| From Unity, 13 March 2010 |
Form over substanceHypocrisy was the order of the day following the death of Michael Foot. Having been lampooned as Worzel Gummidge because of his appearance and constantly referring to him as a disaster as Leader of the Labour Party (remember the description of the Manifesto as “the longest suicide note in history”), the obituaries lauded him as, if not quite a saint, certainly as a man of formidable intellect and political integrity.It is not only the politics of people who seek to offer a radical alternative that are debunked. Critical accounts of their politics are usually accompanied by personal attacks or invective. In Michael Foot’s case it was his appearance that often drew comment. This kind of commentary is also a reflection of the trivialising of political debate, with an emphasis on form over substance. There is a great reluctance to engage in real debate about radical alternatives, and we need look no further than the current financial crisis as evidence, with no space given to those challenging the power of the financial system to retain its capacity to do the same again. In fact you would be hard pressed to find anyone, even in the Labour Party, with either the intellect or the conviction to mount a serious challenge. The party has in fact been purged of any ideological capacity. This retrospective or posthumous reverence has little to do with genuine feeling. It is nothing new, of course. It comes about when the person in question no longer poses a threat to the establishment, though he or she may still be alive, and is completed with a respectful obituary when the subject is safely gone. Nevertheless it does require a focus on the life in question and, as in Michael Foot’s case, is obliged to address a life of substance that must come as a revelation to many who have witnessed only the invective and the trivialising of his achievements. Something of the same process has been taking place with regard to Tony Benn. Remember how he was vilified in a very personal way for many years. He was dangerous! Now that he is no longer a threat in the political arena it is safe to give him air time and even to have him on the odd programme as a kind of curmudgeon. All of this demonstrates the strength of democracy, with political opponents who wanted to alter society in a radical way given a fitting tribute. They may have been wrong, dangerous or even bonkers, but we still defend their right to voice their views; and in retrospect maybe they were, after all, only a little eccentric! |
| Home page > Publications > Unity > Form over substance |
| Baile > Foilseacháin > Unity > Form over substance |