Profile: Elizabeth Pisani

Elizabeth Pisani is an epidemiologist, who has spent a decade specialising in HIV/Aids. Lucy Knight

Early Life

Born in 1964 to an American father and an English mother, Elizabeth Pisani found herself placed in a number of different British schools throughout Europe.

Eventually her family arrived in Dorset where she took her O-levels. She then attended a sixth form college in Richmond. It was probably the peripatetic existence while growing up that left Pisani with itchy feet - a desire not be settled. “I’m lucky really to have been able to live in different countries that could make me curious." At 18 her parents moved to the States, where her brother stayed.

And then she became acquainted with the East. “I visited a school friend who was living in Hong Kong and I absolutely loved it. The energy and the bustle were somehow similar to New York where I’d been spending a lot of time, but it was also totally unlike anything else I’d known. Up until that point home had been wherever we were living but here was my first sense of foreignness. I was taken with the idea that there was a quarter of humanity in one country and that I couldn’t communicate with them.” She then later made a bet with someone that she’d read Chinese at Oxford. And what is her Chinese like now? “Well, I can speak it when it comes to discussing the contraction of Aids but then I’ll have trouble remembering the word for spoon.”

Journalism

Once she had her MA she spent time travelling around China and Tibet. It was from there, after considerable ‘wandering’, that she joined Reuters as a graduate trainee in Hong Kong. During the 80s and 90s she work in bureaux in China, Delhi, then Indonesia. “The bureaux I was working in were very small and so I got to cover all sorts of stories.” These ranged from Tiananmen Square to the Indonesian stock market.

And Indonesia got under her skin. She says now it remains a very big part of her life. It was while here that Pisani became interested in population. “The countries I had worked in were three of the then five most populated in the world and I was not enjoying being stuck to a desk. And decided to go learn something new.”

While taking her MSc in medical demography at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Pisani discovered epidemiology. “I did both for a while when I went back to Vietnam, writing reports and so on but then I just drifted more and more into the HIV work.” She then also took a PhD in infectious diseases.

Epidemiology

Pisani began a 10 year career working in the field of Aids prevention. “What drew me in? Sex and drugs! Well, I’m interested in politics and how the world works and Aids brings these things together.”

Pisani started at the Centre for Population Studies, working independently for the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and then for several Asian charities.

In Asia, Pisani became involved in research of sexually transmitted infections and sexual and drug-taking behaviours in Indonesia, East Timor, Bangladesh, the Philippines and China; discovering that sex and drugs were the major contributory factor to a global epidemic.

“Effective epidemiology is not unlike investigative journalism, the skill base is similar and so I was good at it.”

But the results aren't necessarily that, well, sexy. Pisani feels that her battle has been dealing with governments and publics that want to hear the quirky facts. “In epidemiology you look for the normal. And I cannot tell you how many people have come up to me and said ‘oh men in Africa spread it by fucking virgins because they think it will cure them!’ It drives me mad because that is not the reason why several million people on one continent have it.” As she writes in her book - 'The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of AIDS' - "HIV is mostly about people doing stupid things in the pursuit of pleasure or money".

Sex and Drugs

For Pisani the challenge was changing what was driving public policy on Aids prevention. Rather than look at the driving force - sex and drugs - governments instead preferred the sanitised causes like “migration, gender, poverty and development”.

These were the criteria to gain funding. Pisani found an industry hemmed in by political correctness. And she is controversial, refusing to hold back on Africa either. In a recent BBC interview she remarked: “’Africans have a lot of sex’ there I’ve said it!”

On sex workers she is not about to say the oldest profession should be curtailed, rather legalised and regulated. “Plenty of men and women choose to sell sex”.

Pisani is of the belief that Islam and Christianity have been obstructive in the fight against Aids.

The latter, she argues, has been one of the single biggest influences on HIV policy in the US.

And, as she said earlier this year, “policies based in morality, not reality, don’t work”.

The President's Emergency Plan For Aids Relief (Pepfar), has put $65bn into the industry but only for those who sign up to certain conditions, such as condemning prostitution.

