Media Watch: Dispelling the Chavez Myth‏

This week I got in a bit of a political ding-dong with infamous blogger Guido Fawkes on Twitter. The exchange was inspired by this Tweet from Fawkes:

Time for a democratic uprising for freedom in Chavez's Venezuela, get two dictators for the price of one.

Fawkes' reactionary utterance was in reference to Libya's Colonel Gaddafi and the assertion by William Hague that Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela. Although Fawkes is a chronic sensationalist, his narrow-minded and ill-informed attitude mirrors the mainstream Western media.

On Monday Foreign Secretary William Hague told a meeting of EU foreign ministers that he had information suggesting Gaddafi was heading to Venezuela and this was parroted – as fact – by the BBC and other mainstream news outlets. The obvious implication was that Hugo Chavez may not be killing his own people, but he was willing to collude with and harbour tyrants. The bloody bastard!

It soon emerged that Hague’s declaration was completely false and that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was in fact on the phone to Gaddafi in Libya at the time Hague made his remarks. Needless to say, no apology from Hague was forthcoming and, unfortunately, this one-sided and partisan reporting on Chavez is typical within Western media.

Few international leaders are derided or demonised more than Hugo Chavez. In the last few weeks we have seen Gaddafi massacring his own population, the brutal repression of popular unrest by Mubarak in Egypt and the end of autocratic rule for President Ben Ali in Tunisia. All these figures are rightly vilified by the press - but it wasn't long ago that our dear leaders were cosying up to these tyrants. So why the vitriol towards el Presidente?

Despite winning three Presidential elections and holding numerous referenda, Chavez is the most maligned head of state in the world and is habitually characterised as a dictator in Western discourse. He is always described using negative adjectives, from the mild – such as ‘controversial’ or ‘outspoken’ – to the extreme – such as ‘tyrant’ or 'authoritarian'. This relentless barrage of ill-founded rhetoric creates a critical mass of public opinion which frames Chavez as an anti-democratic demagogue. Fawkes’ comment is just one symptom of this pervasive culture. The media has a privileged and respected position in the West but, by perpetuating these myths, it is acting irresponsibly as a tool of the elite.

Commandante Chavez has put democracy at the heart of the Bolivarian project in Venezuela. His first major act as President was to replace a constitution written by elites with one written by the people. Furthermore, by nationalizing the oil industry, Venezuela has been able to eradicate illiteracy, provide free healthcare, education, pensions and various social programs. Promoting community activism, educating your down-trodden populace and holding frequent elections is hardly the work of a totalitarian despot.

The explanation for Chavez’s demonisation lies in the fact that he is profoundly democratic and has sought to challenge the concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite. He has been an influential member of OPEC; criticised U.S foreign policy in the Middle East; denied the U.S. access to Venezuelan airspace; strengthened relations with Cuba; opposed the neo-liberal Washington Consensus; empowered the people and – perhaps most importantly – has the audacity to control the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East. In helping constitute ALBA – the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas – Venezuela is challenging neo-liberal hegemony and is providing a real alternative to international bodies such as the IMF and World Bank which seek to promote free trade.

Before accusing Chavez of being a dictator and protecting despots, the media should ask who has supported and backed these violent oligarchs in the past. Was it Hugo Chavez that sold Gaddafi weapons to slaughter his own people, or was it Britain and America? Before the media questions Chavez’s democratic legitimacy, they should look at the reality of life in Venezuela and reflect on the democratic legitimacy of the coalition government. For instance, why isn’t the media asking what mandate the government has for dismantling the welfare state? Where did that appear in the manifestos of either the Liberal Democrats or the Tories?

The West is right to view Chavez as a threat – but only as a threat to elite rule. What Chavez is showing us – and what the people of the Middle East have shown us over the past few weeks – is that another world is possible.

Politician Watch: Morning Star Newspaper and Early Day Motion 1334

I recently blogged about the Early Day Motion 1334 in support of the Morning Star. Following a letter to my MP I received this unsatisfying response:

RE: Morning Star Newspaper and Early Day Motion (EDM) 1334

Thank you for contacting me about the above matter.

I certainly appreciate the value of a broad and independent media in the UK. This plurality plays a vital role in a vigorous democracy.

If the BBC is to remain independent, it is vital that politicians only intervene in extreme circumstances. Whilst I can understand why you might be concerned over the BBC’s position on the Morning Star, I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to intervene in this instance.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to contact me about this important issue.

Yours sincerely

Mike Weatherley MP

It’s a shame Mike and his fellow Tories don’t feel it equally inappropriate to intervene in the NHS...

We're not out the woods yet

This afternoon - along with half a million other internet activists - I received an email from David Babbs, Executive Director at 38 Degrees, heralding the scrapping of plans to sell-off the forests. The government back down is undoubtedly a victory for people power, but anyone who thinks this is anything but a minor - albeit significant - victory can't see the wood for the trees.

