the notion of governmentality, and focusing on your own special study, to what extent do you believe regulation, and the knowledge it builds upon, to ever be politically neutral? In turn, what does this mean for the impact, consequences, and side-effects of regulation?” . The special study is the ROAD TO THE IRAQ WAR. It is a 5000 word essay. I have done up to 2100 words already concerning the first part of the question. I want the writer to answer the next part of the question ”In turn, what does this mean for the impact, consequences, and side-effects of regulation?”. Although im sending the part of the essay iv done i want the writer to read it and analyze it,evaluates and correlate it so that the next part of essay which the writer is doing can match and correlate with my part . i dont need an intoduction in the part the writer does. It should be done in Arial font, Oscola style of referencing
I have extensively used Foucault theory on governmentality. Also this resource “Security, population and
governmentality: UK counter-terrorism discourse (2007-2011)”by malcolm N. Mcdonald and David Hunter: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/53169/1/WRAP_MacDonald_Hunter_CADAAD_2012.FIN%20%281%29.pdf.
Reflecting on the notion of governmentality, and focusing on your own special study, to what extent do you believe regulation, and the knowledge it builds upon, to ever be politically neutral? In turn, what does this mean for the impact, consequences, and side-effects of regulation?”
Governmentality and Iraq war
Governmentality as formulated by Michel Foucault involves the concept of how a government controls, directs and guides its population(people) with its vast resources through the help political economy to achieve Macro objective goals . Nickolas Rose describes govern mentality as the “process by which rulers and politicians come see their task of government” . One of the main tasks as outlined by Rose of the government is to national defence and security of the nation. This was the task that the Blair government was faced with in on the road to the Iraq war of March 2003.
The events of the 9\11 attacks on the World trade centre in New York, America, caused a sequence of events that would reshape the world with its ramifications still being felt today. Tony Blair referred to the time as an opportunity to “re-order this 05
world around us” . In 1997 Robin Cook Blair`s foreign secretary at the time indicated there would be ethical dimension to the governments foreign policy. So already the Blair government had already decided to incorporate ideas and values into the heart of british foreign policy . This idealistic version of Britian foreign impacted the Blair government`s decision to go to war in Iraq under the concept of “liberal Intervention”.
The “special relationship” between the USA and the United Kingdom played a key role in Blair`s decision to be the only military power to back the Americans war in Iraq after UN security council did not back America. The “special relationship” is basically based on the idea of shared values and connected histories between the two countries. T. Dunne in “Blair`s Britian and the road to war in Iraq” stated The Blair government “demonstrated the clear view that the UK`s interests were best served by maintaining the “special relationship” with the USA” . This thereby impacts on the policies and the governmental processes and decisions (governmentality) taken in the United Kingdom.
If Governmentality constitutes the process by which the government controls, directs and guides its population to achieve certain goals. Then it can be said that the “special relationship” and the stated goal of the blair government to “re-order the world” contributed to the governmentality of the United Kingdom through which the decision to go to war was taken.
This concept of governmentality is founded on the lectures and teachings of Micheal Foucault. Who articulated that how the welfare of the larger state affected the individuals of the state. With the example that when a state is well run, the head of the family will know how to look after his family, his goods and his patrimony, which basically means that individuals will in turn behave as they should. The key phrase here being “when a state is well run” that efficiency translates to its population.
Guillaume de La Perriere made the statement that “government is the right dispotion of things, arranged so as to lead to a convenient end” . This in direct contrast with idea put forward by Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan that monarch was to paraphrase La Perrier the right dispotion of things. Hobbes believed that humans being inherently by “nature” untruwstworthy, corrupt, greedy beings . So humans cannot be trusted to rule themselves, that could lead to anarchy since we are driven by private interests. While “in the monarch the private interest is the same with the public” . Foucault theory of governmentality is in direct conflict with this notion as Foucalt believes that the people are affected by the well-being of the state. So the government can guide the behaviour of its population rather Hobbes version that the people should be taken care of by father figure “the monarch”.
This is two prevailing theories interact in modern day governing of the United Kingdom. With the prime minister who has pregorative powers (which are the historic powers formally excersied by the monarch) having to be in some form the Hobbsian “father of the state”. While simultaneously the body with sovereign power is the parliament. This is the reality that Tony Blair and his government faced after the 9/11 attack as the prime minister of Great Britian felt he had to act in some form as the head of his nation. He acted first by going to war in Afghanistan first in 2001 and then Iraq in 2003. While at the same time the he had to deal with the body with democratic power which is the parliament which house the representatives of the people thereby it also had political legitimacy. The parliament on 18th of march 2003 authorised the invasion of Iraq by a landslide 412 to 149 votes . So really it can be said that the parliamentary regulatory process was achieved by the Blair government about the Iraq war.
