Of Politicans, Careerists, and Statesmen

After many months of absence, and many happenings on which I hold an opinion and failed to write (e.g. tuition fees, Wikileaks), I came across this long-running issue, or rather these two inter-connected issues. Since the introduction of salaries for MPs in 1911, there has been the question of whether politics should be treated as any other professional employment, or whether it is wrong to treat the highest level of public service as a career. Loosely connected to this is the idea of statesmanship - the idea of those holding public office conducting themselves with a sense of mission and responsibility. Many argue that we should root out careerist politicians so as to promote a statesman-like approach to governance. But can we separate the three - careerists, politicians, statesmen - or do they necessarily appear together in a political system such as ours?

Many people assume that any student reading politics and international relations, like myself, necessarily wants to become an MP, and are sometimes surprised when told otherwise. Yet despite this assumption, many see 'professional politicians' as a Bad Thing, as one of many factors that make politics uninteresting, and politicians unrepresentative or detached from 'real' people. But is there not something strange about this attitude? As one of my close friends challenges, why should we treat someone who wants to spend their life working in politics (such as himself) as any different to one who wished to work in finance? The argument is, of course, that democratic politics is not the same as finance or any other career. It is argued that denouncing the professionalism of politicians is justified because it is good for the country and its citizens if those in charge have some experience of how their decisions will affect others. Yet arguably people working high up in non-governmental positions, especially finance, have an equally narrow experience of the wider world. In addition, they tend to be more self-serving, so encouraging a stint in non-political employment for potential politicians does not equal better or more experienced rulers.

But where do we draw the line between professional politician and careerist? It is surely harmful for the country to be ruled by a group of politicians who are concerned chiefly with self-advancement. Holding the reins of public office or working in government service, in whatever department, is a huge responsibility. It is not the same as any other profession, as no other profession can have such an impact on the everyday lives of all citizens, nor indeed receive so much unpopularity for trying to achieve compromise. In other professions, careerism is problematic as individuals focus on their promotion rather than the collective or long-term good. In democratic politics, however, the problem can be seen to be deeper than promotion, as the ultimate aim is to win elections. Clearly elections are necessary, but they have the tendency to promote careerism within the field of politics, as each reform a government may see as necessary comes under scrutiny as to how it would play out at elections.

All this would suggest we need to promote the ideal of 'statesmanship'. Harry Truman referred to a statesman as "a politician who has been dead for 15 years", but that need not be the case. Perhaps a better distinction is that, as Mikhail Gorbachev said, "a statesman does what he believes is best for his country, a politician does what best gets him re-elected". In a political system such as ours, with its previously mentioned emphasis on elections, true statesmen tend to be few and far between. The picture at the top of this article is of Lord Curzon as Viceroy of India (he served from 1898-1905), someone who was recognised at the time of his Viceroyalty as acting in the interests of the people of India and also of the Empire. But Curzon is at the same time a prime example of how our system discourages statesman-like behaviour. After his return from India he was cast out into the wilderness, and although he entered the Cabinet in 1915 and served as a successful Foreign Secretary from 1919-24, he was never able to attain the premiership. Personal faults aside, he was simply out-manoeuvred by politicians such as Stanley Baldwin and David Lloyd George, and attacked by careerists such as Kitchener. Statesmen, it would seem, find it hard to climb the greasy pole of politics.

So in recognition of all this, should we give up on the seemingly unattainable ideal of the statesman in favour of Machiavelli's Prince? Not wholly - what is needed is a more realistic view. The world of politics is not cleanly divided into separate categories - one need only look at Winston Churchill for proof. He entered politics as a way to further his career, before being recognised as a consummate politician after his defection to the Liberal Party and then back to the Conservatives. His war record speaks for itself, and he was awarded a knighthood and a state funeral in recognition of his service as a statesman. There are a few who attain statesmanship early in their career, but on the whole it appears to be a badge associated with longevity and experience. Therefore we should recognise that we need professional politicians in order to breed statesmen - that in contrast to the popular view, working in politics for one's entire life is beneficial for the people and the country, even if it is a thankless task.

