The Murdoch Cream Pie Inquisition: A Broader Perspective!

Despite what the news panel pundits may say, the Murdochs and Rebecca Brooks pulled off a victory yesterday. Their appearances before the UK parliamentary 'spanish inquisition', left the 'inquisition' looking rather toothless ... unable to penetrate the fortress of corporate governance, which itself has largely become the practise of a sad collection of manoeuvres designed to externalise risk. Simply put, 'passing the buck' into an oblivion of doors within doors, it appears, seems to defeat the effectiveness of such parliamentary efforts to reveal the truth behind activities in the private sector. In some senses, a new mafia - the propoganda mafia - had its first public showing today; a family oligarchy of sorts - a perfect picture of soap opera proportions. Perhaps the politicians had underestimated the power of the propaganda-makers, as every question was expertly evaded - with the utmost sincerity of course - frustrating the proceedings into an endless series of veiled accusations and rebuttals that resembled a never-ending baseline rally in the longest tennis game in history. The only truly exciting moment was the cream pie moment; when a member of the public drove a shaving cream filled pie holder into Rupert Murdochs face while yelling something about him being a 'greedy billionaire'. 

Yet Newscore's share prices have risen on the New York Stock Exchange, "bargain hunting", according to Hala Gorani of CNN - prospecting on the survival of the  'too big to fail' Murdoch family media empire. After all, 'News of the World' is just 1% of the entire business operation that fall under the media empire that has had a profoundly significant impact upon the politics of both the USA and the UK in particular, but with tentacles that reach far into the politics of countries far removed from the centres of global power. It is truly a global media corporation - one that takes political positions and exercises power in the political domain with deliberation and purpose, and as Murdoch would have us believe, principle.

Rupert Murdoch is truly a global political force to be reckoned with, one that could quickly gain the ear of almost any sitting president (or even monarch or dictatorship) in the world. His calculated confession, expressing how 'humbling' this day was, the 'most' humbling day of his life ... revealed what was in reality a multiple message from Murdoch - he is both humbled, appalled, betrayed ... and of course, not responsible (primarily) for any of the illegal actions taken by members of his company. The 'company' as a legal persona, has been penalised ... it is no more, but the human beings who made the decisions are not responsible. What a fascinating quandary is thrust upon the unsuspecting public. Is it the individuals within the company who are responsible, or is it the real-life principles and practises that govern their behaviours responsible? Or is it both? 

Make no mistake; Clark Kent, Peter Parker and Lois Lane were all hauled before the court of public opinion today. And no doubt those in the public who are outraged will get more coverage, but there is a large majority of people out there who think, "well what would you do in that position - I think she handled it pretty well considering ...", and the old 'spiderman cum puppet-master' and the rookie journalist both played out their heroic roles; taking bullets from each other to the end. Not to be outdone, when the cream pie made its way into Rupert Murdoch's face, the wife of Rupert Murdoch leaped to his defence, planting what seemed to be a right hook (not left - as our ineffective committee later noted) upon the protester - who, by the way, acted in the true tradtion of the 'courts of public opinion', establishing a 'kangaroo court' atmosphere just long enough for the publics' lust for revenge to be sated through this small measure of humiliation being meted out upon the media moghul. In reality, his sullen receipt of the cream pie may have actually endeared the public to him, his age, vulnerability and humiliation becoming all too apparent amidst the interrogative atmosphere of the 'inquisition'.

But the real story here is not about the media alone. It is about public institutions, and how their cultures have changed in the transition to the neo-liberal 'market economics' era. The grand reduction has involved explaining human behaviour and society at large as governed by the irreducible and inherent 'self-interest' of human individuals, groups and societies. Yet this is largely an economic theory-led misconception, that superficially draws on evolutionary biology to establish what is falsely put forward as a 'Darwinian' perspective. The truth is that Darwin identified that chance mutation and variation had to come together to provide evolutionary advantage. Mutation and chance variation could just as easily go the other way, like cancer cells do, escalating the trajectory towards the end, robbing life instead of giving it.

And that is what happened with sector institutions and organisations all over the globe over the past thirty years in general, but over the last twenty years in particular. All institutions, from the military, to the state, and to the private sphere (consisting of individuals, organisations, business and enterprise) and civil society have all transformed signficantly over the past twenty years. Nowadays, ex trade union leaders are billionaires, and NGO's see themselves as funding and consultancy rivals instead of partners. All of them have political ambitions. Like it or not, we are already in the era of the transdisciplinarian - senior police officers and senior press officials swop places in each others industries without raising an eyebrow, kind of like military-defence industry personnel swops; appointments that service the dual interests of the sectors whether it be to the detriment of society as a whole or not.    

Bush and Blair both ushered in the era of the media politican reigning off the dumbed down vote. Blair was a consummate master of the 'tv politican' role; one that involved giving the public critical soundbites that crystallised the essence of their political positions. Bush wasn't nearly as successful outside of the USA. While Blair played the media field with ease, Bush was a disaster on the international stage,  but working within his limitations, he still managed to reach the 'average Joe' in the United States. This would prove enough for two terms, if you believe he actually won the second term (you know, that whole Florida thing!). Their collective responsibility for the changes the world has endured cannot be underestimated. They were key players in the propagation of a system of operation that prescribed to the idea that politics was a game where one 'played to win'. With their grand, over-funded campaigns they have set the precedent for modern democratic elections as primarily dependent on the amount and type of press airtime and coverage they are able to capture. They had their partners ... and Rupert Murdoch was one of the most powerful that they ever had, in terms of ensuring their political survival.

Despite all the carefully thought out books on 'management theory' and organisational dynamics, the real trend was towards the embodiment of power positions and dynamics within and between organisations, sectors and institutions. The real change was one where access to, and the ability to wield power, as an imperative, became paramount in pursuing 'success' as the ambitious have named it. That is, success that means triumphing within the system of corrupt governance, or slightly outside of it at best. And it is success that matters at all costs - an everest that needs to be conquered, scaled at all costs in the pursuit of the perfect life. It is, in reality, a Greek tragedy in the making. And that is what has unfolded across the world since the late 90s. Enron, Anderson, Xerox, etc. were the first to fall, violating the markets with the 'creative accounting' that everybody else, ironically, was also pursuing in their own sectors and organisations.

Plausible deniability is everything in the corporate world, and the Murdoch Cream Pie Inquisition have had their first taste of how elusive those in charge of corporate governance can prove themselves to be. What the politicians are either ignorant of, or themselves fail to understand, is that in the great majority of institutions and organisations today, the ability to externalise risk, responsiblity and blame amongst corporate leaders knows no bounds. They can frustrate anyone enough to escape responsibility and have an uncanny ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the many they know share their values and principles ... that ultimately it is each man for himself, and we stick together only when we need to. It is not a value system or set of principles from which healthy social or economic systems are born - it is a subset masquerading as a whole, a simulation of reality ... a good act, but an act nonetheless.

Yet accountability is felt more by those shoplifting food items than those in power. The simple fact is that if you're wealthy and powerful you can evade prosecution and responsibility for the worst of crimes. The banking system is a good example of this. They created toxic debt collatoralisation instruments and perpetuated them. With the trust of investors and homeowners exploited to the hilt they proceeded to collapse the entire global financial system, largely without consequence to themselves. They have been refinanced, given bonuses and given the go-ahead to invent more crazy schemes as long as they remain 'too big to fail' and no doubt they will oblige. No doubt they will find even more crazy schemes to stay afloat during the crisis, and as they've already shown, little regard will be made for social well-being on the whole in the process.

