Edition 47

Jakob Reid

Editors’ Letters Milly and Jamie, Co-EICs

O

ur freshers edition is finally here! I am so excited to bring to you all this amazing work in print, the articles in this edition are absolutely amazing. Being elected as Editor-in-Chief still is unbelievable to me, little did we know the process and the hard work in front of us, publishing 3 or 4 online articles a week, running the instagram account, being let loose on Canva and finally, getting all the pieces for our first print together. It has been quite the journey. Reading the Freshers edition of Perspectives was what initially interested me and got me writing for the magazine, I only hope it can do the same for our incoming first years. As I always say, you can put that you were a Perspectives Writer on your LinkedIn. Some cheesy thank yous are of course necessary. To the PolSoc exec (special shoutout to Rebecca, for being brilliant, and Eleanor and Amelie for writing articles in this edition) for being the best support in the process. To Jamie, co-EIC, always brilliant and picks me up on my mistakes when I get too excited and skim over it. Jesse who despite her incredibly busy life, being in a different time zone and becoming the amazing Publicity officer that she is, has worked to bring this edition to life. Zak who has worked incredibly hard for this edition and puts up with all of Jamie and I, you are an absolute legend and we are incredibly lucky to have both of you as Design Editors. Finally, the writers of this edition, quite literally we would have none of this piece without you, thank you for your work.

This magazine and PolSoc in general has meant so much to me, giving me my closest friends, helping me find my people in first year.

Hopefully for any first years reading this, you find the same!

From, your Editor in Chief, Milly Owen

W

elcome to the 47th edition of Perspectives Magazine! What lies ahead is the very best of student journalism at Warwick. Our writers’ perspectives range from left to right; their articles from measured to impassioned, critical to hopeful. Each one expresses their own beliefs on issues that span the globe and affect us all. Whether it be a profile of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris or a film review of Alex Garland’s Civil War, this edition has something for everyone. It’s worth a read, in my humbly unbiased opinion.

2024 has already been a monumental year for world politics. Our aim with Edition 47 was to dig deeper into the stories that have been missed in such a fast paced media landscape. Our leading article, entitled ‘Broken Britain’, is a perfect example, exploring Labour’s stunning landslide victory from an angle often neglected – voter apathy. With a turnout of less than 60% and a governing mandate of just 33.7% of the popular vote, it is perhaps the biggest challenge Labour now faces in repairing our broken system.

Edition 47 also marks the first of my tenure as Editor-in-Chief. Since being elected I have loved every minute of running this magazine and am so proud of the work myself and the rest of the team have put in to make this edition possible. What at first appeared a daunting task has slowly but surely become a reality thanks to our wonderful Design Editors Zak and Jesse and, of course, co-EIC Milly.

To those new to the magazine, I hope this edition can mark the beginning of your Perspectives journey.

Warwick Politics Society and Perspectives have played a huge role in my university experience to date – helping me meet my closest friends and giving me the opportunity to do this amazing job. If this is your thing don’t hesitate to get involved. You never know, it could be you writing this letter in a year’s time!

From, your Editor in Chief, Jamie Mutch

2 PERSPECTIVES

Join Politics Society and write for Perspectives.

If you’re studying politics, are interested in political discussion or are just looking for some amazing socials, then Politics Society is the place for you!

Upcoming events

designers 23-24

@warwickpolsoc

Intro to Polsoc 2PM 24/9/2024 S0.13

Speaker events: including from our local MPs Socials: cirlces, picnics, pub crawls and more!

Sports teams: join our football and/or netball team!

Perspectives Magazine: write for us! send articles/ideas to perspectiveseditor@gmail.com

Freshers social 8:15PM 26/9/2024 The Graduate

Perspectives Magazine Launch 2PM 27/9/2024 OC1.02

Welfare brunch

AND join our WhatsApp group for first choice of print and online pitches

1PM 29/9/2024 Varsity Pub (12:30 @ Piazza)

Careers Advice: be a part of our alumni network.

Football and Netball Trials

Mentoring Scheme: join a family and make new friends, get advice from 2nd + 3rd years and more.

Winter Ball: get your tickets soon!

International tour: a holiday you’ll never forget.

@polsocsports

Bar crawl

to be released

Perspectives Writers Workshop to be released

Watch our socials for updates.

Scan to find all our links, including our writers WhatsApp group and website (perspectives.news).

Instagram: @WarwickPerspectives LinkedIn: @PerspectivesMagazine X (Twitter): @PerspectivesUoW

We’re hiring!

- Deputy Editors - Design Editors - Cartoonists/Artists

SEPTEMBER 2024 3

Contents 5

Tory Leadership Race: Who Can Rebuild?

By Talia Marie

6

Sheinbaum’s Mexico: One Big Balancing Act

By Sanjana Iyer

7

Broken Britain: Apathy in the Age of Neoliberalism

By Jakob Reid

8

South Africa Elections 2024: A Promising, Pragmatic Step

By Daniel Yates

10

Riots, Rampage, and Populism

By Kate O’Mahony

11

Rwanda Presidential Election: There is No Democracy without Opposition

By Ravi Maini

12

How to End Russia’s War on Ukraine

By Mathieu Yap

13

Australia’s Sporting Advantage: Taking Policy to the People of the Pacific

By Charlotte Rowland

14

What GB Energy will mean for Britain’s Green Transition

By Abhay Venkitaraman

15

Maduro’s Manipulation: A Triumph for Autocracy in Venezuela

By Eleanor Harrin

16

Will Democracy Make a Comeback in Bangladesh?

By Raya Hossain The Israeli-Hamas War & Regional Conflict: Understanding the Humanitarian Crisis and Potential Road to Peace

By Taran Dhillon

17

Identity in an Algorithmic Age: How it Works, How our Lives are Controlled by it, and How we can Resist it Book Review: John CheneyLippold’s ‘We Are Data’

By Raphael Hammond

20

The Fragile Line between Order and Anarchy Film Review: Alex Garland’s Civil War

By Tauseef Parkar

21

88

5 17

21

16

18

REVIEWS

DEBATE Should 16-Year-Olds Have the Vote?

FOR: By Mia Dalton AGAINST: By Nicolas Lewis

4 PERSPECTIVES

22

14

22

Images: (5) Wikimedia Commons -Gage Skidmore; (8) Flickr - openDemocracu; (14) Flickr - Nathan Hughes Hamilton; (17) Raya Hossain (21) Flickr - GPA Photo Archive;

Profile: How Kamala Harris can use the “Meme-mentum” to effectively incentivise Gen Z Voters

By Amelie Wells

AMERICA

how kamala harris can use “meme-mentum” to effectively incentivise gen-z voters

Images: X - @KamalaHarris; Unsplash - Colton Jones

by amelie wells

L

et me set the scene. A catastrophic performance by Joe Biden in the first Presidential debate against former President Donald Trump leaves Democratic strategists scrambling.

Supporters begin to experience deep doubts about the incumbent President’s chances. Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s former White House communications director, appears on CNN to label his performance as “really disappointing”, a phrase the 67% of Americans who believed Trump emerged victorious would likely agree with.

Biden stubbornly clings on despite the mounting pressure from within his party. As the polls widen, It appears certain Donald Trump will once again ascend to the White House. Then, suddenly, everything changes. After weeks of internal discussion, Biden is finally convinced to end his race and step aside, stating it had been “the honour of [his] life to serve as your President”.

Just minutes after Biden’s historic decision was announced on social media, he followed it up with a separate post wholly endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris as the new Democratic Presidential Nominee. A nation feeling unenthusiastic about yet another choice between Biden and Trump suddenly had a new challenger for their hearts and minds. The introduction of Harris to the Presidential race has undeniably transformed attitudes in the blink of an eye.

Anybody accessing the official Kamala HQ account on X is met with a page header in the same colour and font as the album cover whilst the notion of a ‘brat summer’ has swept the internet by storm.

Since the beginning of Harris’ campaign, Gen Z has rapidly tied her to popular culture, meme-ing and remixing her speeches, and closely aligning her campaign with Charli XCX’s sixth studio album brat, adopting and embracing its aesthetics. Anybody accessing the official Kamala HQ account on X is met with a page header in the same colour and font as the album cover whilst the notion of a ‘brat summer’ has swept the internet by storm.

Major news outlets from the BBC to CNN, have made a desperate attempt to dissect the meaning behind Charli XCX’s “kamala IS brat” post on X and identify what exactly is generating Harris’ meme-mentum. The truth of it all is that Harris, or at least her closest advisors, are more tuned in to online culture than any candidate before her, using the exposure to their advantage. You could point to Obama’s harnessing of the emerging power of the internet in 2008, but we have truly never seen anything quite like this.

However, memes are sometimes just that: memes. Gen Z may give TikTok edits of Kamala Harris to ‘360’ hundreds of thousands of likes, but this online popularity hardly indicates similar levels of electoral support. Too often political campaigns hire a young social media intern who posts a few popular memes to garner internet popularity but are then left scratching their heads on polling day when over half of registered Gen Z voters don’t bother showing up.

Turning out Gen Z voters requires Harris to go beyond simply garnering social media attention and riding the fad waves. She must engage with voters on a deeper level on more serious issues, make her policies clear, and appeal to as wide a range of Americans as humanly possible.

Tangible action has already begun. The Harris campaign says it raised more than $310 million in the month of July, shattering fundraising records with around two-thirds of this amount coming from first-time donors. The importance of this

cannot be understated. Not only does this fundraising close the substantial financial gap to Trump’s campaign, but the immense grassroots support proves that Harris’ nomination is resonating with younger voters enough to incentivise direct political action.

Her recent policy agenda speech surrounding the economy is a step in the right direction, focusing on lowering costs for the average American. Choosing Tim Waltz as her vice presidential pick, a veteran and former schoolteacher, is an intelligent and unfortunately necessary choice that will sway voters unsure about a black woman in the top job. Remaining firm on social issues such as women’s reproductive rights and resisting Trump and Vance’s sexist comments should bring record numbers of women to her campaign.

Yet, she cannot stop here. She must define herself and her candidacy clearly to ensure young people believe she has their best interests at heart before the Trump campaign lets him loose for their scheduled debates.

It is true that Kamala Harris may be riding the “meme-mentum” with Gen Z voters at the moment. If she can transform the mass levels of engagement into substantive political action we might just see history being made.

Amelie Wells is a Second Year PAIS student from Oxford

PERSPECTIVES 5

UNITED KINGDOM

The Tory Leadership Race: Who Can Rebuild?

By Talia Marie

Firstly, James Cleverly. He has a wide portfolio for ministerial roles and is now shadow home secretary. His campaign’s focus is as a unifier, saying they must “ditch the self-indulgent infighting” and “reconnect with voters”. His main strength is that he’s diplomatic and is known as decent and reliable. A key criticism of Cleverly is his inability to make bold decisions – a perception epitomised by Ian Duncan Smith labelling him a “wet rag”. Not an ideal quality for someone supposed to reinvigorate a sullen Conservative Party. In the first round of votes he placed third.

Former secretary of state for housing, Robert Jenrick is the lesser-known leadership candidate. Surprisingly he has ended up on top after this first round, with 28 votes. He seems to be focusing his campaign on immigration, like many of his contenders. Jenrick quit as immigration minister over Sunak’s Rwanda plans, describing them as a “triumph of hope over experience”. He opposes the “broken systems” of previous Tory governments, such as the NHS’ poor management and the lack of prison space. His weakness is that he’s the least high-profile candidate, though this has clearly served him well as the underdog figure. He is blending the popular right-wing policies of Truss and Johnson, whilst appearing competent to deliver.

As the former secretary of state for work and pensions, Mel Stride has kept a low profile thus far. Stride does have his flagship priorities of ru- r a l farming and buying British goods thanks to his central Devon constituency, but

6 PERSPECTIVES

he’s generally seen as the more unifying and less ideological Tory candidate. His worry about populist politics could help him separate the Tories from Reform, villainising them and winning back voters. However, Stride was a staunch Sunak supporter, staying in office until the bitter end, which he might find hard to distance himself from. This was shown in the results of the first round, just scraping through, receiving 16 votes.

Kemi Badenoch, whilst initially perceived as the front runner, is now firmly in second place. Badenoch is known for her combative style of politics, such as her controversial views on defining gender, leaving the ECHR, and immigration. As a right-wing candidate, Badenoch’s anti-woke stance and advocacy for a smaller government have resulted in high-profile media appearances. She could be seen as a fresh face, not afraid to make bold decisions. She has had her fair share of controversies, but perhaps her more ruthless approach will serve her well.

The Conservatives need a one-nation leader to rebuild.

Many will know Tom Tugendhat for his military background, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tugendhat believes the party needs to rebuild trust with the public after its defeat, and he’s been largely critical of Farage and particularly the far-right riots, saying we need to “end the culture of denial”. Tugendhat wants to rebuild strong one-nation values, focusing on patriotism, low taxes, low immigration, and family values. He could be the sensible candidate the party needs and his experience outside of politics could highlight that he’s more in touch. On the other hand, he hasn’t had any success in previous leadership elections, and may not in this one, receiving only 17 votes in the first round.

The Conservatives need a one-nation leader to rebuild. The problem with candidates like Badenock is that they risk alienating core voters, while their more right-wing supporters need solid reasons to turn away from Reform. With his experience and superior media presence, I feel Cleverly is best suited as the next Tory leader. He can win back disillusioned rural Tories from the Lib Dems and unify the party away from populism and a lurch to the right. Ultimately, party elections are notoriously close fought, it will be interesting to see who comes out on top.

Talia Marie is a 2nd year Politics and Sociology student from London.

All information was accurate at time of writing (6/9/24)

Images: Flickr - LUHCGOVUK; Wikimedia Commons - Chris McAndrew; Wikimedia Commons - Stuart Graham

A

fter the Conservatives’ defeat this July and the Parliamentary transition of power, business returned to usual with Starmer facing scrutiny as the new PM. The defeat, however, was historic, meaning transformation within the party was a necessity.

This, of course, must begin with a change in leadership. Following the first round of the election, allow me to evaluate the candidates campaigning to take on the role of Conservative leader.

SOUTH AMERICA

Sheinbaum’s Mexico: One Big Balancing Act

By Sanjana Iyer

Image: Wikimedia Commons - Auckland Museum Collections

T

he biggest election year in history is most brilliantly epitomised by the election of Claudia Sheinbaum as Mexico’s first female president. Yet being a woman is perhaps one of the least monumental aspects of her election. After obtaining a PhD in energy engineering and receiving a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, she now represents Morena, a left-wing party founded only a decade ago and ruling a country that was governed by autocracy for the majority of the 20th century. Sheinbaum represents a beacon of progressive politics in the North American nation. Though her presidency is set to be a fine balancing act.

She may be set to stray slightly from the beaten track.

As the world’s 14th-largest economy and the USA’s biggest trade partner, it’s safe to say Mexico is one to watch on the global stage. But Sheinbaum has much to contend with, including safeguarding state sovereignty whilst maintaining trade relations and combating climate change whilst maintaining her predecessor Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) fowssil fuel-dependent state energy system. AMLO publicly backed Sheinbaum and rallied the support of Morena and Mexico’s left behind her. With Morena’s majority in both chambers of government, it may appear likely that Sheinbaum will closely follow the path and policies laid out by AMLO in order to solidify the support of the party he founded.

Yet, she may be set to stray slightly from the beaten track. Her commitment to evidence-based policy making as well as a clear goal to increase renewable energy use highlights that a Mexico under Sheinbaum may be unlike anything we have seen before. With AMLO trying to push judicial reforms that minimise checks and balances on government before his term ends on October 1, she has made it clear these are to be carefully debated, not eagerly embracing AMLO’s plans but equally not disregarding them and isolating his supporters. This is only the beginning of the precarious tightrope she must navigate.

US-Mexico relations are certainly at the forefront of this new era of Mexican government, and rightly so, especially given Mexico’s unique opportunity to significantly capitalise upon the uncertainty of US-China relations and the US’ subsequent desire for nearshore trade. Following the foundation of the US-Mexico-Can-

ada trade agreement in 2020, which is set to be reviewed in two years during Sheinbaum’s term, North American trade has grown over 30%. But to keep this momentum going, Mexico must work with the US on everything from energy to security.

Tensions here stem from a myriad of arenas, including Chinese companies producing in Mexico, managing migration flows, and, of course, the presence of fentanyl flows from Mexico into American cities.

But Sheinbaum equally seems to be someone ready to stand up for Mexico and her people, likely to push the US on addressing arms trafficking into Mexico and committed to “always defend[ing] the Mexicans who are on the other side of the border.” It certainly doesn’t take a Nobel Prize to work out which American presidential candidate this would be easier to deal with.

This is truly the time for Sheinbaum to listen to the very people she pledges to fight for and carry through transparent and inclusive policies that create a Mexico that is stronger than ever before

Maintaining Mexican sovereignty is at the top of the agenda. As oil earnings account for roughly 20% of government revenue and AMLO’s government issuing more than $7.5 billion in debt bonds, this is certainly a sector they cannot quite afford to lose. But with Sheinbaum’s background contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and over a million Mexican people being impacted by climate-driven disasters last year, generating clean and renewable energy is vital. The success of Sheinbaum’s plans to attract foreign direct investment for renewables while maintaining energy sovereignty, however, remains to be seen.

Sheinbaum portrays herself as someone for the people, actively fighting against gender-based violence and economic inequality, which are two of her largest domestic challenges. Beyond proposing to build upon AMLO’s targeting of the social issues that create the environment for cartel recruitment, and the expansion of the quasi-military National Guard, she has said little more about her actual strategies.

This is truly the time for Sheinbaum to listen to the very people she pledges to fight for and carry through transparent and inclusive policies that create a Mexico that is stronger than ever before, both at home and abroad.

Sanjana Iyer is a 3rd year PPE student from Maidenhead.

PERSPECTIVES 7

FEATURE

BROKEN BRITAIN:

By Jakob Reid

The reality was far more subdued. Despite the hype, Labour emerged with just 33.7% of the popular vote, yet somehow claimed 411 seats. It was a loveless landslide, with less than 60% of eligible voters turning out, meaning only about 20.2% of the entire electorate actually cast their vote for Labour. What was touted as a sweeping victory soon felt more like a mirage. For a new government eager to lead with confidence, this was hardly the solid footing they had hoped for.

Since 1997, voter turnout has consistently After the fourteen-year psychodrama of Conservative rule, a period marked by a fallen below 70%, with growing sense of disconnection between increasing numbers government priorities and the needs of people skipping the people, one might have expected the of British electorate to rise up and vote en the polls altogether. masse for the Labour Party. The media, in its usual dramatic fashion, painted a vivid picture of an impending landslide – an unstoppable wave of support that would sweep Labour into power with an undeniable mandate. However, it soon became clear this narrative was more fiction than fact.

The reality was far more subdued. Despite the hype, Labour emerged with just 33.7% of the popular vote, yet somehow claimed 411 seats.

