What is democracy?

The world over, there are different ways of viewing, for want of a better expression, "people power". In some countries, this takes the form of a revolution every ten or so years, installing another dictator. In others, it is the complete opposite, where governments cannot so much as change the VAT rate without a referendum. Extremes in the crazy systems governing this planet. What is clear though is that, with a couple of seriously wacky exceptions, in all countries of the world, the system is bigger than any individual.

What, though, is the most bizarre thing, is the sheer number of organisations, corporations, state-owned bodies and self-governing regions that bypass any form of public scrutiny. There's the Bilderberg group, the City of London Corporation, OPEC, any number of multi-billion-dollar company, media outlet or bank to name but a few. These organisations generally accept the widely-held opinion that politicians in democracies (at least those who make it) are malleable, popularity-hungry, attention-seeking, shallow petty criminals, loan sharks and dangerously crooked property owners in need of a place to legitimise, consolidate and widen their shady dealings through networking and rubbing shoulders with other like-minded individuals. A kind of LinkedIn for criminals who want to do everything officially.

These organisations also know that there are those who genuinely come into politics wishing to change the world. Visionaries, fresh-minded academics, talented individuals with imagination and a steely eye on the goals they wish to achieve. Of course, when they come up against the might of the machine, they also find their dreams dashed, their hopes halved and their ambitions annulled, either through being told that the thought is a valiant one but totally impractical, or by being ridiculed, scandalised or hounded out of office by the more sinister factions of politics, and their media buddies. This of course depends on how close to the bone the visionary entrant comes when airing his or her new ideas.

So the large firms single out the right politicians for their dirty work: they give them special deals, assure them of seats on their boards of directors and pushing their candidacies for posts where they can be of use to them after their political careers are over. This is why nothing truly pleasing to the people ever gets done; because it's not in anyone's interest. It's not in the politicians' interests, because they would be putting themselves out of use; it's not in the corporations' interests because they'd not have anyone to represent their shady interests at international level, and it's not in the people's interests because it would make us all jumpy, to think that everything was going so swimmingly well. We'd think there was a catch and start petty paranoid skirmishes with traditional foes.

Leaders in the democratic world these days are so uninspirational, so faceless, so full of themselves, that we cannot really blame the Chinese for viewing democracy with suspicion, when they see how the Greeks behaved. How can you respect a politician who, in order to secure another term in power, promises to reduce taxes, or the retirement age by a year, or unemployment by hiring another few thousand people to do meaningless tasks that could be handled by half a dozen job students? How can you respect a politician who fakes his own country's economic situation in order to join a currency union his country has no hope of keeping up with?
I'll tell you how.

Let's take each country as being a person, and the Eurozone a little like marriage. So before the Eurozone was set up, when each country was in the singles market, so to say, they put on their best outfits for summits and kept the smiles going long into the evening, a little like singles have done for decades. Once they get married, of course, the partners start noticing little niggling habits that irritate them, like too many referenda (Ireland, Denmark) or inability to save money (Ireland gain, Italy, Greece). In the end, what happens to most married people? They let themselves go. They get unfit, lazy, start putting on weight and neglecting their personal hygiene. The same has happened in the euro marriage. Now they're tied together in an eternal bond of "till death us do part" those newlyweds feel that they'll be saved by the others if things go wrong. And then the mid-life crisis sets in, where the man decides to get a Porsche convertible and go trekking in the Arctic. The woman (Germany in this case) stays at home, horrified. No wonder she (Merkel) wants to limit the manoeuvrability of the Greek economy.

Now, returning to the original question - what is democracy? For me, you can' t let the people decide everything, because we'd reintroduce hanging and expel anyone with an accent. That's unfortunately how it goes, because those with opinions, principles or views are usually a lot louder than those who just get on with their lives worry-free, and are more likely to bother to vote in any referendum, which is why David Cameron refuses to give the UK a referendum of staying in the EU. On the other hand, you can't let politicians carry on governing forever, or they get too big for their boots. They get to know the system too well. So well, in fact, they do things like rein in the national media (Italy, Hungary), reduce freedom of speech (UK, France) or change the constitution to make it harder to remove them, or to indict them for any wrogdoing during or after their terms of service (Italy again). This was not planned when democracy was conceived. It was not the main idea.

So, how has this shrinking of democratic values occurred in historically democratic countries where politicians are traditionally accept their fates every four or five years at the ballot box? In Europe, this has happened because the EU has made it necessary. On one hand, the European Council of Ministers has replaced many of the features of national government because a great deal of decisions take place at European level, and are implemented nationally under the pretext that they were actually decided by the national politicians. And on the other, because of the turbulence they knew they were about to unleash on everyone. Don't tell me that five years ago, or even ten, those politicians had no idea of the storm they were kicking up when they introduced the euro, allowing Greece, Portugal and other such ClubMed nations into the club. I cannot believe for one moment that after so many errors of judgement on the way, so many wrong moves, so many contrived agreements and forced referendum decisions in the last decade, that there is no alternative agenda. You cannot tell people "you will have democracy, but only if you vote our way". Democracy has to mean something, and it has to be binding.

On the other hand, what is it like living in a country without democracy? In a country like the People's Republic of Korea, it's probably a living nightmare. I would not wish to spend 24 hours in that country. I think the same about Myanmar and Zimbabwe. But in Belarus or pre-election Azerbaijan or Bhutan, I could imagine living, despite not having much in the way of freedom of speech. It poses the questions, "is democracy over-rated?" and "is democracy something for everyone?" When you look at China or Russia, two vast countries, are either of them capable of further democratising without keeping a firm grip on the people for fear of independence movements springing up everywhere? Would the Chinese people really know what to with full voting rights? Do they really need it? I think they are doing very well with their systems as they are now.

Let us look at something simple: if a little village in, say, Nigeria applies to the EU for funding of a bridge over a dangerous river, the European Commission will firstly send it to a committee, who will then decide whether it is viable or not. Within months, they will dispatch a surveyor, an engineer and a budget analyst to the location to draw up plans and make an offer to the Nigerians. Once this has been approved, it will go back to Brussels for ratification, and within the next budgetary outlay, funds will be made available. Months later, the bridge will be built using ethically sourced materials and properly paid skilled workers, but the whole process will take about 2 to 3 years. Then there's the Chinese. They'll just turn up in the village, ask where they'd like the bridge and get to work. The material for the bridge might not be so stable or Kosher, and the builders might be less capable, but the whole thing would take 3 months, maximum. That is the difference between an ethical democratic process and a one-party state: the bridge might take a lot shorter to build, and the shorter waiting time will mean fewer will be killed whilst the Europeans are still discussing the proposal, and there will be

So, could the slow eradication of democracy in Europe be a necessity, clandestinely being introduced to be able to compete with China and Russia in the long term? Could the lack of transparency at European level be something to do with politicians' need to hide something far more worrying from us? I doubt it. But there's still a little thought cloud in my head which does not rule it out entirely. What I think is most likely, is that the current crop of politicians is grasping at any way at all to distance themselves from the mess they made of the last 10 years.

To finish, when asking what democracy is, we cannot put a finger on it because everywhere is different. In the politically disengaged countries of western Europe, democracy has been compromised. It has shifted from parliament to talent shows, from local government to online polls and customer satisfaction surveys. Panem et Circenses is the motto of our civilisation. With the coming of the Occupy movement and the sudden unpopularity of the European Union and what it stands for, I think the day is coming where people power, in whatever form is most suited to each country, will take back control. But in the end, it's the power-hungry that corrupt the system causing an endless cycle of bad governance. That makes no difference if in Asia, Africa or Europe, dictatorships or democracies: the sharpest elbows win.

Dictators ain't what they used to be

Naming the months of the year after your children and forcing the people to adopt them. Re-wording the Lord's Prayer so you are the one people pray to. Dressing up as Napoleon for your coronation having declared your country no longer a republic but an empire. Delivering six hour-long speeches live on national television. Reportedly eating your political opponents and keeping their heads in a freezer. These are eccentrics who managed to wheedle their way to the top seat in their country, either by subterfuge, by election or by being in the right place at the right time. There really are or were people who did those things I mentioned earlier, and they are: Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan, François "Papa Doc" Duvalier of Haiti, Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic (or Central African Empire, as he renamed it), Fidel Castro of Cuba and Idi Amin of Uganda respectively. The late Colonel Gaddafi was a complete nutter; John Simpson, the BBC correspondent, in this book "Strange People, Questionable Places", said he had terrible flatulence and his mad cackling laugh and obtuse retorts each time he asked a question made a farce out of any interviews.

There are many others too. Kim Il-Sung of North Korea, who made his people perform daily T'ai Chi-style exercises at dawn in the name of the nation, while large speakers blared patriotic military songs and human speakers screamed mantras praising their Great Leader. The famously paranoid Enver Hoxha of Albania, who made it an offence for men to wear beards so they could be easily identified in criminal cases and built up such an enormous amount of one-man military bunkers (750,000, for 3 million people!) to surprise any invader. The abominable Pol Pot of Cambodia, who made people return to the countryside in a mass forced labour scheme, who wanted to dismantle urban settlements and who sanctioned the killing of 2.1 million people, about a fifth of the population of the country.

All these individuals are now no more, either forced into exile, put on trial and executed, committed suicide or died of old age. The fact that these dictators remained in office unchallenged for such a long period of time is testament to the fear they instilled in people as high up as their own right-hand men. Either that, or the population had obviously been suffering from a mass Stockholm Syndrome, brought about by the fear of change. Another thing that strikes me is that not all of them look the type to commit such heinous crimes against humanity. Look at Bashar al Assad of Syria - he doesn't look like the type of person to order brutal crackdowns on his own people. He doesn't even look like the type of person who'd throw a strop in a domestic. Enver Hoxha seemed more like the type of person who'd knock on your door offering a free clock with every Reader's Digest purchase above £100.

The only supreme rulers still left of any note are Kim Jong-Il in North Korea, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the opulent rulers of the Arabian peninsula. It can only be a matter of time before they get their comeuppance, but I think most of them will die of old age.

There are some oddballs about though: the absolute monarch of Swaziland, Mswati III, although not a brutal man, is pretty active on the marriage front, with 14 wives, although not as active as his father, Sobhuza II, who had produced 210 children from 70 marriages and had a reported 1000 grandchildren by his death.

The dictators around today though are pretty bland operators. Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus is no more than a civil servant with special powers. Hu Jintao of China is the mouthpiece of a much larger party apparatus and even Omar al Bashir keeps himself to himself, despite the Darfur humanitarian disaster.

Dictators who wish to survive in the 21st century have wised up to the notion that they need to go unnoticed or build up a huge civil, military and political staff below them to take hits when they occur so they are pretty much untouchable. That way they can remain in power for decades. Stalin realised this, and he is the undisputed pinup poster boy of the dictators. Although we all know how grisly his deeds were, how utterly intolerable a system he threw up in the twenties and thirties, he saw off all his opponents but his hands were always spotlessly clean. And look at how he died: old age. The European Council operates in a similar manner, I have noted - it lets national governments or the European Commission take the blame for utter scandals like the Lisbon Treaty or ignoring national referendums.

No article on dictatorships would be complete without mentioning the most famous one of them all, Adolf Hitler. He was quite a showboater, with his spectacular demonstrations of nationalism through symbolism and Sturm und Drang. He galvanised the people by playing on the affrontery he felt by the Versailles Treaty and building up their sense of destiny through grands projets like the construction of huge buildings of culture, the hijacking or politicising of the 1936 Olympic Games and the plan to remodel Berlin as the centre of the civilised world. He almost got away with it, except for one tiny flaw in his otherwise impenetrable Teutonic armour: he was utterly mad. He never knew when to stop. He should have consolidated what he had by 1938 before he went into other territory. But fortunately for us all, he was as mad as a bag of spiders.

So hats off to northern Africa for shedding its recent dictatorial overcoats, and stepping into the double-breasted suit of democracy. The legitimacy of their newly founded political systems will become apparent in the coming months ahead. I have high hopes for Libya, if it can quieten the tribal leaders - it stands a very good chance of being a model Islamic democracy, an example for the Islamic countries further to the east to emulate, an oil-rich beacon of stability and a new tourist destination for history lovers and sunseekers alike. The Libyans I have met in my life were all very polite, educated, civilised and well-read. The members of the NTC also seem quite serious and have a particular kind of peace about them. For that reason, I think, Libya can make it where others' attempts at democracy have failed.

One thing the 99% needs to understand - we're all guilty

Those people all over the world protesting about the current greed and monumental corruption at the heart of the failed capitalist system have many stories to tell: the graduate from Milwaukee who, four years ago, was promised a gold-plated job when she got her degree and now has to work for tips in a downtown diner, the promises all but broken, the prospects all but dried up; the builder from Missouri, who was given a loan to take on a few new employees and broaden the business, and now has to lay them off because nobody can afford houses any more and so there is no work for them; the 57-year-old metalworker from Portland who has just discovered his company has been taken over by an Asian firm and he has been told he is no longer employable because he is too old despite his 35-year experience and the new company has changed the pension rules overnight under its own country's laws, not those of the US, and the office worker from Boston, who discovers that his house may be repossessed whilst he has been on a two-day sick leave because despite being told he was financially capable of maintaining the monthly repayments, two of the four companies he has to work for over his seven-day week to pay for his lifestyle have had to lay off staff, starting with those who have cost the companies money through social security or lost hours.

There are hundreds of thousands of more examples like this - some you feel more sorry for than others; some you want to box their ears for being so gullible. What I find most alarming is the serene aloofness we witness from the politicians. They seem to feel that they are part of a different world. And in some ways, however falsely, they are. They come on the television and give rousing interviews that they are right and everyone else is wrong, or like in the UK, they dismiss the whole thing as being the wrong way to show their feelings (what should they do? Write a letter to their local radio station?). This week, politicians of many countries and persuasions will meet somewhere to "discuss" the "turmoil" in the markets and to flagellate Greece a little bit more than the week before. They will stay in top-notch hotels with excellent facilities and eat first-class food served by the area's best chefs. There will be little in the way to suggest that they are even remotely aware of the events in Madrid, New York, London and Rome. Or that they even care. They believe the silent majority will be there at the end to maintain the status quo. That silent majority, who so stoically say "tsk-tsk" at both the politicians and the protesters for being so (violent / unresponsive / reactionary / incompetent - delete as appropriate) and who have been too easily spoiled by wealth to concern themselves with mundane things like the world in 2020.

It is a perfectly balanced conundrum, and as it stands, there is no chance of revolution. I think, in our heart of hearts, we do not want a revolution on the scale of Robespierre's France or Lenin's Russia, just a sense that we're living within our means once again and we're not being lied to by big business and their political stooges. One thing I noticed in the recent Liam Fox scandal engulfing the Conservative Party in the UK government is that the donors to the Conservative Party are angry because he misused their money to take himself and his mate Adam Werritty off on VIP trips to visit various politicians around the world. This is shocking. Firstly, that he misused their money, but secondly, and most importantly, that we are supposed to feel sorry for the donors because Fox and Werritty spent the money they were supposed to be using to promote the clandestine agendas of those corporate enterprises, on pampering themselves in 5-star hotels.

When we start focusing purely on the politicians for being corrupt and fail to notice that in fact the donors are the ones we should be most concerned about, despite it being in the headlines in 2-inch-high letters, we know we've been had in one monumental cover-up. It's there for us to see, yet the politician takes the blame on behalf of his corporate masters. How dare the corporates think they can run roughshod over democracy by buying off politicians? And how dare the politicians allow themselves to be used as pawns by big business? We are being tricked by the men in suits. But we allow it. And they paint all the protesters as anarchists, because they are the most visible ones on television despite there being an overwhelming majority of peaceful protesters, all victims of the lies and incompetence of the money men. They are lying to all of us by re-arranging the truth into a convenient illusion through dressing the corporate kleptomania, moving to a less expensive part of the world and sinister tie-up deals as "responsible" business practice and being "responsible" to their shareholders, when in fact it is ruthless expansionism and sharp-elbowed profiteering to the detriment of the very people they rely upon for profit. Why is it, that in many Western countries, house prices going up in price is good news? We are told that. But it is just another way for big business to get a larger slice of the pie from us. And the silent majority just say "tsk-tsk".

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nor have I ever voted for a party with red in its logo. I am just looking through my own eyes. We allow this to happen, because we just say "tsk-tsk" at everything and expect those who got us into this mess to get us out again. Until we realise that there is much, much more to do than whistle through our teeth over our morning coffee and watch satirical shows for the latest spin on the week's events, the politicians will carry on covering their tracks and big business will carry on excreting on the rest of us.

Thinking about conspiracy theories, I remember back 15 to 20 years ago, when the fledgling Internet was a burble of vague messages between similar groups of academics and the crazed fantasies of paranoid conspiracy theorists - yet now, remembering back, many of those witterings are not far from the truth, despite the less-than-erudite manner in which they went about conveying their messages. I remember a very early one, which said the economies of Western Europe would collapse because they would converge currencies without thinking of the consequences of monetary union without political union. It was written in the style of a crazed American academic who had been fired for having a vision that nobody wanted to believe. That feeling of being vindicated will not be sweet at all, considering the gravity of the events surrounding it.

Finally, it needs to be said that the press and media need to be careful of the words they use to describe the protesters, as although there are anarchists mixed in, there are a great number of ordinary people. And although I truly admire anyone for sitting in the cold, damp squares of Western cities for weeks on end for a political and social message they truly believe in conveying to the lords and masters of this world, the reptilian coldness and stoic business-as-usual attitude of those sitting in the VIP suites of the world's most expensive hotels can only remain whilst we the silent majority do nothing about it other than say, "tsk-tsk".

The tail needs to start wagging the dog

"Social mobility is the key to a successful future job market."

"We need to have social mobility to make sure people from lower-class backgrounds can gain promotion and rise through society's ranks more easily."

These are the types of phrases repeated each week by politicians throughout the EU. I wish they would back their words with deeds. The problem, as I see it, is not one to do with class, but more to do with qualification and talent, and that has just as much to do with the kind of values we pass to the younger generation. What do we consider to be more important: the ousting of an incompetent government, or the continuation of a favourite contestant on a TV talent show?

We live in a society that has unprecedented access to education. But we have also allowed a whole generation to become fascinated in the stardom of sports personalities, singers and actors. When I was younger, if I had said to my father I wanted to be a singer, he would have told me to run along and think about getting a *real* job. Nowadays, this seems to be the bar we set, rather than the exception to the career-rule. So many parents seem to try and push their children into modelling, singing or sports, with the goal of becoming famous, and more importantly, rich. When their children fail, the disappointment is so great for the parents that their child has been "rejected". And the children themselves are so utterly traumatised, nothing will be the same again for them.

What an awful thing for any child to suffer. Pushy parents.

Pushy parents are not always required in the age of social mobility. Offspring of famous people are making their own way up the greasy pole without having to do much. Just look at anyone whose name contains Geldof.

