Taking the ‘we’ out of ‘western’

Jason Burke is one of the most astute and nuanced commentators on the politics of the parts of the world usually gathered together under the Eurocentric and inaccurate label ‘the Middle East’. Writing in last Sunday’s Observer he argued that dominant western views of Pakistan are based on fundamental misconceptions. Pakistan is not, for example, a ‘failed’ (or failing) state. And ‘democracy is seen [by most Pakistanis] as the best system, but only if democracy results in governments that take decisions that reflect the sentiments of most Pakistanis, not just those of the Anglophone, westernised elite among whom western policy-makers, politicians and journalists tend to chose their interlocutors.’ Can’t disagree with any of that, yet it is frustrating that throughout his piece Burke employed the first person plural (we, us, our) as an apparent synonym for ‘western policy-makers, politicians and journalists’. Who are this we? Does Burke count himself among the Eurocentric commentariat? Presumably not. Do all the citizens of all ‘western’ countries (however defined) share this unitary ’skewed world view’ that ‘won’t let us see the real Pakistan’ to quote the headline over Burke’s article? What about those many European citizens and residents whose family roots lie in Pakistan? What about the numerous ‘western’ critics of ‘western’ policies towards Pakistan and other countries in the region. Are ‘we’ all implicated in this latter day orientialism? Burke is surely correct to argue for a more differentiated view of Pakistan. Can we not equally have a finer-grained account of ‘the west’ – one that acknowledges its wide diversity of world views, not all of which are quite as skewed as Burke implies.

Tesco politics

The British government have just scored a dramatic own goal by approving the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon is quoted in the Guardian today as saying that “the reason we have got this problem in relation to Heathrow is that more and more people want to travel more and more”. This is Tesco government: if people want something, then it must be provided for them, regardless of the consequences. But running a government is not the same as running a supermarket, even if the distinction is now all but lost on Gordon Brown’s cabinet. It is the job of elected leaders to provide, well, leadership. People may indeed “want to travel more and more” – I love travelling myself – but one of the tasks of government is to assess the wider implications of such individual wants and if necessary to discourage them. New Labour often seeks to influence individual behaviour through persuasion or regulation. Think of its approach to healthy eating, smoking, and, rather ironic this, the installation of low-energy light bulbs. Why is it, Mr Hoon, that the government sees fit to try to stop people eating fatty food, smoking cigarettes, or burning tungsten to light their homes, but not only refuses to discourage people from traveling by air, but goes out of its way to help them do so, as you put it, “more and more”?

Scaling Parliament

Yesterday protesters against the expansion of air travel climbed onto the roof of the British parliament in London, unfurled a banner and launched paper planes made from official documents. Down below in the debating chamber of the House of Commons Prime Minister Gordon Brown averred that decisions should be made “in the chamber of this House and not on the roof of this House”. The peaceful protest, which ended in the arrest of the protesters, was widely assumed to have been assisted by a Parliamentary insider. Indeed the BBC website has just reported that this evening a Parliamentary passholder has been arrested in connection with the event.

By contrast, the Australian federal parliament in Canberra was designed with a grass roof that sweeps down in a gentle slope to ground level. The design allows members of the public to walk unhindered onto the roof to symbolise the supremacy of the people in a democracy…