Of all the things that have been and will be said about the latest in our cycle of prime ministerial changes, it is this quote by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (get used to that) that defines what this is all about.
Read it again.
'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row.'
If you need to know how politicians treat their position, there it is. It is not about serving in office, as decided by the people; it is about 'winning power', about being in front at all times, regardless of what that means for the nation in the long term. It is about style over substance, even if that requires using the idea of substance as your style, as Turnbull seems eager to do.
There is plenty more that can be said about this event. As I type, the Prime Minister has claimed that he is 'humbled' by his party's choice. This is hardly a shining example of humility. But, also occurring as I type, Turnbull is making clear that he desires a traditional Cabinet style of government. If he manages to balance the modern stylism with traditional Cabinet government, he will have done well.
But it is curious to claim that this was not about leadership style tonight, but instead about internal culture, after claiming only hours ago that the Australian people had pronounced judgement on the government...which is primarily, today, a matter of style.
'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row.'
I suspect Turnbull will be hoping this quote disappears into the ether. He must demonstrate that his government is not purely guided by the polls, if he is truly about 'the future'.
Monday, 14 September 2015
Sunday, 6 September 2015
Is online interaction any replacement for talking to someone face-to-face?
I am a fan of the internet.
This is hardly an outrageous opinion. Most people, certainly those who actively use the internet for activities such as this, would claim to be fans of the internet, and of the opportunities it provides.
Of all the changes that the internet has brought to our day-to-day lives, none seem to me to be as important as that of the way it has changed human interaction with one another. For most of human history, the only way to regularly interact with someone was to do so face-to-face. Letters were written, but the expense of doing so meant generally only the wealthy and/or the important would write letters, and would do so rarely. If the letter was particularly important, such as that from one king to another, it would also be presented by a dignitary from the country of the writer. We also know from ancient letters, such as those found in the Biblical New Testament, that the writers of these personal letters did so essentially as a stop gap solution, as they all write how much they wish to see the people they are writing to face-to-face.
The first revolution in communication came with the telegram. In and of itself, the telegram wasn't necessarily doing anything new. It was really just carrying on from optical telegraph systems that had been appearing across Europe from the late 18th century onwards. But optical telegraphs were costly and hard to use, and therefore unlikely to be used by anyone outside of the government. The electric telegraph, on the other hand, was relatively cheap and extremely efficient. With the ability to cable under the ocean, messages could be sent vast distances very quickly indeed. But the telegram was never intended to convey long messages or aid conversation. The quickly developed standard was that of Morse code, which made it necessary to be as efficient as possible with the language used in each telegram - as did the price, which, while not expensive, was still costly enough that a long message would be better sent via letter.
Next was the telephone. While the telegram was a way of getting short messages across long distances quickly, the telephone was intended to be more personal. Unlike the telegram, it was based around voice. Speaking to another person is necessarily more intimate than reading off a sheet of paper, and the location of telephones (in the home) meant it was a device well-suited to personal conversation. But the effort of being in the place where the device is, at the right time for long enough to have a genuine conversation meant that talking over the phone would often be a concerted decision that was made because no other option was available. Most likely, it was a matter of distance, with the two people wanting to speak to each other being far enough away that talking face-to-face was not practical. In any case, talking over the phone is not the same as talking face-to-face. Humans use a great deal of body language - much of it so subtle we don't consciously recognise it - that cannot be picked up over the phone. We are, of course, capable of conveying extra meaning with just our voices if necessary, but it isn't the same. Personally, I dislike talking over the phone, I suspect for this very reason.
The mobile phone eliminated one of the difficulties with the telephone by ending the need for a person to be in the location of the phone. Now the phone could be with the person, wherever that may be. But the cost of these early phone, along with the bulkiness, meant that it was really only the rich (particularly businessmen) who could be bothered to get one. Once they slimmed down, gained a screen and were connected to the global satellite network, they gained a more important communications function: the SMS. This was essentially a new form of telegram, with the same advantage that the mobile already had over the landline phone. Anyone could send anyone else an instant telegram at a low cost, wherever they were. This necessarily reduced the importance required for messaging one another, and the naturally personal and discreet nature of using the mobile for messaging meant it became far easier to use the written form for conversation. But the character limits of texts also meant that any such conversation would be unlikely to be particularly enlightening, and would still probably only be a gap-filler during the time that friends do not see each other face-to-face.
It is the internet which has brought the greatest change to the way we communicate. The crux of basically everything to do with the internet is simple this: there are no limits. It is both an extension of existing society, and a new society in and of itself. It can be used for whatever purpose we choose to use it for. In the case of communication, there have been two paths which have now converged to form one all-encompassing communication method. The first path was that of the internet forum. These existed well before the world wide web came about, through the use of bulletin board systems as well as the massively influential usenet. These allowed individuals, who would often but not always use their real names, to post about subjects that interested them in particular. The ability to talk about specific topics, especially ones that would be obscure to the wider community, was naturally attractive, and allowed users to be able to explore their topic of choice as though they were discussing it at one of the old coffee houses in 17th century London, or a French salon in the 18th century. There was, though, a rather large barrier to entry in that you needed to have the technological know-how to operate a computer in such a way that you could access these forums, but if you were able to do this chances are you would be really interested in talking about your interests with others who share them. The introduction of the web allowed today's forums to displace the old boards, and with them came the rise of anonymity and the expansion of those who could use such forums. But forums still tend to build communities in much the same way, being designed, above all, around a point of interest. For many, the people they discuss topics with on these forums are people they would not otherwise have ever met.
The second path communication took on the internet was that of instant messaging. Unlike previous written forms, IM (as provided by MSN and AOL in particular) had no conceivable limits. It did require you to be in the right place, but once you were there (probably hidden away in a corner of a room) you could stay there for as long as you liked, in a place of relative quiet, able to 'talk' for as long as you pleased without much interruption. You could even express emotions via the use of emoticons :). It is not too surprising that children and teenagers were most likely to use such technologies, as a) they found it easiest to embrace new technology and b) it allowed them independence from their parents in an age where parents were becoming far less likely to allow their kids to stay outside for most of the day. Thus, where once kids would go to one person's home straight after school and spend most of the day there before walking to their own home in time for dinner, now they would be more likely to be picked up from school and go straight on to the computer, where they could spend hours in conversation with whoever they wished. Naturally, this meant that although conversation was theoretically without limits, you were unlikely to find particularly high-level conversation. While kids are always smarter than they are given credit for, they tend to prefer basic conversation until they're a bit older. Over time, the ability to instantly message has expanded, as internet speeds have become faster and hardware more capable. Now, we can choose precisely which method on instant communication we want: text, audio, or even audio-visual. But even today the latter two, especially audio-visual, rely on us being in one place. Generally, this is through the use of a web-cam, and if we are going to the effort of using such a device, it is for the same reasons people used the telephone: a long conversation that was not practical face-to-face.
But now, in the year AD 2015, we find that these two paths have managed to branch but together in that monolith we call Facebook. I can use any method of instant communication I want on there to converse with someone. Those who grew up with IM are now older, and are able to use the limitless method of conversation to its full extent if they so wish, with Facebook posts able to go into thousands of words. The only real limit is that we can choose who our 'friends' are, but once we do this, these people can see what we are doing whenever we share it. Thus, someone can come to 'know' us in a way never before possible, simply from our posting of photos, videos and stray thoughts onto our Facebook page. Once we 'know' them, we can personally converse with them in any method we wish, as quickly as we wish, for as long as we wish. This is extraordinary. We can spend far more time 'talking' with someone over the internet than we ever do in real life. It has, I suspect, therefore become very easy to fool ourselves into thinking that this is normal, and even moreso that it is no different to meeting in-person.
