Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Sri Lankan runner's 'victory' in defeat! June 22, 2020, 8:07 pm

The runner was a senior in my village school run by the Church.

Mr. Tommy Arther who was our coach used to say.

"What matters is participation not winning".

Karu took the advice to the extreme by taking an extra lap at Tokyo! 

I only stuck to 100 meters (yards to be precise) where I was successful in the school and later in the University. 

I was my own coach! 

Reproduction

Sri Lankan runner's 'victory' in defeat!



Sunny Island by Ruhunu Puthra

In the year 1964, the Olympic Games were held in Japan. We were Ceylonese back then.

The best long distance runner of Sri Lanka at the time, R.J. Karunananda ran in the 10,000 metres event (400 meters x 25 laps). Twenty nine athletes from 17 nations participated in the event.

He found that with four more laps for him to run, William Mills of the United States had already romped home. Even after the others had finished running an undaunted Karu, proceeded to run the remaining four laps, with rare courage and firm determination, as a lone runner.

When he ran his first lap, some spectators jeered and at the 2nd lap, the crowd fell silent. Then there was applause, followed by massive cheering. The whole stadium was reverberating with the chant 'Karu Ceylon! Karu Ceylon!'

Finally, he finished the race amidst tumultuous cheering and a standing ovation from 60,000 spectators. On hearing it, the Duke of Edinburgh, who was the chief guest, came out to congratulate 'the most spirited loser' of the Olympic Games.

Soon after the race, he was interviewed by the press. Karu told the reporters "The Olympic spirit is not to win but to take part. So I came here, I took part in the 10,000 metre event and completed my rounds."

He was acclaimed as a hero by the Japanese media. Even though he did not win any medal, he won the hearts of many admirers all over the world and was the true winner of the people.

One would have thought that it was the end of the heroic story. It was not to be. The Japanese Government in its wisdom thought otherwise. His story was made into a chapter in a text book, accompanied by his photograph, as a life lesson in determination, integrity, courage, self-confidence and persistence, for the children.

Karu received a warm welcome when he returned to Sri Lanka.

Born on May 21, 1936, Karu was a soldier in the Sri Lanka Army. He continued to serve his motherland as a dedicated soldier when in 1975, he 'drowned' in the Namal Oya Tank.

Ranatunga J. Karunananda is an unsung Olympic hero of Sri Lanka.

WHO Announces Biggest Single Day Rise in COVID-19 Cases Globally


 Reproduction

WHO Announces Biggest Single Day Rise in COVID-19 Cases Globally


By Kashmira Gander

The World Health Organization has reported the biggest increase in coronavirus cases in a single day, with the Americas bearing the brunt. 
According to a situation report by the U.N. health agency, 183,020 new cases were reported in the 24 hours preceding 10:00 CEST, June 21.

The total included 116,041 in the Americas, 20,248 in South-East Asia, 18,975 in the Eastern Mediterranean, 17,922 in Europe, 8,464 in Africa, and 1,370 in the Western Pacific.

Six months since the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 was first identified in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, Hubei province, 468,331 people have died in 8,952,428 cases, according to Johns Hopkins University. A total of 4,440,000 people have recovered.
As shown in the graphs by Statista below, the U.S. has the most confirmed cases at 2,279,879. That amounts to over a quarter of known cases worldwide. The U.S. is followed by Brazil, at 1,083,341, and Russia with 583,879. 
The U.S. also has the most recorded deaths at 119,977, versus 50,591 in Brazil and 42,717 in the U.K.

Amanda M. Simanek, associate professor in epidemiology at the Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, told Newsweek the surge in cases may be the result of lockdown measures being eased too soon and/or increasing testing capacity with more cases getting detected.
"In many states, recent increases in cases are related to outbreaks of COVID-19 in food production facilities and congregate settings such as jails or assisted living centers where there is often rapid spread and a high number of cases detected in a short time frame, particularly when targeted testing is carried out," she said.
However, Peter Drobac, a physician and specialist in infectious diseases and public health at the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford, U.K., told Newsweek the idea increased testing is behind the rise is not supported by evidence.
"I'm extremely concerned that too little is being done to slow the spread of the virus in states where we're seeing surges," he said. "Political leaders are waving it away as a statistical anomaly. Many testing, contact tracing and isolation programs are still weak or non-existent. People are tired, anxious, insecure. Local governments are headed towards fiscal cliffs. And yet, this is just the beginning of the pandemic."


Comparing, BSD versus Linux distributions' Development

My Approach
I am an old guy interested in Linux over 15 years or so and using Linux ONLY for over the past 8 years.
I have tried almost all except ARCH and Absolute Linux (very difficult in the past not NOW with Manjaro and Absolute Linux Live available, it is manageable-It was only installable image, then).
I loved the Live Image where I can run on RAM (one need at least 4 GB RAM for virtual testing-very SLOW and draggy) and see the effects.
I only use Debian now.
All the other distributions I love are on portable external devices (single or multiple).
I love KDE plasma desktop.
The Western Desktop of RubeccaBlack is beautiful. 
Open BSD has a live CD for booting with Internet connection.
If you have a SLOW Internet it takes over 5 hours.
What I do is install it on a external disk and go to sleep and check its funtionality in the morning, leisurely.
I am OLD and LAZY now.
The warning for young guys is that, one has to be patient to USE or TEST Linux.

It a large COLLECTIVE ENTERPRISE unlike Microsoft or Apple.

By the way, RubeccaBlack probably a derivative of Open Mandriva is an excellent Linux distribution (short on packages, though) to try.



Reproduction

Comparing, BSD versus Linux distributions' Development  
Comparing-apples-to-BSDs asks: 

I was reading one of the old articles from the archive. One of the things mentioned was how the BSDs have a distinct approach in terms of packaging the base system relative to userland apps, and that the Linux distros at the time were not following the same practice. Are there Linux distros that have adopted the same approach in modern times? If not, are there technical limitations that are preventing them from doing so, such as some distros supporting multiple kernel versions maybe?

DistroWatch answers: In the article mentioned above, I made the observation that Linux distributions tend to take one of two approaches when it comes to packaging software. Generally a Linux distribution will either offer a rolling release, where virtually all packages are regularly upgraded to their latest stable releases, or a fixed release where almost all packages are kept at a set version number and only receive bug fixes for the life cycle of the distribution. Projects like Arch Linux and Void are popular examples of rolling, always-up-to-date distributions while Fedora and Ubuntu offer fixed platforms.

Basically, with few exceptions, Linux distributions all fell into those two categories where the rolling releases were constantly changing and fixed releases tended to fall behind (or out of date).

The BSDs, in contrast, tend to take an alternative approach. Operating systems like FreeBSD and OpenBSD provide a fixed core (or base) operating system. The base tends to be small, stable, and only changes in small evolutions on a set schedule. The cores of the main BSD branches are fixed. Meanwhile most applications which you can install on the BSDs (LibreOffice, Firefox, the desktop environment, etc) are kept up to date with their upstream versions. The base operating system is fixed and stable while the applications the user runs can be kept up to date with the latest and greatest. This allows the BSDs to offer close to cutting-edge applications without risking a routine update breaking the core of the operating system.

