Thoughts from London

Vital lessons for press and politicians
These last few days have been a testing time for politicians and press alike. Familiar British institutions have been humbled. Even the impartiality of British justice and the independence of judges are now on the radar screen of public scrutiny.

That all this could have happened in the 24 hours between Tuesday and Wednesday shows what a momentous time it has been in UK politics. And it will be so for some time as the soul searching that began last week could well affect not only the political culture and the media culture but also revive more strongly the demand for a broader inquiry into Britain's role in the war on Iraq.

It was a scary couple of days for Prime Minister Tony Blair who was at the heart of the two events that topped the political agenda and could have cost him his political career.

One was an essentially domestic issue, the charging of what was called "top-up fees" for those seeking to enter universities some time in the future. Basically it was a case of having to pay back part of the cost of university education some years after graduating and earning a certain income.

It was such an unpopular move among the student population and many parents that Blair had a rebellion by Labour Party backbenchers on his hands. Some felt betrayed because this particular proposal was not in the party's election manifesto nor was it approved at the Labour Party conference.

It was another move conceived by Blair in his evangelical zeal and had the back bench rebellion not faltered, would have been a humiliating defeat for a prime minister who suffers from a predilection to believe in his own infallibility.

Incessant political and other pressures were brought to bear on the rebels and their serried ranks gradually disintegrated. But still Tony Blair escaped with the skin of his teeth- by a margin of five votes.

To have a majority of 161 in the Commons suddenly dwindle to the number of fingers in one hand, certainly does not speak volumes for the support for the proposal within his own party or Blair's personal popularity.

His image is being increasingly tarnished within Labour because of his presidential style of governance that relies on a small coterie of cronies at the expense of the larger Labour Party electorate.

Tuesday's narrow escape might have kept his premiership intact but it has convinced many in the Labour Party hierarchy of the need for Blair to descend from his Olympian heights and engage his party MPs and cadres without flying off on his messianic missions.

If Tuesday night's vote showed Blair that he is not Ozymandias and the king of all he surveys, a badly bruised prime minister recovered his composure, and some of his arrogance, some will say, thanks to Lord Hutton, a former chief justice of Northern Ireland who gave him a clean bill of political and personal health.

Lord Hutton was appointed by the government to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, an eminent scientist and internationally-recognised weapons expert.

Dr Kelly was identified as a source for a story by a BBC reporter who claimed that a September 2002 intelligence dossier used by Blair in parliament to prove that Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were a threat to Britain, was "sexed up" by No 10 Downing Street or at its behest, to provide an excuse for war.

Andrew Gilligan, a defence correspondent, said the government also probably knew that the claim Saddam could launch his supposed WMD in 45 minutes, as Blair claimed in parliament, was wrong.

When Dr Kelly who gave evidence before the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and who the Defence Ministry was going to identify if questioned by the press, committed suicide, Blair was pressured to appoint a commission of inquiry.

But he deliberately narrowed its terms of reference to the Kelly death and not to the broader question of Britain's involvement in an unpopular war, which he dragged the country into, as demanded by some prominent politicians-including cabinet ministers who resigned as a result- and civic society.

After hearing 74 witnesses over 25 days, Lord Hutton made public his report on Wednesday that completely exonerated Tony Blair, his then communication's director, the abrasive Alastair Campbell; Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon; the intelligence organisations and other officials of wrong doing, blamed Kelly for breaking civil service rules by talking to journalists and placed the entire blame on the BBC for editorial lapses, failure of management to exercise greater control and the board of governors for lack of scrutiny.

I am not the greatest admirer of the BBC, certainly not what the BBC has become in the last two decades or so. Admittedly it has a worldwide audience and a reputation for impartiality. But that reputation for objective and balanced reportage has been severely dented over the years as I have shown on several occasions previously.

But this is true of British journalism in general where journalistic standards that are expected of others, have been sacrificed to the market-place and the quality of reporting and comment have taken a nose-dive.

The danger is that Lord Hutton's damaging criticism of the BBC -- much more stringent than anticipated -- might serve as the excuse for a political assault on the independence of the public broadcaster and of the media in general.

This is a lesson for the media in Sri Lanka and elsewhere too. A healthy democracy requires a vigilant media. But vigilance does not mean thrashing around like a bull in a china shop. If the media's watchdog role is to be publicly appreciated and safeguarded against political assault, then it needs to be tempered with the highest standards of journalism.

In this case the BBC was right to run the story because it was of great public interest. But it failed to report accurately and with the care that such news requires. If Lord Hutton's strictures lead to rethinking in the BBC and better and more balanced journalism, then fine.

But if as a consequence the BBC softens, if not abandons, its customary role of public watchdog in fear of changes to the Charter that set up the BBC, then Lord Hutton has done a grave disservice to journalism and the country.

In any case there are grave doubts about the Hutton report itself. It reads like one of those simple American westerns where the white men are always good guys and the 'injuns' the bad guys. Or like an old morality play with good and evil as different as black and white.

Lord Hutton has whitewashed the establishment. The politicians, the officials, the intelligence community et al have been shown to be totally honest and incapable of wrong-doing. Pity the cleaning woman and the prime minister's chauffer did not get a honourable mention.

At least the Scott Commission report on the government's role in the illegal arms sales to Iran had some criticisms of government. Lord Hutton seems to have ignored the very evidence given before him and contained in various emails and other correspondence released for public consumption, that could have led him to different conclusions.

No wonder people are losing faith fast in politicians and judges, as public opinion polls post-Hutton report show. Surely there is a lesson here too for those in Sri Lanka. More than a day after the release of Lord Hutton's report snow continues to fall turning everything outside white. Some might see it as Shakespearean symbolism that portrays more precisely the Hutton report.

Back to Columns