The same can be said of the military, health and educational institutions - their increased privatisation, and institutions within the business, industry, commerce and finance and banking sectors. Simply put, they are all run along the same ethics that govern corporate organisational conceptual frameworks, and have similarly created areas in which plausible deniability can be created (admittedly, to various degrees of effectiveness - some powerful individuals do go to jail). The world is dominated by diverse and plural realities across spatial and temporal scales of difference. These heavily inform the context of everyday popular reality governing the lives of those located at the centres and fringes of global power. Yet, the broader changes that institutions have undergone have had, and continue to have, a profound effect on lives everywhere across the globe.

Legalised torture is one example where the military has utterly failed as an institution, and it is not just the US military who is to blame here - there is an entire global system of military leaderships that wield torture as an instrument of power over its charges, negating the goal of ensuring the protection of society. Organisations employ people with contracts that include phrases that require them to go above and beyond their eight hours a day, eating into their rest, recreation and family lives leaving workers and employees stressed and more prone to health problems. The health sector has become (not unlike the banking sector) a collection of financial mechanisms designed to create profits that far outstrip the value provided to those requiring healthcare and inflates healthcare costs beyond measure. Educational and research institutions have attempted to 'corporatise' research operations with dismal results - endless trains of useless research that has no real impact beyond the organisations themselves. NGO's have also attempted to simulate corporate governance, leading to a 'clientilism' that in practise serves their own needs as organisations more than the public interests they claim to represent. They have become self-interested, risk-externalising 'machines' that operate with blinkered vision where it suits them. Principle, and creating real value, come last.

Global press monopolies have a large amount of power over political and business establishments alike. Yet, they are operating by the very same principles that lie at the very core of the logic that underpins conventional organisational models in different sectors alike. The real problem is not with the press, but with the institutional cultures that have been cultivated within society, and which has filtered into organisations across sector divides. It is the prevailing system of underlying assumptions, often held as intrinsic 'truths' that lead to the behaviours that lie at the core of essentially corrupt behaviours, and the real problem is this underlying system of truisms and our inability to interrogate them. It is the pervasive assumptions that govern the systems of organisational governance that have led to this mess, and singling out the press for punishment is ultimately a distraction from the real foundations that lead all sectors, from banking to healthcare, to operate unscrupulously. Singling out one sector for the Guantanomo treatment won't change the rules of the game. We can either purposively transition, or wait out the inevitable collapse or revolution that will make broader change necessary. Perhaps a full global collapse of institutions is necessary before a comprehensive rethink enters the political and economic arenas. One thing is sure, the problem is the deeply entrenched underlying values and beliefs that govern organisational behaviours that lie beneath all the politically correct rhetoric, and the circus we witnessed yesterday is hardly likely to make any real difference to how things are done by those in power in the world we live in.

. 

 

The Vuvuzela Election: Where Rhetoric Reigns & Labour Dithers

The 2011 local elections swept South Africa away in what seemed like another world cup production. The same 'fever' was in evidence across large swathes of the country. No longer is door to door politicking the favoured means of winning over voters. Nowadays, mass rallies are not platforms for visioning and re-envisioning the future of South Africans and all those who live within it. Rather, hooting car cavalcades and mass 'pop concert' styled rallies are the new modus operandi of the South African political elite, who have learnt that they do not need to listen to voters ... all they have to do is stir up their deepest insecurities and channel their frustration at an easy-to-identify enemy.

Election 'fever' even has the opposition leader, Helen Zille, out in the streets getting her knees up high, ‘toy-toying’ amongst the crowds; attempting to win over black voters who are discontented with lack of service delivery and rampant corruption at street committee and ward levels which the ANC has been reluctant to acknowledge. Similarly, Julius Malema (leader of the ANC youth league) whips up the marginalised black youth into a frenzy of nostalgia about a 'revolution' that in truth never occurred, stirring up even more race hatred than ever before, splitting the populace into black and white sectors that are irreconcilable - the very anti-thesis of the ANC that promised to bring a new unity to South Africa moving forward from 1994. Ironically, the DA now seeks to sell itself as the safeguarders of the legacy of Nelson Mandela, and instead of differentiating themselves from the ANC have adopted the same policies as the ANC, seeking only to do better than the ANC at delivering the same promises as their opponents. 

It is an interesting, if vexing time to be living in South Africa. Populism reigns in the absence of intelligent debate, and rhetoric reigns where leaders fear to tread. That is, where our problems are most complex we devote the least intelligence to solving them. A few days ago, Jacob Zuma declared upon visiting a location riddled with service delivery problems that he 'for the first time' understood the issues around service delivery. An appropriate question for the president in that regard is, 'where has he been for the past 17 years?" I'm sure he's been on every election trail, so why the late discovery of something that all South Africans have been aware of for a long time? How can he possibly only understand these issues now?

Electioneering has become the most prominent indicator of how farce has replaced politics in South Africa. No longer do individuals matter. All that matters are the statistics of victory. Like a soccer match, winning is everything. It matters little what the dimensions of the win are ... numbers are everything .... right? Wrong! The numbers can be used to tell many stories, but critically, if I was a shareholder of the ANC I would be worrying, while if I was a shareholder of the DA, I would be celebrating. The ANC has posted percentage losses in many municipalities while the DA has made significant percentage gains for what was thought of as an all-white party, and there is no hiding from this.

Moreover, the ANC itself has recognised that its own voter base did not come out in their full numbers. Yet, the ANC boasts (as did the head of the coalition of unions (COSATU), Zwelinzima Vavi this morning on television) that its voters would rather abstain rather than vote for an alternative. In itself, this is an empty boast ... it's real meaning is that we have not established a true democracy where the alternatives exist for frustrated left oriented voters to make their voices heard. It may be argued that COSATU itself is responsible for this lack of left oriented representation, as by remaining within the ANC as part of a coalition between the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the ANC leadership it has considerably distilled the might of South African workers, worsening their plight.

COSATU was complicit (even though it raised objection) in the decision to further privatise and de-regulate the South African economy in 1996, that has directly resulted in massive job losses amongst workers and rising unemployment way before the crisis of 2008 arrived upon the doorsteps of the planet. Yet, in a twist of logic comprehensible only to those directing the 'party line' of the ANC, Vavi hailed the election results stating that ruling parties all over the world have lost position since the financial collapse of 2008 and it is testament to the ANC's strengths that voters still gave the ANC a large majority win overall. Hogwash; the ANC is guaranteed the majority vote because the over-riding perception amongst loyal ANC voters is that no viable alternative exists.

It is precisely the unholy trinity between the ANC, COSATU and business (not the SACP who are in reality small players in the bigger scheme of ANC governance) that has created a power block that has helped establish a klepto-elitocracy that has hastened the migration towards even greater socio-economic inequality than existed during apartheid. COSATU no longer exclusively represents the interests of workers, but has to walk the ANC party line ... a line that may end up being a gangplank for COSATU in the future. South Africa has the highest Gini coefficient in the world and unemployment sits at 25%. Yet ostentatious wealth knows no bounds amongst the monied and each year more school leavers join the ranks of the unemployed poor. If the history of South African politics is anything to go by, this situation is unsustainable and it is only a matter of time before frustration at lack of service delivery and the exacerbated conditions of the poor return to the forefront of South African politics.

Moreover, it is the close alliance that COSATU enjoys with the ANC that deprives the poor voters who abstained from voting from having a viable choice. COSATU, the largest power broker within the ANC seems more concerned with its survival as an institution of power rather than a body that represents labour-oriented left wing politics. Instead, Vavi blames the sway towards the DA in the Western Cape on minorities whose fear of the ‘swart gevaar’ (or black danger) is informing their voting choices. In one fell swoop, those who were once thought of as an inseparable component of the struggle against apartheid are now declared minorities with racist fears – a slap in the face for those who, in the new South Africa, are now ‘not black enough’ and conversely, ‘not white enough’ to be trusted by either side – a mere appendage (in Verwoerds words) to be valued only if they vote your way. 

The majority coloured and creolised Western Cape, instead of being upheld as the rainbow in the rainbow nation, are cast aside because yet again, they are not ‘pure’ enough to join the ranks of either side. The scores of textile workers who lost their jobs after the ANC lowered trade barriers with Asia, allowing cheap Asian imports to destroy the textile and clothing industry in the Western Cape did not get a mention from Vavi. I suspect he’s forgotten they ever existed. It is Jacob Zuma that Vavi proclaimed he is willing to “kill for” in the previous election, and to whom his loyalty remains untarnished. Vavi challenged the previous ANC president, Thabo Mbeki, far more vociferously and regularly than he has challenged Jacob Zuma since he became president – yet the plight of workers has only worsened. So why the silence?

Since 1994, the number of union leaders who have joined the private sector, taking up large-paying positions is in itself a discredit to its role as a worker rights based party. Nowadays, scaling the ranks of political institutions such as COSATU or the ANC constitute one-way tickets to material success ... this is undeniable. The youth league is more reminiscent of the 'young republicans' in the US ... as they corner tenders and are invited onto boards, licking up that gravy. As a reminder to those who may have forgotten, Brett Kebble put together over 80 deals in two years that all involved youth league members. Conveniently, when gold prices soared this year all the noises they were making about nationalising the until now poorly performing gold sector, died down. 'Nationalisation' was just a bid for a quick payout. Indeed, this is what Jeremy Cronin of the SACP himself argued in response to the youth leagues call for nationalisation.

Absolute power of the ANC is an invitation to absolute corruption and absolute hegemony over business, the state, media and the workers. It drowns out all space for a truly democratic representation to emerge in South Africa. Indeed, the ANC would rather that disgruntled supporters abstain from the ballot than go out and exercise their hard won right and have viable alternatives that sit to the left of the ANC's current centrist position on socio-economy. What irony governs the logic of ruling party was unimaginable during apartheid, where the right to vote promised freedom from oppression and apathy. In the last election, another ANC representative boasted that the newspapers would not impact on the election because ANC supporters don't read ... this kind of logic works against everything that the struggle for liberation worked for. Indeed, it is disrespectful of the voting populace. We have a right to expect more from our leaders.

But rhetoric has a power all its own without having to make sense and that is what makes it appealing. When one has rhetoric on one's side, one does not need logic. All that's needed is a reliable hailer through which emotions and nostalgia can be roused, and like puppeteers they can pull on our heartstrings, promise us an enduring loyalty, and we, like a battered wife, welcome the abuser back into our homes, hug them and make peace with a plight that augers no good for our children. Rhetoric, and our inability to discern it from the genuine, consigns us and our children to life in a polarised society that will never become whole, and will never attain freedom. And so in the end, it is Hendrik Verwoerd whose legacy remains intractable in the South African psyche. As a friend of mine describes it, the “Verwoerdian software” remains within us, while only rhetoric remains outside of us. Both are empty of meaning, devoid of vision and are dangerous crutches upon which to limp forward. If this election can be named, it should be named the ‘vuvuzela election’, as there was a lot of loud noises that remained mostly unintelligible.

In reality, could either the DA or the ANC have remained the same for 17 long years? This is perhaps the most critical question to answer if one wants to unlock the obstacles to democratic representation in a future South Africa. Undoubtedly they have changed, and just as the entire country is still in transition, so are these parties. My bold prediction is that in the absence of a viable left-wing alternative to the ANC the DA will continue to grow in strength. It does not have the luxury of having the undying loyalty of the majority, and will hence be under more pressure than the ANC to provide a broad forum of representation whose politics can evolve with the multi-faceted needs of the populace. 

By necessity, the DA will have to be much more adaptive in how it concieves of itself and what politics it represents. Their current political standing, heavily criticised for being pro-business and apathetic towards the poor, will have to change if they wish to grow, and it most certainly will change. It may even re-brand itself as a 'new labour' of sorts (like Tony Blairs business-savvy labour) and if frustrated voters reach a point where they do not feel threatened by giving an alternative party a chance to govern they may win enough votes to rule in coalition in some of the major regions of South Africa.

What remains is for COSATU to show its cards. Indeed, if it cannot take up the leadership role it has in earnest, it isn't difficult to concieve of a DA run South Africa within 20 years. South Africans are not lovers of behemoths, and have a distinct liking for underdogs. If the DA transforms radically over the next five years and becomes a true multi-racial, gender transformed and multi-class alternative that people feel represented within, it is going to be increasingly difficult to hurl "madame" insults at the party. 

The DA's key challenge is to break through the barrier of perceptions that was built up during the Tony Leon 'fight back' era. Instead, the DA needs to become a 'fight with' party that wins the trust and support of the broader populace. Window-dressing, corporate style, isn't going to clinch it. The DA needs to have female and black (in the inclusive sense of 'black') leaders who have an aura of trustworthiness about them. They need to provide a forum where the youth can build a vision for the future of the country and the party, instead of feeling compelled to join the Malema crusade for lack of political alternatives. 

Ironically, the ANC still tends to sell itself as an underdog, even after 17 years of ruling unchallenged. Yet this ruse is fast unravelling ... and five more years of worsening conditions for the poor and unemployed in the face of ostentatious wealth being enjoyed by a few, is hardly likely to improve the plight of the ANC. The ANC has a proud history but a shaky future. It has strayed considerably from its original status as a liberator and is fast becoming an immovable behemoth that dictates rather than listens, and is a hundred percent confident of its unshakeability and right to rule. 

It is difficult to picture a liberated, diverse and democratic South Africa emerging from what is effectively a one-party state, and it is highly concievable that without humble introspection it will be gassed by its own hot air. One of the favourite phrases of ANC comrades is "our people". I have come to view this term with the disdain it deserves. The people of South Africa do not 'belong' to the ANC; the ANC belongs to them, and as long as the ANC perceives this relationship as configured the wrong way round it will be sowing the seeds of its own destruction. After all, the phrase "our people" is as offensive as the dictators of the Middle East who have no shame in referring to themselves as 'fathers' of the nation. It reveals a patriarchal attitude that relegates citizens to subjects and robs them of their true power as a society that owns its government and its state. 

Ultimately, COSATU's reluctance to break the alliance and take up the mantle of leadership within the broader political sphere is what will feed the growth of the DA. Indeed, Vavi's nightmare (i.e. of a President Zille) may become a reality in large part due to the fact that COSATU remains within the ANC alliance, sheltering itself from direct leadership on issues that concern the left. Should COSATU find the courage to step outside the ANC's rank and file it will find itself more powerful than before, and with a range of options as a kingmaker in a coalition-oriented democracy. 

Not only will the state of democracy be healthier, but coalition politics forces parties to both perform well, and compromise where necessary to achieve power. This, as opposed to a one party state, is far truer to the ideals and practicalities of ensuring democracy, and COSATU would then be in a position to hold both the ANC and the DA to account as it pleases as it will be courted by both. The independence that COSATU would enjoy to represent worker concerns from outside the ANC will free it up to be a proper left-wing party while the ANC will still remain a centrist convenor of different interests. Only, in this new world, the ANC will actually have to work for its votes and alliances rather than it being guaranteed, "until Christ comes" as they so arrogantly put it. In truth, there will be no true democracy in South Africa until government can change hands. It is not 1994 that we should celebrate, but the day when a new party is voted in and allowed to take the reigns of power. The alternative is not revolutionary bliss but unaccountable government.

COSATU is the most critical key to the future of democracy in South Africa. Without a true left wing party the DA will most likely take the most important metropoles in the next ten years, and the ANC will increasingly revert to courting rural voters in Kwazulu Natal, Mpumalanga and Limpopo. They may even conduct a few land invasions a la Zanu PF to maintain support, yet the future will remain bleak. And when all the cheering and ululations are over each election time, only the reality of one-party dictatorship will remain, to the detriment of all those who live in South Africa and on its borders. In order to move forward, one needs to relinquish the past, lest you stay trapped in a prison of ghosts and demons that no longer exist outside of your mind. The same is true of political parties, and the ANC is in danger of becoming trapped forever in a singular psychology and is too blind to lead anybody into the future and so constantly revisits the past.