But we should not fool ourselves like this. It is not the same. There is something naturally different about face-to-face conversation. It has a flow to it. It comes to us in fits and spurts, taking some time to get into and then eventually fading. It is not naturally instantaneous in its beginning and end. We don't decide which emotion we are going to show through the use of one face. We don't even need to say anything to express what we are thinking, especially with others that know us well. There is something slightly unnerving about attempting to enter discussion with someone else in real life when you have spent time in conversation with them over the internet. The longer the conversation, the more unnerving. It is as though you have to unlearn your method of interacting online, while simultaneously telling yourself that this is the same person. Your mind does not naturally know this, after all - all it sees are words.
This is not to say that using the internet for discussion is necessarily bad. As stated, the internet is whatever we decide to use it for. That is has given the opportunity for people across the world to discuss topics of interest with each other is no bad thing, and I have personally made much use of it. But this may have also made it more difficult for me to approach real-life conversation in the same way. Internet conversation also lacks the sense of community that is gained from being with another person, or a group of people. It is entirely reliant on some form of discussion taking place. There is no way for people to simply silently enjoy each other's company - after all, they are not actually in each other's company. Deep down, I think we all recognise that this is true. But we don't seem that eager to do anything about it.
Perhaps we should, before we forget what it feels like to be in community for good.
This is hardly an outrageous opinion. Most people, certainly those who actively use the internet for activities such as this, would claim to be fans of the internet, and of the opportunities it provides.
Of all the changes that the internet has brought to our day-to-day lives, none seem to me to be as important as that of the way it has changed human interaction with one another. For most of human history, the only way to regularly interact with someone was to do so face-to-face. Letters were written, but the expense of doing so meant generally only the wealthy and/or the important would write letters, and would do so rarely. If the letter was particularly important, such as that from one king to another, it would also be presented by a dignitary from the country of the writer. We also know from ancient letters, such as those found in the Biblical New Testament, that the writers of these personal letters did so essentially as a stop gap solution, as they all write how much they wish to see the people they are writing to face-to-face.
The first revolution in communication came with the telegram. In and of itself, the telegram wasn't necessarily doing anything new. It was really just carrying on from optical telegraph systems that had been appearing across Europe from the late 18th century onwards. But optical telegraphs were costly and hard to use, and therefore unlikely to be used by anyone outside of the government. The electric telegraph, on the other hand, was relatively cheap and extremely efficient. With the ability to cable under the ocean, messages could be sent vast distances very quickly indeed. But the telegram was never intended to convey long messages or aid conversation. The quickly developed standard was that of Morse code, which made it necessary to be as efficient as possible with the language used in each telegram - as did the price, which, while not expensive, was still costly enough that a long message would be better sent via letter.
Next was the telephone. While the telegram was a way of getting short messages across long distances quickly, the telephone was intended to be more personal. Unlike the telegram, it was based around voice. Speaking to another person is necessarily more intimate than reading off a sheet of paper, and the location of telephones (in the home) meant it was a device well-suited to personal conversation. But the effort of being in the place where the device is, at the right time for long enough to have a genuine conversation meant that talking over the phone would often be a concerted decision that was made because no other option was available. Most likely, it was a matter of distance, with the two people wanting to speak to each other being far enough away that talking face-to-face was not practical. In any case, talking over the phone is not the same as talking face-to-face. Humans use a great deal of body language - much of it so subtle we don't consciously recognise it - that cannot be picked up over the phone. We are, of course, capable of conveying extra meaning with just our voices if necessary, but it isn't the same. Personally, I dislike talking over the phone, I suspect for this very reason.
The mobile phone eliminated one of the difficulties with the telephone by ending the need for a person to be in the location of the phone. Now the phone could be with the person, wherever that may be. But the cost of these early phone, along with the bulkiness, meant that it was really only the rich (particularly businessmen) who could be bothered to get one. Once they slimmed down, gained a screen and were connected to the global satellite network, they gained a more important communications function: the SMS. This was essentially a new form of telegram, with the same advantage that the mobile already had over the landline phone. Anyone could send anyone else an instant telegram at a low cost, wherever they were. This necessarily reduced the importance required for messaging one another, and the naturally personal and discreet nature of using the mobile for messaging meant it became far easier to use the written form for conversation. But the character limits of texts also meant that any such conversation would be unlikely to be particularly enlightening, and would still probably only be a gap-filler during the time that friends do not see each other face-to-face.
It is the internet which has brought the greatest change to the way we communicate. The crux of basically everything to do with the internet is simple this: there are no limits. It is both an extension of existing society, and a new society in and of itself. It can be used for whatever purpose we choose to use it for. In the case of communication, there have been two paths which have now converged to form one all-encompassing communication method. The first path was that of the internet forum. These existed well before the world wide web came about, through the use of bulletin board systems as well as the massively influential usenet. These allowed individuals, who would often but not always use their real names, to post about subjects that interested them in particular. The ability to talk about specific topics, especially ones that would be obscure to the wider community, was naturally attractive, and allowed users to be able to explore their topic of choice as though they were discussing it at one of the old coffee houses in 17th century London, or a French salon in the 18th century. There was, though, a rather large barrier to entry in that you needed to have the technological know-how to operate a computer in such a way that you could access these forums, but if you were able to do this chances are you would be really interested in talking about your interests with others who share them. The introduction of the web allowed today's forums to displace the old boards, and with them came the rise of anonymity and the expansion of those who could use such forums. But forums still tend to build communities in much the same way, being designed, above all, around a point of interest. For many, the people they discuss topics with on these forums are people they would not otherwise have ever met.
The second path communication took on the internet was that of instant messaging. Unlike previous written forms, IM (as provided by MSN and AOL in particular) had no conceivable limits. It did require you to be in the right place, but once you were there (probably hidden away in a corner of a room) you could stay there for as long as you liked, in a place of relative quiet, able to 'talk' for as long as you pleased without much interruption. You could even express emotions via the use of emoticons :). It is not too surprising that children and teenagers were most likely to use such technologies, as a) they found it easiest to embrace new technology and b) it allowed them independence from their parents in an age where parents were becoming far less likely to allow their kids to stay outside for most of the day. Thus, where once kids would go to one person's home straight after school and spend most of the day there before walking to their own home in time for dinner, now they would be more likely to be picked up from school and go straight on to the computer, where they could spend hours in conversation with whoever they wished. Naturally, this meant that although conversation was theoretically without limits, you were unlikely to find particularly high-level conversation. While kids are always smarter than they are given credit for, they tend to prefer basic conversation until they're a bit older. Over time, the ability to instantly message has expanded, as internet speeds have become faster and hardware more capable. Now, we can choose precisely which method on instant communication we want: text, audio, or even audio-visual. But even today the latter two, especially audio-visual, rely on us being in one place. Generally, this is through the use of a web-cam, and if we are going to the effort of using such a device, it is for the same reasons people used the telephone: a long conversation that was not practical face-to-face.
But now, in the year AD 2015, we find that these two paths have managed to branch but together in that monolith we call Facebook. I can use any method of instant communication I want on there to converse with someone. Those who grew up with IM are now older, and are able to use the limitless method of conversation to its full extent if they so wish, with Facebook posts able to go into thousands of words. The only real limit is that we can choose who our 'friends' are, but once we do this, these people can see what we are doing whenever we share it. Thus, someone can come to 'know' us in a way never before possible, simply from our posting of photos, videos and stray thoughts onto our Facebook page. Once we 'know' them, we can personally converse with them in any method we wish, as quickly as we wish, for as long as we wish. This is extraordinary. We can spend far more time 'talking' with someone over the internet than we ever do in real life. It has, I suspect, therefore become very easy to fool ourselves into thinking that this is normal, and even moreso that it is no different to meeting in-person.
