Alternative Editorial: Unity and Democracy?
Week 138 of The Shift saw some remarkable changes in mood for those gazing upon the mainstream news headlines. The inauguration of the United States’ 46th President Joe Biden marked a surprisingly calm and joyful transition from the last minute chaos of the 45th administration.
Only a week earlier we had been describing the aftermath of the storming of Capitol Hill described by some as an attempted coup, by others as a protest gotten out of hand, led by people high on the notion of their own mythical destiny. Whatever perspective you took, the tension was high enough for the US authorities to prevent any mass gathering on Jan 20th. Instead of people, the space for patriotic gathering was occupied by flags – itself an illustration of the extreme times we live in.
There is nothing directly comparable to an American inauguration in our UK ceremonies which are either on a much smaller or much grander scale. A new UK Prime Minister only gets a few triumphant phrases in front of the paparazzi gathered at 10 Downing Street. On the other hand, a new monarch – not seen since 1953 – is installed with the kind of pomp and grandeur that makes the events at the Capitol seem parochial. On our occasions everyone - citizens and civil servants, even to some extent the monarch and family – are reduced to the status of ant-like subjects to the institution of the Crown.
What all these ceremonies have in common however is the call to unity made by the newly elected: an attempt to put firmly in the past the pain generated by the road to their appointments. In the case of the politicians, these new leaders are also the manufacturers of the divisions they are now trying to sweep away. Until their moment of triumph they have been actively calling upon a section of the electorate to beat the rest, often unscrupulously. While all politicians would claim to represent the whole country, it is often the case that their visceral dislike of the opposition they face extends to their voters – and that culture is replicated throughout the media. The call for unity takes advantage of a populace exhausted by the political culture they are obliged to occupy.
More obviously perhaps, the Royal Family upholds a social hierarchy upon which our ongoing class divisions are founded. Can we ever become an equal society when there is still, to this day, an unshakeable landed aristocracy occupying the top level of power – even above our elected representatives? With the rest of society self-organising through its degrees of separation from that level: upper class, middle, lower middle… woefully inadequate categories that have been called out again and again, yet persist. Any call for unity from that platform can only be a call for conservation of a society where everyone ‘knows their place’ in the discrete realms.
Alongside these calls for unity in the political sphere is the claim that democracy always pulls through. This time, recalling the shenanigans of the last month. by the skin of its teeth. Who remembers the 45th President celebrating the same thing at his inauguration despite his win – and Boris Johnson’s soon after – being heavily tainted by the distorting effects of technology and the evidence of Russian influence ?
That bravura claim prompted some humility on our part too as we recalled the three plus years of a British polity challenging the results of the democratic Brexit referendum. Until the very last moment, a large section of the population – and their representative politicians - were still demanding a re-run. Did Remainers looks as deluded to Leavers as Trumpists did to the majority of Democrats? Everyone claiming to be the protectors of our democracy?
It’s hard, given the above, not to conclude that either we are for most parts hypocrites or that we can’t see that the unity and democracy we truly champion cannot be achieved within the current structures and culture. We cannot come together meaningfully under a system built on competing parties invested in each other’s failure. There is no democracy without meaningful participation with room for deliberation by the people. Developments in either of these areas would bring along with them massive social and cultural changes that would also change the economic status quo. Maybe the very thing those currently in charge cannot afford.
On a similar theme of major change but on another media planet, we learnt that on 22nd January 2021 nuclear weapons became illegal as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons finally came into international law. What on earth? How could we not have read about that on the front pages of all our newspapers. This is surely fake news!
Instead this is a genuine and accurate news item, described here on Greenpeace’s website:
In 2010, ICAN started working with some governments to promote a process at the UN to negotiate a legally binding instrument to ban nuclear weapons. On 7 July 2017, an overwhelming majority of States (122) adopted the TPNW. By 24 October 2020, 50 countries signed and ratified it which ensured the Treaty enters into force 90 days later. So today, 22 January 2021, nuclear weapons (became) illegal!
The first assembly of the state parties will be held in the next 12 months, probably in Austria.
What does the Treaty’s entry into force mean? What will change, and what won’t?
Nuclear weapons have always been immoral. Now, they are also classified as illegal, just like chemical and biological weapons. This is a major shift as it will bring about a change in the public perception of these weapons. The TPNW is not symbolic. Rather, it is binding given the many forms of prohibition (production, possession, use, transfer, threat of use, etc.) established.
What are the repercussions for the nine nuclear armed states (US, UK, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea)?
None of the nuclear armed states have signed the Treaty. They have even tried, unsuccessfully, to block it. As long as they refuse to sign, the Treaty does not apply to them directly – but it does make it much harder for them to justify their opposition. They can expect to face increasing international criticism, as well as internal political pressure.
The Treaty will also have a significant impact on financial institutions (pension funds and banks) because the Treaty also bans the financing of nuclear weapons systems. By investing in nuclear arms, these institutions have played a major role in the threat of a nuclear Armageddon.
They will now have to choose to endorse or reject this new standard: if they decide to reject it, they run the risk of tarnishing their image and becoming unpopular with their clients. Financial bodies of countries (Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden, for example) which do not support the TPNW have already made the decision to disinvest, which demonstrates the extent of the Treaty’s impact.
One of the principal reasons this law came into being was the steadily growing popular call for it. The demand for abolishing American nuclear weapons where they are hosted in Europe varies from 62% in the Netherlands to 70% in Italy. In the US itself only 32% feel they should ignore the TPNW initiative and as many as 70% of Democrats – the new US majority – are in favour of elimination. Overall, strongest support comes from women (52%), those aged 55 or over (53%), those on the West Coast (54%), Hispanics (56%), those with a four year college degree (61%).
What are we to make of these parallel worlds of decision making? The first an old political system which upholds the failure of politicians to deliver on their own intentions. The second that works steadily, year after year with public opinion to establish new international law, yet is ignored by the mainstream? It’s clear that we can’t easily subsume one into the other.
However, it might be that we need to pay more and more attention to the latter as information about what is possible about our collective futures.