The Red and The Blue - March 2025

CONTENTS

A Note from the Editor…………………………………...…………. Aaminah Khan

UK POLITICS:

Labour’s Identity Crisis: Starmer Between Blair and Corbyn….... Mikail Hashmi

The UK’s Missing Billions: Policy Failure or Political Theatre?……. Faris Ahmad

Starmer’s Foreign Policy: What does It Mean for Britain’s Global Standing?…………………………………………………………….….. Hiba Ahmed

GLOBAL POLITICS:

The 2025 German Election: A Country Divided……...........………... Sanaaya Patel

The Power of Violent Rhetoric in Populist Movements…....…. Katherine Campbell

The Effects of the M23 in the Democratic Republic of Congo ……... Kamala Bates

The Gender Divide: How Literature Reflects and Reshapes Politics.... Jade Qursha

What is the World’s Biggest Political Problem?…………...…...….... Mayher Tyagi

US POLITICS:

How America's Wealthy Elite Are Reshaping Politics………………...…. Lev Mert

Abandoning Ukraine: The Global Fallout of the Trump Policy Shift………………………………………………………………….….. Isabella Swan

What Trump’s Executive Orders Reveal About His Agenda.…… Sophie Flanagan Did Trump Accelerate America’s Decline as a Superpower?..... Andrew Cumming

INDIVIDUALS IN POLITICS:

JD Vance: The Threat to Judicial Authority…………..………...…. Aaminah Khan

Nigel Farage: The Populist Who Changed British Politics…...…. Kai Debenedictis

Vladimir Putin: From KGB to Kremlin…………..…………..… Hassan Khursheed

HISTORY IN POLITICS:

The Suez Crisis: A Turning Point in British Foreign Policy………… Lucas Mellor

The Cold War’s Enduring Influence on US Politics……..…..…….. Angela Phillips

The parallel between Trump’s America and the collapse of the Roman Republic………………………………………………………….... Zayed Mohammed

The Partition of India: Shaping the Geopolitical Landscape…………... Ryka Gehi

A Note from the Editor

This term’s issue of ‘The Red & The Blue’ compiles an exciting range of articles that reflect how much the global political landscape has changed recently. Even as our authors worked on their articles, significant political developments were unfolding daily. From Trump’s provocative statements, executive orders and policy shifts on Ukraine to the growing influence of populist parties worldwide, politics is evolving at an unprecedented rate.

With both the US and UK elections occurring in the past year, alongside elections in Germany and India, global political leadership has undergone dramatic changes, reshaping international relations. Amidst this huge global shift, this term’s articles also highlight the rise in global conflicts, the significance of key political figures, through the Individuals in Politics section, and the impact of historical events on politics today. Additionally, as many students who don’t study Politics have contributed to this edition, we have had the opportunity to explore connections with subjects such as Geography, Economics, and History, providing a comprehensive understanding of our current political climate.

Thank you to all the Year 10-12 students who have written such insightful articles and to Sofia Mohammed for designing this edition’s eye-catching cover. We cannot wait to see your perceptive writing again next term and we wish you all a happy holiday and well-deserved break!

Enjoy reading,

Aaminah Khan and the 2025 Editorial Team - Katherine Campbell, Kai Debenedictis & Mikail Hashmi

Labour’s Identity Crisis: Starmer Between Blair and Corbyn

The Labour Party has always been shaped by the personalities and policies of its leaders. Tony Blair, as Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, transformed the Labour party, shifting the party away from its traditional socialist roots and towards a centrist, free market friendly vision. After 15 years of Conservative power, how similar is Keir Starmer’s Labour party to Blair’s?

Blair’s leadership marked a dramatic departure from Labour’s past. Before him, the party was largely associated with nationalization, high public spending, and strong trade union influence, which were positions that had led to repeated election defeats in the 1980s and early 1990s. Blair’s response was to redefine Labour as a modern, business friendly party under ‘New Labour’, appealing to middle class voters without entirely abandoning traditional working class support. His government introduced key reforms such as the minimum wage, significant investment in healthcare and education, and an emphasis on law and order, encapsulated in his ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ slogan. At the same time, he embraced market driven policies, including private finance initiatives that increased private sector involvement in public services.

Blair’s record in government was undoubtedly successful electorally. Winning three consecutive general elections made him the most dominant Labour leader in modern history. However, his legacy remains divisive. The Iraq War severely damaged public trust in him, while the long term economic consequences of some of his policies, particularly his reliance on the private sector in public services, have come under increased scrutiny. By the time he left office, New Labour’s dominance was already being questioned, and in the years that followed, the party drifted away from his model, showed by Jeremy Corbyn’s sharp leftward turn.

When Starmer took over in 2020, he inherited a Labour Party that was struggling for credibility. The 2019 election had been disastrous, and Corbyn’s leadership had alienated a significant portion of the electorate. From the start, Starmer’s strategy

seemed to echo Blair’s, shifting Labour back towards the centre with focus on electability rather than ideological purity, and restoring trust in the party’s economic competence. This move slightly more to the right of the political spectrum can be seen through his efforts to cut government spending on benefits. His efforts to move away from Corbyn’s Labour, particularly on issues like national security and law and order, have clear similarities to Blair’s approach. His emphasis on fiscal responsibility and appealing to businesses also shows a recognition that Labour cannot afford to be seen as economically reckless.

However, while there are aspects of Blairism in Starmer’s leadership, there are also crucial differences. Blair entered government with a sweeping reform agenda and a clear ideological vision. Starmer, by contrast, has been far more cautious in outlining his policy program. Some of this caution can be attributed to the current political climate where voters are more skeptical of huge promises, and the post pandemic economic landscape is vastly different from the booming late 90s economy that Blair inherited. But it also suggests that Starmer is not simply reviving New Labour but attempting to create a distinct identity that takes into account the failures of Blair and Corbyn.

One key area where Starmer has diverged from Blair is in his approach to the private sector’s role in public services. While Blair was comfortable with private sector involvement in healthcare and infrastructure, Starmer has been more critical of privatization, particularly in the NHS. This suggests a subtle but significant shift back towards Labour’s traditional values, even if it is not a full return to Corbyn style or old Clause IV nationalization. Similarly, Starmer has been less interventionist on foreign policy, avoiding the errors made by Blair like the Iraq war.

The biggest challenge for Starmer is managing the divisions within the Labour Party. Blair had a strained relationship with the left of the party, which only worsened after his departure. Starmer faces an even more fractured party, balancing a centrist electoral strategy with working with many who still align with Corbyn’s policies, and even facing threats of a backbench rebellion from left-wing Labour MPs. Unlike Blair, who had tight control over the party’s direction, Starmer has had to be more delicate in his approach, ensuring the absence of further internal conflict.

Blair’s New Labour was a product of its time, shaped by a booming economy and a desire to modernize Labour after years of defeat. Starmer, operating in a far more uncertain political and economic environment, cannot simply copy that model. While he has borrowed from Blair’s strategy in making Labour electable again, he is also attempting to forge a new path - one that acknowledges both the strengths and the limitations of New Labour. Whether this results in a long-term political realignment or merely a temporary correction is still yet to be discovered.

Mikail Hashmi

The UK’s Missing Billions: Policy Failure or Political Theatre?

Observing a black hole in space is a strange experience its immense gravity bends light, making it seem larger than it is while concealing much of what lies within. This phenomenon mirrors the so-called fiscal "black hole" that has dominated UK politics since Labour took over the government’s finances in July. Depending on who you ask, Labour’s black hole claim is a ‘smoke screen’ or the Conservatives are economically incompetent.

Shortly after taking office, Chancellor Rachel Reeves commissioned a Treasury audit to assess the state of public finances. The review uncovered a £22bn budget gap an amount by which government departments were expected to exceed their spending limits. These limits, known as resource departmental expenditure limits (RDEL), were set based on outdated figures, as no spending review had been conducted since 2021. The economic turmoil of recent years rising inflation, an energy crisis, global conflicts, domestic policy missteps, and increased asylum costs had drastically altered the financial landscape. To cope, the Conservative government had drained the Treasury’s emergency reserves, yet Jeremy Hunt proceeded with tax cuts, reducing National Insurance, fuel duty, and capital gains tax, despite knowing the state could not afford them. His decisions meant the government needed to borrow an additional £12.6bn annually to cover the gap.

Hunt has since dismissed the idea of a financial crisis, calling Labour’s claims “absolute nonsense.” Reeves, however, accused him of knowingly misleading the public about the true state of the economy. The reality likely lies somewhere in between. Giles Wilkes, a former economic adviser to Theresa May, suggests that from an outsider’s perspective, it was evident government departments were either overspending drastically or concealing financial struggles. Labour may have suspected as much, but without access to full Treasury data while in opposition, they had to take official figures at face value. Once in office, the true scale of the issue became apparent, leaving Labour with little room to manoeuvre.

Wilkes argues that calling this situation a “black hole” is justified. If a department like the Home Office is allocated £2bn for an asylum program that costs £8bn, the financial gap is undeniably real. However, others, criticise the term as misleading, suggesting it removes political accountability, making tough fiscal decisions seem like natural disasters rather than the result of policy choices.

Indeed, a significant portion of the £22bn deficit stems from Labour’s own decisions £9.4bn is attributed to public sector pay raises, and another £1.5bn is linked to emergency NHS funding. While Labour considered these necessary expenditures, they were not the only options available. The term “black hole” implies an unavoidable shortfall, but budget gaps are shaped by political priorities.

