Help Nick Clegg!

The last British election resulted in a unfavourable position for the Liberal Democrat Party, who, as a result of the first-past-the-post electoral system, were unable to translate their third-position votes into a representative amount of seats in British parliament. This is due to the effects of a system based on single seat constituencies that allows larger parties to gain a disproportionately large amount of seats, leaving an inordinately small amount of seats for smaller parties. Because of this, Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government with the politically contrary David Cameron and his Conservatives. With this coalition, the newly formed Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government were able to gain a seat majority in parliament.

As the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the deputy prime minister to David Cameron, Nick Clegg must tread carefully in anticipation for the next election, distancing himself from the Conservatives in order to secure votes for the Liberal Democrats while remaining unduly loyal to the Conservative government. It is imperative for Mr. Clegg to assert himself as the leader of the LibDems and establish himself in a position that would reflect his future parliamentary aspirations, rather than maintain his current stance in Westminster. Loyalty to Cameron and the Conservatives is indispensable, as Mr. Clegg must establish himself into a position of allegiance to the current Prime Minister while distancing himself enough to inculcate a platform of social constituency that devolves from the current coalition. In order to do this, he must not partake in any slander towards the Conservative platform, but ensconce a political platform that maintains LibDem ideals so as to not appear as a hypocrite. He is in a delicate position that requires tactfulness.

A first-past-the-post system initially posed a threat to the Liberal Democrats party status and with a failed referendum on the switch to MMP, Mr. Clegg must be willing to make the best of the current contingency of his political party. A strong and effective campaign that refrains from slandering the Conservatives is vital, understanding at the same time that though the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition may have cost the LibDems some voters, maintenance on LibDem ideals cannot waver. Further establishment on social progressive movements that support basic provisions for a satisfactory quality of life (including health care advancements, tax breaks for small businesses) are crucial in retaining prior Liberal Democrat supporters in order to showcase that the Liberal Democrat party is unwilling to compromise on certain, important party principles.

Ultimately, Nick Clegg’s role as leader of the Liberal Democrats and deputy Prime Minister comes with necessary roles he must fulfill in order to maintain a level of power and garner a greater number of support for his own party. He must maintain his party policy without denouncing the Conservatives while at the same time vocalizing the party ideals to successfully cultivate compromise between the parties’ coalition. The key role that Mr. Clegg plays is to distinguish for British citizens his current role in government and the role he wants to play. Fully satisfying both parties is a near impossible task, so it is necessary for Mr. Clegg to establish a firm foundation of the battles he desires to win.

Clegg should handle the Labour Party’s attack the same way he would maintain tactfulness towards any attack from an opposition party: distinguish himself from the Conservative party platform by effectively campaigning his party’s ideals. Leadership, after all, is about change. In order to deflect the Labour Party’s attack, Clegg needs to establish himself as a leader and an individual, not merely a blind subject of the coalition government. Certainly it’s a difficult trial to convince voters that you have not sacrificed your ideals in order to gain greater traction in parliament, but true leaders are capable of mobilizing, motivating, and inspiring citizens towards their proposed changes. Tact is imperative because it distances Clegg from the hypocrisy and immaturity of the Labour Party’s stance on the subject of “change”, and this, in combination, with an entrenched sense of leadership that can be promoted to the public in order to inspire them under the LibDem platform, can manifest public loyalty. Voters respond to leadership, and voters respond to political incumbents who can healthily express their ideals through motivation, inspiration, and tact.

“vote for us for real change, because we were not in government, but the LibDems were”?

The Weakness of Weimar

The November Revolution of 1918 created a vast change in Germany’s political landscape. The German constitutional monarchy was replaced by parliamentary democracy that was constantly forced to withstand radical forces from the left and the right. The Reichstag, elected for a four-year term, was the central legislative body under the Constitution of the Weimar Republic, with main functions of legislation. The Chancellor of Germany was not elected by Parliament but rather appointed by the President of the Reich, in which case the Chancellor depended on the confidence of the Reichstag. The President of the Reich was directly elected by the people and was authorized with extensive powers included in the Weimar Constitution in order to counterweight the Reichstag. Some of his powers included the ability to dissolve the Reichstag and the authority in the event of the endangerment of public safety and to declare a state of emergency and declare emergency degrees, which had the status of laws. The Weimar Republic used a system of proportional representation to elect its officials.

The Weimar Republic was disadvantaged by its system of representation. Even the smallest parties with a very minor base of support had the capability of entry into the Reichstag and enact some sort of political influence. Due to this unregulated system of representation, twenty-eight political parties had entered the Reichstag and had created a system of instability in the political structure and government. Twenty coalition governments in the Republic led to an incredible political disequilibrium that resulted in a lack of faith from the German people, due to chronic instability within their own parties as well as deep roots in original social constituents that made the parties reluctant to compromise. This imbalance cleared the way for extremist groups such as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, which promised the stability for which the country was longing, to gain power.

The Republic was unable to effectively govern to political instability within the Reichstag that resulted in a weak government and little in terms of accomplishment. The Great Depression had hit Germany especially hard with the country still suffering under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles that left it continuously paying war reparations. The government lacked social infrastructure and welfare, unable to become any semblance of  effective governance. With the country having succumbed to inner turmoil, the response to prevent an influx of violence was a constitutional amendment in the Weimar explicitly allowing the president to dismiss the democratically elected government and become an authoritarian ruler. This amendment was wholly undemocratic and ambiguous, and bred potential misuse that later indeed manifested itself in German extremist rule.

The main distinguishable facet between the failed Weimar Republic and the current political system remains rooted in their constitution. With the drafted “Basic Law”, the president’s power is significantly diminished and the ability to dissolve the constitution or democratic federal structure of Germany has been eliminated. To ensure the progression stability of the German government, the current system must immediately replace a removed chancellor with his or her successor. In addition to these constitutional changes, the new federal system has established a law that requires 5% minimum base support for any party to enter parliament, effectively establishing proportional representative stability that would not repeat the mistakes of the Weimar Republic. Moreover, extremist politics have retained a clear rejection in German political culture that would not allow for any extremist parties to enter the Bundestag.

Seminal changes have occurred in Germany since the inception and eventual dissolution of the Weimar Republic. The country is a true pinnacle for transformative politics, enacting divergences in the political landscape that sufficiently prevent any of the mistakes of the Weimar Era and the extremist era that followed from occurring ever again.

Historical Globalization

Globalization is not just a contemporary process that transcends modern society but was indeed a historical movement that can be said to have begun with the first migration of people out of Africa into other parts of the world. Migrants, merchants, and others have continuously and historically integrated their ideas, customs, and products into new lands while borrowing and adapting outside influences throughout the progression of the world.

Archaic globalization existed within Greek culture, when the Greeks were forced to engage in maritime trade in order to accommodate their geographic position. Trade links between the Roman Empire, Parthian Empire, and Han Dynasty preempted the inception of the Silk Road, which began in western China and continued to Rome. It allowed for trade, movement, and the spread of languages through previously unrelated countries. Proto-globalization is characterized by the rise of European empires with developments of companies such as the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company, often described as historical multinational corporations. The European colonization of the Americas was a result of historical globalization, as it contributed to further global trade growth.

The transformative power of globalization initiated its full prowess in the 19th century, when more nations embraced international trade and nineteenth-century imperialism (in Africa and Asia) decisively framed this periodical globalization. Economic integration following WWII allowed for immense trade growth and lowered trade restrictions. The 1980s brought about a huge period of globalization that persists in enormous levels today, culminating in a deep foreign product reliance and a globalized economy that also requires intense foreign reliance. Trade distinguishes contemporary globalization from historical globalization; though it has been a constant throughout civilization, the dependence on trade has never quite been at the peek that it is today.

Of course this period of intense globalization may come at a price, but with a world steeped so deeply in global cultural and political trends, it seems unlikely that the new radicalism of globalization is totally unwarranted by citizens. What is the sacrifice of current globalization trends? Or maybe it’s just code for a glorified melting pot of civic culture and social disintegration.

Pick a label

Developed/Developing World

Whether a country is classified as developed or developing is based entirely on their economic system and population growth, as well as other facets that tie into these two demographics. This creates a blanket term that does not take into account the political or social spectrum of a country and oversimplifies the categorization of the world by ignoring various facets that constitute ‘development’. Many countries do not aspire to the Western model of development while others on various political spectrum are holistically considered developing because they do not classify into the aforementioned Western model. For example, China is widely to be considered “developing” despite its classification as a new superpower; Russia is considered on the same spectrum as an underdeveloped African country despite being ahead in all facets but underdeveloped in terms of Western nations such as France or the UK. The term is far too simplistic to encompass the complexities of the international spectral stage.

