This page contains a sample of some of the better recent articles in YourGov. New articles on any political theme are welcome. N.B. The editor reserves the right to edit any articles submitted.
The Best of YourGov
Je Suis Charlie
By Jack Tracey
Yesterday afternoon, the world bore witness to a grave tragedy. Outside the offices of Charlie Hebdo – a French satirical magazine – 12 men and women, including the magazine’s editor Stephane Charbonnier, were brutally killed for the crime free expression. It was, simply, the murder of liberty.
It was an act of extraordinary savagery, committed by 3 men seeking to ‘avenge’ the Prophet Muhammad for the publishing a sardonic cartoon depicting his image (a motive confirmed by their barbaric exclamations as they retreated from the scene). It was not the first time the magazine had been the target of terror, having been petrol-bombed in November 2011 once again for having carried a caricature of the Prophet under the caption “Charia Hebdo”.
Charlie Hebdo is part of a venerable tradition in French journalism, going back to the scandal sheets that denounced Marie-Antoinette in the run-up to the French Revolution. The tradition combines left-wing radicalism with a provocative scurrility that has often bordered on the obscene. Back in the 18th Century, the target was the royal family, and the rumour- mongers wrought havoc with tales - often illustrated
- of sexual antics and corruption at the court at Versailles. Today, there are new dragons to slay: politicians, the police, bankers, and, yes, religion. Satire, rather than outright fabrication, is now the weapon of choice however. But that same spirit of insolence that once took on the ancien regime is still very much fundamental to its mission. Its decision to mock the Prophet Muhammad is entirely consistent with its historic raison d’etre.
Taboos are there to be broken. But not, it seems, for those killing in the name of the Prophet yesterday. To these men, Islam is the total solution – to banking, to their diet, to the political economy and so on. And what is disturbing about the word ‘total’ here? I shall give you a clue: it is the first 5 letter of the word totalitarianism. For the moment, all they can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what they say and you will do it for fear of mortal consequences. Herein lies the basis of
‘Islamofascism’.
I am sorry, but I decline to be spoken to in that tone of voice. And so, I hazard to guess, did messers Wolinski, Cabu, Charbonnier, and Verlhac. I hereby refuse to feel badly for the chronically insulted; I refuse to argue politely why freedom of expression, reason, and mockery should be respected. They are the pillars of our society – our greatest defence against tyranny and subjugation – and deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise, should never be exempt from their scope.
POSTCOLONIALISM
By Sophie McHale
In January 2015, there was shock in our neighbouring country France where there were violent attacks on members of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, and in the proceeding days, more died. In total 17 were killed. In the last few months, the terrorist group IS have brutally murdered several journalists and aid workers. The coverage on news channels and in newspapers for the deaths of these Westerners was overwhelming. In the same month, thousands of people have died in the hands of IS, hundreds of Palestinian families have become homeless due to the actions of Israel, Boko Haram have slaughtered hundreds if not thousands in Nigeria, yet this was largely ignored, or at least had far less comparable coverage. This has led many to ask, is a Western life worth more than a life of a non-Westerner, and is an event being a tragedy even a possibility for those in developing world?
I started studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics at the University of Manchester in September 2014. In my first semester I took a module called an introduction to international politics. This explored theories in the school of international relations, the global political economy, and political interpretations of the world wars and the Cold War.
My favourite part of this module was exploring the theory of postcolonialism. Postcolonialism is the study of the era we now live in where the colonization of developing countries, primarily in Africa, has ended and now independence reigns. However, many still perceive there to be a lingering negative perception of the previously colonized countries in the minds of Westerners. As most theories in international relations are developed in the West, this is seen as a large problem to many postcolonial writers and theorists.
The theorist Edward Said recognized that there was a colonized population who had been left out of all dialogues in international politics. He saw that in expressions by Westerners, like in books and art, non-westerners are deliberately portrayed as exotic, cruel, curious or highly sexualized. They are therefore seen to have no place at the table of international decision-making and are thereby marginalized.
There are many examples of the subjugation of the population of the developing world in our everyday lives too. Literature studied for English GCSE feature highly prejudiced portrayals of non-Westerners, like in Jane Eyre, the woman in the attic is Jamaican, and we are taught to fear her. In Austen’s Mansfield Park, we are taught that wealth comes from profits from slavery. If you attend a university with a large population of international students, you will find that most exchange students from South-East Asia will have had their parents choose them an “English name” like Marcus, John or Sheila before they visit. When traveling, the insistence that all those who are to be financially successful or involved in the tourism business need to speak English is another common pattern. News coverage being slanted in favour of the West is not the only place where this discrimination lingers.
Coming to university has taught me that there is always another story in the political world, and that decisions are made not only on the basis of gaining power, but often also as a means of deliberate marginalization.
At university there is a great expanse of political movements to get involved with, ranging from large groups like the Marxist and Socialists and the main political party groups, to feminists, to those who want to unite against fascism or protect the NHS. If you want to know how your viewpoint is skewed and who it directly affects, or make real changes to the local community or become involved in activism of any sort, then I would highly recommend studying politics at university.
A Patient World Waits
MP
Perhaps no-one cared, or nobody knew,
That when bankers catch colds, we all get the flu
It‘s evident now, the contagion spreads quickly,
And while loved ones watch the world becomes sickly
Some try an old remedy for all aches and pains,
A tincture prescribed by John Maynard Keynes,
But this healing, say others, has one simple flaw,
Can we afford it? We’ll only want more
So the surgeons are called with their scalpels and saws.
To cut out dead tissue, is their only cure
The crash team in ‘recuss’ are shaking their heads
‘If we do not act quickly, the patient is dead.’
‘Stand clear!’ calls the woman from Germany’s team,
As she charges electrodes with feverish gleam
And the Frenchman announces that Europe is fine,
While behind him the monitors stay in flatline
The patient is fading, soon that becomes clear,
And all the consultants can only shed tears,
For in Europe’s hospice, all wrapped up in fleece,
Is the shivering carcass of what was once Greece.
The Rise of the Far Right in France
By Esther Hurst
Created in 1972 to unify various French nationalist movements of the time, Jean-Marie Le Pen was the Front National’s first leader and undisputed pivot of the movement. Marine Le Pen, his daughter, is continuing the family tradition and has been leading the party since 2011. She is intent on “de-demonising” the party by distancing FN from its far-right roots and presenting it instead as a softer, more caring party. Marine Le Pen even expelled her own father from the party, after the former leader referred to the Nazi gas chambers as “a point of detail of the history of the Second World War”. Despite Marine Le Pen’s valiant efforts to reform the party and it’s reputation, The Front National is seen by many to be a neo-Nazi party and a threat to democracy. The party’s socially conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic policies have been attacked both within France and globally.
However, the vote for Front National is increasing dramatically, and as of 2015, it has established itself as one of the largest political forces in France. Since Marine Le Pen’s election as leader, the popularity of the FN continues to grow apace; it won several municipalities at the 2014 municipal elections. In the first round of the regional elections in 2015, Front National, the self-proclaimed anti-immigration and zero tolerance party polled strongly, and seemed set to take the majority of regions. Observers around the world were shocked at this demonstration of Front National’s popularity. The political establishment’s concern was so great that the opposing Parti Socialiste and Les Républicans organised tactical voting across the regions. For example, one candidate would withdraw from the election, so the public only had one choice: vote for an establishment party, or the Front National. Turnout increased by 10% in the second round of the regional elections, and this concerted effort paid off- the Front National failed to gain any regions (despite polling around 28% of the vote). This served as a wake up call to the establishment; no one in France was able to see the Front National’s failure to gain any seats as a victory. For the first time, France sensed how close it had come to falling under Front National control.
The popularity of the far right in France is a relatively new phenomenon; it was not until 2011 that it began to be viewed as a serious political party. Like any far-right party, it plays off fear- and France certainly faces many challenges and uncertainty. The large French population of Northern African and African descent has long been discontented with the French state. The racial tensions existing within France where laid bare in 2015, when Islamic Extremists entered the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical and often highly controversial magazine, and began shooting at the staff. The two gunmen were later revealed to be of Algerian descent. Leading up to this attack, Charlie Hebdo had published satirical pictures of the Prophet Mohammed. Additionally, the Refugee Crisis that has emerged over the last few years has only served to heighten the suspicion towards Islam that many French citizens had already felt. Many hold the belief that extremists have infiltrated the country in the guise of asylum-seekers. However, it was the horrific Paris Attacks in November that set this suspicion alight, making many, previously moderate, French turn to the Front National. They believe that they are the only party who can eliminate the extremists (the fact that the majority of the perpetrators of the attacks had lived just over the border in Belgium was of little consequence). The increased share of the vote at the 2015 regional elections was undoubtedly, in part, a protest vote against what they see as France’s corrupt, elite and incompetent governments who are unable to conquer extremism.
Despite the Front National’s anti-Islamic rhetoric, it is polling a small but increasing number of votes from Muslims, who see no conflict at all between their own religion and the party’s fierce opposition to Islam. Despite her dubious politics, Marine Le Pen has been successfully courting some of the Muslim vote since she became leader, claiming the party isn’t opposed to Muslims, just ‘Islamisation’. Bizarrely, this tactic appears to be working.
Front National is a political force to be reckoned with, and we should all feel uncomfortable with the mass of support they are now polling from all areas of French society. Their anti-establishment and anti-Islamic message has struck a chord with disillusioned members of all social classes; though the FN’s largest support base continues to be the white working classes. In a time when the whole of Europe must unite in tackling the problems of extremism, the rise of the far-right party will only serve to heighten already fragile tensions between the Muslim community and the rest of the French state. The Front National’s success will only result in even more French citizens feeling left behind and isolated by a party being carried to victory on a wave of fear and terror.
Keeping the House of Lords
By Hanah Hancox
At the heart of Britain’s legislature lies a chamber of unelected and unaccountable peers. The title and voice granted to a privileged few by our Monarch on the advice of our trusted Prime Minister. Although most of this is not an issue, perhaps we should have a say in whether we approve of our Lords or not. At least when MPs are no longer in favour, they lose their vantage point and become a common person once more. Have you ever heard of an ousted Lord? Me neither.
Despite men like Jeffry Archer and Conrad Black, men charged with fraud; looting millions of dollars, perjury and perverting the course of justice. Between them they were sentenced to ten and a half years in prison and yet they remain at the heart of our legislative process, hanging on to their title and we’re expected to address these men as ‘Lord’. Deference has never been my forte, especially when convicted criminals have a hand in amending the law of this country. That coupled with the reality of ‘cash for honours’, is sure to have anyone cringing in their seat.
I am tempted to agree with those who spout speeches from their moral high horse about the House of Lords promoting an unequal society and encouraging an elitist system. However, I do not.
The majority of the Lords have genuine experience and knowledge in their field and so are valuable and objective when examining our legislature. Microbiologists, Architects, former commanding officers of the armed forces, entrepreneurs, human rights activists and the former Governor of the Bank of England are all included. They are to be commended and their seats in the House of Lords, in my eyes at least, are secure.
My problem is with hereditary peers who turn up on Tuesdays because that’s what their great great granddad did. Not to mention the financial ‘support’ offered to Lords for their service: travel expenses and up to £300 a day sitting in the House, attending committee proceedings or simply working on behalf of the house and naturally none of this is liable for income tax.
Hereditary peers are historic relics that should be confined to the fourteenth century where they belong. The number may have been reduced to ninety two, but that’s still ninety two too many. Filling the chamber with political brains, businessmen and boys who inherited their title is not representative of the British people as it claims to be.
I propose a new system, a reformed system. Abolishing the House of Lords and electing a second chamber would be a disaster. Perhaps the developed unicameral system works in New Zealand but it would not be a success in Britain. A second elected chamber would threaten the primacy and legitimacy of the House of Commons or worse lead to legislative deadlock. 40% of the Lords time in the chamber is spent holding the Government to account and this is a vital aspect of the legislative process. Without this scrutiny Government could effectively do as they please without objection.
Peers have become ambassadors for the UK and their quality of experience is valid. Their extensive knowledge gives them the right to scrutinise Government and their work.
Despite the pompous traditions in the chamber; their elaborate furnishings, coats and speeches, they do important work. Between 2010 and 2012 they considered 10031 changes and 49 bills became law. They offer independence of thought and do sit for more hours, more days and more weeks than your elected House of Commons.
I am in favour of reform. Abolition is destructive and unnecessary. We don’t have a bad system; it just needs to be improved. The removal of hereditary peers, the banning of members who have committed crimes and general modernisation will bring the House of Lords into the 21st century and earn it back the respect it deserves.
Increasing numbers of disillusioned voters and low turnouts clearly show a need for change. Perhaps a shake up in the House of Lords would encourage a new burst of political interest and a bout of support for governing parties, as well as the Lords who support them.
The Peter Mandelson Interview: Oxford University
By Beth Hughes
On the 15th of February, a group of students were given the exciting opportunity to hear Lord Peter Mandelson in conversation with Evan Davis. The group of fifteen made their way down to St Catherine’s College in Oxford to hear one of the architects of New Labour discuss his time in Government.
The atmosphere was relatively relaxed and it began with harmless banter between Davis and Mandelson, in a much more informal way than any of us students were expecting. This banter, at times, would rise into slightly heated discussion despite the friendly atmosphere whenever Davis was keen to pin Mandelson down on particular points.
Lord Mandelson spoke of his time in Government and jokingly repeated a phrase of Tony Benn’s that “New Labour is Margret Thatcher’s greatest achievement”. To me this made more sense than anything. It was quite a point, that when a government gets into power, it is often because they have become the antithesis of the old government, but along the way they might have assimilated some of the previous government’s approach. He continued, “New Labour created a new prism for British politics” The way he described the creation of New Labour was phoenix-like as he discussed Labour in 1985 undergoing “a near death experience” before being pulled back in 1997 after being years out of power.
As clichéd as it may sound, the experience was inspiring. Not only visiting such a prestigious university, but seeing one of the most important politicians of our time talk in person, stirred the political interests and aspirations of many in the group.
The Supreme Court: Where does power lie?
By Rachel Babb
When the Supreme Court began work on 1st October 2009, concerns were raised that an independent judiciary may become too powerful for the executive to compete within terms of rulings. The rise of the judiciary over the past 30 years has meant that there are hardly any government policies that the court cannot stand against. But just how powerful has Britain’s highest court of appeal really become?
The ‘Law Lords’ as they were once known are the 12 Justices who reside in the Supreme Court, and interpret and then apply the law. They are completely separate from the Government and Parliament, which is symbolised through the new location of the Supreme Court. It now sits in the former Middlesex Guildhall, on the western side of Parliament Square, whereas the other two sides are occupied by the executive (the Treasury building) and the church (Westminster Abbey). These Justices have the upmost power on deciding the result of cases put forward to them. However, they can only act within the law.
The UK Supreme Court does not have the power to overrule legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is not the Court’s role to formulate new laws, but to enforce the law and develop it where it is needed. This is done through well-thought out processes and reasoning. However, the Supreme Court must directly apply European Union law, and interpret domestic law so it is consistent as far as possible with the European Union law. This includes giving effect to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Disagreements surfaced over the Abu Qatada case, where the government wanted to deport Abu Qatada back to his own country of Jordan to be arrested for crimes there, but the European Convention on Human Rights would not allow. This case showed the power of human rights and that their laws must be followed.
A recent television documentary highlighted the Justices point of view in the Supreme Court. It showed that they believed that they were acting within the constraints of the legislation that has been passed by Parliament. They do not make the law, they just interpret it. It is, however, Parliament’s job to make the law. Therefore, although the Justices appear to act in a liberal way, they are simply doing their job and applying the law.
The Politics of Augustine
By Izzy Kai
It appears that Augustine had a conflicting relationship with the notion of politics. On one hand he found that there was no salvation in politics, and yet on the other hand he accepted that it was necessary to retain order in society. Whether politics could ever be considered “just” for Augustine is what will be discussed in this essay. What will first be examined is Augustine’s conception of human nature and how this helps to define justice. The second paragraph will then discuss how this conception of human nature and justice relate to politics, with particular focus on Augustine’s ideas of the two cities and the purpose of the state. Then finally, what therefore is the purpose of politics and how does his understanding of politics differ in Roman and Greek thought. Attention must be paid to it not being quite so simple as saying whether politics was just or not, as there are different forms of justice, and not simply one form of godly justice. The latter is what seeks to be maintained throughout this essay, politics can never be considered just for Augustine if what he is seeking is a Godly form of justice on earth for it cannot be found, apart from in the heavenly city.
What will first be examined is Augustine’s conception of human nature and how this helps to define justice. Augustine believed that humans are naturally fallible and that human nature can never be perfected. This is because original sin is rooted in all humans, “…Adam’s sin as the source for the dislocation of nature which runs through man’s whole historical existence…”[1] Bad qualities in humans come from the sinful acts of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Thus Augustine was pessimistic about the human capacity to be good. The Doctrine of the Fall also plays into this idea, because Adam and Eve ate the apple, sin will be rooted in humans regardless of the life that they lead. All that can be done is for society to create enough order in life to ensure humans remain as least sinful as possible; this suggests that there is a need for politics. This pessimistic view of human nature greatly contrasts to that of Thomas Aquinas, though both philosophers followed Christianity, Aquinas believed that because God created humans and gave them reason it is possible to better themselves. He still believed that humans could never reach a truly just end point but did believe that humans could improve[2]. Whereas Augustine thought that human perfection could never be attempted, however in agreement with Aquinas did recognise the desire for knowledge and that God had given humans reason, and this set humans aside from animals, yet reason is limited without grace which appears unachievable in the earthly city. Part of the reason for this is because Augustine believed that humans were inherently selfish, a “love of power, a lust for domination, drives them [humans] on.”[3] The desire to dominate is what sets apart Augustine’s conception of human nature to Aristotle’s[4], even though both believed that humans were social beings. Augustine’s distrustful view of human nature is what helps to define his conception of justice, as “Augustine seems to think of justice primarily, not exclusively, as the setting aright of what has become disordered…”[5] Augustine’s theory of knowledge also feed into his ideas about human nature. For Augustine, “God was infinite”[6] however, through “sense knowledge”[7] humans had the capacity to learn, sense knowledge explains that humans learn through memory “but it is the soul which acts in them.”[8] Nevertheless, humans are still overwhelmed by desire and because of this, true knowledge cannot be achieved. This section has demonstrated Augustine’s cynical approach to human nature and thus, it would appear then that humans need politics or some form of order to try and create a just society and in turn, live a life of justice.
So far, Augustine’s ideas of human nature have been examined. The following section will analyse how Augustine’s conception of human nature and justice relate to politics, with particular reference to his ideas of the two cities. “Augustine saw the state as an institution that was necessary to deal with the implications of humanity’s fall from a state of grace to one where sin was inevitable.”[9] John Marrow’s observation clearly illustrates that there was a need for politics for Augustine since sinfulness was rooted in humans. However, it would appear that the political state was a result of sin as well as being a remedy for it. For Augustine, politics was only beneficial so far as it contributed to human salvation, as humans need order to try and keep them away from sin. According to Augustine humans have a desire to dominate and accumulate; the Roman Empire[10] is an example of this. However civil order provides the possibility of temporary alleviation. Thus, politics does provide justice but not a true form of justice, which can only be provided by the heavenly city. Augustine’s ideas of two cities refer to the city of God, or a heavenly city and then an earthly city. “Earthly kingdoms are founded, not in justice, but in injustice…”[11] this is perhaps a reason which suggests why politics can never be considered just for Augustine as the cities which politics come out from cannot be just themselves. Yet, “the earthly city… contributes indirectly to the realization of Christian values, even thought it is not positively related to the city of God…”[12] This suggests that time must be spent in the earthly city in order for humans to sustain a good relationship with God so that they can then go onto the heavenly city, because of this the earthly city and in turn politics, must have some form of justice within it though it cannot be a Godly form of justice. It appears that Augustine may not necessarily have been interested in political institution; there was never a defined piece of works by him, which explained explicitly his political values. Augustine appears to be more conscious of human relationships and how some people are given authority in the earthly city and others are not. This is exemplified through the divine right of kings; this explains that the leaders put in power are closest to God and put there by God. Augustine accepts this because humans need a form of authority because they are sinful creatures thus politics is a necessary evil, “the need for order in a healthy social life entails an obligation to obey even evil rulers.”[13] Here, there is another contrasting view with Aquinas who believed in the theory of resistance, in which if your state decides without religious or authoritative reason to harm you God wants you to protect yourself. Whereas for Augustine because of the divine right of kings, you do not have the power to do anything, your time in the earthly city is simply allotted until you come to reach the heavenly city. When considering these observations it would suggest that politics could be just for Augustine in terms of it providing a fair society and punishment when humans retreat into their sinful ways. For Augustine there is a deficit of heavenly justice, which, he appears to lust after but what he knows, cannot be achieved in the earthly city.
The purpose of politics for Augustine and how this comes into Greek and Roman thought will now be analysed. Augustine’s politics must be handled with care, as he never completely theorised his political philosophy. Overall it would seem that “politics is the means to achieve minimum disorder… [it] is about domination and temporary conflict avoidance.” This further reiterates the point that politics is a necessary evil for Augustine and can never truly be just for the justice he is seeking is that of a heavenly kind. When looking at the Roman and Greek states, Augustine sees that both states want order and peace, but because of humankind’s selfish and excessive need to dominate, the states will never truly be just. This is particularly emphasised through Augustine’s perception of Rome, “… her most serious failure according to Augustine, was that she lusted after domination and ultimately became dominated by her own passion for domination.”[14] Politics is a result of human’s sinful nature, because politics led to the creation of the Roman Empire, it collapsed because it couldn’t control its desires thus politics can never be truly just. Yet, though Augustine’s pessimistic perception of human nature is so apparent, peace is still an important virtue to consider. According to Augustine, peace is the foremost yearning of the human heart and the state is necessary to achieve peace thus it must hold some form of justice within it. However, humans will eventually still ascend to war and a just war is a tragedy. The state can maintain peace and order but only temporarily, by imposing peace there is still a negative for Augustine because humans will never be able to maintain it for eternity due to their selfish desires and lust for power. Yet Augustine must have witnessed some justice within the state as in “Augustine’s cannonade in the City of God (iv, 4): ‘if justice is removed, what are kingdoms but large-scale brigandage?’ However, this statement could have been a rhetorical question in terms of his own understanding of a state without justice. There is no salvation in politics for Augustine; he talks of the state in comparison with a gang of thieves. Augustine theorised that sinfulness and theft is rooted in everyone and thus there is not much difference between the two. The only difference is that one has grown so big that it can exert dominance over a large number of people and thus cannot be just unless it is a fair state, which is unlikely when considering Augustine’s belief in original sin. The political state is a result of sin and thus will have sin rooted in itself, it is also a partial remedy for sin but not so far as achieving a true form of heavenly justice.
Politics for Augustine can be considered just but not the heavenly form of justice for which he seeks. It is a necessary evil in the earthly city as it maintains that humans do not further stray away to the path of sin, which is already rooted in them due to the doctrine of the Fall. Politics is only so good in so far that it contributes to human salvation and allows for there to be order in society. It does also provide a form of justice but justice in a far more simplified version in that it allows for laws in society to remedy sin that is committed, this is why earthly cities, like Rome for example, can never be righteous. Thus for Augustine politics can never be just in the form that he seeks. Though the heavenly city and earthly city are mutually exclusive, and thus justice can be found on earth it is not the Godly form of justice, of which Augustine is in pursuit.
Alex Salmond: Success or Failure?
By Joe Price
In 2004 Salmond became SNP leader for a second time. Salmond joined a party in a poor state, suffering against the force of Scottish Labour. Salmond then transformed the SNP with the help of his deputy Nicola Sturgeon. In 2007 Salmond saw his greatest hour winning the Scottish Parliament elections and leading the Scottish Nationalist party into a minority government and Salmond becoming First Minister.
In the 2010 election Salmond’s SNP failed to make huge gains in the House of Commons. Many voters decided to turn to the Labour party to try and stop the Conservatives. The Conservatives being in coalition in Westminster gave Salmond a huge boost for his argument for an independent Scotland.
In 2011 the SNP won a landslide victory in the Scottish parliament elections. Salmond had managed to break the 50 year dominant force Labour had in Scotland, even under a system of proportional representation.
In 2012 Salmond signed the Edinburgh agreement, which promised a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014. After two years of fierce debating, the Scottish people decided to vote no to Scottish independence 55% to 45%. Salmond managed to extend franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in the referendum. The UK saw its highest turnout since the 1951 general election with a turnout of 84% in the referendum.
Alex Salmond may not have been able to gain Scottish independent but there is no argument that he leaves his party and his nation in a much better state. Mr Salmond is a tough and clever politician who struck fear into his political rivals. Salmond even managed to get all political party leaders up to Scotland worried that Scotland may vote yes for independence, a thought that would have been laughable when he started his life in politics. Salmond leaves the Scottish Nationalist party with record high membership figures and the third largest party in British politics. Salmond managed to relight the fire of political participation managing to get a turnout of 84% in the referendum in a time of great widespread political apathy. Extending franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland was also a huge pleasure for Salmond as he had campaigned so many years for it. Salmond bows out of his political career having got to the highest office in his nation, having fought and won many political battles to make his party and his nation a much stronger place. So going on his record there is no doubt that Salmond was a successful politician and maybe one of the greatest politicians of his generation.
