All posts by

The Gender Revolutionaries

by John Peart on December 7, 2011 in Liberation, Politics, The Beaver with No comments

Some areas of our society are persecuted every day because of how they choose to live their lives. Racial, gender and sexual discrimination are rife within our society even today. Several countries around the world still outlaw homosexuality, punishing those who are “found out” with the death penalty. Fascist organisations like the British National Party and English Defence League are growing in number and strength, peddling messages of hate and denying those who don’t conform to their nazi-esque vision the right to even exist. The battle for equality and freedom from oppression is far from over.

But sometimes, it takes one person, or a group of people to challenge the way that people think. The Gay Liberation Front was one of those groups. As a radical and revolutionary force, the GLF challenged social norms and through the prejudices of the 1970s out in the open, taking the first steps of a journey that is still being taken today.

The GLF found its roots in late 1960s America in the wake of a riot that would come to symbolise the struggle for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer liberation. The Stonewall riots saw the first true resistance to institutional oppression of LGBTQ people; a routine police presence in a well known gay bar escalated into violent protest against state oppression of civil liberties. Democratic principles teach us that all people are created equal under the law but in 1970s America liberty and freedom of expression applied to some more equally than others and Stonewall soon became synonymous with gay liberation.

On both sides of the Atlantic, movements were stirring, riding the wave of enthusiasm that another society was possible. A society free of oppression.

The first meeting of the UK arm of the Gay Liberation Front was held in a dusty basement  classroom of the London School of Economics in 1970. Only a dozen people turned up to the inaugural meeting, but little did they know that this would be the start of one of the most high profile, radical, revolutionary, and ultimately short lived organisations is gay rights history. At the height of the movement, the organisation was regularly hosting hundreds of attendees in the LSE’s New Theatre and coordinating action on a massive scale.

The GLF was more than just a pressure group. It was a movement. And it was more than just a gay rights organisation. The GLF allied itself with the women’s and black movements, and any movement that was struggling to fight against societal norms to gain equality. The organisation saw itself as more than a one trick pony and more than just a reformist group.

At the core of GLF’s vision was a genderless society. It was gender that oppressed gay people and only through the destruction of those gender structures. Reformation was not the goal of the GLF, their goal was revolution. The structures of society were set up so that men were masculine; they sought attractive women and dominated them and women were their subordinates. In such a society, anyone who challenged these norms were outcast. The GLF’s mission was to free society from this oppression.

This oppression had to stop and the worldwide GLF movement would stop at nothing to ensure they achieved their mission. In 1971 the organisation published a manifesto.

“We do not intend to ask for anything. We intend to stand firm and assert our basic rights. If this involves violence, it will not be we who initiate this, but those who attempt to stand in our way to freedom.”

The message was clear. Expect the unexpected, expect to be challenged and don’t expect the voices of oppressed minorities to go away. The GLF would try anything to shock society into a new world order and spark the structural revolution they so desperately craved. Idealistic, passionate and determined, these revolutionaries would not be deterred by anything.

Perhaps the most well known and inspiring action that the GLF took was an action at the Festival of Light; an event that was organised and backed by Christian groups. The church had long looked down on homosexuality – and still does to this day – and that made it a prime target for the GLF. To highlight the absurdity of the churches opinion, and the rigidity of the gender structures it reinforced, the GLF organised for dozens of protestors to dress in drag, infiltrate the crowd and pair of in same sex kisses throughout the crowd. The movement grabbed headlines and media coverage around the world with it’s innovative methods and strong political methods to such an extent that the effects are still felt today.

But for all it’s campaigning success, the movement came to an untimely end. Factions were numerous within the GLF, and they all disagreed about which direction the movement should travel. Both the US and UK arms of the GLF disbanded only a few years after their inception, the UK arm splintering into organisations that still exist today. Organisations like Stonewall and OutRage! only exist today because of organisations like the Gay Liberation Front. Their tactics may be more reformist, but these organisations continue to push the envelope in 21st century.

The GLF is probably one of the most revolutionary movements of our time. But it’s effect on society was not as profound as we might expect. Where the civil rights movement gained legal equality for black citizens, and the suffragettes – also based at LSE – secured the right to vote for women, the gay rights movement has had little impact on the day to day lives of LGBT people across the world. Whilst no longer an illegal act, the major barriers to society today for gay people are not structural but psychological. There is still a stigma to being homosexual in our society; there still exists a problem with people’s perceptions about the gay community; bullying is still rampant in schools and discrimination is still rife across all levels of our society.

The GLF catapulted the 1970s into questioning it’s approach to the question of gender and it’s very existence meant that today, people like me have a voice in society, but the job is far from finished.

The Blood Ban

by John Peart on October 1, 2011 in Liberation, Politics, The Beaver with No comments
MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

For many years “men who sleep with men” (MSM) have been unable to donate blood because of discriminatory rules predicated on the idea that gay men are more likely to carry HIV/AIDS, and that there was therefore too high a risk of transmission to take blood from this group of people for use in the National Blood Service (NBS).

That all changed this month as it was announced that the lifetime ban would be lifted and replaced with a twelve month ban; MSM would be able to donate blood providing they had no sexual contact with a man in the last year.

Organisations like the National Union of Students (NUS) LGBT Campaign and Stonewall have been campaigning on this issue for years, arguing that LGBT men should be treated no differently than straight men when it comes to giving blood; so when the decision was announced, it was heralded as a victory by many. But that victory is a hollow one; hollow because whilst it is now technically possible for gay and bi-sexual men to give blood, for most of us it won’t make any difference.

The NBS has admitted time and time again that the demand for blood is rapidly outstripping the supply they receive, and yet still the NBS is turning away LGBT men that are willing to donate and perfectly healthy. As an organisation, it has decided to continue to draw circles around sexuality and not around safety; as an organisation it has decided to keep reinforcing age old prejudices and to uphold myths about the LGBT community that are totally unfounded.