As argued recently, the government is currently administering a programme of economic shock therapy. All cuts are coming simultaneously to ensure that some (relatively minor) government u-turns weaken popular resistance by pacifying protesters and secure passage for more significant (if less emotive) 'reforms'. It's like when films include extremely shocking scenes in first edits to strengthen their bargaining position with the British Board of Film Classification. Directors never intend the extreme scenes to make it to screen, but they use their omission to ensure something slightly less outrageous makes the final cut. It remains to be seen whether the cutting of Forest Dump will ensure that Saving Private Hospitals makes it to the big screen.

The issue of forests - like animals - taps into our collective consciousness and has the power to evoke unparalleled opposition and vitriol. People care deeply about the fate of a cute puppy or their local wood, but a shroud of apathy embraces millions of starving people in the developing world. The same is true of the anti-cuts movement: opposition to the forest sell-off has been monumental, but the fight to save the NHS, protect local government and stop the spread of free schools has been much less inspiring.

The reason for this lies in liberal individualism and a deep-rooted culture of self-interest and self-preservation. Saving a cat from drowning or protecting a forest are uncontroversial issues because they don't involve other people or personal sacrifice. However asking a healthy person to pay for a National Health Service predominantly used by fat people and smokers suddenly becomes controversial because there is a human element. People feel indignant about paying higher taxes to fund health, education and social security for vulnerable people who - as far as popular culture tells them - are victims of their own laziness. Liberal individualism and consumerism therefore acts to divide and alienate the population and, as a result, serves to undermine opposition to government cuts.

As David Babbs said in his email, "we've shown that if forests are under threat, people power can come to the rescue." Now the people need to come to the rescue of everything else. This triumph cannot serve to pacify the populace and we cannot rest on our collective laurels or bask in the glory of defeating the government. It must act as a catalyst to energise and unite the anti-cuts movement. This victory - along with the student movement - is a tiny acorn from which must grow a mighty oak of resistance - sturdy and immovable with roots penetrating deep into society. The battle may be won, but the war has barely begun.

Media Watch: Our Democracy Needs the Morning Star

For the last few weeks Early Day Motion 1334 – condemning the BBC boycott of the Morning Star – has been steadily accruing signatures in parliament. EDM 1334 notes that the Star is “the only socialist daily newspaper in the English language worldwide” and “welcomes the different light it shines on news and current affairs from that of other daily newspapers”.

Labour MP Ian Lavery states that "There is a strong view among parliamentarians of different political persuasions that the Morning Star provides news stories which other newspapers for whatever reason fail to print.” As such EDM 1334 has attracted support from Labour, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, SNP, SDLP and the Green Party.

EDM 1334 represents an important challenge to a narrow and centralised media. North Ayrshire MP Katy Clark has called for “a far wider range of views in our national media" and has denounced “the same people arguing the same position, which is basically the position of the Establishment again and again".

The Morning Star – unlike many of its mainstream equivalents – does not serve an individual media mogul. It is owned by its readers and the management committee – because it consists of trade unionists and activists – represents millions of ordinary working people.

In order to have a fully functioning democracy, we need a plurality of views in the media. If the media is dominated by one voice or one viewpoint then our democracy is compromised. But when there is a consensus of cuts, the Morning Star’s role is more important than ever to provide detailed information from the left of the labour movement.

Maximising support for EDM 1334 is important not just in fighting the cuts and championing socialism; it is important for our democracy. In the General Election last year, it was only the Daily Mirror and Morning Star which threw their weight behind Labour. When it comes to the May local elections it will be the Star that will be campaigning for Labour victory against the Tories. Therefore, all Labour supporters should urge their MPs to support the motion.

Please email your MP and ask them to sign EDM 1334 because, regardless of what party they are in, our democracy relies on hearing a plurality of voices so citizens can make informed decisions. Please post any responses you receive below.

Forests: The first government u-turn?

I previously blogged here about the UK government's plan to sell off Forestry Commission woodland. Well, the government has now decided to put plans on-hold, a sign that a u-turn on the issue could be looming.

I want to know what has successfully pressured the government in making this decision, and what lessons can be learnt for other campaigns:

1) The policy wasn’t staunchly ideological
Remember the Conservative vote is traditionally held in rural areas, and there’s a danger this policy could outrage their own country bumpkins. The green spaces of England are heritage for everyone, and a public consensus could be heard in the Question Time studio a few weeks back. I’ve never heard such cheering and agreement amongst the audience.

2) Reputable celebrity backers
When an issue is less ideologically sensitive, more celebrities will rally round. Fact. Judi Dench, Bill Bryson, Annie Lenox, Ranulph Fiennes, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury – Dr. Rowan Williams put their name to a letter in the Sunday Telegraph calling the proposals ill-conceived. And you know when the Telegraph is publishing sentiments against the government, there’s something brewing...

3) Successful, organised campaign and petition
We should not forget the role of 38degrees in this campaign to save the forests. They’ve clocked up over 50,000 signatories, including mine. This is a demonstration of people power, people organising over the internet. There’s been some favourable coverage of this group too, on TV shows such as ‘10 o’clock live’. The interesting thing is, this group is not just campaigning against the government’s plans for the Forestry Commission. It’s also collecting signatories against human trafficking, against political interference in BSKYB investigation, and against NHS reforms. And this leads me nicely to my last thought...