The Inexorable March of UKIP?
By Mike Pattison (2014)
I am going to do something very foolish. I am going to have a crack at predicting the outcome of the 2015 UK general election. I am no psephologist, but as dawn breaks on 26th May 2014, the morning after the night of the European elections, it is evident that a minor miracle has occurred in UK Politics. The European elections of 2014 will make the history books. And why? Because for the first time ever in British political history a party has come from nowhere to win a national election in Britain. No party other than the Conservatives or Labour has won a national election for over 100 years. UKIP is on the march. But will its success in last week’s local elections and last night’s European elections translate into similar success in the 2015 general election?
The answer, quite frankly, is ‘no’. To do so means it would have to surmount several impossible hurdles. Firstly, the 2014 European election saw turnout at 34% and at the local elections turnout was 36%. The results of these elections do not translate across to an election which, while turnout is still likely to be low, will be in the region of 65%. Continuing disillusionment with the political elite (what Nigel Farage calls the ‘chattering classes’) will not see turnout increase much beyond the 2010 figure, and it may even dip, but those who abstained at the European election are more likely to be disaffected Labour and Conservative voters who are protesting in what they perceive to be a ‘second order’ election. If they had been inspired by UKIP they would have voted UKIP. In a general election they will return to their party of choice, particularly now that they can see the threat UKIP poses.
Secondly, UKIP is still a dual issue party (Europe and immigration). While these two issues
will be important in the 2015 general election, tackling the deficit will also be a significant issue (and on this the Conservatives will be able to weave a stronger narrative than Labour). On broader issues voters are unclear of UKIP’s stance. Even Nigel Farage once admitted he was not aware of all the policy detail in the 2010 UKIP manifesto. This, of course, might change. At UKIP’s autumn conference expect policy pronouncements on cuts to public spending, support for grammar schools, and tax relief for those on the minimum wage.
Thirdly, the European election was fought using the Closed List System, which is proportional. In winning28% of the votes, UKIP gained almost 33% of the seats. The First Past the Post System used in the UK general election is much harsher on smaller parties. To win seats you need a concentration of votes in seats, and the UKIP vote is spread too thinly across the country. Thus, in 2010, the Liberal Democrats secured 22% of the vote, but only 8.6% of the seats, and in 1983 the newly-formed Social Democratic Party (SDP) was optimistically forecast by some observers to win 600 seats in Westminster; they won just 6 (see footnote 1). UKIPs support is spread widely, mainly among ‘Essex man’ (white, self-employed, lower middle class males: the C1s and C2s that are precisely the ‘squeezed middle’ Labour are chasing and from whom the Tories seem disconnected). This, coupled with the fact that UKIP’s share of the vote dips dramatically in general elections (it fell from 16.5% of the vote in the 2009 European election to 3% of the vote in the 2010 general election) means that UKIP’s chances of winning a significant number of seats at Westminster in 2015 is limited. A recent poll suggested that 58% of voters who currently cast a ballot for UKIP will vote for them in 2015. This is higher than previously, but it still leaves them with about 17% of the predicted share of the vote in the general election. Under the First Past the Post system at best this will return about 20-30 seats for them, and even this, I submit is highly optimistic. Farage himself has suggested 12 seats. It may even be lower than that.
Fourthly, they also have the issue of displacing incumbent MPs. Although the incumbency return rate is far lower in the UK than in the US (about 65-70% in the UK as opposed to 90-95% in the US Congress), it will still be difficult for relatively unknown UKIP candidates to dislodge existing MPs. It is not impossible, witness the upsets caused by New Labour in the 1997 landslide victory, but it is difficult. Their inexperience as a party will also begin to show in the local councils, turning some voters away from UKIP as they have to face the reality of making difficult choices (the Green Party may suffer the same fate in Brighton where a Green Council is proving increasingly unpopular). My prediction, therefore, is that UKIP will win enough seats to see their MPs in double figures, perhaps a dozen, possibly up to twenty, but it will be hard to make deeper inroads in Westminster in one election.
So where does this leave the other parties? The Liberal Democrats did badly last night, polling just 7% of the vote and winning just one seat. Their share of seats in Westminster is likely to fall to well below thirty. The Labour Party is also failing to capture the imagination of the voters and many are blaming Ed Miliband’s lack-lustre performance as party leader. Their policies are not sufficiently appealing to the electorate and the ‘catch all’ nature of Labour and the Conservatives have let UKIP find a bridge to a new electoral battleground which is distinctive. For their part, the Conservatives are seen as a party of an elite which simply does not understand the needs of ordinary people.
Consequently, the 2015 election may well result in a hung parliament, with both Labour and the Conservatives winning in the mid-thirties in terms of their percentage share of the vote. But with the Lib Dems decimated, finding a coalition partner to provide a majority government will not be easy. The Conservatives under David Cameron have dismissed talk of a collation (or even a pact) with UKIP, but their strongest chance of forming a majority government might be such a coalition (although they might also need the support of the Unionists and Cameron would have to step down as party leader). Even then, the maths might not add up. No post-war government has increased its majority in a second election, so such a deal might not produce the 326 seats they would need. A second Conservative/ Liberal Democrat coalition might also fall short of a majority. Labour might win sufficient seats to form a coalition with the Lib Dems, but this won’t be easy. It is looking increasingly like a fragile minority Labour or Conservative government (my money is on the Conservatives) with the prospect of another election triggered quickly by a vote of no confidence in the Commons. At that point, UKIP’s march could stutter to a halt.
(1) In the Newark by-election on 5th June, UKIP came second on 26% of the vote, beating Labour and the Lib- Dems (who came 6th) and halving the Conservative vote.
Fiscal cliff? The problems of separation of powers in the US government
by Mike Pattison
I am writing this on New Year’s Eve 2012 when the US government faces one of the gravest self-inflicted financial crises in recent years. Why ‘self-inflicted’? The answer lies in the peculiar tensions created by the separation of powers which is a key characteristic of the US system of government. The Founding Fathers were so keen to ensure that absolutism could never become a feature of the US government that they built into their constitution the separation of the executive (the President) the legislature (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court). Thus it is that the US President cannot play a part in the proceedings of Congress; his only hope is to influence, but not to control, the legislative process. This is in stark contrast to the UK system of government, where fused or ‘overlapping’ powers allows the dominance of the core executive, and particularly the Prime Minister, to directly influence events in Parliament.
This latest budget crisis in the United States is just one of many. Bill Clinton saw his budget rejected by Congress five times, and only last year Obama faced a similar crisis. This would be unthinkable in the UK parliament. Imagine if the government’s budget was rejected by the House of Commons!
The present crisis in the US, dubbed the ‘fiscal cliff’ by the media, is instructive of the need for bipartisanship in Congress. It has been precipitated by the end of time-limited tax cuts imposed by the previous Bush administration. “If no deal is done, 88% of Americans will see their taxes rise on 1 January, when the Bush-era taxcuts expire. In addition, deep spending cuts will bite and two million long-term unemployed people will lose their benefits.” (1) If a deal is not reached, it is likely that the fragile US economy will dip into recession yet again (2).
In order to avert a crisis Obama has tried to work closely with the Republicans, particularly with the influential Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. Boehner has told representatives to be willing to work throughout the New Year in order to produce a workable budget package. But his earlier efforts to embrace bipartisanship have been blocked by Tea Party-influenced Republicans on the right who want the Bush tax-cuts extended in their entirety. The Democrats, however, want to see some tax increases for the top 2% earners in order to help tackle the budget deficit. On 18th December, Boehner proposed a compromise ‘Plan B’ for those who earned over a million dollars, but this was rejected by other Republicans. Failure to reach a solution in the House of Representatives has moved attention to the Senate where, as I write, a compromise rescue package is being considered.
The media is reporting some optimism that a solution will be found. In truth, a solution has to be found. But it has left many Americans, already sceptical of Washington politicians, scathing in their criticism. “The opposite of progress is Congress”, one slogan has it, and only this week a frustrated US citizen tweeted: “I hate you Congress, get your God damn act together!” (3) Whatever happens, the experience of the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ demonstrates the need for bipartisan working in a system of government in which the separation of powers is deeply entrenched.
