Saving capitalism? The price could be democracy

Greece is faced with severe austerity measures. Why shouldn't its people have their say?

Right now everyone seems to be getting terribly excited about saving capitalism. Which is fair enough, in the face of global meltdown.

However, it seems to me that the price of saving capitalism is increasingly likely to be "democracy". Which would be a shame as I'm a big fan of democracy. On the whole, I think it's a good thing.

"What insight," I hear you cry, "what understanding of the basic tenants of human rights".

No? Well, consider this.

Let's start with Occupy London (or Wall Street, Oakland, Tunbridge Wells, wherever). Apart from the fact that some folk think they make the place look a bit untidy, the main issue people have with the Occupy crowd is "that they don't have any answers".

They have a list of things they don't want -- but not a list of things they do.

And I say, so what? What's wrong with just asking the questions? The Occupy folk aren't standing for elected office, nor claiming to be able to solve the problems of the global economy. The finest economic minds in the world, plus George Osborne, haven't cracked that one. So it seems a bit unreasonable to expect some bloke in a tent who just thinks that taxpayers' money shouldn't be shuffled through to bankers in the form of bonuses, to then have all the answers to the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s. If it was that easy, we'd all just pop into Millets and seek the opinion of the man on the till.

We'll ask the questions. It's the job of our elected elders and betters to answer them.

And now it would also seem we're not allowed to mark our representatives' homework either. Hence every democratically elected politician in the world goes white as a sheet at the thought of asking the Greek people if they're happy with the deal done on their behalf.

Funnily enough, I'm not a huge fan of referendums at the drop of a hat. I rather like Edmund Burke's view of democracy: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

But there's a time and a place for everything. And when years of extreme austerity measures stretch out before a population, pensions are slashed, public spending is squeezed, every ministry has an independent "observer" installed from Brussels, and none of it ever featured in any sort of manifesto proposal -- well, asking the people if they are up for it doesn't seem so bad? Does it?

So, we seem to be in a world where asking questions without knowing the answers, or questioning the answers you've been given, is seen as a thoroughly bad thing. Which to me is an affront to democracy.

Still, at least no-one's raising the spectre of war or postulating about the chances of a military coup to force things through.

Oh? Lordy.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference.

Richard Morris blogs at A View From Ham Common, which was named Best New Blog at the 2011 Lib Dem Conference

Getty
Show Hide image

Building peace in a dangerous world needs resources, not just goodwill

Conflict resolution is only the first step.

Thursday 21 September is the UN-designated International Day of Peace. At noon on this day, which has been celebrated for the last 25 years, the UN general secretary will ring the Peace Bell on the UN headquarters in New York and people of good will around the world will take part in events to mark the occasion. At the same time, spending on every conceivable type of weaponry will continue at record levels.

The first couple of decades after the end of the Cold War saw a steady reduction in conflict, but lately that trend seems to have been reversed. There are currently around 40 active armed conflicts around the world with violence and suffering at record levels. According to the 2017 Global Peace Index worldwide military spending last year amounted to a staggering $1.7 trillion and a further trillion dollars worth of economic growth was lost as a result. This compares with around 10 billion dollars spent on long term peace building.

To mark World Peace Day, International Alert, a London-based non-government agency which specialises in peace building, is this week publishing Redressing the Balance, a report contrasting the trivial amounts spent on reconciliation and the avoidance of war with the enormous and ever growing global military expenditure.  Using data from the Institute for Economics and Peace, the report’s author, Phil Vernon, argues that money spent on avoiding and mitigating the consequences of conflict is not only morally right, but cost-effective – "every dollar invested in peace building reduces the cost of conflict".

According to Vernon, "the international community has a tendency to focus on peacemaking and peacekeeping at the expense of long term peace building."  There are currently 100,000 soldiers, police and other observers serving 16 UN operations on four continents. He says what’s needed instead of just peace keeping is a much greater sustained investment, involving individuals and agencies at all levels, to address the causes of violence and to give all parties a stake in the future. Above all, although funding and expertise can come from outside, constructing a durable peace will only work if there is local ownership of the process.

The picture is not wholly depressing. Even in the direst conflicts there are examples where the international community has help to fund and train local agencies with the result that local disputes can often be settled without escalating into full blown conflicts. In countries as diverse as East Timor, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Nepal long term commitment by the international community working with local people has helped build durable institutions in the wake of vicious civil wars. Nearer to home, there has long been recognition that peace in Ireland can only be sustained by addressing long-standing grievances, building resilient institutions and ensuring that all communities have a stake in the outcome.

At a micro level, too, there is evidence that funding and training local agencies can contribute to longer term stability. In the eastern Congo, for example, various non-government organisations have worked with local leaders, men and women from different ethnic groups to settle disputes over land ownership which have helped fuel 40 years of mayhem. In the Central African Republic training and support to local Muslim and Christian leaders has helped reduce tensions. In north east Nigeria several agencies are helping to reintegrate the hundreds of traumatised girls and young women who have escaped the clutches of Boko Haram only to find themselves rejected by their communities.

Peace building, says Vernon, is the poor cousin of other approaches to conflict resolution. In future, he concludes, it must become a core component of future international interventions. "This means a major re-think by donor governments and multilateral organisations of how they measure success… with a greater focus placed on anticipation, prevention and the long term." Or, to quote the young Pakistani winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Malala Yousufzai: "If you want to avoid war, then instead of sending guns, send books. Instead of tanks, send pens. Instead of soldiers, send teachers."

Redressing the Balance by Phil Vernon is published on September 21.   Chris Mullin is the chairman of International Alert.