Governments frequently adjust policies to meet self-imposed fiscal rules. If economic forecasts improve, today’s financial “black hole” is replaced with “headroom,” justifying tax cuts or new spending initiatives. This approach leads to reactive policymaking driven by fluctuating projections rather than long-term strategy.  Such budgetary manoeuvrings are nothing new. In 2002, Gordon Brown was accused of manipulating Treasury forecasts to justify Labour’s fiscal plans, leading then-Tory leader Michael Howard to claim a “black hole” was emerging. In 2010, George Osborne used the term to rationalise £81bn in spending cuts, arguing they were necessary to restore economic stability.

While fiscal rules are important, it is also crucial to recognise that economic forecasts are often wrong. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), despite its role in shaping government decisions, does not govern the country elected officials do. Labour was voted in with the understanding that tax increases were likely. Instead of framing these moves as inevitable responses to a crisis, the government should acknowledge them as choices reflecting its priorities.

In the end, the idea of a fiscal black hole is more about perception than reality. The UK’s financial challenges are real, but they are shaped by political decisions rather than an unavoidable economic force. Every government must navigate difficult tradeoffs, but transparency and accountability should remain at the forefront. Instead of hiding behind economic metaphors, politicians should be clear about their choices and their consequences because, unlike a black hole in space, the nation’s finances are not governed by the laws of physics, but by those in power.

Faris Ahmed

Starmer’s Foreign Policy: What does it

Mean for Britain’s Global Standing?

The 2024 UK general election saw a landslide victory for the centre-left Labour Party, landing Britain a new government under Keir Starmer. Before this, Britain was led by Rishi Sunak of the Conservative party and faced political and economic uncertainty including issues around Ukraine, economic instability, and declining international influence. Public frustration was prevalent over problems like the cost-of-living crisis and economic uncertainty as well as the decline of the popularity of the Conservative Party. Now, with Labour Party leader Keir Starmer in power, Britain’s international position could change significantly, potentially reshaping Britain’s global standing through diplomacy, defence and economic policies.

One of Starmer’s key foreign policy goals is to strengthen and rebuild international relations, prioritising the United States, European Union and NATO. In July 2024, Starmer hosted a summit with European leaders, discussing topics on migration and defending diplomacy. The UK was established as a key player in discussions surrounding Ukraine and President Zelensky addressed the session, stressing the importance of European unity.

One of Starmer’s key foreign policy goals is to strengthen and rebuild international relations, prioritising the United States, European Union and NATO. In July 2024, Starmer hosted a summit with European leaders, discussing topics on migration and defending diplomacy. The UK was established as a key player in discussions surrounding Ukraine and President Zelensky addressed the session, stressing the importance of European unity. Starmer has also been eager to travel to Washington to strengthen diplomatic and economic ties with the US. His recent meeting with President Trump at the White House resulted in mutual praise and a focus on strengthening the "special relationship" between the two nations. Trump referred to Starmer as a "special man" and a "tough negotiator," and Starmer even invited Trump for a state visit to the UK, meeting King Charles III as part of it. Despite these successes, there are still challenges in trying to secure a US commitment to support European defence initiatives in Ukraine. Although Starmer's policies will help consolidate diplomatic

ties with European nations and the US, Britain will find it difficult to regain its old position as a leading global influence.

Starmer’s government has also controversially decided to increase defence spending, funded by considerable cuts to international aid. International Development Minister Annelise Dodds resigned due to this, warning it would be “impossible to maintain these priorities given the depth of the cut” and claiming that this decision would most likely force Britain to withdraw from African, Caribbean and Balkan areas, which is risky considering Russia’s increasingly aggressive global presence. Before Starmer visited the US, it was announced that international aid funding ‘would be reduced from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in 2027 to fund an increase in defence spending’, as written by the BBC. Supporters of Starmer’s decision have argued that a stronger military should be prioritised, especially given the fact that European military weakness has been exposed by Trump’s withdrawal of aid to Ukraine. However, cutting international aid could cause a major blow to Britain’s popularity and reputation as a humanitarian leader, potentially leading developing nations to seek help from rivals like Russia or China.

Apart from foreign goals, Starmer has announced that his government is focusing on economic growth and sustainability within Britain, including the plan to establish ‘Great British Energy’, a clean energy company with the aim of “[cutting] bills, [creating] jobs and [delivering] energy independence”. Additionally, the Labour government has outlined its aim to “make Britain a clean energy superpower”, planning on providing a decarbonised power system in the UK by 2030. They plan to execute this plan by doubling onshore wind, tripling solar power and quadrupling offshore wind during this time. These plans highlight a commitment to environmental goals, and the plan to renationalise Britain’s railways and strengthen workers’ rights, exemplifies Starmer’s aims to enhance the UK’s global economic standing.

Overall, Keir Starmer’s government has ambitious goals to actively reshape and rebuild Britain’s global standing through a variety of policies and diplomatic plans. Starmer has already made efforts to strengthen alliances, reallocate defence and aid budgets, and introduce economic reforms. Through this, he plans to increase Britain’s influence on a worldwide level, as he aims to assert the UK’s role as a strong international power that can navigate geopolitical atmospheres

Hiba Ahmad

The 2025 German Election: A Country Divided

The February 2025 German election is one of the most consequential in the country’s recent history, marking a change in the nation’s politics. It was held several months before its initial plan due to the collapse of the governing coalition. It also had a record high participation rate, with a turnout of 82.5%, heavily indicative of voter concern and anxiety. The CDU/CSU alliance, which is the conservative Christian Democratic Union and its partner the Christian Social Union, secured the 26.8% of the popular vote, the highest among all parties. However, at the same time, this election saw the far-right party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), celebrate its record result, of 20.8% of the vote. Following the election, Friedrich Merz, the leader of the centreright CDU/CSU and the most likely chancellor-to-be, must take over Europe’s largest economy amidst a stagnant economy, a second Trump term, and global uncertainty.

This election result reflects broader European trends and challenges:

Rejection of incumbents

The 2025 outcome stemmed from the fall of the ‘Traffic Light Coalition’, leaving the government without a majority, and saw all the governing parties suffer. It was another example of an election where the incumbents have been punished by the electorate. It also highlighted voter backlash to economic conditions, notably the high cost of energy from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, ageing demographics, and a worsening economic state overall. Scholz’s SPD was forced behind into third place, gaining only 16.4% of votes in a historic low; the FDP saw the loss in all its seats, and the Greens’ vote share also declined. These parties failed to deliver the reset and progress they promised. In turn, voters were deeply frustrated with the state left by the left-leaning coalition. Merz was successfully able to position his party as the alternative to the government’s failures in migration and economic policy.

The rise of right-wing populism

The AfD, viewed as the biggest winner, doubled its support base since the last election and now stands as the largest opposition party. The party also enjoyed endorsement and intervention from Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk. Therefore, under Alice Weidel, AfD is cementing itself into German politics and ‘can no longer be dismissed as a fringe phenomenon’, as stated by the FT. It even seems likely that they may win the most votes in the Bundestag’s next election, as loyalty to the mainstream parties has disappeared. The party’s focus on economic hardships, anti-immigration

with their message of ‘German jobs for German people’ and green transition appealed to disillusioned voters.

Regional differences in voter support were stark In East Germany, AfD support exceeded 40% in some constituencies. East Germany includes former industrial heartlands where there are record levels of unemployment and low growth. The map of election results highlights that in East Germany, apart from Berlin, AfD support is the strongest, reflecting the East-West divide of the Cold War. This was demonstrated in them having the largest portion of the second ballot vote, under the German Mixed Member Proportional system, emphasising the strength of the party’s representation. Their electoral breakthrough reflects the trend in other European nations and may embolden them.

Demonstrated changing voting patterns

The migration away from the SPD towards the CDU/CSU, which had roughly 2 million SPD votes, reflects a change in voting patterns. The Left Party, which had suffered from years of declining popularity and membership, also benefitted from a surge of support through its digital campaign on social media platforms. The party was successful at appealing to young voters who were disillusioned with the SPD and Greens and outraged by the far-right, leading them to profit and take almost 9% of the vote. Moreover, the recent vote had clear age discrepancies. The youth cast their votes for either side of the political spectrum, particularly the AfD and the Left Parties, with 25% and 21% of the 18-24 vote, while older voters were more likely to vote for the centrist parties.

Ultimately, the February election has created unease in a post-war country that promised to keep political forces like the AfD away. This highlighted the growing influence of populist movements and the challenges facing traditional parties. Merz’s vote share wasn’t as high as opinion polls had suggested and given that he has stated that he will uphold the ‘firewall’ convention with the hard right AfD, the most probable outcome will be a ‘Grand Coalition’ with the SPD. After a government is

formed, Merz has pledged to play a greater role in upholding European unity by increasing its defence and boosting economic growth, to make the bloc and Germany independent.

Sanaaya Patel

The Power of Violent Rhetoric in Populist Movements

Populism, characterised by its divisions between the ‘corrupt elite’ and the ‘ordinary’ people, has shaped the political landscape with the growing use of violence. Populism has more recently been linked to anti-immigration sentiment, far-right policies, and growing divisions in society. A key theme of violence and populism is the use of rhetoric by leading politicians where inflammatory language to mobilise supporters leads to real-world consequences. This is most evident with Donald Trump, who encourages violence in his speeches and uses a dangerous narrative to control his followers, fostering an environment where violence is legitimised as a political tool.