A big part of why the BSDs have this stable core (and updated third-party applications) while Linux distributions tend to take an all-or-nothing approach to version upgrades is the BSDs are developed with all the core operating system components as part of one large project. The FreeBSD kernel, command line tools, filesystems, and base libraries are all handled by the same team. Third-party applications (typically called ports) are made available by another team. In other words, FreeBSD is a whole operating system with almost all the key parts made by one organization.

Linux distributions, on the other hand, are mostly collections of third-party components that are wedded together and managed by a package manager. Debian and Slackware, for the most part, don't develop much of their own software. Most of the work these projects do is to take separate components and weld them together to make an operating system out of independently developed parts. The Linux kernel is made by one team, the core libraries by other teams, the installer by another team, the userland tools by yet another team - all of them operating with their own separate goals and schedules. Linux distributions are made up of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of packages made by teams other than the one publishing the distribution.

This means that Linux distributions do not have one core operating system with key components managed by one team. The kernel, C library, init software, and userland tools come from separate places and their updates are generally not coordinated. This makes it hard for Linux projects to maintain a small, static core while end-user applications get updated.

While difficult, it is not entirely unheard of for some Linux distributions to attempt to maintain a small, stable core platform while regularly updating desktop applications. Some projects take a semi-rolling release approach. If you have used PCLinuxOS or Chakra GNU/Linux you will have seen this in action. The kernel, lower level graphics libraries, and core tools tend to upgrade slowly while desktop applications are updated as new releases come out. Semi-rolling releases can work for a while, but eventually the core components need to "jump ahead" occasionally to keep up.

Some Linux projects attempt to make an image of an operating system and add third-party bundles or containers on top of them. The Fedora CoreOS distribution does this. It maintains a fixed core on which people can add containers or package bundles. The core system in this case is not necessarily fixed, but because it is updated as a whole (rather than as individual packages) the idea is that the core image should always work. The core image approach allows for faster upgrades and keeps the core system somewhat isolated from the applications running on it, but lacks flexibility compared to the semi-rolling and BSD approaches.

A more flexible, and increasingly common solution, is to have a minimum Linux distribution that runs portable packages, such as Flatpak or Snap packages. Portable packages ship with their own dependencies, making them independent of the core operating system and therefore able to update separately from the base distribution and they can be frequently upgraded. The base distribution can then act as a long-term support (LTS), fixed release that is rarely upgraded, much the same way the BSDs handle upgrades. Unfortunately, portable packages are often very large, do not integrate with the host desktop properly, and managing them requires a second package manager to be installed on the operating system.

One more solution is backports. A backport is an updated program which is built to run on an older, fixed-release distribution. Generally backports are kept in their own, separate package repository and added to LTS distributions such as CentOS, Debian or Ubuntu. A backport can be handled by the distribution's default package manager, which is convenient when compared to portable package solutions. However, backports are rarely well tested (compared to the core package repositories), and in my experience, frequently break things on the parent distribution. This makes backports flexible but adds risk of breaking functionality or dependencies on the base operating system.

In short, while there are technical hurdles (such as distributed development) which make it harder for Linux distributions to provide the same sort of base platform isolated from third-party applications, it is possible for Linux distributions to offer this approach. There are several solutions available, each with their strengths and weaknesses. None of these approaches is exactly the same as the BSDs, but some of them are similar and offer some of the same benefits.


Sunday, June 21, 2020

The Central Bank in August elections Bond-smacked in 2015, Public Scolding in 2020:

Reproduction

Bond-smacked in 2015, Public Scolding in 2020:



by Rajan Philips

A new normal has landed. In a stunning development last week, Sri Lanka’s President upbraided Central Bank’s senior officials, and before that Bank of Ceylon officials, for apparently failing to follow government directives and implement specific measures to stimulate the ‘lockdown’ or ‘social-distance’ economy. The bankers were not given the benefit of social distance in what a newspaper called, "back-to-back barrage on the banking sector."

The specific trigger for the meltdown in protocol was the Central Bank’s apparent failure to implement a "proposal made by the President to provide Rs. 150 billion worth of refinancing to banks by accepting the outstanding due as collateral." According to the President, "the Government owes a huge sum of money to companies due to mismanagement in the past;" and this is the outstanding due that the government wants to "be kept as a security for banks to release loans to them. Then they can run the economy. This is a money circulation process. This is a very simple tactic and this is a basic economic principle. But, what are you doing?" The President riled.

The Central Bank officials said nothing during the barrage. They went back and with the approval of the Monetary Board announced the rolling out of new credit schemes to provide commercial banks with additional concessionary funds for a total of Rs 150 billion, to lend to businesses at 4% interest "to revive the economy." In addition, as has been reported, "a new dedicated credit scheme funded by the Central Bank" is to be made available at the same concessionary rates to the "construction sector enterprises," whose unpaid outstanding dues would appear to be at the root of all the public scolding, to borrow from licensed commercial banks, using guarantees issued by the Government equivalent to the amount on past due contract payments.

In a parallel development, Sri Lanka’s Tourism Development Authority has reached an agreement with the Bank of Ceylon, under which the Bank will provide loans at 4.0 percent interest to hotels and travel agencies and restaurants registered under the Tourism Authority, to pay salaries for 144,000 persons for the next six months, based on the EPF/ ETF records supplied by registered tourist industry employers, subject to a corporate guarantee or personal or independent guarantor acceptable to the bank. In addition, the Bank of Ceylon announced its readiness to extend its facilities to multiple sectors as well reduce interest rates. Meeting with People’s Bank’s officials, days after his meeting Central Bank officials, President Rajapaksa called on the state banks "to utilize relief announced by the Central Bank to strengthen the economy and the people affected by COVID-19 pandemic."

In what might be seen as a Main Street/Bank Street split, the President’s rebuke has been welcomed by some as a long overdue antidote to alleged reluctance in the banking sector to "think outside the box" and to be preoccupied with "theoretical reasons" against expanding credit or money supply. Businesses, who complain about the firewall at the banks that stop them from getting loans, are now happy that the President’s intervention will finally bring much needed relief. A spokesperson for small and medium businesses has expressed confidence that "we can now be optimistic of an economic revival." As well, while welcoming the 4% interest rate, small businesses also favour credit being disbursed "on a business basis and on business track records rather than on a collateral basis, because a majority of small businesses have had "massive losses and are unable to show significant collaterals at the moment."

