I may have just done something foolish...

If the commentariat are to be believed, the upper echelons of the Labour Party have gone into panic mode as the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn being elected their next leader increases.  The accepted wisdom seems to be that a "left-wing" candidate like Corbyn would be "unelectable" and would be, according to the Spectator, a "coup for the Tories".  The Telegraph suggests that were Corbyn to become leader, Labour would face "20 years in the wilderness".  Cue countless comparisons to Michael Foot.

This view is predicated on an analysis of Labour's election defeat which concludes that the electorate did not trust Labour to manage the economy well, that Labour appealed too narrowly, that Labour did not occupy enough of the central ground, that Labour did not have enough to say to the "aspirational classes", whatever that means.  Many have claimed that Ed Milliband was "too left-wing" - "Red Ed" they dubbed him.

There seems to be an unchallenged assumption that in order to become electable, Labour needs to occupy more of the traditionally Conservative ground.  Over the course of the last parliament, and especially since the election, Labour has adopted the policy of austerity and largely accepted the economic argument put forward by Osborne and company.  They even happily adopted the Conservative line that Labour had spent too much, despite the fact that until the banking crisis, Labour had run a smaller deficit than Thatcher did.  And yet, the Labour front bench were falling over themselves to say they'd spent too much and to distance themselves from everything to do with the previous Labour government.  I was even more astounded on Sunday to see Labour's acting leader say that they would not oppose the changes to social security and tax credits in last week's budget.

If this analysis is correct, then yes, Jeremy Corbyn would be an electoral disaster.  However, I just don't buy this narrative.  While the reasons for the Conservative election victory are many and complex (for example, the Tories successfully played on the fear some parts of the English electorate had of what a Labour-SNP coalition might look like), I would like to suggest that the reason for Labour's defeat was much more straight-forward... they were just the same as all the others.

During the election campaign, I chuckled as the suggestions on Twitter read "Similar to Ed Milliband: David Cameron, Nick Clegg".  It told a truth that few were willing to admit.  Reading the manifestos of the Conservative and Labour parties, I struggled to work out where the difference was, especially on economic policy.  Both offered cuts and austerity, both offered little to the most vulnerable in society, both tried so much to occupy the so-called "centre ground" that they stood for very little.  George Osborne's budget last week could have been lifted straight from the Labour manifesto, and that is very telling.

When the Labour Party stops standing up for the poorest and most needy in our society, is it any wonder that Scotland opted for the (more "left-wing") SNP and that England agreed better the devil you know?

Perhaps Labour's key to electoral success might not come in another carbon-copy leader and more of the same austerity narrative.  Perhaps Labour's best chance lies in returning to its founding values, in a leader who stands up for the poorest, in... dare I say it... socialism.

And so I may have just done something foolish... I've just registered as a Labour supporter (it only costs £3) so that I can vote for Jeremy Corbyn as leader.  I'm not doing this because I admire Corbyn's leadership skills or agree with everything he says.  I'm not doing this because I believe he is the solution to all Labour's problems.  I'm doing this because this country needs a Labour Party which is prepared to stand up for the most disadvantaged.  This country needs an effective party of opposition.  We've already got a Conservative Party - we need a party which offers an alternative vision.

Maybe thinking that Corbyn could be electable is foolish, maybe those who say Labour should seek "power rather than purity" are wiser, but then again, maybe the "foolishness" of wealth re-distribution is just the sort of foolishness we need to become a fairer society.

And they'll whisper to you, "socialism's dying...  

you cannae sell it at the supermarket till."   

But while there's fifty left like me,  

we'll make bloody sure they see  

that ideals are the hardest thing to kill. 

For everyone born a place at the table

In July, the children of our church will be leading all of the services, so last week I sat down with a few of them to begin planning.  "You're in charge," I said, "What would you like to do?"  I couldn't possibly have expected the answer that would come:

"Can we have Communion?" asked a seven year-old excitedly, then all the others started joining in.  "Oh, can we, can we?" 

As we talked, it became clear that for many of these children, sharing in the Lord's Supper is a way they experience the living God and has played a major part in their faith development.

This caused me to reflect on my changing experience of Communion.  When I was the age of the children I was talking to, Communion was a mystery to me - not in a "holy use and mystery" way, I just had no idea what it was.  When Communion Sunday came round, the children were all sent out into the hall.  All I knew was if I arrived at church to see a cloth over the table, we'd be going out to do some colouring-in.

When I reached about 11 or 12, we were allowed onto the church balcony to watch the spectacle of Communion taking place, but it was made very clear that we were not welcome to participate.