But we should not fool ourselves like this. It is not the same. There is something naturally different about face-to-face conversation. It has a flow to it. It comes to us in fits and spurts, taking some time to get into and then eventually fading. It is not naturally instantaneous in its beginning and end. We don't decide which emotion we are going to show through the use of one face. We don't even need to say anything to express what we are thinking, especially with others that know us well. There is something slightly unnerving about attempting to enter discussion with someone else in real life when you have spent time in conversation with them over the internet. The longer the conversation, the more unnerving. It is as though you have to unlearn your method of interacting online, while simultaneously telling yourself that this is the same person. Your mind does not naturally know this, after all - all it sees are words.
This is not to say that using the internet for discussion is necessarily bad. As stated, the internet is whatever we decide to use it for. That is has given the opportunity for people across the world to discuss topics of interest with each other is no bad thing, and I have personally made much use of it. But this may have also made it more difficult for me to approach real-life conversation in the same way. Internet conversation also lacks the sense of community that is gained from being with another person, or a group of people. It is entirely reliant on some form of discussion taking place. There is no way for people to simply silently enjoy each other's company - after all, they are not actually in each other's company. Deep down, I think we all recognise that this is true. But we don't seem that eager to do anything about it.
Perhaps we should, before we forget what it feels like to be in community for good.
Saturday, 29 August 2015
Joe Hockey's week of distractions
Peter FitzSimons, rugby union international, author and bandana wearer, spoke at the National Press Club this week. The topic? The rebirth of Australian republicanism. Now, this may not have been a particularly notable speech - a lot of people go through the NPC, and there are quite a number of disgruntled republicans around FitzSimons' age - were it not for FitzSimons' announcement that the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, was leading a Parliamentary Friendship Group on the issue.
I suspect most of the community was not even aware of the existence of such groups. We are told that the groups exist so that members of both major parties can discuss issues that they share positions on. Apart from the question of why MPs need such groups to discuss issues with members of other parties (surely a sign of our Parliament having descended into petty sport, if further proof was needed), the elephant-in-the-room question is why now?
For starters, the republican movement is not doing particularly well at the moment. The most recent poll done on the issue, from Newspoll last year, shows that republicanism has been trending downwards since the 1999 referendum, and is now neck and neck with monarchism. Most worryingly for the movement, the level of strong support has significantly ebbed, especially amongst the young. The largest amount of strong support comes from middle-aged men (like FitzSimons and Hockey).
I suspect there are two reasons for the lack of strong support among the young. Firstly, they do not remember the bad old days for the monarchy during the 90s, particularly between the annus horribilus and the death of Princess Diana. Secondly, they're quite taken with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, to say nothing of Prince Harry, quite possibly the only royal today who could become Governor-General of this country without too much fuss being made (not that he will). The young royals also make their older relatives look better. I suspect even Charles is more popular today than he was a decade ago. (Note: these are not the only reasons for young people (or older people) to support a monarchy, but they do help explain the changing levels of support.)
Maybe it's this waning republican fervour that has avowed republicans determined to make it an issue again, presumably thinking that as long as young Australians are made to think about the issue, that the 'incontrovertible logic' of an Australian republic will easily turn them to the cause. Given that young Australians also care less for democracy than any other age group, I'm not so sure this is the case.
If it is this desire to get republicanism waxing again before its too late, then there is still the question of why, specifically, right now? This was the week which the Treasurer began by announcing that he would be focusing on cutting income tax, and began setting out the case for such a move, explaining why it was that this must be done and why it must happen now. What logic is there in announcing this policy, proclaiming that it is important, and then two days later allowing another topic - one which has neither widespread support nor a pressing need to happen right now - to distract from this supposedly important issue?
The thing is, even the issue of income tax cuts appears to be a distraction. The case for it is not strong. Yes, bracket creep is an issue - a given when tax brackets do not keep pace with inflation - but it isn't one that is going to change the fundamentals of the economy (which are in desperate need of attention). Nor, in the short term, does it do anything for the deficit, which the government promised to deal with, or assist public services, which every federal government continues to expand, therefore requiring a larger tax base. If the money isn't coming from a healthy economy or income tax, where will it come from?
Furthermore, who benefits the most from cutting the income tax? At face value, this depends on how it is delivered. If it is simply from increasing the tax-free threshold, then anyone on the edge of a tax bracket benefits, from the poorest to the richest. If it is actually about cutting rates, then the government is presumably most interested in using it to gain votes from middle-income earners - but there's also no way they wouldn't then also cut the taxes of high earners, as that would just give the latter more incentive to take their earnings offshore (and also stop donating to their traditional party of choice). Given high earners are, by design, the largest individual contributors to the government collections of tax, this would create a shortfall that needs to be made up somewhere.
At another level, though, any income tax cut is likely to hit the affect the poor the most, not directly, but through indirect results. The shortfall can be made up in two ways: increasing income and reducing spending. Increasing income can only come from some other form of taxation which, given this government's record, is unlikely to be a form of company tax. Instead, it will likely be some other form of individual taxation, which isn't reliant on income. The thing is, flat taxation naturally affects the poorest more than it affects the richest, as it takes away a higher proportion of their wealth. This will essentially mean that cutting income tax will be a redistribution of taxation away from the rich towards the poor. Reducing spending can only come through cutting the amount of things the government does - that is, government services - which, proportionally, are also most used by the poorer. So, this important policy is simply a way of changing the degree to which wealth is redistributed amongst the population. It does nothing to change the structure of the economy. Or, to put it another way, it's a distraction.
The republican issue served to distract from the distraction of income tax cuts. Is it any wonder so many seem disenchanted with the government?
I suspect most of the community was not even aware of the existence of such groups. We are told that the groups exist so that members of both major parties can discuss issues that they share positions on. Apart from the question of why MPs need such groups to discuss issues with members of other parties (surely a sign of our Parliament having descended into petty sport, if further proof was needed), the elephant-in-the-room question is why now?
For starters, the republican movement is not doing particularly well at the moment. The most recent poll done on the issue, from Newspoll last year, shows that republicanism has been trending downwards since the 1999 referendum, and is now neck and neck with monarchism. Most worryingly for the movement, the level of strong support has significantly ebbed, especially amongst the young. The largest amount of strong support comes from middle-aged men (like FitzSimons and Hockey).
I suspect there are two reasons for the lack of strong support among the young. Firstly, they do not remember the bad old days for the monarchy during the 90s, particularly between the annus horribilus and the death of Princess Diana. Secondly, they're quite taken with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, to say nothing of Prince Harry, quite possibly the only royal today who could become Governor-General of this country without too much fuss being made (not that he will). The young royals also make their older relatives look better. I suspect even Charles is more popular today than he was a decade ago. (Note: these are not the only reasons for young people (or older people) to support a monarchy, but they do help explain the changing levels of support.)
Maybe it's this waning republican fervour that has avowed republicans determined to make it an issue again, presumably thinking that as long as young Australians are made to think about the issue, that the 'incontrovertible logic' of an Australian republic will easily turn them to the cause. Given that young Australians also care less for democracy than any other age group, I'm not so sure this is the case.
If it is this desire to get republicanism waxing again before its too late, then there is still the question of why, specifically, right now? This was the week which the Treasurer began by announcing that he would be focusing on cutting income tax, and began setting out the case for such a move, explaining why it was that this must be done and why it must happen now. What logic is there in announcing this policy, proclaiming that it is important, and then two days later allowing another topic - one which has neither widespread support nor a pressing need to happen right now - to distract from this supposedly important issue?
The thing is, even the issue of income tax cuts appears to be a distraction. The case for it is not strong. Yes, bracket creep is an issue - a given when tax brackets do not keep pace with inflation - but it isn't one that is going to change the fundamentals of the economy (which are in desperate need of attention). Nor, in the short term, does it do anything for the deficit, which the government promised to deal with, or assist public services, which every federal government continues to expand, therefore requiring a larger tax base. If the money isn't coming from a healthy economy or income tax, where will it come from?
Furthermore, who benefits the most from cutting the income tax? At face value, this depends on how it is delivered. If it is simply from increasing the tax-free threshold, then anyone on the edge of a tax bracket benefits, from the poorest to the richest. If it is actually about cutting rates, then the government is presumably most interested in using it to gain votes from middle-income earners - but there's also no way they wouldn't then also cut the taxes of high earners, as that would just give the latter more incentive to take their earnings offshore (and also stop donating to their traditional party of choice). Given high earners are, by design, the largest individual contributors to the government collections of tax, this would create a shortfall that needs to be made up somewhere.
At another level, though, any income tax cut is likely to hit the affect the poor the most, not directly, but through indirect results. The shortfall can be made up in two ways: increasing income and reducing spending. Increasing income can only come from some other form of taxation which, given this government's record, is unlikely to be a form of company tax. Instead, it will likely be some other form of individual taxation, which isn't reliant on income. The thing is, flat taxation naturally affects the poorest more than it affects the richest, as it takes away a higher proportion of their wealth. This will essentially mean that cutting income tax will be a redistribution of taxation away from the rich towards the poor. Reducing spending can only come through cutting the amount of things the government does - that is, government services - which, proportionally, are also most used by the poorer. So, this important policy is simply a way of changing the degree to which wealth is redistributed amongst the population. It does nothing to change the structure of the economy. Or, to put it another way, it's a distraction.
The republican issue served to distract from the distraction of income tax cuts. Is it any wonder so many seem disenchanted with the government?
Wednesday, 26 August 2015
Australia joining the air-strikes in Syria was only a matter of time
Last week we were told that the United States had formally asked Australia to join the coalition of nations bombing the Islamic State in Syria, with Australia already participating in air strikes in Iraq. Today, Fairfax reported that the Prime Minister's office had lobbied for the United States to ask Australia in. This has been denied by the PM and the Treasurer, while a spokesman from the US government refused to comment.
I don't see how it matters which country asked which first. ISIS does not care about national borders, so there is very little reason to engage in air strikes on the western side of their territory, but refuse to do the same on the eastern side. All it really achieves is that it allows ISIS more breathing space in Syria than in Iraq. How could it possibly be a big deal if Australia decides to cover Syria as well?
Some would say that the government is lying to the public if they claim that the US government asked for assistance, and that they intend to carefully consider the request, if they had in fact lobbied to join in in Syria. If this turns out to be the case, then they certainly are being loose with the truth. However, you would expect that they would only request such a thing if they believe the ADF is fully capable of doing the job. Furthermore, it isn't the same as asking to join a war. The war is already joined, it's simply a matter of how far the operations are going.
To be honest, I don't see how there is any way countries could realistically attack ISIS in Iraq but not Syria for a prolonged period of time. ISIS simply can't be beaten that quickly, and the ground troops fighting against them need support on all sides of their territory. There is no point wasting time on figuring out who said what to whom, and the fact that it is being brought up at all makes it sounds suspiciously like another leak from somewhere in the government.
The question that we should really be asking is whether we should be in the Middle East at all, as that it is a topic that is genuinely worth debating, and of importance both for us and for the world.
I don't see how it matters which country asked which first. ISIS does not care about national borders, so there is very little reason to engage in air strikes on the western side of their territory, but refuse to do the same on the eastern side. All it really achieves is that it allows ISIS more breathing space in Syria than in Iraq. How could it possibly be a big deal if Australia decides to cover Syria as well?
Some would say that the government is lying to the public if they claim that the US government asked for assistance, and that they intend to carefully consider the request, if they had in fact lobbied to join in in Syria. If this turns out to be the case, then they certainly are being loose with the truth. However, you would expect that they would only request such a thing if they believe the ADF is fully capable of doing the job. Furthermore, it isn't the same as asking to join a war. The war is already joined, it's simply a matter of how far the operations are going.
To be honest, I don't see how there is any way countries could realistically attack ISIS in Iraq but not Syria for a prolonged period of time. ISIS simply can't be beaten that quickly, and the ground troops fighting against them need support on all sides of their territory. There is no point wasting time on figuring out who said what to whom, and the fact that it is being brought up at all makes it sounds suspiciously like another leak from somewhere in the government.
The question that we should really be asking is whether we should be in the Middle East at all, as that it is a topic that is genuinely worth debating, and of importance both for us and for the world.
Tuesday, 18 August 2015
Who's afraid of Jeremy Corbyn?
For a number of months now, the British Labour Party has been going through a leadership contest. It has more than a whiff of American presidentialism about it, with the focus on how the leaders would take the party back to power (an interesting, modern choice of words. Once upon a time, it was about being in office, not in power). Perhaps not coincidentally, given America's mood for Trump and Sanders at the moment, the comfortable front-runner for the Labour leadership is a man called Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn is more-or-less the antithesis of Tony Blair. Labour has been inching this way since Blair's retirement. But Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband tried to offer a kind of balanced approach, accepting much of the basic economic policy in particular that New Labour embraced, and then trying to retrofit 'socialist' ideas into that framework.
Corbyn offers no such thing. He is passionate, he is internally consistent, and he loathes much of modern politics. He is doggedly anti-austerity, which will serve him well if(/when) the UK economy collapses. The unions like him, as they see him as the last of the old Labour union men. The people seem to like him too, partly for his ideology and partly for his honesty and personality.
This is also a big problem for the top dogs within the Labour Party. According to them, politics works on a left/right scale, and the way to win power is to be able to be 'electable' by grabbing as much of the 'middle ground' as possible. That is, after all, what New Labour did, and it worked. But they also recognise that the name of New Labour has been muddied as history has examined it more closely, and that the electorate isn't that interested in another Blair. Therefore, the party leadership wants someone who is not quite New Labour, but still close enough not to scare away modern Conservative voters.
Their favoured options are therefore Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham. Neither offers anything particularly interesting, either in policy or leadership, with Cooper being particularly difficult to grasp. But both are considered safe options because of the blandness they present, and the two were considered the favourites after the candidates were announced. Liz Kendall is the fourth option, considered the smokey to begin with and now believed to have no chance. Kendall was quite happy to present herself as the continuation of New Labour, seemingly unaware of the damage that would cause her. She will finish last.
And then there is Corbyn. Corbyn is not 'electable'. According to the Labour apparatchiks, he is 'hard left'. His economic policies are meant to be unworkable, and his leadership will apparently destroy Labour and, thereafter, the entire country. At the start of the campaign, his odds of winning were 100/1. They are now 1/2.
It seems that the Labour membership does not actually care what their leadership has to say. They see that Labour has lost the last two elections by presenting a plan of nothingness, and that their party now stands for very little. They want their party back, and are responding to the man who is offering that. This is quite remarkable in and of itself, but what is just as remarkable has been the response of the Labour big wigs.
