Post by Johnmcd on Jun 29, 2004 22:16:53 GMT -3
Island Democracy. A view from the outside looking in.
In the Falklands Malvinas Forum I forwarded that the island community are existing under a democracy deficit. This is quite contrary to the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) that stamps loudly that they do indeed have a democracy and are running their own affairs quite independently from any political interference from Westminster.
The FIG are right. The do operate independently from Westminster. I cannot argue with that fact even though they are a British Overseas Territory and are wholly dependant on the UK for defence and foreign affairs. (That dependence, incidentally, on defence and foreign affairs is justified by FIG need and not by need of the UK). The last British Parliamentary debate on the Falklands was 9 years ago. A long time ago. Since then we only hear from the ‘colonial’ Governor and customary annual Prime Ministers statement that corroborate British Foreign Office policy on Overseas Territories. Nothing fantastic or visionary. More or less the same old thing - blessing the ‘wishes’ of the islanders and our unflinching support for their way of life against the ever present background of the Argentine sovereignty claim.
More or less the same old thing is, I believe, what the FIG always want to hear. It is their stability, giving confidence that they can do what they want with the full support and consensus of the British Government and hence the British people collectively. Maintaining this positive consensus is the job of the Falkland Islands Government Office based in London. This office, or ‘Embassy’, implements Falklands Islands policy as directed by the FIG 8000 miles away. They do this job very well and have being doing so since 1983.
I am very impressed indeed by the FIG network to ensure that their message is heard where it really matters. Not surprisingly, the largest company on the islands, Falkland Island Holdings is also based in the UK. If I was being cynical I could say that the islands interests are both politically and economically being run by ‘remote control’ from Britain and not in Stanley. Would it not, therefore, be doubly cynical of me, to postulate that the major share holders choose not have identity with the ordinary islanders (the service workers) of their exploits in wealth?
The islanders, I genuinely hope, will not take offence of what I have written so far (there is more to come) But I am sure they will recognise that being compliant with remote private enterprise and having a reliable income is just for today and not always for tomorrow.
But let me say this:
Democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. The FIG does not have that supreme power and neither can you invest it in them while a turn of government policy, here in the UK, has the power to take it away. The material benefits of post-war of island democracy has long gone to be replaced by a small group of wealthy people whose sole interests are money based. This was the exact same situation the islanders endured prior to 1982. The same self interested enterprises have never really gone away from island life.
Let qualify that statement:
Years of voting in the same councillors have can induce varying levels degrees of social irresponsibility in anyone. You become passive receivers of services, accepting things being done for you and not by you. Those in positions of power and influence, elected or not, have become your service providers: the people who know what's best for you. Their power base lies not only in their official positions but in being part of informal networks of power and information that are beyond scrutiny. This can lead to "We know best" arrogance; self-justifying empires; a sense of threat in response to any attempts at community inspired initiative. The result for the islands, from what I can gather, is a sense of being remote from, and having no influence over, decision-making. In effect, being an islanders means having to keep your nose out, get on with your ironing or to bugger off to some where else where a vote really counts.
The FIG has no other vision than promoting the ‘status quo’ where Argentina continues to be the ‘bully’ and ‘aggressor‘. That attitude is thin in its everlasting ‘ad tedium’ promotion when the UK has for many years enjoyed normal social and economic relationships with our democratic South American partner. This is a mute point where British companies are increasingly investing in Argentina rather than the islands and have been doing so for many years. Indeed, what incentives has any major company to invest in a Falklands that will not deal with anyone that has links to Argentina. This is not the vision of a democratically and forward thinking state. This is more like the major policies of a private company acting in direct competition.
There is absolutely nothing to stop the Falklands aligning their economic interests with that of Argentina, or any other South American country for that matter, with minimum political risk. But while the islands deny themselves a collective social voice and leverage, there will be no confidence to explore new roles, take on new responsibilities for a future for themselves and by themselves.
There is much, much more to say on this subject of democracy deficit on the islands. But let me leave you with this.
The people of the UK and Argentina have moved on since the Falklands War only the victims of those incredible, non repeatable, times are left behind. It is my disgust that the islanders have not been able to properly take up what was given to them through our sacrifice. I don’t think for moment the fault lies with the ordinary Falkland islanders.
Equally, it is my disgust that Argentina continues to blindly promote sovereignty over the islands without the slightest recognition of an emerging free state so close to their shores. I don’t think for a moment the fault lies with ordinary Argentineans.
