Ishizu

Bonsoir à tous ! Je vous laisse ci-dessous un commentaire d'article anglais tiré de The Economist, et que je dois rendre mardi prochain. Si vous pouviez éventuellement en corriger les fautes de langue, je vous en serais très reconnaissant. Merci d'avance !


This article, taken from the weekly London-based magazine The Economist of January, 12th 2008, deals with current British politics, and particularly hinges round the present difficulties of Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who proves in dire straits regarding his popularity. Throughout this text, the author distills an erudite extended metaphor by drawing a parallel between the Labour statesman and some Shakespearean actors or characters in order to describe his halting and timorous attitude. The journalist also aims at demonstrating that the politician’s reaction and his new behaviour as a great decider must take shape so that he may be elected when he calls the next general elections in England, since his opponents are numerous and stubborn. Therefore, we shall follow the author’s argumentation and firstly focus on the paradoxical significance of a single leader – that’s to say, Mr. Brown – and of his own decisions in a party system. Afterwards, we shall tackle the metaphor of the British politician as a tragedian in order to fathom the slight irony that the journalist intends to build up in this article.



Usually, the United Kingdom is regarded as a constitutional monarchy in which the different parties (above all, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats) and the London Parliament, which includes an upper house (the House of Lords) and a lower house (the House of Commons). Nevertheless, this article seems to present the British system as a personal regime, in which the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister are the most relevant figures of the country, just as if the latter was an American or a French president. As a matter of fact, the journalist seems to put heavy emphasis on Gordon Brown’s and David Cameron’s stances or decisions, and he throws light upon the fact that their temper prove influential in national politics. For instance, the author first and foremost centres on the minister’s current lack of popularity, which can be ascribed to a disastrous decision made the last autumn (Mr. Brown determined not to call general elections in order to renew the Parliament, whereas he was leading the opinion polls). According to the article, his indecision and his making the resolution to defer the citizens’ vote are responsible for his present political difficulties. The phrase « last autumn’s non-election fiasco » is expressive of this standpoint, and strikes a cynical note for the use of the colloquial word « fiasco ».
Now, the Prime Minister must appear as a steadfast and unflinching politician who manages to be strongly committed on some English burning issues, and he has actually shifted to a less vacillating behaviour. For example, we are made to understand that he clearly runs counter to Mr. Cameron concerning « the new European treaty » (on this topic, he and Mr. Brown are at opposite poles, since the former has promised he would tear it up when he is elected and the latter has signed it in Lisbon) or « the Northern Rock ». This name is a crystal-clear allusion made to British bank based at Regent Centre, near Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, which sought and received in 2007 a liquidity support facility from the Bank of England, following problems in the credit markets caused by the U.S. subprime mortgage financial crisis. The Prime Minister even seemed stronger than ever when he blamed his main opponent for being a « flip-flopping flibbertigibbet » (such a phrase sounds a rather humorous note, since it echoes a character of the Anglo-Saxon mythology who is apprentice to Wayland Smith and who exasperates his foreman, for he his a foolish « chatterbox »).
Calculation and temper prove quite significant too in nowadays politics, although the English system is in fact parliamentary and not presidential, such as the American regime. Indeed, we are shown throughout this text that Gordon Brown endeavours to look and sound steady. His recent speeches are the epitome of such a change, and yet, the enumeration of the second paragraph, with its funny repetitions (« big decisions… the right decisions… difficult long-term decisions… »), makes plain that the author adopts an ironical attitude to him. The numerous apostrophes to the reader, couched in a colloquial language (« you get the picture », « The long-term, difficult (and so on) decisions »), suggest that « decision » is the key-word of the article and of the Prime Minister’s new policies, but they also invest every single remark with a witty and critical tone. As a matter of fact, charisma and judgment aren’t enough for a XXIth politician ; the journalist puts forward the view that a statesman must have acumen and must « far-sighted ». Margaret Thatcher (the Tory who governed the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1990) and Tony Blair (the Labour who held premiership between 1997 and 2007) consequently epitomize such a Primer Minister. The latter even becomes a wise legislator who is quoted as a seminal authority in the last paragraph, and he proved able to get rid of the « narrow world of party politics » : the importance of a single man in a party system is evidenced by such a statement. And yet, Gordon Brown, despite his efforts, remains far from this archetype. The deprecating phrases « prevaricating pseudo-decisions », « umpteen policy review » or « Mr. Brown’s hasty emultion of the Tories’ ideas » voice the journalist’s slight contempt for his new attitude, which sometimes consists in mere longwinded speeches and promises.
The current Prime Minister aims at becoming « The Decider » (this word is a reminder of George W. Bush’s nickname, once given by Donald Rumsfeld, as though Gordon Brown was the president of England…), but he should be firmer regarding the reform of the National Health Service (which administers the country’s health care and dental services, with funding and support from the UK’s Department of Health), for example. Otherwise, he will prove analogous to Hamlet, who puts « one part wisdom » and « three parts coward » in his decisions.



As a matter of fact, throughout this article, the author distills scholarly references to William Shakespeare’s most famous plays, and this contributes to working out his acute and visible sens of irony. « All the world’s a stage/And all the men and women merely players » once wrote the famous English playwright in As you like it. In fact, according to him, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cameron and, generally, all the politicians invite comparison with tragedian from Laurence Olivier’s National Theater Company (Patrick Stewart as MacBeth, Sir Ian McKellen as King Lear or Ewan McGregor as Iago, a treacherous character from Othello). For instance, there is a clear congruence between the Prime Minister’s indecision and Hamlet’s distress, in front of Yorick’s skull, though such a parallel would convey a caricatural and amusing image.
Moreover, the statesman proves as changeable and ambiguous as the Shakespearean characters. For instance, he sometimes adopts Timon’s misanthropic and bitter behaviour in his criticisms to David Cameron (the journalist may have had the play The Life of Timon of Athens in mind when he wrote the comical phrase « his occasional Timon of Athens-esque grumps »), and sometimes appear as responsible and determined as Cassius, the conspirator who plays a leading role in the emperor’s assassination in the Roman play Julius Caesar, or as Coriolanus, who runs counter to the popular rule of Rome in The Tragedy of Coriolanus. On the contrary, David Camerone’s attitude, which remains vague and wordy, is consonant with Andrew Aguecheek’s behaviour (he seems moronic, unsure and slow) in William Shakespeare’s comedy Twelfth Night, or What You Will.
Nonetheless, not only do these parellelisms make fun of the British politicians, but they also deepen the journalist’s criticisms to them and yield further significance by being one offshoot of the mainstream metaphor of the theatrum mundi. Statesmen play an elaborate part, perform a preestablished play and try to be persuasive rather than convincing. In a nutshell, they use the citizens’ feelings and penchant for irrationality in order to win the elections or keep the power in check.



As a conclusion, we could say that the author of this article reproaches the British politicians for displaying traditional shortcomings of nowadays western politics : he aims at depicting them as skilful Shakespearean actors, whose speeches sometimes smack of insincerity or indecisiveness, and whose ideas prove fickle or hazy. Such a stance is given additional weight by some rhetorical devices, such as apostrophes or an extended metaphor which distills an impression of humour. Nevertheless, by couching his argumentation in such a derisive language, he appears himself as a demagogic journalist. Eventually, he presents overstated comparisons and puts forward some strange ideas which may be seen as fallacious and misleading.


Thanks in advance !