Terrorism, security, liberty and One Nation Labour

15th November, 2012 2:23 pm

By Conor Gearty

Benjamin Disraeli is rightly revered in the Conservative party.  It was under his watch that the Tories discovered – initially to their disbelief and then to their joy – that not only could they survive in the new democratic era that was then emerging but that they could even thrive as well: win power, protect privilege, support inequality in practice (if not any more in words).

The Party has been trying Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ sleight-of-hand ever since; Cameron’s version was compassionate Conservatism (aka ‘Hug a Hoody’). To win Labour must resist it: one nation Labour is Mandelson’s bulldog repackaged for 2015.

To be effective it has to mean something. Labour under Miliband is neither a bunch of advertisers nor a gang of opportunist sloganisers.  The Miliband ‘brand’ has to be careful, thought-through radical thinking.

So what does One Nation mean for the liberty and security agenda?

Since the civil wars of the 17th century the dispute in this country has been about the extent rather than the meaning of liberty.  Is freedom to be for the many or the few?  The Levellers thought the former, but the country – with an elite intellectually empowered by Hobbes and Locke – were guided to the latter.  The last three hundred years have seen a gradual broadening in the range of people who have been able to enjoy the chance to lead flourishing and successful lives.

These have been democratic achievements, wrenching liberty and security from the privileged and ensuring access to them for all.  Labour has led the march towards this more progressive society – one in which personal security has become the platform on which every life has the opportunity to be lived to the full.  Its high point has been the ‘Welfare’ not ‘Warfare’ society imagined by reformers during the dark days of the Second World War and implemented with zeal and courage by the Attlee government in its immediate aftermath.

Initially the Tories surrendered to this practical version of One Nation Labour, Butskellism.

Two changes have emboldened them to return to division.

First, the end of the Cold War saw an upsurge in neo-liberalism – a kind of aggressive, market-oriented libertarianism in which freedom is enjoyed by all in theory but in practice only by those whose fortuitous life circumstances are such that they can hardly fail to flourish.   Neo-liberals use liberty as a gloss to be applied as a light coat over a fundamentally unequal society – the adman’s way of painting over deep divisions rather than robustly tackling them.

Second, there were the attacks of 11 September 2001, and the so-called ‘war on terror’ that the Bush presidency initiated by way of response, with the Labour governments of Blair and Brown following suit (albeit, it is true, in a less aggressive fashion).  In the post 9/11 era, it has been tempting to see liberty as something belonging to us (Brits; Europeans; whites; Christians; liberals) and not to them, the others ‘out there’ who are different from us (asylum seekers; Muslims; non-whites; refugees; foreigners from cultures we receive as alien; ‘enemies within’ who oppose our wars of liberation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or wherever).  On this bleak analysis, almost the norm in the first decade of the 21st century, the liberty of the other must be sacrificed at the altar of our security.

One Nation Labour must escape from this double neo-liberal and counter-terrorism bind.

Liberty and security are for all those within this island.  To everyone lawfully present we give the opportunity to flourish against a background of personal and social security. To those here against the law we offer a firm but speedy and fair system of resolving our dispute with them in a way that does not therefore (and thoughtlessly) destroy their lives.

The language of universal liberty must be taken back from neo-liberals and their libertarian apologists and returned to the community. Social security matters as much as national security.

And so far as terrorism is concerned, security is for the whole society and not just those whose wealth allows them to hide behind gates and be sheltered by the police.  Terrorism is a criminal challenge and not an existential one. Universal security requires it be dealt with but within rather than outside the regular law.

Conor Gearty is Professor of Human Rights Law at LSE and a Barrister at Matrix Chambers

This piece forms part of Jon Cruddas’s Guest Edit of LabourList

  • http://twitter.com/HamjaAhsan Hamja Ahsan

    This article resonated with the case of my brother Talha Ahsan – a vulnerable Aspergers sufferer accused of cyber crimes like Gary Mckinnon that Theresa May boasted & gloated of extraditing him at the Tory party conference with the threat of dying in solitary confinement (where 50% of prison suicides take place according to their own stats). After the longest periods of detention with charge, trial or evidence in British history. May Partisan application of the law and a cruel and brutal example of double standards. “In the post 9/11 era, it has been tempting to see liberty as something belonging to us (Brits; Europeans; whites; Christians; liberals) and not to them,
    the others ‘out there’ who are different from us (asylum seekers;
    Muslims; non-whites; refugees; foreigners from cultures we receive as
    alien; ‘enemies within’ who oppose our wars of liberation in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, Libya or wherever). On this bleak analysis, almost the
    norm in the first decade of the 21st century, the liberty of the other must be sacrificed at the altar of our security.