The facts are simple: forty-five per cent of HIV/AIDS transmission is through gay couples whilst fifty-five per cent is through straight couples. Gay and bi-sexual men are not any more of a high risk group for transmitting HIV/AIDS than straight men and taking blood from a sexually active LGBT male is no more risky than anyone else – there should be no ban at all! It’s simply not true that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease, but by continually creating barriers to donation for LGBT men, the NBS upholds a lie and broadcasts it to the world. This rule change might be a step in the right direction, but it’s just as discriminatory for the vast majority of gay men.

To give credit where credit is due, the NBS have attempted to acknowledge the truth about HIV/AIDS infection – it heavily influenced the new rules – but now Hepatitis B is being used as the excuse to stop LGBT men donating. Hepatitis B is one-hundred times more infectious than HIV/AIDS and one in three gay or bi-sexual men in London will contract it by the time they are thirty-five. Unlike HIV/AIDS though, is completely treatable and preventable with a free course of injections from your GP. As an excuse to still have a blanket ban, it’s pretty weak; if Hepatitis B is such a problem for gay and bisexual men – which clearly it is – why was this not the reason for the life-time ban in the first place? I’ll tell you why; it’s because the ban isn’t about science or safety, it’s about prejudice, and to claim otherwise is sheer naivety. This is institutional homophobia that we’ve accepted, put up with, and continue to see at every turn and enough is enough.

It doesn’t matter what disease they try and use to stop us from donating blood, the underlying tone is clear and it must be continually confronted until gay and bisexual men enjoy the same freedom to donate blood to save lives as anyone else. With the exception of obvious mechanics, there is nothing different about the way MSM conduct their sex lives compared to straight men. They can be just as careful – practicing safe-sex – as straight men. They can be just as promiscuous, or not, as straight men. They can hold monogamous relationships just like straight men. The LGBT community is not a disease ridden pack of whores any more than the straight community.

And it comes back to this idea of drawing circles. A gay man practicing safe sex can be excluded from donating blood whilst a straight man can sleep with half of the country without a second thought for safety, and yet the latter can still give blood because they slept with women and not men.

It’s about time the NBS get a grip and move beyond drawing circles around “gay” and “straight” and instead draw circles around “safe” and “not safe”. This is progress, but it’s not the progress we need. The fight for equality for LGBT people must continue.

Electoral Systems

by John Peart on April 8, 2011 in Essay, Politics, University with No comments
electoral-systems

This piece assesses the strengths and weaknesses of proportional and majoritarian electoral systems, and was written as part of my degree. This work was a formative assignment for the ‘Introduction to Political Science’ module, GV101.

Are majoritarian or proportional electoral systems better?

Electoral systems – the set of rules that regulate competition between parties and/or candidates during elections, that decide how vote shares map to seats in parliament and indeed, how the electorate express their preferences – have traditionally fallen into two categories; majoritarian – which include Single Member Plurality (or ‘First-Past-The-Post’), the Two-Round System and Alternative Vote – or proportional – like open or closed-list PR and the Single Transferable Vote[1]. This essay will assess the consequences of each type of system, with relation to the formation of parliaments arising from each, leading to a conclusion that neither is more beneficial and in fact a third way is possible and preferable.

The debate in this field is diverse, with many scholars sitting on either side of the proverbial fence on the matter. The debate is heated and often exaggerative in nature; Lewis comments that “the surest way to kill the idea of democracy in a plural society is to adopt [...] first-past-the-post…” (1965, p. 71)[2], whilst Rokkan claims that it is “simply impossible” to make statements about the benefits of proportional electoral systems compared with majoritarian electoral systems (1970, p. 166)[3]. None-the-less, countries continue to adopt different types of electoral system in the hope of achieving the best political outcomes – but what are these outcomes, and are they a benefit to the citizens within those countries? Traditional argument tends to follow that choosing an electoral system is about an ‘opportunity cost’ or ‘trade-off’; you have to choose between parliamentary representation or government accountability, between cohesive parties or individually accountable politicians, between majority or proportional electoral systems[4]. The suggestion here is that there is a linear trade-off between these two factors and they are mutually exclusive. Of course the crux of the issue with electoral systems is not the system itself, but the types of parliament and government that form because of the electoral system. Proportional electoral systems tend to produce minority or coalition governments, which will produce a very different set of political outcomes than majoritarian systems, which tend to create single-party governments[5].

There are many perceived benefits to a proportional electoral system; representation gains are among the biggest of these. Because seats are allocated in direct proportion to the share of the vote, parliaments tend to be a microcosm of society, representing a broad range of interests, ethnic backgrounds, economic backgrounds, and so on. The principle outcome is that parliament maps, as closely as possible, the preferences of the median voter and the government that forms, usually a coalition of two or more parties, will do the same[6]; the policy outcomes therefore, are most beneficial to the greatest number of people. This breadth is not witnessed in majoritarian plurality systems; Duverger’s Law showed that majoritarian systems were far more likely to create two-party systems than proportional systems which generated multi-party races (Duverger, 1959)[7]. Having a two-party system does not necessarily mean that the preferences of the median voter are unaccounted for however, as in majoritarian systems, parties will shift towards the median voter in order to gain a larger vote share, and can be sufficiently broad to capture all of the political spectrum. The majoritarian electoral system and two-horse race can mean that representation is disproportionate in parliament, and in many cases the government can have a large overall majority even though they receive less than 50% of the vote. We see this in the UK, where with only 43.2% of the vote in 1997, the Labour party secured a landslide majority with over 63% of the seats in Parliament. Clearly under majoritarian systems, the preferences of voters are not expressed well enough.

On top of these representation benefits associated with proportional systems, there is a by-product in countries that suffer from long-running ethnic or religious conflict, like Northern Ireland, where a proportional electoral system – in this case STV – forces a power-sharing agreement in Stormont; parties have to overcome traditional religious divides and work together. With the exception of some dissident terrorist attacks, the peace accord in Northern Ireland is strong, arguably because of the choice of proportional electoral system that means citizens on both sides of the religious divide have representation within the Assembly.

There are consequences of proportional systems that might be less desirable however. Coalitions, by definition, require compromise, negotiation and debate to survive. If parliaments are formed of many small parties, rather than two large parties like in a majoritarian system, you can end up with a stalemate in government formation. Countries can go for months without a government – like in Belgium, where 200 days after their most recent election, a coalition agreement still could not be reached – but more than this, when coalitions form, they can be made of such divergent ideologies that they are incapable of agreeing on anything, with one partner vetoing the coalitions actions if the policy option is not within their ‘winset’ (Tsebelis, 2002)[8]. Policy inaction, particularly when exogenous shocks occur, is a very dangerous thing; perhaps making majoritarian systems a better option.

The principle gain from majoritarian systems is government accountability because they tend to lead to single-party government. In a proportional system, coalitions formed of several parties have very little clarity of responsibility; governments are generally formed after elections and the policy outcomes are generally very different from those in the coalition partners’ manifestos.  When these policies are implemented and effects are felt, it is very difficult to know which parties to blame and which parties to reward and so, come the next election, poorly performing parties from the coalition will likely remain in power. In effect, proportional electoral systems can serve to entrench bad government permanently. Of course, the extent to which this occurs will depend on how parties approach the coalition process. If parties are following an office-seeking theory[9], where policy will be very flexible so long as parties get in to power then the clarity of responsibility will be low; you could argue that this is exactly the situation in the UK with the current coalition government – albeit that this was formed by a majoritarian electoral system. When 80% of the electorate were against an increase in higher education tuition fees, why did the coalition, which should more accurately represent the median voter, vote to increase fees, and who, of the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, are voters to blame at the ballot box? At least, some would argue, under a majoritarian electoral system, you are more likely to get single party government and you are therefore, as a voter, more easily able to identify who is responsible for the policies coming from parliament. Furthermore, if the government is doing a bad job, a small shift in votes will equate to a radical shift in seat allocations in Parliament – though in countries like the UK, this means elections are fought in a minority of ‘swing seats’ and the rest of the country is not engaged fully in the electoral process, which is clearly a negative consequence. Another consequence of single party government and large seat swings is that you are even less likely to have policy that maps to the median voter; you are likely to have a skew, either to the left or right, and so again the trade off arises – do we prefer policy that maps our interest more closely – and so do we prefer proportional systems – or governments that we can attribute reward and punishment to – and so prefer majoritarian systems? Many political scientists would argue the former is preferable, notably Lijphart who argued that proportional systems were “virtually synonymous with electoral justice” (1984, p. 140)[10].

But there is a third way. Several political scientists have suggested that rather than a direct trade off between these factors that the relationship is actually able to be maximised in a way not dissimilar from that shown in  figure 1. This can be achieved by creating small multi-member constituencies (Shugart & Wattenberg, 2003)[11]. The system works because, principally, it decreases the incentive to ‘tacitically’ vote (Cox, 1997)[12], it reduces the number of people able to co-ordinate around individual candidates and allow for a broad range of elected representatives whilst still maintaining a line of accountability. Both accountability and representation are desirable in parliaments and neither a pure majoritarian system, nor a pure proportional system can provide both. A small multi-member mixed electoral system however can reduce the unrepresentativeness of parliaments by 75% and reduces the ideological distance between the median voter and the government more so, whilst it only increases the average number of parties in government by one-half and adds one large viable party to parliament, and though coalition is more likely, it only includes two or three parties at most, not the same sort of fractious and broad coalitions that we see in Belgium and Iraq. (Carey & Hix, 2010)[13]. Clearly a system that can give us the “best of both worlds” is the best option.

In conclusion, it is clear that in reality neither electoral system – majoritarian or proportional – will be better than the other, because neither give us the desired political outcomes we desire; they perpetuate the idea of a trade off. We should in fact seek a middle ground; a well designed electoral system should be able to combine the best of both worlds – high accountability and fair representation (Carey & Hix, 2010)[14]. A mixed multi-member system with low district magnitude provides this, and I would suggest to you that the middle option is the best.

[1] Clark, W. R. et al. (2009). “Principles of Comparative Politics”. Didcot: Marston Book Services Ltd. pp. 463-532.
[2] Lewis, W. A. (1965). “Politics in West Africa”. London: Allen and Unwin. pp. 71-72.
[3] Rokkan, S. (1970). “Citizens, Elections, Parties”. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. p. 166.
[4] Lijphart, A. (1984). “Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries”. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[5] Carey, J. M. & Hix, S. (2010). “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems”. p. 4.
[6] Downs, A. (1957). “An Economic Theory of Democracy”. New York: Harper & Row.
[7] Duverger, M. Brogan, D. W. (ed.). (1959), “Political Parties: Their Organisation and Activity in the Modern State”. London: Methuen & Co. LTD.
[8] Tsebelis, G. (2002). “Veto Players: How Political Instituions Work”. New York: Princeton.
[9] Riker, W. H. (1962). “The Theory of Political Coalitions”. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[10] Lijphart, A. (1984). “Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries”. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 140.
[11] Shugart, M. S. & Wattenberg, M. P. (2003), “Mixed Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[12] Cox, G. (1997). “Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13] Carey, J. M. & Hix, S. (2010). “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems”.
[14] ibid, 2010. pp.

 

Absolutism

by John Peart on April 8, 2011 in Essay, University with No comments
thomas-hobbes

An assignment looking at Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’, written as part of my degree. This work was a formative assignment for the ‘Introduction to Political Theory’ module, GV100.

Does Hobbes’ employment of natural rights take him in an absolutist direction?

In this essay, I will aim to assess the political thought of Thomas Hobbes, through analysis of his work, Leviathan. I will explain his theory of human nature, leading to his views on the natural rights of mankind and ultimately, the link he creates between this and his view that absolutism, preferably centred in a monarchy, is the best form of government. I will then attempt to analyse this reasoning, leading to a defence of his theory.

