Tuesday, April 28, 2009

In the heart of Java


A Shadow Falls: In the Heart of Java
By Andrew Beatty



Faber and Faber; 336 pages; £12.99

Buy it at

Amazon.co.uk

EVERY year Indonesia enjoys a national holiday for nyepi, the Hindu day of silence, which this year fell on March 26th. It is not a holiday in India, Hinduism’s homeland. Similarly, in Bayu, once part of one of the last Hindu kingdoms in East Java to be conquered and converted to Islam, villagers welcome the Ramadan fast with a feast, scandalising some of the clerics.

Indonesian religion is “syncretic”, a unique confection, and nowhere more so than in Java, much the most populous island in much the most populous Muslim nation on earth. This fascinating and moving book describes what “syncretism” means in daily life. The author, Andrew Beatty, an anthropologist, spent two periods in Bayu in the 1990s, with his young family. As he documented local customs and rituals, he became drawn into its cultural conflict: between “Javanism” (the pre-Islamic mystical tradition) and orthodox Islam.

Mr Beatty describes the mystics’ ceremonies with sympathy: the interment of the afterbirth of a baby girl by her father, dressed and made up as a woman for the purpose; the night-long dramas finishing with the appearance of a were-tiger, the neighbourhood spirit; the seblang, a “fertility rite at which a nubile girl went into a trance and channelled local spirits”.

The “shadow” of the title is that of encroaching Islamist orthodoxy. A religious teacher seeks out the author as a fellow educated man, assuming he must be on the side of modernisation, since “Islamisation and progress were the same thing”. Politicians in Islamist parties in Jakarta make the same assumption. Women go to university, learn the proper way to do things and start wearing headscarves, chiding their mothers for being backward.

When the first woman in Bayu covers her head, during the author’s first stay, her foster mother “could not bear to look at her”. By the time Mr Beatty returns for a second stay, orthodoxy is on the march. He becomes embroiled in a dispute about the insomnia-inducing amplification of sermons from the local prayer house. One night the speakers blare out a preacher’s rant about the need for holy war.

It is tempting to see this depressing scene as the book’s conclusion: the Javanese idyll smashed by the incursions of alien extremism. But that hints at one of the book’s two frustrations: it is not the conclusion. Well-written, with vivid characters, “A Shadow Falls” is as enthralling as a novel. And like a good novel, it poses the question: what happened next? At the time, 1997, Indonesia was in turmoil, on the brink of economic meltdown and the end of the Suharto dictatorship. East Java suffered a wave of mysterious killings. After Suharto, there was an explosion of Islamist parties. Most have now moved firmly into the mainstream. What the author calls “the ebb and flow of orthodoxy” moves both ways. The reader longs to know what Bayu is like today.

The second frustration is shared by all books on modern Indonesia: its failure to explain a terrible paradox. The author depicts Java as almost an ideal society “of social harmony, empathy and gentleness”. Yet, a generation earlier, as Suharto came to power, Indonesia suffered a terrible peacetime slaughter when at least 500,000 people were killed. The author meets a man who ferried prisoners to their deaths in the back of a lorry. They were tipped over a cliff, and sometimes doused with petrol and set alight. “You could see them twitching in the ravine below.” Bayu was home to both death-squad veterans and the families of their victims. Darker than the shadow of a putative future of Islamic orthodoxy is a bloody past that is both unexpiated and unexplained.

A Shadow Falls: In the Heart of Java.
By Andrew Beatty.
Faber and Faber; 336 pages; £12.99

Monday, April 27, 2009

Hungary: Police ups reward for information on Roma crime



MTI
April 25

Hungary's national police chief told MTI on Saturday that he had increased the reward for information leading to the perpetrators of recent attacks against the Roma to 50 million forints.

Jozsef Bencze said the attacks committed against Roma in Nagycsecs, Tatarszentgyorgy and Tiszalok are connected and the perpetrators are believed to belong to the same circle.

Instead of the 10 million forints reward that police offered in each of the cases, 50 million forints will be given to anyone supplying information that will lead to the perpetrators, he added.

Bencze noted that two people were killed in Nagycsecs last November and a father and his five-year old son were shot dead in Tatarszentgyorgy in February. In the most recent attack, a Roma man was shot dead on Wednesday.

The attackers left behind various traces, including two DNA samples, but these have not been found in the criminal registry, Bencze said.

A team of 70 police officers are involved in the inJustify Fullvestigation, including highly experienced criminal experts, he added.

Police have so far investigated as many as 10,000 people who were in the vicinity of the incidents, including 2,000 who were questioned, Bencze said. Hungarian police has also received much useful help from international experts in drawing up the suspects' profile, he added

Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai said that the government will do all it can to assist the police and create law and order so that no one should have to live in fear in Hungary. He said that the killing of a Roma citizen in Tiszalok was part of a series of shameful acts, and amounted to an offense against the whole of the Hungarian Republic.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

So what exactly is multiculturalism?

BBC News Online asked in April 2004 a range of thinkers for a short definition.

PROFESSOR SIR BERNARD CRICK
Chair of the 'Life in the UK' report which led to the new citizenship tests

I see no incompatibility between multiculturalism and Britishness. Britishness must be part of multiculturalism.

In the report I chaired advocating language and citizenship education for immigrants, The New and the Old (2003), we said:

"Who are we British? For a long time the UK has been a multicultural state composed of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and also a multicultural society... made up of a diverse range of cultures and identities, and one that emphasises the need for a continuous process of mutual engagement and learning about each other with respect, understanding and tolerance."

In other words, dual identities have been common, even before large scale immigration.

We further wrote: "To be British means that we respect the laws, the parliamentary and democratic political structures, traditional values of mutual tolerance, respect for equal rights..."

But Britishness does not mean a single culture. Integration is the co-existence of communities and unimpeded movement between them, it is not assimilation.

Britishness is a strong concept but not all embracing.

RUTH LEA
Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, a centre-right think tank

There are two ways in which people interpret multiculturalism .

The first one is the more common way and that is every culture has the right to exist and there is no over-arching thread that holds them together.

That is the multiculturalism we think is so destructive because there's no thread to hold society together. (...)

There is another way to define multiculturalism which I would call diversity where people have their own cultural beliefs and they happily coexist - but there is a common thread of Britishness or whatever you want to call it to hold society together.

And that is clearly what I would support because you do accept that people have different cultures and you accept them.

It a positive acceptance not a negative tolerance.

LORD PAREKH, professor of political philosophy
Chair of the 2000 report, 'The Future of Multi-ethnic Britain'

Multiculturalism is sometimes taken to mean that different cultural communities should live their own ways of life in a self-contained manner .

This is not its only meaning and in fact it has long been obsolete.

Multiculturalism basically means that no culture is perfect or represents the best life and that it can therefore benefit from a critical dialogue with other cultures.

In this sense multiculturalism requires that all cultures should be open, self-critical, and interactive in their relations with other each other.

This was the basic message of my report on multi-ethnic Britain (The Future of Multi Ethnic Britain, Runnymede Trust 2000). As we argued in the report, Britain is and should remain a vibrant and democratic multicultural society that must combine respect for diversity with shared common values.

KAREN CHOUHAN
Chief Executive of The 1990 Trust, a black-led human rights organisation

Multiculturalism is not dead, in fact it has been reasserted by government policy in the form of 'valuing diversity'.

Neither is it incompatible with an appreciation or knowledge of British cultures. To suggest otherwise is to turn back the clock on race debates thirty years.

To understand multiculturalism is to appreciate that it means many different things.

To some it is merely sampling different cultures, such as a carnival or a mela [South Asian festival]. To others, it is the road to challenging structural inequalities.

One of Britain's strengths is its diversity. Our political system is founded on different values. White British culture itself is incredibly diverse. But we cannot have cultural diversity without tackling inequalities.

We need to do is move forward with a serious debate about how far we have to go in tackling race discrimination in every corner of society, not move it back by forcing everyone to be more (white) British.

Most minority ethnic communities have made substantial contributions to the making of Britain and have made huge efforts to learn British history and language, and engage in civic society despite encountering social exclusion and racism in practically every area of public policy and practice.

