Where In The World Is Timbuktu?

Last week, I wrote in some detail about the need for Western democracy to take decisive action in its stance towards the Israel Palestine question. I argued that it had fallen under the radar.

Yet this appears more and more a most prevalent issue in news reporting. Whilst the world has been engrossed in the likes of Lance Armstrong’s admission on Oprah, or whether or not Beyoncé actually sung live at the President inauguration (because such matters are of vital importance to the quotidian lives of the developed democracies), there have been further instances of warfare erupting across the globe: namely, in Mali.

Mali, a small land-locked country in Africa, is probably unknown to most, excepting its most famous of cities, Timbuktu. And even then, a majority couldn’t actually say that Timbuktu was in Mali if they were faced with a pin-the-tail-on-the-country scenario. I’ll admit myself that I know relatively little of this African country, but what has become increasingly apparent in my observations is that the information I have of the conflict is increasingly due to my French friends.

Hell, I only know the war in Mali is ongoing because of my French friends. That is not to say I’m self-absorbed: it’s just that we are gradually having our news dictated to us from Facebook instead of actual news channels. But then, the news channels and papers have proffered little in the way of coverage here.

In fact, the Mali crisis has been a recurring blight on the African continent since the middle of 2011, and its absence from our TV screens, laptops and tablet papers is something that should speak volumes of our preoccupations. The war here was a direct reaction to the situation in Libya that same year. For all the media circus on Gaddafi, this too was a seeming charade: few had real ideas of the problems in the African country before the British response.

This is where we expected our public conscious and journalistic preferences to take a turn: to focus on the global and its relation to us. Yet, we have failed to follow the sparks ignited by the Gaddafi revolution. Despite being amongst the poorest nations in the world, Mali was considered a beacon of African democracy; a self-sustaining country that had a recognisable and functioning government so sought after in other trouble states. This makes it all the more concerning that the media did not showcase the issue sooner. Essentially, the military seized power in March 2012. Tuareg rebels declared the independence of 'Azawad state' in the north, which was quickly taken over by al-Qaeda allies, effectively splitting the country in two and ensuring a continued battleground of hostility for the past 12 months.

Of course, no one ever expected the troubles in Libya to remain isolated events. In this light, we have become desensitised, almost to the point of morose boredom. The words of certain 20^th century Prime Minister ring true in our apathy: “A war in a distant nation that we know nothing about.” But surely, just as in the 1930s, we should still be concerned?

While the Malian government had been busy claiming the situation in the north was under control, rank-and-file soldiers felt humiliated and abandoned in combat with not enough military resources and food. “The Libyan crisis didn't cause this coup but certainly revealed the malaise felt within the army,” says Malian newspaper columnist Adam Thiam. “President Amadou Toumani Toure hasn't been active in tackling drug trafficking and al-Qaeda fighters, and the emergence of new rebel movements only added to the soldiers' frustration.”

The undercurrent of tension here is just a microcosm of the situation in many of Africa’s poorest nations. With recent rebel activity in Algeria, the continued threat is something that has become at least visible, if not palpable on the whole.

However, the difficulties in resolving the Libyan crisis are still bearing consequences. A strong leader (especially in the apparent absence of President Amadou Toumani Toure) that can unite a reluctant Malian army could spell the beginning of further African conflict, and a number of bordering states are set to follow in a cataclysmic domino effect.

The rebel group, MNLA, believe the only thing that can halt their advance into southern Mali is in fact a European intervention, so confident they are in their support, abilities and weaponry. “Western powers have underestimated that getting rid of Gaddafi would have severe repercussions in the Sahel region,” says Mr Kebe, a professor in Arab-African relations.

Once more it is an example of the Western endemic of half-heartedness in their resolve to find a permanent solution to a potentially volatile situation across much of Northern Africa. But, did Beyoncé actually sing the inauguration song live? I guess we’ll all be avidly tuning into the Superbowl next week. 

Fresh Fear In Egypt.

Over the past few days, fresh violence has erupted in the Egypt capital of Cairo, amidst growing concern for the stability of the country and the surrounding regions.

Tahrir Square, quickly becoming dubbed Terror Square, once again has been the centre of an occupation movement from many thousands of the capital’s citizens, in the longest demonstration campaign since the February revolutions that caused waves across the continent.

At first, the scale of the violence was not appreciated, with the claims of two deaths on Saturday also being widely disregarded. However, this first inclination to ignore the problems of a nation led to the dramatic uprising some nine months ago: this has to be one of the fastest repeats of history known in modern times.

By Monday morning, morgues had confirmed over 30 deaths, whilst number amassing to almost 2,000 were reported as casualties.

TV reports have shown the widespread use of tear gas, aggression, and make shift weapons from wood and other loose materials, including concrete. More importantly than the February demonstrations, other prominent Egyptian cities are now taking up arms in the protest, with action reported in Alexandria, Suez and Aswan.

