In a rather confused article entitled The Arrogance of Power, the BBC gives us this gem:
Some European countries have no [Presidential] term limits, including Italy, Switzerland and Russia.
According to the Russian constitution, Article 81 Clause 3:
One and the same person cannot hold the office of the President of the Russian Federation for more than two terms running.
Good journalism there, BBC.
Having started talking about African presidents hanging onto power beyond their constitutionally determined limits, the article then veers off into an opinion piece by one Lord Owen, former British foreign secretary and leader of the Social Democtratic Party in the 1980s who argues:
by the time they have been in power for many years, some leaders tend to become arrogant, unwilling to listen and overly optimistic that their decisions will produce good results.
“Eight years is enough,” Lord Owen told Newshour Extra.
“Blair is the classic example of hubris and it had profound effects because he reinforced the hubris of Bush and Bush reinforced Blair’s and these two made terrible mistakes.”
I assume that Lord Owen is referring to the decision to invade Iraq in February 2003, which was made during Bush’s first presidential term. Bush assumed the presidency in January 2001, meaning he’d been in power all of 2 years when the invasion was launched. Blair had been in power 7 years at the time of the invasion, and although Lord Owen is quite correct in his assessment of the man, even a casual observer would have spotted that he had been this way right from the start: he didn’t need 7 years in which to develop arrogance and the idea he was on some sort of holy crusade. This is just another excuse for some washed-up Lefty to have a swipe about the Iraq War: they were quite okay with Blair’s arrogance and hubris until he did something they disagreed with. Naturally, Lord Owen takes the opportunity to have swipe at “bankers” as well:
Lord Owen believes acquired hubris is not limited to politicians:
“It exists in bankers,” he says.
“If you look at the roots of the 2008-9 crisis you see in many major banks that their chief executives were making decisions based on a lot of the characteristics of somebody suffering from hubris syndrome.”
So in an article of the arrogance of power and hubristic behaviour, the best examples the BBC gives us are Bush and “bankers”. The absolute clusterfuck that is the Euro project and the catastrophe unfolding in Greece warrants nary a mention.
Then last week we had the BBC report on the resignation of Ellen Pao, CEO of Reddit:
Ms Pao had been the subject of intense criticism over her handling of the site, one of the web’s most visited, since taking over late last year.
At no point does the BBC mention that Pao’s appointment to Reddit came in the middle of her highly-publicised lawsuit against her previous employers for discrimination and harassment, which she subsequently lost, and that many predicted that this appointment would be a car-crash from the beginning.
The argument against scrapping the BBC is that the quality of news reporting available to the British public would suffer. I’m trying to think how.
It’s an odd blunder about Russia: why did they think the little minuet with his PM took place?
Blair was a preening narcissist from the start. Matthew Paris of the Times nailed it pretty much from the loathsome wee twat’s emergence as Party Leader.
My guess is “two terms running” does not sound like a proper term limit to the BBC editors: “one and the same” person can serve two terms, take one term off, come back for two more, take another off, ad infinitum. Which seems to be Putin’s plan at the moment, for want of other exit strategies.
I’m not sure I’d give the BBC the benefit of the doubt on this one: if they wanted to highlight Putin’s side-stepping of the term limits they could have done so, and made a better article too.
Sorry but I refuse to listen to lectures about “arrogance” and “hubris” from someone who calls themselves “Lord”.
The BBC must read your stuff: the sentence you quote now (12:35 16 July) reads “Some European countries have no term limits, including the UK, Italy and Switzerland”
However, this being the BBC, Owen Bennett-Jones goes on to administer a mild kicking to the West cf “Although the history of term limits can be traced back to ancient Greece, it is far from clear the idea is in fact a uniquely Western one.”
The academic quoted by OB-J also seeks to ensure that the West doesn’t get above itself: “If you look at the public opinion data we have on most African countries, a majority of people in Africa support presidential term limits,” says Prof Nic Cheeseman of Oxford University. “This isn’t simply something being pushed by the West.”
WTF is “public opinion” when it comes to Africa? Since when did “public opinion” have any influence there? How many countries in Africa would be recognised as democracies Nic? If Nic – and the BBC – are seeking to push “term limits” as a key determinant (or any determinant) of democratic credentials they’re sadly deluded.
As usual the BBC lives down to its signature crap “journalism” and agenda pushing.
@ Duffy,
Good point!
@ Umbongo,
The BBC must read your stuff: the sentence you quote now (12:35 16 July) reads “Some European countries have no term limits, including the UK, Italy and Switzerland”
Ah, it’s a famous BBC stealth edit. They have form in this area.
As usual the BBC lives down to its signature crap “journalism” and agenda pushing.
Exactly.