Could this happen in Britain?
There have been many changes in President Bush’s cabinet, few particularly surprising. It will be the most diverse cabinet so far, with the first black female Secretary of State and at least two Hispanic members in high positions, one the son of Cuban refugees. The latest announcement is the appointment of former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik to head the U.S. homeland security department.
Could this happen here? Could a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police be put in charge of homeland security? Well, there is the problem that we do not have true separation of powers and, thus, our ministers have to be members of Parliament, a system that has taken its toll on both the legislative and executive wing of government.
Nevertheless, Prime Minister Blair is given to making extra-curricular appointments of various “tsars” that have uniformly failed to deal with the problems they were assigned. Incidentally, why a “tsar”? Its autocratic connotations have never made the word popular in this country and, furthermore, a large number of them came to a no-good end. The last tsar was massacred with his entire family. All in all, not an auspicious title.
Still, there is no intrinsic reason why a former Commissioner should not become “security tsar”, perhaps to tell the sceptical populace that inernal passports, a.k.a. ID cards are terribly useful and not at all destructive of individual freedom.
There is, of course, another problem. New York’s finest are really rather popular with most people in that city, which has become safe and easy to live in. In London, on the other hand, we are moving in the other direction. The place is becoming ever less safe while the police is becoming ever less popular. Being seen as inefficient and too rough is a lethal combination. Then there is the undiscussed problem of Europol and its various rights, privileges and immunities. All in all, I don’t think any former Commissioner is going to rise as high as Bernard Kerik.
Could this happen here? Could a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police be put in charge of homeland security? Well, there is the problem that we do not have true separation of powers and, thus, our ministers have to be members of Parliament, a system that has taken its toll on both the legislative and executive wing of government.
Nevertheless, Prime Minister Blair is given to making extra-curricular appointments of various “tsars” that have uniformly failed to deal with the problems they were assigned. Incidentally, why a “tsar”? Its autocratic connotations have never made the word popular in this country and, furthermore, a large number of them came to a no-good end. The last tsar was massacred with his entire family. All in all, not an auspicious title.
Still, there is no intrinsic reason why a former Commissioner should not become “security tsar”, perhaps to tell the sceptical populace that inernal passports, a.k.a. ID cards are terribly useful and not at all destructive of individual freedom.
There is, of course, another problem. New York’s finest are really rather popular with most people in that city, which has become safe and easy to live in. In London, on the other hand, we are moving in the other direction. The place is becoming ever less safe while the police is becoming ever less popular. Being seen as inefficient and too rough is a lethal combination. Then there is the undiscussed problem of Europol and its various rights, privileges and immunities. All in all, I don’t think any former Commissioner is going to rise as high as Bernard Kerik.
posted by Helen at 12:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home