The Eastern Question

In the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, the 'Eastern Question' was a hot topic among Western powers. Now, over the last 18 months or so, Turkey has again been garnering a lot of international attention, beginning with Prime Minister Erdogan (pictured, with David Cameron) walking out of the Davos forum last year in protest at Israel's Gaza operations, through to voting against sanctions on Iran in a recent UN Security Council meeting. Actions such as these, together with increasingly close ties with Russia and China, have led to the perception that Turkey is 'looking eastwards' after decades (or indeed centuries) of Westernisation. For many this appears to be a cause for concern, a symbol of the decline of Western economies and a country turning away from those that were previously its allies (most obviously Israel). There also appears to be a perception prevalent in the media that Turkey's government is turning the country away from liberal values and instead paving the way to Islamisation (One of the more extreme articles can be seen at
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6171324/weep-for-britain-1940-this-is-not.thtml).

However, those somewhat acquainted with Turkish current affairs can draw different conclusions, which point to a far more optimistic picture.

The charge of an illiberal and Islamist government agenda is somewhat ludicrous. The so-called 'evidence' for backing up such doom-mongering appears chiefly to be that the current government is made up of moderate Muslims, and that there was an attempt a couple of years ago to allow headscarves to be worn in public institutions which resulted in a backlash. When properly looked at rather than screamed hysterically, however, these points seem to support the idea of the progression of liberal democracy in Turkey, not the reverse. Take a look at the government. The ruling AK Party was elected in 2003 on a mandate to improve the economy and begin EU accession talks. It has delivered on both these fronts, opening EU talks in 2005 and bringing in a string of economic reforms. As a result, Turkey has seen a phenomenal turnaround in its economy, with FDI increasing exponentially, hyperinflation tamed in a couple of years and GDP per capita increasing nearly tenfold over 10 years. Yet the government has not only tackled economic problems, but has been the first since the inception of the Republic to seriously tackle democratic issues. Amongst other changes, it has set a date for a referendum on a raft of proposed changes to the country's constitution, drawn up after a 1980 coup by the army (which, it transpires, engineered the anarchy which provided the pretext for a takeover). All this by the same government that is apparently made up of 'Islamic extremists'. A supposed example of the 'covert Islamism' charge levelled at the AK government was the attempt to remove restrictions on wearing headscarves in public workplaces such as universities, which led to an uproar amongst 'secularists' who perceived it as an assault on the Republic's values. In fact, the ban was only introduced in 1997 after pressure from the country's army, and its removal represents a step towards the tolerant attitudes Turkey's detractors say it lacks. The AK Party has to be given credit for turning a developing country into a G20 member and working to enhance Turkish democracy.

Very well, say some: Turkey has improved massively at home, but what about its foreign policy? It has courted Iran whilst aggravating Israel, they say; surely that's proof of a negative 'eastwards' shift in outlook? Again, one must look at this objectively. Turkey voted against further sanctions on Iran because it believed they would serve no good purpose. Sanctions cannot stop the possession of nuclear weapons by a regime bent on acquiring them; if anything, they will serve as an incentive to increase efforts to get hold of them. Far better to try and integrate Iran into the international community, especially as the country shares a border with Turkey. The anti-Israel sentiment displayed recently can be attributed to several factors. The first is the shooting of 9 Turkish citizens on board an aid ship bound for Gaza; the second is the perceived obstruction of the Israeli government in achieving an Israel-Palestine settlement, which agitates Turkey's neighbours such as Syria; and the third is a feeling of responsibility towards those in Gaza, partly for historical reasons. Most importantly, neither the current friendliness towards Iran nor the antipathy towards Israel is likely to become a permanent state of affairs, as it would not be in Turkey's interest to make it so.

So what are Turkey's interests? Given the country's economic resurgence, there is a clear incentive to become a strong regional player to boost trade with neighbours in both the Near East and Eastern Europe - dubbed by some in the Turkish media as 'neo-Ottomanism'. Yet it is also in the EU's interest to have a strong Turkey in these regions, to act as mediator between the West and the East, and to defuse tensions wherever possible. Already Turkey acts as mediator between Iran and America, and Israel and Palestine. Recently, Turkish money and diplomacy has been flowing into the Balkans, an area controlled by the Ottomans for 400 years which saw damaging fighting after their retreat in the late-19th and early-20th century. Indeed, some of the worst and most lasting conflicts of the 20th century can be traced to the lack of a strong Turkey to deal with problems - the Balkans and the Israeli-Palestinian struggles the most prominent. After many frustrated years spent pursuing EU membership, it is not surprising (and not a bad thing) that Turkey has begun concentrating on shoring up its regional base and restoring historical ties with former occupied countries. It is an approach that benefits all sides, and one that Britain, with its Commonwealth links and shared history and democracy with former 'Dominions', could learn from.

Looked at objectively, therefore, it's no exaggeration to say that Turkey has not been in such a good position for 400 years. Back in the days of the Ottoman Empire, campaigns were begun with the planting of a standard of horsetails in the battlefield. Today, the Empire has become a Republic and the battlefield has been replaced with the trading region. For the first time since the Ottoman days, however, the horsetails are in the East; Turkey is once more ascendant; and as such the West should be focussing on greeting it as a rising power and an ally, not lecturing.

NHS Reform - Tory policy in a nutshell

This week has seen the announcement of what is being billed as the biggest shake-up of the NHS since its inception. Whilst this would seem to be an overstatement, what is very interesting and seems to have been neglected is how the plans serve as a blueprint for the Tory project as a whole.

The government has said that they want the bulk of responsibility for the £80bn NHS budget to be held by groups of GPs, as they are said to know what works best, and so are best placed to improve NHS efficiency and save money. This will be overseen by an independent board to avoid political intervention, separate from the Department of Health, which could in future concentrate on public health instead. The cynics have already talked of GPs ignorant of how to manage such large budgets and the confusion such a large shake-up will bring to an institution already in a state of 'permanent revolution'.

Yet what most people seem to have overlooked is that the plans being put in place for the NHS are not a one-off initiative, but a model which the government hopes to extend into many areas currently regarded as government-run. Indeed, we have already seen something similar in education with the academies announcement that has been causing a stir. This model is not merely a policy initiative but an attempt at fundamentally changing the way we expect to run our services, as fundamental as the privatisations of the 1980s.

The broad outline of the Conservative model is this: take a service that is currently run through central government such as education or health; abolish various layers of management and bureaucracy that have grown up over the years; give power and budgets instead to front-line staff and recipients of the service. This will usually be accompanied by an opening-up of the sector to some form of private enterprise, either through foundation status or getting individuals or businesses to set up services in the sector with government encouragement.

So far we have seen the outline of such a model in health and education, but they could easily go further. Sectors such as transport could see a similar initiative, with services run by local people in a consortium under an independent public body. The idea could produce new models in the private sector, with more partnership-based retailers such as John Lewis or even changing the face of retail banking through the introduction of truly local co-operative banks.

The optimists may cheer and the cynics may sneer, but one thing is for certain: the model is as bold as it is risky. It has the potential to change the way we expect our services to run, create a new localism and to engender a true people's capitalism through getting everyone involved in running the services they use. For the country's sake, let's hope it succeeds.

Inaugural Post

So I finally decided to start one of these new-fangled 'blogs' (or as I prefer to call them, web logs) to give my views on British and world affairs and delude myself that someone cares about them. I'll probably spend the next few days trying to come up with an article, or post or whatever you call it, on a topical current affairs issue, which I hope someone will find the time to read.

The main purpose of this blog is to provide a commentary/analysis/insight into current affairs, and topics will mostly be focussed on British and international politics, economics and other such real-world issues. If by any chance you come across this blog and want to contribute as an author, please feel free to contact me about it.