A Tale of Two Elections

On 6 May 2010, the United Kingdom went to the polls. On the whole, the Conservatives got the most seats (306) after winning 36% of the total vote. Labour got 29% of the vote which gave them 258 seats. The Lib Dems got 23% of the total vote, but got only 57 seats under the First-Past-The-Post system. Naturally, one of the first demands the Lib Dems made when negotiating with potential coalition partners was that this system be replaced by one of Proportional Representation.

England, especially the southern heartlands, fell to the Tories. Scotland turned out largely for Labour and gave them 41 seats out of 58. The Scottish National Party did pretty badly and won only 6 seats. The Conservatives got just one seat. In Wales too, Labour ruled the roost with 26 seats out of 40 (a drop of 4 seats). Conservatives came second in Wales with 8 seats while the Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru got 3 seats each. These results caused Minette Marin, a very sensible journalist who writes for the London Times to call for Scotland to be cut loose, since the Tories will have an absolute majority in an English Parliament and it is unfair for English matters to be decided by a Parliament with MPs from Scotland and Wales which have their own legislative bodies.

A week before the elections, I had wondered if the UK would break up after the elections For the moment, the answer is No, but the possibility can’t be entirely ruled out. I mean, Tory supporters in England cannot ignore the fact that it is support for Labour in Scotland which prevents the Conservative Party from gaining an absolute majority in the British Parliament. However, the weakening of the EU in recent times will act as a dampener for those in England and Scotland who want their respective nations to part ways. As long as the EU is stable, a partition would be painless, but without the EU, separation will be painful. Further, the fact that the Scottish National Party came off worse than they did in the last election shows that separation from English is not particularly popular in Scotland. However, it must be noted that Scots don’t as a matter of principle use the Parliamentary elections to show their support for the SNP. That show of strength is reserved for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

Under the First-Past-The-Post system, a coalition government comprising of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has come to power in the UK. This coalition government has produced a document which sets out the agreement between the two coalition partners. The Lib Dems have given ground on many of their policies, notably immigration and tax cuts. However, they got the Conservatives to agree on a referendum to decide if the First-Past-The-Post system should be replaced by Alternative Voting.

I couldn’t help comparing the UK elections with the elections held in India almost exactly a year ago. The main difference in the conduct of elections is that India uses electronic voting machines which allow results to be produced in the jiffy. In the UK, the votes are manually counted. India has 417 million voters while the UK has a little less than 30 million. India claims that its voting machines are tamper proof and I believe that claim. It is tough to get access to a voting machine and even if you do, there is no software to tamper – votes are stored on micro chips. However, I did read a BBC report which said that a few US Scientists have managed to hack into a voting machine

This year, the UK had a high voter turnout and many polling stations were not equipped to handle that, as a result of which, many voters were turned away and could not vote. Of course, the number of people turned away was in the ‘hundreds’, a small number in my opinion. Ever since I came to the UK almost eight years ago, I have voted in elections though I am still an Indian national. This is because the UK allows all commonwealth citizens (and India is still in the commonwealth) to vote, even in the Parliamentary elections. This time, I had opted for the postal vote. This meant that postal ballots and stamped envelopes were delivered to me many days before the elections. I only had to mark an X against my chosen candidate, sign and post my ballot paper so that it reached its destination by 6 May.

I have never voted in India. This is not because I didn’t want to vote or am apathetic, but because, from the age of 18 till the time I left for the UK almost ten years later, I was a nomad shuttling between hostels and work places and towns where my parents lived. Electoral Rolls in India are a mess and it is no easy matter to get your name into one, unless you have lived in a particular place for a very long time. I suspect there are millions of nomadic Indians like me who have never voted because their names don’t figure in electoral rolls. On top of that, India doesn’t have the postal vote except for government employees engaged in election duty. As a result of this, not only are millions of Indians living outside India deprived of their right to vote, even Indians in India who are forced to travel on election day or be in a place other than where they are registered to vote, cannot vote. Of course, it is no easy matter to provide for postal votes for so many people, but I just couldn’t help noticing.

If you are a British national, you get to vote, wherever in the world you might be. Britons of Indian and Pakistani origin who live in the sub-continent, have postal ballots delivered to their homes by post. Every time elections are held in the UK, there are claims of postal vote fraud. This year there was a BBC report which said that in Mirpur (in Pakistan) which has a large number of British nationals of Pakistani origin, men went door to door collecting postal voting envelopes which they would or could then fill in the way they wanted. Despite this controversy and the administrative hurdles notwithstanding, I would like to see India implement the postal vote. Even if it can’t do that, it could set up a few (tamper proof) voting machines at each Indian embassy or consulate and allow Indian passport holders to vote. The votes would then have to be redirected to the respective constituencies, which will be a huge problem. Another problem would be that the voting machines used for NRIs would need to display practically every candidate in India. May be the Indian government could create a few NRI constituencies, with an MP each for NRIs in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and Australia.

India’s 2009 Parliamentary elections took place on 5 days, staggered over a period of one month, starting from 16 April 2009 and ending on 13 May 2009. This was because violence by terrorists and others and other disruptions was anticipated and the security forces could only be spread around by so much. The votes were counted on 16 May 2010. Thanks to the electronic voting machines, the counting process took only a few hours, though.

The Congress Party won 201 seats, the best ever performance by any party since 1991. However, it still didn’t have a majority in the lower house of Parliament which has a total strength of 545 members. The United Progressive Alliance of which the Congress is the main member won 262 seats and came to power without much ado. Unlike in the case of the UK, the coalition was already in place and the usual horse trading did not take place.

India has had many coalition governments in the past, formed after the election results were announced and I can’t remember any of them announcing joint policy statements with the same clarity as the one announced by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. Usually, the largest party’s policies are implemented, with support from the coalition partners on a case-by-case basis, which means, the support may be yanked away at any time.

The most interesting outcome of last year’s elections in India was that Dr. Manmohan Singh got to continue as Prime Minister, though he did not stand for elections. Actually, ever since Dr. Manmohan Singh was made India’s Finance Minister in 1991, he has not stood for elections, except in the 1999 Parliamentary elections when he stood for the South Delhi constituency and - lost. Now, I am a big admirer of Dr. Manmohan Singh, his integrity and his various reforms since 1991, but it is no easy matter to stomach the fact that the Indian Prime Minister does not have the confidence to face the electorate. Surely, the all powerful Congress Party can find him a safe enough seat to contest the elections?

The Indian Constitution does not require the Prime Minister to be a member of the Lok Sabha or the Lower House of Parliament, which is entirely composed of directly elected representatives. No, the Prime Minister may be a member of the Rajya Sabha or the Upper House, the Indian equivalent of the House of Lords. One can only imagine the consternation that would be caused in the UK if a Lifetime Peer from the House of Lords was sought to be made the Prime Minister.

According to this Government of India website, Dr. Manmohan Singh’s address is in the Kamrup district of Assam. I doubt if Dr. Manmohan Singh has ever been to Kamrup, let alone live there for any part of his life. Yet, he has been elected to the Rajya Sabha as a resident of this place.

Almost all members of the Rajya Sabha are elected by State Legislatures for a term of 6 years on a revolving basis (one-third resign every two years) and each state has a quota. Assam is a Congress stronghold and ever since India’s independence, the Congress Party has been in power in Assam except for brief interludes. Therefore, getting the legislators of the Assam State Assembly to elect Dr. Manmohan Singh to the Rajya Sabha as their nominee must be the easiest thing to do. And not a very ethical thing, since Dr. Manmohan Singh is not a resident of Assam, a requirement to be so elected. Of course, no one in India bats an eyelid regarding this. To be honest, even I am not too fussed since I’d rather have an unelected Dr. Manmohan Singh as the Indian Prime Minister rather than an elected goon. Jawed Naqvi has written an interesting article on this topic in the Dawn.

The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain

Two young Conservative politicians in the UK , Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan have come up with a plan (the “Plan”) for what they call – “renewing Britain ”. Daniel Douglas Carswell has been the Conservative MP for Harwich and Clacton since 2005. Hannan, a writer and journalist, is the Conservative Minister for European Parliament (MEP) for South East England since 1999. The plan put forth by Carswell and Hannan is set out in a 195 page document titled “The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain” that can be either bought (for £10) or downloaded (for £5) online.

Bad Shape – In the eye of the beholder

The Plan is based on the assumption that the UK is in a bad shape. Like beauty, bad shape is also something that lies in the eye of the beholder. I remember when I started my first job in the UK , I was told (apologetically) by so many colleagues that the building which housed our offices was in a terrible shape. ‘Ghastly’ and ‘horrible’ were the adjectives most often used. Before coming to London a year before to do a one-year masters course at the London School of Economics, I had a four year stint in Mumbai during which time I had seen a lot of wobbly buildings with even more wobbly staircases and antique lifts. To my eye, I could find nothing wrong with my new office building. On the contrary, it looked unbelievably solid and sturdy. No, the problem I soon learnt, was not in the stability of the building, but in its aesthetics. Grey in colour, with no glass or other frills one sees in most modern buildings these days, it was clearly not intended to have people exclaim in admiration as they walked past. The same is the case with the UK , a very prosperous country by any standard, with nothing much seriously wrong with it.

What exactly is wrong in the UK?

Carswell and Hannan manage to find a lot wrong with the current state of affairs in the UK . But they are not just cribbers, they have a magic bullet solution for UK ’s ailments.

“The British state is failing. It can’t deliver even the most basic services competently. We have the highest prisoner population in Europe , and one of the highest crime rates. Our schoolchildren compare dismally with similarly aged pupils in other countries and in previous generations. Our healthcare system is more likely to kill its charges than any other in the developed world. Our roads are choked, our railways crumbling, our airports unbearable. Our borders are, to all intents and purposes, wide open.”

Each of the statements made above by Carswell and Hannan is debatable. For example, the International Centre for Prison Studies says that Russia has the highest rate of prison population (635 per 100,000) in Europe. Scotland and England and Wales have the 17th and 18th highest rates in Europe. I guess that when Carswell and Hannan say “Europe”, they mean “ Western Europe”. Even then, Spain has a higher rate than Scotland or England and Wales . Northern Ireland is 39th in Europe, lower than France or Germany with a prison population of 87 per 100,000. The United States of America , a source of inspiration to Carswell and Hannan in many respects, has the highest prisoner population in the world. If you look at the percentage of female prisoners within the prison population, England and Wales is at the 19th place, way below Norway , Austria , Switzerland and Germany . The British health care is admittedly not as good as say, healthcare in various other European states, but then, as Carswell and Hannan admit in the Plan, such other states spend a lot more on healthcare than the UK. British road and rail infrastructure is indeed not as good as what you find in say, Germany , but then Germany has always had better roads even during the days of Winston Churchill.

The Plan

The Plan revolves around a series of legislative measures (which will not take more than 12 months) to reform Britain . Carswell and Hannan feel that MPs are too powerless and have too many perks. They want to clean up Westminster by pruning the amount of perks MPs get. The House of Commons will be reduced in size. The House of Lords is not really compatible with democracy, Carswell and Hannan opine, but do not want to tackle it as part of the Plan since it will require a lot more time than one year. Policing and prosecution decisions must be made by elected officials. Judges should not be allowed to make law as they have been doing of late. Parliament must reign supreme, in its pruned form. The UK must withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. English counties and cities should have all the powers that have been devolved to Scotland . Parents who send their children to private schools must be able to claim the per capita average being spent on them. Similarly, patients must be able to opt out of the NHS. There should be greater devolution of powers. Local governments must be given all the powers which have now been devolved to Scotland and the right to collect sufficient revenue to do many things on their own.

Small government

“To the size of a state there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for they can none of them retain their facility when they are too large.” This quote from Aristotle finds place at the beginning of the Plan document. The main grouse espoused by Carswell and Hannan, which runs throughout the Plan, is that the UK was traditionally a small state with the bulk of its laws derived from customs and practices, but is no longer so. In the last few decades, especially as a result of the accession to the EU, the UK has come to become a state run by bureaucrats and quangos (Quasi Autonomous Government Organizations) not elected by the people. Britain has moved towards continental European values which prefer a neutral and supposedly impartial administrator to an elected politician who may have biases and prejudices. Carswell and Hannan don’t like bureaucrats or quangos who only help themselves and create more paper work for themselves. On top of it all, even bureaucrats or quangos will have their own prejudices, we are told. Carswell and Hannan don’t use the words ‘welfare state’, though it becomes clear that they do want the British welfare state to be rolled back.

After the recent turmoil in the financial markets, not many people will find the idea of a small government appealing. The question being asked now is why the independent regulators weren’t more vigilant. There isn’t much of a demand to do away with regulators despite their many lapses. However, Daniel Hannan has not changed his mind if this blog post of his is any indication.

To be fair to Carswell and Hannan, their idea of a small government is a lot more than financial deregulation. As explained in detail below, the Plan envisages a small government everywhere, especially at the local level.

Elected Sheriffs

Carswell and Hannan want the UK to emulate the US in various respects, one of which is the subservience of police chiefs and prosecution services to elected Sheriffs. Sir Ian Blair, the London Metropolitan Police Chief, is used as an example of how undemocratic and unaccountable a police chief can be. At the time of the Plan’s publication, Sir Ian Blair was clinging to power despite facing an enormous amount of criticism. His role during the 7 July bombing and the death of Jean Charles de Menezes left a lot to be desired. The London Assembly passed a resolution of no-confidence in Sir Ian Blair. The new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said that he would like Sir Blair to leave. Despite all this, Sir Blair stayed in power since he could only be fired by the Home Secretary (which happened recently after the Plan was published). Elected Sheriffs should also have the power to set local sentencing guidelines. This might mean that different towns or counties might have different approaches to the same offence. Shoplifting might attract a higher penalty in London than in Manchester . But that would be quite democratic. If the residents of London want to follow a particular approach to an offence, they should be free to do so, irrespective of what Manchester thinks.

I have some sympathy for this approach. You might argue that a nation as small as the UK should not try to emulate the US and end up with different laws in different parts of the country. If Carswell and Hannan have their way, illegal immigrants might, if caught in Barking, be flogged and deportated, whilst Argyllshire in Scotland might merely deport them. In the US , Texas enthusiastically enforces the death penalty whilst 13 states have abolished it. However, it cannot be denied that a much higher percentage of Texans support the death penalty than citizens of states where the death penalty has been abolished. If you believe that democracy should be subservient to the goal of moving the entire nation to a higher plane of values, you might not like this approach. However, what constitutes a ‘higher plane of values’ will always be debatable.

Human Rights Act

The UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human rights and all UK laws are subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 framed under this convention. Laws made by the British Parliament can be overruled if they are found to violate the Human Rights Act. It is not unheard of in the UK to challenge laws and regulations on the ground that they breach human rights. Carswell and Hannan do not like the idea of judges using the Human Rights Act to override the will of the Parliament. They want the Human Rights Act to be scrapped. If the Plan were to be implemented, the UK will withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Illegal immigrants, minorities and to a lesser extent prisoners, rely on this law more than others since they have very few other rights. Carswell and Hannan cite the example of an illegal immigrant who in 1997 was able to overturn his deportation order on the grounds that he would not receive the same medical treatment in his home country as was available in the UK . The illegal immigrant relied on Article 3 of this convention which says that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ I find this example a bit outdated since the UK now deports illegal immigrants who are ill and need urgent medical care. In the beginning of this year, media reported the case of a cancer-ridden Ghanaian woman who was deported from the UK and died soon after.

All the examples cited by Carswell and Hannan as examples of how courts have used the Human Rights Act to overturn the will of the Parliament involve illegal immigrants or prisoners or citizenship applications. I do have sympathy for the view that Judges should only interpret and should never make the law. However, if the Human Rights Act were to be scrapped, the most vulnerable section within British society will suffer the most.

Parliament must be supreme

Carswell and Hannan want a Reserve Powers Act to be enacted in order to guarantee the supremacy of the legislature against judicial activism. Carswell and Hannan find it intolerable that a national legislature might be subservient to an international body. For this reason, they oppose the International Criminal Court which can prosecute national leaders, a process which they rightly say may be misused. At least in theory, any political leader anywhere in the world, including from the UK , may be tried by the ICC. Carswell and Hannan go to the extent of saying that “the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals have now become a law unto themselves, prosecuting some men for no better reason than that it was thought politically expedient to have indictees from all sides in a war.” The job of prosecuting national leaders must be left to national courts, they say.

Thankfully not many people in the world share this point of view. If they did, war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic would never have been brought to book.

Carswell and Hannan want the UK ’s defence and foreign policy to be determined entirely by the Parliament with a lot more parliamentary oversight over diplomats. According to Carswell and Hannan, “British foreign policy is cocooned from the democratic process. It is conducted by highly qualified officials who, although often technically brilliant, have drifted away from the values of the rest of the country. Left to their own devices, diplomatists have evolved an approach to international relations that is elitist, managerialist, supra-nationalist, technocratic and contemptuous of ‘populism’.” Reading this, I was reminded of Republicans accusing Obama of elitism!

And look at what these elitist diplomats have got the UK into? They got the UK into the EU! What could be worse than that? Carswell and Hannan seem to hate the European Union more than anything else in the world.

Each and every real and perceived foreign policy mistake is blamed on elistist diplomats who follow their own ideology rather than the people’s dictates. Unlike the diplomats of yore, modern diplomats do not project British interests. Though experts, diplomats have as many prejudices and biases as anybody else. Currently, diplomatic appointments, the contracting of treaties and national defence, are all controlled by Downing Street under Crown Prerogative powers. This has allowed the Foreign Secretary to sign up to treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty without Parliamentary approval. Carswell and Hannan want all these powers to be transferred to the Parliament. Each time the Parliament is reconstituted, all treaties and diplomatic appointments must be reviewed and approved, else they will lapse. Even if this sounds like a good idea in theory, I doubt if this can be implemented in practice unless the MPs work all year around in the Parliament, something which doesn’t fit in with the Plan for a reduced House of Commons.

Gentlemen (or Lady) Members of Parliament

Carswell and Hannan want to prune the pay and perks which MPs get. MPs will meet only for a limited number of days in a year and will be ‘amateur’ politicians. In the sense
that they will need to carry on a trade or profession of their own which will pay their bills. The only compensation they get will be for the days they need to spend in Parliament.

On paper this sounds good. But in practice this would generally prevent people without a great deal of inherited wealth from entering politics. In my opinion, it is not possible to be a part-time politician. Even if an MP does not have to spend all his/her time in Parliament, I doubt if it will be possible for the MP to hold a regular job. There will be exceptions for sure, but this proposal would take politicians to a situation similar to that of sportsmen in the days when sport was played (mainly by the wealthy) for glory rather than money.

Right to Opt-Out from State Schools and the NHS

Carswell and Hannan feel that schools in the UK are ‘failing due to too much government.’ They want the Danish system to be followed in the UK which would give parents who send their children to private schools the right to claim the per capita average being spent within the state system. In other words, the cost of sending children to private schools will come down. The net impact of such a move, in my opinion, would be to widen the rich-poor divide in the education system. The poorest children would continue to languish in state schools, whose quality would deteriorate even further.

Something similar is to be done with the NHS. Carswell and Hannan rightly say that the NHS is bloated and inefficient. Patients should have the freedom to seek services from a private health care provider and opt out of the NHS. Carswell and Hannan specifically recommend the health care system in Singapore where patients deposit money in a health care savings account (till the money reaches a critical limit) and pay their private health care providers from that account. Catastrophic insurance (of around £400 per annum) is also bought by everyone. The Plan rightly claims that the Singaporean system is even better than the system (of privately insured healthcare) in the United States .

Personally speaking, I would benefit if these suggestion were to be implemented. So would most middle-class residents in the UK . But these bits of the Plan have the potential to make British society a lot less egalitarian.

Devolution of power

Carswell and Hannan want local governments to be autonomous with all the powers which have now been devolved to Scotland . At present ninety per cent of all revenue collected in Britain goes to the Chancellor in Whitehall . This money is distributed by the Chancellor to various authorities and bodies. The net result is that local councils are quite powerless and good candidates are not interested in standing for elections at the council level.

The Plan proposes the scrapping of VAT and replacing it with a local sales tax (“LST”). Different regions will have different rates of LST. This will lead to tax competition between various regions. Local councils should also have the freedom to scrap council tax.

I can see a lot of merit in these suggestions. However, the consequences may involve a drastic fall in the amount of money being available with local councils in deprived areas. The Plan does mention a top-up for such areas, but I feel it is unlikely to be equal to the actual loss in revenue.

Social security is to be distributed at the local level. Carswell and Hannan rightly point out that local authorities are in a much better position to detect welfare fraud and determine parameters for entitlement. This is something I fully endorse as long as deprived areas as given a proportionately higher allotment to meet their welfare costs.

Cut down on red-tape

Carswell and Hannan want to repeal various Acts that provide the legal base for burdensome and costly regulation. The Plan lists 26 Acts which are to be repealed. These include laws framed under the EU Directives on Part-Time Work giving part-time workers equal access to pay, pensions, annual leave and training as full-time staff, Anti-Money Laundering Rules and the Hunting Act 2004 which outlaws hunting with dogs. As would be evident to anyone who reads the entire Plan, most of the laws which Carswell and Hannan want to repeal are social welfare legislation which conservatives have always hated. You might agree or disagree with Carswell and Hannan depending on which shade of the political spectrum you belong to.

The Plan proposes that all new pieces of legislation are to have a sunset clause that will ensure that enactments do not survive in perpetuity. I don’t agree. Some laws contain sunset clauses and these are usually the draconian anti-terrorism laws which curtail civil liberties. Otherwise laws are meant to make things better and ought to survive for perpetuity.

Alternatives to the EU

As mentioned earlier, Carswell and Hannan don’t like the European Union and they propose that the UK ought to withdraw from the EU and instead be a part of the European Free Trade Area (“EFTA”) just like Switzerland . Being in the EFTA would give the UK trade access to the European Market without having to tag along with the EU in matters such as labour policy or welfare measure or immigration. Carswell and Hannan point to countries such as Iceland and Switzerland which are not part of the EU and manage to remain prosperous. I guess Iceland was a prosperous country when the Plan was published. It is no longer so very prosperous at the moment.

I do agree that if ideologically most people in the UK differ from continental Europe , it makes little sense to be a part of the EU.

People’s Bills and Blocking Referendums

Carswell and Hannan recommend that citizens ought to be able to table bills in the Parliament if they collect sufficient signatures. The top 6 popular bills should be voted on by MPs. Similarly, if 20,000 people sign a petition to block a bill which has received its third reading, but before it receives Royal Assent, the bill should be blocked. If within a prescribed period a specified percentage of the electorate sign up to the petition, the bill should not become law.

These are good proposals and I would support them. Please read the Plan in full if you want to understand these proposals since the explanation I have given above is sketchy and may not give you an accurate picture of the proposals as contained in the Plan.

What’s the Position on Immigration?

One very important issue which has not been addressed in the Plan is that of migration. Thought not always discussed openly, migration has been one of the hottest issues in the Western world in this decade. Surprisingly, Carswell and Hannan don’t have much to say on this. There are a few mentions of reversing the flow of illegal migration, cracking down on illegal immigrants and the failures of the Migration Service. When discussing the drawbacks of being in the EU, it is said that the EU has prevented the UK from having an annual quota on immigrants. But a specific policy to tackle the perceived problem of immigration is missing. This is a glaring omission indeed.

Since the Plan is silent on this vital issue, I am tempted to infer what Carswell and Hannan might have in mind based on what they have said on other matters.

Switzerland has the most successful policy on migration in the whole of Europe . When I say “successful”, I mean success in controlling migration since controlling and reducing migrant inflows is the cornerstone of most migration policies, including that of the UK . How does Switzerland do this? To apply for Swiss citizenship, the applicant must have legally lived in Switzerland for at least 12 years. The final decision on a citizenship application is made by the local community where the applicant lives. The local community will interview the applicant and put his application to vote before citizenship is granted.

Do Carswell and Hannan wish to implement the Swiss approach I wonder? It would fit in with the Plan which wants to devolve power to local communities. Currently, a person who has worked in the UK for five years will almost automatically obtain permanent residency. Permanent residents obtain citizenship (almost automatically) a year after becoming permanent residents. If the Swiss system were to be implemented in the UK , I would assume that the number of people who obtain British citizenship will be reduced to a trickle. Would members of one community or race find it more difficult to get citizenship than others? Possibly.

No foreigner has the right to migrate to another country. The visa stamped on a foreign passport is always a favour bestowed on the passport holder rather than an entitlement. Every country has the right to implement the most appropriate immigration policy. That being said, immigration is an emotional topic, especially during a recession when jobs are being lost and the economy feels pinched. It is very easy to cause scare mongering and get voters excited on this topic. Sometimes the scaremongering works, sometimes it doesn’t. I do wish Carswell and Hannan had not remained silent on this issue.

The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left - By Ed Husain

Unlike the Reluctant Fundamentalist which I reviewed last week, the Islamist is a true story, the story of Muhammad Mahbub Husain, who became an Islamic fundamentalist, saw the light and then went back to civil society.

Husain's main thesis which runs through the entire book as he tells his story is very simple. There are two types of religious Muslims. The ones like his father who are extremely religious, but have the sense to keep their religion private and never let it influence their political views and outlook. And there are others – the fanatics – who believe that Islam is a complete solution which teaches men how to pray, govern themselves, conduct wars, dress, interact with others etc. The second group is much smaller than first group, but is a lot more vicious and has been spoilt by democratic and tolerant Britain. Democracy, or people's rule, is anathema to fundamentalist Muslims since only Allah should govern (and the Koran contains Allah's words and will). Using the democratic institutions they seek to subvert, Fundamentalist Muslims have wreaked havoc within Britain, especially within the Islamic community in their quest for a global Islamic state. Husain calls upon the British authorities to crush the fundamentalists, for the fundamentalists cannot be reformed. Fundamentalists Muslims will always try to subvert democracy and civil society, even if they are allowed to preach and practice their version of Islam. It is incorrect to say that past injustices against Muslims have given rise to Islamic Fundamentalism of the type preached by Omar Bakri, the erstwhile leader of the Hizb-ut-Tahir.

Husain's book was released in May 2007 at a time when the British government was facing a great of criticism for having invaded Iraq and fuelled the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq and elsewhere. This book was gratefully seized upon by many people as proof that growth in Islamic fundamentalism is not the result of the Iraqi invasion or any foreign policy mistake.

Husain has a straightforward style which makes his book easy to read. However, Husain's story is not as straightforward as his style.

Husain claims to have had a happy childhood, surrounded by his doting family and caring teachers. His father came to the UK in 1961 and is an ex-restaurateur. Husain doesn't tell us what his father did after he stopped running a restaurant. Husain's family lives in a three storied Victorian terraced house at Limehouse. Young Husain spends a lot of his time with his father's spiritual guru, Shaik Abdel al Latif, who hailed from Fultholy (is it a place in Bangladesh?) and preached a benign version of Islam. Husain addresses the Shaik as ‘Grandpa’ and learns a lot about Islam from him, an Islam based entirely on piety, devotion to God, love for the Prophet, and which does not try to influence an individual's politics.

Later his parents move him to the boys-only Stepney Green School, contrary to the advice given by his primary school teachers. He is in a classroom full of boys from Bangladesh who watch Bollywood movies, indulge in gang warfare and have little in common with mainstream Britain. On his own initiative, Husain starts taking extra lessons in religious studies along with another student Falik. It is not very clear why Husain would want to do that. I assume not many 15 and 16 year olds would opt to spend a few extra hours at school learning about religion. But Husain and his friend do exactly that. They start with Gulam Sarwar's book on Islam which apparently is taught in British schools even now. Gulam Sarwar talks of the political system of Islam. An impressionable Husain is led to believe that religion and politics are one and the same. Islam is a complete way of life. Sarwar tells his readers that currently there is no pure Islamic state, but wants his readers to try and create one.

Husain’s study-mate Falik is a member of the Young Muslims Organisation, the YMO and very soon, before you realise what’s happening, Husain is a YMO member. The YMO is a front organisation for the Jamat-e-Islami, a fundamentalist outfit started by one Abdul Ala Mawdudi. Mawdudi is a man who wanted to create a global Islamic state. The tactic advocated by Mawdudi for doing this is the gradual infiltration of political systems and the takeover of sovereign states, especially in the middle-east.

So, by the age of sixteen, Husain is a full-fledged member of YMO, distributing pamphlets and sticking posters on walls. Husain takes great pains to explain how he had to hide his ideology from his parents, especially his father, who never approved of Mawdudi. Later when his father finds out about Husain's work for the YMO, he is very angry. Husain actually leaves his parents and lives in a mosque for three nights before his father takes him back, such is his pious father's hatred for political Islam!

But Husain does not stay with the YMO for long. He switches to the Hizb-ut-Tahir, an even more virulent organisation run by the notorious Omar Bakir. Unlike the Jamat-e-Islami, the Hizb-ut-Tahir advocates a violent overthrow of governments for the establishment of a global Islamic state. By now, Husain is a student at the Tower Hamlets College. They persuade women to wear the hijab, convert non-Muslims to Islam, break up meetings of rivals and aggressively promote their brand of political Islam. Husain's parents are very upset with Husain, but there is little they can do about his activities. Husain is slightly troubled by the fact that Hizb activists are not spiritual at all. They spend little time in prayer. And when they do, they pray bare-headed. Ordinary rules of Islam don't seem to apply to them. Husain is troubled with all that, but he stays on as a member, mainly because he likes the idea of a global Islamic state.

Husain meets Faye at the Tower Hamlets College. Husain does not detail the courtship, but we are given to understand that after a period of cold-shouldering by Faye, Husain manages to win her heart. Faye accepts Husain’s marriage proposal, but tells him that the nuptials can take place once after they complete their studies.

One day, things change all of a sudden in Husain’s life. There is a knifing inside the college campus and a Christian Nigerian is murdered by a Hizb activist. In Husain's own words, 'that murder – the direct result of the Hizb-ut-Tahir's ideas, served as a wake-up call for me.' This is very interesting in that, till then Husain has been working for a global Islamic state, to be achieved by the violent overthrow of sovereign states by military coups and the like. And then, when blood is spilt for the first time, he is distraught. Husain is all of 20 years old when this happens.

Husain’s grades suffer as a result of his Hizb activities. But after he becomes disillusioned with the Hizb-ut-Tahir, he works hard and manages to clear his A levels. Faye and Husain join the University of North London. Husain cuts himself off from the Hizb. But Husain is still not ready for a purely spiritual Islam even though he wants to 'flush out the Hizb within him'. He joins the Islamic Society of Britain and starts learning Arabic. He hopes that reading the Koran in original Arabic will teach him more about spiritual Islam. But he does not last very long at the ISB which has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Husain wants to lead a normal life. He votes in the 1997 general elections (for Labour and Tony Blair) despite a Hizb injunction that democratic elections are haram. At the age of 22, he applies to HSBC and gets a job. Within two years, he is managing portfolios worth half a million pounds. But Husain is not very happy with the way the Bank makes its money. Though HSBC does nothing illegal, Husain finds it to be too greedy, not always acting in its clients interests. Money making is given priority, something Husain cannot stomach.

In August 2000, Husain and Faye get married. They go to Turkey for their honeymoon. Husain admires the Sufism he finds in Turkey, but describes Kemal Ataturk a ‘secular fundamentalist’. Clearly, Husain is not in favour of a situation where religion is kept totally private and the separation between the Mosque and the State is absolute.

In the middle of 2001, Husain quits HSBC and downgrades to a clerical job in local government so that he can focus on his Koranic studies. In early 2002, Husain and Faye register themselves for part-time Arabic studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies at London University. They make plans to go to Syria to study Arabic. After 2 years in Syria, they move on and go to Saudi Arabia where Husain’s disillusionment with Islamism is complete. Between the time Husain arrives in Damascus and the time he leaves Saudi Arabia to return to England, he is totally transformed. It is as if a genie from Arabian Nights decides to make over Husain so that he is acceptable to mainstream British society. Husain talks of how in Damascus he and Faye start to prefer the company of non-Muslim Britons to other Muslims. Islam can only be a spiritual community, never a political bloc, Husain declares. Husain speaks approvingly of Tony Blair in a couple of places. He is happy when in August 2005, the government prosecutes an array of Islamic organisations. He cannot understand why Arabs hate Jews. The distinction between Zionism and Jews, which many Arabs make, is dismissed. Suicide bombings have only brought misery in Israel and Palestine, Husain emphasises. The flaws and injustices in Arab society, especially in Saudi Arabia, makes Husain open his eyes and realise how wrong he has been all along.

At Damascus, Husain and Faye teach English at the British council, which helps them support themselves. Syria is full of surprises. Husain is shocked to find Syrians travelling to Iraq to fight the coalition troops. Why should there be a Jihad in favour of a military dictator such as Saddam? Husain wonders The Islam practised in Syria is to Husain's liking. Women have a lot of freedom. Christianity is tolerated. Sufism is widely practised. When Husain spots a couple of Hizb activists at Damascus university, he actually tips off Syrian intelligence. The biggest surprise for Husain is when he realises that there is nothing like a global Muslim community. Regionalism dominates. People question his about his origin. He is brown skinned and can't be an European. He is not Arab. So what is he? He can't be just a Muslim. The Syrian's hate the Turks who once ruled over Syria. Syria and Egypt had once formed a single country – the United Arab Republic, which hadn't lasted very long.

In Saudi Arabia, racism is rampant, but luckily, Husain is able to pass for an Arab since he can speak good Arabic. Black Muslims are treated like dirt. Foreigners can never become Saudi citizens. Most Saudi men are lecherous and nasty towards women. Students at the British Council download pornography from the computers there, something not possible outside the British council. Many Saudis support Osama bin Laden, condone attacks on western targets and hate Israel. Husain quite rightly blames the policy of segregation practiced in Saudi Arabia for this state of Saudi society. At Mecca, the Wahhabi guards are abusive. They are unable to make a distinction between worshipping the Prophet (which is forbidden) and showing love for the Prophet, as a result of which they kick anyone who as much as bows at the Prophet's tomb.

When Husain returns to the UK, he starts missing Arab society. He is not entirely happy with the state of British society. How does one integrate into a society where the pub is the centre of all social life? Husain wonders. Not for Husain a society where he is forced to hide all traces of his religion as is done in Turkey or one where, even an iota of spirituality is treated with contempt, as in the UK.

Husain ends on a positive note. Each country has its version of Islam. Husain definitely approves of the milder versions practised in Malaysia and Syria and hopes that a British version of Islam will evolve soon.

It is hard not to feel some sympathy for Husain when one finishes the book. However, I will not be surprised if Husain writes another book where he talks of how disenchanted he is with a writer's life, how the publishing world is full of hypocrites and how he looks forward to a world where writers get published and sell their books without any hype or unnecessary marketing and publicity.