Edition 45

January 2024

EDITION 45

THE HOME OF STUDENT POLITICAL COMMENTARY

NOT YOUR (GRAND)FATHER’S WAR? WILLIAM HALL

JAMIE MUTCH IS TIME RUNNING OUT FOR CHINA?

ANTON ALFONSIN LARSEN THE RISE OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT: WHO ARE THEY? WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? WHAT DO THEY WANT

EDITOR’S LETTER

Wikimedia Commons / Battle of the Hindenburg Line (Edited)

editions into this magazine and I could not be more honoured to continue the work of countless incredible editorial teams before ours who have helped to shape the magazine into what it is today. And before we go any further, I want to say a massive thank you to our own editorial team who were hired in term 1. The deputy editors Tom, Rania, Mathieu and Will have worked brilliantly editing all of our articles and bringing you pitches that get taken faster than Week 10 circling tickets which I have loved to see! Our design editors Jesse, Zak and Josh work tirelessly behind the scenes to bring you all the cool graphics you see and keep our social medias running; a special shoutout to Zak and Jesse who designed this edition and made it look as brilliant as it does.

Sanjana Iyer Editor-in-Chief 2nd year PPE student

This edition tackles a lot, across social, political, environmental and economic spheres; while we may be a politics magazine, the remit of our writers definitely stretches beyond. From the article highlighting China’s current economic decline amidst an ageing population to the one on how El Salvador is tackling its crime wave to the relationship between Japan and South Korea, our writers bring you not only the global stories that may be missed by mainstream media, but also look to the future on what we can expect to see from these international governments and also perhaps what they should be doing.

Front Cover Images: DVIDSHub / Eric McDonough - Platoon Movement and Assault Drills Conducted in Ukraine (Edited)

In championing global stories we also champion global voices, seen perfectly in the article on Australia’s referendum that rejected the voice of Indigenous peoples. Amidst the current crisis in Gaza it would be entirely remiss for our Middle East article not to centre on this appalling situation; with swarms of misinformation on the conflict, this article takes you through exactly why Gaza faces the situation it does today, and what the global community are - or aren’t - doing about it.

Conflict has been a massive theme of the last few years, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to terror across the Middle East, and our feature article brilliantly walks you through an angle we don’t see many people talking about: how has war changed in the last century, if it has? Yet it’s not only the Russian invasion that has ravaged Europe, as following recent elections we’ve seen a sharp rise in the popularity of the right-wing, which our Need to Know article spells out the who, what and why of. And walking hand-in-hand with this rise of the right is Europe’s tale of two crises, as this edition explores how the continent is tackling both its borders and climate situation, for better or worse.

Concomitant with the prominence of Europe’s right is the Trump Trials that have made headlines for months. In a new take on the profile, instead of delving into the life of an individual political figure, we profile a demographic, namely those who are still voting for the indicted former president in an attempt to spell out why as the rest of the world watches in confusion. Though Trump may be in, Santos is certainly out as our North American article dives into the former Congressman’s expulsion, highlighting the hilarity of his scandals that serves as another episode in the reality show of modern politics.

Our writers seamlessly weave in wit and humour to tackle complex politics and as the revolving door at No. 10 remains in operation, the fun spin of the UK’s ‘Government Wrapped’ summarising their previous year in office is not to be missed. From the coronation to the release of The Crown, 2023 also saw the royal family remaining firmly on the front covers, once again sparking the debate on the monarchy which we’ve reignited in the for and against section. As we’ve all seen, politics spans all forms of media, and having introduced movie reviews in the previous edition, Edition 45 brings you another brilliant book and film review to dive into while you procrastinate your uni work.

And even Perspectives has branched into new media, with us now being 2 seasons and 20 episodes into our podcast ‘Beyond the Page’. With so many new guests, hot takes, deep discussions and lots of laughter, I cannot wait to go into my final term leading the magazine and radio show. So all that leaves me to say is such a huge thank you to you. Our incredible writers, radio guests and readers, we would not have a magazine we are nearly as proud of as this one without you. I hope you’re looking forward to this final term filled with speakers, pub quizzes, print editions, podcasting and many more new perspectives as I am. I can’t wait to see you all there!

2

PERSPECTIVES

Image: IconScout / Daniel Bruce

MEET THE TEAM

Deputy editors, along with the editor in chief, will pitch ideas and edit articles ready for print.

@warwickperspectives

Mathieu Yap Deputy Editor 1st year PPE student

Tom Lowe Deputy Editor 3rd year PAIS student

Rania Sivaraj Deputy Editor 2nd year History and Politics student

William Hall Deputy Editor 1st year PAIS student

Imagees: Wikimedia Commons

Joshua George Design Editor 2nd year PAIS student

Jesse Hitt Design Editor 2nd year PAIS student

Zak O’Brien Design Editor 2nd year PAIS student

Perspectives goes to print once a term, whilst our online edition is updated weekly to give us students a chance to have our voices heard.

We also have a radio show, which is then uploaded as a podcast, where we hold weekly discussions to discuss pertinent political issues. We will be inviting interested writers/ podcasters on board!

Design editors recieve the edited articles and lay up the magazine, using Indesign and Photoshop.

@Perspectives @Perspectives Writers @PerspectivesUoW @PerspectivesMagazine

JANUARY 2024

3

Image: Unsplash Mr Cup / Fabien Barral iammrcup

CONTENTS

Navigating Europe’s green future: climate policy and the fight for the planet

By Kate O’Mahony Is the Western Cape bound for escape?

By Sanjana Iyer Profile: Who on earth is still voting for Donald Trump?

By Milly Owen

The expulsion of George Santos: sometimes all you can do is laugh

By Alfred Stokes-Myers

The Rise of the European Right: Who are they? Where do they come from? What do they want?

By Anton Alfonsin Larsen

2023 in UK Government and Politics Wrapped

By Tom Lowe

Australia’s Referendum: The People Vote to Reject their ‘Voice’

By Yusuf Khalid Is time running out for China?

by Jamie Mutch crisis at Europe’s borders 9 The

By Iris Brandon

FEATURE

Not your (grand)father’s war?

By William Hall If all else fails, send them all to jail?

By Joakim Mol Romero Gaza is where the West’s rulesbased international order goes to die

By Selma Saik A force for stability: the growing alliance between Japan and South Korea

By Mathieu Yap 4

PERSPECTIVES

REVIEWS

A review of The Long Way to a Small Angry Planet – warm mug of hot chocolate sci-fi, or naive liberal multiculturalism?

By Raphael Hammond Is evil born or made – and what can The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes tell us about human nature?

By Leya Hines

DEBATE FOR MONARCHY: It is time to abandon the sentimental slime of Royal theatre and defend the monarch seriously

By Ethan Harvey AGAINST MONARCHY: The Placeholder Prince: should the monarchy Survive?

By Kara Hall

PROFILE

PROFILE: WHO ON EARTH IS STILL VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP? MILLY OWEN

W

Image: Flickr / Gage Skidmore - Donald Trump (Edited)

ith a year to go before the US elections, Donald Trump is very firmly in the lead. 38% supporting his presidential bid, compared to Biden’s 33% according to one poll, with some showing his lead at over 10%.

This comes after several indictments, most famously the January 6 th Riot investigation and the cases surrounding his keeping of classified national defence documents at his home. Seeing this, it is easy enough for us ‘across the pond’ to question the popularity of Trump – deeply entrenched in political legal strife. But his popularity seems perfectly logical for many Americans, due to a simple and very worrying fact- they don’t trust any politicians.

The absolute absurdity that has been American politics in more recent history has desensitised the population, disillusioning them into believing a legal indictment of a high-ranking presidential candidate is normal, or even attractive. In a way, the Democrats are simply handing this platform to Trump.

He can so easily claim to be persecuted by being consistently legally challenged. The very nature of politicians themselves also needs to be examined.

Many Americans truly believe that every single option which they are given, any form of ‘politician’, is a crook or a criminal. Therefore, Trump could be a bad man, but aren’t all politicians?

Of course, in times leading up to elections, it is wise to reflect on the words of Bill Clinton, ‘it’s the economy stupid’. The economic climate of America is an essential component in voter decisions and support for the incumbent.

The current global economic crisis has taken its toll on America, with inflation and a rising cost of living caused by the war in Ukraine and the aftermath of a global pandemic. Citizens also are highly critical of foreign aid authorised by Biden, believing he should address the problems within America before aid is given to any humanitarian crises. When the American public are asked ‘Is your

life better now than it was four years ago?’, the Financial Times found only 14% of voters feel Joe Biden has made them better off. Clearly, the public feel stronger about Trump’s management of the economy and his very isolationist approach to international crisis, when questioned only 53% support current levels of international aid.

Trump’s strong influence and support is seen clearly on social media sites, I checked in on the MAGA fanbase on X (formerly Twitter), to see what Trump’s tribe is preaching in the runup to the election. I saw videos of a claimed border ’invasion’, with immigrants crossing through Trump’s border wall and entering America.

Videos of MAGA supporters interviewing immigrants and the immigrants thanking Biden as they pass.

The comments were filled with hate and racism, claiming that all immigrants should be ‘locked up’, including hundreds of children featured in the film. This is a new age of propaganda, painting a dangerous ‘invasion’ at the border that is allegedly en- dorsed

by Joe Biden. I could also see an obvious religious rhetoric, constantly pushed by the far right of the Republican party. Many Republican senators and members of the house state that Trump is ‘supported by God’ and that he is a ‘defender of the faith’, painting him as a warrior, protecting far-right conservative Christian values.

This comes days after Trump claimed at a prayer meeting that if Jesus were resurrected, he would endorse him.

The everyday Trump voter looks very different today than in 2016.

This strong Trump-supporting majority are disillusioned by global economic strife, the constant rise in their shopping bills and mortgage payments has created a strong anti-Biden rhetoric.

I cannot state whether these issues could be avoided by the Biden administration, I do not have the economic insight, but I am certain it will have lost Biden votes. A myriad of scandals has consumed every part of politics, leading to such a level of desensitisation in America that they truly believe a legally persecuted man is an ideal presidential candidate. This could all change as polls are not elections, but public support is changing, the love and enthusiasm shown for Biden in 2020 is waning and Trump’s appeal is only growing.

As always, time will tell.

Milly Owen is a 1st year Politics student from Birmingham, UK.

JANUARY 2024

5

EUROPE

WHO ARE THEY? WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? WHAT DO THEY WANT?

ANTON ALFONSIN LARSEN

Europe has witnessed a wave of politicians who claim to provide solutions to all problems from inflation and unemployment to crime and immigration.

Who are these populist leaders?

Most European countries can now claim to have established populist right-wing movements. The UK has witnessed a wave of populist Conservatives during and after the Brexit referendum campaign; in Italy, Giorgia Meloni has been elected Prime Minister; in the Netherlands Geert Wilders has recorded the largest proportion of votes in the most recent elections, and in Spain, far-right party Vox continues to pose credible threats. There can be no doubt that the European political status quo is facing

6

PERSPECTIVES

European right-wing populists all adhere to similar ideological stances. They stand against the European Union, take a very harsh - often explicitly xenophobic - stance on immigration, question state policy surrounding climate change and promote purity alongside traditional cultural values. The people have heard this cry and the ballot boxes have been flooded with a wave of support for these parties seeking change and prosperity.

The European Far-Right poses a threat to political stability and democracy.

The question is: how far will they go?

Immigration and EU membership Reducing immigration is a key priority for these movements. Few reservations regarding racial and xenophobic discrimination exist. Wilders is known for his desire to ban the Qur’an, Vox (Spain) seeks to repeat the Reconquista of 1492 from “invading” Muslims, and Victor Orban (Hungary) has rejected any idea of a “mixed race” country. This rhetoric surrounds the “wave” of migrants that have arrived primarily from the Middle East, who are purported to be cheating welfare systems, claiming jobs that should go to natives and pose a terrorist security threat to the West.

Another key concern that surrounds these movements is EU membership.

Leaders seek to escape the unification project that is proposed by Emanuel Macron. Brexit was the ideal template.

British politicians orchestrated an astounding campaign which captivated a population with an illusion of, erhm, paradise that awaited. However, the brutal aftermath has diminished ide-

as of withdrawal from the EU. L e a d - ers including Le Pen (France) and Geert Wilders have taken softer stances on exit referendums and instead seek to distance themselves from further integration. Macron is still smiling in his dreams.

Where does this leave the future?

These parties have also denied the existence of the climate change problem. Meloni’s government in Italy has spoken out, with ministers joking: “It’s hot, yes, without a doubt. In summer it’s hot, in winter it’s cold,” and saying that there is little humans can do to help climate change. Vox has repeatedly blocked climate change policy with MPs saying that global warming isn’t necessarily a problem given that it would: “reduce mortality caused by cold weather”.

There is clear reason for concern when considering the rise of the European populist far-right. Significant questions surround political and economic stability, climate change and “European” values. Nevertheless, Macron has space for hope. These parties face electoral checks: Wilders has witnessed in his one-man-show in the Netherlands, potential coalition parties are demanding softer policy; or as in the case of Spain, Vox depended on the success of bigger parties – unfortunately they don’t always win.

European democracy lives to fight another day. But it is these barriers themselves that will reenforce this new brand of populist ideology.

Anton Alfonsin Larsen is a 4th year PAIS and Hispanic Studies, from London, UK.

Flickr / Vox España - CPAC 2022 con Hermann Tertsch y Victor Gonzalez (Edited)

The continent has recently established itself as the centre of a new global political movement: far right-wing populism.

These European far-right movements have introduced an ideological unison between populist discourse and far right politics that hasn’t always been the case.

Populist movements do not necessarily adhere to one fixed ideology; instead populism is often seen to morph into other more widely developed ideologies. There tends to be a charismatic and somewhat authoritarian figure as the leader, who fights state corruption and micromanagement of “the people”. Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell also recently suggested that research is needed into the association between odd hairstyles and populism. Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Javier Milei and Boris Johnson all seem like ideal case studies in this paper.

one of its greatest challenges yet and this threat doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

Wikimedia Commons / Phil Nijhuis - Geert wilders (Edited)

The blend of populism and right-wing politics Populism has long existed in world politics: historical examples include American Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), Argentine Juan Perón (1895-1974), and arguably the most obvious Donald Trump. However, the most recent populist development is most clearly highlighted in Europe.

Images : Flickr / Vox España - Santiago ebascal (Edited)

THE RISE OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT:

OCEANIA

AUSTRALIA’S REFERENDUM: THE PEOPLE VOTE TO REJECT THE INDIGENOUS ‘VOICE’ YUSUF KHALID

A

once-in-a-lifetime vote to increase democracy amongst the most disadvantaged people in society was roundly rejected in a climate of fear, intolerance and racism - as those who voted in favour of Australia’s recent referendum might argue. On October 14th, Australians went to the polls to answer the question as to whether or not the government should ‘alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice’. This constitutional change would work twofold: acknowledging the Aboriginal community in the country’s official constitution and establishing a ‘Voice’, an advisory body of said people to provide input on government legislation concerning the country’s most disadvantaged minority. The result was clear and astounding, with 60.4% voting ‘No’ to the motion and 39.96% voting ‘Yes’.

Growing defence ties

On the fringe left, the Voice would ironically be the one thing it tried to combat: voice-less

On the legal front, this was always an uphill battle. The referendum stood as the 45th in Australian history, in a country where only eight have ever passed. In reality, the result achieved ‘No’ majorities in all 6 Australian states, the only ‘Yes’ majority occurring in Australia’s capital. Brexit-esque visions are almost immediately apparent, echoing the narratives of an urban London elite against the wider working class masses.

On the fringe left, the Voice would ironically be the one thing it tried to combat: voice-less. An advisory body with no legitimate power, far-left campaigners supported ‘No’ on the basis of desiring instead a treaty between the government and the Aboriginal community, Australia being the only Commonwealth country to not have one.

As for the Yes vote, it seems surprising that a losing referendum campaign would fail in proposing change instead of accepting the status quo. Like anything in politics however, nothing is for certain. A muddled and strategy-less campaign with lack of an ability to explain the final shape of the Voice plagued them, allowing the opposition to claim ‘if you don’t know, vote No’.

At the same time, dismissiveness of the No campaign as ‘racist and stupid’ didn’t resonate well with voters according to ‘Yes’ leader and Indigenous academic Marcia Langton. It seems somewhat unimaginative to me that in a political era underlined by populism, others could be castigated as racist in a broad brush without a desire to understand their views.

Yet for now, the position of Aboriginals comes at a standstill. Comprising only 4% of the population whilst being heavily disadvantaged in society, particularly in realms of health and education, the need for reform is necessary but also requires additional work.

However, in the context of a cost-ofliving crisis and other concerns to the wider Australian public, it is possible that the position of Indigenous people will take a backseat - one that some will say is indicative of their position in society throughout Australia’s history.

It seems clear to me that to vote ‘No’ is not an affront to the Aboriginal community based on racial hatred, but a rational vote based on concern for an additional half-fleshed bureaucratic layer of government without any framework or planning. Additionally, the controversial decision to implement it, along with a popular desire for Indigenous inclusion in the constitution was bound to end in failure.

That being said, I can’t claim to subscribe to some of the voices on the No side, particularly when looking at Price’s viewpoint and her rhetoric on colonialism. In the end, what I am concerned about is the existence of a political culture that doesn’t care to understand the interests and grievances of people who don’t agree with supposedly popular political narratives. With the emergence of populism and increased marginalisation, a need to listen goes further than others may initially think.

As for Australia, the situation is far from bleak. Whilst disagreeing on solutions is inevitable, the willingness to confront the past, propose change and utilise democracy is only emblematic of the unity of Australians to seek a fairer society and march on to a constructive future.

Yusuf Khalid is a 2nd year History and Politics Student from Birmingham, UK.

JANUARY 2024

7

Aboriginal print: Flickr/ Barbara Dieu; Ballot cartoon: rawpixel.com

In an era of fascination with race and social justice, Australia’s vote stands as a stark rejection of these ideals and yet we all ask - what happened?

The ‘No’ campaign also led a somewhat salient campaign. Peter Dutton, Opposition leader of the Liberal Party and prominent ‘No’ voice, voiced concerns with the possible division the Voice could bring and the need for local leadership to supplant Indigenous deprivation. His Shadow Minister of Indigenous Australians, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was also a vocal advocate on the basis of supposed division, but of a racial nature.

ASIA

IS TIME RUNNING OUT FOR CHINA?

JAMIE MUTCH

China’s economic success is built on foundations of sand.

With a nominal value of over £4 trillion, the property sector accounts for almost a third of China’s GDP. A complete collapse could bring the rest of the economy down with it.