Leviathan starts with Hobbes outlining his methodology for exploring human nature, or “The Science of Nature”; by breaking down humanity and politics into their smallest possible component parts, he can explore our base motivations and look at the inter-relationships between them, drawing conclusions about the State of Nature, and ultimately, good government. Book I dismisses the Classical notion that there is an eternal good or bad; something we can grasp and obtain knowledge of in order to better ourselves in a Platonian way.

“But whatsoever is the object of any mans Appetite or Desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth Good: And the object of his Hate, and Aversion, evill; And of his contempt, Vile, and Inconsiderable. For these words of Good, evill, and Contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: There being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common Rule of Good and evill, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves; but from the Person of the man” (I, IV, p. 39)[1]

Hobbes asserts that there is no moral eternal concept of good and bad for us to grasp and to follow, but instead mere interpretation on a person-by-person, society-by-society basis. Further, he goes on in chapter VI to compound his accusation, claiming men are only moved to act by desire; “… there is nothing by Motion, or Endeavour; which consisteth of Appetite, or Aversion, to, or from the object moving.” (I, VI, p. 40)[2]. These claims lead us to a State of Nature in which men are individualistic, unsociable, and principally at Warre with one another. Hobbes says we find “three principall causes of quarrel.” (I, XIII, p. 185)[3]; Competition, Diffidence and Glory. Man is naturally competitive because of scarcity, we compete for reputation and for security, and we trust no-one incase they try to take our property or try to kill us and we are suspicious of everyone because we are all equally capable of doing harm. The State of Nature then, is almost a complete State of War.

Hobbes argues, that in the State of Nature, we have a Right of Nature:

“The RIGHT OF NATURE… is the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.” (I, XIV, p. 86)[4]

This Right of Nature gives man unlimited right to preserve himself and makes no obligation on him to respect the rights of others to self-preservation. The Right of Nature, our unlimited Liberty and our constant fear of a painful death makes the State of Nature inherently unstable, Hobbes argues; the State of War, acting as an adjudicator over disputes, means there is no security for man and so we drive for peace (I, XIII, p. 84)[5]. This peace takes the form of a covenant between all people to form a political society in order to provide what individuals cannot provide on their own and resolve the problem of our natural condition; we create the state to provide stability and security. This entire theory is in direct contrast with Aristotle, who believed humanity was naturally drawn to political community, because it suggests an entirely self-interested motivation for politics and is based on a model of individualism.

For Hobbes the contract between the people should be an alienation contract and should pass our Liberty and our Judgement to a sovereign power – preferably a monarch:

“His Power cannot, without his consent, be Transferred to another: He cannot Forfeit it: He cannot be Accused by any of his Subjects, of Injury: He cannot be Punished by them: He is Judge of what is necessary for Peace; and Judge of Doctrines: He is Sole Legislator; and Supreme Judge of Controversies; and of the Times, and Occasions of Warre, and Peace: to him it belongeth to choose Magistrates, Counsellours, Commanders, and all other Officers, and Ministers; and to determine of Rewards, and punishments, Honour, and Order.” (I, XX, p. 132)[6]

Hobbes argues that the problem with the natural condition is that we have a right to unlimited Liberty and we can reason our actions and judge them by what is in our best interests, even when this is in conflict with others, and so in order for there to be peace, providing stability and security, and ultimately the conditions under which people are able to self-preserve without fear of a violent and painful death, there must be one final judge of the Law of Nature. Hobbes’ assertion that there is no epistemological right and wrong which we can inherently know and learn from makes this possible; someone must set the boundaries of right and wrong and if the decision is not centred in an absolute sovereign monarch, we will return to the State of Nature as we are all self-interested and will interpret the Laws of Nature to our own gain. There must be an alienation contract which allows us to give up our rights to Liberty and Judgement, because these are the very things that cause us conflict in the State of Nature. This form of governance, where law is determined purely by the Sovereign, is now commonly referred to as Hobbes’ “Command Theory” (Austin, 1832)[7]. We continue to obey the Sovereign because we formed the Leviathan and it is an extension of us but also, because we surrender our judgement to the Sovereign, we cannot challenge their decisions because they are the ones who judge – if they were subject to a higher judge, they wouldn’t be sovereign any more. Absolutism – unconditional and unified sovereign authority to which we have no right of collective resistance – and absolute sovereign power can be justified because the State of Nature is a near complete State of War, we are self-interested but seek security and stability and investing trust in an absolute Sovereign is the necessary condition for peace.

I will now assess some of the critiques of Hobbes’ work and show why Leviathan’s main thrust is correct. It is fair to say that the idea of an all powerful Leviathan has been a bone of contention for political philosophy and one of the largest areas of debate centres around political obligation – why would we obey the Sovereign and why would we centre the power in one person, when our natural condition is pushing us toward self-interest and diffidence? Hobbes’ central observation on human nature is that we all have equal ability to cause harm, however, creating the Leviathan makes all but one of us less powerful, and one significantly more powerful and able to harm us. The so-called “Grotian problem” (Grotius, 1625, 1609)[8] gives grounds to this argument because of Hobbes rejection of the individual right to secession. Because the Sovereign is the final judge, and there are no real restrictions on his power, there is no exit option and we would arguably not enter into a state where our hands were tied, especially if it meant we had no real right to protect our Right of Nature. Later contract theorists like Locke sought to address this problem with the idea of explicit and tacit consent (Locke, 1948)[9], but there are of course answers from Hobbes himself; in chapter XVIII he describes the Sovereign as a mere extension of ourselves and so the Leviathan would never act in a way that would harm the political society. More than this though, we are obligated to obey the Leviathan, not just because we are instrumental in creating it, but also because of Hobbes’ earlier claims that justice is keeping our promises despite our self-interested, egoistic motivations (Taylor, 1938)[10]. Hobbes also says that breaking the covenant would be “against the reason of [man’s] preservation” (I, XV, p. 205)[11] because he would not be accepted into any society; and so if societies that provide peace and security are ones ruled by absolute monarchy, man would be foolish to go against his only chance of guaranteed self-preservation. The contract ensures that man keeps his promise and overrides his self-interested non-compliance (Gauthier, 1988)[12]. Warrander (1957)[13] goes on to note that we obey the Sovereign because we still fear a punishment from the Sovereign, which as Hobbes’ argues is unfounded because the Sovereign would not ‘hurt itself’ as an extension of the body politic.