Let's not lose sight of this, or how far we have to go. Tackling racial disadvantage is the best way to engender a sense of belonging, being valued is a two-way street.

Interviews by Cindi John

Is Race Real? How Does Identity Matter?





As he leaves Harvard for Princeton, K. Anthony Appiah's scholarship takes a new direction

Danny Postel
The Chronicle of Higher Education
April 5, 2002


People who talk about Kwame Anthony Appiah tend to effuse. "He is the smartest person I've ever met," says Henry Louis Gates Jr. "He is the major scholar working on issues of identity and multiculturalism," says Amy Gutmann, provost of Princeton University. A man of "daunting" erudition, his work is "brave, lucid, acute, and temperate," the novelist Norman Rush has written.

The author of everything from monographs on the philosophy of language to mystery novels to essays on African literature; the editor of poetry anthologies and encyclopedias of cultural history; and a speaker of four languages, Mr. Appiah is an interdisciplinarian par excellence, a cosmopolitan thinker whose subject is nothing less than the world.

His most famous book is a collection of essays on race, culture, and identity called In My Father's House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture (Oxford University Press, 1992). Virtually an instant classic, it is among the most widely discussed academic books of the 1990s on perhaps that decade's most hotly debated topics on campus: race and multiculturalism.

And yet Mr. Appiah, a professor of philosophy and African-American studies at Harvard University who will be moving to Princeton in the fall, is perhaps best known, at least to those outside his scholarly fields, for his numerous collaborations with Mr. Gates, whose celebrity is much greater. To some, he's "that other guy" with whom Mr. Gates is constantly assembling volumes, the one with the not-obvious-how-to-pronounce name. (It's AH-pee-uh -- similar to how a Cockney would say "happier," he explains.)

Mr. Appiah has been getting less famous, he says, since the day he was born. His parents' marriage, vaunted as the first "modern society" wedding between an African and an Englishwoman, was such a big deal in England, he says, that his birth made front-page news in the British press.

That wouldn't be Mr. Appiah's only appearance on the front page, however. This January he landed there again, when The New York Times wrote about his decision to leave Harvard for Princeton. While the announcement came amid the controversy over Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers's dispute with Mr. Appiah's colleague and friend Cornel West, Mr. Appiah told the Times that his decision to leave was motivated by other considerations, notably his desire to be closer to his home in New York. (He now says the decision wasn't entirely unrelated to the "anxiety" over the Summers-West tangle.) His move means not only a new institutional affiliation for Mr. Appiah, but also a chance to strike out in new intellectual directions. And that, he says, includes turning away from the race question that has dominated his work for so long. "After you say 10 years' worth of things about a topic, it's probably time to move along."

Intellectual Fortune

While Mr. Appiah's scholarly solo efforts are considerable and highly regarded, his 25-year association with Mr. Gates has unquestionably played an enormous role both in shaping much of his work and in bringing it such visibility. Together, the two have edited no fewer than a dozen volumes, including the highly acclaimed Dictionary of Global Culture (Knopf, 1997) and Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience (Basic-Civitas, 1999). They have taught together at Yale, Duke, Cornell, and Harvard Universities. They edit the journal Transition. And they are best friends.

Mr. Appiah himself attributes much of his good intellectual fortune to the "accident" of meeting Mr. Gates. He recounts the story of their friendship in the living room of the ornate Manhattan apartment he shares with his partner, Henry Finder, an editor at The New Yorker. Messrs. Appiah and Gates met at the University of Cambridge in the 1970s, where Mr. Gates was doing graduate work and Mr. Appiah was an undergraduate majoring in philosophy. Before that meeting, Mr. Appiah had focused very little intellectual attention on the themes of race, culture, and identity that would become central to his work over the next two decades.

Which is not to say that he had no interest in those questions -- quite the contrary. He was raised in both his mother's native England and his father's native Ghana. His father, a prominent Ghanaian barrister and politician (and related by marriage to the country's royal family), was deeply involved in the Pan-African movement, an effort to link black struggles throughout the African diaspora. Growing up, Pan-Africanism was "a sort of family business," says Mr. Appiah. He fondly recalls the likes of Richard Wright and C.L.R. James paying visits to the family home when he was a child. Yet it wasn't something he had studied academically.

Politics and wealth run on both sides of Mr. Appiah's lineage. His mother hails from a prominent political clan as well, claiming several generations of both Fabian socialists and landed gentry. (His maternal grandfather served in Britain's first postwar Labor government.) Commenting on this "doubly patrician background," John Ryle in The Independent quoted an "admiring don at Cambridge" who once described Mr. Appiah as "la crème de la crème brûlée."

Multiple Worlds

If Mr. Appiah has inhabited several geographic and cultural worlds -- Ghana, England, the United States -- he has also inhabited several intellectual ones. Trained in the philosophy of language and logic, he wrote his dissertation (and his first two books) in the highly technical areas of probability theory, conditionals, and semantics. Assertion and Conditionals (Cambridge University Press, 1985) and For Truth in Semantics (Blackwell, 1986), his two professional philosophy books, are the fruits of his apprenticeship at Cambridge, the birthplace of the analytic school and home to such giants as Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

If that area is utterly foreign to you, you're not alone. Over lunch at an Italian restaurant in Chelsea, the neighborhood in which he lives, this reporter confesses to Mr. Appiah that he has not read the philosopher's technical monographs. "Ha! That makes you and just about everyone else in the world," he says with a hearty laugh.

Those monographs established Mr. Appiah's reputation within probabilistic semantics, a relatively esoteric corner of the philosophy of language (a field within a field within a field). His textbook, Necessary Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy (Prentice-Hall, 1989), brought his broad knowledge of the history of philosophy, and his elegant, lucid prose style, to the attention of philosophers generally. An expanded edition will be published next year as Doing Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction (Oxford).

But it was In My Father's House that really made Mr. Appiah's name. A combination of autobiography, intellectual history, cultural criticism, and postcolonial theory, it is among the most widely cited and assigned books in contemporary Africana studies -- a canonical work in a rapidly growing field.

This combination -- Mr. Appiah's training in analytic philosophy on the one hand and his attention to questions of culture, race, and identity on the other -- sets his work apart. Philosophers of language generally write about, well, the philosophy of language, not cultural studies or the African diaspora; and among, say, postcolonial theorists and scholars of race, there isn't exactly a preponderance of experts in probabilistic semantics. Who else has published in both Diacritics and Mind, both Critical Inquiry and the Journal of Philosophical Logic? They're disparate intellectual endeavors with little, if anything, to do with one another.

Or are they? While the two projects may be light years apart thematically, Mr. Appiah sees a link. His training in logic and the philosophy of language helped him, he says, "to think carefully, to make distinctions." It equipped him with a way of arguing, he says, that "can be applied to almost any question productively."

Richard Rorty, a professor of comparative literature at Stanford University famous for his criticisms of analytic philosophy, jokes that in making the crossover from semantic theory to questions of broader cultural concern, Mr. Appiah has "overcome his educational disadvantages."

In My Father's House is rife with themes, but its core argument is that the very concept of race is false, that race is in fact a construct, a superimposed category that does not correspond to biological reality. The 19th-century idea of dividing the human population into racial groups -- Negroes, Caucasians, Asians, etc. -- was bad science. The genetic diversity within the human population turns out not to be distributed along racial lines. There is more genetic variation within Africa alone than there is in the rest of the world; there is likely to be more in common genetically between a Swede and a Nigerian than between two individuals from Congo.

But the idea of race isn't merely bad science, Mr. Appiah argues; it is also morally dangerous. And it isn't only people of European provenance who have bought into the idea of race; many on the receiving end of racial oppression have done so as well. Thus Pan-Africanists and black nationalists have, in their efforts to unite people of African ancestry, often posited a racial "essence," a quality or set of qualities supposed to be shared by all blacks. Such thinking, Mr. Appiah argues, is just as fraudulent as the 19th-century European notion of a racial hierarchy with whites at the top -- and is implicated in that notion's racism, as well.

Ten years after the publication of In My Father's House, this critique of racial "essentialism" now seems less than earth-shattering. Among scholars, particularly in the humanities, the argument is so familiar that it's a virtual truism. But Mr. Appiah formulated and composed most of In My Father's House in the 1980s, when such thinking was considerably less common.

That's not to say that it is universally accepted. Indeed, among those who find it not only puzzling but problematic are a number of black scholars. Lucius T. Outlaw, chairman of the African-American-studies program at Vanderbilt University and the author of On Race and Philosophy (Routledge, 1996), has said that in denying the existence of race, Mr. Appiah's argument could have the "unintended effect of racial and ethnic cleansing." When Mr. Outlaw made this remark on a panel with Mr. Appiah during a conference at Rutgers University in 1994, Mr. Appiah denounced the remark and stormed out of the room. (Mr. Outlaw followed Mr. Appiah into the hallway and apologized. The two are now on good terms and have nothing but admiring things to say about each other.)

Mr. Outlaw's is not the only criticism Mr. Appiah's ideas have occasioned. Writing in the journal Social Theory and Practice, Paul C. Taylor, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Washington, termed Mr. Appiah a "racial eliminativist." He wrote that the "metaphysical strand" of Mr. Appiah's argument -- that race doesn't exist -- is fashioned "badly," while Mr. Appiah's ethical claims are "poorly developed." Writing in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia, Nkiru Nzegwu, an associate professor of Africana and art history at the State University of New York at Binghamton, accused Mr. Appiah of "Anglo-Saxon imperialism" and "ideological recolonization." Molefi Kete Asante, a professor of African studies at Temple University, accused Mr. Appiah in the journal Diogenes, of "Eurocentrism" and a "rapprochement with white triumphalism."

Mr. Appiah calls such criticisms "one of the features of the contemporary academy I like least," as they "stigmatize ethically someone you disagree with intellectually."

As for Mr. Taylor's charge, Mr. Appiah says that if a "racial eliminativist" is "someone who thinks that there are no biological races among current humans, I plead guilty. If, on the other hand, it is someone who thinks that races have no social reality, I plead innocent."

Some scholars sense an existential backdrop to the issue Mr. Outlaw poses. For someone of Mr. Appiah's hybrid, transnational, and privileged background, is it perhaps less of a leap to theorize race out of existence than it might be for someone raised in a less ambiguous context, one in which the color line is a defining social force? Mr. Appiah points out that in those parts of Africa in which everyone is black, race is not the organizing principle of people's lives; instead, things like social class, gender, urban versus rural, and tribal affiliation are what divide people. Some wonder, however, what it would mean to say that race doesn't exist in, say, rural Mississippi or segregated Chicago.

Kenneth W. Warren, a professor of English and humanities at the University of Chicago and the author of Black and White Strangers (University of Chicago Press, 1993), thinks those critics have it wrong. He says that while such social realities are enormously significant, they do not contradict Mr. Appiah's argument that race has no objective reality. To enumerate the sociological vicissitudes of race, he says, demonstrates the various ways in which it is constructed, but lends no credence to the idea that there are intrinsic racial properties or essences.

Other scholars agree, and they praise Mr. Appiah's work. Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard and the author of The Ordeal of Integration (Civitas/Counterpoint, 1998), hailed In My Father's House as "a major intellectual event" and a "desperately needed antidote" to the "resurgent chauvinism" that "threatens to replace clear, hard thinking about the condition of black peoples in Africa and the Americas."

The timing of In My Father's House gave it an acute poignancy, says Robin D.G. Kelley, a professor of history and Africana studies at New York University and the author of Race Rebels (Free Press, 1994). With multiculturalism at its zenith in the early 1990s, Mr. Appiah "contested multiculturalism's racial and ethnic notion of identity," which Mr. Kelley calls a "zoological" approach (blacks in this cage, Latinos in that one, South Asians in another).

Mr. Kelley tells a story about Mr. Appiah's own identity. The two were having lunch at an Indian restaurant one afternoon. When Mr. Appiah asked the waitress about a dessert on the menu, she reacted with annoyed incredulity. "You know," she said impatiently, taking Mr. Appiah, on the basis of his appearance, to be Indian, and assuming his question to be an attempt to pass as non-Indian. "He was living out some of the complications of his own argument," says Mr. Kelley. Mr. Appiah did not correct her.

A Rooted Cosmopolitan

That sense of identity as fluid, as complex, as syncretic, is fundamental to Mr. Appiah's intellectual project. But while one thrust of his work is to challenge received notions of identity, he affirms an identity that is not just cosmopolitan and universal but rooted and particular. He aims therefore, to avoid the "twin pitfalls of parochialism and false universality." A tricky balancing act, indeed.

He says he has tried to follow his father's example. In an essay titled "Cosmopolitan Patriots," he talks about his father's simultaneous love for Ghana, his commitment to a nonchauvinist Pan-Africanism, his Christian humanism, and his internationalism. In a letter to his children Mr. Appiah's father exhorted them to "remember that you are citizens of the world."

Mr. Appiah's move from Harvard to Princeton isn't the only recent change in his life: After 20 years in the United States, the citizen of the world recently became a U.S. citizen, so that he could finally vote.

His work, too, will take a more political turn, focusing less on racial identity and more on identity's ethical and political dimensions. "I have spent 20 years thinking about race as a form of identity, and it is only one case," he says, "a misleading model for some other cases" of identity. He plans to explore how identity matters for ethical and political life -- when liberal democracies, for example, should think of their citizens "as women and men, as members of identity groups, as mere individuals, and the like."

Princeton, he says, is "the perfect place" for him to teach. He will split his time between the multidisciplinary Center for Human Values and the philosophy department, widely regarded as one of the top analytic departments in the country. (He also hopes to do more fiction writing. His mystery novels -- he's published three -- are far from highbrow, he says, though one of them does feature a Wittgenstein scholar at Cambridge.)

For all of his intellectual accomplishments and his passion for the life of the mind, Mr. Appiah believes there is a vital need to do more than just theorize and argue. "We cannot change the world," he writes, "simply by evidence and reasoning."

And yet, he adds, "we can surely not change it without them, either."

How can ethnic minorities reach the top of the profession?



Times on-line
April 23

Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the Attorney-General

(Fiona Hanson/PA)

Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the Attorney-General

Baroness Scotland of Asthal could be forgiven if she saw no problem. Britain’s first black, first woman holder of the post of Attorney-General is a living example of diversity in the legal profession. But, as with women political leaders, is she a one-off?

There is one black High Court judge and none in the Court of Appeal or House of Lords. In the High Court, the only black ethnic minority judge is Mrs Justice Dobbs. “People blame me,” the Attorney-General says. “They say I shouldn’t have gone into politics” — the implication, and likelihood, being that she would have risen to the upper judicial ranks, setting a precedent there rather than in government.

Yet her own achievement aside, she does acknowledge continuing difficulties and this Saturday will outline what can be done in opening the Minority Lawyers’ Conference in London, a biennial event organised by the Law Society and Bar Council, and to be addressed by Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice and others.

“I shall be reminding people where we have come from, that this has been a journey we have been on for some years,” she says. “I became a law student in 1973 and if you look back, there were very few black ethnic minority lawyers in the profession at all. The number of women was relatively few . . . it was a predominantly male profession. If you look at people coming in now, the proportions are materially different to 30 years ago.”

The statistics bear her out. Ten per cent of the 140,000 solicitors on the roll are from black ethnic minorities and a notable 31 per cent of student enrolments. Even at partnership level, they make up 26.6 per cent.

At the Bar it is the same story: nearly 13 per cent of the 15,000 practising barristers are from ethnic minorities (although only 4 per cent of Queen’s Counsel) but among student enrolments, the percentage is 39 per cent of the 1,742.

“It is much better than it was,” Scotland says. “But is it yet totally mirroring the community we serve? No. Is there a long way to go? I think there is. We need to acknowledge we are not over the hump yet.”

A lack of confidence and problems of perception is one reason, she believes. “It’s the same with women: if a post is advertised and a woman candidate ticks nine of ten boxes, she will agonise over the tenth that she can’t fulfil and probably not go for the job. A man who ticks five or six boxes will give it a go.”

There are also fears that the recession is going to make the task of increasing diversity in the profession harder — or turn the clock back. Scotland disagrees. “We can’t blame the present recession on the complexion of the profession. We have to accept there is more for us to do.”