To add insult to injury was a comparison with recent history, something Keir Starmer might want you to forget. Jeremy Corbyn, whose leadership was deemed a disaster for Labour in 2019, still managed to secure over 10 million votes – more than the 9.7 million votes that ushered in Keir Starmer’s government. This isn’t just an interesting detail; it’s a warning sign of a deeper problem: the disengagement of the British public from the political process.

Since 1997, voter turnout has consistently fallen below 70%, with increasing numbers of people skipping the polls altogether. In several recent elections, those who abstained from voting outnumbered those who supported the winning party. For any politician, these trends should send alarm bells ringing, not just because they represent a shrinking mandate but because they signal a broader crisis of legitimacy in British politics.

This crisis is rooted in a force that has subtly but profoundly reshaped the political landscape: neoliberalism. Originating as an economic doctrine emphasising

8 PERSPECTIVES

free markets and minimal state intervention, neoliberalism has now permeated into every corner of public life. Its impact on British politics has been profound, transforming the relationship between government and citizens into a cold, transactional exchange. This shift has eroded public trust and fostered a deep sense of apathy, threatening the very foundations of our democracy.

Is it any wonder so many people think politics is pointless? It feels like a never-ending cycle of empty promises.

The story of neoliberalism’s rise is also the story of something precious being lost. As market-driven policies took centre stage, the welfare state and the collective institutions that once brought people together began to crumble. What replaced them was a culture where everyone was expected to fend for themselves, where the worth of a person was measured by their economic success, and failure was chalked up to personal flaws. This shift hasn’t just deepened the gap between rich and poor; it’s eroded the very sense of community that democracy relies on to thrive.

Perhaps most insidiously, neoliberalism has changed the language of politics. Politicians now appear as salespeople, pitching their policies like products, while voters are treated like consumers, making decisions based on catchy slogans and glossy promises rather than a deep understanding of the issues. The media, ever hungry for clicks, has only fuelled this shift, prioritising sensationalism over serious debate, and turning elections into spectacles rather than the meaningful exchanges of ideas they should be.

This sensationalism, driven by a 24-hour news cycle hungry for ratings, has had a corrosive effect on public engagement.

Scandals, real or manufactured, dominate the headlines, turning political discourse into theatre. Complex issues are reduced to soundbites, and politicians are more concerned with managing their image than addressing the underlying problems facing the country. The result is a political culture that is shallow, performative, and

Images: Pexels - Laura Paredis; Flickr - Secretlondon123

I

magine the scene on election night: a bustling Labour Party HQ where supporters are packed in, their eyes locked on TV screens and glasses of champagne in hand. The room hums with electric anticipation as each red seat lights up, ushering a chorus of cheers. The excitement is palpable – could this be the dawn of a “changed” Britain? But as the results come in and the final tally is announced, a peculiar shift occurs. The air of a sweeping mandate deflates, and the grand narrative of Labour’s triumphant return begins to feel a bit... hollow.

FEATURE

Apathy in the Age of Neoliberalism disconnected from the realities of everyday life.

Is it any wonder so many people think politics is pointless? It feels like a never-ending cycle of empty promises. When every politician appears to be cut from the same cloth – promising change but delivering more of the same – cynicism takes root.

This disillusionment has paved the way for the rise of populism, as charismatic leaders offer simple solutions to complex problems, tapping into the frustrations of those who feel left behind. But while populism may provide a temporary outlet for many, the form of populism offered in the UK does little to address the underlying causes of political disengagement.

The task ahead for the Labour Party is clear: break the cycle of political apathy and reconnect with a disengaged electorate. To do this, they need to move beyond the neoliberal framework that has dominated British politics for decades. This isn’t just about policy tweaks or managing the market; it’s about redefining the role of government as a protector of the public good. It’s about rebuilding the institutions that have been worn down by years of austerity and privatisation and restoring the social safety nets that once shielded people from economic hardship.

Fixing this apathy isn’t just a political strategy; it’s a necessity. If Labour fails to take this on, they risk deepening the very disconnection that has led to the current crisis of participation.

More than anything, it’s about rekindling the relationship between politicians and the people – not as voters to be won over with slick campaigns, but as citizens with a real stake in the nation’s future. Labour must embrace a new kind of politics, one that prioritises community, solidarity, and genuine participation. This means leaders who actively engage with the public, listen to their concerns and work together to find solutions to the pressing issues we face.

The populist wave that has swept through many Western democracies is, in many ways, a reaction to the failures of neoliberalism. When people feel that their voices are not being heard and their votes do not matter, they are more likely to turn to leaders who promise to upend the status quo. But populism, with its focus on charismatic leadership and rejection of institutional norms, often exacerbates the very problems it claims to solve, leading to further disillusionment and disengagement.

Fixing this apathy isn’t just a political strategy; it’s a necessity. If Labour fails to take this on, they risk deepening the very disconnection that has led to the current crisis of participation. The stakes couldn’t be higher. The future of British democracy hangs in the balance.

Restoring faith in politics means tackling the corrosive influence of neoliberalism head-on. Labour must challenge the idea that markets are the ultimate measure of value and instead promote a society where the common good takes precedence over individual gain. This involves investing in public services, addressing the root causes of inequality, and creating real opportunities for people to participate in the democratic process.

In Britain, this cycle of disillusionment has been playing out for years, with each election drawing fewer and fewer voters to the polls. The political class has been unable – or unwilling – to address the root causes of this apathy. Instead, they have doubled down on the same policies that have driven people away from politics in the first place, offering more market-driven solutions to problems that require collective action.

everyone has a role to play in pushing for a media landscape that is diverse, responsible, and focused on informing the public. Supporting public broadcasting, encouraging media literacy, and holding outlets accountable are all steps in the right direction.

Ultimately, this is a fight for the soul of British democracy – a fight to ensure that every citizen has a voice in the decisions that shape their lives. The road ahead won’t be easy, but it’s a journey we must take if we’re to rebuild a politically vibrant Britain. Labour has the opportunity to lead this effort, but they can’t do it alone.

The choice is stark: continue down the path of neoliberalism, with its empty promises and hollow victories, or forge a new path that puts people, not markets, at the centre of politics. The future of British democracy depends on making the right choice, and all of us, not just the government, have a part to play.

Jakob Reid is a 2nd year History and Politics student from Norwich.

This also means confronting the role of the media, which has too often prioritised profit over public service, amplifying sensationalism at the expense of substantive debate. It’s not just up to Labour –

PERSPECTIVES 9

AFRICA

South Africa Elections 2024: A Promising, Pragmatic Step

By Daniel Yates

We see a government listening to its people - not doubling down on its previous positions which have led to the degredation of South Africa’s economy and services over the past few decades. cuts to reduce the strain on South Africa’s ailing energy company Escom) has ceased too.

However, unemployment is notably on the rise – reaching 33.5%.

S

outh Africa’s May elections marked a significant shift in the African National Congresses’ (ANC) monopoly on power since the end of Apartheid in 1994.

Although sacrosanct in the hearts and minds of many South Africans, its tenure has since been plagued by corruption and crumbling infrastructure across the Rainbow Nation. Consequently, South Africans have, for the first time, demanded a coalition government – but questions remain over its viability in a country beset by division.

The fall of the ANC has hardly been an overnight occurance However dramatic in magnitude, the fall of the ANC has hardly been an overnight occurrence. The ANC’s popularity reached its zenith in 2004 but has since consistently lost 3-4% of the vote in every election – but this has accelerated now – with the ANC achieving merely 40% of the vote (down from 58% in 2019). As such, the transition towards pragmatism has been more gradual than many give credit.

Therefore, fears of political division and derision in government may be less well-founded than previously believed. Indeed, the ANC selected the centre-right Democratic Alliance (DA) as its partner in a ‘national unity government’ – not the uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK), led by former President Jacob Zuma, or the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which may be the more natural fit.

Consequently, we see a government listening to its people – not doubling down on its previous positions which have led to the degradation of South Africa’s economy and services over the past few decades. It’s a very promising, pragmatic step for South Africa and one very much in the mould of Mandela’s rainbow nation that sought to encompass all South Africans and avoid becoming overly ideological.

Although emerging from the remnants of the old Apartheid parliament, the DA has since positioned itself as a free-market, liberal al-

10 PERSPECTIVES

The majority of these statistics and indices have no impact on the average South African in squalid poverty.

ternative to the ANC. Some Black South Africans feel it does not represent them with its previous opposition to certain affirmative action policies in work and education. However, others believe it provides the best solutions to South Africa’s problems with its pro-business agenda.

On the one hand, South Africa has been stifled by policy paralysis but it has equally been troubled by wary private investment. This in turn has affected consumer confidence – the majority of South African households are supported through welfare, life insurance payouts, and retrenchment.

Now, the smooth start of the coalition government is giving many reasons to be optimistic.

Confidence in the government has already risen – bond yields have fallen and it is now 10% cheaper for the government to borrow. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange has risen 6.5%.

Major US investment banks have upgraded the South African economy. Perhaps most importantly, load-shedding (the recurrent power

Of course, South Africa is not yet out of the woods. The majority of these statistics and indices have no impact on the average South African in squalid poverty. If the coalition does not succeed in translating these improvements into tangible benefits for those most vulnerable, then the moderate gains made by the populist left will surely continue at the next election. Their respective leaders, Zuma of MK and EFF’s Julius Malema command a great deal of popularity amongst young South African’s.

But for now, Cyril Ramaphosa endures. He has a secure 40% of the nation behind him. His political gamesmanship has ensured his position within his party. Teaming up with the DA ought to be a step in the right direction – they have proven themselves competent at governing in their bastion of the Western Province, creating 90% of all of South Africa’s new jobs.

