Now, while movie stars and musicians often get more attention when their careers (and/or personal lives) begin a steady descent - the topic at hand today is the recent decline of several prominent politicians, some of whom have since vacated their positions - and some who still remain in office. For as compelling as it may be to watch a previously beloved actor, singer or athlete attempt to confront their demons under the attentive gaze of their public - it is a completely transcendent experience to witness the fall of an elected official. A person who was directly given, by way of votes, copious amounts of support and trust in hopes that they would become or remain one of the major factors in advancing the society in which they and their voters reside.
We will examine what brought about the rise to prominence in each instance, and try to determine which were the most destructive forces in their particular case - as well as whether or not any of them are or were potentially able to be repaired or avoided outright.
Gordon Brown
We begin with current UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has long been depicted as an exceedingly dour individual, even as he is elected to and holds high office. A man who is openly referred to as 'the Clunking Fist' and 'Bottler Brown' - and has been described on two separate occasions as having 'Macavity qualities' by both David Heath and Lord Andrew Turnbull.
He has been called a 'control freak', a policy thief - stubborn to the point of patronising. Some even go as far as to refer to him as having 'Stalinist tendencies', or to say that he lacks any real vision.
But those are all examinations and criticisms of Brown's personality, or things that he has failed to do, that all too often ignore his successes - although even these are the subject of criticism.
The Prime Minister's website highlights four specific achievements from his period as Chancellor: his leadership in advancing the plan to write-off the entire US$40 billion debt owed by 18 of the countries in the HIPC program during the 'G8+5' summit in Gleneagles; his run as the longest continuous serving Chancellor of the Exchequer (in addition to longest serving Labour Chancellor); his granting the Bank of England operational independence in monetary policy - all of which contain little to no shades of grey, and thusly can have no real opposition or critique, at least in terms of his responsibility for the action.
But the last achievement cited, his presiding over the "longest ever period" of economic growth in the United Kingdom, has been called into question not necessarily due to his responsibility for the actions, but his responsibility in said actions.
The claims have been questioned by independent researchers such as Martin Weale (director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research), Simon Rubinsohn (of the international investment house Gerrard), Malcolm Barr (of JP Morgan Chase), Andrew Smith (of professional services firm KPMG) - and many others.
The focus of concern in most examinations of the then-Chancellor is his continual steadfastness towards optimistic fiscal forecasts that seemingly never turned out the results that were expected, all too often gambling on a stark rise in economic activity at just the right time in order to continue on an upward trend. Though, regardless of how the plans are working, they are doing just that - whether or not they are as miraculous as the Prime Minister would have us believe.
In addition to any faults that may be perceived of Brown personally and politically, a good deal of the criticism directed toward him stems from his relationship with Tony Blair - much of which is usually linked to the so-called Granita Pact.
The basis of the Pact is that Brown agreed to stand down during the Labour Party's leadership election in 1994, which then led to Blair's victory in the general election in 1997. In exchange for his participation in the deal, Brown would be allowed control over economic and other domestic policies. Another facet of the deal was that should Blair become Prime Minister, he would hold the job for an agreed on period of time, and then turn the office over to Brown.
The very idea of such a deal implies that Blair was not confident enough to run against Brown without some sort of insurance. So he offered Brown some form of control over policy, while he was installed as a figurehead. And in such an implication, this would mean that Brown was popular enough with the people in 1994 to cause such a worry in Blair.
So what caused the fall in the general view of Brown, and how deserving is he of such a fate? Given the criticisms, one could be led to believe that neither the public nor his political colleagues knew all that much about Brown prior to his spike in popularity in 1994 - and that he never quite delivered on the promise he showed at that time. This seems to be a rational way of viewing the situation - especially considering that Brown, as a member of the Labour Party, was fighting against not only his own party's history of overspending - but also against the Conservative Party's scandal and conflict-ridden administration.
Should this be the case, then it is hard to argue that Brown has done anything to deserve the poor fortunes he has been given. However minor the increments towards growth have been, they do exist - and it should take more than a sullen personality to attract such derision.
George W. Bush
Even in the grand tradition of governmental leaders surrounded by controversy, George W. Bush stands out as a special case. Rarely, if ever has the leader of a country been so openly mocked by their constituency. Throughout his Presidency, Bush has been the subject of great ridicule - some of which finds its root in his father's term as President, but most of which is aimed at Bush's 'folksy' demeanor that often times makes him appear to be unqualified to lead a McDonald's staff - much less the United States.
But supporters claim that Bush not only understands this, but welcomes such a perception. That those elements of his personality that most would view as humiliating or even degrading, are all part of an elaborate act that Bush puts on to keep everyone from the media, to his political opponents - to even the general public off-guard, and underestimating him.
And there is good evidence to support their theory. After attending Yale and serving in the US National Guard during the Vietnam War, Bush then graduated with his MBA from Harvard Business School in 1975. Between 1976 and 1978, he worked in the oil industry, got married and settled down in Texas - and finally decided to foray into politics by running for an open seat in the House of Representatives, in a race he would ultimately lose to Kent Hance.
But it is the circumstances in which Bush lost that warrant the most examination. As odd and unbelievable as it may seem now, Bush lost an election in Texas due to his seeming almost elitist when compared to his opponent, who only had to appeal to the voters as the product of a local upbringing - which became large piece of the successful campaigns that Bush would launch years later to win both Governorship of Texas and the Presidency of the United States.
Bush has had many controversial moments throughout his terms as President, even if one sets aside the already well-covered 2000 Presidential election and invasion of Iraq. During his administration, the US has seen spikes in unemployment - ranging from 4.1% during January 2001 to a high of 6.3% in June 2003, to a current rate of 5%. The national on-budget deficit has gone from a surplus of US$86 billion in 2000 to US$9.34 trillion currently.
His 'No Child Left Behind Act' has been the subject of much debate, with one of the most prominent and apt statement belonging to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy -
'The tragedy is that these long-overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not.'
But by far the greatest criticisms of Bush are his usage of the PATRIOT Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to gather information on seemingly any given individual, under the premise of their being suspected of some level of involvement with terrorist groups. More frightening than his granting his country's intelligence agencies more free reign in their approach to surveillance of the common man, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The stated purpose of the MCA is "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes", at best a vague definition - and at worst an illegal one. The MCA also denies also denies those tried by commission access to habeas corpus - and while still declaring torture illegal, does allow for the President to determine what constitutes torture.
In addition to these acts, Bush also faces criticism for many other issues, such as his delay in response, as well as his overall lack of action in the events leading up to and immediately following Hurricane Katrina; his shadowy behaviour and lack of explanation concerning the dismissal of several US attorneys; and in a switch, for his use of military action against Iraq without what many consider to be real provocation.
Much like with Prime Minister Brown, the easiest way of approaching a case like President Bush is to presume that prior to his attaining power he was relatively unknown, and since then has failed to deliver on potential shown and promises made during that time.
However, unlike the Prime Minister - Bush has had not one but two of the more counterproductive terms as US President in all of recorded history, justifying his swing from one of the most popular Presidents (in terms of Gallop polls, around 90% in the wake of the September 11th attacks), to perhaps the most despised (28% approval rating, 69% disapproval as of April 2008).
Still, it is incredible how quickly George W. Bush has gone from a universally questioned, to a universally loathed - to an all but forgotten personality on the world stage. It is almost as though his countrymen are simply averting their eyes from the time remaining on his term, as they await the time in which they will be allowed the opportunity to name his replacement. There is no question that action was necessary following the attacks on his country, and even granting him some of the less questionable events as 'fair' or even 'positive' - he still leaves behind a legacy of a Big-Brother government who was granted an opportunity on 11/9/2001 to quickly grab and maintain even more power than they already had.
Tony Blair
As invisible as George W. Bush has become globally - to a point where he resorts to what can only be defined as publicity stunts, to attract attention, even while he is still in office - upon consideration one cannot help but believe that Tony Blair's fate is at least a tinge worse.
First and foremost, Blair had the misfortune of being a politician in the United Kingdom - home to one of the most unforgiving and straightforward voting populations on the planet. And while Bush is mocked for his behaviour and questioned on his policy, the controversies and criticisms surrounding Blair almost always point to his appearing to be a figurehead whose only aim in the political is that of garnering attention.
Blair is unlike Gordon Brown, whose personality is mocked and whose policies are questioned, but a man who has generally accomplished something of worth. And he is also not quite similar to George W. Bush, who has always had a consistency in his politics and policies, regardless of how damaging they are.
No, Blair is commonly seen to have one good term and one bad term - or, a term in which he brought on positive change in small doses, and a term in which he brought on negative change in large doses.
Under Blair there has been introduced the Human Rights Act, the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales and a Freedom of Information Act which saw its provisions actually come into effect. There are also been many acts of legislation granting new and broader rights to gay, lesbian and transgender individuals including a Civil Partnership Act and a Gender Recognition Act. Things that were less effective included his handling of the Millenium Dome project, his approach to the Kosovo War, and his removal of peers from the House of Lords (although this is a situation of great debate even to this day.
All of these things were accomplished during his first term in the Premiership, and all of them promote social change and a streamlining of government in the UK. But it is during his second term that he would see any sort of real turmoil.
First, his decision to align the UK with the US in the War in Afghanistan was heavily disapproved of in Britain - although in America he was awarded several honors, including the US Congressional Gold Medal. Blair also supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 - providing the war with forty-six thousand British troops. Following the investigation of the terms upon which the invasion relied, both Bush and Blair came under consider considerable fire, both in their home countries as well as internationally.
What further damages Blair is that the global perception of Bush is as a simple-minded 'non-thinker', and Blair has always been regarded as a persuasive personality - so for him to become as convinced that action was necessary from Britain, when none of the effects that supported the cause had impacted the UK, made him seem almost a 'yes-man' to the President. This and similar events spawned a large public and political campaign to impeach Blair, commonly referred to as the "Tony Bliar" campaign, which continued up until his resignation on 23 June 2007.
Consider that a satirical film based on the notion that his time in office would conclude with his having to face an international tribunal on charges of war crimes (The Trial of Tony Blair) was conceived, scripted, produced and released before he stood down as Prime Minister. While the point can be made that there are many films, television programmes and plays about political leaders that are made during their runs - and that most of those are satirical in nature, very rarely do they take the tone or have an outlook as bleak as the one depicted in The Trial of Tony Blair.
The most incredible facet of the demise of Tony Blair, is that his fate was the most easily avoided. Had he not decided to follow the US into Afghanistan and Iraq - a strong case can be made supporting his remaining in office with public support, even to this day (setting aside any implications from the Granita Pact). Perhaps he may not have been the strongest Prime Minister, but other than those prominent examples - he did little to no damage during his terms. The fact is that once he lost the public's support, he seemed to have little to no effect in his job - even when introducing positive legislation.
-------------
This column was not written in condemnation of any of the individuals involved, but only to examine if their fates were avoidable. What links these men together, other than proximity, is the common tie of perception. In each instance, the public's perception of the man was held firmly as being reality. So as soon as the public viewed each as being incompetent, it would seem that work began to happen around them - as opposed to through them. None of these men were impeached by their governments, but rather by their people - which proved to be infinitely more effective - in the sense of rendering them politically sterile, and vastly more damaging to their credibility not only as politicians, but perhaps also as citizens.
For those who see our world as one controlled by a very select few, should rejoyce in the knowledge that the last three men to hold the most powerful offices in two of the more influential countries on the planet - were all held in check and ultimately brought down by the 'common' people of their countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment