Hello Mr Brown

Whenever a new leader assumes power all speculation comes to fruition. From Mr Bush in 2000 to Mr Howard of Canada to Mr Fico in Slovakia. This is the case for Gordon Brown who has become Britain’s new Prime Minister. Mr Brown is not new to politics or to the press, pundits, and analysts. Since, 1997 he has been Chancellor, a pact agreed upon with Tony Blair before Labour’s first electoral victory. With Mr Blair now gone, Mr Brown, the longest-serving British Chancellor since 1823, is able to achieve a life-long dream. In fulfilling this dream Mr Brown will have to face the shadow of his success over the past ten years and deal with an economy he can no longer control, a Cabinet, he is in charge of, but no longer a part of, and an opposition widely held by the British press more affable than he is. 

 

Mr Brown faces a burgeoning middle class increasingly frustrated with the super-rich. The question about Gordon Brown has always been this: is he too old Labour, too statist and egalitarian in his instincts to appeal to the English middle classes? One of the secrets of new Labour’s success was that it had it both ways. While Tony Blair in Number 10 spoke the language of the Barratt Homes estates, Brown let it be thought he was brooding over a different agenda in Number 11. He would raise taxes on the filthy rich, it was whispered, if only Blair would let him. Equally, Blair hinted he would press on faster with public service reform if Brown didn’t keep frustrating him. With each man suggesting he wasn’t fully in control, Labour continued to appeal to its new constituency while keeping most of its more traditional supporters on board. Today, he is all alone; there are no Blairites and Brownites. The Labour Party is renewing itself, not just in terms of the faces and personalities but also that sense of energy dynamism, going forward. The Brown era has begun.

 

For any aspiring Labour politician, saying ‘no’ to Prime Minister Gordon would be political suicide. Like all prime ministers he will be able to make his government in his own image, to a point. In such situations when there is a replacement of prime minister it is advisable, indeed precedence says, not to get rid of all the allies of the old PM. In Mr Brown’s case, sacking too many Blairites or appointing too many of his cronies will not go down well in the parliamentary party or with the press. So what will happen is that many current Cabinet members will remain: Jack Straw, Alistair Darling, Margaret Beckett, Douglas Alexander and Des Browne. Ruth Kelly, Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith too will probably stay in Cabinet, but are most likely to move posts. Brownites Yvette Cooper, Harriet Harman, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband will join them; even Geoff Hoon could also make a return to Cabinet. Patricia Hewitt, Lord Falconer and Baroness Amos will probably leave the Cabinet. The big question is what Brown will do with Cultural Secretary Tessa Jowell, Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, and John Hutton, most likely get rid of them, casualties to ego—Mr Brown’s. They are Blairites and Hutton in particular has been no friend of the new PM. Regardless, it will be a litmus test of just how forgiving Brown is prepared to be.

 

What is increasingly clear is just how significant a player Jack Straw will be in Brown’s first Cabinet, either as Chancellor or Home Secretary. Then again, either post may go to Alistair Darling too. Be prepared for surprises.

In U.S. politics presidential candidates choose running mates to extend their geographical and social appeal. The choice is entirely in the gift of whoever triumphs at their party convention. Gordon Brown wanted a running mate to serve the same purpose, reaching parts of the electorate a male Scot might not. He had to wait and hope that the Labour Party would deliver him the deputy leader he wanted. Justice Minister Harriet Harman was his choice. Mr Brown needed little persuading that a balanced top team of a man and a woman was best placed to help win Labour an unprecedented fourth term in Government. That was the message of the opinion polls. Paradoxically, Harman’s election takes some of the pressure off Brown in deciding which women to appoint to his Cabinet. Tony Blair had nine in his Cabinet and Brown will want to have at least as many. Newcomers will most likely include Yvette Cooper and Beverley Hughes. Of the current Cabinet the likely survivors are Margaret Beckett, Ruth Kelly and Hazel Blears all mentioned in the above paragraphs.

The secret weapon for the new prime minister is his wife. Since her marriage, Sarah Brown has been a self-effacing presence. More importantly, it would be near impossible for someone like the prickly, aloof, slightly unkempt figure that Gordon Brown was before Sarah Brown transformed his public persona, to be prime minister. She was always attractive but now she is groomed and, unlike Cherie Blair, she has an intuitive understanding of her own, understated, style. Be prepared for surprises!

Goodbye Mr Blair

At the end of an individual’s political tenure there is a sense of melancholy upon seeing them go. This is true regardless of ideological differences and more prevalent in Great Britain and the U.S. than, perhaps, anywhere else in the world. In part, because after such a long time in office a certain comfort is derived in the leader, the good and the bad.

 With tomorrow being Tony Blair’s last full day as the British Prime Minister it is only appropriate to put into context his ten years as prime minister, and thirteen years as Labour Party leader. In 1997, the year of Labour’s first election victory in twenty years, Britain was a very divided country. The gap between rich and poor was great, people were more insular and after the financial shock of 1992 less confident in their country. If Mrs Thatcher’s attempt during the 1980s was to make Britain strong again in the eyes of the world, Mr Blair certainly attempted to make Britain feel proud.

 Those familiar with American presidential history will recall the goodbyes of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. When Mr Reagan assumed the office of the presidency the United States was very much in the need of feeling proud and strong. Both tasks Mr Reagan accomplished, partly because Reagan’s gift was intimately knowing what the American public wanted to hear and see. Many laurels have been given to Reagan for ending the Cold War, forcing the Soviet Union to collapse. There is just enough fact in the fiction to make the legacy of Mr Reagan survive the abuse of partisan politics. Mr Clinton’s tenure in office was during a time of unparalleled domestic prosperity, a legacy supporters will say trump his sexual scandals. This may very well be true, since one of Clinton’s greatest gifts was to articulate policy for the average citizen.

 Mr Blair’s euphoria of victory in 1997 was tempered by events beyond his control: Princess Diana’s death, Iraq, Kosovo. As all politicians who want to focus on domestic issues, often it is foreign issues that take precedence. Furthermore, if Mr Blair had arrived in No.10 a bit unprepared for the actual role of prime minister, something he had play acted in the preceding months of 1997’s election, Blair proved to have a sharp learning curve. The change came in Tony Blair just before the 2001 general election and very strongly after it. He became a prime minister very deeply immersed in the detail of policy and reform. Blair was right for the now because, like Reagan and Clinton, he was a perfect master of television. It didn’t matter what he was saying, he knew how to get a captive audience.

 In the final analysis, after the digital ink is spent, the biggest critic of Tony Blair’s administration in terms of retrospectives will be Tony Blair himself. Only he knows what he wanted to achieve, and he, more than anyone else, is able to judge what he did against what he hoped. One thing is for certain, he leaves behind a country more easy-going than the one he inherited, less insular and more self-confident. Let us not forget that people have short memories. Any fair and reasonable assessment will conclude he did a very good job. Britain is a better place. No wonder that the Conservatives have yet to define what their new dawn will bring.

Calling Mr Sherman

 

A few centuries ago a couple of men wearing wigs met in Philadelphia. The topic was union and the issue was reform. A Confederation that had kept peace between the states was widely regarded as too weak in power and ineffective in executing policy to be considered effective or for that matter a valid governing body. Very little of American history discusses the heated debates, rivals, deals, and ultimate compromise that happened in the hot Philadelphia summer that was very historic.

 EU leaders often call their meetings historic. The two-day summit in hot Brussels on the Constitution actually seems justified. Within these two days Europe’s leaders intend to thrash out a new treaty to replace the defunct EU constitution that was killed off by voters in French and Dutch referendums two years ago. Their aim is to rescue whatever they think is most useful, notably elements that make for greater institutional coherence and fairer decision-making in a club that has now grown to 27 members. 