As previously stated, the rhetoric employed by leaders fuels populist violence by portraying the opposition as an existential threat. Recent examples of violent populism include the 2024 UK riots and Trumpism. Though not limited to these examples, in my opinion, these episodes emphasise the danger of populism when leading politicians to manipulate the rhetoric. Given this trend, it is more persuasive to argue that the rise in populist movements has fuelled (political and social) violence, with the rhetoric to justify and amplify the use of extremist narratives contributing to a growth in the number of hate crimes globally.

The role of rhetoric and narrative in the media and by politicians is a crucial catalyst for igniting violence in popular movements. This is evident in the summer 2024 UK riots, which stemmed from misinformation. Following the stabbings that took place at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class, word quickly spread that the attacker was an asylum seeker. This false information spread on X and was amplified by high-profile far-right accounts, such as Tommy Robinson, fuelling the unrest across England.

Around 30 riots broke out across 27 towns between July 30th and August 7th. One of the first riots took place in Southport outside a mosque, where 70 people gathered, and the crowd grew to hundreds throwing petrol bombs. 13 people were arrested, marking an unprecedented scale of far-right violence. One interviewee on

Channel 5 news stated, ‘Over 186,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of whom are children… do you see us burning every synagogue that supports the Israeli regime?’

On July 31st, 100 people were arrested for offences including carrying class-A drugs and using weapons. Police argued that the failure to manage asylum claims left asylum seekers vulnerable to violence. The 2024 riots were driven by racial intolerance, disrupting communities and exposing the government's weak response. The roots of this violence naturally come back to immigration and how the government have failed to order asylum claims efficiently, though the use of language online and by other leading figures encouraged the violence, and far-right populists have firmed that they will turn to violence in the case of disruption in their aims and goals.

Discussing populism requires acknowledging Trumpism, which was reactivated by his November 2024 election win. Trumpism combines populism and nationalism to appeal to Americans' economic and social insecurities. To some extent, Trump is a populist authoritarian, combining a tough stance on national security and culture with appeals to ordinary people by excluding the media and elites. However, to say that Trumpism is inherently associated with violence is unjust. Trumpism's rhetoric is violent and dangerous, but the movement’s actions do not directly equate to violence.

A prominent example of Trumpism correlating with violence is the 2021 Capitol riot. With ultimately no plan other than to enter the capitol and cause disruption, the rioters wanted to ‘stop the steal’ from Trump’s presidency to Biden’s presidency, alleging election fraud in the November 2020 election. Donald Trump encouraged these riots, he lost the election and told his supporters to enter the capitol where he would be ‘right by your side’. The ‘Stop the Steal’ slogan shows how populism can turn from words into violence, resulting in broken windows, damaged artefacts, and threats of gun violence. While the rioters had no clear aim inside the

Capitol, this remains a clear example of violence playing a key role in the populist movement.

So, violence is not an inherent feature of populism, but many populist movements turn to violence to amplify their message more effectively. The nature of this relationship is nuanced and violence in modern populist movements is more common through media and language. The rise of inflammatory language and misinformation plays a key role in fuelling divisive movements. The 2024 riots and Trumpism are only two examples of how populism can become extremely dangerous when expressed incorrectly.

Katherine Campbell

The Effects of the M23 in the Democratic Republic of Congo

The M23 is an armed rebel group consisting mainly of ethnic Tutsis that are based in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which borders Rwanda and Uganda. They emerged in 2012 after a previous rebel group known as the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP) mutinied from the Congolese army. The M23 name stems from the peace agreement of March 23rd, 2009, which aimed to integrate former rebels into the DRC national army. However, the M23 fighters claim that the DRC government failed to uphold this agreement, leading to their rebellion and capture of the city of Goma between 2012 and 2013, although power was gained back shortly after.

After 2013, the M23 were mostly dormant due to a peace deal on February 24th, 2013, with 11 other African nations. This led to many M23 fighters taking refuge in Rwanda and Uganda, with both countries being accused by the DRC, supported by the United Nations, for supporting and supplying weapons to M23 rebels. Both countries have denied these allegations, but with the M23 fighters taking refuge in Rwanda and Uganda and refusing to fully disarm, many other African nations, such as Angola, have hosted peace talks to attempt to ease the situation. Additionally, the United States, the UN, and the European Union have all called for Rwanda to halt its alleged support of the M23.

In early 2025, fighting between Congolese security forces and M23 drastically escalated in Goma and along the edge of the DRC/Rwandan border. This led to the fall of Goma to M23, further uprooting hundreds of thousands of residents who had already been internally displaced over the years. On February 4th, 2025, a unilateral ceasefire was agreed by the M23; however, UN estimates of between 900 and 2,000 deaths had already occurred.

The resurgence of the M23 in the DRC has significantly strained political relations in 2025, both regionally and internationally. The escalation of fighting is worrying as the

situation is already lethal, and a full-scale war would most likely lead to the resurfacing of the deep divisions within the already unstable region. The Second Congo War of 1998 is widely considered to be the second deadliest of human history following WWII, and a subsequent one would only ignite these tensions across Africa.

The reason behind this seemingly sudden uprising is due to many underlying historic and ethnic tensions about claims of areas of land within the DRC. However, one of the most important factors is this area’s vast resource and mineral deposits.

It is therefore believed that Rwanda’s main incentive to provide weapons and support to the M23 is to help secure the economic benefits of this mineral wealth, including large quantities of gold, coltan, and other rare earth materials, that make this area invaluable. This makes the city of Goma a key target, as it serves as a major economic hub close to the border between the two states. By occupying Goma, the M23 has extreme leverage in any peace or ceasefire negotiations, control of vital trade routes, and a strengthened position against rival forces, such as the Congolese army (FARDC).

Additionally, the M23 has been able to capitalise on the weaknesses of FARDC due to the high rates of corruption across the DRC. This corruption has contributed to the FARDC having limited supplies, weapons, and training, making them susceptible to strategic and coordinated attacks by M23 fighters. The Congolese government, led by Félix Tshisekedi, has also refused any direct talks with the M23, calling them a ‘terrorist group serving Rwanda’. This only exacerbates the tense political climate and reenforces the M23’s distaste and detached feelings towards the government of the DRC.

Unfortunately, it is not only the soldiers and fighters that are affected. This brutality materialises across many different aspects of the DRC. The local populations are devastated, with raids by various groups across the country, including the M23, resulting in massacres and executions, leaving them extremely vulnerable. Sexual violence against women and children have become weapons of war, used to terrorise

communities and villages, specifically targeting certain ethnic groups for mass sexual assault and violence. The Congolese officials and police force often do little to combat this, failing to protect thousands of victims, typically in exchange for bribes. Though the government has pledged reforms, little has been done, meaning the DRC has been dubbed the ‘rape capital of the world’. A UN-verified statistic estimates a “30% increase in grave violations” against children since the surge in attacks by the M23 in 2025, showcasing just how destructive this aggression is.

Mass displacement of over 1.1 million people has occurred since 2021, with families fleeing to displacement camps. Yet, conditions at these camps are often unsanitary, leading to the spread of disease and health complications such as malnutrition and dehydration. A staggering 23.4 million Congolese suffer from food insecurity and although these cases are not all directly linked to the M23 attacks, similar kinds of groups causing terror throughout the country all play a part in making the DRC the most food insecure country in the world.

The role of international security forces in the country has also been inconsistent. NGOs and aid groups have provided help, such as in 2023 when the South African Development Community deployed troops in an intervention with the UN, to stabilise the situation. Many of these interventions have been called to withdraw by Tshisekedi, further causing barriers to aid delivery to the most vital areas. The exchange of missile attacks between the Congolese forces and the M23 remains commonplace, leaving the relationship between the DRC, Rwanda, Uganda, and other surrounding countries fragile.

Overall, the situation remains dire, and as relationships between these countries fail, the political relations with non-African countries also worsen, especially after the recent attacks by the M23 group.

Kamala Bates

The Gender Divide: How Literature Reflects and Reshapes Politics

Gender affects representation, policy, and power in international politics; it is more than just identification. Women are still politically marginalised and historically barred from positions of leadership in both authoritarian and democratic countries. Literature provides a powerful prism through which to view patriarchal systems, which, according to feminist theory, perpetuate inequality. Books such as Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and Virginia Woolf's 'A Room of One's Own' investigate the strong relationship between women's political struggles and the enforcement and resistance of gender roles.

Gender and Feminism in Politics

According to feminist political theory, gender is a system that defines who is excluded and who has power, not just a personal identity. Despite efforts to change this, women remain underrepresented in business, government, and the legal profession. The United Nations has acknowledged gender equality as a global issue through legislation such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Nonetheless, discrimination continues in many places under the guise of custom, religion, or cultural norms.

In the dystopian society depicted in Margaret Atwood's ‘The Handmaid's Tale’, women are dehumanised and relegated to their reproductive role. The stringent gender roles in the Republic of Gilead reflect actual laws that deny women access to healthcare related to reproduction and physical autonomy. Atwood's book serves as a cautionary tale about how easily political liberties can be lost when patriarchal systems are not opposed.

The Battle for Equality and Literature

Virginia Woolf contends in ‘A Room of One's Own’ that women have been excluded from literature and public life due to their lack of financial independence and educational opportunities. She makes the argument that women find it difficult to attain political and intellectual independence in the absence of economic stability. Girls in many underdeveloped nations are still denied access to school, which keeps them stuck in cycles of poverty and powerlessness. Woolf's argument goes beyond literature to demonstrate how power has always been used through control over narratives and knowledge.

