Search Results

The vicious attacks of Jamat Nusrat Al-Islam wal Muslimeen and Islamic State West Africa have not only caused hundreds of deaths and injuries, but as a result, the poverty level has worsened, mass displacement continues, education levels deteriorate, human right violations occur frequently, the law loses its meaning even to government officials, and the overall political future of Burkina Faso is unstable. < Back How Jihadists Are Ravaging Burkina Faso By Isabella Hehl Dalla Zuanna February 28, 2023 When discussing the targets of violent jihadists, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq are often the focal points. Yet, one of the countries most ravaged by terrorism today is Burkina Faso. Ranked fourth in countries most impacted by terrorism by the 2022 Global Terrorism Index, it suffered 732 deaths, 231 injured and 216 overall attacks last year. In the past, the jihadists in Burkina Faso — mostly Jamat Nusrat Al-Islam wal Muslimeen and Islamic State West Africa — targeted pro-government forces such as the military and state officials. However, in the last several years, the targets have mostly become civilians, volunteer defense forces and sometimes even tourists, who are confronted by improvised explosive devices (IED), small-arms attacks, assassinations and kidnappings by jihadists aiming to expand their territorial control. As a result, there are now more than one million internally displaced Burkinabe, most of whom were forced to leave their homes as a direct result of the extremist violence. For the last three consecutive years, civilians have been the most targeted group by terrorists. On June 5, 2021, jihadists murdered over 160 people in Solhan in the Yagha province and injured more than 40. Considered the most vicious and deadly attack in Burkina Faso in the last several years, the terrorists — of which the group is unknown — began their attack by assassinating a volunteer defense force militia and then proceeding to strike the village, killing the civilians inside and burning down their houses and a market. Tragically, of the 160 people, 20 were children. As one of the poorest countries in the world, more than half of its population lives on 1.90 U.S. dollars a day, and its terrorist crisis only worsens the situation. Factors such as recent climate shocks, the growing population and food insecurity stagnate poverty levels, especially impacting urban areas, where the unemployment rate is 50 percent. This poverty, inefficient governance and geographical inequality in state security have allowed for the country’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks. The country’s military weakness and inequality have given credibility and opportunity to non-state armed groups. Regions where the community feels unprotected and excluded by its government, especially by the youth — in part due to corruption and inequality of wealth, resources and security — will show less of a tendency to resist the territorial expansion of the armed groups. The terrorist crisis also impacts elections in Burkina Faso. With a history of coup d’états, the rise in terrorism further impairs fair election processes, as mass displacement challenges voter turnout. Due to insufficient troop availability, the Burkinabe government has increasingly recruited civilian auxiliaries, which are rapidly trained and sent to various at-risk regions. Unfortunately, these new recruits have increasingly become the main target of extremist groups, suggesting that volunteers have now replaced the military on the front lines. However, these volunteer defense forces have been accused of numerous human rights violations by Burkinabe civilians and international organizations, such as illegal killings and the targeting of native Peuhl, an indigenous people mostly concentrated in northern Burkina Faso in geographically isolated, economically marginalized and dry areas. The government has also committed many human rights violations, including torture, unlawful executions of suspected criminals and Islamists and arbitrary detentions. Prison overcrowding is a severe problem in Burkina Faso, and most prisoners are not informed of or guaranteed their legal rights. Access to education has severely decreased in recent years due to insecurity. The Burkinabe government closed 10 percent of schools in May 2021, resulting in more than 300,000 children being out of school. The vicious attacks of Jamat Nusrat Al-Islam wal Muslimeen and Islamic State West Africa have not only caused hundreds of deaths and injuries. As a result, the poverty level has worsened, mass displacement continues, education levels deteriorate, human rights violations occur frequently, the law loses its meaning even to government officials, and the overall political future of Burkina Faso is unstable. The crisis is not just a terrorist one; it is humanitarian and deserves swift, effective and international action.

A labyrinthine net of characters emerges from the book’s pages; their vices, virtues and contradictions carry questions ranging from Epicureanism to existentialism, from normative political philosophy to Biblical hermeneutics. The distinction between main and secondary characters is often blurred in this framework. The only exception is Prince Myshkin, also known as “the Idiot.” < Back You Need To Read Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot” By Margherita Cordellini September 27, 2022 If ethics, political philosophy and hermeneutics entice you Only a limited selection of books boasts a resemblance to encyclopedias. Those authors who manage to find the hidden connections between fields that rarely go hand in hand offer original lenses through which readers can process and interpret reality. Several 19th-century Russian writers’ works belong to this group; among them, we can find Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot.” A labyrinthine net of characters emerges from the book’s pages; their vices, virtues and contradictions carry questions ranging from Epicureanism to existentialism, from normative political philosophy to Biblical hermeneutics. The distinction between main and secondary characters is often blurred in this framework. The only exception is Prince Myshkin, also known as “the Idiot.” The Prince: a man who does not belong to mankind It is hard to describe the character of Prince Myshkin without utilizing the words employed by Dostoevsky in a letter written on May 27, 1869, in which he referred to him as a “positively beautiful person.” He fully embodies the principles of compassion, altruism, empathy and honesty. After years of illness-induced exile in the idyllic Swiss alpine landscape, the Prince returns to his motherland, Russia. From the second the Prince set foot in Saint Petersburg, he unwittingly disrupts the ordinary unfolding of events, surrounding himself with disarray and grief like a plague-spreader. By guiding the reader through the extremely diverse vicissitudes, Dostoevsky convinces us that this is the only possible result that could arise from the collision between an inhumanly good person and a 19th-century society characterized by a hypocritical social hierarchy and merciless taboos. By gathering intra- and extra-text clues, philosopher Michel Terestchenko, suggests that prince Myshkin is the allegory of Christ. The Prince’s story thus shows the disastrous consequences that would occur, according to Dostoevsky, if Christ should restumble upon Earth. Terestchenko’s pessimistic statement can be analyzed through different hermeneutical levels. Firstly, from a teleological perspective, one could argue that the writer aimed to depict how human flaws are necessary for coexistence in society; that the paradoxical presence of only one human being freed by such flaws would degenerate into collective madness. However, other elements in the novel also hint at an irreverent social critique. Lebedev or modernity understood by a depraved theologian: Dostoevsky mainly confers the role of critic of modernity to the most unsuitable character: Lebedev — a drunkard who embodies the discrepancy between intellectual depth and virtue. Lebedev denounces the social consequences of the still young capitalist system by giving a modern interpretation of John’s Apocalypse, which predicts the extinction of the “sources of life.” He provocatively affirms that railways are what will bring life on Earth to its end. In the beginning, this unreasonable sentence seems to fit with the other aspects of his nonsensical personality. However, in later pages, the symbolic meaning of his thought is unpacked --- railways indicate industrial development that amplify hecticness and noise in society. With the development of transportation, human beings are constantly dissatisfied with the place in which they find themselves at any given moment. The gasping search for happiness distances people from the “only true happiness,” which would be spiritual peace and consciousness. As in Tolstoj’s “Anna Karenina,” the Epicurean understanding of happiness as the product of a complete withdrawal from society reemerges, but this time it is entrenched in the modern infiltration of capitalism (the base) that penetrates collective and individual values and habits (the superstructure). These are the capitalistic ruins that would hypothetically kill Christ upon his resurrection: schizophrenic modernity filled with spiritual taboos and greedy egoism. Forty-four years after Lebedev was written into “The Idiot,” Charles Peguy also denounced the subordination of all “spiritual powers” to a single material one: money. However, Dostoevsky crafts the eccentric drunkard’s personality to offer a metacritique that warns us to be skeptical of modernity’s enemies. In fact, despite having identified modernity’s flaws, Lebedev falls into them more than anybody else, freeing himself, thanks to self-deception, of any moral compass. The conclusion seems to be, once again, of a pessimistic nature, suggesting that immunity to the economy’s moral backlashes does not exist and that, instead, one can merely choose whether to adapt consciously or unconsciously to the status quo. Hippolyte and the cruelty of waiting “The Idiot” would sound outrageous to the ears of any past or present conservative. The first part of the book is soaked in a denunciation of the death penalty, which then lingers in later developments of the story. During Prince Myshkin’s first encounter with some members of the Russian bourgeoisie, he firmly condemns the death penalty by affirming that the executioner commits a more serious crime than the murderer. A person sentenced to death has, in fact, a double conviction: not only will she soon disappear, but she is also aware of that in advance. According to the Prince, physical pain cannot compare to the tremendous torment that the waiting and certainty of death entails. One can find this same reasoning in Franz Kafka’s novel “The Trial,” where Joseph K. is suspected of an unknown crime and awaits a trial that never takes place. Eventually he dies after having been deprived of his life for what seemed to be an eternity. In Dostoevsky’s book, the inhumane burden of the wait is embodied by Hippolyte, an 18-year-old boy in the final stage of tuberculosis. He attempts to escape his sentence by accelerating it with a gun, but he fails because of inattention or survival instinct. His desperation is not met by compassion but by disdain and mockery, which highlight the intolerant posture that Russian 19th-century society had towards public manifestations of grief. This is, however, not necessarily relegated to the context in which Dostoevsky was writing. As Elnathan John wrote in “The Africa Report” last March, the intersection of death and sorrow has little public space in the West today, silenced by the numerous taboos surrounding it. The only person who comprehends the complexity of Hyppolite’s sorrow is, of course, the Prince. The latter, by virtue of his inadequate and radical thoughts (concerning capital punishment, for example), manages to reach realms of empathy unimaginable and unwanted to the other characters. In this case, the idiot is bound to suffer inaction: even a man freed from mankind is powerless in front of an inhumane conviction imposed on a human life

If restored to its original role as a subaltern tool of social action, the threads of the hatta will once again weave together the working classes on both banks of the Jordan River in their struggle for liberation. The national meanings now attached to the hatta’s colors are constructs designed to essentialize and divide—a red herring distracting from the real story of our grandparents’ hattas. < Back Weaving Both Banks of the River Together: The Keffiyeh and the Construction of National Identity in Jordan and Palestine Joud Mustafa February 28, 2025 Last summer, not far from Menton, in the neighboring city of Cannes, American-born Palestinian-Dutch model Bella Hadid attended the Cannes Film Festival . She wore a dress adorned with an infamous red-and-white checkered pattern, designed as a recreation of the Palestinian keffiyeh by Michael Sears and Hushidar Mortezai , the designers behind the 2000s label Michael & Hushi. Her buzz-worthy attire was promptly met with the usual outrage that Palestinian cultural expression faces in the West. Yet, unbeknownst to many, the backlash was twofold—not only from Western outlets but also from Arab-Jordanian ones, albeit for entirely different reasons. On Jordanian social media, the dress became the punchline for playful yet pointed jokes: " Bella Hadid wears El-Shemagh Al-Urduni Al-Mohadab " (Bella Hadid wears the refined Jordanian shemagh). Though made in jest, these remarks stemmed from a deeper cultural tension—the widespread perception that the red-and-white shemagh (the Jordanian term for keffiyeh) is distinctly Jordanian, while the black-and-white one is Palestinian. To the untrained eye or the non-Arab reader, these differences may seem trivial, even silly. Yet, within the Jordanian context, they have shaped the very fabric of national identity construction. In many ways, Palestinians—who, according to national statistics, make up two-thirds of Jordan's population—became the "other" to the Jordanian national identity. This "othering" occurred because, as Edward Said notes , "the development and maintenance of every culture... involves the construction of opposites and 'others,' whose actuality is always subject to the continuous interpretation and reinterpretation of their differences from 'us.'" The Palestinians, in a sense, were low-hanging fruit—an identity to be reinterpreted in ways that emphasized the differences that define what it means to be Jordanian. Interestingly, during the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank in the 1950s, Palestinians were granted Jordanian citizenship. This policy can be interpreted as an attempt at diluting Palestinian identity by merging it with the Jordanian one. However, simultaneously, as previously mentioned, there were also attempts to depict Palestinian identity as distinct as to highlight the crevices defining Jordanian identity, especially in the 1970s following the events of Black September —an inherently contradictory approach. And yet, anyone who has ever attended the Jordanian derby between the Amman-based club Al-Faisaly FC and the Al Wehdat FC, a Palestinian refugee camp in Amman, knows that this approach—no matter how fraught with contradictions—yields outstanding results. It yielded results of othering that are echoed in the chauvinistic chants of fans , seeking to declare and assert to the opposing crowd who is in fact Jordanian. Results so astonishing that a subtle difference in headdress seems to have mustered a rhetoric of prejudice almost as natural as the passage of time itself, not unlike the animosity borne out of the conflict between age-old sworn enemies. For my generation, these classifications are all we have ever known. Yet, like all national identity construction processes, they are not age-old; they are recent, and, one must emphasize again, imagined . The untold truth is that these distinctions are only as old as the colonial Westphalian order—that is, not old at all. You see, the keffiyeh or shemagh is simply a patterned variant of what is known as the hatta —a plain white headdress worn by the peasantry ( fallah ) or proletariat in the southern Levant long before the Sykes-Picot borders existed. It was, in many ways, a class symbol. While the bourgeois elite wore the Ottoman fez or tarboush , the lower-class fallah wore the hatta. Following a series of peasant -led Arab revolts against British and Zionist colonialism in Mandatory Palestine during the 1920s and 1930s, the fallah ’s hatta was popularized as a tool for grassroots anti-colonial, anti-bourgeois resistance. However, this bottom-up aspect of the movement ended shortly after the hatta was institutionalized by the PLO—not as a tool for fallah -led social action, but rather as a national cultural emblem in the decades that followed. The irony of its anti-bourgeois origins—whether against the Nashashibis in the 1920s and 1930s, the PLO itself in the 1960s and 1970s, or even Bella Hadid today—was largely forgotten in this effort to collectivize indigenous memory. The colored variants of the checkered pattern, however, emerged when Glubb Pasha , the British commander of the Jordanian Army in the 1950s, sought to distinguish his East Bank (Jordanian) soldiers from West Bank (Palestinian) soldiers by assigning them red-and-white and black-and-white checkered keffiyehs, respectively. Glubb’s colonial strategy—an archetype of racialized subjectivity —stripped his colonial subjects of their humanity, reducing them to a color-coded system of control. While the Jordanian nation-building process used the shemagh to assert postcolonial national identity by—ironically—reinforcing a colonial policy at the expense of both the Levantine fallah and Palestinians, the Palestinian national identity project sought to cultivate a memory for an anti-colonial struggle—yet it did so by erasing the fallah ’s agency in that very struggle, cutting it at the knees. Lost in the chauvinistic Jordanian football chants is the memory of our peasant grandparents, whose cultivation of the Levant’s land once transcended Sykes-Picot borders, who led the fight for a homeland untainted by colonial divisions. Lost is the memory of Kayed Mfleh Obaidat —the first martyr for the Palestinian cause—a Transjordanian peasant from the Jordanian town of Irbid who led the Tal al-Thaaleb revolt , the first armed confrontation with settlers on Palestinian land in 1920. Palestinians and their struggle should not be cast as the “other” to Jordanian “stability.” After all, the very symbol we now associate with stability—our mighty red shemagh—was once a banner of class conflict, just as the Palestinian keffiyeh was. Both came from a marker of a lower status that later spearheaded the most successful anti-colonial resistance in the region to date. They were then co-opted by elites, stripping the working class of its agency and reducing its role to a hollow cultural one. Worse still, this co-option was cemented by a colonial officer who weaponized the distinction between the two headdresses to sever working-class Jordanians from a cause once inseparable from their own—a struggle once fought in unison with the Palestinian working class in joint defense of the very same land that fed them both. My grandmother, from the northern Jordanian village of Beit Ras—a village in the Houran Valley stretching from southern Syria to northern Jordan—did not wear a designer Michael & Hushi dress. She wore a red-and-white patterned shemagh her entire life. Her very own sister wore a black-and-white one. My grandfather, older than both, wore a simple white fallahi hatta . I find it difficult to see what truly differentiates them from a fallah in Tiberias—artificial borders and hatta color palettes be damned. But I can easily see who benefits from the internalization of this division. Make no mistake, I did not endeavor to write this article to deny the existence of inter-Levantine cultural differences. Rather, I aimed to show that these differences, in their original sense, did not conform to Sykes-Picot lines, Glubb’s orders or elite co-option. They followed no imposed boundaries but rather the organic ways of the people themselves in their struggle for self-determination. Any attempt to manipulate these distinctions into reinforcing Westphalian borders and upholding the socioeconomic stratification that preserves the colonial political order should not—and will not—prevail in the face of the Southern Levant’s fight for a dignified existence in its homeland. If restored to its original role as a subaltern tool of social action, the threads of the hatta will once again weave together the working classes on both banks of the Jordan River in their struggle for liberation. The national meanings now attached to the hatta ’s colors are constructs designed to essentialize and divide—a red herring distracting from the real story of our grandparents’ hattas . That is the story of a simple piece of cloth they donned atop their heads, which—in all its colors, patterns, and glory, once carried the means to invert class power and strike fear into the hearts of colonialists and their collaborators. It is this legacy of cross-Palestinian-Jordanian working class anti-colonial upheaval—not that of imposed national divisions and hollow cultural signifiers—that must be celebrated, reclaimed and re-enacted, whether in football stadiums or film festivals. Photo credits: Bethany Ann Khan on Flickr