Tony Blair got it all started by suggesting that Labour would be 'annihilated' if Corbyn won. Since then, prominent figures past and present, such as Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, David Milliband, Harriet Harman, the vast majority of Labour MPs who think one of the other candidates would be better and Gordon Brown (without naming Corbyn directly.)
This speaks of an enormous political disconnect. Remember, MPs are supposed to be representative - that is, the represent the people of their electorates. And if they are a member of a party, it presumably because they believe in the ideology that the party supports. If Corbyn, a man who both has support of the people and holds to a clear ideology that is meant to be that of Labour, also has a very small proportion of sitting Labour MPs on his side, what does that say about the Labour Party?
So, as Corbyn's first preference polling has now hit over 50%, the other candidates are now turning on each other with each suggesting, publicly or privately, that one of the others should resign, so they can take on Corbyn head-to-head. Meanwhile, while they're all attacking each other, Corbyn continues to tour the country, talking to packed meeting halls about his beliefs.
The UK, and indeed much of the Western world, is currently in a societal deadlock. Corbyn is, if nothing else, someone who can help break the deadlock, one way or another. Perhaps this is what Labour is so afraid of.
Corbyn is more-or-less the antithesis of Tony Blair. Labour has been inching this way since Blair's retirement. But Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband tried to offer a kind of balanced approach, accepting much of the basic economic policy in particular that New Labour embraced, and then trying to retrofit 'socialist' ideas into that framework.
Corbyn offers no such thing. He is passionate, he is internally consistent, and he loathes much of modern politics. He is doggedly anti-austerity, which will serve him well if(/when) the UK economy collapses. The unions like him, as they see him as the last of the old Labour union men. The people seem to like him too, partly for his ideology and partly for his honesty and personality.
This is also a big problem for the top dogs within the Labour Party. According to them, politics works on a left/right scale, and the way to win power is to be able to be 'electable' by grabbing as much of the 'middle ground' as possible. That is, after all, what New Labour did, and it worked. But they also recognise that the name of New Labour has been muddied as history has examined it more closely, and that the electorate isn't that interested in another Blair. Therefore, the party leadership wants someone who is not quite New Labour, but still close enough not to scare away modern Conservative voters.
Their favoured options are therefore Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham. Neither offers anything particularly interesting, either in policy or leadership, with Cooper being particularly difficult to grasp. But both are considered safe options because of the blandness they present, and the two were considered the favourites after the candidates were announced. Liz Kendall is the fourth option, considered the smokey to begin with and now believed to have no chance. Kendall was quite happy to present herself as the continuation of New Labour, seemingly unaware of the damage that would cause her. She will finish last.
And then there is Corbyn. Corbyn is not 'electable'. According to the Labour apparatchiks, he is 'hard left'. His economic policies are meant to be unworkable, and his leadership will apparently destroy Labour and, thereafter, the entire country. At the start of the campaign, his odds of winning were 100/1. They are now 1/2.
It seems that the Labour membership does not actually care what their leadership has to say. They see that Labour has lost the last two elections by presenting a plan of nothingness, and that their party now stands for very little. They want their party back, and are responding to the man who is offering that. This is quite remarkable in and of itself, but what is just as remarkable has been the response of the Labour big wigs.
Tony Blair got it all started by suggesting that Labour would be 'annihilated' if Corbyn won. Since then, prominent figures past and present, such as Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, David Milliband, Harriet Harman, the vast majority of Labour MPs who think one of the other candidates would be better and Gordon Brown (without naming Corbyn directly.)
This speaks of an enormous political disconnect. Remember, MPs are supposed to be representative - that is, the represent the people of their electorates. And if they are a member of a party, it presumably because they believe in the ideology that the party supports. If Corbyn, a man who both has support of the people and holds to a clear ideology that is meant to be that of Labour, also has a very small proportion of sitting Labour MPs on his side, what does that say about the Labour Party?
So, as Corbyn's first preference polling has now hit over 50%, the other candidates are now turning on each other with each suggesting, publicly or privately, that one of the others should resign, so they can take on Corbyn head-to-head. Meanwhile, while they're all attacking each other, Corbyn continues to tour the country, talking to packed meeting halls about his beliefs.
The UK, and indeed much of the Western world, is currently in a societal deadlock. Corbyn is, if nothing else, someone who can help break the deadlock, one way or another. Perhaps this is what Labour is so afraid of.
Friday, 14 August 2015
The unnecessary confusion of 'extravert' and 'introvert'
I do not know why, but lately I have heard a lot of people using 'extravert' and 'introvert' to describe themselves and others. It may simply be that I have been paying more attention to this distinction, or it may just be a coincidence.
Of all the things Carl Jung has given the world, the concept of humanity being divided into extraversion and introversion is probably the most well-known and used.
It's a fairly simple idea, which has probably helped it gain such a large following. The idea is as follows: All humans are either extraverted or introverted. Extraverts are gregarious and love being around others. In fact, they cannot get enough of being around others, and therefore want to be out and about all the time. They are more worried with things that are happening around them than they are in exploring ideas or taking time out alone in their head. Introverts, on the other hand, are quieter and are quite happy to be on their own. They spend more time in their head, focusing on concepts and ideas, and find being around others too long to be tiring.
This is a convenient way to describe people, but it doesn't seem to me to accord with reality too well. The first problem with it is that it essentially marginalises 'introverts' as loners who would rather be in their own, in their head all the time. Now, this wasn't necessarily Jung's intention, but it is what it has turned into, in no small part due to the work of Isabel Myers in the field of personality types. The thing is, from my experience those would define themselves as 'introverts' still tend to enjoy being around people, and many actually prefer the here and now instead of getting lost in the world of ideas. It seems more accurate to say that the E/I distinction is one purely to do with how involved a person wishes to be with others, and for how long.
This leads onto the second problem, in that both Jung and Myers believed that this distinction was the single most important part of a person's personality. I do not see how this can be so. Of all the parts that could potentially define someone's personality, the level and style of their interaction with others cannot be the most important distinction. If you were to observe a group of people over a long period of time, you would notice that while some people were clearly 'extraverted' and others 'introverted', many of the group would theoretically oscillate between the two depending on their mood, at best leaning one way or the other. Furthermore, the 'extraverts' would express themselves in a significant variety of ways, as would the 'introverts'. If this were the single most important factor, you would expect all the 'extroverts' to be not only obvious, but also more or less on exactly the same wavelength. They are not.
So, if the E/I distinction is neither as accurate nor as important as it is often assumed to be, is there any use in it? Well, I believe there is, but the terminology has to be changed a bit. My preference is for what David Keirsey has done in his temperament theory. Extravert and introvert are replaced with expressive and attentive. The difference between these two is portrayed as being both less distinctive and of the least importance in the traits that make up the whole of our personalities. The difference is most simply explained thusly: 'expressives' prefer talking, 'attentives' prefer listening. This says nothing about whether they prefer abstract ideas or concrete reality, or whether they prefer having things settled or leaving some wriggle room - that is, the kinds of things that have more impact on personality. It is simply a basic judgement on how people prefer to interact with others.
Personality and temperament is a field worthy of more attention than it gets, but the bigger problem seems to be that there are a large number of theories out there on how personality works, which makes it rather difficult for society to understand the way everyone within it works. If we were able to do this, relationships between people wouldn't suddenly be perfect...but they would be better. A simple way to get this ball rolling is to ditch the extraversion/introversion stuff, and focus on more relevant things.
