Online social networking has undoubtedly changed the way people communicate and has made online interaction with others easier and increasingly effortless. The success of innovative advances in communication has always depended on the increased ease they provide in facilitating communication with each other. Online social networking is no different and social networking websites have taken this ease to an unprecedented level in a relatively short space of time.
Despite their popularity and the extent to which social networking websites have been embraced worldwide, criticism centred on their privacy (or lack of) is on the rise. As a result, critics of this have been sufficiently vocal to prompt U-turns in privacy policy by the likes of Facebook. Cyberbullying has also increased with social networking websites providing a further conduit for this. Notwithstanding the benefits, online social networking has certainly presented some challenges. One such challenge that is typically overlooked is the impact of online social networking on the wider way we communicate with each other.
The easier it becomes to communicate with each other, the less thought is given to what we actually communicate. Social networking websites provide the ability to communicate with the world, not just our ‘friends’ or ‘followers’. Yet, this is with such ease that many status updates or tweets are clearly posted as the result of an unfiltered thought process. Some people clearly have no qualms about sharing the first thing that comes into their head, no matter how irrelevant, offensive or just plain stupid it might be. Not to mention, when it comes to communicating with real friends (not the Facebook type) via social networking websites, our communication often has less substance than it might have once had in a letter or even an email. Therefore will the erosion of meaningful communication be a legacy of online social networking?
Technology will always change the way we communicate. The advent of text messages brought a simple way to communicate via short, succinct messages – ideal while on the go or in situations where it isn’t practical to have a telephone conversation. Yet the instant approach it brought also made it a somewhat disposable mode of communication. This was exacerbated as mobile phone companies provided phone plans that included unlimited text messages or an amount of inclusive text messages that effectively offered just that.
As many teachers will attest, text messaging, and latterly messaging services such as Blackberry Messenger, has also led to the infiltration of so-called ‘text speak’ in what should otherwise be formal written English in schools and beyond. Unless schools are now requiring students’ written answers to be within 160 characters, there really is no argument that justifies this.
Similarly, the instant and disposable nature of some modern communication has meant paragraphs and punctuation are lost on some people who see nothing wrong with never-ending sentences and a wall of text.
Social networking websites are no different from text messaging and instant messenger services in having a wider impact beyond their principal aim. However, the extent of their impact on social interaction is even more apparent.
An attraction of social networking websites is the ease with which users can share information. Arguably, the social voyeurism websites like Facebook facilitate can almost guarantee its appeal to the human nature of curiosity. Conversely, it’s a braggart’s paradise as an ideal format for inviting compliments and sycophancy. And then of course there is staying in contact with people, many of whom you might not otherwise interact with. However, how highly does staying in meaningful contact actually rank when it comes to social networking websites? The above would suggest it isn’t a priority for many.
Even those cringeworthy couples that appear to live out their relationships online surely still speak to each other beyond the likes of Facebook; online social networking is yet to reach the heights of substituting reality. Nonetheless, it does play a significant role in how people now interact and that interaction has become defined by superficial communication. Sincere compliments have been replaced by ‘likes’ and meaningful correspondence has been replaced by generic messages. Consequently, where does that leave more meaningful communication?
Regrettably, the time and thought applied to writing letters and even emails appears to be lost on many in an age of online social networking. In many instances, this is merely in response to the changing pace of modern society. That need not mean contact between friends become meaningless as social networking websites promote what has become a culture of disposable communication.
Facebook has already sought to further its influence with its ‘next generation’ system that will bring emails, Facebook’s instant messaging, Facebook messages and text messages to one place. Facebook’s ambition is seemingly to become a one-stop shop for all our online communication (although the likes of Google are likely to have other ideas). A one-stop shop where people can have all the disposable communication they desire.
Despite the popularity of social networking websites, it is questionable to what extent reality will mirror the superficial interaction of social networking websites. Conversely, some would argue ‘rent a friend’ services such as RentAFriend.com aren’t a far cry from those sentiments.
Social networking websites have undoubtedly changed the way we communicate with each other. In some cases where they have brought efficiency to how we interact with people, it has been a change for the better. Yet they have also devalued the notion of genuine communication in the process. An age of letter writing is unlikely to return but some of the thought and meaningfulness accompanied with putting pen to paper wouldn’t go amiss within modern communication.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
The Royal Wedding: a Double Celebration for the Royal Family
The popularity of the British monarchy has undoubtedly been subject to gradual erosion, most notably during the post-war era. With British society becoming relatively more egalitarian than yesteryear and with the rise of republicanism, it would suggest the British monarchy is no longer revered to the extent it once was. However, the royal wedding, and the accompanying scenes of royal wedding mania across the UK, has gone some way to refute this.
The late Princess Diana was hugely popular with the British public. This was particularly notable given it was during a period of waning popularity for the House of Windsor. That public adoration has seemingly been passed on to her sons, both of whom have inherited their mother’s humility, ability to connect with the public and a desire to champion charitable causes. Therefore it is unsurprising that Prince William’s marriage to Kate Middleton has generated an unprecedented interest and adoration for the royal family since the turn of the twenty-first century.
As a UK resident, the fanfare and media frenzy in the build up to and during the royal wedding has been overwhelming and at times mildly amusing. According to the Guardian, at least 1 million spectators flocked to the streets of central London, many congregating outside Westminster Abbey and Buckingham Palace or lining the wedding procession route. Street parties around the UK celebrated the royal wedding and some of the kitsch souvenirs to commemorate the wedding have included sick bags and an aptly named line of condoms. Clearly this is an event that has captured much of the country.
Of course, the republican voices of disdain for the royal family, particularly during an event of such magnitude that was largely funded by the public purse, have not been silent. Indeed, Republic, a group that seeks the abolition of the British monarchy, held their own alternative "Not the Royal Wedding" street party in London. However, overall, such sentiments have certainly been dwarfed by those of the pro-wedding masses.
In times of such austerity in the UK, further criticism of the royal wedding could have been anticipated. Juxtaposed with the pomp and splendor of the event, an aberration in everyday scenes of modern Britain, the wedding could certainly have attracted much disdain. However, conversations about the royal wedding overheard in public, numerous tweets and comments appended to online reporting of the wedding have merely been punctuated by the aforementioned rather than taking centre stage. Patriotism and a high regard for Prince William and his new bride have on this occasion trumped the subject of austerity and republican rhetoric.
How long this revived public euphoria for the royal family will last is uncertain and it is likely to be focused on the newly wed royal couple themselves. However, the royal wedding has certainly provided the royal family with somewhat of a PR victory and galvanized their supporters. It might even result in impeding calls for republicanism in Britain; a dou
 |
The late Princess Diana was hugely popular with the British public. This was particularly notable given it was during a period of waning popularity for the House of Windsor. That public adoration has seemingly been passed on to her sons, both of whom have inherited their mother’s humility, ability to connect with the public and a desire to champion charitable causes. Therefore it is unsurprising that Prince William’s marriage to Kate Middleton has generated an unprecedented interest and adoration for the royal family since the turn of the twenty-first century.
As a UK resident, the fanfare and media frenzy in the build up to and during the royal wedding has been overwhelming and at times mildly amusing. According to the Guardian, at least 1 million spectators flocked to the streets of central London, many congregating outside Westminster Abbey and Buckingham Palace or lining the wedding procession route. Street parties around the UK celebrated the royal wedding and some of the kitsch souvenirs to commemorate the wedding have included sick bags and an aptly named line of condoms. Clearly this is an event that has captured much of the country.
Of course, the republican voices of disdain for the royal family, particularly during an event of such magnitude that was largely funded by the public purse, have not been silent. Indeed, Republic, a group that seeks the abolition of the British monarchy, held their own alternative "Not the Royal Wedding" street party in London. However, overall, such sentiments have certainly been dwarfed by those of the pro-wedding masses.
In times of such austerity in the UK, further criticism of the royal wedding could have been anticipated. Juxtaposed with the pomp and splendor of the event, an aberration in everyday scenes of modern Britain, the wedding could certainly have attracted much disdain. However, conversations about the royal wedding overheard in public, numerous tweets and comments appended to online reporting of the wedding have merely been punctuated by the aforementioned rather than taking centre stage. Patriotism and a high regard for Prince William and his new bride have on this occasion trumped the subject of austerity and republican rhetoric.
How long this revived public euphoria for the royal family will last is uncertain and it is likely to be focused on the newly wed royal couple themselves. However, the royal wedding has certainly provided the royal family with somewhat of a PR victory and galvanized their supporters. It might even result in impeding calls for republicanism in Britain; a dou
Monday, 12 September 2011
UK Banking needs its own Glass-Steagall. Alas, for now it will have to wait
Having published its final report, the Independent Banking Commission has recommended that the retail operations of UK banks be ring-fenced from their investment operations. Given the Commission’s interim report, this was of course expected and tacitly accepted by most within the banking sector. Despite any indignation they may publically express, the banks are acutely aware of how this proposal stops short of their worst fears being realised – an actual split of their retail and investment operations and a break-up of so-called universal banks that include both services.
The Commission was established by the Government in 2010. The Commission was asked by the Government to ‘consider structural and related non-structural reforms to the UK banking sector to promote financial stability and competition’. Given it was established against a backdrop of public anger and opprobrium for the banking sector, the banks were understandably concerned that the Commission’s proposals could signal an end for the light-touch regulation they have been subject to and introduce a new era in UK banking with their retail operations being split from their riskier investment operations.
The banks soon began lobbying the Government for conservative reform (no pun intended), arguing that the contrary would compel them to relocate their operations abroad, a warning echoed by the British Bankers’ Association (BBA). The BBA recently argued the schedule for any reform should allow ‘the banks to finance the recovery first, pay back the tax payer next, and only then turn to further regulatory change’. Considering the Commission has proposed its recommendations be implemented by 2019, it’s fair to say the BBA’s aim to delay the reforms being implemented has been achieved. Whether the message be to disregard, limit or delay any forthcoming reform, it is clear that reform is not welcome by the banking sector.
The Commission’s interim report was met by some suggestions that it (and the Government) had succumbed to lobbying by the banking sector in declining to propose a split of investment and retail operations. Nonetheless, stopping short of this was always on the cards. Therefore it should not have been met with much surprise. With a Conservative-led coalition, traditionally a friend and ally of the banking sector (and no fair-weather one at that) and intense lobbying, such radical reform was always unlikely. And while the Labour party in opposition may argue they would seek far-reaching reform, that certainly wasn’t what they sought while in power.
Putting the Commission’s proposals into context, they are relatively speaking a significant departure from current arrangements. A separation, albeit not a split, of retail and investment banking operations is arguably a step in the right direction. It is also a move that will cost the banking sector – according to the Commission, ‘a plausible range for the annual pre-tax cost to UK banks of the proposed reform package is £4bn-£7bn’. That’s a sizeable sum but in relation to the total revenue generated by the banking sector, it’s one they can easily take on the chin. Consequently, in a broader context, the reform is actually reasonably moderate in its impact on the banks and how radical it actually could have been.
Playing out the scenario of more significant reform to the banking sector resulting in a split of retail and investment operations, what would the consequences be in practice and how would the banks’ threat of relocating their operations abroad manifest itself? Firstly, it would create a less opaque situation when it comes to banks and the accompanying risk they carry. Retail banks would be retail banks and investment banks would be investment banks. Pretty simple really. That in itself would mitigate the risks associated with retail banks and given the services they provide, rightly so.
Some commentators have argued that such reform would make the UK a less competitive and less hospitable environment for the financial sector. That might be an assumption or just scaremongering by the lobbyists. As an aside, amidst their indignation, a split of banks’ operations might also bring some humility to a sector where it’s patently void of such sentiments.
Secondly, should any bank decide to relocate, they would still maintain a physical presence in the UK, in many cases broadly doing business as usual. Instead, where banks’ corporate headquarters are based in the UK, this would no longer be the case. This would of course have an impact on the tax receipts from the banking sector.
Despite the aggressive tax avoidance schemes such as those operated by Barclays Capital and uncovered by the Guardian in 2009 (the documents uncovered were subject to an injunction by Barclays – somewhat of an empty victory given they were already online and raised in the House of Lords by Lord Oakeshott using parliamentary privilege), tax paid by the banks amounts to a not-inconsiderable sum collected by HMRC. Not to mention, there is also the income tax of banks’ employees that adds to their contribution. Further antagonising the banks beyond the unpopular banking levy and the targeting of bankers’ bonuses therefore cannot be taken lightly.
If banks were presented with unfavourable reform, would they relocate their corporate headquarters from the UK en masse? While some arguably might make the move, it’s unlikely they all would. In fact, two of the UK’s biggest banks, Lloyds Banking Group and RBS, are part-nationalised. It’s therefore reasonably safe to say that they aren’t going anywhere.
Furthermore, for those banks that might consider relocation, they would have to reflect on the opportunity cost of doing so. Relatively speaking, the UK is certainly favourable to banking with the extent of regulation it offers. With the current Conservative-led coalition, bankers can also be sure to find a sympathetic ear or two in Government.
Banks having the ear of politicians is more apparent in London where the banks’ presence is highly visible within The Square Mile. Bob Diamond, Chief Executive of Barclays, is an advisor to Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, and also serves as a trustee of the Mayor’s Fund for London. This relationship has surely been beneficial with the Mayor being vocal in his calls for the Government to go easy on the financial sector given its importance to the London economy.
On reflection, the banks’ threat to relocate, albeit credible and one which would affect the UK, therefore isn’t a foregone conclusion.
