Th

e C

om

mit

tee

Ed

it

or

ia

l

COVER PAGE: CARTOON BY Thomas Zier

It is with great pleasure that we publish our fifth issue of The Regulus. This publication remains St Andrews’ only independent

student magazine, and we take great pride in the editorial freedom that this has granted us. We have had several new

additions to the team this semester, most notably Nina Menniti, our new content editor. This will also be the last issue for the

three people who have been with this magazine since the very start—Kurt Jose, Deborah Marber, and Ben Shaps. I thank you

for your tireless work and I am sad to see you go.

In this issue we have tried to capture some of the vibrant political discourse for which St Andrews is known. In particular we have concentrated on highlighting threats to the freedom of the press throughout the world. The UK, while a mature

liberal state, still retains a worrying commitment to outdated libel norms, and it has become a haven for ‘libel tourism.’

Freedom of speech laws in the UK are equally perplexing; unlike in the US, merely posting something deemed ‘offensive’

on social networking sites such as Twitter can be cause for arrest. Clearly this country has much work to do if it hopes to integrate its stance on free speech into the technological

setting of the 21st century.

I would like to thank everyone who made this issue possible, including our contributors, our sponsorship team, our peerless editors, and our design team. If you wish to comment on any

of our articles, send an email to editor@theregulus.co.uk and we will publish your replies in the next issue. These articles will

also be made available online at theregulus.co.uk.

Nic CarterEditor in Chief

Chief Editor: Nic Car ter

Content Editor: Nina Menniti

Managing Editor: Nora Backer Malm

Foreign Affairs Editor: Allen Farrington

Domestic Editor: Michael Cotterill

Head of Sponsorship: Kur t V. Jose

Sponsorship Officers: Angelina Magal & Lindsey Ayotte

Graphic Design: Deborah Marber & Taylor Strickland

And a special thanks to all of our talented writers and ar tists.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this publication do not reflect in any way the views of The Regulus Magazine, the University of St Andrews, or any of its affiliates.

Table of Contents

Feat

ures

Do

me

stic

Po

liti

tic

sFo

reig

nA

ffa

irs

John Sweeney, Journalist and BBC Panorama investigator talks about his latest book:

‘The Church of Fear.’ - 5

Rise of the ‘Super-Jail’ - 7

Notes on Eastleigh: Should anyone care about by-elections? - 8

Climate Change: time to accept an inconvenient truth - 9

A Divisive Threat to Cameron’s Electoral Hopes -10

It is time to light the flame of Keynesianism once again -12

A Ray of Hope? Xi Jinping -14

Iceland’s Crowdsourced Democracy - 15

In Argentinian Media Wrangles, Nobody Wins - 16

A Struggle for Democracy in The Lady’s Burma - 18

5The Regulus

FEATURES

‘I like staying in bed and going to pubs. The only serious challenge to that

in terms of my attention are people who do not want stories told and who will use fear and intimidation to shut people up. Instantly that gets me out of bed or out of the pub.’ John and I had a table in a cosy Victorian boozer close to the BBC’s stunning new home in West London. While John considered the ale selection at the bar, I considered his career as writer, broadcaster and successful investigative journalist. John has reported on mass graves while undercover in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and exposed the horrors occurring in modern day Belarus in another terrific book published last year. A recent Panorama, Tax Haven Twins, investigated the Barclay Brothers, owners of the Daily Telegraph, and their private island off Sark. ‘I’m only seriously interested as a journalist in telling stories which powerful people do not want told.’ John said taking his seat. ‘The Church of Scientology is a powerful organisation with some billions of dollars. They are aggressive and have a reputation for being litigious and if you investigate them they will come after you. What’s interesting about Scientology is that some say it is an edition of totalitarianism in the world’s greatest democracy and that is strange. There is a mental, psychological weirdness about that which I spend ages grappling with.’ I challenged the idea that Scientology could be totalitarian within a state such as the USA. ‘The simple test is this: I took my kids to Cuba and just as an experiment we took a taxi from the hotel to the airport and I asked the Taxi driver “What do you think

of Castro?” The taxi driver replied, “Castro is a good man, but the people around him are a little corrupt.” That’s as far as he would go. When we arrived late at night in London and got a taxi form Gatwick, I asked the taxi driver “What do you think of Tony Blair?” the Prime Minister at the time, and the taxi driver replied “he’s a c**t.” Welcome home! We’re back in a democracy, the people aren’t afraid to speak. However, if you talk to some people who clash with big money, or big organisations like the Church of Scientology, people are afraid of the consequences of speaking out. Not necessarily violent consequences but those in terms of litigation and being sued for libel – so there are still people who are afraid to speak their minds.’ In his book John describes how he was being pursued by the Church of Scientology. After his Panorama investigation, Scientology and me, he claims strangers came to his house and neighbours. I asked him if he felt threatened. ‘Not physically, no. Psychologically, yes. The Church of Scientology says that I am psychotic, a bigot and a liar, that I am quote, “the reporter from the depths of journalism hell.” A Church of Scientology blog says that I am genuinely evil. Being a mad evil bigot perhaps knocks me out of being a serious threat to them. In life you can take your own risks but there are some things which you should be warned of and I would advise anybody who is tempted to walk into a Church of Scientology, to run. Run for your life.’ Scientology’s line on John being a psychotic bigot sounds similar to other accusations made against other critics and defectors of the Church described in John’s

book. I asked John if Scientology was trying to control the discourse about itself. ‘There is a big ethical philosophical issue about the use and the meanings of words. Look at the Church of Scientology’s claim to being a religion. In America, it used not to be a religion, and then in 1993 the Internal Revenue Service, the American tax man, recognised Scientology as a religion giving it a religious shield and giving it a tax break. In Britain the Charity’s Commission say, for purposes of British English charity law, Scientology is not a religion. I think it matters what the nature of a religion is, when you say something is a religion it means for example, the media, newspapers, politicians have to give it a measure of respect. I could set myself up the Church of Sweeneytology – there would be lots of drinking, lots of beautiful women and we’d all eat chips and bacon sandwiches. I mean it would be heaven for a bit and after a while it would be hell. But at the moment I said, ok the Church of Sweeneyology is a religion and I want tax breaks and everyone to lay off me because I’m a religion and you can’t write newspaper articles about me etc. etc. I mean how long does that go on for?’ Slightly unnerved by the idea of Sweeneytology I nevertheless play devil’s advocate and suggest that surely in a free country people can believe in whatsoever they wish? ‘There is a blog on the internet that suggests that all religions are weird and silly and play with people’s minds, and that all religions have magical stuff - some have magical elephants, some have magical babies. The Church of Scientology has a space alien Satan – so they are all the same. My reply is no,

John Sweeney, Journalist and BBC Panorama investigator talks about his latest book: ‘The Church of Fear’.

Table of Contents

Fore

ign

Aff

air

s

Earlier this year I met with BBC Panorama Journalist John Sweeney to discuss his revealing new book on Scientology and the weakness of British libel law which made it almost impossible and potentially

dangerous to publish. John’s book, The Church of Fear: Inside the Weird World of Scientology has

finally made it into British bookshops six years after John’s first BBC Panorama investigation into the Church which featured his on-screen ‘exploding

tomato’ meltdown - now a YouTube hit.Charles Bell

The Regulus 6

FEATURESthat’s wrong, because if you’re interested in Hinduism, you know about the elephant with many arms and legs – instantly you can see him when you walk into a Hindu temple. The same goes for Christianity – Christians will tell you about the baby born to a virgin mother who grew up to be a man who was crucified and who will rise again. When you walk into a Church of Scientology, they don’t tell you about the space alien Satan, Lord Xenu who apparently brought millions of space aliens to earth and blew them up with hydrogen bombs inside volcanoes the remains of which are the cause of all of humanities illness. That for me is why it fails the British test. For a religion to be treated with the respect a religion deserves it needs to be open about itself and open to all. The Church of Scientology is not open about what it believes in.’ Throughout The Church of Fear, John refers to a book by Robert Lifton in which eight tests for brainwashing are identified. Having read Lifton’s book, Bruce Hines, a former member of the Church of Scientology told John, that these tests explain why he was in the Church for thirty years. Constriction of information is the first among Lifton’s eight tests and I ask John how it is not obvious to someone that they are being controlled or brainwashed. ‘The process of brainwashing is so absolute, so weird, so inimical to free thinking that you don’t think you’re being brainwashed. Of Lifton’s eight tests, the critical one is the limitation of information. Lifton sets out an antidote for any brainwashing or cult like behaviour which is, a willingness to be open to mockery and to a sense of humour and this matters enormously to me. For example, you can take the piss out of the monarchy and people do all the time. There is this lovely moment at the beginning of the London Olympics, where the Queen takes the piss out of herself. You’ve got 007 entering Buckingham Palace smiling at the corgis and then she jumps out the helicopter with

him - I love it. I can’t wait to go to Russia or China and tell some government official that the Queen of England mocked herself - will the President of China or Russia do that? Ha bloody ha…I bought the next round and once seated back in the corner of the beautifully old-fashioned pub I asked John about the struggles of publishing his book. ‘It was a f*****g nightmare’ Recounting the experience seemed to have necessitated the immediate consumption of the strong ale. ‘We sent it to all the big publishers and they all said no. And my agent Humphrey Hunter –’‘The man with the dog?’ I interrupted having previously read of John’s plight and eventual solution which came in the shape of one man and his dog. ‘Yes, I met this man whilst walking in a London park, he recognised me and we got chatting . Humphrey became my agent and he sent the proposal out and no big publishing firm would take it up. So Humphrey said, “I will become the publisher,” so he created a publishing house.’