The usual pattern for grumpy Brussels gatherings, where leaders turn up swearing fealty to the cause of European solidarity, before embarking on vicious scraps for national interests seemed to repeat with Poland’s prime minister breaking etiquette a day before the summit started. What all EU leaders agree is that the new replacement treaty should be ratified by national parliaments, avoiding referendums that would be lost, certainly in Britain and perhaps also in the Netherlands. Since, so many countries promised to hold referendums on the constitution, breaking these promises now requires any new treaty to be argued convincingly as more modest.The problem is that the 27 countries are deeply split over which parts are useful and which will provoke. There are three broad camps. First are the 18 countries that have ratified the constitution (and four that would do so without trouble); they are sulky at having to revisit a deal they thought was settled. Next are the naysayers, who either voted no, the French and the Dutch, or who almost certainly would have done had they been given the chance, the British, plus the intermittently skeptical Czechs. They want a different, shorter treaty, but would like it settled fast. Alone in the third camp are the Poles. They have a specific objection to re-weighting the system of national votes, and are in no hurry to reach a deal. The system in the constitution provides that a majority must mean 55% of EU members representing at least 65% of the EU’s population. To stop big countries gaining too much clout from this, a “blocking minority” must contain at least four countries. Even so, the new system transfers voting power from small and mid-sized countries such as Poland to big ones, notably Germany.

In general, the ratifiers are willing to offer solutions to the naysayers’ more specific problems, as long as these do not cause problems for others. Thus, they may give Britain an opt-out on criminal-justice policy, and on police and judicial co-operation. The Dutch may struggle to win their demand to include in the new treaty the rules that determine when countries are ready to join the EU.Yet Angela Merkel of Germany, holder of the rotating presidency of the EU, has made agreement on a new treaty her top priority. This reflects the frustration of the 18 countries that have endorsed the constitutional treaty, plus four more that stand ready to do so, at being stopped in their tracks by the other five. But to push for a new text that Ms Merkel hopes will preserve as much as 90% of the substance in the rejected one, reminiscent of Mr Madison in the U.S., by merely dropping provocative labels and symbols such as the word “constitution”, the EU flag and anthem and the phrase “foreign minister”, is contemptuous of voters. It reinforces a long-held Eurosceptic belief that, if ordinary people ever say no to anything that emanates from Brussels, it is brought back repeatedly until they say yes.

It seems that at the meeting a minimalist solution is to be sought. A minimalist treaty would of course annoy both maximalists and Eurosceptics. The first group, however, should be grateful to get anything at all after the no votes in 2005. Even a minimal deal is far from certain. France’s new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, believes that he has already cooked up a solution, but the combination of his and Ms Merkel’s persuasiveness may yet prove insufficient for the British and the Poles—with the Dutch also an unpredictable factor. Eurosceptics, at least of the sort that want the EU to exist at all, would also do well to accept a minimalist treaty. It would take the issue of institutional reform, which has obsessed the EU for far too many of the past 15 years, off the table. It would clear the way for proper debate on the club’s future enlargement, stopping opponents of Turkish accession, for example. It should also lead to a thorough examination next year of the union’s lopsided budget

If the history books remember Mr Madison for writing the bulk of the U.S. Constitution and being one of the defenders of its proposals in editorials later called the Federalist Papers, seldom mentioned is Mr Sherman whose “Great Compromise” made possible the constitution’s passage. The strength of the American Constitution, indeed the whole democratic experiment is the ability of compromise. This needs to be remembered by a Britain that has historically acted more strident than conciliatory, a Germany at peace with its past, but restless over its future; and a Poland no longer neglected, yet unsure of its role in the enlarged European Union.

A Victory All The Same

When a Party wins an election it is hoped that in the legislature there will be a majority of seats controlled by the victor to push through the respective election pledges.  This is made more difficult when the media and the countless political commentator began to extrapolate on the strengths of individual candidates and of the parties. At times, the media and pundits help keep the election juggernaut rolling as the British press did in 1997 helping Labour win its stunning victory or Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrat’s in 1998. The pundits do have inaccurate predictions as they did for the Republican Party of President Bush in 2002 whom against historical precedence and media commentary actually gained seats in Congress.

 

However, the media hype over France’s presidential election created an expectation for the parliamentary election that was from the very beginning doomed to fail. Any result less than a landslide would be viewed as a defeat. Therefore, the parliamentary elections on Sunday came as no surprise. President Sarkozy’s party fell far short of the landslide win predicted for it in the second-round vote. The UMP won 314 seats in the 577-member assembly, while the Socialists won 185. The number of seats held by the Socialists and their allies was up from 149 in the previous assembly. The UMP and its allies’ majority is smaller than the 359 seats they held in the previous parliament, when Jacques Chirac was president.

 

A surprise that showed how very personal politics can be was former Socialist presidential candidate Segolene Royal announcing her split from her partner, party leader Francois Hollande. The irony is that if Ms. Royal is being tactical, hoping the separation will allow her more maneuverability when Mr Hollande steps down as party leader in 2008, strategically he has become stronger within the party. In spite of the unraveling soap opera, the Socialists’ results are a relief to the party, which has been riven by infighting since Ms Royal’s defeat in the presidential elections in May.

 

Although the centre-right UMP failed to secure a predicted landslide, it should be said it has a mandate to implement change. Mr Sarkozy’s first task will be to work out a cabinet reshuffle, after the defeat of former Prime Minister Alain Juppe, who was made energy and environment minister in the new government. But the win gives Mr Sarkozy enough room to start pushing his reforms through parliament. Plans that include tighter immigration laws, tax cuts and longer jail terms.

  

Another Step Forward

Politicians often get in trouble because they forget the fundamental truth of their jobs. They are public servants; elected by the people to represent them in their respective legislatures. All countries have corruption and in each legislature there are certain people who are known for being ‘crooked’. In fact, much of the stigma attached to politicians is due to this fact. Part of the reasons why Mr Berusconi lost his reelection bid in Italy and the Republican’s lost Congress in the United States. 

In Slovakia, Speaker of Parliament Pavol Paška introduced a proposal for the complete cancellation of ministers of parliament’s immunity last Friday. This is a good idea, pointing to the fact as Mr Paška mentions that there should be no reason why politician and citizen should not be equal in their statements. The key difference between Mr Paška’s proposal and that of the opposition’s already introduced is that through Paška’s proposal roughly corresponds with the opposition’s proposal they propose the removal of MPs’ immunity excluding statements made in parliament. Paška’s legislation calls for the complete removal of immunity.

This is an excellent idea; an idea that touches upon the very cornerstones that classical political theorists and modern politicians of various ideological stripes have spoken on. The big question is whether such a proposal will pass. Mr Paška is part of the government that has some politicians who would rather like to keep immunity for what they say. The proposal may very well be politically motivated, but it is also gutsy when one considers the prior political traditions that the Slovak Republic had.  

As the new government celebrates one year in office and the democratic experience in Slovakia continues in its fifteenth year setting precedence, as the removal of immunity is a necessary step forward. The question, yet to be seen, is if Slovak politicians are willing to take the step.

The West Wing – 20 Hours In America

The West Wing – William Fichtner

Never too late to remember

During official state visits presidents and prime ministers conduct themselves in a ceremonial manner. If such a visit includes an obligatory trip to some memorial the politician in question do their best to act solemn. It is very typical in Europe for the visiting American president to be included in numerous World War II ceremonies. This highlights the significance of the dead and the conflict, but sadly very little commentary is given when other political leaders participate in such events. This past week, during his visit to the UK, Prime Minister Robert Fico honored the 88 Czechoslovak pilots who died during the Battle of Britain, by laying a wreath at the respective war memorial in London. The history of the men who fought in the sky have not been properly told nor have they been remembered.

When Germany annexed or conquered much of Europe by 1940 the respective opposition governments fled to England. History usually recalls Mr De Gaulle and his French government coordinating with French resistance in their occupied homeland. Very little is known of the Czechoslovak government that formed in London and less still of Czechoslovak military men. The pilots, members of the Royal Air Force, were involved in defending Britain against German attacks that were meant to lead up to the invasion of the Britain. Due to their inclusion within the RAF and not as a separate group as the American’s did in WWI is part of the reason.However, the bravery and sacrifice of these men, long forgotten, should now be remembered. The memorial, unveiled by Prince Charles in 2005, features scenes of RAF fighter pilots and the blueprints of the famous Hurricane and Spitfire fighter planes. It has been 67 years since the war; never too late to remember.

Mr Putin & Mr Bush

It is often the case that presidents of the United States tend to exercise more initiative and drive the last few months and/or years in office than when they officially began their term. The stated reasons are legacy but more often legacy is not as important as a specific piece of legislation not passed through Congress or foreign policy initiative not yet begun. Ford had Helsinki that dealt with reducing Cold War tensions. Reagan visited Moscow for the fourth summit between him and Gorbachcov 1988, while Clinton had a war in Kosovo. It is on this last point that Mr Bush has traveled to Europe, meeting on Tuesday with the Czech president before heading on to Germany for a very important, soulful, meeting with Mr Putin at the G8 conference.

