|
Lessons From the British Elections By Anthony A. Akinola The British elections have been concluded, with the Labour Party retaining power for a historic third term, albeit with a badly dented majority. A few years ago, the capability of Labour to retain governmental power had seemed rather arduous. This was principally because the party was not known to be the best manager of state economy. However, with the birth of `New Labour`, which effectively neutralised the power and influence of trade unions - erstwhile engine house of the Labour Party - Tony Blair's invention would appear to have wrestled the initiative from the rival Conservative Party. The pathetic circumstance of the Tories was such that its best known face, Lady Margaret Thatcher, rather uncharacteristically, chose to go on holiday when electioneering campaigns were at their peak. The Labour Party has an effective and efficient Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, to thank for its economic successes in recent years. As if it were meant to be a way of rubbishing the current leadership of the Conservative Party, the Labour leadership never ceased to praise the economic achievements of Margaret Thatcher at every conceivable opportunity, suggesting itself, rather than the contemporary Conservatives, as the custodians of her legacy. While the Conservative leadership were keen to take on the Labour Party on other issues, the state of the nation's economy was hardly an area upon which they could amplify their claim. There was, however, the question of the Iraq war which, predic tably, was destined to resonate with full force at election time. On this, the integrity of Prime Minister Tony Blair was at the forefront of political debate. There were suggestions that he had falsified reports and acted contrary to expert legal advice in order to involve Britain in the U.S.-led war against the Iraqi government. However, Mr. Blair stoically defended himself, insisting that he had acted in the best interests of the British people. His position received an unintended boost by an admission from Mr. Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, that he too would have chosen to go to war in order to remove Saddam Hussain from his sadistic throne. However, there was no such complementary position on immigration and asylum issues. Mr. Howard's position bordered, somehow, on racism for which he was vilified, especially in multicultural communities, constantly being reminded that his own parents had fled the holocaust to settle in Great Britain. The traditional Conservative position has been, more or less, that of "Britain for the British people only". Only the ultra-right British National Party (BNP) could have outdone them in that respect. The Labour leadership, while acknowledging the need to tighten the nation's borders against the influx of bogus asylum seekers, nevertheless acknowledged the significant contributions which immigrants had made to the British economy and public life. Tony Blair bluntly told an audience during a televised debate that the city of London would not be what it is, an economic nerve centre , without the so-called immigrants doing what they are doing. There were a variety of other issues, that appeal to both the general and specific voters. As expected, how to improve the health of the nation received different approaches and promises from the competing political parties. There was the question of education whose finance and improvement have continued to top the agenda, even in a society where the educational system has a history dating back to more than a thousand years. There was also the issue of security, both of the state and the individual. And, of course, the political parties had to outline how they intended to finance their proposals in a tax-based economy that Britain is. Where parties have lost, gained or retained parliamentary seats, depended largely on the voters' perceptions of how best they were situated in the context of the contending issues vis-à-vis the political parties. One thing one did not see throughout was politicians distributing anything to prospective voters, other than their leaflets, and that is the first lesson for the young democratic nations of the world where, because of poverty and ignorance, votes are assumed to be meant for sale. Another lesson is the peacefulness of the conduct of electioneering campaigns and the election itself. The whole process took place within weeks, and there was not a single death recorded in relation to it. A visit to some polling stations may astonish many Nigerians that the ones directing the procedures were mainly pensioners, old men and women, killing boredom by doing voluntary work of national importance. There were no thugs, and no gun-brandishing policemen and women! Finally, the manner in which key political leaders conducted themselves is commendable. One would love to see a video of public scrutiny of these political leaders, with such tough questioning that borders on politics and the persona, replayed for our political leaders to view. They need to see Tony Blair, bulldozed and publicly branded over Iraq, take things in his stride. The fact is that when you seek an elective of fice, what you seek to be is a servant of the people and not their lord. You will not have to plot the murder of a journalist or an ordinary fellow citizen because he or she had posed a question which made your night's sleep something of an uncomfortable experience!!! Democracy is but a theatre where the war of words triumph.
|