On the other hand, the barrage on the banks has caused head scratching in the more conventional banking and business circles, who also fear of the fall outs for the country’s precarious external sector and financial credibility abroad. To think outside the box, it has been said, one must be used to thinking inside the box, first. Suffice it, for now, to take note of the birth of a new-normal economic principle in Sri Lanka, that if the government owes money to a company or companies for contractually provided goods and services, and if the government is unable to make those payments, then it can direct the country’s banks to extend loans to those companies using their outstanding dues as collateral, for the stated purpose of letting the companies run the economy.

This is a new understanding of the concept of economic stimulus, and a new paradigm for banks and their depositors in the utilization of money that is held between them in law and in trust. Although, there are ways to utilize depositors’ money for public purposes within the law and without breaking trust.

For want of a parliament

What the President’s advisers may not have informed the President is that in no country in the world, only the Central Bank, or the banking sector, has been solely responsible for taking initiatives to address the current Covid-19 economic crisis. Everywhere, governments, legislatures and the banks have acted aggressively but in concert with one another. By far the only exception is Sri Lanka, where there is no legislature to deal with a totally unprecedented health and economic situation. And it is equally totally unfair to blame the Central Bank for apparentlynot doing what other Central Banks are doing, when everywhere the Banks are not doing anything alone except in co-ordination with their respective governments, especially their legislatures. Put another way, for want of a parliament in Sri Lanka, the poor Central Bank got blackguarded.

In the US, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has met several times with (Democratic) Speaker (of the House of Representatives) Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, but hardly ever with (Republican) President Donald Trump. And last week, while Sri Lankan Central Bank Governor and officials were getting their dressing down, Chair Powell and fellow Governors were appearing before US lawmakers to report on the state of the US economy in the midst of the coronavirus crisis. Anyone who follows these matters will know that the US Congress (the House and the Senate) passed legislation with unprecedented (Republican and Democratic) bipartisan support, approving two trillion US dollars as ‘relief package’ for the American people. The Federal Reserve only provided the monetary tools for implementing a good part of the relief package (as it should be properly called as there is nothing to stimulate when the economy is shut down to escape the virus).

It has been the same story of joint action by legislatures and Central Banks in practically every country with a constitutional government, presidential or parliamentary. Sri Lanka, to repeat, is the sole, and sore, exception. In India, the articulate former Congress Finance Minister never misses a moment to criticize the Modi government and its Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, for coming up short on fiscal initiatives to match the monetary policies initiated by the Reserve Bank of India.

To add a different comment, in passing, the once highflying Modi government is now beleaguered on all fronts, including the Himalayas. Besides taking the blame for the mounting Covid-19 cases, the Modi government has to pacify its enraged Hindutva supporters and explain what it is going to do after the loss of 20 Indian soldiers in a literally sticks and stones border battle with the Chinese. The BJP has to come up with better ways to govern than scapegoating Muslims, browbeating Pakistan, clamping down on Kashmir, and, now, getting into a border fight with the Chinese. The fickle nature of political fortunes should not be lost on the new Administration in Colombo.

Nor should it be lost on the Administration that Sri Lanka’s Central Bank had already initiated measures analogous to those by other Central Banks, but acting within far greater constraints. What is missing in Sri Lanka, and to a far greater extent than practically anywhere else and especially among other South Asian countries, are the matching fiscal initiatives. It is no secret that Sri Lanka’s economic situation was in terrible shape even before COVID-19, and that creates huge limitations for the Central Bank’s maneuverability.

While central banks in developed economies can make decisions and operate with relative independence from external forces, their counterparts in developing economies are constrained to be far more mindful of the external implications of domestic initiatives, especially the implications for balance of payments and the currency. This has been the case ever since international capital flows and trade became more important than foreign aid for developing countries. It is unreasonable, therefore, for Sri Lanka’s political leaders, President Rajapaksa now and former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake previously, and now again, to blame the Central Bank for not aggressively dancing to the tunes of their fly-by-night advisers. 

And to publicly pick on the qualifications and salaries of bank officials is terribly beyond the pale.

It is a strange coincidence that in two August, or not so august, elections - first in 2015 and now in 2020, the Central Bank is caught in the eye of the political storm. Although there is no political storm to speak of for the upcoming election, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa chose to remind Central Bank officials of the 2015 bonds scam: "You were there when the Central Bank bonds scam was executed, he said. "If you supported them to commit this crime, there is no reason for all of you not to join hands with me to deliver justice. Public must be made aware of the issue of how we move forward with this kind of officials. The people of this country have bestowed a great power on me to build this country. I request all of you to allow me to build this country."

It is stranger logic to suggest, while invoking the electorally bestowed power, that someone who allegedly was party to an earlier crime should join hands with the government to deliver justice. Perhaps that is the way political karma now works in Sri Lanka - those who commit crimes in one regime, get a second chance to deliver justice in the next. The truth of the matter is that no one from the Central Bank who met with the President may have had anything to do with the 2015 bond scam, or anything before or after. And Professor W.D. Lakshman who stepped in as Governor as a matter of national service – he too had to be at the receiving end of the barrage. 
Hopefully, he received some personal apology, either before or after the scolding. 
Regardless of individuals, it is the institutions that are being tarnished. The Parliament is irreparably damaged. 
The Central Bank is now taking its turn. 
What will be next?

Postscript: 

In my article last Sunday (Archaeology politics and prejudice clouding Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour), there was an inadvertent error in the attribution of the Ibbankatuawa archaeological excavation in Dambulla. 

The Ibbankatuawa (IBB) megalithic cemetery was first excavated by Raja De Silva of the Department of Archaeological Survey of Ceylon in 1970. A dozen years later, in 1982, the late Senake Bandaranayake recommenced excavation as part of the Dambulla cultural triangle project. 

Excavations continued intermittently in 1983/84, 1986, and again from 1988 to 1990. Priyantha Karunaratne was involved in the excavation both at the IBB cemetery and the nearby IBB settlement area. 

I acknowledge the information kindly provided by Manel Fonseka.

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Military Dictatorships


Military interventions, by enlarge are failed exercisers, in a situation where a failed state or in a region (Africa in particular) with ill-defined land borders with different warring parties claiming for the land.

Currently China is exploiting the Indian inconsistency in South East Asia.

It is the silk road hegemony!

My first experience of military dictatorship was in UK when Idi Amin expelled the Asians from Ethiopia.

Then there was Rwanda (1975) and currently Sudan enmeshed with military and political turmoil.

Our political monks want us to be pushed in that direction in the name of Buddhism, is an irony by itself.

I happened to work with one of those Asian Guys Dr. Javani with whom I had a working relationship.

I did not work for him but did my elective attachment for six weeks. 

I believed the G.M.C (he signed in, no Asians) wanted me out of UK on the first go, but I survived!

Military dictatorships


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A military dictatorship is a dictatorship in which the military exerts complete or substantial control over political authority, and the dictator is often a high-ranked military officer.
The reverse situation is to have civilian control of the military.
Occasionally, military dictatorship is called khakistocracy.
The term is a portmanteau word combining kakistocracy with khaki, the tan-green camouflage colour used in most modern army uniforms.

