Terrorism, security, liberty and One Nation Labour

November 15, 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 Englishness, identity and social justice

    Englishness, identity and social justice

    Democracy and social justice are inseparable. Any socialist knows that. It’s why we saw the expansion of the pillars of social justice – free education, health, social security – following the expansion of universal suffrage. It’s why Labour is a Democratic Socialist party. It’s why it needs to be the party of English and British democratic reform. Yet, the impression it has given over the last few days is that democratic change is something to be quarantined, decontaminated and then […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Laying the Foundations for a Labour Century

    Laying the Foundations for a Labour Century

    This post is written by Liz Kendall MP and John Woodcock MP Britain stands at a crossroads. Scotland rejected separation, but the large numbers of traditionally Labour supporters voting Yes has highlighted an undercurrent of deep dissatisfaction that is reflected across the United Kingdom. One future path would see our country seeking to reject and counter the forces of change that are deeply unsettling many communities and threatening our established place in the world. The other would embrace change as […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Call for a People’s Campaign

    Call for a People’s Campaign

    We find ourselves at a crossroads. The path of our country and the character of our democracy will be shaped afresh in the coming months, for good or ill. Up and down the country, people’s energies are rousing — from Glasgow to Clacton, from London streets to Cornish hamlets. Their patience grows ever shorter. Most feel no one is listening to them. No one is talking their language, or offering them much change they can believe in. Is this really […]

    Read more →
  • Comment It’s incontestable – we need change in England

    It’s incontestable – we need change in England

    After a dreadful summer, the Scottish Independence referendum –and the developments that followed it – have again illustrated David Cameron’s inept political judgment. From the single question on the Scottish ballot, to the woefully inadequate Edinburgh agreement, Alex Salmond was lucky to have found a British Prime Minister who, in the words of Peter Oborne, has proven to be so infamously ‘indolent, inattentive…and out of touch.’ Campaigning in the central belt during the final weeks of the referendum campaign the […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Local Government Bold and unique – a role for local government in our modern state

    Bold and unique – a role for local government in our modern state

    As we talk about our country’s constitution in the coming months, the starting point is what powers the Scottish Parliament should have. And whilst devolution for other nations and regions is also a central part of the wider debate, it is a chance for us to be clear about what powers local government should be able to exercise in the future too. I appreciate that, as the councillor in charge of housing in Islington, this argument might sound a bit […]

    Read more →