Aujourd’hui omniprésente dans nos vies, l’information s’est profondément transformée. Ses canaux aussi. Dès lors, contrôler sa qualité devient un enjeu crucial pour éclairer notre opinion. < Back Pourquoi Trouver une Information Fiable est Devenu si Compliqué Emilie Pezet Aujourd’hui omniprésente dans nos vies, l’information s’est profondément transformée. Ses canaux aussi. Dès lors, contrôler sa qualité devient un enjeu crucial pour éclairer notre opinion. L’information est au centre de la démocratie. Et les médias en sont les relais : ils alimentent le débat public, contribuent à l’analyse des événements, des prises de parole et aident les citoyens à se faire leur opinion. Avec l’arrivée du numérique, les sources d’information se sont multipliées. Sommes-nous, pour autant, mieux informés ? À la radio, à la télévision, sur nos téléphones ou dans les journaux, l’information est partout. Pourtant obtenir une information de qualité nous demande un effort et un engagement particulier. L’infobésité : trop d’informations tue l’information S’informer est crucial pour comprendre le monde qui nous entoure mais aujourd’hui nous sommes submergés par l’afflux continu d'informations, relayées par différentes sources. Devant cette avalanche de ‘news,’ les individus ne savent plus quelles informations sont fiables, ni comment les vérifier, et cela peut fragiliser le débat public. Une majorité du public affirme d’ailleurs que distinguer le vrai du faux en ligne devient de plus en plus difficile. Sans possibilité d’accéder facilement et gratuitement à des informations de qualité, construire une opinion s’avère compliqué. Un des éléments marquants de cette sur-information est l’influence croissante du numérique : concrètement, on s’informe de plus en plus via des plateformes et formats en ligne. En 2022, une enquête statistique nous apprend que l’attention des Français est accaparée par les chaînes de télévision et les réseaux sociaux. Or les algorithmes utilisés sur ces plateformes privilégient ce qui ressemble à ce que l’on a déjà vu, aimé ou partagé : on reçoit alors les mêmes types de messages, la contradiction se raréfie. Ce mécanisme de chambre d’écho peut nuire à la construction d’une opinion éclairée, d’autant que les réseaux sociaux, devenus des relais centraux de l’information, en sont l’un des principaux foyers. Les réseaux sociaux : une information accessible mais un moteur de désinformation Les réseaux sociaux donnent un accès immédiat à l’information, grâce aux notifications et aux formats courts. En contrepartie, les plateformes se chargent de la sélection du contenu : ses algorithmes décident ce qui apparaît dans le fil et dans quel ordre, à partir de notre historique et de nos interactions. Dans ce contexte, les médias traditionnels, comme Le Monde ou Courrier International, se sont finalement lancés sur les réseaux sociaux en publiant des extraits voire l'intégralité d’articles. Malgré cela, le contenu d’ ‘influenceurs’ spécialisés dans les informations occupent une place majeure dans ce que les utilisateurs voient au quotidien. En France, Hugo Travers s’impose sous le pseudonyme d’Hugo Décrypte depuis 2015. Il publie des synthèses de l’actualité et des reportages sous forme de vidéos, de podcasts et de carrousels sur une pluralité de plateformes. Bien que ces créateurs s’appuient souvent sur des sources journalistiques, ils imposent un cadrage éditorial puissant, d’autant que l’algorithme amplifie certains contenus. Cet accès accéléré à l’information a un prix : la vérification est en partie externalisée à des créateurs et à des plateformes peu transparentes. La faible vigilance des utilisateurs et le peu d’incitations à vérifier posent de nouveaux défis pour préserver un regard critique. D’autant que des acteurs organisés ont saisi le levier qu’offrent ces outils pour influencer l’opinion par la désinformation. La désinformation qui « vise principalement à tromper et est diffusée dans le but de causer un préjudice grave. » On peut citer l’opération « Doppelgänger », mise au jour par EU DisinfoLab , qui a cloné l’identité de médias européens pour publier de faux articles sur les réseaux sociaux dans l’objectif de discréditer l’Ukraine. Encore une fois, l’utilisateur doit passer du temps à s’assurer que les informations qu’on lui fournit sont vérifiées et à lutter contre son algorithme qui pousse ce type de contenu. Une nouvelle donne : les chaînes d’information en continu Aux côtés des réseaux sociaux, les chaînes d’info en continu alimentent la surabondance. Elles ont transformé la présentation des actualités. Depuis quelques années on remarque une priorisation des faits divers dans les informations. Une place spéciale leur est accordée, un simple fait divers peut donner lieu à des débats, des témoignages ou des invitations des victimes sur les plateaux, ce qui permet aux chaînes de remplir leur temps d'antenne. Ces chaînes produisent une information parfois de qualité inégale, avec une place croissante du commentaire au détriment de l’expertise, rendant possibles et même fréquentes les erreurs en plateau. Mais la télévision n’est pas hors-jeu : ses contenus sont encadrés par l’Arcom, qui peut prononcer des mises en demeure ou des amendes. En 2024, CNews a ainsi été sanctionnée après la diffusion d’informations inexactes. Il s’agissait d’une séquence sur la mise en place d’une salle de prière lors d’un voyage scolaire. Même des chaînes d’information peuvent donc contribuer à la désinformation, les individus doivent vérifier toutes les informations ce qui demande du temps et de l’attention. Ils doivent prendre conscience également de l’ancrage idéologique de certaines chaînes ou certains médias dans le traitement des infos. La concentration des médias L’influence idéologique des médias se fait d’autant plus ressentir qu’on assiste à leur concentration dans les mains de quelques grands groupes et grandes fortunes. Ainsi, en France, 80% de la presse quotidienne généraliste est détenue par onze milliardaires . Parmi ces milliardaires, on retrouve Vincent Bolloré, Xavier Niel et la famille Dassault. Cette situation inquiète : dans un court essai paru en 2025, Sauver l’information de l’emprise des milliardaires , Olivier Legrain (avec Vincent Edin) souligne le pouvoir accru que confère cette concentration. Par exemple, Vincent Bolloré a insufflé une ligne éditoriale à droite toute à plusieurs médias qu’il possède : CNews, Europe 1, Le JDD . S’agissant de Vincent Bolloré, des rachats ont parfois été suivis de départs et de tensions dans les rédactions. C’est pourquoi, face à la rumeur de rachat du Parisien par Vincent Bolloré, les journalistes ont appelé au rassemblement pour contester et demander à Bernard Arnault, actuel propriétaire, de ne pas céder. Le rachat de ces médias ne constitue pas une source de revenu directe pour les milliardaires, mais peut leur permettre de peser sur les débats publics avec une surexposition de certains politiques, voire même la publication de leurs ouvrages lorsque ces milliardaires possèdent aussi des maisons d'édition. L’information est au centre de la démocratie et permet à chacun d’avoir tous les éléments en main pour se forger une opinion. Or, aujourd’hui l’information de qualité est en péril avec de trop nombreux émetteurs, canaux, de sources traversées par des intérêts et d’une complexité à vérifier et à extraire de tout cadrage idéologique. L’information de qualité a un prix. L’indépendance aussi. À nous de décider si on les paie, en attention, en temps, en quelques euros, pour ne pas les laisser filer. Photo Source: Brett Taylor, Flickr

< Back Left Behind: UK Youth Moving Towards the Right Rebecca Canton September 30, 2024 We assume young people generally vote left and for green initiatives. They care for climate change, sexual liberation and free healthcare. Any young person who votes for the right is an anomaly, right? While historically such stereotypes may have held truth, the right wing throughout Europe is seeing unprecedented gains, especially from a younger demographic. In the 2023 general election in the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom, a nationalist right-wing party led by populist Geert Wilders, won 35 seats, a landslide victory. Likewise, in Germany the anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany, won almost a third of the vote in the eastern German state of Thuringia. This political success of right-wing and far-right movements is not limited to these two countries; Italy, Finland, Hungary, to name a few, have “hard-right” governments. What is unusual for European governments is the age of the voters that support them. For example, Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing populist party, Brothers of Italy, was the most popular party among under-35s. The future generation seems to be turning their backs on their traditional parties, changing the political landscape of Europe. The United Kingdom is technically an exception to Europe’s swing towards the right. The social democratic Labour party, led by Sir Keir Starmer, defeated the Conservative party—the Tories—in the 2024 general election for the first time since 2005. This victory for the left was supported by young people, with a YouGov poll postulating that 41% of 18 to 24 year olds voted Labour. However, despite these statistics, it does not mean the United Kingdom is moving opposite to the rest of Europe. Starmer has been accused of ‘purging’ the Labour party, by prioritizing Tory votes with fiscally conservative policies. Further, another YouGov poll found that 48% of Labour voters backed Labour simply in opposition to the Conservative party. This negative cohesion perhaps does not represent true sentiments and political leanings of citizens; it also does not mean the U.K. is immune to the wave of right-wing mania sweeping Europe. On July 29, 2024, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance workshop in Southport, Merseyside, U.K., three children were fatally stabbed . Ten others were injured by 17-year-old British citizen Axel Rudakubana. Initially, no information about the attacker was released by police, and the platform “X” and other social media immediately labeled the attacker as Ali Al-Shakati, a Muslim immigrant, regardless of the fact that Rudakubana was born in Cardiff and had no established connections to Islam. On July 30, 2024, far-right protesters clashed with police in Southport, damaging a Mosque, especially due to the misinformation spread on social media platforms. In the following week, multiple towns and cities in England and Northern Ireland were swept up in riots and disorder, including arson, looting and racist attacks, in what was the largest occasion of social unrest in England since 2011. The disturbance marks a disturbing escalation in the far-right sentiment in the U.K., highlighting deep-rooted issues within the country concerning immigration and political polarization. What is particularly concerning is not just the number of rioters— 1,280 individual arrests— but also the age of those involved. Stageringly, 72 of arrests made were against those under 18, with children as young as 12 having pleaded guilty to violent disorder in relation to the riots. The far-right is not a new political movement to the U.K. with one of the first examples of facism, the British Fascisti, founded in 1923. he modern rise of extremism has links to right-wing media, with a number of riots organized through Telegram , specifically a channel called “Southport Wake Up.” The Southport riots in July and August, combined with the general increase in youth extremism, have been heavily centered around online radicalization, which has been exacerbated by the rhetoric of public media figures. One notable figure is Nigel Farage, a recently elected member of parliament and the leader of the right-wing populist Reform UK party, the third largest party by popular vote . Farage uses platforms accessible to young people e.g., TikTok—where he has almost 1 million followers—to spread his beliefs more effectively. Creators like Farage produce content of genuine social grievances, mixed with right wing conspiracy theories that resonate with many young people disillusioned by current governments. For example, he likened the landing of child migrants in Kent to an ‘invasion’ , thus creating an “us vs them” mentality, a mindset adopted by the right-wing who tend to blame economic and social problems on migration. Farage is not alone in the group of far-right influencers; figures like Paul Joseph Watson, a right-wing YouTuber with 2 million subscribers, use casual language and memes within their videos, which is specifically catered towards younger audiences through ‘Gen-Z’ references, thus amassing a younger following. Whether the media itself is to blame for violence is difficult to determine. What is not irrational is the fact that social media has provided a bridge between the far-right and youth, a bond that is unlikely to be broken anytime soon. Despite the influence of far-right figures, would the media and influencers be able to convince young people to vote right if they weren’t already disenchanted by their government? The U.K. currently faces some severe challenges to the nation’s stability. Although the U.K. came out of recession in 2021, the prevailing cost-of-living crisis affects a vast majority of the population. People cannot heat their homes, feed their families, or pay off their mortgages. Young people simply cannot afford to join the housing market. A lot of young voters do not agree with the core ideologies of the right or the far-right, but their general consensus is the same: they have been largely disregarded by the governments that preceded them. While a vast majority of voters have turned left and towards Labour, the right has placed blame on easy targets for everyday problems. Immigration has been a controversial issue in the country since the Windrush generation where Caribbean people migrated following World War II, after the British government encouraged immigration from Commonwealth countries due to losses suffered in the war. Immigrants themselves have been blamed by multiple public figures, including Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary in 2022. Condemning the concept of “others” divides the country, promoting hate and violence. The issue, as with most sensitive topics, is that it is a slippery slope and the pipeline from being disappointed with the government to right-wing radicalism is real and dangerous. It is now up to the new Labour government, a government not associated with the previous government’s failings, to close the gap between those on opposing ends of the political spectrum for both social cohesion and peace. The question remains as to how , with an answer emerging unlikely. Young people are more susceptible to online conspiracies, and until migration is not blamed for social problems, tensions are likely to continue. How can the government appease and convince the left that they stand for values of inclusion and harmony while not allowing the country to fall to right-wing violence? Is there really an answer to this pressing question?

< Back Trump and Republicans Win 2024 U.S. Elections Pracheth Sanka November 30, 2024 He’s done it. Donald Trump has won the 2024 Presidential Election, ascending, once again, to the coveted office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. He has achieved a feat not seen in over one hundred years, joining Grover Cleveland as the only two presidents to serve non-consecutive terms. He also became the first Republican presidential candidate to gain a majority of the voter share since George W. Bush in 2004, breaking a four-election-long streak of Democratic dominance in the popular vote. His shocking success arrived following several Election Eve predictions for a Vice President Kamala Harris victory. While many outlets stated the race was “too close to call,” notable pollsters and forecasters painted more optimistic pictures of Harris’ hopes. Ann Selzer’s reputedly reliable Iowa poll indicated a silent majority of democrat support in both conservative and swing states, and Allan Lichtman’s “Keys to the White House” predicted an incumbent party win this electoral cycle. Both The Economist and opinion poll aggregator FiveThirtyEight gave Harris a lead in simulated estimations, albeit with extremely tight results. Despite these grim projections for Trump, he had an outrageously strong showing, winning all seven battleground states en route to gaining 312 electoral college votes and more than 75 million votes. The White House was not the only favorable outcome for Republicans, as they gained control of the Senate, retained their narrow majority in the House of Representatives and maintained their majority of Governors nationwide, winning seven out of the ten gubernatorial contests. They won high-profile Senate races, namely in Texas, where the infamous incumbent Senator Ted Cruz won decisively against the underdog U.S. representative Colin Allred. In Montana, political newcomer Tim Sheehy prevailed against the long-time incumbent, the moderate Jon Tester. Both of these races were described as tight and dead heats in the lead-up to November 5th. Still, decisive Republican victories indicate the prevalent and enduring conservative ideals among the progressive facades. President-elect Trump will now benefit from a perfect Republican trifecta, which entails a conservative control of all three branches of government. In the first two years of his initial term, he was gifted Republican command of the Senate and House of Representatives but battled against a divided Supreme Court. But now, with a 6-3 right-wing majority, Trump has the legal and political framework to enact his Agenda 47, or perhaps the more controversial Project 2025. He’s also been busy building a czar-studded and loyalist cabinet to reign in the executive branch. There have been some notable picks among the bunch, such as Florida Senator and foreign policy hardliner Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem as head of the Department of Homeland Security. Incoming Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, a subtle and often off-stage figure, will head Trump’s advisory team. Rising the ranks as an election strategist, “The Ice Maiden,” as Trump has affectionately anointed her, has become a close right-hand woman on the campaign trail, a quiet character who brings order and competence to an otherwise chaotic campaign trail. Further, Trump is not scared to appoint those new to government. His expected appointee for the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth , is a Fox News correspondent who has never worked in the Department of Defense and whose closest experience is being an Army Veteran. To streamline and economize government operations, Trump has picked two leading campaign partners to head the new Department of Government Efficiency: Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. For Musk, the CEO of X and the world’s wealthiest person, this would be the first public position he’s held, and his contracts with the Federal government have raised alarms of a possible conflict of interest. Likewise, Ramaswamy’s closest call to office came with his 2024 Presidential campaign, a role he was ready to take on after being a career biotech entrepreneur and near billionaire. These appointees highlight Trump’s vision for a devoted and dependable executive branch. His cabinet and advisory committee will be composed of people who won’t tell him no, an essential element in achieving his goals in the next four years. This means the “ Dictator on Day One ” can quickly enact some of his most crucial policy proposals. Expect to see hefty tariffs levied —especially against Chinese imports—and a push toward a more protectionist approach to trade. Despite fears of large migrant detention centers and promises of a mass deportation mission, Trump will much more realistically use executive action to halt catch-and-release policy and restore his 2019 “Remain in Mexico” practice to reign in the crisis in the United States’ southern border. Also, look for Trump to use his executive power to majorly cut down the size of the federal bureaucracy, adding party adherents to the administrative state, and to pardon many of those convicted for their actions of storming the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, another show of affection to his loyalists and fanatics in his quest for a fully conservative government. Though he needs congressional support for certain legislative measures, Americans should predict a continuation and expansion of his 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and more than likely see a steep decline in aid to Ukraine and an increase to Israel, which comes along with promises to end both conflicts as soon as possible. With the control of the Senate and House, expect a slew of conservative bills to be passed. Republicans have two years before the 2026 midterm elections to enact a hardline, right-wing agenda before their bicameral majority becomes jeopardized. Though the future looks bleak for many Democrat and left-leaning voters, this election cycle offered some spots of hope. In Arizona, far-right MAGA devotee Kari Lake was defeated by Ruben Gallego, adding to a set of liberal policy-makers and executives who hold statewide office. Despite Trump carrying the state by 3 points, North Carolina saw Democrat wins in its high executive offices. Established Democrats Josh Stein, Rachel Hunt, and Jeff Jackson became the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General respectively, sweeping the top three elected offices in the state. In the State House of Representatives, Democratic wins can help break the years-long Republican supermajority, allowing Stein to effectively use his veto power to curb conservative policy. Out of the ten states that left abortion measures to public referenda, seven codified or strengthened protections in their state’s constitution. Only Florida, which failed to reach the sixty percent threshold needed, and hyper-conservative Nebraska and South Dakota were unsuccessful in the effort to enshrine and protect abortion rights. Though eclipsed by the result of the Presidential election, these small victories provide optimistic outlooks for Midterm elections and individual state policy for the near future. But in the end, Trump won. Republicans won. Handily, America’s left-wing lost, and for at least two years, conservatives will have a straightforward path to achieving their ideals. This will undoubtedly manifest itself in a Reagan-esque, populist call back to a time of American “greatness,” with streaks of protectionism and nationalism, a full fall into Trumpism by the Republican right. While it is possible to gauge some of the precise ways this will come about, with near-guarantees of tax cuts and Trump loyalist appointees, the future does seem fairly uncertain, especially with some small Democratic shifts occurring across the country. What is certain, though, is that come January 20th, President-elect Donald Trump will take office, ushering in a new era of his dominance in American politics.

Seeing the different branches of the Balkan tree blossom leads to the conundrum of what fruits they may bear at the end of spring. The last couple of months have shown that young people are now fed up with government negligence, illiberal practices and economic uncertainty. The ever-present young spirit of the protests, coinciding with the literal progress of the season of change and blossom, Spring, allows us to talk of a Balkan Spring. Mass injustices or tragedies act as catalysts for social unrest. < Back Pumping and Jumping Through the Balkan Spring Stanimir Stoyanov April 29, 2025 You are waiting at a train station, and all of a sudden, your life flashes before your eyes. You see the canopy of the recently renovated station suddenly collapse. Chaos erupts and people start panicking. Fourteen people lose their lives at the scene. This is the final straw. You stop going to university, you devote your entirety to bringing justice to your country. Others join you, hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands. Your country is in an unprecedented crisis. But you are not alone, neighboring countries are seeing a similar fate. A fate that might lead to the phenomenon of the Balkan Spring. Pumping Begins In November 2024, Serbia saw a wave of student-led protests around the country. Appalled by the tragic event, they blamed government negligence and corruption as its fundamental causes. University students around the country announced a boycott of their studies, demanding accountability and transparency. The slogan “Pumpaj,” literally meaning “to pump,” became a symbol of the protests. Originating as a pop-cultural reference from a famous song, the word has now gained a deep social meaning of putting pressure on the state and calling for progress. Five months later, popular unrest persists . Despite the government’s resignation, the movement continues to gather strength. In the months after the collapse, two other people passed away from sustained injuries. March 15 saw an estimated 300,000 people gather in Belgrade for the largest demonstration since the beginning of the unrest. Reports started circulating of the Serbian police using a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), colloquially called “sound cannon,” to disperse the crowd. The Serbian government initially denied possessing such a system, but in the days following, they admitted to owning it, but stated it was kept far from the protests. Images circulated , alleging that such a device was parked near the National Assembly in Belgrade at the time of the protests. Serbian authorities denied its use, with President Aleskander Vučić stating that he will resign if it is proven that sound cannons were used. Balkan Spring in Blossom Countries in the Balkan region have a lot of cultural and political similarities, which makes it a fertile ground for the spread of social movements, due to related languages, media influence and common grievances. The Balkans have faced enduring political tensions and repeated crises in recent years. On March 16, 2025, a tragedy occurred at a nightclub in the North Macedonian town of Kočani, where the roof collapsed, killing 61 people and leaving 153 injured. The nightclub did not have a license and was operating outside the law, which sparked public outrage, with protests all over the country starting as both a form of remembrance and in opposition to rampant corrupt practices and lawlessness. In Bulgaria, ever since March 12, weekly protests against corruption and injustice have filled the streets of Sofia. Crowds, made up predominantly of young people, have been gathering in front of government offices every week, voicing their dissatisfaction against the current coalition, which has been covered in scandals surrounding its ties with alleged corruption. On March 31, a 12-year-old girl passed away in a traffic accident on a road in a dangerous physical state. Reports about the dangerous road had been made to the agency for road infrastructure, but no action had been taken prior to the accident. As of April 13, mass protests have been happening throughout the country, asking for the resignation of the director of the road agency and for a country-wide wake-up call in regards to government neglect. In Croatia, a nationwide boycott against rising food prices has been going on since Jan. 24. In response to heightening inflation, Croatians began organizing boycotts of food retailers, which have now spread to banks and other market sectors. The government has introduced anti-inflation measures such as price caps in order to tackle public dissatisfaction. Following the boycott, reports have suggested a fall of almost 50 percent in the number of issued sales invoices. Drawing inspiration from Croatia, other Balkan countries followed in organizing calls for national boycotts. March 2025 also saw demonstrations being a common occurrence in Greece, with tensions now at a height, due to a 24-hour national strike that happened on April 9, 2025. The strike was organized due to wage dissatisfaction and cost-of-living increases. Coinciding with the strike, protests erupted on the streets of Athens, with young people also filling the crowds. North of the Danube, tensions have been high in Romania, surrounding the recent election drama. The candidacy barring of Călin Georgescu led to widespread protests across the country, with citizens expressing support for the right-wing candidate and showing concerns over electoral integrity and democratic processes. Turkey, although contentedly classified as “Balkan”, has also become a witness to large anti-government demonstrations, beginning on March 19, 2025, following the detention and arrest of Istanbul mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu. The protests, happening in the context of an economic downturn and wider concerns of democratic backsliding in the country, are characterised by brutal clashes between demonstrators and police. More on this topic can be found in the article on the protests in this issue of The Menton Times. Why are we jumping? Protests are an integral part of any democratic state, so what exactly makes these recent demonstrations in the Balkans unique? Their underlying characteristic is their youth identity. We are bearing witness to the birth of a new form of protest culture. Street demonstrations are vibrant and rhythmic, driven by a youthful, unifying call for freedom and justice that transcends politics. Social media culture has played a crucial role in the process, with protests being shaped primarily through social media channels, with endless public outreach. An unusual characteristic of the protests, seen throughout the different case studies, is the phenomenon of jumping. The jumping is accompanied by slogans that say something in the lines of “who is not jumping is with them.” The slogan has long been used in political demonstrations in Slavic crowds, originating from sports chanting in the Czech Republic. The phrase “Kdo neskáče, není Čech,” translated as “who isn't jumping isn’t Czech," spread to other Slavic countries and later was appropriated for political protests. It’s a way to energize crowds and create a visible and physical act of solidarity. Recently, it has been used at protests in Serbia , Bulgaria , and even Turkey . The prevalence of the phenomenon is not unusual throughout various Balkan countries, seeing how the slogan sounds very similar in different Slavic languages. Its use in Turkey breaks the language barrier, showcasing the birth of a new universal language of protest surrounding the Balkans. Other innovative symbols of protest are also present, exemplifying the unique youthful character of the Balkan spring. In Turkey, for example, a character from Pokémon became a sign of protest after a protester wearing a hat with it got arrested. The mostly young crowds, filled with university students, have created their own protest subculture by making it hip to protest, especially through the use of various symbols. What fruits will Spring bear? Seeing the different branches of the Balkan tree blossom leads to the conundrum of what fruits they may bear at the end of spring. The last couple of months have shown that young people are now fed up with government negligence, illiberal practices and economic uncertainty. The ever-present young spirit of the protests, coinciding with the literal progress of the season of change and blossom, Spring, allows us to talk of a Balkan Spring. Mass injustices or tragedies act as catalysts for social unrest. I personally had the fortune to visit Serbia in March and bear witness to the unique atmosphere there. My visit was the week before the enormous demonstration of March 15, and during my time in Belgrade, there weren’t any mass events organised. What I saw was an atmosphere that was filled with youthful exuberance. Young people were walking on the streets, as if during a vacation period. The streets were filled with a sense of freedom, but at the same time, there was a pressing sense of tension in the air. Seeing and talking with people who have decided to interrupt their education for five consecutive months has now made me reflect on the strength of the human spirit. They are willing to jeopardize their future for the cause of standing up for their beliefs. Whether the wave of protests will bear any long-term political consequences remains in the air, quite like cherry blossoms blown by the wind. Governments have responded through various means, including appeasement, ignorance and even alleged violence. Yet, unrest continues to grip many of the aforementioned countries. With the fast-approaching end of spring, it remains to be seen if the Balkan Spring will go down in the history books as a small seasonal wave of unrest or as something to be studied in university courses for decades to come. Photo source: Dejan Krsmanovic on Flickr