Pisani believes the millions of dollars that goes on treatment are also part of the problem.

In an interview with the Guardian earlier this year she said: “You only have to look at the experience of the UK or US gay communities where we've had more or less universal access to ARVs (antiretroviral drugs) for at least eight or nine years, and the number of new infections are rising.

"More people are living longer with HIV, and there is what we call behavioural disinhibition: 'Fuck the condoms; I don't need them any more, because if he's positive he'll be on drugs, so he probably won't infect me. And if I do get infected, it would be annoying, but not the end of the world.'

The book

“It has been, interestingly, essentially big noise but it’s a generalised sigh of relief. I’ve been a bit of a drama queen but there are a lot in the industry that have said it for a long time, it’s just I’ve packaged it in a different form.” The establishment may react by saying that Pisani has said nothing new but she replies with “well why is nothing changing?”

“I don’t think of myself as a campaigner or an activist. There are lots of people working hard and are frustrated. I just get impatient. I’m probably better placed as, well, as a hack.”

And the prevention of Aids? She wants clean needles and condoms, that is her simple solution. As she told the Guardian: “I don't get how it's OK to keep someone alive once they're sick - but not OK to stop them getting sick. I just don't get that."

Elizabeth Pisani is the author of 'The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of AIDS'

Show Hide image

Why Jeremy Corbyn is a new leader for the New Times

In an inspired election campaign, he confounded his detractors and showed that he was – more than any other leader – in tune with the times.

There have been two great political turning points in postwar Britain. The first was in 1945 with the election of the Attlee government. Driven by a popular wave of determination that peacetime Britain would look very different from the mass unemployment of the 1930s, and built on the foundations of the solidaristic spirit of the war, the Labour government ushered in full employment, the welfare state (including the NHS) and nationalisation of the basic industries, notably coal and the railways. It was a reforming government the like of which Britain had not previously experienced in the first half of the 20th century. The popular support enjoyed by the reforms was such that the ensuing social-democratic consensus was to last until the end of the 1970s, with Tory as well as Labour governments broadly operating within its framework.

During the 1970s, however, opposition to the social-democratic consensus grew steadily, led by the rise of the radical right, which culminated in 1979 in the election of Margaret Thatcher’s first government. In the process, the Thatcherites redefined the political debate, broadening it beyond the rather institutionalised and truncated forms that it had previously taken: they conducted a highly populist campaign that was for individualism and against collectivism; for the market and against the state; for liberty and against trade unionism; for law and order and against crime.

These ideas were dismissed by the left as just an extreme version of the same old Toryism, entirely failing to recognise their novelty and therefore the kind of threat they posed. The 1979 election, followed by Ronald Reagan’s US victory in 1980, began the neoliberal era, which remained hegemonic in Britain, and more widely in the West, for three decades. Tory and Labour governments alike operated within the terms and by the logic of neoliberalism. The only thing new about New Labour was its acquiescence in neoliberalism; even in this sense, it was not new but derivative of Thatcherism.

The financial crisis of 2007-2008 marked the beginning of the end of neoliberalism. Unlike the social-democratic consensus, which was undermined by the ideological challenge posed by Thatcherism, neoliberalism was brought to its knees not by any ideological alternative – such was the hegemonic sway of neoliberalism – but by the biggest financial crisis since 1931. This was the consequence of the fragility of a financial sector left to its own devices as a result of sweeping deregulation, and the corrupt and extreme practices that this encouraged.

The origin of the crisis lay not in the Labour government – complicit though it was in the neoliberal indulgence of the financial sector – but in the deregulation of the banking sector on both sides of the Atlantic in the 1980s. Neoliberalism limped on in the period after 2007-2008 but as real wages stagnated, recovery proved a mirage, and, with the behaviour of the bankers exposed, a deep disillusionment spread across society. During 2015-16, a populist wave of opposition to the establishment engulfed much of Europe and the United States.

