Mario Vargas Llosa was that rare thing, a freedom-loving literary genius of the right
It was Mario Vargas Llosa who first drew me into politics. Before Brexit, before Maastricht, before the coup against Margaret Thatcher, I had marched alongside the ingenious novelist against the nationalisation of Peru's banks.
It was 1987, and I burned with the righteous certainty of a 16-year-old. Vargas Llosa was already a titanic figure in his native country, the winner of all manner of awards (though the Nobel Prize for Literature was still in the future). He was eloquent and handsome and he was right: the Leftist government against which he was protesting ran Peru into the ground.
He had had a dose of the socialist bacillus himself, and it gave him a lifelong immunity. In the 1960s, like every self-respecting Latin American intellectual, he had railed against US imperialism. But when he saw what revolutions meant in practice – he was especially stung by the treatment of dissidents in Cuba – he was big enough to change his mind.
Vargas Llosa turned out to be better at literature than at politics. After his successful campaign against the bank seizures, he entered Peru's 1990 presidential election with an apparently unassailable lead, but lost in the second round to Alberto Fujimori, an agronomist who had come from nowhere, backed by Leftists who were terrified of Vargas Llosa's 'neoliberalism'.
Hilariously, the Leftists ended up getting the neoliberalism from Fujimori, with an added dose of dictatorship.
A dislike of dictatorship – or, more accurately, a dislike of bullying and the abuse of office – was Vargas Llosa's ruling principle. He hated when people made excuses for tyrants who happened to be on their side.
His humane and liberal spirit infused his novels from the beginning. His first work, The Time of the Hero (1963) was set among cadets at a Lima military academy, and based on his own experiences.
Sure enough, it is a story about bullying and the abuse of power, of how hierarchies among the boys end up in a murder, and of how the school covers it up. The Peruvian military authorities hated the book, sensing that their values were being undermined, though they could not put their finger on how.
His subsequent works veered in every direction, historically, geographically and thematically. He wrote in French and English almost as well as in Spanish. He may have been the finest Peruvian writer to lift a pen, but you don't have to be Peruvian to appreciate his corpus. You are drawn, rather, by his largeness of spirit, his insistence on the dignity of the individual.
After losing in 1990, Vargas Llosa moved to Spain, where he became a favourite in conservative circles.
A perceptive bullfight aficionado, he ended up being given a hereditary marquisate by King Juan Carlos. But he was always a liberal in the fullest sense of that word: curious, broad-minded, intellectually generous.
If you want to mark his death by reading one of his novels, I recommend The Feast of the Goat (2001), a story about the end of the Trujillo dictatorship in the Dominican Republic.
Never have I seen the fears and petty humiliations intrinsic in authoritarian rule so beautifully captured on the page. In a world where liberal democracy has been in retreat for over a decade, we could all do with reminding ourselves of what the alternative is.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Immigration warning over 'less than welcoming' statements
The tone of Sir Keir's remarks on May 12 was, as observed by Mr Sheerin and many others, surely something of a surprise. And it was unexpected even with an awareness - having covered this key issue closely over months and years - of Labour's developing and lamentable stance on immigration. The Prime Minister declared: 'Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The 'island of strangers' was a striking turn of phrase. Sir Keir went on: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth, you're not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' Maybe with the benefit of hindsight the Prime Minister's remarks, even though they could have been uttered just as easily by the Tory Brexiters, should not have been quite so much of a shock as they were. After all, Labour has embraced the key elements of the Conservatives' hard Brexit: loss of free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area nations and the ending of the frictionless trade from which the country previously benefited enormously when it was part of the single market. Nevertheless, Sir Keir's tone was surely surprisingly dismal, even given all of this. Not only did we have the reference to 'an island of strangers' but also this declaration: 'This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.' What seemed clear from Sir Keir's utterings was that populism most certainly did not end with the exit of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak from the prime minister post. Sir Keir's tone contrasted so starkly with Mr Sheerin's reasoned appraisal of the Prime Minister's remarks and Labour's plans on immigration. We had this from Sir Keir: 'We do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.' You would imagine Mr Sheerin, as a veteran of the engineering sector, knows a lot more about the specifics than Sir Keir. And it is worth observing the Scottish Engineering chief executive is passionate about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK being trained as engineers. He would love to see the skills shortages which are posing such a challenge to member companies of Scottish Engineering and others in the sector solved. Mr Sheerin is not a politician - just someone with deep knowledge of the Scottish engineering sector. So what did the Scottish Engineering chief have to say in his quarterly report published on Friday? Read more He declared that he found the UK Government's 'latest pronouncements on immigration disappointing', highlighting the detrimental impact on companies of 'statements that feel less than welcoming'. Mr Sheerin hammered home his view that raising minimum qualification levels from Higher equivalents to degree level would 'leave out the skilled trades and crafts roles where we are already in shortest supply: welders, fabricators, electricians, pipefitters, CNC (computer numerical control) machinists to name a few'. That is surely a crucial point. And it is worth emphasising Mr Sheerin's observation that people skilled in these roles are 'already in shortest supply'. Mr Sheerin also noted: 'The shortening of the graduate visa scheme reducing the right to work from two years to 18 months after graduating will not only hit our education sector but also reduce the attractiveness of the scheme for companies who will have a shorter timeline to decide whether to invest in the process to extend the visa of the employee.' This is another good point. And the Scottish Engineering chief executive declared: 'Whilst I recognise that this [immigration] is a contentious political issue across the UK for a whole range of reasons, in engineering and manufacturing in Scotland the reality is that immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight. These skills levels take years to build - and we should be building them - but closing off the supply before putting in place the actions to do that is another example of an action that will challenge the stated ambition of growing our economy.' The time horizon with regard to building skills levels is important. It might not chime with that of politicians such as Sir Keir, who seems at pains to bang the drum on immigration as Nigel Farage's Reform UK makes a big noise on this front. However, it is a simple factual point that engineering skills do take years to build. Mr Sheerin declared that a frustration for him in Labour's immigration pronouncements was that 'whereas there is considerable detail on how we plan to restrict and close this supply of skills, on the laudable stated aim that we will replace the loss with trained or upskilled UK-born workers, the detail is missing on how that will be achieved'. He added: 'And there is no detail that recognises that engineering skills take between four and six years to get to a starting level of competency. It does not seem an unreasonable request for the get-well plan to carry at least the same level of detail as the take-it-away plan.' This seems like an absolutely fair summation of the problems with Labour's populist immigration proposals. If you were asked to choose whether you think it is Sir Keir or Mr Sheerin who is on the money in relation to immigration policy and its effect on engineering and the broader economy, it would surely be the easiest of questions to answer, any day of the week.
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Anas Sarwar should not expect to oust John Swinney yet, says polling guru
John Curtice said the battle for the South Lanarkshire seat always looked as if it would be a close affair and that's how it turned out. Anas Sarwar should not expect to oust John Swinney as first minister just yet despite Labour's success at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, Professor John Curtice has said. The election guru said the battle for the South Lanarkshire seat always looked as if it would be a close affair and that's what happened. The Strathclyde University academic told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'If you take in the opinion polls, what's happened in Hamilton, and the ups and downs in Labour and SNP support since 2021, we see Labour at 31 per cent and the SNP at 31 per cent. 'So the contest always looked to be close and that's what's been proven in the end. Labour has done slightly better and the SNP slightly worse, but there is nothing in the result to suggest Labour has turned around the polls. 'But equally what's true is there are no signs in this result that the SNP are making much progress in reversing the losses from last year. 'The recent message from opinion polls are the SNP is running at just over 30 per cent, Labour is around 20 per cent, so it seems a reasonable expectation that such a result would not mean Anas Sarwar is Scotland's next first minister.' Curtice also said that the by-election was positive for Reform, even though it came third after some pundits predicted it could finish higher. Nigel Farage's party took 26.2 per cent of the vote - well above the 19 per cent it is sitting at in the national polls for Scotland. Writing in The Times, he said: 'Once again it is Reform's political prospects that now look brighter. 'As in the English local elections, so in Hamilton the party outperformed its current standing in the polls, winning as much as 26 per cent of the vote. 'Hitherto politicians in Scotland have comforted themselves with the thought that Nigel Farage could never make the political weather in a country that voted against Brexit and which seems less concerned about immigration. 'However, as in the rest of the UK, that is not a thought that is credible any more.' It is estimated around one in four Conservative voters in Scotland from last year's general election have switched to Reform, along with one in six Labour voters. Curtice said: 'Reform UK is damaging both of the principal unionist parties in Scotland. 'In this instance, it was not enough to save the SNP's bacon. But across Scotland there is still the likely prospect that the SNP will be the largest party in the next Holyrood election, but much diminished and much less powerful than the one currently occupying the debating chamber.'
The Independent
14 hours ago
- The Independent
Quicker queues at EU passport checks? Simon Calder's assessment of claims that millions of Brits will win access to e-gates
British travellers to Europe have never had it so good: that is the narrative from the government ever since the UK-EU 'reset'. Ministers from Sir Kier Starmer downwards have been happy for holidaymakers to infer that they will have a better experience at European Union borders this summer – and that the UK government deserves credit for improving our travelling lives. Much of that optimism is based on British citizens being able use passport e-gates. But what is the reality? Some background: after the 2016 decision to leave the European Union, Boris Johnson's government negotiated for the 'Venezuela outcome' as far as British travellers are concerned. We chose to became 'third-country nationals' – a designation proudly shared with many others, including Venezuelans. The practical consequences for British holidaymakers crossing borders were clear, because the UK helped create the European rules. Previously only one check was necessary when travelling between the UK and the Schengen area (the rest of the EU minus Ireland, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland): that the passport was valid and that it belonged to the holder. E-gates are brilliant at this. They compare the information encoded in a passport with the traveller's face to verify that the document belongs to that individual. They are also linked to a central database to confirm the document's validity. The post-Brexit changes that the UK requested, and to which Brussels agreed, include: Having our passports stamped on the way in and out of Europe Giving up access to the fast track for citizens of the EU and wider Schengen area Having border guards check we have not outstayed our 90-day welcome Each individual border transaction therefore takes much more time, leading to extremely long queues if border resources are thin. The most recent half-term was miserable for thousands of families, whether flying in to the Spanish island of Tenerife or flying out of Faro in Portugal. New arrivals and homeward-bound passengers experienced two-hour waits at times. This was gruelling for new arrivals – and expensive for some departing travellers, who missed their flights despite having arrived in good time at the airport. Faro airport, at least, will improve – with British travellers now able to use e-gates. But that is only part of the story. These are the key UK government claims, and my assessment of each. 'Millions more Brits arriving in the Algarve are set to benefit from e-gates ahead of the summer holidays' Source: Cabinet Office press release. Assessment: Configuring e-gates at the Portuguese airport to connect to UK government systems will speed things up a bit for many British passengers. Border staff will no longer need to verify the traveller's identity. All good, then? Not quite. Families with young children will still need to queue to see an official. And after passing through the e-gate, every British passport must be stamped by a human border guard. In theory he or she should also check that the traveller has not been in the Schengen area for more than 90 days out of the past 180 days. The claims for Faro airport get increasingly ambitious: '[E-gate access] will speed up journeys for the approximately 10 million British travellers who use the airport each year' Source: Prime minister 's official spokesperson. Assessment: Complete tosh. Around 2.5 million UK citizens visit Portugal in a typical year. Counting flying in and out, that is 5 million border crossings – covering Lisbon, Porto and Madeira airports as well as Faro, plus those who arrive by land and sea. But let us generously assume that half of those British visitors are using Faro airport. That is still one-quarter of the figure given by No 10. I have told the Cabinet Office this, and asked to see its working. Now let us look at some wider assertions … 'British holidaymakers will be able to use more e-gates in Europe, ending the dreaded queues at border control' Source: Government announcement. Assessment: The first part of this claim is demonstrably true. Besides Faro allowing UK visitors to go through e-gates, many other European authorities are moving in that direction because, as mentioned, it is an extremely efficient way of handling part of the border bureaucracy. Each EU nation makes its own decisions on how to operate its borders. Some are choosing to introduce e-gates for third-country nationals in order to accelerate the arrival and departure process. The second part of the assertion is fanciful. While 'dreaded' is not quantified, it is reasonable to say anything longer than a half-an-hour is unwelcome. There will doubtless be squeezes in arrivals halls over the summer that result in hour-long queues. At Tenerife South airport, at times in summer nine inbound flights from the UK are scheduled within a single half-hour. If they keep to schedule, there will be a sudden influx of over 1,600 people – the vast majority of whom have British, rather than EU, passports. Resourcing to allow swift processing for peaks such as that would be unreasonably expensive for border authorities. 'The Prime Minister has been clear that there should be no reason why European countries cannot go further and faster on this now' Source: Foreign Office minister Baroness Chapman of Darlington, speaking in the House of Lords. That's a big claim. European countries may well have good reasons for not going 'further and faster' on rolling out e-gates for British holidaymakers. They may wish to commit money and effort to things that will benefit their citizens, rather than helping the UK clear up one of the many messes brought about by the British decision to leave the EU.
