An aerial view of the Zaatari camp in Jordan, home to 80,000 refugees. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Life as an orphan in a plastic tent city, bombing Iraq (again) and keeping my “Juslim” name

Jemima Khan writes from Jordan on the Syrian refugee crisis.

Zaatari camp in Jordan is a chalky pop-up city and temporary holding pen for the collateral damage from Syria’s civil war; 80,000 refugees, mostly women and children, existing in orderly limbo. Most left Syria on foot, in the dark, with only the clothes they were wearing and – if their house was not already pulverised – their door keys and documents.

I have met many refugees since I started working with Unicef 13 years ago and regardless of nationality, disaster or host country, they all share one thing in common – the knowledge that they are the world’s unwanted; bereft of home, hope, possessions and expression.

It was an encounter with a child refugee that first led to my involvement with Unicef. I was distributing tents to Afghan refugees who had fled civil war at the Jalozai camp in Peshawar, north-west Pakistan. It had been nicknamed “Plastic City” because its inhabitants were living in plastic bin liners during the monsoon season, with no shelter, food, water or sanitation. The Pakistani government, its resources already stretched and with resentment still high from the last influx of Afghans during the Soviet era, had refused to allow aid agencies access to the camp.

A small, emaciated boy in dust-coloured rags was bent double under the weight of a 25-kilogram tent. I told him to go and get an adult to help him. He explained that his mother had just died in the camp and his father had been killed in the fighting. He had no adult relatives and he was now the head of the household, responsible for the survival of his five younger siblings, including a small baby. He was seven years old, just a few years older than my eldest son at that time, who was still incapable of even running a bath unsupervised. His story, I learned, was far from unique.

At the Zaatari camp in Jordan last week, I met Adil, a gentle, serious, 17-year-old Syrian boy, the same age as my son now (it’s impossible not to make these comparisons), who desperately wants to finish school and to become an engineer but who has to work to support his family. One of Unicef’s goals – and it sounds like a trite corporate slogan until you meet a boy like Adil or see a toddler carrying a baby on its hip – is to try to give children in the camps their childhood back, through schools, playgrounds, activities, sports and safe areas. I was in Jordan in my capacity as Unicef ambassador so I could report back to donors on how the million pounds we raised last year for Syrian refugees has been put to use.

Wake-up calls

Since getting back, I have been trying to think up ways to raise more money this year. The daily running of the camp costs half a million dollars. I considered asking friends to donate money not to have to attend another dreary charity dinner, but have decided that the quickest way to raise money is through a social media campaign – to try to replicate the astonishing success of the Ice Bucket Challenge, which raised $100m for the previously little-known Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Association, and the “no make-up selfie”, which raised £8m in six days for Cancer Research UK.

I’ll be kicking off a new campaign for the refugee crisis, #WAKEUPCALL, a photo taken first thing (preferably against your wishes) and posted on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook – or not, if you want to pay a forfeit to charity.

It’s a chance for the tabloids to print free photos of celebs not looking their best, for columnists to scoff at the absurdity of it all (I do find it weird that there’s more cynicism around well-meaning charitable campaigns than ill-fated military ones); and, with any luck, it will enable kids like Adil to stay in school.

US v the US

The definition of madness, I’ve been reminded by friends recently, is repeating the same mistake and expecting a different outcome. On 26 September, a bewildering majority of British MPs voted to bomb the same people in the same place as in 2003, making this Britain’s sixth military intervention in Iraq in a hundred years. The difference is the target’s name – from al-Qaeda to Isil to Isis to IS or Daish, depending on whom you ask. Some Muslims have suggested “the Unislamic State”, although that would be confusing: the US v the US.

But isn’t it all a muddle anyway? Last year, the same British MPs were asked to vote for bombing the other side: to support the Syrian rebels (including Isis, whom we are now bombing) in their quest to topple the dictator Bashar al-Assad. That makes last year’s ally this year’s enemy. A large number voted in favour of both military campaigns.

The wrath of Khan

Speaking of name changes, my ex-husband, Imran, recently announced that he intended to get remarried soon, which made me think, as it’s been ten years since our divorce, it’s probably time to change my name back to Goldsmith.

