Aidan Rylatt writes:
Two separate stories that have dominated the media over
the past few weeks, on either side of the Atlantic, have been instructive in
highlighting the subtle ways in which our political leaders are influenced by
the company they keep – and why this has led to such a big divide between them
and those they are supposed to serve.
In
the US, Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny over speeches she gave to
banks, including Goldman Sachs, in return for six figure sums.
Bernie Sanders,
her rival for the Democratic nomination in the Presidential race, has stepped
up his attacks on Clinton over the issue.
In
a televised debate ahead of this week’s New York primaries, Sanders was asked
by debate moderator Dana Bash to ‘name one decision that she made as senator
that shows that she favoured banks because of the money she received’.
In
his response, Sanders referred somewhat vaguely to the lack of action to deal
with the ‘fraudulent operators’ responsible for the 2008 financial collapse.
To
Clinton, this was proof that she had done no wrong: ‘he cannot come up with an
example, because there is no example’.
While
this has been questioned — Senator Elizabeth Warren alleged in
2004 that Clinton had been
directly influenced in a Senate vote by corporate money — asking
for a specific example largely misses the point about the way big corporations
exert influence on political decision-makers.
Rather
than Clinton being influenced by a suitcase full of money with a list of
instructions at the bottom, influence is applied far more subtly.
Quite simply,
when you spend most of your time rubbing shoulders with financiers, chief
executives and other millionaires — and when they become the people you
most readily identify with — you are more likely to share their
views.
Responding
to the Goldman Sachs speech controversy, Clinton asked, ‘Why is there one
standard for me, and not for everybody else?’
But
everybody else doesn’t get
paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak to a room of Gordon Gekkos for a
couple of hours.
Bernie Sanders doesn’t. Ordinary American workers don’t.
Sure,
she was referring to other politicians who have received similar sums for
private speeches – but to ignore legitimate questions about how her decisions
as President would be affected by her close relationship with banks by saying
‘well, other people do it too’ is simply not a valid response.
Which
brings us to the UK’s related story.
The leaked Panama Papers showing that
David Cameron benefitted from money held offshore by his father didn’t expose
any illegal activity by him or his father.
But
it did further highlight just how different Cameron’s life is to the vast
majority of the British citizens he is supposed to represent.
As Frankie Boyle
wrote in a recent Guardian article on the subject, where he wrote: ‘Politics is full of people
who don’t know the price of a pint of milk but do understand the incorporation
of a shell company. Why wouldn’t they have a trust in Panama?’
And,
one might add, why would clamping down on tax avoidance be a priority for
Cameron when he’s grown up seeing it as an acceptable form of financial
management?
It
is important to highlight the fact that the Panama Papers exposed far worse
wrongdoing by other political leaders: the revelations about the financial
affairs of close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Pakistani
President Nawaz Sharif, for example, show what real corruption looks like.
I’d
rather live in the UK or the US, where there are at least reasonable checks and
balances on our political leaders than one, like Russia, where its President can
take vast sums of money from
public reserves and
prevent the media from reporting it.
But
just because the political systems in the UK and the US are better than in other
countries, doesn’t mean we have to settle for it.
After all, we live in a
country where a minister was discovered to be secretly handing information to
a private company he was supposed to be regulating, and actually ended up being promoted.
We
live in a country where politicians are quite happy to spend billions of pounds
to rescue banks (the kind of people they socialise with), but show reluctance to
offer any help to steelworkers (the kind of people they don’t encounter so
often).
The stories about Clinton and
Cameron don’t show them to be corrupt politicians.
But they do show that it’s a
problem when our politicians are too close to bankers and chief executives (the
one per cent, to use the language of Bernie Sanders) and too far removed from the
lives of ordinary citizens.
We need to talk more about the
political funding system, the lack of politicians from lower income
backgrounds, and the ‘revolving door’ that sees ex-politicians move seamlessly
into top business positions.
Until we do, disaffection,
distrust and outright hostility will continue to characterise the relationship
between politicians and the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment