tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314469070681238202024-02-08T14:47:52.476+00:00ObjectiveObserver“The aim of art is not to represent the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance” (Aristotle).Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-73481212330432627852013-04-21T17:54:00.001+01:002013-04-21T18:11:30.187+01:00Rhetoric and Retaliation: North Korea’s Nuclear Gamesmanship <br />
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Joint military drills on the Korean peninsula involving Seoul and Washington are a regular occurrence, taking place annually as a show of continued co-operation between the United States and her South Korean allies. Equally predictable is Pyongyang’s response, regularly denouncing such exercises as covert preparation for combative engagement.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Foal Eagle operations began this year amidst elevated tensions. As anticipated, North Korea’s reaction entailed vociferous objection. That the antagonism and posturing attributed to Kim Jong-un has been particularly acute this time around, however, is symptomatic of a young leader attempting to demonstrate proficiency beyond his years.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Supplementary drills, termed Key Resolve, have involved 10,000 South Korean troops and 3,000 Americans, as well as the 10,000 US personnel involved in Foal Eagle. In response to increasingly fiery rhetoric from North Korea, the US also deployed sophisticated military technologies and advanced delivery systems over the peninsula: during March, Washington co-ordinated flights of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth fighters over South Korea, dropping munitions on a South Korean island range in a demonstration of military superiority and a timely reminder of the pinpoint accuracy of American weapons technology.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Kim Jong-un condemned the sorties as an “ultimatum that they will ignite a nuclear war at any cost on the Korean Peninsula” and ordered the Korean Peoples Army (KPA) to ready strategic rockets to stand-by, declaring that North Korea should “mercilessly strike” the US and her military outposts. The Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland similarly described Key Resolve exercises as “a clear declaration of war”.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The increased bombast reverberating from Pyongyang comes at a time of strengthened UN sanctions, designed to prohibitively increase the cost of illicit nuclear programmes following a third nuclear test in February and a three-stage rocket test in December 2012. That the Kim dynasty has been able to oversee these developments is testament to the laxity with which previous rounds of sanctions were administered.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In the weeks since tighter sanctions were imposed, numerous threats have been directed towards both America and her allies; a “pre-emptive nuclear strike” was promised against the US, while once more threatening to dispense with the Korean War armistice and cut diplomatic ties with Seoul. When these provocations went unrewarded, Mr Kim announced plans to “readjust and restart” nuclear facilities at Yongbyon. Refusing to bow to Pyongyang’s ostentation, the US called Mr Kim’s bluff: Chuck Hagel vowed to “make clear” that such provocations “are taken ... very seriously”, while John Kerry affirmed that Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo and Washington had “committed to take action together” and to “making that goal of denuclearisation a reality”.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The 15-0 vote at the UN Security Council in March is particularly significant insofar as China, despite being North Korea’s only ally, co-sponsored extended sanctions. This is a strong indication that pressure on the Kim regime is beginning to escalate. Encouragingly, in a display of continuing displeasure, Beijing appears to have stepped up inspections of cargo bound for North Korea, though must now proceed cautiously so as not to upset the perceived regional balance of power and risk triggering a North Korean implosion. As Pyongyang’s lifeline, China must make careful calculations concerning the cutting of vital supplies; to restrict aid too far, particularly in terms of fuel or food, could spark a chain reaction of instability and volatility.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Recent political transitions across the region have seemingly been central in efforts to enhance Pyongyang’s regional standing. Both Japan and South Korea have recently elected new premiers who, like the young Kim, are still in the process of consolidating power and finding their political footings. Similarly, in Beijing, the Communist Party has recently undergone the decennial process of political handover, with a new staff now manning the Politburo Standing Committee.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Surrounded by leaders of equal inexperience, Mr Kim has attempted to seize an opportunity to assert himself and bolster support at home by demonstrating strength on the international stage. By conducting further rounds of nuclear and weapons tests, Mr Kim would have hoped to exploit any resultant response from the international community as a rationale for readying the troops, denouncing the armistice agreement with southern neighhbours, and threatening to strike the US.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Such shows of perceived strength, along with any associated <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22195453">concessions</a> secured or repercussions avoided as a result, appear designed to cement confidence in Mr Kim’s leadership at home. Indeed, with Washington announcing in early-April the postponement of planned Minuteman 3 ballistic missile tests to prevent misinterpretation, Pyongyang will likely wax lyrical about an enforced American climbdown following diplomatic and military pressure.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">However, this is a principal reason to suspect that threats emanating from Pyongyang are bravado; efforts to secure political power through military means have been intended primarily for domestic consumption by a leader whose rapid rise through the KPA has led to questions concerning his ability and qualification to lead. Given countervailing sentiments from both Washington and Seoul, the Kim regime is highly unlikely to escalate the current situation beyond hostile rhetoric and chance the assured destruction that provoking a retaliatory onslaught would bring. While the US is not ignoring threats emanating from Pyongyang, spending $1 billion to strengthen ballistic missile interception systems in Fort Greely, Alaska, that this additional capacity will not become operational until 2017 indicates strong doubts over Mr Kim’s intentions and the abilities of Pyongyang’s military hardware.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">It is doubtful that an act of North Korean aggression will be immediately forthcoming. At a time of heightened international tensions, and amidst promises of retaliation directed from all angles, to do so would be a seemingly suicidal move for the already-isolated regime. At the same time, while not completely implausible, it remains unlikely that Pyongyang will seek to further intensify or extend the current bout of belligerent sentiment. With Washington, Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing responding in kind to Mr Kim’s attempted browbeating, and possessing proven military potential to follow through with such promises, the North Korean regime is unlikely to risk actual conflict through <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/03/2013328222926559483.html">miscalculation</a>.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In a week where international news concerning North Korea was dominated by a breaking scandal concerning the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22140716">BBC</a> and LSE, military tensions appear to have taken a back seat. With the Kim regime having nowhere further to go using rhetoric alone, it is likely that this is where they will remain until the next round of military drills.</span></span></div>
Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-6123724556494834572013-03-04T09:30:00.000+00:002013-04-13T16:30:54.482+01:00The Bedroom Tax: A Looming Social Security Trap<br />
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">After state pensions and Tax Credits, Housing Benefit payments comprise the largest proportion of welfare spending. In 2010/11, £21.61 billion was spread across 4.9 million claimants. The most recent figures put the Housing Benefit bill at £23 billion. As part of a package of reforms that will change the face of welfare, Ministers have determined that it is not unreasonable to re-examine why the state is providing funding for people renting properties bigger than they need.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The thought process is perfectly rational; there are an estimated one million spare rooms within the social housing sector, with one-third of tenants occupying properties bigger than the Coalition deem their needs to be. With another 250,000 families living in overcrowded accommodation, the need to better allocate existing housing stock is evident.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">On 1 April 2013, an “under-occupancy” charge will apply to council and housing association tenants deemed to have more bedrooms than they need. Official <a href="http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-sector-housing-under-occupation-wr2011-ia.pdf">figures</a> show that 660,000 households will be affected, with <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113">savings</a> to the taxpayer of £505m in 2012/13, and £540m the following year. However, rigid application of new regulations, and the adverse consequences this will cause, has ensured that the policy has been the centre of discontent. It is difficult to justify the impending chaos with projected savings, which at best amount to 2.3% of Housing Benefit payments.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The forthcoming amendments have been labelled a “bedroom tax”, though the Government has maintained that such benefits changes merely constitute a surcharge, arguing that the underlying aim is to free up more living space for overcrowded families and encourage people to get jobs through enhanced social mobility. Indeed, during Prime Minister’s Questions on 6 February 2013, David Cameron declared that the issue is a ‘basic question of fairness’, arguing that those in privately-rented housing do not receive benefits for unoccupied rooms – a stance he reaffirmed on 27 February 2013.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Research by the National Housing Federation (NHF) shows that 95,000 people in England will be forced into arrears because there are no smaller homes for them to move into. With deductions from Housing Benefit to be taken regardless of the insufficiencies of current housing stock, Cameron’s assertions that ‘[t]his is not a tax, this is a benefit’ could hardly be further from the truth. The malice of this onslaught on the low paid is perfectly demonstrated by the Government’s own savings calculations, which assume by default that people will not move and will suffer a subsequent fall in income.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Further resentment will result from the uneven geographical impact of policy changes. Largely as a result of the region’s industrial past, which saw strong traditional family values and an abundance or family-size homes, the north has not previously experienced the demand for one- and two-bedroom properties experienced elsewhere. Consequently, the entire <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/jul/12/housing-crisis-northern-england-bedroom-tax?INTCMP=SRCH">region</a> will be disproportionately affected; the DWP impact assessment shows that the share of northerners disadvantaged will be 38% greater than would be expected. This despite Coalition rhetoric that ‘we are all in this together’.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">This reduction in family income will hamper opportunities to grow the region’s struggling economy, which in turn will make it difficult to attract the necessary investment to recalibrate the social housing stock by building new properties, undermining economic recovery. As Derek Long, NHF Head of Northern Operations, suggests, this may be the beginning of a vicious circle.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">To highlight this, Jayne MacDonald of Endeavour Housing in Stockton has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20403923">said</a> that the majority of social housing tenants in the region ‘literally won't have a spare penny and there is nowhere for that money to come from’. As Endeavour Housing has 153 families under-occupying two-bedroom homes but no one-bedroom properties for them to move into, rent arrears beckon unless allowances are made. With moving not a viable option, a failure to address this matter will confirm that the “under-occupancy” surcharge has evolved into a “bedroom tax”.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">New Housing Benefit rules also place housing associations in an extremely difficult position; the responsibility to safeguard tenants while continuing to provide affordable homes has to be balanced against a responsibility to assist those impacted by Housing Benefit cuts. Housing associations, therefore, simply cannot afford to leave rent accounts unsettled. For this reason, suggestions of reclassifying properties based on the size of any spare bedroom are unsustainable.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Paradoxically, when uncomfortable examples of eviction come to the fore, housing associations will be primary contenders for the blame while Ministers espouse the party line that Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) were made available to help the hardest cases. While local authorities and the courts are unlikely to make tenants homeless as a result of arrears incurred as a result of Housing Benefit changes, the very existence of DHPs is an implicit acknowledgement by the Government that these cuts will cause enormous difficulties, particularly for the poorest in society. </span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">With the amount to be distributed totalling just 5% of projected savings, the Coalition’s hardline approach to welfare cuts becomes evident. Reductions upwards of £500m per year will necessarily condemn many to debts and arrears – a situation made worse by the simultaneous localisation of Council Tax Benefit. With few directives to regulate the precise distribution of discretionary funds, assistance will inevitably differ between local authorities and vary with time. It is important, then, to acknowledge that changes are being imposed by the Government, while local authorities are being set the impossible task of dealing with the fallout.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">While the need to reform the social housing sector is clear, the Coalition’s policy is marred by glaring flaws and anomalies. Foremost, despite three-bedroom properties under housing association management often being cheaper than one-bedroom accommodation in the private sector, policy changes dictate that tenants must move if they do not wish to witness reductions in Housing Benefit. With tenants who are deemed to be over-occupying being encouraged to consider a lodger, one must question the extent of any potential savings; any lodger is also likely to receive Housing Benefit. Counterintuitively, these cuts potentially incentivise larger families as a “solution”, in many cases attracting additional benefits and circumventing Housing Benefit cuts.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Notably, Armed Forces personnel will not receive a blanket exemption from the new rules; those serving tours of duty longer than 13 weeks will still be liable to face cuts, though it remains to be seen whether provisions in local Armed Forces Covenants will provide a buffer for Servicemen. There will also be no mandatory protection for foster carers, while some pensioners will lose their protection when welfare benefits migrate to Universal Credit from October 2013.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">With only a month until implementation, the issues surrounding Housing Benefit rules need to be addressed swiftly. As an interim measure, the changes should be postponed until these matters have been resolved. With DWP to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21541400">“look again”</a> at how new rules will be applied to disabled people there has already been tacit acceptance that amendments are needed; arguments that it is too late in the day for change are misplaced.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Any changes will require sufficient time for tenants and landlords alike to prepare. To properly manage the negative impact that cuts will have, any new policy should be focussed on fresh applications for Housing Benefit and current claims experiencing changes in circumstance. Where suitable accommodation becomes available to facilitate active downsizing, these opportunities should be taken, with penalties imposed only where transfers are refused. At the very least, a controlled tapering period, with cuts introduced at a gentler pace and in a more targeted fashion to exclude vulnerable groups, should be considered.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">A failure to act now will confirm the hardship that the “bedroom tax” is threatening to bring, potentially leading to increased spending on welfare and resulting in a social security trap – an absurdity given the professed aims of the policy.</span></span><br />
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<div style="font-size: medium; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 13px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></span>
<div style="font-size: medium; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">*UPDATE*</span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font-size: medium; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 13px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<ul>
<li style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">On 12 March, the Government announced that both foster carers and the families of Armed Forces personnel would be protected from the upcoming Housing Benefit shake-up. However, while the U-turn is certainly welcome, safeguarding two groups susceptible to the changes despite often relying on this financial assistance to enable their vital contributions to society, this is not to say that the policy has been “fixed”. Indeed, with this protection being taken from the existing Discretionary Housing Payments budget previously allocated to local authorities, flexibility to help other vulnerable groups, such as those living in accommodation adapted for specific disabilities or requiring additional space for medical equipment, is necessarily reduced. Offering these protections is certainly a step in the right direction, though is <i>de facto</i> acceptance of policy imperfection. Without further amendments, unnecessary hardship is likely to ensue.</span></span></li>
</ul>
</span></span></div>
Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-29193205729240183302013-02-14T00:06:00.000+00:002013-02-14T00:06:25.469+00:00Lancing the Boil: Beating Drug Cheats in Sport<br />
<div style="color: #1b1b1b; font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #000000;">During an interview broadcast around the world, </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">one of the world’s pre-eminent sporting superstars, and a leading charity fundraiser, officially brought an end to years of intense media speculation. However, by admitting to using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) during each of his seven Tour de France victories, Lance Armstrong has placed the issue of drug use in sport firmly in the spotlight once more.</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1b1b1b; font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #1b1b1b; font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The use, alleged or otherwise, of PEDs in sport is not a new concept, with anecdotal narrative and factual records painting a narcissistic picture of mankind that prizes victory above all else, at all costs. From Thomas Hicks, who won marathon gold at the 1904 Olympics, through to Ben Johnson, the winner of the 100m at the Seoul Games in 1988, the use of illicit substances to enhance performance has become increasingly sophisticated.</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1b1b1b; font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The Tour<i> </i>itself is famed for its chequered past, particularly in relation to the use of prohibited performance-enhancing techniques. As far back as the 1920s, the Pélissier brothers openly admitted to carrying ‘cocaine to go in our eyes, [and] chloroform for our gums’ as a means of reducing the pain of exhaustive competition. Since 1996, six winners of the Tour have been subjected to sanctions for doping offences. Throughout the same period, only three have remained sanction-free.</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1b1b1b; font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #1b1b1b;">What makes the Lance Armstrong story so disconcerting is that he was able, with the assistance and complicity of as yet unnamed associates, to cover up what the US Anti-Doping Agency has termed the ‘</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">most sophisticated, professional and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen’. Moreover, he did so in a believable fashion, tarring the name of professional sport in the process of deceiving fans and supporters.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">It is damaging for cycling, and sport more broadly, that Armstrong has received greater media attention for admitting much-speculated wrongdoing than the countless clean athletes that work tirelessly within the boundaries of sporting conduct. For instance, while the global media circus has swarmed to cover the implications of Armstrong’s misdeeds, Shelley Rudman became the first British woman to win gold at the skeleton world championships in Switzerland – an achievement barely recognised beyond a hard core of enthusiasts and pundits. This retrograde outlook could serve to glamorise such behaviour if the emphasis on wrongdoing and retribution is not carefully focussed.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #1b1b1b; font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The uncovering of PED usage has become progressively frequent, largely as a consequence of constantly evolving detection methods. However, competitors often remain a vital step ahead of regulators in the race for success. It is this predicament that partly explains how Armstrong was able to escape detection for a sustained period.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In common with competitors in the Tour’s early days, Armstrong himself believed that victory in a gruelling event of the magnitude of the Tour was possible only with assistance. This outlook – that doping is as necessary as ‘putting water in out bottles’ or ‘air in our tyres’ – needs to be addressed immediately if popular support for sporting competition is to survive.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Incidentally, this unscrupulous mindset is one that afflicts competitors and supporters alike and has resulted in an inconvenient double-standard, albeit not yet in reference to the use of PEDs. To highlight this point, one must look no further than Premier League football. Were Luis Suarez, for instance, to admit to diving and be seen to “cost” his side a penalty, condemnation and denunciation would ensue from both fans and teammates. Such pretense, while deceitful, is routinely dismissed as “professionalism”; if officials are unable to distinguish such foul play, responsibility stops with them. However, it is these same individuals who chastise the opposition for similar acts. To beat drug cheats, this double-standard of dishonesty cannot be allowed to spill over into the murky world of doping violations.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #1b1b1b;">There are numerous and influential </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">incentives to cheat the system, ranging from financial openings through to the honour of victory and the pride of competing on the international stage. The likelihood of detection, and the associated scandal and opprobrium, is constantly increasing as methods of testing and prevention improve. However, that competitors continue their efforts to circumvent the system indicates that potential gains to be had from doping frequently outweigh perceived risks in the deceit calculation. While the reputations of specific disciplines differ, the use of PEDs in any sporting arena has a detrimental impact on the sporting world more widely.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">As evidence of this unhappy state of affairs, whereby strong performances incite suspicion and accusations of cheating in one form or another, witness the outstanding accomplishment of Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen at the London 2012 Olympics. Ye’s achievement, setting a new world record for the 400m individual medley and swimming the final 50m leg in a faster time than Ryan Lochte in the men’s event, was the subject of much disbelief and uncomfortable questioning.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">What the Armstrong debacle makes abundantly evident is that anti-doping programmes are limited in their ability to identify those attempting to defraud the system. While it is unlikely that any system can be foolproof, given the determination to evade identification that some competitors have demonstrated, improvements can definitely be made both in detection and enforcement.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">A primary shortcoming of the regime has been its retrogressive nature, detecting the use of an identified range of substances, but crucially not outwitting those inclined to cheat by predicting and pre-empting the future development path of PEDs. While the ability to backdate the testing of samples is a powerful tool, with an eight-year statute of limitations applying to sample testing to account for the frequent revisions made to the list of banned substances, such retrospective action remains reactionary rather than preventive.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The implementation of biological passports is certainly a step in the right direction, monitoring minuscule fluctuations in blood and urine profiles over a sustained timeframe that could indicate doping violations. Movement towards universalising such a system would be a good starting point to strengthen the current system of detection, though more could be done to anticipate further developments. </span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">For this reason, it is important that Armstrong and his co-conspirators are compelled to give evidence, under oath, to a “truth and reconciliation” commission administered by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Input from those whose philosophy is underpinned by a ‘victory at all costs’ attitude will serve to bolster testing procedures and identify weaknesses with current protocols, placing regulators on an even footing with those seeking to cheat the system.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">To enhance the current testing regime, blood testing needs to become the norm rather than urine testing. As the only way to identify the ‘cocktail’ of drugs favoured by modern-age charlatans, with Armstrong admitting to using both erythropoetin (EPO) and testosterone alongside blood transfusion techniques, increased blood testing would facilitate an accurate and reliable biological passport system.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The most recent <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/20517743">statistics</a> from WADA, which cover 2011, highlight steps taken by cycling to address the image problem that has arisen from years of doping violations. With the introduction of biological passports, over one-third of all drugs tests in cycling in 2011 were blood tests. Others, however, lag alarmingly behind: athletics, another discipline whose reputation is far from unblemished, had 17.6% blood tests. Boxing employed 3.5% blood tests – particularly alarming given the nature of the sport – while tennis stood at 3% and gymnastics recorded only 1% of drug testing as being blood tests.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">With these figures in mind, WADA President John Fahey’s goal of all sports hitting a minimum target of 10% of tests conducted to use blood samples is a sign of progress. However, despite this low initial target, WADA’s executive board recently failed to approve such a minimum requirement in the 2013 WADA Code update.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Incidentally, through extending the quota of blood testing, and with the implementation of increasingly sensitive testing procedures alongside biological passports, a lifetime ban policy similar to that previously applied by the British Olympic Association becomes more sustainable. While arguments exist that the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/may/01/guardian-sport-network-lifetime-ban-doping">burden of proof</a> necessary for such a policy would be too high for current testing methods to fulfil, rational individuals would be more likely to select against doping when assessing risk were the punishment for being caught to be enhanced. Such an effect would be intensified further were it to occur alongside an increased likelihood of detection.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In the case of Armstrong, a lifetime ban from all competition is the only acceptable outcome; a competitor who knowingly flouts anti-doping regulations in such a calculated manner to gain an advantage at the expense of others does not deserve the privilege of a lesser penalty. To be sure, the strong suspicion surrounding whether Armstrong really was “clean” during his brief comeback serves only to cement this outlook amongst many in the sporting community.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">With a combination of increased blood testing, both in and out of competition, alongside the universal introduction of biological passports and a pre-emptive outlook towards testing, the integrity of sporting competition can be rescued. While the cost of realising this goal is necessarily prohibitive, sport must not be priced out of the market for integrity; athletes who truly wish to restore the honour and probity of their profession would be willing to sacrifice a purse percentage to establish such a system and foster clean competition. To this end, both <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/21330805">Andy Murray</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/21419330">Roger Federer</a> – both Australian Open finalists in 2013 – have called for increased blood testing in tennis. Progress towards these goals is urgently needed to restore faith.</span></span></div>
Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-84842959750725386712012-10-19T13:58:00.000+01:002012-10-21T17:52:43.106+01:00Implications of Edinburgh: The Taxing Issue of Votes at 16<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">David Cameron and Alex Salmond this week agreed a decision of monumental magnitude. Undoubtedly, the “Edinburgh Agreement” – which could ultimately see the dissolution of the Union – has the potential to shape the future of the nation. However, the stakes are far higher than arguments of economy and mineral wealth: with 16- and 17-year-olds to be granted the franchise by the Scottish Parliament, the very design of British democracy could be refashioned.</span></span></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The case is often made that, at age 16, one can fight for Queen and country, running the risk of paying the ultimate sacrifice in the line of patriotic duty. Similarly, in certain parts of the UK at least, 16-year-olds can marry and have children. Logically, so such reasoning runs, the minimum voting age should thus be lowered to 16.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">As persuasive as these arguments are, however, they do not irrefutably validate the proposition for broadening the franchise. Indeed, such claims need to be variously qualified and treated with a degree of caution: as with marriage in England, 16-year-olds can join the armed forces only with parental consent, and even then are not eligible for frontline combat. With other significant decisions not being taken until the age of 18, such as whether to continue into tertiary education or whether to get a mortgage, a strong defence can be mounted for maintaining current regulations.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Nonetheless, despite such rhetoric, one argument trumps all others. Dating back to the American Revolution and forming a cornerstone of democratic society, the notion that there should be no taxation without representation is difficult, if not impossible, to disregard. At the age of 16, individuals become liable for National Insurance contributions and income tax: to reason against suffrage being extended to the age of 16, therefore, is to devalue the concept of representative democracy and runs against the spirit of the social contract.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">To be clear, expanding the franchise to include those aged 16 and 17 is a move that would not only realise this fundamental relationship between taxation and representation, but one that would, if correctly managed, strengthen the democratic fabric by maximising participation in the political process. With this goal in mind, it is important to recognise that 16- and 17-year-olds are increasingly intelligent, informed and opinionated; when coupled with the prospective obligation to contribute to the national tax take, the case for retaining 18 as the minimum age of entitlement appears increasingly untenable. </span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">It is also important to recognise that 16- and 17-year-olds, just like those aged 18 and above, are direct consumers of those public services funded by the state purse. Indeed, in areas such as education, it is under-18s that are the <i>primary</i> consumers of such public services. Similarly, young people are subject to legislation passed by Parliament, as well as Government policies in areas including tuition fees, working regulations, and military engagement.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Nonetheless, young people are currently disengaged from, and many disillusioned <i>with</i>, the political system, not being afforded any meaningful level of input into policies or control over services in terms of design or delivery. Broadening the franchise would represent a significant step towards facilitating a solution to this anomaly, granting young people the opportunity to participate and create a desirable societal milieu while instilling a level of civic responsibility that could begin to address long-term issues surrounding falling turnout and voter apathy.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">To be certain, assertions that young people are ill-informed and lack the sophistication and sensibility required to vote responsibly are feasible, if not stereotypical and outdated. Without doubt, there are many young people for whom the world of politics holds no allure. However, universalising such contentions is severely flawed on two counts. First, to assume that an instantaneous moment of maturity is reached on one’s eighteenth birthday is an absurdity; the process of developing political awareness begins at an early age and continues throughout an individual’s lifetime. Second, presenting such problems without proposing solutions is akin to declaring that young people are second-class citizens, worthy of paying taxes but not of determining how such revenue is best spent.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">An obvious solution to the dilemma would entail making better use of the time allocated in secondary education timetables to Pastoral/Citizenship/PSHE lessons. These valuable hours could be better utilised to provide lessons in civic responsibilities such as voting, providing an opportunity to promote an understanding of the political systems that shape the world we live in, as well as for debate and discussion on topical issues. By engaging young people and educating in a politically neutral manner, the potential exists for current trends of voter apathy to be overcome and for arguments pertaining the ignorance of the under-18s to be negated.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Importantly, the ability to participate in free elections is a human right, safeguarded by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in the UK’s Human Rights Act. As such, the rationale for denying the franchise to groups of individuals is required to be fair and balanced. Allegations that these criteria are not being met carry increasing weight, with young people ever more focussed on salient issues and ambitious to have their voices heard through various alternative channels to the ballot box.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Undoubtedly, the Section 30 mechanism is not the ideal way to introduce the under-18s to the world of political voting; a renewed debate, both in Westminster and throughout society, on lowering the voting age would clarify the issues and add greater legitimacy. Nonetheless, Scotland’s enfranchising of 16- and 17-year-olds is a democratic step in the right direction. Perhaps Britain could be the next to join the ranks of Austria and Brazil (and Cuba) in recognising the rights of the under-18s.</span></span></div>
</span>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-91760899996382593862011-12-22T12:47:00.002+00:002011-12-23T15:15:05.640+00:00Reforming the House of Lords: Balancing Efficiency and Legitimacy<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In a <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/files/DPMontheOpenSociety(19.12.11).pdf">speech</a> delivered at <i>Demos</i> this week, Nick Clegg sought to defend the precepts of the ‘Open Society’. Aiming to reinvigorate the drive towards greater political pluralism and democratic involvement, while promoting such values as openness and equality that define his political perspective, the deputy prime minister placed reform of the House of Lords back into the spotlight.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Reform of the Second Chamber is undoubtedly a central issue, both within and beyond liberal reformist circles. However, the matter is dominated by talk of increasing legitimacy, overshadowing the opportunity, if not the responsibility, to enhance the efficiency of the House. Strengthening the democratic functioning of the Lords requires a broadening of their ability to act rather than solely focussing on the conviction with which they act.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Chief amongst Parliament’s many activities is the passage of effective legislation. The bi-cameral nature of Parliament provides for an upper House to review proposed legislation, holding the government to account through deliberation and reassessment. The incorporation of experts is therefore vastly beneficial to the process of scrutiny. Unfortunately, the price of such expertise is democratic legitimacy, undermining any authority attached to amendments emerging from the Lords. While the case for electing the Lords, or at least a significant majority, is therefore a strong one, insufficient attention has been paid to considering how functions could be better performed through concurrent structural and procedural reforms.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Currently, the House of Lords is chamber-oriented, relying on individuals who are both unelected and part-time. Such working practices under-utilise the wealth of experience and knowledge of the Lords; with much time in the House being dedicated to detailed scrutiny of bills at the committee stage of the legislative process, many central issues fail to be debated by Peers. This shortcoming adds to the case supporting reform of the House of Lords. However, responses to questions concerning heightening efficiency and legitimacy need not be mutually exclusive. </span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">A reformed Chamber should complement the work of the Commons, providing an alternative perspective to legislative scrutiny. An overriding fear of duplicating the work of the Commons has prevented the emergence of a strong committee system within the House of Lords. Given the nature of the Lords’ remit, such a development path is peculiar; parallel departmental committees would greatly enhance opportunities for effective scrutiny, potentially producing stronger legislation, while allowing committee chairs in both Houses to coordinate workloads and avoid unnecessary duplication. </span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">A further advantage of allowing for a stronger committee system in the Lords comes in the shape of a solution to the trade-off between democratic legitimacy and expert input. Rather than being permanently sitting members of the Lords, </span>e<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">xperts would continue to be integrated into the legislative process as Special Advisers or, alternatively, being called by committees considering specific legislation. Expertise would thus remain eminent, while experts would not expected to choose between providing legislative advice and an existing career. Similarly, the quality and relevance of legislative scrutiny would be improved, while democratic legitimacy would be revived by ensuring that the final say falls to elected representatives, suitably informed.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">A revised House of Lords would, despite anticipated reductions in size, likely become more assertive in challenging government proposals as a result of Members’ knowledge that they represent the wishes of voters. While this will ultimately improve governance through enhanced accountability, formal mechanisms above and beyond the Salisbury Convention and Parliament Acts would need to be established to confirm the continued primacy of the Commons, and to safeguard against legislative deadlock. The House of Commons, as the driver of reform, could feasibly specify in legislation the powers of a revised Upper Chamber, for example by restricting the selection of ministers to the House of Commons. However, the establishing of joint legislative committees to reconcile competing drafts of bills, as used in the United States, would further enhance the democratic functionality of Parliament.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">With Clegg’s speech serving as a reminder that reform of the House of Lords remains a primary liberal concern, the opportunity for streamlining the structure of the Chamber as well as its composition, is one that should not be passed up. Making such modifications simultaneously would maximise the efficiency of reform, fulfilling the desire for both democratic legitimacy and expert input into legislation.</span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-63235297811985746122011-12-08T12:53:00.000+00:002011-12-08T12:53:59.113+00:00Nuclear Fallout: Iran’s Worsening Relations with the West<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">When European foreign ministers met in Brussels last week, the agenda was dominated by discussion of measures to be taken against Iran. Such considerations were primarily a response to an <a href="http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/bog112011-65.pdf">IAEA report</a>, released in early November, suggesting that activities in the Republic indicate the conducting of tests necessary for the ‘development of a nuclear device’. However, the magnitude of such discussions was undoubtedly elevated by the recent assault on the British embassy in Tehran, which has been asserted by senior figures to have been state-supported and has accordingly been interpreted as a direct attack on Western interests. </span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Despite continued protestations from Tehran that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only, Britain has been particularly keen to impose further sanctions. The storming of Britain’s embassy has done little to remedy an already delicate situation: Iranian diplomats were expelled from London on 2 December in response to the attack, with British diplomats from Tehran being similarly evacuated, while an announcement was made on 22 November that Britain was severing ‘all financial ties with Iran’. As a result, Iran became the first country to have its entire banking sector cut off from UK financial institutions, being denigrated from all sides in the process amidst growing concern regarding Tehran’s increasingly secretive behaviour and political infighting.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The Iranian parliament (<i>majlis</i>) responded by voting, with a large majority, to downgrade diplomatic relations with the UK, effectively expelling Britain’s newly appointed ambassador, Dominick Chilcott. In so doing, Tehran is teetering towards the diplomatic wilderness. While sustaining diplomatic relations would arguably not be enough to avert mounting tensions, let alone definitively resolve the nuclear impasse, such outcomes appear markedly less likely in their absence. </span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">This situation has potential diplomatic implications beyond Iranian borders. Prior to the recent restructuring of relations, Britain had played a frontline role in efforts to manoeuvre Iran into conforming with internationally agreed nuclear protocols. While foreign minister William Hague insists that British-Iranian relations have not been cut completely, with the possibility remaining of dialogue at international meetings as occurs between Iran and the US, former minister <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/30/expelling-iran-diplomats-showdown">Mark Malloch-Brown</a> observes that London’s role in negotiations will, in all probability, shrink significantly. By necessity, being less well-informed than previously, Britain will cease to be the primary point of contact for other nations; Britain, without an embassy to remain in the loop, will become a ‘bystander’, and a check on Iranian actions will be lost.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Elsewhere, confirming widespread objection, France, Germany and the Netherlands all recalled their respective ambassadors from Tehran for consultations on the developing situation. Italy and Sweden both summoned Iranian ambassadors, while Norway temporarily closed its embassy in Tehran, citing security concerns. Hillary Clinton declared that the US ‘condemns this attack in the strongest possible terms’, describing the events in Tehran as ‘an affront not only to the British people but also the international community’. Thus, while the storming of the British embassy was a response to the decision to impose further sanctions over Iran’s nuclear programme, the move could have boomeranged: many Western countries may now be persuaded that more rigorous measures are required.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Bernard Valero, a spokesman for the French foreign ministry, announced that President Sarkozy had taken the initial step of proposing a freezing of the Iranian Central Bank’s assets and banning oil imports from the Republic – a notion that has Hague’s support as part of a package prescribing further punitive measures and an intensification of existing sanctions. Such measures are an obvious extension of current restrictions placed on Tehran, aiming to introduce further obstacles in an economic climate that is already difficult for Iran to operate in. However, with the developing eurozone debt crisis and parts of Europe on the verge of another recession, the potential for increased crude oil prices as the result of an EU oil embargo render such a strategy highly contentious.