I asked John why all the major publishing houses refused his book. ‘Because of British libel law. Consider the other recent book on Scientology, which I haven’t read yet because you can’t get it in the bookshops here, Laurence Wright’s Going Clear. Wright had a multi-million dollar advance, he’s been published by Knopf, he’s Pulitzer Prize winner, he’s a star and yet the book was pulled by Transworld, the UK publishers, for fear of libel. No British publisher would take on my book, but I feel so

determined that I have something to say about this Church that it’s finally is out there. What that tells you is that the idea that we have true freedom of speech in Britain, compared to America, is wrong. The Church of Scientology’s lawyers have said that free speech is not an unfettered right and they’re correct about that, oh yes they are. I think people in Britain believe they enjoy free speech, unfettered free speech, and they’re wrong. ‘The American test is simple. The other side – the plaintiff – has to prove malicious libel against you, that you hate the subject of the book with a passion that is unreasonable and malicious.’ Perhaps it was the effects of my second beer and the pleasant glow of the crackling fire next to us, but John didn’t strike me as a hateful chap. ‘I used to be a war reporter and I’ve met people who kill people, people who commit mass murder, but at the same time I try to understand them and tell their story. I’m a well-travelled person who has seen terrible things, and in that sense I do not consider myself a bigot. I do not hate Scientologists. I’m not in favour of banning things either. I think the fewer things you ban the better. I’m not in favour in banning the Church of Scientology but I would change the libel law so that the people who are uneasy about it or want to know more can read the other side of the story. That seems to be the sensible thing to do and at the moment we can’t and that’s wrong. In the internet age, the discrepancy between American and British system means that until we have the same rigorous belief in free speech that the Americans enjoy we will suffer. And the rich people and powerful corporations will continue to prefer to sue in London rather than New York because our laws are frankly eighteenth century and the politicians don’t seem to get this.’ John Sweeney’s Church Of Fear: Inside the Weird World Scientology is £3.08 on kindle, £11.69 in paperback.

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Scientology in the UK released the following statement: “John Sweeney stated when he was offered access to Scientology churches and activities and our various programmes that he was not interested in anything positive, he was only looking for the negative. He has been true to his word, even staging events to create “the negative” where he couldn’t find it. As demonstrated by the recently published Google search engine results (“What is Scientology?” was number 4 in the “What is…” category), people want to know what Scientology is. They can find out at scientology.org or visit a Scientology Church and speak to a Scientologist.”

““I’m not in favour in banning the Church of Scientology but I would

change the libel law so that the people who are uneasy about it or want to know more can read the

other side of the story.””

7The Regulus

DOMESTIC Politics

The best things come in small packages, and prisons are no exception. Regret-

tably, Britain’s misguided penal policy fits snugly in with the trend sweeping across the West, where political parties seem to be rivalling one another in order to be crowned the toughest on crime. Draconian legislation and thoughtless populist rhetoric attempt to present the government as a crusader – institutionalising a ‘lock them up’ culture in order to save the helpless public against the criminals terrorising the streets. As the prison population rockets above official capacity limits, new plans for a ‘super-jail’ – and no plans to curb the accompanying 84,000 criminal super-popu-lation – leaves our prison system locked in a state of chaos. The most sobering aspect of the planned return to Titan prisons is that the Coali-tion was almost on the right track. Former Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was a breath of fresh air, understanding Britain’s prison problem and the need to reduce prison numbers through a ‘rehabilitation revolu-tion’. Surprisingly absent from mention in the mid-term Coalition review, Clarke’s commitment to alternative punishments led to a 3,000-person drop in the number of prisoners and a sharp fall in recorded crime last year (so much for the ‘more prisoners leads to less crime’ theory). Alas, the thread of Clarke’s success has already begun to be unravelled by Chris Grayling – the replace-ment Conservative Justice Secretary – who has chosen to revert back to the waning, old view of prison as a panacea. To combat the soaring costs of the prison population, Grayling proposes to close seven outdated

jails, yet ‘keep the same number of people in prison’. His solution: a 2,000-person super-jail. The closure of out-dated prisons in fa-vour of more humane community prisons is a welcome proposal. However, the creation of one giant prison should certainly not be the replacement. Super-jails promise a more depersonalised institution and a less secure environment, and involve the relocation of prisoners – inevitably leading to strained family links. With the adult reoffending rate already standing at an unacceptably high 47.5%, and family relationships as a key factor in prevent-ing recidivism, the basic logic suggests that mega-jails are detrimental for both the wellbeing of prisoners and future public safety. Mass prison-building marks the beginning of an inexorable cycle: as each batch of new prison places becomes saturated, plans for even more prisons are put on the table. Costs rise, overcrowding soars and prisoners’ human rights evapo-rate – whilst the impact on tackling crime is absolutely minimal. Such a shallow resolution neglects the deep roots of the crime problem. Of course, prison is necessary in some cases. Few deny that prison sentences for the most se-rious and violent criminals gives them their ‘just deserts’ and are a necessary measure to protect the public. However, prison is no longer turned to as a last resort for the most dangerous criminals. Instead, prison is a ‘warehouse’ for those who society does not know quite what to do with; a toxic mix of drug addicts, alcoholics and the mentally ill, who urgently need treatment in special-

ist institutions to address the causes behind their offending behaviour. According to the Chief Inspector of Prisons, 41% of mentally ill prisoners qualify for immediate NHS accommodation. It is blindingly obvi-ous that government investment is needed in diversion services to channel such vul-nerable people into well-funded specialist health care centres. Instead, these scarce funds will be absorbed in a building project that will do nothing but top up the eclectic assortment in our prison population.

Super-jails are the landmark policy of a populist punitive approach to crime. Creat-ing more prison places, in spite of the glar-ing reoffending rate signalling that prison is ineffectual, is attempting to build our way out of a problem that simply cannot be built out of. The tough-on-crime approach must be replaced with a more coherent un-derstanding of the social problems that are the root of so much crime in our society, whilst the stigma attached to criminality should be substituted with a more consid-ered attitude towards the vulnerability of some offenders for whom prison is not the answer. Pouring money into the building of a 2,000-capacity super-jail is a colossal mistake. Breaking out of our prison culture and recognising the real causes of crime requires a transformation of ingrained at-titudes. However much we try, the crime problem is too paramount an issue to lock up and throw away the key.

Rise of the ‘Super-Jail’by Jenifer Morton

“…the basic logic suggests that mega-jails are detrimental for

both the wellbeing of prisoners and future public safety.”

The Regulus 8

FEATURES

Nerdy politicos always get dreadfully overexcited by the political phe-

nomenon of by-elections. The contest for Eastleigh was no different: political blogs were thrust into overdrive, and pollsters hit the streets in their droves. Interestingly and from the outset, the Eastleigh by-election was a four-horse race, owing to the genuine possibility of UKIP gaining its first parlia-mentary seat. The ‘Westminster Bubble’ certainly relishes the advent of a by-election contest. Great masses of new political material can be evaluated, without the nasty prospect of any party losing a general elec-tion or there being a profound disturbance of the status quo. However, most people do not care about by-elections and, after all, why should they? It only concerns one seat in a House of Commons made up of 650 seats. Indeed, the result of Eastleigh was not too revolutionary: the same party was returned with a different candidate. Nevertheless, as is always the case with politics, the devil is in the detail; by-elections are mainly about percentage shifts and marginal voting tendencies, and it is in this regard that the results of Eastleigh possess some startling revelations. Eastleigh was significant because of the competitive nature of the contest. UKIP had a tangible shot of gaining their first seat in Parliament. Despite two very public scandals in the party leadership and some of their lowest national poll ratings in decades, the Liberal Democrats managed to retain a relatively volatile seat. Intriguingly, the Con-servatives only came third, behind UKIP, in a seat that they must win if they wish to gain a majority in the 2015 election. The simple truth is that on the result of Eastleigh,

the Conservative Party has no possibility of returning anything close to a majority in the next general election. This will call into account the direction of Conservative policy on Europe, the nature of Osborne’s handling of the economy and you guessed it- ques-tions on Mr Cameron’s leadership. The last time the Conservative Party won an outright majority in a general election was in 1992: one month before I was born. Hopes of getting one in 2015 are slipping away. Yet, the Conservative Party now claims that they were not optimistic about Eastleigh owing to their persistently terrible record in by-elections. They have failed to win any of the fourteen by-elections already fought in this Parliament alone (most significantly losing Louise Mench’s Corby seat). Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Conservatives were pulling all the stops in Eastleigh. They even resorted to shipping Boris Johnson into Eastleigh for a spot of door-to-door canvassing! However, the end result still saw the Conservatives soundly beaten, and this cannot fail to provoke grave questions of government ambitions and policy. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that a by-election defeat is not unusual for the Conservative Party in mid-term – the last they won was in 1982 during the Falklands War!These questions are compounded by a budget that has – to say the least – received less than universal acclaim, the continued alienation of many core Tory voters through gay marriage proposals, rural development plans and unsympathetic policies towards stay-at-home mothers. The Liberal Democrats should not be too smug though. They may have won the day but lost a whopping 14% of their vote in the seat (Chris Huhne was elected on 46.5% in 2010 with Mike Thornton on 32.06% this year). Certainly, this is no longer a safe Lib Dem seat, if there is such a thing anymore. What’s more, National Polls still seem to indicate the Liberal Democrats hovering around the 11% voting intention mark – a very dismal forecast indeed. A poll by YouGov suggested that 10% of Liberal Democrat voters at Eastleigh were put off voting for the party because of Mr Huhne’s departure, perhaps suggesting that the record of individual politicians is not critical in

voting behaviour. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats can breathe a sigh of relief since a loss at Eastleigh could well have led to seismic changes in the party mood and a tumultuous ride for the coalition. On the other hand, Labour never did pos-sess much of a realistic chance in Eastleigh, and their early optimism was shattered by the focus on UKIP, which effectively ended their chances of playing the ‘anti-govern-ment vote’. With this in mind we must examine what happened here for UKIP, a minor party who polled just 3.6% of the vote at Eastleigh in 2010, (a third of Labour’s vote) yet managed on the day to bag 27.8% of the vote, thus challenging traditional UK political models and resigning the Conserva-tive Party into a hard-fought, but eventually humiliating, third place. By-elections are notorious for the success of minor parties, perhaps most evident in George Galloway’s success in Bradford last year! The Tories should not be too disheartened though; a poll conducted by Lord Ashcroft demon-strated that UKIP votes were drawn almost equally from those who voted Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour last year, demonstrating that at Eastleigh, the surge in UKIP support was not necessarily the result of disheartened, Euro-sceptic Conservatives turning away from Cameron’s government. Even though they did not win the seat, UKIP proved itself to be a major political force, and they will undoubtedly make consider-able gains in the local elections in May: gains that may well give them the grassroots infrastructure to gain seats in the Commons in 2015. When push comes to shove, the result at Eastleigh, like all by-elections, changed very little in the tangible world of parliamentary seats. However, it has proffered a terrible forecast for both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the local elections in May, neither of whom did as well as they hoped. Although Eastleigh, contrary to Mr Farage’s rhetoric, did not witness the dawn of UKIP’s day in the sun, it did give a strong indication of UKIP’s potential to make massive gains in the council elections in May. However, the final loser at Eastleigh was democracy, with a turnout barely above 50% (about 15% lower than the last election) despite furious campaigning by all parties. This suggests a distancing from politics by the general public at large, and this has most obviously been felt in the crippling losses in membership for the three main parties. All in all, by-elections can tell us a great deal about local trends in contemporary politics. In this case, it was an archetypal fringe seat which a government of any party, except Labour, with ambitions of a majority would have to win. All too often, by-elections produce no real winners and only lead to profound questioning and self-analysis by all parties concerned. These questions, of course, are eagerly anticipated and launched upon with great fervour by nerdy politicos and the ‘Westminster Bubble’.

Notes on Eastleigh:

Should anyone care about by-elections?

by Henry Wilson

9The Regulus

FEATURES

By the spring of 2013, the Coalition government will undergo a test of

principles, for the cause of climate change will poke its presence onto the theatre of political debate. An Energy Bill is set to come before the House of Commons, and the resulting legislation will convey the direction of Britain’s environmental policy to the British people, the world of com-merce and the international community of nations. The Coalition will either adopt a visionary, long-term plan in order to

tackle the encroaching threat of enhanced global warming, or it will cowardly sweep it beneath the carpet of political inertia. Contrary to what many politicians think, the time for a lengthy, deliberative debate regarding the factual accuracy of climate change is well and truly over. The scientific community unanimously agrees that en-hanced global warming is happening, that it is occurring at an ever-increasing rate and that decisive and gallant political courage is required to prevent the unfolding of a climatic apocalypse.

In December 2012, Ed Davey, the Sec-retary of State for Energy and Climate Change, acknowledged that, regrettably,

the world is losing the race to keep global warming in check. The scientific commu-nity propagates that global temperatures must be kept under a 2°C increase in order to avoid irreversible changes being made to the climatic patterns that cover planet Earth. However, it seems increas-ingly unlikely that climate change will be definitively tamed under that threshold. The widespread indifference towards cli-mate change felt by innumerable people is deeply perturbing. For example, Christo-

pher Booker, a respected columnist for the Daily Telegraph, has recently remarked that global warming is widely perceived as ‘a colossal scare story’. This pernicious dialogue only fans the flame of scepticism into the oxygen of publicity. Furthermore, grave cause for concern has been recently engendered by George Osborne’s apparent decision to side with the climate sceptics. Last December, he emitted unequivocal signals asserting that he intends to water down Britain’s commitment to cutting its carbon dioxide emissions over the next 15 years, threatening tens of billions of pounds of vital investment in renewable energy generators. It appears that the genie

Climate Change:time to accept an inconvenient truth

of climate change scepticism, after lying quietly imprisoned for years, has emerged back into the Tory fold. David Cameron’s heroic efforts to modernise the Conserva-tive party by adopting sensible, creditable policies regarding climate change have categorically failed.

The mentality of denial that George Os-borne has wantonly succumbed to is woe-fully anachronistic. He is enamoured by the conviction that he will appeal to right-wing voters by disseminating rhetoric against the ‘green’ agenda. However, a recent YouGov survey, published in The Independent, has discovered that the vast majority of people, including countless possible Tory voters, believe the Government can save both the planet and the economy by investing in green technology. The comprehensive sur-vey also revealed that voters categorically reject the Chancellor’s strategy – a tactic which propounds that the UK should not go further than other countries concerning the pursuit of a low-carbon economy. Rather than providing staunch leadership, George Osborne’s policies appear to change depending on his personal perception of where the tides of political fortune lie. His recently overt ambivalence towards efforts to mitigate and adapt to the consequences of climate change serve to make a mockery of the Coalition as the ‘greenest govern-ment ever’.

Furthermore, the Chancellor’s conviction – that a wholesale shift towards a thoroughly low-carbon economy will be extortionate – defies accepted opinion. The respected Stern Review for the British Treasury,

“The human race is moving closer and closer to

the pernicious tipping point where adverse conse-

quences from climate change will be irreversible.”

by Michael Cotterill

The Regulus 10

DOMESTIC Politics

The 2015 election looms. Parties are jostling for position, lam-

basting each other at every opportu-nity. The coalition is imploding, and George Osborne’s economic master-piece has not seen a positive growth statistic in months. The Conserva-tives sit 10% behind Labour in recent polls, and the majority of disgruntled ex-Tories are siding with Nigel Far-age’s UKIP. And yet it is not Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage or even the electorate that is worrying the Prime Minister the most: it is his own party and his own Cabinet. The Conservative Party has, for many years, been plagued by divi-sion, in-fighting and ultimately support-sapping leadership contests. Even Margaret Thatcher’s reign as Prime Minister was overshadowed, and eventually thwarted, by com-petition from her backbenches. Her downfall began with the introduction of the highly controversial poll tax, the electoral effects of which were

A Divisive Threat to Cameron’s Electoral Hopes

published in 2006, conveyed how if climate change is permitted to continue unchecked, then it could cost at least 5% and possibly 20% of global annual GDP. Conversely, if the world decided to mitigate climate change, the cost would only amount to c. 1% of GDP per annum. One of the key problems with climate change is that its consequences only materialise gradually. Unfortunately, human nature often requires firm evidence of a change to be convinced that it is taking place. The analogy of the frog in the boiling water, used by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, is particularly apt. Even though the water temperature is gradually rising to a boil, the frog will sit there, continuing to become warmer, without taking evasive action to prevent itself from getting hurt. The human race is moving closer and closer to a pernicious tipping point where adverse consequences from climate change will be irreversible. Enhanced global warming will inexora-bly inflict desertification, coastal erosion and flooding, water shortages and food insecurity, as well as exacerbate poverty. However, the extent of damage inflicted is still in the hands of governments, but only if they act with immediate haste.

The apparatus of government is capable of achieving extraordinary heights of success. The levers of change, which exist

in Whitehall, need only be initiated by honest political will for the consequences of climate change to be triumphantly ameliorated. A variety of strategies need to be embarked upon, such as carbon capture technology, carbon-neutral development, the adoption of new agricultural tech-nologies, geo-engineering and sustainable development. Nonetheless, in order to make a substantive difference in checking climate change, an agreement needs to be made that will garner the respect and adherence of the international commu-nity. The American, Chinese and Indian economies combined account for nearly 50% of the total emissions entering the atmosphere. Furthermore, before the 2008 recession, two coal-fired power stations were being opened in China per week. Too many countries, like China, are pursuing a careless, ‘business-as-usual’ attitude to the colossal global problems that are confront-ing the collective masses of humanity. To truly overcome the threat of climate change, the British government needs to be more proactive in facilitating dialogue between fossil fuel-guzzling nations. As the European Union develops as a political force, the British government must utilise the influence of the EU in order to compel the nations of the world to take the climate change threat more seriously.

The upcoming Energy Bill looks very promising indeed. The central strategy of the Bill is to move “from a predomi-nantly... fossil fuel [-based economy] to a diverse low-carbon generation mix.” In addition to an explosion in the percentage of renewable energy provision, all new coal-fired power stations will be compelled to have extensive carbon capture facili-ties. Ed Davey is presenting the Bill as a ‘once-in-a-generation opportunity’ that will involve £110 billion worth of investment over the next decade. John Cridland, the Director-General of the CBI, has praised the Bill, declaring that it ‘is good news that the government has listened to our calls to build in support at this early stage, which will ensure we reap the full eco-nomic benefits at the earliest opportunity’. As a Liberal Democrat, Ed Davey cares passionately about climate change, and this explains the radical ingenuity and foresight of his department. I sincerely hope that the Conservative party will overcome its unac-countable hostility towards climate change and hop onto the bandwagon of progress as it attempts to power its way through the House of Commons.

by Miro Ralston

11The Regulus

DOMESTIC Politicswould ever be able to mount a serious leadership challenge, a luxury not afforded to one Tony Blair. Despite mounting pressure, it is difficult to imagine Cameron axing his best bud, his rubber stamp, his political strate-gist. Back to square one, then. A good place to start with this Prime Minister may be the omni-presence of his old university chum, fellow London office bearer, the Mayor of London. I say ‘omnipres-ence’ because it must feel that way to Cameron. Boris is always there, falling over in rivers or sinking a backwards three-pointer. Indeed, Boris Johnson has rather a strange role. He’s a Conservative, a friend of Cameron, a party man. Yet, he seems to voice his concerns with his party freely and frequently, and has placed himself firmly in the hot seat as a future Tory leader. Perhaps the most famous instance of Boris’s govern-ment-bashing was when he claimed, during a radio interview, that “we will not accept Kosovo style social cleans-ing of London”, thus proclaiming his opposition to the Conservative policy on cutting housing benefits. The com-parison infuriated the Prime Minister, and Conservative Party division once again reared its ugly head. “We’re like Wallace and Gromit”, the Mayor recently remarked, in an attempt at diffusing the fierce competitiveness between the two. Rather fitting, but who’s who? He failed to clarify. Intriguingly, Boris continually fails to rule out a leadership cam-paign. Anyone who watched the May-

or’s greatest PR stunt since the Olym-pics, via a recent BBC documentary by Michael Cockerell, would have heard the Johnson family describe the perpetual competitor: someone who always wanted to be first, the most important, the king of the world. The fiery desire to be top dog burns deep inside him to this day, and I suspect that Boris harbours a great resentment that his old Etonian friend, Dave, has

exacerbated by arguments surround-ing the Conservative Achilles Heel: Europe. Ultimately, Michael Hesel-tine’s challenge to her leadership was defeated, but the winning margin was so slight that senior members of her Cabinet politely informed her that it was time to go. John Major was next to fall at the hands of Europe, with the Euro-sceptic John Redwood forc-ing a leadership challenge in 1995. Redwood gained a substantial 89 MP votes, roughly a quarter of Major’s party. The disillusion with Major was compounded by his opposite num-ber’s success, with a resurgent La-bour taking on their most influential politician since Attlee: Tony Blair. The Tory leadership, plagued by division, eventually came to an end following Labour’s landslide victory in 1997. Leadership challenges in the Tory Party tend to stem from the Euro-pean conundrum, a weak economy or a run of policies failing to grab the public’s approval. Cameron has the misfortune to presently suffer from all three. However, there is an obvi-ous way out: Cameron could remove George Osborne from the position of Chancellor. Osborne is “less popular than flatulence in a crowded lift during a power cut”, as The Observer puts it, and only circa 20% of the public think he should keep his job. Osborne has been under increasing pressure since last year’s woeful budget, and with the first Treasury budget of 2013 reso-lutely failing to inspire anyone at all, it is perhaps not surprising that whispers about his competency are circulat-

ing around the House of Commons. Many senior and prominent Tories can be heard to whisper: “George is the problem.” By adding this to the economically irrelevant, but politically disastrous, downgrading of the much-coveted AAA rating, George Osborne can undoubtedly be viewed as a major Conservative ailment. The silver lin-ing for Cameron is that Osborne is so unpopular, that it is highly unlikely he

consistently outshone him as a states-man, if not as a celebrity. A recent survey showed that the aforementioned Labour Party leads in the polls, which is substantial though not terrifying for the Tories, who would be obliterated were Boris to become leader. What’s more startling: when asked who is pre-ferred as leader, 38% are in the camp of Boris, with Dave at just 33%, a bigger gap than in October of last year. This is very ominous, indeed. Unlikely though it is that the cheerful joker will become Conservative leader any time soon, he represents a constant remind-er to Mr. Cameron that should there be a major faux-pas, an amply popular candidate is waiting in the wings. However, Boris aside, the Con-servative Party has seemed entirely unified behind their apparently strong leader. However, amid budget cuts to Cabinet departments, stroppy ministers are lining up to take the reins, with every speech an opportunity to show leadership qualities. A worrying trend is emerging for Cameron: potential future leaders are targeting tradi-tional Conservative voters, which polls show is the group most disillusioned with Cameron’s leadership. Liam Fox highlighted party disunity over austerity in a speech in early March, when he criticized the PM’s decision to ring fence the NHS, Schools and Aid from departmental cuts and called for a complete spending freeze for five years. Theresa May jumped on the bandwagon, saying the Conserva-tive Party had to return to its roots of security, freedom and opportunity. Her speech was full of rhetoric on ‘what we need to do in order to win’, imply-ing a distinction between her vision and that of the current government. Perhaps the only solace Cameron and friends can take from this plethora of potential leaders causing turmoil in their party is that the Labour Party sitting opposite seems void of a single one. If Cameron wants to win in 2015, he does not need to wipe out UKIP, compound Liberal Democrat woes or outdo Labour on economics. Instead, the overriding necessity is the unify-ing of his party. If he fails, the much talked about ‘legacy’ will be a sorry story of another Tory premiership felled by intra-party division.

“…potential future leaders are targeting traditional Conservative voters…”

The Regulus12

DOMESTIC Politics

Once again, George Osborne is on the defensive. He is ardently trying to

justify why his ‘credible economic plan’ has consistently failed to produce sustained economic growth. Recently released fig-ures illustrate that the UK economy shrank by 0.3% during the last quarter of 2012. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) has characterised the British economy as ‘bumpy’ and asserts that it is on an ardu-ously ‘sluggish trend’. This pessimistic foreboding is in juxtaposed contrast to the jubilant optimism that epitomised the reaction to the economic statistics of the third quarter of 2012. On the 26th Octo-ber 2012, the Daily Express front page enthusiastically exclaimed that “Britain roars back to life”. The vehemently right-wing newspaper was rejoicing at the news that the economy had grown by 1% in that quarter. However, the claim that Britain’s incredibly short-lived epoch of economic growth somehow reflected the majestic and penetrating roar of a lioness is ludicrous to the extreme. The unequivocal truth of the matter is that the government’s strategy for growth has been an unmitigated disaster and has plummeted Britain into the continuing depths of economic malaise, owing to the absence of initiative in the decision-mak-ing offices of Whitehall. As the voices of reason promised at the time, the brief hiatus engendered by the 1% growth swiftly subsided as the ebul-lient effects of the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games receded into the pages of history. The professional, dispassionate pages of The Guardian reported how 0.7% of the 1% total was derived from these two inimitable national events. However, the 0.3% shrinking during the last quarter proves that the overall picture remains bleak. It is beyond the realm of contention to acknowledge that Britain’s economy suffered a deleterious heart attack in 2008 and was paralysed by its tumultuous after-effects. However, this crippling state has remained unchanged in the interven-ing years, and the scope for improvement looks grim indeed. In true Thatcherite fashion, the Conservative-led government is presenting the economic recipe through the analogy of tough, painful, yet impera-tive medicine. However, this monstrous economic medicine has been prescribed by a doctor who is impervious to the philosophical advances and improvements that were made to the field of economics during the twentieth century. Regrettably, the genius of Keynes has been forced into the shad-ows, and the eternal slashing of services, employment and investment has been presented as the only method of achieving a resuscitation of economic life.

Nevertheless, in contrast to this inaugura-tion of economic despondency, wholesome evidence can be garnered from inventive twentieth century economic experiments, which prove that Keynesian economics can provide an amicable and speedy route for recovery and prosperity at a dramatically faster rate than could be attained under the restrictive veil of classical economic thought. Keynes was one of the definitive masterminds of the twentieth century. His visionary genius has left an irremovable imprint on the landscape of economic thought, and he possessed a fervently original gravitas that made him unique among his contemporaries. As a member of the exclusive, legendary and exquisitely thought-provoking Bloomsbury group, he automatically became associated with extrovert thinking ‘outside the box’. Keynes became renowned for his accurate interpretation of the disastrous effects that the Treaty of Versailles would wreak on the redevelopment of Europe. He acknowledged that the restoration of eco-nomic growth in Britain would be severely hindered owing to the wholly intentional policy of choking the German economy to the depths of subsistence. Britain’s export markets could not be restored if demand was purposely depressed by the punishing policies inflicted on the vanquished powers by the victorious nations of the First World War. Parallels can be drawn with the damag-ing policies that are currently being inflict-ed as a form of reprimand on many of the financially profligate countries of the Medi-terranean. Unemployment in Spain and Greece presently stands at the astronomical figure of 25%, and the burgeoning debts of these countries are only being exacerbated by the incapacity of the mindless slashing of spending to achieve growth. The rest of the European Union is also being stifled by this adversity because the superimposed

austerity on the already depressed areas of the EU means that those countries are un-able to purchase the same quantity of goods that they were once able to in more affluent times. The absence of sufficient export markets is only further quenching econom-ic growth in Britain, since manufacturing industries cannot export goods to the same volume that they used to. Politicians appear to have categorically forgotten the lessons of history, and this is to the detriment of the standard of living and quality of life of the peoples of Europe.

Similarly, Keynes proudly separated himself from the ubiquitous economic philosophy that prevailed during the Great Depression, which proclaimed that retrenchment was the only solution to contemporary difficulties. The first great believer in Keynes was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who captured the soul of American optimism with his uninhibited confidence in the validity of Keynes’ eco-nomic arguments. His unprecedented New Deal created employment on a remarkable scale and within an incredibly short epoch. Unemployment was more than halved from 13 million to only 6 million within a few years, and America surged ahead towards its destined zenith as the world’s great superpower. In contrast, the stifling dogmatism of the British Treasury in the 1930s meant that the UK economy was left sluggishly behind at the starting block, and consequently the depression was deeper, more wounding and more psychologically

It is time to light the flame of Keynesianism once again by Michael Cotterill

“Regrettably, the genius of Keynes has been forced into the shadows,

and the eternal slashing of services, employment and investment has

been presented as the only method of achieving a resuscitation of eco-

nomic life.”

13The Regulus

DOMESTIC Politicsdevastating than in many other countries. However, the Second World War acted as a great catalyst for the creation of a new economic ‘world order’, which would provide unprecedented degrees of eco-nomic security and would thrust the nations together with unparalleled aptitudes for interaction and trade. The period from 1945 to 1979 saw Keynesianism assume the zeitgeist of the times, and this propelled the world forward to previously unimagined heights of prosperity. Across continents, full employment was easily obtained and preserved as an economic norm, inequal-ity was reduced to a satisfying low and the welfare state rose in the ascendancy as a safety net through which to protect the economically vulnerable. In Britain, the Attlee years of 1945 to 1951 saw the determination of progres-sive men overcome the voices of reaction. Even under the duress of intense economic hardship, the Attlee government maintained full employment, constructed a welfare state, built the NHS and invested heav-ily in previously derelict infrastructures. Although unbridled socialism would not solve Britain’s twenty-first century economic difficulties, I believe that the Attlee government’s pro-active attitude in the face of adversity can be an inspiration and a lesson to the incumbent generation of politicians. Confidence is required for economic growth, and public spending by the Attlee government was permitted, even though Britain was burdened with debts far more exorbitant than exist now, because the international community accepted the argument that economic growth could only be engendered through Keynesian invest-ment. If the European Union confidently accepted the need for debts to rise slightly, prior to a marked drop in debt levels, as more employment and the multiplier ef-fect induced growth, then the depressed European countries could be taken out of the darkness of despair and into the light of economic reinvigoration. However, 1979 witnessed a decisive breaking from the past. Mrs Thatcher’s free-market gospel swept through the Brit-ish political scene like a hurricane with an endless appetite for the destruction of the prevailing economic thought which had ex-isted in Britain since 1945. Moreover, the years since Thatcher’s term of office and the present day appear to have witnessed the translation of Thatcherite policies from their status as the exuding tirade of a parti-san politician into the consensual plateau of British political thought. Tony Blair praised the grocer’s daughter in his autobiography by asserting that “Mrs Thatcher was abso-lutely on the side of history.” A significant period of political wilderness had left the Labour party with a hunger for power and it was even willing to alter its economic philosophy in order to obtain it. Social-ism was cast into the long grass and all the prime ministerial successors of Margaret Thatcher can, to some extent, be character-

ised as Thatcher’s children. Although curtailing the burgeoning budget deficit is of utmost importance, the government needs to simultaneously inau-gurate more radical, Keynesian policies. This is an eternally delicate balance that all governments, Keynesian or not, have had to contend with. Through the sen-sible allocation of limited Treasury funds, the government could plant the seeds of prosperity. Once employment is generated through extensive government-sponsored programmes, individuals and families will inevitably elicit optimism and consequently possess greater confidence to spend more of their personal capital. By fostering consumer confidence, the multiplier effect will ensue, and as government revenues increase, the deficit will naturally de-crease. By handling the levers of economic coordination, the British government could prioritise forward-thinking investment in infrastructure, the construction of a greener economy and the resourceful ploughing of funds into deprived regions. Some governments, such as those of Germany and Austria, have already embarked upon the avenue to affluence through the active promotion of govern-ment policies to directly aid the fields of industry and commerce. Even in 2011, their economies were growing by 3% and 2.7% respectively. Their fine example is evidence that prosperity can be achieved at a faster rate. However, the Conservative-led coali-tion in Britain has placed its reputation on the legitimacy and credibility of austerity as the proper course of economic conduct. To declare that the devastation induced by cuts to the most vulnerable people in our society was in fact promulgated on an inaccurate and profound misconception of economic evidence would be politically suicidal. The Conservative party would never contemplate such an abdication of conviction; it would betray the darling ‘grandmother of Conservatism’, Margaret Thatcher, and the very principles that have led Conservative thinking since the late 1970s. The only solution to expurgate this dis-mal malaise from Britain’s economic cli-mate is for the Liberal Democrats to stand up and demand more Keynesian solutions to economic difficulties. With the election

of 2015 looming ever closer, the Liberal Democrats need to collectively differentiate themselves from the Conservatives. They need to build a platform from which they can proudly proclaim the achievements they have made in the backrooms of power

as a Coalition party. This year, the Liberal Democrats should adopt a bold vision for economic growth and demand the easing of the Treasury cuts. The Liberal Democrat, Danny Alexander MP, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is in a pivotal position and should exert his influence to ameliorate the more aggressive economic strategies of George Osborne. The Liberal Democrats have an unparalleled opportunity to exem-plify how they are the party of genuinely progressive ideas in Britain, and the ces-sation of further cuts would incontrovert-ibly be perceived as a Liberal Democrat influence on the Coalition. This would vastly increase the popularity of Britain’s third party and enhance their prospects at the 2015 election. The 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto, among a plethora of other constructive policies, pledged to vastly increase the railway network through the rejuvenation of many lines closed by the Beeching Axe, to reduce train fares year on year and to bring 250,000 currently empty homes back into the housing market. These are admirable policies that would conspicuously improve the quality of life of many people in this country. The Liberal Democrats just need to re-energise their reforming zeal and institute those policies for the good of the nation. In conclusion, as a country, we have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. The fine example that Keynesianism promulgated must be permitted to prevail. It is highly likely that over the next few years, a great battle of wills and ideology will commence. As austerity fails and the proponents of free-market retrenchment prove to have been deleteriously mistaken, Keynesianism will strive back on to the agenda as a credible alternative to econom-ic inertia. It takes a decisive event for the overriding economic ideology of the time to be removed from its pinnacle. I believe the ongoing depression of our time has the potential to be that event. Just as the Great Depression and the Second World War propelled Keynesianism to the summit of the ‘in vogue’ ideology, the financial earth-quake of 2008 and its after-effects could shift the tectonic plates of economic think-ing towards a more conciliatory, pro-active Keynesian approach to the difficult condi-tions of the contemporary era. Two paths lie before the destiny of the British nation; one route leads to continuing austerity, and the other offers the commendable prospect of an enhanced economic settlement. This would ensue in the government actively promoting a socio-economic good through precocious intervention in the economy, and it would simultaneously overturn the stifling and closeted doctrine of free-market economics. Only then will the destiny of Britain be moved forward to broad sun-lit uplands because we, in this epoch of time, were able to exude the confidence and courage necessary to embark on the colos-sal task of economic transformation.

“Politicians appear to have cat-egorically forgotten the lessons

of history, and this is to the detri-ment of the standard of living

and quality of life of the peoples of Europe.”

The Regulus14

FOREIGN Affairs

Having got used to the ‘who’ (Hu) and ‘when’ (Wen) of the Chinese

Communist Party (CCP) leaders, Western journalists now have to grapple with the ‘Shee’ (Xi) and ‘Lee’ (Li). In Western media, news on China is more often about scandals and appalling abuses of human rights than on stories that paint this rapidly rising power in a positive light. Indeed, the country is ridden with problems: recently, a staggering 13,000 dead pigs have been retrieved from rivers in Shanghai; journal-ists were beaten by thug-like police when trying to interview Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo’s wife; and self-immolating Tibet-ans continue to die in vain in protest of a heartless government. However, taking a macroscopic and historical view may offer an insight to predict changes in Chinese politics.Where is China in the course of history? Under Mao, successive revolutions deci-mated social order and cultural heritage, yet his image still hovers above Tiananmen Square – and in the minds of many Chi-nese. This not only gives the current Party legitimacy, but also maintains the image as a symbol of the triumph of self-will, a saviour-like revolutionary and a defender of the national spirit. The model of eco-nomic liberalisation in use to this day can be traced back to the watershed moment in the 1980s under Deng Xiaoping’s leader-ship. China is now at a crossroads; eco-nomic growth has maintained a burgeoning 8% or above, but tensions are rising. The outgoing ‘Hu-Wen’ leadership made efforts to alleviate pressure on farmers and in-stalled a more widely accessible healthcare program, but it failed to break through institutional constraints to implement a structural reform of the government. With the government plagued by corruption, or-dinary citizens despise the unfair privileges enjoyed by officials and despair at their own misery. The vibrant online blogging community defies government attempts to clampdown on the free flow of informa-tion, as a civil society gathers strength. With Xi at the helm as Party chief, he must realise the gravity of the problems facing the country, along with those at the core of the administration. The Party is likely to perish without effective reforms.Many onlookers have pointed to the burdens of the new government, but Xi’s track record so far offers several reasons for optimism. As the son of Xi Zhongxun, a relatively liberal Party leader who was

the mastermind behind designating the first special economic zone in Shenzhen, Xi is a princeling. His father was purged several times by Mao, and Xi himself was sent to Shaanxi as a teenager to labour amongst the peasants. For a large part of his career, he presided over provinces along the east coast, following the direction of market au-thoritarianism and thereby attracting foreign investments while at the same time insert-ing Party cells into private companies to maintain a degree of control. Having been elected Party General Secretary in October of last year, he imitated Deng’s southern tour to exude a more amiable personality and paid tribute to Deng’s statue in Shen-zhen. There were calls to end the wasteful habits of officials, as well as to make Party meetings less extravagant and disruptive to people’s daily lives.

On the agenda now there are two main ar-eas badly in need of reform, but which will certainly not come about easily. The first is the reform of governmental structure; the second, to narrow the wealth gap and strive for more equal income distribution. Perhaps Wang Qishan’s book recommendation for the Party leaders shows the aware-ness of the socio-economic dilemma that lies ahead. Tocqueville’s The Old Regime and the Revolution argues that economic growth is a long-term process culminating in clamours for political rights and social unrest. Xi has warned of the need to ‘learn the Soviet lesson’, meaning that political reform that happens too quickly, too soon may well threaten the survival of a mod-ernising regime. It is a precarious balancing act that necessitates political boldness and courage to overcome internal opposition, but also requires astuteness to manage the population’s expectations. The disjunction between central and local governments also complicates matters of reform, as change in the top tiers of government is not necessar-ily carried through to the subsequent levels. Events in recent years have shown that local governments have manipulated calls for reform to their own benefit, preserving, and even enhancing, their privileges and doing

nothing to solve corruption. A bureaucracy as colossal as the CCP demands a leader of extraordinary abilities and clear-mindedness if it is to reform.But even if Xi proves able to eliminate corruption from within the Party, it is still unclear in which direction he will lead China. To begin, when he was President of the Central Party School, Xi vowed to up-hold Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideology. The political rationale behind this strategy aims to re-assert the legitimacy of the CCP by recognising the ideology that originally brought the Party into power. Secondly, one can be almost certain that Xi will not reform China along the lines of Western democratic systems. The feeling of being wronged by Western aggressors in recent history is too ingrained in the CCP mental-ity for them to ‘learn from the West’. The Chinese have to create their ‘characteristic’ way of development and modernisation. No matter what internal problems Xi attempts to address, he will prioritise the maintaining of the CCP as a political monopoly, and its unrivalled status as the ultimate source of power and authority.If Xi hopes to live up to his reputation as a populist figure, he will have to tackle the ‘mass disturbances’ plaguing China today. Demographic and environmental pressures, coupled with widespread local corruption, have led to mistreatment at the hands of police, abhorrent air quality, and the confiscation of land by greedy officials to be sold for personal profit. These people, alongside many others who suffer human rights abuses, swell in ranks as days pass and pose a stronger, debilitating force. For others, there is a historical matter of deep symbolic significance that lies at the heart of reconciliation – the vindication of the victims of 1989. No change can be considered momentous unless it shows a fundamental rethinking of the value system adopted since the Tiananmen massacre: that blind economic growth can justify whatever abuse and violations are done to the com-mon citizens.There is a lot at stake in this newly-inau-gurated leadership of the Chinese govern-ment. The next ten years will challenge the CCP to adapt to the rapidly changing social environment and to tackle the causes for consistent tension and instability. Xi is off to an auspicious start, but taking the right steps in the future will require a great deal of wisdom and skill. Implementing stricter discipline is needed to rein in selfish officials and eliminate corruption. Yet chal-lenging the vested interests and overcoming infighting are tasks more easily said than done. It is no wonder that, as WikiLeaks re-vealed, Xi has a preference for Hollywood movies’ clear distinction between good and evil. If only reality could be so simple.

A Ray of Hope?Xi Jinping

“No matter what internal problems Xi attempts to

address, he will prioritise the maintaining of the CCP as a political monopoly, and its unrivalled status as the ultimate source of power

and authority.”

by Clarence Leong

15The Regulus

FOREIGN Affairs

Everyone is aware that Iceland felt the impact of the 2008 financial crisis more

than most countries, with the almost imme-diate total collapse of its banking sector. The Icelandic response to the crash, however, has predictably failed to attract the same level of media interest. Following months of protests at the gov-ernment’s handling of the crisis, in 2009 the island’s ruling conservative-led coalition re-signed and a new centre-left administration, under Johanna Sigurdardottir (incidentally the world’s first openly gay Prime Minister), emerged. Her government has impressively managed to encourage a return to growth and the strong beginnings of recovery with-out imposing the crippling austerity seen elsewhere in Europe. Not content with a mere change of government, however, the people of Iceland demanded deeper political reform. The country embarked on a historic journey of constitutional review, which saw a new con-stitution drafted not by ideologically-moti-vated politicians or faceless civil servants, but by the people – the constitution was to be ‘crowdsourced’. In October 2012, a new document was approved by Icelanders in the culmination of one of the most open and democratic pro-cesses ever seen. Nearly two years earlier, elections had been held to appoint a new Icelandic Constitutional Assembly, a body of twenty-five people not associated with any political party and without any previous experience in government, who would draft the constitution, discussing and implement-ing/rejecting proposals from the general public. Any voter was eligible to stand, pro-vided that their nomination was seconded by thirty citizens. The Assembly, led by academic and economist Thorvaldur Gylfason, reflected a cross-section of society – amongst the elected members sat lawyers, doctors, jour-nalists and representatives from Iceland’s arts sector, religious community and trade union movement. Icelanders were then invited to contribute

to the process in a way that could touch the most people possible – in a country where 93% of the population enjoys internet access, people were able to make suggestions for what they desired to see enshrined in the new Constitution through Facebook and email. In a further bid to increase transparency and connect the process to citizens, sessions of the Assembly were streamed live online, the group had a strong presence on Twitter and interviews with members were posted on YouTube.

Proposals from the public that were ap-proved by the Assembly include measures aimed at better holding parliamentarians to account and the declaration of natural resources and land not privately owned as national property, a victory for ecologists and land use campaigners. But it is the process’ extraordinary extent of popular engagement, rather than its outcome, which is most striking. Iceland’s approach raises the quality of democracy, giving the public a voice, and not just a vote. In Britain, where proposals for reform of the voting system and an elected House of Lords have failed to ignite popular passion, we could perhaps learn from such attempts to reengage the public with policy debates. Polls before the 2010 United Kingdom General Election indicated a plurality of sup-port for electoral reform. However, the coali-tion government, comprised of the Conser-vatives, supporting the continued use of the First Past the Post system, and the pro-reform Liberal Democrats, could only agree on what even Nick Clegg, the leader of the Lib Dems and the Deputy Prime Minister, termed a ‘miserable little compromise’.

The ‘Alternative Vote’ system, put to the people in a May 2011 referendum, was resoundingly rejected by a 3:1 margin – perhaps if the public had been engaged in a more open conversation about how we elect our representatives, and political bargaining had been bypassed in the way Iceland’s pro-cess managed to accomplish, the result would have been different. Iceland’s model has also inspired sup-porters of the predominantly centre-left Scottish independence movement, many of whom – including myself – are excited by the possibility of being able to follow the Nordic nation’s example and to enshrine the values of fairness and equality in the written constitution of an independent, sovereign state – something the United Kingdom famously lacks.Independent Member of the Scottish Parlia-ment, Jean Urquhart – who resigned from the governing Scottish National Party in October 2012 as a result of the party’s shift to support continued membership of NATO – cites Ice-land’s experience when arguing the necessity of a written constitution in an independent Scotland, to act as the expression of the state’s “social, political and cultural ethos”. The Icelandic process has not been with-out its flaws, however, with low turnouts in both the elections for the Constitutional As-sembly and the referendum, and complaints of minor electoral irregularities at the polls. But in spite of its faults, the Icelandic experiment represents a democratic revolu-tion in one of the world’s oldest and proudest democracies, and could set an example for other societies where the public feels increas-ingly disconnected from those who make decisions on their behalf. Short of introducing Australian-style com-pulsory voting, we are never going to achieve 100% electoral turnout, and we cannot force people to take an interest in politics. There is also obviously some degree of impracticality in adopting an Icelandic model – engaging Iceland’s 320,000-strong population seems a substantially simpler task than ensuring input from the 60million-plus people who live in the UK. But lessons can be learnt – especially from the way the constitutional review reached out to ordinary people using technol-ogy. Political parties have slowly cottoned on to the benefits of campaigning on social media, reaching out to previously unengaged voters and coordinating activists’ activity. Iceland’s experience, facilitated by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, shows us that the wider public can be included in the political process using new technology, beyond the traditional four- or five-yearly grab for votes. Constitutional debate is all the rage in Britain at the moment, be it the so-called ‘Scottish Question’ or the fierce argument over the desirability of an elected second chamber. But if politicians are to make anybody care about these issues, they have to first consult them in formulating their propos-als and arguments. Finding ways to better engage the public is a huge challenge, but far greater still is the task of delivering the constitutional change the politicians promote.

Iceland’s Crowdsourced Democracy

“Iceland’s approach raises the quality of democracy, giving the public a voice, and not

just a vote.”

by Angus Millar

The Regulus16

FOREIGN Affairs

the article, I will concentrate on the threats both of these parties pose on freedom of speech individually, trying to avoid the propagandistic fight between them.

Censorship by intervention

There are a number of different attitudes and actions adopted by Fernandez’s gov-ernment that threaten freedom of speech, mainly the use of state publicity. The jour-nalist Ernesto Carmona states that during 2011, the government spent 163.3 million (US) dollars in state publicity. Fifty-four percent of this investment corresponded to publicity made by the Presidency of the Nation, while the rest was shared primar-ily by the different ministries. Jose Crettaz argues that in 2012, the expenditure in-creased by 43%. An independent Argentine research agency claimed that in the first three months of 2012, the government spending on printed publicity increased by 87% compared with the same period the year before. It is extremely hard to pin down the actual numbers of the investment – especially because of the lack of trans-parency from the government itself – but there is unanimous agreement that in recent years of Fernandez’s government this has been increasing. And that was only counting the official statistics. Unofficially, the State subsidises and buys advertisements in purportedly unbiased media outlets, with the power to decide who can be interviewed in their articles and what they can write about. A

The 7th December of 2012 – or 7D as the official slogan goes – was supposed

to be a transformative date in the history of the Argentine press. After three years of being promulgated and countless battles against appeals, the Law 26.552 - better known as the ‘Media Law’ – was to take effect in this date. This law entails that the number of audio-visual media licences should be equally distributed between the State, the private sector and non-profit organizations, each holding 33.3% of the market. For this to happen, the different companies of the private sector had to present a plan before the 7th of December within which they must align themselves with the new restrictions, allowing these non-profit organizations to get hold of their media licences. The main restriction this law requires is to reduce the maximum number of audio-visual media licences each corporation can have to 24, when some have hundreds. The motivation for promoting this law back in 2009 was – according to the current government led by Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner – dismantling the monopoly held by different private media companies and democratize the freedom of speech by al-lowing all sectors of society to participate; not just wealthy impresarios. But thinking in theoretical terms is not very useful in Argentina, where every political decision carries a huge array of underlying motivations and interests. This controversial law caused heated discus-sions regarding its actual purpose. In order

to fully comprehend its implications, we should incorporate into the debate Fernan-dez’s greatest enemy: a media conglomer-ate called Grupo Clarín. This group, which works in printed and digital press, televi-sion and radio, controls over 58% of the TV cable market in Argentina and owns the largest printed newspaper in Latin America and second in the Spanish-speaking world, Clarín. Ever since a dramatic breakdown in its relations with the government back in 2008, these two huge powers in Argentina have fought a systematic battle. According to this law, Grupo Clarín would be forced to reduce the ownership of approximately 257 media licences to 24, a requirement deemed absurd and unconstitutional by their owners. Furthermore, Clarín, together with La Nación and Perfil, are some of the few newspapers that are critical of the current government. According to Clarín, the only possible reading of this law is as a direct attempt to silence the opposition and take the same path as Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, where freedom of the press only exists in the realm of imagination. This fierce battle has repercussions for the rest of society. The strong, dichotomiz-ing feeling present in Argentine society at the moment - where one is either pro-gov-ernment or anti-government, where politics are transformed into a football match where each actor considers themselves in the right, their only objective defeat of the adversary - gives rise to plenty of biased journalism on the subject. In the rest of

In Argentinian Media Wrangles, Nobody Winsby Toti Sarasola

17The Regulus

FOREIGN Affairsquasi-slapstick example of this occurred with the new ‘independent’ TV channel, Will Kintun TV, the first channel in Argen-tina devoted to its main indigenous group, the mapuches. However, the first show of this channel was not a documentary about the manners and customs of the mapuches, but a documentary about the life of Nestor Kirchner. Grotesque. Jorge Lanata, a well-known independent Argentine journalist who has developed an exhaustive opposition against Fernandez during the last few years, has denounced the presence of ‘La Cámpora’ – a youth political group that supports the Kirch-nerismo – in primary schools of Buenos Aires, promoting the new Media Law. This explicit intervention in education poses a greater threat on freedom of speech and education. The purpose of this new law seems even more dubious if we recall that the Kirchners and Grupo Clarín maintained a close relationship between 2003 and 2007, during the presidency of Nestor Kirchner, Cristina’s deceased husband. The story goes that Kirchner had promised Mag-netto, Clarín’s CEO, that he would become the richest impresario in Argentina if he continued his support for the President. The reasons for their falling out were never clear. Supposedly, Kirchner asked Magnet-to to support him in a polemic dispute with the agricultural sector due to an exportation tax he wanted to impose. Magnetto refused, and defended the agricultural sector in the press; thus the fierce dispute. One year later, the government nationalized the right to transmit Argentine Football, which had belonged to Grupo Clarín. That same year, the Media Law we are discussing today was designed. Fernandez has also criticized Clarín for the supposed involvement and support in the Argentine dictatorship. However, why were these accusations only raised after their falling out in 2008? Did they not matter between 2003 and 2008 when they made business together? Clearly not. The ‘democratization of freedom of speech discourse’ and the ‘enemy of democracy ar-gument’ work in collaboration as a populist façade of Fernandez’s underlying personal motivations.

Censorship by monopolizing

Nonetheless, government intervention is not the only source of censorship to freedom of speech. Monopolization of the media is another, and that is what Clarín has been accused of doing in recent years. The newspaper Clarín has been at the front-line of this battle against the government. However, the newspaper only represents approximately 20% of the corporation. The main business of Grupo Clarín is concerned with the distribution of satellite channels in Argentina, and it is the cor-

poration’s finances that will suffer, rather than its freedom of speech. It is indeed an anachronistic approach to protest to every single regulation the government attempts to make under the slogan of freedom of speech, when it seems only impresarios can have this freedom.

The Argentine philosopher Eduardo Sanguinetti has written: “The citizen is protected by the Media Law from the information he receives every day, showing the actual reality, not a deformed reality painted by the mafias who own the media conglomerates.” I am not claiming that Sanguinetti is right – in fact, most of his articles are too radical for my liking – but it is interesting to adopt the other perspec-tive about how we can see these defend-ers of freedom of speech. A well-known professor of Social Science in Mexico, Jerónimo Repoll, has claimed that in the last four months of 2009, only 30 out of Clarín’s 124 front pages did not criticize Fernandez´s government. This systematic default position of criticizing the govern-ment has inevitably led to discrediting Clarín’s journalistic quality. Is the citizen actually free when he or she is bombarded via newspapers, internet, radio and televi-sion with a biased sermon? Frank La Rue, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of freedom of speech has pub-licly declared that this ‘Media Law’ should be a model for the rest of the continent as to how it promotes the plurality of voices and democratization of speech in the me-dia. I agree with La Rue theoretically, but his argument seems to be missing the point as to the implications this Law can have in a country like Argentina - and perhaps by extension – in South America.

Current Situation

Clarin had appealed against the articles 41, 45, 48 and 161 of this Law, claiming they were unconstitutional. The Judicial Power had extended the deadline for the release of media licences until further notice, so actually nothing happened on the 7D. On the last 17th of April, the Federal Chamber of the Judicial System finally announced its verdict: both articles 45 and 48 were declared unconstitutional. Article 45 stated the limitation on the amount of media licenses, meaning that Grupo

Clarin does not have to discharge most of their licenses. The judges declared that there should be indeed a limitation on the amount of public “radio-electric” licences – as a consequence Grupo Clarin only has to sell one of its radio licenses – but as the TV Cable market does not use this “radio-electric” space, so the State has no power of intervention. On their announcement, the judges declared this Law to be “an unrea-sonable regulation that does not respect the freedom of speech.” Following this decision, Cristina Fernandez tweeted: “The verdict on the ‘Media Law’ left me speechless. Why?” Later on, another tweet: “This is too gro-tesque. It’s even grotesque for this Judicial System.” Martin Sabatella, the man in the governmental position of promoting this Law has declared that this decision only shows how the Judicial System needs to be reformed. Fernandez went as far as stating that the Judicial Power in Argentina is not as democratic as the other two powers, and described it as an “aristocratic” power. This is not the end of the battle: the government announced that they will appeal against this verdict with the Supreme Court of Justice. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court will resist the pressure of the government. I believe that this law – stripped of its original purpose – is a very innovative and progressive one, especially in comparison to the archaic regulations in other Latin American countries, such as Uruguay, where the media licences held by private organisations do not expire. Nonetheless, in a country like Argentina, a law like this one can have severe implications when put in practice. My first worry over what kind of non-profit organizations will take hold of that 33% of the media licences, and to investigate whether there are any possible links with the government. The example of Will Kintun TV foreshadows a pessimistic panorama. My second concern is that a law such as this could become a slippery slope if it is not accompanied by a limitation on the government’s budget for state public-ity, because it could lead to a much darker monopoly: a state monopoly. The verdict of the Federal Chamber is the only thing that generates a glimpse of hope about the division of powers in this country. Both of these parties employ a populist discourse that satisfies its supporters, em-bracing the concept of freedom of speech as the perfect disguise for their politi-cal and economic interests. There are no doubts who actually pays the consequences of this battle: the Argentine journalistic and literary world. Home to great minds like Borges, Cortázar and Sábato, it has sunk into a deep swamp of fear and personal interests, where any hope of a tenuous light is extinguished by both sides.

“Is the citizen actually free when he or she

is bombarded via newspapers, internet, radio and television with a biased

sermon?”

The Regulus18

FOREIGN Affairs

A Struggle for Democracy in The Lady’s Burma

The release of The Lady, starring Mi-chelle Yeoh as the Burmese democratic

activist Aung San Suu Kyi (also known as Daw Suu), coincided with the turning of the giant wheels of socio-political reforms in Myanmar last year. While the film was praised as a dutiful portrayal of an inspira-tional fighter for democracy, a fundamental question remains in the minds of many whether the sequel to The Lady, the fate of which is inextricably intertwined with her nation, will end in tragedy or in glory. Aung San Suu Kyi’s legacy, fortunately, has not been critically challenged since the glamour of the world’s renowned political prisoner was dismantled and humbled to a mere national MP, despite various politi-cal upheavals. Internationally, she is a star of Burma and of democracy. Queues of world statesmen embraced her when, for the first time since 1988, she was able to visit abroad, touring around Europe and receiving a myriad of awards and honours. Notably, Oxford University bestowed upon her an honorary doctorate in civil law and the Lord Mayor of Oxford presented her the Freedom of the City. Such international limelight, fanciful and grand it may seem, has neither contributed substantially to resolve Burma’s deep-seated problems nor enhanced her party’s ability to govern. The National League of Democracy, with Daw Suu as its chairwoman, needs to convince the public of its ability to govern properly after the 2015 election, when Burma will attempt a peaceful and successful transition towards a democratic and civil society. The party, in spite of a resounding victory in last year’s parliamentary by-elections, has withered and shrunk dramatically since Daw Suu’s house arrest more than two decades ago. Many members were arrested and imprisoned, some never to return. The party, mainly made up of seniors, lacks young-sters, without whom it cannot be effectively revitalised and reach out to a wider public. It was thought that the Party Congress earlier this year could have been a chance to deal with this, as well as the party’s financial shortage and poor management, but the new central committee proved a disappoint-ment – instead of bringing in ‘new blood’ as Daw Suu had insisted, the old guards are still guarding the way. As one of the elderly loyalists stated, the party relied on her too much to the extent that the NLD was once accused of being autocratic in formulating party policies. While Daw Suu repeatedly encourages members to speak out, the crux of the matter is that few people dare to speak against her. As a student activist said, “the Lady says something, and that is policy…and that has not changed”. Indeed, her formidable personality has become part of the problem. Having passed the revolutionary stage, Daw Suu and her party are now being crushed under the weight of popular expec-

tations. During a recent protest against a Chinese-backed copper mining company, President Thein Sein expediently passed the ball to the Lady who bravely agreed to mediate the dispute. In a time where resentment against Burma’s most dominat-ing neighbour runs at an all-time high, such controversy was fraught with possibility for error. Daw Suu’s blunt and pragmatic response to the affected villages during her tour and her support for the continuation of the project came under fire from local villag-ers and hundreds of protestors who voiced their disappointment with the democratic leader they used to admire. “The other country (PRC) might think that our country cannot be trusted on the economy", she said, and that Burma could not afford to offend its neighbour, “whether we like it or not.” Others might have taken a more flexible stance and adopted a more emollient gesture to avoid political backlash. However, this is Daw Suu, and she is no ordinary politician. Her faith and single-mindedness in serving the nation may ultimately win universal ac-claim – speaking what she thinks and doing what she means to do. Yet every time she deals with this, she distances some of her former admirers. In the long term, this could irreversibly invalidate her position and un-dermine her reputation, with a consequence that her party might be waning in popularity by 2015. From the lessons of Taiwan, Japan, Great Britain and other Commonwealth realms, it is inevitable that every revolution-ary party has its own teething troubles in governance. For Burma and the Lady, the thorniest will remain the presence of a domi-nating and ferocious dragon who detests the very principle of democracy they strive towards.

It is probably President Thein Sein’s political calculation that Daw Suu should handle this unrivalled dilemma in the coun-try: the nation-wide anti-Chinese sentiment against the manoeuvring of the nation’s policies clashes with the political impos-sibility for the peacock to fly away from the dragon. Burma still desperately needs Chinese capital, Chinese skilled labour, Chinese merchants, Chinese technology in infrastructure and Chinese investments in natural resource mining. China has made the most out of the decades of economic and political isolation of Burma from the rest of the globe to strengthen its own unchallenged grasp on its ‘cousin’s’ politics and economy. Although diplomacy and investments have significantly improved between Burma and

the Western powers following the release of Daw Suu, and there are huge capacities for cooperation with nations like India and the United Kingdom, such potential is far from being realized. Given the present situation, it would take decades before the Com-munist voice can be silenced. Furthermore, China rules by its own imperial ideology extended from the ancient empires, under which Burma was victimised and demoted to a sub-kingdom because of its tributary relationship with China. Undeniably, this fortieth most populous state, squashed between two rising giants, China and India, could still make its neighbours feel its weight, but Daw Suu and her people will not want Burma to simply change from a pawn in China’s hands to a Western pawn to check her former master. Burma has to choose a road, unavoidably a rocky one, to stand up on its own and elevate itself out of the federation of mediocre governments in Southeast-Asia, who constantly muddle through the power game. The key to the solution for Daw Suu, after she becomes President, is to join the Commonwealth of Nations. A family of fifty-four independent member states with one-third of the world’s economy and popu-lation, the Commonwealth would provide Burma exactly the dynamic platform that it desperately needs. First and foremost, there are not any substantial obstacles for Burma to join the umbrella, other than com-mon administrative trivialities. All current members, except Rwanda and Mozam-bique, used to be part of the British Empire. Burma’s historic link with the British crown dates back to 1824 and lasted for more than a century before the colony achieved full independence. Unlike its regional partners, from India, Malaysia and Pakistan to Ban-gladesh and Singapore, who all joined the club and have participated pro-actively in the organisation, resentment against Great Britain was prevalent during those days, as the assassination of Aung San struck the nation’s population very hard. In fact, only Burma and Aden missed the opportunity to join the family at that time. Be that as it may, time has passed, and there will not come a better time for Burma to join the club than now, under Daw Suu’s leader-ship. The magnitude of realising the full potential of such fraternity can be found in Daw Suu’s biography, as she is the epitome of the pinnacle of British education and cultivation combined with Burmese cultural heritage: having read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Oxford and pursued her postgraduate studies in the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, she was thoroughly soaked in the flourishing academic and political debates in Britain, the deliberations and inspira-tions of which cultivated her intellectual mind. Additionally, the Commonwealth would mean institutionalising Burma’s

“For Burma and the Lady, the thorniest will remain the presence of a dominating and ferocious dragon

who detests the very principle of democracy they strive towards.”

by Thompson Chamberlain

19The Regulus

FOREIGN Affairsrelation with India. The two shared the same fate under colonial British rule, when Burma was administrated as a province and later separated from the Indian colonies. Given the historical context and cultural link, India is an indispensable partner to counterbalance China’s sphere of influ-ence in Southeast-Asia due to the region’s geopolitical battle. Bilateral diplomacy may often trigger the nerve of the enemies, while institutional collaboration can effectively normalise the cooperation between Burma and other regional partners such as India, Bangladesh and Malaysia in one fell swoop, hence giving much more weight to Burma’s alliance. Furthermore, the Commonwealth Secretariat’s role in facilitating multilateral communications between member states can put Burma’s political and economic isolation to an end more swiftly. Regarding the aforementioned point about Chinese ideology, the Sino-Burmese war fought in the eighteenth century best illustrates the Sino-centric view of the Chi-nese civilisation. China launched four suc-cessive invasions into Burma, and the con-sequent stalemate resulted in a diplomatic normalisation after two decades, which was claimed to be one of the ten great victories by the Emperor because Burmese diplomatic presents were interpreted as submission. Chang Chihsiung of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica has argued that under Confucianism of that time, legitimacy rested not on physi-cal control or military occupation but “the enactment of proper roles and duties” in ac-cordance to one’s status. Therefore, outside the ‘mainland’, the Chinese Emperor still ruled places ranging from Korea to Ryukus (now named Okinawa) to Burma, all of whom accepted a tributary relationship with China. That was why, ideologically, all these people were viewed as Chinese people by many, and are still treated so by some. While New Zealand’s foreign power is not much more than Taiwan, China is less bullish to Wellington than to Taipei, or to Paypyidaw. By joining the Commonwealth and carry-ing the British shield, Burma will be seen as a foreign power in the eyes of China, who always reminds Britain of the Opium Wars but seems to have selectively forgotten its invasion into Burma. I believe that the yield-ing gesture and aggressive attitude of China towards Burma would weaken and soften over time when it no longer treats the Bur-mese people as its own citizens. The Sino-Burmese relation is not, and cannot, be a matter of diplomatic fine-tuning. A flourish-ing relationship can only be realised by rec-ognising Burma as an equal foreign power, and the Commonwealth membership would catalyse such elevation. As can be seen from the most visible activity – the Common-wealth Games – Burma’s membership will play a vital role in strengthening the shared culture of the Commonwealth family, which extends from literature, heritage, sports and music to political and legal practices. The symbol of status and importance of identity for the nation cannot be overlooked by the government, and that is why South Sudan, Cambodia, Madagascar and a few others are

queuing up with applications. Moreover, entering the club also provides Burmese politicians the opportunity to learn the conventions, practices and governance of Western society. Few Asian governments, with the exception of Hong Kong and Singapore, can leapfrog their credentials and stature to govern. Hong Kong’s exception is attributed to the last two decades of British colonial administration, which fostered a relatively incorrupt civil service, and to the successive governors who brought in a lot of Western practices to the colony, such as accountability to the parliament and free-dom of press. In light of this, without any intervention of Western powers, Burmese leaders would be very slow to learn to govern effectively, and most importantly, to deal with the corruption among businesses and officials encouraged by neighbours. The Commonwealth Secretariat assists policy development for member governments and advises them, enriching the governments with the history and lessons taken from more than fifty states. Furthermore, Burma is a developing country, and the Secre-tariat’s technical assistance, be it manpower or technology, to foster socio-economic developments would be crucial. Similarly, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, currently chaired by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, would offer

an excellent decision-making forum for Burmese politicians to interact with other governmental officials, discussing issues of mutual interest. Burmese leaders in areas of law, finance, public health, education and commerce will be able to fully participate in debates and procedures and be given the opportunity to enter into discussions and learn. The Commonwealth consists to a large extent of developing countries who are in the same dilemma as Burma in combating poverty: their policies and precedents could be of great value for reference. Alternatively, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are models of sound gover-nance which Daw Suu can take into account when she becomes the de jure leader. In the midst of the economic gloom in Europe and America and the growing Chi-nese hegemony in Asia, Burma, personified by Daw Suu, has leapt finally into life. Only by joining the Commonwealth can the flick-ering light of Burma, having recovered from the vapours of the last few decades, sparkle through the obstacles, stand up again and embrace the historic brotherhood with Great Britain and other sovereign democracies as firmly as the echoes of the past. Burma can-not rest solely on the shoulders of one lady, however great she is, to face such immense and complex challenges ahead.

We are an ambitious, expanding, international legal practice with a clear strategy for the future and a strong industry focus – in financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; pharmaceuticals and life sciences.

Can you demonstrate global thinking, commercial acumen and the drive to provide the highest standard of service to clients across these sectors? If so, you’ll like our world.

Tel +44 (0) 207 444 2113nortonrosegraduates.com

Norton Rose will join forces with Fulbright & Jaworski LLP on 3 June 2013, creating Norton Rose Fulbright, a global legal practice with significant depth of expertise across the US, Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Central Asia.