Educashun, educashun, educashun

Down at the Institute of Education for a morning seminar on popular education in Latin America yesterday. It was run by the Latin American Perspectives in Education (LAPE) group who have been extremely active since they started up earlier in the academic year. If there’s one gripe I have it’s that having signed up to their emails, I get copied into everyone else’s.

While the seminar gave me a new insight into thinking about education and my dissertation topic, I must admit to being no closer to understanding what is meant by ‘popular education’. As far as I can tell it involves education knowledge and practices from the grassroots up, drawing on local ideas and communities – I think.

Of the three speakers, Glasgow University’s Liam Kane made the most interesting points for me, arguing that ideology was an important part of an educator’s makeup; the challenge is to separate ideology from teaching methods, so the educated can see where the teacher is coming from. Afterwards I asked him whether ideology and methodology weren’t linked together. While there was some relationship Liam pointed out that good educators were able to separate their ideology from the teaching, while some bad teaching he had seen involved sound ideology (from his socialist perspective) but poor methods.

David Archer from Action Aid gave his presentation on the NGO-teaching union campaign to improve public education (public being distinct from popular since it is provided by the state) on a national and global scale. I attended the education conference at Oxford University’s Brazil centre where he gave exactly the same presentation so was already aware what he would say.

Finally Eduardo Zimmerman from the Universidad de San Andrés in Buenos Aires made some observations from the two presentations, including the institutional arrangements available for popular education (can’t decentralisation and federal arrangements assist in innovative education practice, including popular education forms distinct from the mainstream public system?), the fine line between and educator’s ideological commitment and encouraging students to think and act for themselves, and the actual content of popular education (what exactly should be taught? Is the purpose to reintroduce common values?)

All food for thought, if not directly related to my dissertation topic per se. Speaking of which, I’m off to Brazil on Monday to begin the fieldwork. So far I’ve got people provisionally lined up to speak to, but it’s not set in stone; I’ll try and do that when I get to Rio next week.

And to the relief of my one or two readers, I’ll also try and bring in some lighter topics as well.

Choosing...

As I’m attending a conference on globalising Brazilian culture at the Brazil Centre in Oxford this Friday, I had to make the difficult decision not to go to Oxford today for the Albert Fishlow seminar on Lula. Oxford twice in one week seems greedy – especially as I’m trying to save money before next week’s month long ‘research’ trip to Brazil.

I just hope Julia kept good notes…

Suitable for publication?

Spent some of yesterday morning polishing up my Liberator article grandly titled (at least by me) on ‘Where Next For the Lib Dems’ – for what it’s worth. Can you believe it won’t make it into June’s edition because it’s too short?! Mark, one of the collective members, asked me if I’d consider revising and perhaps expanding it since in its initial version it wouldn’t meet the magazine’s format.

That’s the first time I’ve ever been asked to write more! So I’ve given them more. Let’s await with baited breath the July edition. Failing that, for the solitary reader of my blog, don’t worry: it will be posted here if it isn’t.

Also was in Stanfords yesterday, marvelling at the new Brazil guidebook. My current one – dating back to 1998 – is badly out of date and I need a new one before next week’s trip. As I was leaving I came across this travel writing competition being advertised at the cashier’s. The deadline is quite soon (this Friday), but I’ll give it a stab. At the very least it’ll be another piece which can then be touted elsewhere (or posted here).

New Feminism?

Germaine Greer was on the radio this morning, talking about a film on feminism which she’s made for Channel 5. Perhaps there was a miscommunication of Ali G proportions over the word ‘feminism’ by the channel’s commissioners?

Frustratingly she wasn’t given enough airtime to expand on her views, being interrupted by the men on the programme. But what I think I gleaned from her was the following: (1) feminism as understood in the 1960s liberation sense is no more; (2) today feminism is commonly perceived as enabling women to engage in the same activities and processes of men, in other words ‘feminising patriarchal social forms’ (my term, not Greer’s); (3) today’s young women may not see themselves as feminists, but they have the education and opportunities which their mothers didn’t to struggle for greater equality; (4) that struggle for equality – however nebulous – is feminism; (5) Greer doesn’t know what a ‘feminised world’ would look like.

Which does beg the following questions: (i) can we ever reach a ‘feminised’ end goal? (ii) would we recognise a feminised world if we could reach it? (iii) given (2), (5), (i) and (ii), would a feminised world be any different to the current one?

Meanwhile I found myself worrying about some contradictions within the observations made by Greer. If women have become more confident and assertive, through education, employment and other opportunities, what does it suggest if they do not engage in a public struggle for further female emancipation?

During the interview I kept reflecting on some of the sociological work which has been done on female-headed households in Latin America, most commonly in Mexico. With the onset of free markets and economic liberalisation, vast numbers of jobs have been shed, putting men out of work and the nuclear family under strain. Extended households have become the norm, usually headed by women as the male members either self-destruct (through alcohol abuse) or leave to search for work elsewhere. In addition these women often become the target of social redistribution programs by the state, for example receiving food or school payments. They are generally seen as more reliable in this respect than men.

Yet would these women perceive themselves to be feminists? The position which they have been raised to in their interaction with the state would suggest they have the capacity to be so. Yet in some respects their situation diverges sharply from the North-based young woman in Greer’s vision. For example, the majority of these women do not have the education, pay level or life opportunities to improve their condition; and some don’t necessarily want to either. I therefore found myself wondering whether Greer may well want to approach this theme in her next film.

That’s my philosophical stint for today. Tomorrow I promise to return to matters more mundane and everyday!

The make poverty history president?

Tony Giddens asked the Democrats’ vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, the question everyone wanted to ask: why did he and John Kerry lose the election and what must the Democrats do to take power again?

Edwards was at the LSE, presenting a lecture on ‘The New Egalitarianism’ which is also the title of a new book co-edited by Giddens. The Third Way rides again!

The actual content of Edwards’ speech was unimpressive. He stressed the importance of co-operation at both national and international levels resting on four pillars: a strong US-EU relationship, measures to fight poverty, dealing with the threat of nuclear weapons and promoting liberty and democracy.

Poverty seems to be the Edwards theme. Later I discussed with a friend the merits of him picking that as his specialist subject. He didn’t think it suitable since it was unlikely he could affect much in the way of change. I disagreed; as a part time lecturer at the University of North Carolina he’s associated with the creation of a research centre to analyse the causes and effects of poverty. That should give him some credibility when he next runs for national office compared to last year when he was picked as Kerry’s running mate.

He extolled the merits of the various anti-poverty measures in the UK, citing the baby bond scheme and various tax credits to help the family. This sounded to me as if he had already had a meeting with Gordon Brown. As if that wasn’t enough, the British goals for the EU presidency seemed to have filtered into his consciousness as well, since he also emphasised the need to address the challenges faced in Africa, and especially Sudan.

Edwards was far better on the questions than the content and delivery of his speech. Why was that? Partly it was because he was better dealing with the tangible, less with the philosophical. Both in his lecture and in the question and answer session he constantly cited moral considerations for tackling inequality and poverty; in his eyes it was the ‘right thing’ to do. As far as I could tell, he didn’t have anything more substantial in which to back up his case.

I also think he was better at the questions because of his time as a lawyer. He was sharp and quick to respond, even on the questions which seemed tricky. For instance he was asked how far he would be personally prepared to spread democracy to which he responded by saying the US shouldn’t impose it, but work with other democracies to encourage peoples in undemocratic states towards that goal. When pressed on the inconsistency between free trade and inequality, he fell back on his campaign support for US farm subsidies while pointing out that a range of different solutions would need to be pursued.

But whereas we were all starting to flag in what are extremely uncomfortable seats in the Old Theatre, he kept pointing at additional questioners. In fact Giddens had to beg him to stop as he had another meeting to go to.

Some of the questioners wanted to have a pop at the senator. One older man criticised Edwards for his rose-tinted view of American ideals (oh yes, there was a lot of that in his speech) which hardly seemed to equate with the discrimination that many had faced in the American South, even as recently as the 1950s and 1960s. Edwards was disarming and won the audience over, by pointing out in his own southern drawl that he grew up in the thick of it while he assumed the gentleman had only read about it in books. Then he took responsibility for it and argued his political life had been spent challenging those prejudices. Another challenged him on American treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. He didn’t back away from it, admitting culpability and the need to act more justly in the future.

Indeed, Edwards seems to have the air of a man who is not dwelling on the past, but thinking of the future. And this brings me back to Giddens’s original question. When confronted with why the Democrats lost in 2004, Edwards was disinclined to answer. That was for the pundits, he claimed. What he thought mattered above all was leadership. And leadership is based on principles and core values and a commitment to improve people’s lives; an idealistic tone on which to end the afternoon. But will it be enough in 2008, perhaps in a campaign headed by Edwards himself? Perhaps, but only if his gamble – becoming identified closely with this anti-poverty agenda – works and offers an effective counter-argument to Republicans’ tax cut incentives.

