_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
training-politics-dhwrt-con04a | Trident is not an independent weapons system Britain tries to maintain that it has an ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ but this is just a fiction. Britain has not had an independent nuclear deterrent for fifty years. The United Kingdom has used American missiles since the Polaris Sales Agreement of 6 April 1963 first with the United States supplying Polaris missiles and then Trident missiles. [1] The UK does not own its missiles, they are leased, and the UK is completely dependent on the US for the maintenance of the missiles and even for targeting data. [2] The United States certainly appears to consider Britain’s deterrent to be dependent on them; wikileaks revealed that the US handed over the serial numbers of the missiles it transfers to the UK over to Russia to help the Russians verify the number of UK missiles. [3] [1] Jimmy Carter: "Sale of Trident I Missiles to the United Kingdom Exchange of Letters Between the President and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom. ," July 14, 1980. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. [2] ‘UK’s Trident system not truly independent’, Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence, 7 March 2006. [3] ‘Geneva: Agreed statements meeting, 10Geneva135 26 February 2010’, The Telegraph, 4 February 2011. |
training-politics-dhwrt-con04b | Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters. [1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005. |
training-politics-dhwrt-con02b | One country disarming is not going to persuade others, particularly those like China and Russia that still consider themselves great powers, to do so. At the same time the United Kingdom’s situation can never be compared to other countries; Israel would argue it is surrounded by enemies, China that it needs them if the US has them etc. These countries would only consider whether to disarm based upon their own national interests not what other states have done. We should do the same and renew trident as being necessary for the defence of the realm. |
training-politics-whwanw-pro02a | The purported efficacy of nuclear deterrence drives nuclear proliferation and therefore increases the risk of nuclear weapons being utilized By claiming the efficacy of nuclear weapons as a strategic deterrent, the current nuclear powers encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Krieger, 2003). To be a part of the so-called 'nuclear club' is seen as a matter of great prestige; when India and Pakistan recently declared their nuclear capability and held mutual tests in the 1990s, it was seen in both countries as increasing their international status. Nevertheless, tensions in the region have only increased since the mutual announcements, not least the Kargil War of 1999 that almost precipitated a nuclear war. Nations opposed to a nuclear power therefore feel that they need to develop their own capability in order to protect themselves. The declared nuclear powers must therefore take the lead in disarmament, as an example for the rest of the world. |
training-politics-whwanw-pro04a | Both the use and threat of nuclear weapons are illegal The disproportionate and indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons use renders their possession illegal under international humanitarian law. The International Court of Justice in 1996, asked to provide an advisory opinion, declared unanimously that any use or threat of nuclear weapons had to be compatible with existing international law relating to armed conflict (International Court of Justice, 1996). The principles of discrimination and proportionality inherent in the laws of wars are codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and are quite clearly violated by nuclear weapons. As such, a majority of the judges present felt that any such use or threat would ‘generally be contrary’ to those rules of international law and therefore, unanimously, ‘there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control’ (International Court of Justice, 1996). |
training-politics-whwanw-con03b | Nuclear weapons provide the source of the greatest possible barbarity in warfare; therefore it is disingenuous to suggest that their abolishment would only exacerbate conflicts. States do not start wars with major powers contemporaneously merely because those major powers happen to have nuclear weapons; traditional deterrence will still be as effective as it is currently. Furthermore, the abolishment of nuclear weapons would allow thereafter mutual co-operation on the issue of non-proliferation without the current fear that others are only concerned with preventing proliferation in countries likely to be opposed to their interests. |
training-politics-gvhbtnd-pro05b | Liberal democracy is flexible; it can incorporate secular and non-secular, different religions, cultures, or views of the role of the state. Many liberal democracies have restrictions on the sale of alcohol; some parts of the United States are entirely dry. Gender equality is more of an issue but women are allowed to vote in Turkey – which is essential to democracy. [1] Other rights however are up to individual culture to decide. Even if we don’t like a lack of gender equality in Turkey we should not consider the country not to be democratic because of it. [1] ‘February 6, 1935 Turkey Holds First Election That Allows Women to Vote’, OUPblog, 6 February 2012, |
training-politics-gvhbtnd-pro03a | One party state Under the AKP Turkey has effectively become a one party state; this means that there is not the competition necessary to make Turkey a genuine liberal democracy. Yes alternative parties exist but this does not mean they are going to get any power any time soon if the government can help it. The AKP has been able to get twice as many votes as its nearest rival making it by far the dominant party. The party consolidates power and there are signs that competition in the party is more important than with other parties. [1] The rioting across the country has shown this in several ways. First the resort to violent and street protest shows the opposition don’t think they can oust the AKP at the ballot box. Secondly the response from the leaders of the AKP have been mixed. While Erdoğan has vehemently condemned the protests while President Abdullah Gül has taken a more nuanced line saying “Democracy is not just about elections” and that “If there are objections, there is nothing more natural than voicing them” effectively endorsing some protest. [2] [1] Yinanç, Barçin, ‘AKP ushering in 'dominant-party system,' says expert’, Hürriyet Daily News, 17 June 2011, [2] ‘Democracy is no just about elections, says Turkish President’, Hürriyet Daily News, 3 June 2013, |
training-politics-gvhbtnd-con03b | We do not yet know if this is a false dawn when it comes to peace with the Kurds. Erdoğan could simply be using the process for his own ends; either to secure the Olympics for Istanbul or to secure a powerful presidency for himself. Alternatively he may simply be seeking to divide the Kurds so making them easier to defeat. [1] As yet with no political deal or real knowledge of what the settlement might be considering this a democratic advance seems a bit farfetched. [1] Hannah, John, ‘Erdogan's Great Gamble’, Foreign Policy, 14 May 2013, |
training-politics-gvhbtnd-con01b | High electoral turnout is in large part a result of turkey having compulsory voting so it is difficult to see how this statistic is an indicator of the democratic health of the country. There is also a big difference between having a liberal democracy and a ‘tyranny of the majority’ Turkey under AKP has been much more the latter. Erdoğan has threatened the opposition “if you gather 100,000 people, I can gather a million” showing that the majority and numbers are simply being used to browbeat anyone who opposes his plans. [1] A democracy means more than holding regular elections; even regimes everyone recognizes as authoritarian, such as Kazakhstan or Iran, hold them. [1] Cook, Steven A., and Koplow, Michael, ‘How Democratic Is Turkey?’, Foreign Policy, 3 June 2013, |
training-politics-gvhbtnd-con04b | Democratic legitimacy cannot simply be equated with economic growth even if most people see the economy as the main issue when it comes to voting. The economy is important but there are plenty of countries which have used economic growth to buttress undemocratic regimes; China being the obvious example where the state’s legitimacy is intimately bound up with economic growth. [1] [1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, |
training-politics-gvhbtnd-con02b | While coups were frequent during the twentieth century each time power was quickly returned to civilian hands meaning that even including the coups Turkey had a vibrant democracy. [1] [1] Baran, Zeyno, ‘Is Kemalism Dead in Turkey?’, Defining Ideas, 13 December 2010, |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-pro02b | This happens in theory but in practise does not work this way. Precedent in the United States has shown that political discourse is still fractious despite the presence of Open Primaries as it is still the ideologically focussed base that that vote and decide such elections on a low turnout. Even if Propositions contentions were true, it can be argued that it is the lack of clear dividing lines between parties that can cause major disillusionment in politics, with many parties now subscribing to a broadly neoliberal world view as has happened in the UK where parties regularly cross-dress, appeal to the same groups and steal each other’s policies. [1] The lack of clear ideology engendered by Open Primaries would make such disillusionment worse. Two parties that agree on everything would seriously damage turnout as no clear choice is presented to the electorate. [1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘If our political parties did not exist would we ever need to invent them?’, The Guardian, 25 October 2007, |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-pro02a | Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics By creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections. An Open Primary is more likely to choose more centrist candidates for the general election, providing a degree of moderation to the process of election and politics in general. This in turn can help foster a consensual atmosphere in political discourse with general agreed points, focusing the debate on more core issues between the main parties. [1] This then means that much more is likely to get done. At the moment American politics is plagued by gridlock both in the states and in Congress. Individuals elected under open primaries are much more likely to be willing to compromise across the aisle. [2] As a result government will begin moving again. [1] ‘Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections’, The Stanford Daily, 12 May 2010, [2] Michael Alvarez, R., and Sinclair, Betsy, ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes’, P.2 |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-pro05a | Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices Open Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration. In safe districts, voters are given a choice between members of the same party, allowing for voters to effectively choose the next member based upon past record and views on big issues, allowing for the ideological cleavages within parties to brought under closer examination, with voters in the safe seat choosing the type of Conservatism/Liberalism/Socialism they prefer. [1] This can help to provide choice even when one party is already assured of winning the seat, thus providing a degree of competition in the district, engaging voters in the electoral process. [1] Skelton, George, ‘California open primaries? Give them a chance’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2010, |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-pro01b | People feel disengaged with politics in general not because they don’t have a say over candidacies, but because of the constant merry-go-round that is electoral politics. The voter fatigue that comes from the constant chase for votes from parties will not decrease. If anything, it will increase as candidates and media coverage is dominated by speculation over who will be a candidate for office rather than who will gain the office actually up for election, causing further disillusionment with the political process. |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-pro05b | Contests between those of the same party are in their nature divisive and distract from the aim of winning the general election. Debates about Ideological nuance are not major reasons for non-political voters to go to the polls. Debates about those issues have largely been the preserve of those who are party members and as a result should stay within that sphere. Greater competition can be engendered through other means, such as Proportional Representation that leads to real competition between all parties in all areas of a country as opposed to a contest between candidates who have no real differences of opinion. |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-pro04b | Party power is exercised heavily in countries where Open Primaries exist. In the United States, it is common for a political party to openly back a candidate in Primary Elections for Congressional seats. This can give said candidate a major head start, with the massive financial backing and exposure in the public eye that follows resulting in predictable results. [1] Only special circumstances see incumbents defeated (See the rise of the Tea Party and its effect on the US Republican Party), with Primaries being largely predictable affairs. These results in a lack of interest in many Primary contests, making them little more than sideshows that distract from the process of government. [1] ‘“Open” Primaries and the Illusion of Choice’, open salon, 9 June 2010, |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-pro03a | Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities A major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view. Open Primaries counters this by allowing these voters a chance to vote for candidates of a major party that are closer to their own political persuasion, thus giving as many people as possible the opportunity to register their opinion on who will be their representative for the next term, ending disillusionment with predictable election results. This means that third party candidates may become serious candidates in elections when they pass the primary test. [1] [1] Nielson, Susan, ‘Open Oregon’s primaries’, The Oregonian, 13 October 2008, |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-pro04a | Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power Political Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents. [1] By instituting Open Primaries, the focus of representatives shifts from the party leadership to the constituents whom prospective candidates hope to represent. Scrutiny over the representative’s conduct would be in the hands of the voters, with reselection in an Open Primary being contingent upon the member looking after the interests of their constituents, rather than the interest of the party as is the case in many countries that do not have Open Primary systems. [2] By using Open Primaries, elections once again becomes about representing the people as opposed to being a means to power as is the case under the status quo in countries that do not use it. [1] Stone, Daniel, ‘Prop 14’s Winners and Losers’, Newsweek, 8 June 2010, [2] Triggs, Matthew, ‘Open primaries’, Adam Smith Institute, 16 September 2010, |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-con03b | This Argument does not stack up. The large numbers of people voting in Primary elections will mean many ‘apoliticals’ will counter the worst partisan tactics (if any) being used in the election. If there has been any impact of opposition party involvement upon the internal politics of a party, it has been to elect more centrist candidates that the greatest number of voters can find palatable. That in itself is no bad thing, as politics can become extremely partisan at times, it does help to have candidates who can be moderate and be more prepared to compromise in order to the best possible outcome for all they represent. |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-con01b | Open Primaries have proven themselves to be a means of engagement in the political process, providing scrutiny of individual candidates before approving the program that they stand for. Open Primaries maintain scrutiny over individual action as opposed to merely scrutinising the actions of the party as a whole, giving voters a chance to provide a nuanced results in elections. Politicians can still focus on their job of representing the people under an Open Primary system, as it is their actions in conducting that particular role that will decide their success in reselection by the electorate they represent. |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-con01a | Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate. This may create a dangerous precedent of politics being little more than one constant election cycle, with decision being made to please constituents in order to win two elections. We see this the most in the US House of Representatives, where decisions influencing ‘pork-barrel’ spending are made with the main aim of keeping constituents happy in order to avoid primary defeat, to the detriment of government being more disposed to dysfunction. [1] The constant election cycle can cause disillusionment with voters who fail to see tangible effects of what the politicians the elect do yet face constant electioneering. By only hosting general elections, a clear focus is provided for candidates and electorate alike, allowing for scrutiny to be based upon the actions of politicians and the party they represent against the opposition who seek to replace them. [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, NationalJournal, 14 March 2009, |
training-politics-pggvhbopam-con02b | While centrist candidates maybe preferred in Primary elections, but it is a choice that has been made by the people when presented with a full ideological spectrum by the range of candidates standing for elections. Appeal to Swing voters is what matters in elections anyway so what Open Primaries do is make that abundantly clear, with the candidate most likely to carry swing voters in the general election most likely to win the candidacy. This makes party leaderships think hard about what voters want and how to incorporate that into policy. |
training-politics-oamepdgtwh-pro01a | There are preexisting institutions in Arab countries. Many middle eastern states already have institutions that are similar to the representative institutions that a stable democracy needs so can easily become the real thing. Arab dictators have grown adept at holding elections, setting up parliaments; constitutional courts etc. as window dressing to show either to their people or to the outside world that they are reforming and are ‘democratic’. No matter how undemocratic these regimes have been the simple existence of these institutions is useful when there is a revolution as they allow some continuity and the possibility of a transition to democracy. To take Egypt where protests toppled the Mubarak regime as an example. It has a parliament with the Majilis Al-Sha’ab (People’s Assembly) as its lower house and Majilis Al-Shura (Shura Council) as its upper house. In both houses a majority of the members are directly elected. [1] Egypt held elections for its parliament as recently as November 2010, these elections had very poor turnout and blatant ballot rigging while the main opposition the Muslim Brotherhood have to stand as independents. [2] Egypt also has previously had local elections for 52,000 municipal council seats in some 4,500 towns and cities. These elections are just as fraudulent as those for the national parliament. According to Muslim Brotherhood MP Jamdi Hassan “The ruling party used to allow opposition candidates to run and then simply rig the elections. Now, it has adopted a new strategy to ensure its continued domination: preventing the opposition from fielding any candidates at all.” [3] This may not be the best democratic tradition but at least it is a start. Similarly Egypt has a Supreme Constitutional Court that is supposed to be independent. [4] While these institutions may have ceased working in a democratic way they could quite easily be changed in to being fully democratic. This would create the necessary checks and balances to sustain democracy over the long term. The people are used to elections and will know what to do when they have the option to vote freely, they would vote in a broad range of candidates. Many of them may be islamist but it would be democratic. [1] Wikipedia, ‘Parliament of Egypt’, accessed 19/05/2011 [2] Egypt hold parliamentary poll, 28/11/2010, BBC News, [3] Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani Opposition Squeezed in Local Elections, IPS News, 17/3/08, [4] The Supreme Constitutional Court, ‘Historical Overview’, |
training-politics-oamepdgtwh-pro01b | While the presence of pre-existing institutions is an advantage in transitioning to a democracy, that advantage may be compromised when these institutions are largely seen as illegitimate and have not fostered a democratic political culture. Key to the development of a democratic political culture is confidence in institutions and a willingness to accept the popular will as carried out by those institutions. The predominance of the Executive over the Legislature is rather reminiscent of the Imperial Russian State Duma (1905-1917) as with Tunisia and Bahrain the lower house was directly elected, although the system was heavily weighted to produce pliant Dumas from 1907 on, and the upper house appointed. There was quite a plurality of parties and the Duma had control over a wide area of legislation but not over areas such as military policy and the Tsar had veto powers. [1] It certainly cannot be said that the Duma’s existence proved to be conducive to the creation of a stable democracy after the fall of the Tsar, or even a stable state of any sort. The existence of the necessary institutions therefore does not mean anything if those very institutions are not seen as legitimate. [1] E. A. Goldenweiser, ‘The Russian Duma’,Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1914), pp. 408-422 |
training-politics-oamepdgtwh-con03b | In the Libyan case the dictator remains (as of 20th April 2011) but cannot sell oil even if he retakes the refineries. The rebels cannot sell oil either (legally) even though they control most of the infrastructure. The sanctions imposed against Gaddafi apply to the whole of the country. [1] Therefore the desire for oil pushes for further support of the rebels in this case as the sanction regime is only likely to be deconstructed following a rebel victory. Should Gaddafi remain in power the west may have to cut itself off from Libyan oil for years to come. Obviously the above case represents a regime in flux. Once a regime is toppled then anything can happen. There is then no reason why outside actors should want to encourage another dictatorship rather than a democracy. A dictatorship may bring stability faster but a democracy is much more stable in the long run. Countries ideas of their strategic interests can be very divergent. An example is the Suez crisis. Prime Minister Eden considered it “an obvious truth that safety of transit through the canal…[is] a matter of survival [however] world opinion seemed to be that Nasser was within his rights in nationalising the Canal Company.” [2] As Nasser promised “freedom of navigation would not be affected by nationalisation” reducing the matter in the view of the US Secretary of Defence to “a ripple”. [3] So while Britain was still willing to fight for control over the Suez canal the US condemned that very action forcing a withdrawal. [1] Libya oil stuck in legal limbo as UN panel shunned, Reuters Africa, 20th April 2011, accessed 19/5/11 [2] Sir Anthony Eden, Full Circle: The Memoirs (Cambridge, 1960), p.533. [3] Dwight D. Eisenhower, Waging Peace 1956-1961 (New York, N.Y., 1965), pp.39, 41-3. |
training-politics-oamepdgtwh-con01b | The question is as much whether once a democracy has been established it can sustain itself as a system through multiple changes in government without reverting to dictatorship by coup. Notionally at least Lebanon has been a democracy continually since 1932, if the interruption of the brutal civil war is ignored. While that event shows that it can hardly be called stable in the general sense, it has been in the way that democracy survived even that cataclysm. Such ethnic tensions are hardly conducive to stable government even in Western Europe. [2] When Belgium’s current political quagmire is looked at next to Lebanon the differences between Flemish and Walloon seem insignificant compared those which a Lebanese government must bridge, so even if its effectiveness may be questioned Lebanon’s democracy surely holds out hope for all, particularly for countries that are much less divided. There are excessively high hopes for Arab democracy this early, given that democracy has only been the prominent governing system in the West for the past century or so, and only without widespread violence since the end of World War II. It may take more than a few months for the Middle East to establish durable democratic systems, but the first steps are certainly established. [2] Belgium: Still No Government, Mar., 1. 2011, |
training-politics-oamepdgtwh-con02a | The west only supports democracies that fit with its world view. Fincial and diplomatic engagement with the international community is essential for democracy to take hold. Tensions turn to conflict when governments are unable to provide basic services to the people, as was the case in Gaza when Hamas was elected in 2006 and the US and EU immediatey froze nearly all the funds and resources that were reaching the occupied territory. Furthermore, support from the West is necessary to provide the financial resources to rebuild after the revolutions damaged business and scared tourists away. However the West’s does not support democracy unless the ruling party is guaranteed to act in the interests of the West. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the United States has either directly aided or executed the overthrow of over thirty foreign governments, many of which were popularly elected.a The US has in the past warned that aid to Lebanon could be jeopardized if Hezbollah was dominant in the government. [1] The US has a history of confrontation with the party that is the main political representation for the Shia element of Lebanese society which has eroded rather than supported Lebanese stability. [2] The victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections, winning 76 of 132 seats, did not result in any rapprochement with the Bush administration despite their professed desire to see democracy in the Middle East. [3] The result was that aid from Europe and the US was reduced to humanitarian aid only, rather than as before being a major element of Palestinian government income and expenditure. [4] The result being that in 2007 the ‘country’ was rent in two as Hamas seized control of Gaza. Of course another Middle Eastern state that holds democratic elections, Iran, is the very model of a pariah state from the western point of view. It seems that the west is less concerned about democracy in the middle east and more about stability. a. Wikipedia, 'Covert United States foreign regime change actions;, [1] ‘U.S. warns on ties with Hezbollah-backed Lebanon gov’t’, Reuters, 25 January 2011, [2] Nicholas Noe, Lebanese government collapse: a history of missed opportunities, guardian.co.uk, 14th January 2011, accessed 19/05/11 [3] Scott Wilson, Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast, Washington Post Foreign Service, 27th January 2006, accessed 19/5/11 [4] Palestinian Parliamentary Elections 2006, GlobalSecurity.org, accessed 19/5/11 |
training-politics-oamepdgtwh-con04a | Rentier economies lead to dictatorships. Most economies in the middle east are oligarchic with the wealth in the hands of a few. Oil has created rentier economies. These economies rely upon systems of patronage relying upon kinship groups, merchant communities and patron-client relationships, economic considerations become subservient to political considerations. [1] This occurred because of the small size of Middle Eastern private sectors forced the creation of state centred development programs. [2] While it remains the case there is a very small group of people in each Arab country that need to keep political power in order to perpetuate their economic power. As they already have the economic power and are often the best educated they are the most capable of forming any new government. In such an oligarchic society it would be very risky for these people to allow the creation of a democracy that may well wish to redistribute resources more equally. [1] Michel Chatelus and Yves Scehmeil, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262 [2] Timur Kuran, ‘Why the Middle East is Economically Underdeveloped: Historical Mechanisms of Institutional Stagnation’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.18, No.3 (Summer, 2004), pp.71-90, p.87. |
training-politics-oamepdgtwh-con04b | For these states perpetuating the resources that give their regime its legitimacy, as a provider, is absolutely vital, the regime needs to be able to fulfill its side of the bargain with the people. [1] This is exactly what Egypt and other Middle Eastern states have been failing to do for the last couple of decades. Increasing food prices sparking riots shows that this is the case. Instead they have to rely more and more on force. Once a rentier system has begun to break down there may well be an opportunity for a more democratic system to take hold and better redistribute the economic resources of the state that have previously been so concentrated in a few hands. [1] Gerd Nonneman, ‘Rentiers and Autocrats, Monarchs and Democrats, State and Society: The Middle East between Globalisation, Human “Agency”, and Europe’, International Affairs, Vol.77, No.1 (Jan., 2001), pp.141-162, pp.146-147. |
training-politics-oamepdgtwh-con02b | The western reaction to victories by Hamas or Hizbollah while on one level hypocritical do not show that the west would be unsupportive of Arab democracy. Both parties are opposed because they are perceived to be both anti-democratic in nature and, through their opposition to Israel, agents of instability. Opposition to Hamas was always qualified, according to Tony Blair former British PM “Of course, we recognize the mandate for Hamas because the people have spoken in a particular way in the Palestinian Authority. But I think it is also important for Hamas to understand that there comes a point, and that point is now following that strong showing, where they have to decide between a path of democracy or a path of violence.” [1] Certainly when it comes to more moderate parties like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP)’s victory in 2002 was cautiously welcomed by the United States despite the party’s islamist roots. With State Department spokesman Richard Boucher saying immediately after its electoral victory “Let's not speculate on the future of the Turkish government, but let us at this point congratulate the Justice and Development Party on its electoral success. [2] Although the press tended to present the party’s islamist leanings as a problem this was balanced by some in the western media welcoming the opportunity to marry Islam with liberal democracy, and the example that Turkey could show. [3] It has to be remembered that there is a great deal of religion in US politics, to dismiss any parties that had Islamic roots would be seriously hypocritical. It has to be assumed that democrats in Muslim nations would express piety in order to connect with the general population, if politicians did not reflect the views of their constituents they would not be very good democrats. [1] Bush: no change in US policy on Hamas, The Independent, Jan., 26, 2006, [2] Michael Rubin ‘Green Money, Islamist Politics in Turkey’, Middle East Quarterly Winter 2005, [3] Christian Christensen, ‘Pocketbooks or Prayer Beads? : U.S./U.K. Newspaper Coverage of the 2002 Turkish Elections’, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2005 10: 109, pp.120-1 |
training-politics-oegpdhwdn-pro03a | NATO runs the unacceptable risk of accidental escalation The clause that ‘an attack against one means an attack against all’ (Article V) runs the risk of entangling the entire alliance in an unwanted conflict. This has happened before: World War I started out as a local conflict between the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia, but through their security alliances inadvertently drew in all the major powers of the world. Given that many members of NATO have unstable countries near their borders (i.e. Turkey bordering Iraq) there is a risk they could become involved in a small regional war, which then inadvertently draws in the entire world. |
training-politics-oegpdhwdn-con01b | Strategic alliances should reflect the specific interests they serve. The threats mentioned are global threats affecting all developed countries, but they affect different countries differently. For example, Australia and New-Zealand are closer to North-Korea than Europe is. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with U.S.? Indonesia and India are growing economies and burgeoning democracies, both regularly suffering terrorist attacks. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with the U.S. and Europe? Turkey continues to have a different strategic view of the threat Iran poses and has a radically divergent strategic interest in Cyprus than the EU-members in NATO. Why is the EU allied with them through NATO whilst it has opposing strategic interests? Without a clearly defined shared purpose and shared enemy, NATO will remain a talking shop where members with divergent interests will continue to frustrate any possible ‘coalition of the willing’, rendering NATO practically useless. |
training-politics-pggvhwass-pro03a | Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support Superdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy. [i] The system of superdelegates simply extends the pork-barrel buffet into the convention. With votes to be bought through offer of jobs or political support, the political process is distorted and corrupted [ii] . [i] Czawadzki, ‘Ohio’s Superdelegates Hold Endorsements Hostage’, Ohio Daily, 6 March 2008, [ii] Robert Schlesinger. “Superdelegates: Show me the money!” Huffington Post. 17 February 2008. |
training-politics-pggvhwass-con02b | There is absolutely no reason for the party leadership not to be invited – and to speak – without being given a vote. Every other party manages to do so. Working on the basis that Bill Clinton managed to get an invite to – and address – the British Labour party (with Kevin Spacey as his sidekick) in 2002, [i] it seems unlikely that Democrat party managers would forget to give him an invite. Indeed the fact that the parties great and good have already had an influence over the outcome of the nomination in terms of giving their support and appearing on the campaign trail with candidates to give them an extra say at this late stage seems doubly unfair. [i] ‘Speech by Bill Clinton, former US President, at the Labour Party Conference, 2002’, Winter Gardens, Blackpool, Wednesday 2 October 2002, |
training-politics-ogmepthbeuao-pro02b | If the terrorist organisation was elected as Hamas was it is likely that as in 2006/7 when much of the power in the PA remained with the Fatah President, Mahmood Abbas, one or other of the presidency or the parliament would remain in non-terrorist hands so funding should be continued in order to strengthen that party. In any case, any party that is willing to stand and contest relatively free and fair elections, is in the long term likely to want to bring peace. Working with such a government would encourage the moderates within that organisation, and allow them to understand that helping the Palestinian people to a better future requires compromise and negotiation. This move from terrorism to a political process will take time in order for attitudes to change and trust to build. It can only be achieved by western commitment to work with the new government rather than to cut it off entirely. |
training-politics-ogmepthbeuao-pro03b | It would be anti-democratic to punish the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote. Their vote may not be a vote for terrorism or against the peace process, but rather a response to the corruption and anarchy of the ruling party, currently Fatah, and its mismanagement of the Palestinian National Authority. Withdrawing funding is not just a signal of disapproval for the party which is elected, but a clear attempt to bring down the PNA government and overturn the election result. After all the years of western criticism of corrupt dictatorial regimes, what message does it send to Arab governments and people if the west refuses to respect the result of an election and imposes a collective punishment? |
training-politics-thwnt-pro05a | Negotiation isolates those who are only interested in violence Just as negotiations strengthen the moderates they isolate those who are most radical and interested in a violent solution. This isolation is key to actually winning a fight against groups using terrorist methods because terrorists are almost always hiding within the community. The only way to prevent these acts is therefore to encourage their community to persuade the terrorists to reject violence, or if they are not willing to change to aid the state. The need for help from the community is recognised in almost all conflicts against terrorist groups and insurgencies. The state succeeds when it gets the moderates on board, this is shown by the conflict in Iraq where the United States turned the tide against al Qaeda in the Al-Anbar Awakening. This victory was only made possible through the engagement and cooperation with local leaders who wanted an end to violence so were willing to talk to, and join with the US military if the result was likely to be security. [1] [1] Smith, Niel, and MacFarland, Sean, ‘Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point’, Military Review, March-April 2008, pp.41-52, p.48 |
training-politics-thwnt-pro04b | There is nothing wrong with attempts to solve the individual grievance without reference to the terrorist group. The aim of resolving the grievance is to prevent more people joining the extremists and to isolate them from the people. When this is done it will be much easier to catch the people who are responsible for the terrorist atrocities and bring them to justice. Being willing to negotiate with the terrorist group on the other hand will likely lead to some of the concessions being that terrorists or former terrorist manage to escape justice for their acts as they will want such an amnesty to be a part of the concessions they receive in return for giving up violence. |
training-politics-thwnt-con05a | Even if negotiation with one group is successful others will take their place Terrorist groups are rarely static, they change, evolve, and break up. Negotiating with one group may create peace with that group while at the same time causing a split that creates another group that is more willing to use violence. This is what happened in Northern Ireland where the peace process tamed the IRA and spawned the Real IRA, [1] a group that was more even more willing to kill innocents than its predecessor through attacks such as the Omagh bombing which killed 29 people in 1998. [2] [1] Moran, Michael, ‘Terrorist Groups and Political Legitimacy’, Council on Foreign Relations, 16 March 2006, [2] Elliott, Francis, ‘Real IRA admits to Omagh bomb and disbands’, The Telegraph, 20 October 2002, |
training-politics-thwnt-con04b | Simply because a terrorist group has broken ceasefires numerous times does not mean that the next attempt will get nowhere – in ETA’s case the current ceasefire is holding. [1] We should also remember that not every time the terrorist group breaks a ceasefire it has been result of actions by the terrorist group – the state can also be the one that is walking away from talks. Ultimately there needs to be trust on both sides, to the terrorists the state seems as untrustworthy as the terrorists do to the state. [1] ‘Spain and ETA Always around’, The Economist, 17 August 2013, |
training-politics-thwnt-con02b | There is no question that violence can sometimes achieve its aims but each individual campaign is different and is responded to in different ways thus for example a terrorist group that achieves minimal aims through violence cannot be used as a model by a group whose aims present an existential threat to the state. Thus for example the IRA achieved devolution after years of bombings but this does not them mean that the Real IRA was ever going to be successful in obtain a complete break with the UK. |
training-politics-appghwace-pro02b | There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. [2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood. [3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.” [4] Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system. [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009 [2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009 [3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009 [4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007 |
training-politics-appghwace-pro05a | Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice Earmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set objective criteria and organise competitive bidding processes for specific projects. Earmarks avoid this merit-based approach and instead channel money to specific projects according to how well-connected their Congressional representatives are. [1] Congressmen on the key spending committees, especially the Appropriations Committees, are best placed to channel pork back to their districts. It has been found that earmark spending rises between 40-50% in a state if one of its Senators becomes Chair of a top-three committee. [2] [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [2] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011 |
training-politics-appghwace-pro05b | All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. It is right that those who are determining where money is going should be elected representatives rather than a bureaucrat or a simple formula. |
training-politics-appghwace-pro04b | Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a representative to ameliorate the adverse impact of a policy at a local level and allow necessary bills to be passed. [1] However, even if you think this is bad, eliminating earmarks will not get rid of undue influence on voting in Congress. Instead it will hand that power to the executive, with the White House being able to offer incentives to wavering Congressmen to get them to vote for its programs in the form of promises about increased spending on projects in their state or district. [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006 |
training-politics-appghwace-pro04a | Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership The ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska. [1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation. [1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009 |
training-politics-appghwace-con04a | Earmarks help to create congressional stability In a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media attention a Congressmen rightly receives back home, perks of office such as large staffs and generous travel expenses, redistricting, and the ability of an incumbent to call upon an existing network of volunteers and donors to support their re-election bid. In any case, earmarks are only a tiny share of overall spending, and donations from local interest groups are usually heavily outweighed by both individual contributions and those from national organisations. Their money goes to candidates who share their ideological position and who they feel will vote to support the major legislative and budget initiatives they favour. |
training-politics-appghwace-con04b | Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired, [1] which the Congressman can point to as an argument for their re-election, especially if they have seniority and a place on a major spending committee. [2] They may also make it easier for incumbents to raise large campaign contributions from grateful companies and industry associations, in 2007 people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million. [3] These reasons help to explain why incumbent re-election rates in Congress are regularly above 90%, a worrying trend as it suggests there is limited democratic accountability. [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [2] Henke, John, ‘Why Earmarks are a Problem’, 2008 [3] Heath, David and Bernton, Hal, ‘$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted’, 2007 |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-pro02b | Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011) |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-pro02a | Coalition government is a good thing. Adversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which are forced to acknowledge a wide range of public opinion are less likely to introduce policies which victimise minorities or ride roughshod over public opinion for ideological reasons; for example, the poll tax in the UK, 1988-92. Empirically, countries with PR systems, such as Germany, show that great prosperity can result from the policies of such governments. |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-pro03b | There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What is the point in voting for a platform if the party that is pledging to fulfil these promises is simply going to drop them as soon as the election is over and the negotiations begin? |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-pro01a | PR produces fairer results First past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for. |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-pro03a | PR increases political engagement which benefits society. PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005, p5-6) |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-pro04a | Safe seats will be reduced. All political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority’s votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011) |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-con03b | On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented. The whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords) |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-con04a | The link between constituencies and Members of Parliament is important. Most PR systems would result in a break between the constituency and parliament. It is important that there is a single MP that represents a particular area. Having constituencies means that every citizen feels that they have a personal representative in parliament. Much of the work of an MP is constituency business, resolving problems encountered by constituents and raising the particular concerns of their geographical area with the government. The importance of this link can be shown in the difference in feeling towards individual’s own representative and the parliament as a whole. In 2010 there was a dissatisfaction in parliament as a whole of 38% whereas only 16% were dissatisfied with the job of their own MP.(Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 7, p.29, p.88) |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-con03a | PR decreases political engagement. PR results in less engagement in politics as voters do not get what they voted for – instead post-election deals between the parties create coalitions which do not feel bound by manifesto promises. In order to create coalitions there is a need for parties to be flexible on their manifestos especially where they contradict each other. As elections seldom result in all the parties in a governing coalition leaving power, in practice accountability is blurred and voters feel alienated from the political process. In addition, many PR systems are very complex and off-putting for voters. |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-con01a | PR leads to weaker government. Typically under PR, no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed often between four or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments, changing as parties leave or join the governing coalition, and frequent elections. Governments are unable to put a clear, positive legislative agenda in place over several years or act decisively in time of crisis. Compare this to the strong governing majorities produced by FPTP, such as the Conservatives in the 1980s in the UK, which allowed them to push through unpopular but necessary policies, such as tackling trade unions and reducing inflation. |
training-politics-pggllgvhwa-con04b | A proportional electoral system is more likely to return seats for smaller parties. Amongst these smaller parties, it is likely that we will find parties on either extreme of the left-right spectrum. The British National Party campaigned for PR for this reason (Channel 4 Fact Check, ‘Would AV help or hinder the BNP?’). Potentially even more extreme parties, such as the English Defence League, could get members of parliament under some proportional systems. It is not beneficial to the country to have extremist groups like this in parliament. |
training-politics-dglvhblmc-pro02a | A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption Democracy does not mean that a country is not corrupt, or that the political leadership is not corrupt. There are many countries where democratic elections stand side by side with a large amount of corruption; Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq countries that have recently had elections following western intervention are ranked 175, 172, and 171 out of 177 on the corruption perceptions index. Even countries with long established democracies can be perceived as being corrupt, India is 94th. 1 If the political class is incapable of reforming itself it may be necessary for another actor to do it for them. There have been several coups in which the military has taken power in order to reform the political system before handing over to a civilian government at elections; Turkey in 1960, Portugal in 1974, and the relatively recent coup in Bangladesh in 2007. 2 1 Transparency International, 'Corruptions Perceptions Index 2013', 2 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, , p.5 |
training-politics-dglvhblmc-pro01b | In a country that is so polarised that there is violence at elections the chances are the military is not neutral. In Thailand the royalists had been calling for military intervention because they know it is unlikely they will win an election. A coup cannot therefore be considered to be likely to end violence; Egypt is a case in point as there have been more than 3,200 deaths in the 7 months after the coup against President Morsi. 1 1 'More than 3,200 Egyptians killed since coup', Middle East Monitor, 9 April 2014, |
training-politics-dglvhblmc-pro04a | Restoring democracy A coup that is against an elected government that is however becoming increasingly anti democratic is justified. When an elected government is increasingly concentrating power in its own hands, and particularly if elections are postponed then it is necessary for the military to step in to ensure democracy continues to function. From 1991-2006 31 of 43 coups resulted in an election within five years so far from damaging democracy were often restoring it. 1 1 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, , p.2 |
training-politics-dglvhblmc-con03a | The army is not the best institution to run a country If the country is in trouble is the army the best placed to take over and manage the country better than it has been in the past? This may plausibly be true if the reason democracy is failing is a large scale insurgency or near civil war but in almost every other case it is not the best institution. The army is trained to fight not to govern. The generals who take over top positions are used to running a bureaucracy that has to respond to politicians, not one that has to respond to the people. Politicians may be corrupt, venal, or unpopular but at the least they are open about what they stand for. They have a manifesto and a clear ideology which if the people don't agree with they wont be voted for. This is not the case with generals; the chances are they have a bureaucratic desire to maintain the power and funding for the military but otherwise there is likely to be little known about their politics. Finally for those who are being overthrown the electorate has had a chance to investigate their policies, their past, to question their views and catch the candidate out when they are not consistent. The candidate came through an electoral test and media grilling. When there is a coup there is no such chance to determine if the coup leader is the right man for the job. |
training-politics-dglvhblmc-con01a | The response must be democratic It is never appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government which the people have chosen. The government is legitimised by being the choice of the people, a coup is by definition not legitimate in such a way. The response to a government that has lost the trust of the electorate, unable to prevent violence, or is corrupt, is to hold an election. In the worst case and an elected government is using its power as a government to manipulate any election then the responsibility is with the judiciary to convict a government which is responsible for such a |
training-politics-viwvfpps-pro03b | The idea that someone who has voted might be more entitled to complain about things is absurd. Yes they have shown how they want the government to run but the idea that their voice is heard on all these particular issues is patently silly. |
training-politics-viwvfpps-pro05a | Have your say Democracy allows you to have your say and it is important you take advantage of that. It is unusual that your particular vote will make an immense difference but just occasionally it might make all the difference. Barak Obama’s 2012 campaign is running an ad called 537 the ad says this is "the difference between what was and what could have been.” As it is the number of votes that won the Presidency for George W. Bush over Al Gore in Florida in 2000. “So this year if you're thinking that your vote doesn't count, that it won't matter, well, back then there were probably 537 people who felt the same way. Make your voice heard." [1] There will always be places where there are victories by such a small margin. Most of the time it will be known where these marginal contests are but if enough people who have not voted in the past vote previous votes or the pollsters may count for nothing. You never know it might be you who makes the difference, so go vote! [1] Rama, Padmananda, ‘Obama Campaign Invokes ‘537’ To Get Out The Vote’, NPR, 24 October 2012 |
training-politics-viwvfpps-pro01b | Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes. [1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012 |
training-politics-viwvfpps-pro04b | The question here then essentially lies in do we appreciate our democracy? Does voting every 5 years actually count as a democracy? Does the fact that we have a first past the post system represent our views as a democracy should? The history of voting and the ability of other around the world to vote really has very little bearing on whether we should vote. Voting for the one party, or an other, or none at all is not going to result in me not being able to vote in the future. If losing the vote becomes a real possibility in the future then we can be sure that many currently apathetic voters will turn out because such a vote really would matter. |
training-politics-viwvfpps-pro03a | No right to complain We all complain, whether it is about the lack of places for schools, higher university fees, trains not running on time, or about how we are being ripped off by the shops. In almost every case the things we may complain about can be influenced by the government either directly as with education policy or indirectly through taxation or regulation. Voting is your one chance to show what agenda you want to government to take; do you want more regulation or less, do you want tuition fees paid by the government or individuals? Of course not everything will be contested in every election but some will be. But next time you complain about something if it actually matters find a party that wants to do something about it and vote for them. |
training-politics-viwvfpps-pro04a | We don’t just vote for ourselves You are very lucky that you have the chance to vote to choose and influence your government. Most people throughout history have not had this chance; in the UK women only received the vote in 1918 and most men only received the right in the nineteenth century. [1] In the United States the timings were similar with freed slaves not voting until 1970 (even in 1940 only 3% of African Americans in the south were registered) and women not until 1919. [2] We should remember the sacrifices of all those who have fought for the right to vote. Moreover huge numbers of people live in countries where these rights have not yet been won – just think of the 1.3 billion people in China who have no input into the change in the leadership, the Politburo Standing Committee, every ten years. [3] As voting has not been an automatic right throughout history you need to vote not just for yourself but for your children and their children in order to ensure that they have the benefit of growing up in a democracy such as the one you live in. [1] ‘Chartists Key dates’, parliament.uk [2] ‘ Timeline: Voting Rights Act’, American Civil Liberties Union [3] Li, Cheng, ‘The Battle for China’s Top Nine Leadership Posts’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1, pp.131-145, Winter 2012 |
training-politics-viwvfpps-con03a | Politicians will simply ignore how we vote Even if I do vote who is to say that politicians will actually listen to what I say. A lot of government policy is responding to events, no one who voted for Tony Blair in 2005 voted for bail outs of banks in 2008 by what was then a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who had not even faced the electorate. Moreover political parties do not seem to feel that they are tied to their own manifestos. In the United States Obama promised to close Guantanamo yet it is still open. [1] In the UK the Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto they would not raise tuition fees for UK Universities yet this is exactly what they did when they got into government. [2] [1] Negrin, Matt, ‘Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises’, ABC News, 3 July 2012, also follow our Securing Liberty blog for updates on Guantanamo Bay and other civil liberties issues: [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Senior Lib Dems apologise over tuition fees pledge’, BBC News, 20 September 2012 |
training-politics-viwvfpps-con04b | We can never be sure what these apathetic voters are saying because they have not said it – some might want a change in the electoral system, or might rouse themselves to vote if one of the options becomes extreme but this may not be the case. In the UK voters rejected the option of changing the electoral system to the alternative vote [1] which would have been more representative so making their voice matter more in future elections. [2] [1] Hawkins, Ross, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote’, BBC News, 7 May 2011 [2] Jones, Charlotte R., ‘This House would adopt the alternative vote’, Debatabase, 2011 |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-pro02b | Sanctions cannot be very finely targeted and will always hit other groups as well as the cyber attackers. The chances of knowing specific individuals who were responsible are next to zero so those individuals cannot be targeted directly. This is the whole problem with cyber-attacks; they are very difficult to pin down. In the best case then sanctions are applied against the right target and happen to hit others as well; for example hackers are not the only new who want advanced computer equipment. At worst the sanctions will completely miss their target; it would be a major embarrassment for a country to impose sanctions for a cyber-attack only for it to later be discovered that the sanctions are against an innocent party through whom the attack had been routed. |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-pro03b | How can there ever be deterrence when the attacker believes they will not be caught, or that if they are the sanctions swill harm others not themselves? When the problem with preventing cyber-attacks is the difficulty of tracing the source [1] then deterrence becomes more and more difficult to apply. This is not like the Cold War where both superpowers could be certain that if they launched an attack there would be a devastating response. In this instance there is no certainly; the attacker believes they a, won't be caught, b, there will be no response and c, that the response won't affect them, and finally even if they are affected unless they are caught most times they will believe they will get away with it next time round. [1] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace Back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011, |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-pro01b | How do we determine what is proportionate? If some valuable intellectual property, such as part of the designs for the US's latest fighter jet the F35, which were hacked in 2009. [1] Then what can be the response to this? Can it simply be the cost of developing this design? If so then what about the strategic loss the state has suffered, how can that be calculated in? So long as it is excluded state sanctioned cyber-attacks will not be deterred. [1] Gorman, Siobhan, Cole, August, and Dreazen, Yochi, ‘Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jen Project’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2009, |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-pro03a | There needs to be action to deter more cyber attacks At the moment the response to cyber-attacks has essentially been nothing. It is however clear that some response is needed as without a reaction there is no deterrence; the attacks will keep coming until something is done. The number of cyber-attacks and the sensitivity of the information stolen have been increasing over recent years and as more and more work is done online and more and more systems are connected to the Internet so cyber-attacks become more attractive. There needs to be a deterrent and the best deterrent is to make sure that such attacks are costly. As these attacks are usually cross border (and in this debate we are only concerned with cross border attacks) then the only way to create a cost is through sanctions. These sanctions can either hit the assailant directly or else hit his government so encouraging them to crack down on hacking emanating from their country. It should be remembered that China argues that it does not launch cyber-attacks [1] meaning that any such attacks from China must duly be private. If this is the case then sanctions are the best way of prompting internal law enforcement. Sanctions therefore encourage all nations where there are cyber criminals to make sure they take such cyber-crime seriously. If they do not get their own cyber criminals under control then they may be affected by sanctions. [1] China Daily, ‘China denies launching cyberattacks on US’, China.org.cn, 20 February 2013, |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-pro04a | Sanctions will prevent escalation in cyber conflict Cyber conflict favours the offence; when the defender is successful they gain nothing and impose no harm on the attacker who is free to try again elsewhere. The attackers are free to attack until they get past the defences somewhere. [1] That the attacks don’t risk lives helps to encourage an offensive mindset as makes it seem like there is no downside to attempting to dominate your opponent. [2] This means the only cyber response is to attack the attacker so that the same advantages apply. The result is that cyber-attacks have a very real danger of long term tension or escalation. If one side is losing a conflict where both sides are attempting to steal the other's intellectual property (or the other has little to steal) the response may be something like the stuxnet attack that involves physical damage, this then would probably be considered an illegal use of force creating a thin line between a cyber-war and a real war. [3] When the cyber war involves physical damage as the US has warned there then may be a military response. Sanctions are a way to apply pressure without this risk of escalation into a military conflict. [1] Lin, Herbert, ‘Escalation Dynamics and Conflict Termination in Cyberspace’, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Fall 2012, p.51 [2] Rothkopf, David, ‘The Cool War’, Foreign Policy, 20 February 2013, [3] Zetter, Kim, ‘Legal Experts: Stuxnet Attack on Iran Was Illegal ‘Act of Force’, Wired, 25 March 2013, |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-con03b | Cooperation is not a helpful alternative as it really means status quo when we can see that the status quo is not going to reduce cyber-attacks or bring recompense. Rather this is precisely what sanctions are needed for; to encourage states that harbour cyber criminals and hackers to use their law enforcement capabilities to crack down on such attacks. |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-con02a | Sanctions are indiscriminate The problem with sanctions is that they are almost always indiscriminate; Iran’s sanctions today are an example where the international community’s concerns are entirely with the government, over nuclear weapons, not the people yet the result has been a doubling in the price of staple foodstuffs and rapidly rising unemployment. [1] This will equally be the case here. While sanctioners will try to target the sanctions the fact is there is nothing to target with sanctions that would not affect everyday lives. Hackers are ordinary people so clearly sanctions will affect others like themselves. The most obvious reactions involve the internet but blocking access to internet services, or penalising ISP’s, or cutting off technology transfers, harm everyone else as much as hackers. Often this harm is in the form of simply making the internet less safe for people in that country because they will have to turn to pirated versions of software. IDC and Microsoft estimate the chances of being infected with malware when using pirated software at one in three [2] so it is no surprise that the Chinese government in October 2012 launched a campaign to have government and companies purchase legal software. [3] [1] The Economist, ‘A red line and a reeling rial’, 6 October 2012, [2] IDC, ‘White Paper: The Dangerous World of Counterfeit and Pirated Software’, Microsoft, March 2013, p.3 [3] Xinhua, ‘Chinese gov’t says no to pirated software’, People’s Daily Online, 26 April 2013, |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-con04a | Sanctions won't harm the hackers Sanctions are typically used as a response to the actions of another state, not the actions of a private actor. Much cyber espionage is not carried out by government entities such as the army or intelligence services. It is also not encouraged by government regulation. Rather it is carried out by private actors whether this is criminal organisations or businesses seeking to undermine their rivals and learn their secrets this is usually with a financial motive (75% of data breaches) [1] , or else by individuals motivated by nationalism and patriotism to attack those they see as their nation’s enemies. It is difficult to see how sanctions against the nation as a whole affect these groups and individuals. This is certainly the case in China where many such as the ‘China Eagle Union’ admit to hacking for nationalist reasons rather than being told by the government. [2] A response such as sanctions are simply likely to breed more resentment that the other power is attempting to bully their nation. The hackers only possible response is then more hacking. For those sponsored by companies if their company is hit by sanctions it simply becomes all the more necessary to find methods of getting ahead to offset any harm by sanctions. [1] Verizon RISK Team, ‘2013 Data Breach Investigations Report’, Verizon, 23 April 2013, p.6 [2] Beech, Hannah, ‘China’s Red Hackers: The Tale of One Patriotic Cyberwarrior’, Time, 21 February 2013, |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-con03a | Sanctions won't work The problem with sanctions is that they almost never work so all they do is provide punishment and damage relations without ever resolving the issue. Numerous studies have shown that sanctions don’t actually change the policy of the country that is being sanctioned. [1] Robert Pape suggests that sanctions are only effective in achieving policy change about 5% of the time because states can take substantial economic punishment before they give up on anything that might be considered to be a national interest, and because states are good at shifting the burden of the sanctions onto opposition groups, [2] or else use the sanctions to rally domestic support against the outside actor. [3] Instead there need to be renewed cooperation on cyber security. Fundamentally as with things like drug smuggling, and people trafficking this is an international problem that needs to be tackled by law enforcement authorities. To that end there needs to be more cooperation not more recriminations. [4] [1] Lindsay, James M., ‘Trade Sanctions As Policy Instruments: A Re-Examination’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.30, Issue 2, June 1986, pp.153-170, , p.1 provides a list of some of them [2] Pape, Robert A., ‘Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work’, International Security, Vol. 22, Issue 2, Autumn 1997, pp.90-137, p.106 [3] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991 [4] Dingli, Shen, ‘What Kerry Should Tell China’, Foreign Policy, 11 April 2013, |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-con01a | Sanctions require international agreement to be effective When is it legitimate to use sanctions in response to an action? Any individual state (or group of states) can use sanctions against any other state. However for these sanctions to be effective they need to have broad based support. Sanctions by an individual country are unlikely to change the behaviour of an aggressor as they will be able to get around the sanctions. Moreover for any country that is a member of the WTO imposing sanctions may be considered illegal allowing the other country to counter them with similar measures. The problem then is that there is no international response to hacking and it is unlikely there will be agreement on such a response. When countries like China deny that hacking comes from them are they likely to support the use of sanctions against such actions? Sanctions for much worse actions are often bogged down when they are attempted at the international level such as China and Russia vetoing sanctions against Syria in response to the violence there. [1] [1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Syria that would have threatened sanctions, due to negative votes of China, Russian Federation’, un.org, SC/10714, 19 July 2012, |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-con04b | Even taking it at face value that most of these hackers are independent actors not a part of a state policy there would still be solid reasoning behind sanctions. That most cyber-attacks have a financial motive implies that sanctions are the best response; as it is hitting them in an area that the attackers are clearly interested in. As for those who are attacking for ‘patriotic’ reasons if they are truly patriots they will stop when they see their efforts are really harming their country not helping it. |
training-politics-ghbrphliw-pro02a | Just as with other parties around the world, once the dominant argument of a political party proves to be a busted flush it takes about a decade to recover Both the Labour and Conservative parties in the UK, the Conservatives in Canada, the Socialists in France and many others all over the world have gone through periods of regrouping following extended periods in office. Political movements simply run out of fresh ideas after prolonged periods of government and the Republican Party is going through such a period. The Bush Mantra of a presumption in favour of financial deregulation and in favour of tax cuts to create a trickle-down effect have both been proven to be wrong – or at least were taken to too great an extreme. The country needs to rebalance just as the Republicans need to find new ideas and new standard bearers. Future leaders of the party like Marco Rubio and Tim Pawlenty may have interesting ideas by 2016 but the current leadership is a busted flush [i] . [i] 2016 Election.com |
training-politics-ghbrphliw-pro03b | The Tea Party represents not only a community that has been largely ignored in recent elections but one that is also the mainstay of both the Republican Party and of the American Heartland. Namely, white, working class Americans, whose views and interests have been swept away by a party and national establishment that thought their votes could be taken for granted. While both parties sort out the votes and support of big companies, organised labour, and minority voting blocs the average American was taken for granted. The current approach of the Republican leadership has corrected that directly as a result of the Tea Partiers, returning the party to its traditional values and core voters. |
training-politics-ghbrphliw-pro01b | Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them. The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign. |
training-politics-ghbrphliw-pro03a | The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Tea Partiers who simply don’t have a coherent message or ideology The Tea Party movement has hijacked the Republican Party, bullying elected representatives to pursue a very narrow political agenda that has more to do with their moral outlook than the traditional role of politics. The Tea Party has little in the way of a political programme and nothing in the way of understanding the nuances of local politics or the realities of electoral politics. While the party remains in thrall to this vociferous but unrepresentative minority, it has little to offer the wider party and les to offer the wider American public. Although they are strident in terms of what they are against, they have little to offer by way of a substantive contribution to the national debate. |
training-politics-ghbrphliw-con03b | The Republicans are simply left with nothing to say and nowhere to go. As is traditionally the case for politicval parties following a long period of dominance they tend to degenerate into internecine squabbling while they thrash out a new platform for government; one thing that is clear is that they haven’t found it yet. The approach they are taking both in terms of fighting their battles in public and demanding a certain orthodoxy of their candidates that is, frankly, unelectable suggests that they need at least another four years to work through their ideas. The media are not bringing some liberal bias to this they are even masking many of the divisions. However, the reality is the party is divided and, more astonishingly, those division take place within an incredibly narrow ideological spectrum. |
training-politics-ghbrphliw-con02b | The Republicans have been highjacked by the extreme right of their party, making them virtually unelectable. In any other circumstance Obama should be looking like a sitting duck, with the disarray in the Republican party, it seems unlikely that they will be able to coalesce in any meaningful way around any candidate. The constant acts of regicide against the only credible candidate they have, Mitt Romney, suggests that he simply won’t have the support he needs come the general election. The very fact that he is unpopular with the party because he doesn’t confirm to an extreme of ideological purity is the very thing that makes him electable. Until Republicans recognise that electoral reality, they are doomed. |
training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro02b | Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1] [1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. |
training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro02a | Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever. In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1] [1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. |
training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro06a | Referendums can lend greater validity to political outcomes Particularly on contentious or controversial issues. Laws passed by public approval in this way will be less open to challenge, with all sides having to accept the will of the electorate. This is especially true of minority or coalition governments who may face accusations that they do not have a mandate for certain policies, [1] or situations where minority groups are exercising their right to self-determination. [2] [1] May, Colin. “Canada’s Questionable ‘Coalition’”. C2C Canada Journal of Ideas. 22nd June 2009. [2] Tierney, Stephen. “Referendums today: Self-determination as constituent power?”. European Journal of International Law blog, February 9th 2011. |
training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro03b | Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells. |
training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro05a | Improves standards in political governance. The trend in developed countries tends to be towards greater centralisation, and concentration of power in the hands of a small number of representatives. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a separate political class who will in some cases be more concerned with their own influence and enrichment than that of the voters, and makes it possible for wealthy individuals or companies to lobby politicians for laws favourable to their interests. Increased use of referendums would potentially reduce the influence of lobby groups and corporate donors on the political system. [1] [1] Knutsen, John. “Blueprint for a new European Confederation”, Basiclaw.net, January 2004. |
training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro01a | Redresses imbalance between state and individual. Governments exist to serve the will of the people, not the other way round; politicians take their instructions from their constituents, or should do. But in the modern state this relationship is often inverted. By obliging our democratic institutions to take genuine account of public opinion, and returning real political power back to those to whom it rightly belongs – the people – we can put the relationship between the individual and the state back on a healthier footing. In principle, people should have the right to decide for themselves on matters of importance to their lives. [1] [1] . Beedham, Brian: “Power to the people: The case for Direct Democracy”, Civitas Review. Vol.3 Issue 2, June 2006. |
training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro01b | The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long. |
training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro06b | Major constitutional changes such as the secession of South Sudan may well be appropriate for referendums, but using them to improve the democratic legitimacy of a government is misguided. Many policies touch on issues of human rights and the simple fact that a majority votes in favour of a particular policy will not be enough to convince opponents that the resulting law is fair or just. |
training-politics-pgglgvhciu-pro04b | If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law. |