the pandemic.

Sir Philip says there is a need for a second referendum on EU membership as there “are so many clear advantages to being in the EU and the benefits of leaving are so tenuous”.

His call comes after the Government led by Boris Johnson reiterated its determination to keep to a December 31 deadline for cementing a trade deal with Brussels or leave without one — an outcome that many observers believe would have long-term disastrous consequences for the nation’s economy.

While Mr Johnson has until July to seek an extension to the talks, which the EU would certainly accept, Johnson is doggedly sticking to his belief that a comprehensive deal can still be struck by his original deadline, despite the distractions of the pandemic.

“The Government will not ask to extend, and if the EU asks, we will say no,” a spokesperson for Johnson said.

The former Secretary of the Department for Exiting the European Union, Philip Rycroft said this rigid attitude flew in the face of commonsense “when the huge uncertainties caused by the Coronavirus pandemic are factored in”.

He was echoed by Lord Kerslake, who led the Civil Service from 2011 to 2014.

“The lost time as a consequence of COVID-19 has [a trade deal by the end of the year] gone from being ambitious to almost impossible,” he said.

The sad fact is that there is no room for argument on the matter from within the Government. At the December election all candidates for the Conservative Party had to sign a pledge that they would support leaving the EU whatever the cost.

Dissenters — and there were plenty in the party leading up to the election — were forced out. The ‘broad church’ of views and opinions that Conservatism was once so proud of no longer exists.

This has led to the Government to being little more than a shadow of Nigel Farage’s single-issue Brexit Party — something that Sir Philip believes should be a window of opportunity for the Opposition Labour Party.  

“My hope that this time the Labour Party under a new leader will play a proper part in the argument; and that the lies, the cheating, the flagrant and shameless mendacity will be fully exposed by a strong, passionate, and focused campaign to Remain,” he said.

Whether new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer will go as far as that is doubtful, but advocating for a second referendum on the EU exit would be popular with the 48 per cent of the population that voted Remain in the 2015 poll as well as others among Leavers who are having second thoughts.

The precedent is already there. After Britain joined the bloc in 1973 following a parliamentary vote, a referendum, launched by Labour two years later, confirmed the decision.

The current Government will fight that proposal tooth and nail because it knows it might well lose, but it will not be there forever and Sir Keir could benefit by incorporating such a vote into the party’s platform at an early date.