Indeed, their designation as a centre-right party is only partially true. They may possess free-market views, but they remain steadfastly loyal to the liberal and pluralist view of South Africa that the country has possessed since 1994.

Daniel Yates is a 2nd year History and Politics student from New Forest.

Cyril Ramaphosa endures.

He has a secure 40% of the nation behind him.

Images: (TOP) Needpix.com - athree23 (pipixabay.com); (BOTTOM) Flickr - GovermentZA/GCIS

Confidence in the government has already risen - bond yields have fallen and it is now 10% cheaper for the government to borrow.

UNITED KINGDOM

Riots, Rampage, and Populism

By Kate O’Mahony

Images: Wikimedia Commons - StreetMic Livestream; Flickr - Richard Hopkins

ence, but have endured the same poverty and neglect. What these riots really demonstrate is how right-wing populists have exploited the frustrations of these communities, directing their anger away from the government and towards minorities.

O

n July 30, the UK witnessed the first of a series of racially motivated, far-right riots sparked by the tragic killing of three girls, and the serious injury of several others, at a dance class in Southport. The attacker was falsely identified as a Muslim asylum seeker by far-right networks on social media.

The ensuing terror, unseen since the 2011 London riots, swept across the country, exposing deep-seated hatred directed towards ethnic minorities.

The populists, whilst claiming to be anti-elite, are wealthy and privileged... use migrants as scapegoats to deflect attention from real issues.

T-he language used to describe these riots – protests, thuggery, anti-immigration – has failed to capture their true nature. Hotels housing some of the most vulnerable in society were attacked with immense violence. These riots have been given undue legitimacy by highlighting the validity of their concerns. The characterisation of towns such as Rotherham and Tamworth – where riots took place – as frustrated, angry, industry-starved, Brexit-voting communities has served to legitimise them further. This portrayal also fails to provide any explanation for the riots, because, for the most part, the ethnic minorities in such areas are not a foreign pres-

Whether it’s Fargage’s suggestions of twotier policing, Braverman’s warning of an invasion from across the Channel, or Lee Anderson’s claim that Islamists control London – far-right rhetoric isn’t genuinely about migration or integration. The violence this August targeted a broad spectrum – from asylum seekers and Muslims to anyone deemed ‘non-white.’ Such statements are crafted not to address real political grievances but to channel frustration into hatred against those who don’t conform to their prescription of English culture.

Nationalism has long been a tool for the ruling class, creating a foreign enemy and distraction. Because the populists, whilst claiming to be anti-elite, are wealthy and privileged figures – Reform figurehead Richard Tice has a net worth of £21 million – they use migrants as scapegoats to deflect attention from real issues, like economic inequality. Who cares about bankers’ bonuses when asylum seekers are taking rooms in the local premier inn?

We must hold these forces accountable for stoking hatred against some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The bleak realities of poverty and regional inequality in the UK stem not from migration or the presence of different cultures, religions, or races, but rather the erosion of industry by Thatcher, globalisation, and the degradation of local government and public services. The rioters deserve no sympathy, yet ignoring them risks dismissing the deeper, darker forces at play. The terror created is inexcusable, but the riots are symptomatic of issues within the political

system – the ability of far-right forces to fuel ordinary people with ideas that are clearly absent from reality.

The UK doesn’t have a race problem, it has a class problem that is being weaponised by the likes of Farage. This brand of populism has excluded ethnic minorities from the working class, putting them in the same bracket as the elite, substituting suffering from domestic policy for the illusion of foreign intrusion.

To tackle the Laurence Fox’s of the world we have to fight them head on. The rise of Reform UK, which placed second in nearly 100 constituencies – Conservative and Labour – coupled with the Tory party’s likely lurch to the right, signals troubling times ahead. If mainstream parties pander to these forces by offering watered-down versions of their policies they will effectively concede the debate and lend credibility to their divisive claims.

Over the next five years, Labour has the opportunity to expose the fallacy of these positions, highlight the necessity for migration alongside taking our share of asylum seekers, and celebrate multiculturalism, shifting the focus to the real culprits – tax evaders and wealth hoarders – not our healthcare professionals, social workers, and teachers. Or, they can claim that once we stop a few small boats, all will return to normal. Because rapidly, it seems that the uniting force promised by Keir Starmer at the ballot box is failing to materialise.

Kate O’Mahony is a 2nd year PAIS student from London.

PERSPECTIVES 11

AFRICA

Rwanda’s Presidential Election: There is No Democracy Without Opposition In his first major press conference, Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed to journalists that under Labour, the UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, the ‘Rwanda plan’, was indeed “dead and buried”. As the UK-Rwanda partnership comes to an abrupt end, another partnership is set to continue for at least 5 more years. That of Rwandan President Paul Kagame with Rwandan voters, who were almost unanimous in casting their votes for him, with an extraordinary 99.18% of the vote, with a voter turnout of 98.2%, a level of participation which many Western democracies could only dream of achieving.

The Rwandan government will want reports of high turnout to reassure observers that democracy is not just alive and well, but actively prospering, painting a picture of voters who are extremely eager to engage with politics, and specifically to vote for President Kagame. Perhaps more dangerously, these figures suggest that there is some level of equation between supporting Kagame and being Rwandan.

Voting, in that case, becomes less of an important democratic duty than a sort of rubber stamp for an election of which, according to Joseph Sebarenzi, one of the Rwandan parliament’s former speakers who now lives in exile, “everyone knows the predetermined winner”.

Kagame has previously defended his governing style as necessary to ensure national unity following the horrors of genocide.

Added to this is the legitimacy on the world stage that the label of ‘democracy’ confers. The seemingly tokenistic inclusion of a choice of alternative candidates.

Namely, Frank Habineza from Rwanda’s Green Party and journalist Philippe Mpayimana, an independent. Their inclusion didn’t appear to detract from Kagame’s popularity.

Several other potential candidates were barred from running for reasons including incorrect submission of documents and previous convictions on charges they dispute. Amongst them was the opposi-

12 PERSPECTIVES

tion figure Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, previously jailed for several years for ‘belittling’ Rwanda’s genocide, a charge she says was politically motivated. The exercise of holding elections serves as a symbol of democracy on paper, with a team of international poll observers reporting a ‘peaceful electoral environment’ on the ground. But Diane Rwigara, another potential opposition candidate who was also barred, claimed that “the vast majority of Rwandans… live in fear and are not allowed to be free in their own country”, suggesting that freedom of expression, although enshrined in Rwanda’s 2015 Constitution, is constrained in practice.

Kagame has previously defended his governing style as necessary to ensure national unity following the horrors of genocide, and laws outlawing genocide denial have been known to be misused against political opponents. He recently thanked “the uniqueness of Rwandans” for his resounding victory, saying that commentators in the West don’t understand the country, and even that how long he is in power is “none of your business”. This is surprising as Kagame’s use of spy networks is well-known, and he will know that the EU and the West would be watching this election closely.

By the next presidential election in 2029, Kagame’s name might be the only one on the ballot paper.

The most valuable asset for Rwanda on the world stage continues to be its promising economic development, a cornerstone of years of government policy to repair the divisions of genocide. Gender equality policies, community work and justice for survivors are all very positive, and it is a shame these are not complemented by openness to political discussion with genuine opposition parties, outside of Rwanda’s ruling co-

alition whose parties’ loyalty to the status quo risks stifling the possibility of robust political exchanges.

This election does not become ‘democratic’ simply by the people participating in it.

Democracy must also protect the right of all candidates to stand freely and fairly, or else, by the next presidential election in 2029, Kagame’s name might be the only one on the ballot paper.

Ravi Maini is a 3rd year PAIS and French student from Leicster.

Image: Wikimedia Commons - Veni Markovski

I

By Ravi Maini

How to End Russia’s War on Ukraine

O

By Mathieu Yap

n February 24 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, triggering the worst European conflict since the Second World War. Over 190,000 Russian troops invaded Ukraine from along its northern, eastern, and southern borders. With a fourth year of war looming, it is essential that Western nations and their leaders do not lose sight of the importance of supporting Ukraine and preparing for how this war might end.

Appeasing Russia in this manner will only serve to reward its war crimes and aggression While conventional wisdom tells us that the war will end in negotiations, on whose terms would a ceasefire and treaty be? At the same time, it is crucial that Western support for peace initiatives avoids key fallacies.

Image: Flickr - Number 10

EUROPE

First and foremost is the idea that Ukraine should concede significant territory in exchange for peace. This rests on the belief that any settlement must make concessions (especially regarding territory) to Russia, because Russia will simply refuse to accept any other outcome. However, in reality, appeasing Russia in this manner will only serve to reward its war crimes and aggression, encouraging it to continue its attacks against its neighbours and the rest of Europe. An emboldened and expansionist Russia could seek to prey on the Baltic States, Poland, or Finland in the same way that it targeted Georgia in 2008.

Russia’s blatant violations of international agreements regarding Ukraine, from the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (where it agreed to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty) to the 20142016 Minsk I and II Protocols, show that any agreement designed to end the war by no means guarantees a lasting peace. A treaty signed with Russia, especially under Putin, is worth less than the paper on which it is written.

The second fallacy is that Russian ‘security concerns’ must be respected at all costs. This argument, alongside grandiose declarations that ‘there can be no security in Europe without Russia’, fundamentally confuses Russian security with the interests of Putin’s regime. Countries around the world, such as member states of the EU and ASEAN, have proven that mutually beneficial cooperation is perfectly possible between different countries without resorting to deference based on size and military might alone.

A Russia which doesn’t seek to attack its neighbours or undermine their sovereignty would be a welcome addition to European security; but as it stands it is Russia that is targeting Europe with assassinations, sabotage, and cyberwarfare, not the other way around.

True Russian security is thus intrinsically different from the security of Putin’s regime, which seeks to use the former as a cover for its own interests.

Putin, along with the siloviki (security establishment) and oligarchs who support him, instead requires Russia to be constantly engaged in a conflict which they can portray as existential to the Russian populace, distracting them from the state’s extensive corruption, human rights abuses, and poor governance.

Rejecting these Russia-friendly fallacies doesn’t mean opposing a negotiated settlement. The war is likely to end in one, but if the peace is to last then it must be through a Ukrainian victory. Albeit difficult, this is not an impossible task. Nor does it envisage Ukrainian troops and tanks, having captured Moscow, triumphantly parading down Red Square (though as the Wagner Group’s mutiny demonstrated last year, this may be easier than it seems). Rather, a string of battlefield successes, similar to its current invasion of Russia’s Kursk Oblast or liberation of Kharkiv, is likely to force Russia to the negotiating table, where Moscow, rather than Ukraine, will be obliged to make concessions.

Such an outcome will require NATO states, particularly in Europe, to expand and accelerate their rearmament programmes to give Ukraine the resources that it needs to win on the battlefield, rather than just survive. The importance of a Ukrainian victory and just peace in safeguarding future European security cannot be overstated; the stakes are simply too high to consider an alternative.

Indeed, over a century ago, when the Treaty of Versailles was signed to end the First World War, French Marshal Ferdinand Foch presciently remarked: “This is not Peace. It is an armistice for twenty years”. With many observers of the war quoting the adage that ‘history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes’, it is the West’s duty to ensure that this time, when a peace treaty is eventually signed, history is allowed to do neither.

Mathieu Yap is a 2nd year PPE student from London.

PERSPECTIVES 13

AUSTRALIA

Australia’s Sporting Advantage: Taking Policy to the People of the Pacific

By Charlotte Rowland

P

Australia has put itself in a position that allows it to connect intrinsically with the Island nations of the Pacific, a shared love and passion for rugby that is embedded in Island identity.

Image: Wannapik Studio - Vector Image

olitics seems to be increasingly ill-defined in the traditional militaristic, interventionist, and realist fashion of the previous centuries. In recent years we have seen soft diplomacy take the stage, with many nations engaging each other through culture.

Australia is one of these nations as it reaches out to the Pacific .

With an encroaching China seeking influence within the Pacific, Australia worries most about the geopolitical and socio-economic security of the region as the Pacific’s most influential western aligned power. Despite matching China’s progressions in trade and military influence, another specific angle has emerged over the past four years - sport.

If you are not immersed in the sporting world, one wouldn’t realise how impactful sports diplomacy has been for Pacific nations (particularly rugby), let alone its potential impact - if initiatives continue to be implemented with the support of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I experienced it first hand, gaining an internship as the Communications Manager for Penina Pasifika, a DFAT funded, Rugby Australia and World Rugby supported Tongan and Samoan women’s professional rugby team – the first of its kind. I saw just how much this opportunity meant for women to play rugby professionally.

Their approach allows them to address the issues of gender inequality, often not recognised within the unique cultural traditions of the Pacific.

Womens’ participation was not socially accepted until recently in both nations, in fact it was illegal in Tonga until very recently. The fight has been hard, but these women are the pioneers representing the obstacles they have had to overcome, the untapped talent of the islands, and the creators of a future for themselves and the generations to come. Although cliché, it is so much more than a game, it is so much more than just rugby; it is ceiling-breaking, it is expectation-defying, it is progress.

That is what Australia’s rugby diplomacy has sparked. That is why I believe they have the best tactic of any nation when it comes to soft diplomacy. Australia has put itself in a position that allows it to connect intrinsically with the Island nations of the Pacific, a shared love and passion for rugby that is embedded in Island identity. Their approach allows them to address the issues of gender inequality, often not recognised within the unique cultural traditions of the Pacific. They have acknowledged a need for change that has encouraged the women of Penina Pasifika and others to forge their

14 PERSPECTIVES

own paths, because they are worthy. Australia has become a necessary ally and source of empowerment for all.

The Fijian Drua is another example, providing pathways for both male and female Fijian players to represent Fiji through a professional rugby team that has found a place in the finals two years in a row, with effortless Fijian style.

Instead of remaining on a governmental level, as arguably much of diplomacy is, Australia has brought themselves to the people, knocking on the door of Pasifika hearts, and has been welcomed with open arms.

I have seen the positive impact of such programmes first hand, having lived in the Nadrogan highlands, the home of rugby in Fiji (albeit a biassed opinion), where every Fijian Drua player photo was plastered across the walls of the village hall. When asked why they travelled into Sigatoka to print them out using money they humbly earned from selling in the markets, I was told across multiple generations that it’s a reminder of what we could be and what we can achieve. Australia’s movement to provide opportunities for the Pacific to showcase their talent has seen them weaved into the fabric of people’s dreams within the Pacific.

Having supported the launch of the Australia-Pacific Rugby Partnership, I saw the Right Honourable Pat Conroy, Minister for International Development and the Pacific, speak on the benefits of this partnership, the communities built, and the bright future of further investment, from Papua New Guinea’s sevens programme to women’s rugby and management staff development.

This is Australia’s unique selling point – there is no other country that has the capacity, ability nor desire to create such a diplomatic programme. This has opened the door to further hard diplomacy and soft diplomacy initiatives in supporting defence and law enforcement, climate and disaster resilience, and human security. Being the region’s largest development partner, Australia has committed to the shared goal of “lasting sovereignty, stability, security and prosperity of all Pacific countries and peoples”. In a way, the extent to which they

have focussed on rugby is selfless, something that the likes of China’s arguable neo-colonialism across underdeveloped nations cannot acknowledge, understand, nor contend with.

Selflessness is interconnected with service, and service is upheld as one of the most important values in the cultures of the Pacific. Australia has gained respect as a partner in many senses of the word through their service to the Pacific.

Of course, there is the argument from a rugby perspective that this only provides further strength to a struggling Australian Rugby Union and in a political sense to gain power. However, this is overshadowed by the strengthening of the women’s national team pool through an increased playing schedule. A shining example of this is the Oceania Women’s Rugby Championship seeing incredible results for the recipient nations of the APRPII, specifically the Fijiana XV. Furthermore, the emphasis of the partnership has evidenced fewer tangible benefits flowing back into Australia as a result of their programme.

So, what does the future hold? Although other nations are attempting to follow the same path, nothing quite hits, passes, or tackles the same as Australia in the Pacific. Hitting the mark on celebrating, sharing, and engaging in Rugby Diplomacy with fellow Pacific Islands. Passing between stakeholders to make it a collaborative, relation-building opportunity for all parties involved; tackling the socio-economic issues faced by the Pacific, supporting opportunities not otherwise independently feasible.

Finally being a reliable, constant development pillar of the Pacific.

The future is bright, and Australia is going from strength to strength when it comes to building deeper connections at the heart of the unique Pacific cultures. There is much to look forward to, from a possible Papua New Guinean professional NRL team, to having a Super Rugby and Super Women’s teams tour to Tonga this July. This tour will be the first time in 30 years a team has done so. Australia is igniting new flames, and it is only the beginning.

Charlotte Rowland is a 3rd year PAIS student from Suffolk.

UNITED KINGDOM

By Abhay Venkitaraman

J

ust before the 2015 General Election, then Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted about the contrast between him and his Labour opponent: “Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice – stability and strong government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband”.

Image: Flickr - Charles Cook

Cameron won that election, but fast forward nine crisis-ridden years and it’s Miliband who’s had the last laugh.

Back in government as Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary, he’ll be looking to curb rather than create “chaos”, weaning Britain off its overreliance on fossil fuels and resulting vulnerability to surging oil and gas prices that turned Britons’ lives upside down during the cost-of-living crisis.

Aiming to hasten the rollout of both new and established clean energy technologies, the policy is central to Labour’s ambitions to deliver a decarbonised electricity system At the centre of Miliband’s plans is Great British Energy (GBE): a soonto-be-formed publicly-owned energy company. Aiming to hasten the rollout of both new and established clean energy technologies, the policy is central to Labour’s ambitions to deliver a decarbonised electricity system by 2030 and turn Britain into a ‘clean energy superpower’.

GBE will have £8.3 billion at its disposal during this Parliament to invest in clean energy projects. This is a far cry from the tens of billions of additional investment the Climate Change Committee estimates will be needed over this decade and beyond to achieve net zero. Thus, much of GBE’s focus will be on mobilising (or ‘crowding in’) private green investment to plug the gap.

An example of this is GBE’s newly announced partnership with the Crown Estate – which owns nearly all of the seabed within Britain’s territorial waters. As part of this venture, GBE will conduct ‘early development work’ for offshore wind projects in Crown Estate waters, a process that involves, amongst other things, selecting appropriate sites for development. By doing this, it aims to lower the risk, and therefore the cost of capital, that

What GB Energy will mean for Britain’s Green Transition

private developers face, inducing higher levels of private investment and driving forward the green transition.

Consultancy firm ‘Public First’ has outlined other things GBE could do to crowd in private investment, such as taking the lead on community consultations for green energy projects alongside incentivising development in locations where returns on green energy investment aren’t yet sufficient to attract private investors.

Alongside crowding in private investment, £3.3 billion of GBE’s funding will be directed towards the Local Power Plan, aimed at supporting local community power generation.

Many community energy projects are small in scale, meaning they are unable to attract investment from either the private sector or government bodies like the UK Infrastructure Bank. GBE will aim to fill this financing gap, creating an opportunity for greater local community ownership of green energy projects that could provide direct benefits to those communities and bolster public backing for net zero.

There are question marks surrounding whether GBE will be able to attract the investment needed to deliver a decarbonised electricity system swiftly enough. Some worry -that it could deter private sector investment, crowding out instead of crowding in – particularly if it replicates

projec ts that the private sector is already undertaking. Others, like Public Services Professors David Hall and Vera Weghmann, argue a GBE solely focused on attracting private investment is a recipe for failure.

In their view, a private-sector-led approach will inevitably mean GBE having to stump up large amounts of money to make energy projects sufficiently profitable to private investors. Some of these costs will have to be passed on to consumers – undermining the government’s stated intention of lowering energy bills.

Other challenges include the rising demand for electricity, stemming from the increased use of AI and the need to replace old nuclear power stations reaching the end of their lifespan. Even if GBE is successful at hastening the development of clean energy projects, National Grid currently lacks the capacity to transmit and distribute the electricity these projects will generate to households – with grid connection delays already mounting.

Looking ahead, Labour aims for GBE to become a fully-fledged clean power generator, akin to Denmark’s Ørsted or France’s EDF. This means that it would own and operate its own clean power projects, rather than simply investing in private sector initiatives. Whether it can achieve this, alongside facilitating the short-term objective of decarbonising Britain’s electricity by 2030, is uncertain. But one thing is very clear: Ed Miliband has his work cut out for him.

Abhay Venkitaramanis a 3rd year PPE student from Hong Kong.

PERSPECTIVES 15

SOUTH AMERICA

Maduro’s Manipulation:

A Triumph for Autocracy in Venezuela

By Eleanor Harrin

T

In essence, Maduro’s rule is dependent upon his capacity to undermine Venezuelan democracy.

The incumbent President – Nicolás Maduro – has clung to power after coercing the National Electoral Council to falsify millions of votes in July’s presidential election. This manipulation, experts warn, amounts to “the largest electoral fraud in Latin America’s history”. A plethora of independent exit polls and parallel counts refute Maduro’s victory. Instead, they bestow over 65% of the national vote to Edmundo González, the opposition candidate.

In essence, Maduro’s rule is dependent upon his capacity to undermine Venezuelan democracy. Whilst his predecessor and mentor – Hugo Chávez – had relished an oil boom and unrivalled charisma, Maduro’s 11-year rule was marred by a disastrous recession. The economic downturn resulted in hyperinflation of 65,000% and the emigration of over seven million people, a quarter of Venezuela’s population.

Maduro’s re-election in 2018 was only achieved through the disqualification of opposition candidates and by discouraging voter turnout. A similar strategy has been employed by his administration in the past year. After winning a formidable 93% of votes in the 2023 opposition primaries, María Corina Machado was barred from political office for 15 years

by Venezuela’s state-controlled Supreme Court. A second rival – Corina Yoris – was also blocked from registering her candidacy, this time by an alleged fault in the Electoral Council’s computer system. And so, it transpired that Edmundo González stood alone on election night as the opposition’s sole candidate.

Despite González’ isolation, Maduro’s strategy to eliminate his competitors failed to secure the incumbent a sound victory. Trusted sources report that the President won 30% of the vote in July’s election, compared to González’ 65%. In a blatant attempt to retain power, Madu-

16 PERSPECTIVES

ro turned towards the state-controlled Electoral Council. He forced officials to falsify millions of votes and declare his candidacy victorious with 51% of popular support.

Three weeks have now passed since the election. In this time, Maduro has faced fierce international pressure to admit defeat and relentless protests have swept through the streets of Caracas. At least 23 protesters have been killed by the Venezuelan military (a force which operates firmly under the President’s jurisdiction) and a further 2400 citizens have been detained. Yet Maduro’s tenure endures.

July’s presidential election should serve as a potent reminder that autocracy is more persistent than ever before.

The likelihood of a fair resolution to the election slips away with each passing day.

The President remains steadfast in defiance, undeterred by the harsh economic sanctions which have been imposed by the United States.

The US’ failed attempt to salvage Venezuelan democracy joins that of Brazil and Columbia, whose leaders’ shock condemnation has proved futile. The incumbent’s resistance will not falter, for it is underpinned by a strong alliance with Vladimir Putin. Russo-Venezuelan cooperation has flourished over the past two years: Maduro presides over the world’s largest oil reserves, and these have garnered considerable Russian investment. This investment is set to stabilise Russia’s oil market, having been ravaged by Putin’s fullscale invasion of Ukraine.

Maduro’s defiance is further reinforced by the personal consequences of being ousted from office.

Without presidential immunity, he is liable to be charged by the International Criminal Court for serious human rights violations.

Over the past decade, the arbitrary murder of Venezuelan citizens by the state-controlled armed forces has pro-

voked a global outcry. Maduro’s regime is also deeply entangled in the drug trade.

Former Vice President Tareck El Aissami, for instance, is formally recognised by the United States Treasury Department as a narcotics trafficker. The ghost of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega is sure to be haunting Maduro.

As I rest my case that Maduro’s regime will endure, July’s presidential election should serve as a potent reminder that autocracy is more persistent than ever before.

Autocrats across the world are working in an increasingly sophisticated manner, manipulating democratic practices into instruments of state oppression. So, whilst the year 2024 can be revered as a victory for democracy, we must also heed its fragile and ever-changing nature.

Eleanor Harrin is a 3rd year History and Politics student from Southend.

Image: Wikimedia Commons - Eneas De Troya

he year 2024 has been revered as a victory for democracy with over two billion voters expected to head to the polls. This triumph, however, must not overshadow the continued fragility of free and fair elections across the globe. In particular, our attention should turn towards Venezuela.

ASIA

Will Democracy Make a Comeback in Bangladesh?

By Raya Hossain

Some sort of summary?

Image: Wikimedia Commons - Md Joni Hossain

F

ollowing the introduction of an unfair government quota system, ex-Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina was overthrown in a student-led revolution. It was characterised as one of the bloodiest demonstrations since the country’s independence in 1971. After a brutal 15 years of power, Bangladeshi youths may finally see the end of one-party rule and the beginning of real democracy.

There is a sense of optimism in the air for a better future among the youth who had lost their brothers and sisters’ lives in the struggle.

On January 7, general elections took place, mired in corruption and censorship from Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League (AL) as well as violence from political opposition groups. For its fourth consecutive term, the AL won a majority in the Jatiya Sangsad with 224 seats, with other members of parliament who supported the AL and were hand-picked by its government.

To establish her presence, Hasina’s political DNA had to be in every working part of society.

In June, the party reinstated a government decision in which 30% of civil service positions were to be given solely to descendants of Bangladeshi freedom fighters, giving Hasina’s allies a great advantage for staying in power. Unbeknownst to them, this would be the end of their long-time rule, with university students spearheading a movement against the unfair legislation.

Initially students took to the streets to peacefully protest, but this soon turned violent as the police fought back with rubber bullets and tear gas. With public discontent brewing, this outrage compounded on years of anger over the AL’s history of failures to provide solutions to critical issues in the nation: problems with poverty, unemployment, and decades of eroding democracy. On August 5, protestors stormed the Prime Minister’s palace forcing Hasina to resign and promptly flee to India.

The question that arises is whether democracy can truly return to Bangladesh.

On the eve of her resignation, General Waker-uz-Zaman announced the formation of an interim government, headed

by the country’s sole Nobel Laureate, Dr Muhammad Yunus.

Despite an esteemed reputation and extensive international connections, including ties with the Clintons, he and his cabinet now face the daunting task of dismantling Hasina’s entrenched influence.

In a world where pro-America is almost synonymous with being anti-China, the internal clash between Yunus’ allegiances and his background in economics is yet to play out.

China has maintained a longstanding positive relationship with Bangladesh, given the latter’s large population and its importance as a market for export-oriented industries. Cultivated under Hasina, these ties with China allowed for Bangladesh to earn the title of one of the fastest growing economies in South Asia, thanks to massive investments in infrastructure and goods.

The country’s role on the global stage is bound to undergo significant changes with major challenges emerging. Indian PM Nehendreta Modi has previously been a friend of Hasina and is allowing her to reside on asylum status. In the wake of Hasina’s departure, Hindu Bangladeshis

have experienced increased repression and violence, an issue that the new government must urgently address to keep steady relations with India.

The new interim government will have to carefully balance its relations with the world, especially through efforts to restore democracy and free and fair elections over the next year. The future may even see the release and unbanning of opposition parties that had been defeated by the AL. At the very least, as of writing, there is a sense of optimism in the air for a better future among the youth who had lost their brothers and sisters’ lives in the struggle.

Many believe that Bangladesh has a rare opportunity to rebuild itself from the ground up for the better. One thing for sure is that the new leadership will forever have to remember the sacrifices made by the people of Bangladesh.

Raya Hossain is a 3rd year Neuroscience student from London.

PERSPECTIVES 17

MIDDLE EAST

The Israeli-Hamas War & Regional Conflict: Understanding the

Humanitarian Crisis and Potential Road to Peace

T

he International Rescue Committee (IRC) is one of many global non-governmental organisations that aims to deliver emergency aid to humanitarian crisis points. The Israeli-Hamas conflict is second on their 2024 Emergency Watchlist, and the humanitarian emergency in Gaza has risen to its highest-ever position. The UN reported in July 2024 that almost 2 million people have been displaced and that “nowhere in Gaza is safe.”