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b></b></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The latest IAEA report reaffirms suspicions surrounding the potential for hostile ambitions to be underpinning nuclear developments in the Republic, providing greater detail than previously available. Alarmingly, the report states that Tehran has undertaken activities ‘relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device’. Indeed, some such undertakings, notably experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon and techniques with which to adapt a device to fit into the nose-section of a missile, are condemned as useful <i>only</i> in the pursuit of such an end. While this is not conclusive proof that Iran has made progress towards successfully weaponising these technologies, such signs cast an ominous shadow over the underlying intent. Regardless of persistent assurances to the contrary, Tehran’s prior record of concealing the enrichment programme continues to drive suspicion. As long as such ambiguity exists, relations with the West will remain hesitant.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Nonetheless, the IAEA report failed to convince officials in Beijing, while Moscow dismissed the sanctions as ‘seriously [complicating] efforts for constructive dialogue with Tehran’. With China and Russia remaining unwilling to allow deeper UN sanctions to be imposed, the inconsistency with which the sanctions regime is applied is gradually deepening. Indeed, Iran’s strengthening ties with Beijing, primarily based around energy, encourage sanctions to be sidestepped. In this regard, the direction and pace of development depends on political factors as much as on technological constraints.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Mehdi Ghazanfari, Iran’s trade minister, described sanctions as ‘a lose-lose game’ with all concerned making a loss, with the West standing to ‘lose an appealing market‘ through failing to invest in Iranian oil projects. Rostam Qasemi, Iran’s oil minister, further suggested that Iran was willing to use oil as a political tool. However, such concealed threats will likely be difficult to act upon. Primarily, Iran is not capable of slowing production without OPEC co-operation – other OPEC members would willingly pick up any slack to maintain output levels. Similarly, despite Mehdi Mehdizadeh, a <i>majlis </i>member, claiming that oil price rises would result if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, it is important to recognise that Oman, <i>not</i> Iran, is responsible for controlling the Strait. Ultimately, Tehran does not have the authority to carry through this threat unilaterally, and lacks the necessary support for a collective effort at disrupting supply. Equally, to do so would represent an ill-targeted response, impacting upon non-Western consumers and severely constraining oil income, particularly in emerging Asian markets.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The measures emerging from the meeting of EU foreign ministers were relatively weak, continuing with a sanctions regime that has thus far failed to entice Tehran back to the negotiating table while failing to agree an oil embargo. This will do little to resolve tensions and restore diplomatic relations. However, with the Iranian issue firmly back on the agenda, and rumours of pre-emptive invasion led by Tel Aviv or Washington gaining ground since the IAEA report was released, this is unlikely to be the final scenario. Accordingly, the need to push for a diplomatic solution has increased – a failure to do so could result in yet further turmoil in the Middle East, be it in the shape of direct conflict or the reincarnation of nuclear arms racing in response to a nuclear armed Iran.</span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-47654522486581670832011-11-18T08:52:00.002+00:002011-11-18T11:26:18.580+00:00A Million Man Problem: Reforming Welfare to Work<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The labour market statistics released this week indicate that headline unemployment jumped from 2.57 million to 2.62 million. Such growth is worrying: the increase of 0.2 points from the figures released in October is only the fourth time unemployment has hit 8% since the three months to November 1996.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Below the surface, two even more troubling trends emerge. Firstly, youth unemployment continues to grow, with the number of unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds breaking the one million barrier for the first time (albeit with 286,000 in full-time education, with many seeking part-time employment to supplement student loans). Secondly, with over 633,000 claimants having been unemployed for in excess of six months, the tendency is towards long-term unemployment.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The detrimental effects of prolonged periods of unemployment are increasingly being recognised. This is particularly true of the impact on young people, vulnerable not only to having their confidence rocked but also to future <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/jan/25/high-youth-unemployment-young-people-hung-out-to-dry"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0b22a2; text-decoration: underline;">wage scarring</span></a>. That the government is increasingly focussing attention on such groups as the long-term workless and the unemployed youth is therefore unsurprising.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Implemented this summer, it remains too early to offer a valid evaluation of the coalition’s <a href="http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-prog-prospectus-v2.pdf"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #081c8e; text-decoration: underline;">Work Programme</span></a>. However, there are three reasons to believe that the government’s plan of action will prove fruitful in easing the growing problems. First, the Work Programme has been devised with the benefit of prior experience, learning both from past efforts and similar ventures elsewhere. Thus, second, contracts are constructed to encourage providers to target vulnerable groups. Third, the Work Programme is designed in such a way that the government is able reward those providers who perform to the highest standards, while penalising those who function poorly.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Aiming to deliver sustained employment opportunities to hard to reach groups, the Work Programme uses a payment-by-results model that has become familiar in the welfare to work market. Several of these previous strategies have been condemned as inefficient, with the Pathways to Work initiative producing results worse than would have been expected had no intervention taken place, while the Flexible New Deal resulted in average costs exceeding £31,000 per job provided. The coalition’s strategy, however, is able to benefit from DWP’s prior experience, adopting a more targeted approach in keeping with Institute for Government <a href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/28/making-policy-better"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0b22a2; text-decoration: underline;">recommendations</span></a>. This responsiveness to labour market trends and previous shortcomings in service provision may be the key to future successes, delivering results while achieving value for money.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The most fundamental adaptation to address these failings concerns financing which, rather than coming from the Departmental Expenditure Limit set every three years by the Treasury, will come from DWP’s Annually Managed Expenditure budget – the source of back-to-work benefits. In effect, anticipated savings in future benefits payments will fund the Programme, with the government banking on future savings outstripping current expenditure. This is a considerable gamble, though provides a strong incentive to make the Programme work.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The Work Programme does share common characteristics with the earlier Flexible New Deal, in particular a focus on hard to reach groups while enabling private and third sector organisations to provide employment services. Principally targeting those claiming back-to-work benefits for a sustained period, the Work Programme operates a “black box” contracting model. Built on the premise that local providers are best placed to identify the particular requirements of each Contract Package Area, the engagement of local organisations is encouraged, customising provision to accommodate individual needs.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">DWP have paid much attention to policy design – an aspect of the policy process that is often neglected. In the past, providers have often been guilty of “gaming” the system, focussing attention on those clients with the greatest employment potential to maximise results-based revenues. In response, under the Work Programme, DWP will use a carrot and stick approach to incentivise specific outcomes.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">For instance, a differential payments schedule will reward providers with higher premiums for obtaining results for those deemed hardest to help. Thus, prime contractors will receive £1,200 at the 13 week stage for placing a Jobseekers’ Allowance claimant in work. For Employment Support Allowance claimants formerly on Incapacity Benefit, the corresponding payment is £3,500, thereby incentivising against helping only the easiest and most accessible.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Similarly, to encourage competition, DWP will be able to alter the proportion of clients attributed to prime contractors after two years. More clients will be assigned to the most successful providers, with further ‘incentive’ bonuses being payable to those surpassing set performance levels. To promote swift action, client attachment fees paid annually by DWP to prime contractors will decrease incrementally, reaching zero after three years on the Work Programme.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The steps taken by the coalition to address the problems of youth unemployment and sustained worklessness appear to be grounded in sound logic. A look towards Australia reinforces this positive appraisal, with <a href="http://www.deewr.gov.au/Employment/ResearchStatistics/ProgEval/Documents/JNEStage3.pdf"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #081c8e; text-decoration: underline;">analysis</span></a> of an early manifestation of the Job Network programme indicating that the cost of placing a client into work fell by as much as 69% (albeit undertaken prior to modifications to prevent gaming). Furthermore, both employers and jobseekers gave favourable feedback, indicating a potential for success.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The coming months will be critical for the future shape both of the labour market and welfare-to-work services The Work Programme is an example of the sort of adaptive policy making which has worked well in the past. As such, it may be able to deliver the hoped for outcomes. </span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-50533046341305236942011-10-23T21:47:00.005+01:002011-10-24T09:22:44.269+01:00The Dawn of an Arab Summer?<div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Little over ten months since Mohamed Bouazizi, a former Tunisian market trader, self-immolated and sparked regional uprisings, the Arab Spring is showing its most positive signs yet of blossoming into a late Arab Summer.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; min-height: 13px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">On 23 October, voters across Tunisia proudly paraded their pigmented fingers as they emerged from polling stations nationwide, verification that they had exercised their democratic rights and the newfound political implications this signifies: this was the first time in generations that the outcome of such a ballot has not been pre-ordained, and is the first election to be held in the region since protests got underway. That the vote is taking place three months later than originally scheduled owing to problems with voter registration is of itself an indication of the reverence with which democratic rights and freedoms are increasingly being held. Accordingly, in keeping with the spirit underlying the Jasmine revolution, turnout is anticipated to be high, following enhanced campaigning and freedom of political discussion facilitated by the dismantling of the secret police. </span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">As many in their fifties and sixties reported voting for the first time, engagement is reaching impressive peaks.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The ballot in Tunisia will elect an assembly consisting of 217 representatives, who will in turn appoint a transitional government. Rather than a permanent governing body, the assembly’s mandate will be limited to a single year; just enough time to construct a new constitution on democratic foundations (and possibly put proposals to a national referendum). Only then will the future shape of Tunisian democracy become apparent, with the new document detailing future political configurations and mechanisms.</span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">With strong competition from various parties and no one faction expected to produce an overwhelming majority, coupled with a proportionally representative voting system (albeit of the closed list variety), the election holds huge democratic potential. Furthermore, Ennahdha’s inclusion in the process could further invalidate long-held assertions concerning an ideological incompatibility between Islam and democracy, blazing a trail for other transitional states to follow, and perhaps even swaying opinion within <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15413275">Saudi Arabia</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> in light of the emerging succession crisis. Fascinating times lie ahead, and the outside world will await the outcome with bated breath; Tunisia is once again in a position to influence the future of the entire region.</span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">No doubt members of Libya’s National Transitional Council will be paying particularly close attention: following the death of Muammar Gaddafi days earlier, the transitional government declared liberation from Benghazi on the same day that polls were held in Tunisia. Elections for a similar assembly, also tasked with drafting a new constitution and forming a transitional government, are due in Libya within eight months. Similarly, the drawn-out process of parliamentary elections in Egypt is due to get underway in late-November following delays caused by military foot-dragging and breakdowns in political coalition-building. Lessons from Tunis would be welcomed in both as green shoots of democracy begin to emerge across the region.</span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 11px Helvetica; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">While the vast pockets of pro-Gaddafi support encountered in Libya will complicate the process and cause potential delays, the complete eradication of the regime will likely be advantageous in the longer term; unlike Tunisia, where elements of Ben Ali’s Democratic Constitutional Rally remain, and Egypt where traces of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party persist, embodied by the military’s continued presence and political involvement, Libyans will have the opportunity to build a political infrastructure afresh. Western nations need to be prepared to offer assistance and advice where needed, but should seek to cultivate a regionally organic arrangement rather than export and impose specific models; room for flexibility is essential if the Arab summer is to reach full bloom and democracy is to persist.</span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-79948573494509902622011-09-22T21:00:00.002+01:002011-09-22T22:57:41.503+01:00e-Petitions: Power to the People?<div style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">News emerged in the past week that MPs will debate the two e-petitions to have successfully amassed 100,000 online signatures. On 13 October, in the first such debate to materialise from the government’s latest e-democracy experiment, the House will debate controversial calls to remove benefits from those found guilty of involvement in recent riots that swept the country, while on 17 October the topic of discussion will be the somewhat less contentious issue of releasing documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. High speed rail, however, will not feature on the agenda after the petition presented by campaigners against the £34bn project, despite accruing more than the requisite number of signatures, was deemed to be void as only half were gathered online.</span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In the previous meeting of the Commons Backbench Business Committee, the first since the e-petitions website went live a mere two days prior to the summer recess, no Member broached either of the issues dominating online activity. Accordingly, the Committee, tasked with discussing the merits of e-petitions surpassing the 100,000 signature mark and deciding whether or not to assign a Parliamentary slot, did not allocate any time on 15 September to their discussion. Despite far exceeding the levels of online support deemed necessary to trigger a Commons debate, discussion by MPs in the Chamber was effectively postponed until after the Autumn Party Conference season at the earliest.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">This failure to act was broadly criticised; claims that omitting to allocate time to debating issues raised through official channels confirm that e-petitions are a light-touch gained momentum. Furthermore, following the HS2 ruling, others viewed e-petitions as failing in their quest to produce a richer democratic framework, being detached from other forms of participation rather than promoting a joined-up system of participation. How much truth there is in these assertions will only become clear once the procedures and infrastructure mature, though if history is to be our guide, such allegations may prove correct. Contrary to contentions that the entire notion cheapens democracy, relegating Parliamentary tradition to ‘<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/08/rights-government-petition"><i>X Factor</i> style politics</a>’, such a failure would be a missed opportunity for broadening democratic engagement.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The notion of petitioning Parliament dates back centuries and, in its purer paper form, has long been an accepted means through which to convey opinion to the government of the day. Digitising the process arguably overcomes logistical barriers posed by narrow localism, encouraging participation in the political realm across a wider geographical area and reinvigorating a little-understood and neglected mechanism through the application of twenty-first century technology. Indeed, with paper petitions being deposited behind the Speaker’s chair in a plastic bag upon receipt, John Bercow has suggested that placing petitions online will enhance legitimacy and the seriousness with which they are taken, in turn enriching democracy by encouraging participation in the political process.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">To be sure, online petitions are not an innovation of the Tory-led coalition; Hollyrood began experimenting with cyber suffrage as early as the turn of the new millennium, while localities such as Bristol and the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames joined the progressive e-democrats in 2004. This is not to mention the Number 10 e-petitions website that was suspended immediately prior to the general election in 2010. Significantly, according to Fergus Cochrane, clerk to the Public Petitions Committee at the Scottish Parliament, e-petitions now outnumber their paper counterparts, confirming the benefits to be had from providing greater participatory opportunities. </span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">It is important to recognise that any debate emerging from an online petition is not intended to coerce the government into action: the popularly held belief, propagated by the e-petitions <a href="http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/">homepage</a>, that e-petitions are a simple means to ‘influence government policy’ is misguided. This is a reality that the government needs to address in order to avoid disengaging those it seeks to galvanise, having been a primary failing of the previous Number 10 petitions website.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Instead, as noted by <a href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3497/e-petitions/">Peter Riddell</a>, the underlying objective is to enhance public engagement and facilitate debate on issues of popular importance. In this respect, e-petitions do not bestow upon the public the direct ability to force the government’s hand, and rightly so. They do, however, allow a degree of influence over the political agenda and provide an additional channel of involvement. Such is the nature of representative democracy. Consequently, given the tight limits on Parliamentary time and the deficiency in the number of days allocated to Backbench Business Committee matters, not every petition achieving the 100,000 signature target will be deemed worthy of a full-length debate; some may be adequately dealt with by a ministerial statement on the issue in the House, while others may not warrant any action. With this being a logistical necessity rather than a broader indictment of e-petitions, it is unfortunate that this reality brings the e-petitions website dangerously close to the failings of its predecessor.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In an interesting contrast to the Westminster model, the Public Petitions Committee in Scotland offers advice and feedback on issues such as wording and topicality, promoting relevance to government business and maximising the potential for success. With the Committee reacting to petitions covering issues within the Scottish Parliament's remit rather than relying on the court of public opinion to gauge suitability as per the Westminster interpretation, the Hollyrood model provides greater scope for intelligent and inclusive agenda setting, albeit in a less than democratic fashion. However, this brings the benefit of avoiding strictly populist issues that often verge on the absurd – the petition on the Number 10 petitions website to install <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNy1w4DV5Hw">Jeremy Clarkson</a> as PM, receiving almost 50,000 votes, is a prime example.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">With e-petitions not handing the electorate the unqualified power to determine the legislative process that many thought the process promised, opining that the entire notion is failing to empower citizens has become an attractive proposition. Democratic arrangements in Britain, however, coupled with the already-manic Parliamentary timetable, preclude such an aim. Nevertheless, in excess of a million digital signatures have thus far been collected, and debates have been scheduled in the Chamber on issues arising directly from e-petitions. Broadening the scope for participation in such a way undoubtedly strengthens democratic credentials, with the ability to shape the political agenda, and <i>potentially</i> legislative discourse, empowering citizens with greater leverage. While the system may not be perfect (the arbitrary 100,000 signature requirement, for example, may require future adjustments), any means that promotes participatory potential can only be good for the health of democracy.</span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-64463100044579880282011-08-27T22:00:00.037+01:002011-09-23T00:28:38.747+01:00Freedom Of Speech In Post-Riot London<div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Announcing a 30-day blanket ban on marches across five London boroughs (Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest, Islington and Hackney), Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday derailed plans for English Defence League (EDL) demonstrations on 3 September. Following a request from Scotland Yard Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin, May took the decision to ban ‘all marches’ after having ‘carefully considered the legal tests in the Public Order Act and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected’. Is this a step too far, illegitimately restricting free speech, or is there a genuine call for pre-emptive action on grounds of preventing public disorder?</span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 13px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Adding another dimension to the already thorny trade-off between liberty and security is the similar ban that May sanctioned in Telford on 13 August amidst similar fears of disorder. The Met, citing receipt of ‘specific intelligence’ which led it to believe that ‘serious public disorder, violence and damage could be caused by the presence of marches in these areas’, suggested that a ban was the most effective avoidance strategy and cemented a dangerous precedent. With many such demonstrations resulting in some degree of violence, both with opposition demonstrators <i>and</i> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12945734">amongst</a> EDL sympathisers, the argument that all future EDL demonstrations should be outlawed on similar grounds will gain momentum. This would be a clear violation of free speech principles; while the outlook being championed may be abhorrent, such a reaction, flying in the face of liberal democratic values, would prove equally objectionable. Furthermore, drawing attention to the ban not only allows the EDL to portray an image of a subjugated group, but also retracts some of the rope, through prevention of negative press coverage, afforded to the group with which to hang itself. In this respect, an outright ban appears counterintuitive.</span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 13px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">With Stephen Lennon, the EDL's founder (also known by the name Tommy Robinson), proclaiming that the EDL would ‘still show up’ in Tower Hamlets, vowing to hold a static demonstration and ‘have our voices heard’, the potential exists for any disorder to be amplified by the ban. While a statement on the EDL website claimed that ‘[n]owadays, the anti-extremism aims of our organisation are clear, and there is no reason to think that an EDL demonstration would contain any dangerous elements’, such contentions are easily refuted by Lennon recently being <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-13784285">charged</a> with common assault following an altercation at a demonstration. Similarly, the assertion is fundamentally flawed insofar as the EDL was formed with the specific objective of protesting against the alleged spread of Islamic extremism; with Tower Hamlets playing home to the sizeable East London Mosque and a large Muslim population, any such action is destined to stoke tensions unless it is starved of the oxygen of publicity. Indeed, Lennon has already acknowledged that ‘the police have told us that it will be the most hostile environment they have seen. … They say marching through there will be absolute suicide’. The question then arises as to whether a static meeting similar to that which eventually took place in Telford would pose a greater threat of public disorder than the initial demonstration, with the latter at least having the strategic benefit of wayfaring brevity.</span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 13px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">It is indisputably true that disorder in London, in the wake of recent events, would be even more unwelcome than usual. Nonetheless, rumours that budget constraints limiting further police overtime played a part in deliberations, coupled with favourable consideration for a police force under immense strain, would be detestable if proven. Indeed, with the threat of a static demonstration, about which the Met are powerless to act, a visible police presence will likely be required regardless. Equally, spurious links between Anders Behring Breivik and the EDL should not be allowed to carry any weight: many a convicted criminal will undoubtedly have (proven) sympathies to legitimate political groupings.</span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 13px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">It would appear, then, that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/26/edl-march-banned-tower-hamlets?INTCMP=SRCH">Peter Tatchell</a> was accurate in labelling the blanket ban a ‘complete overreaction’, suggesting that such action has the potential to be vastly counter-productive and correctly asserting that anti-democratic groups can only be defeated through ‘exposing… bigoted and violent views’. (However, his favouring of ‘mass counter protests’ would perhaps be undesirable in this instance, given the history of EDL disorder and the ethnic composition of the area in question.) Indeed, the key to overcoming such divisive views in the long run is a policy of engagement and education, promoting tolerance of all views and allowing those based on prejudice and intolerance to be shown as such. As Thomas Jefferson famously declared, ‘error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it’.</span></span></div></div></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-14725829725437360792011-06-27T16:29:00.009+01:002012-10-11T13:33:25.482+01:00Criminal Justice: The Use Of Reasonable Force<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Just before midnight on 22 June, four masked men attempted to break into the rear of a house on a quiet </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">cul-de-sac </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">in Salford. One of the would-be burglars, 27-year-old John Leonard Bennell, was fatally stabbed, dying shortly after having been discovered nearby, abandoned by his accomplices fleeing from the approaching authorities. The householder, Peter Flanagan, 59, was arrested on suspicion of murder (his son and son’s girlfriend were also initially arrested, though were both released without charge), having telephoned police to alert them to the crime. Flanagan was later bailed until 25 July.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Chief Superintendent Kevin Mulligan stated that Bennell suffered ‘at least one stab wound’ during an altercation in the house, which involved at least one person from the address and four people breaking in, though Mulligan refused to be drawn on whether the weapon was taken into the property by the intruder or belonged to the householder. The cause of death was later confirmed to have been a stab wound to the chest. News of the disturbance has again stimulated discussion regarding the balance of rights between intruder and householder.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The incident in Salford occurred mere hours after David Cameron confirmed families should ‘feel safe in their homes’, promising that homeowners would not be punished for using ‘reasonable force’ to protect themselves and their property. Seeking to appease public opinion as he announced that controversial proposals concerning plea bargaining are to be scrapped, Cameron said that the new Justice Bill would ‘put beyond doubt that homeowners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted’. This pledge will now be put to an immediate test, with the problem of quantifying what is ‘reasonable’ once more being brought to the fore by an encounter that evokes memories of the case of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Current CPS guidelines dictate that anyone in England and Wales can use ‘reasonable force’ to protect themselves, or others, as well as to make a citizen’s arrest or prevent crime. Similarly, homeowners are safeguarded so long as they act ‘honestly and instinctively’; according to the guidelines, ‘fine judgements’ pertaining to the force employed cannot be expected in the heat of the moment.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">To simplify, employing force in self-defence is legally justifiable so long as there is a genuine perceived threat, irrespective of whether this estimation proves to be accurate. Rightly, homeowners are not required to wait for the smoking gun in defending themselves or their property; to do so would render the homeowner powerless to defend his right to quiet enjoyment of property and potentially produce fatal consequences. Applying this rule, Flanagan’s arrest is not indicative that he will be charged with an offence. Instead, this provides an opportunity for law enforcement and prosecution services to establish precisely the chain of events that led to Bennell’s death.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">By extrapolation, self-defence </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">can</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> remain reasonable in instances where the intruder dies as a result. This raises an interesting point alluded to by Mulligan: can a weapon be justifiably used in self-defence only if the attacker is in possession a similar instrument (or if it is the attacker’s weapon that is used against him)? Morally, such a directive would appear attractive. However, with no way of confirming whether an intruder is armed, such a precautionary measure is overly prudent: given that an intruder’s presence is necessarily unsolicited and impinges a homeowner’s right to freedom, a default assumption of intent to cause harm or damage is not unreasonable.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Importantly, CPS guidelines require an element of proportionality, warning that prosecution could result from ‘very excessive and gratuitous force’; the 2009 case of Munir and Salem Hussain, for instance, demonstrates that should a homeowner give chase to a fleeing intruder, the reasonableness assessment needs to be recalculated to accommodate the reduced threat posed to the householder. Equally, the perceived threat emanating from multiple intruders is undoubtedly greater than that posed by a single burglar, thereby vindicating greater force. This was a factor in the Martin case and will unquestionably be a central consideration in determining whether to prosecute Flanagan.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Clearly, the legal framework concerning reasonable force is inherently subjective, leaving an element of circumstantial consideration for jurors; as no two cases are identical, the principles of the law must be applied to the facts of each case individually. However, contrary to Cameron’s assertion that protection from prosecution needs to be clearer, the current legal stance evidently favours the householder, permitting the application of force, fatal if necessary, to protect oneself and one’s property. Correctly so. While not providing license for unremitting aggression, this is consistent with Cameron’s suggestion, in 2010 when leader of the opposition, that ‘[t]he moment a burglar steps over your threshold and invades your property, with all the threat that gives to you, your family and your livelihood, … they leave their human rights outside’.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Given current knowledge of the facts of the case, to prosecute Flanagan would not appear to be in keeping with precedent or in the public interest. In November 2001, a jury took only fifteen minutes to clear a householder who fatally stabbed an armed intruder in his home. With Flanagan telephoning police to alert them to the developing situation, a reasonable person would suggest that Flanagan took appropriate steps to prevent a violent situation developing. Moreover, with multiple intruders being involved in the incident, the use of force in self-defence within his property does not appear to be disproportionate; heavily outnumbered, whether the intruders were armed is a seemingly moot point.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The coincidence of the altercation with Cameron’s speech may prove to be a win-win situation for the Conservative Party. While CPS guidance concerning reasonable force was issued under a Labour government, a decision not to prosecute will be remembered as having been taken under a Conservative-led coalition. Alternatively, should the case go to trial, Cameron’s assertions will be proved correct, potentially restoring faith in the Conservatives as a stalwart of law and order following the debacle surrounding proposed sentence reductions.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">*UPDATE*</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></span></div>
<ul>
<li style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, seeking to address the ‘constant doubt’ surrounding the current legal position and in a seeming reference to the Flanagan case, confirmed on 29 June that a householder who knifes a burglar will not be adjudged to have committed a criminal offence. Individuals should, Clarke opined, be afforded the right to use ‘whatever force necessary’ in protecting themselves and their home, though this does not extend to shooting a fleeing intruder in the back. This proclamation is wholly in kilter with the spirit of the current legal stance, though replacing direct use of the problematic term “reasonable force” with more assertive phraseology will doubtlessly be portrayed as a deepening of the policy by a Conservative-led government attempting to reinforce their traditional image.</span></span></span></span></li>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
</div>
Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-52540015624521555082011-06-14T08:38:00.000+01:002011-06-14T08:38:10.331+01:00Elections In Turkey: The Constitution and Democracy<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The secular establishment within in Turkey is, and has long been, wary of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) headed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Traditionally, prevailing opinion amongst critics has been that the ultimate aim of the Islamist-rooted party is the imposition of </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">sharia</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> law, with examples of efforts to criminalise adultery and ease restrictions relating to the wearing of the headscarf being oft cited. However, after almost nine years of single-party AKP government, the inaccuracy of such claims is being recognised; the hurdle of incorporating religiously-tinted political organisations into a rigorously laicist political framework while confining the secular generals to their barracks has been a crucial step in Ankara’s democratic epiphany. With allegations pertaining to the establishment of Turkish theocracy being notably less prominent in the build-up to parliamentary elections on 12 June than in either of the previous two ballots, economic performance and constitutional reform were able to dominate discussions.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The AKP takes much credit for orchestrating steady economic growth and raising living standards following the bust of 2001; with per capita GDP having almost trebled from $3,500 to $10,000 since 2002, coupled with economic misery for European and Mediterranean neighbours, AKP performance appears particularly impressive. Equally, the AKP has been responsible for opening coveted EU accession talks, albeit so far with little return, as well as instigating welcome policies of “strategic depth” and “zero problems” in the foreign policy sphere. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that opinion polls prior to parliamentary elections indicated a 40-45% share of the popular vote. While this figure was marginally less than the 47% achieved in 2007, it represented an improvement on the 39% support achieved in the municipal elections of 2009 and a substantial lead over the secular Republican People’s Party (CHP). Accordingly, the outcome of the election was never in doubt; with Erdogan set to become the first Turkish leader to win three consecutive elections, the only questions being asked concerned the size of the AKP majority.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Despite the party’s favourable record in government and the concomitant approval of public opinion, the AKP’s popularity prior to Sunday’s election had been the cause of much concern. With the idiosyncrasies of the Turkish electoral system requiring that parties surpass 10% of the popular vote before taking seats in parliament, the AKP could feasibly have returned a “supermajority” of 367 MPs which would enable Erdogan to unilaterally rewrite the constitution and, many feared, “<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/turkish-kurds-election-civil-disobedience?INTCMP=SRCH">Kremlinise</a>” Turkish politics. Similarly, a 60% majority (i.e. 330 MPs) would have allowed the party to put constitutional proposals directly to the public without consulting opposition opinion. Exploiting the lack of institutional safeguards in such a Machiavellian manner would clearly fail to conform with democratic ideals; while achieving a simple majority legitimates the enactment of specific policies, changing the framework within which politics takes place should be subject to sterner requirements. As a result, constitutional reform became a central electoral issue.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The current constitution is the product of the military coup of 1980. Attempting to revoke many of the liberalising facets introduced by the previous military constitution of 1961 in seeking to ensure against communist infiltration, the 1982 document placed a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of the state machinery and created a democratic deficit. Thus, despite numerous amendments, including many passed by the AKP, there is broad consensus on the requirement for a new constitution capable of meeting the demands of a growing and modernising state in the 21st century: the 2007 elections highlighted that Ankara can only consolidate democratic transition once any constitutional validation of military intervention has been removed, thereby enhancing the prospect of longed-for EU accession.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Prior to the election, both AKP and CHP promised to recast the constitution should they be victorious, with Kemal Kilicdaroglu, CHP leader, pledging to ‘bring democracy and freedom to the country’. However, while Kilicdaroglu vowed extensive changes, including greater rights for Kurds and Alevis, reinforced press freedoms (at a time when Turkey has more journalists in prison than any other country), and a reduction in the 10% electoral threshold, Erdogan remained very nondescript about his visions for a new document, saying little more than that he desired a ‘constitution of the people’ that would be ‘short, compact, [and] open’ with greater presidential powers. With Erdogan disqualified from running for a fourth term as prime minister yet indicating his intention to retain political influence, campaigning under the slogan “Objective 2023” in an apparent effort to evoke comparison with Ataturk in the build-up to the Republic’s centenary, suspicions arose that Erdogan intended to aggrandise the presidency and create a political system loosely based upon the French model before manoeuvring himself into the role. Statements made by Erdogan prior to ballots being cast regarding the AKP’s disinclination to make constitutional amendments should the party fail to win 330 seats, pre-emptively renouncing any potential for cross-party collaboration amidst an air of conceit resulting from success in a 2010 referendum on a series of constitutional amendments, did little to avert such scepticism. A strong AKP mandate could therefore have the adverse effect of reversing aspects of AKP-inspired democratisation.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Near-complete results indicate another AKP victory, winning almost 50% of the popular vote while the CHP polled 26% and the far-right Nationalist Action Party (MHP) 13%. Translating to 326 parliamentary seats (fifteen fewer than in 2007 despite gaining roughly five million additional votes), fears of the AKP being able to unilaterally institutionalise Erdogan’s political control have been quelled – a result of the MHP surpassing the 10% barrier combined with independents scoring an impressive 36 seats. Accordingly, in something of a </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">volte face</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, Erdogan proclaimed in his victory speech that ‘the people gave us a message to build the new constitution through consensus and negotiation’, declaring that the AKP would ‘discuss the new constitution with opposition parties’. While the AKP will be able to act freely as a result of the mandate delivered by the electorate, greater cooperation with newly-strengthened opposition parties will be required if constitutional changes are to be enacted, particularly with the Peace and Democracy Party-backed independents in redressing the Kurdish issue; a continuing failure to deliver on such promises would seriously hamper any future effort by Erdogan to capture the presidency. Such consensus seeking will doubtlessly reinforce Ankara’s democratic foundations while holding the potential to kick-start faltering negotiations with the EU at a time when relations with Muslim neighbours are under great strain. In this respect, a reduced majority may serve to strengthen Erdogan as well as democracy.</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-85338731771333297092011-05-19T16:40:00.001+01:002011-05-19T17:23:38.953+01:00Ken Clarke: Defending the Indefensible?<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Justice Secretary Ken Clarke today rejected calls for his resignation amidst controversy surrounding comments pertaining the seriousness of rape, insisting that he was merely describing a ‘longstanding factual situation’. However, while he pledged to consider his words more carefully in future, Clarke refrained from issuing a public apology, insisting that his comments are being removed from their intended context and that, in his view, ‘all rape is serious’. He did, however, write a letter of apology to Gabrielle Brown, who had challenged the Justice Secretary during a radio phone-in.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">During an interview on <a href="http://audioboo.fm/boos/360024-extract-from-ken-clarke-vicderbyshire-bbc5live-interview">BBC Radio 5 Live</a>, Clarke contested reports that the average sentence for rape was a mere five years, suggesting that ‘serious rape’ was punished more heavily. The Justice Secretary then questioned Victoria Derbyshire’s statement that ‘rape is rape’, contending that: ‘if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape because she is under age … What you and I are talking about is … a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to’. This, according to Clarke, represents ‘a serious crime’. While this does, indeed, represent judicial fact (i.e. the circumstances of a crime impact upon the length of any given sentence), critics, including Ed Miliband, have opined that this suggests the existence of ‘other categories of rape’ and marginalises the seriousness of the crime. Whether this is the case, however, is the subject of debate: recognising, for example, that instances of repeated rape, gang rape, and violent rape will not always share similar circumstances is not the same as denying the profound abhorrence of either crime. Neither does it necessarily suggest that one is more, or less, serious than another. Indeed, Clarke’s designation of non-consensual sexual acts as ‘a serious crime’ seemingly indicates that this was not, in fact, his intention. What is being overlooked in the arguments so far is the detestably low tariff available to judges for such a deplorable crime.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Interestingly, the example cited by Clarke was factually inaccurate, raising questions over the former barrister’s continued competence in his role and potentially giving the Prime Minister grounds to remove him from the Ministry of Justice. While Miliband’s public calls for Clarke’s resignation render such a move unlikely in the immediate future, a cabinet re-shuffle may well witness the Justice Secretary being transferred elsewhere; the gaffe may have worried Cameron that a liberal-leaning Justice Secretary is not best suited to a Conservative Party traditionally viewed as being tough on law and order. Clarke’s scheduled appearance on Question Time (from Wormwood Scrubs, no less) may, however, provide an opportunity for the Justice Secretary to regain confidence both within the public and the government.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Justice Secretary also expressed his disappointment with the </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Daily Mail</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> for seeking to add ‘sexual excitement’ to their reporting by applying proposals intended for all criminals specifically to cases of rape. The government, as part of general cost-cutting measures, is currently consulting on plea-bargaining plans to increase sentence reduction to a maximum of 50%, from current limits of 33%. It is estimated that doing so could free up 3,400 prison places and save some £130m per year by 2015 – 62% of the annual £210m savings the department has to find. Clarke’s policy proposal, as a result of the association with the early release of sex offenders, may now be dead in the water. Chris Huhne, however, may be thankful for the distraction.</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-7110755376306454582011-05-19T11:23:00.001+01:002011-05-19T14:28:38.114+01:00Theocratic Tensions in Iran<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Jasmine Revolution, born in Tunisia some five moths ago, has spread across North Africa and the Middle East. While pro-democracy protests and the associated state crackdowns continue, outside interest is steadily waning. Recent democratic wrangling in Iran, for instance, failed to made front page news, overshadowed by such occasions as the Royal wedding, the events in Pakistan surrounding <a href="http://sam-reeve.blogspot.com/2011/05/osamas-demise-consequences-and.html">Osama bin Laden</a>, and questions regarding the stability of the governing coalition as a result of recent <a href="http://sam-reeve.blogspot.com/2011/05/av-referendum-wasted-opportunity.html">electoral outcomes</a>.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In the time since the spawning of the revolutions, only two Arab leaders have been toppled. While four are under sustained heavy pressure, with UN and NATO military involvement in Libya, dictators are managing to hold on. The remaining fifteen Arab leaders have been relatively unaffected, experiencing only minor protests. Despite a strong and encouraging start, the success rate of the protests in terms of enacting reform has been limited. The next leader to fall may, then, come from outside the Arab world. Enter Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In contrast to scenarios playing out in Syria, Libya, Bahrain and the like, the threat to President Ahmadinejad’s reign comes not from the outside, but from a power struggle within the establishment itself. (Tehran has continued to voice support for the government in Damascus amidst accusations of assisting the Assad regime to violently suppress protests – hardly surprising when considering the brutality with which the Green movement was crushed in Iran following the 2009 presidential elections.) When the president discovered that the minister of intelligence, Heidar Moslehi, had been bugging the offices of Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, Ahmadinejad’s trusted chief of staff and close personal friend, Moslehi was promptly issued with his marching orders. However, in a move that effectively disenfranchised Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who dislikes Mashaei’s nationalistic views and socio-cultural liberalism and has previously rejected his candidature for a ministerial role, reinstated Moslehi – a conservative whose outlook is more attuned to that of the establishment. Angry </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">at Khamenei’s efforts to interfere in the running of the cabinet, Ahmadinejad boycotted his duties for eleven days, skipping two cabinet meetings and cancelling an official visit to Qom.</span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Rather than a cosmetic shootout concerning the composition of the cabinet, the underlying struggle for power could shake the Islamic Republic to its very foundations. With Iranian security forces preventing more than a dozen demonstrations since February, Khamenei’s actions appear to have been motivated by self-preservation; with the pro-democracy movement threatening to spill into the republic, the Ayatollah looks to have sought to reassert his dominance, thereby preserving both his position and the political system itself by disempowering a president who has increasingly espoused conceptions of an Iranian state based on nationalism and free from clerical influence. However, in doing so, Khamenei runs the risk of further agitating pro-democracy sentiment; with the Supreme Leader being above politics, and therefore being unelected, any notion of democratic legitimacy provided by an elected president (the 2009 election was heavily criticised and widely condemned) has been trampled. In the unlikely event that the Jasmine Revolution successfully penetrates the Islamic Republic, the repercussions for the regime could be more intense as a result.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ahmadinejad, owing to his increasingly nationalistic outlook and preference for the Revolutionary Guards as a guiding force, is understood by senior clerics as posing a sincere threat to the republic’s composition. </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The president’s visions of guiding Iran in a new direction, reconfiguring the internal distribution of power in favour of the elected leader, coupled with a </span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">series of documentary films portraying Ahmadinejad as the embodiment of a mythical religious figure who will accompany the “Hidden Imam” on the Day of Judgement,</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> have given rise to accusations from within the establishment that Ahmadinejad is influenced by religious “deviants” who believe in supernatural powers and </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">djinns</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> (spirits). </span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> This has been divisive for Ahmadinejad, with many supporters of the president backing Khamenei: Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">a religious mentor of the president, openly criticised Ahmadinejad, opining that the ‘restoration of anti-clerical thinking could be the next great sedition in this country’ and </span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">warning that rebelling against the Supreme Leader was tantamount to ‘apostasy from God’</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. Such accusations are inherently harmful to the regime, assigning to the president a religious status transcending that of the clerical establishment and thus questioning the legitimacy of the Iranian regime. </span></span></div><div style="color: #202020; font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Nonetheless, with calls for a closed debate on the president’s boycotting of official duties (read: calls for impeachment) being overlooked, the target of the clerics’ displeasure appears to be Mashaei rather than Ahmadinejad. With </span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Iran’s constitution barring more than two consecutive presidential terms, Ahmadinejad cannot run for office in 2013. Instead, it seems the president is attempting to groom Mashaei as his successor, though having long claimed not to need the clergy to interpret religious texts for him, many within the clerical establishment have taken the view that it is Mashaei who is the real source of influence. With the clerical establishment determined to prevent the rise of Mashaei, it appears that the only way in which Ahmadinejad can retain meaningful power is to submit to Khamenei’s will and dispense with Mashaei’s services.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The timing of the affair is unlikely to have been coincidental. With parliamentary elections scheduled for 2012, Ahmadinejad has a vested interest in controlling the intelligence ministry; with the department being charged with conducting background checks on potential candidates, an opportunity to veto potential challengers and secure a strong majority for backers of the president was undoubtedly a consideration for Ahmadinejad. In this respect, the president could be the architect of his own downfall, prompting conservatives and clerics alike to band together to safeguard the establishment. </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">For </span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/10/Rooting_for_Khamenei">Geneive Abdo</a>, while </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Khamenei's victory may have preserved a political system that is not fully understand in the West, crucially, it is one that remains somewhat predictable; the survival of Khamenei and the conservatives once referred to as “hard-liners” by the West is now preferred to the erratic and volatile Ahmadinejad. With the Ayatollah’s unconditional support no longer a certainty, the president may well see out the remainder of his term as a lame duck.</span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-42351517989573420152011-05-05T15:53:00.001+01:002011-06-05T19:47:13.911+01:00The AV Referendum: A Wasted Opportunity?<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Today the nation goes to the polls in the first nationwide referendum since 1975. In the past six weeks, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have returned to their roles as respective party leaders, rather than coalition partners. The promised maturity was delivered while the campaigns were in their infancy; speeches announcing both “Yes” and “No” campaigns were timed so as not to coincide, partisan mudslinging was absent, and both even agreed that the referendum should select a voting system that promotes democratic fairness. However, the arguments set out on both sides of the divide, despite aiming to promote a vibrant democracy, have consistently been at odds with one another. This, unfortunately, resulted in the build-up to polling day being dominated by deceptive factional disparagement, rather than informed discourse concerning the benefits, or otherwise, to be had from each of the systems in question. Paradoxically, the course of campaigning could itself be a blow for the very democracy that the referendum initially sought to promote.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Take two examples. Firstly, Chris Huhne, the LibDem energy secretary, recently vented frustration over campaign literature focusing on Clegg’s broken election pledges, opining that Cameron personally ‘had the power to stop these’ by virtue of the Conservatives’ role in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/03/av-referendum-details-donations-yes-no-campaigns">financing</a> the “No” lobby. (Previously, Huhne went so far as to suggest that the “Yes” camp would take legal action amidst allegations of untruths being promulgated by George Osborne. While the Electoral Commission ruled itself not to have the necessary powers to investigate the contentions, Huhne did not rule out resignation over the issue.) Secondly, Lord Mandelson suggested that many within the Labour Party were displaying misplaced priorities prior to the ballot, namely ‘a short-term desire to kick Nick Clegg, rather than see the long-term benefit of defeating Cameron’. It is detestable that support for, or hatred of, an individual representative or partisan grouping should play a central role in determining the conduct of future elections; personality politics should not be allowed to intrude on matter of such constitutional significance.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Hidden within the name-calling, backbiting, and claims of attempting to defend the indefensible, a significant political issue is at stake. The serious debate surrounding the referendum should not be ignored. The “Yes” campaign has variously argued that the AV system makes (would-be) representatives work harder, minimising so-called “safe” seats while ensuring that every vote counts. Equally, weight has been assigned to the assertion that AV is a relatively simple upgrade to the current FPTP system, potentially providing a steppingstone towards fully proportional representation. In contrast, the “No” camp has countered that AV would place more power in the hands of politicians, arguing change to be expensive not only financially, but also ideologically; adopting AV, the argument runs, would lead to the democratic principle of “one man, one vote” being abandoned in the long grass. Who, then, is right?</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Clearly, arguments exist on both sides. Some, however, are more rational than others, while still more are founded upon flawed logic. A study by the New Economics Foundation has, for instance, estimated that AV would only marginally reduce, rather than abolish, safe seats – 16% rather than 13% of seats would typically change hands at elections under the alternative vote. (Interestingly, the notion of the safe seat is often misconstrued; there is nothing inherently undemocratic about a candidate or party being able to hold a constituency for sustained periods as a result of voter satisfaction.) Similarly, claims that AV would require all representatives to gain majority support are wide of the mark: the potential for ‘<a href="http://sam-reeve.blogspot.com/2011/04/av-or-not-av-some-myths-debunked.html">plumping</a>’ under AV would ensure this. Declarations that voting “yes” will cost in the region of £250 million and, by association, detract from spending on health and defence, are farfetched – expensive vote-counting machinery, while widely used in mayoral elections, is not a requisite of AV, while some £120 million has already been set aside for the next general election (let us not forget that </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">all</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> elections cost money, not just those employing AV; this is a cost of democracy). Suggestions that a “yes” outcome would result in some voters effectively being able to vote more than once are likewise confused; while secondary preferences would be granted equal weight to first preference votes, detracting from the notion of equality, no voter would be entitled to cast more than one ballot. This mistake, as made recently by <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6912718/john-humphrys-makes-the-case-for-voting-no-to-av.thtml">John Humphrys</a> when interviewing Cameron on voting reform, casts an ironic shadow over claims that AV is ‘terribly simple’. The list goes on.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Whether the electorate will have been able, or, indeed, willing, to see beyond partisan tussling remains to be seen. What has become obvious, however, is that the suspicions of politicians held by voters are reciprocal; elected representatives forwent the opportunity to engage electors in serious dialogue on the future of British democracy (sustained debate on future proportional representation, for instance, was conspicuously absent) as well as to reverse some of the damage caused to their collective reputation as a result of the expenses scandal.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A Sunday Times/YouGov poll indicated on Sunday a 10-point lead for the “No” camp. While this is down from 18 points, the lead remains considerable and represents a turnaround from earlier in the campaign. However, when polling stations opened, the contest was still considered to be wide open. Indeed, results will not be known for another twenty-four hours. With national turnout likely to be low despite over 9,000 local council seats also being up for grabs, coupled with the immature campaigning tactics all round, the outcome will be more politicised than political.</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-24036921977348660812011-05-04T08:27:00.001+01:002011-05-08T19:37:22.394+01:00Osama’s Demise: Consequences and Questions<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">‘The world is safer. It is a better place’. With these words, Barack Obama announced that US forces had successfully erased Osama bin Laden from atop the list of America’s most wanted men. Undoubtedly, many throughout the West, and in the US in particular, will feel a curious mixture of liberation and satisfaction: the man responsible for masterminding the 9/11 atrocities and casting a permanent shadow across US foreign policy has, after a decade of defying the $25 million bounty placed upon him, been brought to justice. The timing could be politically salient for Obama, removing focus from America’s floundering economy and bolstering confidence in the President as commander-in-chief. With Republicans traditionally seen as more hawkish on issues of defence and national security, the Democrats will likely score points with the electorate for seeing through Bush’s promise to capture bin Laden, dead or alive. This may well transpire to be the defining moment of the Obama presidency, and could secure his tenure in the White House for a second term. However, the circumstances surrounding the ordeal raise many questions that need to be addressed.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Primarily, the compound in Abbottabad where the bin Laden’s final moments played out is situated just several hundred metres from Pakistan’s Kakul Military Academy – the equivalent to Sandhurst or West Point. Equally, the city also plays host to the headquarters of Pakistan’s Northern Army Corps 2nd Division. Situated within Abbottabad's military district, the area would have experienced a constant and significant military presence. Indeed, Pakistan’s army chief has been noted to be a regular visitor to the Kakul academy. Add to this the conspicuous security measures fortifying the compound (walls reaching 18ft high, many topped with barbed wire; numerous security cameras; reinforced security gates) and the reclusive behaviour of the residents within, and concerns over how bin Laden was able to remain undetected are inevitable. With John Brennan, Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser, suggesting that bin Laden could have been residing in the compound for as long as six years, similar suspicions emerge concerning how the impression of continual perambulation was peddled so successfully. Bin Laden’s ability to disguise himself directly under the noses of Pakistani intelligence, amidst firm denials of his location within their territory, asks difficult questions about precisely how much such officials actually knew of his location; Pakistani intelligence was either ignorant to his presence, corrupted into maintaining silence, or complicit in hiding his whereabouts to provide future leverage over America and her allies. All are troubling scenarios. All justify US inclinations to keep Pakistani intelligence in the dark.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Pakistan’s President, Asif ali Zardari, insists that bin Laden’s killing in Pakistani territory does not signal an inability to tackle terrorism. Indeed, US officials acknowledge that Pakistani officialdom shared intelligence that contributed to the all-important tracing of bin Laden’s trusted courier, with Zardari claiming Pakistan to be ‘perhaps the world’s greatest victim of terrorism’, having ‘as much reason to despise al-Qaeda as any nation’. Foreign Minister Salman Bashir described the fight against terrorism as Pakistan’s ‘number one priority’. Implicit distrust on behalf of the US in withholding intelligence concerning bin Laden’s whereabouts will not, therefore, be taken well; an already tense relationship is likely to become all the more difficult to manage. The incursion of US forces onto Pakistani soil, as with the increasing number of US drone strikes, has already been condemned by Pervez Musharraf as ‘a violation of [Pakistani] sovereignty’. Though the US administration has stopped short of directly accusing Pakistan of harbouring bin Laden, Brennan has suggested it to be ‘inconceivable’ the he ‘did not have a support system in the country’. Future cooperation in the fight against terrorism may be hampered as a result.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Despite bin Laden’s removal, claims pertaining to the implosion of al-Qaeda are premature; in the short term at least, the danger of retaliatory terrorist attacks seeking retribution is liable to increase. While it is true that al-Qaeda, and terrorists of a similar vein, do not need enticement to launch attacks, Western leaders are undoubtedly correct in urging extra vigilance in the coming weeks and months as affiliated groups seek to soothe the hurt caused by the loss of their esteemed commander and to assert their continued capacity to disrupt stability.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In the long term, the displacement of bin Laden is likely to have negligible impact; while he was the charismatic idol to whom al-Qaeda members pledged allegiance, he had not played a frontline role in al-Qaeda’s iniquitous activities for some time. Indeed, al-Qaeda is infamous for its organisational structure, or lack thereof; affiliates and “franchises”, not to mention numerous local jihadi groups, operate across the Middle East and North Africa with great autonomy from any notional central leadership. For instance, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">under the leadership of Nasser al Wahayshi and Anwar al Awlaki, were responsible for instigating such terrorist plots as the Fort Hood shootings and the failed Christmas Day “underpants bomber”, as well as efforts to blow up Chicago-bound cargo planes with explosives concealed in printer cartridges</span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">. Bin Laden’s death will do little to alter such terrorist gameplans. That the Abbottabad compound was without internet and telephone connections confirms his detachment from any operational command.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Nonetheless, bin Laden was able to retain his appeal to radicals, influencing Muslims of all ages with deluded calls of jihad through his sermons and statements. Such an ability to inspire will not, however, be lost in death. In this respect, while many in the West view his demise as a major turning point in the war against terrorism, the truth may be that bin Laden’s passing is of greater significance to his adversaries than to his adherents. While the slaying of bin Laden represents an operational success, the consequences for al-Qaeda are likely to be limited. Arguably, the popularity of pro-democracy revolutions that have swept across the region since the turn of the year have anyway rendered al-Qaeda politically defunct, severely restricting al-Qaeda’s realm of influence.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Inevitably, conspiracy theories abound, including the suggestion that bin Laden was killed not in Abbottabad, but along the mountainous border with Afghanistan. The gunfight, the theory runs, was then staged in the dark to embarrass Pakistan’s leaders, with the burial of bin Laden’s body at sea proclaimed to be a convenient cover story. Such accusations are unfortunate; while rejoicing in the death of another is immoral at best, to profess subterfuge and deceit detracts from what is otherwise a triumphant moment in the American psyche, providing some form of closure to a macabre chapter in the war against terrorism. It remains unclear as to whether the US administration will pander to popular opinion and release photos of Bin Laden's remains and DNA evidence used in his identification. However, the delays in doing so will doubtlessly be criticised as having allowed time for evidence to be doctored, perpetuating the cycle.