The meeting is seen as an attempt to repair a breach between the two leaders exposed earlier this year over the U.S.‘s plan to build a ‘missile shield’ in Central and Eastern Europe. Bush has proposed basing the radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor rockets in Poland, rousing Moscow’s suspicions that a system built in its backyard had to be aimed at it. The United States has insisted the shield is aimed at any potential nuclear threat from Iran, not Russia, but Moscow declared the explanation “insufficient” as recently as Wednesday night. This is most interesting since as of Thursday when Mr Putin and Mr Bush met, Mr Putin publicly stated that Moscow would drop its objections if the system were installed in Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic bordering the Caspian Sea and if comparisons are comparisons regarding backyards then Azerbaijan is Russia‘s patio.

The proposal has been portrayed by both sides as proof that the U.S.-Russia relationship has not fallen so far as people have speculated amid the dispute, stressing that Iran is the threat to focus on, not each other. This might sound nice for the sound bite but very big issues still remain between the two countries. Russia is unhappy about U.S. support for independence for the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo. It bristles at what it sees as U.S. meddling in its affairs and its traditional sphere of influence. Washington, meanwhile, is getting fed up with Putin for overseeing what the U.S. perceives as an era of muzzled dissent and centralized power.

There is one fact that is not disputed. Moscow has shown more willingness of late to help the West take on Iran over its nuclear program. Washington, under the guidance of Mr Bush, who knows he has limited time left in his presidency should preserve this momentum.

The Doctor

Politicians tend not to like the past, especially their own. It is filled with statements and actions that if used by anyone else usually is most unflattering. This is a well-known international fact that affects all politicians. In the seventeen years since the end of the Cold War there has been efforts made in many former communist countries to make public the secret files kept by state police. Such records once considered confidential any citizen could read, often the file on them. No greater example of this was German Chancellor Helmet Kohl’s decision after unification to allow Stasi, the German secret police, files on citizens be made available.

History is often painful forcing a people to look inward and face their dark secrets and realize certain truths. Some wounds from this time period are still tender.In Slovakia the effort to make available records of the communist era has been undertaken by the Nation’s Memory Institute’s (UPN) Department of Documentation. There has been success and frustration over the past decade and a half as attempts to reconstruct files started by former head Jan Langos. This past week the confidential records kept by the communist secret service (ŠtB) on Vladimír Mečiar and Jaroslav Svěchota have been reconstructed, 17 years after the originals disappeared. This is important since it had been feared that the document had been irretrievable lost. However, bureaucracy is bureaucracy whether it was communist Czechoslovakia or the Chicago public library. A copy of ŠtB file had also been kept in Prague.

Vladimír Mečiar, the first Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic after the separation of Czechoslovakia in 1993 may not be pleased with this news. One of those former communist politicians, who quickly changed his ideology and remained in politics after the fall of communism Mečiar served several terms as Prime Minster. It is ironic that from the many files UPN have attempted to reconstruct from the lost and destroyed files of the early 1990s, the time period that Mečiar was in power, the one on himself proved the most elusive, since two pages were torn out of Mr Mečiar’s file. Now with the recovered copy from Prague the file is complete. If and when information is to be made public the universal credo for politicians is that they the politician should make the announcement. The sexual McCarthyism that has gripped American politics the last fifteen years is proof positive of this fact. Even Mr Blair explained his ‘socialist’ activities when not at Oxford exactly at the time when his political profile was becoming larger. Mr Mečiar should take a lesson from the recent past and discuss his role during the time of Czechoslovakia. Following the tactics of previous communist political generations is not advisable and though more easy is also more political harmful. Full disclosure is a good thing if, as a politician, you want to mold public opinion. Silvio Berlusconi has followed this tactic in Italy to moderate success. Mr Mečiar has a chance too.

The question now is will the two pages from Mr Mečiar’s file be made public? If Mr Mečiar has nothing to hide then it should be him taking the initiative to make those two pages public. The ŠtB file lists Mr Mečiar’s code name as ‘The Doctor’. Only a doctor can tend to a wound that is not yet healed. History and the Slovak people are waiting.