Who is to blame here? The media, for allowing TV shows like X-Factor and The Only Way Is Essex to proliferate, but also parents for succumbing to the pressures of their children who want to be accepted by their peers. How many parents take their kids to Paris to view the contents of the Louvre? And how many go to Paris to trace the Da Vinci Code? Or to Disneyland Paris? How many parents take their children to London to view the Cabinet War Rooms, compared to the O2 to see a concert? Giving in to children's mealtime demands (chips instead of broccoli, burger instead of lamb cutlets), has extended itself to education.

Social mobility is a good idea in theory, but in practice, this is no longer viable in the 21st century. In the 1940s and 1950s, my father - who left school very young - was able to negotiate four or five jobs of varying requirements and skills very easily. Admittedly, the Second World War helped in this, as there was a severe shortage of staff, but still, the moral of the story back then was "if you have the talent, we'll hire you", whereas today, it is hard for anyone to come out of school, college or university and walk into the job they trained for. I know some recent Cambridge graduates who, not even finding work in call centres, have turned to gaining further qualifications in a bid to out-qualify their competition. That is fine for those with the money, but the vast majority of people simply cannot afford this luxury.

The problem is now that employers have the world at their feet: they can choose the most highly-qualified candidate, or they can choose a less qualified, but more enthusiastic candidate for the position. They can hire and fire at will, because the market has moved away from hiring permanent members of staff to taking on contractual agents who stay in the job for anything from a week to a couple of years before they are thrown back onto the pile of bodies mounting up outside the Job Centres of the Western world.

All you need to do to get a job these days is:

A. Be the cheapest (less qualified, more enthusiastic)

B. Accept that you might be living with your parents way into your thirties

C. Keep your thoughts and opinions to yourself

D. Accept that very, very few people really do enjoy social mobility, and you are not one of them.

Social mobility is a myth. And it will remain a myth until employers are made to be more ethical. And the chances of that happening are quite remote at the present time, whilst there are such rich pickings, and employees are competing with one another to keep their positions.

Another astonishingly blatant lie dressed up as truth is the ability to change career direction. The days are long past where the system is flexible enough to sustain a change of career path. It is of course not impossible, especially in countries like the UK or the USA, but in Europe, I cannot see a person who trained to be a translator, who has a fascination with plants and flowers, being permitted to go into the horticultural business without three or four years' course first, rather than on-the-spot guidance or apprenticeship like used to happen. And there are very important reasons for this. In my father's day, the proportion of take-home pay was far higher to the amount of household bills and acquisitions. This meant a drop in pay in any subsequent job did not make so much of a difference, so people could go off and do something else without fearing too deep a cut in pay. Nowadays, a weekly food bill alone may cancel out any savings. We need to get back to this basic state, but whilst most people's minds have been fixed on "Panem et Circenses", there is is no way this silent majority will change anything. Especially if people consider owning one or more cars per household as a given and not a luxury.

While the dog is definitely in control of its tail, not many with a wish for self-improvement will have enough support to change the mentality of hundreds of thousands of people who are indifferent to the type of information they pass onto their own children, and the kind of food they feed them.

What an extraordinary week for journalism

Two very different events, almost polar opposites of each other, took place at each end of last weekend. The outstanding scenes of cheering people, flag-waving and joyous celebrations were beamed all around the world. At both of these happenings. Although one of them has left a nasty taste in the mouth.

London, Friday 29th April, 2011, will be forever known as the day the British Monarchy gained a whole set of new admirers for the 21st century and kept the republicans at bay. I would go so far as to say that even in some wavering republican hearts in Australia, there has been a warming to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who come across as a couple who have a deep respect for one another, and seem very comfortable in each other's company.

I, along with two billion other people worldwide, watched in awe of the occasion, unable to take my eyes off the screen to even run to the fridge for a drink, and found much of it hilarious, like when Prince Harry took a peek at the bride coming up the aisle and turned to his brother to say "wait till you see what she's got on!" I loved Boris Johnson's pre-wedding interview with the BBC, I thought the tone of the broadcast spot on, and the reaction from the world's press and media utterly dumbstriking.

What other group of people on this planet could even command such attention? None. And for that reason alone, the British Royal Family is, worth so much more than any president or prime minister. Having a constitutional monarchy is the ultimate symbol of stability for a country. It adds extra power and meaning to state visits and trade missions. The fact that so many foreign people came for the wedding is a sign of the enduring love we have for true majesty. The BBC interviewed many people who had come from Spain, which has its own monarchy, and yet. And yet. They came to see Prince William and his wife Catherine. It means, in a roundabout way, that London can truly call itself the capital of the world. If it was like that for just one day, imagine what it will be like come the Olympic Games next year. I cannot wait.

