The John Griff Column: Independence – or independents?

Up until now, July 4th has been a day belonging to the United States beyond any other state. On it in 1776 and by issuing the Declaration of Independence adopted by the Continental Congress, the then 13 American colonies severed their political connections to Great Britain. In that act, Britain’s global influence shrank dramatically, albeit that ‘The Special Relationship’ would remain. Does it still today? Maybe not. In recent times and the end of strategically important US airbases on British soil, I suggest successive latter-day presidents have been under mounting pressure to step away from celebrating and protecting the relationship which they now only namecheck in speeches – making it something of a fair-weather friendship unless it suits them to be seen to have the public backing of this, the old country. The news this week concerning the partial immunity from prosecution of a former inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has certainly strengthened their hand in advance of America’s presidential election in just four months’ time. The current incumbent seems to have made nothing at all of any relationship between the US and the UK – instead he’s on record as saying his allegiance lies elsewhere. And in any case, what kind of UK will the next POTUS – whoever that may be – find when they jet in on Air Force 1 to visit King Charles 3rd? Will Britain be at the top of the list or in the middle order, if not lower?

For starters, it’ll be a King, not a Queen PYUS comes to see. And a King recovering at whatever speed from one of the most devastating illnesses that can befall an individual. POTUS will also find a new government – whatever its political hue. It will be quite some months before Great Britain reaches any form of stability after what has – yet again – been an election battle largely fought out over character rather than policy. And not just between two characters. One, beyond the biggest two protagonists, has already made it known that after the General Election here, he will have his sights set on helping DJT return to The White House. If there is indeed no such thing as a free lunch, what will be his loyalty dividend? Presumably something more substantial than meals won in an outback reality TV jungle.

In this year, of all years, more people on the surface of the planet will have had the opportunity to exercise their personal mandates in general elections. Already there have been surprises in India, snap elections called here and in France and with more on the way. In Russia the result was never in any doubt, but it does seem as though the former balances in power are shifting. How far elections will have been affected by older voters, younger voters, disenfranchised voters not voting at all and a myriad of other categories and definitions, remains to be seen. I watched earlier this week as one of the broadcasters loudly championed their own on-air service to the population as being first with the data, the interpretation and the pronouncements of what I all means, seemingly before it happens, and the ballot boxes are sealed. Does it matter? I doubt it. What will be, will be and it is the electorate which will decide. Then, it will be for others to actually start – or continue – the process of government according to democratic law.

Perhaps we should all look to sport for some lessons in how to deal with elections – and campaigns. Maybe it’s already happening. Did you notice the behaviour of most of the contributors in the televised leader debates (which surely were never true debates) over the past few weeks? AFTER the business of the programme and in the final few seconds as the credits rolled, they could all be seen warmly shaking each other’s hands, almost as colleagues rather than rivals. Sportsmen and women do it in the spirit of the game – last weekend’s rancour over the outcome of the Austrian Grand Prix will have certainly set the scene for this weekend’s events at Silverstone but the current generation of drivers – many in their low-20s - live in the same place, socialise together and seem to understand the differences between being on and off duty for their paymasters. Actually, I was quite encouraged to see the way the leader debates closed. Wouldn’t it be great if that same spirit of quasi-comradeship could make it into the Palace of Westminster for real and that intelligent people put there by the mass could truly work together for a better world for everyone? Cynicism – propelled by social media from all sides - would have you believe that that is no more than a pipedream. But if successive generations of human beings are now better educated, informed and able to participate in the process of democracy, why can’t it be a reality? Why does life have to be about ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ – why can’t it be about a global community seeking a better lot for all? The ideological differences between political parties all over the world are now so small that maybe in this, of all years and if common sense can prevail, we can collectively make progress and start to deal with the truly dangerous issues which exist elsewhere. Otherwise, why bother at all?

Elections are often fought accompanied by what appears to be almost hate-speech. Why? Point the finger at someone and you’ll find three of your own fingers pointing back at you. Collaboration will always trump the isolation of independence, so maybe that’s the manifesto we should be aligning ourselves towards – wherever we come from and from whatever standpoint.