This year
marks the 45th anniversary of one of the most horrific terrorist
attacks Birmingham
has ever suffered. The bomb detonated at the 16th Street Baptist Church on 15 September 1963 killed four
children and injured 22 others. A series of investigations over a period of 30
years eventually identified the perpetrators as members of the Ku Klux Klan.
This is the
legacy of prejudice and discrimination in the United States. From the Jim Crow
laws that kept schools and buses segregated to the lynchings and violence meted
out to black people, the denial of civil and human rights to people from
non-white backgrounds represents a dark period in American history. And while
this country has had its fair share of prejudice and tension – and still does –
its recent history hasn’t been marred by the same glaring injustices of legally
enforced segregation or organised racial oppression.
It’s
perhaps from this platform that our political and media commentators have
looked down on America
and asked whether its public is ready for a black President. It’s perhaps with
the backing of this comparatively liberal history that they have felt entitled
to urge Americans to strike a blow for equality and vote for the first black
leader in its history. But a little more thought on their part would hopefully
reveal that the current state of inequality in this country deprives us of a
moral high ground.
Our
segregation may not be state imposed – or not intentionally – but it exists
nevertheless. Communities living parallel lives, massive inequalities in
wealth, institutionalised racism: these are the problems and challenges facing
us today, and that’s without the legacy that spurred the civil rights movement.
In fact, this remarkable turnaround from the buses of Montgomery
and the hoses of Alabama to the election of a
Hawaiian President raises the question of why Britain seems so far away from
producing a non-white leader.
So what
lessons can our policy makers learn from the election of the first black
President? Perhaps they would be wise to take heed of what Senator Obama did
not do. He did not concern himself with the politics of representation. He did
not seek to ‘speak’ for a particular group of people. The politics of the new
Democrats extends beyond consultation exercises and gimmicky initiatives tinkering
with the symptoms, and not the causes, of social exclusion.
All our
political parties would do well to use this time to reflect on what they stand
for. True
equality will only come through empowerment, and empowerment requires our
leaders to engage with the needs, concerns, and rights of ordinary people. If
our leaders hear but don’t listen, the various strategies proudly set up by
governing bodies to allow representatives from different groups to be consulted
on policies are at best ineffective and at worst conducive to undeserved
self-satisfaction.
And that is
why we do not need to be naïve to believe that the election of Barack Obama is
a victory for equality in America.
Black people are still three times more likely to be unemployed, women more
likely to be underpaid, and the children of poor parents more likely to be on
minimum wage. All this is as true on the morning of Obama’s victory as it was
in the months and years before.
But the
real victory for equality last night is not that America voted in a black President,
but that a politician, any politician, found the humanity and spirit to connect
with ordinary voters. The real triumph is the electrifying reinvigoration of American
politics. The real symbol of the American election is not Mr Obama, but those
people who voted for the first time, inspired by the prospect for change.
That is the
lesson for our political leaders – perhaps the lesson for us all.
The BNP fielded candidates in 40 different wards across Birmingham in the local elections in May 2008. Although it failed to gain a single seat, the results suggest the BNP has managed to tap into the concerns of a significant minority.
Of 40 wards contested, the BNP finished:
second in one ward (Sheldon)
third in 12 wards
fourth in 13 wards
Across all of the 40 wards, the BNP averaged 7.52% of the vote. If Birmingham City Council employed a system of proportional representation similar to the Greater London Assembly, the results would be enough to give Birmingham its first BNP councillor.
It seems the BNP achieved its gains by exploiting resentment of funding targeted at ethnic minority groups and, in particular, immigrants. In one of its campaign briefings, the BNP lists 32 organisations that organise along ethnic lines, ranging from the National Black Police Organisation to Asians in the Media to the National Association of Nigerian Communities.
The brap position
Ill-considered government strategies that encourage people to celebrate, respect and promote the formation and attachment to groups based on ‘difference’ have had some unintended and unwelcome consequences, notably separatism and feelings of exclusion. And Birmingham’s election results show that separatism can be exploited by far-right groups to devastating effect.
There is mainstream provision for disadvantaged groups: the question is why this provision is not being accessed by everyone. Disadvantaged white and BME groups who feel they can’t access this support should be brought together to revise, reshape, and rework that provision so it’s responsive to everyone’s needs.
brap believes that equality can’t be achieved by reinforcing notions of the ‘other’. The irony is that many of the BNP’s voters share their economic and social disadvantage with the people their vote was aimed against. So if we want to tackle the politics of division, the challenge remains to enable all communities to recognize what unites them rather than highlight what divides them.