Articles by readingpolitics

You are currently browsing readingpolitics’s articles.

The following blog post is written by Ofer Fridman, our School nominee for the University’s PhD Researcher of the Year competition.

 

Different conflicts that have taken place in the last few decades significantly highlighted the problem of tackling with civilian population and collateral damage. In the last few decades of the 20th century, a universal respect for human life has become a crucial variable within the international community, in general, and Western societies in particular. In this new political reality, military seeks new technologies that have greater precision, shorter duration, less lethality, and reduced collateral damage. While Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) seem to be the perfect answer for this military quest; to this day the operational use of available non-lethal weapons by the military has been limited.

While an employment of NLW, undoubtedly, demands a paradigm shift in military affairs; the history of such fundamental changes proves that they can occur only under significant pressure and support from the political leadership. In the case of NLW, this required pressure becomes even more significant, as the military approach toward NLW has substantial political roots. The analysis of the existing literature clearly shows that not only their name (Non-Lethal Weapons) was chosen for political reasons, but their proposed role was more political than military, i.e. to add new options for policy makers in the ‘grey area’ between no application of military force and application of lethal military force.

My research, however, argues that despite visible political sensitivity to civil casualties during military operations, political leadership do not pressure military organisation significantly enough to fundamentally re-evaluate its doctrinal approach towards lethality. To solve this puzzle, the research focuses on three cases (Russia, the U.S. and Israel) analysing domestic and international political factors that have the potential to force the military organisations to fundamentally decrease their lethality.

Regarding domestic factors, on the one hand, it seems right to argue that the perception that human life is a universal value expected to stress political leadership, demanding its military to employ less lethal options. On the other, a deeper analysis of this aspect suggests entirely different situation that can be explained by two trends. The first trend assumes that in the 21st century people indeed value human life significantly higher than before. This appreciation, however, has been translated largely into general unwillingness to sacrifice one’s own life and the lives of his relatives, rather than a universal value that applies on the enemy’s civilians.

The second trend suggests that the increasing transparency of the military activity in the 21st century will create more public moral tolerance, thus demanding to minimise civil casualties on the battlefield. To deal with this emerging domestic political pressure, the political leadership with its military have developed different ways to justify civil casualties as an unavoidable part of the military activity that is intended to save more lives than caused deaths. In other words, the military has been required by its political leadership to reduce the number of civil casualties to the politically defendable rather than operationally or technologically possible minimum.

Regarding the international factors, during the last several decades, the number of civil casualties caused by military operations has become an important argument in international relations. Different international players (states, as well as non-state organisations) more frequently and more powerfully make use of this argument to criticise military activity of their international opponents, and therefore create pressure on their political leadership to withdraw military activity or, at least, minimise civil casualties.

However, an analysis of the foreign policy of all three countries suggests that these countries have developed mechanisms that help them to withstand international pressure, thus minimising its influence on political-military decision making process. In the Russian case, to fend international (mainly Western) criticism off, the Kremlin has developed a narrative of ‘Double Standards.’ Facing international criticism Russian leaders powerfully dismiss it, arguing that their activities comply with international law, at least with the same degree as Western actions do.

The American leadership, in its turn, minimises possible international criticism by building coalitions: as many states are involved in the military activity as less pressure will be applied on the U.S. decision makers themselves.

In Israel, the political leadership has decided, long ago, that the outcomes of military activity and the number of civil casualties have nothing to do with the international pressure. In other words, Israel believes that even an unprecedented low number of civil casualties during their operations will not decrease the already high level of the international pressure. Consequently, as the battle for the international public opinion is lost in advance and tight relations with the U.S. will protect Israel in the Security Council, the international pressure has little influence on the Israeli political-military decision making process.

On the one hand, unfortunately, my analysis does not suggest a feasible future for NLW. Political leadership is not stressed enough (domestically or internationally) to demand fundamental changes from their military organisations. Consequently, under insignificant political pressure, military organisations choose to adopt their existing capabilities (precision strikes, selective weapon systems, strict the rules of engagement, etc.), rather than employ NLW.

On the other hand, during the last several decades, military operations themselves have deviated from previous wars, where victory was considered solely by military terms. The winning of the “hearts and minds” has become a vital factor in achieving the final aims of military operations. Military organisations begin to understand that the achievement of a comprehensive victory demands support from the local population; and therefore, harming civilians, in most cases, will increase their involvement against the military and delay the successful end of operations.

Consequently, it seems that the future of NLW does not lie in the hands of politicians, and NLW will be eventually employed not because of political costs of civil casualties, but due to their military effectiveness. However, as history of military innovations suggests, without political demand and support, it can be a very long process.

Tags: , ,

 

Greece has a new government: a radical left – radical right coalition between the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) and the Independent Greeks (ANEL). The 25 January 2015 elections were the most critical in decades not only for Greece but also for Europe. Greece is the first country among the European ‘debtors’ to elect a government with a clear anti-austerity mandate. There are expectations of a potential domino effect: already PODEMOS has promised to emulate SYRIZA’s victory in the upcoming 2015 Spanish national elections.

SYRIZA, previously marginalised in the party system, managed to attract 36.34 per cent of the Greek vote, which translated to 149 seats, just two seats short of forming a majority government. The centre-right New Democracy, which was in power since 2012 and has been associated with austerity and harsh economic measures, came second with 27.81 per cent of the vote. Essentially the result was a landslide for SYRIZA that managed to attract a broad voting base.

However, it was not only the far left that benefited from the election. The ultra-nationalist extreme right-wing Golden Dawn came third with 6.28 per cent of the vote translating to 17 seats. While it lost marginally since the 2012 elections, the result indicates that it the Golden Dawn has now consistent support despite the fact that its leading members are currently imprisoned facing indictment and the party did little campaigning.

The River, a centrist party putting forward a socially liberal agenda, came fourth with only 0.23 per cent less than the Golden Dawn and the same number of seats at 17. This indicates low levels of support for the centre ground.

The overall election results are hardly surprising given the context within which they took place: high levels of unemployment, disillusionment and social discontent. Both the campaign as well as the resulting coalition confirm the strength of the pro and anti-bailout cleavage.

The Party campaigns

The debate has taken place along the lines of continuity versus change, stability versus instability, Euro versus Grexit, austerity versus growth, and fear versus hope. During the short pre-election period, discussions were structured around the contrast between on the one hand hope for a better future and on the other hand fear for a worse future to come. This illustrates the extent to which emotions were at the heart of party campaigns. Parties tapped into people’s insecurities in an attempt to attract their vote. It is precisely the fear versus hope campaign that has polarised the debate.

SYRIZA was the advocate for ‘hope’: the party’s logo ‘Hope is on the way’ was accompanied by a rhetoric emphasizing a new beginning, justice and equality, an end to the humanitarian disaster that austerity has created, a new Europe and a future with dignity. On the other hand New Democracy attempted to mobilise on the basis of fear. Its campaign, which in sum was characterised by scaremongering, was centred on the potential consequences of a SYRIZA victory including, the downgrading of Greece’s credit rating, a Greek default, a Grexit, and an overall economic disaster, which would ‘undo’ the sound economic policies that the New Democracy–led coalition government has been implementing since 2012. It appears that hope is a stronger emotion than fear and SYRIZA’s campaign was the most successful.

The new SYRIZA-led coalition government

What unites SYRIZA and ANEL is their anti-austerity stance. But what divides them is their viewpoints on key social issues, including nationalism, religion and immigration. Independent Greeks is a radical right party emphasizing what they term ‘national issues’: for example the Macedonian question, Cyprus and Greece’s relationship with Turkey, which they have identified as non-negotiable ‘red lines’. This party may be classified as conservative authoritarian, emphasising the motto ‘fatherland, religion and family’. These terms would seem to fundamentally contradict SYRIZA’s left wing socially open ideals, such as their pro-immigration stance, their calls for the separation of Church and State and support for same sex marriage. Alexis Tsipras is the first Greek Prime Minister ever to take a political rather than an religious oath for his new government.

However, it is more strategic rather than ideological considerations that have guided the formation of this coalition. The inclusion of Rahil Makri, a former ANEL MP, in SYRIZA gave signs that the party is guided more by the pro versus anti-austerity cleavage rather than the left-right cleavage. Or this could be a good indication that SYRIZA is becoming a catch-all party attempting to attract a social based broader than its traditional left-wing supporters. Already before the elections SYRIZA progressively began to compromise its more radical positions. When it entered the Greek political scene as a contender in 2012, it did so on a radical left platform bearing all the features of a party in opposition. Emphasising anti-establishment ideas, SYRIZA had declared that it would renegotiate austerity at any cost. As the party got closer to power, it began to resemble a party in office: moderating its position in a bid to attract broader electoral support and put forward policies it can actually pull through.

 

This article was co-authored by Daphne Halikipoulou, University of Reading, and Sofia Vasilopoulou, University of York. They have also co-authored a forthcoming book on the Golden Dawn entitled ‘The Golden Dawn’s ‘Nationalist Solution’: Explaining the Rise of the Far Right in Greece’

Please note: This article has been published in LSE EUROPP Blog, and the Danish newspaper Politiken

Tags: , ,

 

While the analysis of Sunday’s Greek national elections has focused on the victory of the far left-wing SYRIZA and the formation of a coalition with the far right-wing Independent Greeks, what is less discussed is the electoral result of the Golden Dawn and its implications for Greek democracy.