The challenges that remain unresolved include the fate of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, the status of Jerusalem, and the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Tensions in this region have a long and complex history. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century, Britain took control of the area now encompassing Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The region was home to both Jewish and Arab communities, with hostilities increasing as each side sought self-determination. Two proposals for the formation of an Arab and Jewish state, presented by the United Nations (UN) Special Committee on Palestine in 1947, were rejected by the Arabs, who felt inadequately represented. Israel was officially established in 1948 and became a member of the UN in 1949.

The challenges that remain unresolved include the fate of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, the status of Jerusalem, and the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

On October 7 2023, Hamas launched a horrific attack against Israel, resulting in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to dismantle Hamas using “all the power” of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). Israel declared a state of war the following day.

Due to violent outbreaks between Hamas and the IDF, a dire humanitarian crisis has unfolded in Gaza. There seems to be no clear end in sight to the conflict.

Looking at the region more broadly, Hezbollah and the Houthis, militant groups operating out of Lebanon and Yemen respectively, have contributed to increasing tensions. Lord Cameron has warned of Iran’s “malign influence” on the region as Iran’s support for these groups has significantly escalated the conflict. Hezbollah is one of the most heavily armed, non-state military forces in the world – boasting between 20,000 and 50,000 heavily armed and battle-hardened fighters. The Houthis, meanwhile, are a political and religious group that has been engaged in a brutal civil war against Yemen’s Sunni-majority government since 2004. In response to the war in Gaza, the Houthis have been attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea, prompting a military response from Western powers.

There is no justification for the horrendous acts committed by armed groups on all sides. This conflict poses many complex challenges, but the solution is fundamentally political. An immediate ceasefire in the region is vital to address the unfolding humanitarian crisis.

Effective diplomacy from international players is needed to assist in coordinating peace talks to reduce the violence committed by militant groups and

curb Iran’s influence. As a strong supporter of Israel, the US has a responsibility to assist in mediating these peace talks.

Fundamentally, the future of the Middle East is dependent on the success of peaceful negotiations, not further violence.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited the Palestinian Occupied Territories in August 2024 to publicly demonstrate Britain’s commitment to resolving the conflict. Lammy stressed the importance of diplomacy, the value of the American, Egyptian, and Qatari peacekeepers, and reaffirmed Britain’s aim to “reconnect in the interests of peace.”

Regional players have a significant role to play. Qatar being one of the very wealthy countries in the Middle East, often presents itself as the region’s primary mediator. Commentators suggest that Qatar takes on this lead role because it wants to be perceived as invaluable to the international community and gain protection from any potential threats from its neighbours. These players need to set aside their own competing commercial priorities and differences to uphold peace for ordinary civilians in the region.

Fundamentally, the future of the Middle East is dependent on the success of peaceful negotiations, not further violence.

Taran Dhillon is a 2nd year Politics and Sociology student from Surrey

Image: Wikimedia Commons - WAFA

By Taran Dhillon

PAIS DEPARTMENT

SUPPORTING THE STUDENT VOICE IN PAIS In PAIS we value your feedback; we know this is a challenging time and we want to do all we can to support you to succeed. Based on your ideas, we have put together an exciting agenda of events, activities and opportunities this term and beyond - please check our emails, social media and webpages for more details.

ACADEMIC SUPPORT

Academic support for students is a top priority for PAIS so please: - Sign up for our Virtual Common Room chats on a range of topics including essay wrtiting, wellbeing and the liberated curriculum.

- Benefit form our online workshops on essay writing for second years and finalists.

- Benefit from our online workshops on preparing for your online open book exams.

STUDY CHOICES

In response to your feedback, we have put together detailed online guides on making your study choices, including whith modules to takes, which assessment methods to choose and advice on applying to postgraduate study.

STUDENT VOICE

We want to hear from you and have a number of opportunities for you to feed-back on your course throughout the year including via your Course Reps and our end-ofyear module evaluation surveys.

There is also the National Student Survey (NSS) which will open for finalists on Monday, 8th February - we would love you to complete it!

EMPLOYABILITY SERIES

Following your feedback, we are running an Employability Series with a number of exciting speakers from a range of careers speaking at events this term. Details will be shared shortly.

EVENTS AND SEMINAR SERIES

Embed yourself in the PAIS research culture and ettend our Wednesday Research Seminar Series which is open to all PAIS staff and students. Finalists are also encouraged to join the Burning Issues: Geopolitics Today MA lecture series which focuses on contemporary world politics.

Follow Us on Social Media to find out more: www.twitter.com/PAISUndergrad www.facebook.com/paiswarwick www.instagram.com/paiswarwick

#WeArePais PERSPECTIVES 19

01100101 10010010 00100100 10010001 00001010 10011011 11100111 REVIEW

Image: PxHere

Identity in an Algorithmic Age: How it Works, How our Lives are Controlled by it, and How we can Resist it.

By Raphael Hammond

A book review of John Cheney-Lippold’s ‘We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of Our Digital Selves’.

T

he digital age generates near-limitless data. Every location, search, like, click, and purchase is registered, creating terabytes of information each day. This is nothing new. In We Are Data, John Cheney-Lippold reveals the deeper, darker side of algorithms: beyond merely collecting data, algorithms create meaning from it, and thus impose identities upon you, shaping who you can be.

They determine whether you are, for instance, ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, a ‘citizen’ or a ‘foreigner’, a ‘terrorist’ or not – and have the power to decide whether you are treated as such.

ments and companies to stop asking questions and start taking action. The ‘foreigner’ can be surveilled, the ‘terrorist’ can be bombed, and the ‘gay’ person can be fed content and advertisements as if they were such.

Cheney-Lippold argues there is no room for individual or political agency as to what it means to be any of these categories, or what they consist of. Nor is there any permanence or space for questioning: you may be ‘gay’ today, and ‘straight’ tomorrow, as the algorithm accounts for your activity each minute.

Your communication patterns can make you a ‘foreigner’ in the eyes of the NSA, your location history and employment a ‘terrorist’, and your taste in interior design and literature ‘gay’ – never mind whether any of these things are true.

Cheney-Lippold explains that these decisions are made by second-guessing you.

Your communication patterns can make you a ‘foreigner’ in the eyes of the NSA, your location history and employment a ‘terrorist’, and your taste in interior design and literature ‘gay’ – never mind whether any of these things are true. The reason for the air quotes is because the categories described do not correspond to the meaning of the terms as we know them. They are merely cost-efficient proxies – ‘good enough’ judgements that allow govern-

20 PERSPECTIVES

We Are Data contains more insights than I can summarise here. Cheney-Lippold describes the consequences of this process for individual privacy and notes the very real death toll of this situation: patient deaths, and civilians killed. Cheney-Lippold also starts to build solutions – instead of painting algorithms as digital boogeymen, he explains how we might reconsider how privacy is implemented to restore some balance between user and corporate interests. For me, the book opened new avenues of thought into the

political power of algorithms and their very real consequences.

What I am most disappointed by is that We Are Data contains the seeds of a radical and punchy data-manifesto.

However, now that I’ve sung its praises, I must address the elephants in the room.

Firstly, the emergence of ChatGPT, generative AI, and TikTok-style video feeds have added yet more layers to the question of algorithmic identity since 2018. Secondly, I can’t recommend this book. We Are Data flashes with occasional brilliance with well-thought-out examples, relatable tragedies, and recognisable frustrations. On the other hand, it weighs down the reader with heavy, academically loaded prose, repetition, and unnecessarily long quotes.

I became a jargon-Sisyphus, endlessly climbing mountains of jargon, and as soon as I reached the summit, Cheney-Lippold flicked from one theorist to another, introducing yet another lens and associated terms. I still can’t concisely explain what a “dividual” is after 265 pages.

What I am most disappointed by is that We Are Data contains the seeds of a radical and punchy data-manifesto. Its messages and revelations are strong enough to get people to look up from their phones for more than two seconds. Unfortunately, it seems this book will remain a cited source in university papers, instead of being the key to action for a better digital world.

Raphael Hammond is a 2nd year PAIS student from London.

1 0 0 1 0 1 1

FILM REVIEW

“What kind of American are you?.”

numb to the daily atrocities we witness, reducing human lives to mere images on a screen.

his question lingers like a shadow throughout Alex Garland’s Civil War, examining what it means to belong in a country on the brink of collapse. At the centre of the film is Lee Smith, a war photographer played by Kirsten Dunst. She is joined by Joel, a fellow journalist (Wagner Moura), veteran reporter Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), and young photographer Jessie Cullen (Cailee Spaeny). The group is on a mission to Washington, D.C., to interview the President as the country is torn apart by a civil war between government forces and a coalition of Western militias led by California and Texas.

Along their journey through this fractured nation, they encounter civilians bearing arms out of fear, militia fighters driven by conflicting loyalties, and small-town residents trying to maintain peace by staying out of the conflict.

In the end, Civil War is more than just a film. It is a reflection, a warning, and a challenge. Garland does not just tell a story.

He forces us to look into the fractured mirror of our own society, asking, “What kind of human are you?” Civil War stays with you long after the screen fades to black, not because it offers easy answers, but because it compels us to confront the difficult questions we would rather avoid, questions about who we are, what we stand for, and how far we might be from the world Garland has so vividly imagined.

T

Tauseef is a Third year PPE student from Mumbai.

Suddenly, the film wasn’t just speculative fiction; it was a mirror, reflecting a society more divided than I had allowed myself to see.

Image: Wikimedia Commons - Ad Meskens

On my first viewing, Civil War felt like a compelling thought experiment, a “what if ” scenario that lingered long after the credits rolled. It was a stark reflection of our present, an unnervingly plausible future if the fabric of society were to unravel. Some might see the film as exploiting our current political climate, capitalizing on the pervasive tension that defines our times. But Civil War is much more than that. It challenges us to imagine a world where the unthinkable becomes reality, a world where the essence of what it means to be American is contested not in courts or elections, but on battlefields across the nation.

Then came the Trump assassination attempt, and with it, a second viewing. Suddenly, the film wasn’t just speculative fiction; it was a mirror, reflecting a society more divided than I had allowed myself to see. The film occupies a space both surreal and disturbingly real, where the boundaries between fiction and our current reality blur. It reveals itself not just as a commentary on American polarization but as a THE FRAGILE LINE BETWEEN ORDER AND ANARCHY broader indictment of how easily a nation A FILM REVIEW OF ALEX GARLAND’S can spiral into chaos when its citizens no longer see each other as part of the same society.

CIVIL WAR

Garland’s refusal to engage in overtly partisan politics is one of the film’s most striking features. There are no mentions of Democrats or Republicans, no debates over gun control or abortion. Instead, Civil War strips its characters down to their bare humanity, placing them in a Hobbesian nightmare where the rule of law has disintegrated, and life has reverted to a brutal “state of nature.” This idea is solidified in a tense standoff scene where journalists ask combatants who they are fighting for, only to receive a chilling reply: “There’s no one giving us orders.

Someone’s trying to kill us, we’re trying to kill them.” In this moment, the film captures the essence of war, not as a noble pursuit, but as a brutal struggle for survival, where ideology gives way to raw human instinct.

The film also explores the desensitization that often accompanies prolonged conflict. As Lee and her team document the horrors around them, executions, ravaged battlegrounds, the faces of the dying, they remain eerily detached. For them, it is just a job, a necessary duty that demands neither empathy nor moral questioning. This cold, clinical approach to human suffering serves as a powerful commentary on how the media, and society at large, can become

WRITTEN BY TAUSEEF PARKAR

PERSPECTIVES 21

DEBATE

FOR: Should 16-Year-Olds Have the Right to Vote?

By Mia Dalton

Expanding the suffrage to 16- and 17-year-olds will bring to an end the political exclusion of the young and hold politicians to account for the decisions that affect them.

It is often said that 16-year-olds are too immature or not well enough informed about politics to be able to make a reasoned decision on who to vote for. Yet, the irony is that the same logic can be applied to many adults.

A

It is often said that 16-year-olds are too immature or not well enough informed about politics to be able to make a reasoned decision on who to vote for. Yet, the irony is that the same logic can be applied to many adults – a legacy of the absence of sufficient political education in schools.

Immaturity or lack of political awareness are not used as reasons to stop any other age groups from voting; why should it be used as a reason to stop 16-year-olds?

Giving the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds may even encourage them to become more informed on politics and current affairs. Expanding the suffrage to those still in education could also be a driving force in improving political education in schools, which is desperately needed, and would gradually lead to more informed political decisions being made amongst the adult population.

Allowing 16-year-olds to vote is, therefore, clearly not a radical or untested policy, and it would only make sense for the rest of the UK to follow suit and lower the voting age for general and local elections.

22 PERSPECTIVES

In addition, England is behind other parts of the UK when it comes to lowering the voting age. 16- and 17-year-olds were given the right to vote in the 2014 Independence Referendum in Scotland, and have been allowed to vote in Scottish parliamentary elections since 2015. The voting age was also lowered to 16 in Wales in time for the 2021 Senedd elections. Allowing 16-year-olds to vote is, therefore, clearly not a radical or untested policy, and it would only make sense for the rest of the UK to follow suit and lower the voting age for general and local elections.

There is a common perception that young people are generally less likely to vote, meaning there is little point in expanding the franchise. However, this may not be the case in reality. An ICM survey found that in the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, 75% of 16–17-year-olds voted, compared to 54% of 18–24-year-olds.

This higher turnout has also continued over time – a recent study found that in Scotland, voters who were first enfranchised at the age of 16 were more likely to continue to vote in subsequent elec-

For too long the concerns of young people have fallen to the margins of political discussion. Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote would also force political parties to take young people more seriously and increase government accountability. As issues such as climate change are set to have the greatest cost on younger generations it is only fair for them to have a say in the government’s response.

It is clear that the positive effects of giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote far outweigh the drawbacks. Lowering the voting age would make parties consider the concerns of young people, improve political education, increase voter turnout, and bring the voting age for general elections in line with that of elections for the devolved parliaments. Labour’s policy of enfranchising 16- and 17-year-olds is therefore a positive one which should be implemented.

Mia Dalton is a 2nd year PAIS student from London.

What do you think?

Should 16-year-olds have the right to vote?

yes

no

Images: Canva

key pledge in Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 General Election was to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote – responding to a growing demand from young people to have their voices heard in politics. For too long, politicians have dismissed or ignored the opinions and concerns of young people without accountability or consequence. Expanding the suffrage to 16- and 17-year-olds will bring to an end the political exclusion of the young and hold politicians to account for the decisions that affect them.

tions than those who had been allowed to vote for the first time at 18. Giving the vote to 16-year-olds, therefore, increases voter turnout in both the short and long term, which can only be a positive thing.

Expanding suffrage for the first time since 1969 is likely to motivate many 16- and 17-year-olds to grasp the opportunity with indebtedness and enthusiasm.

DEBATE

AGAINST: Should 16-YearOlds Have the Right to Vote?

By Nicolas Lewis

Is there any actual, real-world benefit to lowering the voting age and does an arbitrary age of 16 make sense? The answer to that question is a clear no.

I

Starmer’s argument is a common one and deserves to be unpacked, not least, because it is simplistic.

Back cover Image: Pexels - Littlehampton Bricks

Perhaps we shouldn’t look too much into this lack of action, but Conservatives will certainly be pleased with it; they have alleged that Labour is lowering the voting age because they know that this age group is overwhelmingly likely to vote for them.

Regardless, attempts to change voter eligibility require serious evaluation and thought. It is rather alarming that there have been so few column inches scrutinising Labour’s constitutional plans.

Let us start with Keir Starmer’s own justification for the policy. Two days after Rishi Sunak announced the general election, Keir Starmer stated on the campaign trail that 16- and 17-year-olds can “go out and work, they can serve in our armed forces and, of course, if they are out working, they pay tax and therefore they have a say”. Starmer’s argument is a common one and deserves to be unpacked, not least, because it is simplistic.

The voting age in UK elections has not changed since 1969. It is only right that laws that have been with us for such a long time should not be altered based on simplistic arguments. For a start, while the school leaving age is 16, it is law that you must stay in education until the age of 18.

In fact, those working at 16 do not have full employment rights. Equally, while it is true that you can join the army at 16, you cannot be sent to a warzone, and you require parental consent.

This all demonstrates an obvious point: you reach adulthood at 18 and that is when your full responsibilities, including voting, begin. I am not suggesting that this has any scientific basis, but a line must be

drawn somewhere, and this always makes sense to be set at 18 given this is when you are classed as an adult by law.

The issue of tax also raises an interesting question. Starmer’s reasoning that 16-year-olds should be able to vote because they can pay taxes seems rather absurd. It, of course, follows the classical idea that there should be “no taxation without representation”. Yet, the idea that we rely on this for voting seems simplistic and strange. To begin with, those under 18 are exempt from some taxes such as council tax. Technically, we all pay tax in some form – a 13-year-old pays VAT when purchasing an item from a shop. This begs the question: why should we only lower it to 16? This is, like the current voting age, an arbitrary limit. After all, a 13-year-old can legally work part-time.

Professor David Runiciman in an article for The Guardian in 2021, advocated for lowering the voting age to as young as six – effectively extending the franchise to any child in full-time education. Whilst these arguments quickly enter the realm of absurdity they are merely an extension of those who advocate for lowering it to 16. If you support lowering the voting age, is there a logical reason for the age being 16? The only logical age is 18 given that is when society, and the law, consider you an adult.

A single post on social media may well have more influence than a vote. The idea, therefore, that a lack of a vote denies young people a political platform could not be further from the truth – there is more to political engagement than crossing a ballot paper.

one a vote, otherwise a dangerous road lies ahead. Regardless, those under 18 have an important role to play in our political system – having a vote does not necessarily increase your voice or participation in politics. A single post on social media may well have more influence than a vote. The idea, therefore, that a lack of a vote denies young people a political platform could not be further from the truth – there is more to political engagement than crossing a ballot paper.

Image: Canva

t is easy for Labour’s policy to expand the franchise to 16-year-olds to go unnoticed. It is not a policy that, by any means, will spell disaster. Nor is it a policy that will have any negative impacts on individuals. Yet, there seems to be something that Labour is not telling us. Why, for example, was there no bill to lower the voting age in Labour’s first King’s Speech?

If Labour were genuinely serious about implementing this quick, simple policy, why not put it in so that 16-year-olds could vote in next year’s local elections?

Before Keir Starmer makes changes to the system that has been in place for 55 years, he should think more deeply. Is there any actual, real-world benefit to lowering the voting age and does an arbitrary age of 16 make sense? The answer to that question is a clear no.

Nicolas Lewis is a 2nd year PAIS student from Hertfordshire

Those in favour often argue that 16- and 17-year-olds are more engaged and just as competent as many adults when it comes to political issues. That may be true, but competency and maturity are not, and never should be, a factor in giving some-

SEPTEMBER 2024 23