No 375
11 April
2008
It has been reported from
Zimbabwe that up to four million people have left the country in the wake of
the violence and uncertainty of recent times. 75% of these are in South Africa
and one million or so in other countries. This is nearly one third of the total
population. It also appears that the gradual collapse of the country’s economy
and institutions has been largely due to the power and influence of one man,
its President, Robert Mugabe.
Various profiles have been written
of the man, seeking to explain his behaviour, or comparing him with his
contemporary, Nelson Mandela, also a liberation fighter, also imprisoned, also
subsequently president of his country, but whose personal history turned out so
differently. President Mugabe has always claimed that his struggle was against
British colonialism and for democracy in his country. He has justified some of
his most extreme acts as part of the fight against those “that wanted to
reverse democracy”. Yet in so-called ‘liberal’ democracies in the twenty-first
century it is almost inconceivable that so much power should end up in the
hands of one person. Indeed, Robert Mugabe recently openly compared himself
with Hitler. “I am still the Hitler of the time. This Hitler has only one
objective, justice for his own people, sovereignty for his people, recognition
of the independence of his people, and their right to their resources.”
Setting aside the reference to
Hitler, the sentiments expressed are still those which animated the struggle
against British colonialism and created an independent Zimbabwe in 1980, with
Mugabe as the hero of the hour. So what happened to justice, sovereignty,
independence and rights? Democracy does not just mean that people have a vote.
Ever since historic moments like the signing of the Magna Carta, one of the
main components of democracy has been the control of the power of political
leaders and the protection of people from possible injustice by their rulers.
Mature democracies have complex institutions which have evolved over long
periods of time which guarantee the rights and the safety of citizens.
Important components are the clear separation between the government and the
judges, guaranteeing the rule of law, and civilian control of the armed forces
and the police, to avoid the possibility of military dictatorship. Democratic
institutions also make sure that basic rights and freedoms are maintained:
freedom of speech, of movement, of association and so on.
Robert Mugabe’s actions may well be
part of the reason why democracy has failed in Zimbabwe, but in 1980, after 100
years of British colonial rule and 15 years of Ian Smith’s regime, he did not
inherit the democratic institutions which it has taken Britain, for example,
800 years to refine and develop. Why do you think that Zimbabwe and South
Africa have developed so differently in recent years?
If you
train as an athlete and you then take part in an international event such as
the Olympic Games, is your action ‘pure athletics’, simply the desire to do the
best you can within your profession, or does it have any ‘meaning’ outside the
action itself? If you represent your country, does that also mean that you
accept or are proud of your country? If you take part in the Olympics, does
that mean that you approve of the Olympics and what you believe it stands for?
If you agree to take part in the Olympics in Beijing, does that mean that you
agree that Beijing is a suitable place to hold the event?
The drama
of the Olympic torch’s journey raises the question as to whether the Olympic
Games are or are not a political event, a sign of approval of the country where
they are held. There has been a long history of boycotts of the Olympic Games.
The Moscow Olympics in 1980 were boycotted by some countries because of the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Sporting boycotts were also carried out against
South Africa under apartheid. The 1936 Berlin Olympics were especially
controversial because they were considered to have been used by Hitler and the
National Socialists as propaganda for their cause.
The
question is whether any activity, however pure the motives, can ever be free of
its context. Painters, writers and musicians have often had to confront this
dilemma. Many artistic people who have achieved fame were in their time
denounced by governments who considered their works degenerate or hostile to
the interests of the state. In some cases their work was overtly political and
intended as protest, but in other cases (the symphonies of Shostakovich, the
paintings of Paul Klee) they were not created for obviously political reasons.
Tennis players and pole vaulters might also say that they were not politically
motivated. Likewise in different historical circumstances ‘pure’ activity has
run foul of the state or of religious authorities. Galileo was forced by the
Christian church to deny his belief that the earth revolved around the sun. Do
you believe that the Olympic Games are a political event?
[Source: Wikipedia]
The new British Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Bill is controversial because it seeks to legislate on the boundaries within
which embryos and stem cells created outside the human body (IVF) can be used
either for fertility treatment or for research. The bill, for instance,
contains such diverse regulations as the licensing of research using ‘hybrid’
embryos created out of human and non-human tissue, and legislating on allowing
same-sex couples becoming the legal parents of IVF babies.
The most basic ethical position is taken by those who
do not believe that any embryos at all should be created without sex between a
man and a woman. But there are many, including within the Catholic Church, who
now accept the fact that IVF exists. The Pope has recently declared, however,
that it a mortal sin to destroy any living human embryos, for instance those
rejected for IVF treatment or those used for research purposes, since this
would be the destruction of human life.
Emotive language is often used to describe this
research (Frankenstein creations, in-vitro bestiality, denigrating the image of
God, and the like), which can sometimes blur the real arguments. Some more
reasoned criticism is based on the opinion that stem cell research can be and
already has been carried out without the need to create and then destroy
embryos, and on the so-called ‘slippery slope’ argument which states that if
you allow one small step today, a bigger step will be taken tomorrow until the
original purpose of the legislation has been by-passed.
Arguments in favour contend that the research is
essential to finding treatments for a number of debilitating conditions such as
Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, that important work has already begun and that
indecision in Britain caused by ethical disputes is holding up progress. It is
a debate between scientists working in a world where evidence is produced and
tested in a context free of social, moral and political pressures – though
there may be commercial interests pushing for results – and the world outside
in which people’s opinions are often based on religious, cultural or purely
‘gut’ reactions, which to them are just as real and important. How should
the law-makers make these decisions?
A press
release by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) indicates that most
of the world’s main glaciers are melting at an increasing rate. UNEP points out
that millions, perhaps billions of people depend on these “natural water
storage facilities” for drinking water, agriculture, industry, and power generation,
especially at certain key periods of the year.
The
immediate results will affect communities on a global scale, though especially
in poorer parts of the world. Drought and all its consequences will overburden
the governments of the countries concerned, which will struggle to feed their
populations. This is likely to be critical in areas which are already prone to
local conflicts. The wider effects will be an increase in what is already known
as ‘environmentally-induced migration’. One source has suggested that as many
as one billion people will be forced from their homes between now and 2050 by
the wider effects of climate change.
At present,
in Africa for instance, much of this migration is internal, from
drought-stricken areas to areas where water is to be found. But analysts
believe that the trend will accelerate still more and be an increasing security
challenge to richer, industrialised countries as global migration intensifies.
One danger
foreseen by some commentators is that the rich countries will batten down the
hatches and focus on protecting themselves and their livelihoods, seeing the
problem just from their own point of view. This could result in a world even
more divided between a global ‘gated community’ and ‘the rest’. They believe
that only a truly world-wide solution will work, in which rich countries invest
in “a greatly heightened commitment to development [in
poorer parts of the world], not least in terms of trade reform, debt
cancellation and direct international assistance”. Do you think that the
world will become more divided or more united when faced with the consequences
of global warming?
Comprehensive schools, by their very nature, have to
provide an education for all students, and must from time to time meet some who
are less willing or able to conform. So the issue of how to deal with
disruptive students is never far away. Most teachers believe that every young
person in a modern, democratic society has the right to an education, and this
belief is reinforced in law. So how should schools provide this right to
disruptive students?
Recently one British political party has stated its
policy to allow headteachers to expel such students permanently, without
recourse to appeal. This, it is argued, would save teaching staff time spent on
long-winded legal processes and allow them to get on with their real work. Such
a policy would have an obvious attraction for many parents, students and even
perhaps staff. But, says another point of view, it does not take into
consideration all students' rights to an education, the development of an
integrated community where all work together, and the education of all students
as contributors to a peaceful future society. How should problems of
disruption be dealt with in schools?