The atrocity in Bali at the weekend was an example of terrorism at its most cruel and cynical. The impact it has had on a stunned world has been heightened by the shocking choice of target: a nightclub full of innocent people on an island with a long-established reputation as one of this planet's most beautiful and peaceful places.

That reputation was probably part of the reason why Bali was targeted. A primary purpose of terrorism is always to demoralise the enemy. By bringing bloody horror to Bali, the perpetrators have spread a sense that nowhere is safe from their murderous malice. As they savour the worldwide news coverage of the atrocity, they'll undoubtedly be feeling triumphant, and that knowledge makes the numbing reports of the tragedy and the accompanying photos of smiles that will never be seen again that much harder to bear. But amid the anger and the grief, we somehow have to try to make sense of it all and consider whether any lessons can be learned.

The first and most painfully obvious message from Bali is that the threat of well-organised, callous and devastatingly ruthless terrorism was by no means eliminated when al-Qaeda was expelled from Afghanistan. More than a year of the much-trumpeted 'war on terrorism' does not now seem to have achieved very much.

Whether or not the Bali atrocity was an al-Qaeda operation remains a mystery, largely because al-Qaeda is such an elusive, amorphous entity. Previous terrorist threats have tended to come from organisations with an identifiable headquarters and command structure. Such does not appear to be the case with al-Qaeda. It represents the globalisation of terror. Like a commercial corporation outsourcing to whatever location will most cheaply produce its goods, it seems to have a network of sympathetic groups around the world who can be activated at any time and assisted in carrying out murderous missions.

So merely driving al-Qaeda out of a single country simply doesn't work. All that happens then is that another arm of the many-tentacled monster strikes elsewhere. It's therefore a delusion to believe that terrorism can be defeated one country at a time; but the Bush administration appears to be labouring under exactly that delusion. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and then where? Speculation has already been raging, with Iran the clear favourite to be next on the shopping list of countries to be confronted.

But no-one seems to be suggesting that an early attack on Iraq could have prevented the horror in Bali from happening. Is there any real reason to believe that attacking Iraq now will prevent similar atrocities from happening elsewhere? The answer is surely 'no' - yet military action against Iraq remains top of the Bush administration's agenda.

They may now enjoy more international support for such an attack as a result of what happened in Bali. An opinion poll published in the UK newspaper 'The Guardian', conducted two days after the Bali bombing, reported a sharp rise in support for military action against Iraq, with 42 per cent now favouring an attack.

That shift in UK voters' attitudes is understandable but irrational. In the aftermath of an atrocity like the one in Bali, it's only natural for people to want to hit back somehow. But there's no evidence to link Saddam Hussein to the brutality in Bali, and an attack on Iraq now would inevitably divert people and resources away from efforts to track down terrorists like the ones behind the Bali bombing.

At the launch of the Institute for Public Policy Research's report on the funding of UK political parties, Labour Party chairman Charles Clarke said that there was no public support for the idea of state sponsorship of the parties.

The same sentiment has also been expressed by the Prime Minister and by the Conservative chairman Theresa May, and I don't doubt that they're all broadly correct. Many people, I'm sure, understandably feel that politicians take far too much money away from them as it is, and would resist the idea of donating more through taxation to fund the people they see endlessly bickering on TV.

However, the IPPR thinks differently. Its report recommends that individual donations to political parties should be limited to £5,000, and that each party should be limited to spending £12 million at general election time. It also recommends that individual donations should be topped up with cash from the state, with the parties receiving money in proportion to the amount of support from members of the public they are able to attract, and with a minimum threshold of support required in order for a party to claim any state funding.

Under the IPPR's proposals, tax relief would be given on donations to parties, on a sliding scale designed to encourage small donations more than large ones. Interestingly, this part of the report won the support of Mr Clarke, who expressed his agreement with a startling statement that you wouldn't really expect from the Labour Party chairman: 'I personally don't think it is more noble to give to Oxfam than, say, the Conservative Party'. I know the Conservatives are in a bad way, but I think I'll keep giving my old clothes to Oxfam rather than to Tory fund-raising sales.

In general, the IPPR's proposals make a lot of sense. The British public's confidence in its politicians is at an all-time low, as was vividly illustrated by the very low voter turnout at the last general election. Nothing can have done more to increase public cynicism about our elected representatives than the sight of them receiving large cash 'gifts' from wealthy individuals and companies. There's always going to be a strong suspicion around that such generous donors expect rather more in return for their cash than just a receipt and a thank-you letter.

In the past it was usually the Conservatives who benefited most from such largesse, but in recent years the Labour Party's reputation has been besmirched by suspicions over large donations it's received from people like the Formula One motor racing chief Bernie Ecclestone and the pornographer turned newspaper proprietor Richard Desmond.

There's a vicious circle at work here. People see political parties receiving huge sums from rich donors, and conclude that politics is corrupt and that no-one who isn't a millionaire can have real influence within the parties. So they don't join political parties or make small donations to them - which means that the parties are all the more dependent on large donations.

Putting the IPPR's proposals into effect would be difficult. Banning large donations immediately would plunge all the main parties into a cash crisis. The Labour Party has always been financed largely by means of the political levy paid by trade union members, and that relationship would need to be radically restructured.

But if we're going to move back towards a healthy participatory democracy in the UK, then something needs to be done soon to restore public confidence in the nation's political parties. The IPPR report is, at the very least, a good basis for urgent discussion.

Thus far, I have steadfastly resisted the dubious charms of 'Big Brother'. The more I read and heard about the show, the less I wanted to watch it.

However, I have to admit that I'm intrigued by the idea of a new variation on the 'Big Brother' theme that is apparently being planned in the Netherlands. It's provisionally titled 'The Abbey', and the 12 housemates (or abbeymates) will each come from a different religion.

The Dutch channel NCRV hopes to start screening 'The Abbey' next year, with a weekly programme showing highlights of life in the abbey plus brief daily updates. The show's producers have claimed that the programme will illustrate the need for dialogue and understanding between different religions, and that they hope it will encourage people to be more spiritual. It's not going to be just more tabloid fodder with an intriguing twist - good Lord, no.

Even though, according to a spokesman for the producers, the contestants '...will have to perform some tasks such as the ritual killing of a goat and fasting for a week.'

Sacrificing goats? What kind of religions are we talking here? Should we be looking out for contestants named Aleister or Damien?

That aside, the concept of 'The Abbey' raises some interesting questions. Will the participants pray for votes? Will any particularly irritating contestants be made to take a vow of silence? And will the losers be expelled or exorcised?

Ormy's 'Notes' and Other
Scribblings

The definitive collection

Ormondroyd

17.10.02 Front Page

Back Issue Page