PREVIEW
Introduction
This has been a year defined by political controversy, rising tensions, and increasingly urgent questions about the future. From the aftermath of the UK General Election to the sharp rise in political polarization, the landscape is shifting rapidly. In our generation, politics is no longer something distant or reserved for experts—it shapes the way we live and the way we see ourselves as individuals. That’s why this year’s Preview feels more necessary than ever.
2025 has already seen dramatic developments on the international stage. The ongoing war in Ukraine and the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza have kept questions of sovereignty, international law, and national identity at the heart of global debate. The growing assertiveness of authoritarian regimes and the faltering strength of international institutions have raised concerns about where power lies—and how it is used. At the same time, escalating climate disasters have forced governments to confront the limits of global cooperation and the costs of political inaction.
However, in the UK, the results of the election have brought both uncertainty and a renewed sense of possibility. A new government offers a chance to reconsider how power is shared and what kind of country we want to live in. Debates concerning national identity, regional autonomy, and the role of government in everyday life are no longer confined to political circles but are increasingly part of everyday conversation.
As communities across the country continue to demand stronger public services, fairer representation, and politicians who truly listen, the question becomes not simply how we amend the mistakes of the past, but how we imagine something better.
Yet despite the challenges, we should remain optimistic. Across the world, young people are speaking out, organising, and demanding change. From climate action to educational reform, their participation demonstrates that influence stems not from age but from informed and active engagement in political debate. In an era often marked by division, such expressions of solidarity and resilience offer a powerful reminder that politics can still serve as a vehicle for meaningful progress.
This edition of Preview sets out to enrich those conversations. Written entirely by capable students, the magazine brings together a wide range of articles examining protest, political theory, global conflict, democratic reform, and more. Some pieces challenge government decisions; others reflect on historical shifts or imagine what the future might look like. Every contribution is grounded in a shared vision to better understand the systems that shape our world— and the belief that change is possible when we engage
We’ve also been fortunate to collaborate with the Art Department, whose incredible visual work brings this edition to life. We hope that reading this magazine will spark your curiosity, challenge your assumptions, and leave you with more questions than answers.
To round things off, you can scan the QR code at the bottom of the page to try our interactive global politics quiz—a chance to test your knowledge or discover something new in
Thank you for reading, and for
Amelia R, Megan L, Brindaa P,
The Evolution of Hong Kong’s Autonomy
National Security and the Future of ‘One Country, Two Systems’
Megan L
On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong - after 156 years under British colonial rulewas officially handed back to China. This transition established the constitutional framework of the Basic Law, which introduced the principle of ‘one country, two systems.’ Under this arrangement, Hong Kong was granted considerable autonomy over its economic and legal affairs, distinguishing it from the mainland while maintaining its status as part of China. However, recent legislative changes have raised concerns about the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and the future of the ‘one country, two systems’ model.
The National Security Law and Its Expansion
In 2020, Beijing implemented the National Security Law (NSL) in Hong Kong under Article 18 of the Basic Law, which permits national laws listed in Annex III of the constitution to apply to the region. The NSL criminalised four broad acts—secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces—under the justification of protecting national security. However, it proved controversial due to the significant powers it granted authorities, including the ability to extradite suspects to mainland China, where they would be subject to a legal system vastly different from Hong Kong’s common law traditions.
More recently, in March 2024, Beijing strengthened the NSL through the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), fulfilling Article 23 of the Basic Law, which requires Hong Kong to pass its own national security legislation. Similar attempts were made in 2003 but were successfully blocked by mass protests. The SNSO complements the NSL by adding five new offences—treason, insurrection and incitement to mutiny, espionage and
theft of state secrets, sabotage, and external interference—some of which carry potential life sentences. Additionally, it extends the detention period for suspects and grants the authorities greater power to suppress political organizations accused of colluding with foreign forces.
The Justification: Strengthening Stability and Sovereignty
Supporters of these laws argue they are necessary to safeguard national security and political stability. From Beijing’s perspective, Hong Kong has been a site of external interference, with pro-democracy activists frequently collaborating with Western organisations and politicians to challenge the mainland government. By specifically targeting collusion with foreign forces and external interference, the NSL and SNSO aim to end these practices, ensuring that only those loyal to China’s interests influence the region’s political landscape.
Furthermore, many proponents point to the fact that other countries, including those critical of the law, have similar legislation. For instance, the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001, introduced in the
wake of 9/11, grants broad surveillance powers to authorities in the name of national security. Both the Patriot Act and the NSL share provisions that expand governmental authority, limit certain civil liberties, and criminalise acts deemed as threats to state stability. This comparison suggests that the NSL is not an unprecedented authoritarian move but rather a reflection of global trends in national security governance.
The Counterargument: A Threat to Freedoms and Economic Autonomy
Despite these justifications, critics argue that the NSL and SNSO severely undermine fundamental human rights—particularly freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. The fear is that these laws will be used to silence dissent, with political opponents facing the threat of persecution or imprisonment under vaguely defined offences. Additionally, concerns persist that the central government may abuse its expanded powers to extradite pro-democracy activists to mainland China, where the legal system lacks the same guarantees of a fair trial as Hong Kong’s independent judiciary.
Beyond human rights concerns, the economic ramifications could be severe. Historically, Hong Kong’s success as a global financial hub has depended on its legal and economic autonomy, which set it apart from the more state-controlled mainland economy. The ‘one country, two systems’ framework reassured international investors that Hong Kong was a safe and predictable place to conduct business. However, as Beijing strengthens its grip, this special status may be at risk. Already, major corporations and financial institutions are reassessing their presence in the city, with some relocating to Singapore or other Asian markets that offer greater political stability and legal transparency. Furthermore, leading Western countries have condemned the implementation of these laws, and the potential for economic sanctions, or diplomatic isolation, could further harm Hong
Kong’s global standing. If Hong Kong is perceived as losing its autonomy, its attractiveness to investors may decline, undermining one of its greatest economic strengths.
The Future of ‘One Country, Two Systems’
The introduction and expansion of national security legislation in Hong Kong mark a turning point in the region’s relationship with Beijing. While the laws have been justified in the name of stability, they also signal a clear shift toward a more centralised governance model that could ultimately dissolve the distinctions between Hong Kong and the mainland.
As the world watches, the key question remains: is Hong Kong on the path to becoming just another Chinese city, or can it maintain its unique identity within the framework of ‘one country, two systems’? The answer will determine not only Hong Kong’s political future but also its standing as an international financial powerhouse.
Political Partnerships: A New Chapter in RussiaNorth Korea Relations
In Pyongyang, on June 19, 2024, the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty was signed by North Korea and Russia — it was founded on mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interference in internal affairs from the respective nations.
Lara C
It came after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to deepen Russian ties with North Korea. Historically, North Korea and Russia have shared a deep-rooted alliance since the Cold War era, with the Soviet Union financially supporting North Korea throughout the Korean War. However, these ties have weakened until recently, where they have strengthened, resulting in shared anti-Western ideologies. The central elements of this treaty align with the core interests of the two leaders, Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, who aim to achieve regional power. Under these conditions, they committed to developing a comprehensive partnership centered supporting friendly relations and cooperation as well as provisions concerning immediate forms of assistance, particularly military, in case either party is a victim of armed attacks, stipulated in United Nations Charter by Article 51.
Furthermore, the clauses aim to lead the DPRKRussia relations to a stage of consolidation which enhances international harmony and prosperity by strengthening bilateral relations. While expanding cooperation in several fields, such as science and technology, actively encouraging joint research in space, biology, AI, peaceful nuclear energy, and many more.
Notably, ties will consolidate to efficiently exchange and cooperate in agriculture, education, health, sports, culture, and tourism. The treaty further emphasizes energy and resources collaboration, planning to significantly develop oil, gas, and renewable energy projects to aid the economy of both nations. Trade and economic enhancement are key to the agreement, focusing on improving supply chains and contrasting economic areas to counteract internal sanctions. Infrastructure modernization, such as railways, ports, and digital connectivity, is a central feature to promote integration within the region — and in regards to the defense and security cooperation, there is an assertion to concentrate efforts to
expand through their military training, mutual technological advancements, and joint efforts to strengthen their defense. Humanitarian assistance is reserved for food security, effective disaster management, and public healthcare. Strategically, the agreement mentions collaboration in a number of forms to reduce Western influence. Finally, commitments to formulate a sustainable development plan involving climate change mitigation, environmental preservation, and clean energy supplies highlight the comprehensive nature of Russia and North Korea’s partnership.
of international sanctions following its invasion of Ukraine. Both nations’ anti-Western ideologies cause them to encounter isolation from the global community, making their partnership mutually beneficial under many aspects. The treaty aligns with Russia’s geopolitical goals by bolstering military cooperation, enhancing economic resilience, and enabling both nations to challenge the Western-dominated global order — also strengthening Russia’s presence in the AsiaPacific region, serving as a counterbalance to U.S. and allied forces.
North Korea significant benefits by addressing its economical and diplomatic challenges through this strategica treaty. Economically, it provides access to a multitude of resources, unmatchable technogical advancements , and potential trade with Russia, helping to mitigate the effects of international sanctions and domestic shortages. Concerning security, the military cooperation and mutual defense provisions bolster North Korea’s deterrence capabilities against perceived threats from the United States and South Korea. Diplomatically, the partnership strengthens North Korea’s international standing by aligning
to react with increased military preparedness and tighter sanctions, potentially escalating the arms race in the region. This alliance could also prompt further alignment among Western and Asian powers to counter the emerging DPRKRussia bloc, raising the risk of conflict.
Implementing the treaty faces logistical challenges in trade and resource sharing due to sanctions and infrastructure limitations. The alliance might strain Russia’s relationship with China, as Beijing could view Moscow’s closer ties with Pyongyang as a threat to its regional interests. Both countries also risk further isolation and intensified international sanctions, which could exacerbate their economic struggles. Additionally, over-reliance on each other might expose vulnerabilities if the partnership fails to deliver tangible benefits, leading to internal dissatisfaction or mistrust.
Korea, placing Pyongyang as a central player in undermining the Western-led global system. The treaty is bound to disrupt the security balance in Northeast Asia by deepening militarization and increasing tensions within the region. It could embolden North Korea to adopt a more aggressive stance against South Korea and the U.S., given its enhanced security guarantees from Russia. China may view the treaty cautiously, aiming to maintain its influence over Pyongyang while avoiding heightened regional instability. The U.S. and South Korea are likely
The relationship between Russia and North Korea has fluctuated over time, rooted in their Cold War alliance when the Soviet Union heavily supported North Korea economically and militarily. After the Soviet collapse, ties weakened as Russia shifted its focus to economic reforms and relations with the West. However, recent geopolitical tensions have revived their partnership, driven by shared anti-Western sentiments and mutual strategic interests. Unlike past cooperation, the current treaty reflects a more comprehensive and long-term alignment, encompassing economic, technological, and military domains, highlighting the urgency of their mutual needs amid global isolation.