Of all the things Carl Jung has given the world, the concept of humanity being divided into extraversion and introversion is probably the most well-known and used.
It's a fairly simple idea, which has probably helped it gain such a large following. The idea is as follows: All humans are either extraverted or introverted. Extraverts are gregarious and love being around others. In fact, they cannot get enough of being around others, and therefore want to be out and about all the time. They are more worried with things that are happening around them than they are in exploring ideas or taking time out alone in their head. Introverts, on the other hand, are quieter and are quite happy to be on their own. They spend more time in their head, focusing on concepts and ideas, and find being around others too long to be tiring.
This is a convenient way to describe people, but it doesn't seem to me to accord with reality too well. The first problem with it is that it essentially marginalises 'introverts' as loners who would rather be in their own, in their head all the time. Now, this wasn't necessarily Jung's intention, but it is what it has turned into, in no small part due to the work of Isabel Myers in the field of personality types. The thing is, from my experience those would define themselves as 'introverts' still tend to enjoy being around people, and many actually prefer the here and now instead of getting lost in the world of ideas. It seems more accurate to say that the E/I distinction is one purely to do with how involved a person wishes to be with others, and for how long.
This leads onto the second problem, in that both Jung and Myers believed that this distinction was the single most important part of a person's personality. I do not see how this can be so. Of all the parts that could potentially define someone's personality, the level and style of their interaction with others cannot be the most important distinction. If you were to observe a group of people over a long period of time, you would notice that while some people were clearly 'extraverted' and others 'introverted', many of the group would theoretically oscillate between the two depending on their mood, at best leaning one way or the other. Furthermore, the 'extraverts' would express themselves in a significant variety of ways, as would the 'introverts'. If this were the single most important factor, you would expect all the 'extroverts' to be not only obvious, but also more or less on exactly the same wavelength. They are not.
So, if the E/I distinction is neither as accurate nor as important as it is often assumed to be, is there any use in it? Well, I believe there is, but the terminology has to be changed a bit. My preference is for what David Keirsey has done in his temperament theory. Extravert and introvert are replaced with expressive and attentive. The difference between these two is portrayed as being both less distinctive and of the least importance in the traits that make up the whole of our personalities. The difference is most simply explained thusly: 'expressives' prefer talking, 'attentives' prefer listening. This says nothing about whether they prefer abstract ideas or concrete reality, or whether they prefer having things settled or leaving some wriggle room - that is, the kinds of things that have more impact on personality. It is simply a basic judgement on how people prefer to interact with others.
Personality and temperament is a field worthy of more attention than it gets, but the bigger problem seems to be that there are a large number of theories out there on how personality works, which makes it rather difficult for society to understand the way everyone within it works. If we were able to do this, relationships between people wouldn't suddenly be perfect...but they would be better. A simple way to get this ball rolling is to ditch the extraversion/introversion stuff, and focus on more relevant things.
Friday, 31 July 2015
AI, aliens and the pursuit of a higher power
What if Terminator was real?
This seems to be the point of a recent open letter signed by tech luminaries such as Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak, pleading that the arming of artificial intelligence is ended due to the risk it poses for the future of humanity.
This is not the first time these names, amongst others, have been warning against the dangers of artificial intelligence. Hawking has been particularly loud about this recently, telling the BBC last year that he feared that AI could re-design itself to continually surpass humanity, once it became self-aware.
But as the scientific community frets about robots, the general populace seems to be more concerned about another classic sci-fi threat. A poll released by Essential Report this weeks suggests that a majority of Australians think that intelligent alien life exists in the universe. Interestingly, the polling was done according to which political party respondents would usually vote for, with Labor and Greens voters finding it more likely than Coalition voters or others.
Is there any connection between these dual fears? I suspect so.
Fundamentally, artificial intelligence is simply another type of alien. AI and ET are both meant to be something more intelligent than us, with greater technology and a superior form and function. Ultimately, their differences to us means that they will attempt to destroy, and therefore we should fear them.
Despite this, many who fear AI do not believe that there is alien life (though Hawking is a notable exception). Why might this be? I suspect it is to do with where these two 'species' could come from. Artificial intelligence is a human creation. It is something born from the world of computer technology, a realm in which humanity has made vast advances over the past century. For artificial intelligence to become self-aware and self-replicating would mean that man has managed to make something like itself, quite possibly being the pinnacle of human achievement. By contrast, alien life suggests the opposite: that there is something over which humanity has no control, no involvement in creating and no way of predicting.
Many of those who are warning of the dangers of AI have spent much of their life rejecting the idea of another power over which humans have no control, no involvement in creating and no way of predicting: God. I find it quite possible that the reason for this convergence of athiests fearing a human-created higher power, and the general population fearing an otherworldly higher power, has something to do with the drop in belief of God. For the athiest, it is human-created artificial intelligence that replaces God as the superior of man. For the apathiest, it is an unknown being, like us but also different and somehow greater, that replaces God.
This also seems to correlate with the general understanding of religion amongst the Australian population, whereby most of the remaining practicing Christians in this country tend to vote for the Coalition or other parties. Such people would also have no reason or need for another higher power, as they believe in one already.
The cases of the alien and the AI speak to both our imagination and, surely, our desire for something greater than ourselves to exist. Certainly, neither has any claim to being a reasonable suggestion at this point. Artificial intelligence is a long, long way from being able to do the things seen in film and on television. In fact, such things are likely to be impossible. Real AI can predict and act according to their programming, and nothing more. Aliens, on the other hand, seem less likely to exist every time we discover a planet so different to our own, so disordered and so unable to have established life on it.
Perhaps we are not the godless society we are often claimed to be.
It has been some two millenia since Cicero stated that 'nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.' It seems he is still right.
This seems to be the point of a recent open letter signed by tech luminaries such as Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak, pleading that the arming of artificial intelligence is ended due to the risk it poses for the future of humanity.
This is not the first time these names, amongst others, have been warning against the dangers of artificial intelligence. Hawking has been particularly loud about this recently, telling the BBC last year that he feared that AI could re-design itself to continually surpass humanity, once it became self-aware.
But as the scientific community frets about robots, the general populace seems to be more concerned about another classic sci-fi threat. A poll released by Essential Report this weeks suggests that a majority of Australians think that intelligent alien life exists in the universe. Interestingly, the polling was done according to which political party respondents would usually vote for, with Labor and Greens voters finding it more likely than Coalition voters or others.
Is there any connection between these dual fears? I suspect so.
Fundamentally, artificial intelligence is simply another type of alien. AI and ET are both meant to be something more intelligent than us, with greater technology and a superior form and function. Ultimately, their differences to us means that they will attempt to destroy, and therefore we should fear them.
Despite this, many who fear AI do not believe that there is alien life (though Hawking is a notable exception). Why might this be? I suspect it is to do with where these two 'species' could come from. Artificial intelligence is a human creation. It is something born from the world of computer technology, a realm in which humanity has made vast advances over the past century. For artificial intelligence to become self-aware and self-replicating would mean that man has managed to make something like itself, quite possibly being the pinnacle of human achievement. By contrast, alien life suggests the opposite: that there is something over which humanity has no control, no involvement in creating and no way of predicting.
Many of those who are warning of the dangers of AI have spent much of their life rejecting the idea of another power over which humans have no control, no involvement in creating and no way of predicting: God. I find it quite possible that the reason for this convergence of athiests fearing a human-created higher power, and the general population fearing an otherworldly higher power, has something to do with the drop in belief of God. For the athiest, it is human-created artificial intelligence that replaces God as the superior of man. For the apathiest, it is an unknown being, like us but also different and somehow greater, that replaces God.
This also seems to correlate with the general understanding of religion amongst the Australian population, whereby most of the remaining practicing Christians in this country tend to vote for the Coalition or other parties. Such people would also have no reason or need for another higher power, as they believe in one already.
The cases of the alien and the AI speak to both our imagination and, surely, our desire for something greater than ourselves to exist. Certainly, neither has any claim to being a reasonable suggestion at this point. Artificial intelligence is a long, long way from being able to do the things seen in film and on television. In fact, such things are likely to be impossible. Real AI can predict and act according to their programming, and nothing more. Aliens, on the other hand, seem less likely to exist every time we discover a planet so different to our own, so disordered and so unable to have established life on it.
Perhaps we are not the godless society we are often claimed to be.
It has been some two millenia since Cicero stated that 'nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.' It seems he is still right.
Wednesday, 29 July 2015
Kurdistan - nation in waiting?
Nations are a strange thing, logically having no real reason to exist, yet somehow managing to bring together millions upon millions of people under one banner, claiming to be one people. While Western countries have been busy trying to systematically destroy the idea of one national culture over the past few decades, the rest of the world has been trying to overthrow the incoherent 'nations' that were imposed on them by the West in their rapid decolonisation during the 50s and 60s. One region which has still not managed to do so is that of Kurdistan.
What is today called the Kurdistan region is an area crossing four countries, inhabited by people with a shared culture and heritage who call themselves Kurds. Unlike many of the people groups in the region, the Kurds are a fairly recent group, first noted as a distinct people group in around the 12th century and not being firmly established until at least the 16th. It is believed they draw their heritage from various tribal groups of Persia, but have over some hundreds of years come together as one culture and language.
Today, the Kurds mostly live in an area that actually intersects four different countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. There are mild differences between the Kurds in each of these countries, but not significantly enough to prevent them being grouped as one people. For much of the past century, the Kurds have been left behind by successive nationalist regimes, as they have no country to call their own, being a significant minority in all four of the aforementioned. Now, with two of these four countries crumbling against the force of the Islamic State, the Kurds may be approaching the day where they can declare their independence. Were the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds to do so, no-one could really stand in their way...except for Turkey.
The history of the Turkish Kurds, which make up the largest proportion of Kurds in the world, is the most difficult and storied of the group. Turkish nationalism, and the Turkification of the new republic that happened from the 1920s onwards, naturally found an enemy in the Kurds, who were quite happy being Kurds, not Turks. Thus forms the basis for an century-old internal conflict, one which is today represented in two political parties: Justice and Development (AKP), which currently hold government; and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which doesn't focus so much on elections as it does in being the army of the Turkish Kurds. The Turkish government and the PKK have been fighting on and off for years, with the former trying to ensure the Kurds remain in Turkey, and the latter trying to make sure they don't.
Having agreed to their most recent ceasefire in 2013, these two are now once again fighting each other, with both blaming the other for the resumption of hostilities. Unlike past conflicts, though, this one is potentially a three-cornered context, thanks to the Islamic State.
First, some context. A suicide bomber blew himself up in Suruc, a Kurdish town in Turkey, killing 32 people. The Turkish government blames the Islamic State, but at least some Kurds believe Turkey colluded with IS. Therefore, the PKK shot two Turkish policeman as a response, thereby ending the ceasefire on their side. Because they believe Turkey was at least partly responsible for the bomb, they could claim that the ceasefire had already ended. In any case, Turkey proceeded to bomb IS fighters - and bombed the PKK at the same time.
Furthermore, Turkey announced that they would work with the United States to create a buffer zone on their border with Syria. As it happens, this zone would also act as a buffer for another group: the Syrian Kurds. The latter's army, the YPG, has close ties with the PKK, and has carved out a zone of control in northern Syria which is beginning to extend beyond the extent of the Kurdish population in Syria. Not helping matters is Turkey's approach towards IS thus far, which has been more or less tolerant of their existence, due to a preoccupation with getting Bashar al-Assad out of the Syrian presidency and with controlling the PKK.
The question being asked now is whether Turkey truly intends to fight IS, or whether they are using IS as a pretext to put down any potential emerging Kurdistan. As it stand today, Iraqi Kurdistan seems on the verge of being its own nation. It has been autonomous within Iraq for a decade, but the continual weakness of the Iraqi government means that if Kurdistan were to announce independence, there is little they could do. Syrian Kurdistan is in a similar position, but is more bound by geography. There is only a fairly thin border between Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan, one that is still contested between them and IS. On the Turkish side of the border, though, there is plenty of space with which to work. This presents a significant problem for Turkey, as both IS and the PYG/PKK have shown little care for national borders.
Above all, this presents a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the Turkish government. Having spent a century defining itself as a secular nation with a secular government, a Turkey that loses Kurdistan could well face a national dispute over which way to take in the future - whether to embrace the secularism they claim to have, and do away with the increasing Islamisation of society; or whether to go the other way, and drop the pretence of secularism.
Turkey stands as the gateway of cultures, and it is on the Kurdish question that its direction will be decided.
What is today called the Kurdistan region is an area crossing four countries, inhabited by people with a shared culture and heritage who call themselves Kurds. Unlike many of the people groups in the region, the Kurds are a fairly recent group, first noted as a distinct people group in around the 12th century and not being firmly established until at least the 16th. It is believed they draw their heritage from various tribal groups of Persia, but have over some hundreds of years come together as one culture and language.
Today, the Kurds mostly live in an area that actually intersects four different countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. There are mild differences between the Kurds in each of these countries, but not significantly enough to prevent them being grouped as one people. For much of the past century, the Kurds have been left behind by successive nationalist regimes, as they have no country to call their own, being a significant minority in all four of the aforementioned. Now, with two of these four countries crumbling against the force of the Islamic State, the Kurds may be approaching the day where they can declare their independence. Were the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds to do so, no-one could really stand in their way...except for Turkey.
The history of the Turkish Kurds, which make up the largest proportion of Kurds in the world, is the most difficult and storied of the group. Turkish nationalism, and the Turkification of the new republic that happened from the 1920s onwards, naturally found an enemy in the Kurds, who were quite happy being Kurds, not Turks. Thus forms the basis for an century-old internal conflict, one which is today represented in two political parties: Justice and Development (AKP), which currently hold government; and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which doesn't focus so much on elections as it does in being the army of the Turkish Kurds. The Turkish government and the PKK have been fighting on and off for years, with the former trying to ensure the Kurds remain in Turkey, and the latter trying to make sure they don't.
Having agreed to their most recent ceasefire in 2013, these two are now once again fighting each other, with both blaming the other for the resumption of hostilities. Unlike past conflicts, though, this one is potentially a three-cornered context, thanks to the Islamic State.
First, some context. A suicide bomber blew himself up in Suruc, a Kurdish town in Turkey, killing 32 people. The Turkish government blames the Islamic State, but at least some Kurds believe Turkey colluded with IS. Therefore, the PKK shot two Turkish policeman as a response, thereby ending the ceasefire on their side. Because they believe Turkey was at least partly responsible for the bomb, they could claim that the ceasefire had already ended. In any case, Turkey proceeded to bomb IS fighters - and bombed the PKK at the same time.