While support for the party dropped from the 9.38 per cent it received during the 2014 EP elections and the 6.97 per cent it received during the June 2012 national elections, the Golden Dawn still managed to attract 6.28 per cent of the votes cast now occupying third place in the Greek Parliament with 17 seats. Within the context of the imprisonment and pending indictment of its leading members, this is a significant result in itself and indicates that there is a substantial percentage of Greek voters with far right-wing ideas that the Golden Dawn accommodates. It is notable that the party did not even participate in the electoral campaigns. Despite this, it managed attract high percentages in several constituencies and even in Piraeus, the birthplace of left-wing activist Pavlos Fysssas whose murder is associated with the Golden Dawn.

The results raise the question of whether support for the Golden Dawn is simply a temporary anti-systemic vote or a phenomenon embedded in Greek society.

The economic crisis has undoubtedly shifted attitudes favourably to the Golden Dawn. An analysis of the 2014 EP elections indicates that support for the Golden Dawn is an attitudinal phenomenon deriving from people’s stance on the political system in general: a protest vote against the status quo and disillusionment with governing parties. It also indicates, however, that those voters more likely to opt for the Golden Dawn are ones with right-wing socially conservative and authoritarian ideas.

Within the context of a crisis that beyond economic, also has fundamental political and ideological implications, we may speak of a crisis of democracy. To this crisis, the Golden Dawn has offered a ‘nationalist’ solution drawing on ideas that are already prevalent in Greece. This is why a party that puts forward a rhetoric based on fascist myths, such as social decadence and national rebirth, was able to dramatically increase its support in 2012 and almost maintain it in 2015 despite its anti-democratic and unconstitutional activities.

In managing the crisis, the new government must also focus on the Golden Dawn phenomenon. And if we accept the classic paradigm that both democracy and economic growth depend on an empowered middle class, then this is the key to addressing both austerity and the far right phenomenon in Greece.

 

This article was co-authored by Daphne Halikipoulou, University of Reading, and Sofia Vasilopoulou, University of York. They have also co-authored a forthcoming book on the Golden Dawn entitled ‘The Golden Dawn’s ‘Nationalist Solution’: Explaining the Rise of the Far Right in Greece’

Please note: This article was first published in the Greek magazine ‘Lifo’.

For more information, please see: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/the-golden-dawn%92s-daphne-halikiopoulou/?K=9781137487124

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

Monday March 2nd 2015

Reading Blue Coat School, in collaboration with the British Association of American Studies and the Eccles Centre at the British Library, are hosting a day of events perfect for those studying Politics or International Relations at university.

The day (9.30am to c.3.30pm) will consist of talks from leading scholars, including: Prof Philip Davies (Eccles Centre, British Library), Dr Mark Shanahan (University of Reading), Dr Andrew Moran (London Metropolitan University) and Dr Ross English (King’s College, London). The talks will focus on issues such as: Obama’s presidency, the outlook for Congress since the 2014 midterms, US elections, and the current ideological divisions within the two political parties.

In addition, we will be joined for the day by two former members of the US House of Representatives who will be keen to get involved in debates and answer questions:

Ann Marie Buerkle – former Assistant Attorney General of New York State and Republican Member of the House of Representatives (NY)

Dennis M. Hertel – former State Representative for Michigan and Democratic Member of the US House of Representatives (MI)

The cost of this event is £10 per person, and this will cover all refreshments, including lunch at the school – if you are interested in booking places please contact Dr Adam Burns, Head of Government & Politics at Reading Blue Coat School:  adb31@le.ac.uk  – Cheques should be made payable to “Reading Blue Coat School” and sent to the Politics Department, Reading Blue Coat School, Holme Park, Sonning Lane, Sonning, Berkshire, RG4 6SU.

Tags: , ,

 

If the media are to be believed, much of the debate in the coming UK general election will be about the approaches the various political parties will take to economic austerity should they form the next government. As I see it, their positions can be broadly characterised as follows: Tories – more austerity; Labour – less austerity; Lib Dems – not sure how much austerity; UKIP – who knows? – But probably austerity for foreigners.

So, it seems to be an accepted fact that austerity is needed and only the scale of it is contested. That means that the government must either spend less or tax more and as no one wants to pay more tax, spending will have to be cut. Basically, we have all been financially irresponsible and the reckoning has arrived. The country is broke. There is a massive deficit which contributes to an even bigger debt which, sorry to say must be paid back. You wouldn’t run your own household like this would you? And what is the country if not a household writ large?

Yet, do we really understand what the proposed scale of austerity, which means cuts in government spending, will actually mean? Various commentators have suggested it would result in a return to a level of state provision similar to that last seen in the 1930s. That would translate as smaller NHS, fewer police, reduced benefits for the most disadvantaged. Less public housing. More fee based services. Bigger class sizes for school children. Higher university fees. More unemployment.

What if none of that was actually true? What if there was legitimate debate to be had about how the economy actually worked and the source, purpose and function of the money we are apparently so short of? What if public expenditure deficits were neither good nor bad but merely a tool in the government’s tool kit. What if governments didn’t need to tax or borrow to raise funds? What if governments could guarantee full employment? What if this type of economic thinking was part of the mainstream debate? The debate would not just be about “crushing austerity” versus “austerity lite” but austerity versus a completely different economic approach. What if the electorate was offered a real choice?

That choice could be on offer and indeed it should be. To deny people that choice and let them vote for policies thinking that there is no alternative is a negation of democracy. I want to suggest that there is a real, robust, academically respectable alternative to the very limited economic choices our politicians currently offer us. It is called Modern Monetary Theory (MMTand has been developed over the past 20 years by Professors Bill Mitchell (University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia) and L. Randall Wray (University of Missouri-Kansas, US) and their respective research teams.

It is a rich, nuanced and sometimes counter-intuitive theory and is supported by substantial empirical research. It does not promise economic, far less social, Nirvana, but it does propose a different approach which puts human well-being and shared public purpose at the heart of economic policy. Private enterprise, individual initiative and personal autonomy and ambition are at the heart of its prescriptions. It is essentially about ensuring full employment so that the real resources or the economy – labour and materials – can be fully utilised to meet individual and collective needs. At the heart of the theory is the realisation that “money” in a fiat currency (which most countries have used since the end of the Bretton Woods gold standard system in 1971) is created solely by governments. Governments spend money into existence for the use of everyone else. Therefore governments are never revenue constrained, do not need to tax before they can spend and economic activity is only constrained by the level of skills people have and the type of materials they have to work with. Governments are emphatically not like households. Households, companies and individuals have to work to get money so they can spend it. That is a real constraint on them. Governments, as monopoly issuers of the currency, do not have that constraint and can spend as much as is necessary to ensure the real resources of an economy are fully employed.

Modern Monetary Theory directly and dramatically contradicts the received economic wisdom of the government, the opposition, most economic think tanks, almost all financial journalists and a majority of economists. But it is a real viable alternative to the neo-liberal economic consensus which has brought us austerity. MMT could be tried and it definitely should be talked about – vigorously, passionately and continuously. Otherwise we will accept one or other version of austerity, believing it to be the only option. When it absolutely is not.

There are many questions – what about inflation? Won’t it lead to the sort of things that happened in Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic? What about public spending crowding out private investment? What happens to the debt we already have? What about the exchange rate? And many more. Rest assured – MMT comprehensively addresses these issues. But, of course, those and many other questions need to be asked, debated, contested and answered.

As it currently stands, the tragedy is that they won’t be. Not because people aren’t interested, but because the electorate aren’t ever told there is a robust and credible alternative to the ever present narrative of austerity. Austerity is the only game in town.

The attraction of MMT is that it clearly demonstrates that the economy is not a god to be appeased but a human invention. The economy should work for humans. It is a system to be managed. Why do our politicians fail to recognise this? The analogy of the economy as a household is simply wrong. Have you ever wondered where the Bank of England got all that money for “Quantitative Easing” (£375 billion) or where the US Fed got its QE funds ($1.7 trillion) from? Well, they just made it up because central bankers know that they can create the money from nowhere by typing into a spreadsheet and that’s about as far away from the way a normal household funds itself as you can get.   MMT can tell you in detail why this is possible and it can offer a rigorous and consistent explanation of why these initiatives have only been partially successful because governments have failed to follow the most important prescriptions of the theory.

MMT is not a magic formula. In an MMT economy choices would still have to be made about what to do and when to do it. No economy has infinite, instant resources. There will still be political arguments aplenty. There will be winners and losers. The state would not wither away with the government of people being replaced by the administration of things. But wouldn’t it be better to be arguing about whether we should use our resources to build a road or a school rather than being told that, despite having unemployed construction workers and plenty of building materials, we somehow can’t afford either because we don’t have the money?

I believe that we should refuse to accept the economic debate as it is presented to us. The current discourse is far too narrow and conducted from a single perspective. There’s a saying that if you only have a hammer, every problem is a nail; unfortunately, if you think, as our politicians seem to, that the national economy is no different from a seriously indebted household then the answer will always be austerity.

As a community of scholars we should be committed to the search for what is true. We should know better than most – in fact, it is our job to know – that the popular and the obvious are often just a mask for half-truths, no truth and lazy thinking. Sometimes the unpopular – even the heretical -turns out to be true. Remember Galileo!

So, the next time a politician canvasses your vote with their favourite version of austerity, look them in the eye and ask “Is there really no alternative?” I know I will – it’s no less than my democratic duty!

—II—

Note; for those who may be interested in finding out more about MMT see Bill Mitchell’s regular blog: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/

Also a good introductory text is:

Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems

  1. Randall Wray

Palgrave Macmillan (7 Aug. 2012)

 

 

Mark Jakeman

Third Year PhD Student

Tags: , , ,

 

Politics is a fascinating subject which can be applied to many different areas, and with our latest series of blog posts we aim to show you just that. Our own Professor Beatrice Heuser has reviewed a selection of films, which can be linked to modules offered on some of our courses. movieposter

This first post looks at our module on Contemporary Diplomacy (find more about this and the MA Diplomacy here) and the film The French Minister (2013)

 

The French Minister (orig.: Quai d’Orsay, Bertrand Tavernier, 2013). 

Foreign (and security) policy is largely about words and texts – the negotiation of treaties, statements, speeches.  This film turns around a speech the French Foreign Minister “Taillard” (Villepin) is to make at the UN Security Council to define his country’s position in the planned war against “Ludmenistan” (Iraq 2003).  We follow the efforts to produce this 10-minute speech by a young speech-writer, brought in from the outside to provide “fresh blood” in a ministry where everybody else is a civil servant (diplomat) with a mind-set honed for bureaucratic politics – beautifully illustrated by this film – rather than epic statements.  Those of us who have worked and written speeches for Taillard-type characters recognize the truthfulness of this film, and never cease to marvel at how the texts (speeches, declarations …) emerging from this convoluted process can sound as though policy had been made in a rational fashion.

If you’ve seen The French Minister, or hope to see it soon, let us know what you thought!

 

Tags: , , ,

 

On the 5th February, 6.30pm-8pm, our very own Dr Daphne Halikiopoulou will be speaking at LSE on the topic of the upcoming Greek elections.

This should prove to be an engaging and topical discussion, with Dionyssis G. Dimitrakopoulos Senior Lecturer in Politics at Birkbeck College, and Dimitri Vayanos Professor of Finance at LSEspeaking alongside Daphne.

Location: Thai Theatre, New Academic Building, LSE

FREE event OPEN TO ALL, on a first come first serve basis.

Want to find out more? Click here.

Tags: , , , ,

There are numerous options for how to hold a constitutional convention. In this post, first published on the openDemocracy blog, Alan Renwick argues that we should not rush in hasty decision. Instead, we should make sure we get the very best option for lasting democratic change in Britain.

Politicians from across the political spectrum have come out in the days since Scotland’s independence referendum in favour of a constitutional convention to determine the future shape of the UK. Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, and Green Party leader Natalie Bennett have all said this is the best way to resolve the constitutional anomalies created by further devolution to Scotland and to seek a revival of our democracy. Some Conservatives apparently also share that view – though the party’s leadership stands against it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Students in Hong Kong today begin a week-long boycott of their classes in protest against the refusal of the Chinese government to accept democratic electoral reforms. Tom Kennedy, who graduated from the BA in Politics and International Relations at Reading in 2013, spent much of the past summer travelling in East Asia and teaching in Beijing. Here he offers a personal reflection on the unfolding developments.

On a clear night, the view looking towards Victoria Harbour is magnificent. It shines like an Asian Manhattan, a metropolis of invention and success. It is difficult not to be enthused by this wonderfully unique place. One can only imagine the emotions of Lord Patten, the last Governor of Hong Kong, as he boarded the boat leaving the harbour after overseeing the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997.

Read the rest of this entry »

Paul Goodman gives an insightful analysis of the politicking around English devolution that is going on within the Conservative Party at the moment. But do Conservative MPs really think the current situation is just about jockeying for short-term political advantage?

Two things ought to be clear. First, if Westminster fails to deliver on the promises given to Scotland over the last few weeks, the UK will break apart over the coming years. The SNP will win the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections by a landslide. They will then call another referendum saying Scots were conned into voting No first time round by a duplicitous London establishment that treats them with contempt. And they will win that referendum: many of those who voted No last week will feel deeply betrayed.

Read the rest of this entry »

« Older entries