Painful Truths

The British syndrome

There is something odd and, I would say, rather offensive about one particular trait of the native Britons. That is, with few exceptions, they find it painfully difficult to greet other people, be they neighbours, "friends" or colleagues.

The other day an aquaintance of ours telephoned and asked for my wife. I didn't instantly recognize her voice but she knew who I was. It was a straightforward request to speak to my wife. "Hello," she said. "May I speak to [name]?" I asked her who she was and she replied with her name in a matter-of-fact way, as if I had never met her before. Not being British, I greeted her and enquired about her health, then I called my wife to come and speak to her.

In case you wonder, there is no personal animosity between me and the woman in question. Nor is her coldness racially motivated. On the contrary, she is as far removed from racism as anyone can be.

In fact, the native Britons rarely ever greet or acknowlege each other's existance. Take, for example, the case of a colleague at my work. He is a well-educated, highly competent man in his late 40s or early 50s. But he would go to great lengths to avoid greeting anyone, irrespective of race, colour or creed. For instance, if he notices another colleague walking towards him, he would swerve sharply so that he would not come face to face and, God forbid, have to say hello or nod in acknowldgement of that other person's existence. And, if one should share a table with him at the Staff Restaurant, he would sit in complete silence, unless spoken to, and then he would give the shortest possible answers.

It's the same story with neighbours. With few exceptions, one can spend many years without knowing one's neighbours. In our street, apart from one Englishwoman, the politest and friendliest people are either foreign or of non-English origin. The remainder vary in degrees of coldness or indifference, from the outright rude (an uncouth middle-aged yob who reminds me of one of our senior "managers"), to the superficially polite (you can see the pain on their faces as they struggle to say or wave hello), to the automatons who inhabit a twilight zone separating humans and machines (and not very good machines at that).

This asocial trait – let's call it "the British syndrome" – extends to families as well. For example, it's quite common to observe family members who have been apart for years ignore one another completely upon reuniting and not exchange a word – no hugs, kisses, handshakes or even hellos – and when they do finally speak it would be as if they had just parted for a day or so: "You're alright?" or "How's it been?" I have seen it with friends of mine and observed it with strangers alike. It's unbelievably weird and I don't think it can be found anywhere but in the British wilderness.

So, what is it about the native Britons that makes them so asocial? How did the British syndrome come about?

I have thought about this for many years but I still have no answer. It's clearly a fundamental part of their culture, a defining aspect of "Britishness" into which every native Briton is socialized and passes on from generation to generation.

There are, of course, exceptions but there will always be exceptions to everything. I suppose these exceptions are the non-conformists; in the British context, they are the social "deviants", the people who – dare I say it – say "hello", "good morning" and "good evening" when they encounter other humans.

Soldiers, policemen and spies

The native Britons have an unhealthy fondness of soldiers, policemen and spies.

Take, for example, their former prime minister, Tony Blair. According to Neil Kinnock, who once led the Labour Party, Blair "is impressed by uniforms" and "pretty impressed by intelligence officers - spooks".

Although Blair is not necessarily representative of British public opinion, his proclivities in this regard are more or less typical of other Britons.

One often hears, for instance, Britons referring to their "wonderful police force". This fondness was underlined recently when a demonstration by policemen and women demanding higher pay attracted widespread sympathy from the very same public which treats with hostility and contempt similar demands by firemen, ambulance staff, nurses, teachers and other workers.

Few British policemen who are suspected of committing crimes are prosecuted or disciplined, even when the evidence against them that is in the public domain seems overwhelming. Of those that are brought before the courts, a tiny number are convicted. Yet, the public and the media keep silent.

So, what is so special about the British police that makes them so pampered and almost irreproachable?

The simple and honest answer is nothing whatsoever. In fact, British policemen are in the forefront of efforts to roll back human rights and civil liberties in Britain. Not content with their role as law enforement officers, they are constantly edging their way towards policy making. You will find them campaigning almost daily to limit their accountability to the public under the pretext that accountability involves too much paper work, and too much paper work means fewer policemen on the streets. You will also find them ceaselessly whinging and whining in favour of detaining innocent people without charge for 90 days. The executioner is trying very hard to become the jury, yet the victims still love him.

What of those other boys and girls in uniform, the armed force?

British soldiers are spoilt rotten and treated by the government, the media and the public like demi-gods. The only wars these men and women have ever fought since World War II have been wars of aggression, oppression and occupation, whether in Suez, Yemen, Ireland, Iraq or Afghanistan. And the only enemies they have faced since Hitler have been equipped with obsolete, rudimentary weapons. Yet, their exploits against unequals are treated by the British public and media as acts of unparallelled heroism.

All British soldiers, whether full time or part time, are volunteers. Britain has no national service, no conscripts. Yet, when a British soldier is injured in one of the country's wars of aggression, all hell breaks loose, with recriminations against the government and demands for compensation for what is, after all, a hazard of their chosen profession. Although it would make sense to compensate injured soldiers if they were conscripts because they would have been press-ganged into military service, I don't understand why compensation should be given to someone who has willingly chosen a killing machine as his vehicle in return for money and free accommodation.

The native Britons' love affair with their internal and external security services, the so-called MI5 and MI6, compared with their fondness of the police and the armed forces, is somewhat subtle and muted. But it is by far the most dangerous and corrupting of the entire British body politic.

We know from the published accounts of former British intelligence officers, such as Peter Wright, David Shayler and Richard Tomlinson, that the British security services attempted to subvert at least one elected British government and, contrary to British law, plotted to murder Libya's ruler, Muammar Gaddafi, and thought about murdering Balkan politicians. We also know that they have spied on various self-proclaimed left-wing activists and that they were involved in recruitment vetting at the BBC and in blacklisting and ruining the lives of numerous trade unionists and communists, many of whom remained permanently unemployed for the sin of thinking differently to Her Majesty's spooks.

Yet, despite all this, the British public remains at best indifferent or forgiving, and at worse, mildly supportive, as if they were masochists looking forward to the advent of fascism. Despite all these misdemeanours by the security services, there have been no serious attempts or calls to bring MI5 and MI6 under tighter political control and, if we are to believe the accounts of renegade officers such as David Shayler, the security services remain as unaccountable as ever.

What makes this rather sad situation even more pathetic is the fact that neither MI5 nor MI6 are shining examples of competence. MI6, as is well known, either failed to establish, or did not deem fit to disclose, the fact that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and MI5 failed to prevent the 7 July 2005 suicide bombings in London. And these are just two examples.

The British people had better reflect on the dangers of idolizing or giving the benefit of doubt to their police, army and intelligence services. If they don't, sooner or later they will find themselves prisoners of what are supposed to be public servants.

Soldiers, policemen and spies will always use "national security" and "public safety" as excuses to escape public accountability and erode civil liberties and human rights. Yet, ironically, the more they succeed in this the less able they become to do their jobs as their focus turns towards consolidating their position and enhancing their power domestically.

In this respect, the native Britons have a lot to learn from the Arab people, and they had better learn it fast before it is too late.

For decades, we have tolerated our military and security apparatuses' violation of our rights and their consumption of ever growing proportions of our national wealth for the sake of higher national causes in which we all passionately believe. But, whenever it came to the crunch, these apparatuses, whose one and only concern had become self-aggandizement, were completely useless, most recently during the Anglo-American aggression against Iraq. As the late Edward Said bemoaned on the eve of that aggression,

Years of sacrifice and struggle, of bones broken in hundreds of prisons and torture chambers from the Atlantic to the Gulf, families destroyed, endless poverty and suffering. Huge, expensive armies. For what?