Alarmed, the Chinese government has stepped in to try to guarantee remaining projects receive the necessary funding. Yet, this may be too little too late. Regardless, the property sector,

8

PERSPECTIVES

This, however, is not Beijing’s biggest issue to contend with. China suffers from a far more silent weakness, the seeds of which were sown long ago.

The Chinese government, until very recently, has always viewed its rapid population growth as more of a curse than a blessing. Most will be familiar with the one-child policy an Orwellian attempt to limit most Chinese families to only one child - involving a brutal campaign which saw 15 million induced abortions in a single year. The policy worked. Population growth was brought under control. Except, as the CCP has come to realise, it worked a little too well.

China’s population shrunk for the first time in six decades in 2022. Confirming a demographic trend that will only worsen in the future. By the end of the century, it’s projected China’s population will contract by nearly half.

For an economy that is shored up by low-cost, abundant labour this may spell disaster. China will be forced to rapidly adapt. Not only in the structure of its economy but also in how it will support its elderly. By 2035, it is projected over a third of China’s population will be over the age of 60, placing immense strain on public finances and current welfare infrastructure. It is also unlikely that desperate schemes to increase fertility will have their desired effect. No matter the cash incentive, young Chinese will simply be too busy caring for ageing family members to also consider supporting a large family of their own.

What, then, does this mean for the world? Well, I fear we have al-

ready seen this story play out once before.

A fledgling superpower with a weak economy, a shrinking population and a ruthless dictator hell-bent on re-creating past glory.

中 国 的 未 来

Sounds all too familiar.

Mr Putin chose the route of complete self-destruction in Ukraine. If President Xi has been taking notes, he will know not to make the same mistake, but you can never be so sure. Internally, if China begins to decline, pressure will mount on Xi to do something about it. Taiwan has been in his sights for a long time. A weakened China makes conflict more likely.

As for Britain, which lacks a large manufacturing sector of its own, China’s demographic collapse spells big trouble. Likely successors to China’s manufacturing prowess will originate from Africa. Beijing has already made great inroads in shoring up political relationships in the region. The UK, on the other hand, is on the back foot. A lack of foresight means we will undoubtedly lose out.

China is in trouble. The success it has enjoyed over the past three decades has begun to falter. Xi Jinping is trying to steer the ship out of rocky waters. My fear is that it is already sinking.

Jamie Mutch is a 1st year Politics student from Northampton, UK.

Image: Flickr / Michel Temer - Xi Jinping (Edited)

Nowhere clearer is this demonstrated than in its economy. China barely reached its 5% growth target in 2023 - a symptom of an evolving crisis in its property sector. In 2020, the CCP began cracking down on fiscally irresponsible property developers by implementing tougher regulations in what has become known as the Three Red Lines policy.

Chinese developers were forced to meet strict debt requirements to have access to bank lending. Smaller firms ran into trouble almost immediately. Then, Evergrande, once the country’s biggest developer, was forced to default on liabilities totalling more than $300 billion.

Now, there are fears another property giant, Country Garden, will meet the same fate. 65 million homes - enough to house the entire population of France - now lie empty in unfinished projects as a result of capital running dry.

which China has heavily relied upon during its rapid growth over the past three decades, will no longer serve such a function with such resilience.

Translation: The Future of China (Simplified Characters)

he idea that China may be entering a period of relative decline will come as a surprise to some. China currently sits as the second-largest economy in the world. It has accounted for 40% of global growth since 2013. It is the world’s largest exporter of goods and the biggest supplier of foreign direct investment. You would be forgiven for thinking it is inevitable that China will eventually come to overtake even the United States in its dominance. But you would be wrong.

EUROPE

THE CRISIS AT EUROPE’S BORDERS

IRIS BRANDON

Image: Flickr / Wesley R. Dickey - 160729-N-EU999-007

wenty years ago, far-right French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen was condemned as a threat to liberal and democratic values for his anti-immigrant stance.

Running in the 2002 elections, Le Pen described immigration as “fatal for our country”, blaming immigrants for violence, terrorism, crime, unemployment, and social fracture in France. Le Pen’s policy agenda included immediately stopping all immigration into France, expelling all immigrants without legal rights of residency in France, and creating a welfare system prioritising white French people over those with migrant backgrounds. Le Pen was ostracised from the European Council and denounced by leaders across Europe for his extreme rhetoric, while his succession to the final round of elections (before his defeat to Jaques Chirac) received as “impossible,” “shocking” and deeply concerning across Europe.

But far more shocking than Le Pen’s anti-migrant hatred or surprise electoral success, is that today, Le Pen’s ideas would fall into the political mainstream in Europe. So how has anti-immigration politics moved so far, so fast: from the racist margins of the far right to mainstream, popular policies? And how can policymakers solve the so-called ‘border crisis’ rocking EU politics?

The politicisation of immigration was catalysed by the 2015 migration ‘crisis’, in which the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers (primarily from Syria) rose to record levels of 1.8 million.

Framing by media outlets and rightwing parties presented the influx of migrants as a social and economic disaster; describing the threat that migrants posed to the jobs, safety and way of life of people in host countries. Accordingly, while certain countries such as Germany accepted a significant number of ref-

ugees, many EU states accepted only a small number of refugees or even closed their borders.

The shift toward far-right politics and anti-immigration policies is well-documented across the EU. Since 2015, promising to crack down or reduce illegal immigration has been a major vote-winner for European far-right parties, and European elections have even been described as referendums on immigration. In 2018, Hungarian politician Victor Orban won a landslide victory presenting Muslim immigrants as a threat to Christian values. Similar anti-immigration stances have handed electoral victories to many European far-right parties, such as Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, le Rassemblement National in France and the anti-immigrant coalition League in Italy. Most recently, the far-right and anti-immigration Freedom Party (PVV) won the election in the Netherlands.

Last year, there were over 330,000 illegal crossings at EU borders, a 59% year-on-year increase and the highest since 2015, the peak of Europe’s migration crisis. Europe continues to struggle with high levels of immigration, increasingly strained housing for refugees, and difficulties in integrating large numbers of immigrants.

Research fellow at the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs Blanca Garces-Mascarenassenior indicates that such issues are the result of an institutional breakdown on immigration policy in the EU, which has become “intractable”. While the EU needs millions of new migrant workers every year for its economic wellbeing, many EU states are demanding closed borders for political and cultural reasons. Indeed, as these countries grapple with increased levels of unemployment, European social democrat parties tend to prioritise

welfare for existing citizens over accepting refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. Furthermore, as public opinion shifts against immigration, perceiving migrants as threats, leftist and centrist parties have also adopted tougher stances on immigration to appeal to voters. As such, the politics and economics of immigration are locked in a vicious cycle.

Although the EU’s overarching structure – the Schengen area – grants freedom of movement to all people in Europe, including a common asylum and immigration policy, individual states continue to close their borders.

As such, The European Council’s strategies for immigration and integration are practically impotent against EU states’ domestic policies on immigration. Furthermore, far-right politicians across Europe are unifying within the Euro- pean Parliament to shift EU policy towards a tougher stance on immigration. The far-right Identity and Democracy (DID) group is currently the sixth largest in the EU assembly, with polls suggesting that the DID may soon become the fourth largest. The increasing strength of the coalition indicates that European frameworks may too shift in the anti-immigration direction of domestic policies.

The solution to the ongoing border ‘crisis’ must be found in EU cooperation, and the prioritisation of the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers over the political agendas of far-right groups. While increased cooperation is perhaps unlikely, there may be some hope that as Europe’s economic situation improves in the coming months and years, European citizens will be more amenable to pro-immigration policies.

Iris Brandon is a 3rd year PPE student from London, UK.

JANUARY 2024

9

FEATURE

NOT YOUR (GRAND)

R apid technological development has led to the innovation of Space as an entirely new domain of warfare since the 1990s. Now, we are not yet at ‘Star Wars’ levels of space warfare – the Death Star is still in a future far, far away – but innovation has fundamentally answered one of the core challenges of conventional warfare: the ability to not get lost. One of the Clausewitzian tenants of warfare is the ‘fog of war’ - the uncertainty leaders face regarding the strength and position of both their enemies, and their friends.

With the continuing development of spy satellites and Musk’s StarLink system, it is increasingly easier to dispel this fog, i.e. for combatants to know where they and their enemies are using GPS and 24/7 satellite imagery. Moreover, applying burgeoning AI technology to this

10

PERSPECTIVES

wealth of positional data and satellite imagery enables fast and efficient analysis and targeting. The battlefield is increasingly transparent, and as autonomous weapon systems are developed, it will be more and more difficult to manoeuvre without being identified and destroyed.

Alongside Space, recent advancements have seen the addition of Electronic and Cyber warfare to the hallowed ranks of domain status. Sparked by Ukrainian developments in other domains, Russia’s Electronic Warfare systems are now arguably recreating the ‘fog of war’ that Space claims to dispel.

The use of mobile jamming technology – as seen on their Borisoglebsk-2 and Shipovnik-Aero vehicles – has contributed

to increasing Ukrainian drone losses (now 10,000 a month) and to the failure of long-range artillery.

According to Ukrainian officials, the famed US HIMARS launcher is now seeing “a majority of GMLRS rounds” go astray as its GPS systems fail. Beyond the immediate battlefield, both Russia and Ukraine have invested heavily in cyber warfare. Cyber warfare zealots argue that it threatens significant damage to both military and civilian infrastructure from a great distance, as long as it is connected to the internet. Ukraine has indeed seen recurring power blackouts over these last two years, as well as failures of both civilian and military communications networks, but defence is keeping up and the impact of cyber has been less than predicted.

War is said to be changing not only because of its expansion into new domains, but also because of the changes wrought by technological advance-

ment in old domains. This is no better seen than in the emergence of, and changes in, the air domain. Only surfacing as a true force post-1917, exploitation of classic air power changed the conduct of war significantly. Now it has expanded again with the introduction of drones. During its counter-insurgency adolescent phase, drone warfare changed the power relations between opposing parties. No longer was war a duel between parties able to harm or riposte upon each other, how could it be? In the past, any active combatant was fair game for the opposing side, but if one combatant is in an air-controlled room 2000 miles away where is that ‘fairness’? How are these wars the same to ones fought between muskets a mere 50 yards away 200 years ago?

In the opening phase of the war in Ukraine, Russian forces attempted air and ground manoeuvres to achieve a quick victory, but unable to gain air superiority and with a well organised defence, the war quickly became a positional slog. Here, as on the Western Front in 1917, historian A.J.P. Taylor’s quip that “war has always been the mother of invention” rings true in the development of FPV Drone Warfare in Ukraine to compensate for neither side having air superiority. These small drones, costing under $1,000 and flown in a video-game-esque first person view, have been used to great effect by both sides of the conflict for their reconnaissance and kamikaze utility.

Equipped generally with a small explosive, the ability of one of Ukraine’s 10,000+ pilots to destroy multi-million-dollar equipment or harass enemy troops from relative safety has changed the playing field. Innovation will undoubtedly continue as the war progresses, and we are already seeing more frequent, previously unseen, drone-on-drone warfare.

Image: Wikimedia Commons / Mil.gov.ua - Ukrainian Ground Forces soldiers training with NLAWs (Edited)

n 24 February this year, Europe will mark the two-year anniversary of the first large scale inter-state conflict its people have seen since the Second World War. In the intervening 78 years, the world and our wars have changed.

With technological progression so too has come military advancements: military analysts now recognise two new domains of warfare, Space and Cyber, joining the traditional domains of Air, Land, and Sea. Many believed that such land warfare would never plague Europe again, so the beginning of Russia’s ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine came with significant shock. Is this in fact a repeat of previous conflict, separated as they are by scale and time?

Image: Wikimedia Commons / Mvs.gov.ua - Russian drone Eleron T-16, downed in Ukraine (Edited)

FATHER’S WAR? Curiously, the changes of warfare in the preceding domains are inversed in the original domains of Land and Sea. Few will have missed the return of trench warfare to the world, suggesting that change in warfare does not seem to be linear. Previously a staple of armed conflict, from Belisarius to Falkenhayn, Salman to Hague, trench warfare and the development of huge field works were seen as a thing of the past after the success of Nazi blitzkrieg – the so-called Resurgence of Manoeuvre Warfare. However, taking a tour of Bakhmut and Adviivka or walking the plains of Donetsk or Zaporizhia, one would find hundreds of miles of trenches. In fact, walking the planes of these regions one would also quickly discover that Ukraine is now the most mined country in the world – reminiscent of the scars both the World Wars left. In addition to field works, whilst much has been made of new technologies, it is important to remember that “60-80% of all military tasks” are artillery, rocket, or missile based, according to Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny. As with stability in the land domain, the enduring effectiveness of naval blockade remains strong in the current climate – although Russia-Ukraine lacks significant sea-to-sea action.

This rediscovery of trench warfare, and the enduring prominence of artillery and blockade, highlight the necessity to not take technological change as the end-all for traditional understandings of warfare and its nature. Many see technological advancements as contributing to changing the very essence of warfare; how can wars fought in five instead of two domains be the same? Yet, we are not seeing a phase out of any of the old domains. It may be better to consider these developments in the same light as those of the First World War, such as the discovery of the air domain or the

emergence of tanks. Whilst they undoubtedly played a part in changing the course and conduct of WWI, a change in the essence of war was not attributed to them.

We have only considered conventional warfare so far, but the war in Gaza further supports the idea that whilst technology is advancing, war at its core remains unchanging. Insurgency/Guerilla warfare is most commonly associated with the War on Terror and conflict in the Middle East in the last three decades. However, guerilla warfare has its origins in much the same places as trench warfare. Whilst only named in the Peninsular War (the Iberian front in the broader 19th century Napoleonic Wars), irregular warfare has been around for as long as a smaller force has faced a larger one – from the Roman Fabian Strategy in 300AD to Hamas today. The current conflict in Gaza is but one in a long human tradition, just using missiles rather than arrows.

Conflict in Space, Cyber, Air, Land, and Sea domains can best be described as the ‘character’ of war – the ways in which a war is fought. Our current conflicts show that there is both evolution and continuity in modern warfare. The character of our warfare is both apart from, yet draws upon, the wars of the past. However, this only gives a perfunctory understanding.

What makes war war? What makes

FEATURE

WILLIAM HALL

us able to compare the wars of the past to the wars of today, despite technological changes that were unthinkable to our fathers, let alone our grandfathers? If we wish to look past the trappings of individual conflicts, there is a deeper level of analysis available to us: the ‘nature’ of war and its unchanging definition, first given form by Carl von Clausewitz’s magnum opus Vom Kriege.

This ‘nature’ is violence as the “continuation of policy with other means”.

For Clausewitz, all wars had ‘political’ motivations in that they were a battle of wills. These wills were expressed on the battlefield in his ‘trinity’ of “primordial violence”, “chance and probability”, and “pure reason”. In gross oversimplification, war is a brutal, confused, and calculating expression of power, where combatants attempt to make rational decisions based upon incomplete data and the vagaries of violent feeling.

It is this ‘nature’ that makes war war.

As such, the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, the wars in the Middle East, and Russia-Ukraine all share this base similarity. There is no clearer example of this than the presence of the same truth for Ukraine as for World War I: that the positional nature of the war has changed it into a contest of wills – and the war will continue as long as these wills remain. Whilst we may today see our wars as fundamentally different from those of the past, this is a mistake. These wars are our fathers’ wars, and theirs before them. All are brutal, all are confusing, and all are a battle of wills.

William Hall is a 1st Year PAIS student and Wandering Army Child.

JANUARY 2024

11

AMERICAS

IF ALL ELSE FAILS, SEND THEM ALL TO JAIL? JOAKIM MOL ROMERO

E

Along with other Central American countries such as Honduras, El Salvador has long been plagued by high homicide rates, with many of these killings being carried out by organised crime gangs. These gangs, known as maras in El Salvador, have close ties to drug cartels and also engage in sex trafficking. The two most prominent gangs are Barrio 18 and MS-13. It was a spate of murders blamed on the latter in March 2022 which initially set the government’s heavy-handed response into motion. During the violent episode, 62 people were killed during a single day, exacerbating Salvadorans existing anger at shockingly high levels of crime.

In response, Bukele’s government imposed the Regimen de Exepcion (State of Exception) which is effectively a state of emergency that has been repeatedly extended over the past 18 months. The Regimen suspended certain civil liberties, including the right to association, the right to be informed of the reason

12

PERSPECTIVES

for an arrest and access to a lawyer, and led to mass arrests of gang members which have seen prisons filled to the brim. More than 70,000 Salvadorans have been arrested since the crackdown, an enormous amount for a relatively small nation and a quick online search reveals pictures of densely packed prisoners – many whom have gang tattoos emblazoned on their skin- in an arrangement similar to that of a factory farm. Part of the reason these pictures are so easy to find is that Bukele has promoted prisoners’ abject living conditions online.

Unsurprisingly,widespread rights abuses have been alleged to have taken place in these prisons. Amnesty International has accused the government of ‘forced disappearances; commitment of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against individuals held in detention centers’, while 153 people have died during the operation.

Herein lies the problem, as high levels of crime necessitate radical action, yet these kinds of large-scale operations are almost guaranteed to lead to abuses of the power granted to the state. This is especially true in a developing country like El Salvador where funding for police forces is limited.

Yet, the campaign appears to have achieved its primary objective, namely to reduce murder rates.

There was a 56.8% decline in murder rates from 2021 to 2022, while the threat from organised crime has substantively decreased, and

Salvadorans report feeling far safer than before. All this has contributed to Bukele’s sky-high approval ratings, which if polling is to be believed, stands at above 80%. The results of the policy have also led to other Central American states casting an envious eye towards El Salvador, with Honduras and Guatemala adopting similar approaches to gang violence.

So, has the Regimen been worth it?

It is an exceedingly difficult question to answer, given that insecurity arising from violent crime has effectively been replaced by the government becoming the largest threat to individual freedom. I will probably never experience the same fear that someone who walks through the violent neighbourhoods of San Salvador does, so I therefore find it problematic to call for the ending of a policy which has made the streets safer. Nevertheless, I find it vital to express concern about the power Nayib Bukele, who has boasted about being a ‘cool dictator’, and his security forces now hold over the Salvadoran state. No matter how effective his policy has been, it has still led to the erosion of the justice system and the quashing of dissent, which hardly bodes well for the long-term future of El Salvador as a functioning state.

Jo ak i m Mol Romero is a 1st Year Politics student from Copenhagan, Denmark.

Image: Flickr / Casa Presidencial El Salvador - IMG_7910

l Salvador’s unconventional approach to its crime wave is posing difficult questions for defenders of a fair legal process in the Latin American region.