    One Nation Labour must escape from this double neo-liberal and counter-terrorism bind.Liberty and security are for all those within this island” Too right Conor Gearty. I commend profoundly for this article. Take note Labour – Theresa May is booed at many public events, paraolympics & her own police force for a reason …

    http://www.freetalha.org

  • LembitOpiksLovechild

    Fine words but I’m really not sure what this article is about at all. From a party that wanted 42 days, ID cards and oversaw a massive increase in state surveillance I would hope for something rather better and certainly more detailed.

    How do we balance the rights of privacy and liberty and State intrusion in the name of protecting the population “Your safety is paramount” is always the cry but so many times it’s either a figleaf to cover the fact that ittle can be done or an attempt to increase state control of the populace by back door means.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    Perhaps the author could be a little more specific about what these words mean in practice: using Abu Qatada as a case study for example would be particularly instructive.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    Perhaps the author could be a little more specific about what these words mean in practice: using Abu Qatada as a case study for example would be particularly instructive.

  • Guest

    My God, there really is a sneering tone to this article. I’m not sure it’s helpful, and I think a Professor should be a bit more objective and substance-focused than this.

Latest

  • Comment Is civic nationalism the way forward for England?

    Is civic nationalism the way forward for England?

    What is striking about the general election in England and Scotland is not just the difference in outcome but emotional tone. In Scotland, burgeoning support for the SNP was not simply about particular policies but an expression of what the sociologist Emile Durkheim called ‘collective effervescence’ – powerful emotional identification with a wider community. By contrast, in England support for the Conservatives seemed based largely on judgments about Labour’s economic competence and fears about SNP influence, with no whiff of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why proportional representation will be Labour’s only saviour

    Why proportional representation will be Labour’s only saviour

    Everyone’s whispering about it: the Conservatives pulled a blinder offering the Lib Dems the referendum on changing the voting system at the beginning of the Coalition’s term. Doubtless if it had be run at the same time as the 2015 General Election, things may well have turned out very differently. As it was, Cameron et al made their ‘partner’ show their hand too early; the Lib Dems should have kept those cards closer to their chest in the hope of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Blairism is no solution to Labour’s identity crisis

    Blairism is no solution to Labour’s identity crisis

    The ‘Blairites’ are certainly right about the so-called 35% strategy. How one envies the SNP for whom every Scottish voter is a target voter. Whatever happened to ‘One Nation Labour’? They are also right to suggest that we should help people fulfil their aspirations but their definition of aspiration is too narrowly focused. It’s one thing to aspire to shop at John Lewis – I might aspire to shop at Fortnum and Mason – but what about those who aspire […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Our human rights are not the Tories’ to give away

    Our human rights are not the Tories’ to give away

    When discussing the Human Rights Act it is important to set out the developments which led to it so as to dispel the falsehood, too often insinuated in the anti-European press, that the Act constitutes the meddling in British affairs by the bureaucracies of the European Union. On 10th December 1948 the U.N. adopted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in response to the Second World War and the atrocities committed during it. Its purpose was to ensure individuals, without […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Before Labour finds it’s next leader, it needs to find its George Osborne – and fast

    Before Labour finds it’s next leader, it needs to find its George Osborne – and fast

    Here’s a quick challenge for you. It will only take a minute. Try and find a Labour Party blog that praises George Osborne. Nope, me neither. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is understandably not popular within our ranks. After all, the Chancellor has presided over the weakest economic recovery in Britain’s history and unleashed a wave of crippling public expenditure cuts, while doubling the national debt and failing to eliminate the budget deficit. If you were being kind you might […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit