Tales of the Decongested - Vol 1

Travelled to London last night to attend the booklaunch for the anthology of Tales of the Decongested.



The Tales are submitted by writers to the tales of the decongested website, www.decongested.com, every month. Paul Blaney and Rebekah Lattin-Rawstrone, the founders and organisers and lovers of short fiction, choose their favourites and the writers are invited to read on the last Friday of each month at Foyles in Charing Cross Road. I've read there twice and it's a terrific and invigorating evening, attended by an audience of enthusiasts of all ages. If you're in London on the last Friday of a month, it's well worth a little look. Anyway, Paul and Rebekah set up Apis Books, www.apisbooks.com with Justine Shaw and Don Nemer, and published the bullishly entitled Volume 1 of the Tales - 32 of their favourites from the first two years. Well done, the two of you - there should be more like you around!

So the book is now available to buy, for instance, from Amazon, say: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0955253802/026-1556620-8710038?v=glance&n=266239
I've got my copy and was reading it on the train back. It's an absorbing read. In addition, to celebrate the oral tradition of their venture, Apis Books have recorded the authors reading their work as downloads from their site. So if you want to have a listen, go to www.apisbooks.com/download/.

I'm tired today - but very stimulated. Maybe I'll manage actually to write something!

Back to Democracy...

So where was I? Oh yes.

Drawbacks of democratic government so far
1. elections
2. instability
3. short-termism
4. majority versus plurality.

So onwards:

5. Government by the people?
This one's the sensitive one. Every vote is equal. Every man and woman (with certain exceptions) has a right to a vote and all are equal. But the way in which the individual arrives at the decision as to which way to vote is by no means equal. In an ideal democratic society the Voter, keen as s/he is to cast his/her vote to the greatest benefit to the country, reads all the manifestos, watches all the party political broadcasts, goes to public meetings to hear their constituency candidates speak and then, armed with all the policy information, makes an informed vote. And indeed I would guess that this may be what happens in infant democracies.

But not here. Here, the Voter reads their preferred daily paper - the Sun, the Mirror, the Express, the Telegraph or whatever and, because their opinions probably chime broadly with what the viewpoint these organs espouse on most issues, goes with what they say. And that makes the most important decision-maker in any election campaign... the Sun, with a circulation figure (as of June 2005) of 3,363,375. And we all know how reliable they are (see my post about tabloid editors running the country). So who are all the parties schmoozing and keeping onside? The editor of the Sun. Close on their heels is the Daily Mail with 2,405,499. Now don't get me started on the Mail, the most bigoted, prissy organ beloved of fearful people who think they're a great deal cleverer than they are. (I rather like this little collection of snits, which sums up most of my thioughts on the subject: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=daily+mail) It's worse, IMHO, than the Sun.

The sales of the broadsheets, Times, FT, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, which actually feature in-depth analysis of issues and whose headlines are smaller and less strident; total little more than the readership of the Mail at 2,712,435.

So while that bit about democracy being a form of government ignoring hereditary class divisions is true, that doesn't mean that people are making up their own minds. The red-tops scream anecdotes about the state of the nation and never pause to consider the effect they will have long-term on the well-being of the country. Let's not forget that there is a vicious battle for market supremacy out there, and no one got poor by under-estimating the taste of the public. You might as well consult the Beano.

That Mme de Stael comment about democracy being "the triumph of the lowest common denominator" makes people all over the world spit with rage, but let's face it - the tabloid journalist reduces political analysis to precisely that. All opinions and policies are distilled down to the point where absolutely anyone with the most limited understanding can get what they're saying. It's their job and they're good at it, but a great deal of subtlety and boring analysis of long-term effects of social, political and econiomic effect is not going to make the cut.

There is more, but I'll save that for another day.

So what I am saying, for now, is that Democracy doesn't do what it says on the tin. That doesn't mean that it's not often the best compromise available, although I'm not even sure that that is always true, but let's not elevate it to some pseudo-religious crusade, because to pretend that it's ideal is at best disingenuous and at best criminally misleading. I would advance as further evidence of this the fact that George Bush, not known widely, I would suggest for his subtlety or incisive thinking, may disagree. There is a place in the world for feudal and tribal sociaties, although probably not in the western world where we have since the time of the ancient Greeks understood the concept of democracy. But can we at least consider the prevailing society before we try to shoehorn everyone in the world into an ill-fitting shoe?

a break from politics...

Part 2 of 'why democracy is not all good' follows soon, but I just realised I haven't introduced you to my family. So here are the kids and my Mum on her birthday.







Right - back to the serious stuff.

Democracy has its limits.

We tend to spout off a lot in the Western world about the great god Democracy, and for the most part all the spouting goes unchallenged. It is today's heresy to cast doubt on the status of Democracy as the only viable system of government, one which must be exported throughout the globe. When Democracy rules in all countries, then there will be no more war, there will be no disharmony and fluffy bunnies will sun themselves midst bright flowers on green hillocks.

You will not be surprised to learn that I have my doubts. Quite a lot, actually. And in so many areas that I can't cover them in one day.

The OED defines democracy as "government by all the people, direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views."

So far so good.

Let's take a look at the inherent problems of democracy in Western societies, and ignore for now the ravages which the ill-advised export of an unaccustomed socio-political system has wrought elsewhere in the world, notably in Africa.

1. Elections. Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE elections. I watch all the coverage of the local elections, the national elections, the US elections. I love politics and the election night is, in our system, the apogee of political excitement, the climax of the political affair. But because of this, a disproportionate amount of government/opposition time, money and energy is dispersed from the business of running the country into the struggle to retain/gain power. So those who dwell in the Houses of Lords of Commons over here, the Reichstag, the Senate and House of Representatives, the EC and wherever else, are not wholly engaged on the task for which we elected them, but are diverted to a greater or lesser degree, dependant on where we are in the term, by the business of getting us to elect them again. This disturbs me. It disturbs me that my taxes are diverted to this end. It disturbs me to an even greater degree that in some places there is no limit to the funds which they can raise to this end, which, logic reasons, means there is no end to the amount of time they can divert from the business of running the country to the business of getting elected.

2. Instability: The fact that we choose our leaders every four or five years, depending on your nation, means that democratic government is inherently unstable. It also means that our 'leaders' take enormous risks if they actually choose to LEAD rather than finding our what 'the people' (AKA 'the electorate') want, and giving it to them. Wise governments make unpopular decisions early in their terms and become more and more conciliatory as time goes by, until they are handing out freebies just before the elections. Oppositions, as the name suggests, must oppose, so every law passed by an incumbent government is met with assurances from the opposition that once in power they will rescind the law. Of course they don't always do so, but the danger is there taht they will do so just toprove how different they are. It is human nature to look at something that's not working and say "That's not working - change it," rather than "That's not working - let's let it bed down and see what happens." Four or five years is not enough time for major changes to bed down, which is why it is only strong leaders such as Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair who have the confidence to make them. The more unpopular the outgoing government, the easier it is for the incoming to set off in an opposite direction, daring to expect that they will be given the benefit of time. Interestingly, it is those bold firework leaders who carry their people with them on a crusade who last longer, although they eventually splutter and fall.

3. Short-termist: Since, for instance, a child's term in full- time education is equal to two and a half British electoral terms, one can assume that the curriculum he or she started out with will not be the same one they end up working from and the school system itself may be startlingly different. Education is only one of the political footballs which is kicked around political fields; health, law and order and defence are just some of the other crucial issues which are, in any democratic society, almost certain not to be got right. You CANNOT, as every party claims 'ensure' that 'every child has the education to which they are entitled', 'everyone has the right to healthcare free at the point of delivery', 'everyone must feel safe in their own homes and on their streets' along with all the other fatuous statements, by changing all the laws. In the life of a nation four years is a gnat's breath and history judges failure harshly. Who could accurately predict history's consensus on Margaret Thatcher in 1979, or even 1983?

4. Majority versus plurality: Unfortunately democracy is not 'government by all the people', not even close. It's not even government by majority, but government by plurality. A proper majority would mean that the number votes gained by one party exceeds the total number of votes gained by all the others put together. Compare that with the 35.19% of the votes cast to win Labout their last electoral term. And this with a turnout on the day of only 61.36%. All that you need is to get more people to put vote for you than for each of the other parties. So we are being governed by a party voted in by just over 25% of the people. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

... I haven't finished. I have to go and walk the dogs, so I'll carry on my rant later... If you want to disagree violently with me, please wait until I've finished my arguments!

If tabloid editors ran the country...

I listened to a piece on the radio seriously debating whether it would be a good thing if tabloid editors ran the country. Well, let's think about this... Er, no. But that's just me, and I think one of the prerequisites for the job of runner of the country is the ability to think beyond next week's recycling box, another is principle and a third is the determination to lead for the common good and not pander to the kneejerk reflex of the majority. Perhaps I'm something of an intellectual snob. No actually, I know I am. Let's not be so dismissive.

So what did the tabloids ever do for us? Let's have a little think. A few spring to mind...

From the Sun, the immortal "GOTCHA!" when 'our boys' sunk the Argentinian ship the General Belgrano in the course of the Falklands War. When it became clear how many Argentinians had died, the headline was replaced the next day by "ALIVE! HUNDREDS OF ARGIES SAVED FROM ATLANTIC!" Never mind about the 368 who died.

Kelvin Mackenzie, the then editor of the Sun and genius behind these was recalled at the time by Roy Greenslade who worked at the paper.

"MacKenzie, convinced that he was properly articulating his readers' views, was unconcerned. He even laughed off Private Eye's spoof Sun headline, "KILL AN ARGIE AND WIN A METRO", joking: "Why didn't we think of that?" "

Nice.

The Sun was also responsible for:

"THE TRUTH" headline followed by a number of statements about what Liverpudlians are upposed to have done during the Hillsborough tragedy where 730 people were injured and 96 died. (urinating on bodies, picking pockets of victims, beating up police). All these turned out to be lies.

The News of the World, in the wake of the tragic murder of seven year-old Sarah Payne by a paedophile whose path she had the misfortune to cross, launched a name and shame campaign, picturing convicted paedophiles on their front pages. This launched a frenzy of attacks, many on people who looked like the depicted offenders. In one attack which would be comic were it not so scary, a paediatrician was attacked by someone who couldn't spell.

And naturally, many of those pictured went to ground where the police couldn't keep track of them. Result.

Why would anyone think this is a good idea? Because some people think that if most of the people believe something, it is therefore necessarily right. I don't. But that's something I'm going to continue tomorrow when I have the time to do it justice, under the headline "Democracy has limits". There - if anyone reads this I bet they'll have something to say about that, even before I write my piece.

Being good means being imperfect

I just came back from a weekend away with my friend Denise. We were shopping and, as it happened, escaping the world cup. Cheltenham was full of women. Women on their own, shopping in that very focussed way that the truly committed shopper has; women in pairs, like us, walking and talking at the same time and still managing to pick things out for ourselves and each other (we can do that, boys, we're female); and gangs of women of all ages, hen parties of twenty-somethings and raucous covens in their sixties. It was wonderful - such a sense of unspoken camaraderie. A glorious day, the cafe terraces were all full of women in sunglasses smiling and laughing. Occasionally a collective Aaaah! or OOOOoooooh! would emanate from the door of a dark and smoky pub and you could feel all the women congratulating each other for being female and out in the sunshine, rather than male and festering in a dingy, odoriferous cavern, peering over a hundred bald pates through a fug of smoke at a tiny, grainy TV screen.

And in the evening we went back to our hotel (weekend deal), had a great meal, laughed, drank loads of wine, laughed and carried on talking. And probably being slightly indiscreet and drinking and smoking too much and not worrying too much about it. Talked so much, indeed, that when we asked the waiter the time, he reported it was three in the morning. What a result! We had one more drink and hurried to bed, still laughing.

On the Sunday we found a spot by the river near a pub, had lunch, drank soft drinks (teeny hangoverette) and read the papers for hours until the wind picked up, then went to Hay-on-Wye, browsed the second-hand book shops in amicable silence, picked up a few books and headed home.