</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-16211904791811792432011-04-20T16:21:00.002+01:002011-04-20T16:33:27.022+01:00The Right to Free Tweets<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The right to free speech, unencumbered by censorship or threat of judicial action, is widely considered to be a fundamental tenet of liberal democratic society. For liberals such as J. S. Mill, such freedom must necessarily accommodate all ideas being discussed to the point of logical denouement, unconstrained by parameters of social sensitivity (barring caveats concerning causing tangible harm to others). This claim to freedom of speech is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affords free expression to all equally. </span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">While the ideal of unlimited free speech does not, in reality, exist anywhere in the world – “hate crimes”, for example, are rightly condemned – the extent to which speech is suppressed is a useful tool in demarcating and identifying political arrangements. For instance, communist states such as China and North Korea, as well as many authoritarian dictatorships across the Middle East and North Africa, implement such stringent controls as the so-called Great Firewall of China. Liberal democracies such as the US and Britain, on the other hand, tend to implement far fewer restrictions. However, recent developments suggest that the principle of free speech is being gradually eroded in Britain.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The instance of Paul Chambers is a case in point. Due to depart for Northern Ireland from Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire, Chambers tweeted a message in the early hours of 6 January 2010 having heard reports of a snow-induced closure. The result was that a cluster of officers from South Yorkshire Police, including plain-clothes detectives and anti-terrorist agents, arrived at Chambers’ place of work. Rather than extolling the virtues of refraining from humour concerning the destruction of airports and delivering a slap on the wrist, Chambers was arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, facing the threat of prosecution under provisions aimed at bomb hoaxers. Passing her judgement, Judge Jacqueline Davies proclaimed: ‘Anyone in this country in the present climate of terrorist threats, especially at airports, could not be unaware of the possible consequences’. She also insisted that the message was ‘menacing in its content and obviously so’. This incident calls into question the extent to which freedom of speech continues to exist in Britain, testing the boundaries within which one may legitimately exercise free expression.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Chambers case is noteworthy for several reasons, not least for the clear lack of common sense on display and the disproportionately heavy penalty handed down. It is important to recognise that the tweet sent by Chambers, while aired via Twitter’s public network, was directed at a specified individual. Equally, at the time, Chambers had in the region of 690 followers. Thus, only a limited number of people would have had access to the message, arguably placing the communication in the private, rather than the public, sphere. Davies’ assertion in passing judgement that an ‘ordinary person’ reading the tweet would see genuine menace ‘and be alarmed’ is therefore something of a moot point; not only would such an ordinary person have to make a concerted effort to uncover the message, the spirit of the message is clearly not that of an enraged terrorist. Indeed, similar antics are commonplace, but joking that ‘I’ll strangle my boss if I have to work late’ does not often result in deployment of homicide officers. While the topic of the tweet in question was undoubtedly risque (Al Murray, while supporting Chambers’ right to free speech, labelled a recent benefit gig the “Save Paul Chambers from his own stupid destiny event”), this is not to say that the issue should be censored. After all, the liberty of others was not infringed.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Chambers’ conviction under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and the failure of the subsequent appeal, was a second cause of dissension, both on the microblogging site itself and among civil liberties lawyers, because of the inherent implications for the online community. The CPS’s invoking of Section 127 caused controversy; Chambers’ barrister, Stephen Ferguson, highlighted that the legislation was aimed at the prevention of nuisance calls – originally intended to protect female telephonists at the General Post Office in the 1930s – rather than being specific anti-terrorist legislation, which would require strong evidence of intent. Indeed, the CPS interpret violations of Section 127 as being strict liability offences. That is to say, the guilty mindset (i.e. </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">mens rea</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">) is not required to be proven in order to bring a prosecution. This is particularly convenient, as proving any harmful intention to send a menacing communication beyond any reasonable doubt would be hugely troublesome in this instance. However, that the CPS regards Chambers’ tweet as intentionally menacing could have severe repercussions for anyone partaking in similar activities, be it tweeting, emailing, or blogging: using the CPS’s logic, repeating the original message could be construed as sending a menacing communication. This is a severe impediment to the right of free speech, conjuring immediate mental comparisons with totalitarian regimes seeking to suppress such liberties. </span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Such efforts to erode guarantees of free speech are alarming, and have, rightly, not be endured without protest. Chambers’ conviction proved to be the catalyst for a pro-rights trend on Twitter. In an act of defiance aiming not only to highlight the infringement of rights but also to support Chambers in his appeal, the #IAmSpartacus movement was born, inspired by a scene in the 1960s film </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">depicting slaves standing up one by one to claim ‘I am Spartacus’ in order to save their fellow gladiator from detection</span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. Thousands re-tweeted Chambers’ original message, including Davina McCall, David Mitchell, Marcus Brigstocke and Stephen Fry, with #IAmSpartacus becoming the most popular worldwide subject trending on 12 November 2010. Indeed, Fry recently vowed that he was ‘prepared to go to prison’ in making a stand for the freedom of speech, arguing that </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Chambers’ tweet was an example of Britain’s tradition of self-deprecating humour and banter, as well as pledging to pay whatever fines and costs the courts may issue against him so as to enable a further appeal to be made</span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. The breadth of support Chambers has received is encouraging, demonstrating that the desire for free speech continues unabated; any inconveniences encountered as a result of too much freedom are intrinsically preferable to those associated with having too little.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As an interesting comparison, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/12/kenneth-tong-anorexia-twitter?INTCMP=SRCH"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">Sarah Tonner</span></a>’s piece in </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Guardian</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> highlights the example of Kenneth Tong, who utilised Twitter to promote a “health plan” he referred to as ‘managed anorexia’, venerating the achievement of “size zero” and urging the use of self-hate as a stimulus to achieve this result. Having already achieved fame (of sorts) through appearances in Big Brother, Tong’s capacity for reaching a wide audience is incalculably greater than Chambers’. By equal measure, given the target audience, there is a substantial potential that such ideas could be taken at face value, causing immeasurable harm (Tong has since insisted that the incident was a hoax). By comparison, Tong stood to cause much greater damage than Chambers. Should Tong have also been prosecuted to limit his ability to publicly endorse such concepts? Ultimately, the answer is no; any rational being can see the idiocy of such ideas. Preventing their dissemination and discussion, however, would amount to an intrusion on individual liberty. This in itself would be intolerable.</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-3248881767106325962011-04-12T16:47:00.000+01:002011-04-12T16:47:24.470+01:00French Dress Codes: Discrimination Unveiled?<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On 11 April, France became the first European state to impose a public dress code that will outlaw the wearing of a form of dress that some Muslims consider to be pious obligation. This, as noted in a piece published by the </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">AP</span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, will result in an inconsistent social milieu whereby women may bare their breasts in Cannes but not cover their faces on the Champs Elysees. Once again, questions concerning individual liberty are being brought to the fore.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">To be clear, the ban makes no specific mention of “women”, let alone “Islam” or religion-specific garb. In this respect, Claude Gueant, France’s Interior Minister, was not wholly inaccurate in his assertion that the legislation protects ‘the principle of equality between man and woman’. However, Gueant’s claim that the ban similarly entrenches secularism – a cornerstone of French society since the formal separation of church and state in the early-twentieth century – is misleading. Conventionally conceived, secularism in democratic society connotes freedom from religious impositions and interference of the state; in essence, freedom </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">of</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> religion. However, actively purging society of religious freedoms (the open wearing of all religious icons and garments has been banned in French schools since 2004) is more akin to laicism, with the state actively seeking to promote a society divorced </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">from</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> religion. With France’s notorious struggle to integrate Muslim immigrants, coupled with a recent Europe-wide trend amongst political leaders to accuse multiculturalism of being the root cause of social disunity through the creation of parallel communities, an underlying intention of the legislation becomes apparent. Improving integration requires that common societal values be introduced and adhered to. By necessity, such values must be free from religious diktat. Constituting Europe’s largest minority Muslim population, France’s five million Muslims were therefore an easy target. Thus, while the legislation does </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">not</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> make reference to Islamic veilings, it is clear that Muslim women choosing to cover their faces were the implicit focus of the ban. Supporters of the embargo point to the ban in educational establishments as evidence that Muslims are not being singled out. However, this is fallacious: while it is true that the 2004 suspension applied to all equally, the 2011 moratorium will have a disproportionate impact on Muslims. Moreover, the latest legislation does not stop at the school gates. </span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In the opinion of the French government (as well as many elsewhere across Europe where similar bans have been proposed, such as Belgium and the Netherlands), veils which mask a person’s identity are inherently injurious to liberty, eroding the standards required for life in a shared society. Equally, the government has argued, such attire is incompatible with French notions of equality by virtue of the assumed inferiority such garments portray. However, to argue in such a manner is erroneous. Modern conceptions of liberty, as propagated by such thinkers as John Stuart Mill, abide by the simple principle that power may only be ‘rightfully exercised’ over an individual in civilised society, against his will, to ‘prevent harm to others’. With </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8667330.stm">examples</a></span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> of such clothing being employed to disguise criminal activity being few and far between, the harm that veils may cause to others is bordering nonexistent. Conversely, with the difficulties associated with proving coercion into veiling, a ban may seem justified to prevent harm to those wearing a covering. However, </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/04/face-veils-wrong-world-wear">David Allen Green</a></span></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> points out that banning such items in public could have the adverse effect of stranding women at home, thereby failing to prevent harm in this respect. For example, Mariam, 32, who wears the niqab by ‘personal choice’ and for ‘religious conviction’, will be forced to publicly expose her face for the first time in five years, declaring: ‘I have decided to obey the law but to leave home as little as possible’. While it is undoubtedly reprehensible to force a veil upon someone, in an incongruity overlooked by the government, it is equally deplorable to compel an individual to remove a veil.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Interestingly, while being criticised by Muslims abroad as impinging religious freedom, the law has provoked only a limited backlash in France. Many Muslim leaders have said they support neither the veil nor the ban, opining that interpretations of the Quran necessitating veiling are misguided in the first instance. It is in this vein that Hassan Chalghoumi, an imam in the suburb of Drancy, northeast of Paris, supports the new law: ‘These women are under the impression that wearing the veil is a religious obligation. … We have an obligation to protect them, to educate them’. However, once more, in terms of liberty, such coercion is improper; while debate concerning whether the tenets of Islam require veiling perpetuates among scholars and adherents alike, individuals must be free to decide for themselves both how they wish to interpret religious requirements and, accordingly, whether or not to wear a veil.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The punishment for breaking the law is liability to a fine of up to €150 (£133) and a citizenship course (a fine of up to €60,000, as well as two years imprisonment, may be levied for forcing others to wear a veil). This highlights a fundamental paradox; while the ban allegedly aims to remove suppression and enhance freedom, it will be enforced through curtailing precisely those characteristics, followed by a lesson in state subservience. While the fine associated with the offence is relatively minor, it bears great symbolic significance. Thus, Rachid Nekkaz, a French Muslim property dealer, is creating a fund to pay women’s fines, encouraging ‘all free women who so wish to wear the veil in the street and engage in civil disobedience’. </span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">At least two women were detained on 11 April, though police state that this was a result of joining an unauthorised protest outside Paris’ Notre Dame cathedral rather than for wearing a veil. ‘Today was not about arresting people because of wearing the veil. It was for not having respected the requirement to declare a demonstration’ said police spokesman Alexis Marsan. It was unclear whether charges for wearing veilings would also be brought. Similarly, in Avignon, Kenza Drider boarded a train wearing a niqab, as she had long declared she would. The police refrained from challenging her, with Drider insisting that hers was ‘not an act of provocation. … I’m only carrying out my citizens’ rights’. This lack of protest may be read as indicating overriding support for the ban. Equally, it may indicate an acceptance of state authority, with those who would logically be most inclined to protest wishing to maintain their religious convictions and remaining indoors. However the move is interpreted, France has set a dangerous precedent; with some opinion polls suggesting Sarkozy lags behind Marine Le Pen, the ensuing rightward shift could result in further infringements of civil liberties. As Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed: ‘A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither’.</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-17393391793660203002011-04-07T10:58:00.000+01:002011-04-07T10:58:49.094+01:00AV or not AV: Some Myths Debunked<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In the past week, campaigning for the 5 May constitutional referendum on changing the parliamentary voting system gained momentum, once again bringing tensions within the governing coalition to the fore. Amidst fears of apathy and low turnout which would call into question the legitimacy of the ballot – likely the result of conflicting and often misleading messages being peddled by both “Yes” and “No” campaigns – the Electoral Commission weighed in, delivering booklets offering official, neutral advice concerning the technical aspects of the systems in question. However, several of the finer aspects have been largely overlooked thus far.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A primary contention of the “Yes” campaign has been that candidates will, under the AV system, have to work much harder in attracting support from beyond their core clients to secure a majority of the votes and avoid the anomalous scenario whereby a candidate can win a seat with a minority (217 of the 650 MPs elected in 2010 did not achieve a majority). As far as representative democracy goes, the returning of majorities is to be applauded. However, unlike the variant of AV employed in Australia, British voters will retain the option of voting for one candidate only in a practice Vernon Bogdanor refers to as ‘plumping’. Thus, the potential for seats to be secured with a minority of votes would continue unabashed even if AV is enacted. By the same token, one must question the accuracy of terming an outcome a “majority” when the result consists of non-first preference ballots. Campaigners from the “Yes” lobby are making promises beyond that which the system can deliver. While the Alternative Vote is not as complex as some in the “No” camp would like us to believe, and would </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">not</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> require the use of expensive equipment to tally votes, this is scant consolation.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Indeed, Bogdanor notes that in Queensland and New South Wales, where plumping is permitted in elections to state legislatures, the practice is rather common – some 63% of voters in Queensland plumped in 2009 after a Labour Party campaign to “Just Vote 1”, while the Green Party similarly advised that second preferences be given to Labour. This raises another issue concerning AV: tactical voting. Given the opportunity to rank candidates, it is likely that many will vote with their heart for the first preference and their head for any secondary allocations, thereby giving rise to greater strategic ballot-casting and opening the door for negative campaigning. Equally, while the plight of AV to allow every voter a meaningful ballot is admirable, such an outcome is not realistic against a backdrop of competitive multi-party politics; as long as a majoritarian system of vote counting is in operation, some electors will inevitably be disappointed – this is the nature of electoral politics. In this regard, all that the Alternative Vote succeeds in doing is assigning greater weight to the ballots of those electing for nominees from unpopular parties in the first instance, thereby disregarding Aristotelian notions of democratic equality. Clearly, this challenges the principle of One Man One Vote, justifying the description of AV as ‘unacceptably unfair’ by the Jenkins Report on voting reform.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Also in the headlines recently, Baroness Warsi claimed that the AV system would benefit extremist organisations, suggesting that its implementation would strengthen parties such as the BNP. This is very much a falsehood, no doubt an effort to play to popular sentiment and pull voters onside; with only 1.9% of the vote nationally in 2010 on first preferences and with many candidates failing to reclaim their deposits, it is unlikely that many BNP candidates would make it beyond the first series of vote redistributions, let alone surpass the 50% hurdle. Indeed, given their current standings in the popularity stakes, it is unlikely that AV would much benefit even the LibDems at this moment. However, the outrage that has been expressed at this misguided possibility reveals a fascinating contradiction: in a referendum that seeks to refine the democratic credentials of parliamentary elections, is there (or, indeed, should there exist) room to object with who can and cannot succeed?</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-8425532514603691372011-03-29T14:54:00.001+01:002011-03-29T14:55:21.518+01:00The Quiet Referendum: Egypt on the Road to Democracy<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The headlines of the past week have portrayed a sombre and melancholic outlook on world affairs. Dominated by stories of war in Libya and the accompanying issues of morality and legality, fears of nuclear fallout and pictures of tsunami-induced suffering in Japan, tales of violent retaliation against pro-democracy factions across the Middle East and North Africa, and arguments surrounding the utility of a 1p cut in Britain’s fuel duty, one could be forgiven for accepting the view that all is not well in the world. This is before the weekend’s protests marches through London – which spawned a splinter group intent on causing unnecessary damage by way of “protest” – even enters the equation. However, one story that brings a glimpse of hope was buried underneath the despondency, broadly failing to make front page news.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">On 19 March, voting took place at 54,000 polling stations across Egypt in a referendum on constitutional </span><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/anger-in-egypt/2011/03/20113156309594476.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">reforms</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> stimulated by the revolution that began nearly two months earlier. This, the first green shoot of change to emerge from the upheavals, should spread hope across the region. While headline analyses do not necessarily make for enthralling reading – turnout, at 41%, was not particularly high by Western standards, while the 77.2% approval rate suggests that the underlying issues were not overly contentious – delving a little deeper allows the true worth of the occasion to be appreciated.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">On the issue of turnout, it is important to remember that Egypt is not a democracy; with no tangible value previously attached to votes, coupled with a franchise that was not universal, the sense of civic duty felt across the democratic world had hitherto failed to develop in Egypt. Thus, in 2010, when legislative elections were last held, turnout was widely reported to be below 25% (some sources reported figures as low as 10%) while instances of judges reporting local officials fabricating figures were not uncommon. With the referendum billed as the first vote in Egyptian memory whereby the result is not predetermined, a turnout of 41% amongst an expanded electorate looks more like a triumphant achievement and a step towards realising the ambitions of the revolution. It is no coincidence that this is the highest recorded turnout in Egyptian polls. Indeed, US Ambassador to Egypt, Margaret Scobey, declared the peaceful exercising of newly won democratic freedoms on a scale never before seen in the country to be ‘cause for great optimism’. While Mohamed ElBaradei encountered initial difficulties, tweeting concerns regarding an absence of law and order, the presence of some 37,000 soldiers to assist the police in securing the streets ensured that the vote was generally smooth and calm. Moreover, in a further contrast to those polls experienced under Mubarak, and 2010 in particular, 17,000 judges were on hand to monitor proceedings.