Leaks and Populism

Sorry it's taken so long to post this.

What links Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange with Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. On the face of it, not very much but I think there might actually be a link, however small.

If we could go back to the beginning of the summer and ask people what the likelihood was that a seemingly life long, left wing backbencher would be elected Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition by a larger margin than Tony Blair they would most likely tell us that we were crazy. That it wasn’t going to happen. But it did.

Similarly if we could go back to last year and tell people that the person coming in second behind Hilary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination would be self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders – and what’s more that a few weeks ago he was within seven percentage points of her in the crucial state of Iowa - once again we would probably be told that we were engaging in a bit of wish fulfilment. But that’s what’s happening.

This is the world we now live in, where the populist politicians who speak their minds, hold to their own views and aren’t tied to the party line seem to be doing well, seem to be being successful, whereas the career politicians and the party loyalists – at least in Labour’s case – can’t break through.

But the question therefore becomes where this populist support come from has. It seems that those who aren’t talking business as usual are finding support that previously was not there.  So what has happened in the intervening years?

Now I’m not saying that the actions of Snowden, Manning and Assange have contributed to this, but over the last few years the various files that have been leaked by Edward Snowden and by Julian Assange through WikiLeaks have revealed several things about world governments and how they have been acting, which while many of them may have been perfectly legitimate, - depending of course on your point of view – has left many people feeling unhappy with the their current governments and how politicians act and behave.

Therefore it makes at least some sense that come the Labour leadership election and the Democratic primaries – the first real opportunity in the last couple of years to change the direction of major governing parties – that those speaking against “business as usual” would start to come out on top. They are tapping into the dissatisfaction that younger people feel about the state of the world, as shown quite starkly in the leaked documents and reminding them that there is another option available.

Now I am not suggesting that this is the only reason for the sudden success of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, nor am I even suggesting that it is the reason. Rather I believe that the actions of Snowden, Manning and Assange contributed in at least some way to the political earthquakes that we now see going on around us and in America.

 

Rhodes' Statue must Stand

Let me start off by stating categorically that I am not a racist in any way and I do not agree with or condone the actions of the apartheid government of South Africa. But I am also someone who has a big big problem with and anyone who thinks we can or should ignore the past.

This is why I have a problem with the campaign to remove Cecil Rhodes’ statue from the front of Oriel College Oxford.

I can understand why of course the students who have started this campaign have started it. I can imagine it must be hard to walk past it every day. But let’s be honest for a minute. If we start taking down every statue in Oxford of someone with a dodgy past or who has done something that will upset someone, then we might as well start taking them all down. To quote Alexander Pope, to err is human. Yes the things Rhodes may have done were bad, but nowhere near as bad as the actions of others.

And let’s look at exactly what he did. While it is claimed that Rhodes is a founder of Apartheid, this is not born out by facts. In fact while it is true that he did enact certain rules during his time as Prime Minister of Cape town, that could be considered the beginnings of Apartheid, such as restricting who could vote in South African elections, he was really only one of the architects. Another was Winston Churchill while he was undersecretary for colonial affaires. And no-one is going to start calling for the removal of Churchill’s statue from Parliament Square are they?

 Rhodes was no more racist or imperialist than anyone else at the upper echelons of British society was at that time. In fact when he died he was buried in what is now Zimbabwe and was the first white man to ever be given the Ndebele people’s royal salute. To argue that because Rhodes held view typical of the time his statue should be taken down is about as fatuous as those suggestions that any buildings or streets in Bristol connected to slaver be renamed. It’s history. It’s our history. We should learn to respect it, even if we aren’t proud of it.

In fact if Rhodes is going to be remembered for anything today, it should be for the scholarship endowment that bears his name. The Rhodes Scholarship is meant to allow students from around the world to come and study at Oxford in the hope that they can return to their native countries and make them better places. In Rhodes words he hoped that the scholarship would help to “render war impossible.” Notable Rhodes scholars include former US President Bill Clinton and Bram Fischer, anti-apartheid activist who incidentally had no problem taking Rhodes’ money and running with it.

I would argue that any sins Rhodes may have committed have long since been paid for by the good work done by Rhodes Scholars. This is what he should be remembered for. As for his statue, it should be left in peace.