Through challenging social conventions and elevating marginalised voices, literature subverts these power structures. Woolf and Atwood show that gender is a political issue with tangible repercussions rather than only a personal identity. Their art demonstrates how oppression is accepted and how it may be challenged.

Gender in Activism, Policy, and Law

Law and policy are greatly influenced by gender. Finland, New Zealand, and other nations with high female representation typically place a high priority on social welfare, healthcare, and education. On the other hand, countries with low levels of gender diversity in leadership frequently disregard or deliberately violate women's rights, which feeds the cycle of inequality. Feminist advocacy is still needed, as evidenced by the gender pay gap, lack of employment rights, and under-representation of women in business and politics.

Women-led movements like #MeToo and the suffragettes indicate that gender inequality is a social and political issue. Recent demonstrations in Poland against restrictive abortion laws and mandatory hijabs in Iran show how gender continues to play an important role in global political battles. These movements illustrate that gender is not apolitical by questioning patriarchal norms

The Significance of Gender in International Politics

Disregarding gender in politics is equivalent to disregarding the disparities in power that influence society. Addressing systemic inequality requires an understanding of how gender affects conflict, law, and policy. Despite their critical role in human rights, security, and economic development, women and other marginalised gender identities suffer obstacles that are frequently disregarded.

The relationship between politics and literature demonstrates that gender is more than simply an abstract idea; it actively influences action, leadership, and legislation. While feminist movements continue to fight repressive systems, authors like Woolf and Atwood show how gender stereotypes affect people's everyday lives. Instead of deconstructing outdated power structures, politics will continue to strengthen them in the absence of gender-conscious policy and representation. To create a more equal world, it is imperative to acknowledge the political significance of gender.

Jade Qursha

What is the World’s Biggest Political Problem?

The world we are living in today is beset with a plethora of issues, ranging from regional to global. Arguments can be made for a variety of them to be the world’s biggest political problem; these may include climate change, wars, issues of sovereignty over regions of neighbouring countries, and various political economy issues such as debt control, currency devaluation, and fiscal control. Climate change can be said to be a political issue as it involves competing interests of different nations and competing narratives of the developed global north vs the under-developed or developing global south, as well as interests of the fossil fuel industry. It has the potential to unravel in conflict, which will have consequences for the future of humanity. Trade wars over global control can trigger some unfortunate catastrophes. Wars and violent conflict are ongoing, which in the age of technology and weapons of mass destruction can result anytime in a doomsday.

There is Palestinian-Israel conflict, instability in Afghanistan, and civil wars in Sudan, along with border conflicts such as that of Azerbaijan-Armenia or Chinese intention to annex Hong Kong and Taiwan. Some of these, for instance, Palestinian-Israel conflict and instability in Afghanistan, attract global attention because of their global connections. But an argument can be made that these are all historical baggage of the present world. The world’s major political problem, which can be truly said to be born out of this historical conjuncture and is global on scale with global consequences, can be said to be populism. Populism is both the product of the current global impasse with potential to disrupt political systems and relations across the globe, as well as the cause of much of the current global moment.

Populism thrives on rewriting history to fit a nationalistic or religion-nationalistic narrative while putting blame on religious, ethnic, and cultural minorities or immigrants and foreigners. This leads to narrow nationalism, which can border on fascist rhetoric, and erasure of diversity. In bigger countries such as the US, the talking point could also be “too much sacrifice” for the rest of the world. Populism makes politics attractive and digestible in bite-sized chunks, perfect for social media. Take the example of Imran Khan, the populist ex-PM of Pakistan, who rode to power on promises of solving the country's corruption problem in 90 days and bringing back

millions of dollars stashed in Swiss bank accounts. It was a simplistic answer to Pakistan’s structural issues, such as reliance on IMF bailouts and a dwindling economy supported by remittances. His rhetoric simplified economic complexities, and his dismissal of persecuted Hazara protesters as "blackmailers" showcased the impunity of populist leaders. Similarly, Donald Trump’s claim that he could "stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody" without losing voters encapsulates the dangers of populism.

In India, Modi’s BJP government has used the Hindutva narrative to consolidate power, leading to increased insecurity among Indian Muslims. The Congress party’s earlier hegemony relied on independence-era nationalism, but its failure to address economic inequalities allowed the BJP to fill the void. Erdogan’s rise in Turkey followed a similar pattern; the Kemalist state had suppressed religious identity, and Erdogan’s populist narrative promised a new Turkey while marginalizing Kurds and dissenters.

Populism gives leaders a sense of impunity, eroding accountability. It doesn’t dismantle democracy outright but disfigures it, using democratic institutions to disadvantage minorities. Bolsonaro in Brazil, Orban in Poland, Le Pen in France, and the Brexit campaign all used fear of the “Other” to push simplistic solutions to complex problems.

Populism is eating democratic systems from the inside. With modern tools of communication and propaganda, it spreads rapidly. Countering it requires similar modern strategies to uphold material and civic equality. The time to act is now.

Mayher Tyagi

How America's Wealthy Elite Are Reshaping

Politics

‘Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.’ These words from former President Biden’s Farewell Address bring our attention towards the growing influence of the ultra-wealthy on the US political landscape. This influence was on full display during President Trump’s 2025 inauguration, where top tech billionaires were seated ahead of his political staff: a frightening symbolic moment. With billions of dollars flowing into campaign financing, legislative lobbying, and the media, the power of the wealthiest individuals has never been more pronounced.

Economic inequality in the US has grown significantly over the past few decades, and with it, the political influence of the wealthy elite. In 2021, the top 10% of Americans held nearly 70% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 50% held just 2.5%. The number of billionaires in the US has surged, with the richest 20 individuals holding more wealth than the combined wealth of half of all Americans, approximately 57 million households.

A major turning point was the Supreme Court’s 2010 divisive 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which determined that individuals and corporations could spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns. This led to Super PACs (Political Action Committees), which can direct vast sums of money toward campaigns they support, and dark money undisclosed money from nonprofit organisations being used by billionaires to steer political discourse with minimal accountability.

The revolving door between corporate America and the US government also demonstrates the power held by the elite. Former politicians frequently transition into lucrative lobbying roles for industries they once regulated, while executives and industry experts secure government roles in regulatory agencies such as the SEC, FDA or EPA, to help craft polices that benefit their former employers. Steven

Mnuchin, for example, a former Goldman Sachs banker, served as Treasury Secretary under Trump where he influenced tax policies that disproportionately benefited Wall Street. Industries such as Big Tech, pharmaceuticals, and Wall Street spend billions lobbying Congress to secure tax cuts, and favourable legislation. Pharmaceutical companies have successfully lobbied against price controls, keeping drug costs high for ordinary Americans while maintaining record profits for executives and shareholders.

A handful of billionaires control much of American media. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, Elon Musk has taken over X (formerly Twitter), and Mark Zuckerburg owns Meta. The looming TikTok ban, the only major social media platform not owned by an American billionaire, highlights this monopolisation of the media, affecting political narratives and influencing public opinion. The power these individuals wield threatens the diversity of perspectives necessary for a functioning democracy.

A recent example encapsulating Biden’s fears is the Adelson family’s involvement in Texas politics and sports. The late Sheldon Adelson and his wife had spent over $500 million on Republican campaigns and secretly purchased the Las Vegas ReviewJournal, Nevada’s largest newspaper. They shifted its editorial stance dramatically to favour Republican policies and the casino industry, while reportedly being pressured to avoid negative coverage of the Adelsons. Following Sheldon Adelson’s death in 2021, Miriam Adelson began pushing for casino legalisation in Texas, donating millions to Texan Republicans to advance gambling legislation.

In 2023, Miriam Adelson and her son-in-law, Patrick Dumont, acquired a majority stake in the Dallas Mavericks, from Mark Cuban for $3.5 billion. Shortly after, the Mavericks traded star Luka Dončić to the Los Angeles Lakers, a move that blindsided fans and analysts alike. Dončić, who led his team’s recent NBA Finals run, and one of the NBA’s top players, was reportedly not consulted, nor were the coaching staff. Dončić told reporters he thought it was ‘April 1st’ when he heard of the news. While being a majority owner, Cuban said that he would sooner file for divorce than trade Dončić. The Lakers General Manager (GM) had initially laughed at the Mavericks GM for proposing the trade,

thinking it was a joke, and later reports stated that the Mavericks GM did not explore trade options with other teams, indicating a rushed trade and raising questions about the deal’s motivations.

The unusual and unprecedented nature of the trade fuelled speculation that the Adelsons were less interested in basketball success and more focused on using the Mavericks as a bargaining chip to legalise casinos in Texas, furthering their political interests.

The influence of America’s wealthiest individuals extends far beyond economics. As billionaires increasingly use their wealth to dictate politics, restrict diverse media narratives, and serve their agendas, the very essence of a democracy is at risk. Without stronger regulations, the nation will continue to drift further into a plutocracy – where the voice of the many is drowned out by the money of the few.

Lev Mert

Abandoning Ukraine: The Global Fallout of the Trump Policy Shift

Over three years into a long war in Ukraine, everything has changed. Even as I write this article, things are changing every day. The hard shift in U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration signals a large turning point in US policy, with uncertain consequences for Ukraine, Russia, and the wider international order.

The groundwork for the 2025 shift away from military aid

Following the initial invasion, Ukraine became increasingly dependent on Western military aid for its war effort. The US, its primary supporter, supplied advanced weaponry, intelligence, and financial assistance. Dated from the final hours of the Biden administration, since the start of the invasion in February 2022, the US has provided $65.9bn in military support. President Trump’s decision to withdraw aid to Ukraine mark a serious shift in US policy, as the previous Biden administration was dedicated to US support of Ukraine, through a bilateral agreement with Ukraine over mineral trading and a $50bn loan from the G7. This support played a crucial role, allowing Ukraine to resist Russian advances.

The

Trump administration's new approach

Unlike his predecessor, Trump is willing to engage directly with Russia, exploring diplomatic avenues to end the war. Within weeks of taking office, he initiated formal contact with Putin, through a 90-minute phone call in February, where the possibility of peace negotiations was discussed. The controversial US-Russia summit in Riyadh followed this, which was the first time top-level US and Russian officials had met since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, aiming to improve relations and lay the groundwork for an end to the war.

These decisions have excluded Ukraine, harming security and sovereignty. Hegseth, the US defence secretary, commented post-summit, that there would be ‘No US troops for Ukraine in any future security arrangement, no likelihood of Ukraine joining NATO, and no realistic possibility of returning to its pre-2014 borders’, contradicting Zelenskyy’s goals. This early yet indelicate solution from Trump conveys his new priorities in policy, focusing on securing the South American border, tariffs, China and the Pacific, over US intervention in Europe.

On February 28, 2025, Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy had a highly charged interaction in the Oval Office. Centring on finalising the Ukraine-United States Mineral Resources Agreement, a deal poised to grant the US huge access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in exchange for economic aid and security assurances. However, the discussions quickly escalated into a confrontational exchange. President Trump and Vice President Vance openly criticised President Zelenskyy’s stance on the ongoing conflict with Russia, accusing him of hindering peace efforts by refusing to make necessary concessions. The heated televised exchange concluded abruptly without the signing of the agreement. This unprecedented confrontation is indicative of the growing hostility towards aid to Ukraine, in favour of re-introducing ties with Russia, and is also a demonstration of Trump’s ‘America First’ policy. Trump is taking a sensitive and traumatic experience, the war in Ukraine, and turning it into a transactional exchange, about how the US can profit, through minerals, in a peace deal.

The ‘pause’ on military aid and strategic repositioning

The most consequential and controversial decision came in early March when President Trump ordered a “pause” on U.S. military aid to Ukraine, immediately suspending over $1bn in weapons, arguing that continued military assistance would only prolong the war.

The halt on aid has been felt globally, as now European leaders scramble to pick up the pieces of the US’ previously major role in the defence of Ukraine. European leaders, many of whom had already been uneasy about Trump’s scepticism toward the sanctity of NATO, saw the decision as a warning that US commitment to transatlantic security was wavering. On 6th March, at the Brussels summit, all 27 leaders of Europe greenlighted proposals that could free up billions of euros to boost defence spending, an obvious acceptance of the growing threat of Russian

power against Europe, now joined with a growing possible friendship with the US. However, without the industrial capacity and stockpiles of the US, European countries face the future logistical challenges in matching the scale of American military aid.

Ukraine’s next chapter

The future of Ukraine now relies on its ability to adapt to shifting global dynamics, which risks concessions to Russia. With US military aid halted and European nations scrambling to fill the gap, Kyiv faces mounting pressure to sustain its defences while navigating renewed diplomatic efforts. Russia, emboldened by Western divisions, may

intensify its offensives, testing Ukraine’s resilience. Whether European allies can provide sufficient long-term support remains uncertain, as does the prospect of an agreed-upon peace agreement, leaving the future of Ukraine fragile.

Isabella Swan

What Trump’s Executive Orders Reveal About His Agenda

Executive orders are one of the most powerful tools available to a US president. They allow a president to make official directives that have the force of law without going through the normal legislative process. The executive orders are not just goals or promises mentioned in the inauguration speech, they are legally binding and do not require approval from Congress. Trump signed 220 executive orders in his first term, changing policies on immigration, climate change, and trade without legislative approval. Conversely, Biden signed just 103 executive orders in his full four-year term of office. Since Trump has returned to office on the 20th of January 2025 and as of 3rd March 2025, he has already issued 76 executive orders which highlight a shift towards hardline nationalism and deregulation. Many of Trump’s second term executive orders show a more extreme and aggressive approach with significant domestic and international implications.

One of Trump’s first executive orders in his second term was the elimination of DEI programs across all federal government departments. Trump argued that DEI initiatives undermine meritocracy and promote “reverse discrimination”. However, his actions will reduce racial and gender diversity efforts in government hiring. It will also impact education as there will be a loss of funding for DEI programs. Another controversial order relaxes enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which penalises US businesses for bribing foreign officials. Trump argues that strict enforcement of the FCPA disadvantages US companies in comparison to international competitors. Trump’s position promotes unethical business practices and will damage the global reputation of the US.

Trump has always had strong views on immigration but in his second term he has already declared a “national emergency” at the southern border. This has allowed him to use an executive order to deploy the military without approval from Congress, as he thinks the Mexican border is overrun by drug cartels and criminal gangs. One of Trump’s most controversial executive orders is an end of birthright citizenship, which is a direct challenge to the US Constitution. This differs from his first term when his broader immigration plans were abandoned due to legal pushback from the courts.

It could be argued that the most concerning use of Trump’s executive power is to target political opponents. He has revoked security clearances for former intelligence officials who have criticised him and his administration in any form. Trump also pardoned January 6th rioters, referring to them as “hostages”, disregarding one of the largest criminal investigations in US history. These decisions emphasise the approach Trump is using to ensure absolute power in his second term.

Trump’s second term strategy is to issue as many executive orders as quickly as possible, making it difficult for the US courts to keep up. Out of the three branches of US government (executive which is headed by the president, legislative which is the Senate and House of Representatives and judicial which is the Supreme and lower courts), Trump’s use of executive orders means the executive neuters the second branch and the speed at which he is issuing these executive orders means the third branch is unable to keep up and hold him to account. The balance of power in the US government and the role of the three branches has been destroyed.

Therefore, Trump’s second term orders not only build on his first term ones, but they are more strategic and aggressive. During his first term in 2017, he was forced to moderate his policies, however, with a more loyal administration and a tactical approach to the legalities in his second term, Trump is making very extreme and controversial decisions. His approach to immigration has changed from prohibiting entry to attempting to make changes to the constitution. Similarly, while his environmental policies in his first term concentrated on rolling back regulations, his second term policies have increased the dependency on fossil fuel, going against the notion of recognising climate change. The arguably most alarming change from his first term is his willingness to use executive power against political opponents, something rarely seen in US politics.

Trump’s executive orders are making US politics even more polarised because supporters see the orders as essential actions against ‘woke’ politics, while critics argue they go against the true principles of democracy. Trump’s suppression of immigration and DEI programs may cause legal issues, and his environmental

decisions could create a divide between federal and state policies, especially in predominantly democratic states. Trump’s isolationist approach is straining international relations. For example, the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement weakens global cooperation over climate change and his trade policies have caused economic conflicts with the other global trade powers and unions.

In his first term, Trump was often chaotic and reactive, but so far, his second term is deliberate, calculated and extreme, demonstrated by his executive orders. The hardline nationalism and direct attacks on institutions highlight that Trump is now governing without limits. For the US, this potentially signals a constitutional crisis and for the world, it marks a move away from global cooperation as America becomes more and more isolated and unpredictable.

Sophie Flanagan

Did Trump accelerate America’s decline as a global superpower?

The US has been widely considered a superpower in global politics since at least 1945. In January 2025, Donald Trump was inaugurated back into the White House, starting his second term in a rather controversial manner and prompting the question of whether he has or will accelerate America’s decline as a global superpower.

To begin with, we can observe the narrowing gap between the Chinese and the US GDP, which has been closing since 2010; already representing how US dominance may be diminishing. When reviewing Trump’s first term as president, the trade war with China was highly significant. Trump instated $360 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese goods, to which China retaliated. China served the US with countless struggles, including a deficiency of demand (agriculture struggled in particular); and a disruption of global supply chains, which resulted in a raised cost of production for US firms. Trump's initial aim of slowing down China’s rapid growth backfired by slowing US growth greater than proportionately. Another significant moment of Trump's first term as president was the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which ended up reducing the influence the US had on trade within Asia.

In the last month, tensions have also increased with other major trade partners. Trump’s tariff policies have affected the US relationship with Canada and the EU, who have been caught in an intensifying tariff war. Trump imposed 25% tariffs on EU steel and 10% tariffs on aluminium causing retaliation from the EU in the form of tariffs on US agricultural products. The US has also imposed additional tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber, a longstanding point of dispute. Consequently, trade with these major partners has been disrupted, pushing US firms into difficult negotiations with alternative suppliers and causing increases in costs for goods and services. The tension with the EU is concerning, as it threatens to undermine the global trade order, weakening US influence in European markets.

These policies, along with several others, signified the introduction of the “America First” doctrine (where US interest is prioritised over alliances). There are several economic problems which stem from this style of agenda, one of which is the need for trade and trade partners: Trump repeatedly threatening the world with tariffs will only result in tension between the US and a long list of nations. These nations will then look elsewhere for alternative suppliers of goods and services, which will rattle US

firms as foreign demand dissipates almost entirely. From a political standpoint, this weakens the US significantly as alliances are broken down and the economy falls into a recessionary spiral of decline.