Aside from the obligation to follow a Sovereign, the terms of how that Sovereign should take shape is also hotly debated. Clearly, Hobbes favours a monarchy, and some political thinkers agree with this interpretation, including Goldsmith, who argued that Hobbes was correct in assuming that only in a closed system and with a single validating power can you truly get unity and peace (Goldsmith, 1980)[14]. Hart (1961)[15] and Kelsen (1945)[16] disagree however, attempting to show that it is still possible to achieve validation when there is a division of power. They believe that Hobbes has confused the need to have finality within a regime and the need to have a final human authority, arguing that a set of written rules in the form of a constitution to constrain the power of the government can have the same effect as an absolutist monarch. This is of course totally missing the point that Hobbes is making. Hobbes believed that Sovereignty had to be centred in a single person, rather than a group – or groups – governed by a set of written rules because of Judgement. In democracies, for example, where there are many people to judge, there will be conflict of interpretation, necessitating the need for a single decision making authority. That can only exist in a monarchy. Moreover, a set of written rules can never be complete enough to not need interpretation, and if there is someone that is making judgements about the Sovereign’s actions, based on an interpreted constitution, then the alleged Sovereign ceases to be a sovereign power; Hobbes defines a Sovereign as that which has power to set limits on others, but upon which no limits are placed; and as you cannot get a complete set of objective rules that govern decision making, you must have a single, human, decision maker.

I conclude then that Hobbes was correct in assuming that the employment of natural rights takes him in an absolutist direction, because unlimited Liberty causes a problem of wreckless war, that without eternal moral standards we need someone to create and impose them, and that the only way to impose this is by creating a single absolute power, meaning we treat politics in a not dissimilar fashion to the way we treat religion, except in this case the Leviathan dictates the moral laws we abide by, not a holy scripture.

[1] Hobbes, T. Tuck, R. (ed.) (1996). “Leviathan”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[2] ibid, 1996.
[3] ibid, 1996.
[4] ibid, 1996.
[5] ibid, 1996.
[6] ibid, 1996.
[7] Austin, J. Rumble, W. (ed.) (1995), “The Province of Jurisprudence Determined”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.117
[8] Prof. Paul Kelly lecture on Hobbes and Natural Law gave a digressionary talk on what he termed “The Grotian Problem”, referencing Grotius’ works “De Jure Belli ac Pacis” (1625) and “De Jure Praedae” (1625). Kelly, P. (2011). “Hobbes and the Birth of Modern Natural Law”, [Lecture] GV100: Introduction to Political Theory. London School of Economics and Political Science, Old Theatre, December 2010.
[9] Locke, J. Gough, J. W. (ed.) (1948). “The Second Treatise of Civil Government: and a Letter Concerning Toleration”. Oxford: Blackwell.
[10] Taylor, A. E. (1938). “The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes”. In: “Philosophy”. Vol. XIII. pp. 406 – 424.
[11] Hobbes, T. Tuck, R. (ed.) (1996). “Leviathan”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[12] Gauthier, D. (1988). “Hobbes’s Social Contract”. In: Rogers, G. A. J. & Ryan, A (eds.) “Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes”. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[13] Warrander, H. (1957). “The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of Obligation”. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[14] Goldsmith, M. M. (1980). “Hobbe’s ‘Mortal God’: Is There a Fallacy in Hobbes’s Theory of Sovereignty?”. In: “History of Political Thought”. Vol. I. pp. 33 – 50.
[15] Hart, H. L. A. (1961). “The Concept of Law”. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 97 – 107
[16] Kelsen, H. Wedberg, A. (ed.) (1945). “The General Theory of Law and the State”. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. pp. 110 – 116.

Rerum cognoscere causas

by John Peart on March 4, 2011 in The Beaver, University with No comments
beaver

“To know the causes of things”. That’s our motto and in fact it’s the core aim of the new LSE100 course that the School has launched to improve our employment prospects. The logic is that LSE graduates are very skilled in our own fields but employers don’t like our narrowly focused programmes and instead would like us to have broader skills. Thus, if you’re a first year, you now have to take part in the LSE100 course to develop your skills to “think like a social scientist”. Good idea, no?

Well, there seems to be some debate about just how good an idea it is. From the very first week, students have been complaining about the new course and its not surprising, given what the School is trying to do with it.

First and foremost, it feels a little bit like the School is attempting to teach us all the social sciences while teaching us none. While that might sound a little counter-intuitive, bear with me. Because this course is delivered to first years across 37 departments in the school – a total of 1271 students – the course has to be pitched in a way that is accessible to mathematicians and to anthropologists (Is it just me that sees an issue with that principle?). You can’t design a course that fits that many people, all who applied to the LSE with unique expectations about what they want to study. I’ve heard people saying that they feel at some points the course is like a GCSE level subject while others argue they don’t understand an ounce of what’s going on. Moreover, LSE100 counts a whole 0 per cent towards your final degree classification. So whilst you’re sat in the Peacock Theatre, you can be safe in the knowledge that this compulsory fifth module is of no consequence to everything else you do. Then the administration wonders why people are questioning the relevance of the course when not only is it pitched poorly and counts for nothing, but more than that, for most of us, the course overlaps with content already on our respective degree programmes.

Now I’m not going to just sit here writing all the things that I think are wrong with LSE100, because, for what its worth, I actually think it’s a good idea. So instead, let’s get constructive.

Firstly, if you’re going to make me sit a compulsory module, make it a core module as part of my degree programme – don’t tag it on as a fifth and expect me to care about it because it appears on my transcript. Make it worth the effort! Most, if not all students have an outside option available in their first year – swap it for LSE100.

Secondly, because you can’t teach us all at the same level, as I mentioned above, make LSE100 customized for each department so I don’t study the same content twice. In the School’s defense, they’ve given the SSLC an explanation of why the course is designed this way – mostly money and inflexibility of the School as a whole – but whilst these changes might take significant investment, students will soon be paying anywhere up to £9000 as a minimum to study at the LSE – and they should have their money invested in a course designed around them.

Thirdly, get the timing right; don’t make me sit through lectures on writing skills in our sixteenth week of the academic year! I can appreciate why the LSE has timed this module the way that it has – we don’t feel overwhelmed with work in our first term and we don’t get burdened during year two’s exam period. But seriously, giving me a lecture on essay writing – that admittedly could have been pretty useful – when I’ve already finished all my formative work this year, is a little nonsensical. I don’t know about you, but if I haven’t figured out how to write an essay by week sixteen, you may as well book me for a resit now! Of course not everyone takes qualitative subjects so these skills aren’t useful to them right now on the course, but if LSE 100 is designed to boost our skills set, boost it right at the beginning so we can hit the ground running, not 16 weeks too late.

Now I could go on, but I dare say someone will write for the Beaver either commending or condemning my comments and elongating the debate, so instead I’ll leave you on this note: LSE100 is a good idea and a potentially very useful course. But the LSE needs to get serious about this. If it doesn’t, it will be seen as a laughing stock forever more, and they wouldn’t want that – not with all the money they’ve invested in those luxury embossed folders.

The UGM

by John Peart on January 20, 2011 in LSESU, Politics, Student Movement, The Student Movement, University with No comments
ugm

Controversy struck today at the LSE SU’s Union General Meeting (UGM) as students put forward an amendment to the constitutional bye-laws. The motion, which can be found on the Students’ Union’s website, proposes that the UGM change it’s current voting format back to a “voting in person” system, which was removed under a constitutional reform package last year in favour of online voting.

YOU CAN VOTE ON THE UGM MOTION AT WWW.LSESU.COM/VOTE UNTIL 5PM ON FRIDAY 20TH JANUARY 2011

Now I’ll say this first off, until I walked in the room and started listening to the debate, I had no idea how I was going to vote. I had an instinctive feeling that this would be a bad thing to do, but couldn’t come up with any one valid reason to oppose the motion off the top of my head. As such, I was going to let it fly on by and see how it turned out (I would have probably electronically abstained to try and achieve quorum, but of course, there’s no option for that on the voting system!). Instead, a rather different thing happened. Daniel Kroop, the Postgraduate Officer for the LSE SU, opposed the motion and, for me at least, hit the nail on the head, and gave me the answers I was looking for. I decided to get off the fence and second his opposition.

There have been problems with the new voting system since it was first introduced. It isn’t very user-friendly as a piece of technology, on most occasions motions don’t achieve quorum – i.e. not enough people vote for it to be valid, and if you haven’t been to the UGM, the only thing you can see online to know how to vote is the motion itself. At the same time, UGM attendance has been decreasing on average, with the biggest UGMs only being ones where keynote speakers like the Director or the President of NUS is in attendance, so people can have a crack at authority bashing (For the hacks out there, thats normal person speak for accountability). Legitimate concerns therefore have been raised about the future of the UGM and the legitimacy of that sacred institution that LSE SU prides itself on. We’re the only students’ union in the whole of the UK that holds a weekly general meeting, don’t you know?!

And this of course leads to the question of causality. What caused a highly politicised campus, that has been engaging in SU campaigns in their thousands, to desert one of the ways it can control the direction of its students’ union? Clearly the proposers believe this is due to the change in voting system, and of course the logical solution to that is to change it back. Or is it?

I ask the question whether the UGM is poorly attended because people can’t vote at it, or because they don’t care about the motions being put forward; whether it’s because they can’t vote there, or because it’s an inaccessible monolith, filled with the same old hacks week in, week out; whether it’s because they can’t vote there, or because they find other ways to engage with and shape the students’ union; whether it’s because they can’t vote there, or because they simply don’t know it exists?

Now I don’t have the answer to those questions, and neither will the proposers of this motion. What I can tell you, is that as a member of NUS’ National Executive, I go to students’ unions, and I go to general meetings all across the country on a pretty regular basis, and all of them are struggling with the same question: why don’t people turn up to make their voice heard?

Most of them come to the conclusion its because students’ unions are too inward facing, don’t reach out to their members enough, and need to try harder to involve those hard to reach groups. And here comes the main reasons I decided to oppose the motion. It isn’t a broken voting system we need to deal with, its a broken culture at the LSE.

If you want people to vote for your motions, it will and it should take more than a 2 minute speech and 1 minute rebuttal in a room of 150 people. A students’ union can and should be about transforming students’ lives, but its their job to engage them in the way they want to be engaged. And I’m sorry, but a one hour meeting every Thursday is not an accessible way to engage the majority of students at our university. 4% of our students are part-time students, likely with working responsibilities outside university, you can’t expect them to have a voice with an “at UGM” vote. Some students at our university have parental and caring responsibilities, you can’t give them a voice with an “at UGM” vote. Some students aren’t fortunate enough to not need to work to supplement their studies… I could go on, but you get the idea. Online voting might not be perfect, but at least it gives everyone the opportunity to voice their opinion.

Not only that, the new constitution is all about widening the reach of the SU beyond the four walls of the Old Theatre. Assemblies might not be well attended, but they are there, and do we blame low attendance on the voting system, or because we’re getting something wrong as a student body making sure people turn up to them? And its precisely these structures that are meant to support students to have a voice.

In the long run, we need to stop considering whether we want to protect our traditions and start thinking about the people this actually matters to, and that’s the students that currently don’t have a look in; not because they choose not to turn up to UGM, but because they don’t know anything about the democratic processes of the SU or we’re having the wrong conversation with them. It’s easy to blame our failings on structures when in fact the problem lies much deeper and is embedded in the very fabric of our institution. People don’t engage with the students’ union’s democracy because they don’t know about it or its not accessible, not because they of the voting system.

In sum, and to use a timely analogy right now, it’s useless swapping the taps on the bath when your entire plumbing system isn’t working – you won’t get any more water.

I have written on the challenges of student engagement previously, after delivering keynote speeches to the DCQE at University of Portsmouth and QSN’s Student Engagement Symposium. You can read the articles here:

Resign?

by John Peart on December 15, 2010 in Student Movement, The Student Movement with No comments
resign

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard members of the student body call for the resignation of NUS’ NEC or President over the past 3 years, but this one has to be one of the more ridiculous ones. At a time of increasing uncertainty, when the government is making swathing cuts to maintenance for FE students, to teaching budgets for colleges and universities and damaging students in their broadest generality, the student movement has decided to turn on one of the best presidents NUS has ever had. Yes, we’ve lost the fees vote, but this is no time for NUS to begin in fighting and attacking the leadership just because we fell at the final hurdle. There are so many other battles we need to fight right now that a change in leadership would be absurd.

I challenge the very premise that these resignations are being called on.

First that there is the allegation that Aaron has been idle in the fees debate, more worried about a future seat in Parliament than the students he was elected to represent. Nonsense. Aaron has been working flat-out for the past 6 months, running rings around politicians and the media ensuring NUS was at the forefront of the fees debate. Thanks to his hard work and dedication, and together with co-convenor, VP HE, Usman Ali, NUS has been totally in control of where this fees debate has gone. And yes, Aaron might not have been so visible on the ground over the past few months, but Aaron is one of 50 people that represent this organisation and the other 49 of us have been on the ground whilst Aaron has dealt with the media, which is as it should be. You elect a president to be the mouth piece of the organisation to the media and he’s doing just that!

Second that the policies NUS have followed are the reason we lost the fees debate, that Aaron was the one arguing our case and making all the decisions and so the blame lies with him. Wrong. The policies of NUS are decided by National Conference which chose to support a graduate tax model – yes, it was our idea, not Labour’s, they’re using our ideas, not the other way around. The policies that can’t be decided by Conference are decided by the National Executive Council. If you want to blame the organisation, blame all 50 of us, not just Aaron – not that I think there is any blame needed.

And whilst I’m on it; that old chestnut of “if Aaron had spoken out more for free education, we’d have won”. Totally misguided drivel. NUS didn’t win with that argument the first time, it didn’t win the second time, and it wouldn’t have won a third time either. Our best hope was always to follow a different model entirely in the run up to this vote and until the Lib Dem u-turn, it was going to work, be more progressive, be more financially sustainable for the future and be less burdensome on students.

Third that Aaron hasn’t spoken out loudly enough about police violence or supported demonstrations or occupations. Again, wrong. NUS has released several statements about police brutality – all of which can be found on www.nusconnect.org.uk – so that argument doesn’t stack up, I won’t hash over it.

On occupation and demonstrations – we organised the biggest London based student demonstration in a generation with Aaron at the helm! His work and that of NUS has inspired demonstrations and action around the country. I’m sure now some will say “oh, but NCAFC and the EAN did that”. True, they facilitated, but don’t belittle the huge amount of work Aaron and his team have put in to making this happen even if indirectly. NUS NEC members were out on every single on of those demonstrations that happened after November 10th too, so its not a case of NUS being left behind. And for the record; the reason Aaron wasn’t there is because he was in regular meetings with trade union leaders about the next stages of this campaign and supporting broader actions – something that the very same students attacking him have been asking for!

Further more, Aaron can’t go around supporting demonstrations and occupations that turn in to inherently illegal activities. If you don’t have a permit, you can’t have your march. If you start smashing stuff up, you’re breaking the law. Aaron, as the representative of a charity cannot condone illegal activities – if he did, NUS would be in so much hot water that you’d have enough to make tea for half of Europe – it would likely result in NUS being shut down.

All the complaints people have about Aaron’s presidency are unfounded or unrealistic. The bottom line is he’s working round the clock, 7 days a week, all year round for students. He’s not perfect, he doesn’t pretend to be, but he’s doing the best job he possibly can.

Right now, what we don’t need is a division of the movement. We don’t need the same old hacks attacking one of our only real democratically elected representatives and we don’t need members of the National Executive Council supporting it. You’ll do more harm than good in the end.

Attacking the organisation and it’s president, and eroding the credibility that NUS has, and you’re not only doing a disservice NUS or Aaron, but to every student in this country.

Reflecting on the tuition fees vote

by John Peart on December 15, 2010 in Education, Politics, Student Movement, The Student Movement, Tuition Fees with No comments
fees

Some members of the student movement will likely feeling a sense of deja vu right around now. Not 10 years ago, students were campaigning against the initial introduction of tuition fees. Another generation will be remembering the same circumstance in 2004, when fees were tripled under the then Labour government. They lost that battle then and no doubt told themselves that they hadn’t lost the war.

It’s just under a week since the Coalition government voted to again triple fees, and whilst I vaguely remember what was happening in 2004, as an 13 year old outsider sat in a school classroom at a poor performing school that was within a cat’s whisker from special measures, I didn’t expect to be in the same position as my predecessors just 6 years later.

My first taste of NUS was in 2008. A fresh-faced bewildered officer from a FE union in Somerset, I sat on conference floor watching Gemma Tumelty and Wes Streeting asking delegates to support a change in direction over the Union’s fees policy. It was clear then that the coming battle over fees would be radically different this time round. And indeed it was, not only was NUS being taken far more seriously in political circles – both Labour and Conservative alike (Lord Mandelson even commented to a then NEC member that NUS would “be far harder to ignore now”) – but we also faced an unprecedented change in the proposals we’d expected to be put forward.

The situation we face right now is extraordinary. No one seriously expected fees of £9,000 even six months ago, most commentators were expecting fees around £6,000. No one expected swathing cuts to all subjects except those that were STEM related. No one expected a that the Lib Dems, in government, would u-turn on one of their most popular policies. No one expected that Labour, after introducing fees and then tripling them – albeit in times of increased investment in the sector – would turn out to be the ones opposing this as a step too far. But this is the situation we are in.

