While I understand the sentiment behind the “Not In My Name” statement with regard to the War in Iraq, I don’t think it’s a banner I want to use myself. I worry that it’s just another way to not think about what is really going on in Iraq. “Oh well, the war is not happening in my name, so I don’t need to take my share of the collective blame and guilt it.”
No. Our government has sent British troops into Iraq on behalf of all of Britain. That’s one of the consequences of the parliamentary democracy we live in: no matter how vocal the minority is, the majority holds the trump card. Saying that the war is “not in my name” is about as true as saying that I don’t intend to pay increased duty on beer, because I didn’t vote Labour at the last election. It’s a statement of desire, not a statement of reality.
Besides, doesn’t it make you more angry that the government is going to war in your name? Won’t it make you more cautious about the candidate you’ll vote for at the next local, regional, or general election? Doesn’t it provide you with more of a spur to take an interest in what your elected representatives are actually doing with the power you have given them?
Regardless of whether you voted for them yourself, they are answerable to you, for the entire time they are in office. An individual’s interest in, and influence over, politics and politicians shouldn’t start and end with elections. Research your MP. Write them a letter or an email. Visit a constituency clinic. Ask questions. And keep on asking them until you get an answer.
Because this is what “fire and forget” politics looks like: a government that feels it has a mandate to go ahead and do whatever the hell if feels like for four or five years, regardless of the scale of popular opposition during that time.
That’s not democracy. That’s an elected tyranny.
Hi Martin,
Just came across your web-site, searching on the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” or some such like.
Actually I think the situation with the “Not in my name” slogan is more complicated. For UK or US nationals, wherever, I think it’s fine. As you later say: “elected tyrannies”.
I believe that sentiment does NOT and should NOT extend though to foreign attitudes to the US and UK electorates. Supporters of the Repubs. and Dems. in the US alternately bleat that it was the “other side” that engaged in this or that war, and their party was “mostly against it”. They largely expect, for example, the (former) Yugoslavs to think, OK, (and now the Iraqis) that’s all right then, it was predominantly the other party that bombed you; as opposed to: “those damned Americans, again, when WILL they sort out their system of Government”.
Best regards.
Dennis Revell.
P.S: If there’s nothing in the link provided that your violently disagree with, perhaps you’d be so good as to link to it on your web-site? Either way, thanks for your web-page, and your thoughtful moderate analyses.
apologies, Martin for large font on my feedback, if it was my fault. Dunno wot happened. 😉