Sunday, July 02, 2006

Respect

Chatting to punters outside Hull Truck during the interval , questions were raised about Galloway’s conspicuous love of theatricality and his own celebrity. We wanted to know, do these elements detract from his worth as self-styled spokesman for the disenfranchised and oppressed of global politics? The answer was, for me, unexpected.

Galloway’s show had veered uncomfortably between political rally and stand-up comedy. I had mixed feelings about him: a supposedly left-wing politician who dropped the clause about lesbian & gay rights from the Respect Manifesto; who failed to turn up for the vote on Civil Partnerships; and who consistently rejects women’s right to choose on the abortion issue. And then there was that awkward business with Celebrity Big Brother, Rula Lenska, and cats. The issue of the pink leotard.

And yet, here was a man who had delivered blistering anti-war arguments, stood up to both Bush and Blair, and spoken passionately about the rights of workers and of the victims of western foreign policy.

Round One of his ‘Mother of All One Man Shows’ was an exhibition bout, with Galloway delivering punches to Brown and Blair and to Hull’s John Prescott and his possible successor as Deputy Leader, Alan Johnson. So far, so parochial. Galloway only really comes into his own when speaking about global politics. Going on to present a keenly anti-interventionist argument, there were some glimpses of the passion he displayed at the Senate, even if this was well-rehearsed shadow-boxing.

Round Two saw Galloway take questions from the audience, which ranged from Saddam Hussein’s treatment of the Kurds, to the Palestine problem, to Galloway’s suitability as an MP in a constituency with a high number of ethnic minority constituents, to historical questions about the Second World War.

One member of the audience wanted to know whether the West should intervene ‘in Mozambique’. Having teased out that the questioner was actually referring to Zimbabwe, Galloway delivered a deservedly fierce attack on Western ignorance and spoke for the right of other nations to self-determination To illustrate the absurdity of the colonial attitude, he questioned whether we would support the right of, say, Sweden, to occupy other countries on the basis that they were ‘just helping out’. And of course that argument is a good reductio ad absurdum: what if the Inuit had decided to invade France to sort out last year’s riots; or what if Mexico had decided to occupy Northern Ireland out of frustration with the Peace Process?

This brings me back to the punter outside the theatre. He expressed the view that whatever else Galloway represents and however glaring his vanity, the fact that he is using his extraordinary articulacy to give a voice to the voiceless, matters.

Although I might be sceptical about any politician who chooses to appear on Celebrity Big Brother, angry with any ‘radical’ who rides roughshod over women’s rights, gay rights, and who wears a pink leotard on national television, I have no argument with the courage of Galloway’s discourse in the face of global injustices. That he is a paradox – perhaps embodying the point where the political left comes full circle and joins the political right – is best understood through his tendency to simultaneously court ridicule while also demanding respect.

MH

Did Galloway’s performance at Hull Truck Theatre on Friday 30th June 2006 bring the best and the worst out of the man and the politician?

I found this event to be fascinating as it gave me not only the opportunity to hear and watch at close quarters a politician with such firm and unwavering convictions at odd with the political mainstream as George Galloway, MP, but also to see how language unfolds and is moulded by a politician as a response not only to his ideological position, but also to his situation within the political establishment of the United Kingdom, i.e., that of an outcast. His expulsion from the Labour Party in 2003 was the culmination of a process of marginalization which accelerated since the New Labour clique hijacked the party. Even writing this last sentence posed a dilemma for me: should I call the party Labour or New Labour? To all purposes, as Galloway mentioned, the Labour Party is not only dead, but beyond any possibility of resuscitation. On this, I am in total agreement with his position, as many other people in the audience were, for what I could gather.

I know that many people, while agreeing with much of what he says, distrust the man because of his egotism, clearly expressed in his language and personality. His apparition in Big Brother was a testimony to that, while exposing his media naïveté (was he led to believe by Endemol, the producers, that he could argue politics in the show to ensure his participation?). Did it damage his political prospects? I doubt it, at least not in the long term. I am sure that voters are capable of viewing it within a greater picture. However, we will see at the next general election.

The directness of his language was, for me, a regular listener to BCC Radio 4’s Today programme, so refreshing, as I am tired of the evasiveness and utter blandness of New Labour politicians, strange animals with many skins instantly changeable, and the vacuity of Cameron and his front line, mere façades resembling those found in Hollywood studios.

Much of what Galloway said makes sense, and it is so obvious to normal human beings that I do not understand why other politicians, with a few exceptions, do not see it. Yet we hardly hear this position expressed in mainstream media, either in print or broadcasting, not even in the BBC, particularly after the infamous “45 minutes” fiasco (and the death of Dr. Kelly). The concentration of the press and broadcasting outlets in the hands of a few barons takes care that non-mainstream views hardly even get across to the public. Galloway in Sky News or Fox Television? I don’t think so.

He was expelled from New Labour (and went on founding Respect) and has been marginalized by the political establishment and the media, currently the two pillars of political power. He has been accused of being a traitor, encouraging subversion and suicide bombings, and of every other wrong doing under the sun. What we expect from the man? To hang himself? He is a fighter, and he is getting out of the hole he has been forced into. Confronted with the reality of poor or no access at all to mainstream media, old style public meetings along the breadth and length of the country, literature festivals such as the Humber Mouth, and even Big Brother, have become platforms where he is fighting for his beliefs for a just society. The directness and colour of his language, his attacks on morally bankrupt politicians and ministers, his skills to disarm, disassemble and throw back opponents’ arguments, so evident and useful at the American Senate hearing, the repeated use of the words “I” and “I did this or that”, have been moulded by his situation as an outcast, strong willed politician with deep convictions facing the formidable machine that New Labour is without a sizeable political apparatus behind him. Without a formidable ego to confront that machine, he would have been politically dead a long time ago. Somehow, I can see the Scottish lad getting ahead in the rough streets of Dundee.

From Pablo Luis González. More about the event from Pablo at thisisull.com

4 comments:

Benjamin said...

I've enjoyed reading many of these articles but I particularly found this review thought-provoking and an intelligently worded piece.

The paradox you note Galloway embodies is a problem common to many politicians. On the one hand the personal egoistic desire for power (to be loved), and on the other the idealised political concern for the disenfranchised and exploited peoples of the world.

Maggie said...

Thanks Benjamin,

The event was indeed fraught with these paradoxes. Pilger (in the previous week) was very much an antidote to the problem: just as fierce but without any apparent need to self-promote.

See you on Westbourne, I guess :o)

Benjamin said...

Oh right... MH, makes sense now!Yeah, I expect so. These are good reviews from a good festival. Bookville at HAL was a lot of fun, a really constructive project. Disappointed I never made it to see Lionel Shriver, I love the book. Regards x

Anonymous said...

The difference between Pilger and Galloway is that the former is not a politician, ie, he has no need to promote himself in the same way that a politician needs to do. Also, Pilger, being a journalist, knows his way through the media a bit better, at least, than Galloway. The paradox, I am afraid, is inherent to the nature of power and the desire to change the world, the intention being for the better but, much too many times, the results being for the worse.