There will be a lot of people out there right now looking for answers; looking to blame someone; looking for a scapegoat; wondering if we did enough. People with ifs and buts and whys and wherefores. And that’s to be expected. As someone that has seen this play out from the near beginning, as a conference delegate to a member of NUS’ NEC, I’m doing exactly the same thing. The conclusion I keep coming to however, is that we did all we could.

The policy was sound. The campaign was strong. The pledge was the best idea we have ever had. The national demonstration was amazing. The lobby was one of the best I’ve been involved with. The media coverage was excellent. The involvement and dedication of officers in students’ unions and members of the NEC – including the majority of the body that are unpaid volunteers – was out of this world. Everything was in the right place, everything should have worked. We did absolutely everything we could have done and then some.

In the end it was the Liberal Democrat party that cost us this vote and that’s a situation no one expected even 6 months ago. The government majority was exactly the same size as the number of Lib Dem ministers that voted in favour of the tuition fees increases. And I’m not casting these comments to be party political about it – I voted for a Lib Dem in the last election based on his promise to vote against (which he then broke) – but the facts speak for themselves.

NUS has a lot to be proud of right now; though it may not feel like it. NUS has inspired a movement bigger than the sum of its parts over the past several months. Those that attempt to detract from what this organisation has achieved are, I believe, blinded by their emotions over this issue right now and that’s why we see the reaction we have from the membership. This was a battle we didn’t deserve to lose and that makes it all the more painful to reconcile. But this is not over.

The government have only voted through a fees increase; the skeleton of the new framework, if you like. Now is the time we recollect, coordinate, unite and start over. We do not abandon our principles, we do not attack our leadership, we do not look for failings where there are none. We need to work together now to ensure that these proposals are either reversed – pressuring the opposition to use its powers to bring forward new legislation based on the Blueprint, swinging the debate back in our favour – and if that fails we need to ensure that the new package genuinely is better for students than the current one. If the government wants to profess this new repayment package is fairer than the old one and that the market can benefit students, we need to force them to prove it.

Now is the time the student movement shows what it can really do; make students lives better. We know we can do that, now we need to show everyone else we remember how.

Demos and NUS

by John Peart on December 7, 2010 in Demonstrations, Education, Politics, Student Movement, The Student Movement, Tuition Fees with No comments
demo1

There has been some controversy about what NUS’ stance is over demonstrations taking place on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Most of this is based on a poorly reported article in The Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/06/student-protests-nus-vote

This controversy is founded because the NEC haven’t made the decision we have been reported to.

NUS has continued to state its support for demonstrations and direct action that is peaceful and lawful. We do not however pretend to be the only route through which students can be activists. NUS believes that a variety of tactics will be required to defeat the government’s proposed cuts and fees rises. We are prioritising a set of activities within Parliament on Thursday because there are already demonstrations occuring, organised by EAN and NCAFC.

That does not mean NUS are opposed to the actions being taken without it on Thursday, and indeed whilst NEC members will be inside Parliament, they will also be on the ground supporting the protests outside.

The motion that was sent to NEC asked NUS to call for – i.e. organise – a second national demonstration on Thursday. To organise something is totally different to supporting the action. By not calling for a second demonstration, we are not saying we don’t support Thursday’s demonstrations. We do.

Aaron Porter, National President, has written to the Guardian to clarify the position, here: http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/news/article/nus/1135/

Responding to Howard

by John Peart on November 9, 2010 in Education, LSESU, Student Movement, The Beaver, The Student Movement, Tuition Fees with No comments
demo2

It might have been freezing outside, but at last week’s UGM, it was certainly heating up as Howard Davies, emperor penguin and Director of LSE, was in attendance. We, like hundreds of other students, turned out ready to grill Howard and see if there was any substance behind his objections to the Students’ Union’s Freeze the Fees campaign.

We left the the UGM feeling angry, concerned and questioning the intentions of our Director.

During his opening remarks, Howard revealed the Council just signed off on a £38 million purchase of new property at Lincoln’s Inn Fields – at the same time, we are cutting £1 million from the School’s teaching budget. We are concerned about what Howard’s priorities are. When will LSE’s spending spree, which will total £213 million in capital expansion, end? And at what point will the School realise we don’t need endless new buildings, we need fee levels that are low and accessible to the broadest range of students possible.

We are also concerned about Howard’s comments on fees and cross-subsidisation. In his opening remarks, and during his answers to questions, Howard was arguing he was “uneasy” about the gap between fees for home undergraduate students and international students, effectively attempting to divide the student body and pit these groups against each other.

We too are uneasy that international students are subsidising home and EU undergraduate courses, but Howard is not making this argument because he cares about the welfare of students from overseas – he is making this argument to try and justify a blanket fees increase.

On the issue of education sector cuts, we are equally concerned. We are disappointed that Howard has refused to support the efforts of the National Union of Students and the University and College Union this Wednesday, as thousands of lecturers and students march together on Parliament to defend education funding and ask again what his priorities are: survival at any cost with ever higher fees or standing up for the principles of social justice and equality on which this institution was founded on.

And on widening participation we are dumbfounded by Howard’s audacity at claiming this institution has a good record of attracting students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As an institution we are not even top of the Russell Group in terms of widening access, doing worse than both Warwick and Imperial College, and the Group’s record is already worse than every other mission group in the UK. Having just 15 per cent of students from these backgrounds is nothing to be proud of – it’s less than half the national average.

And though Howard thinks, and is arguably right, that freezing fees is a blunt tool to use for access, it is surely better than a failed bursary system that leaves £19 million a year unspent nationally and on out-reach programmes targeted at a minute amount of people.

We are disappointed at Howard’s poorly structured arguments, by his pre-occupation with maintaining a £19.2 million budget surplus, double that which is required by government, rather than prioritising those people he is here to support – students – and his opposition to keeping this school progressive and allowing the market to control this institution rather than its guiding principles.

← Older Entries