That should have emboldened the Commission to further consider making a recommendation akin to the Glass-Steagall Act. The Glass-Steagall Act was US legislation created in 1933 against the backdrop of the Great Depression with the aim of mitigating the likelihood of the events that had ensued reoccurring. This was the UK banks’ biggest concern of the Commission’s recommendations. However, surely there hasn’t been a better time to justify and evidence the need for such reform?
The Act prohibited retail and investment operations being provided within the same bank. In doing so, it separated the risk of investment banking from what should have been a lower-risk environment for retail banking. Retail banks could no longer underwrite stocks and bonds, reducing the risk in relation to retail customers’ deposits. Conversely, investment banks could not accept deposits from retail customers.
With the hindsight of a banking crisis that resulted in bailouts and nationalisation of financial institutions around the world, Glass-Steagall-esque legislation appears to be a simple yet effective idea. The Act was repealed in 1999 and gave the green-light for retail and investment banking operations to once again be comprised within the same institution. Many have argued its repeal was in part responsible for the banking crisis in the US that occurred within the subsequent decade.
There is also the question of how true the notion of ‘too big to fail’ would be had Glass-Steagall been in place. Considering the collapse of Lehman Brothers, it could be argued that had its operations included retail banking, the US Government may have felt compelled to provide a bailout package rather than take the course of action that led to its demise.
The proposal to ring-fence retail banking isn’t the only recommendation of the Commission’s final report but it is the most significant. The banks are already arguing that ring-fencing will cost them but deep down they’re relieved that cost won’t be a split of their operations.
It would be wrong to suggest a split of the banks’ operations a la Glass-Steagall would have eradicated the risk and culture of bankers that contributed to the banking crisis. Nonetheless, it would have further mitigated that risk beyond the ring-fencing proposed by the Commission.
The banks’ opposition and lobbying to avoid a split of their retail and investment operations has successfully avoided their biggest fears. The opportunity for more meaningful and far-reaching reform within a sector that clearly needed it was both viable and achievable via the Commission’s reforms. Yet the balance of power between the banking sector and the Government probably meant it was never really on the cards.
The Commission was established by the Government in 2010. The Commission was asked by the Government to ‘consider structural and related non-structural reforms to the UK banking sector to promote financial stability and competition’. Given it was established against a backdrop of public anger and opprobrium for the banking sector, the banks were understandably concerned that the Commission’s proposals could signal an end for the light-touch regulation they have been subject to and introduce a new era in UK banking with their retail operations being split from their riskier investment operations.
The banks soon began lobbying the Government for conservative reform (no pun intended), arguing that the contrary would compel them to relocate their operations abroad, a warning echoed by the British Bankers’ Association (BBA). The BBA recently argued the schedule for any reform should allow ‘the banks to finance the recovery first, pay back the tax payer next, and only then turn to further regulatory change’. Considering the Commission has proposed its recommendations be implemented by 2019, it’s fair to say the BBA’s aim to delay the reforms being implemented has been achieved. Whether the message be to disregard, limit or delay any forthcoming reform, it is clear that reform is not welcome by the banking sector.
The Commission’s interim report was met by some suggestions that it (and the Government) had succumbed to lobbying by the banking sector in declining to propose a split of investment and retail operations. Nonetheless, stopping short of this was always on the cards. Therefore it should not have been met with much surprise. With a Conservative-led coalition, traditionally a friend and ally of the banking sector (and no fair-weather one at that) and intense lobbying, such radical reform was always unlikely. And while the Labour party in opposition may argue they would seek far-reaching reform, that certainly wasn’t what they sought while in power.
Putting the Commission’s proposals into context, they are relatively speaking a significant departure from current arrangements. A separation, albeit not a split, of retail and investment banking operations is arguably a step in the right direction. It is also a move that will cost the banking sector – according to the Commission, ‘a plausible range for the annual pre-tax cost to UK banks of the proposed reform package is £4bn-£7bn’. That’s a sizeable sum but in relation to the total revenue generated by the banking sector, it’s one they can easily take on the chin. Consequently, in a broader context, the reform is actually reasonably moderate in its impact on the banks and how radical it actually could have been.
Playing out the scenario of more significant reform to the banking sector resulting in a split of retail and investment operations, what would the consequences be in practice and how would the banks’ threat of relocating their operations abroad manifest itself? Firstly, it would create a less opaque situation when it comes to banks and the accompanying risk they carry. Retail banks would be retail banks and investment banks would be investment banks. Pretty simple really. That in itself would mitigate the risks associated with retail banks and given the services they provide, rightly so.
Some commentators have argued that such reform would make the UK a less competitive and less hospitable environment for the financial sector. That might be an assumption or just scaremongering by the lobbyists. As an aside, amidst their indignation, a split of banks’ operations might also bring some humility to a sector where it’s patently void of such sentiments.
 |
Despite the aggressive tax avoidance schemes such as those operated by Barclays Capital and uncovered by the Guardian in 2009 (the documents uncovered were subject to an injunction by Barclays – somewhat of an empty victory given they were already online and raised in the House of Lords by Lord Oakeshott using parliamentary privilege), tax paid by the banks amounts to a not-inconsiderable sum collected by HMRC. Not to mention, there is also the income tax of banks’ employees that adds to their contribution. Further antagonising the banks beyond the unpopular banking levy and the targeting of bankers’ bonuses therefore cannot be taken lightly.
If banks were presented with unfavourable reform, would they relocate their corporate headquarters from the UK en masse? While some arguably might make the move, it’s unlikely they all would. In fact, two of the UK’s biggest banks, Lloyds Banking Group and RBS, are part-nationalised. It’s therefore reasonably safe to say that they aren’t going anywhere.
Furthermore, for those banks that might consider relocation, they would have to reflect on the opportunity cost of doing so. Relatively speaking, the UK is certainly favourable to banking with the extent of regulation it offers. With the current Conservative-led coalition, bankers can also be sure to find a sympathetic ear or two in Government.
Banks having the ear of politicians is more apparent in London where the banks’ presence is highly visible within The Square Mile. Bob Diamond, Chief Executive of Barclays, is an advisor to Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, and also serves as a trustee of the Mayor’s Fund for London. This relationship has surely been beneficial with the Mayor being vocal in his calls for the Government to go easy on the financial sector given its importance to the London economy.
On reflection, the banks’ threat to relocate, albeit credible and one which would affect the UK, therefore isn’t a foregone conclusion.
That should have emboldened the Commission to further consider making a recommendation akin to the Glass-Steagall Act. The Glass-Steagall Act was US legislation created in 1933 against the backdrop of the Great Depression with the aim of mitigating the likelihood of the events that had ensued reoccurring. This was the UK banks’ biggest concern of the Commission’s recommendations. However, surely there hasn’t been a better time to justify and evidence the need for such reform?
The Act prohibited retail and investment operations being provided within the same bank. In doing so, it separated the risk of investment banking from what should have been a lower-risk environment for retail banking. Retail banks could no longer underwrite stocks and bonds, reducing the risk in relation to retail customers’ deposits. Conversely, investment banks could not accept deposits from retail customers.
With the hindsight of a banking crisis that resulted in bailouts and nationalisation of financial institutions around the world, Glass-Steagall-esque legislation appears to be a simple yet effective idea. The Act was repealed in 1999 and gave the green-light for retail and investment banking operations to once again be comprised within the same institution. Many have argued its repeal was in part responsible for the banking crisis in the US that occurred within the subsequent decade.
There is also the question of how true the notion of ‘too big to fail’ would be had Glass-Steagall been in place. Considering the collapse of Lehman Brothers, it could be argued that had its operations included retail banking, the US Government may have felt compelled to provide a bailout package rather than take the course of action that led to its demise.
The proposal to ring-fence retail banking isn’t the only recommendation of the Commission’s final report but it is the most significant. The banks are already arguing that ring-fencing will cost them but deep down they’re relieved that cost won’t be a split of their operations.
It would be wrong to suggest a split of the banks’ operations a la Glass-Steagall would have eradicated the risk and culture of bankers that contributed to the banking crisis. Nonetheless, it would have further mitigated that risk beyond the ring-fencing proposed by the Commission.
The banks’ opposition and lobbying to avoid a split of their retail and investment operations has successfully avoided their biggest fears. The opportunity for more meaningful and far-reaching reform within a sector that clearly needed it was both viable and achievable via the Commission’s reforms. Yet the balance of power between the banking sector and the Government probably meant it was never really on the cards.
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
The changing landscape of the English education system
The 2011/12 academic year sees the first free schools opening in England. Free schools, as described by the Department for Education are ‘all-ability state-funded schools set up in response to what local people say they want and need in order to improve education for children in their community’.
Free schools, essentially academies, are funded directly by central government rather than local authorities and cannot be run for profit. Free schools also have greater autonomy than state schools and can decide on their curriculum and teachers’ pay, terms and conditions. Free schools are run as academies with communities playing a bigger role in their support and creation.
Prior to the 2010 general election, free schools were a flagship education policy for the Conservative party – clearly signalling their appetite for a diminished role of local authorities in the running of schools. Subsequently, the provision for free schools was included in the Academies Act 2010. The Act also gave existing state schools the opportunity to apply for academy status.
Prior to the Act, the coalition government invited proposals for free schools. According to the Department for Education, as of 11 February 2011 (the deadline for proposals to be received) it had received 323 proposals for the creation of free schools in England.
In principle, free schools appear to be a great idea. The number of proposals received by the Department for Education also suggests many people share that notion. In recognising the need for a school that offers the structure, teaching, values and curriculum that is right for the children of a respective community, charities, community groups, parents, teachers, faith groups and others are now empowered to seek just that. However, what impact will this have on communities and the education landscape in England?
In proposing and establishing a free school, it undoubtedly requires organisation, resources and community support – attributes typically, but by no means exclusively, found in middle class and upwardly mobile communities. Conversely, while the same desire to improve education for children undeniably exists in working class and less affluent communities, often the resources simply aren’t available to pursue such an aim with the same effectiveness as found amongst the middle classes.
Consequently, given there are communities that may find the pursuance of free schools less attainable, there is a risk that free schools will further ghettoise education in a social context. Nevertheless, this is seemingly a consequence ignored, if not realised, by the coalition government.
 |
The coalition government and supporters of free schools would seek to refute this by arguing that free schools are prohibited from maintaining an academically selective admissions policy. In middle class neighbourhoods, this arguably mitigates the risk of free schools being exclusive to children of the respective community. In theory, there is validity in this. Yet in practice, a school’s intake is typically derived from and therefore reflective of the local community. Children of backgrounds that differ from the wider community are therefore likely to be in a minority.
There is also the argument that free schools can be proposed by groups such as charities, businesses and faith groups and not simply parents and well-organised communities. These groups already have structures and expertise that can assist communities seeking to propose a free school. In communities that would otherwise find this a challenge, such groups can and should assist in achieving this where desired.
Hopefully such instances will be the success stories of free schools that truly do contribute to improving education within communities. Nonetheless, it is likely that the expansion of free schools and academies will largely reflect the social character of the communities they lie within. It is therefore questionable if such scenarios will occur to the extent that they can buck the trend.
The apparent demand for free schools and academies, and the coalition government’s fervour in promoting them, clearly leaves local authorities with a reduced remit in the provision of education. While some may argue this is simply a consequence of the desires of parents, schools and communities, there are more tangible consequences for those schools that remain within the remit of local authorities.
Academies and free schools receive their share of funding for certain services, such as special educational needs, that would otherwise be provided by the respective local authority. This is reflected in the funding directly provided to academies and free schools by central government. Consequently, in areas where state schools have become academies, it is also reflected in a reduction in grants for local authorities from central government.
In May 2011, the BBC reported that a number of local authorities have contested the government’s method of calculating the reduced grants and have sought a judicial review against ministers on this basis. There is clearly a debate to be had regarding the establishment of free schools and academies and the impact on schools that remain within local authority control.
The number of free schools and academies in England is likely to increase as parents, teachers and community groups seek further autonomy in how schools are run. In such instances, it can be argued that the government is simply responding to the wishes of local communities. Conversely, where such demand does not exist, it is likely that academy status will be foisted upon more challenging schools, particularly against a backdrop of the coalition government’s zeal in promoting its flagship education policy.
Diminishing what should be an altruistic role of the state with regard to the provision of education and replacing it with autonomy raises several concerns. It also takes the provision of education a step closer to privatisation – a move that would pit the provision of quality education against profit.
Speculation aside, the initial risk with free schools and academies is the creation and acceptance of a further ghettoised education system. If this does occur, any egalitarianism achieved in post-war education policy will slowly but surely be eroded.
The England riots - rebels without a cause?
The scenes of unrest that swept London and other English cities were met by widespread condemnation. However, in seeking the cause of the riots, opinion was certainly polarised. Politicians, the public, communities and commentators all offered views on what had led to the destruction and violence that occurred yet none could agree on a single cause of the riots.
The events that preceded the initial riots in Tottenham were the death of Mark Duggan and a subsequent peaceful protest on the Saturday afternoon before the rioting commenced. Several commentators attempted to make hurried and tenuous links between the peaceful protest and the rioting. However, there was no correlation between the aims of the initial protesters who sought answers over the death of Mark Duggan and the rioters who sought opportunistic destruction.
The media and other commentators also attempted to draw parallels with the Broadwater Farm riots that occurred in Tottenham in 1985. Again, this was a flawed and uninformed conclusion.