To do what is right for the plight of the poor in a healthy democracy is the real struggle that is unfolding in South Africa. No longer does the Apartheid regime present any threat, and no longer does it exist ... yet the ANC conjures up its spectre to scare black voters into voting for it, sowing racial distrust at every turn and with every phrase and comment - a shamefully pathetic trick to turn on the voters, and one which cannot possibly be sustainable or inclusive. The real struggle is no longer about overcoming Apartheid but on building the future promised in the Freedom Charter. 

Doing what is necessary to achieve this is staying true to the struggle that still remains and which people endure on a daily basis in this vastly unequal society. Propping up a one-party state has nothing to do with this struggle, but has everything to do with maintaining institutional power bases. Should COSATU have the courage to move out of the ANC and represent the left in South Africa it will be staying true to the real objectives of the struggle itself, and perhaps bring about the kind of democracy that South Africans will have the faith in to go out and vote for. In the absence of action from COSATU the vacuum in representation will be taken up by other parties, and this could quite possibly do the left a disservice in the long term, rendering it powerless either way.

It is the absence of COSATU as a full player in the political spectrum that is driving black voters towards the DA. With no viable alternatives to back, they are drawn towards the only party that is actively eating into the ANC vote, and through which they can give voice to their discontentment with ANC performance (note: not vision, but performance). The unholy trinity of labour, government and business that the ANC has become can only damage democracy in the long term and erode the very freedom that those who fought for liberation sacrificed their lives for. 

By choosing to prop up what is essentially a one-party democracy, COSATU is creating the conditions for the DA to take up the vacuum that is clearly growing at the core of South African democracy. Should COSATU grow the courage to split from the ANC and court it on more equal terms, it will represent a significant new phase in South Africa's transition to democracy - one that can refresh politics in South Africa and possibly save it from a downward slide into apathetic one-party rule.

***This post was lightly edited on 7-2-2016. Paragraph spacing was changed; and the article was edited to reflect that COSATU did originally raise objections within the tripartite alliance to the decision to liberalise and de-regulate the South African economy in  1996..

What Comes After Osama Bin Laden?

The cheers and celebrations that rang out in the US at the news of Osama Bin Laden's assassination by US Navy seals is understandible. A whole new generation of youngsters have lived with the face of Osama Bin Laden as the mortal enemy of american society,  hidden away in the everlurking shadows, waiting to pounce upon the ever-suspicious populace the moment they allow themselves to drop their guards.  I am sure that whenever mortal enemies of one side are eliminated, some level of glass-clinking and congratulation occurs on the other side. I am sure when Adolf Hitler died there were many celebrations across the world because it signalled that the war was nearing its end. Yet the uproarious celebration of death at the hands of other human beings by whatever means tends to be distasteful in some measure.

And moreover, in this case it is premature. It is not by any means the end to Osama Bin Laden, but is another chapter that will be taken up in the narratives that compose the mythology of Osama Bin Laden. His followers and admirers will view his death at the hands of American navy seal soldiers as an assassination, and as an unfair execution of justice. Moreover, the question of what comes after Osama Bin Laden is not straightforward by any means. Revenge killing tends to provoke an unending dance of death between enemies, and the cycles of conflict are only perpetuated through revenge. After all, it is not an act of peace, but an act of hatred. Where there is no resolution, the cycles of violence begatting violence don't find an end. Already, there are early indications that Osama Bin Laden was unarmed when killed so many believe that justice was not served with his killing - and the conspiracy mill has swung into action across the world.  

I am no expert in Al Qaeda but it is clear that such a complex organisational structure holds many potentialities. Yet due to the distributed and diverse nature of Al Qaeda's many subsidiary regional and national bodies across the world, what Al Qaeda will become in the future and what modes of operation it may adopt is not clear. In addition, the Arab Spring, constituted of multiple revolutions and widespread civil revolts with the purpose of bringing about revolution of the state, will also present challenges to the vision espoused by Al Qaeda. That is, the restoration of the islamic caliphate and the global rule of islamic law may not be consistent with the gains that the revolutions of the Arab Spring may bring to the citizens in terms of civil liberties and human rights for groups and individuals. Al Qaeda may end up being squeezed from both sides, so to speak, and the need for new strategies and innovations will increase significantly, as they are forced to adapt to the new and perhaps quick-changing sociological terrain of the islamic world in the 21st Century.

How Al Qaeda reacts to this quick changing terrain may actually be aided by the departure of Osama Bin Laden in that it will have more freedom to reconfigure it's modes of operation and to find different ways to appeal to potential members with a bit more autonomy as a new era emerges post Osama Bin Laden. Even if his role in Al Qaeda was now mainly symbolic, his mere presence meant that Al Qaeda could not explore radically different positions from the values he set through his example. The mythology of Osama Bin Laden will remain and grow into the future along various paths and will spawn diverse narratives, yet Al Qaeda itself will have more freedom to reconfigure its modes of operation and attraction.

And what modes of operation and attraction might it be drawn to. It is difficult to say because the Arab Spring has not yet had sufficient time to spawn new norms that govern the reality of everyday life in the Middle East. It is still caught up in a period of transition. And my guess is that Al Qaeda will also undergoe a transition of its own in reaction to these changes. I am unsure exactly what the nature of the transition will be, but I picture decentralised developments in modes of operation and attraction that will then become increasingly shared and tested in different tactical, operational and strategic contexts, and then distilled into a set of principles that dictate what the modes of operation and attracting new members may be. A power transition that parallels these developments might also be in the making.

To hazard a guess at what might emerge, I fear that Al Qaeda will become increasingly radicalised within different regions, nationalities and socio-cultural contexts across the world, and that local leaders may gain more autonomy through the perception of a leadership vacuum emerging out of what has always been a tenuous central command structure. Al Qaeda was designed to have a loosely evolving, spontaneous, distributed structure composed of cell-groups within local, national or regional Al Qaeda aligned islamic radical groups. It is not to be thought of as just a terrorist group, it is also a vast intelligence network of disparate groups and elements - by design, it is a flexible structure that allows for change. If memory serves me correctly Osama Bin Laden himself called for action from muslims whether or not they were members of Al Qaeda. This built-in capacity for bottom up autonomy means that Al Qaeda, as a broad ideological integrator for these disparate groups and elements may begin to change with the ideological positions that emerge and that result in different modes of operation being put into play. 

It is concievable that some leaders, with more power and popularity on their side, may make attempts to reconfigure the central command for greater autonomy or may actually seek to take the central command under the guise of 'saving the organisation', and introduce changes that they think are necessary for Al Qaeda to continue to grow its influence. If these groups are more radical then more dangerous and desperate modes of operation (and attraction) may emerge. If the on-the-ground reality is that islamic modernisation significantly changes the way in which muslims view themselves and each other and tolerance and diversity return to the broader social framework of islamic societies across the world, then Al Qaeda may find itself without significant candidates for its ranks. 

Yet the flexible organisational structure of Al Qaeda can both work in its favour or against it. It may fragment, or it may adapt. Either way may bring increased or decreased danger. A more fragmented Al Qaeda may take actions in disconnected and disparate ways, with only local control over decision-making, while a more coordinated and integrated Al Qaeda may operate at ever greater skills, mobilising greater numbers of people and funding to commit large-scale acts of terror. The question over the threat of nuclear terrorism remains open. Both avenues offer up room for nuclear adventurism that may escalate the current global crisis of terror to new levels of urgency and devastation. The consequences for the global economy, sociology and order will be dire under these circumstances.

Ultimately, increased radicalism is the main threat to the future, not just within Al Qaeda, but outside of it too. Guantanomo Bay is one such example of radical and illegal means being employed to fight the war against terror. More aptly, it is a strategy to fight terror with terror, and in my view, ony radicalises both sides of the conflict to increased levels. Moral authority is important to maintain when facing a radical enemy. Radicalism cannot be defeated with more radicalism. It can only be defeated by moderation, tolerance and principled thought and action. If the US continues down the path of acting in violation of the Geneva convention on war, it only fuels and justifies radicalism on the other side. Illegal violations of sovereignty, the use of torture and deadly force, and slaking the thirst for revenge above seeking justice; all stand as examples of injustice that culminate to provide the fodder for radical arguments against the legitimacy of the  US government and its activities in various parts of the world; namely, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, US policy over the issue of Palestine, and occupations in Arab and/or Muslim countries in general, raise the ire of radicals, or potential radicals even further.

Al Qaeda may well be caught between the US and the Arab Spring, as the song goes, 'the devil and the deep blue sea', that is; between a towering imperial power with vast resources and limited morality and ethical highground, and the abyss of the constant changing waters of the Arab Spring which threatens to bring about an ocean of plurality within the everyday lives and governance of Arabs in Arab countries.

Al Qaeda will have to adapt, or shrink from the pressures exerted by both sides. It's only real weapon will be the ability to convince those within the changing abyss of the evil of its enemy. The more blatant US violations of human rights, sovereign rights and economic rights prove to be in the future, the more they contribute to the actualisation of potential radicals. It isn't wise to adopt a policy of engagement with the enemy that does not set moral standards in relation to the enemy. In other words, if you are as bad as your enemy then you deserve each other. It is only by offering some standard of superiority that is moral and ethical can a distinction between good and evil be made, even if that morality requires one to appear 'weak' in another sensibility. It's strength comes through the moral distinction that is brought about by acting differently in relation to ones enemy. Mercy, for example, is such a powerful act of distinction that history smiles kindly upon forgivers, and those who can turn the other cheek, so to speak, yet the US it seems, clearly adopts the position that mercy is an act of weakness. An act of mercy can change the course of history, while an act of revenge is as common as day and only contributes to it's own reproduction.




 

    

Renewable Energy Denialism

On a recent Riz Khan show two participants made their cases for and against renewable energy respectively. The 'against' participant has recently written a book dispelling what he terms the 'myth' of renewable energy and green options as a global conspiracy of lefties that are bent on destroying good old American pie no holds barred growth, in favour of an over-regulated, over-controlled economic order that is choked out of all freedom. It's all a myth that it creates more jobs than non-renewables he rails, citing that government subsidies actually underlies most of the jobs in renewable energy.

And so, there is nothing wrong with the global economic order, the global climate or the global monopoly of non-renewable fossil fuels companies that are integral to geopolitical stability precisely because growth as we know it is intimately dependent on the provision of cheap energy, high emission loads and the odd disaster here and there. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the recent nuclear disaster in Japan come to mind, yet he does not factor in the accounting of these disasters and the daily damage that is being done to global ecosystems worldwide, with devastating consequences for the future survival of mankind. UN Habitat has declared that 12 out of the 24 ecosystems that are critical for human survival are seriously degraded, and with a projected extra 2 billion people expected to be living on the planet by 2030 we are moving into a resource constrained world that cannot support the same type of growth that the world has undergone over the past 200 years i.e. growth that assumes limitless abundance of resources and an unlimited capacity for ecosystems to absorb waste and human expansion. Instead, we are being forced to negotiate the limits of our growth more deeply.

And there are large costs involved in using and producing fossil fuel energy - but these costs are externalised to the environment and the poorer countries and regions of the globe (such as Africa and Asia) where population growth will be greatest. They are not factored into the cost models of non-renewable energy sources. It is merely assumed that these costs do not exist at best, or they do not matter at worst. Yet they do matter, as rising sea surface temperatures and desertification, drought and natural disasters intensify, often in the poorest, most populous regions of the planet. And this 'myth' is itself core to the argument for non-renewable fossil fuel energy and nuclear energy sources, and for a very good reason. If we were to account for the damage that fossil fuels are directly responsible for in terms of ecosystem damage and loss of ecosystem services the costs rise exponentially so quickly that our brains are unable to handle them. That is, the costs are so large that they appear ridiculous - in the same way as astronomical numbers do ... they are too large for our small brains to comprehend, so we dismiss them using a sleight of mind - we pretend that because the values are so large that somehow the chances of these costs being realised are low. We try to unthink it away, so to speak - yet it is wishful thinking. There is no low probability chance of disaster associated with these numbers. To the contrary, we are already experiencing the horrors of conflict and war associated with declining resources such as water, arable land and grazing lands, and this will only intensify in the future that we face.

A similar example is how the 'small chance of catastrophic failure' in the global markets due to the creation of mind-bendingly perverse financial products such as sub-prime mortgages, was ignored outright, despite the many naysayers who raised their voices and opinions hoping to enforce more regulation in the sector. The chance of catastrophic failure was difficult to envisage during economic boom times, and the 'spoilers' were heckled for their lack of faith in the ability of markets to magically self-regulate themselves. Indeed, financiers and economists placed more faith in the ability of the market to regulate itself than most religious zealots could muster up for their religions in a lifetime, and when the collapse came the bankers who created the crisis were themselves the recipients of huge subsidies - drawn from tax-payers contributions - to save their 'too large to fail' businesses. That is, as explained by Raj Patel in 'The Value of Nothing' the benefits were commercialised while the costs were socialised. We subsidized the very same bankers who failed to maintain stability in the market and by 2009 they were again paying themselves huge bonuses, oblivious to the suffering and loss they created amongst homeowners (whose taxes weren't used to bail them out of debt, but rather the bankers). 

And so it is with non-renewable sources of energy - the real costs are externalised, that is; ecologised and then socialised ... and the real victims of fossil fuel use are so poor and their governments so dependent on aid that they have no recourse in the equation of global power. 

And it gets worse ... the pro-fossil fuel expert on the show went so far as to suggest that there was lots of oil still available in the Middle East, but that because they are not allowed full access to these regions they cannot tell for sure. Are you following this? Because I sure didn't. It sounds tautological to me, a bit of circular logic - there is lots of oil because nobody knows?? Go figure, the jury is still out on that kind of logic. He rounded that argument off by expounding the merits of mining shale for oil - celebrating the new ecologically devastating technological advances associated with 'fracking' as it is known. As I write there is a campaign to oppose a plan for 'fracking' in the ecologically unique Little Karoo, which it seems has not undergone a full and proper environmental assessment that was open to the public. 

Lastly, that a bunch of lefty-oriented greenies are somehow behind a global conspiracy to render our energy markets subject to a new socialist paradigm is a load of tripe. Really, how can a network of greenies who earn peanuts to do the jobs they do, often with precariously funded organisations, take on the globally hegemonic fossil fuels industry? It's truly a David and Goliath situation, and multinational energy companies have far more resources at their disposal to mount campaigns of disinformation and to buy up competing technologies. All the greenies have on their side is the ability to influence public opinion and thereby to force governments to adopt a clear stance on the needs of their citizens, present and future. Their mandate is to make governments think about the needs of future generations and whether our current rates of exploitation are sustainable. They hardly have the reach and means to fuel global conspiracies against the Goliaths of our time.

At a recent workshop I observed a discussion about why China has put 38% of its recovery package into green and renewable energy technology development. The answer would surprise most people. It is not just concerns over the environment that is driving China's direction. It is the need to position China to be a world leader in the next, already emerging wave of technological development i.e. technological innovation to cope with living in a resource constrained world under pressure from exponentially increasing global populations - most of whom will live in cities. Just as the semi-conductor revolution changed the world and created new markets, so too will the green technology and renewable energies revolution change the way we live and behave. Developing the skills and capacity to be at the forefront of this new wave of technological development is about more than just saving ecosystems, it is also about maintaining technological and trade dominance in the future. That is why China is putting such a large portion of its money into funding development in these sectors. Subsidizing jobs in the sector now will pay itself back many times over in the not-too-distant future. This is true of all emerging technologies that have become fundamental to the way we live, work and recreate. It is the role of governments and states to see this far into the future and prepare their nations for it - arguing that renewable energies need to be developed only in the current marketplace, without any assistance, is akin to arguing the same for nuclear energy, defence technology, the semi-conductor industry etc. They all received assistance from institutions in their conception and establishment, and it is no different for renewable energies.

The International Energy Agency announced in 2008 that the price of oil was not coming down. This is changing the economic 'feasibility' of non-renewable energies rapidly, and will continue to do so, even if you don't believe in ideas of 'oil peak' or 'coal peak'. The fact is that the costs of producing fossil fuel based energy is rising - even before we consider the costs that are externalised to the environment and society - and will continue to do so in the future. If we can make billions of dollars available at the drop of a hat to bail out bankers, and yet overlook the necessary requirements to survive the future we will bring about the collapse of civilisation as we know it. All things must adapt to survive, and so must we. Fossil fuels won't last forever, and we need to be able to adapt to much more concentrated and sizeable future societal needs if 'civilisation' as we know it is to survive intact. These needs will be exponentially greater than our current needs, and running at full steam now will compromise the ability of future generations to survive. A balanced approach towards energy is required. The common understanding of energy transitions is that historically they have occurred over long periods of time. However, if we look to the trend towards decentralised technology offerings, especially in the telecommunications and internet markets, it may well be that the next energy transition might go viral and occur over a much shorter time frame, 'leapfrogging' us - so to speak - into a new future. Whatever type of transition eventually unfolds will depend on us, as we have the power to choose, and we must choose wisely and carefully and not run roughshod over the debates that favour alternatives lest we lose our ability to adapt and compete in an overpopulated, resource-constrained future.

On Burkha's, Euro-Nationalism, Anonymity & The Internet

The French ban on burkha's in public spaces seems a confused response to the vaunted ideals of democratic tolerance that have echoed through the ages since the French revolution. Even now, one can find inscriptions of "Liberte, Fraternite and Egalite" inscribed on the various buildings that dot the French landscape. The French revolution is credited with stimulating global changes, including the fight against slavery, and as such it has occupied a special place in the imagination of oppressed peoples everwhere and throughout the ages. It is a mandatory textbook study for many children and teenagers everywhere in the world and often captures their imaginations in profound ways, depending on the context within which they reside. Freedom means a great deal to those who've never had it. To those who have it, it can sometimes go unnoticed.

So the French ban on the burkha can be expected to raise both the ire and support of those who have contrary positions on this new development in the constitution of French identity. And indeed, that is what it is. It is a proclamation of what is French and what is not. That is, a law such as this begins to determine the boundaries of national identity and relegates it to the realm of legislature, and not society.

And when culture and religion start to become regulated by law, ironically, secularity itself is threatened as secularity relies on tolerating and respecting a variety of religious, traditional and cultural beliefs that are in operation in the public sphere. Secularity is not the eradication of religion from the public sphere in total. Indeed, it can be argued that this can never be achieved. Imagine if all religious symbols were removed from the public domain - church steeples that resemble the cross, chains of crosses, tattoos of crosses ... nose rings with the aum sign and the like ... it would render the public domain a sterile, modernist pharmacy of nothing but brand logos and symbols (which can - in my view - be twice as offensive as anything religious - at least religious iconography is coupled with deep historical lines and is integral to tradition and culture).

I find it hard to envisage a world where church bells are done away with but McDonald's arches are celebrated. It would be a perverse inversion of what we hold dear and what we celebrate within the public sphere ... a world of brands, devoid of historical and cultural meaning, perhaps even replacing them. But perhaps, this is what we will have to get used to - a world where corporate and brand slogans dominate the public sphere but a prayer is banned. I am not religious by any means, but I do have a cross tattooed across my back, and its symbology has been extremely comforting to me and is interwoven with my personal identity. To me, having this tattoo etched into my skin was an act of liberation, of wearing my personal cross where it belonged ... behind me. In front of me I am led through the heart, and behind me is all the pain. It's a reminder to move into the future with love and to carry my own burden. All this meaning inscribed in a simple tattoo that years later looks like something that might have been the product of boredom in a prison cell, or a gang initiation. Whoever sees it may project whatever they like into it, but it is ultimately mine, and will always be, as I am the one who wears it every day. It is part of my body and my identity and were it to be removed by force it would be a violation of the sanctity of my body and my freedom to be who I want to be.

In my lifelong interaction with (and embedded within) the Islamic community I have learnt many things that go against the Orientalist, western notion of what constitutes Islam, and I have developed a deep respect for the fundamental beliefs that Islam professes. Indeed, there has been a migration towards deeper orthodoxy in Islam over the past thirty years, yet Islam is not alone in this trend. The same is true of religions across the world. Changes in the world that have brought modernity onto the doorstep of almost every nation has threatened traditional cultures, religions and the beliefs and values associated with them, causing them to entrench their beliefs deeper and to dig their heels in -so to speak- in the face of changes that threaten to overwhelm them. Going into 'purdah', or wearing the veil, emerged as a viral phenomenon in my lifetime, spreading into Islamic cultures that never before adopted Saudi dress or rigidly followed Sharia law. Initially, when these trends emerged the moderates in Islam were the first to notice it, and to distance themselves from it in terms of how they led their own lives.

Yet at the same time they tolerated it, and with good reason. Anyone who has been party to conversations with women who wear the veil will get a very different version than that professed by observers residing in Europe and the west in general. While some women are forced into wearing the burkha - an act which is unmistakably a violation of women's rights - there are also many women who choose to wear the burkha. Ironically, they choose to wear the burkha to obtain a freedom of their own i.e. a freedom from being regarded as a sexual object in the public domain, and being interacted with on the basis of that sexuality. Many women who have chosen the burkha (the vast majority of those which I interacted with were converts to Islam) regard it as a liberation from being sexualised in the public domain. It is an irony, because the idea that women in Islamic cultures have no rights and are the mere victims of outdated patriarchal traditions that seek to 'own' a woman's body resides more strongly in the minds of those who have had very little contact with Islam - another product of the Orientalism that has assailed the Arab and Eastern regions. Yet the women who choose the burkha choose it precisely to escape the very same patriarchal treatment that feminists seek to eradicate i.e. being viewed as an object that can be owned, enslaved and traded in the public and private spheres. This is not to romanticise the veil or to excuse the actions of Taliban-oriented groups who seek absolute control of men over women, often under the threat of violence, but to emphasize that Islam is not monolithically a bunch of gun and whip-toting Talibanis that seek to play God in daily life. There are many women in Islam who make the choice to wear the veil, and they should not be denied the opportunity or right to this choice.

And in reference to claims that the new law is an attempt to 'free' Muslim women of their shackles the reality is that women who both deeply believe in wearing the veil, and those forced to wear it, will now have little or no access to the public domain in the shape and form they wish to appear in. That is, in contradiction to the aim of liberation, these women will now become ever more confined to their homes, unable to go out into the public sphere and interact with society. Surely that is bound to further entrench the isolation and opportunities for oppression of women in Islam rather than helping to bring about their freedom. You cannot 'force' someone into your notion or conception of freedom. You have to allow them to negotiate it on their own terms. That, is freedom.

