Is this the “new politics”: Policy-making by Twitterstorm?
On Friday night, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn emailed me (and other grassroots members of the Party) asking what I think Britain should do about the civil war in Syria, our national security, the threat of ISIS and, specifically, “Should Parliament vote to authorise the bombing of Syria?” He wanted to know my thoughts by the end of the weekend.
I have spent quite some time thinking about whether and how I should reply to this email. This evening, I submitted the following via the open, online questionnaire on the Labour Party website. Given the level of concerted Twitterstorms and other – some of it, quite nasty – online activity under the #DontBombSyria banner, I decided that I must respond and, in the interest of proper and reasoned debate, I felt I should also publish this response.
I would like to preface this by saying, that I absolutely respect all other views on this matter and am not publishing this to incite or provoke. (So, in the words of YouTube star Miranda Sings, “Haters, back off!” Please.)
Dear Mr Corbyn
The consultation email from Jeremy Corbyn sent to Labour Party members
You have sent an email to myself and other members of the Labour Party asking us to answer the question: “Should Parliament vote to authorise the bombing of Syria?”
To answer this directly: I don’t know.
I have tried to read as much as I can on this issue and have spoken to friends who are experts on international relations and the Middle East. The situation in Syria is clearly extremely complicated – despite the framing above as a reductive yes/no question. I don’t believe there is a ‘right’ answer; at best, only ever a least worst option.
From my limited understanding, I believe that the UK’s involvement in military intervention, in league with our international allies, may well be justified at some point; if not now, in the near future, when less certain elements of the Government’s comprehensive strategy (not ‘just bombing’) have been developed more fully and/or there have been new ISIL-backed terrorist atrocities that further threaten the UK’s national security.
While I respect pacifists, and agree that, if possible, war should be avoided; I believe pacifism at any cost brings its own serious security risks. The ability to call on military force must be a key tool in crafting legitimate and effective internatit policy, along with diplomacy, foreign aid, legal sanction through the UN and ‘hearts and minds’ propaganda.
As American lawyer and statesman Elihu Root (1845-1937) once said, the purpose of a country’s armed services is “not to promote war, but to preserve peace” – and that sometimes requires action rather than inaction…
With all that said, my questions for you, Mr Corbyn, are these:
- Why on earth ask me in the first place? (Seriously, do you really think I, or others on your grassroots members email list, are capable of providing a truly informed answer to this online question?)
- More directly, Mr Corbyn: why this charade of so-called “democracy” on the part of your leadership?
It has becoming increasingly clear that, no matter what developments or clarifications, you will never sanction military intervention in this conflict (if, indeed, in any conflict) – and have never been willing to do so. I was at the Labour conference just two months ago when the emergency motion on the matter was passed, setting four conditions for supporting military action:
- authorisation from the United Nations
- a comprehensive plan for humanitarian assistance
- assurances that the bombing is directed exclusively at military targets associated with ISIL
- that any military action is subordinated to international diplomatic efforts to end the war in Syria
From my understanding, these conditions have been met – and yet, rather than accept this democratic vote of Labour Party conference delegates, and/or debating and coming to a collective, united position with your Shadow Cabinet, in the past few days, you and your advisers:
- Drew up your position opposing military intervention before the Prime Minister even presented his case to the House of Commons
- Sent a letter to all of your MPs on your position before any discussion with your Shadow Cabinet
- Have authorised Stop the War, Momentum and your substantial JeremyCorbyn4PM social channels, in your name, to bombard (and, in my view, cyber-bully) their MPs with template-based #DontBombSyria letters and tweets
- Supported protest marches to exert further pressure
- and spammed Labour Party members with this consultation email in order to gather responses to support your position that may, once again, be used to ‘convince’ your Parliamentary colleagues
Trending on Twitter: A political achievement?
This is not democracy by any definition that I recognise; but rather an attempt to crudely rig ‘debate’ until you get an answer you want.
Most worryingly, you are attempting to skew this critical debate by asking for an answer to an overly simplified question from people who – no matter how well-meaning or well read we masses are – are not in any way equipped to give a meaningful one. Every individual may have an opinion, but most members of the public are not experts on the situation and we are not privy to the level of briefing granted to members of Parliament.
It is the job of MPs to scrutinise policy and to make as informed a decision as possible in what they believe to be the best interests of the people they represent – the people they represent being not just members of the Labour Party, but all of their constituents.
You have made your MPs’ jobs so much more difficult by orchestrating this weekend’s email bombardment (Stop the War boasts over 90,000 emails were dumped on MPs – not, by and large, thoughtful, individual pleas but pre-filled, anonymous templates) and Twitterstorms. As you know, MPs do not have budgets for staff to deal with this level of digital deluge. This puts further strain on the Party’s already seriously stretched resources. And, at a most critical time, when they should be seriously considering and deciding how they will vote: according to the evidence before them, expert advice and their conscience, not as a kneejerk reaction to undue pressure from either side.
Esther Foreman’s report highlights the debilitating results of mass online lobbying
[By the way, I urge anyone who believes mass online mobilisation of this ilk to be a wise means of engaging with MPs to affect real change: read Esther Foreman’s recent research report for the Social Change Agency, “Shouting Down the House”, on how such aggressive digital campaigning drowns out democracy and serious policy-making.]
I also do not believe that creating a need for Labour staff to wade through tens of thousands of emails – in terms of this Syrian ‘consultation’ or your weekly solicitation of items to pose at Prime Minister’s Questions – is a good use of limited party resources or my annual membership fees.
As your representatives have exhorted, I will also send a copy of this to my Labour MP, Neil Coyle for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. But rather than do as you suggest and pressure Neil to vote the way you are attempting to dictate, I urge Neil to vote as he feels is appropriate; he will continue to have my support whichever way that is.
Kind regards,
Terri Paddock
Dear Terri, I agree with the first half of your post. Especially that there is no right answer just less wrong ones . I also agree with your interpretation of pacifism. However I do not agree with your criticism of Jeremy Corbyn.
Firstly some facts. Do you really think any of the 4 preconditions you mention have been met? In my opinion:
1. There is no Chapter 7 from the UN.
2. Please show me where I can find the comprehensive plan for humanitarian assistance.
3. Recent history shows bombing of exclusive targets is not possible. Increased bombing means increased collateral damage. You may think this is necessary but if so you need to accept a rise in killing civilians.
4. A tough one. I’d refer you to Clausewitz, and the concern from our senior military officers that without clear objectives, and a defined political end game, military action is unlikely to improve the situation.
However what is more interesting is the questions you raise about the nature democracy. I fear that I as a full time doctor may have spent more time trying to understand these issues than some of our MP’s. This is based on personal experience.
Of particular interest is your comment: ‘This is not democracy by any definition that I recognise; but rather an attempt to crudely rig ‘debate’ until you get an answer you want.’ Is that not all politics? What is a whip other than an officially sanctioned way to rig debate. Corbyn is using the machinery at his disposal. However I think your implication is to question Corbyn’s motives. When we disagree with someone it is easy to question their motives, and sometimes necessary, but at this level we need to try to focus on debate grounded in the poor facts that we have. At the stop the war protest yesterday Tariq Ali was questioning Hilary Ben’s motives, we are it seems all as bad as each other.
So I think we should celebrate that we have two opposing sides presenting two opposing arguments, each playing their own games to achieve what they believe is right. It is precisely this process that we need to go through even more of. More debate, more time, and ideally we should try for a chapter 7. In politics you never set up an enquiry unless you know it will give the answer you want. However I think the effort of attaining or the pain of failing to attain a chapter 7, will be worth it if our resolve is to be greater than that of ISIS. And that is where one of the most important battles lie, the ideological one. If we truly believe in freedom, the greater good and the institutions we have established then we must use them, improve them, or accept that they may produce something we disagree with. That is liberty, that is democracy.
My view regarding Syria, as you say there are no right answers, only less wrong ones. I have yet to hear a convincing argument to bomb more (we are already bombing, other countries have tried and stopped, and I suspect most people in Raqqah have had too many bombs already).
My view on Corbyn. I suspect he is a man of conviction and substance. Bip Nandi
Hi Bip – This is a great response. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the contentious points, but I absolutely appreciate and respect what you’re saying.
One question: if a UN chapter 7 resolution was passed, would you then support airstrikes? Do you think Jeremy Corbyn would?
Hi Terri. That would depend on the evidence presented to me. JC is allowed out of principle to never support air strikes, but I hope he would respect that a process had been followed, and that he had been allowed to express his opinion. My point, as you say there is no right answer, but a long, difficult process in which all voices are heard make the wrong answer more bearable. The process is what is important. Your post with allegations of ‘cyber-bullying’, ‘supporting marches’, ‘spamming labour party members’ and some of the media response to JC sounds unfair at best, and in parts anti-democratic itself. There are many instruments of democracy, we use what we can. What is most interesting about your post is not what it says about Syria (that is really interesting, I suspect we have similar opinions), but what it says about democracy. I am no expert on parliamentary democracy, but perhaps JC is showing us a new way to do politics. History will tell. I think he should continue to follow his convictions. Whether we are ready for him is another matter. We get the government we deserve.
Please read the Shouting Down democracy report. To use online lobbying in this way is highly counter-productive. I work in digital for a living. There are absolutely ways that is could and should be better used to facilitate more inclusive and informed engagement in the political process. However, how it is being used by Corbyn’s team – and most especially by nastier fringe elements of it (which, I do accept and assume, are a minority) – is not at all the way to do it, should not be used as a model and would be disastrous as adopted as a way of governing.
HI Terri, will add to my list of things to read. I would agree there are extreme elements in Corbyn’s team, however watching the debate on TV I think out current model of democracy requires tweaking, as do all institutions as new technologies and cultures emerge. I hope this is not just sour grapes on my behalf. Best wishes Bip