A curious view from over the pond...
With the fireworks of July 4th approaching, celebrating the ending of British rule and the birth of the Modern American Republic, one article in the reading list caught my eye - an article from the England's Guardian newspaper, espousing the tranquility of British democracy in the last election.
For those of you who don't know, The Guardian makes the New York Times seem positively conservative in its view. It is THE paper of the liberal intelligentsia in England and as such, it always likes a chance to promote some intellectual snobbery when it can. It is important to bear that in mind when reading this article, as I would argue that Schama often paints a very rosy picture of what is in reality a very apathetic electoral process.
However, on some areas he does point out some key differences between America and Britain. It is always extraordinary to watch the politeness and deference shown to the President in press conferences here; Schama's description of the daily press conferences for the campaign are typical of politics in general - journalists sees it as their duty to assume that all politicians are incompetence and/or liars!
Yet at the same time, there is often more considered debate on television and in the press than we see here in the US. The BBC regularly has one-on-one debates between opposing commentators that really do have people saying, 'Oh, that's a good point, I agree, but what about point X?'.
But to suggest that Rousseau would approve of British democracy in comparison with American democracy is a stretch, to put it mildly. Crucially, in Britain, the leader of the legislative is also the leader of the executive - no separation of powers for us. We effectively live in an elected dictatorship - there are very few checks or balances. Since Rousseau believed in collective making decision (the intriguingly titled 'General Will'), I don't think he would see this as the model social contract.
But more critically for me, it is the central role of Democracy in its society that makes the American vision so appealing to others, however much we decry the big money, the apparently subservient, ratings driven media, the often cynical 'marketing' of the President.
America can and sometimes does votes for everyone - from the smallest position in a town to its President, the most powerful position in the free world. Meanwhile, in Britain, we have a famously disfunctional hereditary monarchy, an secretly appointed Judiciary, and a Prime Minister we never actually vote for - he or she is merely the leader of the Legislative who can command a majority, and is asked by the Queen to form a Government.
Schama may laud the fact that our political rallies are so low key and civilized. Or he might reflect that this is because no-one ever turns up to them - people are mostly too cynical or apathetic to bother. I spent the last two months before last year's election in Miami , and I went several times to see people like Bill Clinton and John Kerry speak. Each time, 40-50, 000 people turned up, to show their support, to share in democracy, to feel inspired. When that happens in England, I will be more willing to accept Schama's self congratulatory critique.
'Til then, have a happy 4th of July America.
For those of you who don't know, The Guardian makes the New York Times seem positively conservative in its view. It is THE paper of the liberal intelligentsia in England and as such, it always likes a chance to promote some intellectual snobbery when it can. It is important to bear that in mind when reading this article, as I would argue that Schama often paints a very rosy picture of what is in reality a very apathetic electoral process.
However, on some areas he does point out some key differences between America and Britain. It is always extraordinary to watch the politeness and deference shown to the President in press conferences here; Schama's description of the daily press conferences for the campaign are typical of politics in general - journalists sees it as their duty to assume that all politicians are incompetence and/or liars!
Yet at the same time, there is often more considered debate on television and in the press than we see here in the US. The BBC regularly has one-on-one debates between opposing commentators that really do have people saying, 'Oh, that's a good point, I agree, but what about point X?'.
But to suggest that Rousseau would approve of British democracy in comparison with American democracy is a stretch, to put it mildly. Crucially, in Britain, the leader of the legislative is also the leader of the executive - no separation of powers for us. We effectively live in an elected dictatorship - there are very few checks or balances. Since Rousseau believed in collective making decision (the intriguingly titled 'General Will'), I don't think he would see this as the model social contract.
But more critically for me, it is the central role of Democracy in its society that makes the American vision so appealing to others, however much we decry the big money, the apparently subservient, ratings driven media, the often cynical 'marketing' of the President.
America can and sometimes does votes for everyone - from the smallest position in a town to its President, the most powerful position in the free world. Meanwhile, in Britain, we have a famously disfunctional hereditary monarchy, an secretly appointed Judiciary, and a Prime Minister we never actually vote for - he or she is merely the leader of the Legislative who can command a majority, and is asked by the Queen to form a Government.
Schama may laud the fact that our political rallies are so low key and civilized. Or he might reflect that this is because no-one ever turns up to them - people are mostly too cynical or apathetic to bother. I spent the last two months before last year's election in Miami , and I went several times to see people like Bill Clinton and John Kerry speak. Each time, 40-50, 000 people turned up, to show their support, to share in democracy, to feel inspired. When that happens in England, I will be more willing to accept Schama's self congratulatory critique.
'Til then, have a happy 4th of July America.
1 Comments:
Having nothing particular to do with the actual content of your post, I thought you might enjoy the site I'm directing you to.
If you find the press-conference deference a bit much to take sometimes, www.pressgaggle.com is always fun to check out for laughs, if lame, tense inside jokes are your thing. Someone from the White House press corps takes the time to type up their more humorous exchanges with whoever's doing the briefing.
Post a Comment
<< Home