Creation and evolution

Most military dictatorships are formed after a coup d'état has overthrown the previous government. 

There have been cases, however, where the civilian government has been formally maintained but the military exercises de facto control—the civilian government is either bypassed or forced to comply with the military's wishes.

For example, from 1916 until the end of World War I, the German Empire was governed as an effective military dictatorship, because its leading generals had gained such a level of control over Kaiser Wilhelm II that the Chancellor and other civilian ministers effectively served at their pleasure. Alternatively, the Empire of Japan after 1931 never in any formal way drastically altered the constitutional structure of its government, but from that point, it is typically seen as a military dictatorship, since the Army and Navy had the effective legal right to veto the formation of undesirable governments (and also to compel the resignation of an existing government that had lost their favor), and since key cabinet posts traditionally held by civilians (especially the Premiership) were instead filled by active flag officers.
Military dictatorships may gradually restore significant components of civilian government while the senior military commander still maintains executive political power. 
In Pakistan, ruling Generals Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977–1988) and Pervez Musharraf (1999–2008) have held referendums to elect themselves President of Pakistan for additional terms forbidden by the constitution.

Justification

In the past, military juntas have justified their rule as a way of bringing political stability for the nation or rescuing it from the threat of "dangerous ideologies". 

For example, the threat of communism, socialism, and Islamism was often used. 
(Currently advocated by misguided Buddhist Monks in Ceylon)

Military regimes tend to portray themselves as non-partisan, as a "neutral" party that can provide interim leadership in times of turmoil, and also tend to portray civilian politicians as corrupt and ineffective. 

One of the almost universal characteristics of a military government is the institution of martial law or a permanent state of emergency.

Comparison with other forms of authoritarianism

Military dictatorships are not the only form of authoritarianism or even, especially in the twenty-first century, the most common one.

Comparison with monarchies

A military dictatorship is distinct from an absolute monarchy, although there are some similarities, especially concerning how the two are (or historically have been) established. 
Virtually all absolute monarchs (and even most constitutional monarchs) are commanders-in-chief of their nations' militaries, wear military uniforms at least on a ceremonial basis and hold military ranks and/or titles. 
Also, senior members of royal families, especially if they are male and/or heirs apparent or presumptive, are expected to perform military service prior to ascending the throne. 
Moreover, almost all monarchies (both current and defunct) established themselves over the past centuries and millennia by force of arms. A key difference between a monarchy and a military dictatorship is that once they are established and recognized by their subjects (a process that has often taken many generations) a monarchy typically establishes some form of hereditary succession to legitimately transfer power from generation to generation, and while there historically have been many cases of disputed claims to a throne, attempting to seize power through sheer force of arms without some sort of credible hereditary claim is usually regarded as illegitimate and/or illegal by monarchists. 
In constitutional monarchies the monarch is usually the commander-in-chief and is often formally the highest-ranking military officer but in practice is expected to defer to the advice of civilian ministers, especially when appointing flag officers who will exercise actual operational command, thus maintaining civilian control of the military.
 
On the other hand, modern military dictatorships typically eschew hereditary succession with long-lasting juntas often emphasizing the traditional methods of promotion within the officer ranks as the eventual path to civil power. Military dictatorships which have attempted to establish themselves as monarchies or otherwise implement hereditary succession, whether or not by attempting to establish themselves as monarchies, have often collapsed very quickly.  
In one example, Oliver Cromwell after deposing and executing King Charles I of England refused all offers to take the English Crown, but nevertheless attempted to have power transferred after his death to his son Richard Cromwell; however, the younger Cromwell lacked the respect or support of the English military establishment, and was thus quickly forced to relinquish power. 
In another, a few years after staging a coup and establishing himself as the French First Republic's dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself French Emperor.  
Although he subsequently married a Habsburg princess and sired an heir to his newly-established throne, Napoleon's claim to power was never fully accepted by French royalists who supported the deposed House of Bourbon, nor by other European monarchies. 
Eventually, Napoleon's armies were defeated and he was forced to abdicate and go into exile. Although Napoleon's nephew eventually re-established the Bonapartist monarchy for a time, his seizure of power might be better described in the context of a civilian dictatorship as described in the next section.

Comparison with civilian dictatorship

A military dictatorship is also different from civilian dictatorship for a number of reasons: their motivations for seizing power, the institutions through which they organize their rule and the ways in which they leave power. Often viewing itself as saving the nation from the corrupt or myopic civilian politicians, a military dictatorship justifies its position as "neutral" arbiters on the basis of their membership within the armed forces, which in many countries are nominally expected to be apolitical institutions.

For example, many juntas adopt titles along the lines of "Committee of National Restoration", or "National Liberation Committee". Military leaders often rule as a junta, selecting one of themselves as a head.

Current cases


Country Past government Date adopted Event
 Sudan Federal dominant-party presidential republic April 11, 2019 2019 Sudanese coup d'état

Past cases


Africa


Aman Mikael Andom and Atnafu Abate, leaders of the Ethiopian military junta

  1. Algeria (1965–1976; 1992–1994; 2019)
  2. Benin (1963–1964; 1965–1968; 1969–1970; 1972–1975)
  3. Burkina Faso (1966–1980; 1980-1982; 1982-1983; 1983-1987; 1987-2014)
  4. Burundi (1966–1974; 1976–1979; 1987–1992)
  5. Central African Republic (1966–1979; 1981–1986; 2003–2005; 2013–2014)
  6. Chad (1975–1979; 1982–1990)
  7. Ciskei (1990–1994)
  8. Comoros (1999–2002)
  9. Democratic Republic of the Congo (1965–1997)
  10. Republic of the Congo (1968–1969; 1977–1979)
  11. Côte d'Ivoire (1999–2000)
  12. Egypt (1953–1956; 2011–2012; 2013-2015)
  13. Equatorial Guinea (1979–1992)
  14. Ethiopia (1974–1987)


  1. Zairean President Mobutu Sese Seko
  2. The Gambia (1994–1996)
  3. Ghana (1966–1969; 1972–1975; 1975–1979; 1981–1993)
  4. Guinea (1984–1990; 2008–2010)
  5. Guinea-Bissau (1980–1984; 1999; 2003; April 12, 2012 – May 11, 2012)
  6. Lesotho (1986–1993, 2014)
  7. Liberia (1980–1986, 1990–1997, 2003–2006)
  8. Libya (1969–2011)
  9. Madagascar (1972–1976)
  10. Mali (1968–1992; Mengistu Haile Mariam)
  11. Mauritania (1978–1979; 1979–1992; 2005–2007; 2008–2009)
  12. Niger (1974–1989; 1996; 1999; 2010–2011)
  13. Nigeria (1966; 1966–1975; 1975–1976; 1976-1979; 1983–1985; 1985–1993; 1993–1998; 1998–1999)
  14. Rwanda (1973–1975)
  15. São Tomé and Príncipe (1995; 2003)
  16. Sierra Leone (1967–1968; 1992–1996; 1997–1998)
  17. Somalia (1969–1976; 1980–1991)
  18. Sudan (1958–1964; 1969–1971; 1985–1986; 1989–1993; 2019–present)
  19. Togo (1967–1979)
  20. Transkei (1987–1994)
  21. Tunisia (1987–2011)
  22. Uganda (1971–1979; 1985–1986)
  23. Venda (1990–1994)
  24. Zimbabwe (2017–2018)

Americas


Augusto Pinochet, who ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990.

  1. Argentina (1835-1852;1930–1932; 1943–1946; 1955–1958; 1966–1973; 1976–1983)
  2. Bolivia (1839–1843; 1848; 1857–1861; 1861; 1864–1871; 1876–1879; 1899; 1920–1921; 1930–1931; 1936–1940; 1943–1946; 1951–1952; 1964–1969; 1969–1979; 1980–1982)
  3. Brazil (1889–1894; 1930; 1964–1985)
  4. Chile (1924–1925; 1925; 1927–1931; 1932; 1973–1990)
  5. Colombia (1854; 1953–1958)
  6. Costa Rica (1868–1870; 1876–1882; 1917–1919)
  7. Cuba (1933; 1952–1959)
  8. Dominican Republic (1899; 1930–1961; 1963–1966)
  9. Ecuador (1876–1883; 1935–1938; 1947; 1963–1966; 1972–1979; 2000)
  10. El Salvador (1885–1911; 1931–1982)
  11. Guatemala (1931–1944; 1944–1945; 1954–1957; 1957–1966; 1970–1986)
  12. Grenada (1983)
  13. Haiti (1950–1956; 1956–1957; 1986–1990; 1991–1994)
  14. Honduras (1933–1949; 1956–1957; 1963–1971; 1972–1982; 2009–2010)
  15. Mexico (1835–1846; 1876–1880; 1884–1911; 1913–1914)
  16. Nicaragua (1937–1979)
  17. Panama (1903–1904; 1968–1989)
  18. Paraguay (1940–1948; 1954–1989)
  19. Peru (1842–1844; 1865–1867; 1872; 1879–1881; 1914–1915; 1930–1939; 1948–1956; 1962–1963; 1968–1980; 1992–2000)
  20. Suriname (1980–1991)
  21. Uruguay (1865–1868; 1876–1879; 1933–1938; 1973–1985)
  22. Venezuela (1858–1859; 1859–1861; 1861–1863; 1908–1935; 1948–1958)

Asia



Thailand's Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha in 2014

Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek in 1940

  1. Afghanistan (1978–1986)
  2. Bangladesh (1975–1981; 1982–1990)
  3. Brunei (1962)
  4. Burma (Myanmar) (1962–1988; 1988–2011)
  5. Khmer Republic (1970–1975)
  6. Indonesia (1967–1998)
  7. Iran (1953–1957; 1978–1979)
  8. Iraq (1933–1935; 1936; 1937–1938; 1941; 1949–1950; 1952–1953; 1958–1963; 1963-1968 1968–1979)
  9. Japan (1192–1867[5]; 1931–1945)
  10. South Korea (1170–1270; 1961–1963; 1980)
  11. Kingdom of Laos (1959–1960; 1964)
  12. Lebanon (1988-1990)
  13. Maldives (1988–1989)
  14. Pakistan (1958–1969; 1969–1971; 1977–1988; 1999–2008)
  15. Philippines (1898, 1972–1981)
  16. Syria (1949; 1951–1954; 1961–1972)
  17. Republic of China (Taiwan) (1949–1987)
  18. Thailand (1933; 1947–1957; 1959–1963; 1963–1973; 1977–1979; 2006–2008; 2014–2019)
  19. South Vietnam (1963–1967)
  20. North Yemen (1962–1967; 1974–1977; 1977–1978; 1978; 1978–1982)

Europe


Spanish leader Francisco Franco in 1975

  1. Bulgaria (1923–1926; 1934–1935; 1944–1946)
  2. Cyprus (1974)
  3. United Kingdom (1653–1659)
  4. France (1804–1814; 1852–1870; 1870–1871)
  5. Georgia (1992)
  6. German Empire (1916–1918; 1945)
  7. Greece (1925–1926; 1936–1941; 1967–1974)
  8. Poland (1926–1935, and after his death to 1939; 1981–1983)
  9. Portugal (1926–1933)
  10. Romania (1941–1944)
  11. Russia (1918–1920, 1991)
  12.   an Marino (1957)
  13. Spain (1923–1930; 1936–1975)
  14. Turkey (1913–1918; 1921–1927; 1960–1961; 1980–1983)
  15. Ukraine (1918)

Oceania


  1. Fiji (1987–1999; 2006–2014)

References


    Dave Gilson (2003-02-02). "Freed from a prison of thought in Nigeria". SFGate. Retrieved 2007-12-15.

    Ikhenemho Okomilo (2005-06-10). "Another October, More Khakistocracy". Nigerians in America. Retrieved 2007-12-15.

    temporal (2007-08-07). "Khakistocracy: Military-Industrial-Feudal Complex in Pakistan". Desicritics. Archived from the original on 2010-11-21. Retrieved 2007-12-15.

    Cheibub, José Antonio; Jennifer Gandhi; James Raymond Vreeland (April 1, 2010). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice. 143 (1–2): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. ISSN 0048-5829.

    "Shogunate". britannica.com. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved June 13, 2020. The shogunate was the hereditary military dictatorship of Japan (1192–1867).



Leave no room for the military to thirst after political power Uphold the principle of an apolitical military

Reproduction

Leave no room for the military to thirst after political power


Uphold the principle of an apolitical military




by Kumar David

General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is America’s highest serving military officer. He made a mistake when he appeared in a photo-op with Donald Trump, following forceful dispersal of peaceful protesters outside the White House on 1 June. He apologized, admitted it was a mistake and said "my presence in that environment created a perception that the military is involved in domestic politics". What is more crucial for Lanka’s Presidents, Prime Ministers and military brass to digest is what Gen. Milley said next: 
"We must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military which is deeply rooted in the very essence of our republic".

Several former generals have spoken out against Trump’s partisan approach to a human rights issue - equality for black Americans. His first Defence Secretary, retired Gen. James Mattis, said he never dreamed that troops would be ordered to violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens. However, it is this declaration from Gen. Milley, the current top serving officer, that is stunning; it is a public rebuke of the President.

Fast forward to the role of the military in Gotabhaya’s Administration. So many generals, admirals, inspector-generals, retired and serving, piles of kaki and bristling medals shine around, about, within, between and adjacent to his person. They jostle for positions and crave for Ministry Secretary-ships and Chairmanship of Corporations. Task Forces are so over-populated with generals that they trip over each other’s regalia. True it is still not time to call this Administration a military junta but that for sure is not for a scarcity of soldierly personages in the squad. The fundamental distinction between the culture and the traditions of the top echelons of America’s military and our own is that the former boldly tell the President: ‘We hold dear the fundamental principle of an apolitical military, an ethos deeply rooted in the essence of our republic’. 

Can we say this of Lanka’s military? 

Only a careless analyst will stake his intellectual reputation on such an assertion!

Though the regime has used coronavirus as a smokescreen to strengthen its stranglehold on society it has still not declared itself a ruling junta or suspended the constitution. Gota and poropaya are confident of winning the elections and have outflanked both flavours of the UNP and rendered them impotent. The SLFP is a miserable rump and crackpot Sira may lose his seat in Polonnaruwa – good riddance. The Tamils and the TNA are exhausted and have given up the fight. The ghost of Tamil polity can do no more after the LTTE pranced with the devil and the army buried thousands. The TNA and Sumanthiran have offered to boot-lick the putative dictatorship if humble pleas are entertained till 5 August after which the lick will end. Shades of GGP, but at least the old rogue got a Cabinet post in lieu of 30 pieces of silver. MAS, Sambanthan and Mave come cheap; no such offers will materialist without the monks’ blessings and fat hopes of that! Lead counsel MAS bowed his head in sheepish humility when the Court kicked him resoundingly on his soft posterior; I guess he didn’t want to displease the President. 
The Muslims cower in fear with no capacity to protect themselves from President, military or the disdain of a most Sinhala people.

To come back to my theme, ours is a military that is not prepared to tell the President "We want no part of anything that smacks of politics; we want no part of bossing around with public health, archeology, food distribution, intimidating minorities, collecting corporate and state sinecures, or accruing glowing medals on a burnished uniform for carrying your political spittoon". 

If the military leaves room to be sucked into politics it must take the blame – another share of the blame must be assigned to their overlord and his ilk.

The graver danger is long-term. 
Imagine that Gota departs for some presently unfathomable reason. 
What after that? 

The military having tasted power will continue to seek successors who ensure a military-aligned state to which their appetites are now being honed. 

Imran Khan is a case in point; his rise and continued stay in power is partly a gift from the military. 

Participation, the overbearing involvement in power of military brass is a dangerous development that cannot be reversed merely by political actors even as brave and distinguished as Imran. This is a task that will one day need the direct intervention of the people. That is the real as yet unaccomplished lesson of Pakistan.

A piece called "Wounded Democracy" Pradeep Peiris et. al in the Daily Mirror of 16 June quote a CPA survey which shows that over 90% of Sinhalese consistently "trust the military" since 2011; while 2018 parliament and political parties score a miserable 16 to 17%. 
This is a consequence of the Sinhalese victory in the Civil War. 
It was the same in Serbia despite genocide in Srebrenica. 

In Iraq Saddam’s atrocities against Shias and Kurds earned him the loyalty of the majority Sunnis, and everywhere the way to the affections of a race is to massacre an adjacent race or faith. 

Love of the military is deeply embedded in the Sinhala psyche because it won the war and Gota is playing from a strong hand when he bids for a grand-slam for a military dominated regime.

Therefore, there is an unavoidable contradiction in championing democracy. 
It is the people themselves who make a mockery of democracy. 

The grotesque Mervyn de Silva polled 150,000 votes in Gampaha in 2012, ladies of easy virtue outpoll proven, uncorrupted politicians and 90% of Lanka’s parliamentarians have not passed the O-Level. 
Such MPs, the corrupt, drug dealers and thugs win most elections. This is largely due not to vote buying, but is the outcome of a fairly free franchise. The incongruity to which there is no easy answer is what then are we attempting to shield when advocating democracy? The question is as old as democracy itself! 
The contrarian exclamations with which one throws up one’s hands in horror are: "We must preserve democracy!" 

"The masses are asses!"

The riposte to this charge is intellectually flabby but at the same time empirically impregnable. "No better form of government has been invented"! One and all call themselves republics (Latin res publica, a public affair) rule by the people, not excepting the Republic of Singapore and the People’s Republic of China. Madam Elizabeth holds titular rank in a place where her ancestors since 1648 (or at least 1688) are ceaselessly reminded that Parliament is supreme. 

Can you believe it, even an ugly tyranny like Egypt feels obliged to use the fictional name Arab Republic of Egypt?

The masses may be asses but a dangerous and profoundly false subtext is slipped in. "Since the masses are asses nothing could be better than the military taking power; great progress will flow; great achievements can be made". 
I impress on readers the frequency and duration of the cancer once it takes root. 
What progress? 
What achievements? Show me one from each box – I challenge you!

Thursday, June 18, 2020

Tony Benn on Revolutionary Christianity

Tony Benn on Revolutionary Christianity
Tony Benn
This Easter Sunday we republish Tony Benn's classic lecture on the revolutionary social imperative of Christian teachings.
Born into a family steeped in the tradition of Christian non-conformism, Tony Benn would later go on to become Britain’s best known socialist. 
Benn’s mother, Margaret Wedgwood Benn was a theologian and founder member of the League of the Church Militant, the predecessor organization to the Movement for the Ordination of Women.
An inspiring force in Benn’s life, Margaret would teach her young son that the story of the Bible was based on the struggle between “the Kings who had power, and the prophets who preached righteousness.”
Later in his life, Benn would assert that he was a “Christian agnostic,” unsure of the existence of God, but someone who believed in “Jesus the prophet, not Christ the King,” the historical Jesus — “the carpenter of Nazareth” — who preached social justice and egalitarianism.
This is the main text of a lecture delivered in November 1980 at Mansfield College Chapel, Oxford in which Benn looks into the revolutionary history behind Christ’s message and its relationship to socialist thought.
— Max Shanly

The Social Imperative

When Jesus was asked by one of the scribes “What commandment is the first of all?” St Mark’s Gospel (chapter twelve, verse twenty-nine) records his answer thus:
The first is Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength. And the second is this. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other Commandment greater than these.
Any serving student of the teachings of the historical Jesus — and I lay claim to be such a student and no more — must take that passage as his starting point in the search for their revolutionary consequences.
Few would question the use of the word “revolutionary” to describe the effect upon an individual of his or her conversion to the Christian faith with its sense of personal re-birth and the comforting certainty of eternal life.
Historically, many churches appear to have been, and to remain, more concerned with the task of preaching personal salvation than with the social imperatives spelled out in Jesus’s reply.
Generations of churchmen have formulated creeds and liturgies, discussed the mystical aspects of theology and have worked within ecclesiastical hierarchies to interpret the word of God for the faithful, supported by various disciplines designed to secure their compliance.
It has also been true that Ecclesiastical and Temporal power have often been fused into a combined establishment to secure the submission of the people to the authoritarian demands of church and state.
In such situations the social imperatives relating to our obligations to practice neighbourly love were shrunk into a vague and generalized injunction directed to the rich and powerful to express their love by being good and kind; and to the poor to return that love by being patient and submissive.
Both rich and poor, powerful and weak, were then reassured by the church that in the world to come each would have their just reward and all suffering and injustice would be swept away for all eternity.