The First, Second, and the Third World

This model would have been appropriate during the established of the Soviet Union as it encompasses industrialized nations such as the U.S. (first world), communist affiliates with the U.S.S.R. (second world), and the rest of the world (third world). Due to nearly universal abandonment of communism (excluding a few select nations), the terms eventually became outdated and irrelevant in contemporary global society. This model is erroneous because, as with the aforementioned developed/developing typologies, it categorizes nations into select economic and political dimensions that makes assumptions of nations that do not subscribe to first and second world ideologies. The first, second, and third world model has simply lost all relevance.

Global North/South

The Global North/Global South typologies attempt to correlate geographic position and developmental structure, which is not always the case. It limits the acknowledgement of economically viable countries in the South and so-called underdeveloped nations in the North that do not fall under the categorizations of Global North/South. This model is an inaccurate depiction of the world and leads to over-simplistic and fallacious classifications that creates a distorted spectrum for analysis. The labels of Global North and South are much less applicable due to the growth of political independence and a rise in power in various global nations. Like the other typologies discussed, it is much to simplistic to be considered a true depiction of the global stage.

Entrenched Democracies/Transitional Democracy/Authoritarian State

This model denotes the most accurate representation of how countries are represented on the international platform. The model is transitional and allows for flexibility in each country’s political parameter. It is not oversimplified like the previously discussed typologies and is not based on vague or obsolete terms. The model remains relevant and is by far the most accurate depiction of the world. Because economy and culture are difficult aspects to assess, the model chooses to focus solely on each nation’s political stature, which is constantly interchangeable with other political structures; in this case, entrenched democracies (fully-functioning), transitional democracies (moving towards an entrenched democracy), and authoritarian state (no democratic parties). This allows for mobility as states can move from an authoritarian state to a transition democracy to an entrenched democracy or vice versa.

Keynes vs. Hayak

The video compares and contrasts the economic ideologies of two prominent economists, John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek.

The song presents Hayek’s economic views as being supportive of a society in which economic freedom is predominant and economic decisions are wholly made by the individual, views that are inherently corresponding to traditional lassiez-faire economic notions. Hayek evidently favours minimal government intervention as well as nominal governmental spending, which he believes leads to a massive waste in terms of governmental spending. Ultimately, individuals should solely control economics, not the state.

Contrarily, Keynes’ approach to economics is almost entirely incongruous to Hayek’s stance, favouring ideas of state interventionism. Keynes does not dismiss the idea of private enterprise, merely enhancing the notion that government intercession is necessary to ensure the economy’s viability. He maintains that the state should save money during a healthy economy and conversely spend greater amounts during economic instability. He believes that government spending will stimulate economic activity and advance the collective status of the economy. Hayek suggests that government spending only creates the illusion of increased growth in the economy.

Freeeedom!

Scotland’s sovereignty as a nation is in great debate as many referendums suggest that Scotland secede from the United Kingdom in order to become its own sovereign entity. Because the United Kingdom is a unitary state, the House of Commons can devolve powers to nations under sub-national UK rule and therefore has given Scotland the ability to form its own parliament. However, in questioning Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom, multiple factors must be disseminated in order to form a legitimate hope of Scotland’s ability to stand on its own as an autonomous country.

Scotland’s desire to stand sovereign from the United Kingdom comes from Westminster’s ability to devolve Scotland’s parliament at any time. An autonomous parliament, legal system, and laws have increased feelings of nationalism and self-confidence, allowing for national psyche to remain positive in terms of believing in the nation’s ability to succeed as a self-determinant country. Scottish independence would allow for more clout in terms of the United Nations as well as the European Union. As a sovereign nation, Scottish interests would be better represented at the international table.

However, in current economic times, I do not think that it would be in the best interest for Scotland to secede from the Union. An autonomous Scotland creates discourses detailing the nation’s ability to stand on its own. With the gap in public spending and the revenue raised, Scottish government would have to make a choice between higher taxes and cuts in public spending, which would hinder the country’s attempts at economic viability. With Scotland currently integrated into the British union, it is much more capable of meeting the demands of globalization. There is no pressure on an integrated Scotland to establish an adequate system of defense and security, which would precipitate struggles for an independent Scottish government. If they were to secede, they would have less influence in the international stage than they would as part of the British union.

The worry of the Scottish populace is Britain’s ability to devolve their parliament. A total devolution would not be in the best interests of either nation and Scotland remains an integral part of British identity. The current economic situation does not place Scotland in an ideal place for secession, while remaining in the same capacity as the current status quo would hinder its economic development nor the nationalist pride that permeates through the nation due to the extent of sovereignty the nation now holds. Scotland would benefit from a move to federalism by the United Kingdom, as it would solidify a sense of desired autonomy in the same way that provinces in Canada maintain some level of autonomy from the federal government, there is a lack of seamlessness (such as determining what is in jurisdiction of the state government and what is in jurisdiction of the federal government) in the transition to federalism for the United Kingdom that would not be favourable to them as a whole.

What type of activist are you?

Different social organizations and institutions comprise a civil society in which different interests are protected by these various institutions. As an avid proponent of numerous social issues, I would classify myself as either belonging to the social movement category, simply because I can actively consider myself a stringent patron of various issues that could rectify as a social movement.

Social movements are connected to a group-related action that can take place in a political system that fails to treat its citizens equally, allowing the rise of social movements to enact social change. The main focus of social movement groups is to portray why social mobilization occurs and various solutions to it without failing to meet the needs of the general population. Historically, social movements have been very effect in enacting change to political systems. The U.S. in particular has been subject to a series of social movements in the 20th century, such as the women’s rights movement in the 1910s, the Black Civil Rights Movement, and the Gay Rights Movement in the 60s and 70s, all of which have managed to garner extreme interest to become real political players and achieve legislation according to their movements. Social movements generate interest among otherwise disassociated citizens. The activist in me relegates to social movements due to their ability to garner social interest without allowing hidden agendas to take over political influence.

The distinction between social movements and interest groups is fine, but interest groups vary from social movements in the sense that they are more narrowly focused and depend on organized supporters of otherwise loosely mobilized citizens within a larger social movement.  Interest groups have more clout in the political landscape, able to mobilize and assume leadership of a widespread social movement in order to fully portray its platform. Interest groups, or non-governmental organizations, are important societal actors in foreign and domestic policy processes. However, more politically active interest groups are given an unfair advantage with political influence, which is particularly negative if they do not appeal to a wider range of minority groups.

Political parties rarely adopt a concrete doctrine upon which they set their principles. Policy shifts are common and are made according to the electorate’s general will in order for the government in power to remain there. I find it difficult to relate to a singular political party, as it is often difficult to relate solely to a party that represents your ideals without it having a hidden agenda. Interest groups, though productive, can maintain hidden agendas as well, particularly if they wield considerable political influence. Social movements, though they can be disorganized, represent the truest, most liberal form of democracy for me. Very rarely do social movements contain hidden motives as they espouse the unrecognized civil liberties of an unequal minority group. Social activism is a very important part of my life and with this, social movements would be the civic institution to which I can most relate.

Right vs. Right

The fundamental and primary focus of the government is protect its citizens and predominantly the rights of the citizen. Cultural relativism persists a new challenge in the strife for universal human rights. It raises questions over the existence of universal rights in a culturally diverse world and whether cultural integrity can be respected in the domestic and international community. The basic foundation of democracy is inalienable human rights for every citizen, but the constant battle of cultural relativism raises judicial questions on group rights vs. individual rights.

An inalienable right in the UN Charter of Rights of Freedoms maintains the freedom of religion. Whether one advocates for religion or not, this needs to be recognized throughout liberally democratized nations to respect cultural boundaries. However, though freedom of religion is a universal human right, I do not think that the rights of the cultural group can take precedence over the rights of the individual. Most, if not all, western democracies advocate the separation of church and state and therefore legally defines a paradigm that cultural rights cannot out-encompass individual rights. Many religious factions maintain cultural notions that disparage minorities such as women and LGBTQ communities from being recognized as equal members of society, which simply cannot be allowed in democratic nations.

In my opinion, it is important to protect religious groups from discrimination and to allow them places of worship should they so desire and to protect minority religious groups from associated hate crimes. However, if a religious or cultural precedent is prioritized over the rights of the minority, then individual right must take precedence. For example, many religious fundamentalists in the United States use their considerable power over the government to prevent the legalization of gay marriage or proper funding of abortions and contraceptives. In this case, the religious right cannot be protected over women or the LGBTQ community.

In order to balance the rights between culture and individual, restrictions must be placed on the amount of power a religious group may wield over the government. Religious and cultural groups need to protected to their inalienable right to freedom of religion but any time that cultural freedom overtakes a biological minority individual right, the rights of the individual cannot be neglected.

The Benhabib piece outlines a paradigm of cultural relativism that places one religious group’s cultural rights over another’s. The issue of the women wearing the hijab cannot be decided by governmental legislature as it is an individual choice that does not necessarily constitute religious oppression for the wearer. I disagree that this was a defense of individual rights as it can be argued that the cross necklace is also a symbol for religious oppression. I think this was a case of one religious faction wielding greater political influence than another and overcoming a separation of church and state precedent in order to exact certain religious rights that shouldn’t be recognized as they disparage minority cultural rights. The government did not protect Islam from discrimination and focused solely on a pretense of cultural oppression that was not in fact out-encompassing individual rights, as you cannot define these girls’ choice as cultural oppression.

Global North vs. Global South

The Global North and Global South are, in my opinion, weak categorizations to label countries. It is a limiting typology that fails to recognize nations that do not necessarily fall into either division and suggests that the division of the geographical north and south relates solely to a country’s global status, which is not cardinally true. Both terminology are recognized as predominantly focusing on liberal democratic development. Global North welcomes the most economically powerful nations into its classifications, implying that the Global South is the economically underdeveloped region of the world.

However, this classification has failed because it does not recognize economically viable nations in the “Global South” that constitute this allocation of nations. Countries such as Brazil, China, India, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates aggregate major roles in the economic and trade world but remain allocated to the Global South. This label provides a distorted and simplified view of the global stage, refusing to recognize that exceptions in both typologies do not coincide with the label. There are nations in the north who are not as economically or democratically suited as their western power counterparts (such as Moldova and Russia) and nations in the south who, at the peak of their liberal democratic metamorphoses, surpass some northern countries in democratic, political, and economical development.

On the modern international stage, the labels of Global North and South are much less applicable due to the growth of political independence and a rise in power in various global nations. It proffers an inaccurate depiction of countries separated into the two categories as the rise of globalization and technology creates disparity in the terms themselves and increases the need for calculable evidence to properly categorize countries according to to proper data.

Disasters strike!

Japan has been fundamentally affected by various man-made and natural disasters that have changed its political landscape and have had a significant impact on its civic culture. The economic, political, and social consequences of these disasters have been rudimentary in the effect on the country. They stimulated the creation of a strong civil society and a sense of collective responsibility throughout the country as the disasters exacted costly tolls on the citizens and economy. Cooperative solutions were introduced by the citizens to counter the devastation left by each disaster, resulting in communal and creative notions by the Japanese people and affecting greater civil participating and spurring a stronger sense of civic responsibility.

Economically, the natural disasters have rendered a serious impact. Japan is one of the international largest importers of commodities and for each disaster the country suffers, a range of economic issues arise to coincide with the devastation. As an island nation, this affects ports and terminals that impacts Japan’s ability to effectively import and export on the global trade market, rendering their stature as active market players ineffective. Large infrastructural losses produce immediate disruptions in the country’s extensive networks supply, ceasing dramatic operations in industrial production that imposes a toll on not only the Japanese economy, but other nations linked through their production on the global market. In particular, the shutdown of nuclear reactors following the 3/11 natural disaster, renders long-term, damaging economic consequences that has resulted in massive trade deficits.

The country is geographically prone to disasters as it is positioned on the pacific Ring of Fire, where the situated islands are increasingly subject to volcanic disasters, earthquakes, and tsunamis. The political and social aftereffects of the 3/11 disaster were formidable, including a large anti-nuclear sentiment that echoed through the country. The nation’s quasi-isolationist tendencies in its political culture has emphasized commonality within the community and self-reliance of the community, as historically the country’s stringent isolationism has made it reluctant to collect foreign aid. Individualism is limited to enhance the prosperity of the group and this inherent placement on communal workings has strengthened the prominence of autonomy in the country.

Because Japan has had a relative lack in assertive leadership, the political landscape of their parliamentary procedures can be widely affected by these disasters. However, though the outside world might view Japan has lacking strong, central leadership, the government does not fail to stand up and bring the country out of such crises when required to the best of the country’s assumed governmental agency. Though the political landscape in Japan may be due for an ubiquitous change in terms of leadership, a collective system of autonomy by the citizens has allowed Japan to remain a strong political and economic actor on the international stage.