Not many leaders would consider imprisoning around 2% of the adult population as the most obvious response to the chokehold gangs have on society, but then again Nayib Bukele is no ordinary president. Known outside El Salvador primarily for his zealous embrace of cryptocurrency, leading to Bitcoin being accepted as legal tender, he possesses a youthful charisma and uses social media as a campaigning tool to great effect, amassing fans who possibly hadn’t previously heard of El Salvador.

His social media description calls him the ‘philosopher king’, doing little to disprove the stereotype of politicians having elevated senses of self-worth. As things currently stand, it seems highly likely that he will win next year’s election, which would be a usually-prohibited second term, thanks to his handling of one vital issue, crime.

MIDDLE EAST

GAZA IS WHERE THE WEST’S RULES-BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER GOES TO DIE

SELMA SAIK

A

week before Hamas’ attack on October 7, Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan hilariously claimed that “the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.” He pointed to the Abraham Accords, a set of bilateral Arab-Israeli normalisation agreements, and Biden’s efforts to reconcile Saudi Arabia and Israel as the reason.

Hamas was founded in 1987 by Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi and Ahmed Yassin, both of whom were born in Mandatory Palestine and expelled to the Gaza strip by the Zionist militias that would eventually become the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). Israel’s premature withdrawal from Beirut after ousting the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in 1982 left a power vacuum. Lebanese Christian militias, in collusion with the IDF, massacred around 400 to 3,500 Palestinians and Lebanese Shias in what came to be known as the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The lack of a Palestinian force convinced Yassin and al-Rantisi of the necessity of an armed resistance faction to protect the population.

In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza strip and dismantled its settlements, while maintaining a land, sea, and air blockade the UN deemed in contravention of international law. One of the highest population densities in the world, more than 2/3 of the strip’s population are refugees, descendants of Palestinians ethnically cleansed during the 1948 Nakba, in which the IDF sought to expel masses of Palestinians from their lands to the coastal enclave, to aid the creation of the Jewish state a year later.

The deadly attack in October that killed an estimated 1200 Israeli troops and civilians was launched just 50 years and a day after Egypt’s surprise reclamation of Sinai, occupied years prior during the Six-Day War. It has been suggested that the attack sought to derail Saudi-Israel normalisation negotiations as Hamas’ strengthened alliance with Iranian proxy Hezbollah has long been a thorn in Riyadh’s side. Hamas instead have cited Israel’s continued disregard for the conditions of the Oslo accords, signed in 1993, as exemplifying the failure of diplomatic means to reach Palestinian self-determination. It is, however, undeniable that Hamas has committed war crimes, among them the taking of hostages which Netanyahu has bafflingly refused to receive in return for releasing the 2,900 Palestinians languishing in Israeli prisons without trial.

Representing the beginning of bilateral recognition of Israeli and Palestinian leadership by either side, Oslo stipulated that Israel, having been formed by means of ethnic cleansing on the land of historic Palestine, would have to recognise Palestinian claims to national sovereignty. This autonomy would be limited to a fraction of the original territory, fragmenting the West Bank and banning Palestinians from 60% of it. Palestinian philosopher Edward Said famously referred to it as “a Palestinian Versailles” and yet the PLO leadership acquiesced to it on the condition that the IDF withdraw from the areas it had illegally occupied in 1967 and transfer governance to the Palestinians.

The ‘peace’ that followed Oslo was tepid; most recently the 2018 Knesset-passed “nation-state law” codified what had been in practice since 1948: that the right of self-determination in the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea (Eretz Israel) applied only to Jews.

32 UN resolution violations later - a world-record number - the West continues to pay lip service to the two-state solution, whilst providing Israel diplomatic cover to continue its violations.

America has so far blocked 53 UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, the most consequential of which was in 2014 which sought to impose a 12-month deadline on a negotiated solution to the conflict and called for the withdrawal of settlements in Palestinian territory. That the murders of 18,000 Palestinians, of which more than 10,000 are children, cannot elicit the same universal condemnation that seemed to come easily when Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2022, lays bare the staggering hypocrisy of the West’s rules-based international order.

Selma Saik is a 3rd year History and Politics student from London, UK.

JANUARY 2024

13

Image: Flickr/ United Nations Photo

In July of this year, the Jerusalem Post reported

that Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel) briefed a Knesset committee that he would “eliminate” any prospects of a Palestinian state, building on statements he had made during the 2015 election cycle. In Hamas he has found an unlikely ally, controversially allowing it to distribute Qatari funds in its capacity as the de facto government of Gaza, while refusing to negotiate with it as a hostile entity. Maintaining a stranglehold on Gaza, Hamas’ rise as the de facto governing body, with its militant wing now relegated to dealing with Israel, allowed successive Israeli governments to justify force and rejectionism against the strip’s population instead of mediative talks to reach a political resolution ending in Palestinian self-determination.

ASIA

MATHIEU YAP n an ongoing development that signals a transformative shift in regional dynamics, Japan and South Korea are increasing military cooperation amidst rising challenges in the Asia-Pacific.

In a recent milestone, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol met with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida last March: the first visit of a South Korean leader to Japan in over a decade. This would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, when relations between the two countries, hindered by fierce disputes over Japan’s colonial rule over South Korea, were described as “reluctant at best, and spiteful at their worst ” in a Perspectives article from 2019.

This is something that has continued to advance at pace, with North Korea conducting a successful test of the new Hwasong-18 ballistic missile last April. Thanks to its range of 15,000 kilometres, North Korea can now strike the US mainland. South Korean defence planners worry that the threat of a nuclear strike will deter the US from defending their country in the event of a war, while Japanese officials fear that their cities could be once again targeted due to their strategic locations.

Although the threats posed by China and North Korea to Japan and South Korea aren’t identical, they both have a common theme.

However, as these issues have yet to be fully resolved, what has changed so much that Japan and South Korea are now willing allies?

14

PERSPECTIVES

With the erosion of the United States’ relative military superiority, neither country can afford to be over reliant on the US for protection, making greater cooperation and defence budgets necessary to better confront current threats. For example, last March saw South Korea restoring the GSMIA intelligence-sharing pact with Japan, while the first-ever combined aerial exercise between Japan, South Korea and the United States took place in October. At a 2023 summit at Camp David, all three countries agreed to intensify defence cooperation, including through regular military exercises. The summit was emblematic of the United States’ encouragement of such developments, as in recent years it has been steadily trying to reinvigorate multilateral alliances, such as the Quad (formed between Australia, India, Japan and itself), and form new ones to counter rising Chi-

The harsh reality is that such an arms race began almost a decade ago, and Japan and South Korea are now playing catch-up. It is in both nations’ best interests that their historical disputes are resolved and firmly put behind them. Japan and South Korea each face mutual threats in the form of China and North Korea, whose military advances have rendered relying on the United States for defence inadequate. Short of drastic militarisation programs, seeking greater defence cooperation and budgets is the best strategy to maintain strategic security and deter external aggression.

Growing defence ties between Japan and South Korea should therefore be welcomed as a force for stability, security and, most importantly, peace, in an increasingly volatile region.

Mathieu Yap is a 1st year PPE student from London, UK.

Image: DeviantArt / Leyasu (Bichromatic Handshake edited)

The answer lies with the rapid military developments made by China and North Korea. Since 2015, China has made massive strides in modernising its military (called the People’s Liberation Army), which is now capable of launching an invasion of Taiwan. Such a war would see key sea lanes, which Japan and South Korea rely on for importing almost all their oil, minerals, and food, massively disrupted. Japan’s ports and military bases also face being targeted by missile strikes due to their proximity to locally based US forces. South Korea, meanwhile, is concerned by China’s barely disguised support for North Korea. Despite being a signatory to UN sanctions on the nation, China routinely allows the Kim regime to launder currency and smuggle military technology through its territory, contributing to its burgeoning nuclear weapons program.

nese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.

Despite recent progress, obstacles remain. Swathes of South Korean society still resent Japan for its actions during the colonisation of the Korean peninsula between 1910 and 1945, such as forcing over 100,000 Korean women and girls to work as ‘comfort women’ in army brothels. Public pressure over these issues still threatens to disrupt warming relations, as recent protests over Japanese companies’ refusal to compensate surviving ‘comfort women’ have shown. Pacifist groups in both Japanese and South Korean societies have also criticised recent advances in military-related developments, such as a planned 43 trillion yen (£234.2 billion) increase to Japanese defence spending over 5 years, warning of a regional arms race.

EUROPE

NAVIGATING EUROPE’S GREEN FUTURE: CLIMATE POLICY AND THE FIGHT FOR THE PLANET

Image: Flickr / Lotus R - Forest Fires in Greece

his summer’s wildfires, notably ravaging the Greek islands, have thrust Europe into a critical juncture in the battle against the climate crisis. As the UK grapples with both the proposition of Starmer’s green plan and Sunak’s rollbacks of pledges to help reach our climate targets, the continent’s wide array of approaches to fight climate change is becoming sharply clear.

At the heart of Europe’s emission reduction strategy is the public transport revolution. For years we have been told to cycle, take the bus, or catch a train. But the lack of incentive to leave the car at home has been a barrier to many. However, success stories across the continent seem to be reshaping the narrative.

Germany’s groundbreaking €9 unlimited travel initiative, providing access to regional transport, has been praised by environmentalists, while Ireland’s proactive step of slashing public transit fares by 20% showcases a real commitment to making sustainable choices economically viable. However, I can speak from personal experience that there are poignant challenges facing countries with significant rural populations like Ireland. My father’s small town on the South West coast of Ireland sees one bus a day while the nearest train station is an hour’s drive away. Romania and Croatia too are struggling with the lack of public transport infrastructure in the countryside, which underscores the need to change the landscape of public transportation across Europe.

The consequences of car dependency are dire: Ireland has the fourth highest level of transport emissions per capita in Europe with private cars being the largest contributors. Here lies what I perceive as the pivotal point of contention for the climate crisis. How do we create policy that comes at minimal personal sacrifice without significantly burdening the public purse? Bold climate policies often teeter on a precarious political tightrope, particularly for left-wing or social democratic parties historically aligned with green initiatives.

They face the dilemma of implementing policies at the cost of the poorest in society, of whom many fall into their voter bases, exemplified by controversies like ULEZ. How they will strike this difficult balance in coming years poses a potential challenge to the persistence of progressive climate policy. It is important to note that despite the potential for political fallout, environmental policies have had a steady presence on the public agenda since the 1970s, indicating a resilience that may transcend short-term electoral considerations.

As leaders like Macron and Starmer champion environmental transitions, counterforces from right wing opposition are continuously emerging across Europe. Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom challenge climate commitments, emphasising the need to still rely on fossil fuels and dismissing the urgency to reduce CO2 emissions. The UK, with its majoritarian system, is to some extent lucky in this sense as the current form this discourse takes is from Reform UK which presents minimal threat.

Meanwhile, European navigate

other nations the

KATE O’MAHONY

delicate balance between environmental responsibility and political expediency as most moderate, climate friendly parties have to entertain coalitions and compromise with such anti-climate stances.

The linchpin of Europe’s commitment to a sustainable future is the European Green Deal, an admirable plan established in 2020 to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. From Paris to Berlin, commendable strides are being proposed and implemented.

However, the delicate nature of the deal lies in the necessity of cross-nation consensus. The challenge remains: can leaders commit to bold and transformative change without succumbing to fears of losing votes, particularly to the far right?

While the threats to a unified and comprehensive approach to climate action are appreciable, I maintain that optimism is paramount. Decades of landmark moves and tangible results, once seemingly unattainable, are testimony to the perseverance in the fight for a cleaner, greener future.

One cannot have imagined in 1990 that 2015 would see the Paris Agreement. Or that Biden would manage to pass legislation committing to a 50-52% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through a Congress in which so many deny the sheer existence of climate change. Yes, we face many threats to combat climate change. But the resilience to forge ahead has been remarkable, offering the promise of a carbon-neutral Europe in the not-too-distant future.

Every day’s effort brings us closer to a future where sustainability is not just an aspiration but a reality.

Kate O’Mahony is a 1st year PAIS student from London, UK.

JANUARY 2024

15

AFRICA

IS THE WESTERN CAPE BOUND FOR ESCAPE?

A

divided South Africa seems to stray too far from Mandela’s vision, yet independence of the Western Cape may in fact bring more political unity within what could be the two separate nation states of South Africa and the Cape. A hard border between political beliefs can be drawn along the intersection of the Cape and the rest of South Africa, with the region’s residents not only voting for the National Party instead of the now 29-year-ruling African National Congress (ANC) in 1994 but also repeatedly being the only ones to vote for the Democratic Alliance (DA) since 2009.

The ANC certainly no longer resembles what it once was under the Mandela presidency, now ironically embroiled in corruption and scandal instead of representing the liberation of all citizens.

So arguably who can blame the Western Cape for seeking an esCape? The flames of Cape sovereignty are already being fanned, while not in the form of an independence referendum, but through the Provincial Powers Bill the DA pushed through over the last few months. With this bill, the region seeks to have greater control over its borders, economic policy, and notably policing; the province experiences a murder rate higher than most countries, which leaves the Cape feeling its police force is “grossly under-resourced”, as the Cape Forum argues.

16

PERSPECTIVES

don’t want a new party with only one mandate to rule doesn’t mean independence is not top of their agenda: that’s like saying you don’t care about climate change because you won’t vote for a minimally powerful Green Party.

The numbers don’t lie, and these numbers are clearly shouting that Cape independence may be a facet of the future. Even with their sights set on national governance in the upcoming election, the DA may need to seriously consider embracing the independence movement: firstly, because 79% of their voters want a referendum, and secondly because even ANC voters show significant support for Cape independence. If the DA don’t represent the views of their voters, they may not have many voters left; if an independence party swoops in to take victory in the Cape region - the DA’s largest stronghold - South African politics may end up messier than it already is.

The currently ruling ANC has seen its endorsement drop to 46% from its 70% support base in the early 2000s.

This could force their hand to form a coalition in 2024, and if not with the DA - which is unlikely considering the DA shouts from the rooftops about its plans to unseat the ANC - the ANC may wind up with the more radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

However, this too seems a recipe for disaster, with the

ANC’s head of political education, David Makhura, describing the EFF as a “proto-fascist party run dictatorially” who would ruin the ANC brand. You can then certainly make the strong case that the Cape, who have loyally stuck to the DA for decades, don’t deserve to have to deal with the fallout of whatever South Africa’s next coalition government may look like. Though it also remains to be seen what the ruling power of an independent Cape would look like, as the DA remains a national party who may not leave to run the Cape. And of course, secession is not something that will be easily come by, as the South African government are hardly going to simply agree to their second wealthiest province separating, especially as a referendum’s outcome is not legally binding and Cape succession would require a radical overturning of the country’s constitution.

Yet, behind all the percentages in this article are the people of the Cape; a significant enough number of whom are calling for a referendum, which would make it entirely unsurprising if Cape independence does make the ballot box in tandem with the 2024 election.

Sanjana Iyer is a 2nd year PPE student from Maidenhead, UK.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Suffy69

The DA is clearly pushing for devolution (where power is decentralised to a provincial level), if not across the nation at least for the Western Cape; this definitely seems like the next step will be a push for independence. Yet, interestingly, that is far from the DA’s plans. Despite support for an independence referendum rising from 47% to 68% in the last three years, now boasting well over majority support, and even support for independence growing over one and a half times from 36% to 58%, DA Premier Alan Winde continues to undermine Cape independence movements as inconsequential because of the minimal support for the Cape Independence Party. But just because Cape citizens

SANJANA IYER

AMERICAS

THE EXPULSION OF GEORGE SANTOS: SOMETIMES ALL YOU CAN DO IS LAUGH ALFRED STOKES-MYERS

A

nd, just like that, it’s over.

George Santos has been expelled from Congress. Less than a year after being sworn in, Congress overwhelmingly voted to expel the New York Republican after an Ethics Committee report documented “substantial evidence” that he had violated federal campaign finance law.

Santos is alleged in the report to have spent campaign money on, among other things, OnlyFans, Sephora and Botox.

This is, objectively speaking, very funny.

highlighted by Santos’ spell in the Washington spotlight? Absolutely.

From the proliferation of dark money in campaign finance, to the wanton disregard Santos’ assertions displayed for truth, even down to the democratic rights of those he was elected to represent. However, the case of George Santos doesn’t really provide much new material to any of them. Sure, he’s a blatant,

I should probably clarify; crimes are bad. If George Santos did any, he should be held accountable. That being said, I do think it’s okay to judge crimes, not just by their relative badness, but also by their comedic value. If corporations are going to turn the news into a reality show, we may as well get something out of it.

unabashed liar with shady backers that made it to Congress, but blatant, unabashed liars are hardly new nor infrequent in the current House majority.

Santos isn’t even the most prominent liar in his party, as their presidential frontrunner is currently under indictment for over 30 counts related to business fraud. Across the partisan aisle, Senate Foreign Relations chair Bob Menendez has been indicted on bribery charges, including accepting $100,000 of gold bars to aid the Egyptian government.

Amid this context, Santos’ lies and alleged OnlyFans spending sprees

So, is that it? “Santos lied. So did other people. Oh well! Moving on!” No. There is something a bit unique about his case: how incredibly funny it is. I’ll confess that I still sometimes find myself glazing over at the details of, for example, how the former President inflated the value of his assets. Not so with Santos.

He has, in his remarkably short Congressional tenure, managed to create a scandal so eminently accessible and cartoonishly bombastic that it reads like a sitcom that ran out of realistic ideas in 2016 but kept getting renewed.

If the Congressional vote is anything to go by, the allegations against Santos seem credible enough to brand him a liability for all but the most extreme Republicans, with over 100 members of his own party voting for his expulsion. On a political level, then, we’ve learnt that a relatively young, not especially well-connected, freshman Representative who gets found to have made up his life story, is implicated in a new lie or grift about once a week, and then gets indicted for almost two dozen crimes probably won’t last in Congress. That alone does not say much.

Santos is yet to stand trial for the 23 counts he has been indicted for. There is as yet no way of knowing for sure how that will go for him. Even when that day comes, it is not sure how much it will tell us about the systems of accountability the United States has in place that won’t be exemplified by the cases of Menendez or the former president. As a result, the one hallmark of Santos’ expulsion that lends it any individuality is sheer entertainment value. Whether that’s a good thing or not is sort of up to you.

Alfred Stokes-Myers is a 3rd year History and Politics student from West Sussex, UK.