On the contrary, she argues that the international and global nature of the legal market provides opportunities for ethnic minority lawyers who might have wider language skills. Their recruitment would benefit law firms whose international client base expects the firm they instruct to be diverse in its own employment.

So what can be done? The theme of Saturday’s conference is “less talk, more action”. Kim Hollis, QC, who is chairing the event, has called for positive action to champion diversity and widen the available pool of talent. “There needs to be a clearer understanding of the term positive action. This doesn’t mean diluting the requirement for excellence: it would reflect other vital skills and experience to include those who may have been previously excluded as these factors have not been given adequate importance in any selection process.”

Scotland backs such positive action and last year set out her own diversity strategy, with policies for chambers in selecting pupils and tenants; and for her own department in appointing to the Attorney’s panels who do the department’s casework. It is a myth, she insists, that only barristers from certain sets of chambers get onto the panels — widely seen as career promotion and stepping stone to judicial appointment. She intends to monitor selection to the panels and to audit the work done by those on them. “Each of us \ has to do what we can, not wait for someone else. I have in a sense set my own targets and said that by 2012 we want people on the panels to reflect the diversity of our profession.”

As for whether there should be specific targets for judicial jobs, panels or anything else is another matter. Scotland seems to prefer “positive action”, adding: “In my view there are enough people within the profession — it’s a question of encouraging that talent where we find it . . . black, women, of different sexual orientation, young, old . . . if we are going to compete on a global stage.”

She “would love” to see a black law lord but predicts one only in the next “10 to 20 years”. “We are at a tipping point. We need to push hard to search out that talent we are looking for.”

Think Tank: New Ideas For The 21st Century: Immigration and welfare: a bad mix


How benefits can be a divisive force in a pluralist society


On Tuesday French riot police rounded up 200 migrants near an encampment called “the Jungle” outside Calais. To listen to Eric Besson, the French immigration minister, the immigrants themselves were a side issue. The raid’s real goal was to rid France of “traffickers”. Natacha Bouchart, the mayor of Calais, saw it differently. For her, the problem was “nos amis britanniques”. Once migrants set foot in Britain, she said, “their situation is too comfortable and we [in Calais] can no longer tolerate being taken hostage by that”. Britain’s overgenerous asylum and welfare policies were drawing the world’s poor to the ports of France.

Probably more Britons agree with the mayor than with the minister: welfare policies do lure immigrants. Immigration and welfare are a bad mix in other ways, too. Comprehensive welfare systems (transfers, pensions, healthcare) tend not to arise in societies of mass immigration, such as the United States. In the present downturn, many assume that one path to recovery is to give up some economic dynamism and return to the welfare model that existed from Attlee to Thatcher. But Britain is not the place it was until the 1970s. Welfare states require consensus and society may now be too multicultural to provide it.

Immigrants can be good for an economy, but their contributions tend to go to the private sector through cheap labour. As for the public sector, almost everywhere, immigrants and their dependants take more out than they put in. Native Germans between the ages of 20 and 65 pay out more in taxes than they collect in services, but Turks in Germany do that only between the ages of 28 and 57. These figures worsen over time. The number of foreign residents in Germany rose steadily between 1971 and 2000 – from 3m to about 7.5m – but the number of employed foreigners in work held steady at roughly 2m people.

Until recently politicians suggested that immigrants might actually save European welfare states, replenishing the ratio of workers per retiree which has declined rapidly because of low European birth rates. It won’t work. Immigrants, too, age and retire and the system must take care of them and their large families when they do. But the amount of wishful thinking invested in this idea is impressive. “In the long term, migrants themselves will age and contribute to the increasing dependency ratio,” a Home Office report admitted in late 2007, “but only assuming that they remain in the UK during retirement.” What other assumption can be made? Are we to imagine that migrants will work to fund cushy retirements for Europeans, then slink obligingly back to the Third World to pass their own retirements in poverty?

Immigration also weakens welfare states by making native taxpayers less willing to fund them. Five years ago David Goodhart of Prospect magazine warned that social programmes arise out of a sense of obligation to fellow citizens, which gets harder to maintain when fellow citizens have a different culture.

This seems to be true empirically: Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, the Harvard economists, have shown that roughly half of Americans’ antipathy towards European-style socialism can be accounted for by the ethnic diversity of the United States. This view is given support by the recent work of Robert Putnam, the sociologist, who finds that people living under conditions of diversity “hunker down”. They trust their neighbours less – even neighbours of their own kind. They are less philanthropic, less social and less inclined to pay taxes.

It makes sense. Citizens authorise the state to make welfare payments not just to keep the less fortunate in a living, but also to keep them in a way of life. Once immigrants learn their way around they may have a different idea of the purpose of government benefits. Instead of using them to pay for, say, a British working-class lifestyle, they may use them to pay for, say, Islam. Two-thirds of French imams are on welfare. So are many British ones: Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, head of Britain’s “Muslim parliament”, said in 2005: “Our mosques are largely tribal and controlled by old men on the dole with no understanding of the changing world around them.”

If immigrant welfare recipients do not share the broader society’s values, then the broader society will turn against welfare or turn against immigrants. Immigrants are innovators. They have fresh ways of doing things. That is what makes them valuable in a competitive market society. But competitive market societies are in bad odour just now and, anyway, welfare programmes are supposed to be a refuge from them. It should not surprise us that scepticism about immigration should rise at a time when people are running in panic towards any such refuge they can find.

Christopher Caldwell is a columnist for the Financial Times. His book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West will be published on May 7 by Allen Lane

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Freedom of school choice meets its limits



Derk Walters

Handelsblad

April 24


The Dutch take their constitution seriously. A few articles jump out: article 1, about the principle of equality, and article 23, about freedom of education. Article 23 is so important that professor emeritus Dick Mentink made a career out of it.

Mentink, who taught educational law at Rotterdam's Erasmus university until his retirement, says article 23 is unique in the world. "The Netherlands are the only country in the world where the state is constitutionally bound to finance confessional schools in the same way it finances public schools."

Study reveals primary school segregation

The Knowledge Centre for Mixed Schools says one third of primary schools in the Netherlands do not reflect the ethnic backgrounds of their local communities. The observation is based on a survey of over 2,000 primary schools in nearly 40 municipal districts. The centre presented its report to deputy education minister Sharon Dijksma on Wednesday.

The centre, which promotes desegregation in education and is subsidised by the education ministry, believes that schools should reflect the ethnic and social make-up of their areas. It says research shows that this is not the case in one third of all primary schools. They have mostly either immigrant or Dutch-background pupils, while their local areas are much more diverse.

The centre describes the results of its research as "shocking", pointing out that the children are not learning to get along with people from other nationalities and religions. The cities with the worst results according to the survey were Lelystad, Leiden and Almelo.

The study reflects ongoing concerns about the degree of ethnic segregation in Dutch schools, caused by ethnically Dutch parents opting to send their children to schools where the pupils have a similar background to their own, even if the school is outside their neighbourhood. This has led to the intake at schools in some neighbourhoods becoming dominated by pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds. Such schools are officially termed "black schools".

(Radio Netherlands Worldwide)

The Dutch state, says Mentink, "recognises that all parents must have the unlimited freedom to give their children the education they want. Article 23 guarantees that the state cannot force parents to send their kids to a school against their will."

The Nijmegen challenge

The adoption of article 23 in 1917 was seen at the time as a compromise between liberals and confessionals. Then prime minister Pieter Cort van der Linden, a Liberal, felt that the state ought to be only minimally involved in organising education, but that it had a duty to facilitate free competition between the different educational and philosophical views in Dutch society. Article 23 also says the state cannot intervene with the fundamentals of confessional schools; its only role is to finance all schools equally.

In 2009, Dutch society is profoundly changed. Because of immigration, confessional schools - traditionally Catholic or Protestant - have come to include Muslim and even Hinduist schools. Added to the distinction between public and confessional schools is the distinction between 'black' (ethnic minority) and 'white' (native Dutch) schools.

According to some people, it is a perverse effect of article 23 that the freedom of education now allows Dutch parents to cycle across town just to send their kids to that one good - usually white - school. These schools have long waiting lists, while other schools become more and more populated with immigrant children.

Ghettoisation

The city of Nijmegen has recently decided to challenge article 23 in an effort to fight the increasing ghettoisation of its primary school system. Starting next school year, parents in Nijmegen will be allowed to name up to six preferred schools, after which a central committee will determine to which school the child will be admitted.

The committee will use several criteria to determine the choice of school, but the first criterium is that children must be encouraged to go to school in their own neighbourhoods. If parents name faraway schools they decrease the chance that their child will be able to attend the school of their choice, because children living near those schools will be given preference.

The second criterium is to strive for a better balance between disadvantaged and mainstream children. Research shows a ratio of 30 percent disadvantaged children to 70 percent mainstream children is beneficial to both groups: it encourages disadvantaged children to do better without lowering the quality of education in the process.

The right to choose

The two criteria are sometimes at odds with each other because the demographics of the neighbourhoods are not always desirable. In those cases preference is given to sending kids to schools in their own neighbourhoods.

Nijmegen denies that its policy is a violation of the freedom of education principle. Article 23 only guarantees the right to choose a kind of school, based on its denominational or educational fundamentals, the city says. It does not guarantee the right to choose a specific school establishment.

The right-wing liberal party VVD in the Dutch parliament objected to the new policy because it could force parents to send their children to Islamic schools against their will. The city authority says all parents have to do is not to list Islamic schools among their preferred schools.

Nijmegen is not the only local authority in the Netherlands to have challenged article 23. In the town of Tiel, parents have to report to either the public, protestant or catholic school system, after which their children are assigned to a school in their own neighbourhood. Tiel does not use a ratio of disadvantaged to mainstream children, which means that Tiel schools better reflect the demographics of the neighbourhood they're in. Another difference is that Nijmegen assigns children to one specific school; in Tiel, parents can choose between any school of the same denomination within the same neighbourhood.

There has been little protest in Tiel, but the changes in Nijmegen are more controversial. Educational columnist Leo Prick wrote in NRC Handelsblad that the city is "riding roughshod over the fundamental right of parents to send their children to a school of their choice."

Closing achievement gaps

Mentink disagrees. He says article 23 has often been misinterpreted in the past. "Article 23 was never about the consumer's right to choose. It is about the right to organise education", he says. And former prime minister Cort van der Linden's interpretation that "no child shall be forced to attend a school that doesn't respect the religious convictions of its parents" stands unchallenged, says Mentink. "Parents in Nijmegen can still chose the denomination of the school their kids are sent to."

At issue is whether local authorities have the right to spread out pupils in their efforts to fight ghettoisation. Doing so is illegal when it is based on nationality or ethnic background, but it is compulsory when it comes to closing achievement gaps. Article 167a of the law on primary education says local authorities have to consult with the schools in order to prevent segregation and spread out struggling pupils equally.

But is the Tiel or Nijmegen approach applicable to all areas, especially to the big cities? Tiel has only one "very weak" primary school. Amsterdam and Rotterdam have fourteen "very weak" primary schools.

Christian Democrat member of parliament Jan Jacob van Dijk is not opposed to the Nijmegen experiment. But what if all the schools in your neighbourhood are marked as very weak? he asks. "I wonder if one can force parents to send their kids to an obviously underperforming school. The system can only work if the quality of education is guaranteed across the board."

Friday, April 24, 2009

Gurkhas: Q&A


The Guardian
April 24

Background to the campaign to give Gurkha veterans who left army before 1997 automatic right to settle in UK

Who are the Gurkhas?

The Brigade of Gurkhas are Nepalese soldiers who have been recruited to the British army since a peace treaty between the two countries was signed in 1815.

They have fought as British soldiers in two world wars and many other conflicts including those in the Falklands, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan.

They were described by a high court judge in 2003 as having "established a reputation as frontline troops which is second to none".

Do Gurkhas have the same rights as other foreign soldiers?

Since 1980, the Home Office has allowed foreign soldiers to settle in the UK in most circumstances, but Gurkhas have been excluded.

Home secretaries have said the terms of their service were different in order to maintain their links to Nepal.

While they were in active service, Gurkhas could enter and remain in the UK but, once finished, they were discharged to Nepal and not allowed to settle in Britain.

Is this still the case?

The government has become increasingly aware of public concern about the treatment of Gurkhas.

In 2003, the then prime minister and home secretary, Tony Blair and David Blunkett, delivered statements acknowledging that "the men of the Gurkha brigade have shown unquestioning loyalty to the Queen and people of the United Kingdom".

In 2004, the Home Office changed its policy and said Gurkhas who had been discharged from the army after 1997 could apply for indefinite leave to remain in the same way as other foreign soldiers.

What changed in 1997?

Until then, the Brigade of Gurkhas was based in Hong Kong.

After the handover of Hong Kong to China that year, the brigade relocated to the UK.

Gurkhas discharged before 1997 would not have been based in the UK, whereas Gurkhas discharged after that point were, so the year became the cutoff point.

What about Gurkhas discharged before 1997?

Hong Kong-based Gurkhas discharged before the handover were only likely to be granted settlement if they had served in the UK for at least three years.

Many Gurkhas had served in the army for long periods in other parts of the world, but had not spent three consecutive years in the UK.

The Home Office had the discretion to allow these Gurkhas to settle if they had children being educated in the UK, or had a chronic, long-term medical condition where treatment would significantly improve their quality of life.

The Gurkhas in court today claim this policy has very rarely been used in their favour and that even those with substantial and threatening medical conditions have not been granted settlement.

Why did the Home Office stand its ground?

Two reasons were given for the government's stance.

Firstly, as the pre-1997 Gurkhas were discharged to Nepal, they were seeking permission to enter, rather than remain in, the UK, putting them on a different footing to other foreign soldiers.

Secondly, the fact they were based in Hong Kong rather than the UK meant they had not developed the same "close ties" with Britain as other foreign soldiers who were based in the UK.

What did the pre-1997 Gurkhas argue?

They said their treatment was discriminatory and a violation of the human rights and race relations acts because they were being treated differently to other foreign soldiers and to other Gurkhas who were discharged after 1997.

They argued that the home secretary behaved irrationally by making three years service at British barracks – as opposed to service abroad, including in conflict zones – the criterion.

The current policy, which does not apply to pre-1997 Gurkhas, does allow foreign soldiers to count time spent serving abroad towards their application for UK citizenship.

The Gurkhas argue that their long and distinguished record of service for the British army, heavy losses in conflict zones and dedication to the UK should be given more weight than the amount of time they actually spent on UK soil.

What are the implications of the case?

If the policy is changed, it is estimated that between 7,000 and 10,000 Gurkhas may settle in Britain.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

"Digging to America"

The stereotypical description of America is the "dreamland", the "land of choice", the "land of freedom". Also, the "melting pot". You are born and became American citizen by choice. Your American identity is becoming part of your other identities, without a serious clash, because the chance offered is to be yourself. (This is a stereotypical statement too)

The best way to explore America is through the variety of different personal stories. Collected and told from a generation to another, kept in oral history archives or turned into literature or movies. Ruthanne Lum McCunn's Thousand Pieces of Gold is starting from a real story of a Chinese young woman, bought from China for the prostitution ring and arriving in America in the times of gold's fever. Another experiences of Chinese immigration are shared by the amazing Amy Tan in his The Kitchen God's Wife, based on her personal life experiences of many generations under the same American roof, trying to introduce local habits and customs into the daily US context.

A literary perspective, this time about the Iranian and Korean adopted children is offered by Ann Tyler's Digging to America.

Beyond the usual stereotypes about America, they are millions of very personal stories. More or less related, with easier or difficult or impossible adaptation. And this multiplicity of histories is always enriched and always changing.

A hawkish problem



The Economist
April 23


THE prospects of a united Cyprus receded when a nationalist party won the parliamentary election in the north on April 19th. The National Unity Party, led by the hawkish Dervish Eroglu, took 44% of the vote, giving it 26 of the 50 seats. The vote for the ruling Republican Turkish Party, which backs reunification, fell to 29%. This reflects voters’ disillusion over the UN-sponsored peace talks that have dragged on since Turkish troops seized the northern third of the island in 1974 after a failed attempt by ultra-nationalist Greek-Cypriots to unite with Greece.

The result will also damage Turkey’s faltering membership talks with the European Union. Turkey faces a December deadline to open air- and seaports to Greek-Cypriots. It refuses to do so until the EU eases trade restrictions on northern Cyprus. Sweden, which takes on the EU’s presidency in July, is looking for a way to avert yet another train-wreck between Turkey and the EU. One idea is for Turkey to open a symbolic port or two only (though this was also tried two years ago by the Finnish EU presidency).

Hopes of a breakthrough now hinge on talks between the Greek-Cypriot president, Demetris Christofias, and his Turkish-Cypriot counterpart, Mehmet Ali Talat. Mr Talat led the campaign to persuade Turkish-Cypriots to vote in favour of the UN’s Annan plan to reunite the island in 2004. But the Greek-Cypriots overwhelmingly rejected the plan in a separate vote, so Cyprus joined the EU as a divided island. The Greek-Cypriots have been subverting Turkey’s EU membership talks ever since.

The mood improved markedly when Mr Christofias, who like his fellow left-winger, Mr Talat, favours a settlement, was elected president in February 2008. Substantive peace talks began last year with the backing of Turkey’s government, still keen on a settlement similar to that proposed in the Annan plan. This calls for the establishment of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation between Greeks and Turks.

Mr Eroglu publicly espouses the idea of reunification, saying that talks between Mr Talat and Mr Christofias must continue. Yet many suspect he prefers the status quo, which means continued dependence on Turkey and keeping 30,000 Turkish troops. Mr Eroglu talks of sending “a representative” to the peace talks. If he sticks to his campaign pledge to scrap a commission set up under Mr Talat to return occupied properties to Greek-Cypriots, the talks may collapse altogether.

Despite all this, Mr Talat met Mr Christofias again on April 21st. In a show of support, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, made clear that he would not tolerate mischief-making by Mr Eroglu. “We will not be supporting any steps that will weaken the hand of the president,” Mr Erdogan insisted. Some fret that Mr Erdogan may yet yield to hawks in his own party. Another worry is whether Turkey’s generals really want a deal.

What is clear is that the EU complicated matters hugely by letting a divided Cyprus join. “Had [the EU] been less rigid and cleverer, it would have lifted the sanctions long ago and thereby minimised the dependency of northern Cyprus on Ankara,” argues Yavuz Baydar, a commentator. It would also have eased Turkey’s accession to the EU. But that is just what Turkey’s detractors inside the EU do not want.

Dan Lungu Sînt o babă comunistă! / I'm a communist biddy!


Excerpt from

Critics about

Novel, "Ego Prose" series, Polirom, 2007, 243 pages

Copyright: Polirom

Translation rights sold to: Actes Sud (France), Residenz (Austria), Pre-textos (Spain), Jelenkor (Hungary), Faber Print Ltd. (Bulgaria), Czarne (Poland), Gruppo Editoriale Zonza (Italy)

Book presentation

The profound premise of Dan Lungu’s novel resides in an examination of the following paradox: how is it possible that many, even very many, people who formerly lived under a totalitarian, inhuman regime, without having enjoyed privileges or favours, can now be capable of nostalgia ? The author, through the intermediary of an old woman, who relates her life in the first person, attempts to deconstruct the mechanisms of nostalgia and to unravel this psychological enigma.

The novel is set ten years after the fall of the Ceauşescu dictatorship and shortly before the general elections. Emilia Apostoae, a pensioner, the greater part of whose life has been lived under the “people’s regime”, receives a telephone call from Alice, her daughter, an immigrant in Canada, who urges her mother “not to vote for the former communists”. This telephone call, followed by other arguments, casts Emilia into a veritable crisis of identity, from which she tries to save herself by recollecting the past and seeking to justify her nostalgia in her own eyes and those of her daughter. We thus go back to her childhood and adolescence during the time of the dictatorship ; we enter the rhythms and problems of daily life during that epoch.

The story moves at a brisk pace, the dialogue is engaging, humour shows its fangs, and mindsets are revelead by degrees. Apparently simple occurrences progressively develop their power of suggestion and range. Little by little, we are presented with a “normality” constructed by the regime and decanted in time, a normality that stirs regrets in Emilia but chills the reader. Dan Lungu does not accuse, but rather is empathetic : he describes the atrocity of an evil that has become banal, while at the same time being attentive to the dignity of his characters. His writing is rich in significant and redolent detail, but it does not even for a moment lose sight of the broader picture.

The novel continues the ‘experiment in mentality’ begun by Dan Lungu in Hens’ Heaven – the descent into a communism residual not at the political or social level but at the level of an ordinary person who has lived through that system and been profoundly marked by it. I’m a Communist Biddy ! forces you to smile, to laugh uproariously, to grow sad, but above all to interrupt your reading for a few moments and go outside in order to convince yourself that reality is otherwise, that people are otherwise. However, after such an exercise, the only thing left will be for you to conclude that the author has met the old woman who is a neighbour in your block, that he has met her daughter who has emigrated to Canada, that he has met your former workmate who used to tell political jokes while at the same time informing on you to the secret police behind your back. And then he wrote this book precisely in order to hold a mirror up to us all, in which we can see ourselves as we are and as, more often than not, we should not like to be.

I’m a Communist Biddy !” is more than the tale of an old woman : it is a museum on paper of daily life in a totalitarian society, a compendium of political humour, a lesson about the incommensurability of human experiences and, why not, the unpredictable story of an abstention from the vote.



TopBack

Excerpt from

It’s nine in the morning and we’re working like daft. We’re giving it our all, so that we can take it easy after the break. The doorbell, loud and hoarse, like a hooter, informs us that there’s someone at the door, a stranger. The bolt is drawn and the foreman appears, with a face like a funeral. Next to him, an elegant bloke holding a cigarette, none too jolly either. Aurelia whispers to me that it’s the new director. I heard a few months ago that they’d changed the director, but I hadn’t had a chance to see his mug until now. Shaven to the bone, with an impeccable haircut, but forbidding at first sight. I’m thinking that the foreman is in hot water or that one of us has put our foot in it, really deep, if the director has condescended to take his fancy suit for a walk among our greasy overalls. Comrade Suit puts his hands over his ears and scrunches up his eyes, and the foreman makes a sign for us to shut down the machinery. As soon as you can hear yourself think, the foreman tells us to gather around, because the comrade director general has an announcement for us. We form a circle around him. Comrade Suit stubs out his cigarette end with the toe of his 420‑lei‑a‑pair shoe, clasps his hands together, and lets rip, solemnly :
“Dear comrades, I have some good news for us all. Because your workshop has for many years been foremost in ‘Socialist Competition’, the comrades from the County branch of the Party have entrusted us with a lofty and privileged mission.”
We’re obviously in for it now, I tell myself. They’re probably going to increase our hours.
“A mission of which we should be proud. That of presenting and making known the fruits of our labour at the highest level possible, to comrade Nicolae Ceauşescu...”
Blah, blah, blah. We all freeze to the spot. In three days, Ceauşescu is going to visit our workshop, to stimulate production for export.
“Please start preparing for this edifying moment immediately !” the director concludes his speech.
This means military discipline, we all know it.
Gaffer Mitu has a pasteurised look about him, as he himself says. Either he’s got a hangover, or his morning dose of holy water was a bit too large.
The foreman tries to obtain a day’s delay from the director, before commencing the cleanup, because we have to finish an order for Thailand. Any delay will result in docked wages.
“Comrade, Ceauşescu is coming, don’t you understand ? Is export what matters to us now ?” the director snaps at him, lighting another cigarette.
They both go out, and we remain, pensive.