Yet there is more that disturbs me about the ban on the burkha in France than the rights of women in Islam, or any other veil wearing religion for that matter. It is the right to be anonymous in the public sphere. I know that this is not a guaranteed right, and I don't know much of the history or philosophy that might be associated with it, but I feel it is a right that we will only miss once it has been taken away. One platform in which anonymity is celebrated is the internet, and this has opened up a vast array of potentialities and actualities for expressing dissident positions, new opinions, whistle-blowing and for exposing wrongdoing. Indeed, even the now famous hacker group is named anonymous. Isn't it a logical step that if anonymity is no longer allowed in the public sphere (i.e. physical public sphere) then pretty soon it will be eradicated from the virtual public sphere. And imagine the power that can be lost through this - indeed, the very same power of expression that has found transmission across various communications platforms and helped bring about the uprisings in the middle east would be challenged. The only winners in this equation will be states and governments, who will increasingly be able to regulate, threaten and control its citizens and what forms their opinions are allowed to take in entering the public sphere. It is not a large stretch of the imagination to understand this ... the freedom to be anonymous in the public sphere is as important as the freedom to be an aggressively public identity. The two comprise a necessary duality for pluralism and freedom to exist.

Even mass protests rely on the anonymity that numbers afford the congregated masses and emboldens them to speak their views (or take action) without fear of being targeted as an individual. That is why it is an anarchist tradition to take to the streets in urban gear that can easily be transformed to hide one's identity from the state. This itself has proved a profound and critically relevant avenue for expression, no matter how destructive a shape or form it can take.

Yet ultra-nationalism, in itself a right-wing view of nationalism, would have both the freedom of religion and the freedom to remain anonymous in the public sphere eradicated from society. Some may disagree with my diagnosis and prognosis, but in my view it is clear is that once boundaries are declared on nationalism it follows the slippery slope towards fascism and extremism. Once one group - even the majority - take ownership of the national identity, public violence is not far off. In this case the arrests are a form of state violence against women who choose to wear the veil, and it will be met by extremist violence that will use this new law to justify its violence as a response to oppression. Bear in mind that in Islam it is a duty to fight for the oppressed. In many ways this makes it unique amongst religions and the Judeo-Christian traditions. Both sides that are divided by the law banning the burkha will be prejudiced and victimised by the law. It is a lose-lose proposition.

Lastly, the idea that somehow public safety will be improved is sheer nonsense - showing the lower portion of ones face in public will not make the public sphere any safer. I have yet to see a suicide bombers head wired to explode. In contrast, the law will in fact have the opposite effect of drawing extremists to France and will make the public domain more vulnerable. And when the attacks sound out, the Islamophobic voices will roar out even more viciously, and a downward spiral of social fragmentation will ensue to further depths of depravity in a Eurozone that has seen the right emerge as a substantive voice in recent years. Europe, for all its veneer of civilisation, seems to sway to the right whenever its finances are under threat. It is never far away from the barbarism it once exported all over the world, so maybe it should come as no surprise that yet again it claims to liberate those from other cultures when in fact it enslaves them. The failure of Europe's' 'civilising missions' are still with us today and are plain to see for all those who have suffered under colonial rule, yet the colonisation hasn't stopped - it has moved deeper, to colonise the spaces in our minds and those of our bodies. It is a deep humiliation - added to a litany of recent slights against Islam in Europe - and I fear that it augers no good.

The Farce of Imposed Meta-Narratives

It is a tired narrative that has emerged in rejection of military intervention in Libya. It is typically constituted of a four part meta-narrative that (1) attacks the UN vote for resolution 1973 itself, (2) raises the question of the weapons testing and sales agenda of the military industrial complex of the west, (3) questions the validity of the Libyan rebels as a legitimate opposition, and finally, (4) points out the apparent contradictions in embarking on military intervention in Libya and not in Gaza, Ivory Coast, Bahrain, etc. This four part narrative usually stops there, and offers no alternatives or strategic insights into how the crisis in Libya can be resolved, neither does it adequately deal with why Libyans themselves have consistently and without exception called for help from the international community. Instead, the four part narrative is presented as though it itself is enough of an analysis from which to move forward. It therefore deserves closer scrutiny.

Firstly, that only ten out of fifteen nations voted in favour of the intervention with the five most populous countries in the world (China, Russia, Brazil, Germany and India included) abstained from the vote. Note that these countries did not veto or vote against the UN resolution 1973 but merely abstained from voting in favour. There are many reasons why these abstentions have been interpreted as voting against the resolution but these interpretations are false. An abstention is not a veto, and in most articles I have read these abstentions have been treated as though these countries reject outright the intervention in Libya. If they did, they had a good chance to show it on the international stage and failed to do so. Moreover, countries such as Russia and China have human rights issues of their own to answer for, and do not have a good record of protecting the rights of their own citizens, much less those of other countries. In fact, their actions are driven by their own lust for power.

How quickly one forgets that the Chinese government essentially forced the South African government to refuse the Dalai Lama entry into South Africa, despite the fact that the Dalai Lama was a long-term supporter of the struggle against apartheid who was a signee to the international petition against the Rivonia trial. Looking to China and Russia as moral authorities on human rights is a joke. They are concerned with how their geopolitical power can be strengthened, and furthering their own international and national agendas. Pretending that somehow they have adopted a moral or principled position is a misrepresentation - they are simply playing politics. If they strongly objected to the intervention both could have easily vetoed the action. They chose to abstain rather than to take a clear position. Surely this indicates - at best - that they were unsure about intervention rather than opposed to it.

Secondly, that the evils of the techno-industrial-military complex of the West is a key driver behind the intervention must be collated with reality. The reality is that there are plenty other wars to test weapons in, and with much less international attention and hence more room for error. It does not make sense to test weapons under the watchful eye of the entire international community. Part two of this argument is that the techno-industrial-military complex needs to make sales in a recession. However, the costs of implementing a no-fly zone over Libya are nowhere near the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where one could reasonably argue that weapons sales are keeping the TIM complex alive. On both counts, invoking the familiar spectre of the TIM complex where Libya is concerned isn't completely honest in itself. Indeed, the US military was reluctant to go into Libya, perhaps because an intervention in Libya did not make economic sense or alternatively to flex its muscles to the Obama presidency that has been so critical of Guantanamo Bay and the war on Iraq in rising to the office of president in the USA. The simplistic manner in which this TIM narrative is promulgated in the case of Libya indicates a reliance on knee-jerk analysis rather than analysis that is based on close inspection of the intricate factors that are at play where Libya is concerned.

Thirdly, that the Libyan rebels are rag-tag groups consisting of "radical Islamists, royalists, tribalists and secular middle class activists" that are disorganised in all respects except for the fighting abilities of radical Islamists (as claimed by Mamdani in a recent article on the politics of humanitarian intervention). What escapes me is how this analysis excludes defected Libyan army soldiers and colonels who joined the rebels after being asked to fire upon their own people and defend the regime. In fact, the defected army members are now holding untrained rebels back from the frontlines as they have become an undisciplined liability and put operations at risk. The idea that somehow radical Islamists are the only ones with military training and are leading the charge is rubbish. If there were a significant number of radical Islamists - i.e. especially Al Qaeda members - we would be seeing a much more organised response from the rebels - indeed, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have not seen this. It is largely Libyan army defectors who are the fighting core of the Libyan rebels and while there is plenty of evidence to support this view, there is scarce evidence to support the view that radical Islamists constitute the main fighting force on the ground.

The fourth part of the anti-intervention meta-narrative conflates conflicts from all over the Middle East and Africa and questions why interventions haven't been taken in Syria and Bahrain, and earlier in attacks on Gaza. This narrative itself ignores one simple issue - that in none of these cases have clear calls for international intervention been made by the people who are being directly affected by violence. Libyans called for intervention - not just the rebels or citizens of Benghazi, but defected Libyan diplomats, government representatives, army members and the like. Each conflict must be judged on its own merits and not every situation warrants an intervention, especially when nobody in those countries is calling for intervention.