Economising Brazil

To Oxford where the summer is in full swing, the undergraduates are decked out in ridiculous sub fusc dress on their way to exams and my friend at Magdalen College cowers under the pile of books ahead of his own exam next week. Not ideal territory for two seminars, one on Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s economic policy, the other on PPPs in Brazil by visiting professors Albert Fishlow and Juarez Freitas respectively.

Fishlow ran through the three features of the Real Plan which helped deliver Cardoso the presidency in 1994 and 1998. But according to Fishlow, his big mistake was to opt for a fixed exchange rate rather than a floating one. Unlike the Argentines, the Real Plan was never conceived as being rigidly tied to the dollar. The consequence of fixing the exchange rate meant that when the economy and foreign reserves declined before his second election victory and into his second administration, ultimately forcing devaluation in 1999.

But it wasn’t all Cardoso’s fault. There were issues which he couldn’t control, including the apagão (blackout) after rainfall dropped, thereby reducing energy output (Brazil relies on water for 87% of its energy needs), the Argentine crisis and the US recession. Fishlow was also critical of Cardoso’s failure to seriously grapple with the social sphere, arguing that while primary education was expanded, quality issues remained. Too many students failed to pass while not enough teachers had full qualifications. As for pensions and social security, the measures passed were redundant by the time they entered the statute book while lack of economic growth meant public expenditure fell during his second term. Yet if we’re to think that this marks Cardoso as a failure, Fishlow and Leslie Bethell (the Centre for Brazilian Studies professor and chair) was keen to stress that Lula faces similar structural problems.

And so to Juarez Freitas’s seminar on PPPs at the above-mentioned Centre later in the day; unfortunately it was slightly dry, with Freitas emphasising its legal features passed in last December’s law. As a legal professor at PUC and the Federal University in Porto Alegre, that was probably understandable. Consequently, he didn’t delve too deeply into the political and economic reasons to go with PPP.

Nevertheless, Leslie persuaded him to say a few things about the political and economic background surrounding PPPs. At present they are concentrated on infrastructural and sanitation projects, mainly because these areas are the ones most in need of investment. Railways and ports are the main targets; the logic being that building up these areas will assist economic development and export potential. Furthermore, Freitas pointed out that following the privatisations of the 1990s (which Fishlow had earlier pointed out had been attained at premium value compared to their current values), there was nothing left to sell; PPPs are therefore the next logical step. In addition, PPPs are being implemented not only in Britain, but in Spain, Portugal and Croatia, which suggests it is a global phenomenon.

Freitas is at the start of his research into PPPs, much of which will concentrate on comparing the Brazilian model with that in Britain. Between the two he noted that while the Brazilian model needs bolstering in the regulatory sector, it was legally stricter in tone than that in the UK. In the subsequent question and answer session I asked why it was the case: was it to do with the nature of the Brazilian left currently in government? To what extent had it been modified in its passage through Congress? And how had the private sector responded to this interpretation? Unfortunately though, the questions were never answered, as Freitas took others over mine. And there wasn’t even a chance to ask him afterwards, as I had to make the long walk from Summertown to Magdalen to meet a friend for dinner.

Still, got to see the deer in the College’s park. And I made a useful contact whose work I’ve read on Cardoso and his relationship to social democracy.

Brazilian beats and rhythms

Couple of bits of Braziliana at the weekend. We made the last hour at Batmacumba at the ICA on Saturday night. Compared to the first session back in March, my companions were much more enthusiastic about the music, with some old drum ‘n bass classics being cranked out amid more eclectic offerings, including some Middle Eastern/North African sounds and a range of Brazilian musical contributions, from baile funk to Chico Science.

Good to see DJ Cliffy and his collaborators back on form. It’s just a shame it finished so early.

Sunday afternoon made it to Union Chapel in Islington for the end of Mestre Cobra Mansa’s workshop and joined in the roda, playing the agogo (bell). As for playing the game, there were too many people and I didn’t mind; just watching the mestre at work was enough. Not only is he a great player, he’s living history too. According to Matthias’s book (see post below), he was one of the few who brought capoeira Angola back into vogue in the 1980s.

The most important question

Undoubtedly best moment of the Barroso lecture? One student who asked him whether Chelsea manager, José Mourinho, was a typical Portuguese. Barroso’s answer? Definitely not; most Portuguese are modest and after the season we’ve just seen, he’s anything but.

Personally, I really like the guy. But give me a few more years, once the novelty has worn off and I’ll probably feel as cold towards him as I do Alex Ferguson.

Although oddly I felt the same way about Wenger a few years ago as I do Mourinho – and I still feel quite warm towards the Frenchman.

Aiding Africa - or helping ourselves?

The Portuguese pepperpot, José Manuel Barroso, was at the LSE on Friday. I had to go along, especially to ask him if he felt happy with his position given that it was unelected. Long time readers of my blog will know of my one-man – OK, one-letter – campaign to democratise the European Commission. But would you believe it, with a full lecture theatre I never got called to speak.

So what did the European Commission president talk about instead? His brief was to cover the EU’s role in aid and development. And since that is supposed to be the theme of Britain’s presidency for the EU for the second half of the year, he played a blinder. I fact, I started to wonder whether he was Blair’s new mouthpiece, so close to the script he was.

We got about 45 minutes from Barroso about the importance of concentrating on Africa, not just because of the humanitarian crisis of AIDS and conflict in individual countries, but also because it’s in our own self-interest. In essence an EU-funded Africa is a happier Africa and an Africa which won’t let its citizens invade our shores. Oh yes, and a more peaceful Africa provides a more secure market for European exports. As Barroso so clearly put it himself, self-interest indeed.

Barroso noted the steps being taken by Africans to improve their situation including the creation of the African Union and aid funds through Nepad. He said he wanted to push EU aid towards the 0.7% of GDP target from the 0.56% it currently is. But aid can’t only be more, but better targeted and relevant too.

In the subsequent question and answer session, a man who had worked in east Africa since the 1960s asked him the question which I’m sure was nagging many minds, but there didn’t seem to be a politically correct way of asking it. I don’t think he cared too much about such niceties and asked it anyway. Given the record of many African leaders, how could we be sure that the money would be used properly? He responded by saying that compared to 20 years ago the African leaders he was dealing with seemed more prepared to address the problem of corruption. But unfortunately Barroso had nothing more to offer than a form of modified conditionality, proposing mechanisms to ensure good governance. As any student of Latin America knows, ‘good governance’ has often been a veil to pressure structural adjustment, open up markets and economic liberalisation along a set of common policy subscriptions endorsed by the international financial institutions.

And we’re supposed to believe that all this has changed. Barroso was taken to task over the extent to which there was political will to make a difference in Africa, especially when the EU had shown its unwillingness to compete on a level playing field in the past. The president argued that the EC had announced an end to export subsidies, unlike other developed countries. He claimed the EC was ‘generous’ in this respect and that at the WTO ministerial in December the EC would press the US and Japan to produce a similar commitment. Furthermore, he emphasised ‘fair’ trade over that of free trade, but he rather spoiled his copybook by pointing out that the G20 (the middle-income countries like China and Brazil) would have to open up their markets too.

Personally, I’ll believe the EC is committed to free and fair competition across the board when it finally bites the bullet on the CAP. And the last time I checked (around two years ago), they had kicked discussion about its future cost into touch for a further decade.

There were questions from BBC journalists about the French referendum which elicited much hissing from the audience – I suspect you won’t find too many eurosceptics at an institution like the LSE. Barroso said once again there was no Plan B and that no matter how much he was pressed, he wouldn’t say anymore; that would seem like interference in a national election from Brussels. Personally, it seems to me that notwithstanding the political sensitivities, they really have no idea what happens if the referenda in France, Holland and Britain are lost. But as the companion to my right said, it will probably carry on as before. It’ll make little difference whether the constitution is approved or not. As for me, I think it’s rather poor when it appears to be all things to all men; what does it stand for? If the French think it’s too Anglo-Saxon, and the British think it’s designed to create the French dream of a super-state, then who’s right?

I’m almost tempted to vote no, just to force them into a Plan B; and perhaps to get them to think once again about fixing the democratic deficit at the heart of the Commission. Me for EC president? Who knows?

Reinterpreting the past

I may have written about last weekend’s capoeira event a few days ago. But here’s yet more capoeira material published yesterday at Brazzil, this time after attending Matthias’s lecture on its historical context.

I’ve started reading his book too. It’s very good even if it might seem a little academically daunting at first.

You can run, but you can't hide

So Pinochet and his supporters are citing ill health to avoid scrutiny of his allegedly dodgy financial dealings? Where have I seen that ruse used before? Oh yes, when Spain was trying to extradite him for human rights abuses.

Personally, I want to see him in court. And not just him; I want to see George Bush there as well. But before anyone thinks I have a pathological aversion to only those two individuals, I also want to see those who wilfully flout the law put on trial: Saddam, Mugabe, those responsible for the Tiananmen Square massacre and Tony Blair.

And you can add the Uzbek president to my list this week as well.

After Pinochet’s arrest plenty of leaders began to worry, realising they couldn’t claim immunity for conduct which would land an ordinary citizen in court. Time is now catching up with Pinochet; I’m waiting for justice against the rest.

Tedious politicians

I’m either becoming jaded or more cynical. Listening to Today this morning I’ve become convinced that Charles Falconer is a Humpty Dumpty figure in government. But with a difference. He keeps falling off that wall but someone (who has a lot to answer for) keeps putting his back together – and inflicting his blundering approach upon the nation once again.

And what is it with Ruth Kelly? She talked about the need for ‘learning support units’ in schools. Excuse me? Aren’t schools already those by definition? Where does she get this jargon?

Also, maybe it’s just me, but does anyone else listening to her on the radio keep thinking of Barbara the pre-op taxi-driving transsexual from The League of Gentlemen?

Putting together a flatpack cabinet

Since I occasionally get readers of the Lib Dem persuasion, I’ll venture to comment on the reshuffle – but just the once. And unlike Sandra Gidley, I have no ‘collective responsibility’ to adhere to!

Overall it seems to signify a shift to the right of the party. That is if you accept the fine gradations of difference which exist within a Parliamentary party as small as the Lib Dems. Keeping Vince Cable at Treasury and Mark Oaten at Home Affairs while promoting David Laws to Work and Pensions and Ed Davey to Education are all pointers of the rightward shift. Elsewhere Menzies Campbell keeps Foreign Affairs – obvious really, can you imagine anyone else doing it?

But most of these appointments are established figures; there’s relatively little new blood. With the exception of Sarah Teather, it’s very much the same faces making up the Shadow Cabinet. Although I know at least two of the new intake, Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg, are being prepared for the fast track. During the last Parliament Chris was given the responsibility of leading the working group on public service delivery (which may need rethinking now since it relied on regional government – and that’s taken a body blow after the referendum defeat for a North East Assembly last year) while Nick was often seen in leading circles.

Meanwhile I wait to see what my contemporaries, elected the other week, will get (see post below). No doubt wiser heads than I will be cautioning them to focus on establishing themselves in their constituencies before dealing with the peripheral (to Lib Dem) activities of political posturing in Parliament.

Then there’s the lower-order appointments in the Shadow Cabinet which intrigue me and obscure those who don’t have a direct interest. In particular I’m pleased to see that they have squared the circle at DEFRA. Organising Lib Dem responsibility there seemed a bit ad hoc over the last few years; when I went to work there after the last election I think it owed to the party’s need for a rural affairs researcher, especially in the wake of the foot-and-mouth crisis.

But the Government had decided to merge its rural affairs department with that for the environment. The result was a headache for the Lib Dems, with out first shadow cabinet member, Malcolm Bruce, dividing the work between me and a colleague, who covered the environment. But the team – despite being middle-ranking – was larger than most others in the party and a separation of responsibilities occurred after Malcolm’s reshuffle a year later. Then we had a dyarchy of Andrew George (rural affairs) and Norman Baker (environment) running separate operations under one roof. Now the party has seen fit to bring it under Norman, which seems sensible, putting the other half of the duo at International Development – which will no doubt assist him in his tanning opportunities.

I’m also pleased to see Simon Hughes given a brief which is more than just London. Will he be able to stand in for Kennedy when Blair isn’t around and his place is taken by John Prescott? There’s also Don Foster kept at what I feel is too underrated a post: Culture, Media and Sport. But he enjoys the job and has done as much as he can with it. Unfortunately it’s not high profile enough to get much media attention, even though it does important work.

That’s my take. But does it really matter who gets what? Taking my parents (both apolitical) as a weathervane, my sense is that for the majority of voters the Lib Dems are Charles Kennedy – and maybe Ming when asked to talk about Iraq, etc. That doesn’t mean the appointments aren’t important for the MPs themselves; shadow cabinet status improves their chances of future leadership challenges. But as long as the party tries to be all things to all men – as it has done at the last two elections – it will cease to make much inroad.

Finally, if the individuals associated with the senior posts are really intending to push the party rightwards, I remain unconvinced that strategy will work. I’ve outlined why in an article I wrote for Liberator last week – I just hope they use it otherwise I’ll have to post it here!

When is ‘modern’ not ‘modern’ at all?

Have Latin America’s indigenous peoples broken with the past in their search for identity politics? According to Goldsmith College’s Olivia Harris in the weekly LSE seminar, the record appears ambiguous. Certainly there are communities in places like the Bolivian highlands who are claiming a national identity which harks back to a time prior to the emergence of ‘modern’ Latin America, but it is also ahistorical.

Harris argues that the actual reconstitution of the past – through the reconstitution of past tradition and rituals – is a very modern process. It’s not an exact fit with the original version, but a modified variation on it; an ‘invention of tradition’ if you will. As an example she cited a community which was prepared to accept a family’s claims of royal blood and even organised a celebration to mark it. But when the family tried to claim royal rights and tribute, the community interceded; it would allow title but not actual practice, thereby highlighting the way in which contemporary acceptance of democracy has worked its way into an understanding of the past.

‘Modernity’ in Latin America is especially confusing given the ambiguity with which the term has been used. Today modern understanding of the state assumes acceptance of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society; by contrast, during the 19th century when many of the Latin American states were in the process of nation-building, modernity meant a homogenous, preferably white society styled on those of Europe.

Even more confusing though is that 19th century assumption of modernity was linked to colonial values which dominated official thinking in the region during the previous three centuries. And from the 16th to 20th centuries the indigenous were commonly seem as un-modern and inferior, a symbol of Latin America’s inability to catch up with the North.

Yet what is really interesting is that just as the ‘modern’ state became more accommodating and accepting of cultural and ethnic difference during the 1990s, indigenous peoples indicated their desire to turn their back on that modernity.

Gormless Wars

Walked past the Odeon on Picadilly yesterday to find Darth Vader and several storm troopers had taken control of the entrance.

But instead of running away in terror, passers by were doing exactly what I would expect them to do if ever there was an alien invasion: stopping to gawp and pose for photographs.

I wonder if the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has anything to say about this human tendency?

Aching to be read?

My hard earned literary endeavours have once again born fruit. While I nurse aching limbs from the two days spent training and (incompetently) playing capoeira, you can check out my observation of the event here.

Already I've received two compliments, which is extremely gratifying. That will make up for the rants which I usually get!

For those who missed it and are interested in capoeira's history, there’s a lecture and book launch of a new book at Canning House tomorrow. Some of the participants from the event will be there, putting on an demonstration too. The details can be found at the end of the article.

Grim reading

It’s nearly a month since I wrote this piece, but Travelmag has posted the last of the three articles I’ve written from my Lisbon sojourn, this time on the Pena Palace. It’s not my best, being both shorter than the others and less thoughtful. But at least it’s out, ready to be pulled to pieces.

I just wish I had invested in a digital camera – then readers could see quite how repulsive the whole place is…

A change of direction?

Was anybody else disorientated by the new graphics used by the BBC weather forecast team yesterday? I get what they’re trying to do, using 3-D graphics so they can ‘zoom’ in to different parts of the country. It did need an update, especially since weather forecasting until yesterday was still broadly the same as it was when Michael Fish and his awful burgundy suit (it was burgundy, wasn’t it?) failed to predict the hurricane which wreaked havoc in southeast England in 1987.

But there was one aspect of the whole presentation I couldn’t get. Where were the clouds and rain? Then I realised – it was those dark patches, ON THE GROUND. And the rain? It was raining upwards!

Do the weather forecasters know something about climate change that we don’t?

Writing...

Spent a little time on an analysis of Lib Dem election strategy and how the party should approach the next Parliament. Hopefully Liberator will take it in their post-election issue but I'm hardly going to be presume that I have any influence in how these things are decided.

However, I've got another piece up. Following on from the Chile theme yesterday (see post below), Hackwriters has taken my review on Andres Wood's film about the 1973 coup, Machuca. I did post about it here on the blog last month, but I've tweaked and added to it.

So I reuse and re-cycle my own work! Is that a crime?!

One-sided agreement?

‘Democratic consensus’ during the Chilean transition (1985-89) was the topic under discussion at Sara Motta-Mera’s presentation on her research at LSE yesterday. Once again I walked in late, but caught what I think was the gist of her work. Whether we can talk of a transition prior to Pinochet’s defeat in the plebiscite before 1988 is a matter for debate (some might argue the transition only began after 1989 and isn’t yet complete until Pinochet’s legacy is dealt with), but Motta-Mera believes there were already shifts between the different regime, external and opposition actors prior to then.

Motta-Mera took a path dependency interpretation of Chile in the 1980s (i.e. the choices made at a given moment shape and determine their eventual outcome); the regime was prepared to negotiate as long as its neo-liberal legacy was retained and the pre-1973 political and economic models de-legitimated. The Church was also keen to depoliticise itself if it meant retaining a role in society and favoured a conservative form of democracy. Washington, perhaps influenced by the instability and potential pitfalls of authoritarian governments (e.g. Salazar, Franco, Iran), favoured a transition and leaned on the regime to deliver it – again without a severe challenge to capital. As for the opposition, the Christian Democrats sought to project themselves as its main hegemonic force. In this it was helped by the split in the Socialists, one side which eschewed ideology and plumped with the Christian Democrats, leaving the unreconstructed section adrift.

The challenge faced by Socialists raised questions about the extent to which this might be seen as a ‘consensus’ at all. While the Renovated Socialists and Christian Democrats saw the Marxist Left as their rivals, to what extent were the moderate Socialists pressured into accepting the transition model? As another participant noted, the use of the term ‘consensus’ assumes that all parties agreed and there was no one agent on the outside. But wasn’t that a contradiction if part of the Socialist party was left outside while its moderate wing was forced into accepting a neo-liberal model (and let’s not forget, the period in question – 1985-89 – was one in which the Soviet socialist model was still in existence)? Wasn’t the use of the term ‘consensus’ just a ploy to grab the moral high ground in the negotiation towards a final outcome?

Guilty as charged

Did I mention that the Mercedes in question (see post further down) was once again causing a disturbance, both in its position parked outside the LSE library on Sunday afternoon and distracting some of the younger, more impressionable male students?

At a loss?

What to do? No exam to revise for after the last yesterday and acres of time stretches ahead of me. But that's a mirage. Time to be getting on with travel details for research and organising interviews.

It never ends...

Beer

Finished my last exam, on society and development.

Today I will be mostly in the pub.

Feeling my age?

Just been looking through the election results and seeing lots of familiar names which conjures back memories of undergraduate-dom. I see two Lib Dems I knew at LSE – one in the year above, the other in the year below – got elected, while a former work colleague who shared an office with me and several others also ot elected. As if that wasn’t enough, there was also someone else who was in my year at LSE (assuming its the same person) standing in the same seat as one of those who got elected. And one of the women I worked with last year improved the Tory swing in Leicestershire North West.

It rather worries me when MPs start being people like me. I might have to grow up now...

An apt choice?

Yup, I missed the election night results. Was tucked up in bed at midnight ahead of my exam this morning. Still watched enough to see that for my local contest, Bethnal Green & Bow, they had dispatched Rageh Omar, the BBC war correspondent down to our part of the world.

Given the vitriloic nature of the campaign and passions on both sides, perhaps the Beeb was trying to say something?

Capoeira plug

Was at capoeira last night. More people coming out of the woodwork ahead of next weekend’s annual meeting which will see our group’s Brazilian master, associates and other schools descend upon East London for three days of training and rodas. Everyone’s gearing up to build their stamina and technique.

Should be a good occasion. It may be a little costly – especially with my current student status – but I’ll certainly be making an attendance for some of the time. Information is available on the capoeira group’s website under the news link if anyone’s interested.

Obligatory election statement

Yes, yes, I know I should post something deep and meaningful about the General Election today. But other than to say to get out and vote, I won’t.

Oh wait, there is one more thing: make sure you’re eligible to do so! A couple of Latin American friends received polling cards the other week. Last time I checked all none of those countries had made an application to join the Commonwealth.

The masses are revolting

Back to the LSE yesterday afternoon for a presentation about the pattern of social protest in Bolivia by Oxford University’s John Crabtree. In contrast to last October’s workshop on that country in Cambridge, I was more assured of the subject matter and content of the discussion. Crabtree’s presentation was designed to promote his new book on the matter, which can be found here. For those who are interested, LAB is giving away three free copies here.

Although I walked in late, I think I got the gist of Crabtree’s argument. Protest has increasingly become a way of doing politics in Bolivia, aided both by the relative weakness of the state and the social volatility unleashed by economic reform. For example, the closure of the tin mines in 1985 resulted in the dispersal of workers with formal union experience to other parts of the country, which has assisted organisation of protests in those parts. One example is the coca growers under Evo Morales, who have become increasingly organised. Other cases include protests against water privatisation which quick-started the whole process in 2000, demand for land reform through the sin tierra (a virtual remake of the MST in Brazil) and the so-called Gas War which forced the president from office in October 2003.

But there are differences within these different forms of protest. There’s no unity connecting them all. And in response to a question from me – whether he viewed the developing form of social resistance in Bolivia as analogous to that of Venezuela both before and after to the Carazco (when a proposed neo-liberal reform package unleashed mass protest and violence in 1989) and a subsequent split between political and civil society – he argued against.

There were big differences between the two, not least in the contrast between Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, and Morales. Chavez has a whole system of patronage at his disposal and the support of part of the army. Morales, meanwhile, can’t claim the same. Even though he gas formed a party which sits as the second largest in Congress and he acts as kingmaker, sections of the military distrust him while he has proved unable to bring together all these disparate social protest movements.

Come in number 7, your time is up...

I supposed the fact that one exam is now out of the way is small consolation for a gorgeous sunny and warm Bank Holiday spent in the library. Notwithstanding awaking at 5 this morning in a cold sweat from a nightmare which consisted of 16 pages of closely-typed questions, none of which had any relation to the subject examined today (Comparative Latin American Politics).

But can someone explain to me how it is that on Bank Holiday the entire LSE library was packed to the rafters? I had to stand and wait until someone moved from one of the tables.

Most amusing moment of the day though came when the librarian announced that the owner of the Mercedes parked outside move it as it was blocking access to the library.

And meanwhile the politicians are all feverishly campaigning about ending tuition fees come Election Day this Thursday. Judging by the LSE experience, that's one place whose students don't need to worry unduly.

Wasted evening?

Went to Demos last night for a salon (apparently that’s what they call it now, although I’d just call it a roundtable) on creativity in cities. The twist was that the creativity they referred to was in Brazilian cities.

I’ve penned a piece on it, which I hope to link to later. The only thing I will say is that it was one of the less productive events I’ve been to in quite awhile. In fact the only thing I got out of the occasion was a chat with a BBC World Service researcher who has been working on a radio programme which will go out in August starring Paul Merton which will seek to harmonise humour in the EU – that is trying to find a joke which works in every country. They’ll have their work cut out with the Greeks and Portuguese I reckon…

Oh, I tell a lie – there was something that was substantial from the Demos event: free-flowing vodka and cranberry juice. That’s me: never one to miss out on a free drink here and there…

Update - the article is now up at Brazzil, but can be linked through here.

An alternative view

May I add my take on the whole Brian Sedgemore discussion? The Lib Dems seem to be falling over themselves in congratulation at what seems like a political coup. But three points seem to be in order.

First, why has it taken so long for Brian to see the light? Isn’t it a bit rich to leave Labour and join another party when he’s effectively retired from Parliament? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to have had the courage of his convictions and moved across the floor before the election?

Second, was he much good as a constituency MP? OK, so he represented Hackney for nearly 30 years, but you could put up a donkey with a red rosette in that part of London and see it returned. From what little I’ve seen of Hackney politics (and it’s a little, I’ll grant), he didn’t seem that active.

Third – and perhaps most tellingly – there are Lib Dems in Hackney who have misgivings about Sedgemore joining the party. When party members from the area concerned have doubts party HQ should be listening. After all, they are the ones who most likely have their ear to the ground and know how effective or not a high-profile defector may be the cause.

Then again, the whole thing will be forgotten by tomorrow. Oh wait, it has.

In the shadows

On a slightly more troubling note, few observers will have failed to notice that the election campaign is apparently getting quite nasty in Bethnal Green. Last week George Galloway was harangued by anti-democracy demonstrators to the point where he claimed to be fearful of his life.

But spare a thought for those not in the media spotlight. Although I’m not doing any campaign work this year (exams and revision is my excuse), I was copied into an email from a councillor to party canvassers. Apparently a team of them were challenged by young, angry anti-democracy protestors on the Turin estate who chased them away. When they spy them coming they ring around their friends and then confront the campaigners.

My councillor friend reckons the antipathy may be due to the estate being one of the most rundown in the area. But walking along Bethnal Green Road the other day I came across stickers plastered to the side of traffic lights and on post boxes saying the same thing.

I wonder how it will all pan out next week?

Election? What election?

Opened up my inbox this morning to discover election day has been moved forward to tomorrow. Oh no, sorry, it’s London University’s union elections.

It’s bad enough that I can’t make my mind up about next week’s choices. How the hell am I going to find the time to wade through this lot of grasping student hacks before noon tomorrow?

Over one hurdle...

A bit of a rush around today. There I was sitting around the flat this morning, waiting for the computer's spyware to finish its job. I know, I thought, I'll ring up Queen Mary and see whether they've come to a decision on my application to study there next year. What happens? Voicemail.

At that point the postman arrives, shoving some letters addressed to me - for a change. One was from the LSE. Yes, they were pleased to offer me a place. Hooray I thought, Queen Mary slipping to the back of my mind.

Then the next, almost sudden, black thought: tuition fees around £3085 for the next three years (minus living costs). So it was back to the computer to crank out yet another begging statement, highlighting my worthiness at some much needed cash for next year. Conveniently too, my former supervisor's accompanying reference fell through the door at the same time as well.

So now it's down to the LSE to place yet another funding application with those nice people before Friday's deadline. Only to be followed by yet another one which I'm now eligible for, having been accepted at the School.

Getting the place is only half the battle it seems. Whether I end up with the necessary funds to actually start in September is another matter...

Travel writing...

Lisbon is proving to be a bit of a writing inspiration. Another piece on the city, at a different e-publication this time.

Understanding the mechanics

My most recent piece is up, this time at City Mayors. For all those who wondered how Brazil's political system worked... well, here it is.

That'll just be the one taker then?

Keeping a lid on things

I hadn’t mentioned it after my quip last week regarding tensions in Latin America. But Julia sent an interesting article from the Folha de São Paulo (though I can't find the direct link to it), so it only seems fair to comment on it.

Essentially the article analyses the challenge posed to Brazilian foreign policy by relative political weakness and instability in some of the Andean countries along its western and northern borders. Ecuador’s president has finally been removed – the third in a decade, while Bolivia’s president has threatened to resign and Peru’s is only maintained by an understanding between himself and the opposition. And then there’s the agitation between Colombia and Venezuela, following a border incident earlier this year. The commentary suggests this may make it difficult for Brazil’s Lula to project himself globally, if Brazil can’t manage its own backyard.

It’s an interesting angle, especially since for next week’s International Politics exam we spent time earlier in the year assessing the pressures and actors towards greater democratisation in the region during the 1980s. It would seem that we’ve overlooked the limited institutionalisation of those processes since then and what directions they present for contemporary international relations.

Getting by

Struggling with a lousy cold at the moment. Hopefully it will all clear up over the next few days and before the start of exams next week.

Last week a couple of research posts were circulated to Latin American studies students – which I may well be making an application for. Neither are related with Brazil or political science, but as has been pointed out to me before, you have to go where the money is from time to time.

Also waiting to hear back about an interview at the Institute of Education regarding my application there. Initially it was rejected, but there may be a reprieve.

At an end?

Finally, after a few false starts and hiccoughs, my ESRC form is now with the LSE’s Government Department. I’ve done my bit, having bullied and cajoled referees and college registrars to get their sections completed, finally handing it over with a sense of exhaustion, yet completeness yesterday afternoon.

Oh how we laughed when we wondered what the ESRC meant by its 31 July final result deadline (I don’t get mine till October) and cried over whether we were to do it in triplicate or not – not counting my own little heart stopping moments when I imagined that a +3 application wasn’t possible at the LSE according to the ESRC’s website. Or the time when I had to weigh up whether five years of work and one year of a two-year course at Oxford constitutes a completed research training programme. Or the realisation that I have to go back to the LSE with a self-addressed postcard – the one thing I forgot…

Ultimately, who knows? As I said to the registrar yesterday, all this work and it’s possible I may not be lucky (it’s around a 30% success rate). But as she said: “If you don’t ask, you don’t get.”

And I've still got another form to get through before the end of next week...

Mutton dressed as lamb

I’m giving away my liberal persuasion when I say this new pope, Benedict XVI, isn’t the one for me. As a lapsed Catholic, I find it hard to square my views with his. I only had to listen to an interview he did several years ago, before he became Pope. He castigated liberation theology for involving the Church in political activity, when it’s evident to him the two spheres are separate. Yet hasn’t that been part of the Church’s mission over the past two thousand years? As far as I understand it, it was never just about future salvation, but also about improving the lot of the poor and needy now. And who can really be against using the religious experience to encourage changes in quality of life and the empowerment of the poor?

In the interview Benedict also makes it clear that he doesn’t condone religious relativism: the idea that other faiths may contain different dimensions of the truth. That is unfortunate, not only because it may undermine John Paul II’s past attempts to reach a compromise with the Orthodox Church, it may also pose a threat to the Islamic world, especially if those sentiments are whipped up and taken to heart by less thoughtful types. It’s bad enough having idealist extremists on one side; we don’t need them on the other as well.

Then there are the Church’s social teachings which I find so hard to understand: Catholicism’s implicit inequality between the sexes, prohibition on contraception, abortion and condemnation of homosexuality. Where’s the tolerance of difference, the acceptance of the modern world and contemporary social relations? I know the counter-argument: Catholicism is an article of faith, not a form of consensus. Yet it is this unwillingness to yield to social and political changes may well be wants ultimately weakens it. From territorial division of the Roman Empire to the Reformation, the Church has consistently failed to respond to the disenfranchised accordingly. And once again, it looks like it has missed the boat, with congregations falling in North America and Europe while in Africa it fails to face up to the challenge of AIDS.

I’ve also heard it alleged that the new pope doesn’t care if this turns people away; that he would approve of a smaller, purer Church. But that would weaken the Vatican’s claim to speak on behalf of a wide section of humanity. Then again, all this may well be the uttering of a cardinal who never imagined himself destined for the pontificate. It may well be that the reality of power tempers his excesses and forces him to steer a more mainstream path. But I don’t have form when I suggest such things – last time I argued this I was talking about George Bush in the first months of his presidency…

Could there not have been a more moderate alternative – even liberal by the standards of the Catholic Church? Probably not, given the conservative nature of the majority of cardinals, most of who were appointed during John Paul’s reign. And even the only apparent light – that this won’t be as long a papacy as John Paul’s – ignores a small cloud on the horizon: that come the next conclave it will most likely be the very same cardinals who appointed Benedict who will once again have to choose.

Democratic ambiguity

At first sight the following stories seem unrelated: the arrest of 8 policemen in Rio the other week for murdering 30 people, the Mexican Congress’s decision to strip Mexico City’s mayor from immunity, the sacking of the Ecuadorian Supreme Court by the president and Congress and Chile’s deadline to file charge on past human rights abuses.

But dig deeper and it appears that there are greater forces at work. Impunity, which dominated the past, is going out the window; the rule of law is increasingly making itself felt. That’s quite a substantial change from before, when off-duty policemen murdered without fear of being caught or the crimes of the Pinochet era were hushed up.

But before we get too exited about the virtues brought about since democracy’s return to the region, the Ecuadorian and Mexican cases may well be of concern. Actions in both countries have disguised prevailing political motivations, using the force of law as a justification for their actions. Ecuador’s Supreme Court was appointed late last year by the same president who has now dismissed them, with one of the main aims being to rescind prosecution charges against a former president. Meanwhile Mexico City’s mayor is reportedly among the most scrupulous and honest politicians in that country and therefore a threat in next year’s presidential elections to the ruling centre-right PAN government and former dominant party, the PRI.

What this shows is that the debate about democratic consolidation in Latin America is more subtle than they first appear. But then again, isn’t that ambiguousness central to understanding democracy? If it wasn’t then the subject wouldn’t be half as interesting to study!

Last, but not least...

And yes, I got a chance to have a word with John Harris after the meeting as well. Not about his quest to find someone acceptable to vote for, but about his first book, The Last Party, which recounted the story of Britpop from the sublime of Suede and Blur to the (at least to me) ridiculous of Oasis and Menswear (and which I reviewed here).

I told him I enjoyed it hugely but had a bone to pick with him. His was one of the few books which immersed me in a wave of nostalgia – more specifically back to the 1990s and the idea that ‘things could only get better’. He admitted that was the point, the association of music with the New Labour government only taking form after Britpop had become part of the establishment and ceased to be cutting edge.

I also asked him if he’s noticed the apparent 1990s revivalism which appears to be taking place. Judging by some of the fashion magazines Sonic the Hedgehog T-shirts are in, as are Nike Air trainers while Oasis will be releasing a new album later this year. Was he responsible for all this? I asked. His response: a relatively sheepish look. Read into that what you will!

And damn it, I forgot to bring along my copy to get him to sign. Then again, I might have seemed too much like a groupie…

Think tankery gossip

At Demos last night for a debate on who those on the Left should vote for and whether tactical voting could work against Labour this time around. At the podium was John Harris, who has written a book about his search for an alternative to New Labour, following some reports he’s done for the BBC, and Labour apologist and columnist, David Aaronovitch. Chairing it was Neal Lawson, who has broken with New Labour in recent years.

The meeting and location was exactly as expected: open planning, stripped wooden floors and minimalism abound at Demos – exactly what you would expect from a New Labour think tank. I also heard from someone that they had cut a deal with Ikea for their furniture – but does that make them cutting edge, or catching a wave after it’s passed?

As for the debate, it could be characterised simply: as a return to traditional Labour values (Harris) or a search for greater choice (Aaronovitch). But Harris wouldn’t phrase it as simply as that, despite Aaronovitch’s attempt to stereotype him as Old Labour with its commitment to statist solutions. Instead Harris argued that he recognised the need to change, but said greater private sector involvement without the guarantee of a level playing field for the public sector couldn’t be fair.

As to my question, both failed to respond, and Lawson didn’t take the bait. I asked whether this wasn’t a debate which had also taken place before the last election, with the result that Tony Blair promised to make his focus the reform of public services. In fact, that was the central thesis of Lawson’s co-edited book, The Progressive Century (which has been commented upon in this blog before), but those ideals appear to have abandoned in the period since, following the al-Qaeda attacks, Iraq and the so-called war on terror. Wasn’t the danger, I asked, that without any meaningful reform, Labour may well find itself in 2009 in exactly the same position as 2001 and 2005 – by which time it may be facing a more hostile electorate, who see little reason to vote for them again?

Iraq was one theme which was skirted around, which was refreshing – if anything, the arguments have been rehearsed ad nauseam; but I also suspect that a Demos crowd would be keen to avoid having that conversation. Consequently, there was only one spat between Harris and Aaronovitch over the issue, with Lawson sitting serenely between the two. Subsequently, I was told by a friend at the meeting that the two really don’t like each other – and that altercation revealed it. Admittedly though, my friend is an uncontrollable political gossip!

Among the other observations made was one by a young blonde woman who occasionally writes for the New Statesman. She asked what the future was for Labour when so few young progressives were willing to join. As a counterexample she pointed to the Tories whose youth wing was not only growing, but far more politically and ideologically active. In response Lawson highlighted the relative decline of Labour by mentioning a conversation he overheard between some Labour students at conference. They were discussing which member of the leadership they most identified with; several plumped for Geoff Hoon, which begs the question, what the hell does a Hoonite believe?!

Then the woman’s companion then launched into an ill-thought out and inarticulate defence of traditional Labour values. That got Aaronovitch’s blood up. He seems quite an irascible individual, but since he’s spent the best part of three years defending what many deem to be indefensible – the war on Iraq – it’s probably understandable. As my friend the gossip, commented afterwards, the problem with Iraq is that it’s now just about opinions; and Aaronovitch is convinced that he’s right. The result was he launched into these comments, taking them apart, stressing the hollowing out of politics in general, the fact that Africa and climate change were now on the Government’s agenda (for the first time ever) and that there wouldn’t be any substantial difference between a Milburn or Brown premiership.

Whether you agree or not with Aaronovitch’s muscular form of politics or Harris’s search for a feel good form, that last observation definitely seems to be the case. And with the polls showing the likelihood of Labour getting back in relatively easily, that prospect seems ever more likely.

Picking the right places...

Woo-hoo! So I've been offered some cash - OK, not all of it but enough to cover the main cost of a flight. So it looks like I'll be heading here and here in June.

And yes, before anyone asks, it's for academic purposes...

The other 11 September...

Saw Machuca yesterday afternoon in Chelsea. I think it’s a first for me, as I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Chilean feature film before. We were in two minds whether to go, especially because the day was warm and sunny – not something you can guarantee in London in April.

However, we decided to give it a go, especially since it was a preview and the director, Andres Wood, would be there to answer questions afterwards. And I’m glad we did. Well worth seeing, although I don’t think it will get quite the attention it deserves, not least because I can’t see it as a commercial draw in quite the same way as other Latin American films have been, most notably City of God and The Motorcycle Diaries.

Machuca is a drama about the friendship which begins between two 11-year old boys in Santiago on the eve of the military coup in 1973. The two boys come from opposite social spheres: Gonzalo is a child of the middle class while Pedro comes from the nearby shantytown. They first meet – and have to overcome their prejudices of the other – when the priest and principal at Gonzalo’s private school brings in some of the poorer to participate in classes. The film was apparently inspired by Wood’s own school-time experience when the priests at his school brought in around 40 shanty dwellers. He acknowledges this fact by a dedication in the credits.

I don’t think you can pigeonhole Machuca as a coming-of-age film in the conventional Stand By Me mould. While there is some hope offered by the two boys’ friendship, that sentiment is tempered on two fronts: the of the impending military coup; the knowledge that the coup will advantage the upper and middle classes; and the bleak future faced by the poor and marginalised – and which continues until today. Indeed, it is left to one peripheral character, a drunk and absent father, to state that fact: ‘In fifteen years your friend here will be running his father’s company, while you will be cleaning the toilets.’

In the discussion afterwards, Wood said he wanted to make a film which went beyond the politics of the period. This was especially so since he wasn’t sure that a film about Chile in 1973 would be popularly received. As I am regularly informed by those in the know, Chilean society remains divided in the older generation while the young either have little knowledge of the events which occurred or remain apathetic. Consequently he was keen to focus on the story and keep the politics peripheral to any discussion while working with the child actors. One audience member found this contradictory: how could he make a film which was so obviously political and not find himself talking to the children about the period?

But you can see why Wood was so keen to strike a balance, especially while a substantial section of Chilean society continues to believe the coup was a good thing: an overtly pro-Allende film would have discouraged many cinema-goers from attending and reduced its commercial appeal. Also, it may well have switched off many viewers.

When asked who he drew his inspiration from in cinematographic terms, Wood highlighted Patricio Guzman’s La Batalla de Chile, the epic three-part documentary on the last year and a half of the Allende government and the coup. Watching Machuca those influences are very clear: from the street protests and demonstrations by both left and right (including everyone jumping against the middle class ‘mummies’, rich women banging their saucepans in protest and the menacing faces and helmets of the fascist-inspired Patria y Libertad youth marches) and the tangible feel of civil war lingering in the air to the public discussions over the rights and wrongs of the priests’ actions in the school and to the dark and gloomy room in which the family sits, watching the graining footage of the junta – including Pinochet – informing the population that Allende was dead and martial law imposed.

But for me, perhaps the most vivid image is of Gonzalo’s and Pedro’s classroom after the military has taken it over: the walls stripped bare, save for a picture of the junta, and empty desks as one boy after another disappears – a reminder of the disappeared which persisted throughout the military period and over which many families have still not received justice.

Urban life

A sharp knock at the door this morning. It was a policeman asking if we had noticed anything happen in the flats opposite between 6.30 and 7am. Apparently there was a serious assault, but we weren’t very helpful, having only woken up when he knocked.

The police are still out there, having put tape up, while forensics are checking out the area. Meanwhile the local kids are talking to the policemen about their car while the younger ones are playing football nearby.

Election blogging

Given that a slightly more global election is taking place in Rome this week, what chances are there of getting those boys in red to blog the conclave?!

New travel pieces...

So my latest pieces are up at Hackwriters. One is a piece I wrote over a year ago and polished more recently on the different kinds of backpacking styles. The other is my first reflection of Lisbon. I should hopefully be able to crank some more stuff out about the place – for the first time I actually went somewhere and took notes to write up when I got home. It’s amazing how differently you look at things when you do that. But it also means always having your notepad in your hand…

Back

Just got back from Lisbon this afternoon where all was sun and escape from what is increasingly looking like the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of General Election, given the propensity of the Prime Minister and Chancellor to be joined at the hip.

I think I’ve got some suitable material to use by drafting some pieces relating to Lisbon. Suffice to say, I had a good time, overeating on way too many steaks and staying in the sun for too long.

Urban futures

I’m going along to this event on Brazilian cities in a few weeks’ time down at Demos. I’m willing to take bets on how quickly they get around to participatory budgets as an example.

Amazing, isn’t it, that it’s now all the rage although those in the know (ahem) have been extolling its virtues for quite some time.

Brazilian Left

Some extremely useful pieces on Lula’s government including prospects for social welfare reform and the differences between the Workers Party (PT) and PSDB (social democrats) which would be of interest to anyone, like me, interested in the Left. I suspect they may well end up in my dissertation’s bibliography later this year. Unfortunately, they are both in Portuguese, but for a fee I might do a translation!

The newsletter comes from the well-regarded Fundação Perseu Abramo, a think tank associated with the PT, and which I have a soft spot for, on account of their help and support during a spot of fieldwork I did in São Paulo five years ago.

Writing, writing everywhere, but not a penny in return...

Yesterday I got my opus – alright, application for ESRC funding – off to my first testimonial writer. Then it goes around the houses to the second and prospective department before making its way back to the ESRC by 3 May. At least that’s the theory.

At the beginning of the academic year it all seemed so easy, with plenty of time. Instead I was running around trying to complete the research proposal, trying to inflate my research skills, printing it off, checking for mistakes, printing it again and finally banging it in the final post. And that’s after I’d made sense of the 50-page guidance notes, only to realise I’d made an error in the whole process and had to go back to square one.

Now for the next week I’m going to be making myself unpopular with my referees as I harangue them to get it to the relevant department. And is there any guarantee I’ll be successful? About a one in three or four chance.

Slim pickings.

Meanwhile I’m supposed to be revising.

Postgraduate study? I’ve never been so stressed…

Locked away

Found what might potentially be a goldmine for my dissertation on social democracy: a treasure trove of papers from a series of seminars last year and earlier this month.

But for the love of God, can I access any of it? Not unless I’ve registered, which presumably I have to pay for.

Whoever said knowledge was a virtue?

Election titbits

So the race has started and they’re off. Three cities for the Tory leader and five for Charlie K by tea time. And I compare this to my girlfriend’s grumbles about not wanting to make the cross-town trip from Bethnal Green to Kingston for a few hours on Saturday. Puts things in perspective, eh?

But with just over 24 hours gone in the contest, I’ve had my first pieces of election material sent to my inbox. The Lib Dems’ youth section was quickest off the mark, offering to bribe me – bribe? Sorry, I meant pay – with my travel costs to help campaign. If that wasn’t enticing enough they can offer me a sofa or a floor somewhere too. Hmmm... I may take a rain check.

Then CK (does his office still call him that? For the love of God, why?) cranked out his bit, presumably while on his jet to Newcastle (impressive multitasking I thought). It was the usual guff, but what caught my eye was a bit at the bottom asking those with websites and blogs if they would like to plaster ‘Support Lib Dem’ banners all over their patch of cyberspace.

Me? Sorry, I’m declining. How can I be dispassionate and critical of all candidates if I’ve got someone’s label all over this blog? And besides, there could be a further reason, which I must come to: over who to vote for. The latest polls put the electorate in volatile mood and I can sympathise.

For the last 11 years I’ve voted tactically, usually to unseat the Tories. This time round commentators are talking about tactical voting working against Labour. And given Blair’s ill-timed words yesterday – “You [the British people] are the boss” – perhaps it’s about time he got a kicking, especially after he ignored those of us who marched against war two years ago.

Not that I want the Tories back in. But I want Blair’s wings clipped. And that means reducing his majority, boosting the capacity of his awkward squad and making it more difficult for them to pass offensive legislation like that on detention without trial. So how can this be done in Bethnal Green? Well, apparently Respect has a good chance of beating Oona King, but only if it’s done tactically. Unfortunately though, I don’t find George Galloway particularly attractive and the party he leads seems dubious, harking back to a world which only the SWP wants. So what do I do? Hold my nose and vote for him? Is there any other way of unseating Labour here? It’s going to be an interesting few weeks, methinks.

Finally, some entertaining news from the Lib Dem website:

Interested in standing?

If you are interested in becoming a candidate yourself, please email
the Candidates Office (England) or the Scottish or Welsh Liberal Democrats.

So much for the comprehensive all-day development day I underwent a few years ago during which all prospective candidates were assessed and rigorously scrutinised before being unleashed on unsuspecting party members - and if successful, on the public. I can never get that cold, bleak and rainy day back – in Warrington of all places…

Explaining my absence

Am getting my head down to revision what with exams just over a month away. Although somehow there was an oversight of this small detail at chez Burton last month with the girlfriend booking flights to Lisbon for later this week. So chances are there will be little from this end for much of this week but hopefully a few posts on thoughts and reflections regarding the Portuguese capital at the weekend. And then more virtual silence till the exams are done and out of the way.

Does it ever end?!

Culture vultures...

Yes, Easter was quite chilled, although as a full time student what’s four days off here and there? The only difference was more people in the shops and the girlfriend for four days.

Still, we used it productively: booking accommodation in Lisbon for our trip there next week and catching up on a few films lent to me over the weekend: Alexander and Team America.

I’ve been looking forward to seeing Alexander ever since I read Robert Lane Fox’s biography 18 months ago. Imagine my disappointment then, to see Oliver Stone’s version of it. The editing was rather poor and the battle scenes too closed in, too claustrophobic. Although I’m sure it can probably be argued away by the director claiming he wanted to show what it was like to be in the middle of one of those tight battle formations.

As for Colin Farrel’s Irish-accented Alexander and his generals, that didn’t bother me too much. The Macedonians were considered provincial cousins to the majority of Greeks, despite their domination in the period. But Angelina Jolie as Alexander’s mother? Oh, please! Have you ever seen a woman looking that young with a 20-something son? I didn’t think so.

However, compared to other ancient epics recently portrayed on screen, Stone did do a relatively good job of keeping to script. I felt I was sitting there with a checklist (OK, Lane Fox’s book on my knee) making sure all the right boxes were filled. But if there was one major grievance I had was with Stone’s jumping around the story. At the beginning we have Anthony Hopkins briefly going over Philip’s death (Alexander’s father); then, an hour in we have a return to that fateful day, breaking up the sequence. Why, oh why did you do it, Oliver?

As for Team America, alright, it was puerile and silly, but on the mark. Not just in its observations of American military cack-handedness, but the way in which sceptics can all too easily align themselves with dubious elements (you only have to recall Saddam’s meetings with Galloway or Tony Benn’s poor interviewing skills with the dictator).

And finally, a trip to the ICA for the first Batmacumba gig of the year on Saturday night. It looks like DJ Cliffy has found a new protégé which is really mixing up the music – and not always for the best. However, when he takes to the turn table he’s still reassuring: both in his usual choices as well as having his finger on the pulse of new Brazilian musical forms, most notably in the baile funk he’s bringing to his repertoire.

Besides that, I had one of the most original excuses given for an acquaintance not being able to make it - owing to current commitments in Kabul!

Right to life?

You heard it here first: "The presumption, particularly in a situation like this, where you have someone that is at the mercy of others, ought to be in favour of life. And that's the president's view."

So how does George Bush square that with his commitment to capital punishment?

Misleading

Could someone at Liberal Democrat office please have a word with Dick Taverne? He was on the radio this morning (Today, where else?) talking about the supposed virtues of GM. Poor people will benefit, he claimed, notwithstanding the excellent claim made by the NGO chap that it was big agribusinesses who are making use of GM in most countries – not the poor.

But it’s not the supposed pros and cons of GM which gets up my nose. No, it’s the fact that we were listening to a Lib Dem peer who comments seemed to suggest he spoke for the party on this matter. Well, I’m afraid he doesn’t. I seem to recall spending two years working on this and other agricultural issues within the party. And if memory serves me correct at least two conference motions were passed which sought to restrict their use during that time.

Then again, maybe there’s a reason why they’re letting him present the image that the Lib Dems are pro-GM. After all, while Labour and the Tories were slugging it out at the top of the hour on school dinners and throwing travellers in prison, what were the Lib Dems doing? That’s right: outlining plans to make life easier for business.

Nice to see the party’s got its priorities right – not.

Looking at the left

Left wing government in Latin America was on the agenda last Friday. It was a workshop run by the LSE and ISA jointly and ranged from the development of leftist thought to include the experience of governments like Lula’s PT, Chavez in Venezuela and Kirchner in Argentina. There was also time to examine the contrast between the Chilean and Uruguayan models of social democracy and the role of participatory democracy as a leftist project.

Some quite interesting themes came out. Fiona Macauley stressed that the PT and PSDB in Brazil were two quite different animals, both in terms of ideology, support base, history and organisation. But Edmund Amann and Alfredo Saad Filho both pointed out the continuity in macro-economic policy between the two governments. Given the importance of policy outcomes, wasn’t Fiona overstating the differences? I asked. Fiona’s response was to say that the two parties come to these decisions in a different way: broadly the PT is more internally consultative than the PSDB’s technocratic style. Maybe so, I replied; but we need to account for the difference in level of governance too. At the local level the PT has been more participatory in decision-making, but at the state and especially the federal government level, what mechanisms are in place to ensure this happens?

Rick Muir’s paper on the historical experiences which mark out the distinct ideological and programmatic taken by the left in Chile and Uruguay was stimulating. But I wondered whether he overstated the case too much; afterwards I asked him whether we should be less concerned with the two parties’ variation and commitment to negotiated bargains with labour or commitment to greater flexibility and instead focus on their general economic platforms. If so then it’s clear that both parties have accepted the globalisation agenda, indicating the primacy of broader economic trends on the two parties’ outlook over and above those of historical experience during the two dictatorships.

Finally, Gunther Schonleitner presented a paper on the different experiences of participatory democracy by the left in Brazil. What I took from his analysis was the importance of good background conditions being necessary if participation was to be meaningful. In fact he argued that the focus should be more on building up representative institutions as opposed to participatory experiments. But what remains unsaid, is how to build up those institutions if the conditions aren’t ideal. Presumably the impetus for this must come from outside, a factor which cannot be relied upon in many parts of Brazil and Latin America.

Action with organisation?

Sérgio Haddad was at the Institute yesterday, talking about the World Social Forum, of which he is on the organising committee.