JANUARY 2024

17

Images: Congress building - rawpixel.com; Santos portrait - U.S. House Office of Photography

Santos is also under federal indictment for fraudulent claims to the Federal Election Commission as well as credit card fraud, aggravated identity theft and a litany of other counts. Santos’ other grifts are too numerous to name and have been well-documented over the last year. However, some personal highlights for me are: claiming to have started an animal charity that saved 2,500 dogs and cats (which was never registered), allegedly setting up a GoFundMe for a disabled veteran’s dog’s surgery (then refusing to hand over the money), and his 2017 charge with theft after $15,125 of bad cheques were issued in his name (labelled “puppies”).

Alleged canine crimes aside,

almost seem quaint.

EUROPE

2023 IN IN UK UK GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT AND AND POLITICS POLITICS WRAPPED WRAPPED 2023

TOM LOWE

Your top genre was ‘anti-Woke’ waffle.

From Michelle Donelan’s vague promise to depoliticise science by “kicking woke ideology out”, to Rishi Sunak fanatically stating at the Tory conference that “A man is a man, a woman is a woman, that’s just common sense”, 2023 has seen so-called ‘anti-woke’ warriors become emboldened. By branding this manufactured culture war as ‘common sense’, politicians and commentators alike have been able to stoke up bigotry and hatred towards groups that already find themselves marginalised in British society, such as the transgender community, immigrants, and racial minorities. This is an insidious tactic that draws public attention away from the mistakes of the government and elites, and towards issues that ultimately have very little material impact in society. However, don’t even think about asking Rishi Sunak or Piers Morgan what ‘woke’ actually means; they won’t be able to tell you.

You decided you’d had enough of Suella.

But was she sacked, or did she resign?

Suella Braverman left her role as Home Secretary for the second time, following a myriad of complaints about her behaviour and rhetoric towards peaceful Palestinian protests. She was replaced

by Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, who previously said he would have to be dragged out with “nail marks down the parquet flooring” if asked to leave his role. Braverman’s 2023 was dominated by an unrelenting, often cruel, desire to “stop the boats’ by sending illegal immigrants to Rwanda: a policy that, despite being ruled as unlawful by the Supreme Court, is still on the cards. In her ‘resignation letter’, she brutally attacked Sunak, stating that he had betrayed the nation.

An old ‘favourite’ returned for one last hurrah.

‘What the hell??’ - anonymous Sky News correspondent.

18

PERSPECTIVES 18 PERSPECTIVES

But can the SNP stop Starmer?

Nicola Sturgeon, long-time leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland, resigned on 15 February, succeeded by her Health Secretary, Humza Yousaf.

Since taking office, Yousaf has requested a second Independence Referendum, opposed the UK government’s rejection of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, and has voiced support for drug decriminalisation to stop the epidemic that continues to afflict the country. Recent polls have shown a dramatic drop in support for the SNP, coupled with a rise in support for Anas Sarwar’s Scottish Labour Party.

Keir Starmer... existed, for the third year running.

Did he mention that his dad was a toolmaker, and his mum was a nurse?

Labour’s leader, and the man likely to be our next prime minister, spent his year “preparing his party for government”, whatever that really means. Starmer is often criticised for not being a very visible Leader of the Opposition, and this year it is clear to see why. Abstaining on a vote that would support a ceasefire in Gaza, stopping Jeremy Corbyn from rejoining the party as an MP, and being accused of practising “gutter politics” in a series of adverts that accused Sunak of supporting child sex offenders, his year has provided very little actual vision for the Labour Party. Despite this, Labour retains a lead of between 15-22% over the Conservatives in the polls, and looks set to enter government (either as a majority, or as the biggest party) next year. Oh, and did I mention that he condemned Margaret Thatcher for doing “terrible things”, mere days after praising her for “setting loose Britain’s natural entrepreneurialism”? Starmer remains a vague politician, lacking charisma and any real alternative to Conservative policies.

Tom Lowe is a 3rd year PAIS student from Southampton, UK.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Lord David Cameron. Who could’ve predicted that at the beginning of 2023? Of course, the man who left Britain with the wonderfully unproblematic foreign policy of Brexit was the obvious choice to replace Cleverly, swooping into Downing Street like an underwhelming Superman. With a myriad of foreign issues to tackle, such as the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, and, of course, navigating the mess of leaving the EU, Lord Cameron certainly has a lot on his plate going into 2024.

Scotland saw a change in their top artist.

Image: Flickr/ Scottish Government

Image: Rawpixel / National Archives and Records Image: Flickr / United Kingdom Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Visits Arlington National Cemetery Administration Image: Flickr / UK Home Office

Wait, what does ‘woke’ mean again?

Well, 2023 is over. It’s that time when Spotify tells us who we’ve been listening to for the past twelve months, and what songs we just couldn’t get out of our heads. In our case, it’s likely that we’ve all listened to a lot (perhaps too much) of Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, and Suella Braverman as they navigate the quagmire that is UK politics in the 21st century. So, without further ado, I present: 2023 in UK Government and Politics Wrapped.

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 JANUARY 2024

19

BOOK REVIEW

A REVIEW OF ‘THE LONG WAY TO A SMALL ANGRY PLANET’ - WARM MUG OF HOT CHOCOLATE SCI-FI, OR NAIVE LIBERAL MULTICULTURALISM? RAPHAEL HAMMOND

riginally published in 2014, The Long Way to a Small Angry Planet by Becky Chambers is a scifi novel with an ensemble cast which charts the journey of the crew of a ‘tunneling’ spacecraft working their way across the galaxy. An up-front warning: if you are looking for action and adventure, this is not for you. Instead, the reader gets to see the crew, and the galaxy, up close and personally. The story is almost structured like television; time is spent on specific points in the journey, different ‘episodes’ focusing on each character – which makes sense, as the book has been stated to draw upon the television show Firefly (2002-2003).

The book paints a picture of the future not entirely dissimilar to our own present.

It is set in the ‘Galactic Commons’ essentially a ‘European Union of Space’ where liberal values of tolerance and universal rights are espoused but often not practiced.

While multi-species planets and cities exist, and trade flows far and wide, some species are still abused and enslaved and viewed as lesser beings; others are deemed ‘barbaric’ because of their cultural, social, and technological practices, or even imprisoned because of their inherent qualities.

In a pattern that will be all too familiar, deals are made with questionable actors to access the energy resources vital to the galactic economy; and questions are asked about how far cooperation for economic gain should be pushed when values don’t align.

The book addresses heavy social questions through a personal prism.

20

PERSPECTIVES

A recurring theme of the book is the importance of personal compassion and understanding. Repeatedly, the personal, pro-active decision to be kind and to look beyond one’s own interests brings positive outcomes for the characters and groups involved. In a sense, the more heartwarming moments are enabled by these moments, where the characters decide to go out on a limb to bridge the gaps in making the world a better place.

The book has been described as ‘hopepunk’; it portrays hope as a political act which exists beyond good intentions and wishes, and translates into individual and collective action.

Whether this position is believable will depend on your worldview. But in a present when xenophobia feels constantly on the march, the book provides comforting (and perhaps flawed) optimism.

Ultimately, what you take away from the book depends on how you get to it. The focus on characters and world building at the expense of plot will push some away.

Those who stay for the ride may appreciate its treatment of relationships and gender, its choice of mostly non-white non-male protagonists in the ensemble cast, or its thoughts on the human condition and our (in)ability to unite for the common good.

Others will come to it as a hopeful scifi world in which to take a moment to breathe. The worldbuilding is excellent, providing depth, amusement, and levity; all the major themes are treated in a highly thought-provoking manner. A decade on, the series spans four novels, so there is plenty more to delve into once you have finished this modern classic.

Raphael Hammond is a 1st year PAIS student from London, UK.

Image: Unsplash / Casey Horner

In its four hundred pages, the book attempts to tackle, among other things, AI ethics, the futility of war, disability and gene-editing, LGBT relationships, and the challenges of living with others of distinct species and ideologies. As a result, Chambers dedicates a lot of time to watching characters interact and understanding their personalities, cultures, and historical backgrounds which condition their actions.

This comes with advantages and disadvantages: the reader gets to share many deep and meaningful moments with the crew, as well as experience humour, comfort, and the sharing of food. But equally, in trying to tackle so much

while personalizing these experiences, the plot is pushed aside, and Chambers is occasionally a little clumsy in her treatment of major themes. For example, there is dissonance between the setting’s treatment of disability as an inconvenience which has been mostly erased thanks to gene-editing, compared to Jenks, the ship’s engineer’s personal experience of disability and difference as core to his identity.

FILM REVIEW

IS EVIL BORN OR MADE – AND WHAT CAN THE BALLAD OF SONGBIRDS AND SNAKES TELL US ABOUT HUMAN NATURE?

LEYA HINES

It’s been over a decade since the first Hunger Games was released, and its prequel, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, has been released in cinemas this month. As with the original trilogy, political thought underlines its plot – however its focus on a young Coriolanus Snow particularly interested me.

Coriolanus Snow, usually known by fans as President Snow of Panem, is presented as a young man during the 10th Hunger Games. Although there was a break from the over extravagant Capitol, its aristocratic wealth served as a glaring comparison to the poverty of the Snow family. For example, the fabric of the red rouge academy uniform served as a subtle statement of wealth whilst Snow’s uniform didn’t fit, being baggy and awkward.

I think it’s an increasingly common theme within both movies and television shows to try to humanise the villains and try to evoke sympathy from watchers despite their future actions.