All in all a brilliant weekend.

It made me think about laughter in life. I notice that it is with others of their own gender that people really loosen up and laugh. I love Martin, but he and I never laugh in that side-splitting, jaw-stretching, disabling way that I laugh with my friends. I doubt that I raise the same responses in him as a really beery night in the pub with the 'boys' (all of whom are in their forties) can loose. People need to be with their own gender - they are liberated by their sameness, by the lack of confusion and suspicion that the opposite sex engenders. And if I'm anything to go by, when they are restored to their families, they feel fond, their affection and intimacy renewed by a little bit of rope, and by a sliver of guilt that we might, possibly, have spilled more beans that was entirely a good thing...

Bulgaria and other considerations

We got back from a holiday in Bulgaria at the weekend.

I'll just let you digest that for a moment.

....

It was an organised group that we were part of. Last year the same group went to Croatia. I had very little knowledge or expectation of anywhere in Eastern Europe so I was blown away by Croatia and the Croatians, who couldn't have been more charming and welcoming. They've had a shocking past, and one so recent that you are aware that every transaction you conduct is with someone who has first-hand experience of the horrors of war. In Dubrovnik, where we were based, we visited a museum of war photography (www.warphotoltd.com) which chronicled the recent, troubled and troubling past, which sent us back to the cocktail bar chastened. Many of those images stay with me still.

I know little about Bulgaria. I know that they elected their king as Prime Minister a few years back. I know that there has been quite a lot of deforestation. I know that back in the 70s a Bulgarian dissident called Georgi Markov was assassinated in London with a poison-tipped umbrella. So not much then.

So I was open-minded and expectant. But Bulgaria is very... different. Bulgaria was a tourist mecca for Communists all over the eastern bloc after Stalin imposed travel restrictions in 1948, as it was one of the few warm coasts to which they had access. So really, until the effective demise of the Warsaw pact, they probably didn't have to try too hard. And, dare I say, it still shows a teeny-weeny bit. Now I have to state that I've googled quite a bit on this subject and most people are very pleased by their Bulgarian experiences, and indeed we did come across some charming people, but by and large I found myself confronted with an attitude of defensive resentment.

People harassed us in the street to come and eat in their restaurant. Being a friendly sort of chap I was very nice and smiley in response to this, even though I found it deeeply irritating. But then one woman approached me and fixed me with an unsmiling gaze as she said "You must come to eat in my restaurant - you promised." "No, I didn't." I said, smile gone. She stared me in the eye for a moment as if she would like to hit me, then she shrugged and said "It's your decision." "Yes," I said, "it is." In shops people would rush up and hold up objects or press clothing against me. And really, it wasn't my kind of kit. They were almost friendly until it became clear that we weren't going to buy, at which point they became actively rude, turning their backs. If a shop didn't have what I was looking for and I asked the shopkeeper where I could find it, in all but one case they said "No idea" or gave me a shrug to that effect. No matter that they weren't losing out. Guess where I spent my leva.

And then a taxi driver charged me for a two minute journey what I'd spent in total for a bra, some toys, a coffee, sun-tan lotion, juice and two pairs of flip-flops. I was spitting with rage when I questioned him and he was borderline aggressive in response. Of course he gets this reaction about a dozen times a day so he's used to it. It didn't occur to him that he could charge half the fare, smile, give me his card and get thirty fares out of me. But no - he drives everybody once. After that we used taxis sanctioned by the hotel and happily spent a fortune on them.

My impression was that they hadn't passed the point of exploiting tourists rather than nurturing them. Many of the people we had dealings with are still grasping for that extra buck NOW rather than investing for the future. A straw poll on the plane revealed that there were very few tourists who would return. One man said "I'll wait until they've learned to smile."

However, there are lovely beaches, the local fish is delicious and cheap and the hotel was fine, if a bit like a holiday camp. Many of the younger people are much more open and friendly and I think it's a place on the up. Investors are buying up flats and apartments while they're still dirt cheap and while this means that at the moment places like our resort look like massive building sites, there will be great benefit to the local economy and they will raise their game to the higher demands of Western tourists.

And then I'll go back.