During his presentation he pointed out that the purpose of the WSF was not to organise but to provide new space in which deliberation and action can happen. However, he also noted two contradictory features of the Forum, including its relationship with political parties who want to use it as a vehicle to organise and the Forum’s refusal to take a lead in this process.

Sérgio spent some time ruminating aloud on the difficulties this presents to those involved in the Forum: it makes criticism possible and even suggestions regarding alternatives possible. But where it becomes really challenging is in the actual implementation of those ideas. He gave the example of the World Bank.

The Forum’s space gives people opportunities to both criticise the World Bank’s role and activities and suggest ways of dealing with it – either by reforming it from within in, or ‘blowing it up’ (this was before we had even heard about Bush’s proposed candidate for president). But how can two diametrically opposite approaches and goals be achieved?

In other words what would appear to be the Forum’s strength – its apparent ability to break Michels’ iron law of oligarchy – is also its greatest weakness, by failing to provide a clear direction and alternative.

A sad way to end

I feel like a bit of a vulture writing this, especially as it’s at the expense of someone else’s misfortune. But of all the perils associated with blogging (e.g. losing your job), nothing can compare with this.

Rob came to my attention last year in a big Observer spread on blogging. In fact I feel I partly owe my decision to take up the mantle to that story (along with the Bloggerheads campaign to get election candidates reaching out to potential constituents).

Although he does tend to write overly long posts, Rob’s appeal was the fact that he reminded me about my time as an undergraduate a great deal: the awkwardness, inexperience and confusion which revolves around as you try and make sense of both yourself and wider world.

Unfortunately, Rob’s writing seemed to deteriorate. Even he acknowledged it before Christmas, when he reported that readers were complaining that his posts had become those of a pub bore, recounting tedious drinking tales. His sharp observation of the people on his course, the people he lived with and the girl he liked was gone.

Given his decline, the potential risks of Rob’s approach to blogging became greater. Writing about your life and the people within it can be dangerous, not least if someone disagrees with what you’ve written and posted for the whole world to see. I’m not sure I would do the same and over the past year he has reported the fallings out he’s had with friends. But it was never as bad as his last post.

I can see why he would want to give it all up and the gesture he hopes it will show. Though whether that will be enough is doubtful. However, while Rob tries to find his own way to say sorry, it means saying goodbye to a part of his life and the readers who have followed him through the fumblings of early adulthood – and leaving the final chapter unwritten.

Good luck, Rob. You have my sympathy.

Maybe he has a sense of humour?

Oh. My. God.

Is it 1 April?

No.

But how else to explain this?

A tale of two events

Two different kinds of occasion you could not get. Last night it was the annual students’ lecture at Senate House. For the occasion the current director of Chatham House director and a former one at ISA, Victor Bulmer-Thomas, was prevailed upon to give his thoughts on ‘Living with the Mega-Power’.

Restrained, moderate, coherent and balanced, Bulmer-Thomas set out the framework within which states can operate with or against the US. Concepts such as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power abounded, along with observations on ways to restrain the mega-power, including through treaties and international obligations. Frustratingly, every time I scribbled a point which I thought he had overlooked, sure enough, back he came, addressing precisely that topic. I soon gave up.

Later on and by contrast, what had been billed as a seminar on micro-credit in Venezuela under the auspices of a women’s bank was almost anything but. Walking into the LSE’s refurbished New Theatre (well, it may have been done several years ago but since I haven’t been in there for 10 years, who am I to say?) I momentarily assumed I’d come to the wrong event. Cuban flags and portraits of Che adorned the walls, along with a banner expressing solidarity with the ‘Miami 5’. Richard Gott was in full swing, talking about the channelling of Venezuelan oil money under Chavez directly into the poorer sections of society. Cue enthusiastic cheering. It seemed I had stumbled on a rally.

Nora Castañeda, the president of the women’s bank, gave her speech through a translator. Some numbers were given of the number of projects they had funded, but very little could I remember. Instead we were treated to a diatribe against colonialism and imperialism (conveniently overlooking the bourgeois, elitist and anti-democratic sentiments of the Venezuelan independence movement) and much pro-Chavez endorsement. Not only that, she was cheered when she reported the government’s decision to pass legislation to muzzle the anti-government (and pro-business) big media. Upon finishing she was given a standing ovation – or was that for Chavez?

“Now we open the floor to questions,” the chairwoman said. “We’ve got the room for an hour, but please, don’t take too long to ask your question. Please keep to two minutes.”

Two minutes just for a question? I don’t know what other feel, but that to me was a speech! Taking that as a cue, I surreptitiously slipped out.

What goes around...

Things seem to be happening in cycles at the moment. The end of term on Friday is in sight and whereas this time last week I was wondering how I was going to fit several essays, presentations, additional readings and complete my PhD proposals in before the end of this week, things now appear more manageable. Only one more essay to do: ‘Participation is a potential, not a panacea. Discuss.’

Any takers?

In addition to the everyday matter of studies, I was down at Oxford’s Brazilian Centre on Friday. There was a workshop taking place on ‘Education as a human right’ which was organised by Sérgio Haddad, a visiting professor from São Paulo, whose interest it was.

Some extremely interesting observations were made and for those who lasted to the end of the day, it was frustrating that the former rapporteur to the UN Human Rights commission, Katerina Tomaševski, wasn’t able to stay longer. She made a robust defence as a human right, including the assumption that all children should be in school. But as we know in the developing world, there are other pressures on children, especially work. Her disappearance meant we were unable to enter into any detailed debate about her points.

But it was during the discussion when Maria Malta Campos, a researcher at the Carlos Chagas Foundation, made a comment that I had a eureka moment. “There’s not much written about the politics of education reform and management,” she said, setting a light bulb off in my head. That comment encapsulated what I was trying to do with both my dissertation and my PhD proposal: assess the political opportunities and limitations faced by social democrats in developing and implementing education (and employment) policies. Maria Malta’s words crystallised what I had been trying to articulate for the last two months.

So imagine my disappointment yesterday afternoon when I discovered I wouldn’t be receiving funding from the Institute to do fieldwork later this summer. What if the workshop had been last week, before the application deadline? What if I had used the language which came so easily from Maria Malta?

Needless to say, I’m asking for feedback, especially since my PhD proposal was contingent on the work I had planned to do for my dissertation. So it looks like I will be going back to the sense of panic I felt at the beginning of last week.

Suspended activities

It’s been a month since my last post. For shame! I can only pass on the excuses of a busy term time with the ongoing millstone of the research proposal hanging around my neck. And still it’s not perfect. Grumble, grumble… And this will have to be a short post as well, since it’s back to the grind of essays to churn out too. Can you believe it was only one month ago since the last lot were handed in?

Still, I have a bit of time to crank out the latest bit of Braziliana that I’ve been involved with. After missing its showing in Oxford and LSE the other week, it was third time luck for me last night. Down at Goodenough College (yes, it’s really called that) I saw Joao Moreira Salles’s Entreatos (Intermissions). And apart from the hard seat, it was extraordinarily engrossing.

It follows Lula around over the last month of his presidential campaign. Eschewing the rallies and big events, the director has chosen to focus on those moments in between: Lula on the plane, talking to his staff, at home with his family, having his beard trimmed while on the phone, choosing a tie for the debate, and talking about his turquoise VW which he courted his wife in.

It’s not a film about Lula the politician, but Lula the man. Admittedly, opinion was divided afterwards between those who disliked him, and those who liked him. Personally, I found him down to earth. In the question and answer sessions afterwards Joao was asked about his editing; was what he had cut an accurate representation of the time he spent with him? How much of Lula which we saw was him or his political persona? When did the act – as all politicians are prone to do – switch off?

Joao said that the access he had received was unprecedented. There’s even a moment when Lula’s campaign organiser and now chief of staff, Jose Dirceu, snaps at the film crew. Not even he was informed about the filming which was to take place. Lula never asked for a say about the final cut, which encouraged Joao to be as fair as possible. But as I said to friends after the showing, to what extent was he granted access in the first place had it not been a sympathetic portrayal.

One thing Joao could not help but notice was the absolute lack of introspection in Lula. After a few days you forget the camera is there and behave as you would otherwise do. But not once did he ever ask himself if he was up to the job. I asked Joao whether he plans to make a follow-up to the story: of how the political system and machine affects his ability to act. But he doesn’t want to; it doesn’t interest him. Besides, he claims that it’s inevitable that it will happen; that he will be swallowed up.

I would recommend this film, even to those (i.e. the majority!) who know nothing nor care about Brazilian politics. People will be split over whether they agree with his politics or his personality. But two things cannot be denied: one, the sheer charisma of the man; the second, the symbolism that Lula in 2002 represented. This is a man who is the living embodiment of someone who pulled himself out of a life of penury and manual labour, through the union movement and to become president of the Republic. If nothing else, that tale is one which symbolised his election: as the one moment when all the promises about politics being open to all, was finally fulfilled; when the dreamer finally reached a position to put into practice his ambitions.