Trump has also negatively impacted the US both socially and environmentally through major reversals to climate change agreements (witnessed in the withdrawal of the Paris agreement in 2017); as well as threats to Mexicans with the construction of a wall and large-scale deportations. These are reckless decisions, given that migrants make up 17.4% of all jobs in the US.

On the other hand, Trump is an effective implementer of business-promoting policy, which has successfully sparked substantial growth for the US economy. In his first term as US president, Trump cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, whilst also lowering individual tax rates, creating 3 years of consecutive growth above inflation growth. This allowed the US to maintain a dominant role as a superpower.

Under Trump’s first term, the US also became the single largest producer of oil and natural gas, reducing their dependence on other nations for vital natural resources in production. This meant that they were less impacted by exogenous shocks, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, which severely impacted the UK and Europe.

Trump’s aggressive negotiation skills have also benefited the US relations with many other countries and regions. In the Middle East, Trump established the Abraham Accords to improve US regional influence, whilst also boosting the region's stability. Trump also became the first US president to meet with North Korea to minimise threats of nuclear war. Finally, Trump established the USMCA with Mexico and Canada to boost manufacturing and improve the existing regional trade rules.

Trump has both provided benefits and costs to the US as an economy and as a political power. He has been able to improve international relations across the globe, as well as reducing tensions with existing rivals (China, Russia, and North Korea) to benefit both the US and other global regions. However, his second term has already been extremely controversial. His protectionist policies and imposition of tariffs threaten key alliances. Therefore, it is likely that US trade will fall significantly, having a great impact on growth and accelerating the downfall of the US as a global superpower.

Andrew Cumming

JD Vance: The Threat to Judicial Authority

Vice President JD Vance has made it very clear that he does not believe the executive should be subject to court decisions that limit its agenda. Over the last few years, he insisted that if re-elected, President Trump should defy judicial decisions, including those of the Supreme Court, if they stand in the way of his executive authority. Following the temporary blocking of some of Trump’s most controversial executive orders by judges, Vance turned to X to declare that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power". This statement has caused outrage and reignited the debate on the limits of judicial authority in the US.

Vance’s views on judicial authority are not new. Before even being elected to the Senate, in 2021, Vance suggested that Trump should fire federal bureaucrats and disregard any court rulings trying to stop him. Vance reiterated this idea during his 2023 interview with Ian Ward for POLITICO Magazine. The interference by judges in executive matters, according to him, amounted to what he called the real "constitutional crisis". In his view, it was not the president undermining democratic governance if the courts were the ones limiting the executive's control of the government.

Now in 2025, Vance’s influence in government has clearly grown significantly. As vice president he is now a key adviser to Trump, allowing him to help shape White House policy. After federal courts recently blocked various Trump executive orders on issues such as birthright citizenship, military policy, and redesigning federal agencies, Vance asserted that the judiciary cannot impede executive power.

Legal experts have warned that Vance’s position on this debate challenges the foundations of the American government. The judiciary’s role is to serve as a check on executive power, ensuring that the president’s actions remain within constitutional principles. An outright ignorance of these checks could lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

Vance has framed the issue as one of separation of powers, arguing that judges have no right to interfere in military decisions or other areas traditionally controlled by the executive branch. Resharing a post by Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard Law professor and advocate for strong executive authority, Vance has embraced the view that courts should not be able to dictate the internal workings of another co-equal branch of government. Vance’s perspective on this issue proposes the worrying idea that the Trump administration may be preparing to challenge judicial constraints in new ways.

If Trump and Vance were to disobey the ruling of the Supreme Court, one key question is how the Supreme Court would respond. Chief Justice John Roberts himself warned that, "elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the spectre of open disregard for federal court rulings” in his 2024 year-end report. However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court is unable to enforce its own rulings by itself and relies on the executive to do so.

The question of whether Trump really would refuse to obey a Supreme Court order is also crucial. Trump, in a recent press conference, has vowed to follow judicial decisions, although he still criticised court rulings that slow down his agenda. Legal experts, like Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, have also pointed out that Trump almost always complied with court orders, no matter how much he claimed to disagree with them. He was, in fact, one of the worst win/loss presidents in federal courts during his first term but did actually follow all the orders.

Nonetheless, there are growing concerns about whether Trump and some of his allies, including Vance and even Musk, are trying to intimidate judges into ruling in their favour, rather than directly disobeying rulings.

Vance's remarks have prompted differing opinions within the Republican Party. Some of his allies have joined the condemnation of judicial rulings against Trump’s policies, including Senator Tom Cotton, but all have stopped short of promoting defiance. After Musk’s comments that the judge, who blocked his Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury records, was “corrupt” and should immediately be impeached, a more aggressive challenge to the judiciary has been indicated.

Meanwhile, Democrats and constitutional experts are shocked at Vance's statements, which they perceive as crossing a dangerous line. They argue that if Trump and Vance dare to completely disobey the courts, it would constitute a breach of the rule of law and the principles of constitutional democracy. This could lead to chaos and would mean the complete undermining of judicial authority.

So, Vance's comments highlight the emerging trend within the Republican Party that desires concentrated executive power. In the months ahead, the courts will be tested as to whether they will be able to check the presidential power of the Trump administration.

Aaminah Khan

Nigel Farage: The Populist Who Changed British

Politics

Nigel Farage is one of the most polarising figures in modern British politics. A political disruptor and a champion of populism, he has left an indelible mark on the UK's political landscape despite never holding office. From his early days in the Conservative Party to his leadership of UKIP and Reform UK parties, Farage has played a crucial role in reshaping British politics most notably in securing Brexit. But how did he rise to prominence, and why does he continue to command attention?

Early Life and Political Beginnings

Born in 1964, Farage attended Dulwich College before entering the world of commodities trading. His first political affiliation was to the Conservative Party in 1978, but he became disillusioned with what he saw as its pro-European stance. In 1992, he left the Conservatives and co-founded the UK Independence Party (UKIP), a fringe party focused on withdrawing the UK from the European Union. While UKIP initially struggled to gain traction, Farage’s charisma and media-savvy approach made him a key figure in the British euroscepticism movement.

The Rise of UKIP and the Brexit Campaign

Under Farage’s leadership, UKIP evolved from a single-issue protest party to a major force in British politics. His strategy was simple: appeal to voters who felt ignored by the political establishment, particularly over issues like immigration and national sovereignty.

Farage’s big break came when he was elected as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in 1999 and was sequentially re-elected in 2004, 2009, and 2014. By 2014, UKIP had secured victory in the European elections for representatives for the UK in the EU, coming first in the UK with 27% of the popular vote - an unprecedented achievement for a party outside the Conservative-Labour duopoly. His speeches in the European Parliament often filled with ridicule for EU leaders became viral moments, helping cultivate his personal persona.

The real turning point, however, came with the 2016 EU referendum. While the official Leave campaign was fronted by Boris Johnson, it was Farage who had spent years laying the groundwork for Brexit. His message, encapsulated in slogans like "We want our country back," resonated with millions of voters who felt left behind by globalisation and rapid demographic changes. Although he was not part of the official Leave campaign, his influence was undeniable.

Why is Farage Popular?

Farage’s appeal comes down to his ability to connect with dissatisfied voters. Unlike traditional politicians, he speaks in blunt, often provocative language, portraying himself as a man of the people rather than part of the Westminster elite. He frequently appears on GB News and Talk Radio, reinforcing his image as an outsider who is unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom.

However, what really sets Farage apart is his ability to use social media and pop culture to his advantage. While many politicians attempt to control their public image, Farage leans into his caricature, making himself appear humourous, self-deprecating, and, crucially, relatable to the public. Viral moments, such as chugging down a pint, being doused with a milkshake, or even exclaiming ‘Up the RA!’ have only added to his public persona.

Farage has also embraced digital platforms to stay relevant beyond traditional politics. His Cameo videos, where he delivers personalised messages sometimes serious, sometimes comical have gained widespread attention, particularly for their bizarre requests. Whether wishing someone a happy birthday or announcing their divorce, these clips showcase his willingness to laugh at himself while keeping his brand alive.

His politics are also deeply intertwined with the rise of right-wing populism across the West. In an era where anti-establishment sentiment runs high, Farage’s arguments against mass immigration, political correctness, and the European Union resonate with a significant proportion of the electorate. His support base includes not only former Conservative voters but also disillusioned working-class Labour supporters, particularly in economically depressed industrial areas. By mixing serious political messaging with an almost entertainer-like persona, Farage has carved out a unique place in British politics one that continues to attract attention, whether people love him or loathe him.

Life After Brexit and Reform UK

After Brexit, Farage briefly stepped away from politics, declaring his "job done." However, he soon returned, rebranding the Brexit Party as Reform UK and refocusing on domestic issues such as illegal immigration. Through Reform, Farage remains a key figure in British political discourse. Farage took over as leader of the party shortly before the July 2024 General Election, where the party took 14% of votes.

Farage has also forged ties with global populist movements, particularly in the United States. His close relationship with Donald Trump, whom he endorsed in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections, highlights his belief in a broader populist realignment against what he terms "the liberal elite."