Akin to other race riots of the era, the Broadwater Farm riots were against a backdrop of great tensions between the police and the black community. Such tensions were fuelled by institutionalised racism within the police, well-documented brutality and deaths of black people held in custody and an apathetic approach of British governments towards non-white Britons, many of whom were born in the UK following post-war emigration of their parents.
The Broadwater Farm riots were sparked by the death of Cynthia Jarrett, a black woman who died having collapsed and experienced a stroke during a police search of her home. However, the indignation of the black community had been burgeoning long before this. While many condemned the rioting, most notably the death of PC Keith Blakelock who was killed during the riots, there were genuine frustrations that led to the unrest.
In contrast, any indignation of the rioters in Tottenham, and the locations of subsequent rioting, was not apparent. Nonetheless, a number of rioters and commentators claimed the death of Mark Duggan served as a tipping point for frustrations of disaffected youth, particularly within the black community, and anger over racial profiling.
Given the history of tension between the black community and the police, many may have considered this to underpin the cause of events that lead to Mark Duggan’s death and indeed the subsequent riots. Furthermore, the statistics of black people being 26 more times likely than white people to be stopped and searched by police in England and Wales, certainly gives credence to any accusations of racial profiling by the police. However, albeit far from perfect, the relationship between the black community and the police has undoubtedly improved from that of yesteryear.
As the unrest spread beyond Tottenham to other areas of London and a number of English cities, the link between Mark Duggan’s death and the riots became increasingly tenuous. Indeed, it’s doubtful Mark Duggan’s death was even remotely in the consciousness of very few, if any, of the rioters.
In the aftermath of the unrest, socio-economic, racial and generational tensions have all been opined as the cause of the riots along with wider community tensions with the police. Finding a neat social group by which the rioters can be identified appears to be much desired.
Many politicians, acutely aware that making the respective group into a pariah will appeal to a public angered by the scenes of rioting, have bandied about tough-talking rhetoric of firm justice for the perpetrators. Conversely, a number of politicians from the opposition have used the unrest to argue that the coalition government’s austerity measures have caused cuts so deep in public spending, that they have exacerbated an already disaffected youth.
I beg to differ that the loss of EMA and closure of youth services would prompt otherwise law-abiding citizens to adopt such lawlessness and opportunistic violence as was witnessed during the unrest. Similarly, while a tough stance on the perpetrators is undoubtedly required, a short-sighted approach will merely lead to the cause of these events being suppressed rather than addressed.
The extent of British multiculturalism has been apparent in the varied ethnic groups of the rioters. To suggest a link between race relations and the unrest is therefore a flawed assumption. Nonetheless, some commentators, both within and outside of the black community, have attempted to argue this case. However, historian David Starkey, in what were career-ending utterances on the BBC’s Newsnight, went one step further.
Referencing Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech that criticised commonwealth immigration to Britain, David Starkey asserted “black culture” had been assumed by non-black rioters, effectively equating black culture with the nihilistic behaviour that was witnessed in several English cities. Conversely, claiming black Labour MP David Lammy’s well-educated diction as that of a white person, he intimated white culture was the antithesis of all that had occurred with the unrest.
Needless to say, David Starkey’s comments were unfounded and utterly racist, totally rejecting the many positive contributions the black diaspora, and those of other ethnic minority communities, has made to British society.
There was not a ‘black’ issue behind the riots. The issue of race relations, let alone one exclusive to the black community, was very much secondary, if at all applicable, to the cause of the riots.
Indeed, there is a measure of apathy and disaffection within some sections of the black community, particularly amongst the youth, that has consequently diminished the aspirations and voice of the black community. The aforementioned social failures are therefore likely to have underpinned the attitudes of many that took part in the riots – and happened to be black. However, while the apathy, lack of values and nihilism that was witnessed is far from representative of the black community, let alone any ethnic group, it is a common theme to the rioters.
The role of class has been suggested as another cause of the unrest. Perhaps as a product of British multiculturalism, class has seemingly overtaken race as the prevalent theme in drawing divisions within British society. Arguably, there has been a growing apathetic and disaffected class within British society. Initially, and unfairly, considered an extension of the working class, this social group has commonly been labelled by the media as ‘chavs’ or the underclass.
The demographic of this group has been characterised as having little aspiration and low levels of educational attainment, while having little work ethic and no perceptible stake in society. Certainly, these traits are common to those that took part in the rioting. However, of the many rioters already arrested and charged, some have been discovered to be professional middle-class individuals. This refutes the notion that this destructive behaviour is exclusive to the socially marginalised in Britain.
While most were in awe of the scenes of rioting, looting and burning buildings, this awe was increased for many politicians and public that remained ignorant or nonchalant towards this burgeoning apathetic section of British society. While I found the destruction both shocking and surreal, the capacity for the nihilistic attitudes of the rioters was not as surprising. British society has long shown glimpses of these attitudes and the consequent shift in the social equilibrium.
Despite most of the rioters being identified as youths, it is presumptuous and unfair to attribute these attitudes exclusively to youth culture. Indeed, those youths that exhibit such attitudes have done so by mirroring the attitudes of so-called authority figures around them. However, these attitudes represent what is an aberration in contrast to a ‘normal’ set of values. Scenes of youths nonchalantly looting businesses and attacking the police, visibly with glee rather than the indignation that usually accompanies such unrest, represents a significant problem in such sections of British society.
The boundaries, expectations and hierarchy of authority figures for youths have become increasingly blurred. The status quo has diminished the role of discipline and ethics within a generation. Many parents perceive teachers, youth leaders and wider society to be responsible for the parenting of their children, effectively opting to relinquish the nurturing role of being a parent. However, relatively speaking, it is important to acknowledge that such individuals, parents and youths alike, are in a minority.
While such failed parenting is inexcusable and undoubtedly an underlying cause of much of the unrest, there are questions to be asked of how this attitude came to exist in British society without opposition.
How did rampant materialism (without an accompanying work ethic), a lack of value for education and nonchalance for authority creep into British society? It is a far cry from the Thatcherite rhetoric of ‘Victorian values’ that until recently was the utopian, yet flawed, perception of Britain for many abroad. Surely even David Cameron would agree that the problem is beyond his ‘hug a hoodie’ sentiments as a viable solution.
In the aftermath of the riots, there will undoubtedly be much debate by Parliament, communities and beyond in attempting to ascertain what caused this and how it can be avoided. There are certainly social issues of apathy and disengagement, particularly amongst the youth, in sections of British society. However, unlike previous social unrest, there is no tangible frustration that governments and communities can work to address. Instead, the challenge will be addressing a set of attitudes which have long existed but to date have failed to manifest themselves so perceptibly.
The events that preceded the initial riots in Tottenham were the death of Mark Duggan and a subsequent peaceful protest on the Saturday afternoon before the rioting commenced. Several commentators attempted to make hurried and tenuous links between the peaceful protest and the rioting. However, there was no correlation between the aims of the initial protesters who sought answers over the death of Mark Duggan and the rioters who sought opportunistic destruction.
 |
The media and other commentators also attempted to draw parallels with the Broadwater Farm riots that occurred in Tottenham in 1985. Again, this was a flawed and uninformed conclusion.
Akin to other race riots of the era, the Broadwater Farm riots were against a backdrop of great tensions between the police and the black community. Such tensions were fuelled by institutionalised racism within the police, well-documented brutality and deaths of black people held in custody and an apathetic approach of British governments towards non-white Britons, many of whom were born in the UK following post-war emigration of their parents.
The Broadwater Farm riots were sparked by the death of Cynthia Jarrett, a black woman who died having collapsed and experienced a stroke during a police search of her home. However, the indignation of the black community had been burgeoning long before this. While many condemned the rioting, most notably the death of PC Keith Blakelock who was killed during the riots, there were genuine frustrations that led to the unrest.
In contrast, any indignation of the rioters in Tottenham, and the locations of subsequent rioting, was not apparent. Nonetheless, a number of rioters and commentators claimed the death of Mark Duggan served as a tipping point for frustrations of disaffected youth, particularly within the black community, and anger over racial profiling.
Given the history of tension between the black community and the police, many may have considered this to underpin the cause of events that lead to Mark Duggan’s death and indeed the subsequent riots. Furthermore, the statistics of black people being 26 more times likely than white people to be stopped and searched by police in England and Wales, certainly gives credence to any accusations of racial profiling by the police. However, albeit far from perfect, the relationship between the black community and the police has undoubtedly improved from that of yesteryear.
 |
In the aftermath of the unrest, socio-economic, racial and generational tensions have all been opined as the cause of the riots along with wider community tensions with the police. Finding a neat social group by which the rioters can be identified appears to be much desired.
Many politicians, acutely aware that making the respective group into a pariah will appeal to a public angered by the scenes of rioting, have bandied about tough-talking rhetoric of firm justice for the perpetrators. Conversely, a number of politicians from the opposition have used the unrest to argue that the coalition government’s austerity measures have caused cuts so deep in public spending, that they have exacerbated an already disaffected youth.
I beg to differ that the loss of EMA and closure of youth services would prompt otherwise law-abiding citizens to adopt such lawlessness and opportunistic violence as was witnessed during the unrest. Similarly, while a tough stance on the perpetrators is undoubtedly required, a short-sighted approach will merely lead to the cause of these events being suppressed rather than addressed.
The extent of British multiculturalism has been apparent in the varied ethnic groups of the rioters. To suggest a link between race relations and the unrest is therefore a flawed assumption. Nonetheless, some commentators, both within and outside of the black community, have attempted to argue this case. However, historian David Starkey, in what were career-ending utterances on the BBC’s Newsnight, went one step further.
Referencing Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech that criticised commonwealth immigration to Britain, David Starkey asserted “black culture” had been assumed by non-black rioters, effectively equating black culture with the nihilistic behaviour that was witnessed in several English cities. Conversely, claiming black Labour MP David Lammy’s well-educated diction as that of a white person, he intimated white culture was the antithesis of all that had occurred with the unrest.
Needless to say, David Starkey’s comments were unfounded and utterly racist, totally rejecting the many positive contributions the black diaspora, and those of other ethnic minority communities, has made to British society.
There was not a ‘black’ issue behind the riots. The issue of race relations, let alone one exclusive to the black community, was very much secondary, if at all applicable, to the cause of the riots.
Indeed, there is a measure of apathy and disaffection within some sections of the black community, particularly amongst the youth, that has consequently diminished the aspirations and voice of the black community. The aforementioned social failures are therefore likely to have underpinned the attitudes of many that took part in the riots – and happened to be black. However, while the apathy, lack of values and nihilism that was witnessed is far from representative of the black community, let alone any ethnic group, it is a common theme to the rioters.
The role of class has been suggested as another cause of the unrest. Perhaps as a product of British multiculturalism, class has seemingly overtaken race as the prevalent theme in drawing divisions within British society. Arguably, there has been a growing apathetic and disaffected class within British society. Initially, and unfairly, considered an extension of the working class, this social group has commonly been labelled by the media as ‘chavs’ or the underclass.
The demographic of this group has been characterised as having little aspiration and low levels of educational attainment, while having little work ethic and no perceptible stake in society. Certainly, these traits are common to those that took part in the rioting. However, of the many rioters already arrested and charged, some have been discovered to be professional middle-class individuals. This refutes the notion that this destructive behaviour is exclusive to the socially marginalised in Britain.
While most were in awe of the scenes of rioting, looting and burning buildings, this awe was increased for many politicians and public that remained ignorant or nonchalant towards this burgeoning apathetic section of British society. While I found the destruction both shocking and surreal, the capacity for the nihilistic attitudes of the rioters was not as surprising. British society has long shown glimpses of these attitudes and the consequent shift in the social equilibrium.
Despite most of the rioters being identified as youths, it is presumptuous and unfair to attribute these attitudes exclusively to youth culture. Indeed, those youths that exhibit such attitudes have done so by mirroring the attitudes of so-called authority figures around them. However, these attitudes represent what is an aberration in contrast to a ‘normal’ set of values. Scenes of youths nonchalantly looting businesses and attacking the police, visibly with glee rather than the indignation that usually accompanies such unrest, represents a significant problem in such sections of British society.
The boundaries, expectations and hierarchy of authority figures for youths have become increasingly blurred. The status quo has diminished the role of discipline and ethics within a generation. Many parents perceive teachers, youth leaders and wider society to be responsible for the parenting of their children, effectively opting to relinquish the nurturing role of being a parent. However, relatively speaking, it is important to acknowledge that such individuals, parents and youths alike, are in a minority.
While such failed parenting is inexcusable and undoubtedly an underlying cause of much of the unrest, there are questions to be asked of how this attitude came to exist in British society without opposition.
How did rampant materialism (without an accompanying work ethic), a lack of value for education and nonchalance for authority creep into British society? It is a far cry from the Thatcherite rhetoric of ‘Victorian values’ that until recently was the utopian, yet flawed, perception of Britain for many abroad. Surely even David Cameron would agree that the problem is beyond his ‘hug a hoodie’ sentiments as a viable solution.
In the aftermath of the riots, there will undoubtedly be much debate by Parliament, communities and beyond in attempting to ascertain what caused this and how it can be avoided. There are certainly social issues of apathy and disengagement, particularly amongst the youth, in sections of British society. However, unlike previous social unrest, there is no tangible frustration that governments and communities can work to address. Instead, the challenge will be addressing a set of attitudes which have long existed but to date have failed to manifest themselves so perceptibly.
Friday, 6 April 2007
Viva la revolución? - Does the Cuban revolution have the cohesion to outlive Fidel Castro?