Neighbourly Love

Not surprisingly, this interpretation of the teachings of Jesus did not commend itself to the poor and the disinherited who saw through this argument and rejected the role allocated to them in this world — of accepting injustice. Thus, outside the established churches, and in parallel with them, the practical commandment to practice true neighbourly love based upon an acceptance of our common humanity acquired an impetus of its own.
This radical interpretation of the teachings of Jesus spread wherever the Bible was available for study — and no doubt explains why the authorities were so anxious to keep it out of the hands of the laity. In this way the message reached and influenced a far wider audience — including those for whom social action was much more relevant and meaningful than the call to personal salvation.
H. G. Wells in his history of the world — himself an atheist — wrote this about the revolutionary nature of Jesus’s teachings:
In view of what he plainly said, is it any wonder that all who were rich and prosperous felt a horror of strange things, a swimming of their world at his teaching? He was dragging out all the little private reservations they had made from social service into the light of a universal religious life. He was like some terrible moral huntsman digging mankind out of the snug burrows in which they had lived hitherto. In the white blaze of this kingdom of his there was to be no property, no privilege, no pride and precedence; no motive indeed and no reward but love.

Is it any wonder that men were dazzled and blinded and cried out against him? Even his disciples cried out when he would not spare them the light. Is it any wonder that the priests realized that between this man and themselves there was no choice but that he or priest-craft should perish? Is it any wonder that the Roman soldiers, confronted and amazed by something soaring over their comprehension and threatening all their disciplines, should take refuge in wild laughter and crown him with thorns and robe him in purple and make a mock Caesar out of him? For to take him seriously was to enter upon a strange and alarming life, to abandon habits, to control instincts and impulses, to essay an incredible happiness.
This radical interpretation of the message of brotherhood and its clear anti-establishment agitation has surfaced time and again throughout our history. Wycliffe and the Lollards were engaged in it. So was the Reverend John Ball whose support for the Peasants Revolt cost him his life in 1381.
The belief in the “priesthood of all believers” which lies at the root of Congregationalism; or the Quakers “inner light” were all — and remain — profoundly revolutionary in their impact upon the hierarchies of the church itself. Nor was this revolutionary agitation confined to the church.
The “divine right of kings” asserted by King Charles I as a defense of his powers was overthrown along with the king himself and in the ensuing revolution a furious debate began about the legitimacy of the organs of both church and state power.
The Levellers asserted that “the relation of master and servant has no ground in the New Testament: in Christ there is neither bond nor free.” Expressing their political philosophy in Christian terms:
The relation of Master and Servant has no ground in the New Testament; in Christ there is neither bond nor free. Ranks such as those of the peerage and gentry are “ethical and heathenish distinctions.” There is no ground in nature or Scripture why one man should have £1000 per annum, another not £1. The common people have been kept under blindness and ignorance, and have remained servants and slaves to the nobility and gentry. But God has now opened their eyes and discovered unto them their Christian liberty.
Gerrard Winstanley, the True Leveller or Digger, went further and defined the Creator not as God but as “Reason” and on that basis rejected the historical justification for the doctrine that “one branch of mankind should rule over another”:
In the beginning of Time, the great Creator, Reason, made the Earth to be a Common Treasury, to preserve Beasts, Birds, Fishes and Man, the lord that was to govern this Creation; for Man had Domination given to him, over the Beasts, Birds and Fishes, but not one word was spoken in the beginning, that one branch of mankind should rule over another.
And the reason is this, every single man, male and female, is a perfect creature of himself; and the same Spirit that made the Globe dwells in man to govern the Globe; so that the flesh of man being subject to Reason, his Maker, hath him to be his Teacher and Ruler within himself, therefore needs not run abroad after any Teacher and Ruler without him, for he needs not that any man should teach him, for the same Anointing that ruled in the Son of Man, teacheth him all things.
But since humane flesh (that king of Beasts) began to delight himself in the objects of the Creation, more than in the Spirit Reason and Righteousness . . . Covetousness, did set up one man to teach and rule over another, and thereby the Spirit was killed, and man was brought into bondage and became a greater Slave to such of his own kind, than the Beasts of the field were to him.

Christianity and Democracy

In this way a bridge was constructed that carried the message of brotherhood and sisterhood from Christianity to secular humanism, a bridge that carried the ethics across but left the creeds behind. Across this bridge there is now a growing two-way traffic of people and ideas. Christians involved in political action cross it one way. Humanists can cross it to go back to the teachings of Jesus and study them.
In a theological sense there is a great divide between the Christians on one side and the humanists on the other. But it is impossible to escape the conclusion that over that bridge revolutionary ideas deriving from the Bible and the carpenter of Nazareth have spread to influence hundreds of millions of people for whom the need for neighbourly love within a common humanity is immediately apparent in a way that the mysticism, liturgies, and arid screeds may appear to be less relevant.
It has also been along this route that many Christian values have traveled until they became embedded in our society as “sacred” human rights that ought to be upheld in our political life. Thus, did the American colonists proclaim it in their Declaration of Independence in 1776:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
There are many other examples to cite. Environmentalists and ecologists who assert that we are all stewards of the earth, on behalf of our brothers and sisters and our children and grandchildren, for whose right to live free from pollution we are morally responsible and politically accountable. They are revolutionaries too in their hostility to exploitation of the planet and its people by feudalism, capitalism, or any temporal authority.
The deeply held conviction that conscience is above the law — because conscience is God-given and laws are made by men and women, is also highly revolutionary, yet the struggles to assert it, and those who died to secure it are the true founders of our civil liberties — including the right to worship in our own way and to hold dissenting political views.
Perhaps the greatest inheritance that this country has derived from the teachings of Jesus has been the heritage of democracy itself— with all the political ideas that are associated with it.
If we are our “brother’s and our sister’s keeper” then an “injury to one is an injury to all” and from that derive most of our contemporary ideas about solidarity and the moral responsibilities of trade unions.
The right of each man or woman to vote in elections also stems from their right to be treated as fully human and equal in the sight of God. So too does the pressure for social justice and greater equality which the ballot box allows the electors to exercise through their vote. So too does the internationalism which is a part and parcel of socialism that has never accepted any divine authority for nationalism at the expense of others. All this was beautifully summed up in the words of the Great Charter issued by the Chartists in 1842:
The great Political Truths which have been agitated during the last half-century, have at length aroused the degraded and insulted White Slaves of England, to a sense of their duty to themselves, their children and their country. Tens of thousands have flung down their implements of labour. Your task masters tremble at your energy, and expecting masses eagerly watch this great crisis of our cause. Labour must no longer be the common prey of masters and rulers. Intelligence has beamed upon the mind of the bondsman, and he has been convinced that all wealth, comfort and produce, everything valuable, useful, and elegant have sprung from the palm of his hand; he feels that his cottage is empty, his back thinly clad, his children breadless, himself hopeless, his mind harassed, and his body punished, that undue riches, luxury and gorgeous plenty might be heaped in the palaces of the taskmasters, and flooded into the granaries of the oppressor. Nature, God, and Reason have condemned this inequality, and in the thunder of a people’s voice it must perish for ever.
These are some of the reasons why so many democratic socialists in this country look back to the teachings of Jesus as a major and continuing source of political inspiration over centuries of thought and effort. For many Christians such openly secular interpretations of the teachings of Jesus may seem to separate those who hold them completely from the creeds of Christian faith. It is argued that without the acceptance of a personal God whose fatherhood is ever present the brotherhood and sisterhood of men and women loses its meaning and the teachings of Christ degenerate into mere ethics.
In order to consider that argument it is necessary to look back into history and consider how, in the past, Christianity came to terms with the then equally threatening challenge of the natural sciences.