< Back The New Tunisian Prime Minister: A Harbinger of Progress or a Veil for Democratic Deterioration? By Luca Utterwulghe November 30, 2021 Tunisian President Kais Saied, amidst his political venture involving parliamentary suspension and constitutional confusion (see our September Edition), appointed the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region’s first woman Prime Minister, Najla Bouden Romdhane. Prime Minister Romdhane, once a geology professor, previously served as the director-general of the Ministry of Education. Doubts have been raised concerning the constitutionality of President Saied’s temporary consolidation of power and decision to initiate a process for amending the 2014 Constitution, particularly as the Tunisian government has yet to establish its Constitutional Court. Article 120 of the 2014 Constitution stipulates that the Constitutional Court “is the sole body competent to oversee the constitutionality” of legislation severely. This severely limits the potential for any objective evaluation of Saied’s future legislative agenda upon the resumption of parliamentary procedure. Moreover, analysts have indicated that Saied is looking to expand executive power by “readapting the 1959 Constitution.” Concerns about the unconstitutionality of Saied’s actions, and a shift to a strongman form of government, have only grown as analysts question why Saied appointed Prime Minister Romdhane, an official with minimal government experience. A major question has surfaced in light of Saeid’s decree of temporary presidential authority over the Constitution and legislation: What is the extent of Prime Minister Romdhane’s actual power, and thus Saied’s true intentions in appointing Romdhane? NPR notes that Romdhane’s “appointment appears to be aimed at placating critics of Saied,” while others applaud Romdhane’s selection as a victory for Tunisian women. As these developments are quite new, it is difficult to gauge Tunisian public opinion on the question of Saied’s intentions, or on the appointment of Prime Minister Romdhane. I spoke with a Tunisian student on the Sciences Po Menton campus to better understand the youth sentiment regarding Romdhane’s recent appointment. Amira Zargouni, a first year French Track student, said she was “instantly relieved” when Kais Saied selected a new head of government, “before even thinking about who it would be.” Zargouni’s relief that Saied “did what he said he would do” signifies the fragility of the Tunisian political system at the moment, for it seems that the future of the nation lies in Saied’s hands. Furthermore, Zargouni indicated that she “knew Kais Saied wouldn’t choose [a PM] from Ennahdha [a moderate Islamist political party] nor from the PDL [Partie Destourien Libre].” Saied and his supporters staunchly oppose Ennahdha, and this tension will continue to play out as Saied finalizes his plans for a “new” government structure. The PDL, headed by Abir Moussi, is based on the principles of Dictator Ben Ali’s Rassemblement Constitutionnel Démocratique (RCD) party. Zargouni believes that Saied’s choice of a Prime Minister from either Ennahdha or the PDL would signal a “‘go back’ move” that she could not withstand. Thus, while Saied’s intentions are not exactly clear, he followed through on his initial promise of appointing a head of government, thereby settling some of the brewing insecurity among Tunisians who fear a threat to the country’s democratic institutions. Zargouni further explained how she “felt proud because of what [Prime Minister Romdhane] represents in terms of gender equality improvement;” however, Zargouni also expressed that “we [Tunisians] don’t know her, and we didn’t know Kais Saied when he was elected.” Both figures are quite mysterious, which, as Zargouni said, “can’t be good [as] democracy comes with transparency.” Notwithstanding this limitation, Zargouni remarked that “it’s reassuring to know that she’s [Romdhane] a ‘technocrate’ because… the country needs to be lead by an élite at first in order to get Tunisia back on her feet.” The way in which we digest and perceive Rhomadane’s appointment and Saied’s decisions seem to depend on the robustness of our optimism for Tunisia’s future. While some may view Romdhane’s appointment as a political strategy used by Saeid to assuage the fears of critics, others see it as victory for gender parity and a chance to recalibrate Tunisia’s political trajectory toward a well-functioning government.

After two political comebacks and an ongoing legal battle, this term presents Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s final opportunity to alter his legacy. < Back As Netanyahu Regains Power, the Far-Right Flourishes By Peyton Dashiell November 30, 2022 With nearly all votes counted from the Nov. 1, 2022, Israeli election, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to return to the role, continuing his reign as the longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history. As his Likud party and several right-wing coalition partners obtained a stable parliamentary majority, there may be an end in sight for Israel’s protracted political crisis, which has sparked five snap elections since 2019. Netanyahu, who formerly served as Prime Minister from 1996 to 1999 and 2009 to 2021, leads the center-right Likud party. His decades-long political career has overseen the Oslo Accords, both Intifadas, disengagement from Gaza and the Abraham Accords. Netanyahu’s position on Palestinian statehood has shifted many times. After opposing a Palestinian state early in his career, he reversed course in his 2009 Bar Ilan speech, supporting a two-state solution as long as the Palestinian government agreed to demilitarize. However, he condemned a two-state solution ahead of the 2015 Israeli elections, and many of his coalition partners support full Israeli annexation of the West Bank. Within Israel, Netanyahu advocates for free-market principles — he has eased Israeli foreign exchange controls, reduced the size of the public sector and passed anti-monopoly and anti-cartel laws to increase economic competition. Regionally, he has attempted to maintain a delicate power balance with Iran and Saudi Arabia, strongly condemning any Western nuclear deal with Iran as a threat to Israel’s security. And despite his alignment with religiously conservative parties, Netanyahu himself comes from a secular background and supports some progressive social issues like same-sex marriage. In 2019, Netanyahu was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, all of which he denies. The investigation into these charges is ongoing; a loophole in Israeli law requires officials under investigation for corruption to resign from all government offices except that of prime minister, allowing Netanyahu to take office despite his legal battles. His trial resumed on November 7 — the Jerusalem District Court will hear testimony regarding the Gifts Affairs, in which Netanyahu and his wife are accused of accepting $200,000 in gifts from billionaire Arnon Milchan in exchange for helping him obtain a U.S. visa and securing tax exemptions. Israel is a parliamentary democracy — the Israeli President, whose power is mostly ceremonial, nominates a member of the parliament (Knesset) to become Prime Minister, typically the leader of the largest party. The nominee is then tasked with creating a multi-party coalition with at least 61 out of 120 Knesset seats to retain power. This election was the fifth in four years due to a parliamentary crisis over Netanyahu’s leadership — the liberal wing of the Knesset has refused to create a coalition with Netanyahu, while Likud has insisted on keeping Netanyahu as party leader, resulting in an unstable coalition majority. In this election, Likud secured 32 Knesset seats, the largest share of any party. The Yesh Atid coalition, led by outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid, earned the second-largest share with 24 seats. Netanyahu has begun coalition talks with the Religious Zionism, Shas and United Torah Judaism parties, which won 14, 11 and seven seats, respectively. Overall, the coalition will hold 64 seats, safeguarding it against the fragility of past coalitions with smaller majorities. The far-right Religious Zionist party, led by Bezalel Smotrich, merged with Itamar Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party to gain 14 Knesset seats and join Netanyahu’s coalition. Ben Gvir is associated with the Kahanist movement and Kach party — both banned by Israel in 1994 due to incitement of terrorism and racism against Arabs and labeled as terrorist organizations by the United States, the European Union and Japan. Ben Gvir, who was disqualified from service in the Israeli Defense Forces due to his radical views, has faced dozens of hate speech charges and called for the expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel viewed as disloyal to the Israeli government. The domestic agendas of Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit espouse religious conservatism — both parties oppose same-sex marriage and call for increased federal funding for religious studies. Additionally, Religious Zionism has expressed aims to vest the Knesset with the power to override the Israeli High Court. Right-wing leaders have heavily criticized the High Court for rulings on settlement construction, detention of African asylum seekers and the ability of Reform and Conservative Jewish converts to gain Israeli citizenship. While Netanyahu distanced himself from Ben Gvir on the campaign trail, the leaders met in coalition talks in Tel Aviv on Nov. 7. Ben Gvir expressed his aim to become public security minister, a role that manages police oversight and training. The success of Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit came at the expense of the Israeli left. For the first time since its establishment in 1992, left-wing party Meretz failed to pass the electoral threshold and gain any Knesset representation. Meretz leader Zehava Galon denounced the Religious Zionist party and labeled the election results a “disaster for Meretz, a disaster for the country, and yes, a disaster for me personally.” Prime Minister Yair Lapid has garnered blame for blocking coalition efforts between Meretz and Yesh Atid, claiming that both parties would securely pass the threshold. English Track first-year Roey Ofer has supported Meretz in the past five elections due to their resistance to West Bank annexation and advocacy against human rights violations. Ofer rejects the narrative that Lapid is solely culpable for left-wing failures: “I believe the respective leaders of each party are to be blamed for not being willing to unite their lists as well as providing voters with a solid ideological alternative which is not merely a negation of their opponents.” Arab parties Ra’am and Hadash Ta’al increased their seats to five each, while the Balad party failed to cross the electoral threshold. The three parties, along with Mada, previously comprised The Joint List, a coalition of Arab-majority parties that served as the third largest faction in the Knesset. However, the coalition dissolved in September after several members from different parties left due to ideological disputes. Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up nearly one-fifth of the Israeli population, have much lower voter turnout rates than Jewish Israelis — only 55 percent cast votes this cycle. While second-year Sama Nabulsi attributes this low turnout to the Knesset’s disinterest in ameliorating Palestinian conditions, she doesn’t believe that past anti-Palestinian legislation or disillusionment from prior coalition shortcomings should discourage Palestinian citizens from voting: “ I think Palestinians with the ability to vote should vote for three main reasons. First, to push the power away from far-right and generally racist parties. Second, if they choose to vote for Arab parties, to be able to secure some control and representation in the parliament. And third, to be able to build strength in the Palestinian voice for future elections and parliaments, a higher voter turnout creates an efficient voting bloc that would help constitute what the future government may look like. I don’t know how far a Palestinian voice can go in the makeup of the Israeli parliament today, but I believe that the battle isn’t over yet. ” Reversing trends seen globally, the rightward shift in this election was primarily driven by young, first-time voters — supporters of right-wing, religious parties specifically skewed young, male and Orthodox. A pre-election survey from the Israel Democracy Institute found that 71 percent of Israelis under age 24 identify as right-wing, compared to 47 percent of those 35 and older. Once a political pariah, Itamar Ben Gvir enjoys support from the incoming prime minister, and Religious Zionism is now the third largest party in the Knesset. Regarding overall election consequences, an anonymous second-year said, “there are many concerns that arise from this election, from the incorporation of once extremist and radical views into the Israeli political mainstream to dangers to Israel’s democracy, especially within the judiciary.” They also noted increased division within Israeli politics: “the high number of Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox lawmakers and the ever-increasing rift between Israel and Diaspora Jews also offer little reason for hope.” Despite his cumulative 15 years in office, Netanyahu’s third term is unlikely to bring stagnancy to Israeli politics. Emboldened by his strong coalition majority, Netanyahu can pursue an ambitious agenda — he has highlighted normalization with Arab countries as a key priority, building upon the 2020 Abraham Accords he signed with former U.S. President Donald Trump. However, questions remain about the impact of his religious, right-wing coalition partners — will they significantly shape Israeli security and social issues, or will Netanyahu work to temper their aims and maintain the status quo? After two political comebacks and an ongoing legal battle, this term presents Netanyahu’s final opportunity to alter his legacy.

Considering the war between Israel and Hamas, we have often heard about antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Their definitions, and extent to which they overlap, are often subject to debate and ambiguity. < Back Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism: The Crucial Nuances We Are Losing Considering the war between Israel and Hamas, we have often heard about antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Their definitions, and extent to which they overlap, are often subject to debate and ambiguity. However, blurry distinctions and the inability to see the difference between the two only makes communication more difficult and divisive. In order to examine these differences, we can use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of Anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The definition of anti-Zionism is much less agreed upon, but it is largely seen as an opposition to the Zionist movement to create a Jewish state in the Middle East, roughly corresponding to the historical land of Israel, and this support for this modern state. The first clear point that comes out of these definitions is that within the definition of antisemitism, nothing indicates anti-Zionism as one of its forms. This is crucial because, in my view, this indicates that you can criticize the existence of the state of Israel without being antisemitic. However, the nuance needed here is the basis for this criticism. Indeed, if the reasoning for why Israel is not legitimate uses the argument of religion, it can become antisemitism. Moreover, a factor that is largely understated is the fact that word choice matters and certain phrases have become symbolic of surface Anti-Zionism turning into antisemitism. This notably includes referring to Israel and Israelis as “the Jews'' and “the Zionists.” This is an important point to make as it is not necessarily intuitive in regards to the term “Zionist.” The reason for this is not that the term is in and of itself problematic but rather that it has often been used interchangeably with the term “Jew,” which has lost much of its original meaning. A further distinction to be made is that not all Jewish people support Israel blindly, and not all Jewish people are even Zionists. Support for the existence of Israel does not inherently mean that people support the current government or actions of Israel. Holding all Jewish people responsible for the actions of Israel is antisemitic because it essentializes Jewish people rather than acknowledging individual experiences and perspectives. This is important as a rise of antisemitism has been a clear result of the war in Israel, with over 1,059 antisemitic acts having been reported since October 7 in France alone. Importantly, there are also Jewish people who identify as anti-Zionist. In this regard, we can note that organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace have been denouncing Israel for years. Depth should also be applied in regards to the Israeli population which does not have a singular vision. In fact, a majority of the population currently wants Netanyahu to resign, clearly indicating that the manner in which the war is being conducted is not universally accepted amongst Israelis themselves. Moreover, peace movements such as Women Wage Peace have been audible critiques of Israeli policies, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian women around a common critique of the cyclically violent nature of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. In the context we are living in, it is important that many realize that though somebody may not be antisemitic, they may relay messages with underlying antisemitic messages. The fact that Pro-Palestinian protests have been often linked to the idea of antisemitism is not a fatality. Each of us can make an effort to promote sensitive messages in order to make peace protests, which should be a universal cause, a welcoming environment for all. Making peace protests unwelcoming is just another way of creating an unnecessary division and an ‘us’ against ‘them’ environment which pushes each side to extreme narratives and lack of communication. The angle of protesting is therefore extremely important to the cause of peace. It also leads to the wider question of the importance of word choice and paying attention to the messages we spread. Though this is not targeted to the Sciences Po student body, the message is still valuable to our community, especially on this campus, where many deeply care about the matter, and just a bit more tact and nuance can allow for far more productive conversations.

Is the Poland-EU dispute just a bump along the road, a crisis that every marriage must endure? Or is it truly the end of a great love story, one that ends with heartbreak? Only time will tell. < Back Poland and the EU: A Whirlwind Romance That May End In Divorce By Barbara Kuza December 30, 2021 Years of yearning to join the European Union seem to have been long forgotten with the recent developments in Polish-EU relations, as well as judicial reforms in the country. When the United Kingdom left the European Union (EU), setting a dangerous precedent, no one thought that any country would realistically follow suit. Brexit was supposed to be the exception, an anomaly, not the beginning of some new rule. But recently the question of a “Polexit” has surfaced. While Poland has played the role of the EU’s black sheep for a few years now, most dismissed it simply as bickering — like every married couple does. However, Polexit entered Polish and European public discourse over the summer, when the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Poland’s Disciplinary Chamber (transl. Izba Dyscyplinarna) — a judicial organ that reprimands judges when they break the rule of professional ethics — should be liquidated. While the idea behind the disciplinary chamber is not necessarily a bad one in theory, it has been abused by the ruling party to open investigations into, and eventually suspend, judges who are vocal critics of the government. The promising meet-cute Like every tale of romance, this one starts years back. Poland entered the EU on May 1, 2004, after 77.45% of those voting in the referendum answered yes to the question “Do you allow the accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union?” Television reports from the day of the referendum shows Poles cheering, whooping, jumping up and down with smiles on their faces. Joining the EU was a dream come true for the Polish nation after living under communist rule and Soviet influence for 44 years. A united Europe symbolized to many Poles a guarantee of no more wars — the Second World War and the Cold War still haunted collective memory. Opening up the market and having access to goods which used to be rarities brought by lucky cousins from abroad was another dream come true. Furthermore, free movement between countries meant some could see places that they had only heard about in stories or saw in newspapers and movies. Puppy love, the honeymoon phase, call it what you will — it seemed like life as a European nation could not get any better than becoming a part of the Union. However, things started rapidly changing when the Law and Justice party (PiS) came to power in 2015. The outgoing Sejm (lower chamber of the legislative body), led by the Civic Platform, appointed three judges for the Constitutional Tribunal before the end of its term. It was up to newly elected President Andrzej Duda to swear them in, which he ultimately decided against. When the new PiS government was formed, they unlawfully appointed three new judges who conveniently corresponded to PiS’ placement on the political spectrum. This provided the groundwork for the Sejm to pass several unconstitutional laws and, with a complicit President and Constitutional Tribunal, it was more than easy. In 2017, the Disciplinary Chamber was created and in April of 2020, the so-called “muzzle” act was passed, which envisioned disciplining judges for applying EU law in court cases, and sending inquiries to the EU Court of Justice. The issue of restricted abortion, which was precisely made possible by the judiciary reforms, further developed in March of this year. The Constitutional Tribunal ruled then, that abortion in case of fetal defects was unconstitutional after an inquiry to the Tribunal was made by far-right parliament members. A love turned sour? This summer, when the ECJ ruled that the Chamber must be liquidated, Law and Justice politicians rushed to send an inquiry to the Constitutional Tribunal about whether or not Poland should comply with the ruling. And unsurprisingly, the Tribunal ruled that Polish law is superior to EU law. At this point Poland asked itself whether it was in a toxic relationship with the EU. Am I losing my independence and sense of self? But it really was not. It was just realizing that it was not in love with its partner as it used to be. The ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal sparked a series of protests in support of the EU. Nevertheless, the state-controlled media, TVP Info, made a special effort to further polarize the conflict, headlining the dissent as “protests against the Polish constitution,” indirectly suggesting that those who do support the EU are not in fact patriots. On the 19 of October, a hearing was held in the European Parliament on the topic of violations of rule of law in Poland. Patryk Jaki, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the Law and Justice party, pompously quoted Jean Jacques Rousseau and whined about how the EU was against the Polish government. The Prime Minister Morawiecki, on the other hand, could not resist mentioning the name that always stirs up a myriad of controversies: Donald Tusk. Donald Tusk, in the case of the Polish-European marriage, is like that shared friend whose expected position after the divorce is unclear. Or at least that is how the government views it. He served as the Polish Prime Minister in the years 2007 to 2014 from the Civic Platform (the largest opposition party), after which he became the President of the European Council. PiS partly built its election campaigns on demonizing him — at one point the national news portrayed him having a reddish tint. So is Donald a friend? A foe? Depends who you ask. Therefore, instead of addressing the issue at hand, the rule of law (or in Poland’s case, a lack thereof), Morawiecki decided to redirect the attention onto Tusk. He pushed back against the accusations of judicial ruling being politically motivated by saying “Please show me one ruling like that. One.” Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, Poland was officially gaslighting the EU. Moreover, he pointed out that during Tusk’s rule — contrary to now — politically motivated court rulings were made. But the only reaction he was met with for this statement was scarce applause and a Polish MEP shouting “don’t lie” in the background. “But will they really get divorced?” As in most dysfunctional marriages, when things go south, one of the partners has to say “I can’t live without you, please stay” to put past quarrels aside and make amends. In this case, it seems it is the EU that wants to hold onto Poland, whereas the Polish government unfortunately does not reciprocate the feeling. But interestingly enough, the dynamic is reversed — it is more so Poland that needs the EU than the other way around. The country is heavily dependent on EU funds and is now also dealing with the Belarusian migrant crisis on the border, which it cannot face alone. “On the eastern border we are dealing not only with violence, but with a staged spectacle aimed at violating borders, bringing chaos to the European Union” Prime Minister Morawiecki said on the situation at the border in November. Maybe Poland still loves the EU after all? Or perhaps it is just scared of getting lonely… Another worrying indication is how reckless the Law and Justice politicians have become when talking about a potential Polexit. A member of parliament, Janusz Kowalski, even mentioned 2027 as the year for a Polexit referendum. Nevertheless, as of October, 88% of an Ipsos poll’s respondents (made for Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO. Press) supported Poland’s continued membership in the EU.On the other hand, the Polish nation is becoming increasingly polarized, and the government-controlled media outlets are becoming progressively more ruthless by the day. As if that was not enough, on the 18 of December 2021, the Sejm passed a law commonly dubbed Lex TVN. The law is targeted against Poland’s largest independent news broadcaster, TVN, which is owned by American company Discovery. The new bill prohibits companies from outside the European Economic Zone to have complete ownership of a Polish radio or TV station. Is the Poland-EU dispute just a bump along the road, a crisis that every marriage must endure? Or is it truly the end of a great love story, one that ends with heartbreak? Only time will tell.

Australia's treatment of children, particularly Indigenous and asylum-seeking children, violates global human rights standards and raises several critical questions: Why are these vulnerable children subjected to such mistreatment, and why does Australia continue to incarcerate and detain them unlawfully? What purpose are these punitive measures serving for Australia as an ongoing colonial project, and why are Australian people allowing such blatant violations of both national and global human rights to be carried out in their name? < Back Australia’s Colonial Logic of Child Imprisonment: How Indigenous Incarceration and Asylum Seeker Detention Violate Human Rights Finn Leary for Amnesty Menton October 31, 2024 Australia is a nation predicated on a fair go for all; a country that prides itself on its multiculturalism. Yet, these mythologies fail to stack up when applied to the First Nations People, who are victims of discrimination and marginalization. The same can be said when one looks at Australia’s vilification and demonization of refugees and asylum seekers. Australia’s carceral and immigration systems—systems designed to uphold and perpetuate a white, Anglo-centric Australia—continue to violate human rights, especially those of children. Indigenous youth are disproportionately affected by hyper-incarceration, facing imprisonment rates that far exceed those of non-Indigenous youth and global averages for youth incarceration. Although only about 5.7% of people aged 10–17 in Australia are First Nations, 63% of the children in detention on an average day in 2023 were First Nations. This means they are 29 times as likely as a non-Indigenous child to be in detention. For children aged 10-13, this figure rises to 46 times. The incarceration and brutal treatment of Indigenous youth in detention is a direct extension of the colonial logic that saw children removed, excluded and missionized in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is the Stolen Generations all over again—a period where Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families—simply in a new form. It seems inevitable that, like Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's 2008 apology , there will be many apologies to come for these concurrent violations of humanity. Despite a promise to eliminate the detention of all children by the end of 2019, asylum-seeking children remain in detention and alternative arrangements. The treatment of these children has been described as highly damaging, cruel, degrading and unlawful. Australia's treatment of children, particularly Indigenous and asylum-seeking children, violates global human rights standards and raises several critical questions: Why are these vulnerable children subjected to such mistreatment, and why does Australia continue to incarcerate and detain them unlawfully? What purpose are these punitive measures serving for Australia as an ongoing colonial project, and why are Australian people allowing such blatant violations of both national and global human rights to be carried out in their name? These questions demand serious reflection on Australia's commitment to justice, equality and human rights, especially as a nation predicated on a “fair go.” The answers shed light on the lasting impacts of colonialism and the twisted ways in which the colonial project continues to be upheld. The following stories are those of children who have been victims of Australia’s disgraceful carceral system and immigration system. These stories should unsettle, disturb and enrage. In February this year, the Queensland government released a report on the deaths of two boys who had spent extensive time in solitary confinement while in youth detention. Both were First Nations children with disabilities. Despite this, they were kept in solitary confinement for prolonged periods, a practice that the United Nations Expert on Torture has consistently urged to be abolished. The first spent 128 nights in detention, with 78% of that time isolated in his cell; the second spent 55 days locked in his cell alone for over 22 hours each day. Both had been repeatedly detained from the ages of 11 and 13. Both boys committed suicide following incarceration. This report arrived at the same time as the Queensland and Northern Territory governments are pushing to reduce the age of criminal responsibility back to 10 years. Queensland has had to suspend its Human Rights Act to rush through legislation to make this possible. The newly elected Northern Territory government is set to pass similar legislation in its first parliamentary session. These practices—of locking up young and vulnerable Indigenous youth—are fundamental to the youth carceral system in Australia. Incarcerating Indigenous youth sustains the prison-industrial complex, notably in remote and rural areas, by employing law enforcement, corrections officers, social workers, legal professionals and support staff. It costs approximately $1.03 million per annum to lock up one child, money that could be diverted into consistent and long-term community care and support services. Incarceration is the bedrock of coloniality in the modern era. It is the tool with which Indigenous sovereignty is denied. It is a continuation of the exclusions, interventions and social controls faced by Indigenous children over the past two centuries, cloaked in the legitimacy of pursuing ‘community safety’. As Matthews & Holden assert, “Whether on a mission or in a cell, Aboriginal movement is contained to prevent the transfer of language, knowledge, ceremony and culture to their descendants.” Asylum-seeking children continue to face a similar fate in Australia, driven by the same underlying logic of exclusion, control and dehumanization. Mandatory offshore detention has deeply damaged many lives over the past two decades, compounding the adversity, trauma and loss of family that many asylum seekers have experienced. Children forced to flee, often unaccompanied, from war, persecution, violence, sexual abuse and forced recruitment have found themselves detained, imprisoned, and isolated in Australian territory rather than receiving the protection and care they desperately needed. The National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention found that some children had spent over five years in detention before their applications were processed—for no reason other than to serve as examples of Australia’s ‘firm stance’ on ‘illegal’ immigration. The impact on the mental and physical health of these children has been severe, with over half of those detained experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, self-harming behaviors and heightened anxiety or depression. A young child on Nauru, the site of one of the offshore detention centers, when asked about her experiences, said , “Of all the bad things that have already happened now, I feel I wish I died at sea instead of dying slowly here.” Another unaccompanied child said , “I don’t care about a visa anymore. I want to finish everything. My life is very difficult. I don’t understand why I am here. I am beginning to feel crazy; my situation is very bad and getting worse. I am alone, no family, nobody here. I’ve been here 15 months; I need to do something.” While no Australian government has officially abandoned mandatory indefinite detention, its application is in significant decline . However, this decline has led to a greater reliance on other punitive measures, such as the Temporary Bridging Visa Scheme. The story of Mano Yogalingam speaks to the failings of this scheme, particularly for asylum-seeking children. On Wednesday, the 28th of August, Tamil asylum seeker Mano Yogalingam self-immolated, setting himself on fire in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. He was a key organizer of protests calling for an end to the temporary visa scheme . Mano had arrived in Australia as a 12-year-old fleeing persecution in Sri Lanka. After spending over a year in detention, Mano was placed on a bridging visa. Ten years later, he remained on that bridging visa—his imprisonment had simply taken on a new form. This temporary bridging visa scheme has been designed to make asylum seekers deportable or re-detainable. By keeping people on this visa indefinitely it destabilizes and undermines their place in the Australian community. Many on the visa scheme are denied education, healthcare, and the right to work—leaving them trapped in poverty and positions of social exclusion, unable to access basic services or opportunities for self-sufficiency. This scheme—underpinned by a harsh regime of surveillance, control, and punishment—lies at the heart of the government's relentless strategy to punish and deter asylum seekers. So, where does the real connection lie between these two issues? Both Indigenous youth and children seeking asylum in Australia have been “othered” to serve as scapegoats, “othered” through being framed discursively as threats to security and community safety. Australia’s systems are rooted in settler-colonial norms and values upheld by racist institutions and political ideology. These systems are inherently designed to prioritize certain groups and "standards" over others while excluding those deemed incompatible with settler-societies norms. In Orientalism (1995), Edward Said asserted that modern colonialism relies entirely on having a knowledge system that separates the colonizer from the colonized. Said infers that those blatant forms of colonial violence—genocide, enslavement and segregation—have gradually been replaced by less visible expressions of coloniality, such as immigration laws, sterilization practices, child welfare apprehensions and an over-reliance on carceral systems. Institutionalized settler colonial norms and ideologies of whiteness have become so normalized that these racial hierarchies are rendered invisible. Australia as a country has been founded upon dangerous myths—myths that today express themselves in the eradication and silencing of certain minorities. These issues will not change without a strong commitment to meaningful truth-telling processes at both the community and national level. The more that history reveals its truths, contradicting the accepted “facts,” the more cracks appear in mythologised colonial narratives. This is the idea Naomi Klein describes in Doppelganger , referencing the discovered mass graves of First Nations children at Canadian missionary schools. In an age of resurging ultra-nationalism and far-right authoritarian governments, it seems these issues will continue to be complex battlegrounds. Given the widespread collapse of the rules-based international order and the erosion of international humanitarian and human rights laws , it is more important than ever that pressure is placed on our governments domestically to uphold commitments to human rights. This must begin with stronger commitments to our children, particularly the most vulnerable among them .

In a democratic society we willingly submit power to governing institutions to be wielded toward the greater good, and when that isn’t the case, and other measures fail to address injustices, Fo’s tale suggests that civil disobedience may be the only route left to take. < Back Navigating Corrupt Realities: The Timelessness of Dario Fo’s ‘Accidental Death of an Anarchist’ By Maria Eirini Liodi December 31, 2023 In a world torn by conflict, poverty, and displacement; where every event is live broadcasted to us 24/7, reality seems to be a nightmarish loop. Especially with the wartime atrocities we have observed this past year, notions of fairness and justice have been prevalent topics of discussion, as has been the issue of civil disobedience in light of injustice. Is deviating from the norm and going to extreme measures to make one’s voice heard justifiable? What civil disobedience is justified in the name of fairness? While this article will not delve into these political topics directly, they do provide a basis of my discussion of theatre and the role of political plays today, with the spotlight on a recent favourite of mine, Dario Fo’s play, ‘The Accidental Death of an Anarchist.’ Recently while in Athens, I was able to see this incredible play brought to life. An amalgamation of movement, song and wit, the interpretation brought by the Greek actors, namely the protagonist Panos Vlahos, is a must watch for anyone in the area. A woeful tale woven in webs of lies, injustice and violence, the protagonist, a mad trickster, unveils the distorted reality one finds when dealing with powerful and corrupted state bodies. This lively satire unfolds a tale based on the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing and death of anarchist Giuseppe Pinelli. In a period where Italy was struck by intense waves of social unrest, radical calls from the left for societal reform and anarchist groups mobilising to destabilise the status quo, the government was cornered in a challenging position. Pinelli was arrested for an alleged anarchist bombing, however like everything in the play, Fo sheds light on the ambiguity of the events, from the arrest, to the unfortunate, ‘accidental’ death. Pinelli’s death was labelled a suicide, an ‘accident,’ but many members of the public weren’t convinced. As all Gossip Girl fans and perhaps governments will know, even the best hidden secrets come out eventually. Well this one didn’t exactly ‘come out.’ It was just whispers of the corrupt core of the police, alleged brutal methods of interrogation and even rumours of the police planting intelligence members disguised as leftists to plant bombs to destroy their credibility and political standing. Fo illustrates this confusion through an absurd reality of a protagonist with a fast-talking, skillful eloquence and underlying revolutionary zeal. Assuming the semblance of a psychiatrist and later an investigating judge, the protagonist infiltrates the police department, seamlessly unraveling the inconsistencies of the anarchist’s case and revealing through the impeccable “appearance-versus-reality" trope the deceptive, corrupt actions of the police force. As audiences immerse themselves in the narrative, the play subtly urges contemplation on the challenging of authority and resisting oppressive systems. Amidst the protagonist's journey through the absurdity of corrupt institutions, the narrative quietly champions the notion that civil disobedience, rooted in anarchist values, can wield significant influence in the battle against societal injustice. If we were to look practically anywhere in our modern day society, we could see these ideas entrenched around us. Modern media yields growing power in dominating the narratives upon which not only our interpretations of the world are based, but society itself is based. Done in parallel with the growing tools of misinformation and misrepresentation of information, as tools of social division and exclusion of justice, Fo’s political drama serves as a cautionary tale. We ought to be critical about what we read–where was it published? When? By whom? Is there proof? If so, then what is it? And when it comes to institutions of power, be it universities, companies or governments–we ought to be critical of them too. In a democratic society we willingly submit power to governing institutions to be wielded toward the greater good, and when that isn’t the case, and other measures fail to address injustices, Fo’s tale suggests that civil disobedience may be the only route left to take. Disclaimer: This is by no means an article written to promote anarchy, just critical thinking.

Promoting finance to tackle climate change in developing countries is one of the pillars of the Paris Agreement. Yet the investment world, which seemingly has a never-ending stream of scandals and mis-selling driven by greed and lack of ethics, is yet again undermining the existentially important issue of climate change. < Back Regulating ESG Investments Becomes More Pressing Amidst Greenwashing Trends By Noor Ahmad November 30, 2022 The 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP27, is convening in the Egyptian coastal city of Sharm el-Sheikh between the 6th and 18th of November 2022. The conference seeks to tackle global climate emergency issues: how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to the effects of climate change and finance climate action in developing countries. The conference seeks to build on the Paris Agreement in 2015, which set out goals to guide nations on how to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius. The agreement is a legally binding international treaty with 194 signatory Parties. The issue of climate change and financing the fight against it are nothing new. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing has been rising for the last decade. ESG incorporates a broad set of principles that socially responsible investments should follow and are sometimes commingled with “green” investments, which focus primarily on environmental impact. While there is no clear taxonomy for ESG, it broadly aims to curtail the effects of climate change, carbon emissions, environmental pollution, deforestation and water scarcity. The non-environmental categories of ESG encompass a wider scope, including community impact, human rights, diversity in company boards, bribery, and corruption. A report by the consulting firm Deloitte published earlier this year estimated $39 trillion of assets in 2020 were ESG-focused versus $19 trillion in 2014. This represents 36 percent of total global investments in 2020. The magnitude and proportion of ESG investments are expected to rise dramatically in the coming years, reaching $96 trillion by 2025 and representing 58 percent of worldwide investments. Other measures put the projected amount invested in ESG funds at a few trillion dollars. What is indisputable is that this sector is proliferating. As interest in the environment and sustainability has increased, so has regulatory focus. In 2021, the European Union introduced its Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, which requires asset managers to provide information regarding their adherence to ESG investment standards. Three categories were introduced in classifying investment funds: article six funds, which do not take sustainability into account; article eight funds, which promote ESG practices; and article nine funds, which is the highest ESG category, with sustainability at the heart of its investment policies. Moreover, since August 2022, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II, a regulation seeking to protect investors and standardize practices across the European Union, now requires financial advisors to evaluate not only the client’s risk tolerance but also their preferences for environmentally sustainable investments. The regulatory changes by the union are timely and possibly the beginning of a worldwide regulatory convergence in how to classify environmentally responsible investments. The changes have come against a background of mis-selling and misrepresentation by some of the world’s largest asset managers. DWS, Deutsche Bank’s asset management arm, recently saw its CEO step down after evidence emerged that the firm failed to classify investments labelled ESG against the necessary criteria correctly. The term “greenwashing,” which aptly describes DWS’s behavior, is one where a company tries to portray itself as more socially responsible and environmentally friendly than it is. The company may not meet the necessary standards and continue investing in environmentally harmful businesses. A German consumer group recently filed a lawsuit against DWS alleging that its ESG Climate Tech fund was marketed as having zero percent investments in polluting sectors such as coal. Yet, the fund’s investment policy allowed for investments in companies where up to 15 percent of their revenues could be generated from these harmful industries. The problems faced by DWS are not a one-off event, and the prevalence of misrepresentation of what investment funds are doing versus what they are advertising is an issue concerning regulators beyond the European Union, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority reviewing both conduct and current regulation. Promoting finance to tackle climate change in developing countries is one of the pillars of the Paris Agreement. Yet the investment world, which seemingly has a never-ending stream of scandals and mis-selling driven by greed and a lack of ethics, is yet again undermining an existentially important focus. As the awareness of climate change has begun to alter the behavior of both individual and institutional investors and centered them on environmentally positive goals, the investment world must step up and learn to police itself. Regulators will eventually catch up and create guidelines, but the intermediaries have a significant role as time passes and environmental catastrophe descends on humanity. Let us hope that the outcome of COP27 is a clear message to the investment industry that it needs to address these shortcomings and take substantial steps to finance positive change.

< Back Daring More Progress: Freedom, Justice, and Sustainability are Germany's new Leitmotifs. Florian Heydecker December 31, 2021 On November 24, the Social Democratic Pary (SPD), the Greens, and the Liberal Party (FDP) presented the coalition agreement for the next four years of government. The paper is the result of almost two months of negotiations that aimed at forming the first three-party coalition and the first government after sixteen years of Angela Merkel. Two weeks later, Olaf Scholz, SPD candidate and Minister of Finance in the previous government, was elected Bundeskanzler (Chancellor) and took office on December 8. Now Germany has a new leader, a new government, and a new agenda. The parties called their coalition ‘traffic light’ referring to their colors: red for SPD, yellow for the FDP, and the Greens. Briefly, the traffic-light coalition will increase the minimum wage, respect the balanced budget amendment, implement the coal phase-out, and legalize cannabis. Post-Merkel Germany will revolve around these new axes. Voting rights & Cannabis The new government is committed to lowering the active voting age for elections to the Bundestag and the European Parliament to 16. The traffic light coalition also wants to revise the electoral law “within the first year” to prevent the Bundestag from growing. Furthermore, the government wants to introduce the controlled distribution of cannabis to adults “for consumption purposes” in licensed stores. This reform would supervise quality, prevent the distribution of contaminated substances and ensure the protection of minors. The regulations for marketing and sponsorship of alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis will become more restrictive. Minimum wage & Housing The statutory minimum wage should increase to 12 euros per hour in a one-off adjustment, hence overcoming the current wage of 9.60 euros per hour. The minimum wage commission is then to decide on further increases and adapt it to the national and international circumstances. In addition, the coalition agreement outlines the goal of building 400,000 new homes per year, including 100,000 publicly subsidized homes. An “affordable housing alliance” will be established, and a new non-profit housing scheme with tax incentives and investment subsidies is to be launched immediately. The rent brake will be extended and tightened. In areas with a tight housing market, rents will be allowed to rise only up to 11 percent within three years instead of up to 15 percent as before. Climate The traffic light coalition wants to bring forward the coal phase-out. “Ideally, this will already succeed by 2030,” the agreement said. This eight-year process will revolve around the expansion of wind and solar power. By 2030, 80% of electricity consumption is to come from renewable energies. This will require more gas-fired power plants. The partners want to more than the triple solar capacity to 200 gigawatts (GW), by making photovoltaics mandatory on commercial roofs, among other things. They also want to accelerate the expansion of offshore wind energy, which is to climb to 30 GW in 2030 (previously 20 GW). Two percent of Germany's surface area is to be reserved for onshore wind energy. The phase-out of coal is also to be accelerated via European trading in CO2 pollution rights. The coalition, therefore, intends to lobby the European Union (EU) for a minimum price for these certificates, which power plants require. If this is unsuccessful, it will be fixed nationally such that the price does not fall below 60 euros per ton. In the future, climate protection will be more strongly integrated into the decisions of the German government than in the past. Each ministry is to review its draft laws for climate impact and compatibility with national climate protection targets and provide an appropriate justification — the so-called climate check. The Federal Climate Protection Act will be further developed “consistently” before the end of 2022, and an emergency climate protection program will be introduced. Nuclear weapons The new federal government wants to abandon Germany's fundamental rejection of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and thus deviate from the previous. Germany will participate in the Conference of the Parties as an observer. The controversial treaty banning nuclear weapons was adopted by 122 of the 193 countries of the United Nations in 2017 and entered into force at the beginning of this year. It prohibits the possession, acquisition, development, and deployment of nuclear weapons. All nuclear powers, as well as all NATO countries, and thus also Germany, have so far rejected it because they considered the previous treaties to be a better basis for nuclear disarmament. Transport Starting next year, the regional funds for local transportation will be increased. Quality criteria and standards for services and accessibility for urban and rural areas will be defined by both the federal states and local authorities together. Deutsche Bahn AG will be retained as an integrated group, including the group's internal labor market, under public ownership. Internal structures will be made more efficient and transparent. The infrastructure units (DB Netz, DB Station und Service) of Deutsche Bahn AG will be merged into a “new infrastructure division oriented toward the common good.” Cross-border traffic will be strengthened and night train services developed with the EU and the member states. By 2030, 75 percent of the rail network is to be electrified. Germany aims to become the lead market for electromobility, with at least 15 million electric cars in 2030. The SPD, Greens, and FDP also want a reform of the truck toll. In 2023, a “CO2 differentiation” of the truck toll is to be implemented. Commercial road haulage of three and a half tons or more will be included in this toll, and a CO2 surcharge will also be introduced — on condition that a double burden from the CO2 price is ruled out. Migration and right to stay Visa issuance is to be accelerated and increasingly digitized. Residence permits should not expire during temporary stays abroad. The “complicated system of toleration” is to be reorganized. “Well-integrated young people,” up to the age of 27, will be allowed to stay after three years of residence in Germany. People who have lived in Germany for five years by January 1, 2022, have not committed any criminal offenses, and are committed to the free democratic basic order will be able to obtain a one-year probationary residence permit. For faster asylum procedures, the new coalition wants to relieve the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. “We want faster decisions in asylum proceedings, as well as a standardization of jurisdiction and will quickly present a bill to this end,” the three parties announced. Financing The Balanced Budget Amendment enshrined in the Basic Law is to be complied with again starting in 2023. In the coming year, however, new loans will have to be taken out again due to the ongoing consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. Municipalities with high levels of old debt are to be relieved. “In 2022, there will also be continuing pandemic consequences to deal with, which will continue to constitute an exceptional emergency in the sense of the debt rule,” the agreement said. “Beginning in 2023, we will then limit debt to the constitutional margin provided by the debt brake and comply with the debt brake requirements.” Foreign Policy The signal of continuity in German foreign policy could not have been clearer. At the G20 summit in Rome, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and her vice-chancellor and successor Olaf Scholz (SPD) took part in a virtual duet and completed all the important talks together. The administration of U.S. President Joe Biden continues to rely on a strong Germany that assumes responsibility within the EU, NATO, and the international community. The U.S. will pay particular attention to how the new German government positions itself vis-à-vis China and Russia. Washington D.C. is pushing for a more confrontational approach to its strategic rival, whereas Merkel's government has tended to focus on dialogue and good trade relations. As for China, Merkel is already sorely missed in Beijing because she spoke her mind honestly, but also always showed understanding for China and pursued a more business-oriented China policy. Beijing hopes that Scholz is also aware of how dependent Germany is on economic cooperation with China. Yet, the Greens and the FDP not only want to do more for human rights, including the persecution of Uyghurs and Tibetans and the situation in Hong Kong but also advocate free trade and fair market access. This last aspect resonates well with the increasing tensions between Beijing and the U.S. Further developments will become more visible in the future. Back to Europe, Russia does not expect a fundamental improvement in its relationship with Germany given the severe tensions of recent years. Moscow-based Germany expert Vladislav Belov, however, expects the chancellor to continue to set the foreign policy lines. He does not see a new confrontational course under Scholz. “The coalitionists are not starting from ‘red lines’ but a constructive approach,” said the head of the Germany Center at the European Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. On the other hand, Turkey will likely face a tougher course from the new German government concerning human rights issues and the EU-Turkey refugee deal. Both SPD and the Greens are committed to emphasizing the respect of human rights and the right to asylum. Concerning Israel, a policy of continuity can be expected from the traffic light government as a whole. The new government is also committed to a two-state solution in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Palestinians are expected to make “progress on democracy, the rule of law and human rights.” Israel is expected to halt settlement expansion in the Palestinian territories and, hence, promote a future peace settlement. Finally, the EU expects a solid continuation of Merkel’s European commitment. With the SPD, the Greens, and the FDP as pro-European parties, Paris expects a certain continuity of previous German policies. Scholz, as an already well-known and experienced politician, gives Paris a certain degree of security and is seen as a desirable partner. Some concerns might arise due to different views between the Greens and the FDP. France also observes the way Germany will combine climate investments and strict debt policy. The strengthening of the collaboration with Italy has also become a further point of the EU balance. Thus, the new German government entails both continuity and rupture with the Merkel era. Although Olaf Scholz should preserve, if not even strengthen, Germany’s transatlantic and European commitment, the coalition will adopt a more liberal line for national politics and a harder approach with regards to human rights and the rule of law abroad. Post-Merkel Germany has taken its first steps, the race has just begun.

< Back Boeing Grapples With The 737-MAX By Yasmin Abbasoy February 29, 2024 In its newly-published 2023 end-of-year results, Boeing has for the first time foregone its traditional section on “financial and operational objectives” in order to emphasize its newfound commitment to safety. The leading aerospace company has been witness to more scrutiny than it could have ever conceived, primarily due to its flagship 737 MAX 9 carrier which has recently resulted in various catastrophes. These recent events have brought to light the company’s various errors regarding its work culture and practices. When a door plug, a mechanism that replaces an extra built-in emergency door in the middle of the MAX-9, detached from the Alaska Airlines flight 1282 merely 6 minutes into the flight, it would come to be seen as nothing more than the natural consequence of decisions taken at the company. The plane, scheduled for a domestic flight on Jan. 5, was in the world of commercial flight, brand new. It had been in service for approximately 2 months, having under its wing close to 500 flight hours. A malfunction stemming from age was unlikely on such an aircraft, and the plane had had no problems during routine maintenance.Thankfully, there was no loss of life–oxygen masks descended as the vacant space left by the plug uncontrollably depressurized the airplane. By a stroke of luck, the seat next to the plug was empty. The spontaneous suction did, however, pull a shirt off a teenage boy and scatter personal belongings across the flight path–including an Iphone which was found functioning and still in flight mode two days later. The MAX-9 fleet which comprised 65 planes was immediately subjected to an Emergency Airworthiness Directive by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The regulatory body issued this directive to confirm the recognition of improper conditions that required immediate action on the part of the manufacturer. An ongoing investigation was launched as Boeing developed a new inspection process to be approved by the FAA, after which the planes were cleared for flight at the end of January. The Alaska Airlines debacle is not the first worrying complication seen in a Boeing-manufactured aircraft. It was not even the first complication for its own series–the MAX-8, predecessor to the MAX-9, had in March of 2019 been grounded for 20 months after two deadly crashes which killed 349 people in total. There had been some adjustments to the positioning of the engine on this model, one which would cause divergences in the behavior of the plane that had to be accounted for. Boeing installed a new software, which was found in the ensuing investigation to be inaccurate and difficult to use or override. Industry insiders found the two accidents “eerily similar,” and worried about a brand-new plane failing twice in the space of a year. The grounding of the MAX-8 was a dramatic measure–the firm is vitally important to the U.S. economy, being a leading exporter with a global network of over 20.000 suppliers. Boeing is estimated to have lost at least $20 billion in direct costs as a result. A mishandling of the aftermath saw CEO Dennis Muilenburg sacked for his over-optimistic forecasts of the process of getting the grounded planes back in the air and his blundering of congressional hearings. Congressional investigators found that the company culture was to blame, with employees encouraged to push the airplane out into the market ahead of rival, Airbus, at the expense of quality control. Messages exchanged among employees provided for the investigation revealed a startling lack of confidence in the product–the development process of the MAX-8 was commented on with wry detachment, with the core development team being referred to as “clowns.” The culture problem at Boeing is, as of 2020, congressionally acknowledged, and Boeing’s latest news update on its website shows a clear plan for increased scrutiny and reprioritized safety, with the expected corporate public relations tint. The problem itself, however, may have been decades in the making. Industry experts tie the shift in culture to a 1997 merger between Boeing and the defense contractor McDonnell Douglas. Well-known for their military planes, the company was acquired for about $14 billion. While it was the Boeing name that stayed on, a dramatic shift was gradually occurring internally. Journalist Peter Robison posits that a pre-merger Boeing was a company of engineers, focused solely on quality production and client satisfaction. McDonnell Douglas, on the other hand, put more value on delivering products and pleasing shareholders, as efficiently as possible. Illustratively, after the merger, Boeing headquarters was moved from Seattle, the heart of production for the firm, to Chicago. The emphasis on quantity over quality has led to a reliance on subcontracting: the 737-MAX supply chain has over 600 suppliers, which too have felt the pressure. Ed Pierson, a former manager at one of Boeing’s 737 factories, describes a “pressure to push planes out of the door” and a culture of retaliation against employees who call attention to the lack of quality standards. Upon investigation precipitated by the Alaska Airline incident, Delta and United Airlines found that the bolts designed to secure the door plug on their MAX-9 aircraft were not properly tightened. This ring of the production chain is handled by Spirit Aerosystem, a subcontractor, in their Malaysia factory. The preliminary report released from the investigative committee found that the four bolts on Alaska Airlines flight 1282 were completely missing. That is, the plane had flown 500 hours without them. The increased attention on its manufacturing process has not boded well for Boeing. Though CEO Dave Calhoun, brought in after Muilenburg, has acknowledged a “quality escape,” and the media is all too willing to pounce on any instance of a faulty Boeing product. One such instance was when U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken’s 737 plane had to be switched on the way back from the World Economic Forum in Davos due to a “critical failure.” An employee has also recently shared images with the media of a Boeing facility in which hangs the sign–and presumably, the company motto–”Just Ship It.” Understandably, the newest topic in the news cycle has been the continued discovery of misdrilled holes in the fuselage of Boeing 737 planes. As the systemic nature of the Boeing Problem is pushed further and further into the spotlight, it is Boeing that must adjust and recalibrate, or come crashing down.

< Back President Macron Visits Israel and the West Bank in Diplomatic Balancing Act By Peyton Dashiell November 30, 2023 On Oct. 24, French President Emmanuel Macron embarked on a visit to Israel after over two weeks of war in Gaza spurred by the deadly Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. While derided by some critics as belated and insufficient, his trip included an ambitious range of diplomatic objectives. He began the visit by meeting with the families of French victims and hostages of the Oct. 7 attacks in southern Israel, during which over 1,200 people were killed and around 240 taken hostage by Hamas. At least 30 French nationals were killed and nine are currently missing or being held in captivity in Gaza. 21-year-old Mia Schem, who appeared in a hostage video released by Hamas on Oct. 17, holds dual French-Israeli citizenship. Macron then engaged in a series of meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Isaac Herzog, minister without portfolio Benny Gantz, and opposition leader Yair Lapid. Above all, he expressed solidarity with Israel's fight against Hamas: "I want you to be sure that you are not left alone in this war against terrorism." He evoked France’s recent history of terrorist attacks in the 2010s, declaring terrorism as the common enemy between both Israel and France and stating that the fight against Hamas must be “without mercy” but not “without rules.” He also reportedly suggested that the international coalition used to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria could be redeployed to fight against Hamas in Gaza. Finally, both leaders expressed the urgency of a complete and unconditional release of hostages. On Oct. 25, Macron traveled to Ramallah to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – the first meeting between Abbas and a European leader since the beginning of the war. Protesters filled the streets of Ramallah, burning photos of Macron and accusing him of unqualified support for the Israeli government. During the meeting, Abbas characterized the war between Israel and Hamas as an Israeli military aggression and voiced the need for an immediate political solution. Macron expressed that there is no justification for the suffering of civilians in Gaza and pushed for the restoration of electricity to Gaza, particularly to hospitals and medical facilities, and several other humanitarian commitments. In the weeks following his visit, he has reiterated these sentiments, calling for a humanitarian pause and eventual ceasefire on Nov. 10 for the protection of Gazan civilians – a demand most Western leaders are yet to voice. In his meeting with Netanyahu, Macron declared the two-state solution as an integral part of resolving the current war between Israel and Hamas, stating that lasting peace will not be feasible “without a decisive relaunch of the political process with the Palestinians.” While France is far from alone in advocating for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the French government has expressed particular historical willingness to take initiative on matters of negotiation and diplomacy. The French government spearheaded the Venice Declaration in 1980, an agreement of the European Economic Community that affirmed the Palestinian right to self-determination and advocated for the inclusion of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in peace talks, even when it was designated by the United States and other powers as a terrorist organization. However, some question if France retains this commitment to Palestinians today, after increasing ties with Israel over time and criminalizing initiatives like the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement domestically. While the United States has played the role of the largest foreign power broker in the Middle East for several decades, the Biden administration placed minimal emphasis on Israel and Palestine compared to other policy priorities prior to the Oct. 7 attacks – he appointed no special envoy for Middle East peace, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has had relatively little engagement with Israel and Palestine compared to other regions, and campaign commitments like reopening the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem for Palestinians faced years of stagnancy. Most recent U.S. attention was placed upon the potential accession of Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords, but negotiations were halted after the Oct. 7 attacks. Coupled with continued US military support for Israel creating distrust among Palestinians and Mahmoud Abbas’s prior unequivocal rejection of any U.S.-brokered peace plan, it’s possible France could play a mediatory role as the war continues. While Macron has been measured in his meetings with all parties, we must look to his future actions to see where his true policy priorities lie.

Tunisian President Kais Saeid released a new constitution. How is it different from the 2014 Constitution and what are the political consequences? < Back The Tunisian Constitution, or Kais Saeid’s Constitution? By Luca Utterwulghe October 31, 2022 Tunisia’s 2014 constitution has been hailed as one of the Middle East and North Africa region’s most progressive. A product of the multi-stakeholder process led by the Quartet du Dialogue National during the post-uprising period, the Constitution exhibits, aside from its praised commitments to “liberal” values, a strong system of checks on power between the three branches of government. However, recent political developments are challenging the foundational principles — compromise, pluralism and multi-polarity — of this (literally) revolutionary document. Tunisian President Kais Saied’s momentous consolidation of power, beginning with his move to terminate Parliament on July 26, 2021, and subsequent decision to fire Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi, was situated in the broader context of Tunisian political dysfunctionality and economic crisis. Kousai Ghrimil, a Tunisian 1A student, expresses his support for this measure: “One of the things it does… is weakening Ennahda , which is the leading Islamist party … that party has caused a lot of destruction and a lot of issues in the country ever since the revolution.” As a manifestation of his endeavor to restructure Tunisia’s political system, Saied released a draft constitution — crafted by a small group of ‘handpicked’ architects — in late June 2021. The Saeid administration released an online consultation survey which, in theory, offered citizens a platform to share their thoughts on the document’s fundamental elements, although only 10 percent of citizens were eligible to respond. Ghrimil suggests that the constitutional formation process was legitimate because President Kais Saeid “does have the right to call for a new constitution.” A referendum on the proposed constitution was held on July 25, 2022; the state’s Independent High Authority for Elections reported that 95 percent of voters ( only 30.5 percent of the eligible population) voted “yes” for Saied’s proposed document. These numbers bring into question the extent to which the new Tunisian Constitution of 2022 was formed through a legitimate, genuine “constituent power” or whether the nation is transitioning into a “façade democracy.” How is the 2022 Constitution different from the post-revolution 2014 one? Article 101 of the 2022 Constitution gives the President the power to appoint the “Chef du Gouvernement” (Prime Minister) and “les autres membres du gouvernement” (cabinet ministers); the 2014 Constitution reserved this power for the Parliament. Moreover, Article 102 authorizes the President to dissolve the Parliament at his wish, further demonstrating the constitutional shift to a more powerful executive. In a direct effort to undermine parliamentary primacy in lawmaking, Article 68 of the 2022 Constitution grants the President the ability to propose statutes to Parliament which are granted “la priorité” (priority) over Parliamentary proposals. Additionally, Article 110 explicitly states that the President “bénéficie de l’immunité durant son mandat présidentiel” (benefits from immunity during his presidential mandate), fundamentally limiting criticism and formal checks on the executive’s power. Ghrimil has mixed sentiments on the 2022 Constitution: he supports adjustments that will place more importance on the national popular vote. Still, he struggles with the Constitution’s commitment to advance Islamic principles, for Tunisia is “a secular country and this takes us a step backward.” On the contrary, he “wish[es] that the constitution would have mentioned the Jewish minority, the Christian minority,” as this is a symbol of Tunisia’s diversity. Evidently, President Kais Saeid is spearheading a significant constitutional and political restructuring of the Tunisian system. In light of an economic crisis and growing disillusionment towards the political system, how will these changes shift the relations between the Tunisian people and the government? It will be essential to keep a close eye on the parliamentary elections in December of 2022 as they may reflect the developing political sentiment in the country.

< Back Climate Headaches: Dispatches from Wales By Gruffudd ab Owain March 30, 2024 Prior to the election of Vaughan Gething as new First Minister in March, the first black leader of any country in Europe, the political sphere in Wales has been hit by a turbulent period, with two major issues regarding climate change. The first was the fierce opposition to the Welsh government’s Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS). Its parliament, the Senedd in Cardiff Bay, saw the biggest turnout to a protest on its steps since its inauguration in 1999 on Feb. 28, 2024. The devolved parliament holds powers over a select number of policies, including agriculture, while the UK Government in London reserves responsibility over policy areas such as justice, policing, and defense. The Labour Party has been in government for the entirety of the Welsh parliament’s 25-year existence. The Senedd didn’t garner law-making powers until 2011, owing to a referendum in which 63.49% voted in favor, yet only reached the height of public awareness following its Covid lockdown policies, which differed significantly from those of the Johnson administration in London. In another referendum, the Brexit referendum, Wales voted with England to leave, in contrast to Scotland and Northern Ireland, by a margin of 52% to 48%. Oxford University research attests that this swing towards leaving was due to retired people who moved over the border from England. ‘Genuinely Welsh’ areas, as described by the researcher Daniel Dorling, voted firmly to remain; areas where agriculture is prominent, albeit not exclusively. It is worth noting that Wales benefitted hugely from the EU’s Rural Development Funding, and the SFS is partly a replacement for that scheme and partly a response to the fact that agriculture accounts for 12-14% of overall emissions in Wales. It requires farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land, a policy which the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) claims will cost 5,000 jobs nationally. The thousands present were also voicing concerns regarding the spread of bovine TB in cattle, and policies pertaining to preventing river pollution. The situation has prompted a rare and unexpected, if modest, boost to the Conservative Party’s fortunes in the country, a party who hasn't been at the top of the political tree there since the 19 th century. They have been accused of hypocrisy, however, in claiming to be the voice of farmers after leading Wales out of the EU and its funding scheme. Their young Welsh-speaking MS Samuel Kurtz led the party’s presence in what he described as ‘the proudest moment of my life’ , later quoting from the patriotic song ‘Safwn yn y Bwlch’ and its lyrics “together we will stand” on his X account. The Tories’ leader in Wales, Andrew R.T. Davies, who doesn’t speak Welsh, proudly shared a video of himself shaking hands with protesters while ‘Yma o Hyd’ was playing in the background, a song which, ironically, has explicitly anti-Tory lyrics. A recent poll projected that the Tories would only hold on to two border constituencies at the next General Election, after winning an historic 14 Welsh seats at the 2019 General Election. It must be said that changes to constituency boundaries will see Wales lose 8 of its 40 MPs at Westminster; nevertheless, this collapse in support is certainly reflective of a broader UK-wide mood. After months taking up the mantle of criticizing the Welsh government’s 20mph rollout, they have finally been handed a different policy to attack. They have been more vocal on the issue than the third biggest party, the left-leaning nationalist Plaid Cymru, who find themselves in a somewhat awkward position, rather clumsily described by previous leader Adam Price as ‘co-opposition’, of cooperating with the government on a select number of policy areas, nonetheless excluding the SFS. This will come as a partial relief for the Tory Party, amid turmoil in the rest of the UK in an election year, not least due to a series of historic by-election defeats. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak finds himself grappling with challenge after challenge, attempting to appease the right of the party to avoid losing votes to the resurgent Reform Party, without facing backlash from those to the center. He was forced to remove the whip of MP Lee Anderson in February, who said that “Islamists” have “control” over London and its mayor Sadiq Khan, calling his comments “wrong” but not Islamophobic nor racist. Sunak himself was seen posing with some farmers and Welsh farming personality Gareth Wyn Jones on a rare visit to the north, alongside protesters holding bright yellow ‘No Farmers No Food’ placards. These posters have appeared widely in the country, even in schools, with their simple message. Less well-known, however, is the NFNF campaign’s connections with anti-net zero stances, including extreme conspiracy theories. Wyn Jones compared the potential job losses to those of the miners under Margaret Thatcher exactly 40 years ago, comments that Plaid Cymru’s Llŷr Gruffudd later echoed at the protest. That said, some sympathize with farmers and are indeed disgruntled by climate change policies, with comments appearing on social media platforms along the lines of ‘Wales is too small a country, it cannot make a difference in tackling climate change’. One protestor told The Guardian that “a more pressing thing than climate change is Mr Putin. We’re teetering on the edge of world war three. This is about food security. We should be self-sufficient.” The quality of political debate in Wales is often poor, succumbing to simplicity. Some farmers have even demanded to eradicate the Welsh parliament altogether, with graphics saying ‘we can live without politicians, we can’t live without farmers’ doing the rounds on Facebook. However, farmers risk losing broader public support in Wales for cozying up to unpopular anti-net zero and anti-Senedd stances, along with the equally unpopular Conservative Party. It seems all rationality has been too easily lost in the debate regarding the SFS. Anthony Slaughter, leader of the Wales Green Party, who have no representation in parliament, implied on the Sunday Supplement radio programme that the government’s demands were not unreasonable, given that trees already cover 6-7% of Welsh farmland. He sympathized with farmers, however, for the policy’s ‘top-down’ implementation and lack of consultation, echoing similar comments by fellow independence-supporting Plaid Cymru. Consultation was open up to March 7, 2024, with the government pledging to seek compromise. A consultative vote in the Senedd on scrapping the SFS saw 26 votes in favor by Labour MSs and 26 votes against by opposition parties. This triggered a rule forcing the deputy presiding officer to vote, and his vote with the government meant that the proposal didn’t pass. As this saga rolled on, so did the election for the leadership of the Welsh Labour Party, and thus of the next First Minister. Incumbent Mark Drakeford announced in December that he would step down after the election of a new leader in March. Only two candidates, Vaughan Gething (Minister for Economy, was Minister of Health during the pandemic) and Jeremy Miles (Minister for Education and the Welsh language), were up for election. The former, who succeeded with 51.7% of the vote, became the first First Minister from an ethnic minority, while the latter would have been the first openly gay First Minister. The election was criticized for lacking a female candidate, given that the Welsh parliament became the world’s first legislative body to achieve 50:50 gender parity in 2003 . Miles is the only Welsh speaker among the two, and his firm pro-devolution stance and willingness to “always fight Wales’ corner” [my translation] would have made him a headache for Plaid Cymru in opposition. Gething was seen as the candidate closest to UK party leader Keir Starmer. He also garnered support from prominent members skeptical of devolution, such as Neil Kinnock. The election, which balances members’ votes and trade union nominations, was hit by turmoil in this sense as an unknown rule change by the influential trade union Unite, deemed Miles ineligible for the union’s nomination. Furthermore, it became obvious that there was no mechanism within the party’s One Member One Vote system to prevent members from voting more than once. It then emanated that Gething’s campaign for election had received an unprecedented and eye-watering £200,000 donation by the Dauson Environmental Group; for context, Mark Drakeford only raised £25,000 for his successful campaign for election in 2018. It arose later that the group was awaiting Welsh government approval for a solar farm on a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Likewise in 2018, Dauson Environmental Group’s director, David Neal, received a suspended prison sentence for illegally dumping waste on a conservation site. Wales is already significantly behind its climate targets, and with February bringing criticisms of Welsh Labour’s nevertheless flawed SFS and UK Labour reversing their £28bn green investment pledge if they were elected to Westminster, the obstacles to climate policy are surmounting. And for as long as the almost proverbial phrase that you could stick a red Labour rosette on a donkey in Wales and it would still win, it seems that the pace required for meaningful, lasting change is rapidly becoming unmatchable.

Every time someone calls criminal justice a vital institution to democracy, I remember the ghastly sight of someone being pulled aside and getting beaten up by the police in Ventimiglia. It reminds me of the widespread bias, racism, and xenophobia that still corrupt our society; the same discrimination that lies but a few few kilometers away from us. < Back On Being Racially Profiled in Ventimiglia By Ishan Naithani January 30, 2022 Racial profiling has been a long-standing issue, be it at an airport, train station, or police checkpoint. Despite seeping into the national dialogue, this topic remains very controversial. Understanding racial profiling requires the use of a working definition. For the purpose of this article, I define racial profiling as the law enforcement practice of using race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious appearance, among other factors, to determine which people are suspicious enough to warrant police stops, questions, frisks, searches, and other routine police practices. Racial profiling, a violation of fundamental civil liberties, is not only morally objectionable and ineffective, but also undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system and instills distrust in targeted populations. As an Indian person of color (POC), I have experienced some of these morally objectionable elements of biased policing at the Franco-Italian border. I have always had to carry my passport and my student card to leave and reenter France. The feeling of being singled out by the border police and getting interrogated is often quite humiliating. In one instance, my first week in France, I remember going from Menton to Ventimiglia when I had an unnerving experience with the border police. I was the only person standing on Platform B (the side opposing the train station), waiting for the train to arrive. Oddly enough, I saw a group of three French policemen running towards me, screaming from the other side “attends là.” When they came to the platform where I stood, they disrespectfully asked me to show my passport and to tell them where I was heading. They also asked me to open my bag for an inspection. As I opened my bag, one of the officers noticed my Sciences Po hoodie (what a clutch). At that moment, their demeanor changed completely. They not only told me that my passport and bag were not needed anymore, but also wished me “un bon voyage.” Biased inspections keep happening — I am singled out, asked to prove my identity, interrogated about the reasons for my border crossing, and treated without courtesy — despite belonging in a group of people from the same university. While my experience is certainly harrowing, it is also humbling. Unlike me, most other persons of color, who are disproportionately victims of racial profiling, rarely know to use their right to demand a reason for apprehension from a police officer. Unlike me, ethnic minorities may not have a Sciences Po hoodie to save them. Every time someone calls criminal justice a vital institution to democracy, I remember the ghastly sight of someone being pulled aside and getting beaten up by the police in Ventimiglia. It reminds me of the widespread bias, racism, and xenophobia that still corrupt our society; the same discrimination that lies but a few few kilometers away from us. Racial profiling points towards discriminatory attitudes within legal institutions like law enforcement, and it reveals a deeply entrenched norm of systemic racism in today’s societies. It is challenging to eradicate racism inherent to every major institution, which is why we must go beyond understanding individual acts of racism. Non-discriminatory law enforcement is also aided by the recruitment and retention of officers from varied backgrounds, who are more reflective of the community they serve. This enhanced representation can alter organizational culture and staff attitudes, which is predicted to result in less biased decision-making. The real problem posed by racial profiling is that law enforcement authorities often violate domestic and international legal principles, like non-discrimination and the right to equal legal treatment. Furthermore, data indicates that racial profiling is ineffective as a law enforcement technique and should be replaced. Racial profiling is not a new trend, but it definitely can not continue to be the status quo. Whether through discussions with civil society representatives and the media, or by creating large-scale shifts in socio-political attitudes, racial profiling can be reversed in Ventimiglia and beyond. And because it can, it must.