Berlusconi dons the helmet and lifts the sword.

That old friend of Tony Blair is at it again. The man who offered the ex PM of the UK the use of his holiday home and a shoulder to cry on now wants to merge all the centre-right groupings of Italy into one party under, presumably, his leadership.

Mr Berlusconi – one of Italy’s richest men, thinks it is time to for the Italian centre-right “to unite against the old fogeys of politics”.

Mr Berlusconi is no stranger to controversy. He has survived a number of scandals and has been the object of a number of enquiries into alleged shady business dealings. He is also the man behind some, shall we say, ‘colourful’ quotes. Comparing himself to Napoleon, then Jesus Christ. Understatement and restraint would not seem to be two qualities he is in possession of.

What is worth remarking on, regarding Mr Berlusconi’s new initiative, is his assertion that this new party, entitled, The Italian People's Party for Freedom, is to be a “protagonist of freedom and democracy for decades". Which to my ears sounds somewhat chilling. It is almost a threat.

The term ‘freedom and democracy’ is coming to sound like one of those political terms leaders love, such as, ‘joy through work’ or ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. It is now bandied about as though it actually means something. It is also generally used in quite an aggressive and confrontational manner.

Democracy is not a political ideal. Neither is it a political ideology. Democracy is a political process. It is a method of government. It comes from Greek, meaning broadly ‘government by the people’. It is not a ready-made. A system that once put in place yields instant results and unites a populace. In fact whenever imposed or transplanted onto a society that has previously not been ‘democratic’ it often has the exact opposite effect to that desired. It disunites and cause a form of political free for all. A populace used to adhering to a centralised or dictatorial system suddenly finds itself with the freedom to indulge every form of political opinion and aspiration. And frequently does- resurrecting old grudges and agendas. Or breaking up along historical or ethnic lines. We forget our societies have developed our understanding of democracy over a long period and in response to differing social pressures and needs. And they are still far from exemplary.

Freedom too is a difficult concept. The reason why, certainly in Europe and North America it has taxed the minds of philosophers for centuries. One person’s freedom can be another’s prison. And freedom is also relative to the special values or principles one culture or people hold in particular importance. Therefore in cultures that hold family and extended family in very high regard, western freedom from family obligations and ties is often seen not as freedom but as chaos and a lack of responsibility. Cultures that hold community as central to identity find our need for ‘individual’ freedom as difficult to understand – certainly to condone.

And this is the problem with the new slogan, ‘freedom and democracy’. Because it is just that. A slogan. Interchangeable with ‘our way of life’. Mr Berlusconi wants his Italian People’s Party for Freedom to be a protagonist for ‘his way of life’. And given his track record it has to be said his instincts would appear to be anything but democratic. In fact based on the evidence one would have to say they are oligarchic. Or at the very least populist.

Mr Berlusconi may call this new party an appeal to the centre right, but in truth it is no more an appeal to centre right than it is an appeal to far right or hard left. Or perhaps all three.

Mr Berlusconi is branding his beliefs with the slogan of our time. "Come with us, against the old fogeys of politics to form a great new party of the people," he says.

We have heard this sort of thing before. Join with us and we will march on the future. The trend in western politics for messianic style crusading is at best unnerving.

Perhaps next time Tony visits he could have a word with Silvio about where this sort of thinking leads. That is when not licking his wounds over Iraq. Another initiative that started with cries of ‘freedom and democracy’.

Copyright (C) Peter Millington Nov 2007

Terrorism and Poetry.


It is amazing what you find just trawling other people's blogs. Recently I came across this posting concerning, mayor of London, Ken Livingstone’s desire to make sure the British media are not portraying Muslims in a way that is unfair or insensitive. It seems Mr Livingstone’s Greater London Authority has commissioned a report entitled ‘The Search for Common Ground: Muslims, Non-Muslims and the UK Media’ An admirable effort one might think. Yet one that raises some interesting questions. (a detailed article on the report and its methodology are included here). But what interested me most about the post was a couple of sentences about the BBC’s coverage of Samina Malik, the ‘Lyrical Terrorist’. It rang bells.

The BBC report reminded me of how the IRA in Northern Ireland played a similar game. As though being ‘literary’ somehow validated a campaign of violence. I seem to remember early photos of Gerry Adams, (before his Armani days) in an aran sweater, smoking a pipe and gazing poetically at 'his writings'. For all the world trying to pass himself off as Sean O'Casey or Seamus Heaney. (though O’Casey’s history is a salutary lesson on the limits of nationalist tolerance). The suggestion was, I suppose, that one so sensitive could only have the best interests of all at heart. It was, perhaps, a policy of the armalite in one hand and the pen in the other. Or more readily, the armalite out of camera, the pen well in. Of course the connection between Irish Nationalism and Irish literature is well documented. WB Yeats being one its most famous purveyors. Yet Mr Yeats, once living under an Irish nationalist government, was not quite so gung-ho. And questions of his political judgment are certainly valid in light of the fact he had a flirtation, albeit brief, with the Irish Free State’s Blueshirts of the 1930s. The same Blueshirts who metamorphosed into the National Corporate Party –an unashamedly fascist organization – that later went to fight for Franco in Spain.

The BBC report reminded me of this because it demonstrates what seems to me is a failing of the British left. Romanticising terrorism when it is linked to literature or the arts. As though artists, writers or poets were incapable of misjudgment. And this, ironically in the light of Irish Nationalism, is a very British phenomenon.

The question of Muslim identity in the UK is at present fraught with difficulty. Not least because of a plethora of initiatives such as the one above. Muslims are invariably discussed by the new-left as an homogenous group, (a community) to which everyone else must be sensitive. But the definition of 'Muslim' is very much a European one. And it confuses Muslim with Arab or middle-eastern.

