International bastards league: new political parlour game
Posted on Thursday 28 January, 2010
Filed Under Industrial relations
IMAGINE a scale that runs from one to ten and measures every independent polity in the world in terms of niceness and nastiness.
At one we have Sweden and Norway, because they are permanently cuddly and welfare statey and social democratic, even when the centre-right gets in.
Singapore occupies the half way point with a score of five, because it is authoritarian while desperately trying to pretend to be a semi-democracy. Trade unionism isn’t exactly encouraged, for instance. But trade union activists are not routinely executed, either.
At ten I have placed Saudi Arabia and Burma, both utterly execrable totalitarian regimes with manifold sins that need no reiteration here.
This scale is not designed as a yardstick of democracy as such, but rather an indefinable property that might be described as a ‘bastardness quotient’. You must know what I mean.
The game is this: commenters are invited to place Cuba, Iran, Israel, Britain and the US at points of their choosing along this continuum, giving reasons for doing so.
When evaluating Cuba, for instance, you have to decide whether the combination of a one-party state, a ban on independent unions, free universal healthcare and the eradication of illiteracy makes the place better or worse than Lee Hsien Loong’s Asian city-state.
Ditto Iran, which some leftwing blogs apparently consider ‘a mature democracy’, despite its repression of peaceful demonstrations by opposition supporters. Does it rank above or below five in your book?
Arab citizens of Israel have all the rights associated with liberal democracies. Yet at the same time, Tel Aviv’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians has rightly attracted the condemnation of liberals and socialists everywhere. What should we conclude?
How about the US and the UK? How far do the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq make them international bastards of the first water? Do you cut them any slack for adherence to broadly free elections and human rights at home?
Over to you. I’ll join the discussion in the comments box.
<<Go back
Comments
70 Responses to “International bastards league: new political parlour game”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Also: out of those countries, we would be able to go online and have this discussion in Israel, the US and UK, but not in Cuba or Iran (well, at least not without risking some sort of state reprisal). Tells you something.
“If you put all of them into a big bag and then hit the bag with a big stick, whichever one of them you hit would deserve it.”
- Franz Beckenbauer
Beckenbauer was talking about the Germnay national football team after a bad performance but I would like to thank him personally for the perfect summation of my attitude to party politics and party politicians.
Jako -
Yes, and we can list the countries in which the adherents of nutty religious groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses can preach unhindered and also those in which it’s legal, and adequately safe, to hold a Gay Pride Parade.
Oddly enough, they tend to be the same sorts of countries.
Shouldn’t whether a country uses capital punishment have some affect on their score?
Mentioning tolerance – even grudging tolerance – of nutty religious groups …
http://sofiaecho.com/2008/09/24/663763_us-state-dept-reports-on-religious-freedom-problems-in-bulgaria
Countries which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes
AFGHANISTAN
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
BAHAMAS
BAHRAIN
BANGLADESH
BARBADOS
BELARUS
BELIZE
BOTSWANA
BURUNDI
CAMEROON
CHAD
CHINA
COMOROS
CONGO (Democratic Republic)
CUBA
DOMINICA
EGYPT
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
ETHIOPIA
GUATEMALA
GUINEA
GUYANA
INDIA
INDONESIA
IRAN
IRAQ
JAMAICA
JAPAN
JORDAN
KAZAKSTAN
KOREA (North)
KUWAIT
LEBANON
LESOTHO
LIBYA
MALAYSIA
MONGOLIA
NIGERIA
OMAN
PAKISTAN
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
QATAR SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS
SAINT LUCIA
SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES
SAUDI ARABIA
SIERRA LEONE
SINGAPORE
SOMALIA
SUDAN
SYRIA
TAIWAN
TAJIKISTAN
THAILAND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
UGANDA
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIET NAM
YEMEN
ZIMBABWE
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries
“Israel – 5 – I’d love to visit Israel one day. When it comes to democracy and human rights, Israel is the best thing going in the region”
Tell that to the Palestinian standing at the checkpoint or the West bank demonstrator being shot at. See how these things are relative.
In Iraq British and US troops were shooting demonstrators in the early months of the overthrow of Saddam.
Anyway it is an interesting game for anyone on the ‘left’ to be playing. In a world of uneven development this game inevitably leads to conservative, reactionary ideas when played in advanced countries as Jako’s comment illustrates. Forget trying to advance our society, forget trying to criticise things about our own society, just be thankful we are not like ‘them’. It almost demands that people stop questioning.
They will be telling us next the Chilcot enquiry is another example of how great our democracy is; after all they don’t have self scrutiny like this in Cuba or China, do they?
This game certainly is fun. Deciding to give the UK a lower ‘bastard’ score than Iran or Cuba = the actions of a reactionary imperialist pig-dog or whatever. Presumably you want to advance British politics and society in a similar direction to Cuba or Iran, and that’s why you’ve got so hot under the collar?