Nigel Farage has never held high office – since the 2024 General Election he has been MP for Clacton – yet his influence on British politics is undeniable. He turned euroscepticism from a fringe concern into mainstream policy, pressured Conservative leaders into holding the Brexit referendum, and continues to shape political debates long after Britain left the EU. Whether one views him as a champion of democracy or a divisive populist, Farage’s impact on the UK’s political landscape is undeniable.

Kai Debenedictis

Vladimir Putin: From KGB to Kremlin

Vladimir Putin, born on October 7th, 1952, in Leningrad (now St Petersburg), has had massive influence as Russia’s leader for over 20 years. Before politics, Putin served as a KGB officer for 16 years, reaching the rank of lieutenant colonel. In 1991, he resigned to pursue a political career in Saint Petersburg.

In 1996, Putin moved to Moscow, joining the Boris Yeltsin administration. Serving briefly as the director of the Federal Security Service and then the director of the Security Council, Putin was appointed prime minister in August 1999. After Yeltsin resigned, Putin became acting president and was then elected president in 2000. He was re-elected in 2004, but due to constitutional limits of two consecutive presidential terms, Putin served as prime minister from 2008-2012 under Dmitry Medvedev. He returned to presidency, in 2012, being re-elected in 2018 and 2024.

In his early presidency, Putin established economic reforms that stabilised the Russian economy. This included reducing the power of oligarchs and reestablishing state control over key industries. He also cracked down on dissent, showing his intent to consolidate power, such as through the arrest of the oligarch Mikail Khodorkovsky. This shows the pragmatic authoritarianism that enables him to keep his power.

Throughout his presidency Putin has undermined Russian democracy and the imposed a dictatorship. Putin has increasingly stifled political opposition, delegitimised democratic institutions and gained total control of the country. One of the most significant moments was the arrest of the main opposition politician Alexei Navalny, an outspoken Putin critic, who was poisoned and imprisoned on politically motivated charges, and died last year in a Siberian jail. This, combined with his suppression of demonstrations, highlighted Putin's determination in tightening his grip on power. His arrest of protestors opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 also demonstrated his lack of tolerance for opposition. This excessive action of the state against political opponents is characteristic to Russia under Putin.

Putin’s foreign policy has been based on the focus of making Russia a global superpower. His annexation of Crimea in 2014 and involvement in Syria initially demonstrated his willingness to use military force to achieve his goals. Internationally, Putin’s actions have strengthened ties with countries like China and Iran as his opposition to NATO and alliances with these countries show his ambition to counter Western influence. By his engagement in talks, Putin presents an image of himself as a statesman willing to negotiate, despite his military operations in Ukraine continuing. In 2022, of course, he launched the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, a conflict that rages to this day.

In a recent Saudi Arabia summit, Putin met with the newly elected US president Donald Trump to discuss the war in Ukraine. A phone call between the leaders following the summit took place, where they agreed to begin negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The Russian president’s strategy appears to involve leveraging the shift in US foreign policy under Trump, who has recently paused all US military aid and intelligencesharing with Ukraine. This change has significantly weakened Ukraine’s position from both a military capability and negotiating power standpoint; it could allow for Russia to force Kyiv into a favourable settlement.

Domestically, Putin continues to consolidate his power. Despite mounting casualties and economic hardships, state-controlled media outlets have played a critical role in keeping the war popular in the eyes of the public. By keeping the media tightly in check, Putin guarantees stories favourable to the government and actions taken by the military gain attention, whilst the voices of dissent are silenced. The media frames Russia as being besieged, defending traditional values against Western decadence. This media control has helped propel Russia from a weak democracy to a full-blown dictatorship, where opposition is discredited, and the people are kept in check with the state's agenda.

Ultimately, Putin’s legacy will be shaped by the outcomes of this conflict. A favourable resolution could secure his place in Russian history as a leader who restored Russian influence. However, if the conflict continues to drag on, his legacy may be overshadowed by economic decline and international isolation.

Hassan Khursheed

The Suez Crisis: A Turning Point in British Foreign Policy

What was the Suez Crisis?

Gamal Nasser, an ambitious Arab nationalist, was appointed as the president of Egypt in 1954. One of his main goals was to dam the Aswan River to provide hydroelectric power and irrigation to help improve Egypt’s economy. Britain and the USA eagerly negotiated loan offers, hoping to secure Egypt as a Cold War ally.

However, Egypt’s tense relations with Israel led to problems with the West. Israel repeatedly attacked the Egyptian headquarters in Gaza, at the time an occupied territory of Egypt, in retaliation for Palestinian ‘Fedayeen’ raids. These attacks provoked Egypt into negotiating a secret arms deal with Czechoslovakia – a Soviet satellite state – and later publicising it in August 1955, while also blockading the Straits of Tiran, a key trade route for Israel.

Fearing that Egypt would become a Soviet ally, Britian and the USA offered a loan of $270 million for the Aswan Dam in October 1955; however, they rescinded their offer in July 1956. An angered Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, transferring control of the canal to the Egyptian government. By doing this, he could use the toll money from the canal to improve the Egyptian economy, whilst also showing the West that he didn’t need their help.

Britain – one of the previous owners of the Suez Canal who relied on it for trade and influence in the Middle East – decided that military intervention against Egypt was necessary to regain control of the canal. Therefore, Britain, France and Israel colluded to launch a co-ordinated invasion of Egypt. On 2nd October 1956, representatives from the 3 states met in secret and signed the Sevres agreement: a plan in which Israel would attack Egypt, after which Britain and France would invade, pretending to keep the peace.

Despite the Czechoslovakian arms deal, Egypt was no match for the significantly more experienced and equipped British, French, and Israeli armies. After 6 days, Israel had advanced across the Sinai desert, and Britain and France had retaken control of the Suez Canal. However, the invasion was a complete political failure: the USSR threatened to intervene; Britain faced anti-war protests from its public and criticism from President Eisenhower, forcing them, France, and Israel to withdraw.

What impact did the Suez Crisis have on British Foreign Policy?

The Suez Crisis was a complete political failure for Britain. It strained the AngloAmerican relationship, and the US was seen to be undermining British influence in the Middle East: all the Arab states saw that the USA was now calling the shots. Even the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, was forced to resign due his catastrophic handling of the crisis.

The first immediate impact was that it damaged Britain’s relations with the US. Eden’s decision to invade Egypt without approval from President Eisenhower subverted the diplomatic foundation of the Anglo-American relationship. Eisenhower publicly denounced Britain’s handling of the conflict and placed economic pressure on them – even though they were still dependent on Marshall Aid from the US due to the immense debt of WWII –harming the UK’s relationship with the US.

However, their relationship did not suffer lasting consequences. In 1958, they both signed the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, allowing for the exchange of nuclear weapons, information, and technology. Britain also showed support for the US during the crises of Berlin (1961) and Cuba (1962). Their shared Cold War concerns allowed for a quick revitalisation of their good relations.

Another, more long-lasting impact of the crisis was the shift away from Britain’s imperialistic view on foreign affairs. The Suez Crisis humiliated them internationally, exposing the decline of British power. The failure of the intervention led to a change

in public opinion, with Eden’s Labour government being greatly criticised for its handling of the situation.

Eden’s successor, Harold Macmillan, accelerated British decolonisation (a process which began after WWII) in many ways: his ‘Wind of Change’ speech in Cape Town in 1960 highlighted his view that colonialism was no longer viable in Africa; he granted independence to African states such as Nigeria, Kenya, and several others; he also avoided sending British troops to the Vietnam War in the 1960s, despite President Johnson’s constant requests for aid.

Although the Falklands war in 1982 is sometimes seen as an imperial war, overall the decolonising trend has continued, notably the peaceful Sino-British handover of Hong Kong in 1997.

The disastrous Suez Crisis still influences British foreign policy to this day; it marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire’s power and colonial influence on the international political landscape.

Lucas Mellor

The Cold War’s Enduring Influence on US

Politics

The Cold War, which lasted from 1945 to 1991, greatly shaped the domestic US political landscape. From the introduction of movements such as McCarthyism to the rise of tensions in international relations, the impact of the Cold War on US politics today is undeniable.

The Rise of McCarthyism

One of the most immediate domestic effects of the Cold War was the rise of the political movement McCarthyism, also known as the Second Red Scare, which was a political movement that was driven by severe anti-communism. Through the late 1940s and the early 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy started an initiative to expose hidden communists in positions of power within the US. This era was filled with blacklisting, limitation of freedom and a series of oaths as the fear of communism spread. The Red Scare not only stopped free speech but also increased divides that remain in some form to this day.

Foreign Policy Changes

The Cold War saw an increase in US intervention all over the globe. The policy of containment, entailed in the Truman Doctrine and the Long Telegram, led to heavy US involvement in conflicts such as the Korean War. This involvement was due to the increasing pressure to contain Soviet influence, but it also caused protests and debates to start in the US over the role of the US military abroad.

This prompted the creation of groups like the CIA, which engaged in spy missions to overthrow foreign governments which were communist threats. The expansion of authority during the Cold War set a precedent for future presidents to follow through with military operations and interventions. This debate is still present and controversial in the US today and its roots are seen in the Cold War.

Political Fallout of the Cuban Missile Crisis

One of the most vital moments of the Cold War was the Cuban Missile Crisis which is the only time the US has reached DEFCON 2. When the US discovered Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, tensions rose greatly which led the world to believe the US was on the brink of nuclear war.

The US responded with a naval blockade and quarantine which led to negotiations between the Khrushchev and JFK. The crisis ended with the Soviet Union agreeing to remove their missiles from Cuba in exchange for the US keeping peace in Cuba and secretly removing the American missiles in Turkey.

This event had several important effects on US politics such as the implementation of the hotline between the Kremlin and the White House to solve the need for better communication between the US and the Soviet Union. The US maintained their position regarding the policy of containment and the fear of a nuclear war was growing which led to treaties being formed such as the Limited Test Ban Treaty.

The Growth of the Military-Industrial Complex

President Eisenhower touched on the growing influence of the military-industrial complex in his final months of presidency in 1961. This was about the alliance between the US government, military, and defence contractors. The Cold War caused a mass increase in money being allocated to the defence which transformed the US economy and politics. Defence industries were transformed into large economic contributors, which influenced political decisions on military funding.

The Legacy of Cold War Politics in Modern America

Although the Cold War officially ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, its effects continue to shape US politics with the US continuing to intervene in other countries under the guise of threats to democracy. It led to the reinforced ideological divisions between conservatives and liberals particularly on issues like defence spending. It also led to modern surveillance programs set in place by institutions like the CIA, for example after the 9/11 attacks.

Overall, the Cold War was a defining era for the US, shaping its domestic and international policies in ways that continue to have an impact today. The conflict set the stage for expanded presidential power, an extended military-industrial relationship, and a continuous fear of the communism. Understanding the Cold War and its impacts helps to better understand many of the political challenges that the US faces today.

Angela Philip

The parallel between Trump’s America and the collapse of the Roman Republic

The Roman Republic, before its demise, had long been the most dominant force in the Mediterranean. This era of Rome’s history is known for its pioneering of democratic practices which were largely unprecedented at the time. The Roman Government was divided into three distinct branches: the senate (aristocratic), composed of the patricians of the city who advised the magistrates and handled fiscal matters, the people’s assemblies (democratic) who voted on laws and elected magistrates, and finally the magistrates (executive) where consuls and praetors were elected to enforce law and command armies.

The American political system resembles this strikingly and for no odd reason. The Roman Republic was incredibly successful and stable for its time; the Founding Fathers of the US were inspired by their success and emulated many aspects of the Roman political system in their own. The American Constitution instituted three branches: a legislative branch to introduce laws (composed of senators and representatives voted for by the people), an executive branch to propose laws, and the judicial branch to interpret and evaluate laws. The concept of a president elected on a 4-year basis is reminiscent of the Roman consuls elected for one year.

In this age of geo-political uncertainty and instability, we reflect upon our history to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors. Considering the numerous parallels between these two powerful states, the decay of the Roman Republic into the autocratic Roman Empire serves as a cautionary tale, warning America of the fragile nature of democracy and the consequences of allowing populist leaders to consolidate unchecked power.

The past year of American politics has been tumultuous. Trump’s momentous return to the presidency has shocked the nation, and he is actively commencing the largest restructuring of the US government in history. The scale of this ‘remodel’ and the ruthlessness with which Trump and his administration have been purging all the

federal employees who oppose his plans have worrying connotations for the integrity of democracy going forward. Trump’s excessive use of executive orders and his continuous, blatant disregard for the laws of the land, as well as his desire to overturn constitutional amendments such as the 14th amendment, are eerily reminiscent of Roman leaders who also undermined the Republic by bypassing the Senate and who fought for change; similarly backed by support from the masses who tired of the stagnation into which their country had fallen.

Furthermore, those very Roman leaders centralised power by swaying their troops to serve them, as their general, rather than Rome itself. The parallel in modern-day America is Trump installing figures, who are foremostly loyal to him, to positions of power rather than appointing qualified individuals. For example, Pete Hegseth, the appointed Defence secretary, who has been described by Senator Tammy Duckworth – who lost both her legs serving in combat in Iraq – as having less experience than “the manager of your local Applebee’s”. Handpicking these members creates a cabinet with supreme loyalty to Trump, whom he can depend upon to carry out his every command, practically regardless of its legal legitimacy.

January 6th, 2021, marked a historic day for the US when thousands of supporters violently stormed the Capitol, encouraged by former president Trump. It was an alarming wake-up call for the entirety of the US, as Trump, without any basis in fact or law, was involved in the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, subverting democracy through violence and disrupting the peaceful transition of power. Trump’s re-election and mass-pardon of the criminals who partook in the protest, as well as his persistent refusal to concede his loss at the 2020 election, sets a dangerous precedent. It sends a chilling message to the rest of the nation that the rule of law and the integrity of elections depend solely on certain politicians’ willingness to respect them; essentially asserting that they hold the ultimate authority rather than the people.

The Roman Republic faced strikingly similar threats in its latter years. The electoral process had weakened significantly from its former glory in the Republic’s younger

years. Wealthy politicians influenced elections at every stage and openly bought votes through bribery and intimidation. The culmination of this gradual decay of democracy was Julius Caesar’s historic crossing of the Rubicon River with his army. The Roman demographic had gradually abandoned faith in their electoral processes, believing that force, not votes, determined leadership.

Democracy cannot exist without faith from the people that the elections they vote in are impactful and directly select the leaders of their nation; without this faith, and when politicians are unchecked in their authority, a nation has resigned its democratic nature, and this is a fate the US may soon follow suit in.

The Roman Republic may have fallen, but its influence on the US today is unmistakeable.

Zayed Mohammed

The Partition of India: Shaping the Geopolitical Landscape

In 1947, after three hundred years in India, the British left the Indian subcontinent, partitioning it into two independent nation states: Hindu majority India and Muslim majority Pakistan. Immediately this resulted in one of the greatest migrations in human history, as millions of Muslims trekked to west and east Pakistan while millions of Hindus and Sikhs headed in the opposite direction. Across the Indian subcontinent, communities that had coexisted started attacking each other in a terrifying outbreak of sectarian violence, with Hindus and Sikhs on one side and Muslims on the other. This clearly displayed how vast and impactful the direct effects of the partition were. However, it has had a larger effect on the entirety of South Asia. It is evident that the partition led an indelible mark on the national consciousness of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and included both an immediate geopolitical impact as well as long lasting impact.

One of the disputes that began because of the partition of India in 1947, was the Kashmir conflict which has exacerbated tensions and influenced power dynamics between India and Pakistan to this day. The first Indo-Pakistan war was fought between the independent countries of India and Pakistan in 1947 and led to the division of Kashmir along the line of control.

The long-lasting effect of the partition is seen to have lasted decades, for example through the Kargil conflict in 1999 which clearly displayed the hostilities between the countries over this disputed land. The conflict was triggered by the infiltration of Pakistani troops, disguised as Kashmiri militants, into strategic positions on the Indian side of the line of control. The war commenced shortly after the Lahore declaration in 1999, when the Pakistani army surreptitiously occupied the winter vacated posts of the Indian army. The Kashmiri conflict, therefore, remains one of the longest standing disputes in modern geopolitics, shaping the political, military and diplomatic landscape in South Asia.

Another immediate impact that altered the geopolitics of South Asia was the secession from Pakistan of the state now known as Bangladesh. December 1971 marked the end of the Bangladesh Liberation war, a short-lived conflict that established the People’s Republic of Bangladesh from the territory of the former province of East Pakistan. East and West Pakistan were geographically, culturally and ideologically different which resulted in increased support for the independence movement for East Pakistan.

What led to the war was the role of the Awami league (especially the leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) who won a substantial victory in Pakistan’s elections and campaigned for autonomy for East Pakistan. After facing opposition from other political groups, the Pakistani army was deployed to East Pakistan and pursued a policy of reprisal, targeting supporters of Bangladesh liberation.

The army committed war crimes that reached the level of genocide of Bengalis in East Pakistan, perpetrated by the Pakistani Army and paramilitary forces. Although the fighting only lasted two weeks it became a geopolitical flashpoint. The legacy of the war continues to shape life in Bangladesh due to protests for harsher sentences for those convicted.

It is clear now that the partition led to deeply rooted hostility which resulted in impacts being visible even in the modern day, driving both countries toward nuclear weapons development as a deterrent and to improve their diplomatic position. It is also imperative to notice that the development of nuclear weapons in South Asia is not attributed completely to the partition but are also a result of Cold War dynamics and a security dilemma (due to China’s introduction of a nuclear arsenal).

Shortly after the British left, a group of Indian scientists convinced the Indian prime minister (Jawaharlal Nehru) to invest in a nuclear program. The program began in 1948 under the Atomic Energy Commission but China’s nuclear test in 1964 accelerated efforts. India conducted its first nuclear tests, Smiling Buddha, in 1974 becoming the sixth nation with nuclear capability and by 1998 India had fully weaponized its program with five tests.

Following India's 1974 nuclear test, Pakistan accelerated its own program under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and by 1998, Pakistan conducted six nuclear tests in

response to India's, officially becoming a nuclear power. As of 2023, Pakistan has an estimated 170 nuclear warheads, slightly more than India, and follows a policy of first use to counter conventional military disadvantages.

So, it is clear that the partition of the Indian subcontinent had a massive impact on geopolitics in South Asia. From its immediate effects to the effects that have been long lasting and seen in politics even in the present day, the partition was a significant geopolitical moment in South Asian history. The hostilities and animosities between the countries int the region have influenced power dynamics in South Asia and the legacy of partition still defines South Asian geopolitics, making regional peace and cooperation a challenge today.

Ryka Gehi