And then there was the flipside of this weekend:
On Monday morning, 2nd May, the world awoke to discover that the West's most notorious criminal, Osama Bin Laden, had been killed by US Seals. My immediate reaction was "good", but I had not yet known the full story. However, when I did, I could not feel much vindication any more. The way it was dealt with smacked of the typical American gung-ho shoot-before-asking-questions attitude most civilised people deplore and I would have preferred That Man to have been put on trial, his right to forego a trial due to ill health waived, and imprisoned for life, a far more demeaning and embarrassing end to his days, which would have probably had a far greater impact on the extremist Muslims' demise than shooting him at point blank range like some safari hunters in the jungle blasting the head off the last harmless dodo on the island.

By imprisoning him, allowing him to live, you avoid the martyrdom which is sure to come now.

But what angered me the most was the kneejerk reaction of the crowds who gathered outside the White House and in Times Square to celebrate the death of Bin Laden. I understood, when people celebrated the end of World War 2. It was not the death of Hitler the throngs were cheering; it was the fact that no more bombs were going to drop on us. Nobody jumped for joy on hearing of Hiroshima. Nobody hung up bunting to fête the sinking of the warship Belgrano in the Falklands War. Civilised people do not do that. I could also understand the euphoria of the crowds who sang and danced as the years of communism evaporated. Romanians killed their communist leader, Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena, but they celebrated the end of communism, not the deaths of their hated rulers.

So I see the crowds who hooted their horns or painted US flags on their faces, or waved placards with gloating messages on them upon hearing of the death of the mastermind of 9/11 as nothing more than a band of witchhunters, a baying, bloodthirsty mob of leftovers from the puritans, either undereducated or underinformed about civilised behaviour in Western society. Gloaters are fine at football matches or at pub quizzes, but not on the front of international newspapers or top of the TV news hour.

I think Osama Bin Laden was a truly evil man, a man who corrupted, even poisoned the minds of those around him to do his bidding and hit a Western nation hard, to put freedom as we knew it to the sword and change the very meaning of our civilisation. He made intelligence services around the Western world the most important military wing of any government, he changed the way we travel, he gave governments a very, very good excuse to roll in our civil liberties and invest in powerful spying technology in the name of national security, and as a spin-off, he made rail travel in Europe much more appealing as it avoids having to sacrifice everything liquid and runny at the airline check-in desk. He has also inadvertently contributed to the current parlous situation of the Western economy, as less money and fewer resources would have been spent on the US military during Bush Jr's term in office and on invading Iraq and Afghanistan and the banks may have caused a blip in the economy rather than its demise and China's rise.

I also think Osama Bin Laden died far too easily, far too quickly and far too painlessly. I am not advocating torture here, but I think his soul could have done with a large dose of his own guilt being pricked. I think the families of the victims of 9/11 should have had the right to confront this man (from behind reinforced glass) and I think he should have been used more skilfully as a way of bringing to an end this sorry, sorry period in our history.

OK, he has no tomb where extremists can go to worship at his grave, that's a plus point, and killing him immediately means if there were a trial, there would be no rioting in the streets, but a dead Osama may prove to be as dangerous, if not more, than an alive one.

But what can I say? They got their man. And there's a guy sitting at home in Crawford, Texas, saying "damn, that should have been my finest hour." As it happens, it may turn out to be Obama's turning point. He may gain a huge wave of support from US voters taking him back to the White House next year as the Man Who Got Osama, or it may backfire on him as the truth of Bin Laden's demise becomes known.

I have a mind of my own, thank you.