Why are people bothered about our green spaces being sold off, but less bothered about saving the NHS? Less bothered about ensuring everyone has the same right to free healthcare? Perhaps the NHS is fair-game for ideological struggles, but we could do with some celebrity backers right now for this one.

International Women's Day: Put your money where your mouth is

There is 1 month to go until International Women’s Day on March 8 – a day that celebrates the economic, political and social achievements of women, and a reminder of inequalities that exist because women are still ‘the second sex’.

There are hundreds of events happening in the UK and around the world. You can find local events on the International Women’s Day website. In addition, I’d like to suggest your celebrations include a longer commitment with a lasting effect on the lives of women.

My own suggestion for this day – research and join an organisation that works towards helping women in developing countries. For example, WOMANKIND and ActionAid help women and their families in local communities all over the developing world.

You can also help closer to home. Eaves and Refuge provides housing and support to vulnerable women, including trafficked women. These charities need all the more help at the moment, with UK women’s charities facing a 100% cut in funding. And of course, there’s always the Fawcett Society, tirelessly campaigning for women’s equality in the UK.

Men and women- how will you celebrate International Women’s Day this year? I’ll post a blog on my celebrations in March.

Crisis is the locomotive of history

The Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky famously declared that “war is a great locomotive of history”. Over the last half-century, however, territorial expansion has ceased to be a legitimate reason for waging war – although this hasn’t stopped covert conflicts and has given birth to new justifications such as humanitarian intervention and pre-emptive strike.

Naomi Klein – in her monumental book The Shock Doctrine – frames modern history as the evolution of disaster capitalism and the shock doctrine. Klein debunks the myth that the rise of neo-liberal hegemony was achieved democratically and contends that free-market capitalism requires (and encourages) crisis to force through the contentious and unpopular corporate reengineering of society. Laissez-faire policy-makers capitalise on the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – such as wars, terrorist attacks and natural disasters – to implement economic shock therapy. In this sense, crisis – not just war – can be seen as the locomotive of history. Indeed, as the Chicago School economist and grandfather of disaster capitalism Milton Friedman stated in 1982:

Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

The Shock Doctrine argues that Friedmanite economics has been applied throughout the world in response to crises since the 1970s – from Pinochet’s Chile to the occupation of Iraq. Free-market reform – always serving American corporate interest – has required the shock therapy of torture, war and repression to subdue popular unrest and smash opposition. International bodies under the control of America – such as the IMF and World Bank – have used the debt crisis in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Soviet Union to hold democratically elected governments to ransom and push through an agenda of privatisation.

Klein generally equates disaster capitalism with war, terrorist attacks and natural disasters – but the shock doctrine also provides a useful framework to view the recent economic crisis. Britain’s recession has been characterised – by the Tories, Lib Dems and mainstream media – as a result of economic ineptitude on behalf of the previous Labour government. All government responses to questions – regardless of topic – start will a denunciation of the “economic mess” that Labour left the country in. Samantha Cameron’s probably stopped asking David what he wants for breakfast fearing the inevitable tirade against Brown and co. – but all this rhetoric is necessary to soften up the population for economic shock therapy. As the Nazi Minister for Propaganda Joseph Goebbels declared, “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. In the same way, if the government repeat often enough that cuts are necessary, people will come to believe it. It is here that the dichotomy of Friedmanite crisis – both actual and perceived – becomes blurred and mutually reinforcing.

There are stark parallels between the shock therapy of military intervention and the current economic shock therapy being implemented by the government. In Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance – the military doctrine that underpinned the invasion of Iraq – the authors state that the invading forces should “seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary’s perceptions and understanding of events so that the enemy would be incapable of resistance”. In Britain, the invading forces – or the government – seek to paralyze their adversaries – or the electorate – by perpetuating the idea of crisis and the need for the economic reconstitution of society. Furthermore, the violent repression of student protests can be seen as a direct corollary of repressive shock therapy and serves as a stark warning to those who might consider future protest.

A perceived culture of crisis is required by Conservatives to fortify a systematic assault on the state. As Klein states:

People can develop responses to gradual change – a slashed health programme here, a trade deal there – but if dozens of changes come from all directions at once, a feeling of futility sets in, and populations go limp.

Furthermore, ensuring all the cuts come at once forces Labour Party collusion. If Labour oppose cuts they are accused of being “deficit deniers” whilst their economic credibility is shattered by the government attributing the economic crisis to Labour mis-management. Labour do not wish to appear out-of-touch with the electorate and are thus forced to meekly accept government economic policy. Its effect, as Milton Friedman declared, is that something which was previously “politically impossible becomes politically inevitable” – in this case the underhand privatisation of the NHS and Royal Mail.

As the political scientist Michael Wolfe states:

Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are unlikely to do it very well... As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster.

Despite what Conservative mantra tells us, the real crisis we face is not the result of global financial recession, it is the effect of ideologically-driven neo-liberal economic policy: mass youth unemployment; the privatisation of the NHS; the narrowing of access to higher education; and the championing of the corporate agenda.