A few months after my 15th birthday, I participated Communion for the first time.  I found the whole experience a bit strange: lots of silver and pewter, a sombre silence and a procession of strangely-dressed elders distributing the elements with military precision using some secret code of imperceptible nods and winks to ensure that each side of the church progressed at the same rate.  Of my peer group (which was quite large in those days), I was one of only three who stuck around the church long enough to share in this bread and wine.

Over the last few years, my experience of Communion has been hugely different.  Within the context of our all-age worship service, we have shared bread and wine in many and varied ways, and each has been a moment I will cherish.

Typically, I've found myself sat on the floor, surrounded by children and people of all ages as we share the story of the institution by asking and answering questions.  There's no sombre silence - stories of faith are shared and explored and challenged, as adult and child learn from one another.

Far from a procession of suited elders, the elements tend to be shared round by young children.  On one occasion, a three year old girl was handing out glasses of wine and as she handed each one to its recipient, she pulled her skirt over her head, danced in a twirl and shouted 'Hooray!'  Surely to such as these belongs the Kingdom.

Rather than everyone taking a very prim and proper square of bread, my experience of Communion is more of a buffet with the bread and wine shared until all are satisfied.  As one four year old boy likes to shout as he eats the bread, "God is good!"

The presence, questioning, sharing, joy and challenge that children have brought have transformed my understanding of the sacrament and have made this celebration a place of encounter with the risen Christ.  Clearly, these are proving to be formative and transformative experiences for the children too.

And yet, statistics show that only a tiny percentage of children in our churches participate in Communion and there are still relatively few churches who routinely welcome children at the Lord's Table.  Fewer still will break with traditions in order to create a space where children and adults together can meet God through the sharing of bread, wine and story.

To deny a child a place at the table is to deny their place as a disciple.  Is it any wonder, then, that most of them don't stick around?  If Communion is the meal of the family of God, what does it say about that family if we do not make room for all to be present and participate fully?

I am convinced that removing children from the celebration of the sacrament has contributed to the decline the church has seen, and that embracing the gifts that children can uniquely bring to the celebration of the Eucharist would transform the church.  The time has come to embrace the vision of Shirley Erena Murray's hymn:

For young and for old, a place at the table, 

a voice to be heard, a part in the song.  

The hands of a child in hands kind and wrinkled:  

for young and for old, the right to belong.  

And God will delight...

On the Eve of Assembly

On the eve of this year's General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, I share an experience of the GA which will remain with me all the days of my life - when Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, addressed the Assembly.

I wasn't a member of the Assembly that year, but sat in the public gallery to listen to the words of one of my all-time heroes, words which are as relevant now as they were when they were spoken in 2009.

If you followed the actions of Tutu during the apartheid era, you will have seen the way he can walk into an environment of conflict, rouse the crowd up into a frenzy and then create a turning point when he channels the emotion of the crowd into something constructive rather than destructive.  "Rabble Rouser for Peace" is the appropriate title of his authorised biography.

On this day, he performed a similar theatrical effect, first rousing the Assembly with the tales of what the Kirk achieved in South Africa for the anti-apartheid movement.  As people were feeling good, their emotions stirred, the turning point came: Tutu closed his eyes and spoke like a prophet these words:

What invests people - all people, without exception - invests them with a worth that is infinite is not this or that biological irrelevance, but it is the staggering fact that all of us, without exception, is created in God's image.  Each one of us, staggeringly, is a God-carrier.  Each one of us is a God viceroy, a stand-in for God...

We are the servant of one who declared that Isaiah's words had found fulfilment in him: "The Spirit of the Lord has anointed me to speak good news, not just to any and everybody, but especially to the poor."  Ours is a God who is notoriously biased towards the poor, the hungry, the downtrodden, those who smell to high heaven, those begging in our streets, who sleep rough, prostitutes, drug addicts - those who are at the edges of our society.  Those are our God's favourites.

"Would you want acceptance, even of your worship, then go and wash you hands clean for they are full of blood, and then go and do justice, not just to anyone... go and do justice to the widow, the orphan and the alien," representative of the most impotent of societies in those days.

The church of God is one that must proclaim, "Thus said the Lord..."  Thus said the Lord that, hey, we are family, we are family.  We have only one whom we call 'Father' and this one who is our Lord, speaking about his coming elevation on the cross, said, "I, if I be lifted up, will draw - not some - will draw all, all."   

An incredible, revolutionary, radical, radical, radical assertion!  Will draw all, all, all into an embrace which not let us go, for in this family, there are no outsiders - all, all are insiders, all are children of our heavenly Father: the rich, the poor, the lame, the blind, the clever, the not-so-clever, the white, the black, the red, the yellow - all, all, all!  The Palestinian, the Israeli, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, George Bush - all, all, I will draw all, all into this embrace which will not let you go.  All, all, all, all, all, all!  Lesbian, gay, so-called straight - all, all, all, I will draw all!

We are family, we are family, we are sisters and brothers!  How, in the name of everything that is good, can we justify going on spending obscene amounts on budgets of death and destruction when we know that just a minute fraction of those so-called defence budgets would ensure that God's children everywhere - our sisters and brothers - would have clean water to drink, would have enough food to eat, would have a decent home, would have affordable healthcare?  How can it be that we representing this God can look on can look on when there are those who go to bed hungry, who can spend only one dollar a day?  How can we, how can we, how can we?

 And our God says, "I have no one, I have no-one except you.  Help me, help me, help me to make this a more compassionate world.  Help me please, help me so we can make it more generous, caring.  Help me, I have no one except you.  Help me, help me, help me."

You can watch the speech here:  (If you only have time to watch one, go for part 3.)

 

I stood for election once...

...well, kind of. It was about a week before the 1997 election, Blair's Babes were on the march, John Major's underpants were the subject of much speculation and Alex Salmond was having his first crack as SNP leader. I was in primary 5 and the classes on the top floor decided to hold a mock election, with each of the four classes putting up one candidate. I was chosen as our candidate and with the three others, we drew lots to see which party we would represent.


This was 1997, the height of Blair mania, things can only get better, so naturally I hoped to be the Labour candidate. Besides, I'd met Donald Dewar that week in Greggs and he gave me a New Labour balloon, so what was not to like?


Alas, it was not to be - with the lots drawn, I was to represent Paddy Ashdown's Lib Dems. I set to work learning about their policies, which included such vote-winners as raising income tax by 1p.


A few days later, things got into full swing. Hustings were held across all the classes, ballot boxes were made from shoe boxes and Mrs Walker's classroom was turned into a polling station, with painting easels forming makeshift booths.


At the hustings, the Labour and Conservative candidates kept trying to out-do one another with more and more made up populist policies and when asked how they'd pay for them replied, "print more money". Meanwhile, I sat there as the sensible Lib Dem, offering well thought-through, fully costed but unspectacular policies. I got two votes, one of them cast by myself.


In the end, Labour and the Conservatives ended up neck and neck, the SNP put in quite a good showing while the Lib Dems were all but wiped out. I wonder why this springs to mind today?

A threat to democracy

I begin with an apology for yet another post about South African politics, but the events of yesterday cannot go unremarked upon.  It amazes me that they were not reported on any UK network news.  Democracy was hard fought for in this country, and yesterday it faced grave threats.

Last night, President Zuma was to give the annual State of the Nation Address (SONA) to a joint sitting of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces at the parliament in Cape Town.  I wrote yesterday that it would be an interesting political event given the current situation in the country, but I could not have expected the chaos which ensued.

Before the sitting even began, protests began in the media gallery as they discovered that their mobile signals were being jammed by a clocking device, preventing them from live reporting the events.  No decision had ever been taken by parliament to do this, and indeed such devices are illegal for use except by state security departments.  South Africa's constitution expressly provides freedom of information communication in situations such as this.

As soon as the speaker opened the session, MP after MP from the opposition parties raised points of order demanding that the signal be unblocked.  The speaker ordered the Secretary to the Parliament to investigate and eventually the signal blocker was turned off and business could proceed.

Or not, as the case turned out.  President Zuma had barely spoken a few words when it became clear that his microphone was not working, a result of the Parliament staff withdrawing their labour.  This (and the water supply for thirsty MPs) fixed, at last Zuma could deliver the SONA.

Again, maybe not.  Shortly after starting, the President was interrupted the Whip of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) who raised a question of privilege with the Speaker asking when the President was going to pay back money spent on his private residence in KwaZulu Natal that the Protector said he had unduly benefited from.  The Speaker stated that this session was not for questions, and that there would be ample opportunity to question the President at next week's sitting.

Before she had even completed, another EFF member raised the same point, followed by another, at which point the Speaker lost her temper and ordered the member to leave the chamber.  This provoked a number of EFF members to raise points of order asking under which rule the Speaker was ejecting their colleagues, and these members were too asked to leave.  When they refused, the Speaker sent in security forces to remove them.