Furthermore, Turkey announced that they would work with the United States to create a buffer zone on their border with Syria. As it happens, this zone would also act as a buffer for another group: the Syrian Kurds. The latter's army, the YPG, has close ties with the PKK, and has carved out a zone of control in northern Syria which is beginning to extend beyond the extent of the Kurdish population in Syria. Not helping matters is Turkey's approach towards IS thus far, which has been more or less tolerant of their existence, due to a preoccupation with getting Bashar al-Assad out of the Syrian presidency and with controlling the PKK.
The question being asked now is whether Turkey truly intends to fight IS, or whether they are using IS as a pretext to put down any potential emerging Kurdistan. As it stand today, Iraqi Kurdistan seems on the verge of being its own nation. It has been autonomous within Iraq for a decade, but the continual weakness of the Iraqi government means that if Kurdistan were to announce independence, there is little they could do. Syrian Kurdistan is in a similar position, but is more bound by geography. There is only a fairly thin border between Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan, one that is still contested between them and IS. On the Turkish side of the border, though, there is plenty of space with which to work. This presents a significant problem for Turkey, as both IS and the PYG/PKK have shown little care for national borders.
Above all, this presents a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the Turkish government. Having spent a century defining itself as a secular nation with a secular government, a Turkey that loses Kurdistan could well face a national dispute over which way to take in the future - whether to embrace the secularism they claim to have, and do away with the increasing Islamisation of society; or whether to go the other way, and drop the pretence of secularism.
Turkey stands as the gateway of cultures, and it is on the Kurdish question that its direction will be decided.
Monday, 27 July 2015
A note on European democracy
As we learn on this day how prepared Greece was to use a parallel liquidity system if necessary after their great referendum, it is curious to see what was being said about the impeding failure of the European Union some 21 years ago. Listen to the words used around the two minute mark, and wonder why nothing has changed.
Note: the rest of the video is worth watching for historical enjoyment alone.
Note: the rest of the video is worth watching for historical enjoyment alone.
Monday, 20 July 2015
Rallies for drowning out voices
Over the past two days rallies were held across the country by a number of groups, some of which are protesting a shift (real or imagined) in the culture of their nation, and others which are protesting their protest.
You can tell from the names of these groups which one is which, and they have been split into two sides by the media, for your easy consumption. On the 'right', Reclaim Australia and the United Patriots Front. On the 'left', Rally Against Racism and United Against Islamophobia, supported by socialist and university groups.
I would love to be able to pronounce judgement in some form or another on which of these groups had a valid point. Unfortunately, I cannot. The media coverage of these events has been completely lacking in any form of substance, focusing almost entirely on 'clashes' with basically all of the pictures taken involving either people bellowing at others and/or policemen looking stern.
The problem with focusing on these basically irrelevant incidents is that it entirely takes away from the point of these rallies. Or, at least, the point of the Reclaim Australia rallies. It's quite remarkable how the ABC in particular managed to quote the counter-protesters far more than the initial ralliers, to the point where what the rallies were about was lost amongst the cries of racism and hate speech and the like.
From what I can gather, though, I find the claims of the counter-protesters somewhat dubious.
Reclaim Australia and other like-minded groups can fall into one of two categories: nationalists, or fascists. The best place to look to find which they may be is Europe, which is well ahead of us in terms of national discontent about immigration.
There are a large group of parties that are regularly dismissed at far-right, racist, fascist, violent, hateful etc. Some of these parties are, some of them are not, some of them might be but have conflicting messages. For example, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is clearly not a racist party. It has repeatedly stated that immigration is fine, but mass immigration and a lack of border control is not. Golden Dawn, the third largest party in the Greek parliament, clearly is a racist party, and though it rejects the label of Nazism it is happy to display very similar elements to the Nazis, from its logo to its rallies to its beliefs. France's National Front probably isn't, but the legacy of its former (now outcast) leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has all but guaranteed that the connection between the party and anti-Semitism will stick for years to come. Hungary's Jobbik possibly is, and undoubtedly has elements within its party that are, but at the very least seems fairly happy to let such elements support them without giving them support back.
Despite the great difference between these parties (and the fact that they all disagree with each other in the European Parliament) all have been denounced with the same language domestically and internationally. Is this wise? It seems to me that if you denounce a party and its supporters as racists, when they are not and their policies suggest otherwise, all you do is fuel tensions, and further their anger at the political climate of their nation. Take it far enough, and it could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy, though it seems unlikely to happen here.
Should Australia's economy tank (it will), chances are there will be far more community discontent and, therefore, many more people joining in rallies like that of Reclaim Australia. Right now, these rallies don't need a great deal of attention, but the public needs to be informed about them properly, to ensure that there is an understanding across the community of the genuine will of the people. If discontent rises, it cannot continually be dismissed as far-right fantasy. For now, let us observe what happens, and if we will indeed follow the Europeans with genuine concerns over immigration, or whether we will instead go our own way. Whatever we do, let us not dismiss today's events, and what they could mean for the future.
You can tell from the names of these groups which one is which, and they have been split into two sides by the media, for your easy consumption. On the 'right', Reclaim Australia and the United Patriots Front. On the 'left', Rally Against Racism and United Against Islamophobia, supported by socialist and university groups.
I would love to be able to pronounce judgement in some form or another on which of these groups had a valid point. Unfortunately, I cannot. The media coverage of these events has been completely lacking in any form of substance, focusing almost entirely on 'clashes' with basically all of the pictures taken involving either people bellowing at others and/or policemen looking stern.
The problem with focusing on these basically irrelevant incidents is that it entirely takes away from the point of these rallies. Or, at least, the point of the Reclaim Australia rallies. It's quite remarkable how the ABC in particular managed to quote the counter-protesters far more than the initial ralliers, to the point where what the rallies were about was lost amongst the cries of racism and hate speech and the like.
From what I can gather, though, I find the claims of the counter-protesters somewhat dubious.
Reclaim Australia and other like-minded groups can fall into one of two categories: nationalists, or fascists. The best place to look to find which they may be is Europe, which is well ahead of us in terms of national discontent about immigration.
There are a large group of parties that are regularly dismissed at far-right, racist, fascist, violent, hateful etc. Some of these parties are, some of them are not, some of them might be but have conflicting messages. For example, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is clearly not a racist party. It has repeatedly stated that immigration is fine, but mass immigration and a lack of border control is not. Golden Dawn, the third largest party in the Greek parliament, clearly is a racist party, and though it rejects the label of Nazism it is happy to display very similar elements to the Nazis, from its logo to its rallies to its beliefs. France's National Front probably isn't, but the legacy of its former (now outcast) leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has all but guaranteed that the connection between the party and anti-Semitism will stick for years to come. Hungary's Jobbik possibly is, and undoubtedly has elements within its party that are, but at the very least seems fairly happy to let such elements support them without giving them support back.
Despite the great difference between these parties (and the fact that they all disagree with each other in the European Parliament) all have been denounced with the same language domestically and internationally. Is this wise? It seems to me that if you denounce a party and its supporters as racists, when they are not and their policies suggest otherwise, all you do is fuel tensions, and further their anger at the political climate of their nation. Take it far enough, and it could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy, though it seems unlikely to happen here.
Should Australia's economy tank (it will), chances are there will be far more community discontent and, therefore, many more people joining in rallies like that of Reclaim Australia. Right now, these rallies don't need a great deal of attention, but the public needs to be informed about them properly, to ensure that there is an understanding across the community of the genuine will of the people. If discontent rises, it cannot continually be dismissed as far-right fantasy. For now, let us observe what happens, and if we will indeed follow the Europeans with genuine concerns over immigration, or whether we will instead go our own way. Whatever we do, let us not dismiss today's events, and what they could mean for the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)