This is a short, personal annoyance I have regarding the teaching of, and perception of, history. Many disregard it as boring and/or irrelevant, and therefore not worth spending time on. However, it's my view that the method of teaching history (experienced by me, and doubtless many others too) is the problem. At school, I was taught random periods of history, with little attempt to link them together or explain the long-term importance of historical events. My memories of the teaching of history at secondary school include: the Romans, including looking at Roman uniforms; how feudalism worked in Medieval times; the 6 wives of Henry VIII; and life in Nazi Germany. Similarly, sightseeing tours and museums tend to refer to random periods and events without linking them together. The Imperial War Museum in London seemed to me to do very little to explain what wars have occurred, the reasons for their occurrence and their consequences; similarly, when I visited Milan a few years ago, I did a sightseeing tour of the city which referred to the landmarks of the city without explaining their significance and symbolism in the history of the city, and Italy generally. Consequently, history always seems to be presented like a trailer for a film: a series of unusual and attention-grabbing events; highlights thrown together in a random order that appear to be interesting momentarily but, due to their lack of a continual narrative, ultimately seem meaningless.
What needs to be done with the presentation of history, whether for the benefit of tourists or school pupils, is to do it in a logical and chronological order that helps to explain the development of a country, working from a logical starting point, and linking events to the world today. When historical events are explained, these explanations should include reference to what caused them; what happened; why they were significant at the time; and what long-term impact they had. Then, for example, the importance of King Henry VIII in English history should revolve around the fact that he established the Church of England- rather than the fate and number of his wives.
History is important in terms of national identity, for understanding other nationalities, and why the human world functions as it does. As with individual lives, past experiences can be used to inform decisions in the present that affect the future.
Sunday, 18 August 2013
Egypt: Give Democracy a Chance
This is a very controversial topic and, having not visited Egypt myself and given that I don't personally know any Egyptians, you would be entitled to question my opinion on this matter in particular. What I say is based purely on my perception of events there from the news.
The status quo in Egypt seems to be changing on a regular basis, but at present there is great conflict between supporters of the army on the one side, and the deposed president on the other. In brief, this is how events have progressed so far: for 30 years, Egypt lived under the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, who inherited an authoritarian, military regime from Anwar Sadat and Gamal Nasser, who toppled the monarchy preceding them approximately 60 years ago. However, Mubarak's long-established rule was overthrown in 2011 during the Arab Spring, when similarly authoritarian leaders were toppled (or at least challenged) in the Middle East and North Africa. Following Mubarak's deposition, the army took over, forming what they promised to be a provisional government until democratic elections could be held. A year later, Egypt's first democratic elections were held and won by the Muslim Brotherhood party, with Mohamed Morsi elected as president. President Morsi's term of office was not without controversy, with the Egyptian economy struggling, while many were wary of indications of authoritarian tendencies from the new president, who occasionally resorted to ruling by decree. Due to a culmination of factors, there was public unrest in the summer of 2013, a year after Morsi's election, motivating the army to threaten to depose Morsi unless he gave in to protesters' demands. Shortly afterwards, it was announced that Morsi had indeed been deposed by the military, and that the army would once again form a government for an indefinite period. This is how it remains today, with matters escalating due to conflict between supporters of the deposed President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood party on one side; and those supporting the military's intervention on the other. There have been deaths on both sides.
As an outsider with a vague understanding of the situation, it is my view that President Morsi should have been allowed to remain in office, at least for the time-being. Egypt was incredibly new to democracy, so the new president and government would have had a vast amount of work to do to consolidate democracy, whilst also overcoming Egypt's problems. These would not be easy to resolve, and would not be overcome quickly. Moreover, a government with such a vast task to take on was also bound to make occasional errors in its judgement, and was unlikely to be perfect. I therefore wonder whether it would have been better, and at least legitimate, for Morsi to remain in office and do the best he could at his job. By the time of the next election, Morsi would have had time to put many plans in place as well as the opportunity to make progress in some areas. At the election, the public would have been able to judge Morsi on his record, and decide whether to continue supporting him or choose an alternative government.
Developed countries around the world today have not always had political stability, high living standards and a strong economy (something quite clear in these relatively difficult times in the developed, as well as developing, world). A combination of wise reforms and stability are needed to succeed in government. To expect Morsi to make a perfect nation within the space of a year seemed unrealistic; so in my opinion, political unrest and military intervention came too quickly to give him a reasonable chance of success. In the authoritarian Arab monarchies, such as Jordan, they have had the stability offered by their monarch; but there have also been gradual concessions to democracy which have managed to achieve both stability and progress.
In Egypt's case, I hope that an opportunity to make progress and cultivate democracy has not been lost.
The status quo in Egypt seems to be changing on a regular basis, but at present there is great conflict between supporters of the army on the one side, and the deposed president on the other. In brief, this is how events have progressed so far: for 30 years, Egypt lived under the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, who inherited an authoritarian, military regime from Anwar Sadat and Gamal Nasser, who toppled the monarchy preceding them approximately 60 years ago. However, Mubarak's long-established rule was overthrown in 2011 during the Arab Spring, when similarly authoritarian leaders were toppled (or at least challenged) in the Middle East and North Africa. Following Mubarak's deposition, the army took over, forming what they promised to be a provisional government until democratic elections could be held. A year later, Egypt's first democratic elections were held and won by the Muslim Brotherhood party, with Mohamed Morsi elected as president. President Morsi's term of office was not without controversy, with the Egyptian economy struggling, while many were wary of indications of authoritarian tendencies from the new president, who occasionally resorted to ruling by decree. Due to a culmination of factors, there was public unrest in the summer of 2013, a year after Morsi's election, motivating the army to threaten to depose Morsi unless he gave in to protesters' demands. Shortly afterwards, it was announced that Morsi had indeed been deposed by the military, and that the army would once again form a government for an indefinite period. This is how it remains today, with matters escalating due to conflict between supporters of the deposed President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood party on one side; and those supporting the military's intervention on the other. There have been deaths on both sides.
As an outsider with a vague understanding of the situation, it is my view that President Morsi should have been allowed to remain in office, at least for the time-being. Egypt was incredibly new to democracy, so the new president and government would have had a vast amount of work to do to consolidate democracy, whilst also overcoming Egypt's problems. These would not be easy to resolve, and would not be overcome quickly. Moreover, a government with such a vast task to take on was also bound to make occasional errors in its judgement, and was unlikely to be perfect. I therefore wonder whether it would have been better, and at least legitimate, for Morsi to remain in office and do the best he could at his job. By the time of the next election, Morsi would have had time to put many plans in place as well as the opportunity to make progress in some areas. At the election, the public would have been able to judge Morsi on his record, and decide whether to continue supporting him or choose an alternative government.
Developed countries around the world today have not always had political stability, high living standards and a strong economy (something quite clear in these relatively difficult times in the developed, as well as developing, world). A combination of wise reforms and stability are needed to succeed in government. To expect Morsi to make a perfect nation within the space of a year seemed unrealistic; so in my opinion, political unrest and military intervention came too quickly to give him a reasonable chance of success. In the authoritarian Arab monarchies, such as Jordan, they have had the stability offered by their monarch; but there have also been gradual concessions to democracy which have managed to achieve both stability and progress.
In Egypt's case, I hope that an opportunity to make progress and cultivate democracy has not been lost.
Sunday, 11 August 2013
Taking Illegal Immigration Seriously
Immigration is a significant issue in British politics, due to a combination of the influx of workers from Eastern Europe as a result of EU membership, as well as the arrival of millions from outside of the EU over the past decade or so. My practical concerns with immigration have been outlined in earlier posts, but what I would like to draw attention to in this post are the Government's methods of tackling the issue: they have rightly recognised immigration, both legal and illegal, as a major issue in Britain; but their approach to reducing its impact in the foreseeable future has seemed very clumsy, seeming both embarrassing and antagonistic. I know it's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise, saying "this is wrong" and "that was a bad idea" without offering practical solutions or taking steps to personally address issues- but a new approach seems to be seriously needed.
It strikes me that those who are concerned about immigration feel this way due to the resulting impact of vast numbers of competitors from overseas for resources (jobs, houses, etc), or resentment towards those who have settled here illegally when others, whether through birth or legitimate migration, have had to contribute great amounts of money and effort to be British citizens. So, concern centres on those who intend to remain in the UK for the long-term, whether legally and illegally. It therefore seems to be misguided to make life more difficult for overseas students, who only intend to stay in the UK for a few years and then return home, and during their stay will make a welcome contribution to the economy and also (one would hope) take home with them positive memories of their stay in the country. But steps taken by the current government seem to challenge this, never more blatantly than when the licence to London Metropolitan University last year was revoked due to questions raised regarding the legitimacy of its international students- creating an unstable and hostile environment for those planning to study legally.
Then this year, there have been vans driving around the streets of London informing any illegal immigrants they happen to pass that they should go home or face being arrested- not to mention members of the Border Agency approaching members of the public, asking them whether they are residing in this country legally or not and if they can prove it. Although tracking down illegal immigrants and reducing immigration of all kinds is currently welcome; sending the police and Border Agency around the streets, intimidating anyone who seems foreign, surely can't be the best approach. This manages to divide the majority of people between those who can relax, who are obviously British, born and bred; and those who should apparently be viewed with suspicion. Divisiveness and suspicion aren't good for society, and strike me as means to enticing British citizens towards terrorism. Also, we like to consider Britain to be a free country, where law-abiding citizens can go through day-to-day life without state interference; but the measures like those mentioned above suggest otherwise.
Instead, rather than having a confused muddle as people enter and leave the country (as seems to be the case, if reports of the inaccuracy of the Border Agency's figures for net migration are true), surely it would be best to track who is coming and going correctly (as we tend to assume that they do) in the first place- rather than intimidating mostly innocent members of the public as an afterthought. Meanwhile, of course illegal immigrants should be tracked down and deported; but couldn't it be handled in a more structured and discreet manner than through haphazard intimidation on British streets, as we have recently witnessed? Let's hope that the Government can find a way of accurately monitoring who leaves and enters to country; cuts down drastically on the hundreds of thousands who are apparently settling in Britain every year for the long-term; supports short-term visitors, such as students and tourists; and ensures that people are only allowed to enter the country if they are legally permitted to do so.
It strikes me that those who are concerned about immigration feel this way due to the resulting impact of vast numbers of competitors from overseas for resources (jobs, houses, etc), or resentment towards those who have settled here illegally when others, whether through birth or legitimate migration, have had to contribute great amounts of money and effort to be British citizens. So, concern centres on those who intend to remain in the UK for the long-term, whether legally and illegally. It therefore seems to be misguided to make life more difficult for overseas students, who only intend to stay in the UK for a few years and then return home, and during their stay will make a welcome contribution to the economy and also (one would hope) take home with them positive memories of their stay in the country. But steps taken by the current government seem to challenge this, never more blatantly than when the licence to London Metropolitan University last year was revoked due to questions raised regarding the legitimacy of its international students- creating an unstable and hostile environment for those planning to study legally.
Then this year, there have been vans driving around the streets of London informing any illegal immigrants they happen to pass that they should go home or face being arrested- not to mention members of the Border Agency approaching members of the public, asking them whether they are residing in this country legally or not and if they can prove it. Although tracking down illegal immigrants and reducing immigration of all kinds is currently welcome; sending the police and Border Agency around the streets, intimidating anyone who seems foreign, surely can't be the best approach. This manages to divide the majority of people between those who can relax, who are obviously British, born and bred; and those who should apparently be viewed with suspicion. Divisiveness and suspicion aren't good for society, and strike me as means to enticing British citizens towards terrorism. Also, we like to consider Britain to be a free country, where law-abiding citizens can go through day-to-day life without state interference; but the measures like those mentioned above suggest otherwise.
Instead, rather than having a confused muddle as people enter and leave the country (as seems to be the case, if reports of the inaccuracy of the Border Agency's figures for net migration are true), surely it would be best to track who is coming and going correctly (as we tend to assume that they do) in the first place- rather than intimidating mostly innocent members of the public as an afterthought. Meanwhile, of course illegal immigrants should be tracked down and deported; but couldn't it be handled in a more structured and discreet manner than through haphazard intimidation on British streets, as we have recently witnessed? Let's hope that the Government can find a way of accurately monitoring who leaves and enters to country; cuts down drastically on the hundreds of thousands who are apparently settling in Britain every year for the long-term; supports short-term visitors, such as students and tourists; and ensures that people are only allowed to enter the country if they are legally permitted to do so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)