The question is now how did the parliament come to ratify the Iraq war what writer Mehdi Hasan describes as “Britians worst foreign polcy blunder since the Suez” crisis.
Regulation
Regulation is defined as a “control system” by Christopher Hood . A system normally orchestrated by the state by to guide its population to achieve pre- conceived goals. Christopher Hood states that any control system must three main components. Which are Standard-setting, information-gathering and behaviour modification. He the explains that there must be some capacity for standard – setting to allow a distinction to be made between more and less preferred states of the system. There must also be some capacity for information-gathering or monitoring to produce knowledge about current or changing states of the system. Also on top of that there must be some capacity for behaviour-modification to change the state of the system . Based on this definition by Christopher Hood regulation is an wide ranging system not just a set simple laws and policies.
This idea is further evaluated by Julia Black in “Critical Reflection on Regulation” who goes on to state that the idea of regulation is that it is “some form of ‘Command and control (CAC)’” which is the idea that it is regulation by the state through the use of legal rules backed (by often) criminal charges . While she goes on to state that this is a “caricature” , it has wider scope than this which is earlier defined by Hood.
Due to the fact that regulation has many sources and aims and it is not a formally defined process. Julia black has said this leads to the concept that there is “fragmentation of knowledge”. This is basically the idea that “decision makers, organisations etc, construct images of their environment in their own image, or their cognitive frame society” . This accusation can be made to the Blair government ,the UK security agencies and their counter parts in the USA who possibly developed an “environment in their own image”. Whereby the information exchanged between the different bodies started to just to justify the claim to go to war and contradictory information or opinion was not recognised or in the case of Claire short “kept quiet” . An example of this seen when initially the attorney General at the time in 2003 Lord Goldsmith advised David Cameron that is would be unlawful to invade Iraq without a further United Nations Security Council resolution. Then he changed his mind a month later after being persuaded to talk to senior US government lawyers and Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. Clare short decribed this as he was “leaned on” to change advice before the invasion .
Knowledge and Political economy
On the subject of knowledge and its interaction with governmentality Foucault mentioned the production, maintenance and reproduction of forms of knowledge about the population is another aspect of the exercise of governmental power by the modern state . This knowledge is normally correlated as concept known as political economy . This involved incorporating information about the economy into political practices. It revitalised a knowledge of population as a collection of particular individuals, with the focus of each individual as well as their collective entity as a whole population . So through this method which involves the compilation of statistical analysis, this has become the main way that in which modern government gain knowledge of their population.
What is political neutrality
The Prime minister and the executive have no obligation to be political neutral only the crown has a constitutional obligation to be politically neutral. Thereby any information released by the these entities doesn’t have to be politically neutral. The timing of the release of information and the amount released can all be political in nature with political motives.
During the debates on the authorisation of the invasion of Iraq the intelligence released to the parliament was specific and some of it was retracted due to security concerns. The parliament then based their decision to authorise the invasion by a margin of 419 to 149 based on this selected intelligence that was made available to them.
The adage “Knowledge is power” is what best described the level to which information was key to the war in Iraq. The intelligence gotten by the security services both in the United Kingdom and the USA where what convinced the Blair government to go to war in Iraq. The release and timely presenting of some this intelligence was used to get the resolution to go to war through parliament. It was also at times released to the public through the media. This was done to inform the parliament and public . The question then is did the government occasional releases of information have the added political motive of helping the government achieve its aim of gaining support for the war. Thereby if the use of knowledge is politically motived and it results in regulation or legislation, the regulation or legislation enacted has bee
Andrew Tyrie MP states that “In no previous case has the British Government justified the resort to major military action by relying so heavily on intelligence” . Intelligence on Saddam Hussien and his country Iraq can then said to be a key facet to the war in Iraq. The Blair government based military decisions and justified the war to parliament and the public based on this intelligence. The Blair govern on 24th September 2002 released a dossier based on the intelligence agencies assessments of Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction it stated that “the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so” . This information was released to the public. Andrew Tyrie MP says due to this importance of intelligence, the legislature need to be capable of assessing both the quality of the intelligence and the decisions taken on the basis of it by politicians .
After the events of 9/11, fear became the underlying emotion of the population of the United Kingdom the fact such an event could occur on home soil. It is to abate this fear that the government felt it must act for the “security” of the state