It was not an isolated call from a disparate group of rebels that led to intervention. On the night that the UN resolution was passed for intervention the citizens of Benghazi were out in great numbers, braving the horrific onslaught that Gaddafi had promised would be visited upon them - ready to die in the streets, so to speak. To pretend that a lopsided civil war wasn't already underway in Libya is a blinkered view of the crisis. Moreover, to promulgate the vain notion that intervention somehow scuppered what would have been a 'natural' revolution is also nonsense - how do the proponents of this view 'know' that we wouldn't have witnessed brutal massacres from an intolerant regime instead, and ended up with a situation where Libyans spend another 42 years under the heel of an autocratic regime. What magical, mystical formula do they use to arrive at a conclusion about what would have transpired? I would like to know, because if this surety can be bottled it will no doubt change the world. You cannot use the future as evidence when the present is so overwhelmingly complex and to make the argument that intervention is getting in the way of a more natural process of revolutionary change is not an argument that can be made with any level of certainty. What is clear, is that Benghazi would have fallen under Gaddafi's then imminent attack - having surrounded Benghazi - and it is equally likely that it would have all ended right there for Libyans.

To my mind, the four part meta-narrative, composed of its subsidiary narratives, doesn't match the full spectrum of observations that can be made on the Libyan crisis. Generally, it tends to discount what current difficulties Libyans are facing - and the help Libyans themselves have appealed for - in favour of a more grand meta-analysis that sees Western intervention in Arab countries as inevitably leading to civil war. Cast within the blinkered visors of the overarching meta-narrative this meta-analysis is so powerful that ordinary people and the specificities of context are glossed over, to the detriment of nobody other than Libyans themselves, whose voices are increasingly being drowned out by the voices of dissent emerging from people who never bothered to provide any kind of critique of Libya or the Middle East before. Indeed, these same academics, experts and activists utterly and completely failed to predict the widespread uprisings in the Middle East - most of their work characterised people of the region as being tribalist, family oriented and hence incapable of secular democratic action at the scales that we have seen emerge. So why should their view be trusted now that the water has broken and the new that is being birthed is something they could never concieve of before? 

Last year in June, I sat through an interesting presentation by Zakia Salim - a Morroccan born sociologist now at Rutgers university - who was investigating the changing identities of Arab and Moroccan youth, and was struck by how traditional notions of identity were being dissolved. She joked in amazement at how much had changed since she'd lived in Morroco herself, asking;

"Who were they to change without my permission?"

Perhaps the tired analyses that paint the Arab world as 'tribalist and Islamist', with no concerns for society, but only for family and clan are themselves quickly being eroded, and without the permission of our esteemed academic commentators whose conception of the Arab world has perhaps become stuck in time and has not moved with the changes on the ground. After all, very few of them actually live and work in the countries that constitute their favourite subject matter - and perhaps that is why their favoured recourse is to the discourse on global hegemony, irrespective of what the specific contextual issues at play might be.

Al Qaeda in Libya - Overblown Propaganda

It is to be expected that existing Al Qaeda recruits within Libya would join the struggle against the regime. It is also conceivable that Hezbollah would have sent support to Libya during the long period of deliberation that the UN undertook in reaching its decision to follow through on resolution 1973. Yet, to paint this as an Al Qaeda, extremist led uprising is a load of hogwash. And there is a very good way to test the assertion that Al Qaeda will capture the vacuum of power that might result when Gaddafi departs, resulting in a similar turnabout as was experienced in Afghanistan.

And this is the view that the Russian government, the opposite and equal partner in the cold war is now espousing. And a Russian propaganda has had a long history, and real-politik did not only exist in the Allied cold war camp - the Russians, for their sins, are equal and opposite progenitors of this modern day disease. So it's time to shame the Russians, as they are obviously playing out a sick cold war spin in favour of the Gaddafi regime. It seems the cold war antics have not ended.

So lets see - what are the inherent contradictions in this supposition?

It is clear that the Libyan rebels (pro-democracy fighters) are ill-equipped, ill-trained, and not organized enough to take on ground troops that are loyal to Gaddafi. They have fled most battles where they have encountered trained soldiers that know how to conduct a battle. Much emphasis has placed on the inadequacy of the Libyan rebel movement on the ground, and by all satellite television stations, blog spots, tweets, etc. The very reason why an intervention was made is because the rebels were summarily pushed back to Benghazi with the advance of Gaddafi's remaining troops. This, despite the fact that Libyan rebels are also supplemented by defecting army colonels and troops, who should know how to conduct a battle. Yet, by all accounts the Libyan rebels have not fared well and have appeared pretty disorganised in taking on Gaddafi's forces.

One has only to look to Iraq to debunk the idea that there are masses of Al Qaeda trained fighters in Libya, battling alongside civilians, waiting for their chance to take advantage of the power vacuum. In Iraq, the mobilisation of Al Qaeda forces have presented a constant and severe, well organised threat to American forces. Al Qaeda knows how to train fighters and have a long history of battlefield experience in various conflicts. Al Qaeda would not have survived as long as it has if it's actions were undisciplined and unable to mount well planned operations. If Al Qaeda was in Libya in great numbers, we would not see the disorganised, piecemeal resistance from the rebels that we have seen in Libya. Even now, the battle is to and fro. The rebels seem to be relying more on the defection of the army rather than all out battles to win territory. If Al Qaeda was in Libya in weighty numbers, then we would be seeing organised resistance on the ground, and well-trained fighters pushing forward against Gaddafi loyalists. We have not seen this. Instead, we have seen rebels push forward only to retreat quickly whenever they were faced with organised resistance from Gaddafi forces.

Al Qaeda maintained a long term resistance in Iraq that saw almost daily attacks upon American forces. It is an organised network of resistance that knows how to move arms and skilled fighters into conflict areas. Iraq acted as a magnet for Al Qaeda, and what we have seen in Libya does not in the slightest resemble what transpired in Iraq. The attempts that the Russian government in particular has made to paint a picture of a Libyan Afghanistan have been contrived, and if they're not contrived they're not very well thought through. One thing is for certain, the Russian government knows how to think strategically, and it is unlikely that this position has been generated by the strategists. Rather, it is more likely generated by the fearmongers amongst them, who have managed to capitalise on Russian fears over the threat that has emerged from the Caucasus. Moreover, it is politically expedient for the Russians to adopt the stance they have - it absolves them of the responsibility to participate in any action, and at the same time they make themselves more attractive to those that the West have spurned - much like China has managed to do. When the West spurned Robert Mugabe he looked to China for support. And Russia's calculated response is no doubt inspired by the very control of the very same oil reserves they claim that the coalition forces are greedy for. Russia are backing their old friend Gaddafi, and that is what their propaganda is in aid of.

To summarise - it is ridiculous to simultaneously claim that the rebels are disorganised rag tag groups, while at the same time heavily impregnated by Al Qaeda forces. Al Qaeda forces would know how to train and mobilise forces and would themselves be well trained and organised. We have seen none of this, and the Libyan army defectors are the ones conducting the training. While there may be Al Qaeda fighters amongst the Libyan rebels it is hardly likely, judging from their performance on the battelfield that Al Qaeda is a major force in the uprising in Libya. In this sense, recreated fears of a 1979 or Afghanistan styled power vaccuum being usurped by Islamist radicals are misplaced interpretations of the Libyan uprising, and runs the danger of acting as a diagnosis that eventually perpetuates itself. In this respect, what the Russian government is spinning out is dangerous and misleading, and if it is a genuine assessment, is more likely clouded by their own problems with extremists and only emphasizes how well both sides of the cold war divide mirror each other and their mutual paranoias.