[HPforGrownups] Percy. ( and WW government)

[manawydan]

No: HPFGUIDX 121528

Betsy enthused:
>This is a link to a completely brilliant essay by Pharnabazus on the
>government of the WW:
>http://www.livejournal.com/community/hp_essays/7250.html

Agree absolutely. It's a very lengthy discussion which touches on all sorts
of areas, including Voldemort, Fudge, Lucius, Percy, and even Adalbert
Waffling. Everyone who's interested in what's going on behind the scenery of
the books should read it. I'm pretty convinced, and most of the areas where
I disagree with Pharnabazus are areas where canon is either absent or
ambiguous.

I lean towards the "large" rather than the "small" WW population, though
that doesn't really affect his argument, and also (as a logical follow-on)
that the admixture of Muggle-borns is very small to negligible (meaning that
as so often happens, the victims of prejudice are a far smaller number than
their persecutors make them out to be).

More seriously, I don't agree over the question of wizarding lifetimes, and
this I think is quite important to the argument. I used to think, having
learned Dumbledore's age, that the wizarding lifespan was twice that of
Muggles (Mx2). But in OoP, we learned that Griselda Marchbanks is much older
again (perhaps 50 years older than Dumbledore) but is still hale and active.
This led me to look again at the description of Armando Dippet and realise
that he was probably about the same age. This could in turn explain other
things. If wizarding lifespans are Mx3 rather than Mx2, then the length of a
generation would be around 90 years rather than the Muggle 30  - it would
mean that some of the parental ages that we've come across are untypical but
then it's quite possible that wizard parents could be anywhere from puberty
up to around 120. Let's go with 90 for a moment and note that it could well
explain the paucity of grandparents in the story - the only one we've come
across is Neville's (how old is she, by the way, given that Marchbanks is a
family friend?)

Griselda would have been born around 1790 to realistically have been able to
examine Dumbledore in the late 1850s. So her father would have been born
around 1700, in the years immediately after the Statute of Secrecy was
introduced, and her grandfather would have been born around 1610. Let's say
that grandad lived until 1820 - it would mean that Griselda would have known
him for her first 30 years. So we have someone alive today who could easily
have had personal acquaintance with someone who participated in the
discussions leading up to the formation of the Ministry and the Statute of
Secrecy. That's quite a startling change in perspective - a time that for us
would be of no more than academic interest was almost a living experience
for wizards alive today. It could well mean that the kind of arguments alive
then are still alive today.

My second major disagreement with Pharnabzus is over the Ministry itself. In
his conception of WW politics as being based solely on patronage, he sees it
as an institution which is itself riven by patronage. I'm not so sure. If
this was so, then why did Fudge become Minister, rather than one of the more
powerful internal patrons? I couldn't see all of them so willingly
relinquishing power at a time when the Voldemort threat was thought to be at
an end and consolidation was the main agenda. Instead, I would see the
Ministry as something which at least potentially stands as a counterbalance
to aristocratic and institutional patronage.

When the Ministry was set up, it would necessarily have had to have been
staffed by members of the aristocracy and their associates. But now it's
not. Entry is on academic qualifications rather than background: the
Ministry recruits on a meritocratic basis. All its recruits have a common
academic background, which would in turn suggest the development of a
"ministry culture" of shared values and ethos.

That's not going to be to the taste of the patronal networks, who will (and
do) seek to interfere - as both Malfoy and Dumbledore do. But internally I'd
see most employees of the Ministry as basically having the same outlook on
the world, despite the high level of politicking which certainly goes on and
the favour which individual mandarins can give to their underlings.

Nora wrote:

>If we're playing the game that the British system is a model for the
>fictional WW, then scandals like Fudge's HAVE been known to take
>down both a central figure and a lot of other people who end up
>unwillingly along for the ride.  (I'm also thinking about things
>like the Prufumo scandal, which ended up taking down the government
>in elections.)  Assistants are often sacked along with everyone else
>to avoid the taint of possible associations.  The unfortunately
>unknown factor here is the presence or lack of political parties and
>exactly what happens when the WW changes governments.

Though this tends to work the other way, as happened to David Blunkett
recently - because of the actions of his underling, the Minister resigned.
It's called the "Crichel Down principle" under which ministers are supposed
to take full responsibility for the actions of their civil servants.

The WW equivalent would be that if Umbridge's transgressions emerged, that
Fudge would have to resign as a result. We don't yet know whether this is
going to be the story or whether he's just "decided to spend more time with
his family".

The UK system has a politically independent bureaucracy, who don't rise or
fall depending on government. But of course the WW doesn't have any
seperation between the two.

>We know via website and comments that Fudge is out.  I'm cheerfully
>looking for at least some of the government to go with him.

Possibly so. We know that Fudge was a junior minister at the time of
Voldemort's fall. If he has appointed others, they may well go with him.

But JKR alone knows all

Cheers

Ffred

O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon
Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion
Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri