Whilst on holiday recently, I found myself thinking about 7 topics in global affairs- topics which I anticipate will continue to occupy my mind for the next few years at least:
1. Cuba without Castros
With the more dominant of the Castro brothers, Fidel, now having passed away, and his younger sibling Raul in the process of retiring from power, Cuba is on the cusp of leaving the influence of the Castro brothers for the first time since Fidel seized power in his 1959 revolution. For much of the near-60 period since then, Fidel Castro held power, reforming Cuba into an anti-American socialist state. The world's focus was infamously on Cuba in 1962, for the duration of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the plans for Cuba to house the Soviet Union's nuclear missiles, as concocted by Castro and his Soviet counterpart, Nikita Khrushchev, were halted by the United States' President John F Kennedy, bringing a stand-off many feared would bring nuclear war. The defiance of US dominance in the Americas by Castro's Cuba inspired many opposed to American influence around the world, notably Hugo Chavez, leader of Venezuela in the early 21st century, who encouraged anti-American, left-wing governments across Latin American, with Chavez repeatedly citing Castro as his inspiration. However, with a tentative rapprochement between the United States and Cuba overseen by Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro, i.e. since Fidel had stepped down, in recent years (with progress on this front since stilted by Obama's successor, Donald Trump), one can't help wondering whether a post-Castros Cuba will become an American-dominated Caribbean island, falling into line with its neighbours, or whether that decades-old defiant streak will continue...?
2. The Legacy of President Donald Trump
Loved or loathed, now that his presidency is well established, we can see that Donald Trump WILL have an impact both at home in the United States of America, as well as overseas. Will that impact and legacy be positive or negative though? So divisive is the president, I would expect many reviewing this point to scoff one way or the other: of course it will be negative, or of course it will be positive. Though I'm glad that such a divisive and belligerent figure is not my head of state, and seemingly lucky to have not stirred up more drastic and prolonged violence at home and abroad than he has, it nevertheless seems unclear to me whether his bombastic gambles will ultimately pay off or not- and he seems to me to have the interests of ordinary Americans at heart. Prioritising what ordinary people want over those of the establishment/elite and preserving the status quo is an interesting, and potentially admirable, approach. As a Brit, I can sympathise with concerns over immigration, as well as with apparent weakness and loss of control over the national economy in a globalised world. Moreover, Trump's annoyance with America's great expense on defence whilst a vast majority of NATO members contribute less and take American support for granted seems very justified to me. I respect President Trump for highlighting these issues, and for attempting to address them. I wonder whether his offers of unconventional responses to these issues, be it a prospective wall to hinder illegal immigration or higher tariffs to bolster American companies, will have the intended outcome? Will President Trump have a positive impact and legacy in the short and medium term- and could he even have a long-term legacy on his country, and will it largely be for better or for worse?
3. Endurance of the European Union
I will avoid going over this too much, considering this was the subject of one of my other recent posts, but over the past decade the European Union has been hit by massive challenges, primarily economic ones triggered by the Great Recession and social ones resulting from mass migration, largely associated with the Middle East at first via Turkey, then from across the Mediterranean Sea to Southern Europe, which continues today. Populist governments have been elected in numerous EU member states of varying influence and with varying impact on the organisation and its cohesion. Some say that the EU tends to emerge from crises stronger; arguably, for the past decade, it has faced its greatest challenges yet. Will it be stronger or weaker in the years ahead, and how will it look if and when its current economic and social crises have been addressed?
4. Brexit
The almost daily topic on British news is the country's departure from the European Union- a divisive topic like the aforementioned President Trump, and the EU itself. The nature of Brexit has been an ongoing debate in the UK for years now, with a model that unites everyone non-existent. There will be people who are unhappy with every possible outcome, so we must count on the British government to achieve the Brexit they believe in the best interests of the country and most likely to fulfil the wishes of that majority of voters who backed it. Every announcement made by the government of Theresa May on this has, unsurprisingly, been denounced by one group or another. At last, the government seems to be settling on a Brexit that priorities certain economic ties with the EU, including those crucial ones for manufacturing that caused particular concern, while at the same time expressing determination to bring freedom of movement to an end. Personally, this seems to be more or less the Brexit I hoped for, and believe many backing Brexit would also support. Most Brexiteers would have voted to leave I'm sure due to immigration, which has a tangible impact on their lives, versus European influence on British laws and courts, which doesn't. By addressing the two ways that the EU has arguably most affected Britain, economic ties and immigration, and targeting the ways the EU has, respectively, had arguably the most positive and negative impact on the UK, Prime Minister May seems to be pursuing the right approach to me and, as I've said before in other posts, whilst she wasn't my initial preference as prime minister, she has proven remarkably strong and determined, and I remain hopeful she will see through at least the establishment of a strong foundation for the UK's long term relationship with the UK, enabling continued, valuably economic links whilst taking steps to address what many deem to have been excessive migration to the UK over recent decades.
5. The Future of Brazil
I have a seemingly random interest in the future of Brazil. However, given its credential as a prospective world Great Power, yet one that has been engulfed in political scandals since President Lula Da Silva stepped down as president (a man now fighting his own scandals of controversial corruption charges to stand for president again). I can't help wondering whether Brazil will pull itself together and successfully assert itself as a global power; or if it indeed emerges as a Great Power, but manages to achieve this status by just stumbling up the ladder...
6. Shifting Power in East Asia
Whilst we can expect the USA to remain powerful for the foreseeable future, and Europe to remain relatively subdued due to its own issues as previously discussed, East Asia seems to be the part of the world where significant change can be expected. China is effectively a superpower, predicted by many to become the world's foremost power in the coming decades, followed by India in the power stakes. Meanwhile, nearby Japan's economic power and development is well established, but may well resurge militarily. Aside from these three Great Powers, the divide on the Korean peninsula still occasionally flares up between the north and south, and other countries in the region will be anxious to the impact the Great Powers of East Asia could have on them- particularly Taiwan, which may fear (or ultimately welcome) annexation by its overwhelming neighbour, China. It will be interesting to see how relations develop in the region as its military and economy escalates...
7. Restoration of Monarchy
I can't help it! A niche interest, but I always hope to see the restoration of monarchy. I have some interest in this happening around the round, be it in Brazil to overcome ongoing scandals with his current rulers or to bring unity to divided, wartorn Middle Eastern countries like Libya or Afghanistan, by focus as always remains Europe, to its deep historic foundations and intriguing ancestral links that it has traditionally upheld across the continent. There have been varying degrees of interest in countries across the continent, whether focused on individual claimants leading the restoration movements or more interest in institution itself. Recently, there is said to be more interest in the former Habsburg territories in central Europe, such as the Czech Republic, due to a popular TV series concerning the former Empress Maria Theresa of the Habsburg Empire. I continue to follow European monarchism and hope that at least one movement will come to fruition soon and a European monarchy will be restored!
Saturday, 14 July 2018
Could Mohammad bin Salman be Saudi Arabia's Deng Xiaoping?
This comparison could turn out to be complete nonsense but, the more I've found out about Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, the more connections I've personally made between to this heir to the Saudi throne and his country on the one hand, and on the other Deng Xiaoping and the impact he had on the People's Republic of China in the 1980s.
Mohammad bin Salman has increasingly been in the media spotlight in the Western world over the past year or so as the power behind the throne of his father, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, who himself only became King in recent years. The Crown Prince, known informally as MBS, is credited with spurring Saudi decision-makers to look beyond oil as soon as possible to provide alternative sources for the Saudi economy, as well as encouraging greater social liberalism in the notoriously conservative kingdom- notable for its historic limitations on women's participation in society, for example. MBS is considered the driver behind a headline-grabbing move to arrest high-profile figures linked with corruption in his country, as well as allowing women to drive.
Deemed most dramatic are the changes brought about by MBS to make Saudi society more liberal and equal than it has been in recent decades (relatively). There is speculation that, as Crown Prince now, and one day as King (his father is now 82), he will make drastic and lasting social changes to Saudi Arabia. If this turns out to be the case, MBS could have the same impact on Saudi Arabia socially as Deng Xiaoping had on China economically in the 1980s. To recap, when Xiaoping took over as China's leader in 1979, his country was a Great Power; albeit one with a shaky, socialist economy, which had been developed since the communists achieved power in 1949, largely guided by Mao Zedong. Whilst Chairman Mao had upheld political power for the communist party and safeguarded his country's territorial integrity, Xiaoping's rule is noted for the revolutionary steps to reform China's economy into a more capitalist one (or state capitalist, given the large role the state would continue to play in the economy), in an approach he would famously describe as "socialist with Chinese characteristics".
Xiaoping's reforms brought tremendous economic growth to China, and a larger role for his country in the global economy- not to mention significant opportunities for a major boost in living standards for those Chinese able to reap the benefits of these economic changes. Thus Xiaoping has secured a positive reputation for his effectiveness at opening up China's economy- and many hope that MBS will similarly earn a positive reputation for opening up Saudi society. However, there are two sides to Xiaoping's legacy, which appears likely to be the case for MBS too.Xiaoping liberalised China's economy, and there were predictions that liberalisation of his country's political system was bound to follow. China's economy was increasingly inspired by the West, and its politics was bound to be too; after all, the Soviet Union at the time seemed to be reforming both its politics and economy under its contemporary leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Predictions of more liberal government and politics in China, and a weakening of its communists' grip on power, were brought abruptly to a halt by the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, when Xiaoping oversaw tanks enter the Square in the Chinese capital, Beijing, to mercilessly suppress protests calling for political reforms. The government's response to the protest demonstrated to the world that China's economy was loosening- but the communists' political control wasn't.
In Saudi Arabia, MBS is said to have encouraged his country's aggressive and controversial role in Yemen's civil war, and is seen to be just as intolerant (or perhaps more intolerant) of political opposition and activists as other members of the kingdom's royal family in recent decades. He may be making Saudi Arabia more socially liberal, as Xiaoping made China more economically liberal; but I anticipate that MBS is just as unlikely to dilute the political power of the reigning House of Saud in his country as Xiaoping did for the communist party in China. I expect Mohammad bin Salman to therefore be more like Saudi Arabia's Deng Xiaoping than its Mikhail Gorbachev.
Mohammad bin Salman has increasingly been in the media spotlight in the Western world over the past year or so as the power behind the throne of his father, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, who himself only became King in recent years. The Crown Prince, known informally as MBS, is credited with spurring Saudi decision-makers to look beyond oil as soon as possible to provide alternative sources for the Saudi economy, as well as encouraging greater social liberalism in the notoriously conservative kingdom- notable for its historic limitations on women's participation in society, for example. MBS is considered the driver behind a headline-grabbing move to arrest high-profile figures linked with corruption in his country, as well as allowing women to drive.
Deemed most dramatic are the changes brought about by MBS to make Saudi society more liberal and equal than it has been in recent decades (relatively). There is speculation that, as Crown Prince now, and one day as King (his father is now 82), he will make drastic and lasting social changes to Saudi Arabia. If this turns out to be the case, MBS could have the same impact on Saudi Arabia socially as Deng Xiaoping had on China economically in the 1980s. To recap, when Xiaoping took over as China's leader in 1979, his country was a Great Power; albeit one with a shaky, socialist economy, which had been developed since the communists achieved power in 1949, largely guided by Mao Zedong. Whilst Chairman Mao had upheld political power for the communist party and safeguarded his country's territorial integrity, Xiaoping's rule is noted for the revolutionary steps to reform China's economy into a more capitalist one (or state capitalist, given the large role the state would continue to play in the economy), in an approach he would famously describe as "socialist with Chinese characteristics".
Xiaoping's reforms brought tremendous economic growth to China, and a larger role for his country in the global economy- not to mention significant opportunities for a major boost in living standards for those Chinese able to reap the benefits of these economic changes. Thus Xiaoping has secured a positive reputation for his effectiveness at opening up China's economy- and many hope that MBS will similarly earn a positive reputation for opening up Saudi society. However, there are two sides to Xiaoping's legacy, which appears likely to be the case for MBS too.Xiaoping liberalised China's economy, and there were predictions that liberalisation of his country's political system was bound to follow. China's economy was increasingly inspired by the West, and its politics was bound to be too; after all, the Soviet Union at the time seemed to be reforming both its politics and economy under its contemporary leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Predictions of more liberal government and politics in China, and a weakening of its communists' grip on power, were brought abruptly to a halt by the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, when Xiaoping oversaw tanks enter the Square in the Chinese capital, Beijing, to mercilessly suppress protests calling for political reforms. The government's response to the protest demonstrated to the world that China's economy was loosening- but the communists' political control wasn't.
In Saudi Arabia, MBS is said to have encouraged his country's aggressive and controversial role in Yemen's civil war, and is seen to be just as intolerant (or perhaps more intolerant) of political opposition and activists as other members of the kingdom's royal family in recent decades. He may be making Saudi Arabia more socially liberal, as Xiaoping made China more economically liberal; but I anticipate that MBS is just as unlikely to dilute the political power of the reigning House of Saud in his country as Xiaoping did for the communist party in China. I expect Mohammad bin Salman to therefore be more like Saudi Arabia's Deng Xiaoping than its Mikhail Gorbachev.
Sunday, 17 June 2018
European Ship of Goodwill has Sailed
Over recent weeks, there have been numerous developments with the ongoing migrant crisis, whereby boats containing Africa migrants/refugees are sailing across the Mediterranean Sea to Greece, Italy and Spain, with the former two countries having handled the largest numbers in recent years. However, the arrival of significant numbers of impoverished migrants has put a strain on the infrastructure and communities of a continent that is still convalescing after the financial crisis that started around a decade ago.
Unfortunately, over the past decade, we have seen repeated examples of European countries turning to extreme measures in response to the twin pressures of the financial and migrant crises, exacerbated by Islamist terror attacks:
- In the UK, although largely avoiding the direct impact of the migrant crisis experienced elsewhere in Europe, has nevertheless seen transformative immigration over recent decades, both within and outside of the government's control, that is deemed to have played a major role in a majority of voters' decision in a referendum to support Brexit, i.e. voting to leave the European Union. For a country known for stability and supporting the status quo, as was evidenced in other referenda held in the UK over the past decade, this was widely considered a drastic and surprising step. Relatively successful multiculturalism is also seen to be undermined by concerns over excessive immigration, and the association of the spate of Islamicist terror attacks over recent years with Britain's Muslim minorities.
- Scandinavia, a region respected within Europe and beyond for its high living standards and liberalism, has in recent years experienced attacks of its own, be it by Islamists in Sweden or by the nationalist, Anders Breivik, in Norway.
- Some argue that the instability of Europe over the past decade has allowed Russia to be more audacious in exercising its influence aggressively, be it through the annexation of Crimea or the Russia-linked poisoning incident in the UK with Russian ex-pats.
- Greece has been possibly the country hit hardest by the migrant and financial crises, with an anti-austerity government in power helping the country struggle on to recovery after years of hardship.
- Leaders campaigning on a Eurosceptic and anti-migrant platform have achieved and maintained power in various countries across Europe, particular in the centre of the continent, where politicians holding these views are in charge in Austria, Hungary and Poland, for example.
-Germany has shifted from being a bastion of stability under Chancellor Angela Merkel, with members of the public applauding migrants from Africa and the Middle East as they arrived some years ago- to one that has drastically shifted its stance, voting in an anti-immigrant party, the AfD, as the main opposition to the much weakened Chancellor Merkel, whose support has declined and currently leads a shakier coalition government.
In addition to the above, tensions have flared over the aforementioned migrant crisis, with the new populist government of Italy (a coalition of left wing and right wing parties, seemingly united only in their Euroscepticism) now bucking the previous convention of the Italian government allowing African migrants to arrive in their country from boats by now turning them away. The small island of Malta, also significantly effected by the new arrivals from across the Mediterranean, was suggested as an alternative location, which the Maltese government swiftly opposed. With many in the mainstream criticising the Italian stance of now rejecting these boats, including the centrist French President Emmanuel Macron, Spain's new left-wing government ultimately welcomed the boat to its shores instead.
Humanitarian though these gestures may be, in practice the Greek, Italian and German examples have shown the impact these new arrivals have on the population and how they have shaped their politics. Though the current Spanish and French governments may be critical of Italy's changed stance, if these countries prove too accommodating to the boatloads travelling across the Mediterranean, they may well ultimately be deposed in subsequent elections by the sorts of populists gaining in strength across the continent. Given that the former right-wing dictator of Spain, General Franco, still has lingering sympathisers in his country; while the right-wing, anti-migrant, Eurosceptic Marine Le Pen came second in the last French presidential election, populists coming to power in these countries would not be too much of a stretch to imagine.
Well-intentioned though they may, those who are supportive of the arrival of poor migrants to their countries, regardless of the scale, may ironically be those whose actions and decisions help to most effectively mobilise the far right across the continent. I hope that the warning signs are seen before more echoes of 1930s Europe are heard.
Unfortunately, over the past decade, we have seen repeated examples of European countries turning to extreme measures in response to the twin pressures of the financial and migrant crises, exacerbated by Islamist terror attacks:
- In the UK, although largely avoiding the direct impact of the migrant crisis experienced elsewhere in Europe, has nevertheless seen transformative immigration over recent decades, both within and outside of the government's control, that is deemed to have played a major role in a majority of voters' decision in a referendum to support Brexit, i.e. voting to leave the European Union. For a country known for stability and supporting the status quo, as was evidenced in other referenda held in the UK over the past decade, this was widely considered a drastic and surprising step. Relatively successful multiculturalism is also seen to be undermined by concerns over excessive immigration, and the association of the spate of Islamicist terror attacks over recent years with Britain's Muslim minorities.
- Scandinavia, a region respected within Europe and beyond for its high living standards and liberalism, has in recent years experienced attacks of its own, be it by Islamists in Sweden or by the nationalist, Anders Breivik, in Norway.
- Some argue that the instability of Europe over the past decade has allowed Russia to be more audacious in exercising its influence aggressively, be it through the annexation of Crimea or the Russia-linked poisoning incident in the UK with Russian ex-pats.
- Greece has been possibly the country hit hardest by the migrant and financial crises, with an anti-austerity government in power helping the country struggle on to recovery after years of hardship.
- Leaders campaigning on a Eurosceptic and anti-migrant platform have achieved and maintained power in various countries across Europe, particular in the centre of the continent, where politicians holding these views are in charge in Austria, Hungary and Poland, for example.
-Germany has shifted from being a bastion of stability under Chancellor Angela Merkel, with members of the public applauding migrants from Africa and the Middle East as they arrived some years ago- to one that has drastically shifted its stance, voting in an anti-immigrant party, the AfD, as the main opposition to the much weakened Chancellor Merkel, whose support has declined and currently leads a shakier coalition government.
In addition to the above, tensions have flared over the aforementioned migrant crisis, with the new populist government of Italy (a coalition of left wing and right wing parties, seemingly united only in their Euroscepticism) now bucking the previous convention of the Italian government allowing African migrants to arrive in their country from boats by now turning them away. The small island of Malta, also significantly effected by the new arrivals from across the Mediterranean, was suggested as an alternative location, which the Maltese government swiftly opposed. With many in the mainstream criticising the Italian stance of now rejecting these boats, including the centrist French President Emmanuel Macron, Spain's new left-wing government ultimately welcomed the boat to its shores instead.
Humanitarian though these gestures may be, in practice the Greek, Italian and German examples have shown the impact these new arrivals have on the population and how they have shaped their politics. Though the current Spanish and French governments may be critical of Italy's changed stance, if these countries prove too accommodating to the boatloads travelling across the Mediterranean, they may well ultimately be deposed in subsequent elections by the sorts of populists gaining in strength across the continent. Given that the former right-wing dictator of Spain, General Franco, still has lingering sympathisers in his country; while the right-wing, anti-migrant, Eurosceptic Marine Le Pen came second in the last French presidential election, populists coming to power in these countries would not be too much of a stretch to imagine.
Well-intentioned though they may, those who are supportive of the arrival of poor migrants to their countries, regardless of the scale, may ironically be those whose actions and decisions help to most effectively mobilise the far right across the continent. I hope that the warning signs are seen before more echoes of 1930s Europe are heard.
Monday, 15 January 2018
Royal Round-up: 2017
The countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:
Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco.
Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.
2017
King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands reveals that over
the past 21 years, including during his reign, he has regularly been
co-piloting commercial flights in secret.
The former King Michael of Romania dies aged 96, prompting widespread national mourning. His claim to the Romanian throne is continued by
his eldest child, Crown Princess Margareta of Romania. On the occasion of the
former King’s death, leading politicians publicly comment on the potential for
the monarchy to be restored in Romania.
In the midst of intense protests demanding recognition of
the independence of the region of Catalonia from Spain at the time of a
controversial referendum on the issue, King Felipe VI of Spain intervenes,
addressing the public and criticising those behind public demonstrations
for Catalan independence and rallying Catalans to remain within Spain.
As Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland reaches numerous milestones, including the oldest head of state in the
world, and first British monarch to celebrate both a Sapphire Jubilee and
Platinum wedding anniversary, there are more signs of a greater
transition of influence to her son and heir Prince Charles, with the Prince
leading the national Remembrance commemorations whilst the Queen watches from a
balcony.
Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco.
Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.
2017
.jpg){kind=link}
Saturday, 29 April 2017
Reflections on French national identity
What I have to say now will not attempt to offer any great insight into the ongoing election campaign for the next President of France- though hopefully complements current discussions and events.
Whilst spending a recent weekend in Paris (which, incidentally, was the weekend of the first round of the 2017 presidential election), I had the same feeling as when I last visited the city- as well as when I visited Vienna last year. Beautiful cities though they are, I feel that there is a sad disparity between the images these cities portray of themselves (and their countries generally) versus the reality. Perhaps it is because I am a British monarchist that I am biased, but I can't help thinking that London's landmarks represent a continuous story of the UK's history and identity, with two of the most iconic buildings, Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament, reflecting our centuries-old attachment to democracy and constitutional monarchy. In contrast, Paris' most iconic buildings tend to be grand palaces or cathedrals, which imply that monarchy and Catholicism are strong parts of France's identity. In reality of course, France officially endorses republicanism and secularism- and has done for the past century or so. It therefore feels a bit hollow to me that buildings so important to what people associate with France are not really relevant to what the country is today; and that, to an extent, the way you could once trace the country's ongoing story through its architecture and most famous buildings has stopped.
Adolphe Thiers once famously said the reason behind the establishment of a French republic was that it "divides us least"- a governmental system set-up therefore not out of strong convictions, but as a compromise. Adolphe Thiers would be one of the first ever Presidents of France, yet was himself a monarchist sympathiser. The Third French Republic was often seen as a provisional form of government for France, following the country's defeat in 1871 in the Franco-Prussian War, yet has been upheld (albeit with amendments along the way) ever since. Even France's strongest symbol, the Eiffel Tower, unveiled in the early days of the Third French Republic, was due to be a temporary structure only, and intended to be removed a couple of decades later- yet has likewise lasted ever since.
I wonder if there is any link between the weak convictions underpinning modern France, formed by a provisional republic and represented by a temporary structure, and the insecurities that have plagued France's national identity since the compromise republic was established back in 1871...
Whilst spending a recent weekend in Paris (which, incidentally, was the weekend of the first round of the 2017 presidential election), I had the same feeling as when I last visited the city- as well as when I visited Vienna last year. Beautiful cities though they are, I feel that there is a sad disparity between the images these cities portray of themselves (and their countries generally) versus the reality. Perhaps it is because I am a British monarchist that I am biased, but I can't help thinking that London's landmarks represent a continuous story of the UK's history and identity, with two of the most iconic buildings, Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament, reflecting our centuries-old attachment to democracy and constitutional monarchy. In contrast, Paris' most iconic buildings tend to be grand palaces or cathedrals, which imply that monarchy and Catholicism are strong parts of France's identity. In reality of course, France officially endorses republicanism and secularism- and has done for the past century or so. It therefore feels a bit hollow to me that buildings so important to what people associate with France are not really relevant to what the country is today; and that, to an extent, the way you could once trace the country's ongoing story through its architecture and most famous buildings has stopped.
Adolphe Thiers once famously said the reason behind the establishment of a French republic was that it "divides us least"- a governmental system set-up therefore not out of strong convictions, but as a compromise. Adolphe Thiers would be one of the first ever Presidents of France, yet was himself a monarchist sympathiser. The Third French Republic was often seen as a provisional form of government for France, following the country's defeat in 1871 in the Franco-Prussian War, yet has been upheld (albeit with amendments along the way) ever since. Even France's strongest symbol, the Eiffel Tower, unveiled in the early days of the Third French Republic, was due to be a temporary structure only, and intended to be removed a couple of decades later- yet has likewise lasted ever since.
I wonder if there is any link between the weak convictions underpinning modern France, formed by a provisional republic and represented by a temporary structure, and the insecurities that have plagued France's national identity since the compromise republic was established back in 1871...
Sunday, 12 March 2017
History repeating itself remarkably: England 1649-1689, France 1789-1830
It is a cliché that history repeats itself, but I only recently realised how remarkably true this can be.
Consider the following:
A King is executed, apparently to further the cause of greater liberty. However, emerging from this apparent liberation is a pseudo military dictatorship. After approximately a decade, this somewhat regal dictatorship comes to an end, encouraging a desire to turn back the clock (at least to an extent). And so, the monarchy is restored, installing a King (who ironically shares his name with the previously executed monarch).
Stability seems to be restored, although lingering suspicions of the restored monarchy remain. These concerns appear to be justified when the restored king dies, and is succeeded by his more conservative brother. This new reactionary King proves too much, apparently ignoring the social and political shifts in the country of recent years, leading to a revolution that deposes the King and brings a more liberal relative to the throne in his place.
The above could equally apply to England from 1649 to 1689 and France 1789-1830. Both chains of events also took approximately 40 years...
In England, King Charles I was executed following the English Civil War, and was replaced by Oliver Cromwell as head of state. A member of parliament who had fought ostensibly to curb royal power, Cromwell soon became Lord Protector, a King in all but name, with dictatorial powers. When he died, his son Richard briefly took his place, before the English monarchy was restored in 1660 under King Charles I's son, King Charles II. When King Charles II died, his brother became King James II. However, the threat of an autocratic and Catholic King seemed too much to the Protestant English parliament, which encouraged his remarkably bloodless deposition in the Glorious Revolution and brought his nephew (and son-in-law) to the throne as King William III, reigning as co-monarch with his wife and cousin Queen Mary II.
Then, 100 years later, France had her iconic French Revolution, which soon escalated and resulted in the execution of King Louis XVI and the installation of a republic. Despite having apparently noble foundations, of "liberty, equality and fraternity", the republic proved anarchic and provoked war with the Great Powers of Europe. Shifting power in France led to a brief peace while Napoleon Bonaparte, a Corsican general, rose through the political ranks and ultimately made himself Emperor of the French. Emperor Napoleon managed to bring much of Europe into his sphere of influence, through annexation to the First French Empire, indirectly through the installation of family members or other allies as new heads of state of numerous European states, or concluding alliances and peace treaties with existing leaders. However, over the following years, relentless British opposition, coupled with growing unrest and resentment towards French dominance in Continental Europe, led to Napoleon's deposition and defeat, and replacement with King Louis XVIII- brother of the late King Louis XVI. While King Louis XVIII had (albeit begrudgingly) been accommodating of liberal concessions, his more conservative brother and successor, King Charles X, was much less so, culminating in the 1830 revolution that led to his abdication in favour of his liberal cousin, the new King Louis Philippe of the French.
The difference is that, whilst constitutional monarchy would be strengthened over the decades in England, and ultimately Great Britain, in France King Louis Philippe was deposed by a further revolution, and soon replaced by the more authoritarian Emperor Napoleon III. When he was forced to abdicate due to a humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, it seemed likely Napoleon III would be succeeded by a King Henri V- grandson of King Charles X. However, Henri's relentless opposition to the Tricolour flag remaining the national flag (an indication of his unwillingness to embrace modernity in France) led to the temporary Third Republic which, aside from some amendments, endures in France to this day.
Consider the following:
A King is executed, apparently to further the cause of greater liberty. However, emerging from this apparent liberation is a pseudo military dictatorship. After approximately a decade, this somewhat regal dictatorship comes to an end, encouraging a desire to turn back the clock (at least to an extent). And so, the monarchy is restored, installing a King (who ironically shares his name with the previously executed monarch).
Stability seems to be restored, although lingering suspicions of the restored monarchy remain. These concerns appear to be justified when the restored king dies, and is succeeded by his more conservative brother. This new reactionary King proves too much, apparently ignoring the social and political shifts in the country of recent years, leading to a revolution that deposes the King and brings a more liberal relative to the throne in his place.
The above could equally apply to England from 1649 to 1689 and France 1789-1830. Both chains of events also took approximately 40 years...
In England, King Charles I was executed following the English Civil War, and was replaced by Oliver Cromwell as head of state. A member of parliament who had fought ostensibly to curb royal power, Cromwell soon became Lord Protector, a King in all but name, with dictatorial powers. When he died, his son Richard briefly took his place, before the English monarchy was restored in 1660 under King Charles I's son, King Charles II. When King Charles II died, his brother became King James II. However, the threat of an autocratic and Catholic King seemed too much to the Protestant English parliament, which encouraged his remarkably bloodless deposition in the Glorious Revolution and brought his nephew (and son-in-law) to the throne as King William III, reigning as co-monarch with his wife and cousin Queen Mary II.
Then, 100 years later, France had her iconic French Revolution, which soon escalated and resulted in the execution of King Louis XVI and the installation of a republic. Despite having apparently noble foundations, of "liberty, equality and fraternity", the republic proved anarchic and provoked war with the Great Powers of Europe. Shifting power in France led to a brief peace while Napoleon Bonaparte, a Corsican general, rose through the political ranks and ultimately made himself Emperor of the French. Emperor Napoleon managed to bring much of Europe into his sphere of influence, through annexation to the First French Empire, indirectly through the installation of family members or other allies as new heads of state of numerous European states, or concluding alliances and peace treaties with existing leaders. However, over the following years, relentless British opposition, coupled with growing unrest and resentment towards French dominance in Continental Europe, led to Napoleon's deposition and defeat, and replacement with King Louis XVIII- brother of the late King Louis XVI. While King Louis XVIII had (albeit begrudgingly) been accommodating of liberal concessions, his more conservative brother and successor, King Charles X, was much less so, culminating in the 1830 revolution that led to his abdication in favour of his liberal cousin, the new King Louis Philippe of the French.
The difference is that, whilst constitutional monarchy would be strengthened over the decades in England, and ultimately Great Britain, in France King Louis Philippe was deposed by a further revolution, and soon replaced by the more authoritarian Emperor Napoleon III. When he was forced to abdicate due to a humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, it seemed likely Napoleon III would be succeeded by a King Henri V- grandson of King Charles X. However, Henri's relentless opposition to the Tricolour flag remaining the national flag (an indication of his unwillingness to embrace modernity in France) led to the temporary Third Republic which, aside from some amendments, endures in France to this day.
Saturday, 11 February 2017
Thoughts on the US President and checks and balances
I remember when I studied politics, and covered American politics, that an important characteristic of their system is checks and balances: that the President, Congress and the courts are able to hinder and help each other pass laws and make decisions. The idea behind this structure being that no single institution becomes too powerful and can jeopardise democracy, with a great emphasis on the President not being able to impose their will unchecked on the USA.
The positives of this system are clear, and indeed do appear to be very democratic. However, it can be controversial too when there is a stand-off between these institutions. We can see this as both the current President, President Trump, and his predecessor, President Obama, have faced challenges (and, in the case of the former, continues to do so) as a consequence of these checks and balances.
As we have seen, there have been several instances of people in the US going on killing sprees with guns, murdering many innocent people. In recognition of this, and feeling that access to guns is a big factor in why these massacres occur (a view I agree with: being British, although I feel there is a lot of common ground between my country and the US in terms of outlook and values, there seems to generally be a divide on the perception of guns, and I've always struggled to understand the pro-gun perspective that many Americans have), President Obama tried to restrict access to arms, only for Congress to undermine and hinder his efforts, and often make him appear impotent in the face of these tragic events.
Meanwhile, at present, President Trump is having an ongoing conflict with the courts over whether his efforts to place heavy restrictions on the ability of people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries to go to the USA are lawful, with his executive order being undermined by the courts, and President Trump now seemingly considering his next move in order to reinstate these restrictions. Controversial though this executive order is, I can sympathise with concerns over Islamist terrorism (I understand that, one the one hand, virtually all Muslims are not terrorists, while on the other, it seems that virtually all terrorists are Muslims. Therefore, President Trump's actions are affecting many innocent Muslims just because of their religion- but it is not a move completely lacking in reason and carried out with malice), and also recognise that this act reflects the promises President Trump made during his electoral campaign.
As I said, I respect the democratic credentials of the system of checks and balances, but feel that they can undermine the President when attempting to carry out decisions effectively and decisively- including the promises that their elections were based upon. This is a difficult topic, but I personally feel some relief that the British Prime Minister is generally more able to make swift decisions and pass laws without so many hindrances, allowing what is my view generally more effective leadership, whilst the high profile of the US President and their election campaigns can lead to building up of great hopes- and subsequent great disappointment, as their ability to bring about change is prolonged or prevented.
The positives of this system are clear, and indeed do appear to be very democratic. However, it can be controversial too when there is a stand-off between these institutions. We can see this as both the current President, President Trump, and his predecessor, President Obama, have faced challenges (and, in the case of the former, continues to do so) as a consequence of these checks and balances.
As we have seen, there have been several instances of people in the US going on killing sprees with guns, murdering many innocent people. In recognition of this, and feeling that access to guns is a big factor in why these massacres occur (a view I agree with: being British, although I feel there is a lot of common ground between my country and the US in terms of outlook and values, there seems to generally be a divide on the perception of guns, and I've always struggled to understand the pro-gun perspective that many Americans have), President Obama tried to restrict access to arms, only for Congress to undermine and hinder his efforts, and often make him appear impotent in the face of these tragic events.
Meanwhile, at present, President Trump is having an ongoing conflict with the courts over whether his efforts to place heavy restrictions on the ability of people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries to go to the USA are lawful, with his executive order being undermined by the courts, and President Trump now seemingly considering his next move in order to reinstate these restrictions. Controversial though this executive order is, I can sympathise with concerns over Islamist terrorism (I understand that, one the one hand, virtually all Muslims are not terrorists, while on the other, it seems that virtually all terrorists are Muslims. Therefore, President Trump's actions are affecting many innocent Muslims just because of their religion- but it is not a move completely lacking in reason and carried out with malice), and also recognise that this act reflects the promises President Trump made during his electoral campaign.
As I said, I respect the democratic credentials of the system of checks and balances, but feel that they can undermine the President when attempting to carry out decisions effectively and decisively- including the promises that their elections were based upon. This is a difficult topic, but I personally feel some relief that the British Prime Minister is generally more able to make swift decisions and pass laws without so many hindrances, allowing what is my view generally more effective leadership, whilst the high profile of the US President and their election campaigns can lead to building up of great hopes- and subsequent great disappointment, as their ability to bring about change is prolonged or prevented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)