This treaty signals a shift in global alliances, emphasizing a growing divide between Western nations and an emerging bloc of isolated powers. The global community should respond with strategic diplomacy, enhanced regional security measures, and efforts to address underlying tensions to prevent further destabilisation.
Breaking Free: Australia’s Path to a Republic
Ben H
Australia and the UK have had a deep-rooted relationship ever since Lieutenant James Cook landed on the shores of Australia in 1770. However, despite Britain’s best efforts to keep a firm grip over Australia, there have been serious doubts over whether the people of Australia still want a British Head of State as King of Australia. To demonstrate how intertwined both countries have become since the unpopular colonisation, here are some examples. Australia fought alongside Britain in both World Wars, the UK had legislative control over Australia until the Statute of Westminster (1931), and it was not until the Australia Act (1986) that all legal ties were cut off, giving Australia full control over its courts and law-making processes. This marked the beginning of the political separation and the brewing confusion over why Australia has constitutional ties to the British monarchy.
It is important to remember that this question has always been asked, and that the Queen’s death was not the spark that started this debate. In 1999, Australia held a Republican Referendum which asked whether Australia should become a republic and, more importantly, replace the Monarch with an Australian Head of State. The proposal was defeated but the result was quite close, with 55% voting to retain the constitutional monarchy. If Australia was to vote again, a referendum would be used in the same way. However, the more important question is why do some Australians want to become a Republic and why do others want to remain with the Monarchy?
a dual citizen or a citizen of any other nation, which raises the question of why a British monarch, born into the role, receives the title King of Australia. Heritage and belonging are very important to Australians because they are very proud of their native Aboriginals which had been settled in Australia long before the British colonised the island. They want to bring to light their ancestor’s livelihood and by removing the ‘colonisers’. Republicans believe they can further educate Australians of their past but also take control of their future and choose their own destiny.
The overarching reason why some Australians want to get rid of a constitutional monarchy is that their Head of State is not Australian and does not live in Australia. Therefore, they cannot relate to their head of state. Furthermore, the Australian people did not have a say over who their Head of State is, which causes outrage. Partly because to become a member of the Australian Parliament, you must be an Australian Citizen. Moreover, you cannot be
However, making drastic changes to the constitution would be confusing and difficult, so let’s break it down. According to the Australia Republic Movement (ARM), the Australian Choice Model is the plan for the transition from the constitutional monarchy to a modern Republic if voted for by the people. The basics are that the Head of State must be Australian, the Australian people will vote through an election for this person through their conventional compulsory voting system which ensures high participation numbers.
The punishment for not voting without a valid reason is a small fine, which ensures that everybody has a voice in a free and fair election. The candidates for Head of State will be put forward by the Federal, State and Territory Parliaments, given that this Head of State will be representing Australia to the world they will be acting on advice of the Government. Limited powers would be granted for the function of Government and Parliament. The Head of State will be accountable like any other politician in a democracy and will serve 5-year terms with a maximum of two terms.
Under the Australian Choice Model the PM would have the formal role of administering the nation and setting the policy agenda. Finally, oaths and affirmations will be sworn to Australia, its people and the Constitution and laws of the nation.
The headline for ARM’s plan was ‘The primary barrier to Australia becoming a republic is not the British monarchy, but uncertainty’. This suggests that ARM believes the lack of progress toward a Republic is due to public misinformation, as they also quoted that 92% of Australians are open to the idea of a Republic. However, they also reported that when they presented the model to the public who took the survey in 2020 and 2021, support varied between one-third and two-thirds in favour. Overall, the
ARM’s findings suggest it would be a victory for Republicanism; however, the electorate must be provided with all the facts and not just read what’s on the surface.
For example, what requirements does an Australian Head of State need to fulfil? How does the first Head of State remain politically neutral, because if they campaign for the role how are they going to convince the public to vote for them if they do not express their views? Another reason why this transition may be controversial is the hit to the already struggling budget. Referendums are costly and if the result remains the same it may lead to backlash from the public. As part of the model, each State and Territory Parliament nominates one candidate, which could lead to divided support. This raises concerns about a Head of State elected by a small majority, potentially creating civil unrest. These are only some of the questions I’m sure all Australians would like to know the answer to and maybe Australia is still far away from altering its constitution and changing its nation’s course indefinitely.
Domesticated Zebras
Could Colonised Nations Have Colonised Britain?
A Historical Reflection
Aashi P
How Britain Made the Modern World as “the empire on which the sun never set,” has left a lasting mark on world history. Its dominance arose from a combination of geography, technology, political organisation, and historical contingencies. Could history have taken a different course? Might the nations that Britain colonised- India, African kingdoms, or others - have risen to colonise Britain instead?
Geography: The Role of Natural Advantages
Britain’s geographical position had enormous advantages. Being an island country, it was protected from continental invasions from 1066 onwards, allowing it to concentrate on naval power. Its temperate climate allowed for reliable agricultural yields, while access to the Atlantic placed it at the centre of world trade during the Age of Exploration.
In contrast, many areas colonised had very difficult environments that inhibited large-scale settlement. Jared Diamond, in Guns, Germs, and Steel, pointed out how the geographical configuration of Africa, along with diseases such as malaria, posed an obstacle to political centralisation and maritime expansion. In addition, the impossibility of domesticating animals like the zebra—a species that refused to be tamed due to its character and natural defences—precluded the development of transport and farming systems like those found in Eurasia, where horses and oxen played the main role.
The Zebra Paradox: Why Some Animals Shaped Empires
The role of domesticated animals is crucial to understanding the differing trajectories of global societies. For example, horses were fundamental to Britain’s rise as an empire. Domesticated thousands of years earlier in the Eurasian steppe, horses revolutionised agriculture, warfare, and transportation, thus enabling societies to expand their influence. They were powerful, trainable, and social animals that responded well to human control.
Zebras, on the other hand, were a different story altogether. Native to Africa, zebras seemed like promising candidates for domestication since they are closely related to horses. However, they proved impossible to domesticate. They are more skittish in temperament, prone to panic, and overly aggressive when confined. Zebras had natural defences against predators, including
a powerful kick and a tendency to bite, making them unsuitable for agricultural or military uses. This difference had profound implications.
As Jared Diamond points out, the absence of domesticated animals like horses in Africa prevented African societies from developing large-scale farming and transportation networks. In contrast, Eurasian societies harnessed horses not only for agriculture but also for cavalry, which became a decisive factor in military conquests.
When Britain deployed cavalry and horsedrawn technology in colonised regions, it had an overwhelming advantage over societies that lacked comparable resources.
If African societies had been able to domesticate zebras or other animals of equal capability, they would likely have constructed infrastructure and military systems at least on par with those of the powers of Eurasia, thus perhaps turning the colonial tables.
Technological Innovation and Industrialisation
The technological edge that enabled Britain to dominate colonised nations stemmed largely from the Industrial Revolution. Innovations such as James Watt’s improved steam engine (1776) and mechanised textile production in the late 18th century, gave Britain an unparalleled economic and military advantage. Niall Ferguson emphasises in Empire that Britain’s ability to produce advanced weaponry, such as the Maxim gun, was a decisive factor in its imperial conquests.
Yet, colonised regions were not without technological prowess. For instance, during the Mughal era, India was a world leader in textile production. There were also technological achievements to be found in Africa, such as the advanced ironworking techniques of the Nok culture. But according to historian Kenneth Pomeranz’s argument in The Great Divergence, Europe’s access to coal and colonial resources provided a unique combination of factors that accelerated industrialisation.
Britain: Mother of the Free?
Britain – Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free, how shall we extol thee, who are born of thee? While patriotism might not be in vogue in modern Europe, most find comfort in our robust systems of democracy, freedom of speech, and the rule of law.
In the usual meanderings at the annual Munich Security Conference, “extolling” the Western model of democracy would be the agenda for the day. If you were an Afghan or an Iraqi, would you have found that patronising? Perhaps. But few within the small Western bubble dared to turn this accusation on its head in such a manner as J.D. Vance, where “extolling” is out, and confrontation, is in. Europe is “retreating… from some of its most fundamental values,” gripes Vance. Cue consternation and cries of hypocrisy: the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, accused the Vice President of trying to “pick a fight with us.”
Now this is far from an endorsement of Vance’s speech, or the broader views of MAGA America. But Vance does have a point: European countries are far from the liberal democracies they label themselves as. Britain has demonstrated an alarming lack of respect for individual liberties. Through the 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, and the 2023 Public Order Act, the police have been able to shut down any demonstration that they, the government, or the media, consider unwelcome. Ironically, they have been mostly used against Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain, which would have been welcomed by Vance as they are part of the “leftist woke climate agenda” after all.
The measures and penalties are remarkable. Participants in peaceful marches have been condemned to six months in prison, five years in prison for discussing a demonstration on a Zoom call. Prosecuted for attempting to defend themselves in court, or for rightly reminding juries that they have the right to express their consciences. All these peaceful protesters are threatened with ten years in prison for the incredibly nebulous crime of “public nuisance.” That is more than what most violent or sexual offenders would get. By comparison, the maximum penalty imposed on suffragettes 120 years ago—who used more extreme measures than today’s climate protesters—were three months.
A Freedom of Information request to the Home Office revealed that more than 85% of marches banned in the last 30 years were proposed by far-right groups. The prospect that the power to ban any march is at the discretion of the Home Secretary is already alarming enough. But those who thought this would be applied sparingly and impartially will find themselves to have placed the wrong amount of trust in our government.
Abroad, Britain was once a leader in attacking dictators and authoritarian regimes through NATO interventions in Kosovo, or sanctioning Putin over the war in Ukraine. But in a period of unprecedented security and economic instability, Starmer’s government finds comfort in closer ties to Xi’s China.
This is a striking U-turn in China policy from that of the hawkish Johnson and Sunak governments and makes us an outlier among many European countries. Starmer seems to have forgotten why things have gone downhill since Cameron and Xi shared a warm pint in a pub back in 2015. In recent years, China has initiated a genocide of Uyghurs in the region of Xinjiang, and a complete crackdown on a flourishing democracy in Hong Kong; closer to home, China has been accused of setting up overseas “police stations” to monitor dissent, send spies to befriend unwitting royals, successfully breaching the voting register in a cyber security attack, and financing Putin’s war on Ukraine, to list but a few.