Regardless of who you choose to believe about the status of Fidel Castro’s health; either the US Government and anti-Castro émigrés or the Cuban Government and the Fidel Castro supporters within and beyond Cuba, it’s undeniable that Castro is in the twilight of his life at 80. Castro’s tenure as one of the longest serving heads of state in the world is likely to end sooner rather than later. With Fidel Castro having ceded power to his brother Raul Castro on 31 July 2006, it’s arguable that the elder of the two siblings may not return to power in the same capacity that he previously performed his presidential duties. Indeed, Fidel Castro may not return to power at all.
With the US Government, the Latin American bloc, commentators of the region and of course Cubans, all eagerly speculating on life after Castro, it begs the question if the Cuban revolution can continue without Castro at the helm. Will the revolution end with Castro or as Castro et al would have you believe, will the revolution live forever?
In 2006, a US envoy to Cuba held talks with Cuban officials. The US envoy, and many commentators, optimistically believed the talks could be the embryonic start of a new era in the two states’ frosty relationship. Yet upon their return to the US, the envoy conveyed that such optimism was somewhat premature given their talks with Cuban officials. According to the envoy, the Cuban officials were very reticent when it came to discussing any possible economic or political changes in Cuba. Old habits die hard and it would appear that change is not on any agenda for the Cuban Government.
Ultimately, the hegemony and longevity of the current political regime in Cuba prefigures life after Castro. Herein lies the answer to the question of the extent of cohesion to the revolution. Moreoever, is there any cohesion to the revolution in Castro’s 21st century Cuba? On a recent trip to Cuba, I found myself questioning this.
The cult of the personality is apparent in Cuba. Billboards displaying Castro’s image and banners celebrating his 80th birthday are still present from the planned celebrations last year. Castro himself was unable to attend these celebrations due to poor health.
Castro clearly personifies the revolution but a widespread adulation for him is far from perceptible. One could conjecture that the present day Cuban society, particularly the younger generation, don’t relate to Castro nor the revolution. To them, the regime of Batista is a distant history lesson. They therefore lack any reference upon which to perceive the current regime as an improvement, and a desired one at that. Instead, many Cubans yearn for a change that Castro’s Cuba cannot and will not offer them.
Prior to visiting Cuba, I was unsure what to expect with regard to support for Castro. Of course, he has his supporters and they are visible. The older generation, who may remember a time of vast social and economic inequalities and a lack of basic provisions that in today’s Cuba are readily available, are content with the current regime to say the least. They value the country’s literacy rate, the free healthcare and the provision of homes. And in many instances they attribute this to Castro and close their tales of laud for the regime with an exclamation of ‘Viva la revolucíon!’ Yet this support is not widespread.
Many of the younger generation are not as compelled to share the appreciation for Castro that is shown by many of their elders. This is largely attributed to their increasing awareness of the wider world. Furthermore, they possess an intelligence that is uncharacteristic for many developing countries where the provision of basic education is not present. However, most Cubans do not realise how fortunate they are to possess the minds upon which to opine their circumstances as below par by western standards. It is this intelligence and awareness that provides them with the ability to critique life in Cuba and to subsequently criticize it. And along with the criticism is a covert yet noticeable disdain for Castro. It appears that for both Castro and many Cubans, education has been a gift and a curse.
Interaction with tourists and the internet, access to which is limited due to the high costs, ensures Cuba is not entirely closed off from the west. CNN and other US channels are shown in hotels and, albeit limitedly, Cubans are aware of a world beyond their own shores; a world which many of them are keen to embrace. Those who glimpsed my iPod were fascinated at this small device and upon asking how much it cost, were further intrigued as to how this was an affordable item.
Consumerism and communism cannot co-exist if the two retain their core principles. In this instance, some might argue this creates a dichotomy of the iPod era vs Castro’s Cuba. The iPod era might not have won over everyone but it certainly has its supporters. In 2006, the Bush Administration approved an $80 million fund to support Cuba’s ‘transition to democracy’. Beyond orthodox political efforts, the US is likely to employ consumerism as a tactic in showing what the west has to offer under a democratic regime. Whilst this is an unfounded and idealist notion in itself, there are those in Cuba that yearn for consumerism over communism.
Conversely, there are those that don’t succumb to the allure of the trappings of capitalism. Those that are content with life in Cuba have no reason to oppose the regime. These are the individuals that will toe the line, and for now, will safeguard the revolution.
Taking the locals I spoke to as a microcosm of Cuban society, it would suggest that any cohesion to the revolution is rapidly being eroded. The reality of Cuba is that whilst everyone may have a home, it is often overcrowded with many generations including married couples. There is the provision of healthcare but the US embargo has an inevitable impact on the availability of pharmaceuticals. And whilst the revolution ensured the aforementioned would be available as free for all, Cubans must still find the money to purchase food. A low wage, particularly for those outside the tourism industry where tips can be assured to healthily supplement low pay, won’t go far. Not surprisingly, for many Cubans it’s hard to support a regime where their ability to make money for basic needs, not to mention basic luxuries, is constrained.
Free market ideas clearly go against the principles of communism. Yet in recent years, the Cuban Government have loosened state control and free market ideas have crept into Cuba’s economy with one proviso – the Government want a piece of the pie and a large slice at that. Being that Cuba is a communist state, this is hardly surprising.
Casa particulares are a popular alternative to hotels around the island and an example of Cuba’s changing economy. The scheme of casa particulares enables Cubans to rent rooms in their homes to tourists for a price that suits the pocket of the budget conscious traveller. In exchange, the casa owners pay a monthly fee to the Government to grant them this privilege. Similarly, paladares, non-state operated restaurants or eateries, have become popular for their Cuban owners and tourists alike. Again, operation of a paladare is in exchange for a tax to the Government. This tax may seem fair when compared to the tax that most individuals and businesses in the capitalist west are subject to. But this is where the problem lies – Cuba isn’t a capitalist state and many Cubans I spoke to considered these taxes to be unjust. One local bluntly told me it was unfair. Perhaps the revolution is 'muy caro'?
Illegal practice of free market ideas is punishable. Nonetheless, I encountered many Cubans willing to take this chance. For many it was because operating legally wasn’t deemed financially viable. However, I suspect that some I spoke to merely sought to circumvent the state’s ‘unfair’ taxation.
Cuba has a thriving black market. I met one local who made a living for himself this way and visiting his well-furnished home, he clearly did well from it. He told me how he had previously lost his home for illegally operating a casa and he clearly resented the Government. He spoke of his disdain for the regime and albeit not with hostility, for Castro. From others I spoke to, his tale was not unique either.
Based on my encounters with local Cubans, it’s hard to see the cohesion to the revolution having much more longevity; that is if it exists in modern day Cuba at all. Many Cubans essentially aren’t buying into communism and Castro’s regime. The romanticism that can be opined as intrinsic to Castro’s regime is becoming increasingly apparent to Cubans and from this realisation stems a frustration for the regime and Castro himself.
