One of the most telling criticisms of Blair’s New Labour government (and of other Third Way-esque politicians and parties) is its more than latent authoritarianism. Rarely is this discussed within its structural context (though there’s plenty of discussion of liberalism versus communitarianism). A recent article in the London Review of Books describes the Home Office as “the great Heart of Darkness in British government”. As the Blair government moves to restrict citizens’ rights in the name of fighting terrorism, and demonises immigrants and asylum seekers, it’s instructive to remember that almost thirty years ago, the celebrated British historian E. P. Thompson wrote in a short essay called “The Secret State”:
The national crisis - the State of Emergency - the deployment of armed forces - the attempts to induce panic on the national media - the identification of some out-group as a ‘threat to security’ - all these are becoming part of the normal repertoire of power.
The German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt, at once the Twentieth Century’s greatest “teacher of evil” (to adopt a Straussian phrase) and one of its most acute analysts of power, captured the essence of sovereignty in this sentence: “sovereign is he who decides on the exception”. In other words, the sovereign and its apparatus both sit at the top of the law and are also outside it at their will. It’s not only Richard Nixon who could claim “executive privilege” and “national security” as justification for breaking the law. States necessarily break their own laws in pursuit of their security. And as Walter Benjamin wrote in response to Schmitt in his Theses on the Philosophy of History:
The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ’state of emergency’ in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight.
This is why the beginning of any democratic counter to overweening power is holding Liberalism to its claims regarding the liberty of the subject and the rule of law. And that’s a necessary beginning, now more than ever. To quote Thompson again:
Of course, there are historical precedents for all these things; but never before, since 1816, has government been able to employ this repertoire without inflaming the nerves of outrage and resistance in a minority - a minority which by patient agitation and political education, has often often been able to influence the majority, and, in the long run, secure some reversal to the pretensions of power. What is new, in the last two decades, is the dulling of the nerve of resistance and outrage. Familiarity has bred contempt - not contempt for the state and the specious alarms and rationalisations of power, but contempt for any possible alternative. And in this moment a new danger appears.
We are still living in that moment.
spot on.
Blair’s behaviour ought to be of central concern.
if we’re exporting ‘democracy and freedom’ abroad, what are we practising at home.
a party machine that underpins this autocracy; inherited weaknesses of the British state structure from pre-democratic times; and a supportive or limp-wristed media.
the last episode in which Blair failed to inform relevant ministers of Bush’s choice of WOlfowitz as head of the WOrld Bank sums it up. This man is an autocrat.
EP Thompson’s comments are really nothing new. The Roman emperors were using the same tactics in the first century CE; so did medieval rulers. It’s divide and conquer tactics that are as old as the state.
I didn’t know that about Blair and Wolfowitz, farthington - that’s a worry.
Alex, yes, that’s Benjamin’s point. But what’s new in modernity is a liberal theory (and to some degree practice) that seeks to open the windows on the secrecy of the state. That’s what we’ve got to keep reinforcing.
One other interesting aspect of Thompson’s paper I didn’t bring out in the post was how deeply libertarian late Eighteenth century and Nineteenth century working class movements were.
The Swiss have Canton voting or is it city voting to determine for example how many refugees will be allowed to stay in that area, binding on their government, I believe.
Imagine it, with the technology available, via internet, encrypted same as the new secure banking online system in Europe, CLICK YES OR NO TO THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION (OR INTENTION TO GO TO WAR) (excluding budget bills.) PLUS ADD YOUR COMMENTS.
Going to war in Iraq, answer………………….NO…..(F.O.)
Anti-Terrorism Act 2002,2003, answer……NO…..(F.O.)
(provision to detain kids for a week)
Release kids from detention centres………YES…..NOW
Declare war on China over Taiwan………….NO …..(F.O.x 1000)
Increased Salaries for Fed Pollies…………….NO…NEVER
Senate enquiry on Iraqi WMD, torture……….GUILTY OF LYING—RESIGN !
If sovereignty rests in the people, which has been proclaimed since the Australia Act 1986 by the High Court, we should be demanding this sort of participation and stop the rot as described above, then we will really see on an issue by issue basis, what mandate a government really has. Gov for the people not for the berluddy politicians.
The problem with that suggestion is two-fold. It requires access to technology, which most people would not be able to afford. Secondly, it requires a time committment (to consider the issue and become reasonably informed) that most people are unable (although possibly willing) to make, due to financial restrictions.
Direct democracy works in small societies. I’d agree to this kind of micromanagement for local councils, particularly if the “megacouncils” that are the trend these days were recinded.
It is a nice idea, but for the reasons Alex cited it would not be viable as anything other than an opinion poll, if that.
” time committment (to consider the issue and become reasonably informed) that most people are unable (although possibly willing) to make, due to financial restrictions.”
Financial restrictions? Never heard that one before. Please explain.
I think it he mean it would take time to get informed on the issues. Time = money.
“I think it he mean it would take time to get informed on the issues. Time = money.”
But many find the time to be very informed on footy tipping comps, which celebrity is fucking who and what mobile ringtones they should get next.
For my money, minimum state liberalism is the Golden Thread, based on free trade under the rule of law, etc. For reasons that I don’t understand that tradition went missing in the 1930s so it had to be revived from near-death in recent times. And look at the reaction it received in Australia!.
http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/index.php?p=747
NOne of the contributors to the direct democracy debate appear to have seen Kevin Billington’s 1970 The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer, starring eter Cook.
Direct democracy proves to be so tiresome to the masses that they hand over responsibility to Cook and a dictatorship ensues. Brilliant.
Still, if one has to live under a dictator Peter COok would be high up the list of possibilities.
As for Rafe’s minimum state liberalism based on free trade. It never existed. Something to which that label was attached was called the British Empire, but naturally that Empire fizzled out. It also depended upon a pre-democratic age. Once universal franchise comes in the door, minimum state liberalism (so-called) goes out the window.