Christianity, Science and Socialism

In past centuries the faith of a Christian would have been defined in such a way as to require him or her to deny the validity of all scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe or the origins of man if they conflicted with the Book of Genesis. Galileo fell foul of the church.
Darwin was denounced for his Origins of Species and so were all those who challenged the most literal interpretation of the words of the Old Testament. Indeed, Darwin was forced to admit in 1870: “My theology is a simple muddle. I cannot look upon the universe as the result of blind chance. Yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind in the details.”
Darwin became an agnostic, was buried in Westminster Abbey, and today few Christians would find difficulty in reconciling his theories of evolution with their Christian faith.
Scientists who study the working of nature are now accepted as they are without being seen as heretics. Today Christian fundamentalism remains as a respected position to occupy, and since fundamentalists no longer have the political power to persecute science, science has no interest in discrediting fundamentalism. They co-exist in peace. That struggle is over. It was a struggle against the church and not against the teachings of Jesus.
But how should Christians respond to the challenge of completely secular socialism and Marxism which for over a century have consciously disconnected their view of brotherhood and sisterhood from the church and its creeds and mysteries? Such socialists believe that the continuing denial of our common humanity does not derive solely, or even primarily, from the sinful conduct of individuals but is institutionalized in the structures of economic, industrial, and political power which Christian churches may support, sustain, and even bless, while turning a blind eye to the injustices that continue unchecked.
Socialists argue that neighbourly love must be sought in this world and not postponed until the next one. They do not believe that priestly injunctions restricted to matters of personal conduct “Be good” or “Be kind” are any substitute whatsoever for the fundamental reforms that require collective political action.
The socialist interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan would cast many churches and churchmen in the role of the priest and the Levite who passed by on the other side; and would identify the socialist position with that of the Good Samaritan who was less concerned with the personal salvation of the traveler who was stripped and beaten than with his immediate need for medical treatment, accommodation, and food in this world here and now.
Unless Christians can respond institutionally and politically to that socialist challenge their faith can become an escape from reality and indeed an escape from the challenge posed by Jesus himself. In a world characterized by brutal repression and exploitation under regimes of all kinds, Christian escapism is no more acceptable than it was on the road to Jericho.

Teachings of Jesus, Writings of Marx

How should Christians answer this challenge? It is just not good enough to declare a holy war on socialism and Marxism on the grounds that they are atheistic. That is how, historically, the Catholics treated the Protestants and the Protestants treated the Catholics — burning each other at the stake. Yet that is the approach advocated by many Christian anticommunist crusaders which lies behind the harassment of Marxists in many Western capitalist countries including Britain; and in all countries living under anticommunist military dictatorships.
But before adopting such a position it is necessary to consider other interpretations of the true meaning of Marxism.
Dr Nathaniel Micklem had this to say in his book A Religion of Agnostics: “Though he disguised his moral indignation under cover of scientific terminology, it was in response to the call of a higher and more lasting justice that Karl Marx repudiated the ‘bourgeois’ inequality of his day?”
This view was echoed by Ivan Svitak in his speech at Charles University during the Prague Spring on May 3, 1968:
Marx was not, and is not, and never will be, the inventor and theoretician of totalitarian dictatorship that he appears today, when the original meaning of his work, true humanism — has been given a thoroughly Byzantine and Asian twist. Marx strove for a wider humanism than that of the bourgeois democracies that he knew and for wider civil rights, not for the setting-up of the dictatorship of one class and one political party. What is today thought to be the Marxist theory of the State and the Marxist social science imply an ideological forgery, a false contemporary conception, as wrong as the idea that the orbits of heavenly bodies are circular.
Milan Machovec in his book A Marxist Looks at Jesus carried this argument a stage further forward in assessing the Marxist view of Jesus:
You can corrupt the heritage, overlay what is best in it, or push it into the background, but those who seek it out tomorrow will find life and new hope beneath the layers of dirt and the petrified outlines — simply because they are attuned to it. Thus, in Christianity the dogmatic image of Jesus Christ has never been able thoroughly to banish the image of the man, Jesus of Nazareth.
That view of the relationship between the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Marx merits very serious consideration. If that view prevails — as I believe it may — a century from now the writings of Marx may be seen as no more threatening to the teachings of Jesus than the writings of Darwin are now thought to be today.
I am not urging a political concordat between the hierarchies of the Vatican, the Kremlin, and Lambeth Palace — which if they merged, all their historical experience of centralized organization and bureaucracy could pose — it might be argued — the greatest threat to freedom of conscience the world has ever seen.
But I am saying that as the ecumenical movement gathers momentum — and if it remains a mosaic and does not become a monolith — it should extend the range of its dialogue to embrace socialists and Marxists as well as Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims. And there is one compelling reason why it must.
The technology of destruction at the disposal of mankind in modern weapons and the rocketry to deliver them must now require us all to open our hearts and minds to the inescapable need for neighbourly love on a global scale and then build the social, political, and economic institutions that can express it, bringing together those who now marshal themselves under different banners of religious and political faith.
A holy war with atom bombs could end the human family for ever. I say all this as a socialist whose political commitment owes much more to the teachings of Jesus — without the mysteries within which they are presented — than to the writings of Marx whose analysis seems to lack an understanding of the deeper needs of humanity.
But untold numbers of people all over the world — and I am one of them — are now claiming the right to study all the sources of insight which they find meaningful, and reach their own personal conclusions about their significance, free from the threat of excommunication for failing to satisfy the tenets of faith laid down by any church or any party.
In that sense too the teachings of Jesus can be seen as truly revolutionary and to have spread its influence far beyond the bounds of Christendom.

About the Author

Tony Benn was a Labour Party Member of Parliament (MP) for forty seven years, serving as Party Chairman, Postmaster General, Minister of Technology, Secretary of State for Industry and Energy. He ran unsuccessfully for the party deputy leadership and leadership in the 1980s and was President of the Stop the War Coalition until his death in 2014