1. The Observer, 30/12/12
2. The Telegraph, 29/12/12
3. The Observer, op cit.
The Best of YourGov
Je Suis Charlie
By Jack Tracey
Yesterday afternoon, the world bore witness to a grave tragedy. Outside the offices of Charlie Hebdo – a French satirical magazine – 12 men and women, including the magazine’s editor Stephane Charbonnier, were brutally killed for the crime free expression. It was, simply, the murder of liberty.
It was an act of extraordinary savagery, committed by 3 men seeking to ‘avenge’ the Prophet Muhammad for the publishing a sardonic cartoon depicting his image (a motive confirmed by their barbaric exclamations as they retreated from the scene). It was not the first time the magazine had been the target of terror, having been petrol-bombed in November 2011 once again for having carried a caricature of the Prophet under the caption “Charia Hebdo”.
Charlie Hebdo is part of a venerable tradition in French journalism, going back to the scandal sheets that denounced Marie-Antoinette in the run-up to the French Revolution. The tradition combines left-wing radicalism with a provocative scurrility that has often bordered on the obscene. Back in the 18th Century, the target was the royal family, and the rumour- mongers wrought havoc with tales - often illustrated
- of sexual antics and corruption at the court at Versailles. Today, there are new dragons to slay: politicians, the police, bankers, and, yes, religion. Satire, rather than outright fabrication, is now the weapon of choice however. But that same spirit of insolence that once took on the ancien regime is still very much fundamental to its mission. Its decision to mock the Prophet Muhammad is entirely consistent with its historic raison d’etre.
Taboos are there to be broken. But not, it seems, for those killing in the name of the Prophet yesterday. To these men, Islam is the total solution – to banking, to their diet, to the political economy and so on. And what is disturbing about the word ‘total’ here? I shall give you a clue: it is the first 5 letter of the word totalitarianism. For the moment, all they can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what they say and you will do it for fear of mortal consequences. Herein lies the basis of
‘Islamofascism’.
I am sorry, but I decline to be spoken to in that tone of voice. And so, I hazard to guess, did messers Wolinski, Cabu, Charbonnier, and Verlhac. I hereby refuse to feel badly for the chronically insulted; I refuse to argue politely why freedom of expression, reason, and mockery should be respected. They are the pillars of our society – our greatest defence against tyranny and subjugation – and deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise, should never be exempt from their scope.
POSTCOLONIALISM
By Sophie McHale
In January 2015, there was shock in our neighbouring country France where there were violent attacks on members of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, and in the proceeding days, more died. In total 17 were killed. In the last few months, the terrorist group IS have brutally murdered several journalists and aid workers. The coverage on news channels and in newspapers for the deaths of these Westerners was overwhelming. In the same month, thousands of people have died in the hands of IS, hundreds of Palestinian families have become homeless due to the actions of Israel, Boko Haram have slaughtered hundreds if not thousands in Nigeria, yet this was largely ignored, or at least had far less comparable coverage. This has led many to ask, is a Western life worth more than a life of a non-Westerner, and is an event being a tragedy even a possibility for those in developing world?
I started studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics at the University of Manchester in September 2014. In my first semester I took a module called an introduction to international politics. This explored theories in the school of international relations, the global political economy, and political interpretations of the world wars and the Cold War.
My favourite part of this module was exploring the theory of postcolonialism. Postcolonialism is the study of the era we now live in where the colonization of developing countries, primarily in Africa, has ended and now independence reigns. However, many still perceive there to be a lingering negative perception of the previously colonized countries in the minds of Westerners. As most theories in international relations are developed in the West, this is seen as a large problem to many postcolonial writers and theorists.
The theorist Edward Said recognized that there was a colonized population who had been left out of all dialogues in international politics. He saw that in expressions by Westerners, like in books and art, non-westerners are deliberately portrayed as exotic, cruel, curious or highly sexualized. They are therefore seen to have no place at the table of international decision-making and are thereby marginalized.
There are many examples of the subjugation of the population of the developing world in our everyday lives too. Literature studied for English GCSE feature highly prejudiced portrayals of non-Westerners, like in Jane Eyre, the woman in the attic is Jamaican, and we are taught to fear her. In Austen’s Mansfield Park, we are taught that wealth comes from profits from slavery. If you attend a university with a large population of international students, you will find that most exchange students from South-East Asia will have had their parents choose them an “English name” like Marcus, John or Sheila before they visit. When traveling, the insistence that all those who are to be financially successful or involved in the tourism business need to speak English is another common pattern. News coverage being slanted in favour of the West is not the only place where this discrimination lingers.
Coming to university has taught me that there is always another story in the political world, and that decisions are made not only on the basis of gaining power, but often also as a means of deliberate marginalization.
At university there is a great expanse of political movements to get involved with, ranging from large groups like the Marxist and Socialists and the main political party groups, to feminists, to those who want to unite against fascism or protect the NHS. If you want to know how your viewpoint is skewed and who it directly affects, or make real changes to the local community or become involved in activism of any sort, then I would highly recommend studying politics at university.
A Patient World Waits
MP
Perhaps no-one cared, or nobody knew,
That when bankers catch colds, we all get the flu
It‘s evident now, the contagion spreads quickly,
And while loved ones watch the world becomes sickly
Some try an old remedy for all aches and pains,
A tincture prescribed by John Maynard Keynes,
But this healing, say others, has one simple flaw,
Can we afford it? We’ll only want more
So the surgeons are called with their scalpels and saws.
To cut out dead tissue, is their only cure
The crash team in ‘recuss’ are shaking their heads
‘If we do not act quickly, the patient is dead.’
‘Stand clear!’ calls the woman from Germany’s team,
As she charges electrodes with feverish gleam
And the Frenchman announces that Europe is fine,
While behind him the monitors stay in flatline
The patient is fading, soon that becomes clear,
And all the consultants can only shed tears,
For in Europe’s hospice, all wrapped up in fleece,
Is the shivering carcass of what was once Greece.
The Rise of the Far Right in France
By Esther Hurst
Created in 1972 to unify various French nationalist movements of the time, Jean-Marie Le Pen was the Front National’s first leader and undisputed pivot of the movement. Marine Le Pen, his daughter, is continuing the family tradition and has been leading the party since 2011. She is intent on “de-demonising” the party by distancing FN from its far-right roots and presenting it instead as a softer, more caring party. Marine Le Pen even expelled her own father from the party, after the former leader referred to the Nazi gas chambers as “a point of detail of the history of the Second World War”. Despite Marine Le Pen’s valiant efforts to reform the party and it’s reputation, The Front National is seen by many to be a neo-Nazi party and a threat to democracy. The party’s socially conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic policies have been attacked both within France and globally.
However, the vote for Front National is increasing dramatically, and as of 2015, it has established itself as one of the largest political forces in France. Since Marine Le Pen’s election as leader, the popularity of the FN continues to grow apace; it won several municipalities at the 2014 municipal elections. In the first round of the regional elections in 2015, Front National, the self-proclaimed anti-immigration and zero tolerance party polled strongly, and seemed set to take the majority of regions. Observers around the world were shocked at this demonstration of Front National’s popularity. The political establishment’s concern was so great that the opposing Parti Socialiste and Les Républicans organised tactical voting across the regions. For example, one candidate would withdraw from the election, so the public only had one choice: vote for an establishment party, or the Front National. Turnout increased by 10% in the second round of the regional elections, and this concerted effort paid off- the Front National failed to gain any regions (despite polling around 28% of the vote). This served as a wake up call to the establishment; no one in France was able to see the Front National’s failure to gain any seats as a victory. For the first time, France sensed how close it had come to falling under Front National control.
The popularity of the far right in France is a relatively new phenomenon; it was not until 2011 that it began to be viewed as a serious political party. Like any far-right party, it plays off fear- and France certainly faces many challenges and uncertainty. The large French population of Northern African and African descent has long been discontented with the French state. The racial tensions existing within France where laid bare in 2015, when Islamic Extremists entered the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical and often highly controversial magazine, and began shooting at the staff. The two gunmen were later revealed to be of Algerian descent. Leading up to this attack, Charlie Hebdo had published satirical pictures of the Prophet Mohammed. Additionally, the Refugee Crisis that has emerged over the last few years has only served to heighten the suspicion towards Islam that many French citizens had already felt. Many hold the belief that extremists have infiltrated the country in the guise of asylum-seekers. However, it was the horrific Paris Attacks in November that set this suspicion alight, making many, previously moderate, French turn to the Front National. They believe that they are the only party who can eliminate the extremists (the fact that the majority of the perpetrators of the attacks had lived just over the border in Belgium was of little consequence). The increased share of the vote at the 2015 regional elections was undoubtedly, in part, a protest vote against what they see as France’s corrupt, elite and incompetent governments who are unable to conquer extremism.
Despite the Front National’s anti-Islamic rhetoric, it is polling a small but increasing number of votes from Muslims, who see no conflict at all between their own religion and the party’s fierce opposition to Islam. Despite her dubious politics, Marine Le Pen has been successfully courting some of the Muslim vote since she became leader, claiming the party isn’t opposed to Muslims, just ‘Islamisation’. Bizarrely, this tactic appears to be working.
Front National is a political force to be reckoned with, and we should all feel uncomfortable with the mass of support they are now polling from all areas of French society. Their anti-establishment and anti-Islamic message has struck a chord with disillusioned members of all social classes; though the FN’s largest support base continues to be the white working classes. In a time when the whole of Europe must unite in tackling the problems of extremism, the rise of the far-right party will only serve to heighten already fragile tensions between the Muslim community and the rest of the French state. The Front National’s success will only result in even more French citizens feeling left behind and isolated by a party being carried to victory on a wave of fear and terror.
Keeping the House of Lords
By Hanah Hancox
At the heart of Britain’s legislature lies a chamber of unelected and unaccountable peers. The title and voice granted to a privileged few by our Monarch on the advice of our trusted Prime Minister. Although most of this is not an issue, perhaps we should have a say in whether we approve of our Lords or not. At least when MPs are no longer in favour, they lose their vantage point and become a common person once more. Have you ever heard of an ousted Lord? Me neither.
Despite men like Jeffry Archer and Conrad Black, men charged with fraud; looting millions of dollars, perjury and perverting the course of justice. Between them they were sentenced to ten and a half years in prison and yet they remain at the heart of our legislative process, hanging on to their title and we’re expected to address these men as ‘Lord’. Deference has never been my forte, especially when convicted criminals have a hand in amending the law of this country. That coupled with the reality of ‘cash for honours’, is sure to have anyone cringing in their seat.
I am tempted to agree with those who spout speeches from their moral high horse about the House of Lords promoting an unequal society and encouraging an elitist system. However, I do not.
The majority of the Lords have genuine experience and knowledge in their field and so are valuable and objective when examining our legislature. Microbiologists, Architects, former commanding officers of the armed forces, entrepreneurs, human rights activists and the former Governor of the Bank of England are all included. They are to be commended and their seats in the House of Lords, in my eyes at least, are secure.
My problem is with hereditary peers who turn up on Tuesdays because that’s what their great great granddad did. Not to mention the financial ‘support’ offered to Lords for their service: travel expenses and up to £300 a day sitting in the House, attending committee proceedings or simply working on behalf of the house and naturally none of this is liable for income tax.
Hereditary peers are historic relics that should be confined to the fourteenth century where they belong. The number may have been reduced to ninety two, but that’s still ninety two too many. Filling the chamber with political brains, businessmen and boys who inherited their title is not representative of the British people as it claims to be.
I propose a new system, a reformed system. Abolishing the House of Lords and electing a second chamber would be a disaster. Perhaps the developed unicameral system works in New Zealand but it would not be a success in Britain. A second elected chamber would threaten the primacy and legitimacy of the House of Commons or worse lead to legislative deadlock. 40% of the Lords time in the chamber is spent holding the Government to account and this is a vital aspect of the legislative process. Without this scrutiny Government could effectively do as they please without objection.
Peers have become ambassadors for the UK and their quality of experience is valid. Their extensive knowledge gives them the right to scrutinise Government and their work.
Despite the pompous traditions in the chamber; their elaborate furnishings, coats and speeches, they do important work. Between 2010 and 2012 they considered 10031 changes and 49 bills became law. They offer independence of thought and do sit for more hours, more days and more weeks than your elected House of Commons.
I am in favour of reform. Abolition is destructive and unnecessary. We don’t have a bad system; it just needs to be improved. The removal of hereditary peers, the banning of members who have committed crimes and general modernisation will bring the House of Lords into the 21st century and earn it back the respect it deserves.
Increasing numbers of disillusioned voters and low turnouts clearly show a need for change. Perhaps a shake up in the House of Lords would encourage a new burst of political interest and a bout of support for governing parties, as well as the Lords who support them.
The Peter Mandelson Interview: Oxford University
By Beth Hughes
On the 15th of February, a group of students were given the exciting opportunity to hear Lord Peter Mandelson in conversation with Evan Davis. The group of fifteen made their way down to St Catherine’s College in Oxford to hear one of the architects of New Labour discuss his time in Government.
The atmosphere was relatively relaxed and it began with harmless banter between Davis and Mandelson, in a much more informal way than any of us students were expecting. This banter, at times, would rise into slightly heated discussion despite the friendly atmosphere whenever Davis was keen to pin Mandelson down on particular points.
Lord Mandelson spoke of his time in Government and jokingly repeated a phrase of Tony Benn’s that “New Labour is Margret Thatcher’s greatest achievement”. To me this made more sense than anything. It was quite a point, that when a government gets into power, it is often because they have become the antithesis of the old government, but along the way they might have assimilated some of the previous government’s approach. He continued, “New Labour created a new prism for British politics” The way he described the creation of New Labour was phoenix-like as he discussed Labour in 1985 undergoing “a near death experience” before being pulled back in 1997 after being years out of power.
As clichéd as it may sound, the experience was inspiring. Not only visiting such a prestigious university, but seeing one of the most important politicians of our time talk in person, stirred the political interests and aspirations of many in the group.
The Supreme Court: Where does power lie?
By Rachel Babb
When the Supreme Court began work on 1st October 2009, concerns were raised that an independent judiciary may become too powerful for the executive to compete within terms of rulings. The rise of the judiciary over the past 30 years has meant that there are hardly any government policies that the court cannot stand against. But just how powerful has Britain’s highest court of appeal really become?
The ‘Law Lords’ as they were once known are the 12 Justices who reside in the Supreme Court, and interpret and then apply the law. They are completely separate from the Government and Parliament, which is symbolised through the new location of the Supreme Court. It now sits in the former Middlesex Guildhall, on the western side of Parliament Square, whereas the other two sides are occupied by the executive (the Treasury building) and the church (Westminster Abbey). These Justices have the upmost power on deciding the result of cases put forward to them. However, they can only act within the law.
The UK Supreme Court does not have the power to overrule legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is not the Court’s role to formulate new laws, but to enforce the law and develop it where it is needed. This is done through well-thought out processes and reasoning. However, the Supreme Court must directly apply European Union law, and interpret domestic law so it is consistent as far as possible with the European Union law. This includes giving effect to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Disagreements surfaced over the Abu Qatada case, where the government wanted to deport Abu Qatada back to his own country of Jordan to be arrested for crimes there, but the European Convention on Human Rights would not allow. This case showed the power of human rights and that their laws must be followed.
A recent television documentary highlighted the Justices point of view in the Supreme Court. It showed that they believed that they were acting within the constraints of the legislation that has been passed by Parliament. They do not make the law, they just interpret it. It is, however, Parliament’s job to make the law. Therefore, although the Justices appear to act in a liberal way, they are simply doing their job and applying the law.
The Politics of Augustine
By Izzy Kai
It appears that Augustine had a conflicting relationship with the notion of politics. On one hand he found that there was no salvation in politics, and yet on the other hand he accepted that it was necessary to retain order in society. Whether politics could ever be considered “just” for Augustine is what will be discussed in this essay. What will first be examined is Augustine’s conception of human nature and how this helps to define justice. The second paragraph will then discuss how this conception of human nature and justice relate to politics, with particular focus on Augustine’s ideas of the two cities and the purpose of the state. Then finally, what therefore is the purpose of politics and how does his understanding of politics differ in Roman and Greek thought. Attention must be paid to it not being quite so simple as saying whether politics was just or not, as there are different forms of justice, and not simply one form of godly justice. The latter is what seeks to be maintained throughout this essay, politics can never be considered just for Augustine if what he is seeking is a Godly form of justice on earth for it cannot be found, apart from in the heavenly city.
What will first be examined is Augustine’s conception of human nature and how this helps to define justice. Augustine believed that humans are naturally fallible and that human nature can never be perfected. This is because original sin is rooted in all humans, “…Adam’s sin as the source for the dislocation of nature which runs through man’s whole historical existence…”[1] Bad qualities in humans come from the sinful acts of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Thus Augustine was pessimistic about the human capacity to be good. The Doctrine of the Fall also plays into this idea, because Adam and Eve ate the apple, sin will be rooted in humans regardless of the life that they lead. All that can be done is for society to create enough order in life to ensure humans remain as least sinful as possible; this suggests that there is a need for politics. This pessimistic view of human nature greatly contrasts to that of Thomas Aquinas, though both philosophers followed Christianity, Aquinas believed that because God created humans and gave them reason it is possible to better themselves. He still believed that humans could never reach a truly just end point but did believe that humans could improve[2]. Whereas Augustine thought that human perfection could never be attempted, however in agreement with Aquinas did recognise the desire for knowledge and that God had given humans reason, and this set humans aside from animals, yet reason is limited without grace which appears unachievable in the earthly city. Part of the reason for this is because Augustine believed that humans were inherently selfish, a “love of power, a lust for domination, drives them [humans] on.”[3] The desire to dominate is what sets apart Augustine’s conception of human nature to Aristotle’s[4], even though both believed that humans were social beings. Augustine’s distrustful view of human nature is what helps to define his conception of justice, as “Augustine seems to think of justice primarily, not exclusively, as the setting aright of what has become disordered…”[5] Augustine’s theory of knowledge also feed into his ideas about human nature. For Augustine, “God was infinite”[6] however, through “sense knowledge”[7] humans had the capacity to learn, sense knowledge explains that humans learn through memory “but it is the soul which acts in them.”[8] Nevertheless, humans are still overwhelmed by desire and because of this, true knowledge cannot be achieved. This section has demonstrated Augustine’s cynical approach to human nature and thus, it would appear then that humans need politics or some form of order to try and create a just society and in turn, live a life of justice.
So far, Augustine’s ideas of human nature have been examined. The following section will analyse how Augustine’s conception of human nature and justice relate to politics, with particular reference to his ideas of the two cities. “Augustine saw the state as an institution that was necessary to deal with the implications of humanity’s fall from a state of grace to one where sin was inevitable.”[9] John Marrow’s observation clearly illustrates that there was a need for politics for Augustine since sinfulness was rooted in humans. However, it would appear that the political state was a result of sin as well as being a remedy for it. For Augustine, politics was only beneficial so far as it contributed to human salvation, as humans need order to try and keep them away from sin. According to Augustine humans have a desire to dominate and accumulate; the Roman Empire[10] is an example of this. However civil order provides the possibility of temporary alleviation. Thus, politics does provide justice but not a true form of justice, which can only be provided by the heavenly city. Augustine’s ideas of two cities refer to the city of God, or a heavenly city and then an earthly city. “Earthly kingdoms are founded, not in justice, but in injustice…”[11] this is perhaps a reason which suggests why politics can never be considered just for Augustine as the cities which politics come out from cannot be just themselves. Yet, “the earthly city… contributes indirectly to the realization of Christian values, even thought it is not positively related to the city of God…”[12] This suggests that time must be spent in the earthly city in order for humans to sustain a good relationship with God so that they can then go onto the heavenly city, because of this the earthly city and in turn politics, must have some form of justice within it though it cannot be a Godly form of justice. It appears that Augustine may not necessarily have been interested in political institution; there was never a defined piece of works by him, which explained explicitly his political values. Augustine appears to be more conscious of human relationships and how some people are given authority in the earthly city and others are not. This is exemplified through the divine right of kings; this explains that the leaders put in power are closest to God and put there by God. Augustine accepts this because humans need a form of authority because they are sinful creatures thus politics is a necessary evil, “the need for order in a healthy social life entails an obligation to obey even evil rulers.”[13] Here, there is another contrasting view with Aquinas who believed in the theory of resistance, in which if your state decides without religious or authoritative reason to harm you God wants you to protect yourself. Whereas for Augustine because of the divine right of kings, you do not have the power to do anything, your time in the earthly city is simply allotted until you come to reach the heavenly city. When considering these observations it would suggest that politics could be just for Augustine in terms of it providing a fair society and punishment when humans retreat into their sinful ways. For Augustine there is a deficit of heavenly justice, which, he appears to lust after but what he knows, cannot be achieved in the earthly city.
The purpose of politics for Augustine and how this comes into Greek and Roman thought will now be analysed. Augustine’s politics must be handled with care, as he never completely theorised his political philosophy. Overall it would seem that “politics is the means to achieve minimum disorder… [it] is about domination and temporary conflict avoidance.” This further reiterates the point that politics is a necessary evil for Augustine and can never truly be just for the justice he is seeking is that of a heavenly kind. When looking at the Roman and Greek states, Augustine sees that both states want order and peace, but because of humankind’s selfish and excessive need to dominate, the states will never truly be just. This is particularly emphasised through Augustine’s perception of Rome, “… her most serious failure according to Augustine, was that she lusted after domination and ultimately became dominated by her own passion for domination.”[14] Politics is a result of human’s sinful nature, because politics led to the creation of the Roman Empire, it collapsed because it couldn’t control its desires thus politics can never be truly just. Yet, though Augustine’s pessimistic perception of human nature is so apparent, peace is still an important virtue to consider. According to Augustine, peace is the foremost yearning of the human heart and the state is necessary to achieve peace thus it must hold some form of justice within it. However, humans will eventually still ascend to war and a just war is a tragedy. The state can maintain peace and order but only temporarily, by imposing peace there is still a negative for Augustine because humans will never be able to maintain it for eternity due to their selfish desires and lust for power. Yet Augustine must have witnessed some justice within the state as in “Augustine’s cannonade in the City of God (iv, 4): ‘if justice is removed, what are kingdoms but large-scale brigandage?’ However, this statement could have been a rhetorical question in terms of his own understanding of a state without justice. There is no salvation in politics for Augustine; he talks of the state in comparison with a gang of thieves. Augustine theorised that sinfulness and theft is rooted in everyone and thus there is not much difference between the two. The only difference is that one has grown so big that it can exert dominance over a large number of people and thus cannot be just unless it is a fair state, which is unlikely when considering Augustine’s belief in original sin. The political state is a result of sin and thus will have sin rooted in itself, it is also a partial remedy for sin but not so far as achieving a true form of heavenly justice.
Politics for Augustine can be considered just but not the heavenly form of justice for which he seeks. It is a necessary evil in the earthly city as it maintains that humans do not further stray away to the path of sin, which is already rooted in them due to the doctrine of the Fall. Politics is only so good in so far that it contributes to human salvation and allows for there to be order in society. It does also provide a form of justice but justice in a far more simplified version in that it allows for laws in society to remedy sin that is committed, this is why earthly cities, like Rome for example, can never be righteous. Thus for Augustine politics can never be just in the form that he seeks. Though the heavenly city and earthly city are mutually exclusive, and thus justice can be found on earth it is not the Godly form of justice, of which Augustine is in pursuit.
Alex Salmond: Success or Failure?
By Joe Price
In 2004 Salmond became SNP leader for a second time. Salmond joined a party in a poor state, suffering against the force of Scottish Labour. Salmond then transformed the SNP with the help of his deputy Nicola Sturgeon. In 2007 Salmond saw his greatest hour winning the Scottish Parliament elections and leading the Scottish Nationalist party into a minority government and Salmond becoming First Minister.
In the 2010 election Salmond’s SNP failed to make huge gains in the House of Commons. Many voters decided to turn to the Labour party to try and stop the Conservatives. The Conservatives being in coalition in Westminster gave Salmond a huge boost for his argument for an independent Scotland.
In 2011 the SNP won a landslide victory in the Scottish parliament elections. Salmond had managed to break the 50 year dominant force Labour had in Scotland, even under a system of proportional representation.
In 2012 Salmond signed the Edinburgh agreement, which promised a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014. After two years of fierce debating, the Scottish people decided to vote no to Scottish independence 55% to 45%. Salmond managed to extend franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in the referendum. The UK saw its highest turnout since the 1951 general election with a turnout of 84% in the referendum.
Alex Salmond may not have been able to gain Scottish independent but there is no argument that he leaves his party and his nation in a much better state. Mr Salmond is a tough and clever politician who struck fear into his political rivals. Salmond even managed to get all political party leaders up to Scotland worried that Scotland may vote yes for independence, a thought that would have been laughable when he started his life in politics. Salmond leaves the Scottish Nationalist party with record high membership figures and the third largest party in British politics. Salmond managed to relight the fire of political participation managing to get a turnout of 84% in the referendum in a time of great widespread political apathy. Extending franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland was also a huge pleasure for Salmond as he had campaigned so many years for it. Salmond bows out of his political career having got to the highest office in his nation, having fought and won many political battles to make his party and his nation a much stronger place. So going on his record there is no doubt that Salmond was a successful politician and maybe one of the greatest politicians of his generation.
The Inexorable March of UKIP?
By Mike Pattison (2014)
I am going to do something very foolish. I am going to have a crack at predicting the outcome of the 2015 UK general election. I am no psephologist, but as dawn breaks on 26th May 2014, the morning after the night of the European elections, it is evident that a minor miracle has occurred in UK Politics. The European elections of 2014 will make the history books. And why? Because for the first time ever in British political history a party has come from nowhere to win a national election in Britain. No party other than the Conservatives or Labour has won a national election for over 100 years. UKIP is on the march. But will its success in last week’s local elections and last night’s European elections translate into similar success in the 2015 general election?
The answer, quite frankly, is ‘no’. To do so means it would have to surmount several impossible hurdles. Firstly, the 2014 European election saw turnout at 34% and at the local elections turnout was 36%. The results of these elections do not translate across to an election which, while turnout is still likely to be low, will be in the region of 65%. Continuing disillusionment with the political elite (what Nigel Farage calls the ‘chattering classes’) will not see turnout increase much beyond the 2010 figure, and it may even dip, but those who abstained at the European election are more likely to be disaffected Labour and Conservative voters who are protesting in what they perceive to be a ‘second order’ election. If they had been inspired by UKIP they would have voted UKIP. In a general election they will return to their party of choice, particularly now that they can see the threat UKIP poses.
Secondly, UKIP is still a dual issue party (Europe and immigration). While these two issues
will be important in the 2015 general election, tackling the deficit will also be a significant issue (and on this the Conservatives will be able to weave a stronger narrative than Labour). On broader issues voters are unclear of UKIP’s stance. Even Nigel Farage once admitted he was not aware of all the policy detail in the 2010 UKIP manifesto. This, of course, might change. At UKIP’s autumn conference expect policy pronouncements on cuts to public spending, support for grammar schools, and tax relief for those on the minimum wage.
Thirdly, the European election was fought using the Closed List System, which is proportional. In winning28% of the votes, UKIP gained almost 33% of the seats. The First Past the Post System used in the UK general election is much harsher on smaller parties. To win seats you need a concentration of votes in seats, and the UKIP vote is spread too thinly across the country. Thus, in 2010, the Liberal Democrats secured 22% of the vote, but only 8.6% of the seats, and in 1983 the newly-formed Social Democratic Party (SDP) was optimistically forecast by some observers to win 600 seats in Westminster; they won just 6 (see footnote 1). UKIPs support is spread widely, mainly among ‘Essex man’ (white, self-employed, lower middle class males: the C1s and C2s that are precisely the ‘squeezed middle’ Labour are chasing and from whom the Tories seem disconnected). This, coupled with the fact that UKIP’s share of the vote dips dramatically in general elections (it fell from 16.5% of the vote in the 2009 European election to 3% of the vote in the 2010 general election) means that UKIP’s chances of winning a significant number of seats at Westminster in 2015 is limited. A recent poll suggested that 58% of voters who currently cast a ballot for UKIP will vote for them in 2015. This is higher than previously, but it still leaves them with about 17% of the predicted share of the vote in the general election. Under the First Past the Post system at best this will return about 20-30 seats for them, and even this, I submit is highly optimistic. Farage himself has suggested 12 seats. It may even be lower than that.
Fourthly, they also have the issue of displacing incumbent MPs. Although the incumbency return rate is far lower in the UK than in the US (about 65-70% in the UK as opposed to 90-95% in the US Congress), it will still be difficult for relatively unknown UKIP candidates to dislodge existing MPs. It is not impossible, witness the upsets caused by New Labour in the 1997 landslide victory, but it is difficult. Their inexperience as a party will also begin to show in the local councils, turning some voters away from UKIP as they have to face the reality of making difficult choices (the Green Party may suffer the same fate in Brighton where a Green Council is proving increasingly unpopular). My prediction, therefore, is that UKIP will win enough seats to see their MPs in double figures, perhaps a dozen, possibly up to twenty, but it will be hard to make deeper inroads in Westminster in one election.
So where does this leave the other parties? The Liberal Democrats did badly last night, polling just 7% of the vote and winning just one seat. Their share of seats in Westminster is likely to fall to well below thirty. The Labour Party is also failing to capture the imagination of the voters and many are blaming Ed Miliband’s lack-lustre performance as party leader. Their policies are not sufficiently appealing to the electorate and the ‘catch all’ nature of Labour and the Conservatives have let UKIP find a bridge to a new electoral battleground which is distinctive. For their part, the Conservatives are seen as a party of an elite which simply does not understand the needs of ordinary people.
Consequently, the 2015 election may well result in a hung parliament, with both Labour and the Conservatives winning in the mid-thirties in terms of their percentage share of the vote. But with the Lib Dems decimated, finding a coalition partner to provide a majority government will not be easy. The Conservatives under David Cameron have dismissed talk of a collation (or even a pact) with UKIP, but their strongest chance of forming a majority government might be such a coalition (although they might also need the support of the Unionists and Cameron would have to step down as party leader). Even then, the maths might not add up. No post-war government has increased its majority in a second election, so such a deal might not produce the 326 seats they would need. A second Conservative/ Liberal Democrat coalition might also fall short of a majority. Labour might win sufficient seats to form a coalition with the Lib Dems, but this won’t be easy. It is looking increasingly like a fragile minority Labour or Conservative government (my money is on the Conservatives) with the prospect of another election triggered quickly by a vote of no confidence in the Commons. At that point, UKIP’s march could stutter to a halt.
(1) In the Newark by-election on 5th June, UKIP came second on 26% of the vote, beating Labour and the Lib- Dems (who came 6th) and halving the Conservative vote.
Fiscal cliff? The problems of separation of powers in the US government
by Mike Pattison
I am writing this on New Year’s Eve 2012 when the US government faces one of the gravest self-inflicted financial crises in recent years. Why ‘self-inflicted’? The answer lies in the peculiar tensions created by the separation of powers which is a key characteristic of the US system of government. The Founding Fathers were so keen to ensure that absolutism could never become a feature of the US government that they built into their constitution the separation of the executive (the President) the legislature (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court). Thus it is that the US President cannot play a part in the proceedings of Congress; his only hope is to influence, but not to control, the legislative process. This is in stark contrast to the UK system of government, where fused or ‘overlapping’ powers allows the dominance of the core executive, and particularly the Prime Minister, to directly influence events in Parliament.
This latest budget crisis in the United States is just one of many. Bill Clinton saw his budget rejected by Congress five times, and only last year Obama faced a similar crisis. This would be unthinkable in the UK parliament. Imagine if the government’s budget was rejected by the House of Commons!
The present crisis in the US, dubbed the ‘fiscal cliff’ by the media, is instructive of the need for bipartisanship in Congress. It has been precipitated by the end of time-limited tax cuts imposed by the previous Bush administration. “If no deal is done, 88% of Americans will see their taxes rise on 1 January, when the Bush-era taxcuts expire. In addition, deep spending cuts will bite and two million long-term unemployed people will lose their benefits.” (1) If a deal is not reached, it is likely that the fragile US economy will dip into recession yet again (2).
In order to avert a crisis Obama has tried to work closely with the Republicans, particularly with the influential Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. Boehner has told representatives to be willing to work throughout the New Year in order to produce a workable budget package. But his earlier efforts to embrace bipartisanship have been blocked by Tea Party-influenced Republicans on the right who want the Bush tax-cuts extended in their entirety. The Democrats, however, want to see some tax increases for the top 2% earners in order to help tackle the budget deficit. On 18th December, Boehner proposed a compromise ‘Plan B’ for those who earned over a million dollars, but this was rejected by other Republicans. Failure to reach a solution in the House of Representatives has moved attention to the Senate where, as I write, a compromise rescue package is being considered.
The media is reporting some optimism that a solution will be found. In truth, a solution has to be found. But it has left many Americans, already sceptical of Washington politicians, scathing in their criticism. “The opposite of progress is Congress”, one slogan has it, and only this week a frustrated US citizen tweeted: “I hate you Congress, get your God damn act together!” (3) Whatever happens, the experience of the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ demonstrates the need for bipartisan working in a system of government in which the separation of powers is deeply entrenched.
1. The Observer, 30/12/12
2. The Telegraph, 29/12/12
3. The Observer, op cit.