The unrest has risen from the continued presence of the military as the official power keepers of the country. When first introduced as the interim preservers of peace in the winter months, they promised elections would be held in September, but notoriously these have been delayed.

Although elections are now due to start next week, the action already spreads a sombre tone over what was supposed to be a joyous moment for the Egyptian people to vote for the first time after three decades of autocratic rule under Mr Mubarak. Since the Egyptian people served their own warning notice of resolution to the government and army back in February, taking to the streets despite the widespread attempts from officials to uphold the then current system, it seems rather foolish of the current army officials to have taken the situation so likely.

Propositions to delay elections till the end of 2012 have however only serve to paint the current officials in the most dictatorial light.

Moreover, it provides an ample opportunity for any successor and their government to highlight the need for stronger control, resulting in a complete turn back to a tyrannical or oppressive parliament.

Undoubtedly, the fresh waves of violence and deaths will ultimately stain the transition to democracy and highlight the need for a civilian administration: the worry is that the violence could grow into a mob and the revolution play out in a much similar way to the struggle seen in close Northern territory, Libya. However, will the West sit back and have an ambivialent role before they step in again?

Just as happened at the beginning of the protests against Hosni Mubarak's rule earlier this year, it was the deaths above all that really brought the people out on the streets. Perhaps this totalitarian nightmare is an Egyptian curse not quite yet broken…

Don’t Believe The Hype.

Free speech in Western democracies is a given to which we all adhere: foreign dictatorships send shudders down our spines. Looking out towards these places with limits on what it is permissible to vocalise, many question how those in power are able to defend their stance and how those who are forced into these submissive positions are able to live under such limitations. Gaging how far a country’s freedom of speech is impoverished is not a difficult task: often, one only has to look towards the medias that lie within. Normally, they will be heavily state controlled and censored by government and law. Frequently, they will portray positive images of the most controversial decisions and leaders. 

Media influence however has deemed it a reflex to assume that our system of freedom is instantly superior to that of those elsewhere. There are obvious reasons for this stance. We need only consider China’s banning any reference to or any shows and literatures pertaining to time travel in May as a case of the over-zealous manner in which some prohibitions are applied. Can we imagine their version of Doctor Who? On a more serious note however, the Chinese government labelled this a bid to increase national identity and pride: “Time travel shows are irresponsible in not respecting history” it was announced and the officials continued to describe time travelling shows as “frivolous” and a way by which “to re-write history”. Fair enough, the Chinese ministers wish to create an air of solidarity in what China has achieved in the past half a century, becoming the quickest emerging superpower, but surely more of this present can be appreciated if other realities were speculated at the same time? Just a thought.

Last year, North Korea banned World Cup games from live screening. Instead, matches where the national team won were only broadcast after the event itself. In the case of defeat, past winning scores were shown in some way to negate the loss in the current competition. The aim was to keep moral high. Such extravagance in control however is tantamount to abuse and insulting populus’ intelligence. The country’s residents are going to notice that the World Cup trophy didn’t arrive in Korea… even if the government can conceal it’s Spanish destination.

Of course, these governments promote their version of events as helpful in their controlling the country: indeed, China’s seemingly exponential growth in the past few decades now has it a country amongst the top traders, it boasts the first fully functioning maglev, the largest metro system in the world, has hosted the Olympics and is predicted to soon be putting out more academic research than the USA (academia now being a new measure of world power). Therefore maybe there is something to be said for the tightly run state: it seems to have fostered in all the people a dedication to a way of life that brings greater benefits if they are more in routine. Disturbingly, it appears on the surface as a rehash of the American Dream. 

Elsewhere, the power of the media is something to be feared. When free speech developed in Rwanda for example through the use of the radio, RTLM was amongst the first stations to be independent of the government. Upon its launch, it was proclaimed that:

We have a radio here, even a peasant who wants to say something can come, and we will give him the floor. Then, other peasants will be able to hear what peasants think. Personally, I think what complicates things is that ordinary citizens have no forum where they can speak. Normally, for ordinary citizens to speak, they speak through elections and elections are impossible. So, in fact, ordinary citizens have been deprived of a say but RTLM is there, we will give them the floor.

(Gaspard Gahigi, RTLM, 19 March 1994)

For those less illuminated with the facts, the radio station then went on in the following months to incite genocide that saw the deaths of almost 1 million Tutsis. The station broadcast names and locations of ‘traitors’, described those to be killed as subhuman and the action of murder as nothing but work. The extent of the damage is still visible today: once the months of bloodshed were over, government controlled radio was all that was permitted: all media remains heavily monitored today lest such unspeakable horrors should be repeated. And what was the world doing whilst these tragedies unfolded? The Western media was more concerned with the death of Kurt Cobain and the OJ Simpson case. Two men overshadowed a nation.

Priority of reporting then comes into question. Through our own negligence, we allow medias to dictate our perceptions of the world and what happens. No area should be left unbroached. Recently, this concern has grown closer to home. Whilst I am concerned for family well-being, the late super-injunction scandal brings entire reams of freedom of speech and freedom of the press into question. If we are unable to pass comment on these smaller matters, how soon before there are limits in place on other things of grand importance? To ban any comment is to undermine the very foundations of the current system of democracy held in the Western hemisphere. Whilst extending the principle to more serious matters could appear somewhat dramatic and far-fetched, conceding a small amount of rights has often led to great swathes of rights being attacked.

Therefore, we need consider the role of government and its interrelation with the media in a 21^st century world. No doubt, technology has come to consume and dominate entire swaths of the planet with its ease of use and rapid transit of information. However in its misuse, there can be death, restraint and feeding ego of power heads of state. Moreover, a more broad perspective need be considered: restrictions elsewhere have contributed to shaping China and protecting Rwandans. Free speech in Western democracies is a given to which we all adhere: free speech in Western democracies is under attack, but is it advantageous?

Fairer Votes? Just Give Us A Fairer Government!

Elections on the 5^th May have generated a great deal of interest as they rightly should. Last year’s national election saw a hung parliament and  a consequent coalition has emerged: that twelve months later it has a united front is evidence of the dedication and commitment each party has made to compensate, compromise and collaborate with each other. Coalitions are indeed often considered weak and ineffective, but this government has so far tackled huge issues (which undoubtedly leave a lot of room for problems and grumbling) concerning education costs and public sector reforms. 

Now the promise of a referendum is delivered. Never in recent centuries has there been such a crucial opportunity to change our system of enfranchisement. As ever, every voter counts. Not only do recent polls demonstrate that opinion is spilt, swinging back and forth on the issues, but with fewer people actively interested in politics at large, this event has created an air of suspense between many. 

65.1% turned out in the elections of 2010 and this was considered a great achievement considering the previous election had only received 61.4% and prior to that 59.4%. However, we should consider that only as far back as 1997, there was a 71.4% turnout – and that was the lowest recorded figure in the post-World War Two era. No doubts can be held that there has been a significant drop in the number of voters – and yet there is greater concern about the way in which our government passes law. In this case, the first method by which to attain a fairer government appears fundamental: vote. With more than a third of the nation not helping to gage true feeling and beliefs, there is not the room for government to be considerate.

Yet, we may question the reasons behind the sudden drop. In a politically correct era, politics has become increasingly filled with jargon and specialist lexicon that prevent access and appreciation for the system. Moreover, with greater media outlets than ever before, parties have simply not campaigned as widely as they possibly could. People’s interests lie in so many different areas today that a government, especially one riddled with cynicism from any onlooker, needs to adapt to circumstance and target groups all through the term – not just at election time. There need be change effected for good, not for votes. Therefore, government need be more clear and defined and pro-active; so make them work for this.

Of course, the previous ideas of making politicians work all throughout their time in parliament sounds quite novel to many sceptics. However, the image serves to highlight how far politics has become a game. We only become actively involved as a society when elections are taking place. Whereas in decades gone by, social reforms, political movements and technological advances ensured politicians were seen every day to make comment and move people to belief, today politicians appear more competitive for votes each April alone and do not add much to their public sphere over the intervening year.

Some of this point scoring politics can be seen quite clearly in the current AV campaigns. For example the ‘No to AV’ programme points out costs that appear quite negligible in the long-term. It suggests millions will be spent on AV in explaining how it works – this should be common knowledge for us to make an informed decision BEFORE voting, not after it could become implemented policy. Also, discrediting the scheme through costs on new machines is hardly an acceptable argument – such machines would be useful under EITHER system of politics. However, more than these, the suggestion that there is excessive cost at having this referendum is rather insulting: democracy should be upheld at all costs; voices should not be ignored because of the ‘price’ of political freedom.

This is not to say that the ‘Yes’ voters have fared much better in their attempts at an independent campaign. It suggests that the AV system provides a bigger say in who comes first and last, and yet this phrase does not reflect the complexity of the vote count. In introducing this vote, there was a pledge it would help tackle what is commonly referred to as ‘seats for life’, but it will leave more than 200 seats unchanged. And surely the every vote counts argument is not unique to AV?

Increasingly, there appears cause for despair. Whilst politicians tackle each other with out of context quotes and front page jibes, the general public are left more unaware of the political ties. Although we have an impression of which party prefers whatever course of action relevant to a particular issue, there is little concrete argument as to why this conclusion has been reached: for both sides refer again and again to similar points.

In short, government is in need of reform and it is only achievable through the collaborative voices of the electorate ourselves. In seeking change, we seek politics to affect our daily lives for the better, for politics in action. No longer should these leaders of nations mock each other’s aims and sit passively by for a large proportion of the year. If only we exercise our own liberties, we could achieve such a more functioning government in many ways. No fully functioning government is given to us on a plate.

For more detailed insights to the flaws of the AV campaign, visit: http://thedolphinsblowhole.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/the-straw-man-referendum-how-the-av-debate-misses-the-point/