Initiatives such as the one above are set up, I presume, in order to underline what is good in Islam and more importantly to separate Muslims from Muslim fanatics. Yet it ignores the fact that many Muslims have some sympathy for the fundamentalists’ political agendas. No, they do not wish death and destruction on anyone but many are in broad agreement with the politics regarding women, non-Muslims, secularists, and intellectuals. Views most non-Muslim Europeans would disagree with.

People who practice Islam in the UK are from a variety of different geographical backgrounds. Their right to practice their religion is guaranteed. That same freedom also guarantees them the right to comment on other religions. So it should follow that non-Muslims have the right to comment on Islam.

Trawling the media for examples of Islamophobia is fruitless and an example of the sort of lame thinking that dominates our politics. It smacks of censorship. It would also seem to suggest that people who practice Islam are so sensitive, so unstable, so volatile that if non-Muslims were even to breath the idea that Islam should not be given unquestioning respect, they 'the Muslims' might immediately run out and become dangerous terrorists. Something I'm sure most practicing Muslims with a modicum of intelligence would reject.

The analogy with Northern Ireland is not irrelevant. The issue there in the late 60s was civil rights for British citizens. Catholics in NI were being denied the full margin of their civil rights as citizens of the UK simple because they were Catholics. Unacceptable of course. However the politicization of the situation as a struggle between Irish Nationalism and Irish Unionism only fueled violent campaigns from both Catholics and Protestants. Each was convinced they were fighting for their identity. Each convinced there was no such thing as a middle ground. The media and government played a huge part in this by pursuing a policy of referring to Northern Irish Catholics as Nationalists and Protestants as Unionists; religious connotations no doubt being distasteful to London politicians and editors. The English left in particular muddied the waters by stating their support for a United Ireland. As good as saying they supported Irish Nationalism - Republicanism. If you were facing down the IRA each day, this was no joke. And a growing IRA campaign inevitably set in motion the Loyalist response. All of which only ensured that reasonable people in NI became increasingly isolated and consequently the issue of civil rights was buried for good. The net result of this was the deaths of many people and a substantial drain on the British exchequer.

We are in danger of doing the same with the Muslim issue. We are not so much turning a religious issue into politics, but turning a political issue into religion. Pandering in the case of fundamentalists, to fanatics and medievalists. The problem for British Muslims is not that they live in a state insensitive to their needs but they live in state that is predominantly secular. In a secular state their right to belief is guaranteed. As are the rights of other religions. That does not mean no-one has the right to comment. Because if we cannot comment on Islam, soon we will not be able to comment on Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. If the Anglican or Roman Catholic Church were to ask for this level of ‘sensitivity’ there would be outcry. The BBC would lead the charge.

What we need to do, is demonstrate the value of a secular society for practicing Muslims. The Government needs to show that secular western society protects their right to their personal beliefs but will not let those beliefs infringe on wider generally held principles. Such as freedom of speech, the right of individuals to make their own choices, the right to intellectual questioning. Giving up on those is giving up the search for common ground.

Peter Millington (C) Copyright Nov 2007

Samizdat in the Information Age.


It already seems an aeon ago. The days of the Soviet Union. When we in the ‘free’ west regularly read of the plight of writers and artists under what we were assured was an oppressive regime. Writing in secret, smuggling manuscripts, illicitly copying and passing on of work, all of which if you were caught in possession of, could result in some harsh penalties. Samizdat it was called, a play on Russian for self-publishing and the names official Soviet publishing houses had such as Politizdat or Detizdat.

I mention Samizdat because recently I read a blogpost that was about blogging and the internet. It would seem that moves are afoot in Italy to enact legislation regarding the freedom of speech in cyberspace. The Levi-Prodi law wants to ensure that ‘anyone with a blog or a website has to register it with the ROC, a register of the Communications Authority, produce certificates, pay a tax, even if they provide information without any intention to make money’. This according to Italian anti-government campaigner Beppe Grillo.

No doubt some see in this a sinister move to halt free speech and the free exchange of information. And you have to say they would probably be right. There must be many in the establishments of Europe and the Unites States who are deeply uneasy about the way in which opinions and information can move across the web without them or any of their client departments having much control. But I suspect, moves such as the Levi-Prodi law are about money as much as repression. We live in a part of the world where market values are, in effect, the prevailing ideology. (though I use the term ideology loosely because I don’t think many of the poltical brains of our time have probably ever done much serious thinking – plenty of justification - but little serious thinking). I suspect what irks some of these people is that in their view there is a huge ‘market’ there yet to be tapped. For in the case of the above legislative proposal it is not hard to imagine that registration will not be free, certification will need to be paid for and of course both these will be topped off with a tax.

The connection with Samizdat is of course ideology. The Soviet state sought control over its writers and artists because it feared they might ‘contaminate’ Communist ideology. Of course, often times, it was just simple brutality and spite. However the ideological aspect was the justification. In our society of market forces and market values many writers and artists already work using a form of Samizdat. The blogosphere, (I know it is and awful term), and the Internet in general, provide a means of sharing work and getting response. For in order to be viewed through the mainstream channels of communication one needs now, it seems, more and more to fulfill the requirements of the ideology. That is, your art – your product – must be marketable, must be merchandisable and its success must be able to be determined in units sold and revenue generated.

True, caught in possession of something outside that framework will not result in imprisonment or a stretch in the gulag. But a life in unsuitable or low paying work, without any means of self-expression or confirmation of your creativity can be a sentence of its own.


(If you want to know more about this legislation click here)


Copyright (C) Peter Millington Now 2007