The Regulus Magazine Issue Five

TheCommitteeEditorial
COVER PAGE: CARTOON BY Thomas Zier
It is with great pleasure that we publish our fifth issue of The
Regulus. This publication remains St Andrews’ only independent
student magazine, and we take great pride in the editorial
freedom that this has granted us. We have had several new
additions to the team this semester, most notably Nina Menniti,
our new content editor. This will also be the last issue for the
three people who have been with this magazine since the very
start—Kurt Jose, Deborah Marber, and Ben Shaps. I thank you
for your tireless work and I am sad to see you go.
In this issue we have tried to capture some of the vibrant
political discourse for which St Andrews is known. In particular
we have concentrated on highlighting threats to the freedom
of the press throughout the world. The UK, while a mature
liberal state, still retains a worrying commitment to outdated
libel norms, and it has become a haven for ‘libel tourism.’
Freedom of speech laws in the UK are equally perplexing;
unlike in the US, merely posting something deemed ‘offensive’
on social networking sites such as Twitter can be cause for
arrest. Clearly this country has much work to do if it hopes
to integrate its stance on free speech into the technological
setting of the 21st century.
I would like to thank everyone who made this issue possible,
including our contributors, our sponsorship team, our peerless
editors, and our design team. If you wish to comment on any
of our articles, send an email to editor@theregulus.co.uk and
we will publish your replies in the next issue. These articles will
also be made available online at theregulus.co.uk.
Nic Carter
Editor in Chief
Chief Editor: Nic Carter
Content Editor: Nina Menniti
Managing Editor: Nora Backer Malm
Foreign Affairs Editor: Allen Farrington
Domestic Editor: Michael Cotterill
Head of Sponsorship: Kurt V. Jose
Sponsorship Officers: Angelina Magal & Lindsey Ayotte
Graphic Design: Deborah Marber & Taylor Strickland
And a special thanks to all of our talented writers and artists.
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in this publication do not reflect in any way the views of
The Regulus Magazine, the University of St Andrews, or any of its affiliates.

Table of Contents
Features
Domestic
Polititics
Foreign
Affairs
John Sweeney, Journalist and BBC Panorama
investigator talks about his latest book:
‘The Church of Fear.’- 5
Riseofthe‘Super-Jail’-7
NotesonEastleigh:Shouldanyonecareaboutby-elections?-8
ClimateChange:timetoacceptaninconvenienttruth-9
ADivisiveThreattoCameron’sElectoralHopes-10
ItistimetolighttheflameofKeynesianismonceagain-12
A Ray of Hope? Xi Jinping -14
Iceland’s Crowdsourced Democracy - 15
In Argentinian Media Wrangles, Nobody Wins - 16
A Struggle for Democracy in The Lady’s Burma -18

5The Regulus
FEATURES
‘Ilike staying in bed and going to pubs.
The only serious challenge to that
in terms of my attention are people who
do not want stories told and who will use
fear and intimidation to shut people up.
Instantly that gets me out of bed or out of
the pub.’
John and I had a table in a cosy
Victorian boozer close to the BBC’s
stunning new home in West London.
While John considered the ale selection at
the bar, I considered his career as writer,
broadcaster and successful investigative
journalist. John has reported on mass
graves while undercover in Mugabe’s
Zimbabwe and exposed the horrors
occurring in modern day Belarus in
another terrific book published last year.
A recent Panorama, Tax Haven Twins,
investigated the Barclay Brothers, owners
of the Daily Telegraph, and their private
island off Sark.
‘I’m only seriously interested as a
journalist in telling stories which powerful
people do not want told.’ John said taking
his seat.
‘The Church of Scientology is a
powerful organisation with some billions
of dollars. They are aggressive and have
a reputation for being litigious and if you
investigate them they will come after
you. What’s interesting about Scientology
is that some say it is an edition of
totalitarianism in the world’s greatest
democracy and that is strange. There is
a mental, psychological weirdness about
that which I spend ages grappling with.’
I challenged the idea that Scientology
could be totalitarian within a state such as
the USA.
‘The simple test is this: I took my kids
to Cuba and just as an experiment we took
a taxi from the hotel to the airport and I
asked the Taxi driver “What do you think
of Castro?” The taxi driver replied, “Castro
is a good man, but the people around him
are a little corrupt.” That’s as far as he
would go. When we arrived late at night
in London and got a taxi form Gatwick, I
asked the taxi driver “What do you think
of Tony Blair?” the Prime Minister at the
time, and the taxi driver replied “he’s a
c**t.”
Welcome home! We’re back in a
democracy, the people aren’t afraid to
speak. However, if you talk to some
people who clash with big money, or
big organisations like the Church of
Scientology, people are afraid of the
consequences of speaking out. Not
necessarily violent consequences but those
in terms of litigation and being sued for
libel – so there are still people who are
afraid to speak their minds.’
In his book John describes how
he was being pursued by the Church
of Scientology. After his Panorama
investigation, Scientology and me,
he claims strangers came to his house
and neighbours. I asked him if he felt
threatened.
‘Not physically, no. Psychologically,
yes. The Church of Scientology says that
I am psychotic, a bigot and a liar, that I
am quote, “the reporter from the depths of
journalism hell.” A Church of Scientology
blog says that I am genuinely evil. Being
a mad evil bigot perhaps knocks me out of
being a serious threat to them.
In life you can take your own risks but
there are some things which you should
be warned of and I would advise anybody
who is tempted to walk into a Church of
Scientology, to run. Run for your life.’
Scientology’s line on John being a
psychotic bigot sounds similar to other
accusations made against other critics and
defectors of the Church described in John’s
book. I asked John if Scientology was
trying to control the discourse about itself.
‘There is a big ethical philosophical
issue about the use and the meanings
of words. Look at the Church of
Scientology’s claim to being a religion. In
America, it used not to be a religion, and
then in 1993 the Internal Revenue Service,
the American tax man, recognised
Scientology as a religion giving it a
religious shield and giving it a tax break.
In Britain the Charity’s Commission
say, for purposes of British English
charity law, Scientology is not a religion.
I think it matters what the nature of a
religion is, when you say something is a
religion it means for example, the media,
newspapers, politicians have to give it a
measure of respect.
I could set myself up the Church of
Sweeneytology – there would be lots of
drinking, lots of beautiful women and
we’d all eat chips and bacon sandwiches.
I mean it would be heaven for a bit and
after a while it would be hell. But at
the moment I said, ok the Church of
Sweeneyology is a religion and I want
tax breaks and everyone to lay off me
because I’m a religion and you can’t write
newspaper articles about me etc. etc. I
mean how long does that go on for?’
Slightly unnerved by the idea of
Sweeneytology I nevertheless play devil’s
advocate and suggest that surely in a free
country people can believe in whatsoever
they wish?
‘There is a blog on the internet that
suggests that all religions are weird and
silly and play with people’s minds, and
that all religions have magical stuff -
some have magical elephants, some
have magical babies. The Church of
Scientology has a space alien Satan – so
they are all the same. My reply is no,
John Sweeney, Journalist and BBC Panorama investigator talks
about his latest book:‘The Church of Fear’.
Earlier this year I met with BBC Panorama Journalist
John Sweeney to discuss his revealing new book on
Scientology and the weakness of British libel law
which made it almost impossible and potentially
dangerous to publish. John’s book, The Church of
Fear: Inside the Weird World of Scientology has
finally made it into British bookshops six years after
John’s first BBC Panorama investigation into the
Church which featured his on-screen ‘exploding
tomato’ meltdown - now a YouTube hit.
Charles Bell

The Regulus6
FEATURES
that’s wrong, because if you’re interested
in Hinduism, you know about the elephant
with many arms and legs – instantly you
can see him when you walk into a Hindu
temple. The same goes for Christianity
– Christians will tell you about the baby
born to a virgin mother who grew up to
be a man who was crucified and who will
rise again. When you walk into a Church
of Scientology, they don’t tell you about
the space alien Satan, Lord Xenu who
apparently brought millions of space aliens
to earth and blew them up with hydrogen
bombs inside volcanoes the remains of
which are the cause of all of humanities
illness. That for me is why it fails the
British test. For a religion to be treated
with the respect a religion deserves it
needs to be open about itself and open to
all. The Church of Scientology is not open
about what it believes in.’
Throughout The Church of Fear,
John refers to a book by Robert Lifton
in which eight tests for brainwashing are
identified. Having read Lifton’s book,
Bruce Hines, a former member of the
Church of Scientology told John, that these
tests explain why he was in the Church for
thirty years. Constriction of information
is the first among Lifton’s eight tests
and I ask John how it is not obvious to
someone that they are being controlled or
brainwashed.
‘The process of brainwashing is so
absolute, so weird, so inimical to free
thinking that you don’t think you’re being
brainwashed. Of Lifton’s eight tests, the
critical one is the limitation of information.
Lifton sets out an antidote for any
brainwashing or cult like behaviour which
is, a willingness to be open to mockery
and to a sense of humour and this matters
enormously to me. For example, you can
take the piss out of the monarchy and
people do all the time. There is this lovely
moment at the beginning of the London
Olympics, where the Queen takes the piss
out of herself. You’ve got 007 entering
Buckingham Palace smiling at the corgis
and then she jumps out the helicopter with
him - I love it. I can’t wait to go to Russia
or China and tell some government official
that the Queen of England mocked herself
- will the President of China or Russia do
that? Ha bloody ha…
I bought the next round and once seated
back in the corner of the beautifully
old-fashioned pub I asked John about the
struggles of publishing his book.
‘It was a f*****g nightmare’
Recounting the experience seemed
to have necessitated the immediate
consumption of the strong ale.
‘We sent it to all the big publishers and
they all said no. And my agent Humphrey
Hunter –’
‘The man with the dog?’ I interrupted
having previously read of John’s plight
and eventual solution which came in the
shape of one man and his dog.
‘Yes, I met this man whilst walking
in a London park, he recognised me and
we got chatting . Humphrey became my
agent and he sent the proposal out and
no big publishing firm would take it up.
So Humphrey said, “I will become the
publisher,” so he created a publishing
house.’
I asked John why all the major
publishing houses refused his book.
‘Because of British libel law. Consider
the other recent book on Scientology,
which I haven’t read yet because you can’t
get it in the bookshops here, Laurence
Wright’s Going Clear. Wright had a
multi-million dollar advance, he’s been
published by Knopf, he’s Pulitzer Prize
winner, he’s a star and yet the book was
pulled by Transworld, the UK publishers,
for fear of libel. No British publisher
would take on my book, but I feel so
determined that I have something to say
about this Church that it’s finally is out
there. What that tells you is that the idea
that we have true freedom of speech in
Britain, compared to America, is wrong.
The Church of Scientology’s lawyers have
said that free speech is not an unfettered
right and they’re correct about that, oh yes
they are. I think people in Britain believe
they enjoy free speech, unfettered free
speech, and they’re wrong.
‘The American test is simple. The
other side – the plaintiff – has to prove
malicious libel against you, that you hate
the subject of the book with a passion that
is unreasonable and malicious.’
Perhaps it was the effects of my second
beer and the pleasant glow of the crackling
fire next to us, but John didn’t strike me as
a hateful chap.
‘I used to be a war reporter and I’ve
met people who kill people, people who
commit mass murder, but at the same
time I try to understand them and tell their
story. I’m a well-travelled person who has
seen terrible things, and in that sense I do
not consider myself a bigot. I do not hate
Scientologists.
I’m not in favour of banning things
either. I think the fewer things you ban the
better. I’m not in favour in banning the
Church of Scientology but I would change
the libel law so that the people who are
uneasy about it or want to know more can
read the other side of the story. That seems
to be the sensible thing to do and at the
moment we can’t and that’s wrong.
In the internet age, the discrepancy
between American and British system
means that until we have the same rigorous
belief in free speech that the Americans
enjoy we will suffer. And the rich people
and powerful corporations will continue
to prefer to sue in London rather than
New York because our laws are frankly
eighteenth century and the politicians don’t
seem to get this.’
John Sweeney’s Church Of Fear: Inside
the Weird World Scientology is £3.08 on
kindle, £11.69 in paperback.
When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Scientology in the UK released the following statement:
“John Sweeney stated when he was offered access to Scientology churches and activities and our various
programmes that he was not interested in anything positive, he was only looking for the negative. He has been
true to his word, even staging events to create “the negative” where he couldn’t find it.
As demonstrated by the recently published Google search engine results (“What is Scientology?” was number
4 in the “What is…” category), people want to know what Scientology is. They can find out at scientology.org or
visit a Scientology Church and speak to a Scientologist.”
““I’m not in favour in banning the
Church of Scientology but I would
change the libel law so that the
people who are uneasy about it or
want to know more can read the
other side of the story.””

7The Regulus
DOMESTIC Politics
The best things come in small packages,
and prisons are no exception. Regret-
tably, Britain’s misguided penal policy fits
snugly in with the trend sweeping across
the West, where political parties seem to
be rivalling one another in order to be
crowned the toughest on crime. Draconian
legislation and thoughtless populist rhetoric
attempt to present the government as a
crusader – institutionalising a ‘lock them
up’ culture in order to save the helpless
public against the criminals terrorising the
streets. As the prison population rockets
above official capacity limits, new plans
for a ‘super-jail’ – and no plans to curb the
accompanying 84,000 criminal super-popu-
lation – leaves our prison system locked in
a state of chaos.
The most sobering aspect of the planned
return to Titan prisons is that the Coali-
tion was almost on the right track. Former
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was a breath
of fresh air, understanding Britain’s prison
problem and the need to reduce prison
numbers through a ‘rehabilitation revolu-
tion’. Surprisingly absent from mention in
the mid-term Coalition review, Clarke’s
commitment to alternative punishments led
to a 3,000-person drop in the number of
prisoners and a sharp fall in recorded crime
last year (so much for the ‘more prisoners
leads to less crime’ theory). Alas, the thread
of Clarke’s success has already begun to be
unravelled by Chris Grayling – the replace-
ment Conservative Justice Secretary – who
has chosen to revert back to the waning,
old view of prison as a panacea. To combat
the soaring costs of the prison population,
Grayling proposes to close seven outdated
jails, yet ‘keep the same number of people
in prison’. His solution: a 2,000-person
super-jail.
The closure of out-dated prisons in fa-
vour of more humane community prisons is
a welcome proposal. However, the creation
of one giant prison should certainly not
be the replacement. Super-jails promise
a more depersonalised institution and
a less secure environment, and involve
the relocation of prisoners – inevitably
leading to strained family links. With the
adult reoffending rate already standing at
an unacceptably high 47.5%, and family
relationships as a key factor in prevent-
ing recidivism, the basic logic suggests
that mega-jails are detrimental for both
the wellbeing of prisoners and future
public safety. Mass prison-building marks
the beginning of an inexorable cycle: as
each batch of new prison places becomes
saturated, plans for even more prisons are
put on the table. Costs rise, overcrowding
soars and prisoners’ human rights evapo-
rate – whilst the impact on tackling crime
is absolutely minimal.
Such a shallow resolution neglects the
deep roots of the crime problem. Of course,
prison is necessary in some cases. Few
deny that prison sentences for the most se-
rious and violent criminals gives them their
‘just deserts’ and are a necessary measure
to protect the public. However, prison is no
longer turned to as a last resort for the most
dangerous criminals. Instead, prison is a
‘warehouse’ for those who society does not
know quite what to do with; a toxic mix of
drug addicts, alcoholics and the mentally
ill, who urgently need treatment in special-
ist institutions to address the causes behind
their offending behaviour. According to
the Chief Inspector of Prisons, 41% of
mentally ill prisoners qualify for immediate
NHS accommodation. It is blindingly obvi-
ous that government investment is needed
in diversion services to channel such vul-
nerable people into well-funded specialist
health care centres. Instead, these scarce
funds will be absorbed in a building project
that will do nothing but top up the eclectic
assortment in our prison population.
Super-jails are the landmark policy of a
populist punitive approach to crime. Creat-
ing more prison places, in spite of the glar-
ing reoffending rate signalling that prison
is ineffectual, is attempting to build our
way out of a problem that simply cannot be
built out of. The tough-on-crime approach
must be replaced with a more coherent un-
derstanding of the social problems that are
the root of so much crime in our society,
whilst the stigma attached to criminality
should be substituted with a more consid-
ered attitude towards the vulnerability of
some offenders for whom prison is not the
answer. Pouring money into the building
of a 2,000-capacity super-jail is a colossal
mistake. Breaking out of our prison culture
and recognising the real causes of crime
requires a transformation of ingrained at-
titudes. However much we try, the crime
problem is too paramount an issue to lock
up and throw away the key.
Rise of the‘Super-Jail’
by Jenifer Morton
“…the basic logic suggests that
mega-jails are detrimental for
both the wellbeing of prisoners
and future public safety.”

The Regulus8
FEATURES
Nerdy politicos always get dreadfully
overexcited by the political phe-
nomenon of by-elections. The contest for
Eastleigh was no different: political blogs
were thrust into overdrive, and pollsters hit
the streets in their droves. Interestingly and
from the outset, the Eastleigh by-election
was a four-horse race, owing to the genuine
possibility of UKIP gaining its first parlia-
mentary seat. The ‘Westminster Bubble’
certainly relishes the advent of a by-election
contest. Great masses of new political
material can be evaluated, without the nasty
prospect of any party losing a general elec-
tion or there being a profound disturbance of
the status quo. However, most people do not
care about by-elections and, after all, why
should they? It only concerns one seat in a
House of Commons made up of 650 seats.
Indeed, the result of Eastleigh was not too
revolutionary: the same party was returned
with a different candidate. Nevertheless, as
is always the case with politics, the devil
is in the detail; by-elections are mainly
about percentage shifts and marginal voting
tendencies, and it is in this regard that the
results of Eastleigh possess some startling
revelations.
Eastleigh was significant because of the
competitive nature of the contest. UKIP
had a tangible shot of gaining their first
seat in Parliament. Despite two very public
scandals in the party leadership and some of
their lowest national poll ratings in decades,
the Liberal Democrats managed to retain a
relatively volatile seat. Intriguingly, the Con-
servatives only came third, behind UKIP,
in a seat that they must win if they wish to
gain a majority in the 2015 election. The
simple truth is that on the result of Eastleigh,
the Conservative Party has no possibility
of returning anything close to a majority in
the next general election. This will call into
account the direction of Conservative policy
on Europe, the nature of Osborne’s handling
of the economy and you guessed it- ques-
tions on Mr Cameron’s leadership.
The last time the Conservative Party won
an outright majority in a general election
was in 1992: one month before I was born.
Hopes of getting one in 2015 are slipping
away. Yet, the Conservative Party now
claims that they were not optimistic about
Eastleigh owing to their persistently terrible
record in by-elections. They have failed to
win any of the fourteen by-elections already
fought in this Parliament alone (most
significantly losing Louise Mench’s Corby
seat). Nevertheless, it is obvious that the
Conservatives were pulling all the stops in
Eastleigh. They even resorted to shipping
Boris Johnson into Eastleigh for a spot of
door-to-door canvassing! However, the end
result still saw the Conservatives soundly
beaten, and this cannot fail to provoke grave
questions of government ambitions and
policy. Nevertheless, it must be remembered
that a by-election defeat is not unusual for
the Conservative Party in mid-term – the last
they won was in 1982 during the Falklands
War!
These questions are compounded by a
budget that has – to say the least – received
less than universal acclaim, the continued
alienation of many core Tory voters through
gay marriage proposals, rural development
plans and unsympathetic policies towards
stay-at-home mothers.
The Liberal Democrats should not be too
smug though. They may have won the day
but lost a whopping 14% of their vote in the
seat (Chris Huhne was elected on 46.5%
in 2010 with Mike Thornton on 32.06%
this year). Certainly, this is no longer a
safe Lib Dem seat, if there is such a thing
anymore. What’s more, National Polls still
seem to indicate the Liberal Democrats
hovering around the 11% voting intention
mark – a very dismal forecast indeed. A poll
by YouGov suggested that 10% of Liberal
Democrat voters at Eastleigh were put off
voting for the party because of Mr Huhne’s
departure, perhaps suggesting that the record
of individual politicians is not critical in
voting behaviour. Nevertheless, the Liberal
Democrats can breathe a sigh of relief since
a loss at Eastleigh could well have led to
seismic changes in the party mood and a
tumultuous ride for the coalition.
On the other hand, Labour never did pos-
sess much of a realistic chance in Eastleigh,
and their early optimism was shattered by
the focus on UKIP, which effectively ended
their chances of playing the ‘anti-govern-
ment vote’. With this in mind we must
examine what happened here for UKIP, a
minor party who polled just 3.6% of the vote
at Eastleigh in 2010, (a third of Labour’s
vote) yet managed on the day to bag 27.8%
of the vote, thus challenging traditional UK
political models and resigning the Conserva-
tive Party into a hard-fought, but eventually
humiliating, third place. By-elections are
notorious for the success of minor parties,
perhaps most evident in George Galloway’s
success in Bradford last year! The Tories
should not be too disheartened though; a
poll conducted by Lord Ashcroft demon-
strated that UKIP votes were drawn almost
equally from those who voted Conservative,
Liberal Democrat and Labour last year,
demonstrating that at Eastleigh, the surge in
UKIP support was not necessarily the result
of disheartened, Euro-sceptic Conservatives
turning away from Cameron’s government.
Even though they did not win the seat, UKIP
proved itself to be a major political force,
and they will undoubtedly make consider-
able gains in the local elections in May:
gains that may well give them the grassroots
infrastructure to gain seats in the Commons
in 2015.
When push comes to shove, the result at
Eastleigh, like all by-elections, changed very
little in the tangible world of parliamentary
seats. However, it has proffered a terrible
forecast for both Conservatives and Liberal
Democrats in the local elections in May,
neither of whom did as well as they hoped.
Although Eastleigh, contrary to Mr Farage’s
rhetoric, did not witness the dawn of UKIP’s
day in the sun, it did give a strong indication
of UKIP’s potential to make massive gains
in the council elections in May. However,
the final loser at Eastleigh was democracy,
with a turnout barely above 50% (about
15% lower than the last election) despite
furious campaigning by all parties. This
suggests a distancing from politics by the
general public at large, and this has most
obviously been felt in the crippling losses in
membership for the three main parties. All
in all, by-elections can tell us a great deal
about local trends in contemporary politics.
In this case, it was an archetypal fringe seat
which a government of any party, except
Labour, with ambitions of a majority would
have to win.
All too often, by-elections produce no
real winners and only lead to profound
questioning and self-analysis by all parties
concerned. These questions, of course, are
eagerly anticipated and launched upon with
great fervour by nerdy politicos and the
‘Westminster Bubble’.
Notes on
Eastleigh:
Should anyone care
about by-elections?
by Henry Wilson

9The Regulus
FEATURES
By the spring of 2013, the Coalition
government will undergo a test of
principles, for the cause of climate change
will poke its presence onto the theatre of
political debate. An Energy Bill is set to
come before the House of Commons, and
the resulting legislation will convey the
direction of Britain’s environmental policy
to the British people, the world of com-
merce and the international community
of nations. The Coalition will either adopt
a visionary, long-term plan in order to
tackle the encroaching threat of enhanced
global warming, or it will cowardly sweep
it beneath the carpet of political inertia.
Contrary to what many politicians think,
the time for a lengthy, deliberative debate
regarding the factual accuracy of climate
change is well and truly over. The scientific
community unanimously agrees that en-
hanced global warming is happening, that it
is occurring at an ever-increasing rate and
that decisive and gallant political courage
is required to prevent the unfolding of a
climatic apocalypse.
In December 2012, Ed Davey, the Sec-
retary of State for Energy and Climate
Change, acknowledged that, regrettably,
the world is losing the race to keep global
warming in check. The scientific commu-
nity propagates that global temperatures
must be kept under a 2°C increase in
order to avoid irreversible changes being
made to the climatic patterns that cover
planet Earth. However, it seems increas-
ingly unlikely that climate change will be
definitively tamed under that threshold.
The widespread indifference towards cli-
mate change felt by innumerable people is
deeply perturbing. For example, Christo-
pher Booker, a respected columnist for the
Daily Telegraph, has recently remarked
that global warming is widely perceived
as ‘a colossal scare story’. This pernicious
dialogue only fans the flame of scepticism
into the oxygen of publicity. Furthermore,
grave cause for concern has been recently
engendered by George Osborne’s apparent
decision to side with the climate sceptics.
Last December, he emitted unequivocal
signals asserting that he intends to water
down Britain’s commitment to cutting its
carbon dioxide emissions over the next
15 years, threatening tens of billions of
pounds of vital investment in renewable
energy generators. It appears that the genie
Climate Change:
time to accept an inconvenient truth
of climate change scepticism, after lying
quietly imprisoned for years, has emerged
back into the Tory fold. David Cameron’s
heroic efforts to modernise the Conserva-
tive party by adopting sensible, creditable
policies regarding climate change have
categorically failed.
The mentality of denial that George Os-
borne has wantonly succumbed to is woe-
fully anachronistic. He is enamoured by the
conviction that he will appeal to right-wing
voters by disseminating rhetoric against the
‘green’ agenda. However, a recent YouGov
survey, published in The Independent, has
discovered that the vast majority of people,
including countless possible Tory voters,
believe the Government can save both the
planet and the economy by investing in
green technology. The comprehensive sur-
vey also revealed that voters categorically
reject the Chancellor’s strategy – a tactic
which propounds that the UK should not go
further than other countries concerning the
pursuit of a low-carbon economy. Rather
than providing staunch leadership, George
Osborne’s policies appear to change
depending on his personal perception of
where the tides of political fortune lie. His
recently overt ambivalence towards efforts
to mitigate and adapt to the consequences
of climate change serve to make a mockery
of the Coalition as the ‘greenest govern-
ment ever’.
Furthermore, the Chancellor’s conviction –
that a wholesale shift towards a thoroughly
low-carbon economy will be extortionate
– defies accepted opinion. The respected
Stern Review for the British Treasury,
“The human race is moving closer and closer to
the pernicious tipping point where adverse conse-
quences from climate change will be irreversible.”
by Michael Cotterill

The Regulus10
DOMESTIC Politics
The 2015 election looms. Parties
are jostling for position, lam-
basting each other at every opportu-
nity. The coalition is imploding, and
George Osborne’s economic master-
piece has not seen a positive growth
statistic in months. The Conserva-
tives sit 10% behind Labour in recent
polls, and the majority of disgruntled
ex-Tories are siding with Nigel Far-
age’s UKIP.
And yet it is not Ed Miliband,
Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage or even the
electorate that is worrying the Prime
Minister the most: it is his own party
and his own Cabinet.
The Conservative Party has, for
many years, been plagued by divi-
sion, in-fighting and ultimately
support-sapping leadership contests.
Even Margaret Thatcher’s reign as
Prime Minister was overshadowed,
and eventually thwarted, by com-
petition from her backbenches. Her
downfall began with the introduction
of the highly controversial poll tax,
the electoral effects of which were
A Divisive Threat to Cameron’s Electoral Hopes
published in 2006, conveyed how if climate
change is permitted to continue unchecked,
then it could cost at least 5% and possibly
20% of global annual GDP. Conversely,
if the world decided to mitigate climate
change, the cost would only amount to c.
1% of GDP per annum. One of the key
problems with climate change is that its
consequences only materialise gradually.
Unfortunately, human nature often requires
firm evidence of a change to be convinced
that it is taking place. The analogy of the
frog in the boiling water, used by Al Gore
in An Inconvenient Truth, is particularly
apt. Even though the water temperature
is gradually rising to a boil, the frog will
sit there, continuing to become warmer,
without taking evasive action to prevent
itself from getting hurt. The human race is
moving closer and closer to a pernicious
tipping point where adverse consequences
from climate change will be irreversible.
Enhanced global warming will inexora-
bly inflict desertification, coastal erosion
and flooding, water shortages and food
insecurity, as well as exacerbate poverty.
However, the extent of damage inflicted is
still in the hands of governments, but only
if they act with immediate haste.
The apparatus of government is capable
of achieving extraordinary heights of
success. The levers of change, which exist
in Whitehall, need only be initiated by
honest political will for the consequences
of climate change to be triumphantly
ameliorated. A variety of strategies need to
be embarked upon, such as carbon capture
technology, carbon-neutral development,
the adoption of new agricultural tech-
nologies, geo-engineering and sustainable
development. Nonetheless, in order to
make a substantive difference in checking
climate change, an agreement needs to
be made that will garner the respect and
adherence of the international commu-
nity. The American, Chinese and Indian
economies combined account for nearly
50% of the total emissions entering the
atmosphere. Furthermore, before the 2008
recession, two coal-fired power stations
were being opened in China per week. Too
many countries, like China, are pursuing a
careless, ‘business-as-usual’ attitude to the
colossal global problems that are confront-
ing the collective masses of humanity.
To truly overcome the threat of climate
change, the British government needs to
be more proactive in facilitating dialogue
between fossil fuel-guzzling nations. As
the European Union develops as a political
force, the British government must utilise
the influence of the EU in order to compel
the nations of the world to take the climate
change threat more seriously.
The upcoming Energy Bill looks very
promising indeed. The central strategy
of the Bill is to move “from a predomi-
nantly... fossil fuel [-based economy] to
a diverse low-carbon generation mix.” In
addition to an explosion in the percentage
of renewable energy provision, all new
coal-fired power stations will be compelled
to have extensive carbon capture facili-
ties. Ed Davey is presenting the Bill as a
‘once-in-a-generation opportunity’ that will
involve £110 billion worth of investment
over the next decade. John Cridland, the
Director-General of the CBI, has praised
the Bill, declaring that it ‘is good news
that the government has listened to our
calls to build in support at this early stage,
which will ensure we reap the full eco-
nomic benefits at the earliest opportunity’.
As a Liberal Democrat, Ed Davey cares
passionately about climate change, and this
explains the radical ingenuity and foresight
of his department. I sincerely hope that the
Conservative party will overcome its unac-
countable hostility towards climate change
and hop onto the bandwagon of progress
as it attempts to power its way through the
House of Commons.
by Miro Ralston

11The Regulus
DOMESTIC Politics
would ever be able to mount a serious
leadership challenge, a luxury not
afforded to one Tony Blair. Despite
mounting pressure, it is difficult to
imagine Cameron axing his best bud,
his rubber stamp, his political strate-
gist. Back to square one, then.
A good place to start with this
Prime Minister may be the omni-
presence of his old university chum,
fellow London office bearer, the
Mayor of London. I say ‘omnipres-
ence’ because it must feel that way
to Cameron. Boris is always there,
falling over in rivers or sinking a
backwards three-pointer. Indeed,
Boris Johnson has rather a strange
role. He’s a Conservative, a friend of
Cameron, a party man. Yet, he seems
to voice his concerns with his party
freely and frequently, and has placed
himself firmly in the hot seat as a
future Tory leader. Perhaps the most
famous instance of Boris’s govern-
ment-bashing was when he claimed,
during a radio interview, that “we will
not accept Kosovo style social cleans-
ing of London”, thus proclaiming his
opposition to the Conservative policy
on cutting housing benefits. The com-
parison infuriated the Prime Minister,
and Conservative Party division once
again reared its ugly head. “We’re
like Wallace and Gromit”, the Mayor
recently remarked, in an attempt at
diffusing the fierce competitiveness
between the two. Rather fitting, but
who’s who? He failed to clarify.
Intriguingly, Boris continually
fails to rule out a leadership cam-
paign. Anyone who watched the May-
or’s greatest PR stunt since the Olym-
pics, via a recent BBC documentary
by Michael Cockerell, would have
heard the Johnson family describe the
perpetual competitor: someone who
always wanted to be first, the most
important, the king of the world. The
fiery desire to be top dog burns deep
inside him to this day, and I suspect
that Boris harbours a great resentment
that his old Etonian friend, Dave, has
exacerbated by arguments surround-
ing the Conservative Achilles Heel:
Europe. Ultimately, Michael Hesel-
tine’s challenge to her leadership was
defeated, but the winning margin was
so slight that senior members of her
Cabinet politely informed her that it
was time to go. John Major was next
to fall at the hands of Europe, with
the Euro-sceptic John Redwood forc-
ing a leadership challenge in 1995.
Redwood gained a substantial 89 MP
votes, roughly a quarter of Major’s
party. The disillusion with Major was
compounded by his opposite num-
ber’s success, with a resurgent La-
bour taking on their most influential
politician since Attlee: Tony Blair. The
Tory leadership, plagued by division,
eventually came to an end following
Labour’s landslide victory in 1997.
Leadership challenges in the Tory
Party tend to stem from the Euro-
pean conundrum, a weak economy or
a run of policies failing to grab the
public’s approval. Cameron has the
misfortune to presently suffer from
all three. However, there is an obvi-
ous way out: Cameron could remove
George Osborne from the position of
Chancellor. Osborne is “less popular
than flatulence in a crowded lift during
a power cut”, as The Observer puts it,
and only circa 20% of the public think
he should keep his job. Osborne has
been under increasing pressure since
last year’s woeful budget, and with the
first Treasury budget of 2013 reso-
lutely failing to inspire anyone at all, it
is perhaps not surprising that whispers
about his competency are circulat-
ing around the House of Commons.
Many senior and prominent Tories
can be heard to whisper: “George is
the problem.” By adding this to the
economically irrelevant, but politically
disastrous, downgrading of the much-
coveted AAA rating, George Osborne
can undoubtedly be viewed as a major
Conservative ailment. The silver lin-
ing for Cameron is that Osborne is so
unpopular, that it is highly unlikely he
consistently outshone him as a states-
man, if not as a celebrity. A recent
survey showed that the aforementioned
Labour Party leads in the polls, which
is substantial though not terrifying for
the Tories, who would be obliterated
were Boris to become leader. What’s
more startling: when asked who is pre-
ferred as leader, 38% are in the camp
of Boris, with Dave at just 33%, a
bigger gap than in October of last year.
This is very ominous, indeed. Unlikely
though it is that the cheerful joker will
become Conservative leader any time
soon, he represents a constant remind-
er to Mr. Cameron that should there
be a major faux-pas, an amply popular
candidate is waiting in the wings.
However, Boris aside, the Con-
servative Party has seemed entirely
unified behind their apparently strong
leader. However, amid budget cuts to
Cabinet departments, stroppy ministers
are lining up to take the reins, with
every speech an opportunity to show
leadership qualities. A worrying trend
is emerging for Cameron: potential
future leaders are targeting tradi-
tional Conservative voters, which polls
show is the group most disillusioned
with Cameron’s leadership. Liam
Fox highlighted party disunity over
austerity in a speech in early March,
when he criticized the PM’s decision
to ring fence the NHS, Schools and
Aid from departmental cuts and called
for a complete spending freeze for
five years. Theresa May jumped on
the bandwagon, saying the Conserva-
tive Party had to return to its roots of
security, freedom and opportunity. Her
speech was full of rhetoric on ‘what
we need to do in order to win’, imply-
ing a distinction between her vision
and that of the current government.
Perhaps the only solace Cameron
and friends can take from this plethora
of potential leaders causing turmoil
in their party is that the Labour Party
sitting opposite seems void of a single
one.
If Cameron wants to win in 2015,
he does not need to wipe out UKIP,
compound Liberal Democrat woes or
outdo Labour on economics. Instead,
the overriding necessity is the unify-
ing of his party. If he fails, the much
talked about ‘legacy’ will be a sorry
story of another Tory premiership
felled by intra-party division.
“…potential future leaders are targeting
traditional Conservative voters…”

The Regulus12
DOMESTIC Politics
Once again, George Osborne is on the
defensive. He is ardently trying to
justify why his ‘credible economic plan’
has consistently failed to produce sustained
economic growth. Recently released fig-
ures illustrate that the UK economy shrank
by 0.3% during the last quarter of 2012.
The Office of National Statistics (ONS)
has characterised the British economy as
‘bumpy’ and asserts that it is on an ardu-
ously ‘sluggish trend’. This pessimistic
foreboding is in juxtaposed contrast to
the jubilant optimism that epitomised the
reaction to the economic statistics of the
third quarter of 2012. On the 26th Octo-
ber 2012, the Daily Express front page
enthusiastically exclaimed that “Britain
roars back to life”. The vehemently right-
wing newspaper was rejoicing at the news
that the economy had grown by 1% in that
quarter. However, the claim that Britain’s
incredibly short-lived epoch of economic
growth somehow reflected the majestic and
penetrating roar of a lioness is ludicrous to
the extreme.
The unequivocal truth of the matter is
that the government’s strategy for growth
has been an unmitigated disaster and has
plummeted Britain into the continuing
depths of economic malaise, owing to the
absence of initiative in the decision-mak-
ing offices of Whitehall.
As the voices of reason promised at the
time, the brief hiatus engendered by the
1% growth swiftly subsided as the ebul-
lient effects of the Diamond Jubilee and
the Olympic Games receded into the pages
of history. The professional, dispassionate
pages of The Guardian reported how 0.7%
of the 1% total was derived from these
two inimitable national events. However,
the 0.3% shrinking during the last quarter
proves that the overall picture remains
bleak.
It is beyond the realm of contention
to acknowledge that Britain’s economy
suffered a deleterious heart attack in 2008
and was paralysed by its tumultuous
after-effects. However, this crippling state
has remained unchanged in the interven-
ing years, and the scope for improvement
looks grim indeed. In true Thatcherite
fashion, the Conservative-led government
is presenting the economic recipe through
the analogy of tough, painful, yet impera-
tive medicine.
However, this monstrous economic
medicine has been prescribed by a doctor
who is impervious to the philosophical
advances and improvements that were
made to the field of economics during the
twentieth century. Regrettably, the genius
of Keynes has been forced into the shad-
ows, and the eternal slashing of services,
employment and investment has been
presented as the only method of achieving
a resuscitation of economic life.
Nevertheless, in contrast to this inaugura-
tion of economic despondency, wholesome
evidence can be garnered from inventive
twentieth century economic experiments,
which prove that Keynesian economics can
provide an amicable and speedy route for
recovery and prosperity at a dramatically
faster rate than could be attained under
the restrictive veil of classical economic
thought.
Keynes was one of the definitive
masterminds of the twentieth century. His
visionary genius has left an irremovable
imprint on the landscape of economic
thought, and he possessed a fervently
original gravitas that made him unique
among his contemporaries. As a member
of the exclusive, legendary and exquisitely
thought-provoking Bloomsbury group,
he automatically became associated with
extrovert thinking ‘outside the box’.
Keynes became renowned for his
accurate interpretation of the disastrous
effects that the Treaty of Versailles would
wreak on the redevelopment of Europe. He
acknowledged that the restoration of eco-
nomic growth in Britain would be severely
hindered owing to the wholly intentional
policy of choking the German economy to
the depths of subsistence. Britain’s export
markets could not be restored if demand
was purposely depressed by the punishing
policies inflicted on the vanquished powers
by the victorious nations of the First World
War.
Parallels can be drawn with the damag-
ing policies that are currently being inflict-
ed as a form of reprimand on many of the
financially profligate countries of the Medi-
terranean. Unemployment in Spain and
Greece presently stands at the astronomical
figure of 25%, and the burgeoning debts of
these countries are only being exacerbated
by the incapacity of the mindless slashing
of spending to achieve growth. The rest of
the European Union is also being stifled by
this adversity because the superimposed
austerity on the already depressed areas of
the EU means that those countries are un-
able to purchase the same quantity of goods
that they were once able to in more affluent
times. The absence of sufficient export
markets is only further quenching econom-
ic growth in Britain, since manufacturing
industries cannot export goods to the same
volume that they used to. Politicians appear
to have categorically forgotten the lessons
of history, and this is to the detriment of the
standard of living and quality of life of the
peoples of Europe.
Similarly, Keynes proudly separated
himself from the ubiquitous economic
philosophy that prevailed during the
Great Depression, which proclaimed that
retrenchment was the only solution to
contemporary difficulties. The first great
believer in Keynes was Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, who captured the soul of
American optimism with his uninhibited
confidence in the validity of Keynes’ eco-
nomic arguments. His unprecedented New
Deal created employment on a remarkable
scale and within an incredibly short epoch.
Unemployment was more than halved
from 13 million to only 6 million within
a few years, and America surged ahead
towards its destined zenith as the world’s
great superpower. In contrast, the stifling
dogmatism of the British Treasury in the
1930s meant that the UK economy was left
sluggishly behind at the starting block, and
consequently the depression was deeper,
more wounding and more psychologically
It is time to light the flame of Keynesianism once again
by Michael Cotterill
“Regrettably, the genius of Keynes
has been forced into the shadows,
and the eternal slashing of services,
employment and investment has
been presented as the only method
of achieving a resuscitation of eco-
nomic life.”

13The Regulus
DOMESTIC Politics
devastating than in many other countries.
However, the Second World War acted
as a great catalyst for the creation of a new
economic ‘world order’, which would
provide unprecedented degrees of eco-
nomic security and would thrust the nations
together with unparalleled aptitudes for
interaction and trade. The period from 1945
to 1979 saw Keynesianism assume the
zeitgeist of the times, and this propelled the
world forward to previously unimagined
heights of prosperity. Across continents,
full employment was easily obtained and
preserved as an economic norm, inequal-
ity was reduced to a satisfying low and
the welfare state rose in the ascendancy as
a safety net through which to protect the
economically vulnerable.
In Britain, the Attlee years of 1945 to
1951 saw the determination of progres-
sive men overcome the voices of reaction.
Even under the duress of intense economic
hardship, the Attlee government maintained
full employment, constructed a welfare
state, built the NHS and invested heav-
ily in previously derelict infrastructures.
Although unbridled socialism would
not solve Britain’s twenty-first century
economic difficulties, I believe that the
Attlee government’s pro-active attitude in
the face of adversity can be an inspiration
and a lesson to the incumbent generation
of politicians. Confidence is required for
economic growth, and public spending by
the Attlee government was permitted, even
though Britain was burdened with debts far
more exorbitant than exist now, because
the international community accepted the
argument that economic growth could only
be engendered through Keynesian invest-
ment. If the European Union confidently
accepted the need for debts to rise slightly,
prior to a marked drop in debt levels, as
more employment and the multiplier ef-
fect induced growth, then the depressed
European countries could be taken out of
the darkness of despair and into the light of
economic reinvigoration.
However, 1979 witnessed a decisive
breaking from the past. Mrs Thatcher’s
free-market gospel swept through the Brit-
ish political scene like a hurricane with an
endless appetite for the destruction of the
prevailing economic thought which had ex-
isted in Britain since 1945. Moreover, the
years since Thatcher’s term of office and
the present day appear to have witnessed
the translation of Thatcherite policies from
their status as the exuding tirade of a parti-
san politician into the consensual plateau of
British political thought. Tony Blair praised
the grocer’s daughter in his autobiography
by asserting that “Mrs Thatcher was abso-
lutely on the side of history.” A significant
period of political wilderness had left the
Labour party with a hunger for power and
it was even willing to alter its economic
philosophy in order to obtain it. Social-
ism was cast into the long grass and all the
prime ministerial successors of Margaret
Thatcher can, to some extent, be character-
ised as Thatcher’s children.
Although curtailing the burgeoning
budget deficit is of utmost importance, the
government needs to simultaneously inau-
gurate more radical, Keynesian policies.
This is an eternally delicate balance that
all governments, Keynesian or not, have
had to contend with. Through the sen-
sible allocation of limited Treasury funds,
the government could plant the seeds of
prosperity. Once employment is generated
through extensive government-sponsored
programmes, individuals and families will
inevitably elicit optimism and consequently
possess greater confidence to spend more
of their personal capital. By fostering
consumer confidence, the multiplier effect
will ensue, and as government revenues
increase, the deficit will naturally de-
crease. By handling the levers of economic
coordination, the British government could
prioritise forward-thinking investment in
infrastructure, the construction of a greener
economy and the resourceful ploughing of
funds into deprived regions.
Some governments, such as those
of Germany and Austria, have already
embarked upon the avenue to affluence
through the active promotion of govern-
ment policies to directly aid the fields of
industry and commerce. Even in 2011, their
economies were growing by 3% and 2.7%
respectively. Their fine example is evidence
that prosperity can be achieved at a faster
rate. However, the Conservative-led coali-
tion in Britain has placed its reputation on
the legitimacy and credibility of austerity
as the proper course of economic conduct.
To declare that the devastation induced
by cuts to the most vulnerable people in
our society was in fact promulgated on an
inaccurate and profound misconception of
economic evidence would be politically
suicidal. The Conservative party would
never contemplate such an abdication of
conviction; it would betray the darling
‘grandmother of Conservatism’, Margaret
Thatcher, and the very principles that have
led Conservative thinking since the late
1970s.
The only solution to expurgate this dis-
mal malaise from Britain’s economic cli-
mate is for the Liberal Democrats to stand
up and demand more Keynesian solutions
to economic difficulties. With the election
of 2015 looming ever closer, the Liberal
Democrats need to collectively differentiate
themselves from the Conservatives. They
need to build a platform from which they
can proudly proclaim the achievements
they have made in the backrooms of power
as a Coalition party. This year, the Liberal
Democrats should adopt a bold vision for
economic growth and demand the easing of
the Treasury cuts. The Liberal Democrat,
Danny Alexander MP, as Chief Secretary
to the Treasury, is in a pivotal position and
should exert his influence to ameliorate the
more aggressive economic strategies of
George Osborne. The Liberal Democrats
have an unparalleled opportunity to exem-
plify how they are the party of genuinely
progressive ideas in Britain, and the ces-
sation of further cuts would incontrovert-
ibly be perceived as a Liberal Democrat
influence on the Coalition. This would
vastly increase the popularity of Britain’s
third party and enhance their prospects
at the 2015 election. The 2010 Liberal
Democrat manifesto, among a plethora
of other constructive policies, pledged to
vastly increase the railway network through
the rejuvenation of many lines closed by
the Beeching Axe, to reduce train fares
year on year and to bring 250,000 currently
empty homes back into the housing market.
These are admirable policies that would
conspicuously improve the quality of life
of many people in this country. The Liberal
Democrats just need to re-energise their
reforming zeal and institute those policies
for the good of the nation.
In conclusion, as a country, we have
before us an ordeal of the most grievous
kind. The fine example that Keynesianism
promulgated must be permitted to prevail.
It is highly likely that over the next few
years, a great battle of wills and ideology
will commence. As austerity fails and the
proponents of free-market retrenchment
prove to have been deleteriously mistaken,
Keynesianism will strive back on to the
agenda as a credible alternative to econom-
ic inertia. It takes a decisive event for the
overriding economic ideology of the time
to be removed from its pinnacle. I believe
the ongoing depression of our time has the
potential to be that event. Just as the Great
Depression and the Second World War
propelled Keynesianism to the summit of
the ‘in vogue’ ideology, the financial earth-
quake of 2008 and its after-effects could
shift the tectonic plates of economic think-
ing towards a more conciliatory, pro-active
Keynesian approach to the difficult condi-
tions of the contemporary era. Two paths
lie before the destiny of the British nation;
one route leads to continuing austerity, and
the other offers the commendable prospect
of an enhanced economic settlement. This
would ensue in the government actively
promoting a socio-economic good through
precocious intervention in the economy,
and it would simultaneously overturn the
stifling and closeted doctrine of free-market
economics. Only then will the destiny of
Britain be moved forward to broad sun-lit
uplands because we, in this epoch of time,
were able to exude the confidence and
courage necessary to embark on the colos-
sal task of economic transformation.
“Politicians appear to have cat-
egorically forgotten the lessons
of history, and this is to the detri-
ment of the standard of living
and quality of life of the peoples
of Europe.”

The Regulus14
FOREIGN Affairs
Having got used to the ‘who’ (Hu)
and ‘when’ (Wen) of the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) leaders, Western
journalists now have to grapple with the
‘Shee’ (Xi) and ‘Lee’ (Li). In Western
media, news on China is more often about
scandals and appalling abuses of human
rights than on stories that paint this rapidly
rising power in a positive light. Indeed, the
country is ridden with problems: recently,
a staggering 13,000 dead pigs have been
retrieved from rivers in Shanghai; journal-
ists were beaten by thug-like police when
trying to interview Nobel laureate Liu
Xiaobo’s wife; and self-immolating Tibet-
ans continue to die in vain in protest of a
heartless government. However, taking a
macroscopic and historical view may offer
an insight to predict changes in Chinese
politics.
Where is China in the course of history?
Under Mao, successive revolutions deci-
mated social order and cultural heritage,
yet his image still hovers above Tiananmen
Square – and in the minds of many Chi-
nese. This not only gives the current Party
legitimacy, but also maintains the image
as a symbol of the triumph of self-will, a
saviour-like revolutionary and a defender
of the national spirit. The model of eco-
nomic liberalisation in use to this day can
be traced back to the watershed moment in
the 1980s under Deng Xiaoping’s leader-
ship. China is now at a crossroads; eco-
nomic growth has maintained a burgeoning
8% or above, but tensions are rising. The
outgoing ‘Hu-Wen’ leadership made efforts
to alleviate pressure on farmers and in-
stalled a more widely accessible healthcare
program, but it failed to break through
institutional constraints to implement a
structural reform of the government. With
the government plagued by corruption, or-
dinary citizens despise the unfair privileges
enjoyed by officials and despair at their
own misery. The vibrant online blogging
community defies government attempts to
clampdown on the free flow of informa-
tion, as a civil society gathers strength.
With Xi at the helm as Party chief, he must
realise the gravity of the problems facing
the country, along with those at the core of
the administration. The Party is likely to
perish without effective reforms.
Many onlookers have pointed to the
burdens of the new government, but Xi’s
track record so far offers several reasons
for optimism. As the son of Xi Zhongxun,
a relatively liberal Party leader who was
the mastermind behind designating the first
special economic zone in Shenzhen, Xi is
a princeling. His father was purged several
times by Mao, and Xi himself was sent to
Shaanxi as a teenager to labour amongst
the peasants. For a large part of his career,
he presided over provinces along the east
coast, following the direction of market au-
thoritarianism and thereby attracting foreign
investments while at the same time insert-
ing Party cells into private companies to
maintain a degree of control. Having been
elected Party General Secretary in October
of last year, he imitated Deng’s southern
tour to exude a more amiable personality
and paid tribute to Deng’s statue in Shen-
zhen. There were calls to end the wasteful
habits of officials, as well as to make Party
meetings less extravagant and disruptive to
people’s daily lives.
On the agenda now there are two main ar-
eas badly in need of reform, but which will
certainly not come about easily. The first is
the reform of governmental structure; the
second, to narrow the wealth gap and strive
for more equal income distribution. Perhaps
Wang Qishan’s book recommendation
for the Party leaders shows the aware-
ness of the socio-economic dilemma that
lies ahead. Tocqueville’s The Old Regime
and the Revolution argues that economic
growth is a long-term process culminating
in clamours for political rights and social
unrest. Xi has warned of the need to ‘learn
the Soviet lesson’, meaning that political
reform that happens too quickly, too soon
may well threaten the survival of a mod-
ernising regime. It is a precarious balancing
act that necessitates political boldness and
courage to overcome internal opposition,
but also requires astuteness to manage the
population’s expectations. The disjunction
between central and local governments also
complicates matters of reform, as change in
the top tiers of government is not necessar-
ily carried through to the subsequent levels.
Events in recent years have shown that local
governments have manipulated calls for
reform to their own benefit, preserving, and
even enhancing, their privileges and doing
nothing to solve corruption. A bureaucracy
as colossal as the CCP demands a leader of
extraordinary abilities and clear-mindedness
if it is to reform.
But even if Xi proves able to eliminate
corruption from within the Party, it is still
unclear in which direction he will lead
China. To begin, when he was President of
the Central Party School, Xi vowed to up-
hold Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideology.
The political rationale behind this strategy
aims to re-assert the legitimacy of the CCP
by recognising the ideology that originally
brought the Party into power. Secondly,
one can be almost certain that Xi will not
reform China along the lines of Western
democratic systems. The feeling of being
wronged by Western aggressors in recent
history is too ingrained in the CCP mental-
ity for them to ‘learn from the West’. The
Chinese have to create their ‘characteristic’
way of development and modernisation. No
matter what internal problems Xi attempts
to address, he will prioritise the maintaining
of the CCP as a political monopoly, and its
unrivalled status as the ultimate source of
power and authority.
If Xi hopes to live up to his reputation as
a populist figure, he will have to tackle
the ‘mass disturbances’ plaguing China
today. Demographic and environmental
pressures, coupled with widespread local
corruption, have led to mistreatment at the
hands of police, abhorrent air quality, and
the confiscation of land by greedy officials
to be sold for personal profit. These people,
alongside many others who suffer human
rights abuses, swell in ranks as days pass
and pose a stronger, debilitating force.
For others, there is a historical matter of
deep symbolic significance that lies at the
heart of reconciliation – the vindication
of the victims of 1989. No change can be
considered momentous unless it shows a
fundamental rethinking of the value system
adopted since the Tiananmen massacre: that
blind economic growth can justify whatever
abuse and violations are done to the com-
mon citizens.
There is a lot at stake in this newly-inau-
gurated leadership of the Chinese govern-
ment. The next ten years will challenge
the CCP to adapt to the rapidly changing
social environment and to tackle the causes
for consistent tension and instability. Xi
is off to an auspicious start, but taking the
right steps in the future will require a great
deal of wisdom and skill. Implementing
stricter discipline is needed to rein in selfish
officials and eliminate corruption. Yet chal-
lenging the vested interests and overcoming
infighting are tasks more easily said than
done. It is no wonder that, as WikiLeaks re-
vealed, Xi has a preference for Hollywood
movies’ clear distinction between good and
evil. If only reality could be so simple.
A Ray of Hope?
Xi Jinping
“No matter what internal
problems Xi attempts to
address, he will prioritise the
maintaining of the CCP as
a political monopoly, and
its unrivalled status as the
ultimate source of power
and authority.”
by Clarence Leong