Best wishes,
John.
In the Falklands Malvinas Forum I forwarded that the island community are existing under a democracy deficit. This is quite contrary to the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) that stamps loudly that they do indeed have a democracy and are running their own affairs quite independently from any political interference from Westminster.
The FIG are right. The do operate independently from Westminster. I cannot argue with that fact even though they are a British Overseas Territory and are wholly dependant on the UK for defence and foreign affairs. (That dependence, incidentally, on defence and foreign affairs is justified by FIG need and not by need of the UK). The last British Parliamentary debate on the Falklands was 9 years ago. A long time ago. Since then we only hear from the ‘colonial’ Governor and customary annual Prime Ministers statement that corroborate British Foreign Office policy on Overseas Territories. Nothing fantastic or visionary. More or less the same old thing - blessing the ‘wishes’ of the islanders and our unflinching support for their way of life against the ever present background of the Argentine sovereignty claim.
More or less the same old thing is, I believe, what the FIG always want to hear. It is their stability, giving confidence that they can do what they want with the full support and consensus of the British Government and hence the British people collectively. Maintaining this positive consensus is the job of the Falkland Islands Government Office based in London. This office, or ‘Embassy’, implements Falklands Islands policy as directed by the FIG 8000 miles away. They do this job very well and have being doing so since 1983.
I am very impressed indeed by the FIG network to ensure that their message is heard where it really matters. Not surprisingly, the largest company on the islands, Falkland Island Holdings is also based in the UK. If I was being cynical I could say that the islands interests are both politically and economically being run by ‘remote control’ from Britain and not in Stanley. Would it not, therefore, be doubly cynical of me, to postulate that the major share holders choose not have identity with the ordinary islanders (the service workers) of their exploits in wealth?
The islanders, I genuinely hope, will not take offence of what I have written so far (there is more to come) But I am sure they will recognise that being compliant with remote private enterprise and having a reliable income is just for today and not always for tomorrow.
But let me say this:
Democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. The FIG does not have that supreme power and neither can you invest it in them while a turn of government policy, here in the UK, has the power to take it away. The material benefits of post-war of island democracy has long gone to be replaced by a small group of wealthy people whose sole interests are money based. This was the exact same situation the islanders endured prior to 1982. The same self interested enterprises have never really gone away from island life.
Let qualify that statement:
Years of voting in the same councillors have can induce varying levels degrees of social irresponsibility in anyone. You become passive receivers of services, accepting things being done for you and not by you. Those in positions of power and influence, elected or not, have become your service providers: the people who know what's best for you. Their power base lies not only in their official positions but in being part of informal networks of power and information that are beyond scrutiny. This can lead to "We know best" arrogance; self-justifying empires; a sense of threat in response to any attempts at community inspired initiative. The result for the islands, from what I can gather, is a sense of being remote from, and having no influence over, decision-making. In effect, being an islanders means having to keep your nose out, get on with your ironing or to bugger off to some where else where a vote really counts.
The FIG has no other vision than promoting the ‘status quo’ where Argentina continues to be the ‘bully’ and ‘aggressor‘. That attitude is thin in its everlasting ‘ad tedium’ promotion when the UK has for many years enjoyed normal social and economic relationships with our democratic South American partner. This is a mute point where British companies are increasingly investing in Argentina rather than the islands and have been doing so for many years. Indeed, what incentives has any major company to invest in a Falklands that will not deal with anyone that has links to Argentina. This is not the vision of a democratically and forward thinking state. This is more like the major policies of a private company acting in direct competition.
There is absolutely nothing to stop the Falklands aligning their economic interests with that of Argentina, or any other South American country for that matter, with minimum political risk. But while the islands deny themselves a collective social voice and leverage, there will be no confidence to explore new roles, take on new responsibilities for a future for themselves and by themselves.
There is much, much more to say on this subject of democracy deficit on the islands. But let me leave you with this.
The people of the UK and Argentina have moved on since the Falklands War only the victims of those incredible, non repeatable, times are left behind. It is my disgust that the islanders have not been able to properly take up what was given to them through our sacrifice. I don’t think for moment the fault lies with the ordinary Falkland islanders.
Equally, it is my disgust that Argentina continues to blindly promote sovereignty over the islands without the slightest recognition of an emerging free state so close to their shores. I don’t think for a moment the fault lies with ordinary Argentineans.
Best wishes,
John.