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The constitutional amendments proposed in the referendum created greater divisiveness amongst reformist opinion than results would tend to suggest. Many insisted the reforms to be insufficient, arguing that the constitution needs fully re-writing </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">before</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> elections are held. Others professed general satisfaction with the map for progress, opining that a newly elected parliament should have authority to re-write the constitution. Prior to the ballot, therefore, debate was roughly divided between liberals and secularists on the one hand, and Islamists and conservatives on the other. This fits nicely with theories that the Muslim Brotherhood, along with remnants of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP), would support the proposals in order to trigger a rapid transition of power away from the military. This, the argument goes, would allow these groups to capitalise on organisational advantages when contesting elections, enabling their dominance within the next parliament and the ability to draft a new constitution firmly in their interests. Predicting such a scenario, a statement by groups involved in the January 25 Revolution called for a “no” vote in order to negate the ‘attempt to abort revolution’, with Salma Said calling for the poll to be delayed on the grounds that ‘this referendum is based on a constitution that the revolution was meant to stop’. Revisions to Article 75, for instance, have caused particular upset, implicitly removing the possibility that any Egyptian citizen can aspire to the presidency by introducing regulations precluding marriage to a non-Egyptian and extending restrictions regarding dual nationality to a candidate’s parents. In a similar vein, the continuing power of the president has also raised eyebrows. Critics have highlighted how the amendments allow the president to retain the ability to appoint one-third of the </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">shura</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> council, as well as the upper house of parliament and up to ten members of the lower chamber, while preserving the power to unilaterally dissolve parliament. Undoubtedly, these powers are not symptomatic of a democratic polity.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">However, there are flaws in this line of reasoning, and it must be recognised that the democracy achieved in much of the Western world cannot be manufactured overnight, let alone imposed in perfect fashion. Primarily, drafting a new constitution prior to elections, with the generals still in power, would necessarily entail some level of military influence, be it in drafting the document or in the appointment of a committee to undertake the task. Clearly, such a move would fly in the face of all that the revolution stood for; better to have a constitution penned by scholars and elected representatives than one dictated by the military which would potentially accommodate interference by the generals in the political sphere. While it is true that the amendments voted on in the referendum were drawn up by a judicial panel appointed by the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the military has consistently expressed a desire to relinquish authority to an elected government as quickly as possible to avoid accusations of attempting to hold onto the reigns of power.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">While fears abound that the “yes” vote will be interpreted as tacit approval on articles of the current constitution, granting automatic title to their inclusion in future documents, it is here that revisions to Article 189 are of great significance. Requiring that a Constitutional Committee be formed within six months of parliament taking office, and with the stipulation that proposals face a public vote, accusations that interim amendments enacted by the referendum are merely cosmetic are effectively neutralised. Plainly, further changes to meet demands are anticipated, with provision clearly being made to facilitate, rather than merely cater for, constitutional overhaul. Moreover, had proposed amendments been broader, fears pertaining the “yes” vote as bestowing automatic entitlement to incorporation within any future document would surely have worsened, prompting claims of excessive military involvement. In this respect, the military faced a “lose-lose” situation. Similarly, claims that presidential powers would remain unreformed are mistaken. The revised Article 77, for example, imposes a limit of two four-year presidential terms – a rare restriction across the Arab world – while Article 139 mandates that a vice president be appointed within sixty days. Furthermore, the president’s right to use military courts would also be cancelled, while Article 88 ensures full judicial oversight of electoral processes. Crucially, Article 76 opens elections to greater competition, enabling independent candidates to stand alongside those from established parties. Also, importantly, in a state currently without a president, those retained powers presently serve no purpose. Revisions to Articles 77 and 139, by this reading, serve as a safeguard only, confirming the military’s desire for stable, civilian-led governance.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Importantly, Article 75 aside, there has been little by way of complaint regarding the direction of reform (and even revisions to Article 75, if read to be a temporary measure designed to apply in the next presidential poll only, could be interpreted as an insurance policy for Egyptian self-determination). The primary grievance has instead been the view that the short turnaround time will favour Islamists and players associated with the former regime; the weeks that have passed since Mubarak was ousted have not, in the opinion of many activists, been sufficient to reverse the decades of oppression encountered and the distortions to political life that this produced. Nor will a few months be adequate for new parties to organise and compete effectively in legislative elections. While it is true that the Brotherhood and the NDP were the primary sources of support for the amendments, this should not be interpreted as anything other than the professed desire for democratic stability. Undoubtedly, the size of the “yes” vote confirms that these groups continue to exude considerable influence, though this cannot be grounds for suspecting ulterior motives; the true concern should rest with alternative of prolonged military rule and the prospect of sustained military intervention, </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">not</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> with efforts to enact a transition to civilian governance at the earliest opportunity. As Mostafa Hussein points out, delaying elections through fear of Brotherhood and/or NDP success ‘would be like delaying the World Cup because you are worried Brazil will win’. Accordingly, in an effort to reassure those unconvinced, Muhammad Abbas, a prominent young Brother, openly professed that the movement hopes to get a third of the seats in the new parliament (contesting perhaps 40%), desiring a broad alliance comprising secular socialists, liberals and Christians alike. Moreover, the Brotherhood will not put up a candidate for president. This outlook was confirmed by Mohamed el-Beltagi, a Brotherhood leader, who professed that the movement would be reserved in their political undertakings ‘until the time there are forces that can compete. At that point, we will take part in the competition’.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Any effort to delay the transition from military rule to civilian government would be counterintuitive to the premise of the revolution. Ideally, with presidential powers being only partly tempered, a new constitution would be penned and enacted by a newly elected parliament </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">prior</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> to presidential polls, thereby circumventing the entire issue of amendments not going far enough. However, such an outcome is unlikely. As such, installing a civilian president is inherently less objectionable from a democratic perspective than retaining military rule, particularly given the penchant of generals in the region for prolonged political activity – Field Marshal Mohammed Tantawi, let us not forget, tasted governmental power as minister of defence under Mubarak for some twenty years, perhaps adding to the urgency surrounding transition. The “yes” vote, therefore, while on amendments that perhaps do not go as far as they could, should be read as a beacon of hope in a sea of turmoil. Perhaps the upheaval and turmoil have been worthwhile.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">*UPDATE*</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><ul><li style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">On 23 March, in a crucial step towards reinvigorating political life in Egypt, a law easing the restrictions that distorted political life was passed, allowing the formation of new political parties that will be able to compete in legislative and presidential elections scheduled to take place later this year. The law is expected to result in a multitude of new parties, opening up real political choice in the country for the first time. Amongst the new parties is likely to be the Freedom and Justice Party, formed by the Muslim Brotherhood.</span></span></span></li>
</ul><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><ul><li style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">On 28 March, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces announced legislative elections are to be held in September, with emergency laws being lifted prior to the polls. This gives parties, many of whom were crushed under Mubarak, some five months to prepare for the first free elections in decades. However, Mamdouh Shaheen, a member of the Council, said that a date had yet to be set for presidential elections. With power not being transferred to the civilian-led government until after presidential polls, the military’s initial target of transition within six months is destined to be missed. However, this raises hopes that a new constitution can be approved prior to a president taking over.</span></span></span></li>
</ul>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-59423511093910356642011-03-20T18:18:00.002+00:002011-03-21T10:27:53.880+00:00Military Action in Libya and the Arab League’s Cold Feet<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The United Nations Security Council passed, on 17 March, Resolution 1973. The official aim of the Resolution is to protect Libyan civilians from pro-Gaddafi troops and avert a potential humanitarian catastrophe through ‘the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence’, calling on Libyan authorities to ‘comply with their obligations under international law’ and to ‘take all measures to protect civilians’. However, with pro-Gaddafi forces continuing their violent onslaught eastwards, coalition forces exercised the provision of Resolution 1973, beginning on 19 March, to ‘take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory’.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Various claims relating to ulterior motives of regime change and increasing oil market stability, as well as criticisms concerning an alleged continuation of Western “liberal interventionism” in a Blairite mould, have all been voiced. However, Resolution 1973 does not explicitly call for regime change: French President Sarkozy, who has been at the forefront of operations, opines that it is ‘our duty’ to respond to the ‘anguished appeal’ of the Libyan population in their demands to the right to determine their own destiny. This necessarily entails protecting citizens from the ‘mortal danger’ posed by pro-Gaddafi forces. With Gaddafi perched atop of Libya’s military infrastructure, his removal could be seen as a viable (indeed, for some such as Senator Joe Lieberman, the </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">only </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">viable</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">)</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> means through which to achieve this end, though the issue of whether this amounts to </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">de facto</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> regime change should remain subordinate to the ultimate aim of protecting Libyan civilians. Importantly, in this context, no exit strategy has been confirmed, meaning coalition allied forces have to be prepared to maintain a presence until Gaddafi leaves through one means or another. However, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged on 20 March that the end-game of military action in Libya is ‘very uncertain’ and could indeed end in stalemate: with a no-fly zone successfully imposed, Gaddafi would be unable to mount offensive operations, but revolutionary forces would not have the assets to loosen his grip on power.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The outbreak of fighting was accompanied by a concurrent outbreak of high-minded morality. A spokesman from Russia’s foreign ministry stated that Moscow regretted the decision by the Western powers to take military action, despite giving tacit approval through abstaining at the vote of the UNSC. Similarly, a committee of heads of state requested by the African Union to find solutions to the Libyan crisis, also called for an end to hostilities on Sunday, with Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, who chaired the AU panel, declaring that the solution ‘must adhere to the value we place in respecting territorial unity and integrity, as well as the rejection of all foreign military intervention, whatever form it takes’. Meanwhile, Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League – who called, on 12 March, for the UN to impose a no-fly zone on Libya amidst claims that Gaddafi’s regime had ‘lost legitimacy’ as a result of efforts to crush a revolution aiming to remove him from power – claimed that the military action in Libya ‘differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone’. However, with the issue of a NFZ having been widely discussed prior to the UNSC vote on 17 March, the practical implications of neutralising Libya’s integrated air defence system were broadly understood prior to action being undertaken. The redoubling of fears concerning the legitimacy of Western actions in enforcing Resolution 1973 have seemingly been caused by a confusion between principles of “preemption” and “prevention”, given that pro-Gaddafi forces had not previously utilised air power in a meaningful way in the suppression of pro-democracy revolutionaries. Such fears, however, are unwarranted.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Post-9/11, preemptive and preventive uses of force have caused much controversy, particularly concerns regarding the moral legitimacy of the latter. The distinction lies in the perceived imminence of attack, though the subjectivity of this measure is a potential flaw – as witnessed prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq when allies such as France contested the alleged evidence of WMD. Traditionally, states (and, by extrapolation, individuals) have been afforded the right to utilise force in self-defence. While this has not customarily allowed for an unqualified right to employ force, there exists no obligation to allow an aggressor to fire first: preemption is therefore a derivative of traditional self-defence when an offensive strike is perceived to be imminent. Prevention, on the other hand, is the response to a </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">presumed</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> threat; action undertaken in anticipation of injurious undertakings that are neither in progress nor on the horizon. Prevention is thus widely perceived as illegitimate on the basis that other responses could first be undertaken, meaning that the vital “last resort” requirement of a just conflict remains unfulfilled.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Clearly, the situation in Libya was desperate. With pro-Gaddafi forces surging eastwards towards Benghazi, having already retaken many towns and former rebel strongholds in bloody and violent battles, the threat posed to civilians was plainly imminent. To be certain, claims pertaining military intervention to be covertly aimed at a protection of Western interests are wide of the mark: with Gaddafi’s forces massacring Libyan citizens, civil war and humanitarian crisis loomed. On this basis, the decision to vote in favour of a UNSC Resolution authorising measures to protect civilians, while excluding a foreign occupation force ‘of any form’, was correct. By the same token, targeting military installations housing air defence mechanisms was a necessary step in enabling the implementation of a NFZ. Not only will this allow coalition forces to protect against air strikes with a diminished risk of being themselves fired at, but has also enabled actions against imminent ground surges given the ambiguity surrounding the proscription of the use of ground forces.</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-71200306072965181542011-03-14T23:58:00.001+00:002011-03-19T10:34:01.895+00:00Nick Clegg’s Leadership and the Health of the Coalition<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Amidst chants of ‘shame on you for turning blue’ outside the Sheffield City Hall venue this weekend, Nick Clegg addressed the LibDem Spring Conference. Throughout, he maintained that the party – which he has led since 2007 – will ‘never lose their soul’ and that, despite assuming the office of Deputy Prime Minister, he has not changed ‘one bit’. While Clegg attempted to reassert the individuality and independence of the LibDems in the build-up to May’s local elections, dubiously proclaiming the party to ‘own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics’ and thereby rendering any attack on the Conservatives redundant, the whole affair was dominated by one headline issue that could determine the future direction of the governing coalition: Tory-led reforms of the NHS.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Clegg warned his party at a rally on Friday to ‘get used’ to protesters now that they had become a party of government, defending his party’s record so far through such policies as increasing the income tax threshold. Indeed, Clegg pleaded with party members to ‘hold their nerve’, insisting that the LibDems are helping to build ‘a new economy from the rubble of the old’. However, Clegg was dealt a blow on Saturday when delegates voted overwhelmingly in favour of amending controversial proposals to overhaul the NHS, placing GPs in charge of 80% of health service budgets for commissioning services in England while introducing private sector competition into care provision.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The amendment declared many of the proposed reforms to have ‘never been Liberal Democrat policy’, having failed to feature in either the 2010 election manifesto or in the agreed coalition programme. Indeed, with the plans also failing to feature in the Conservative Party’s manifesto, the coalition agreement had pledged instead to </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">end</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> the very ‘large-scale top-down reorganisations’ that the legislation proposes – a factor which has angered party members and the wider public, neither of whom were consulted on the proposals prior to the general election. With the vote at the conference constituting the only view that the party as a whole has expressed on the issue, LibDem ministers have necessarily been granted a mandate to seek changes to Andrew Lansley’s tension-causing reforms; Clegg and his ministerial team must convey this message through seeking substantial changes to governmental health policy. However, while Clegg promised to take delegates’ concerns seriously, vowing to look ‘in detail’ at the proposals during a Q&A session, he refused to be bound by them. This could have serious implications not only for the party, but also for Clegg’s leadership.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Primarily, further questions will be raised regarding the nature of the coalition; the issue of health reform, when considered alongside ongoing themes such as Trident and electoral reform, represents a further crack in the bond that holds together two parties who, prior to the general election, seemed to be diametrically opposed (barring a desire to prevent Labour retaining power). Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Justice Minister, has remarked that ‘Nick Clegg is propping up a Tory-led government that is undermining our economy and destroying our communities’. A failure to respond to the expressed will of the party would seemingly confirm this interpretation of Britain’s coalition rule, doubtlessly prompting further accusations of Clegg becoming increasingly “blue blooded” and calling into question the continued workability of the Conservative-LibDem partnership. Equally, given the reductions in popular support, rifts within the party itself could prompt calls for Clegg to step aside as party leader, or even contribute to a potential split in the party. While such outcomes are not immediate threats, owing largely to the party’s ascendency to the position of co-governing party, disgruntlement and disaffection within party ranks is unsustainable if the LibDems are serious about maintaining this rank.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">To his credit, Clegg, in his speech to the conference, vowed not to let the ‘profit motives drive a coach and horses through the NHS’, pledging to pursue reform but </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">not</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> privatisation. Baroness Williams rightly described the reorganisation as ‘stealth privatisation’: with private companies looking to ‘cherry pick’ profitable services rather than treat patients according to need, the NHS would be privatised via the back door. With most profitable sections of the health service likely to be the first to be tied up, the viability of what remains of the NHS will be somewhat compromised. Thus, reforms would not only damage the holistic nature of the health service and the efficiencies that this produces, but would place the very existence of the NHS itself at risk. Furthermore, by placing GPs in charge of commissioning services, there arises a potential conflict of interest: the incentive for rapid and effective treatment is arguably diminished under a system incorporating private competition, with unscrupulous GPs potentially being more concerned with protecting a budget than providing first class healthcare for patients.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facing growing public and professional discontent – the BMA is scheduled to meet to discuss the reforms, while 38 Degrees collected in excess of 80,000 signatures against the proposed reforms over the weekend – Lansley signalled a willingness to make concessions. Speaking after the LibDem vote, he suggested that reforms were not set in stone, maintaining that ‘[o]ur proposals are always under review’. However, despite these overtures, Downing Street has ruled out making ‘significant’ changes to the proposals. With no agreement being discussed prior to the formation of the coalition, MPs are under no obligation to back Tory-led reforms – the passage of the proposals through parliament without substantial modifications and alterations being imposed is thus by no means guaranteed. However, Clegg’s inability to assert any meaningful influence in stimulating a government rethink on such a high profile issue that has little by way of mandate within his party could spell disaster for the LibDems: Clegg has been portrayed to be, at best, a weak leader who values power over principle; at worst, as having Conservative tendencies that are ideologically incompatible with the outlook of the party he leads.