15The Regulus
FOREIGN Affairs
Everyone is aware that Iceland felt the
impact of the 2008 financial crisis more
than most countries, with the almost imme-
diate total collapse of its banking sector. The
Icelandic response to the crash, however,
has predictably failed to attract the same
level of media interest.
Following months of protests at the gov-
ernment’s handling of the crisis, in 2009 the
island’s ruling conservative-led coalition re-
signed and a new centre-left administration,
under Johanna Sigurdardottir (incidentally
the world’s first openly gay Prime Minister),
emerged. Her government has impressively
managed to encourage a return to growth
and the strong beginnings of recovery with-
out imposing the crippling austerity seen
elsewhere in Europe.
Not content with a mere change of
government, however, the people of Iceland
demanded deeper political reform. The
country embarked on a historic journey of
constitutional review, which saw a new con-
stitution drafted not by ideologically-moti-
vated politicians or faceless civil servants,
but by the people – the constitution was to
be ‘crowdsourced’.
In October 2012, a new document was
approved by Icelanders in the culmination
of one of the most open and democratic pro-
cesses ever seen. Nearly two years earlier,
elections had been held to appoint a new
Icelandic Constitutional Assembly, a body
of twenty-five people not associated with
any political party and without any previous
experience in government, who would draft
the constitution, discussing and implement-
ing/rejecting proposals from the general
public. Any voter was eligible to stand, pro-
vided that their nomination was seconded by
thirty citizens.
The Assembly, led by academic and
economist Thorvaldur Gylfason, reflected
a cross-section of society – amongst the
elected members sat lawyers, doctors, jour-
nalists and representatives from Iceland’s
arts sector, religious community and trade
union movement.
Icelanders were then invited to contribute
to the process in a way that could touch the
most people possible – in a country where
93% of the population enjoys internet access,
people were able to make suggestions for
what they desired to see enshrined in the new
Constitution through Facebook and email.
In a further bid to increase transparency and
connect the process to citizens, sessions of
the Assembly were streamed live online, the
group had a strong presence on Twitter and
interviews with members were posted on
YouTube.
Proposals from the public that were ap-
proved by the Assembly include measures
aimed at better holding parliamentarians
to account and the declaration of natural
resources and land not privately owned as
national property, a victory for ecologists and
land use campaigners.
But it is the process’ extraordinary extent
of popular engagement, rather than its
outcome, which is most striking. Iceland’s
approach raises the quality of democracy,
giving the public a voice, and not just a vote.
In Britain, where proposals for reform of
the voting system and an elected House of
Lords have failed to ignite popular passion,
we could perhaps learn from such attempts to
reengage the public with policy debates.
Polls before the 2010 United Kingdom
General Election indicated a plurality of sup-
port for electoral reform. However, the coali-
tion government, comprised of the Conser-
vatives, supporting the continued use of the
First Past the Post system, and the pro-reform
Liberal Democrats, could only agree on what
even Nick Clegg, the leader of the Lib Dems
and the Deputy Prime Minister, termed a
‘miserable little compromise’.
The ‘Alternative Vote’ system, put to
the people in a May 2011 referendum, was
resoundingly rejected by a 3:1 margin –
perhaps if the public had been engaged in a
more open conversation about how we elect
our representatives, and political bargaining
had been bypassed in the way Iceland’s pro-
cess managed to accomplish, the result would
have been different.
Iceland’s model has also inspired sup-
porters of the predominantly centre-left
Scottish independence movement, many of
whom – including myself – are excited by
the possibility of being able to follow the
Nordic nation’s example and to enshrine the
values of fairness and equality in the written
constitution of an independent, sovereign
state – something the United Kingdom
famously lacks.
Independent Member of the Scottish Parlia-
ment, Jean Urquhart – who resigned from the
governing Scottish National Party in October
2012 as a result of the party’s shift to support
continued membership of NATO – cites Ice-
land’s experience when arguing the necessity
of a written constitution in an independent
Scotland, to act as the expression of the
state’s “social, political and cultural ethos”.
The Icelandic process has not been with-
out its flaws, however, with low turnouts in
both the elections for the Constitutional As-
sembly and the referendum, and complaints
of minor electoral irregularities at the polls.
But in spite of its faults, the Icelandic
experiment represents a democratic revolu-
tion in one of the world’s oldest and proudest
democracies, and could set an example for
other societies where the public feels increas-
ingly disconnected from those who make
decisions on their behalf.
Short of introducing Australian-style com-
pulsory voting, we are never going to achieve
100% electoral turnout, and we cannot force
people to take an interest in politics. There is
also obviously some degree of impracticality
in adopting an Icelandic model – engaging
Iceland’s 320,000-strong population seems a
substantially simpler task than ensuring input
from the 60million-plus people who live in
the UK.
But lessons can be learnt – especially
from the way the constitutional review
reached out to ordinary people using technol-
ogy. Political parties have slowly cottoned
on to the benefits of campaigning on social
media, reaching out to previously unengaged
voters and coordinating activists’ activity.
Iceland’s experience, facilitated by Facebook,
Twitter and YouTube, shows us that the wider
public can be included in the political process
using new technology, beyond the traditional
four- or five-yearly grab for votes.
Constitutional debate is all the rage in
Britain at the moment, be it the so-called
‘Scottish Question’ or the fierce argument
over the desirability of an elected second
chamber. But if politicians are to make
anybody care about these issues, they have to
first consult them in formulating their propos-
als and arguments. Finding ways to better
engage the public is a huge challenge, but
far greater still is the task of delivering the
constitutional change the politicians promote.
Iceland’s Crowdsourced Democracy
“Iceland’s approach raises the
quality of democracy, giving
the public a voice, and not
just a vote.”
by Angus Millar

The Regulus16
FOREIGN Affairs
the article, I will concentrate on the threats
both of these parties pose on freedom of
speech individually, trying to avoid the
propagandistic fight between them.
Censorship by intervention
There are a number of different attitudes
and actions adopted by Fernandez’s gov-
ernment that threaten freedom of speech,
mainly the use of state publicity. The jour-
nalist Ernesto Carmona states that during
2011, the government spent 163.3 million
(US) dollars in state publicity. Fifty-four
percent of this investment corresponded
to publicity made by the Presidency of the
Nation, while the rest was shared primar-
ily by the different ministries. Jose Crettaz
argues that in 2012, the expenditure in-
creased by 43%. An independent Argentine
research agency claimed that in the first
three months of 2012, the government
spending on printed publicity increased
by 87% compared with the same period
the year before. It is extremely hard to pin
down the actual numbers of the investment
– especially because of the lack of trans-
parency from the government itself – but
there is unanimous agreement that in recent
years of Fernandez’s government this has
been increasing.
And that was only counting the official
statistics. Unofficially, the State subsidises
and buys advertisements in purportedly
unbiased media outlets, with the power
to decide who can be interviewed in their
articles and what they can write about. A
The 7th December of 2012 – or 7D as
the official slogan goes – was supposed
to be a transformative date in the history
of the Argentine press. After three years of
being promulgated and countless battles
against appeals, the Law 26.552 - better
known as the ‘Media Law’ – was to take
effect in this date. This law entails that the
number of audio-visual media licences
should be equally distributed between the
State, the private sector and non-profit
organizations, each holding 33.3% of the
market. For this to happen, the different
companies of the private sector had to
present a plan before the 7th of December
within which they must align themselves
with the new restrictions, allowing these
non-profit organizations to get hold of their
media licences.
The main restriction this law requires is
to reduce the maximum number of audio-
visual media licences each corporation can
have to 24, when some have hundreds.
The motivation for promoting this law
back in 2009 was – according to the current
government led by Cristina Fernandez de
Kirchner – dismantling the monopoly held
by different private media companies and
democratize the freedom of speech by al-
lowing all sectors of society to participate;
not just wealthy impresarios.
But thinking in theoretical terms is
not very useful in Argentina, where every
political decision carries a huge array of
underlying motivations and interests. This
controversial law caused heated discus-
sions regarding its actual purpose. In order
to fully comprehend its implications, we
should incorporate into the debate Fernan-
dez’s greatest enemy: a media conglomer-
ate called Grupo Clarín. This group, which
works in printed and digital press, televi-
sion and radio, controls over 58% of the
TV cable market in Argentina and owns the
largest printed newspaper in Latin America
and second in the Spanish-speaking world,
Clarín.
Ever since a dramatic breakdown in
its relations with the government back in
2008, these two huge powers in Argentina
have fought a systematic battle. According
to this law, Grupo Clarín would be forced
to reduce the ownership of approximately
257 media licences to 24, a requirement
deemed absurd and unconstitutional by
their owners. Furthermore, Clarín, together
with La Nación and Perfil, are some of
the few newspapers that are critical of the
current government. According to Clarín,
the only possible reading of this law is as a
direct attempt to silence the opposition and
take the same path as Venezuela, Bolivia
and Ecuador, where freedom of the press
only exists in the realm of imagination.
This fierce battle has repercussions for
the rest of society. The strong, dichotomiz-
ing feeling present in Argentine society at
the moment - where one is either pro-gov-
ernment or anti-government, where politics
are transformed into a football match
where each actor considers themselves in
the right, their only objective defeat of the
adversary - gives rise to plenty of biased
journalism on the subject. In the rest of
In Argentinian Media Wrangles, Nobody Wins
by Toti Sarasola

17The Regulus
FOREIGN Affairs
quasi-slapstick example of this occurred
with the new ‘independent’ TV channel,
Will Kintun TV, the first channel in Argen-
tina devoted to its main indigenous group,
the mapuches. However, the first show of
this channel was not a documentary about
the manners and customs of the mapuches,
but a documentary about the life of Nestor
Kirchner. Grotesque.
Jorge Lanata, a well-known independent
Argentine journalist who has developed an
exhaustive opposition against Fernandez
during the last few years, has denounced
the presence of ‘La Cámpora’ – a youth
political group that supports the Kirch-
nerismo – in primary schools of Buenos
Aires, promoting the new Media Law. This
explicit intervention in education poses a
greater threat on freedom of speech and
education.
The purpose of this new law seems
even more dubious if we recall that the
Kirchners and Grupo Clarín maintained a
close relationship between 2003 and 2007,
during the presidency of Nestor Kirchner,
Cristina’s deceased husband. The story
goes that Kirchner had promised Mag-
netto, Clarín’s CEO, that he would become
the richest impresario in Argentina if he
continued his support for the President.
The reasons for their falling out were never
clear. Supposedly, Kirchner asked Magnet-
to to support him in a polemic dispute with
the agricultural sector due to an exportation
tax he wanted to impose. Magnetto refused,
and defended the agricultural sector in the
press; thus the fierce dispute. One year
later, the government nationalized the right
to transmit Argentine Football, which had
belonged to Grupo Clarín. That same year,
the Media Law we are discussing today
was designed.
Fernandez has also criticized Clarín
for the supposed involvement and support
in the Argentine dictatorship. However,
why were these accusations only raised
after their falling out in 2008? Did they
not matter between 2003 and 2008 when
they made business together? Clearly not.
The ‘democratization of freedom of speech
discourse’ and the ‘enemy of democracy ar-
gument’ work in collaboration as a populist
façade of Fernandez’s underlying personal
motivations.
Censorship by monopolizing
Nonetheless, government intervention
is not the only source of censorship to
freedom of speech. Monopolization of the
media is another, and that is what Clarín
has been accused of doing in recent years.
The newspaper Clarín has been at the front-
line of this battle against the government.
However, the newspaper only represents
approximately 20% of the corporation.
The main business of Grupo Clarín is
concerned with the distribution of satellite
channels in Argentina, and it is the cor-
poration’s finances that will suffer, rather
than its freedom of speech. It is indeed an
anachronistic approach to protest to every
single regulation the government attempts
to make under the slogan of freedom of
speech, when it seems only impresarios can
have this freedom.
The Argentine philosopher Eduardo
Sanguinetti has written: “The citizen is
protected by the Media Law from the
information he receives every day, showing
the actual reality, not a deformed reality
painted by the mafias who own the media
conglomerates.” I am not claiming that
Sanguinetti is right – in fact, most of his
articles are too radical for my liking – but
it is interesting to adopt the other perspec-
tive about how we can see these defend-
ers of freedom of speech. A well-known
professor of Social Science in Mexico,
Jerónimo Repoll, has claimed that in the
last four months of 2009, only 30 out of
Clarín’s 124 front pages did not criticize
Fernandez´s government. This systematic
default position of criticizing the govern-
ment has inevitably led to discrediting
Clarín’s journalistic quality. Is the citizen
actually free when he or she is bombarded
via newspapers, internet, radio and televi-
sion with a biased sermon?
Frank La Rue, the United Nations
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of freedom of speech has pub-
licly declared that this ‘Media Law’ should
be a model for the rest of the continent as
to how it promotes the plurality of voices
and democratization of speech in the me-
dia. I agree with La Rue theoretically, but
his argument seems to be missing the point
as to the implications this Law can have in
a country like Argentina - and perhaps by
extension – in South America.
Current Situation
Clarin had appealed against the articles
41, 45, 48 and 161 of this Law, claiming
they were unconstitutional. The Judicial
Power had extended the deadline for the
release of media licences until further
notice, so actually nothing happened on the
7D. On the last 17th of April, the Federal
Chamber of the Judicial System finally
announced its verdict: both articles 45 and
48 were declared unconstitutional. Article
45 stated the limitation on the amount
of media licenses, meaning that Grupo
Clarin does not have to discharge most
of their licenses. The judges declared that
there should be indeed a limitation on the
amount of public “radio-electric” licences
– as a consequence Grupo Clarin only has
to sell one of its radio licenses – but as the
TV Cable market does not use this “radio-
electric” space, so the State has no power
of intervention. On their announcement, the
judges declared this Law to be “an unrea-
sonable regulation that does not respect the
freedom of speech.”
Following this decision, Cristina
Fernandez tweeted: “The verdict on the
‘Media Law’ left me speechless. Why?”
Later on, another tweet: “This is too gro-
tesque. It’s even grotesque for this Judicial
System.” Martin Sabatella, the man in the
governmental position of promoting this
Law has declared that this decision only
shows how the Judicial System needs to be
reformed. Fernandez went as far as stating
that the Judicial Power in Argentina is not
as democratic as the other two powers, and
described it as an “aristocratic” power. This
is not the end of the battle: the government
announced that they will appeal against this
verdict with the Supreme Court of Justice.
It will be interesting to see whether the
Supreme Court will resist the pressure of
the government.
I believe that this law – stripped of its
original purpose – is a very innovative and
progressive one, especially in comparison
to the archaic regulations in other Latin
American countries, such as Uruguay,
where the media licences held by private
organisations do not expire. Nonetheless,
in a country like Argentina, a law like this
one can have severe implications when put
in practice. My first worry over what kind
of non-profit organizations will take hold
of that 33% of the media licences, and to
investigate whether there are any possible
links with the government. The example of
Will Kintun TV foreshadows a pessimistic
panorama. My second concern is that a law
such as this could become a slippery slope
if it is not accompanied by a limitation on
the government’s budget for state public-
ity, because it could lead to a much darker
monopoly: a state monopoly. The verdict
of the Federal Chamber is the only thing
that generates a glimpse of hope about the
division of powers in this country.
Both of these parties employ a populist
discourse that satisfies its supporters, em-
bracing the concept of freedom of speech
as the perfect disguise for their politi-
cal and economic interests. There are no
doubts who actually pays the consequences
of this battle: the Argentine journalistic and
literary world. Home to great minds like
Borges, Cortázar and Sábato, it has sunk
into a deep swamp of fear and personal
interests, where any hope of a tenuous light
is extinguished by both sides.
“Is the citizen actually
free when he or she
is bombarded via
newspapers, internet, radio
and television with a biased
sermon?”

The Regulus18
FOREIGN Affairs
A Struggle for Democracy in The Lady’s Burma
The release of The Lady, starring Mi-
chelle Yeoh as the Burmese democratic
activist Aung San Suu Kyi (also known as
Daw Suu), coincided with the turning of
the giant wheels of socio-political reforms
in Myanmar last year. While the film was
praised as a dutiful portrayal of an inspira-
tional fighter for democracy, a fundamental
question remains in the minds of many
whether the sequel to The Lady, the fate of
which is inextricably intertwined with her
nation, will end in tragedy or in glory.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s legacy, fortunately,
has not been critically challenged since the
glamour of the world’s renowned political
prisoner was dismantled and humbled to a
mere national MP, despite various politi-
cal upheavals. Internationally, she is a star
of Burma and of democracy. Queues of
world statesmen embraced her when, for
the first time since 1988, she was able to
visit abroad, touring around Europe and
receiving a myriad of awards and honours.
Notably, Oxford University bestowed upon
her an honorary doctorate in civil law and
the Lord Mayor of Oxford presented her
the Freedom of the City. Such international
limelight, fanciful and grand it may seem,
has neither contributed substantially to
resolve Burma’s deep-seated problems nor
enhanced her party’s ability to govern. The
National League of Democracy, with Daw
Suu as its chairwoman, needs to convince
the public of its ability to govern properly
after the 2015 election, when Burma will
attempt a peaceful and successful transition
towards a democratic and civil society. The
party, in spite of a resounding victory in
last year’s parliamentary by-elections, has
withered and shrunk dramatically since Daw
Suu’s house arrest more than two decades
ago. Many members were arrested and
imprisoned, some never to return. The party,
mainly made up of seniors, lacks young-
sters, without whom it cannot be effectively
revitalised and reach out to a wider public. It
was thought that the Party Congress earlier
this year could have been a chance to deal
with this, as well as the party’s financial
shortage and poor management, but the
new central committee proved a disappoint-
ment – instead of bringing in ‘new blood’
as Daw Suu had insisted, the old guards are
still guarding the way. As one of the elderly
loyalists stated, the party relied on her too
much to the extent that the NLD was once
accused of being autocratic in formulating
party policies. While Daw Suu repeatedly
encourages members to speak out, the crux
of the matter is that few people dare to speak
against her. As a student activist said, “the
Lady says something, and that is policy…
and that has not changed”. Indeed, her
formidable personality has become part of
the problem.
Having passed the revolutionary stage,
Daw Suu and her party are now being
crushed under the weight of popular expec-
tations. During a recent protest against a
Chinese-backed copper mining company,
President Thein Sein expediently passed
the ball to the Lady who bravely agreed
to mediate the dispute. In a time where
resentment against Burma’s most dominat-
ing neighbour runs at an all-time high, such
controversy was fraught with possibility
for error. Daw Suu’s blunt and pragmatic
response to the affected villages during her
tour and her support for the continuation of
the project came under fire from local villag-
ers and hundreds of protestors who voiced
their disappointment with the democratic
leader they used to admire. “The other
country (PRC) might think that our country
cannot be trusted on the economy", she said,
and that Burma could not afford to offend
its neighbour, “whether we like it or not.”
Others might have taken a more flexible
stance and adopted a more emollient gesture
to avoid political backlash. However, this is
Daw Suu, and she is no ordinary politician.
Her faith and single-mindedness in serving
the nation may ultimately win universal ac-
claim – speaking what she thinks and doing
what she means to do. Yet every time she
deals with this, she distances some of her
former admirers. In the long term, this could
irreversibly invalidate her position and un-
dermine her reputation, with a consequence
that her party might be waning in popularity
by 2015. From the lessons of Taiwan, Japan,
Great Britain and other Commonwealth
realms, it is inevitable that every revolution-
ary party has its own teething troubles in
governance. For Burma and the Lady, the
thorniest will remain the presence of a domi-
nating and ferocious dragon who detests
the very principle of democracy they strive
towards.
It is probably President Thein Sein’s
political calculation that Daw Suu should
handle this unrivalled dilemma in the coun-
try: the nation-wide anti-Chinese sentiment
against the manoeuvring of the nation’s
policies clashes with the political impos-
sibility for the peacock to fly away from
the dragon. Burma still desperately needs
Chinese capital, Chinese skilled labour,
Chinese merchants, Chinese technology in
infrastructure and Chinese investments in
natural resource mining. China has made
the most out of the decades of economic and
political isolation of Burma from the rest of
the globe to strengthen its own unchallenged
grasp on its ‘cousin’s’ politics and economy.
Although diplomacy and investments have
significantly improved between Burma and
the Western powers following the release of
Daw Suu, and there are huge capacities for
cooperation with nations like India and the
United Kingdom, such potential is far from
being realized. Given the present situation,
it would take decades before the Com-
munist voice can be silenced. Furthermore,
China rules by its own imperial ideology
extended from the ancient empires, under
which Burma was victimised and demoted
to a sub-kingdom because of its tributary
relationship with China. Undeniably, this
fortieth most populous state, squashed
between two rising giants, China and India,
could still make its neighbours feel its
weight, but Daw Suu and her people will
not want Burma to simply change from a
pawn in China’s hands to a Western pawn
to check her former master. Burma has to
choose a road, unavoidably a rocky one, to
stand up on its own and elevate itself out
of the federation of mediocre governments
in Southeast-Asia, who constantly muddle
through the power game.
The key to the solution for Daw Suu,
after she becomes President, is to join the
Commonwealth of Nations. A family of
fifty-four independent member states with
one-third of the world’s economy and popu-
lation, the Commonwealth would provide
Burma exactly the dynamic platform that
it desperately needs. First and foremost,
there are not any substantial obstacles for
Burma to join the umbrella, other than com-
mon administrative trivialities. All current
members, except Rwanda and Mozam-
bique, used to be part of the British Empire.
Burma’s historic link with the British crown
dates back to 1824 and lasted for more than
a century before the colony achieved full
independence. Unlike its regional partners,
from India, Malaysia and Pakistan to Ban-
gladesh and Singapore, who all joined the
club and have participated pro-actively in
the organisation, resentment against Great
Britain was prevalent during those days, as
the assassination of Aung San struck the
nation’s population very hard. In fact, only
Burma and Aden missed the opportunity
to join the family at that time. Be that as
it may, time has passed, and there will not
come a better time for Burma to join the
club than now, under Daw Suu’s leader-
ship. The magnitude of realising the full
potential of such fraternity can be found in
Daw Suu’s biography, as she is the epitome
of the pinnacle of British education and
cultivation combined with Burmese cultural
heritage: having read Philosophy, Politics
and Economics at the University of Oxford
and pursued her postgraduate studies in the
School of Oriental and African Studies in
London, she was thoroughly soaked in the
flourishing academic and political debates
in Britain, the deliberations and inspira-
tions of which cultivated her intellectual
mind. Additionally, the Commonwealth
would mean institutionalising Burma’s
“For Burma and the Lady, the
thorniest will remain the presence of
a dominating and ferocious dragon
who detests the very principle of
democracy they strive towards.”
by Thompson Chamberlain

19The Regulus
FOREIGN Affairs
relation with India. The two shared the
same fate under colonial British rule, when
Burma was administrated as a province and
later separated from the Indian colonies.
Given the historical context and cultural
link, India is an indispensable partner to
counterbalance China’s sphere of influ-
ence in Southeast-Asia due to the region’s
geopolitical battle. Bilateral diplomacy may
often trigger the nerve of the enemies, while
institutional collaboration can effectively
normalise the cooperation between Burma
and other regional partners such as India,
Bangladesh and Malaysia in one fell swoop,
hence giving much more weight to Burma’s
alliance. Furthermore, the Commonwealth
Secretariat’s role in facilitating multilateral
communications between member states can
put Burma’s political and economic isolation
to an end more swiftly.
Regarding the aforementioned point
about Chinese ideology, the Sino-Burmese
war fought in the eighteenth century best
illustrates the Sino-centric view of the Chi-
nese civilisation. China launched four suc-
cessive invasions into Burma, and the con-
sequent stalemate resulted in a diplomatic
normalisation after two decades, which was
claimed to be one of the ten great victories
by the Emperor because Burmese diplomatic
presents were interpreted as submission.
Chang Chihsiung of Taiwan’s Academia
Sinica has argued that under Confucianism
of that time, legitimacy rested not on physi-
cal control or military occupation but “the
enactment of proper roles and duties” in ac-
cordance to one’s status. Therefore, outside
the ‘mainland’, the Chinese Emperor still
ruled places ranging from Korea to Ryukus
(now named Okinawa) to Burma, all of
whom accepted a tributary relationship with
China. That was why, ideologically, all these
people were viewed as Chinese people by
many, and are still treated so by some. While
New Zealand’s foreign power is not much
more than Taiwan, China is less bullish to
Wellington than to Taipei, or to Paypyidaw.
By joining the Commonwealth and carry-
ing the British shield, Burma will be seen as
a foreign power in the eyes of China, who
always reminds Britain of the Opium Wars
but seems to have selectively forgotten its
invasion into Burma. I believe that the yield-
ing gesture and aggressive attitude of China
towards Burma would weaken and soften
over time when it no longer treats the Bur-
mese people as its own citizens. The Sino-
Burmese relation is not, and cannot, be a
matter of diplomatic fine-tuning. A flourish-
ing relationship can only be realised by rec-
ognising Burma as an equal foreign power,
and the Commonwealth membership would
catalyse such elevation. As can be seen from
the most visible activity – the Common-
wealth Games – Burma’s membership will
play a vital role in strengthening the shared
culture of the Commonwealth family, which
extends from literature, heritage, sports and
music to political and legal practices. The
symbol of status and importance of identity
for the nation cannot be overlooked by the
government, and that is why South Sudan,
Cambodia, Madagascar and a few others are
queuing up with applications.
Moreover, entering the club also provides
Burmese politicians the opportunity to learn
the conventions, practices and governance
of Western society. Few Asian governments,
with the exception of Hong Kong and
Singapore, can leapfrog their credentials and
stature to govern. Hong Kong’s exception is
attributed to the last two decades of British
colonial administration, which fostered a
relatively incorrupt civil service, and to the
successive governors who brought in a lot
of Western practices to the colony, such as
accountability to the parliament and free-
dom of press. In light of this, without any
intervention of Western powers, Burmese
leaders would be very slow to learn to
govern effectively, and most importantly, to
deal with the corruption among businesses
and officials encouraged by neighbours. The
Commonwealth Secretariat assists policy
development for member governments and
advises them, enriching the governments
with the history and lessons taken from
more than fifty states. Furthermore, Burma
is a developing country, and the Secre-
tariat’s technical assistance, be it manpower
or technology, to foster socio-economic
developments would be crucial. Similarly,
the Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting, currently chaired by Australian
Prime Minister Julia Gillard, would offer
an excellent decision-making forum for
Burmese politicians to interact with other
governmental officials, discussing issues of
mutual interest. Burmese leaders in areas of
law, finance, public health, education and
commerce will be able to fully participate
in debates and procedures and be given the
opportunity to enter into discussions and
learn. The Commonwealth consists to a
large extent of developing countries who are
in the same dilemma as Burma in combating
poverty: their policies and precedents could
be of great value for reference. Alternatively,
the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and
New Zealand are models of sound gover-
nance which Daw Suu can take into account
when she becomes the de jure leader.
In the midst of the economic gloom in
Europe and America and the growing Chi-
nese hegemony in Asia, Burma, personified
by Daw Suu, has leapt finally into life. Only
by joining the Commonwealth can the flick-
ering light of Burma, having recovered from
the vapours of the last few decades, sparkle
through the obstacles, stand up again and
embrace the historic brotherhood with Great
Britain and other sovereign democracies as
firmly as the echoes of the past. Burma can-
not rest solely on the shoulders of one lady,
however great she is, to face such immense
and complex challenges ahead.

We are an ambitious, expanding, international legal practice
with a clear strategy for the future and a strong industry focus
– in financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and
commodities; transport; technology and innovation;
pharmaceuticals and life sciences.
Can you demonstrate global thinking, commercial acumen
and the drive to provide the highest standard of service to
clients across these sectors? If so, you’ll like our world.
Tel +44 (0) 207 444 2113
nortonrosegraduates.com
Norton Rose will join forces with Fulbright & Jaworski LLP on 3 June 2013,
creating Norton Rose Fulbright, a global legal practice with significant depth
of expertise across the US, Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle
East, Latin America and Central Asia.

The Regulus Magazine Issue Five

More Related Content

Similar to The Regulus Magazine Issue Five (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The Regulus Magazine Issue Five