Except at the extremes – Greece perhaps being the most notable example – the left was not a beneficiary: on the contrary it, too, was punished by the people in the same manner as the parties of the mainstream right were. The reason was straightforward enough. The left was tarnished with the same brush as the right: almost everywhere social-democratic parties, albeit to varying degrees, had pursued neoliberal policies. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair became – and presented themselves as – leaders of neoliberalism and as enthusiastic advocates of a strategy of hyper-globalisation, which resulted in growing inequality. In this fundamental respect these parties were more or less ­indistinguishable from the right.

***

The first signs of open revolt against New Labour – the representatives and evangelists of neoliberal ideas in the Labour Party – came in the aftermath of the 2015 ­election and the entirely unpredicted and overwhelming victory of Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership election. Something was happening. Yet much of the left, along with the media, summarily dismissed it as a revival of far-left entryism; that these were for the most part no more than a bunch of Trots. There is a powerful, often overwhelming, tendency to see new phenomena in terms of the past. The new and unfamiliar is much more difficult to understand than the old and familiar: it requires serious intellectual effort and an open and inquiring mind. The left is not alone in this syndrome. The right condemned the 2017 Labour Party manifesto as a replica of Labour’s 1983 manifesto. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

That Corbyn had been a veteran of the far left for so long lent credence to the idea that he was merely a retread of a failed past: there was nothing new about him. In a brilliant election campaign, Corbyn not only gave the lie to this but also demonstrated that he, far more than any of the other party leaders, was in tune with the times, the candidate of modernity.

Crises, great turning points, new conjunctures, new forms of consciousness are by definition incubators of the new. That is one of the great sources of their fascination. We can now see the line of linkage between the thousands of young people who gave Corbyn his overwhelming victory in the leadership election in 2015 and the millions of young people who were enthused by his general election campaign in 2017. It is no accident that it was the young rather than the middle-aged or the seniors who were in the vanguard: the young are the bearers and products of the new, they are the lightning conductors of change. Their elders, by contrast, are steeped in old ways of thinking and doing, having lived through and internalised the values and norms of neoliberalism for more than 30 years.

Yet there is another, rather more important aspect to how we identify the new, namely the way we see politics and how politics is conceived. Electoral politics is a highly institutionalised and tribal activity. There have been, as I argued earlier, two great turning points in postwar politics: the social-democratic era ushered in by the 1945 Labour government and the neoliberal era launched by the Tory government in 1979.

The average Tory MP or activist, no doubt, would interpret history primarily in terms of Tory and Labour governments; Labour MPs and activists would do similarly. But this is a superficial reading of politics based on party labels which ignores the deeper forces that shape different eras, generate crises and result in new paradigms.

Alas, most political journalists and columnists are afflicted with the same inability to distinguish the wood (an understanding of the deeper historical forces at work) from the trees (the day-to-day manoeuvring of parties and politicians). In normal times, this may not be so important, because life continues for the most part as before, but at moments of great paradigmatic change it is absolutely critical.

If the political journalists, and indeed the PLP, had understood the deeper forces and profound changes now at work, they would never have failed en masse to rise above the banal and predictable in their assessment of Corbyn. Something deep, indeed, is happening. A historical era – namely, that of neoliberalism – is in its death throes. All the old assumptions can no longer be assumed. We are in new territory: we haven’t been here before. The smart suits long preferred by New Labour wannabes are no longer a symbol of success and ambition but of alienation from, and rejection of, those who have been left behind; who, from being ignored and dismissed, are in the process of moving to the centre of the political stage.

Corbyn, you may recall, was instantly rejected and ridiculed for his sartorial style, and yet we can now see that, with a little smartening, it conveys an authenticity and affinity with the times that made his style of dress more or less immune from criticism during the general election campaign. Yet fashion is only a way to illustrate a much deeper point.

The end of neoliberalism, once so hegemonic, so commanding, is turning Britain on its head. That is why – extraordinary when you think about it – all the attempts by the right to dismiss Corbyn as a far-left extremist failed miserably, even proved counterproductive, because that was not how people saw him, not how they heard him. He was speaking a language and voicing concerns that a broad cross-section of the public could understand and identify with.

