687   14 April 2003  

Does politics mirror war?

It was a German General von Klausewitz, who said "War is a continuation of politics, by another means."  And by being immersed in war over the last few weeks, against my will and better judgment, I have come to perceive other examples of the interplay of war and day-to-day politics.  For they are both concerned with the legitimate exercise of coercion, by the symbolic and abstract State against ordinary people. 

For me, that is the key issue of the Iraq War.  Is this use of force legitimate?  Justified?  And my answer is No, emphatically not.  Enforced "regime change", without prior serious threat and serious self-defence, does not constitute the legitimate deployment of force.  It is as simple as that.

But hold on!  Upon examining my domestic political agenda, I find that most of it is also concerned with the legitimate exercise of force.  After all, the taxation of the population is distinguished by its concomitant coercion and physical force.  Failure to pay taxes attracts rapid sanctions in the Courts, backed up by imprisonment if necessary.  Tax-collection is a serious business for any State, not least for the "large states" of contemporary politics - we have been reminded of that by Gordon Brown's Budget this week.  And beyond the coercion of taxation, my human rights agenda highlights many other examples of the illegitimate use of force.

• Just consider my "Manifesto" list - this is what my Manifesto looks like (you can check out the original), seen through "war" spectacles

Adjustment Pay - would it be legitimate to coerce employers to help employees affected by redundancy, and to use tax income to give all such workers a fairer deal?  YES, I think it would.

Benefits - I want to increase fixed-benefit entitled, and minimise the use of the awful coercion of means-testing - would that be legitimate?  YES, I think it would.

Community governance - these reforms would merely empower local communities to assume greater responsibilities, and would not be coercive in substance or effect. 

Company governance - Labour must use far greater coercion to discipline corrupt and manipulative behaviour in the corporate sector, enforcing far greater transparency, and better checks and balances - would that be legitimate?  YES, I think it would.

Compulsory education - Labour should reduce the degree of state coercion underpinning our secondary education system;

Devolution - Labour should continue the process of redistributing constitutional powers away from Westminster and Whitehall, but by persuasion rather than coercion - this form of "regime change" should be achieved only by persuasion; 

Europe - Labour, under future leadership, should strenuously seek to rebuild the UK's links with the European Union, so damaged by the alignment of New Labour with the United States in the Iraqi War - the UK should accept the legitimacy of qualified majority voting generally, to facilitate the emergence of rational consultative decision-making;

Foreign policy - Labour should re-assert its traditional commitment to the evolution of a consultative and consensual world order, free of the hegemony of any single state, and re-double its efforts to affirm the role of international treaty networks, including the United Nations - this must all be achieved, not by coercion, but by debate and persuasion;

Guardianship Allowance - Labour should facilitate the lifestyle choices of young families, using tax-income to redistribute wealth for the benefit of children and their development - is tax-coercion legitimate for this purpose? YES, I think it is.

Human Rights - Labour should develop the coercion of the rule of law, enforced through the Courts, to fashion new practices and construct new institutions, throughout our public life.

Immigration - Labour should initiate the international drive for the creation of a new international concordat, wider than the confines of Europe, for the future humane regulation of international migration, compatible with the human rights of migrants and asylum-seekers - present systems generate the unjust coercion of vulnerable migrants, and perpetuate human indignity;

Income Tax - while low tax thresholds and a large 10% band should be maintained, there should be a more rapid rise in income-tax levels, rising to 50% - is this use of coercion justified, against the better-off?  YES, I think it is.

Judicial institutions - Labour should recognise that, in contemporary society, judicial and arbitral institutions command a respect and authority which is not accorded to other arms of the State, and this authority should be brought into play wherever the State threatens any individual with the use of force;

Lords - The second chamber should be reconstituted on a wholly-elected basis, without impinging upon or diminishing the authority of the Commons as the primary legislative Chamber - their Lordships should be forcibly ejected from their Chamber..

Minimum Wage - this has proved a successful measure, and should be consolidated and extended - does it constitute a legitimate use of tax-income to redistribute wealth?  YES, I think it does.

Nursery provision, childcare - this should be extended as a matter of public policy but it should also be supplemented by a universal flat-rate Guardianship Allowance enabling one parent to remain at home during primary-school years, without having to seek employment outside the home - this would be solely an enabling measure, without the deployment of coercion.

Pensions - Labour should as a matter of priority introduce a new and more substantial Old Age Pension commitment, paying to each person at least £150 per week (without marriage abatement) - such pensions could be paid only from general or hypothecated taxation, backed by force - would that force be justified?  YES, I think it would.

Private property - Labour should affirm the pivotal importance of personal private property as a primary institution of of a liberal democratic society, of public confidence in social equity, and the realisation of individual aspirations - but Labour should intervene by law to constrain, ultimately by force, the abuse of private property power wherever it occurs;