by Allan Norman
'Then the messenger who had gone to call Micaiah spoke to him, saying, "Now listen, the words of the prophets with one accord encourage the king. Please, let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak encouragement."'
A couple of weeks ago, Conservative MPs criticised the Director or Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer QC for speaking out in opposition to Conservative proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act. It wasn't in their power to force his resignation, but that is what the home secretary did when Professor David Nutt spoke out in opposition to Labour policy on drugs last week.
It seems our political masters have a shared view that those in public office should keep out of politics. Indeed, faith leaders should keep out of politics too. So should the royal family. The list goes on.
Which begs the questions, what is there that is not political? And who other than politicians in public life is entitled to an opinion?
Alan Johnson's argument is, "Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views... He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy."
Whyever not? As government advisers, the ACMD makes recommendations based on its evaluation of the evidence. His 'campaigning against the government' is no more than a public official reiterating in public what his public position is. As soon as we reflect on the alternatives, we realise how much worse they would be. Should all government advisers advise in secret? Should they all take a government whip? Or is it that the government intends, by proferring its penny to those who might mount articulate opposition to it, to effectively silence them?
One might argue that politicians
have a democratic mandate. That I accept. But populist democracy is not
necessarily either right or just. It is surely right that as the
populist majority gets the tough on drugs policy it wants, it also
learns that it is getting it despite, and not because of, the evidence.
Kier Starmer, like David Nutt, was commenting in our area of expertise as social workers, as well as in his own. For, as I have commented before, universal human rights is a central objective of social work. And since it seems to me that localised human rights is something of a tautology - where you say, your human rights in this country are this, elsewhere they may be different - Kier Starmer is making a compelling case that social work might properly make out itself.
Micaiah, for telling
his king the truth that he needed to hear instead of the lies that he
wanted to hear, was put in prison and fed nothing but bread and water.
His response was to reiterate his truth: "Take heed, all you people!"
So should we take heed though our modern day prophets face only the
loss of public office.
Allan Norman is Principal Social Worker & Solicitor at Celtic Knot (www.celticknot.org.uk), an independent law firm and social work practice.
The story of Micaiah is in The Bible, I Kings 22
Leave a comment