Rebuilding Credibility in the Commons

Once considered to be the epitome of class and justice, the House of Commons is going through a period of distrust and weakness. The MP expenses scandal has destroyed the credibility of the once hallowed institution. The Freedom of Information Act, ironically supported by Labour, has put another nail in the party's coffin. As the Metro reports,

An exclusive Metro/Harris poll of 2,081 people reveals that 52 per cent of those who voted Labour in 2005 are considering backing another party, compared with only 15 per cent of Conservatives who are thinking of defecting.

One in ten of those leaving Labour is planning to vote Conservative while one in five plans to support one of the minor parties.

After being the first Speaker in over 300 years to be forced from office, Michael Martin's successor reflects a change in the direction of the wind. John Bercow was elected with tri-partisan support. The new Speaker was once a far-right backbencher, who gradually became a social liberal, supporting gay rights and the legalization of cannabis. Although many in the Conservative Party believed he would defect to Labour following Gordon Brown's premiership, Bercow instead became an advisor for children with mental disorders to the new prime minister while remaining a Tory. John Bercow is now the only person to put the House of Commons in a good light.

After being confirmed by HM the Queen at 10:00 BST, Bercow was installed at the 157th Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker's first priority is clear: he must restore the credibility of the Commons in the eyes of the British people. Describing his obligation, Bercow furthers,

MPs felt very sore and very vulnerable in the wake of the expenses scandal. Large sections of the public also feel angry and disappointed. We do have to reform but I just want to say that I continue to believe that the vast majority of members of this House are upright, decent, honourable people who have come into politics, not to feather their nests, but because they have heeded the call of public service.

The test of his ability will be to follow through on such a precarious task. He is, however, the right person for the job. Unlike the U.S. Speaker of the House, the Commons Speaker must renounce all affiliation with his previous party. In his first address Bercow promised to "permanently to cast aside" his "previous political views." He received mild enthusiasm from the hardliner Conservatives. In general, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, and the Prime Minister all vowed to support him. Gordon Brown even jokingly says

It is said that you have now cast aside all your past political views - some of us thought you had done that some time ago.

Politcal choices aside, John Bercow's election, in addition to restoring the Commons' legitimacy, also has a major social implication. In a country that is almost 97% Anglican, Bercow is the first Jew to ever hold the office of Speaker. I find it incredibly ironic that the first election of a Jewish man to be the "First Commoner of the Land" occurred during an economic scandal.

While the election is the first step in the right direction, there has yet to be enough action in restoring the Commons' legitimacy. Even now, the more traditional House of Lords is more popular than the lower chamber. The new Speaker must change this.
He must show strength and control over the Commons, where Michael Martin revealed weakness and indecisiveness.

It seems now that the Honourable John Bercow has a difficult, but not impossible, task ahead of him.

The Collapse of the Middle East

Whenever the Middle East pops up, the average person immediately thinks of Israel, Afghanistan, or Iraq. This week, however, exposed the weakness of one of the most stable governments in the area, Iran. I have always admired the Islamic Republic of Iran for doing something that so few powers could accomplish--the amalgam of religion and secular rule. The harmony that has prevailed since the overthrow of the monarchy in 1979, however, appears to be on the verge of collapse.

The problem begins with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself. While the Supreme Leader maintains ultimate authority in terms of the military and foreign affairs, the president placed allies in key positions and offices in order to consolidate power. Because of his control and extremism, Ahmadinejad has isolated my generation from the older. The tension between young and old, religious and secular, is exploding. But as the Council on Foreign Relations notes,

The supreme leader's decision to delegate responsibility to the Guardian Council was classic Khamenei in the sense that he doesn't cede authority--the Guardian Council is essentially under his jurisdiction--but he buys time and deflects accountability. He was calculating that if he could buy time, the scale of these protests would gradually diminish. So far, that hasn't been the case. He may eventually be faced with a situation of whether to sacrifice President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose "reelection" he announced, or go down himself with the ship.

This places the all-powerful Khamenei in a precarious position. If he fails to establish the legitimacy of the elections, the country could split in two. Not only is this bad for the Iranians, it would further the chaos within the Middle East for the West. With Ahmadinejad in power, we had someone with whom we could negotiate--albeit not much. The Ayatollah controlled extremist groups that made him look like an Atheist. If he were to lose control of these elements, Western operations in the Middle East would be far worse than we could ever imagine. The Shi'ah element of Iran would support and ally with the Shi'ah in Iraq, furthering the religious schism there. OPEC could crumble without one of its key members maintaining stability.

The real question is: should the United States intervene? In order to maintain some semblance of legitimacy, the answer is no. This is an internal power struggle between the conservative status quo and more moderate reformers. Obama is now in a dangerous situation. He attacks Iranian leaders saying,

We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

The United States needs to back off. We cannot afford to get stuck in another power struggle. In the end, it is better for the West to have Ahmadinejad in power than to have a civil war.

The Start

Now that I'm going off to school, I figured a blog would be the best way to rant and communicate with people. I hope you enjoy any of my day-to-day commentaries along with my political rants.