Alternatives International

Casualties of a Conservative Government

Michael Reford — 2014-08-01T18:45:36Z

Canada is still the calm, expansive landmass just above the United States. In recent memory, that idea is being increasingly challenged by Stephen Harper's Progressive Conservative government. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a hugely divisive issue globally and its resurgence this summer is no different. The Internet is abuzz with opinions and accusations; but throughout all of this, the Canadian Prime minister has not wavered in expressing support for the Israeli government's actions. There is clear global controversy surrounding this issue yet Harper has taken a side. At this stage of a drawn out conflict that has claimed so many lives, why on earth would he do that?

Digging deeper into Canada's position, there has always been support extended toward Israel. Operation Galilee in 1982, characterized by violent Israeli retaliation resulting in Palestinian civilian deaths, saw a negative diplomatic outcome limited to a less responsive relationship with Israel. Canada maintained support publicly during 1987's First Intifada but voted with moderate Western European countries like Sweden, Holland, Britain, Belgium, and Norway at the United Nations. Jean Chrétien rewarded Israel's commitment toward peace in the 90s under Yitzhak Rabin with a free trade deal.

What was a minimal issue for so long in Canadian politics has now become one-sided. Commenting on the conflict that erupted in July 2014, Harper stated: “Canada is unequivocally behind Israel. We support its right to defend itself, by itself, against these terror attacks, and urge Hamas to immediately cease their indiscriminate attacks on innocent Israeli civilians.”

The pro-Israeli position has grown in stature since Harper ramped up his electoral campaign in 2005. The primarily Anglo-Saxon vote was not enough to support a modern conservative government and shrewdly, he looked elsewhere to traditional conservative groups to fill in support gaps. The Jewish-Canadian community had preserved conservative cultural ideals and therefore was an appealing candidate.

Parliament Hill had been red for over 15 years. Unconditional support for Israel was what helped a conservative minority government take shape and as ties increased with Jewish groups in Canada, the relationship grew, contributing to a majority in 2011.

While Harper enjoyed political victories at home, his public support for Israel has arguably not helped anything except his political ambitions. A study done by Canadian Jewish groups found an overwhelming 89 percent of Canadians believed that Palestinians and Israelis shared responsibility equally in the ongoing conflict. 83 percent thought Canada should remain neutral in its approach. It is difficult to see the government's rationale behind complete ignorance of the facts.
Other ethnic and religious groups have increasingly become alienated by Harper's commitment to Israel's cause. While it has paid dividends in the last two elections, there is clear discontent in Arab communities in eastern Canada.

While the US enjoys a close relationship with Israel that involves a military aid component, Canada can only provide legitimacy. US Technology and resources can give Israel an edge in military operations. Canada's contribution under Harper is limited to statements, increased political and economic ties, and vote support at the UN. The last thing a conflict of this nature needs is the spur of a nation such as Canada to enter the ring and pick a corner.

A negative policy pattern by Harper's Conservatives is hardly new. His “tough on crime” agenda is out of touch with falling crime rates in Canada. Weaker environmental laws threaten sustainable resource exploitation in Western Canada. The policy trend further right may explain the appeal of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and his far right agenda. Netanyahu was fiercely against the 1993 Oslo peace process and his lack of commitment toward peace resolutions stemming from Oslo have made clear he is not interested in constructive peace at all.

Harper's stance is most appreciated by Israelis. Surveys within the Canadian Jewish community show that a moderate view is not as rare as it seems in times of conflict. A 1987 survey of Jewish-Canadian leaders around the time of the First Intifada found that 60 percent thought, “Israel should offer Arabs territorial compromise in the West Bank in exchange for peace”. It is sometimes difficult to vocalize these criticisms publicly as they can legitimize anti-Semitic rhetoric and action.

A violent conflict with deep ideological and territorial divisions victimizes the innocent. Civilians are vulnerable to radical ideas on both sides as a climate of fear and hate is spurned by the constant threat of death. Propaganda in mainstream media outlets churn out persuasive content, which ultimately entrenches opposing ideals in Arab and Israeli communities. It is shameful that Harper is subjecting ordinary Canadians to the moral consequence of a war half a world away.

Future Tory governments may see this electoral support for Harper and decide it is a legitimate route to exploit in a bid for election. But all Canadians would benefit from a return to a moderate view where Canada could have a positive contribution to the conflict. The historic volatility in the region and heavy civilian casualties are what make a one-sided commitment irresponsible. Canadians should hope that the pro-Israeli stance can be watered down and as the damage is repaired, fulfill a role as a supporter of peace. Is 8 years of pro-Israeli commitment enough to become status quo? Hopefully not. The 2015 election is when the next political party can break from Stephen Harper's electoral strategy: a process where votes are exchanged for destruction, suffering, and death in a distant, far off place.

Does Chavismo Have a Future?

Michael Reford — 2013-04-02T03:53:19Z

The left in Latin America had struggled for a rebirth. The days of CIA- backed coups and assassination of leftists have calmed somewhat.

The longstanding fight against imperialism has seen a change in the last decade with the resurgence of the left. Hugo Chavez, arguably the catalyst for this renaissance, enjoyed three terms in office because of his work within Venezuela. His base of support and successful model of socialism helped establish a base from it spread. Within the oil rich nation, Chavismo can be described as a set of ideals and management style which places importance on equality, social participation, and central, powerful, proactive government based around one personality: Hugo Chavez.

As his fight against cancer grew, the question of Chavismo's future without the man that defined it has grown increasingly important.

His passing opens a door for a change in leadership, but will the vision of Chavismo endure at the hands of future governments?

Comfortable victories in what was recently his fourth election are a testament to the success of his terms in power. What drove the movement was deeply rooted in the revolutionary sect Chavez founded while in the army, named the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement-200, or MBR-200. The movement eventually went on to evolve into the Fifth Republic Party, or MVR. This transition was due to the increased call for change around the country after a string of corrupt governments.

Seizing the moment, a tremendous value was placed on the rural populations and the urban poor that went on to fuel the movement for another decade and a half. The anti-traditional party model was innovative and typical of the Movement. Leading up to the first election in '98, face-to-face engagement and clear communication gathered political momentum.

Already known to many Venezuelans after the failed coup in '92, the extensive travel he undertook to dialogue with potential supporters is reflective of the later social successes of Chavismo. This understanding between people and leadership defined its existence.
The biggest victory that would do well to last is the redistribution platform. Reaching millions of poor and cutting the poverty rate by 20 percent is a notable success, but is the result of a powerful methodology. Many leftist governments have struggled to redistribute wealth, land, or other commodities fairly on a mass scale. The potential for dissatisfaction and unrest is high and diminishing support is the result.

The Bolivarian Missions allowed for state oil revenues to reach those in need. It also came in the form of healthcare, employment training, food, and education. Local cooperatives were also able to apply for funds based on what community projects they decided to pursue. As with the first election in '98, grassroots involvement and dialogue founded the strong base for Chavismo to develop into a constructive agenda.
Social inclusion best characterizes what defined Chavismo domestically. The hierarchical top-down format adopted in most Western-style countries is reversed. In what was largely a decentralized structure, municipal, and regional governments were permitted a licence to control local affairs and decision making. Chavez's state centralization helped create clear policy objectives resulting in social involvement that empowered people and presented a medium through which to communicate.

The criticisms toward Chavez are many. Accusations of judicial interference, media tampering, even dictatorship, have been thrown around at times. The Western perspective quickly demonizes Chavez, but the political climate in Latin America is drastically different from Western-style democracy in structure and purpose. If anything, Western democracies can learn from the importance placed on participation long after Election Day.

Venezuela under Chavez often attracted headlines from Western media. Criticism of Venezuela's foreign aspirations appeared throughout his time in government. After some soul searching, MVR found new life once it expanded its global profile.

A growing relationship with Cuba was a first step in an alliance that acknowledged similarities in ideals. An economic relationship with Iran was a major step in assertion of power contrary to US imperialism in the Middle East and Latin America. Political relationships with Russia and China tightened with deals that would see Venezuelan oil shipped to their fast moving economies.

Making allies that disagreed with the ‘American Empire', as Chavez describes it, defined a tough foreign policy agenda with connections to his early career. His education and time spent in the military had a considerable effect on those originally part of the MBR-200 who would take positions in office. Rhetoric describing the “never ending fight” is synonymous with the fiery speaker. The coup in '02 led to failure because of soldier loyalties toward Chavez. But, the present day open declaration of military support for Chavismo bids caution. There is a chance a future leader may harness military support and abuse the relationship for the purpose of eroding democratic integrity.

Chavismo extended onto the rest of the continent drawing from Bolivarian ideals. Integration was a principles stressed in the beliefs of the 19th century general Bolivar, who awoke South America from imperialist Spain and defeated colonialism.

The infectious nature of victories within Venezuela allowed the movement to spread and public endorsements for candidates helped leftists sweep to power in Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, and elsewhere. Similar policies in dealing with issues regarding national sovereignty helped combat US presence. Financially, this alliance helped reduce IMF involvement by reducing and paying off poisonous loans.

The outlined successes are largely due to the connection between Chavez and the ideology he pursed that reflects his name. It is synonymous with an aggressive style of government and putting the interests of his people before political gamesmanship.
Bolivarian ideals inspired and dictated the path embarked upon with relative success.

How much of this success is due to Chavez himself? As the face of MBR-200, accepting responsibility for the failed military coup put Chavez on the national stage when he appeared on national TV claiming responsibility. Being the face of change was of great importance as he campaigned and spoke around the country from the back of a truck. The charisma and confidence are evident in any speech or verbal exchange. The larger than life personality, cult hero appeal cannot be replaced.

What is Chavismo without its creator? The connection between the two almost seems too great for someone to replicate. Much of the social success and jobs are directly tied to oil. Cash flows related to any commodity are risky especially when the social consequence of a price drop can be so great.

The lack of institutionalization of the many social projects makes them vulnerable. The threat of further corruption within state distribution channels can undermine the social milestones accomplished. Participation and inclusion between elections are thus very valuable to the millions of poor people. It defines the organic support and the participatory democratic system essential to the future of Chavismo.

There is no denial of the clear link between Chavez and the success of Chavismo. The guiding light that can take the idealism forward are principles which motivated the '92 coup and brought him to mass popularity. Bolivarian inspiration that values human rights, combats mass poverty, and encourage Latin American integration, to name a few, can be carried forward by any conscious leader. What is characterized as Chavismo may not continue without its leader, but the founding ideals that have been embedded in all facets of Venezuelan society over the past 20 years will serve as a path that begs to be followed by any future elect.

For Sale: The Canadian Identity

Michael Reford — 2013-03-02T00:29:30Z

A young, adolescent country, Canada often struggles with what it is. The rich, exciting, history of other Western nations is absent because of the few historically defining moments. As such, the Canadian identity is passive but still proud, multicultural and still protectionist, humble, sometimes nationalist, but constantly trying to find itself. The current chapter has added some new qualities to the mix usually reserved for ruthless, industrial, ultra capitalist countries, like our southern neighbour. Our identity is changing, but this time, for the worse.

Resource-rich Canada has relied on the exploitation of its valuable natural landscape since long before the country was founded. Domestic responsibility is essential to a government's success. The lack of voters abroad creates a disregard for responsibility, which has manifested itself at the expense of ordinary Canadians.

A recent report commissioned by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada suggests that four times as many mining abuses are committed abroad by Canadian mining corporations. The long-standing rhetoric as resource companies began to explore abroad blamed a minority for bad behaviour, spoiling the party for all. This is clearly not the case.

Aside from flimsy corporate responsibility codes, there is nothing to keep mining companies in check as they ruthlessly search for profits in foreign lands. Policing these companies abroad is difficult. Unreported crimes and denial of accusations seem to be the norm when conflicts arise. Remote communities in sometimes shady, politically unstable countries are subject to violence, local militias, and frequent human rights violations. It is all too common to hear of Latin American peasants being pushed off their land, local activists gone missing or gruesomely murdered at the benefit of a proposed resource operation. A clean corporate statement denying involvement usually follows and blame is placed elsewhere. The difficulty for poor rural, sometimes uneducated and unorganized locals, is fighting such abuses in an arena where Canadian companies are not being held accountable. The cases rarely get through corrupt judicial systems in local nations and do not make it to Canadian courtrooms. In a recent case, Canadian miner Hudbay is being sued by Guatemalan peasants. These victims of rape and murder may change this, but the road ahead is long. The recent Bill C-300, to combat bad corporate behaviour, is a poor attempt to save face. The innocent, humble perception of Canada has eroded, and the prestige of a Canadian citizen diminished.

Environmental destruction—a by-product of any resource extraction operation—occurs abroad, but domestically as well; outsiders can only gasp at the destruction and mismanagement of tar sand operations. Contamination of the Athabasca River, used by aboriginal peoples, the contribution to rising CO2 levels, and the expanding network of pipelines prone to leaks is a major concern. The Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge is rightly opposed, as the company has a track record of irresponsibility and leak accidents. Shoddy scientific data presented by the company and no solid plan in case of spills are testaments to the arrogance of Enbridge as well as the Harper government.

Harper and his Keystone XL pipeline mission, proposed to run from Alberta to Texas refineries, would secure higher revenues for tar sands operatives but leave devastation in its wake. An environmental crisis and irreparable destruction in exchange for short term revenues seems unnecessary. Our Kyoto drop-out is yet another blemish on the already tarnished Canadian image. Lobbyists' pressure on a government that almost enjoyed rejecting the commitment for the sake of its beloved oil polluters has prevailed. A world leader's necessary understanding that Kyoto affects all, was clearly disregarded, and a major opportunity was missed. The small value placed on our precious environment for economic gain comes at a time when global leaders shifting their policies towards environmental consciousness.

It is necessary that Canada develops a clear energy. There is no denying that consumption of natural resources is essential. The importance lies in the method of extraction, conservation of environmentally important areas, responsible decision-making, and accountability. An energy strategy would greatly aid those in the industry at maintaining operations for the interests of all Canadians, not just their own. A national energy strategy would enable for parameters and clear goals to be set in order to foster a better future for Canadians in a post-tar sands scenario. The lag in coming to this realization and the lack of proactive measures can only prolong the damage done by maintaining the status quo.

The economic priority of Prime Minister Harper's government is evident. The numerous trade pacts and opportunities sought in Asia, South America, and Europe have only come at the expense of something of greater value. A leaked report by the Foreign Affairs ministry, if taken at face value, indicates Canada's focus abroad is strictly economic. Without the acknowledgment of anything else, the sacrifice of such Canadian values as multiculturalism, human rights and democracy, are the victims of what can be described as a very short sighted plan.

The decades following World War II are plagued by neocolonialism and the potential for its ugly consequences has surfaced. American anti-democratic behaviour and involvement in 1950s Central America is a testament to its negative repercussions. As Steven Harper travels the world negotiating Free Trade deals, the pristine innocence of our country slowly decays. Under the guise of mutual interests, Canadian companies invade foreign lands. The corporate fist is powerful as its influence has led to accusations implicating Ottawa in the 2009 Honduras coup. Colombia can serve as another case where any sense of responsibility and integrity was traded in for a few dollars. In a country where government forces, paramilitaries, and rebels have operated for a half-century, Canadian miners ply their trade. The recent agreement to open Colombian trade to Canadian manufactured automatic weapons is an affront to human rights. Arms aside, government forces with only economic interests in mind and who are guilty of countless civilian murders among other human rights violations, are intolerable. The future is alarming.

The casualties around the world at the hand of shifting Canadian policies and increased exploitation of big Canadian business are dangerous. The precedent that has been set in the last ten years differs drastically from the classic Canadian identity; one known for humility, meaningful contribution, peacekeeping, and true democracy. The Harper government has played an accelerated role but the seeds had been sown before his arrival. As Canadians, we are victim to our own pacifist and apolitical nature. But the real casualty in all of this: a change in Canadian identity, which has taken years to find but only a few to undo. Is there a chance to rebuild our pride after this hiccup, or will it last and serve to guide future generations toward the dark abyss of unethical behaviour?

The Politics of Football

Michael Reford — 2012-07-01T21:00:00Z

It is that time again : Every four years fans around the world get to enjoy the European Championship. Whether in domestic leagues or at the international level, politics seem to be omnipresent in European football. The most important question that arises from this is : why football ?

With every major tournament, the eyes of the world fall upon the host nations as any relevant issue, be it sports related or not, becomes intensely scrutinized. As such, racism has been at the centre of discussions about Euro 2012. This is a common issue in football, not only in Europe but around the world. It is simple to blame some Ultra groups that have racist tendencies but the problem stems from a larger issue. The immigration question has become central in mainstream European politics and it has been manifesting itself in football stadiums from both Poland and Ukraine all the way to the UK's Premier League —one of the most prestigious and popular football leagues in the world.

The pre-tournament ‘Stadiums of Hate', an inflammatory, poorly presented documentary on Polish and Ukrainian culture within stadiums, comes to mind. Addressing the common problem of racism — not new in Eastern European countries — it presents specific Ultra groups displaying anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi symbols in stadiums. Taking this evidence and relating it on a wider scale to the Polish and Ukrainian public makes it appear as if there is approval of racist behaviours and involvement on a much wider scale. But there is a distinction between racism and anti-immigration policy that must be made clear. And minority with a unique culture is not an accurate representation of the wider population.

In another instance, a quarterfinal match between Germany and Greece brought together two nations in the midst of a pan-European debt crisis. What occurred on the field seemed to be an emulation of what has been happening to the Greek people. The Greeks were left to salvage a few ounces of pride from kick-off as they were at the mercy of a skilled German side. Angela Merkel was present at what was dubbed “the bailout match” . As a major creditor, Merkel has been pushing for repayment and austerity in Greece . Her attendance came with political connotations as to show a presence over the Greek counterparts. Jeers, whistles and chants directed at Merkel brought the political situation between both countries to the forefront. With the ongoing debt crisis overshadowing the match, Germany's win was politically symbolic.

During a group stage match between Poland and Russia, past and current political tensions came to light. Outside the stadium, small demonstrations took place accusing Russia of the murder of Lech Kaczyński who died in a plane crash en route to a memorial service for the Katyn Massacre in western Russia. Many Poles are wary of Russian involvement in the death of their head of state as investigations on both sides gave different conclusions. Violent clashes on the streets of Warsaw exposed Cold War era tensions as Russian fans marched down the main street waving flags in what was interpreted as a show of Russian nationalism.

But the intersection of football and politics does not only happen during the European Cup. On the domestic league level, one can look to Spain. The Spanish cup final pitted Athletic Bilbao against Barcelona at a predetermined neutral ground in Madrid. The result was a rude welcome by right-wing nationalist groups marching for “Spanish unity”. The situation was exacerbated by comments made by politicians on both sides regarding potential whistling of the Spanish anthem. After all of the political build up, one could forget that a cup final was indeed occurring. At the end of a one sided game, the Barcelona captain, Carles Puyol, was seen celebrating by hoisting both Catalan and Basque flags in what can be interpreted as a show of solidarity and support for two persecuted provinces. The tension from General Franco's cultural oppression in these two provinces still endures and was brought to light in a footballing context.

Football has also sparked political issues with much wider international implications. After the death of Tito, Serb and Croat nationalist sentiments had been steadily growing and were at an all-time high when a match was to be played between Dinamo Zagreb and Red Star Belgrade in Zagreb in May 1990. The result was a riot in the stadium that pitted Dinamo's Ultras, the Bad Blue Boys against another equally nationalistic Ultra group, Red Star's Delije. Serb policemen were brought in to control the situation but when they beat a fan on the pitch, Zvonomir Boban, a Zagreb player unleashed a kick on the policeman in defence of the fan. The riot at Maksimir stadium and the symbolic kick became a flashpoint for the civil war that was to follow while Boban became a symbol of Croat nationalism. On that fateful day, Red Star's Delije were led by Zeliko “Arkan” Raznatovic who would later form a Serb paramilitary group known as Arkan's Tigers made up of Delije members.

Explosions of conflicting ideas have a history of occurring within the football world but there have some positive instances in which the futures of nations are affected by a dramatic win. Leading up to France's 1998 World Cup, inflammatory comments made by far-right political leader Jean-Marie Le Pen about the ethnicities of French national players — and whether the players were truly French — fuelled built up tension throughout a country whose present and future was rooted in multiculturalism. Key players of foreign descent such as Zidane, Thuram, and Desailly were instrumental in the French victory and what followed was a mending of pre-tournament social and cultural division within France. Nationalistic sentiment engulfed the nation that had been struggling to come to terms with a new multiethnic and multicultural identity.

Football is an international game and with this comes international attention, which players, fan groups, or ultras can use to their advantage. FIFA and UEFA have strict measures banning political gestures and displays in order to avoid potential problems but despite this, European politics still manages to seep into the game on the professional level.

The explanation for why politics are involved in football can be perhaps explained by George Orwell's interpretation of competitive sport : “Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words : it is war minus the shooting.”

What sports and politics seem to have in common is the passion and the struggle to win, the emotion of representing an ideal and the bond forged through victory or defeat. It is no wonder that politics manifests itself in such a setting. It is a combination of the excitement of sport and conflict, an extension of ideals, a representation of culture, a battle on the pitch and in the stands, and a microcosm of current social struggles and political conflict.

Chilean Student Protests Challenge Status Quo in Education System

Michael Reford — 2012-03-01T01:49:40Z

The Chilean education system is in need of a massive overhaul, and Chilean students have taken it upon themselves to act. In a growing movement that has attracted support from hundreds of thousands in Chile, and many more across the globe, students are demanding that the central government, and not neighborhood councils, sponsor local schools; that the state finance universities; and that student loans are provided by the government instead of private banks.

The Chilean educational system has been in need of change ever since democratically elected governments succeeded General Pinochet. Pinochet made education a private, and not public, matter. The state provides limited public subsidies to universities and the quality of education varies widely from institution to institution. Moreover, student loans provide banks with business, making the education system a profit-making industry.

But why are students demanding change now? One reason is that this generation of students did not experience life under Pinochet: They are not willing to be grateful that he has left, they want more than that. The student movement has grown strong as students have drawn support from the working classes, teachers union, and even white collar professions such as doctors and lawyers.

These disparate groups are all motivated by the systemic economic inequality within Chile. While the wealthy can afford to invest in their children's future, people from lower socio-economic classes cannot, as they must shell out the majority of their income to pay for a decent education. This has resulted in an endless cycle of debt for lower classes, and increasing revenue for banks.

Chilean students are now employing a wide range of tactics to bring about educational reform. Online social networking has had a widespread impact in terms of international exposure and solidarity. The country is not alone in facing these troubles, and support has poured in from across Europe as austerity measures take effect.

Social media has also been used to rally thousands of students for spontaneous marches and protests. Live updates from observers and protesters on the ground have given a fresh new perspective to censored Chilean mainstream media. Direct communication between students from around the country is something that was not possible in previous student movements, thereby decentralizing them and reducing their effectiveness.

Further, Camila Vallejo, the media friendly cult hero and poster woman of the protesters, has helped to attract popular support. Vallejo's presidency at the helm of Universidad de Chile student federation (FECH), Chile's biggest student union, as only the second female in its history to hold the position, has been symbolic in a continent where women are often treated as inferior. Her charismatic leadership has drawn attention from around the world, as mainstream media rushed to embraced her image and the wider implications of her rise to power.

Although the mainstream media have focused on violent confrontations between students and riot police, this movement has been a peaceful one. Peaceful marches have attracted nearly 100 000 students and universities have been peacefully occupied for months at a time.

The battle between students and Sebastien Pinera's centre-right government has been tedious, but the government has made some—albeit limited—concessions. Student loans have been lowered from 6% to 2%, grants have been announced for students with limited access, and there will be a 7.2% rise in state spending on education next year.

These reforms have not placated students. The recent election of Gabriel Boric as the new FECH President signifies a radical shift in student politics. Outgoing President Vallejo noted that the university's 2012 leadership would be made up entirely of “representatives of the left.”

In this time of global economic uncertainty, education is key to economic prosperity in the future . Universal education is also key if poorer classes are to reach a higher standard of living and economic independence.

When Chile joined the OECD in 2010, it faced endless comparison to other member countries, and Chile lagged significantly with regards to the quality of education. While it has tackled the economic crisis fairly well, the country's per capita income is less than half the average of other OECD countries. This may be because equality, innovation, competition, and having a healthy economic environment in general begins with a sound educational base.

The transition from the repression of Pinochet and the privatization of education to a universally free system will take time. The situation is not a simple one. Moving from a repressive, authoritarian style of government to one that will concede that change is necessary and that will listen to the demands of the people is not going to be a simple task.

The younger generation has gained some ground in empowering women and garnering global support through its use of social media . This new and refreshing progressive thinking may well be the foundation that carries Chile forward economically in a move away from the old ideas that the country's mainstream politicians subscribe to.

Europe's Game of Debt

Michael Reford — 2011-12-31T23:06:25Z

The year 2011 was one of vast, multifaceted change for Europe. While the unfolding debt crisis dominated news headlines, European citizens were affected by a wide range of issues. They adapted to growing threats of home-grown terrorism, consistent fear of the impending recession, and the penetration of the small, yet fiercely connotative, acronym “IMF” as a staple in the EU vocabulary.

While the full and lingering effects of these events will be visible in the years to come, we are beginning to see a different political landscape across Europe.
Since the inception of the EU, from a geopolitical perspective, the balance of power has laid with the North. With further EU integration, the perception today remains the same: strong powerful northern countries bear the burden of economically weak southern states. The debt crisis has deepened considerably this past year, which has led to a reaffirmation of this perception.

Alongside their combined role as the driving force behind the EU and integration, France and Germany also have the two largest economies in terms of GDP. Their vast influence comes with a responsibility to create a strong, stable, and prosperous union that reflects the needs of all countries and not just their own.

As the southern states drown in debt, their fates are decided in the north. Even as proponents of integration, this hints at an erosion of the democratic process.
The economic burdens of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece in continental debt ratings, currency valuation and threat of default have resulted in a lack of decision-making power and autonomy of these southern states.

Of course, the economic health is at stake, but is sovereignty worth sacrificing for the greater good of the EU?

In this whole mess, the common EU citizen is continuously forgotten. The Franco-German demand for austerity bills to be pushed through southern European parliaments sacrifices their interests. A founding principle of EU integration is the interest of the common citizen, but this has been forgotten in the current time of crisis.

The greatest concern for both France and Germany is the prospect of higher debt costs after having their debt downgraded. It is in their interests to seek a quick and immediate resolution to the debt struggles of Greece and Italy in order to protect themselves.

While this may seem logical at first glance, the repercussions in the south will arguably be the most difficult to deal with in the decade to come. Austerity measures are largely unpopular as the numerous general strikes have shown in Greece, Italy, and Spain, and this must be acknowledged.

Along with the French and Germans, the IMF is forcibly feeding the unpopular austerity measures to the debt stricken states. The IMF can offer a quick fix for these countries by providing them with sufficient funds, but these loans are accompanied with a condition that the countries adhere to austerity bills. Here, balancing national budgets becomes just one of a number of pressing national concerns for these countries.

Once debts have been repaid and debt costs brought down, capital markets will be temporarily relieved, while the people will just be beginning to bear the brunt of the consequences. Now, constant unemployment, insufficient job creation, poverty, lack of spending, and a disintegration of society and quality of life as a whole will ensue.

The bottom line is that the policies being pushed by the IMF will curb future economic growth. Unpopular measures introduced at the hands of an outside organization are undemocratic and in this situation, local government is weakened.

In the case of Italy and Greece, it seems that there is no choice other than to involve the IMF, especially with the political pressure from the North and the eyes of the world upon each government. Here, a decision taken with interests of the EU and not the citizens of the affected countries becomes a sure way to lose domestic government credibility and to forget the principles of democracy.

Another matter to consider is the potential loss of financial sovereignty, as the imposition of harsh penalties for member states breaking deficit limits is under debate. Again, the slow surrender of domestic responsibility to a central EU body will slowly chip away at the sovereignty of member states.

This debt crisis has also given rise to leadership changes in both Italy and Greece, an alteration that has occurred without holding general elections. In Greece, there has been a move to the centre-right from the socialist party of Papandreou, who stepped down from power. With Papademos as the newly appointed leader, the country challenges its own democratic values, as the new government was formed by politicians and not through popular vote.

In Italy, Mario Monti, the man appointed to run the country, is an economist, appointed based on the view that his economic knowledge and experience is necessary for Italy's economic stability. Although Monti has promised to step down once this crisis is resolved, the situation counters basic democratic values.

Yet the question still remains: how can prime minister-designates pass unpopular legislation that have devastating economic measures for the people in the years to come?

Europe's economic uncertainty is arguably encouraging the prevalent radical fear of immigration and the Islamification of Europe, a fear that is exemplified in the aftermath of the Oslo bombings by home-grown terrorist Anders Breivik.

Such fear crept into mainstream European politics over the last decade, but has gained more support of late. The region's economic uncertainty has led to calls for protectionist measures and a renewed sense of nationalism in certain European states.

Far right anti-immigration and non-tolerant ideas can be seen to be gaining support, which has been fuelled by economic uncertainty. In a time of fear over job creation, limited future growth, and a decreasing quality of life, nationalist protectionist behaviour has profound effects on the European political scene.

An affront to Europe's democracy is alienating immigrants who have resided in Europe for decades and are citizens of the same stature as the rest of the population, a challenge that must be addressed in the following years.

However, the positive aspects of Europe's political scene must not be overlooked, and are found in Spain's changed political sphere. A feeling of misrepresentation spread throughout Spain during the summer months, the result of which was the fall of Zapatero's socialist party, which had been in power since 2004.

The popular “DemocraciaRealya” movement had a strong influence in the momentum leading up to this change in loyalty. These demands for better representation by all levels of society and demographics go back to the founding principles of democracy.

Protesting youths were the spark of this movement in Spain, a demographic that will bear the brunt of economic difficulties in the decades to come. Heavy cuts to social programs and education, as well as the lack of practical youth integration in the job market has led to massive youth unemployment in Southern Europe, France and the UK.

There is a definite disconnect between youth representation in government and the real needs of the youth. This reality became evident in the London riots this past summer, which were fuelled by discontent and the government-youth relationship gap. It is easy to blame a few thugs or violent youths for the problem but the root causes exist in a myriad of factors that include rising education costs, lack of new opportunities, and social neglect.

Since 2008, the combination of such factors resulted in social decay in the UK, which culminated in an explosion during the summer months. Youths are left with a difficult future, a fact that is directly tied to government oversight of this demographic.

It is more than coincidence that youth are at the centre of two defining movements of the summer of 2011. The tension between riot police and youths has risen considerably since the start of the economic crisis due to their draconian role.

Heavy handed police is not unique to the UK and Greece, but has also been encountered elsewhere. Italy has had its share of riot police acting as enforcers of government interests. Greece has justified similar repressive police activity as “protecting the safety of citizens.”

Note that northern European riot squads were allegedly brought in to help with anti-austerity riots in Greece. Attacks by police on demonstrators fighting for their futures draws similarities with the Arab Spring. Their role invokes memories of the police and military forces of North African nations being used as extensions of government, rather than to provide and ensure civilians' safety.

The role of security forces to protect and serve society has been blurred by governments who employ them to discourage anti-government demonstrations. It is disturbing to see the misuse of security forces by EU nations at the expense of the common citizen.

Although much of the hardship that is created by the economic crisis may be improved, what is the result for democracy? The heaviest price may be paid in the form of lost credibility and sovereignty in the Southern EU.

As we enter 2012, a critical eye must be kept on the development of the power structure between the north and the south, the undemocratic behaviour of government in both Greece and Italy, and whether the EU citizen—especially the youth—will be able to emerge successfully from the struggle for a better future.