Terrorism and Democracy

Over the last few days there has been a lot of discussion about terrorism and democracy from a number of angles.

First of all there is the discussion about whether the terrorist attacks by ISIS and other jihadists in Paris and elsewhere, is just about the fact that they see people in western Europe as infidels, decadent and so open to attack whether or not they have given an excuse for those attacks, by first launching strikes or invading Muslim countries.  So, I thought I would do a simple piece of research, based on an impression I have had for some time, which is that one European country, that is noted if anything more for its democracy, and western values than any other, Switzerland, seems to have suffered very little over the years from terrorist attacks.  I was surprised by the findings.

This information from the Swiss Federal Intelligence Service indicates not only no activity by jihadists in attacking Switzerland, but even very little activity of people travelling from Switzerland to Syria to take part in terrorist activities.  Indeed, the main concern of the Swiss Intelligence Agencies seems to have been in relation to surveillance activities by foreign governments, whilst home grown terrorist activities by left and right-wing extremists was considered almost as much a threat as that by jihadists.

I tried to find details of actual terrorist attacks in Switzerland, from Wiki, and again found a dearth of evidence of such attacks.  Only three were listed, and none were actually to do with jihadists.  An internet video by some ISIS supporters has been released, which speaks of further attacks across European countries, including Switzerland, however.

So, although its clear that ISIS, ideologically hate modernism, and the principles of democracy, culture, equality and so on, which underlie civilisation, and so might attack people in European countries on that basis, whether or not they come from a country that has carried out attacks in Syria, Libya or elsewhere, the fact is that currently, Switzerland has not faced those attacks in the way that the UK, France and other countries have done, who have been actively involved in such intervention.

There is, of course, another reason why Switzerland has faced no such attacks, and less in the way of terrorism in general, and that is that Switzerland has a form of direct democracy, and also its own defence is organised more via the existence of its Citizen's Militia than a standing army.  Consequently, a more or less permanently armed citizenry, via that militia, is focussed upon national defence rather than external aggression against other countries, and so can be more actively involved on a daily basis in ensuring that defence, in a way that a permanent, small standing army, whose resources are concentrated on very expensive large-scale, equipment, that is only justifiable on the basis of fighting large scale wars across the globe, can never be.

A Citizen's Militia, can be provided with lots of equipment, can have its activities financed to cover permission from employers to train and so on, just for the equivalent of a single Cruise Missile, let alone an aircraft carrier, or a Trident submarine!

The other advantage of such a Citizen's Militia, is again this aspect of democracy, because the Citizen's Militia, is directly a democratic institution, under the control of the citizens themselves, whereas a small professional army, is under the control of an even smaller elite of unelected generals, often tied to a small elite of arms companies, and financiers.

The other aspect of democracy that has been discussed has been in relation to the decision of the PLP, and Shadow Cabinet, in relation to whether to bomb Syria.  The position of the Labour Party itself is quite clear.  It is to oppose such bombing, and understandably so on the basis of the disaster that resulted in Iraq, and Libya, and the failure of such policies in Afghanistan and elsewhere, not to mention the failure of bombing over the last year or so by the US and others in Iraq and Syria, against ISIS.

What is odd is the interpretation of democracy that some in the PLP have.  On the one hand, some of them think that it is perfectly democratic for some of them, in cahoots with sections of the Tory media, to ignore the wishes of 60% of the Labour Party, in supporting Jeremy Corbyn, as leader, and to try to organise a coup against him!  They think that it is fine for them to ignore the wishes of 70% of the Labour Party, according to recent polls, in opposing the bombing of Syria, and to go ahead with it anyway.

Yet, when Labour Party members who constitute that majority, quite reasonably suggest that they might like those MP's to discuss with them such decisions, those MP's describe this as undemocratic bullying.  Some of them, and their supporters in the Tory media appear on TV, and claim that these MP's, cannot be expected to vote in accordance with the Labour Party policies, on which they were elected, or which the members of the Labour Party, who got them elected, in the first place, decide, because they should represent the whole electorate.

Who says that is what they should do?  That idea fits conveniently with the Tories and other defenders of the status quo, but there is no reason why socialists should accept that restriction.  The workers, in creating their own party, decide for themselves what the rules should be, and how its representatives should act, precisely because we want to change the general rules of politics in which all decisions are made, against an environment where self-selecting elites retain the right to do whatever they choose.  No one would suggest that a shop steward elected by union members, should represent the views and interests of non-union members, for example, let alone the views of employers.  No one would expect, the Chairman of the FA to promote the virtues of rugby!

The idea put forward by these apologists that it is somehow undemocratic for Labour Party members to deselect MP's who repeatedly fail to reflect the views of the Labour Party members who selected them, and who have the job of knocking on doors and getting them elected, is not not just elitist, but it is not even consistent with the arguments put forward in its defence.  Who, for example, would suggest that voters who were unhappy with a Tory government, should not vote it out, or deselect it, and instead select a Labour government, that they were happy with?  Would electors be accused of "bullying" the government by making clear that its days were numbered?

In the same way, if Labour Party members feel that the MP, does not represent their views, they have a perfect right to select a new candidate who does.  The old MP, is perfectly free to stand under their own banner, and see how much of their success is down to them, and how much is down to the party that selected them!  The history on that is devastatingly clear, which is why so few MP's wish to try their luck on their own.

Its time for decisive leadership, and in line with those principles of democracy, Corbyn, in line with party policy, and the views of the overwhelming majority of party members should impose a three line whip against cameron's warmongering policies.  War is the continuation of politics by other means, and so a political party that cannot take a clear political stance on questions of war cannot be expected to take a decisive and principled stand on anything else.  War is not a moral, but a deeply political issue, and should be treated as such.  If Labour Shadow Ministers are not able to support party policy they should go and make way for others who will.  Labour MP's will have the same right to defy the party whip as were Corbyn and others in the past, and will then have to justify their actions to their party members in the same way that Corbyn and others have had to do for the last 30 years, without the kind of hullaballoo over "bullying" that the Tory media have only just discovered.