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Highlighting the discontent with the party, the LibDems, for the second time in as many weeks, lost ground in an electoral contest, falling from first place to third in a council by-election at Burnley Borough (the LibDems also took the Commons seat in 2010). Labour scored another landslide victory, with winning candidate Beatrice Foster gaining an 11.8% swing compared to last May’s polls. The BNP came second, though failied to repeat the performance of 2002 when they returned a councillor in the ward. If such trends continue into May’s local elections, as is widely expected, greater pressure will be placed on Clegg’s leadership and the feasibility of the coalition.</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-47791989346091870812011-03-04T22:24:00.001+00:002011-03-20T23:12:59.363+00:00Barnsley Central: British Anti-Government Protests?<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">On 3 March, in a by-election in Barnsley Central, the Labour Party successfully retained the seat vacated by Eric Illsley. Gaining a 11,771 vote majority from a 60.8% share of the vote, newly-elected MP Dan Jarvis managed to increase Labour’s lead by 678. With the interesting stories lurking below the obvious headline, what does the result in Yorkshire really say about the health of British party politics?</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">T</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">urnout in Barnsley, at 36.5%, was markedly down on the 2010 participation rate of 56.45%. However, this should come as no real surprise: turnout in by-elections is traditionally lower than on general election day. Moreover, that Barnsley Central was considered to be a “safe” Labour seat potentially deterred some voters, as well as being a factor in discouraging much </span></span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2011/03/im_in_barnsley_central_today.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">campaigning</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (this may, in turn, be an argument in support of the necessity of the redrawing of constituency boundaries, announced today). Nonetheless, that 63.5% of eligible voters preferred to stay away from the polls at a time when partisan tensions are relatively high, and political issues such as</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> budget cuts and changes to education and health policies</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> are constantly in the media spotlight, is alarming. While the nature of the by-election – triggered by the parliamentary expenses scandal that saw Eric Illsley required to vacate his seat – may account for some level of discontent and, indeed, could reasonably have elicited a measure of dissociation from politics itself, such apathy is detrimental to democratic legitimacy.</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Possibly the most fascinating reading of the by-election results concerns the governing coalition: the Conservatives were pushed into third by UKIP; the Lib Dems, who polled second in 2010, finished sixth behind an independent candidate and the BNP, achieving just 4.18% of the vote – thereby failing to even reclaim their £500 deposit. This, said Simon Hughes, deputy leader of the Lib Dems, was ‘clearly not a success’, while Tim Farron, party president of the Lib Dems, suggested that the coalition parties had been ‘concertinaed’. However, should the outcome be interpreted as the statement of despondence aimed at the government that many are claiming? While Jarvis proclaimed the people of Barnsley to have sent ‘the strongest possible message’ to Cameron and Clegg in protest at ‘broken promises’ and ‘unfair cuts’, Clegg was correct to assert that a single result (particularly one already unmistakably situated in Labour territory) cannot be taken as an accurate gauge of wider popular opinion. However, with the Conservative vote also falling by more than half to 8.25%, UKIP seemingly experienced the greatest success in picking up the pieces, obtaining 12.19%. While this is doubtlessly attributable to the protest vote – a phenomenon that often rears it’s head in such by-elections – rather than true UKIP gains, the potential for the Conservative Party to be experiencing not only a reduced ability to attract the centre-left vote but also a reduced capacity to motivate the centre-right, should not be underestimated. With potential cracks appearing in the governing coalition around such issues as as the impending AV referendum and recent multiculturalism speeches, adroitness in assimilating disenchanted voters could prove decisive.</span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-39543652015790896902011-03-02T16:52:00.001+00:002011-03-20T23:12:41.219+00:00The Arab Revolt: Revolution Without Religion<div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The scent of jasmine carries across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) on the winds of change that continue to blow across the region. As the revolutionary bent that was born in Tunisia continues to spread, the Arab world is awakening to the potential for change: no longer do the peoples of the MENA region feel constrained to a life dominated by authoritarian strongmen who embezzle state funds and suppress political freedoms in all manifestations. Importantly, another conclusion being broadly realised as a result of the pro-democracy demonstrations is that, although related, politics and religion in the region need not be inseparable; the choice in the region is not restricted to Islamism and dictatorship alone.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In an address broadcast on state television, Colonel Gaddafi this week proclaimed that the anti-government protests that have crippled Libya, provoking a violent response that has attracted international condemnation, were directly linked to Osama Bin Laden; al-Qaeda, Gaddafi proposed, is responsible for proselytising youths below the age of prosecution, through a combination of drugs and alcohol, to partake in ‘destruction and sabotage’. Similarly, both Ben Ali and Mubarak blamed “the Islamists” for stirring dissent, while King Abdullah of Jordan implied al-Qaeda influence and Bahraini authorities proclaimed the meddling of Hizbollah. That Gaddafi persists in his claims serves only to add further credence to assertions from Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN, that Libya’s leader is ‘delusional’ and ‘unfit to lead’. However, with the issue of religion having been almost wholly absent from the protests, barring (largely Western) concerns raised regarding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, such accusations are alarmingly wide of the mark. This begs the question of whether Arab despots genuinely misread the situation in horrific fashion, or chose a path of ignorance and further suppression only to be thwarted by a combination of determined revolutionaries and the emergence of powerful social media tools. </span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It is something of a necessity that those who promote democracy in the Muslim world will, sooner or later, be forced to deal with Islamists. To associate all Islamist groups with extremist goals is, nonetheless, incredibly naive; the mildly Islamic Justice and Development Party that governs in Turkey is the perfect exemplification of the ability of Islam and politics to engage constructively, with a non-secular party having secular objectives and proving itself capable of playing within the democratic framework. Indeed, as </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/02/europe_and_middle_east"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Charlemagne</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">highlights, not all groups bearing an “Islamic” prefix or suffix are puppets of the Iranian ayatollahs or colleagues of Bin Laden. This failure to distinguish between different strands of Islam-inspired political groups has long been an error of Europeans, purposefully or otherwise, contributing to the prolonged existence of totalitarian regimes. Thus, while Hamas was indeed an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Brotherhood has declared itself to be non-violent and has embraced democracy, much to the ire of al-Qaeda. This exodus of radical elements to form separate external factions following failed efforts to influence the Brotherhood’s ideology, coupled with renewed efforts to gain power legitimately through the ballot box, seemingly contradicts Western fears that the embrace of democracy is opportunistic, aimed at a system of “one man, one vote, one time”.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Very mention of the Brotherhood often causes great unease in the West, largely attributable to incomprehension pertaining to the precise nature and objectives of the movement. No two branches are the same: the designation of various groups as counterparts is arguably a misnomer, based largely on common ancestry. Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt recently announced that they would form a legitimate political party, though they would </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">not</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> field a candidate in the forthcoming presidential elections – symptomatic of belief in democratic norms of inclusion and participation rather than a determination to impose a </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">shari’a</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> state. Talking with Islamists, even those with objectionable views, and including them within a democratic system is not symbolic of “Islamisation” or of an acceptance of their beliefs; inclusion is a fundamental tenet of democracy, with any unpopular worldview being judged by the court of popular opinion. Such an identification should, as a bare minimum, be afforded such an appraisal. By equal measure, as the region begins to recognise democratic aspirations, the role of the West must be to assist where needed, but not to interfere where not wanted and attempt to impose democracy at gunpoint.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Possibly the most striking characteristic of the wave of protests is that genuine political protest has been entangled with religion only in the minds of those authoritarian leaders whose tenure was suddenly placed under the microscope. Even in Bahrain, ruled by a Sunni minority, the protests have remained secular and non-sectarian, focussing on political demands for greater freedoms, fuller democracy and economic improvements. Sheikh Ali Salman, head of the al-Wefaq party, denied that demonstrations in Manama had been orchestrated by Iran as a means to exert greater political influence in the region, while Jaffar al-Shayeb, a Saudi Shia and political activist, described the demonstrations as being about ‘national demands’ and ‘political reform’ – issues which draw Sunni Bahrainis alongside their Shia brethren. However, this is where many problems originate. Demands for “freedom” and “democracy” carry with them heavy connotations, an understanding of which is not straightforward owing to the dynamic nature of such concepts. As </span><a href="http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=1965"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Maya Zippel</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> correctly points out, ousting a despotic ruler – often seen as the ‘final piece of the puzzle’ – is but the first step of a lengthy transition process that requires compromise on all sides in building a state infrastructure capable of handling political renewal. Will the demonstrators be capable of maintaining their appetite for democratic reform throughout?</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The answer so far appears to be a resounding “yes”, despite actual reform throughout MENA getting off to a slow start. After twelve straight days of protests, the Bahraini government declared on 25 February that it was ready for compromise, with King Hamad ordering the release of several Shia prisoners under royal pardon and inviting protesters to talks on political reform. Protesters, however, insist the move is not enough; demands that the government resign, the deaths of protesters be investigated, and political reforms leading to a constitutional monarchy be implemented continue to echo around Manama. Similarly in Egypt, the Supreme Military Council has moved only slowly: while 10 days of consultations have produced a cabinet reshuffle, with members of the opposition Wafd and Tagammu parties now being represented, as well as a constitutional reform committee, controversial and disliked figures, such as Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Ahmed Shafiq, remain within the regime. However, such a slow pace of reform was the topic of further demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square; protesters vowed to return every Friday until change is enacted, though such gatherings represent more a celebration of the undertaking of reform and the dawn of a new era, gently seeking to move the process along, rather than displaying the emotional revolutionary fervour that Mubarak sought to dampen. Likewise in Tunisia, Mohammed Ghannouchi, a veteran of many Ben Ali governments, resigned only this week after prolonged protests that saw him dismiss many of the old guard from the cabinet. They may be moving slowly, but, importantly, the wheels of change </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">are</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> turning. So far, protesters have not been duped by token tweeks that would prolong the regime.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Another important and interlinked feature of the pro-democracy demonstrations that have swept across the MENA region is that of Israel. Or, more precisely, the lack of Israel’s mention. That Tel Aviv has been a background issue at most should not be surprising, given the secular nature of the demands of the protesters. While Mark LeVine suggests that the second intifada movement was a source of much solidarity that aided the coordination and fortitude of the protesters as a result of Cairo’s active branch of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, what is more interesting is the potential that the pro-democracy movement in the region holds to unseat opposition to Israel as the dominant unifying force throughout the Muslim world. Recognition that the prominence of corruption and oppression are the root causes of many problems across the region, while currently overshadowing peace talks, may in the long run contribute to jolting the Middle East peace process into meaningful action.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">With demonstrations continuing across the MENA region, exactly how far they will spread remains to be seen. Oman, which had avoided much of the regional unrest, recently experienced pro-reform rallies that stimulated a cabinet reshuffle and an increase in social benefits for students. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, on returning to the Kingdom following a 3-month medical absence, announced a series of benefits totalling $10.7bn, including funding to offset high inflation and to aid the many young unemployed people and Saudi citizens studying abroad, as well the writing off some loans. These are clearly efforts to placate any revolutionary ferment before substantial pro-democracy sentiment has chance to assimilate. Demonstrations, however, are unlikely in the Saudi kingdom as a consequence of the vast oil wealth that enables the House of Saud to “buy” popular acquiescence.</span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 13.0px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="font: 11.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">As an interesting aside, many MENA states share several features with regimes in Asia: autocratic regimes holding power for decades, widespread political repression, and a harsh economic environment with instances of drastic inequality between the ruling elites and many within the general populace. Could the “Jasmine Revolution” spread into totalitarian Asia? While similar underlying conditions are present, the flight to Asia is unlikely. Significant structural differences, such as the prominence of party machines throughout the state infrastructure in authoritarian countries such as China and North Korea, complicate the notion of pro-democracy (or anti-regime) protests. Equally, the alarming efficiency with which repressive media controls are implemented by such regimes prevents the flow of information. For instance, Linkedin, the business networking site, was shut down by Beijing authorities on 25 February after a user set up a forum discussing the notion of a “Jasmine Revolution”, while internet users inside China reported that some sites were also blocking information on Jon Huntsman, the US ambassador to Beijing spotted attending a pro-democracy protest. While the authorities continue to scrupulously censor micro-blogging and internet sites, preventing the spread of revolutionary fever, the chances of unrest remain minimal.</span></span></span></div>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-531446907068123820.post-89226383367346153472011-02-23T00:42:00.002+00:002011-03-20T19:17:52.121+00:00Voting on Voting: The Politics of Fairness<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">In the week that the The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill finally succeeded in navigating its route onto the statute books in time for a 5 May 2011 referendum on electoral reform, more questions have seemingly been asked than answered. Indeed, rather than the merits, or otherwise, of the alternative vote (AV) system, the difficulties encountered by a coalition government divided on the issue of electoral reform are perhaps the very reason for the most significant change to the electoral system since reducing the minimum voting age only now becoming compellingly political, rather than a constitutional <i>obiter dictum </i>or academic fixation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Both Cameron and Clegg, in the first instance of the prime minister and his deputy speaking from opposing standpoints, have insisted that neither the campaign nor the outcome will impede the ability of the coalition to govern, with Cameron remarking that ‘on this one, I don’t agree with Nick’. However, the existence of this divide – itself a microcosm of the coalition’s stance, broadly speaking – is representative of fundamental underlying incompatibilities within the ideological beliefs of the governing parties: will the coalition survive the campaign, let alone the result?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">With both returning to their roles as respective party leaders, rather than coalition partners, the promised campaign maturity was delivered; the speeches were timed so as not to coincide, partisan mudslinging was absent, and both even agreed that the referendum should select a voting system that promotes democratic fairness. So far, so good. However, the arguments laid down on either side of the divide, despite aiming at the same ends, differ significantly.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Cameron, in affirming his support of the “No” campaign, suggested that AV can produce illogical and unrepresentative outcomes, allowing some votes to count multiple times and empowering bland second-choice candidates to limp to victory. Similarly, he argued, AV will produce more hung parliaments – the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, more often than not, produces strong governments in Britain – and result in more bargaining behind closed doors with manifesto pledges being sacrificed. This puts Cameron in an awkward position; given the circumstances under which the current government was formed, such a statement could easily be read as an acceptance that the coalition is both unsatisfactory and unfair.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">For Clegg, FPTP dictates that millions of votes are wasted; AV will halt the notion of ‘jobs for life in safe seats’ and will bring an end to elections decided by a few thousand voters in swing seats, giving smaller parties a greater input and fostering a truly multiparty system. Furthermore, Clegg suggests that AV will force MPs to work harder for each ballot, moving away from their core vote in order to maximise appeal and thereby providing representative outcomes while maintaining the all-important constituency link (with constituency sizes being standardised to ensure the equal worth of each vote).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">How we conceive fairness, therefore, is clearly a central issue: do we prefer to allow the voices of those voting for smaller parties to count more than once, defying the central democratic principle of “one man, one vote”; or do we favour effectively disenfranchising those voters in “safe” seat constituencies wishing to elect someone other than the dominate candidate. Such a choice is not straightforward. Complicating matters is the knowledge that not only would implementing AV not have changed the outcome of any national election since 1983, but also that the safe seats that hamper FPTP are also prevalent under AV; in Australia the only large country to employ AV, nearly 50% of seats are considered to be “safe”. Incidentally, an October 2010 Newspoll <a href="http://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1287630859_document_151010_-_electoral_reform_mach_2.pdf">survey</a> suggested that 57% of Australians would scrap AV in favour of FPTP, while only 37% would retain AV.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Further confusing the matter of fairness is the issue of cost: supporters of the “No” campaign have suggested that the focus of the coalition, at a time of austerity and substantial cutbacks, should be cementing economic recovery, <i>not</i> spending £90m on a referendum, £130m on changing the voting system should the outcome be positive, and a further £26m on educating the electorate. The “Yes” camp have openly questioned the figures, pointing out that the £130m expenditure is a drastic overestimate as electronic vote-counting machines are not necessary, and countering that, following the expenses scandal, we can’t afford not to press for change. Indeed, Clegg professed the necessity of change ‘when a system makes corruption more likely’, albeit utilising flawed logic given the probable persistence of safe seats under AV (and, indeed, the dubious correlation between safe seats and a propensity for corruption). Thus, for Norman Smith, BBC Radio 4’s Chief Political Correspondent, the referendum will hinge not on the merits of the respective voting systems, but on the perceived contest between “the people’s choice” and “the politician’s choice”; anything that might result in the happiness of politicians is sure to be ‘a huge vote loser’.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">An interesting repercussion of the fairness rhetoric that underpins the power politics at play in the story of electoral reform so far is evident in the actions of the House of Lords. The unelected upper chamber was able to severely hamper progression of the bill. While concerns regarding turnout, insufficient debate, and the potential for gerrymandering were all cited as justifications for repeated filibustering, there is little doubt that the underlying motive was, in fact, opposition to the notion of electoral reform. In an act of self-preservation, Lord Strathclyde recommended that the Lords ‘respect the will of the elected Chamber’ when it became evident that MPs would not accept Lord Rooker’s 40% turnout amendment, seeking to deflect attention away from the inequitable power held by a chamber that is appointed rather than elected. Inevitably, however, this opens the debate for further constitutional reform regarding an elected House of Lords – an issue conveniently already featuring on Clegg’s reform agenda. Nonetheless, filibustering over AV indicated the difficulties that would be faced in asking the Lords to vote themselves out of existence.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, claims of inequality, unfairness and partisan bias will persist from one bloc or another. Seemingly, then, when it comes to the issue of electoral politics, Voltaire’s observation continues to hold true: while the citizens of the state may be equally free, they cannot be equally powerful.</div></span>Sam Reevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18393741527376079134noreply@blogger.com4