Indubitably, cult of the personality does play a role in Cuba, as it has done for the duration of Castro’s leadership to date. Without Castro at the helm, there are no guarantees that this will signal the end of the revolution. However, without the man himself, the revolution may never be the same again.
With the US Government, the Latin American bloc, commentators of the region and of course Cubans, all eagerly speculating on life after Castro, it begs the question if the Cuban revolution can continue without Castro at the helm. Will the revolution end with Castro or as Castro et al would have you believe, will the revolution live forever?
In 2006, a US envoy to Cuba held talks with Cuban officials. The US envoy, and many commentators, optimistically believed the talks could be the embryonic start of a new era in the two states’ frosty relationship. Yet upon their return to the US, the envoy conveyed that such optimism was somewhat premature given their talks with Cuban officials. According to the envoy, the Cuban officials were very reticent when it came to discussing any possible economic or political changes in Cuba. Old habits die hard and it would appear that change is not on any agenda for the Cuban Government.
Ultimately, the hegemony and longevity of the current political regime in Cuba prefigures life after Castro. Herein lies the answer to the question of the extent of cohesion to the revolution. Moreoever, is there any cohesion to the revolution in Castro’s 21st century Cuba? On a recent trip to Cuba, I found myself questioning this.
 |
Castro clearly personifies the revolution but a widespread adulation for him is far from perceptible. One could conjecture that the present day Cuban society, particularly the younger generation, don’t relate to Castro nor the revolution. To them, the regime of Batista is a distant history lesson. They therefore lack any reference upon which to perceive the current regime as an improvement, and a desired one at that. Instead, many Cubans yearn for a change that Castro’s Cuba cannot and will not offer them.
Prior to visiting Cuba, I was unsure what to expect with regard to support for Castro. Of course, he has his supporters and they are visible. The older generation, who may remember a time of vast social and economic inequalities and a lack of basic provisions that in today’s Cuba are readily available, are content with the current regime to say the least. They value the country’s literacy rate, the free healthcare and the provision of homes. And in many instances they attribute this to Castro and close their tales of laud for the regime with an exclamation of ‘Viva la revolucíon!’ Yet this support is not widespread.
Many of the younger generation are not as compelled to share the appreciation for Castro that is shown by many of their elders. This is largely attributed to their increasing awareness of the wider world. Furthermore, they possess an intelligence that is uncharacteristic for many developing countries where the provision of basic education is not present. However, most Cubans do not realise how fortunate they are to possess the minds upon which to opine their circumstances as below par by western standards. It is this intelligence and awareness that provides them with the ability to critique life in Cuba and to subsequently criticize it. And along with the criticism is a covert yet noticeable disdain for Castro. It appears that for both Castro and many Cubans, education has been a gift and a curse.
Interaction with tourists and the internet, access to which is limited due to the high costs, ensures Cuba is not entirely closed off from the west. CNN and other US channels are shown in hotels and, albeit limitedly, Cubans are aware of a world beyond their own shores; a world which many of them are keen to embrace. Those who glimpsed my iPod were fascinated at this small device and upon asking how much it cost, were further intrigued as to how this was an affordable item.
Consumerism and communism cannot co-exist if the two retain their core principles. In this instance, some might argue this creates a dichotomy of the iPod era vs Castro’s Cuba. The iPod era might not have won over everyone but it certainly has its supporters. In 2006, the Bush Administration approved an $80 million fund to support Cuba’s ‘transition to democracy’. Beyond orthodox political efforts, the US is likely to employ consumerism as a tactic in showing what the west has to offer under a democratic regime. Whilst this is an unfounded and idealist notion in itself, there are those in Cuba that yearn for consumerism over communism.
Conversely, there are those that don’t succumb to the allure of the trappings of capitalism. Those that are content with life in Cuba have no reason to oppose the regime. These are the individuals that will toe the line, and for now, will safeguard the revolution.
Taking the locals I spoke to as a microcosm of Cuban society, it would suggest that any cohesion to the revolution is rapidly being eroded. The reality of Cuba is that whilst everyone may have a home, it is often overcrowded with many generations including married couples. There is the provision of healthcare but the US embargo has an inevitable impact on the availability of pharmaceuticals. And whilst the revolution ensured the aforementioned would be available as free for all, Cubans must still find the money to purchase food. A low wage, particularly for those outside the tourism industry where tips can be assured to healthily supplement low pay, won’t go far. Not surprisingly, for many Cubans it’s hard to support a regime where their ability to make money for basic needs, not to mention basic luxuries, is constrained.
Free market ideas clearly go against the principles of communism. Yet in recent years, the Cuban Government have loosened state control and free market ideas have crept into Cuba’s economy with one proviso – the Government want a piece of the pie and a large slice at that. Being that Cuba is a communist state, this is hardly surprising.
Casa particulares are a popular alternative to hotels around the island and an example of Cuba’s changing economy. The scheme of casa particulares enables Cubans to rent rooms in their homes to tourists for a price that suits the pocket of the budget conscious traveller. In exchange, the casa owners pay a monthly fee to the Government to grant them this privilege. Similarly, paladares, non-state operated restaurants or eateries, have become popular for their Cuban owners and tourists alike. Again, operation of a paladare is in exchange for a tax to the Government. This tax may seem fair when compared to the tax that most individuals and businesses in the capitalist west are subject to. But this is where the problem lies – Cuba isn’t a capitalist state and many Cubans I spoke to considered these taxes to be unjust. One local bluntly told me it was unfair. Perhaps the revolution is 'muy caro'?
Illegal practice of free market ideas is punishable. Nonetheless, I encountered many Cubans willing to take this chance. For many it was because operating legally wasn’t deemed financially viable. However, I suspect that some I spoke to merely sought to circumvent the state’s ‘unfair’ taxation.
Cuba has a thriving black market. I met one local who made a living for himself this way and visiting his well-furnished home, he clearly did well from it. He told me how he had previously lost his home for illegally operating a casa and he clearly resented the Government. He spoke of his disdain for the regime and albeit not with hostility, for Castro. From others I spoke to, his tale was not unique either.
Based on my encounters with local Cubans, it’s hard to see the cohesion to the revolution having much more longevity; that is if it exists in modern day Cuba at all. Many Cubans essentially aren’t buying into communism and Castro’s regime. The romanticism that can be opined as intrinsic to Castro’s regime is becoming increasingly apparent to Cubans and from this realisation stems a frustration for the regime and Castro himself.
Indubitably, cult of the personality does play a role in Cuba, as it has done for the duration of Castro’s leadership to date. Without Castro at the helm, there are no guarantees that this will signal the end of the revolution. However, without the man himself, the revolution may never be the same again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
©
iamalaw