I kept “Khan” originally as my children felt strongly about it, but now they’re grown up they don’t seem to care. With hindsight, I wouldn’t have changed my name in the first place (that said, at the time, I only just managed to hang on to my first name), but now I’ve been Khan for as long as I was Goldsmith and I last used my maiden name when I was a child (OK, 21). I quite like that my name represents my “Juslim” identity (Jemima being Jewish, Khan Muslim-ish). Anyway, I was just about to change back to Goldsmith when my brother happily announced he’d proposed to his girlfriend . . . which is great, except that she’s also called Jemima. I just don’t fancy being “the other”, “the big” or “the older” Jemima Goldsmith.

To make a donation to Unicef’s appeal for the Zaatari camp, visit: or text SYRIA to 70007 to give £5 

Jemima Khan is associate editor of the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 30 September 2014 issue of the New Statesman, ISIS vs The World

Show Hide image

Want an independent-minded MP? Vote for a career politician

The brutally ambitious are not content to fall in with the crowd. 

“Never having had a ‘real’ job outside of politics”: this is what the majority of respondents told a YouGov poll in 2014 when asked the most undesirable characteristic of the British politician. The result is hardly surprising. Type the words “career politician” into your search engine or raise the topic at a dinner party, and quickly you will be presented with a familiar list of grievances.

One of the fundamental criticisms is that career politicians in parliament are elitists concerned only with furthering their own interests. Their pronounced and self-serving ambition for climbing the ministerial ladder is said to turn them into submissive party-machines, sycophants or yes men and women, leading them to vote loyally with their party in every parliamentary division. But do we actually have evidence for this?

A new in-depth analysis, to be published later this month in the academic journal, Legislative Studies Quarterly, presents a forceful challenge to this conventional wisdom. In fact, I find that career politician MPs in the UK are more likely to rebel against their party than their non-career politician peers. Why?

My study was motivated by the observation that the existing impression of the party loyalty of career politicians is based mostly on anecdotal evidence and speculation. Moreover, a look through the relevant journalistic work, as well as the sparse extant academic literature, reveals that the two main hypotheses on the topic make starkly contradictory claims. By far the most popular — but largely unverified — view is that their exclusively professional reliance on politics renders career politicians more brutally ambitious for frontbench office, which in turn makes them especially subservient to the party leadership.

The opposing, but lesser known expectation is that while career politicians may be particularly eager to reach the frontbenches, “many of them are also much too proud and wilful to be content to serve as mere lobby fodder”, as the late Anthony King, one of the shrewdest analysts of British politics, observed nearly thirty years ago on the basis of more qualitative evidence.

Faced with these opposing but equally plausible prognoses, I assembled biographical data for all the MPs of the three big parties between 2005-15 (more than 850) and analysed all parliamentary votes during this period. I followed the debate’s prevalent view that an exclusive focus on politics (e.g. as a special adviser or an MP’s assistant) or a closely-related field (e.g. full-time trade union official or interest group worker) marks an MP as a careerist. In line with previous estimations, just under 20 per cent of MPs were identified as career politicians. The extensive statistical analysis accounted for additional factors that may influence party loyalty, and largely ruled out systematic differences in ideology between career and non-career politicians, as well as party or term-specific differences as drivers of the effects.

As noted above, I find strong evidence that career politician backbenchers are more likely to rebel. The strength of this effect is considerable. For example, amongst government backbenchers who have never held a ministerial post, a non-career politician is estimated to rebel in only about 20 votes per parliament. By contrast, a career politician dissents more than twice as often — a substantial difference considering the high party unity in Westminster.

This finding reveals a striking paradox between the predominantly negative opinion of career politicians on the one hand, and the electorate's growing demand for more independent-minded MPs on the other. In fact career politicians are the ones who perform best in delivering on this demand. Similarly, the results imply that the oft-cited career-related dependency of career politicians on the party can be overridden (or, at the very least, complemented) by their self-image as active and independent-minded participants in the legislative process. This should attenuate the prevalent concern that a rise in career politicians leads to a weakening of parliament’s role as a scrutinizing body.

Finally, the findings challenge the pervasive argument that a lack of experience in the real world disqualifies an MP from contributing meaningfully to the legislative process. Instead, it appears that a pre-parliamentary focus on politics can, under certain circumstances, boost an MP's normatively desirable willingness to challenge the party and the executive.

Raphael Heuwieser is researching political party loyalty at the University of Oxford.