Yet, the PM is spearheading a pro-China policy. He and his ministers have been flocking to meet Chinese ministers in his first few months in power while refusing to publicly condemn the Hong Kong crackdown. In return for the investment the government is seeking from China, Xi personally intervened to press for Westminster’s approval of a new super-embassy at Royal Mint Court, a historic site near the Tower of London.
This would turn 20,000 sq metres of land at Royal Mint Court into the largest embassy in Europe. China bought the site in 2018, but Tower Hamlets council refused planning permission in 2022 citing a range of concerns, including the impact of large protests at the site, and fear of surveillance of residents from the embassy.
The lack of a suitable demonstration area was reflected in a 1,000-strong protest against the proposal, with protesters spilling onto Tower Bridge Road, paralysing traffic. Speaking at the protest was senior MP in the Conservative Party, Tom Tugendhat, who told reporters:
“The reality is some people made decisions in 2010, 2013, you can understand at the time. You can see the hopefulness and the optimism with which they approached it…to have that same optimism in 2025? It is not optimism anymore, that is just a wilful ignorance.”
reconsidering their ties to the BRI, suspending infrastructure projects financed by Chinese companies, or even initiating outright hostility in the case of the Philippines. No country is still foolish enough to succumb to China’s imperialist ambitions by blindly signing onto debt traps or importing spyware-laden electronics.
This makes Britain the odd one out. But £600m will be a major “boost for growth” says Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
“Well, can we still sing Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free at the Proms?”
Still, cabinet ministers Yvette Cooper and David Lammy have signalled their support for the proposal and a local inquiry hearing has begun.
To press on with the “super-embassy” using such autocratic methods of overriding democratically elected councils, and protesters is deeply concerning. It is also against global headwinds where countries are increasingly turning their backs on Chinese investments.
In Europe, Italy withdrew from the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2023, while Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania exited the 17+1 cooperation framework with China, citing concerns over unequal economic relations and reflecting a shift towards aligning more closely with European Union policies.
Even in South-East Asia, traditional allies of China including Cambodia (Washington labelled it a “Chinese satrapy”, or client-state, as recently as during Trump’s first term), and Vietnam, are
£600m? In a letter to the FT, Graham Stevens from London has gratefully pointed out that “£600mn over five years is less than £2 a head per annum — less than a takeaway coffee.” £600m is what we get by sacrificing our “fundamental values”, refusing to stand up to a dictator, and exposing our security to an autocratic communist state. One may even start to wonder why Starmer is not accused of being a Chinese asset when Trump is being called a Russian one!
“Well, can we still sing Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free at the Proms?” I hear you ask.
Can we still claim to be free, and a protector of the free world? Certainly, many people around the world still look to Britain as the role model for democracy and freedom, just ask the 200,000 people who migrated to the UK from Hong Kong in the past few years. But our liberties are in retreat, albeit slowly and steadily, and our government has lost its will to stand up to human rights abusers in a desperate bid for growth, not least in China, but also in Gaza and Saudi Arabia.
There will come a time when we find autocracy has crept and caught up to us, by then, it will be too late. Yet, sometimes, we need to heed our critics, however ridiculous they may sound, however brash they may be, and stand fast by the freedoms and liberties that we hold dear.
First term of Harold Wilson & attempted 1960s coup against him
Georgii S
Nowadays, the name of Harold Wilson speaks little to the younger generation, yet back in the 1960s -1970s, he was a big figure in the world of politics, whose actions shaped the future of the nation. While under his premiership some major changes occurred in the societal structure and economic development of Britain, certain powerful individuals and organisations were greatly dissatisfied with his performance. Among them, there were military men, intelligent service officers, even members of the Royal Family.
Some of them suspected Wilson of spying for the USSR, and it was a matter of extreme urgency and necessity to remove this Labour politician from the Downing Street by any means available. Some journalists (e.g. Barrie Penrose) claim that not only were there thoughts of overthrowing Wilson, but there was also an active preparation of a coup and extensive hybrid pressure on the Prime Minister. So, what were the reasons behind this confrontation and what was it expressed in? Harold Wilson became a Labour Party leader in 1963, following the death of his predecessor Hugh Gaitskell. At this point, the Conservative government, despite generally fine economic performance and consensus with Labour on development of welfare, was losing its popularity due to the overall tiredness of the voters following over a decade of Tories’ dominance, as well as due to such infamous scandals as the Profumo Scandal (A War Secretary was revealed to have extramarital affairs with a woman who herself was a friend of a Soviet attaché). Thanks to these circumstances, under Wilson’s leadership, his party managed to win the General Eections of 1964 by a little margin, following a close and competitive race.
During his first term as a Prime Minister, Wilson focused on modernising Britain and improving living conditions of its people. As a Labour politician, he believed in the importance of governmental interventions for the public good. During his first premiership, the Ministry of Technology, it was headed by Tony Benn
— a politician with views close to Democratic Socialism, a party’s prominent left-wing member. Furthermore, Wilson nationalised the country’s steel production in the Iron & Steel Act 1967, creating the British Steel Corporation. In 1968, Girobank was founded. It was controlled by General Post Office and rapidly became widely used by working-class people. Housing was also actively developing: 1.3 million new homes were constructed in just 5 years from 1965-1970. A large new town named Milton Keynes was founded in Buckinghamshire. In terms of taxation, new taxes, such as Corporate and Capital Gain taxes were introduced; the top rate of taxation was raised to 83% for those earning over £20,000. At the same time, income tax was abolished for the least-paid workers. Liberal legislation was established. The Race Relation Act of 1968 made it illegal to refuse provision of public services, housing and employment based on race, ethnicity or religious belief. The Equal Pay Act 1970 prevented discrimination regarding conditions of employment between men and women.
The results of Wilson’s policies during a little less than six years of his first time in office sparked controversy. On the one hand, the standard of living improved for millions of Britons. The net number of cars on roads increased by 3 million; refrigerator possession increased from 39% to 59%; washing machines possession rose from 54% to 64%. The income of the least-paid individuals doubled and the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest ones significantly narrowed.
On the other hand, the country faced some serious challenges. A large deficit inherited from previous Conservative governments, made Wilson devalue the pound in 1967, despite his initial opposition. Consequently, the international role of British currency fell. While staying low, unemployment increased from 1.6% in 1964 to 2.5% in 1970. Riots against support for the Vietnam war were raging all over the country, with the 1968 Grosvenor Square Riots being the most famous; many people were injured, many more were arrested. Violence in Northern Ireland was on the rise. The Battle of the Bogside resulting in formation of an Irish Nationalist stronghold in Londonderry, a sign of the beginning of the Troubles.
Some of the wealthiest and most powerful Britons were greatly concerned about these events, as well as the 33% loss of their revenue due to new taxation and rapid loss of the last of British colonial possessions. Moreover, some prominent figures in the CIA, such as Chief of the Counter Intelligence department James Jesus Angleton, were suspecting Wilson of being a puppet of the Kremlin.
Based on a leak from a KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, they assumed that former Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell was assassinated by Soviet Intelligence Services and replaced by Wilson. It is known that some of the most powerful people in Britain were at least thinking about overthrowing Wilson via a military coup. Cecil Harmsworth King, a chairman of a powerful media empire, International Publishing Company, and a director of the Bank of England, had a meeting with Lord Mountbatten,
a former Chief of the Defence Staff, discussing a possibility of a military coup against Wilson, which would lead the former to become a head of a new government.
It can’t be stated undoubtedly, what was the response of Mountbatten. According to Hugh Cudlipp, a chairman of the Daily Mirror, who as a right-hand man of Cecil King was present at the meeting, Mountbatten declined an offer claiming that it was a treachery
However, the response of Mountbatten might have been far less unambiguous. Moreover, Mountbatten was not just interested in participating in a possible government but even promoting certain figures to it. Some of the most notable of them were Air ViceMarshal Deryck Stapleton; Dr. Beeching, a director of the Lloyds Bank and a former British Railways chairman; William Armstrong, Head of the Home Civil Service; Alec Douglas-Home, a former
Soon, Cecil King attempted to publish his own article calling for an overthrowing of Harold Wilson’s government by any means necessary, yet the attempt failed drastically, and he was dismissed from his position of an IPC chair by the board. Later, in 1970, the Conservatives won the General Election, so, for a while, the idea of a coup was abandoned.
Edward Heath became a new Prime Minister. His premiership was marked by rise of sectarian violence in Ulster, constant miners’ strikes, worsening the energy crisis caused by extreme oil prices, and inconsistent economic policies. All this led to Harold Wilson returning to 10 Downing Street in 1974, following an
The Mafia in Politics
A Dangerous Intersection of Crime and Power
Tilly K
Tilly K
The relationship between organised crime and politics has long been a subject of intrigue, fear, and fascination. The term “mafia” often brings to mind images of shadowy figures operating behind the scenes, exerting control over illicit businesses, and influencing decisions through intimidation and corruption. However, the intersection of the mafia and politics goes beyond mere cinematic portrayals; it is a complex and often deadly reality in many parts of the world, where the pursuit of power and the thirst for financial gain can lead to alliances that undermine democratic institutions, the rule of law, and public trust.
When criminal groups infiltrate political systems, the consequences are far-reaching
The term “mafia” refers to various criminal organisations that operate with the aim of securing wealth, power, and control through illicit means. Originating in Italy with the Sicilian Mafia, the term has expanded to numerous similar organisations across the globe, such as the Russian mafia, the Mexican cartels, and others. These groups are involved in a variety of illegal activities, including drug trafficking, money laundering, extortion, arms dealing, and more. The core characteristic of these organisations is their use of violence, and corruption to maintain power and expand their influence. In many cases, these criminal organisations do not operate in isolation; they seek to infiltrate political systems to safeguard their interests. This infiltration can range
from influencing local elections, to holding sway over national government policies. The mafia often targets politicians who are vulnerable to bribery or blackmail, and they are skilled at manipulating political figures for their own ends.
The connections between the mafia and politics have been clear throughout history, particularly in regions where corruption is
uncontrolled, and governance is weak. One of the most notorious examples is the role of the Sicilian Mafia in post-World War II Italy. During this time, the mafia formed alliances with certain political parties, providing them with electoral support in exchange for favours and protection. Mafioso figures often operated as political influences, helping to ensure that their preferred candidates were elected to office. In turn, these politicians provided the mafia with the freedom to conduct their criminal operations without interference. In the United States, particularly in cities like New York, Chicago, and New Orleans, mafia organisations were deeply involved in politics from the early 20th century. Politicians, especially those with close ties to urban machine politics, often relied on mafiabacked support to secure votes. The mafia, in return, received protection and the ability to operate freely within certain jurisdictions. This cooperative relationship allowed criminal organisations to thrive while politicians gained power and influence. The infamous “bosses” like John Gotti and others were often seen as not just criminals but as influential figures in their communities, capable of swaying elections and government decisions. The mafia employs several methods to gain political power and influence. These mechanisms often overlap and vary in their enforcement, depending on the local political and social context. Some of the primary
methods include bribery and corruption, this is the most direct method of mafia influence. Politicians who are susceptible to bribery may accept kickbacks in exchange for legislation, government contracts, or protection from law enforcement. In some cases, mafia groups provide funds for political campaigns, ensuring that candidates who will further their interests gain office.
The mafia’s ability to use violence or the threat of violence is a potent tool in securing political outcomes. Criminal organisations may intimidate voters, threaten political rivals, or even assassinate politicians who stand in The mafia’s ability to use violence or the threat of violence is a potent tool in securing political outcomes. Criminal organisations may intimidate voters, threaten political rivals, or even assassinate politicians who stand in their way. The fear of retribution forces many to comply with mafia demands.
Politicians with mafia connections may assist in laundering money, or shielding illegal financial transactions from authorities. By facilitating the movement of funds, politicians help mafia organisations clean the money from their criminal activities, making it harder for law enforcement to trace. For example, Al Capone and laundromats.
Once in power, politicians with mafia ties may grant criminal organisations control over certain public resources, such as land, construction projects, or access to state-funded programs. This enables the mafia to expand its operations while helping politicians maintain power and build loyalty among their criminal allies.
The intersection of the mafia and politics can have devastating effects on society when criminal operations gain control over political systems, undermine the rule of law and fuel a culture where some could be exempt from punishment. Citizens who are aware of the mafia’s influence may lose faith in the political system, feeling that their own votes and voices do not matter
and corruption, hindering development. Moreover, the association between the mafia and politics furthers an environment of violence and fear. Politicians who resist mafia control often face threats to their lives, while ordinary citizens may suffer from the consequences of mafia-run illegal activities.
The long-term impact is a cycle of instability and violence, which can destroy a society’s ability to progress and thrive.
While the alliance between the mafia and politics has often been a persistent problem, efforts to combat this relationship have been made in many countries. Anti-mafia movements, reforms to electoral systems, and crackdowns on corrupt politicians have been successful in weakening mafia influence in some regions. For instance, Italy’s longstanding fight against the mafia, particularly after the murders of anti-mafia prosecutors like Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, has led to some progress in undermining the power of organised crime in politics. In other countries, however, the mafia’s influence remains strong, often due to weak legal systems, lack of political will, or corruption. Political leaders who genuinely seek to fight the mafia face enormous challenges, as the criminal organisations have vast resources, loyal allies, and the ability to instigate violence.
because corrupt politicians and criminal organisations are the ones truly in control. Mafia influence can also lead to significant economic damage. Criminal groups often control industries, inflate prices, and exploit workers, which stifles competition and innovation. The mafia’s ability to control key sectors of the economy and manipulate government contracts can create inefficiency
The mafia’s role in politics is a dangerous and insidious phenomenon that undermines democracy, encourages corruption, and destabilises society. When criminal groups infiltrate political systems, the consequences are far-reaching, as they destroy trust in governance, fuel economic inequality, and enforce violence. While progress has been made in some countries, the struggle to sever the ties between crime and politics continues to be one of the greatest challenges facing modern democracies. Ultimately, ensuring that politics remain free from mafia influence requires a commitment to transparency, accountability, and the rule of law—values that must be upheld by both politicians and citizens alike.
ROE V. WADE
In 1969, a 25-year-old woman named Norma McCorvey used the name ‘Jane Roe’ to challenge the criminal abortion laws in Texas. The state had declared abortion unconstitutional except in cases where the mother’s life was in danger. The district attorney for Dallas County, who defended the antiabortion law, was Henry Wade.
Abi C
Norma McCorvey was pregnant with her third child and claimed that it was due to rape (but later recanted this). She filed a case for abortion, but this was rejected and so McCorvey was forced to give birth. In 1973, her appeal made it to the U.S. Supreme Court alongside a 20-year-old woman from Georgia called Sandra Bensing. They argued that abortion laws in Texas and Georgia went against the U.S. Constitution because they infringed on a woman’s right to privacy.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that governments lacked the power to prohibit abortions. They judged that a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy was constitutionally protected.
On 24 June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. This came because of the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, which challenged the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks.
This case was the first major abortion rights challenge with the three newest justices, all conservatives appointed by Donald Trump. The court heard oral arguments in the case on 1 December 2021. There was a leak of a draft opinion in the case which suggested that the justices were prepared to overturn the case. It was said that Roe effectively invalidated state laws that banned the procedure outright and sparked decades of religious and moral conflict over women’s bodies. Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned Roe. This decision forced many pregnant women to carry their pregnancies to term unless they were able to travel to states where abortion protections were in place. Not only did the ruling ban abortions in many states, but it also criminalised abortion care.
As a result of the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, one year later, 14 states (most of the South) put in place near-total bans from the moment of conception. This means that about 22 million women now live in a state where abortion is banned, stripping millions of their
human rights. However, many progressive states run by Democrats, such as California and Colorado, have introduced stronger legal protections. Fewer abortions have taken place, with 24,290 fewer legal abortions between July 2022 and March 2023 compared to one million in 2020. However, this doesn’t account for all of them. Banning abortions primarily bans safe ones, forcing thousands of women to carry out undocumented, unsafe abortions that puts them at a higher risk of death and infection. Many marginalised groups, including women of colour and low-income individuals, have been disproportionately affected due to financial and logistical barriers that make it difficult to travel out of state for reproductive healthcare. Ultimately, in the U.S., abortion is no longer a constitutional right, and the power to regulate it now lies with individual states. However, many argue that abortion is grounded in the right to privacy and that the Supreme Court should not make decisions about a woman’s body. It removes the right for a person to make decisions on their own body, instead treating them as vessels for reproduction rather than actual human beings. The overturning of Roe v. Wade puts the U.S. a step backwards in the fight for gender equality, as without control over reproductive rights, women will face greater challenges in fully participating in society as equals.
The assisted dying bill
Backbencher Labour MP Kim Leadbeater introduced the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which proposes giving terminally ill people the right to choose to end their life. This bill is very intriguing as it is a private members’ bill which has less parliamentary time, therefore rarely gets passed and become law. Many find the bill a highly controversial issue as MPs were divided due to the moral, ethical, and political factors, which contributed to the significant debate in the House of Commons.
Brindaa P
The proposed legislation states that anyone who want to request aid from a doctor to end their life must: be over 18 and live in England or Wales, and have been registered with a GP for at least 12 months, have the mental ability to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled, and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure. They must be expected to die within six months, make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die, satisfy 2 independent doctors that they are eligible - with at least seven days between each assessment.
On the 29th of November 2024, the Bill’s second reading had taken place where members of Parliament vote on whether to allow the Bill to continue to the next stage. MPs backed the Bill by 330 to 275 and the vote was a free vote which meant that the parties did not tell their members which way to decide. Now the Bill will be scrutinised at committee stage, where it will be scrutinised by a smaller group of MPs.
The debate:
Those in favour of the bill argue that people who are dying deserve the right to die with dignity. Campaigners like Dignity in Dying argue that those with any terminal illness and are mentally competent adults deserve the choice to control the timing and manner of their death. For those with terminal conditions that cause unbelievable physical and psychological suffering, allowing assisted dying can prevent unnecessary pain and any loss of that individual’s quality of life.
Kim Leadbeater has ensured that her legislation would feature the ‘strictest protections’ so there are clear and strict safeguards and regulations including ensuring the decision was voluntary and there was no coercion to prevent any abuse. There are also precedents in other countries like Canada,
Switzerland, and the Netherlands where there is the legalisation of assisted dying, therefore providing a guide for how a system can be safely implemented.
A majority of the public seem to support assisted dying. A YouGov poll showed that 78% of people supported assisted dying in principle and practice, while 13% opposed assisted dying in principle and practice.
On the other hand, those against the Assisted Dying Bill raise moral and ethical concerns, like how legalising assisted dying could undermine the value of life. Those from a religious or philosophical standpoint argue that life is sacred and should not be intentionally ended. The Archbishop of Canterbury had called the idea of assisted dying ‘dangerous’ and suggested it would lead to a ‘slippery slope’ where more people would feel compelled to have their life ended medically.
Opponents of the Bill argue legalising assisted dying could open potential abuse and coercion and that more focus should be placed on improving palliative care options. Many critics fear that family members, or even healthcare providers, could influence a person’s decision - particularly when it comes to financial, or emotional burdens.
Others are concerned with some of the unintended consequences such as a reduction in the perceived value of life, or increased rates of suicide as many individuals may feel that they are a burden. In addition, there are also concerns about the devaluation of the elderly or disabled in society because of the Bill.
Overall, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is complex and controversial as there are advocates that highlight individual rights whilst there are opponents that emphasise the ethical and moral concerns. The next stage of the Bill will allow more intense scrutiny allowing for more questioning and professional opinions.
Should the assisted dying bill be passed?
Assisted dying is often described as ‘shortening death’ rather than ‘shortening life’. While society has long accepted euthanasia for animals to relieve suffering, this option has not been extended to humans, sparking significant ethical and legal debate.
Traditionally, the focus was on using medicine to alleviate pain rather than ending life, but this approach often fails to relieve suffering. However, when medicine fails to relieve discomfort and quality of life deteriorates, it can feel as though we are prolonging suffering rather than alleviating it.
The Assisted-Dying Bill has allowed adults 18 or over who are mentally capable, terminally ill and in their final six months of life, to seek medical aid to end their life. The Bill states that two doctors must assess the individual’s voluntary and informed decision at least seven days apart, then a 14-day reflection period follows the
court’s approval (this can be reduced to 48 hours if death is imminent). After this, the person must make a second request to confirm their decision. If the doctor confirms the criteria are still met a self-administered life-ending substance would be prescribed. The Suicide Act 1961 would be amended to exclude acts within the Bill’s framework to prevent criminal or civil liability.
2/3 of people in the UK believe that the AssistedDying Bill is a positive advancement and that the safeguarding involved makes it as sound of a procedure as possible. Specific criteria must be met which prevents people from abusing this power and families trying to force loved
Tilly G
ones to prematurely end their lives. They are all terminally ill and in their last 6 months of life and so the Bill is seen to be a fairer way to pass as the pain and suffering they would experience is not worth using extraneous circumstances to keep them alive.
Some may argue that there is a religious aspect involved in reasons to keep on fighting, however, some priests agree there is nothing sacred in dying and so denying the Bill refuses a person’s autonomy. They also believe that alleviating suffering through assisted dying aligns with religious principles of compassion and care. Yet, in some interpretations of Christianity and Hinduism, enduring suffering is seen as a pathway to spiritual growth, or form of penance. A decade ago, doctors were stating that ‘I didn’t become a doctor to kill people’. This demonstrates that doctors have historically been apprehensive of the idea and that they do not fully support the Bill as it goes against their morals of becoming a doctor. However, many argue that ensuring comfort in death is more compassionate than prolonging life with invasive medical interventions that may not effectively relieve pain.
Lots of countries have already implemented similar laws and none of them have chosen to reverse it. Furthermore, few people in these countries have used such laws and so it shows that people are not abusing the power. Although, the Canadian parliamentary officer estimated that assisted dying would save the health care sector $86.9 million. This could create concerns about patients feeling pressured by the law, or medical professionals, to end their lives prematurely. The government is also seen to not protect vulnerable people properly and so by introducing this Bill it could mean that there is much more vulnerability to those who lost their own voice and say in their own health.
The Assisted Dying Bill raises important questions about its compatibility with the ECHR and the HRA. The Bill conflicts with Article
2 - ‘Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by the law’ as it involves facilitating the ending of life and the ECHR has ruled that the state has a positive obligation to protect life. This would mean that the Bill could not be passed. However, the ECHR recognises that states have a margin of appreciation in balancing individual autonomy and state interests. So, if the safeguarding around the Bill is robust then it can be argued that it does not contradict the ECHR. Article 3 – ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhumane or degrading treatments and Article 8 – ‘everyone has the right to respect his private and family life, his home and his correspondence’. Both suggest that the Bill is in line with the ECHR. Some argue that forcing terminally ill individuals to endure prolonged suffering against their will could amount to inhumane or degrading treatment and that the right to personal autonomy allows people to make their own decision whether to end their life or not.
While the Assisted-Dying Bill presents a compassionate choice for those suffering from terminal illness, it is crucial to balance individual autonomy with the responsibility to protect vulnerable individuals. The Bill’s safeguards, such as the multiple assessments and reflection periods, are designed to prevent abuse and ensure that the decision to end life is fully voluntary and informed. However, questions remain about whether these safeguards can truly prevent subtle coercion and whether we are fully prepared to address the ethical, medical, and social implications of legalising assisted dying. Ultimately, the decision to pass the Bill should be guided by a commitment to dignity and compassion, ensuring that those who seek this option are afforded the choice without fear of exploitation or harm. If the Bill is to pass, it must be accompanied by continued scrutiny and a robust framework to protect both individuals’ rights and the integrity of medical practice.
The Flaws of First-PastThe-Post
How Outdated Voting Systems Distort Democracy
Raya S
The old British colonial voting systems such as those in the United Kingdom and the United States have far-reaching effects on voter behaviour, the democratic process, and the overall political landscape. These systems—most notably the UK’s First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) and the US Electoral College—often force voters into tactical voting, distorting the true reflection of the public’s opinion, and narrowing the political spectrum to a duopoly of major parties as stated by duvergers law. In addition, their structure makes it easier for corporate lobbyists to influence legislation, ultimately sidelining the genuine voice of the electorate.
One significant effect of these systems is the rise of tactical voting. Under FPTP voters often feel compelled to cast their ballots, not for their genuine first choice, but for the candidate deemed most capable of defeating an opponent they strongly oppose. Consider the most recent General Election in the UK where you wish to vote for the Green Party. As you go to cast your ballot you are met with an important decision should you one, vote for your first choice and risk splitting the vote. Or two, vote for one of the two major parties, in order to prevent your least preferred party from winning. Well 19% of all voters went with the second option. This has a profound effect on the final vote, as it is safe to assume that nearly all of this group had voted for Labour in order to prevent a Conservative victory. Due to this an additional 4 million votes were contributed to the Labour Party although these people did not truly support them. This strategic behaviour stems from the “winner-takes-all” nature of the system, where only the candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins, regardless of whether they secure an outright majority. As a result, many voters abandon their preferred candidate to support one with a better chance of winning—a phenomenon that undermines the expression of true voter preferences and distorts the democratic mandate to one in which the most moderate party always wins.
The second most significant effect is the distortion of the democratic system. This distortion is vividly illustrated by the most recent General Election in the UK. In that election, the Labour Party secured a commanding parliamentary majority of 63.2% without winning a true majority of the popular votes (33.7%). This so-called “manufactured
majority” is not an isolated incident and is quite prevalent in the UK. Such discrepancies between voting share and parliamentary representation call into question the legitimacy of the outcomes and highlight how these voting systems can misrepresent the electorate’s will. Handing incredible power to a party which has not gained a majority of support.
The impact of these voting systems extends further to the overall political spectrum. In electoral frameworks like FPTP, smaller parties find themselves at a severe disadvantage because votes cast for them are often effectively “wasted”. Such as the Green Party who received 6.7% of the votes but got 4 seats. This discourages voters from supporting parties outside the dominant two, gradually leading to a political environment where only two central parties remain viable as the smaller parties are neglected and will eventually dissolve.
With limited alternatives, the diversity of political opinions is stifled, reducing the richness of public debate and ultimately polarising political discourse. Voters are left with a binary choice that does not represent the full spectrum of their views as both parties remain either side of the moderate centre. Resulting in a lack of radical changes in the political landscape and no official representation of these views, rather both parties act out nearly identically aside from minor differences in fiscal policy and budget allocation. Reinforcing a cycle that marginalises emerging political ideas and restrains major changes in politics. Furthermore, these systemic issues have significant implications for lobbying and legislative influence. When elections are skewed by tactical voting and the consolidation of power is not among a few parties, the number of key decision-makers is relatively
small. This concentration makes it easier and cheaper for companies and special interest groups to target and influence those few individuals, rather than needing to persuade a broad and diverse electorate.
The result is that laws and policies can be shaped by numerous influential groups, rather than by the preferences of the majority. This has been observed in the United States regarding gambling on sports. In 2018 only Nevada had legalised this, however by 2025, 38 states have legalised sports betting, with an increase in wager size from $4.9bn to $121bn in just seven years. This has resulted from a major increase in lobbying by related special interest groups spending $1bn on lobbying efforts in 2023. Although it is arduous to prevent lobbying, it is possible to make it more difficult by requiring a true majority for legislation to be passed, which makes lobbying a more expensive endeavour. This would help to prevent situations in the US where there have been a 23% increase in gambling addictions.
only how voters cast their ballots but also how democratic outcomes are ultimately determined. By forcing voters into tactical choices, distorting true electoral mandates and constraining the political spectrum to just two major parties, these systems tend to dilute the true voice of the people. Moreover, by enabling a smaller group of decision-makers to be swayed by corporate lobbying, these electoral mechanisms facilitate a shift in party values over time, often at the expense of democratic ideals.
These issues that have arisen from FPTP are not intrinsic; however, they have developed over centuries of politics and maturing governmental structures. Prior to the rise of these issues FPTP was originally implemented due to its ease of administration and understanding, in addition to its consistency in creating majority governments. However, as time is passing these positives appear to be much less powerful as the bleak outcome of this system becomes clearer.
Over time, this concentrated lobbying power can lead to a gradual shift in the values and policy priorities of the governing party. As corporate interests and special interest groups invest more heavily in lobbying, parties may feel pressured to adjust their platforms to secure financial and political backing. This evolution often comes at the expense of the party’s original principles and the needs of the broader electorate. Leading to further public disillusionment and a growing sense that the democratic process is compromised by the influence of money and power, rather than the opinions of sovereign people.
In conclusion, the convoluted voting systems of the UK and USA significantly impact not
Although it is tough to imagine any other system, that would be so dramatically different that it would solve all the issues of FPTP, a current alternative could be the instant ranked run off system. In which voters rank all candidates in order. Then their first choices are counted, the candidate with the least votes then have their votes redistributed to the second choices of those who had voted for them, and this is repeated until a candidate receives the majority of the votes. This system aims to ensure that candidates who are selected hold at least 50% of the votes and also solves a few of the issues with FPTP while new systems are reimagined. Addressing these issues requires a fundamental rethinking of election design to restore an authentic and representative democratic process.
The resurgence of authoritarianism: Global threat to democracy
Across the globe, there has been an increase in authoritarian leaders, steadily undermining democratic institutions by suppressing opposition and consolidating power. From Eastern Europe to Latin America as well as parts of Asia. This blur between the lines of democracy and autocracy does not just cause a political shift but a global reshaping of international relations, governance and individual freedoms.
Brooke P
Authoritarianism is fundamentally the enforcement of strict obedience to a centralised leader, or general authority, at the expense of others personal freedoms - leading to a lack of political pluralism. But unlike past dictatorships, modern day authoritarian regimes maintain a facade of democracy using manipulation in the media, electoral control and changes to the legal system to assure their hold on power.
Elections, even when fixed or flawed, allow authoritarian leaders to prove some type of legitimacy within their country and observing countries. For example, in the lead up to 2021 parliamentary elections in Russia, President Vladimir Putin dispelled the idea of opposition to his regime by imprisoning his competition Aleksey Navalny and tearing apart his movement by labelling it as “extremist”.
These actions further discouraged other candidates from attempting to run for office through intimidation. Before 2020, in Russia the President was elected for a six-year term and can only be re-elected for one additional term, but the constitution was amended in
2020 to allow Putin only to run for a further two terms, which would allow him to extend his presidency to 2036, indicating a fundamental change in democracy by increasing his power and depleting others.
This was made more significant by Putin’s control over the media and polling systems in Russia. The ballot itself is riddled with restrictions designed to maintain dominance over Russia’s citizens. Technology firms were made to remove a Navalny-backed app that allowed the electorate to be informed of whom the strongest candidates for their areas were.
Media and technology have reshaped the distribution of political information for better and for worse. Misinformation and propaganda are easily circulated on the internet through the illusion of trusting information online. Cohorts of countries adopted the Chinese model of censorship and surveillance systems leading to a movement towards digital authoritarianism. Governments such as Iran and Egypt wrote restrictive law on media to apply to social media users, using measures on fake news to detain and imprison critics as well as blocking external social media services. One of the most significant advancements of modern authoritarianism is producing technology to monitor citizens by the internet and artificial intelligence. Such as tracking citizens activities on social media platforms allowing for data on political opinions to be collected. Russia uses a system called SORM (System for Operative Investigation Activates) allowing lawful interference in telecommunications and telephone networks operating in Russia. Similarly, in China they have tools to monitor social media platforms, censor dissenting voice (government control over speech) and even going as far as rewarding citizens for reporting behaviour that doesn’t align with government belief causing a course of conformity due to fear and making citizens scared to
express individual thoughts openly, which is fundamental to a democratic county. Social media has also become a tool for government propaganda, learning how powerful social media is, in controlling the narrative through the spread of misinformation by using platforms, such as Facebook and twitter, to display a positive narrative about their regime. For instance, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, in 2018 elections, had 61% of his supporters using WhatsApp to access information, alongside a staggering 40% claiming to have used the app to share information, much of the information shared was proven to be misleading or flat out false. This is a disheartening example of governments allowing the spread of misinformation and then further utilising it for their own gain.
However, contradicting how authoritarian regimes use media, these digital tools also offer
the opportunities to resist. Journalists, activists and opposing groups can utilise VPNs, cryptic messages and platforms that are decentralized to share political information and challenge the state. For example, in place such as Hong Kong and Iran, social media platforms have played a huge role in organising protests. The interrelationship between the media and modern authoritarianism is both used for control and a tool of resistance. Authoritarian leaders apply technological advancements of the 21st century to consolidate power, but modern technology also provides opportunities for resistance. The combination of the two will shape the future of governance and the push for political freedom in the developing digital age. The rise of authoritarianism in the 21st century presents a dire threat to the fundamental ideas of democracy. From the consolidation of power in established authoritarian regimes to the rise of populist leaders in democratic nations. This global shift is not a natural occurrence but is manipulated into being created by media control, fear of government and flawed electoral processes. It is crucial that the international community and countries alone support democratic norms, tackle disinformation and protect fundamental human rights online and offline in the face of growing authoritarianism.
In 2018 President Jair Bolsonaro, elections had 61% of his supporters using WhatsApp
Political Grifters
Right-wing manipulation of the masses
Finn L
The rise of the internet has enabled the right-wing to manipulate the political beliefs of many, notably through the increased prominence of grifters. This was seen, for example, with Donald Trump’s innovative use of social media in the build up to the 2016 US presidential election, the leave campaign’s promotion of Brexit in the lead up to the 2016 referendum, Trump’s creation of “Truth Social” and his ally Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now known as X) prior to the 2024 Presidential election.
What is a grifter?
In the past, frauds and con artists who physically swindled people for money were labelled as grifters. Today, the term refers to individuals on internet platforms, or those that have a pre-existing public status, who use it to spread political disinformation or exaggeration for ideological, political or financial gain. These individuals usually act under the guise of influencers (Andrew Tate) and commentators (Elon Musk), whilst using a technique known as rage-bait (a method of direct provocation of audience anger to make them engage with the speaker’s message more) and antagonise their consumer-base against political targets.
An understanding and awareness of grifters is pivotal for guidance in how not to be blindly swayed by their spread of misinformation.
Donald Trump
Donald Trump is the highest profile and most influential grifter in internet history. To give credit where it’s due, he arguably set the current standard of the way politicians use social media during his 2016 presidential campaign, and then throughout his 1st presidency, posting on twitter approximately 8,000 times during the 2016 campaign and 25,000 times during his presidency. He even went as far as to create his own social media platform, Truth Social, after he was banned from Twitter in January 2021 for inciting right-wing antagonization against the incoming Biden administration, praising
the January 6th Capital rioters as ‘patriots.’ Trump is also notorious for his tendency to spread misinformation on social media, to such an extent that the Canadian Newspaper ‘The Toronto Star’ has estimated that he made 5,276 false claims between January 2017 and June 2019. Recently, in September 2024 during ABC’s presidential debate, Trump made the false claim about illegal Haitian immigrants in Ohio that: “In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.” Despite having no evidence to back this statement up, it spread like wildfire across social media, with Republican Vice-Presidential candidate JD Vance’s post covering the statement on X receiving more than 11 million views. Trump said this on live television to antagonise the American electorate against illegal immigrants, with a strong crackdown and mass deportation of illegal immigrants being a key policy that his campaign was running on.
However, Trump’s most famous example of spreading false information is his repeated claims that the 2020 presidential election had been rigged after the results revealed that he lost. On December 19th 2020, Trump tweeted the following statement: “Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election fraud ‘more than sufficient’ to swing victory to Trump. A report by Navarro saying statistically it would have been impossible to have lost the 2020 election. Consequently, there were big protests
in D.C. on Jan 6th. “Be there, it’ll be wild.” This tweet falsely claimed that the election had been rigged by the Democrats and is what galvanised Trump supporters to transform the intended ‘protest’ into the infamous Jan 6th storming of the Capitol, an act of political violence through which Trump supporters intended to overturn the 2020 election result. The attempt failed. Through using social media to antagonise the right-wing against illegal immigrants, and more disturbingly a legitimate election result, Trump can be considered as a grifter as he repeatedly spread false information for political gain. He can also be considered a grifter in a more traditional sense as he’s used his political platform and rage-bait tactics to sell merchandise. For example, Trump marketed the ‘God Bless the USA’ Bible to Republican supporters during the 2024 presidential campaign, drawing criticism from the church. And in his 2024 presidential campaign he sold commemorative coins for $100, sneakers and NFTs to his supporters. That he has been using his platform to sell merchandise for financial gain and utilise the Bible as a bargaining chip to coerce Christian voters, further highlights how convincing an argument it is to say that Trump can be classed as a grifter.
Elon Musk
The richest man in the world, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, now known as X, for $44 billion in October 2022, shocked the world. Musk has fervently used the platform to reinforce right-wing ideologies, un-ban many far-right individuals who had been banned from the site for racist and sexist comments (most notably Donald Trump), support Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential campaign (for which he was rewarded with an appointment to Trump’s new cabinet) and most curiously, criticise Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government. In the summer of 2024, Starmer issued a
warning to social media companies, such as X, stating: “violent disorder, clearly whipped up online, that is also a crime.” In response, Musk, the self proclaimed ‘Chief Troll officer,’ tweeted on X that “Civil War was inevitable.” Later, he amplified a message from the leader of a far-right political party claiming that Sir Keir was considering building detainment camps for rioters on the Falkland Islands. By the time he had deleted the post, it had been viewed more than a million times. Musk also criticised the UK’s prison overcrowding problem on Joe Rogan’s podcast, notably saying “let’s make Orwell fiction again,” referencing the totalitarian regime in the novel, 1984. This specific episode of Rogan’s podcast was viewed over 19 million times on YouTube. Thus, by using the influence of his social media platform and connections to celebrities such as Rogan to spread political disinformation, the term grifter can be applied to Elon Musk because he has actively manipulated the British public through social media for both political and ideological gain.
Boris Johnson
Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson could be called a grifter for his conduct during the Brexit campaign in 2016. He wrote two columns for the Daily Telegraph, one in favour of Brexit the other against. He ultimately chose “for” on the basis that it promised him the most likely route to fulfil his political ambitions. He later supported baseless claims made by Nigel Farage that if Turkey joined the EU, a possibility that appeared likely at the time of the 2016 referendum, there would be a massive influx of Muslim immigrants from Turkey into the UK. This was an attempt by Johnson and “vote leave” to encourage right-wing and the more racist demographics in the electorate to vote to leave the EU.
Johnson was one of the masterminds behind the infamous ‘Brexit Bus’ and its emblazoned slogan “We send the EU £350 million a week – let’s fund our NHS instead.” The amount of funds that Johnson himself claimed could be reallocated from the EU to the NHS if the UK left turned out to be false, but the claims did their intended job. “Boris Johnson became an ambassador for the expert trashing truth twisting age of populism,” said David Cameron. It was Johnson’s influence in ‘vote leave’ which
made him a big beast within the Conservative Party after the referendum’s results. Cameron felt compelled to appoint him Foreign Secretary on the 8th July 2016, ultimately giving him a platform from which to become Prime Minister in 2019. Allowing misinformation about Brexit seemingly enabled Johnson to progress through the ranks of leave voting conservatives. Ideological arguments for and against leave were less important than the pursuit of power. Boris Johnson can be considered a grifter because he supported Brexit and deliberately helped spread false information about it; despite knowing what harm it could cause to the country. The argument that he did it in the pursuit of personal ambition seems well founded.
Andrew Tate
Arguably the most blatantly bigoted individual in these examples, Andrew Tate, the self proclaimed ‘King of misogyny’ is infamous for his radicalisation of young males via his online videos. Tate was born in the US but raised in Luton. His platform was built for both American and British teenagers, forming a consumer-
base for his severely right-wing ideology and content.
Thanks to ventures such as ‘Hustler University’ and his time as a Kick-boxing world champion, Tate built his online fame flaunting his extravagant lifestyle of fast cars, luxury yachts and private jets in YouTube videos which gained millions of views. He then began to use his platform increasingly to spread misogynistic and racist messages. In an interview with another YouTuber, he stated that he was “absolutely a misogynist.” He then added “There’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist.” In the same interview he described women as “intrinsically lazy” and claimed that “there is no such thing as an independent female.”
Shortly before his arrest in 2022, Tate engaged in an online argument with climate activist Greta Thunberg on Twitter. He claimed that he had 33 cars and said that he would send her a list of “their respective enormous emissions.” His views are extreme and misogynistic, but TikTok videos with the #AndrewTate have been viewed billions of times. In July 2024 - at the launch of a report into violence against women and girls - Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth said: “we know the influencers, Andrew Tate, the element of influencing of particularly boys, is quite terrifying.” This is concerning as it shows how Tate’s large internet presence has influenced more young males into having a far-right and bigoted ideology, arguably helping far-right groups such as ‘Reform UK’ and MAGA to gain more support from those young males. It doesn’t seem too much of a leap to consider that Andrew Tate might be the most notorious grifter in the world because of his unapologetically
bigoted statements and actions. That he has a large audience and that his motivations appear to be for monetary as much as ideological gain, underlines the point.
Summary
Whether it’s a politician trying to gain or retain power, a billionaire who wants to further their own personal agenda, or just a bigot who somehow managed to become popular; it’s apparent that the use of rage-bait, misinformation and statements without basis have made a significant impact.
Trump will be inaugurated into his 2nd presidency on January 20th, 2024, Musk is set to take an important role within the Trump administration, UK far-right parties such as Reform UK say then have more members than the Conservatives, and misogyny, transphobia and abuse of women are on the rise. Grifters are no longer just commentators with an axe to grind. The rise of the internet and social media have given them a platform to engage the disenchanted and pursue their personal ambitions by making the truth whatever best suits them.
Rise of the Right
In recent years, Europe has witnessed a significant rise in the popularity of right-wing parties. From the Brothers of Italy to France’s National Rally, nationalist and populist movements have surged in appeal, challenging the dominance of traditional centrist political establishments. What are the factors driving this phenomenon? What are the consequences for European unity? And, perhaps most crucially, is this a temporary trend or a deeper political realignment?
Amelia R
Factors
Economic Discontent
One of the primary drivers of right-wing popularity is economic dissatisfaction. Recent economic downturns, such as the 2008 financial crash, have fostered feelings of political discontent and heightened perceptions of ethnic threats. Mainstream centrist parties are often blamed for poor economic conditions, while ethnic minorities are perceived by some as competitors for scarce resources, such as jobs and housing. These sentiments resonate with right-wing rhetoric, enabling such parties to channel public frustration and anger toward external targets.
Immigration and Identity
The growing discourse on immigration has also fuelled the rise of the right. The 2015–16 migration crisis marked a turning point. The number of immigrants arriving in Europe soared from 153,000 in 2008 to more than 1 million in 2015, driven by conflicts and economic hardship in countries like Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Eritrea. Nationalist parties, such as the Brothers of Italy, have framed immigration as a direct threat to national identity. Their platforms, emphasising stricter border controls and prioritising citizens over migrants, have successfully rallied widespread support.
Pandemic Aftershocks
The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed governmental inefficiencies and deepened mistrust in political establishments. Rightwing parties capitalised on public discontent, particularly among those sceptical of lockdown measures and vaccine mandates. By positioning themselves as defenders of personal freedoms and national sovereignty, they gained traction with voters disillusioned by perceived failures of the mainstream parties.
Anti-Globalisation
Globalisation has long been a contentious topic in European politics. For many, it represents economic and cultural homogenisation in favour of elites at the expense of the everyday worker. This sentiment has led to the pushing of antiglobalisation rhetoric by right-wing parties - hoping to seize the opportunity presented by impending cultural identity crises - gaining popularity out of a common desire to protect national identity and safeguard culture.
Social Media Amplification
The rise of social media has played a pivotal role in the growing popularity of right-wing politics. platforms such as X, Facebook and TikTok allow these parties to bypass the limitations of traditional media outlets. It allows for direct engagement of voters in which politicians can more easily direct their ideas and promises, along with creating echo chambers of dissatisfaction. This strategy is particularly effective among the younger demographics where targeted campaigns of disinformation often thrive.
Law and Order Narratives
Concerns about crime, whether real or perceived, have also bolstered right-wing agendas. By emphasising law and order, these parties appeal to voters’ fears and promise swift action to restore safety. This rhetoric resonates not only in urban hubs grappling with crime but also in rural areas where a sense of neglect from central governments prevails.
Fratelli d’Italia
Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy has risen from the fringes to become a dominant force in Italian politics. With a platform centred on “God, family, and country,” Meloni’s rhetoric appeals to conservative values while addressing economic grievances. Her success reflects Italy’s broader dissatisfaction with political gridlock and economic stagnation. It also has been strictly “anti-gay marriage” and supporting the “traditional family unit”. The party also collaborates with anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ movements. In the 2022 General Election the FDL party won 25% of the vote becoming the largest party in government and Meloni was appointed as the country’s first female Prime Minister.
Rassemblement National
Marine Le Pen has rebranded France’s National Rally, shedding its extremist image to appeal to a broader electorate. Her focus on economic protectionism and stricter immigration controls has resonated with voters, particularly in economically struggling regions. Le Pen’s increasing appeal among younger voters signals a generational shift in French politics. During the European elections 2024 RN gained 31.5%, the highest for a far-right French party since 1984.
AFD – Germany
The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is a right-wing populist party founded in 2013. Its core beliefs centre around nationalism, Euroscepticism, and opposition to immigration. The party advocates for stricter border controls, reduced asylum rights, and the preservation of German cultural identity. It opposes the European Union’s integration policies and promotes the reclamation of national sovereignty. Economically, the AfD supports
low taxes, a reduction in public spending, and scepticism toward climate policies like Germany’s green energy transition. The party has been criticised for harbouring extremist elements and has gained support primarily by addressing voter concerns about immigration, security, and identity. During the 2024 Thuringia state election, AfD won 32.85% of the vote. The result gives the far right its first win in a state parliament election since World War Two, although it has little hope of forming a government in Thuringia because other parties are unlikely to work with it. Despite not being in power, this still signals the growing popularity amongst the public of right-wing political ideology.
Broader Implications
The ascent of nationalist parties poses significant challenges to European cohesion. The ascent of nationalist parties poses significant challenges to European cohesion. Disagreements over immigration quotas, economic policies, and the future of EU integration threaten the bloc’s stability. Countries led by nationalist governments often clash with Brussels, complicating decision-making and straining relationships within the union.
What lies ahead?
The rise of right-wing parties in Europe reflects deeper societal shifts, from economic anxiety to identity politics. Whether this trend marks a temporary swing to the right, or a long-term transformation of politics remains uncertain. As Europe grapples with these challenges, the need for balanced policies that address citizens’ concerns without undermining democratic principles becomes increasingly critical. Only time will tell if the continent can navigate this turbulent era while preserving its unity, diversity and democratic institutions.
Vivienne C
The Impact of
‘One is not born, but rather, becomes a woman.’
Beauvoir’s statement surely rings in the minds of many, even today, and has undoubtedly transformed future waves of feminism, for better or worse.
Her social commentary about
women’s autonomy and womanhood as a social construct is still at the forefront of 21st political discourse
Since the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022 and Trump’s recently announced victory in the presidential election last year many are doubting their faith in politicians surrounding contentious issues such as abortion and gender equality, on either side of the debate.
We are, consequently, openly resorting to political theory to reconnect with the nature of humanity, its rights, and liberties. Whilst Beauvoir’s theory in ‘The Second Sex’ only provides a partial explanation for current political conflicts and arguably offers only some solutions, her work remains timeless and provokes us to challenge extremist views that dominate and overshadow a degree of nuance required to have an informed political stance.
Woman as ‘Other’
Many women have experienced the male gaze and are still alienated from a cemented patriarchal society. Beauvoir aptly explains this as women being treated as ‘Other;’ as second-class citizens of an inferior sex, when no biological justification could be offered for centuries of continual oppression.
Though sexes differ, as a woman matures, she becomes ‘flesh;’ a sexual body to be viewed by others, which is not the case with the male sex. Beauvoir therefore indicated that ‘anatomy and hormones never define anything but a situation,’ though continued efforts today persist to demonstrate otherwise.
Myths surrounding womanhood are a key example of how supposedly inherent female traits are thought to merely originate from a woman’s biology, and not because of societal influences or constructs. These beliefs are far from isolated incidents, since traditionally women were only seen from façades of virginity, purity, and motherhood, and were otherwise categorised as ‘inessential,’ only to exist in relation to men.
These beliefs aim to trap women into an unrealistic ideal, not considering individual experiences. What is universal to women is the ongoing brunt of casual sexism that they face and its origins in religious and social standards.
Reclaiming woman as a ‘Self’
Reclaiming women’s beliefs of themselves as ‘selves,’ not ‘others’ is not impossible, nor is dismantling aged doctrines, Beauvoir claimed. Access to legal abortions, contraception, and the economic security of paid work (whether domestic or not) can enable women to reinstate their autonomy. Worryingly, however, these rights, are being placed under threat in a modern yet backwards society. The promotion of the nuclear family unit is as detrimental to men as it is to women. Freedom of choice is
in jeopardy, and the ability for women to take control of their lives is being gradually replaced by a so called fixed biological timeline. In such an environment, not all women can obtain the privilege to act as Beauvoir suggested, especially following a lack of infrastructure (such as free childcare and access to safe abortions) to support women. This is a key flaw in her elitist argument, that demands further inspection on its implementation which could be achieved through a hybrid of individual agency and state reform, as opposed to sole personal responsibility. Women, though, can control their reactions and demands, and not adhere to a limiting sense of their self-worth, as they transition through the separate phases of puberty, pregnancy, and menopause. This existentialist approach to freedom of choice is widely embraced, and for good reason, as it acts as a positive force counteracting plans and demands for restriction. Often, women implicitly comply to the meanings and restraints that a repressive society assigns them, instead of seeing ‘their bodies through their own gaze.’ Women can be oppressed, yet simultaneously free, as they can create their own meaning whilst also being scrutinised through the critical lens of the patriarchy.
Beauvoir, as she aged, became more involved with her community, and established the Women’s Liberation Movement in 1969 and in 1971 compiled the Manifesto of the 343, which declared that 343 women had had illegal abortions, in a bid to alter abortion legislation in France. For Beauvoir, only collective action ensured changes to institutionalised barriers. Due to her work, French Parliament abolished anti-abortion legislation. Beauvoir can therefore be admired, not only in writing the Second Sex as a blueprint for other feminists, but also through ingraining her impact into French law.
Criticisms, controversies, and contributions
Many such as Hui Wong, researcher at the University of British Columbia, argue that the ‘Other’ is not a category, and is only representative of Beauvoir’s experience of otherness. In other words, her 20th feminism has not kept up with today’s intersectional feminism and fails to display an awareness of different systems of oppression (sex, race, disability etc) interacting in conjunction. Nor, however, did Beauvoir encourage women to behave like men to prove their inherent worth. Emphasis lies in her belief of choice, as she viewed a working woman and a housewife equally, so long as they chose their lifestyle.
Frencher politician and writer Aurélie Filippetti says ‘she’s still an inspirational figure for my generation.’ There still lies economic inequality for French women, as they are paid a quarter less than their male counterparts. Women must not be victims to the distraction of internalised misogyny, which is a tool used to divide women by pitting them against one another. We are not our own enemies, the patriarchy is. Men can also benefit from Beauvoir, since for a system to change, all its members should contribute. Her feminism is not against men, as ‘it’s a question precisely of destroying that notion of power.’
As women’s rights are in peril, new movements, for instance 4B in South Korea, and variations of it in the US, aim for women to withdraw themselves from heterosexual relationships, and create women friendly spheres. However, some say, abstaining men from sex further plays into the idea that ‘sex is labour: work women do for men’ (Guardian). Appreciating Beauvoir’s perspective on feminist theory enables us not only to think critically about these issues, but also to accept that we can strive for better.
Cartels and Political Violence
The Dangerous Intersection of Crime and Politics in Mexico
Oliver H
Mexico is a country deeply affected by the violent intersection of organised crime and political power. The expansion of drug cartels has not only brought devastation to communities but has also entrenched a system of political violence that permeates nearly every aspect of governance.
From the assassination of public officials to the coercion of voters, cartels use violence as a tool of influence and control, creating a parallel power structure that directly challenges the government’s authority and with estimated annual earnings of around $13.6-$49.4 billion, the cartels have the means to continue to fund this attack on Mexico’s governments political sovereignty. This article explores how Mexican cartels engage in political violence, the impact on the nation’s democratic process, and the longlasting consequences for governance.
The growth of drug cartels in Mexico over the past few decades has been accompanied by an increasingly violent struggle for political dominance. Cartels like the Sinaloa Cartel, CJNG (Jalisco New Generation Cartel), and the Zetas have become powerful enough to challenge the state, engaging in a form of political violence that aims to control territory, manipulate electoral outcomes and coerce public officials into compliance. These cartels are no longer mere criminal enterprises; they are political actors in their own right.
Intimidation and assassination of political figures has become one of the cartels preferred ways of entrapping the Mexican political system. One of the most blatant forms of political violence is the targeted assassination of public officials, candidates, and law enforcement officers. These targeted and premediated killings became blatantly obvious when in the 2018, during Mexico’s general elections, more than 100 candidates were killed or attacked by cartel forces, highlighting how willingly and affectively cartels are prepared to push to gain control over the political process. These killings were not just acts of violence, but strategic moves to ensure cartel-friendly candidates gained power or remained in office. In regions where cartels operate with near impunity, political figures who oppose them are at risk of being silenced. This violence serves both as a warning to others and a way of eliminating political obstacles.
Cartels don’t just target those standing in elections, but also the electorate. Through voter intimidation and electoral manipulation cartels can aim to alter elections results to either keep those in power who turn a blind eye to their iniquitous acts, or to replace them. In some areas, voters are threatened with violence unless they cast their ballots in favour of cartel-backed candidates. Cartels have also been known to intimidate opposition candidates, forcing them to withdraw from races or face violent retribution. This has created a climate of fear and voter apathy, undermining the integrity of the electoral system. This is particularly clear in certain rural areas where cartels are able to control local elections as gaining control of a more densely populated area, such a city, would require much more funding and would be hard to pull off due to the increased presence of the police and military.
These rural area attacks are highlighted through the devastating infamous Ayotzinapa massacre. Those responsible were the Guerrero Unidos cartel who worked closely with local police forces to suppress opposition. The tragic disappearance of 43 students in 2014 was allegedly orchestrated with the help of local authorities, revealing the extent to which cartels can infiltrate the state apparatus. This not only undermines democracy but also creates a political environment where cartel power is effectively institutionalised.
In reaction to cartel driven political violence, the Mexican government has increasingly relied on militaristic approaches to try and quench these organisations. However, this militarisation has not always worked well but has instead often exacerbated the violence. As cartel violence escalated, the Mexican government deployed the military to fight cartels leading to large shoot outs and high casualties on both sides. Since the militaries deployment in 2006 the police force and army have seen loses of 4,988 while the cartels have lost close to 12,500. Furthermore,
not only has the increased military presence led to huge death tolls, but in some instances the military itself has been implicated in cartel activity, further complicating the situation.
The militarisation of the country has blurred the lines between legitimate law enforcement and organised crime. In some regions, the military is seen as just another armed group in the conflict rather than a force of protection and justice. This erosion of the rule of law undermines public trust in state institutions and deepens the cycle of violence. Despite this, since 1982 Mexican law enforcement has been reorganised at least 5 times in order to stop the deep-rooted corruption that runs riot within its ranks. During the same time period, 4 new elite special forces have been created with corruption-free soldiers whose aim is crush the cartels.
The impact of cartel-related political violence goes far beyond immediate loss of life. The erosion of democratic institutions, the weakening of the rule of law, and the widespread corruption caused by cartel interference have long-term consequences for Mexico’s governance. The involvement of cartels in the political process undermines the very foundations of democracy. Elections become skewed, and public officials are more concerned with maintaining cartel support than serving the interests of the people. As political violence increases, voter participation decreases and citizens become disillusioned with the democratic process. This leads to a cycle of corruption, where criminal organisations become more entrenched in political power. Through their attacks on the political system, as well the general bombardment of destruction and death that cartels bring, the rule of law within Mexico has slowly become weaker. As cartels gain control over law enforcement and government institutions, the rule of law deteriorates.
The Mexican public face a growing sense of insecurity knowing that their government is either complicit in, or unable to, address
cartel violence. This environment of impunity further emboldens cartels and discourages any meaningful legal action against them. Cartels not only engage in political violence but also control large swathes of the Mexican economy, particularly in sectors like drug production, human trafficking and extortion. This creates a parallel economy that thrives on violence and instability, stunting genuine economic development and creating a climate where legitimate businesses struggle to survive. The chaos of cartels and the violence and disorder they have and continue to bring to Mexico totally undermines it as a democracy. Cartels have moved beyond criminal enterprises to become political actors. Using violence to manipulate elections, control territories, and eliminate opposition the cartels have made themselves into key players with the Mexican political landscape. As the country increasingly turns to militarised responses, the cycle of violence deepens with the military often complicit in the very violence it is meant to combat. The consequences of this political violence are farreaching and becoming more deeply entrenched by eroding public trust in government, weakening the rule of law, and stunting economic growth. To break this cycle, Mexico must address the underlying issues of corruption, human rights abuses, and political violence, while restoring faith in its democratic institutions. Only through comprehensive reform can the country hope to overcome the grip of cartels on its political landscape.
Global Poverty
The Ethics of Wealth Distribution
Natasha N
Global poverty remains one of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. Despite significant economic growth in many parts of the world, millions of people continue to live in extreme poverty, lacking access to necessities such as food, clean water, healthcare, and education.
According to the World Bank, 10% of the global population lives on less than $2.15 a day, the international poverty line. The stark inequalities between wealthy and impoverished regions of the world are a result of a complex set of factors, including historical exploitation, political instability, and the imbalances inherent in the global economic system. As the gap between the rich and the poor widens, calls for effective wealth distribution have gained increasing attention as a potential solution to alleviate global poverty.
Global poverty causes are deeply entrenched in historical and contemporary inequality systems. Colonialism played a leading role in the creation of global poverty, as many developing nations were exploited for their natural resources with wealth extracted by colonial powers often not helping local populations. Even after independence, the legacy of colonial exploitation, coupled with political corruption, conflict and lack of access to resources, has contributed to the ongoing cycle of poverty in many regions.
Today the global economic system, with its reliance on free market capitalism and unregulated trade, continues to perpetuate
inequality. Wealthier nations and multinational corporations often exploit labor and resources in developing countries, leading to vast profits for the few while local populations struggle to survive. Additionally, developing nations are burdened by debt, with many paying high interest rates on loans taken from international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), further deepening social inequality.
Global systems of economic inequality often worsen the problem of poverty. Critics argue that the very structure of the global economy perpetuates the wealth gap, hindering efforts to address poverty. Systems of trade, finance, and aid, while designed to stimulate growth, often prioritize the interests of wealthy nations and multinational corporations at the expense of developing countries. Trade agreements often favor industrialized nations, leaving poorer countries at a disadvantage, and loans from international organizations like the IMF can create cycles of debt that further entrench poverty.
Moreover, global capitalism, with its focus on profit maximization, tends to exploit resources and labor in developing countries
without providing adequate returns for local communities. The growth of multinational corporations has often been accompanied by exploitative labor practices, environmental degradation, and the displacement of indigenous populations. These structural issues contribute significantly to global poverty and addressing them requires a shift in how wealth is distributed on both a national and international scale.
However with a change in policy there is still possibility we can tackle this problem;
Reduce Income Inequality Across Earners; Nations should aim for a scenario where the top 10% earn no more than the bottom 40%. Setting this clear goal provides direction and focus, ensuring we understand the destination.
Track Inequality to Monitor SDG Progress; to effectively measure progress on sustainable development goals, proven indicators of inequality must be utilized.
The current shared prosperity indicator is inadequate, as it tracks the lower earners without assessing the upper earners, failing to capture true inequality. Evidence reveals that some countries with rising shared prosperity still see growing inequality, including income gains for the top 10%. Tools like the Gini coefficient and Palma ratio should be used to measure not only income inequality but also wealth inequality, which is significantly higher.
will be essential to build the political consensus necessary for transforming economies toward a sustainable, zero-carbon future.
Global poverty is not only an economic challenge but also a profound ethical issue, as it violates fundamental human rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as access to food, healthcare, and education. Religious traditions like Christianity’s stewardship, Islam’s Zakat, and Hinduism’s Dana emphasize wealth-sharing as a moral duty, reinforcing the idea that alleviating poverty is a collective responsibility.
Nations should aim for a scenario where the top 10% earn no more than the bottom 40%
Philosophers like John Rawls further argue for fairness through the “veil of ignorance,” advocating societal structures that prioritize the well-being of the least advantaged. These ethical frameworks converge on a shared imperative: addressing poverty and redistributing wealth is a moral obligation that transcends individual interests, demanding collective action to create a fairer and more just world.
Invest in Comprehensive Inequality Data; A revolution in inequality data collection and analysis is crucial. Governments need access to advanced tools for high-level analysis, enabling informed policymaking. Robust data
Global poverty is both an economic challenge and a profound moral issue, deeply intertwined with historical injustices and systemic inequalities. Addressing it requires a multi-faceted approach, including reducing income disparities, improving the tools to measure and track inequality, and fostering policies that ensure fairness and justice. Ethical frameworks, from human rights principles to religious teachings and Rawls’ Theory of Justice, collectively underscore the moral imperative to alleviate poverty and redistribute wealth. Through collective action and systemic change, we can bridge the gap between rich and poor, building a more equitable and sustainable future
caterhamschool.co.uk