Jako,
What are you on about, I didn’t mark any country, in fact I think I made it clear I thought the game was a bad idea.
“Presumably you want to advance British politics and society in a similar direction to Cuba or Iran”
No but I do want to advance it! Simple minded games like this which takes no account of uneven development, international relations etc etc do not help to advance our society; on the contrary, they aid conservatism and reaction. Maybe that is why you find this game so much fun?
I forgot that I’d best annotate the above list on capital punishment.
Basically means some of those countries, which are favoured by readers here, commit capital punishment for ordinary crimes.
This particular link may illuminate part of the issue:
http://www.worldcoalition.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=373
Acknowledging the flaws that others have outlined, but wanting to have my tuppence-worth anyway, my scores are:
Cuba – 4
Iran – 7
Israel – 4
GB – 3
US – 4
A rather stupid person writes: “They will be telling us next the Chilcot enquiry is another example of how great our democracy is; after all they don’t have self scrutiny like this in Cuba or China, do they?”
The answer, JOHNNO, is… “no”.
Look, we can tie ourselves into knots yapping about the supposed merits and/or shortcomings of countries in which we’ve never tried living, but here are a few simple tests:
* Can one hold Gay Pride parades in the capital city?
* Are nutty academics like Howard Zinn, Edward Said and the ludicrous Chomsky able to hold their jobs in prestigious universities unhindered?
* Is there religious freedom for nutty religious groups like the Unification Church, the Hare Krishnas, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and so on? Can they romp around and try to make new converts?
* Are cultural figures like Billy Bragg and Pete Seeger able to sing pretty much what they like for decades? Do they get on telly and the radio?
* Are there oppositionist parties like the various Trotskyite groups and Anarchist groups and so on that one finds in the USA ?
The list of countries that pass these tests is not a long one but those who pass include Israel and exclude all Muslim countries and quite a few emerging semi-democracies like Bulgaria.
Any comments?
Bill Corr: It seems to you the only qualification for a decent state is freedom of expression. Certainly an important freedom and one all socialists should support, but by no means a blanket used to cover unseemly repressions in other elements of society.
How about this one, does the government support, militarily or financially, states which actively and violently repress the freedom of expression you prize so highly? In the case of America the Answer is a resounding ‘yes’. Chile, Colombia, Iraq etc etc. Throughout the Cold War it freedoms were far higher in America (if you were white…) than they where in Russia, but the upshot of this is America outsourced her human rights abuses. See Prisoner transfers to Libya etc.
Beyond this, there are many other rights your base and simplistic moral outlook ignores. What about the rights of innocent Palestinians killed by Israeli (Made in America) Unmanned Drones? What about the dozens of South Americans killed in the cross fire of gang wars who owe their existence to America’s “War on Drugs”, in America what about the millions of people without health-care, the fact that nobody outside the two mainstream parties has /any/ chance of getting elected, the fact that the supreme court has recently decided it’s okay for corporations to spend as much money as they like financing politics, the fact that America’s bulky undemocratic senate means that one or two senators in the pay of pharmaceutical or oil lobbyists can ruin the chance for millions of people to receive health care, and hold the entire ecosystem of the planet hostage?
And yes, all of this is true at the same time as America having a vibrant and active political culture and better protection of personal freedoms than most of the world (though nearly none of Europe).
Again, though they are obviously flawed, the only counties who have it nearly right enough on the important issues of providing their citizenship with a decent livelihood, controlling inequality, helping to avert the ecological crisis, being a active and moral players in the inter-nation field, protecting their democracy from money, are the Scandinavian countries first, and Spain, France ect a fair bit further down.
Britain, America and Israel have free elections and largely uninhibited press but inflict military horrors on people around the world less wealthy than themselves. Cuba provides it’s citizens with health-care and education, is a contributor to the welfare of neighboring states but repress dissidents and can not provide a high enough standard of living for her citizens (I’m not talking materialism as in wide screen TVs and Campaign lunches, but surely access to the internet, a choice of what to eat etc etc are not bad things). Iran has semi-elections and a semi-welfare state, and certainly needs and American intervention like one need a high speed brick to the back of their head, but neither should their leadership be praised nor socialists apply any but the highest standards to what is acceptable in terms of welfare, democracy, woman’s rights.
Socialists seem to be playing strange games supporting all thing American and Israeli or any dictator who opposes them. We are either for gay rights or the rights of Muslims. This is wrong. We are against oppression of all kinds. We should furiously attack Israel for her policies towards Palestine, furiously attack Anti Semites in the East and West, support gay rights unconditionally and allow no one off the hook for not doing so, but will attack Islamophobia in the media and on the streets. In the end we call for the end of the nation state and the end of religion, and though we work in coalitions we must never forget these end goals or defend our coalition partners from valid attacks on their ideology. We support no state, only movements, features and policies of the state, we argue against military interventions in all but the most necessary cases (Rwanda) and attack blatant falsehoods in the media, this does not equate to supporting repressive regimes (such as Iran or Israel).
With this understanding that we will tolerate no aspect of any regime that goes against our morals we will no longer be divided by those who support Isreal and America on the one hand and the Iraqi Resistance and Hamas on the other, we will fight brutality of the former two (and understand that it is this in large part that creates the latter) while rejecting the theological and reactionary ideology of the latter. With this understanding that we stand for ideals and outcomes, not specific states or religions we can work together in a common moral frame work and attack oppression where ever we see it and build a better world one policy success, one election, one country at a time. Through a long slow process of changing the political systems and culture of the world we can and will get the mass of working people to support the economic system that works to their advantage, not the advantage of the few and rich, and then with, not just a mass movement, but a majority movement, the socialist revolution will work where the impatient vanguard parties did not.
But for this to happen we need to get to the first step, which is getting people who essentially believe of the same things to stop pointing and shouting “No you’re a fascist!”
It’s possible some readers here avoid the Torygraph, so they might have missed this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7105508/Iraq-Inquiry-Unlike-our-boys-Blair-emerged-unscathed.html
Perceptive writing, considering where it was published.
The trouble with using a scale is that whatever criteria you add it is one dimensional. Contradictions simply balance out, so that for example a state which has so far managed to maintain democracy and formal equality for citizens, but rules over neighbours by military force (no names, no packdrill) can come roughly halfway, even when the latter aspect starts to infect the former.
Besides, in whatever country you live it is little consolation when you seek improvement in your lot to be told how fortunate you are not to be living in somewhere worse. But politicians do use that false argument sometimes. As though you were discussing travel plans.
The points system and scale would not even be much good for choosing holidays. “Yes, hell has had its image problems, but on the other hand you can be guaranteed warm temperatures”.
The comparative method is OK as an intellectual exercise, and perhaps an occasional corrective to people who denounce one bad regime while supporting another, worse still, in choosing sides. But it is over used in real politics.
And one is well aware that anti-Zionist Jews, even those – very few – Israeli Jews who have decided that a binational Arab-Jewish state would be a terrificly super idea and the ideal solution to the world’s most intractable problem, are faced with the undeniable reality that every single Arab and Middle Eastern state is a despotism or semi-despotism and that any ‘new’ Arab-Jewish state – if anyone could really begin to imagine such a thing – would become, at best, a semi-despotism very rapidly if only in order to survive against resolute subversion.
Those exiled Kurds who had hopes that a rump Kurdish State ruled from Erbil-Hawler would become a beacon of liberty and an attraction to the far more numerous Kurds beyond the State’s borders have been bitterly disappointed over the last few years.
There ARE Free Kurds publishing Free Kurdistan periodicals, certainly, but they find it safer to stay in Germany, Sweden and so on rather than risk the grim and oppressive realities of the de facto Kurdish State under its sunburst flag.
As to electoral systems, I am – as they say – conflicted. The choice seems to be the American-Brit model of the Tweedledum Party and the Tweedledee Party exchanging the trappings of power or the much fairer-to-small-parties Israeli-Irish model in which a small determined party can end up holding the balance of power and becoming a small tail wagging a much bigger dog.
ScurvyDom mentions the Scandinavian model. This is, or used to be, fine but we need to remember that until very recently those societies were small, well-educated and – an important point here – homogenous societies in which the citizenry regarded themselves as part of a large family with responsibilities as well as rights.
Mass Third World immigration has drastically altered social realities in all four Scandinavian societies and, being decent and generous-hearted Scandinavians, the inevitable social consequences of this appalling development has been a taboo subject until very recently. Self-censorship has become the norm but every Swede, Dane, Norwegian and Finn will readily tell you about the effect the Somalis, Kurds and Arabs have had on crime statistics.
The best single libertarian – leftist source on what happens when free and mainly-homogenous societies admit immense numbers of people with totally different value systems is Bruce Bawer:
http://www.brucebawer.com/
Bawer is an American-born homosexual writer formerly resident in Holland and now living in Norway.
Bawer may inventing his ‘facts’ of course:
http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/product-reviews/0385514727/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
The claim that 65% of rapes in Norway are committed by “non-Western” immigrants – probably not Papuans or Bhutanese, we may assume – is as extravagent as the frequently-heard claim that the Somalis currently enriching Finland are committing at least eight times their “fair share” – so to speak – of robberies.
But we can be certain that Bawer did not invent the deathless quote by Jens Orback, a Swedish government minister [a Social-Democrat, naturally]:
“We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and the Muslims because when we become a minority, they [Muslim immigrants and their descenents] will be so towards us.”
Somalis in Sweden, from a doubleplusungoodthinkful source:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/01/sweden_rattled.php
… but those who look hard can probaly find some heartwarming feel-good kumbaya stories …