Image: Unsplash / Nagy Arnold (edited)

Snow follows this theme, presented as a poor boy trying to help both his grandmother and cousin, desperately trying to fit in and prove himself to his superiors. However, is it right to try and justify and humanise a villain who, in earlier films, commits horrific

actions? Is it right to present Snow as a desperate boy just trying to succeed and as a teenage boy in love despite his future? Indeed, the use of clothing was a perfect way to show status throughout, as on return from District 12, Snow’s clothes are a perfect fit – showing his growth from that once poor boy to a killer.

In my opinion, the characterisation of Snow raises the question of human nature. From Hobbes to Locke, human nature being debated as inherently bad to naturally good. Snow is shown as a little boy, as affected by his experiences of war such as being orphaned and struggling with money, then his hor-

rific arena experience and the mystery of Lucy Gray – was his societal experiences and influences what eventually made him the evil President Snow of Panem?

Like the tributes forced to kill for their survival, Snow acted as if he was forced into his actions whereas his choices were his own and guided by his own political desires. Power and politics are interlinked, and Snow craved both the societal power and high political position. Helping Lucy, for him, was a way to perpetuate his own ruthless ideas into the arena – causing more pain and suffering for the pleasures of the Capitol.

However, his initial motive was his family’s protection and without the eager encouragement from Doctor Volumnia Gaul maybe he would have been different.

However, I find this hard to accept when his supposed best friend Sejanus Plinth could also have kept quiet and protected by his money and privilege but chose not to.

Coriolanus Snow, presented to be a teenage boy, personally humanises his struggles and the reality of his position in the later Hunger Games timeline. However, while some critics allow this to excuse his actions, this film proves Hobbes to be right as, in the case of Snow, humans are inherently selfish and self-serving.

Snow, although a young man, had choices to better society and the greater good but solely chose himself and power. For this reason, although he is just a human and his prior situation was upsetting, his later actions are not excused over this.

Leya is a 1st year PAIS student from Essex, UK.

JANUARY 2024

21

DEBATE

FOR MONARCHY: IT IS TIME TO ABANDON THE SENTIMENTAL SLIME OF ROYAL THEATRE AND DEFEND THE MONARCH SERIOUSLY

Image: Wikimedia Commons - Queen of Australia

One dreads to think what further damage a man, already capable of starting futile wars abroad and vandalising our constitution at home, could do with all the extra perks and powers of high presidential office. Like the US President, he could pardon convicted criminals to his heart’s content, control the armed forces as commander-in-chief and perhaps, like the President of France, reside in a priceless palace with a dubious rule of law.

And the personalisation of said individual, who would be regarded with great fanaticism and sainthood, is irreconcilable to the monarch’s unflashy, restrained, and conservative manners. The typically permissive and grovelling characteristics that presidents display in desperation for a second term would draw us closer to the shoddy celebrity culture that plagues the US. The 1689 Bill of Rights, which

22

PERSPECTIVES

acts as a check and balance on the monarch’s power by preserving a sovereign Parliament, allowed us to castigate Mr Blair far more unapologetically than the Americans did with Bush (who are more hesitant to criticise the head of state).

Why are many on the left rabid Republicans? It is hard to say. If republics are so wonderful, why is it that they have historically produced despotic and violent regimes such as the German Democratic Republic, USSR, or the People’s Republic of North Korea? The idea that republics are somehow bulwarks of liberty is reductive. Similarly, monarchs are not epicentres of tyranny. It is no coincidence that some of the most consistently free nations, including New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Sweden, are predicated on the British design of constitutional monarchy.

The hypocrisy of the left’s rejection of the monarchy pertains to their Trump derangement syndrome.

With the spite they reserve for President Trump, it is somewhat bizarre that it is the very system that elected him – and will likely do so again in 2024 - that they long for. Perhaps it is the decorum, history, and reassuring Christianity – the sort witnessed during the Coronation earlier this year – that they lament about our quintessentially British state. The fact that it materialised out of pure accident from the 1688 Glorious Revolution, which led to the deposition of James II, our last autocrat, is resented by hot-headed revolutionaries who scorn British history.

Already, the post-Elizabeth II has endured vicious vilification, whether that be in Omid Scobie’s ‘Endgame’, rife with unsubstantiated and hurtful allegations, or the final season of the coarse television programme ‘The Crown’ that delivered a bleak

portrayal of Her Majesty. This comes after a poll earlier this year that suggested only three in ten Britons thought the monarchy was important.

The constitutional monarch is part of what makes Britain great. Unfortunately, the pro-monarchist side of the debate has been hijacked by zealots that idolise and over-personalise members of the Royal Family, or Royalists, as they are better known. They do not appreciate how the monarch is the most effective impediment to majoritarian rule by separating politics from the highest leverages of power. Or the beauty, traditions, and spiritualism it dares to maintain in a world increasingly afflicted by modernism, Americanisation, and secularism. Instead, they are coaxed by the dismal personalities of the royals, including Mrs Markle and Prince Andrew, both of whom have poisonous influences on the royal brand.

Instead of getting riled up in a frenzy about how good the Royal Family is for tourism or whether its members are fashionable, we should start robustly defending our uniquely limited monarchy, which transfers high authority away from the state to Parliament, stopping tyrants from meddling with our hard-fought liberties.

If we want to stop an actual President Blair from leveraging the highest powers of the land – whilst commanding respect from the nation and embracing the preconditional splendour that a republic offers – we must stop pampering the sentimental slime that is Royal theatre and start seriously shielding our suom-loving, and wholesome state from the rabid republicans.

Ethan Harvey is a 1st year Politics student from Suffolk, UK.

Image: Unsplash / Carlos Ares (edited)

f Mr Anthony Blair’s destructive regime taught us anything, we must cherish our beloved constitutional monarch before it’s too late. You could easily be forgiven for mistaking the man responsible for New Labour’s enormous 144-seat majority in 1997 with a pompous president. The frighteningly statesman-like behaviour of Mr Blair saw him redirect attention from the death of Princess Diana to himself in a clap-trapconsumed speech about people’s princesses. And let’s not forget the minutes of staged applause he received during an orchestrated campaign littered with token Union Jacks.

DEBATE

AGAINST MONARCHY: THE PLACEHOLDER PRINCE - SHOULD THE MONARCHY SURVIVE? FOR MONARCHY: ETHAN HARVEY AGAINST MONARCHY: KARA HALL candal, lack of value for money, conspiracy theories, political meddling, and the growing public belief that the monarchy represents a racist or anti-democratic history has threatened the position of the Royal Family for longer than many can remember. There is nothing egalitarian about a system that guarantees, by law, that the Royal Family have special protections from criminal justice (as we know some members of the Monarchy have abused more than others) and barely disguised political influences. The Monarchy has long been an advertisement for the idea that “pedigree” still matters in our society, and whilst abolishing the system may not erase class divides overnight, a Republican form of government may be able to lay more claims to principles of equality and democracy in Britain.

Rampant royalists continue to push this image of the monarchy as a cultural symbol for British history, values, and identity, to brush under the carpet the damage it has had on the public purse. For a country that has consistently demonised migrants, ridden by a rising costof-living crisis and a democratic deficit, calling the Royal Family a masthead for British culture is a slap in the face for British people who have been failed by this institution and the governments it puts its faith in. What is really important for British culture is developing a collective culture of acceptance and diversity as a nation in the midst of race-wars and controversy. The Royal Family is used by racist and fascist groups like the EDL to reinforce this narrative that

Britain should remain British, placing themselves at odds with the royalist idea that it remains a symbol for national unity and British culture.

Groups like Republic are campaigning for a democratic alternative to the monarchy which would involve years of public discourse that would gradually push the issue onto the political agenda before provoking a national referendum. Unlike the Brexit referendum, a political heads or tails situation, a referendum on establishing a Republican form of government would need a prior sizable majority and more balanced and accurate public education on the issue.

The warm fuzzy feelings royalists have towards the monarchy are mostly for the late Queen herself rather than the institution as a concept, as indicated by the dramatic drop in public opinion following her death. Unlike the Queen, her son Charles has stuck his oar in both political and marital affairs which have materialised in the lack of support he receives from the public. Now Queen Elizabeth has passed and King Charles has the opportunity to continue the traditions of his problematic past through prerogative powers, there may (hopefully) be a change of heart by royalists and the British public on the monarchy’s future in Britain.

Kara Hall is a 2nd year PAIS student from Stourbridge, UK.

JANUARY 2024

23

Image: Wikimedia Commons - King Charles

The death of Queen Elizabeth II leaves the monarchy at a tipping point, as the British public have begun to express a sense of disengagement with the somewhat uninspiring King Charles III and the Prince of Wales.

Ahead of the King’s coronation in May, a poll showed that only three in ten Britons believed the monarchy remained a very important feature of British society, the lowest proportion on record. A common argument for retaining the British monarchy are the economic benefits the Royal Family provides through tourism, however, there are more rebuttals to this argument than there have been Prime Ministers in the last two years.

Earlier this year the government announced that King Charles III will receive a substantial pay rise of 45% from 2025. In the context of the cost-of-living crisis, the cost of the King’s coronation, the Queen’s funeral, and an unholy amount of renovations to Buckingham Palace the monarchy has been seen to reflect a monarchy out of touch with the struggles of ordinary people, as the Crown has spent £21 million more than the allocated sovereign grant permits over the period of 2022-23. Royalists tend to justify the cost to the public purse on the grounds of the value that the royal family adds to the economy. In my understanding, this seems to be dreamed up by PR professionals who are trying to save an institution in crisis. How can we possibly continue to support an institution which is one of the most expensive non-political heads of state in Europe?