Politics and the 3-legged stool

The retirement of Ian Paisley from Northern Ireland’s politics reminded me of a conversation I had in South Africa some years ago. Travelling from the industrial complex at Secunda to Johannesburg I chatted with the driver about the changes in his country. He provided a simple picture to explain how South Africa was able to move from the violence of apartheid towards an integrated society. His model was a three-legged stool. In his story, one leg of the stool represented the extreme whites who wanted to continue with apartheid. One leg represented the extreme blacks who wanted to violently overthrow this system. The third leg represented the majority of the people – black and white. They just wanted to get on with living and provide a better future for their children. My driver reminded me that a three-legged stool falls if one leg is missing. In the same way South Africa’s conflict could only be resolved if these three parties all agreed to change. His first key to getting change was the condition of the legs. The population must be tired of the status quo and must really want something different. The opposing leaders must both have spotless political credentials. They must also have courage to lead their group of extremists along the new path. His second key to change is that all three legs must be present at the same time. That second key is why real political change is so rare.

As we drove through the darkness he told me that in old South Africa there was general unrest among all people. The lack of progress under apartheid was having an impact on everybody’s life. People wanted to change. He then noted the courage and vision of President F.W. de Klerk. This white leader’s history and politics allowed him to stifle any serious arguments from his followers. Finally, Nelson Mandela was loved and revered by the black community. His struggle against oppression was legendary. He had the moral authority to ask his followers to accept the changes. All three legs were together at that moment in South Africa’s history. Change happened. South Africa surprised the world with its peaceful revolution.

More recently, we saw the same thing happen in Northern Ireland. The majority of the people in Northern Ireland have been ready for an end to “the troubles” for many years. That was demonstrated when Mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976. Also, for many years, Ian Paisley has been a strong and charismatic leader for the ultra Loyalists. Only the Republican leg of the stool lacked a single leader with similar stature. That leader finally came into the picture when Gerry Adams emerged and grew as spokesman and leader for Sinn Fein. The stool now had three legs. Change became possible and Power Sharing and peace got off to a creaky start.

As I apply this analysis to other crises, the picture for 2008 is not encouraging. The Israeli-Palestine stool almost had all three legs at the same time a few years ago. Change was nearly within the grasp of both sides of Abraham’s family. Now, I fear that both the leadership legs are missing and all the rhetoric and cajoling from Washington is just adding more hot air to the desert winds. In Iraq the leadership leg for the Sunni faction is missing and that for the Shiite majority looks wobbly. In Afghanistan, all three legs are waiting to be discovered. I took the picture above during a visit to Belfast. The few remaining murals have now become tourist attractions. I pray for the day when each three-legged stool in the Middle East find all of their legs and the Jerusalem Wall can follow the way of the Berlin Wall and these murals.

Unused immigrant visa available !

Edith Agnes Andrews was my Great Aunt. I found her passport during a visit to Belfast and was fascinated to discover this visa allowing her to immigrate to the USA. Aunt Edie did not exercise that visa. According to family folklore, she went with her friends to catch the boat to the USA. The boat was anchored in Belfast Lough and a small tender carried the immigrants between the shore and the ship. Aunt Edie boarded that tender, went out to the ship and returned to Irish soil with the tender. She never did leave Britain and is buried in Belfast.

Why do I mention Aunt Edie? In recent months the subject of immigrants, border fences and national security has filled the airways. Aunt Edie is an example of past times. Coming from Ireland she was a textile worker. That was probably a useful profession in 1929. When she applied for that visa she was sure that immigrating to USA would give her a better life than staying in Belfast. I know that thought pattern continues today. People only leave home when the benefits on the other side of the fence are clearly better. For Aunt Edie, the ties to home were more powerful than the greener grass across the Atlantic. Every day, immigrants to USA – legal and illegal – make that same calculation. Fences, even double fences will not stop immigration. They will only change the arithmetic of the decision to come.

Is there an answer? As long as people view life in the USA as “better” they will try to come here. If our standards regress then immigration will naturally decline. Right now that might be happening but regression is not an acceptable policy. If we want to slow immigrants then the only real way is to help those other countries increase their standard of living. We give lots of aid but much of it is military aid. Sadly, in terms of our size, the amount of our practical help is small compared to countries like Norway. Maybe the solution to our immigration problem – and our declining image abroad – is not to become a walled and gated community but to spend that money raising standards in countries outside.

The camera doesn't lie . . . . Right!

Image manipulation is not new. Anyone who has watched a TV series about Henry VIII knows the problems caused by a flattering portrait. Holbein painted one of Anne of Cleves and showed it to Henry. Henry agreed to the marriage but when he finally met his betrothed he called her a “fat Flanders mare”. History suggests that Holbein exercised too much artistic license. Today, we take photo manipulation almost for granted. Of course, photographs have always been manipulated. There are the classic examples from the early Soviet era. Former party faithful who fell from favor were not only physically removed. Their images were skillfully airbrushed from any group photographs and history was rewritten. Less dramatically, photographs of movie stars and politicians and all those beautiful people in magazine ads are also retouched. In every photographic studio creative lighting enhanced features, clever poses hid signs of too many calories and double chins were banished with a raised head and flattering camera angle.

Lighting choices, lens type and camera viewpoint are still powerful tools. They still require skill to use. At another level, digital cameras and simple software have given everyone with a computer the power to change photographs. Most of us use these tools with little thought. “Red-eye” correction and removing skin blemishes are every-day examples. Blurring the skin to reduce wrinkles, brightening teeth and removing stray hair could be considered simple courtesy for a lady. But where does courtesy end? When do we become a twenty-first century edition of Holbein? Today, I can buy a program that will restore skin texture, remodel the nose, contour chin and cheeks, adjust the brow and hairline and enhance the eyes – all with a few clicks of a mouse. The final image is an artistic masterpiece – but is it still a photograph? Equally important, does it matter if the subject is happy with the result?

It is a fool-hardy blogger who would post portraits and confirm that the camera was lying. Those concerns do not apply to flowers. The image above was taken early in the morning with a macro lens and a small aperture for good depth of focus. Those choices started the manipulation before the shutter was pressed. The geranium below was taken in the afternoon using a very fast telephoto lens to achieve a shallow depth of focus and a fuzzy background. The photograph was also de-saturated to give a pastel appearance. Those choices yield very different images. As for the saxophonist at the beginning, he was left in peace to play cool jazz – only the backgrounds were slightly modified to return the buildings to vertical.