“On my life, I won’t budge until I take a photo of Ceauşescu right here next to my lathe, says gaffer Mitu, chewing his words.
“Gaffer Mitu, if Ceauşescu shakes hands with you, you won’t wash until your dying day,” gaffer Pancu goads him.
“Noooo, I want a kiss from Lena. I’m going to dress up as a pioneer and give her flowers, just so she’ll give me a peck on the cheek.”
We all laugh, but without pleasure.
The foreman comes back sharpish. He reads gaffer Mitu at a glance and sends him off to sleep for an hour. He hasn’t managed to budge the director on a delay, so we all get ready to make everywhere squeaky clean. He warns us that if we don’t make a good job of it, we’ll all be in the lurch. The director, especially given that he’s new, is also quaking in his underpants, so he’ll be keeping a close eye on us in the days to come. In three days and three nights we’ll have to sort out everything that hasn’t been repaired or cleaned for the last twenty years. If need be, we’ll work in shifts. We won’t be alone, because the entire factory will be in on the act. Our workshop has been picked out, but you never know where Ceauşescu will have a mind to poke his nose in. I’ve never seen the foreman so agitated. He’s talking and walking among us. He’s thinking out loud. He’s giving orders for today and the following days.
He changes his mind. He contradicts himself. He stutters.
He’s in a panic !
In the end, we manage to get ourselves organised somewhat. We decide to start with the whitewashing, because that makes the most mess. Then we’ll go on to painting everything that hasn’t seen a paintbrush for years, cleaning the windows, polishing the machinery, and after that we’ll see.
The scurrying begins. At first we all get under each other’s feet, but little by little we each settle down to business. Where they’ve passed by with the whitewash, Aurelia and me clean up the splashes and do the windows. Sanda couldn’t be luckier – she’s on maternity leave.
It’s afternoon already and things are progressing nicely, but we’re far from having finished. We’ve only had a quarter of an hour break. My back is aching and my hands are stinging. At first, me and Aurelia chatted about this and that, but now we’re working in silence. The only thing you can hear is the swishing of the brush and the creaking of the windows.
From the storeroom appear two women with piles of overalls and all kinds of protective gear. We receive new kit. On the day of the visit we’ll have to look like in the textbook, as the foreman says. With helmets and goggles, with gloves and leather aprons where the case.
On this occasion, the boss decrees a break. He sends someone to buy food for all the others. Plus mineral water, in spite of some murmured protests. He brings the coffee from his own office.
Each person has to sign for the new kit. For the first time ever, the people from stores have the patience to let us try the gear on. Up to now, they always used to give us it and that would be that. If it was too small or too large, you would have to pester them for a week before they would change it for you. We lay out the table for everyone, and we go off one at a time and come back with our effects under our arm. We munch without speaking, lost in our own thoughts.
Gaffer Mitu appears, with a helmet on his head, goggles, apron and bulky pigskin gloves. He walks swaying, with his arms spread out in front of him, as though he wanted to throttle somebody.
“My name is Dumitru Prunariu,” he says, “the first Romanian in space. At this solemn moment, I want to convey to you greetings from our Martian friends.”
I take advantage of the moment of relaxation to make a phone call to Tzucu and tell him I don’t know when I’ll be getting back. He’s just got in, immediately after Alice, and is warming up the dinner. I explain to him what it’s all about and he says he knows about Ceauşescu’s visit, that they have been mobilised too, and that he’ll tell me all about it at home. Today they got away quickly, but tomorrow looks set to be grim. I ask him to take Alice round to Sanda’s, for a day or two, until the storm passes. It’s not the first time the lass has stayed at her auntie’s, because they get on really well.
The street is all a bustle too. Barrels of tar are boiling, and the tipper trucks are unloading asphalt. Down the hill, the steamrollers are already at work. At last, they are laying some asphalt round here. Up to now, you had to do the slalom in the car just to avoid the potholes. By the entrance on the hill, the tall dusty pines are being washed with a hose. Next to our fence, facing the street, mounds of black earth are being carried off in buckets. The gravel and dry grass disappear, and here and there flowerbeds are being made. The watchmen are painting the large gate at the vehicles entrance.
The other sections aren’t sitting idle either. Everyone is on the move. Inside, they have already gone on to painting. In the first place, the flange that runs around the workshop, then we go on to the metal parts, the posts and all the rest. Everything in green. Although the windows are wide open, the smell is making us dizzy.
It’s ten o’clock at night and, the same as everywhere else in town, the power has been cut off.
We light a few lanterns, but you can’t see much. The foreman is in despair. He’s talking on the phone in his office. He’s roaring :
“Ceauşescu is coming, don’t you understand ? Turn the power on, otherwise it will be you who has to answer for it.”
We wait. We’re exhausted. The boss keeps making phone calls. Not even gaffer Mitu has any more appetite for jokes.
At last, the electricity comes back on and, with difficulty, we start work again. We don’t make much headway. He leaves us to it for another hour and then lets us go home. When I get back, Tzucu is asleep. I don’t wake him. I fall asleep like a log.


Here we are the next day, at the crack of dawn. Among us, two unknown persons in new overalls. The foreman makes the introductions, glumly :
“These are your new colleagues. They are called Andrei and Maria. They will be the workers’ representatives in the official delegation that will accompany the comrade President. Now they will give us a helping hand and familiarise themselves with the workplace.”
Andrei is athletic, with short hair. Judging from his jaw, I would sooner see him in shorts and boxing gloves than in overalls. Maria is very pretty, just right for handing over flowers.
The plan for today is as follows : in the morning we’ll finish painting inside and polish all the machinery until you can see you face in it, and in the afternoon we’ll move on to fixing up the exterior. I’m in the same team as Aurelia again. We start on the machinery. We remove the oil‑soaked dust from all the crannies, scrub with emery paper, and buff with felt. The boss passes it on, from one to another, for us to mind what we say in front of the new pair. There wasn’t any need to tell us. The hardest will be for gaffer Mitu, who has a bit of a loose tongue.
I peek from the corner of my eye at our new workmates. Andrei is looking at a lathe like it’s a giraffe, and it’s as though Maria is holding a hedgehog not a rag.
“It’s hard to change your trade from one day to the next,” I whisper to Aurelia.
Aurelia laughs to herself.
Comrade Suit passes by to see how the work is going and to encourage us.
At one point, Maria comes over to us. She asks us for a plaster, because she has got a blister from the emery paper. She has delicate hands, but the nails are not polished. I bring her a roll of leucoplast from the first aid kit, to cut off as much as she wants. She asks us if we usually work like this.
“Not quite at this pace, but it’s hard work,” says Aurelia prudently.
Maria stays next to us. She has begun to get used to it and is scrubbing vigorously. She tells us she has a bairn in the fourth form and that the lessons are hard, they have a whole heap of subjects. I say that it’s better that way, so that they’ll get used to hard work from an early age. After that I regret saying it. Who knows how she’ll interpret it.
We scrub in silence.
The boss calls me to one side and tells me it’s my turn to go and talk to the secret policeman responsible for the factory. He explains which office I have to go to. He tells me not to be frightened. It’s nothing serious. Everyone has to go. (…)

“Apostoae Emilia ?” the secret policeman asks me, leafing through some documents.
I nod yes. He is a man of about forty, going slightly grey, with a placid face and a bored voice. I’d expected to see a harsher figure, with a thundering voice.
“Maiden name Burac ?”
“Yes.”
“Mother and father agricultural labourers ?”
“Exactly”
“What does your husband do ?”
“Locksmith mechanic.”
“Yes… yes… But why aren’t you a member of the Party ?”
“Hmmm… I don’t know… I don’t think I have the necessary ideological level, comrade…”
“I see that you are a good element, you don’t have any deviations…”
“That’s right.”
“You have received a flat through the factory, how do you feel in it ?”
“Good.”
“Were you put forward to join the Party but refused ?”
“No.”
“But if you were put forward, would you accept ?”
“I don’t know… I think so.”
“And you say you don’t have the necessary ideological level ? How is that ?”
“I don’t know… That’s what I think…”
“What are you lacking in order to have the necessary ideological level ?”
“Perhaps I should study Party documents more… How do I know ?”
“Are you satisfied with the collective you work in ?”
“Yes.”
“And with the foreman ?”
“With him too.”
“Do you have any complaints about the workplace ?”
“Nnno.”
“Do you consider that you lack anything in particular, which the factory might help you with ?”
“I don’t know… Maybe a gas cylinder…”
“Is that all ?”
“Yes, I think so.”
“Well then, fill in a request form, which you will leave with me, and tomorrow go to the union to pick up a voucher for the gas cylinder.”

When I get back, they’re on a break. I get out my packed lunch and sit on the bench outside, next to Aurelia.
“How was it ?” she asks me.
I look at her amazed at how she knew.
“The boss told me that I have to go after the break as well.”
“Aha,” it all becomes clear to me. “He’s alright even so. He asks you what complaints you have. I told him that I’d like a gas cylinder and he told me to fill in a request form.”
“But why hasn’t he asked us up to now ?”
I nod my head in sign that it’s clear why now and not before. We eat. Finally, Aurelia gets out an orange. She tells me about how at her husband’s shop they don’t stint on unloading the goods. They get all kinds of stuff. Salami, milk, chocolate, everything. And not just them, but in almost all the neighbourhoods. Well, there’s still a queue, but only twenty or thirty people, not hordes.
Maria comes over, so we stop talking. Aurelia offers her some of the opened orange. Maria takes a segment, picks off the pith, and then eats it. I look at her with round eyes.
“I can’t stand the pith. I eat oranges like grapefruit,” she smiles.
So as not to show myself up, I don’t tell her that I’ve not yet had occasion to eat a grapefruit.

In the afternoon, we all move on to outside. We sweep, clean, dig. We’ve received black earth, roses and pieces of lawn from the town hall. We paint all the outside pipes and the mobile crane. On the main wing of the factory, another team, from another section, paints in letters as tall as a man “Long Live the Romanian Communist Party”. The porters have also received two new colleagues. The asphalting of the road has reached the factory yard.
In the evening, when the power is cut off, they let us go home.
I get back knackered. It’s too late to phone Sanda to see how Alice is. I chat with Tzucu for a little. We haven’t spoken for two days. He tells me that they were taken off to transplant maize. They go to the Party Farm, uproot the maize from an experimental plot – large and comely maize, with great big cobs – and then they plant it at the edge of the fields, two or three rows deep, along the roads which Ceauşescu will travel down to I don’t know what agricultural collective. They uproot the puny maize and load it into trailers. Even he doesn’t know what happens after that. They carry out all these operations in the blazing sun. At least they give them mineral water.
The third day is a bit lighter. We’re busy “decking out portraits”. We divide into two teams, one for inside and one for outside. I’m inside. We make a panel of honour, with photographs of the foremost workers. We’re having fun. We put Mitu’s photograph as the best of the best, the model to be followed. Then we draw up a graph of political information meetings, with dates and topics that we just make up. That is, not exactly – we copy them from a template brought by the foreman. We cut out articles from newspapers, which we tack to a piece of polystyrene wrapped in red canvas. We hang up two or three portraits of Ceauşescu. The boss brings us some twenty thick volumes of the works of Uncle Nicu, to put in his office. Because he doesn’t have a bookcase, we cart one from the Furniture Factory, on loan. He also brings forty flowerpots, for us to spread around the place, as aesthetically as possible. We have to sign for them. Whatever gets lost or broken, we’ll have to pay for.

There’s a hullabaloo outside. Someone’s shouting.
Me and Aurelia go to the door to see what it’s all about.
A scowling bloke with brown hair, wearing a suit and tie, is rolling his eyes and foaming at the mouth.
“You’re a bunch of idiots and dolts ! You’re in for it now, I promise you ! As soon as this visit is over you’ll have me to answer to ! Is this a factory for drunkards ? Is it wine we make or do we produce for export ? You’re irresponsible.”
And off he goes like a whirlwind, one of those ones that flatten everything in their path. We find out that it was the grapevines that had upset him. Gaffer Culidiuc is the most affected of all of us. He had planted them, cleaned them and trimmed them for years, and now the lads have already set about pulling them up. He can’t watch ; he goes into the workshop. The boss doesn’t say anything, because the new workmates are there, but his eyes are blazing. I’ll miss shade too, the plump black bunches of grapes… Gaffer Culidiuc makes a sign to us that the scowling bloke is barmy. We ask him who he is and he says that he is a bigwig in the County branch of the Party.
Not even an hour passes and the blonde‑haired young porter comes in guffawing. He wants to tell us something, but the foreman makes a discreet sign for him to be silent. The porter doesn’t catch on and lets rip, thirteen to the dozen. He says that that bloke just now – Comrade Whirlwind, as I’ve christened him in my mind – found fault with the pine trees by the main gate, and why are they so dusty. They explained to him that they had been washed with the hose, but that they couldn’t get them any greener than that. Then the bloke apparently began to bellow that he wasn’t interested, that, if need be, they should paint them, only that they should look like real pine trees, from the mountains. And now, perched on the Electrical Plant trucks with mobile ladders, a number of blokes are painting the pine trees with spray guns.
Only Adrian, Maria and gaffer Mitu laugh. Oh, and gaffer Culidiuc, who is in the workshop, standing behind us.
Only now does the hapless porter understand. You can see by his frightened glance.
“In the end, it’s one way of solving it,” he tries to wriggle out of it.
This time, we all laugh.
The porter can’t understand a thing.
The boss takes him by the shoulders and asks him to show him where he saw such a thing, because he doesn’t believe it. You can see from a mile away that he wants to get him out of the shit.
Today, we leave earlier, so that we’ll have time to prepare for the next day and to rest. The boss gives us our final instructions : overalls have to be ironed and starched ; the men have to be shaven and to smell of toothpaste, not of rotgut ; the woman without lipstick, makeup or nail varnish.
I get back home. Tzucu isn’t back yet. The pots are empty, and the sink is full. I get down to business. Tzuku turns up. He tells me about how some chap with a loud mouth came and hauled them over the coals : them, for not watering the planted maize, and the blokes from the Party Farm, who were getting ready a herd of thoroughbred cows to send to the agricultural collective that Ceauşescu was going to visit, for sabotaging the event. I described Whirlwind to him and he confirmed it was him. There had been a right carry‑on with the cows. In the first place, he made them remove all the black cows from the stock, because they didn’t set an optimistic tone. Then he was dissatisfied with the way they had been washed and curried. But the worst was when he battened onto their hooves, for not being glossy enough, because he knew that thoroughbred cows have to have shiny hooves. In the end, he made them lacquer the hooves, for them to look like in the textbook.
We go on chatting about this and that and then fall asleep.
The big day.
The director general and the boss make the inspection. They closely examine each of us individually, straightening a collar or two. With all this protective gear on us we look like something out of an exhibition. The atmosphere is tense. Our new colleagues haven’t turned up, probably because the official delegation has gone somewhere else. Comrade Suit goes out and we are left to ourselves. The time passes slowly. We walk to and fro, listlessly. We don’t even feel like sitting down, so as not to crease anything.
On the street, on either side, workers, pioneers and communist youth have already been deployed, with placards and flags. Their chatter can be heard as far as in the factory yard.
From time to time, gaffer Mitu walks around swaying, with arms outstretched, as he imagines a cosmonaut walks. We smile, but we don’t feel like laughing. Whatever you might say, we are excited. It’s not every day that Ceauşescu comes to our workshop. And I think that we are a little afraid too, even if no one says so. We have to make a good impression ! A very good impression !
From time to time, the foreman brings us news from Comrade Suit : Ceauşescu is in town ; Ceauşescu is in the viewing stand, the parade is about to begin ; Ceauşescu is having lunch ; Ceauşescu is heading for the agricultural collective. The tension grows. The worst thing is that we don’t have anything to do ; we just have to wait. We have to be ready at any moment.
At around five in the afternoon, a stupendous piece of news arrives : Ceauşescu has left town.
But we remain in position, in case it’s a false alarm.
At around seven, Comrade Suit appears and confirms that Ceauşescu has left town. He thanks us and tells us that maybe we will be luckier next time. He leaves in a hurry.
We’re left to ourselves and the atmosphere suddenly relaxes.
“Boss, what about those new colleagues of ours who didn’t turn up today ? What shall we do ? Clock them out ?” asks gaffer Mitu drolly.
“Bugger them !”
We all decide to go to a restaurant and celebrate our achievement.


Translated by Alistair Ian Blyth