Saturday, July 06, 2024

Christians Face ‘Devastating’ Persecution Under Pakistani Blasphemy Laws, Expert Says

Several mobs attacked Christian communities and set fire to several churches Aug. 16, 2023, in the town of Jaranwala, in Pakistan’s Faisalabad district, after two Christians were accused of defiling the Quran. | Credit: Photo courtesy of Aid to the Church in Need International


By 

By Kate QuiƱones


A Catholic leader has called for an end to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, telling EWTN this week that the accused in such cases are “guilty before even [having] an opportunity to prove themselves.” 

A court in Punjab recently sentenced Ehsan Shan to death for sharing “hateful content” against Muslims on social media. 

Last year, when locals said that two Christian men desecrated the Quran, groups of Muslim men burned dozens of homes and churches in Jaranwala in the region of Punjab in one of the worst mob attacks against Christians in the country. 

Ed Clancy, the director of outreach at the charity group Aid to the Church in Need, told “EWTN News Nightly” anchor Tracy Sabol on Wednesday that after the attacks, Shan “posted some of the content of what was available on social media” regarding the allegations, including allegedly an image of a defaced Quran.

“Because he posted derogatory material that was alleged to be part of this uprising or the attacks on Christians last year — where 20 some odd buildings were burned and hundreds of people and families had to flee their homes because of it — all he did was post something about this and therefore was considered causing violence [and] was convicted of blasphemy,” Clancy told Sabol. 


Shan’s lawyer said on Monday that he will appeal the verdict, AP News reported. When asked if it is possible that Shan could successfully get an appeal if there is international outcry, Clancy noted that most of these blasphemy rulings get “thrown out” after an appeal.

“That’s usually because the first level of verdict is all just about appeasing the crowds and the mobs,” he explained. “Then when it goes up the chain, eventually the truth comes out.”

“Unfortunately for the poor Christians, this is devastating,” Clancy said. “They could spend years in prison fighting crimes that they didn’t commit.”

Clancy argued that foreign leaders haven’t come out as strongly as they should against such laws.

“What needs to happen is organizations, as well as countries, have to speak out about this,” he said. “First of all, to get rid of the blasphemy laws. Secondly, there should be equal justice. You can’t have situations where people are accused and they’re guilty before even [having] an opportunity to prove themselves.”

Clancy noted that these blasphemy accusations happen several dozen times per year. 

“Oftentimes, though, what’s equally as dangerous is just the mere specter of being accused,” he noted. “There are people who have told us that they are told that ‘If you do anything against me, we will accuse you of blasphemy.’”

“They know that once that accusation happens, they’re guilty until they’re proven innocent,” he continued. “They have to live under that fear and almost acquiesce to the wishes of those who make these threats against them.”

Clancy noted the example of Asia Bibi, who was sentenced to death and ultimately spent almost a decade in prison after she drank from a glass that was supposed to be for Muslim women.

“She spent nine-plus years in prison,” Clancy said. “Her baby daughter essentially grew up not near her, and she had to flee the country along with her family.”

A peaceful protest against Shan’s death sentence took place in the southern port city of Karachi on Tuesday, with Christian leader Luke Victor calling for his release. 

Bishop Samson Shukardin, president of Pakistan’s Catholic bishops’ conference, meanwhile, called the ruling, “very, very painful” in an interview with Aid to the Church in Need. 




CNA
The Catholic News Agency (CNA) has been, since 2004, one of the fastest growing Catholic news providers to the English speaking world. The Catholic News Agency takes much of its mission from its sister agency, ACI Prensa, which was founded in Lima, Peru, in 1980 by Fr. Adalbert Marie Mohm (†1986).




WOMAN, LIFE, FREEDOM

A Grand Bargain with the Taliban in Doha

The Taliban certainly need to be engaged. But it can’t be at the cost of the rights of women and girls.


By Shanthie Mariet D’Souza
July 05, 2024

A march for the rights of Afghan women and girls in London, U.K., Nov. 27, 2022
.Credit: Flickr/ Garry Knight

On July 2, a day after the two-day U.N.-convened meeting on Afghanistan ended in Doha, a side meeting was organized in the same venue. Eight people, representing Afghan women and civil society groups, participated. This appeared to be a conciliatory gesture by the U.N. after it excluded women and civil society groups from the main meeting. Strangely, however, it withheld the names of the participants of this rendezvous, thereby inviting criticism from larger Afghan groups that the people who attended were Taliban supporters.

In line with such an allegation, Madina Mahboobi, who identified herself as one of the participants, tweeted about the points she raised in the meeting. She claimed to have called for engaging the Taliban and looking beyond the “political agenda” of an inclusive government in Afghanistan. Her prescription for a peaceful solution to the “Afghan crisis” is “engagement and dialogue” with the Taliban. She said that the issue of “girls’ education and human rights” are agendas being run by “actors outside Afghanistan.”

Mahboobi is seen as a Taliban sympathizer by some and claims to head an NGO in Afghanistan, which she does not name. She has nevertheless addressed U.N. meetings, previously calling for recognizing the Taliban regime and has been criticized within the country for her views that endorse restrictive policies on women. Her inclusion in the side meeting is viewed by other excluded women groups as the U.N. reaffirming its altered position on how to break the Afghan deadlock.

Not surprisingly, Doha 3 was a fruitless endeavor, just like its two previous episodes in May 2023 and February 2024. However, while in prior instances the U.N. could claim to have held on to its principled position on women’s rights, this time around it was seen as a surrender. The U.N. went against its principled stand, its 2021 description of the curtailment of women’s rights as “gender-based apartheid,” and that of its own secretary-general to ensure that the Taliban’s conditions for attending the meeting were met and that no Afghan civil society and women groups came face to face with the Taliban in Doha. Consequently, the meeting provided a Taliban team, headed by its spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid, with a global platform to assert the unrecognized regime’s regressive views.

Curiously, the meeting’s agenda included governance and counternarcotics, areas where the Taliban repeatedly claim to be performing exceptionally. Mujahid topped it up by calling for the lifting of sanctions on the regime and asked the Western countries to engage with the regime following the examples of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan. He didn’t touch upon the issue of women’s rights, although in the past he has described the Taliban policies on them as an internal issue of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a signatory to several international treaties that guarantee human rights for women and girls, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). However, these were signed by the deposed Republican government and the Taliban supposedly do not consider these commitments binding. What is more troubling is that the Taliban seems to have found a way to circumvent the attention on its regressive policies and condescending attitude toward women’s rights, which disturbingly includes sexual violence against women activists, by leveraging its attendance at the U.N. meeting.

Hundreds of women and girls including a woman activist whom the Taliban gang-raped within the confines of a prison have been forced to leave the country. They now raise their voices from the safety of the third countries. Thousands of others, however, haven’t been able to escape and are being forced to reconcile with the reality in Afghanistan. This includes Frozan Ahmadzai, who aspired to be a doctor but is forced to sew clothes and make pickles from a basement in Kabul. Irrespective of what the U.N.’s considerations are for sidelining Afghan women, the yearning for the restoration of women’s rights within Afghanistan remains as strong as ever, braving great odds and repugnant Taliban violence.

Contrary to what Mahboobi termed as “external actor sponsored,” the demand to take these issues seriously is spearheaded by Afghan women of all hues both inside and outside the country. Take, for example, the WomanPost movement launched on February 11, 2024, to use the influence of public figures for achieving gender equality in Afghanistan. Incorporating celebrities, public figures, sports athletes, human rights activists, journalists, and artists, WomanPost aims to support Afghan women and promote gender equality. Clearly, whether a woman who is advocating for gender equality is inside Afghanistan or outside is no criterion for trivializing a crucial issue that affects 50 percent of the Afghan population.

The U.N. still provides significant sums of financial assistance to Afghanistan and runs projects that benefit Afghans. Mujahid’s statement in Doha summed up the hunger of the Taliban regime for global recognition. It is surprising, therefore, that no attempts are being made to leverage that desire to make the regime bend backward. The Taliban certainly need to be engaged. But it can’t be at the cost of the rights of women and girls. The U.N. has missed the bus by excluding them from the agenda while engaging the Taliban in Doha on their terms. It’s time that the U.N. rediscovers its purpose next time around with a clearly crafted strategy and road map for the inclusion of women and other groups in such meetings.

Is Afghanistan Once Again Becoming A Battleground For Major Powers? – OpEd

Afghanistan map location

Why is Afghanistan always in trouble?

By 

The sufferings of Afghanistan in the distant past and current difficulties are in large measure the product of its geographical location combined with its mines and minimal wealth, water resources, and mostly due to their constant internal conflicts. These factors have resulted in a troubled history since the beginning and produced a venerable state Afghanistan open to meddling from a range of external powers. 


Neville Teller, a graduate of Oxford University has rightly summed up Afghanistan. According to him, certain areas of the world, simply on account of their geographical location, seem destined to be perpetual trouble spots. One such unhappy country is Afghanistan. Because of its position plumb in the middle of central Asia, Afghanistan is a prize that has been fought over and won by foreign occupiers many times in its long history. Its domestic story is equally turbulent, with warring tribes battling it out over the centuries for power and control. 

Recorded history tells us that Afghans have been engaged with external enemies to protect themselves and their land for the last five thousand years. The Afghans have faced more invasions on their land than any other people in the world. Whether they were Greeks, Kushans, Mongols, Turks, white Huns, Persians, Mughals, and especially the British imperial forces in the nineteenth century after Afghans achieved unity first under the command of Mirwais Hotak, who successfully revolted against the Safavids in the city of Kandahar in 1707, and later on by the young Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747. The geography of Afghanistan at that time extended up to Isfahan present-day Iran including most of present-day Pakistan and emerged on the world map as an independent nation in the early 18th century.

Geo-strategic location and importance of Afghanistan 

Afghanistan has been at the heart of networks: a roundabout, a place of meetings, civilizations, religions, cultures, and of course, armies’ traders and pilgrims. Centuries on, Afghanistan enjoys the same status as the principal connector of the North and South and the East and West.   It sits at the heart of Central Asia, at the meeting point of ancient trade routes – known together as “The Silk Road” – that goes out to all parts of Asia.

Due to its geostrategic importance, Afghanistan faced the outrage of British imperialism when the First Anglo-Afghan War was fought between them in the year 1838 to 1842. The second Anglo-Afghan War from 1878 to 1880 resulted in the division of Afghanistan for the first time in history and the Durand Line was drawn which is now the 2,640-kilometer border between Afghanistan and Pakistan since 1947.

The famous great game was too played on Afghan land earlier by Great Britain and Russia in the nineteenth century and reached its climax when two superpowers Former Soviet Union and America in the twentieth century fought there. 


The strategic importance of its water resources

The strategic potential of Afghanistan’s water assets are five noteworthy river basins – Kabul, Helmand, and western flowing rivers, Hari Rod and Murghab, northern flowing rivers, and Amu Darya (Oxus river) – make up the surface water assets of Afghanistan, all of which are flowing to the neighboring countries. Afghanistan is the upstream riparian to these river basins which flow into Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Together, these river basins contribute a total of 57 BCM (billion cubic meters) of water, which will make Afghanistan the epicenter of external powers to influence their internal situation and external relations.

The strategic importance of mine and mineral resources

According to Christopher Wnuk, an American geologist, “I have never seen anything like Afghanistan. It may very well have the most mineralized place on Earth. 

Further, the United States Pentagon Task Force on Business and Stability Operations dubbed the country the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”. A year later, the US Geological Survey said in a study that Afghanistan “could be considered as the world’s recognized future principal source of lithium”. By 2040, the demand for lithium could rise 40-fold as the world’s use of electric vehicles increases.

Afghanistan’s huge and largely untapped mineral wealth is also a huge attraction for international and regional players. Furthermore, the global electrification drive through the electric vehicle (EV) industry, has intensified the race between China and the US, to secure lithium, a vital component in EV batteries. Afghanistan’s estimated lithium reserves are pegged at around 2.3 million tons, making it a highly coveted prospect for countries vying for dominance in the clean energy sector. 

China’s growing presence in Afghanistan’s mining sector has generated geopolitical concerns for the US and other European countries. The United States, another major player in the EV market, views China’s involvement as a strategic threat, potentially leading to heightened competition for Afghan resources. This scenario has led both countries to influence the Taliban regime, aggravating the existing tensions and realignments of inter state relations in the region. The neighboring countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Russia have therefore been drawn into the troubled waters. The exacerbating regional tensions along with several other factors could influence the future trajectory of this geopolitical landscape in the region.

The Wakhan Corridor has great Geo-strategic and geo-economic significance for Afghanistan, China, and Pakistan. The opening of this corridor has resulted in serious implications for regional and global players involved in Afghanistan, especially India and the US on the one hand, China Pakistan Iran, and Russia on the other hand. 

Such competition of the major players to increase their presence and influence through their proxies and client states is turning Afghanistan again into a battlefield and the fallout of such a situation definitely will be on Pakistan including other neighboring countries.

Taliban-2 versus regional and international powers 

After over four decades of unrest and turmoil in the war-ravaged Afghanistan, international and regional powers, which in the past competed for influence in Afghanistan, developed minimum consensus on the future of Afghanistan when the US-led foreign forces left the region soon after the US-Taliban Doha Agreement.

The US, China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, and other key stakeholders pledged that the Afghan Taliban government would get recognition only after they met some conditions, of the formation of an inclusive government, respecting human and women rights and denying use of Afghan soil by terrorist groups.

For this purpose, a lot of diplomatic activity about Afghanistan — internationally and at regional level — has been underway. After the Taliban re-entered Afghanistan all those efforts have not been fruitful to make the Taliban to remove the international concerns. 

Present situation in Afghanistan 

Though Taliban 2.0 has brought peace to Afghanistan but the country is facing socio-economic, political military, and diplomatic chaos and uncertainty. On the internal front, there is a trust deficit between the Kabul-based Taliban leadership led by Haqqani and the Taliban leadership based in Kandahar. Hardliner factions vie for a conservative and introverted model of governance of the 1990s while moderates aspire for an inclusive approach as per the expectations of the rest of the world. The control over resource-rich regions is another reason for the internal strife of the Taliban! which has provided an opportunity to the major players to intervene in the country’s internal affairs.

Therefore, the US and Pakistan blame Afghanistan that despite Taliban commitment to the Doha agreement, it has become a hotbed of terrorist organizations like (TTP), Al-Qaeda in Subcontinent (AQIS), Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Islamic State of Khorasan (IS-K). Both claim that these terrorist outfits are posing a serious threat to Pakistan, and US interests in the region. Pakistan blames TTP for carrying out cross-border attacks into Pakistan from their safe havens in Afghanistan. 

A US State Department strategy paper released earlier this year cautioned US policymakers about the growing influence of its rivals — China, Russia, and Iran — in Afghanistan. The strategy paper advocated preserving the US interests and not letting its adversaries take a foothold in Afghanistan. This shows the growing tension between the two rivals pushing Afghanistan into another war theatre.

Recently, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United Nations, conveyed to the UN Security Council: the Taliban government in Afghanistan has failed to fulfill its promises to curb cross-border terrorism by (TTP), followed by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif in an interview with Voice of America said Islamabad could strike terror havens in Afghanistan and it would not be against international law since Kabul had been “exporting” terrorism to Pakistan and the “exporters” were being harbored there by the Taliban government.

Furthermore, soon after announcement of Operation Azm-e-Istehkam against the terrorist outfits within and out side the country, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, told Washington that “we need sophisticated small arms and communication equipment to oppose and dismantle terrorist networks.” 

On the other hand, most recently the Russian president Vladimir Putin in an interview referred to the Taliban which governs Afghanistan, as an, “ally” in fight against terrorism.

Further, the impact of India, China, and Russia on Afghanistan depends on their strategic, economic, and security objectives. The trajectory of their bilateral relationship with Afghanistan will significantly shape the geopolitical dynamics in the region leading to Afghanistan toward another battlefield for the major players in the region.

How can the grime situation in the region be addressed to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a battleground again?

One thing must be clear to everyone particularly to Pakistan that Auckland manifest never worked in the distant past nor will work in the future. Afghanistan is a sovereign state that cannot be anybody’s backyard. Pakistan being an immediate neighbour must let Afghanistan be. The Afghans can decide to befriend whomever they want. Pakistan should not dictate Afghanistan in their internal and external relations, particularly about India. In case Pakistan feels threatened by TTP, it safeguards its interests from our side of the border, not through proxies. Pakistan must tell Afghanistan clearly that it will not become a frontline state again.

Major players should be competitors rather than rivals in Afghanistan. They can harvest the dividends of Afghanistan’s geo-strategic, and geo-economic resources once all of them agree to accept the sovereignty of and non interferences in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. Otherwise, as proven by the last two countries’ history, no one can take benefit of and can’t dream to serve or save their interests in the region, particularly in Afghanistan. Afghan security must be secure in an indigenous recipe to reap the benefits of economic development and regional connectivity.

Since the Taliban for the moment is now a reality in Afghanistan and no alternative is in hand, their alienation will be counterproductive, therefore, the international community, and its neighbors, particularly Pakistan should find a political settlement with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Engagement with the Taliban rather than pushing them to the wall will pave the way toward amicable settlements of the ongoing controversies with them. 

On the other hand, the ball is in the Taliban court, they must address international concerns by improving human rights credentials, particularly concerning women’s rights particularly education and health and respect for and implementing the Doha agreement in its entirety. 

Take immediate practical and sincere steps to engage Afghan leadership and civil society living within and abroad for intra-Afghan dialogue to settle constitutional, political economic reforms, institution reorganization and to provide a level playing field to Afghans for their representation in the governance system. In the Afghan context- calling a true representative Grand Jirga to decide the future course of action for a peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan. Otherwise Taliban single-handedly will not cater to internal and external challenges and the ultimate results definitely will be plunging Afghanistan into another battlefield leading to uncertainty and destruction of the country.



Sher Khan Bazai is a retired civil servant, and a former Secretary of Education in Balochistan, Pakistan. He can be reached at skbazai@hotmail.com.

 

Panda Fu Bao reunites with her Korean caretaker

Posted July. 06, 2024 07:42,   

Updated July. 06, 2024 07:42


"I feel very relieved after seeing the environment Fu Bao is living in," said Chul-won Kang, a zookeeper at Everland, Korea's major amusement park, who is affectionately known as Fu Bao's "grandpa." Mr. Kang met with Fu Bao in China after a three-month separation since her transfer. Samsung C&T Resorts business section announced on July 5 that Mr. Kang visited China's Wolong Giant Panda Reserve for two days to spend time with the beloved panda.

During his visit, Kang toured the area where Fu Bao resides and called out to her, engaging in warm interactions. Fu Bao reportedly responded to Kang's voice and approached him, indicating she may have recognized her former caretaker.

The reunion occurred 92 days after Fu Bao's departure to the panda reserve on April 3, 2024. Fu Bao completed her quarantine and adjustment periods in China over approximately two months and was introduced to the outside yard for regular visitors on June 12.

Born on July 20, 2020, Fu Bao was the first panda born through natural breeding in Korea and became immensely popular and cherished by the public. Her parents, Le Bao, and Ai Bao, along with her twin siblings, Rui Bao, and Hui Bao, still reside at Everland.


ģ“ėƼģ•„ źø°ģž omg@donga.com
Barzani’s Visit to Baghdad Angers Pro-Iran Factions

KDR; RIGHT WING BARZANI CRIME FAMILY 


Iraqi PM Mohammed Shia al-Sudani receives leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) Masoud Barzani in Baghdad. (Iraqi government media)

Baghdad: Hamza Mustafa
-5 July 2024 AD Ł€ 29 Thul-Hijjah 1445 AH


The visit by leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) Masoud Barzani angered pro-Iran Shiite factions that claimed the trip reflects the United States’ role in the country.


For two days, he held talks with government officials and senior leaders, with the media reporting that the Kurdish leader resolved several pending problems between Baghdad and Erbil.

Barzani said the visit sought to consolidate the efforts exerted by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani to resolve disputes between the federal government in Baghdad and the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.

Political sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the meetings in Baghdad closed the chapter of deep disputes between Baghdad and Erbil.

They added however that “talk of permanent solutions depends on mutual commitments.”

Deputy parliamentary speaker Shakhoun Abdullah said Barzani’s visit paved the way for a new phase and aimed “to activate agreements, bolster cooperation and unify visions between parties of the political process.”

Local media said Barzani sought to discuss with leaders of the pro-Iran Coordination Framework the danger of “becoming involved in the escalation in the region, such as a potential war” between Lebanon and Israel.

Iraqi journalists quoted political sources as saying that Barzani met with leaders of Shiite parties to discuss American warnings of sanctions should Baghdad fail in containing the activities of the factions in the region.

Bangen Rekani, Iraqi Minister of Construction and leading member of the KDP, denied the reports.

Prominent Sunni politician Mashaan al-Jabouri said Barzani did not carry any American messages, but “expressed his personal concerns over the expansion” of the conflict in Gaza to the region.

Barzani made his statements in his capacity as a political leader, he remarked.

Despite the denials, Kataib Hezbollah military spokesman Abou Ali al-Askari criticized Barzani, saying it “reflects America’s role in the Iraqi political arena.”

“We believe that exerting pressure on American interests, especially organizations that claim to play a political role – even though they are involved in espionage – will be determined at the right time,” he added in a statement.

Notably present at the meetings Barzani held in Baghdad were leaders of some armed factions, such as Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada head Abu Ala al-Walai and Asaib Ahl al-Haq head Qais al-Khazali.

In contrast to the positions of the armed factions, Iranian ambassador to Iraq Mohammed Kazem al-Sadeq, who met Barzani, said: “Iran’s relations with the Kurdistan Region are old and deep-rooted and they are being strengthened.”

When Are You Going To Get A Proper Job?: Sixty Years In Journalism, The World Was My Oyster – New Book

"When Are You Going To Get A Proper Job?: Sixty Years In Journalism, The World Was My Oyster," by Jonathan Power

By 

Journalist Jonathan Power has a new book, scheduled for release in October. A foreign affairs journalist for 60 years, Jonathan Power is a renowned journalist, filmmaker, and broadcaster, best known for his weekly column and commentary on foreign affairs that appeared in the International Herald Tribune (now The New York Times) for 17 years.


Power has probably been published on the opinion pages of the principal US newspapers more than any other European. With a global following, his column is syndicated to newspapers worldwide. He is also the author of eight books on foreign affairs, including “Like Water on Stone: The Story of Amnesty International”, published by Penguin.

He has travelled all over the world, writing, besides his column in the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times, long articles for Encounter and Prospect magazines, eight books on foreign affairs and many TV and radio documentaries, mainly for the BBC, one of which won the silver medal at the Venice Film Festival.

He has interviewed over 70 of the world’s most famous and influential presidents, prime ministers, and political and literary icons including Ignacio Lula da Silva, Indira Gandhi, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Georgi Arbatov, Sonia Gandhi, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Olusegun Obasanjo, Julius Nyerere, James Baldwin, Andy Young, Jesse Jackson, Manmohan Singh and Paul McCartney.

Notably, Power was the first journalist to report at length in English on the trafficking of African migrants across the Sahara and into France. This inspired his first novel, “The Human Flow”—a love story set against the backdrop of the migrant flow from West Africa to Paris and London.

In addition to his writing, Power has consulted for organizations such as the Aspen Institute, the International Red Cross, the World Council of Churches, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, UNICEF, and the Catholic Church’s Commission for Justice and Peace in England and Wales.


Prior to earning his Master’s degree at the University of Wisconsin, Power worked in Tanzania, where he provided advice to peasant farmers while living in a local village. He later joined the staff of Martin Luther King, living in the West Side ghetto, working with Jesse Jackson in the “End the Slums” campaign in Chicago. Notably, Power was the first journalist to report at length in English on the trafficking of African migrants across the Sahara and into France. [IDN-InDepthNews]




IDN-InDepthNews offers news analyses and viewpoints on topics that impact the world and its peoples. IDN-InDepthNews serves as the flagship of the International Press Syndicate Group

Is It A Labour Victory Or The Consolidation Of Conservative Oligarchy In British Politics? – OpEd

10 Downing Street, London, United Kingdom


By 

The crushing defeat of the Conservative Party and their local version called Scottish National Party in the UK general election today is a cause for celebration. The Labour Party has returned to power after fourteen years of Tory rule.


It is a clear electoral victory for the Labour Party under the leadership of Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, who is now the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Labour Party’s victory marks a pivotal moment in British politics, reflecting widespread dissatisfaction with the Conservative Party’s handling of key issues over the past decade. The new government faces the formidable task of uniting a divided nation and delivering on the promises that fuelled their electoral success. However, despite this significant political shift, a wave of disillusionment continues to ripple through the public. In his victory speech, the new Prime Minister pledged to “restore trust in politics” and vowed to rebuild and govern Britain with a vision “unburdened by doctrine.” 

How can anyone trust a word from Keir Starmer, who has a habit of taking opportunistic political positions and changing his views on policies and his commitment to manifestoes? He changes more often in politics than the British weather. His politics of being “unburdened by doctrine” means establishing an ideologically free zone of politics and governance, which aligns with conservative values of capitalism and the interests of British and international elites. Even the Conservative Party leadership and supporters claim that the Labour policy offering is not drastically different from the policy agendas of the Conservative Party. There is no fundamental difference between Mr. Starmer and Mr. Sunak in terms of their approach to welfare policies. Both are committed to the requirements of capital more than to the everyday needs of people. How can Mr. Starmer promise to rebuild Britain while standing on the foundations and values of Conservative politics and policies?

The scepticism surrounding Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership stems from his perceived lack of a consistent ideological stance. Critics argue that his flexible approach to policymaking raises questions about his authenticity and reliability as a leader. Many question his commitment to working people and their needs. This concern is further amplified by the notion that his governance style might cater more to the interests of the corporate elite rather than addressing the pressing needs of the general populace. Moreover, the Labour’s policy platform mirrors that of the Conservatives suggests a troubling continuity rather than the transformative change many voters desire. If the new Labour government under Starmer’s leadership fails to distinguish itself significantly from the previous Conservative administration, it could lead to further disillusionment among the electorate.

However, Mr. Starmer’s public positions on the privatisation of public services, economic austerity, social welfare, and even on foreign policy issues like Gaza, Ukraine, war, nuclear weapons and NATO are not markedly different from those of Mr. Sunak. Both leaders follow similar policy trajectories in British politics, reflecting a convergence in their approaches on key issues shaped by the Conservative political culture. While Mr. Starmer and Mr. Sunak come from different political parties—Labour and Conservative, respectively—their stances on privatisation show a shared inclination toward involving private sector efficiencies in public services. On the issue of economic austerity, both have advocated for fiscal prudence, albeit with nuanced differences in their approaches to government spending and debt management.

In terms of social welfare, Mr. Starmer’s proposals do not deviate significantly from Mr. Sunak’s policies, suggesting a consensus on the need to balance welfare provisions with economic sustainability. Foreign policy positions of both leaders also align in many respects, particularly in their support for NATO and a firm stance on international security challenges. This alignment indicates a broader trend in British politics where major parties exhibit similarities on fundamental policy issues, reflecting a right-wing shift in their political positions. Therefore, the landslide victory of the Labour party is not a victory of progressive politics of social democracy. It is the consolidation of victory of extreme right wing politics.


The dominance of the Labour and Conservative parties has transformed British politics into a political oligarchy, where a very small number of unmeritorious economic elites shape public policy to uphold their interests with the support of the British state and government. This concentration of power within a limited political framework has led to significant consequences for the broader democratic process. The political influence wielded by these elites often results in policies that favour their economic and social interests, rather than reflecting the diverse needs and aspirations of the working people. 

This collaboration between the ruling elites and opposition politics undermines the principles of democratic practice in Westminster where decisions are frequently driven by the priorities of a privileged few. The intertwining of political power and economic clout means that these elites can effectively circumvent mechanisms designed to ensure accountability and transparency. Their deep connections within both the Labour and Conservative parties enable them to exert disproportionate influence over legislative and regulatory frameworks, often to the detriment of wider societal welfare. In essence, the current oligarchal political landscape in Britain is detrimental for the deepening of democracy and public welfare in Britain. This has far-reaching implications for social equity, public trust in government, and the overall health of the democratic system.

The rise of far-right political parties like Reform UK, led by Mr. Nigel Paul Farage, in this election reveals disturbing trends of conservative consolidation in British politics. Such a political trend indicates a significant shift towards more extreme conservative ideologies, reflecting growing discontent and polarisation among the electorate. The increasing support for such parties suggests a backlash against traditional political establishments and a demand for more radical solutions to economic, social, and cultural issues. 

The presence of far-right parties like Reform UK in the political arena also raises concerns about the potential erosion of democratic norms and values. Their often inflammatory rhetoric and divisive policies can exacerbate social tensions and undermine efforts to foster inclusivity and cohesion within society. It signals a troubling trend towards conservative consolidation, with potential implications for the country’s democratic integrity and social harmony. The electoral success of these parties encourages mainstream political entities to adopt more hardline stances to retain their voter base, further shifting the overall political discourse to the right. This conservative consolidation poses a challenge to the principles of pluralism and tolerance that are foundational to a healthy democracy in Britain.

For Starmer to truly rebuild Britain, he must go beyond the rhetoric of being “unburdened by doctrine” and present a clear, progressive vision that prioritises social welfare, economic equality, and robust public services focusing on health, education, employment and transportation. Only by doing so can he hope to bridge the gap between his promises and the expectations of a public weary of political platitudes. This requires a commitment to bold, tangible policies that address the root causes of societal issues and a willingness to challenge the status quo entrenched by years of conservative governance. Given Mr. Starmer’s political records, he is unlikely to break through the iron curtain of the conservative British establishment.

The overwhelming victory of Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, other independent candidates, and the Green Party shows that there is still electoral space for the revival of alternative and progressive politics in Britain. Mass mobilisation of all working people can ensure the defeat of conservative values and halt the forward march of right-wing politics in Britain, establishing a society based on peace and prosperity for all in this small island nation.




Bhabani Shankar Nayak works as Professor of Business Management, Guildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, UK.