***

The reason a large majority of the PLP was opposed to Corbyn, desperate to be rid of him, was because they were still living in the neoliberal era, still slaves to its ideology, still in thrall to its logic. They knew no other way of thinking or political being. They accused Corbyn of being out of time when in fact it was most of the PLP – not to mention the likes of Mandelson and Blair – who were still imprisoned in an earlier historical era. The end of neoliberalism marks the death of New Labour. In contrast, Corbyn is aligned with the world as it is rather than as it was. What a wonderful irony.

Corbyn’s success in the general election requires us to revisit some of the assumptions that have underpinned much political commentary over the past several years. The turmoil in Labour ranks and the ridiculing of Corbyn persuaded many, including on the left, that Labour stood on the edge of the abyss and that the Tories would continue to dominate for long into the future. With Corbyn having seized the political initiative, the Tories are now cast in a new light. With Labour in the process of burying its New Labour legacy and addressing a very new conjuncture, then the end of neoliberalism poses a much more serious challenge to the Tories than it does the Labour Party.

The Cameron/Osborne leadership was still very much of a neoliberal frame of mind, not least in their emphasis on austerity. It would appear that, in the light of the new popular mood, the government will now be forced to abandon austerity. Theresa May, on taking office, talked about a return to One Nation Toryism and the need to help the worst-off, but that has never moved beyond rhetoric: now she is dead in the water.

Meanwhile, the Tories are in fast retreat over Brexit. They held a referendum over the EU for narrowly party reasons which, from a national point of view, was entirely unnecessary. As a result of the Brexit vote, the Cameron leadership was forced to resign and the Brexiteers took de facto command. But now, after the election, the Tories are in headlong retreat from anything like a “hard Brexit”. In short, they have utterly lost control of the political agenda and are being driven by events. Above all, they are frightened of another election from which Corbyn is likely to emerge as leader with a political agenda that will owe nothing to neoliberalism.

Apart from Corbyn’s extraordinary emergence as a leader who understands – and is entirely comfortable with – the imperatives of the new conjuncture and the need for a new political paradigm, the key to Labour’s transformed position in the eyes of the public was its 2017 manifesto, arguably its best and most important since 1945. You may recall that for three decades the dominant themes were marketisation, privatisation, trickle-down economics, the wastefulness and inefficiencies of the state, the incontrovertible case for hyper-globalisation, and bankers and financiers as the New Gods.

Labour’s manifesto offered a very different vision: a fairer society, bearing down on inequality, a more redistributive tax system, the centrality of the social, proper funding of public services, nationalisation of the railways and water industry, and people as the priority rather than business and the City. The title captured the spirit – For the Many Not the Few. Or, to put in another way, After Neoliberalism. The vision is not yet the answer to the latter question, but it represents the beginnings of an answer.

Ever since the late 1970s, Labour has been on the defensive, struggling to deal with a world where the right has been hegemonic. We can now begin to glimpse a different possibility, one in which the left can begin to take ownership – at least in some degree – of a new, post-neoliberal political settlement. But we should not underestimate the enormous problems that lie in wait. The relative economic prospects for the country are far worse than they have been at any time since 1945. As we saw in the Brexit vote, the forces of conservatism, nativism, racism and imperial nostalgia remain hugely powerful. Not only has the country rejected continued membership of the European Union, but, along with the rest of the West, it is far from reconciled with the new world that is in the process of being created before our very eyes, in which the developing world will be paramount and in which China will be the global leader.

Nonetheless, to be able to entertain a sense of optimism about our own country is a novel experience after 30 years of being out in the cold. No wonder so many are feeling energised again.

This article first appeared in the 15 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Corbyn: revenge of the rebel

Martin Jacques is the former editor of Marxism Today. 

This article first appeared in the 15 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Corbyn: revenge of the rebel

0800 7318496