Review: Ill Fares the Land

By Alan Go

Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today.

This is the opening line of the late Tony Judt’s short polemic about the crisis the Left has found itself in. Anybody who reads this and immediately begins nodding with a sincere expression will find plenty to like, and will no doubt admire the verve with which the book is written. I am sure it is a sentiment shared by many, but difficult to express with clarity; a problem to which the book tries to provide the answer.

The first chapter happens to draw largely from the last book I had read, and reprints many of the graphs from The Spirit Level in its call to reignite the fight against inequality. The message is an important one, and is referred back to frequently in the following chapters.

Judt tries to provide a brief history of the Left since the second world war, from the great enthusiasm for state planning and welfare that immediately proceeded it to the rise of individualism in the 60s, Thatcherism and Reaganism, and the decline in our belief in social democracy since then. Much of this broad brushstrokes history is told in such sweeping statements that it is easy to become sceptical of the simplicity of the narrative. In any case, I will admit to being unqualified to pronounce upon the accuracy of his account.

Tunisia

By Nat Maxfield

On the 17th December 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, in protest against the confiscation of his wares by government officials and the iron-fisted rule of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, set himself on fire in a crowded marketplace in the centre of Sidi Bouzid, in central Tunisia. While the protests this sparked started in Tunisia, as soon as they spread to the larger countries in the region like Egypt and Libya, the press seemed to forget the revolution within Tunisia and the changes that were happening. So what has happened to the country within which the Arab Spring was born, and has it really managed to throw off the chains of dictatorship and state control in place before the protests?

President Ben Ali, who had controlled Tunisia since 1987 (and was described in Wikileaked cables as ‘highly corrupt’ and ‘not accepting of international or domestic criticism’), was ousted from office and fled to Saudi Arabia (he and his wife were sentenced to 35 years in prison in absentia). The former ruling party, the Rassemblement Constitutionel Démocratique (Constitutional Democratic Party) was disbanded and had its assets seized in March, and the secret police within Tunisia, Ben Ali’s go-to measure for dealing with internal dissent and protest, was abolished. Elections were held on the 23rd October, with the Islamic Ennahda Movement (a moderate conservative Islamist party) winning the largest amount of seats and eventually forming a government in December 2011. Compared to the tragic failure of attempts to move towards democracy in countries like Egypt and Bahrain, Tunisia has, politically it would seem, begun to move down the right track.

However, Tunisia still faces many issues in the months and years to come, mainly due to economic factors. Unemployment in Tunisia, one of the key factors behind the revolution, has risen from 14% to 19%, and in places like Gafsa in Southern Tunisia, it has gone up to 30%, with riots across the region. The government argues that considering $2 billion was lost during the revolution, it will take time to rebuild the Tunisian economy and lower unemployment, although its debt as compared to GDP is 40%, comparatively low compared to the 100% of the US. While these problems are arguably transitory, Tunisia faces a crisis of national identity. While in the days of Ben Ali, secularism was enforced, often violently, Tunisians are now asking themselves what role Islam should take in their new country, with a case over whether to show and distribute the film Persepolis exhibiting these tensions. However, unlike its neighbours, Tunisia seems to have progressed as a nation after its own revolution, as it is well on the way to becoming a fully-fledged democracy, in a way that no other nation in the Arab world is.

Update on Egypt

By Zachary Weiz

One would experience a culture shock if they were to go to Egypt. For Egyptians, though, day-to-day life is still fairly normal; the only difference, as my correspondent from Egypt said, is that 'the revolution is on everyone's mind'.

To a large extent, the country is in chaos. And yet, crime levels are lower than those of any other Western country. The Egyptian public is very proud that their morals and ethics alone are holding the country together. It is quite remarkable considering there's no government or police around.

In September, the mood was jubilant. By December, the people were getting angry due to the lack of progress on the political front. Last weekend, the parliamentary elections finally took place. In the complex new Egyptian political structure, there will also be a presidential election, which is due before the end of June. In the parliamentary elections, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), which is under the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, won between a third and a half of the seats. When combined with the fundamentalist Salifist Party, which 'strictly adheres to Shari'ah law,' they won around two thirds of the seats. The Salifists performed surprisingly well, at the expense of the liberal democratic parties championed by the West.

Thus, it looks as if the FJP will be the most influential body. However, no one is really sure what their aim is. The feeling on the street is that initially they'll be quite liberal, so as to not alienate the public. This will enable them to consolidate their power, and from there they'll be able to become more authoritarian. This is why more educated, liberal Egyptians are fearful for the future.

As for the presidential election, one of the leading candidates, Mohamed ElBaradei, dropped out of the running. Backed by the West, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, having been involved in inspecting nuclear weapons for the United Nations. The absence of ElBaradei in the presidential race means there's no clear favourite for the presidency.

As for Mubarak, he remains under house arrest. Growing old, and with his health deteriorating, almost everyone in Egypt wants him to get the death penalty. This leaves the army with a dilemma; having served under Mubarak for around 40 years, they don't want to simply kill him off. At the same time, they don't want to upset the public by letting him go unpunished. As a result, they have delayed his trial. It seems as if they are hoping he dies soon from natural causes.

Libya: What happened, and why?

By Luka Vlaskilic

After the populist anti-government movements in Tunisia and Egypt, often referred to as the Arab Spring, the people of Libya took to the streets in Tripoli and Benghazi. As we saw countless times before last year, the peaceful protests were met with violence, and soon Gaddafi had a revolution on his hands. Although there were a few clashes and a few activists who spoke out in January, it was not until 15th February that the unrest and confrontation began. By 27th February the NTC (National Transition Council) was formed with the former justice minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil, as its steward.

From then until the 17th March, when the UN Resolution 1973 was passed, the Libyan rebels/freedom fighters protested and fought alone against Gaddafi. Many people still supported Gaddafi, members of his tribe and many of those in power; this led to conflicts between pro and anti Gaddafi forces. Much of the army seemed to abandon the government and Gaddafi very quickly, especially when it looked like the international community would intervene. On 19th March the NTC was no longer fighting alone, with French jets flying over Libyan Airspace. From then onwards it was a long fight for freedom, with the ‘liberation’ of Tripoli on the 22nd August and that of Libya on 23rd October. Libya’s so called ‘Arab Spring’ had ended in autumn, exactly 250 days from when the protests began. The death toll reached about 30,000 from both sides of the conflict, thousands of civilians died and although the revolution will be remembered as a victory it was paid for by the blood of its inhabitants.

Now we come to why the revolution happened. Gaddafi was once on the other end of a revolution; he ‘liberated’ Libya from King Idris and formed an Arab Republic. He pumped funds into healthcare, and promoted free education for both boys and girls. By the 1980s Libya had one of the best HDI (Human Development Index) scores in Africa, and in November 2010 was rated in the same category as Mexico, Portugal and Argentina. Yet we have seen no revolutions in these countries. What changed, you ask? Well, I think the best explanation is that the people of Libya were fed up, and after seeing the success and bravery of their neighbours in Tunisia and Egypt they decided it was their turn. Gaddafi had been oppressing his critics and in many occasions ordered their assassinations. The people of Libya wanted reform and greater freedom, and when Gaddafi responded to protest with violence his beloved people turned on him. I believe that some reforms would have reduced the support for a revolution and Gaddafi may well have still been in power on 25th January 2012.

An alternative view was put forward by Gaddafi: "They give them pills at night; they put hallucinatory pills in their drinks, their milk, their coffee, their Nescafe," he also told his poeple 'not [to] be swayed by bin Laden." But I’ll let you come to your own conclusions about why the revolution happened…

What's going on in Hungary?

By Alan Go

h/t: Paul Krugman

After making ten amendments in their first year of power, the right-wing Fidesz government of Hungary, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orban, has now introduced an entirely new constitution. The word ‘republic’ has been removed from the official name of the country, but that is the least worrying change taking place. Every move from the current governing party has been heading in a disturbingly authoritarian direction, and there are deep fears for the future of a functioning, democratic Hungary.

With severe economic problems that have remained from the Soviet area, exacerbated hugely by the housing bubble and economic crisis, Hungary’s currency has been enormously volatile in recent years. Harsh austerity measures have been in place since 2007. The resentment towards the socialist party that had been governing since 2002 built up, resulting in a landslide victory for Fidesz in Spring 2010. They received 53% of the vote, which turned into a crucial 68% supermajority in the Hungarian Parliament.

The other beneficiary of the public’s discontent has been the Jobbik party, a former outsider with anti-semitic roots which even had its own paramilitary wing.

The most worrying change has been for the judiciary system, whose independence has been severely tarnished. Fidesz has been stacking the Constitutional Court with favourable judges, the age of retirement has come down, forcing many judges to retire immediately, and a single person now has sole authority to replace judges, move them to different positions, and even to decide which judge can hear each case.

Worrying new media laws have taken effect requiring an ambiguous standard of political balance. Self-censorship is already taking place, and one opposition friendly radio station was denied permission to have its license renewed. The new restrictions even apply to online media.

But perhaps the most blatant example of dictatorial behaviour concerns regulations about religion. There are 358 recognised faith groups in Hungary. Only 14 of them will be officially sanctioned. What this means for the remaining faiths, which include Islam and evangelical branches of Christianity, is not entirely clear. A two-thirds majority in Parliament will be required to have new faiths recognised. Orban seems to have made clear that he intends his country to be a Christian one. Marriage must be between a man and a woman, and all life is now protected from the moment of conception.

Interference with the Central Bank has destroyed the chance of a finanial bailout from either the IMF of the EU. Hungarian debt has been downgraded to junk status, and yields on ten year bonds are at an unsustainable 9.7%. If economic conditions stay depressed, as it is looking increasingly likely to happen, Hungary will struggle to escape from its budget deficit and other problems.

Fidesz’s popularity has dived since it came into power, and is now at less than 20%. However, the nature of the legislation they have rushed through is such that successive governments will have a hard time reversing the procedure. New electoral district boundaries have been drawn in such a way that Fidesz would have won all three of the last elections (two of which they actually lost). The terms of many official positions, including the head of the judicial office, and the head of the budget council, have been lengthened, and the people in those positions can stay in them unless new persons are agreed with a two-thirds majority. Other areas of law, such as tax policy, are also protected by this two-thirds supermajority requirement.

Although it has received considerably more attention than Syria, issues in Hungary have still failed to attract much attention from the press. International figures, including US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, have expressed concern, but the fear is that countries will be too preoccupied dealing with their own economic crises to mount any form of effective protest.

New, Bold and Ready to Take the Axe to Washington, Why the Tea Party Movement Has Failed to Stop the Same Old Candidates Winning the Republican Nomination

By Noah Kidron-Style

From left to right: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul

On February 19th, 2009, Rick Santelli’s rant against the banking bailout went viral across the Internet. By the end of the month it had fostered the Tea Party movement, a nationwide grassroots campaign calling for low taxation, dramatic cuts to spending and a literal reading of the American Constitution. It smashed the mainstream Republican Party, sparking a rhetorical desire for outsider politicians and filling the House of Representatives with new anti-establishment Tea Party candidates at the 2010 mid term elections.

Yet with the Iowa caucus just under a month away, the Republican Primary has turned into a two horse race involving two of the grand old men of the GOP. The true Tea Party candidates have fallen by the wayside in an extraordinary election campaign that has seen a rotating door of candidates try, and fail to unsaddle frontrunner Mitt Romney. Palin, Bachman and Perry all came and went before in a final bid of desperation the Tea Party summoned up the ultimate anti-establishment candidate in Herman Cain. Cain has never held a political position in his life; instead talks of his experience gained as the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza.

When Cain’s campaign spluttered to an end amidst allegations of sexual assault and adultery, commentators waited to see who would gain most from Cain’s fall. Few expected it to be Newt Gingrich. As the Huffington Post put it “Gingrich’s campaign still looks an awful lot like a book tour.” In comparison to Cain, Gingrich is the ultimate Washington insider. He was the speaker of the House of Representatives where he is best known for allowing the federal government to shut down in 1996, his failed attempt to have Clinton impeached for perjury and for being fined $300,000 for violating the Congresses ethics code. Despite the majority of his senior aids resigning in June this year, Gingrich has fought his way back to take the lead in both local and national polls.

Romney is a corporate insider. With a personal fortune of over $170 million made as CEO of Bain Capital and Bain&Co he is far cry from the fiscal hawkishness of the Tea Party. Last week he angered many middle class Republicans when he offered Rick Perry a $10,000 bet during a debate. It was widely seen as making Romney look totally out of touch, not hard for a man who made his money in the now discredited financial sector.

So why has the Tea Party failed? Some blame must be put on the Tea Party candidates. Mistakes cost Rick Perry who managed to forget which three agencies of federal government he wished to axe during a live TV debate, while Cain had to quit after allegations of repeated sexual harassment. Congressional Republicans haven’t helped either. The radical Tea Party intake of the 2010 midterms has put Congress into deadlock. Their ideologically fueled intransigents has put them at loggerheads with the White House and placed the USA perilously close to shutting down the government (for the first time since Gingrich was speaker).

The role of the twenty-four hours news media only adds to the problem. Gingrich and Romney aside, the rise to the top of opinion polls has always been accompanied by a similar rise in name recognition polling. This suggests that once the news decided that a candidate was on a mini surge, they would increase coverage of that candidate providing free advertising and rocketing previously unheard of people, like Herman Cain, to the forefront of voter’s minds. Once the novelty wore off and the networks streamlined their coverage, the candidates would move back down the polls and another would take their place.

Maybe this is it and the next president will be either Romney, a man most Republicans don’t want, or Newt Gingrich, a man whose own campaign staff thought had too much baggage. Or the conveyor belt of candidates could continue with Ron Paul, the intellectual godfather of the Tea Party who has the most conservative voting record of anyone in Congress since 1937. Or perhaps common sense will prevail and Obama will get reelected for the Democrats, one can only hope.