Sorry for not having posted much between Christmas and this weekend. I was in Prague for the entire month of February, making up for lost time... I've never really been one for smalltalk. Indeed, I don't do it very well. In Prague I needed to be a master at it. Everywhere I turned, new people to be introduced to, but invariably the same conversation and Q&A pattern: Where are you from? What do you do? How long are you here for? Where are you living? Blablabla... Which was OK, as this is standard when you're meeting new people. But when talking about nothing in particular is a common theme amongst people you see more often, it becomes a little irritating... After a while, it makes no sense to spend longer than you should around them. Another group that irritates me is (for want of a better word) sheeple. Sheeple are those who don't really do anything alone because they need approval for their actions, and that can be manifested through others wanting to join in. But then, sheeple attract other sheeple until the entire place is full of baa-ing humans. There was one place, for me a living hell, which was full of nothing except latte-swilling expats and oversized t-shirts containing the sort of person who needs a map to find the bathroom in the morning. Its main selling point was its bagels, and boy if that was its selling point, you can guess what type of place it was. Tourist guides stopped there with huge groups of sheeple who were force-fed muffins, cheesecake or brownies. Just 50 metres away, there is a glorious café selling Viennese and Parisian-style cakes and proffering proper coffee out of a Gaggia without pretentious names like "flat white" and "frappuccino" and in sizes so disproportionate to the coffee content, a microphysicist would find it hard to find many atoms of the said bean. The establishment in question also had its own ticket booth selling nights out to some "authentic" Prague shows. The same authentic ones you can find in the West End or on Broadway. You came all the way to Prague to take in a show you could see in any other city. Groovy. Prague has innumerable amounts of interesting places to go to in the evening, and caters for all ages. Why sequester yourself in a place meeting other people you could see in any other city, talking about the same stuff, asking the same questions, and going to the same shows? Could you imagine a conversation between two of these people? "I saw Cats in Munich last week, but it wasn't as good as the Cats they put on in Budapest." "It was the opposite for me. I found the ornate theatre setting in Budapest too disturbing for the eyes. If they want to put on musicals, they need somewhere without gold-leaf around the edge of the stage and those awful cherubs in the frescoes." Begone, foul sheeple! But then there's the most irritating group of all: the bubble. These are people who, no matter where they are, no matter what huge range of options lie before them, will go out in their group, the same group, night after night after night. Prague is full of them, as is every other city. These über-sheeple seem to think there's nothing else outside their group. They walk around large cities talking to each other and fail to notice little details that make the place they are in special. They take photos of themselves eating in a restaurant, mainly when the plates are already empty, and they must be caught smiling in a photo hugging a statue or with the fingers and faces contorted in front of a monument or building. They rarely speak to locals (usually only shop assistants who speak their language) and eat at famous burger joints because they don't really understand local food and have a slight distrust. And there may be someone in the group with dietary requirements (doesn't like cheese, can't stand the smell of beer, gets bouts of Tourette's after eating spicy food) who makes it almost impossible to find an alternative place to eat, so they end up in the same place all the time. I think the worst case of sheeple syndrome I encountered whilst in Prague was on the final Thursday of the month. About six of us had got tickets to a concert in the glorious setting of the newly-renovated Malostranská Beseda, a palace built solely for public entertainment. One gave up his ticket for someone who when the tickets were booked didn't want to go and now did. Just under two hours before the concert, we agreed to meet at the metro station. Ten minutes later, I got a text saying they all wanted to grab something to eat first and would meet me there. I went to the station, one person there so we went together. My flatmate who was not in Prague when we bought the tickets but was interested also came along in case there were spare tickets. We got into the concert hall about ten minutes before the band started - no sign of the others. My flatmate could not get in, so he waited in the bar upstairs until he could. Forty minutes into the concert, I received a text message from the others saying they had only just sat down to order some food. In a pizzeria. In Prague. On the night they had concert tickets. Halfway through the act. They arrived, no joke, in time for the final two songs of the encore. I wouldn't have minded so much, if one of the group hadn't sacrificed his ticket and hadn't come, which could have gone to my flatmate, who was on time, and was getting bored on his own upstairs. See? Sheeple. One is hungry, so the others follow. Satellites around the one currently having the issue. And to think, my flatmate could have bargained a ticket off one of the others. So it came as a huge relief that I was able to hang around with a few people who wanted more than swapping clichés, hanging round in tourist trap cafés, eating in pizzerias and missing concerts. We had so much fun night after night that we almost flunked the course we were on. But that was by-the-by. We would never have done anything to jeopardise our prospects of passing it, especially a whole month-long course. That would have been reckless. Nevertheless, there was too much to do than just sit in a restaurant as a group and just... chat. Despite them, I have a huge set of new memories I never thought I would have, after what can only be described as the best time of my life. I thought the days of fun were over when I left London in 2000, but I was given a month reprise in February in my favourite city, Prague, the place I like to call my second home town. She is still as alluring and enticing as she was twenty years ago when I first fell in love with her. But if I were only going to be there for the one month of my life, why on earth would I want to ignore her by hanging around the same people in my little bubble? That is an insult to the host city. I see it as a badge of honour that I only squeaked a pass but had enormous fun and didn't spend day after day working on projects in the hope of getting a higher grade (which made no difference to how you would be seen) with little or no contact with the real Prague.

Is the West about to make itself obsolete?

People never learn. The reason why they never learn is because they don't live long enough to be able to learn from the mistakes of youth, which will be repeated over and over again everywhere forever until someone somewhere finds a three-thousand-year-old sage who will become master/mistress of the universe.

So it is of no surprise to note that there are some surprising similarities between the fall of the Roman Empire and the West's impending doom. But this time, at ten times the speed.

Firstly, the Roman Empire fell because of the sheer inability of those in charge to make any kind of decisions. The place had grown too big for its own good. Rome did not really fall - it declined over a period of centuries although the Eastern Roman Empire did not officially end until the invasion of Constantinople in the 15th century. So, one thing we can say is, if you want to survive, don't grow too big. Not necessarily geographically, but certainly in terms of what you can handle.

Secondly, Rome had been feeling good about itself, so good in fact that it chose to party all year long. This caused the place to split into two, with the richer Eastern Empire being more pragmatically run. So, another thing: don't allow your inhabitants to feel everything is going well, just for the whole place to fall apart.


Thirdly, and I think the thing which seals the deal, is the shrinking of the qualities and items that made Rome mighty: its political regionalisation into various administrative capitals (Ravenna, Treveris, Mediolanum, etc.) which marginalised various areas of the Empire and the slow deterioration of the once-mighty fortifications which allowed the invading Visigoths a much easier job of overtaking the Roman heartlands.

There were various related problems for the Romans:

The Barbarians had started to understand and even imitate Roman military manoeuvres, structures and disciplines to the extent that they did them better.


There was a decline in morals and public decency, which gave way to breathtaking decadence and immorality to the extent that little shocked the general public any more. There was alcoholism, public indecency and widespread sexual deviance.

The Plebeians, or the lower classes, had a lot less manual work to do, causing them great hardships and dissatisfaction, even mistrust, of their leaders.

The back-scratching and pocket-lining of politicians and the Praetorian Guard meant that as long as you kept the military happy, they would let you do what you wanted. And whilst politicians kept doing favours for each other, it became easier to "fix" the outcome of certain political questions.


The continual obsession with war (to keep the military occupied and to expand the glory of the Empire) was another prerequisite of the Roman Empire. Swaggering arrogantly over its territory and neighbouring lands, the leaders of the glorious empire tried their best to show the rest what they had and that they were better than the rest. That they may have been, in terms of technological advancement, art, people power and even governmental benevolence, but those things do not necessarily mean others will aspire to them. It means others will find it easier to destroy because there is less need for an iron fist ruler. So the dictatorships and barbarisms outside of the Roman sphere of influence found it so much easier to destroy it, simply because it was so enlightened.

Any bells ringing? Well yes, in fact, but the major difference with then and now is that we in the West are trying hard to accommodate the "Barbarians", buying and selling material from them. The threats facing us today are very similar, but far, far greater than those the Romans faced. Rising indebtedness, an overstretched military, encroaching government and commercial paranoia through the ability to keep every movement made by telephone and online on record and use it against the people, and falling educational standards. You may see Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, MIT and the LSE at the top of the University league tables, but how much of that is a marketing fabrication? The similarities between the fall of Rome and now are startling, but this time the fall will be so much greater. There are several scenarios:


Scenario 1:
The West spends itself out of relevance

This could happen. It is a very probable scenario. Imagine all the banks, blissfully spending our cash on the markets, blowing fortunes they don't have, and spending imaginary money to get more of it. Oh, that already happened, did it? Imagine some countries who believe they are safe from economic meltdown because they hid their debts well and joined a monetary union believing they would be saved from bankruptcy by all the others. Oh that happened too, you say? Imagine a sinister, ruthless and unsentimental dictatorship worse than the Barbarians with a monthly income equivalent to that of the entire debt in the aforementioned fictionally indebted country offering to purchase all its outstanding arrears. In other words, virtually buying the country's emancipation from debt. What would happen to that newly debt-cleared country? Why sack Rome when you can buy the place?

Scenario 2:
The West is invaded

This is less obvious, but there is no reason why it should not happen. Too many Western powers are reducing military strength to save money. The UK, for example, is scrapping everything except essentials. It sees the need for nuclear weaponry, but not for a strong military. If an invader is going to come, it will want to have something to get, and the country being invaded doesn't want to destroy itself, so it is not going to do any good nuking the place. Keeping such a large amount of nuclear weapons is not going to save anyone. It would be so much easier to leave the large nukes to the big boys, and go in for having a huge army, navy and air force. Unfortunately, there are too many people in governments who think possession = prestige. Rubbish. I'd rather live in a modest house and have a burglar-proof property than have everything open but if an intruder comes, it all collapses into dust. For that reason, we leave ourselves open to attack at any time.


Scenario 3:

Governmental weakness, indecision and bad advice

This is almost a fait accompli in the West. Many of today's governmental figures are pretty weak, especially in the EU. I think this is due to the EU as well. National governments are becoming increasingly obsolete as decisions are made at EU level. Of course, these are made by the Council of Ministers, that is all the leaders of the EU together, but it means that if one EU leader loses the election, the EU agenda will be taken up by the next leader, and it no longer really matters who the head of state is.

What does this say about democracy in the 21st century? There really is not too much of it around, really. But meanwhile, most EU governments are just following the crowd. Coupled with national debt and an indecent reputation, politicians are an increasingly unpopular and lonely group, totally out of touch with what ordinary people want and need: stability and assuredness. Nothing else. We would give up a lot of material wealth and commercial activities just to guarantee our social welfare, health, happiness and continued employment.

Quite frankly, shallow materialism and self-indulgence is thankfully coming to an end. If it doesn't, the human character of failing to learn from past mistakes could lead to another Roman Empire falling.