During this time, the parliamentary TV feed focused on the speaker, but footage was shot by mobile phone from the press gallery which shows plain-clothed, armed security forces violently dragging the entire EFF party from the parliament.  Mercedes Besent, a journalist from SABC who got caught up in the scuffle reported seeing security officials "kicking, beating and dragging" EFF MPs out of the building.  One of the MPs ended up in hospital.

The Leader and Chief Whip of the official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), then continually asked the speaker whether these security men were parliamentary officials or police.  This was a key issue, DA Leader Maimane said, as one reports to the Speaker while the other reports to the executive, and this would be "unconstitutional".  When the Speaker and Chairwoman refused to say whether they were police or not, the DA walked out of the chamber, followed by the other opposition parties COPE and the UDM.

So, an hour later than planned, and speaking only to his own party, President Zuma was able to deliver his SONA, beginning - without a hint of irony - by commemorating 60 years since the adoption of the Freedom Charter and 25 years sice the release of Mandela.

Understandably, huge controversy has surrounded the events.  Clearly, the EFF were wrong to try and disrupt the business of parliament and the speaker had to take some action to ensure the SONA could go ahead, but was she right to eject members raising points of order without first hearing their point?  Then comes the question of the security forces.  If they were police or private forces entering parliament to remove an entire opposition party, this constitutes a breach of the separation of powers required for a transparent democracy.  Note also that the entire EFF were removed though only a handful of individuals had been asked to leave by the speaker.  With the remaining opposition parties walking out, what kind of scrutiny does it offer to the South African people if only the governing party is present for such an important occasion?  And what about the signal blocker?  On whose authority was that installed and what information were they trying to contain?

Ultimately, media and political attention has focused on these issues rather than the content of the SONA.  With half of South African young people unemployed, the value of the rand sliding, protests against foreign shopkeepers in Soweto continuing, the University of KwaZulu Natal closed due to protests and enforced power cuts due to ramp up tomorrow, I would suggest that the people of South Africa deserve a democracy which holds the executive to account and that all parties and parliamentary authorities need to work together to achieve this.

Former President Thabo Mbeki said of the events, "We are elected by people who want to find solutions; all political parties need to discuss this.  You can't tell a person that you can't ask that question.  Don't use administrative problems to solve political problems.  You've got to confront the political elements and have a political engagement."

The blocking of communications and the use of armed forces to violently remove an entire opposition party cannot be allowed in a free, democratic society.  This, combined with an opposition unable to hold the executive to account, constitutes a real threat to democracy.

SONA: A show like no other

Okay, I'll admit it: I'm a bit of a political anorak.  My Sky+ planner is wall to wall political commentary, I never miss PMQs and a General Election means taking annual leave so that I can stay up all night to watch all the analysis.  Though much of it is derided as pointless theatre, the way politicians manouever themselves around various issues fascinates me.  It's much more interesting than any film.

At around 5pm GMT tonight, one of the most interesting speeches for a political anork will take place: South Africa's State of the Nation Address (SONA), the President's annual speech to the nation.  In addition to the overarching political climate, events of the last few days make this the most eagerly anticipated SONA since 1994 and the way President Zuma tackles it could be one of the most interesting pieces of posturing in global politics.

On the one hand, today's SONA comes just one day since South Africa marked 25 years since the release of Nelson Mandela, suggesting it should be a cause for celebration for the people in general and Zuma's ANC party in particular, however other things in the last week have not gone so well.

South Africa's economy continues to struggle, with the Rand slumping yesterday to a 12 year low and figures today showing a decline in the vital mining industry.  Perhaps as a result of economic conditions, huge rallies were held in Soweto today where African shopkeepers were campaigning against foreign (mostly Asian) shopkeepers being allowed to run their own business.  What began as meetings has developed into mass pickets that are forcing foregin shopkeepers to remain closed and making it impossible for them to leave their own home.  The ANC has been quick to condemn this, committed to its long-term stance of non-racialism.  25 years since apartheid began to fall, care must be taken that it is not built up again in other ways.

Meanwhile, due to maintenance and other problems at some major power stations, South Africa is not able to generate enough power to meet its needs, and the state energy provider Eskom has had to enforce planned power outages across the country over the last few days.  These are set to increase if a solution cannot be found.  Many businesses, including huge store chain Woolworths (more like M&S than the Woolworths we knew in the UK), have warned of the impact this will have on them and the economy.

The President himself is also under huge political pressure over the cost and transparency of "security upgrades" at his Nkandla home.  Will he tackle this head on in SONA or try to ignore the issue?  Some opposition politicians are threatening to break with convention and interrupt SONA if Zuma does not address the issue and it is a guarantee that this will be a hotly contested issue in the next elections.

Add this to the list of wider problems I raised in yesterday's blog post, and the President seems to be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to SONA.  How he will address the variety of issues facing the country and insipre hope and confidence among his people will be an interesting piece of political science.

But all is not grim for the President - despite the problems and controversies, the ANC remains popular and in a recent poll by Ipsos, 53% of South Africans agreed he was doing a good job of running the country.  Contrast that with any of the main political leaders in the UK who routinely run negative approval ratings and that seems rather good.

Watching the media build up to tonight's SONA, the atomsphere seems a mixture of red carpet glamour and volatile tension.  It's no wonder that national broadcaster SABC has dubbed SONA "a show like no other".

Madiba: 25 Years On

Nelson Mandela Square, Sandton, Johannesburg

Twenty-five years ago today, James "Buster" Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson to win the heavyweight boxing crown, Todd Eldredge won the US Male Figureskating Championship and East beat West 130-113 in the NBA All-Star Game.

I was just about to turn five, and was completely unaware of all of these things.  However, despite my young age, I was aware that there was a huge amount of excitement about a man being released from prison on the other side of the planet and that this happening was going to make the world a better place.  I remember watching TV reports showing the man and his wife walking hand and hand, their fists in the air in what I later learnt was the Amandla or power salute.  The man was, of course, Rolihlahla (better known as Nelson) Mandela.  As I grew up, my interest in this man and his country grew and grew and he came to have more and more of an influence on my life.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who places Mandela on some kind of saintly pedestal.  As I spend time in schools and see children learning about Mandela, one of my real frustrations is when they paint him as some kind of unerring pacifist, but this is far from the truth.  By his own admission, Mandela was no Gandhi - to him non-violence was not a moral principle but a tactic which should only be employed so long as it was useful.  Indeed, Mandela founded the "MK" - the militant wing of the freedom struggle.  However, it was Mandela's response to his release from prison that makes him something of a hero to me.

After 27 years of imprisonment, to emerge not only without bitterness or seeking revenge but to actively build peace, harmony and reconcilliation still blows my mind.  In his first speech as a free man, he quoted his own words from his trial in 1964:

"I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination.  I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live in harmony and with equal opportunities.  It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to achieve, but if needs be, it is an idea for which I am prepared to die."

Mandela spent the remaining years of his life, many of them as South Africa's elected president, trying to bring about this vision.  Nearly a quarter of a century later, we sat in Nelson Mandela Square in Sandton enjoying a meal and drinks surrounded by South Africans of every background, free from colour bars and all regarded as equals.  We watched black and white children playing together in school grounds and met many confident, empowered young people from all of South Africa's ethnic groups.  On the face of things, job done.

Or is it?  While apartheid seems a long time ago and South Africa enjoys a rich multiculturalism and a democracy open to all, there are clearly still remnants of old divisions.  Much of the service industry and most low-paid jobs are still occupied solely by black Africans, while much of South Africa's wealth still rests with the white community.  The dominance of the ANC in government has led many to distrust the authorities while corruption within the state seems commonplace.  Many townships are still languishing in poverty, and many are no-go areas for police making them hotbeds for violent crime.  The justice system is creaking, with delays so long in bringing some suspects to trial that witnesses can no longer remember what they witnessed.

Today, Kathadra, a fellow prisoner of Mandela, said, "It is disheartening and of great concern to me that, 25 years on, we still see blatant acts of racism being perpetrated.  We have made significant progress since 1994, but racism still lurks under the surface... It worries me when [young people] are being separated in classrooms based on race... We need to pay more attention to youth development so that young people can become agents of non-racialism."

Another of Mandela's comrades, Laloo Chiba, claimed to be "extremely disturbed to see that racial discrimination carries on in a big way.  I never thought that evidence of racism would be so rife 20 years after democracy."

25 years after the release of Madiba (to use his clan name), there is much to celebrate in what has been achieved in this wonderful country, but it is perhaps also an occasion to be reminded that the ideal which Mandela stood for has not yet been fully achieved and that we should all show something of Mandela's resolve and do all we can to fight injustice and its causes.

To quote Sello Hatang, CEO of the Nelson Mandela Foundation,

"Some of the responsibility that we carry most is that of reconcilliation, the issue of equality and also non-racialism.  Twenty-five years ago, we said we would build a non-racial society.  Are we there yet?  Madiba says that one question that should bother each one of us when we wake up in the morning is, 'Am I doing enough to help build a country of my dreams?'"