We must support Gordon Brown’s authority, and stop undermining it

By Arun Arora / @RevArun

In recent days, criticism of Gordon Brown has turned from a barrage to an all out assault. Leading the charge has been The Sun which, to use a phrase from the football manager’s handbook, has decided to play the man and not the ball. Seemingly fed up with the determination of the man to keep his head down and to steadily hold a course, the newspaper has decided to refrain from persuasion or diversionary tactics and simply to try and kick his legs out from under him.

In response to this onslaught, Gordon Brown has appeared to remain both stoic and steadfast. At his recent monthly news conference, the Prime Minister apologised fulsomely for any offence he may have caused to the grieving mother of Jamie Janes and maintained a solemnity which matched the mood of a nation on Armistice day. Brown’s response has a lot to teach us not only about his own character, but also how we might learn to support our leaders better during a time when our armed services are involved in combat operations abroad. The chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts, Matthew Taylor, put it this way in a recent lecture on democratic values:

“The problem with our democracy is less about the performance of politicians and more about the content of the democratic conversation. Proper processes of democratic deliberation would help us be less petulant, wiser and more responsible task masters for our beleaguered representatives.”

Certainly the content of the democratic conversation has become breathtakingly abusive in its recent tone towards the Prime Minister. Legitimate questions of policy and strategy, on the economy and in matters of defence, have given way to a character assassination where the need for both more wisdom and less petulance has never been more apparent.

The ferocity of the personal criticism directed towards the Prime Minister has brought to the fore questions of moral authority in terms of Gordon Brown’s character, a question which seems especially poignant given the continuing debate over this country’s strategy in Afghanistan. The question which lies beneath much of the criticism of Gordon Brown is simply whether he has sufficient moral authority to lead a country during a time of war.

Moral authority is not tested in political party manifestos, nor is it earned through democratic mandate. Rather it is something that comes through demonstrating the just nature of the course of action which one advocates, despite the heavy cost or burden that the pursuit of such a course may entail. The actions of Tony Blair, for example, in intervening in the Balkans gained moral authority once the genocide in Srebrenica became known, while the shifting sands beneath the claims of weapons of mass destruction seriously undermined the moral authority for action in Iraq.

For many people, the cost of the conflict in Afghanistan, represented by the tolling bells and funeral corteges that pass through Wootton Bassett, now outweighs any conceivable benefit. But questions of moral authority require more than a cost-benefit analysis. They require a broader consideration of what is just. The countless lives lost to the indignity of the apartheid system were not sufficient grounds for abandoning the opposition to it. Rather its horrors and blatant disregard of equal humanity provided the moral authority for Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela and others to finally triumph.

The lives of our Armed Forces lost to the conflict in Afghanistan must be counted alongside the almost daily loss of life through recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan. Each life is a victim of an ideology (purportedly Islamic but to many unrecognisably so) which denies basic standards to women, that makes apostates of innocent men and sentences to death those who seek to oppose its unbending will. The apparent ease with which civilian casualties, regardless of their Islamic faith, are not only considered justified but actively targeted is a reminder of the callous inhumanity that our soldiers now actively oppose. That they do with a selfless courage and bravery that stands in stark contrast to the moral cowardice of the Taliban should be a reminder of the just nature of the cause.

Gordon Brown’s moral authority remains intact precisely because of the moral nature of that cause. It is not an authority that will be undermined by misspelt names or scribbled letters. The moral compass to which Gordon Brown laid claim early on in the days of his premiership will need to remain fixed Eastwards as he holds firm to opposing the triumph of terror and hate.

Closer to home, he will also need to renew a military covenant with those whom he expects to pay the ultimate price so that he too does not become a victim of the shifting sands of inconsistency.

The consequences of losing this conflict will not only act as a recruiting sergeant to the fellow travellers of al-Qaida, but will also provide the Taliban with a domestic base from which to operate. If such consequences are to be avoided, then Gordon Brown’s moral authority needs to be re-asserted and not undermined as we each decide which side we are on.