europe, society, UK Politics, World Politics

The future of Boris and his ambition is in May’s hands

GettyImages-120762_3356334b

Flapping around in the midst of the EU referendum fallout, the Conservative Party is currently enduring what may only be the start of a lengthy spell of political turbulence. Prevailing volatility amongst raging factions of Remainers and Brexiteers has shown that the UK’s recent vote has failed to eradicate the tense mood which currently shrouds the Tory party. Stranded at the epicentre of the Brexit wreckage, the Tories have been left broken and despairing. June’s ballot has certainly not put an end to the Conservatives party’s epidemic of quarrelling, and future success for the party looks to be considerably far out of reach.

The European Union isn’t the only source of the UK government’s quandaries, though. In a vetting process originally set to take at least ten weeks, David Cameron’s successor has been rapidly selected in just three. Upon the surprising victory for Vote Leave, it were former Mayor of London Boris Johnson who was originally tipped to succeed the now disposed of Cameron.

After a rather uncharacteristically serious stint as co-frontman for the Vote Leave campaign alongside Michael Gove, a large proportion of the Tory party believed that it were Boris who had proven himself worthy of leadership. But Gove’s crafty moves to undermine Johnson in the party leadership contest were relatively successful. His cunning decision to run against Johnson – an act described by many as treachery – has certainly prevented Boris from mapping the Conservatives’ direction in the short term.

Last week, most thought that Boris Johnson was finished, and that he may never hold any more influential party position than that of a constituency MP. But the prominent blondie may well come back to widen the Tory party’s divide in months and years to come – especially during or following the incumbency of newly-appointed Theresa May.

Yesterday, it were instead she, the former Home Secretary, who triumphantly stood in front of Number 10, ready to colonise Westminster with her distinctly formidable demeanour and uncompromising approach to decision-making. Today, May pressed on with the hand-picking of her new political arsenal. Mrs May’s cabinet has seen many a surprising appointment, however, including – rather controversially – that of the  Boris Johnson who is now Britain’s foreign secretary.

One of the politicians deemed most responsible for the great rift which has sprung up in the middle of the Tory party now sits in one of the most important positions in politics. But seated underneath the watch of Theresa May means that Johnson will be, to an extent, constrained. Everyone knows that Boris is a careerist and has dreams of the Tory party leadership. Theresa May’s tactics remain to be seen, but, needless to say, Mrs May will be keen to dissociate herself from Johnson’s politics which could subvert her much-needed authority.

But it is Mrs May who has the upper hand now. It is she who has the power to decide the fate of Boris Johnson. Will he be a successful foreign secretary, bolster his standing within the party, continuing to stoke the still red hot coals of the Eurosceptics’ campfire? Or will the new Prime Minister user her iron fist to manoeuvre Johnson off her path, clamping down on his sizeable realm of support?

By promoting Boris Johnson, who will surely be one of her government’s most prolific ministers, Theresa May could possibly have made a fatal error. Despite only a marginal win for Vote Leave, Brexit generated not only wide support for cutting ties with the European Union, but also for Boris Johnson himself. Today’s cabinet announcements include six Brexiteers – six individuals who still advocate for the views of the Tories’ large Eurosceptic, more libertarian base.

Herein lies the problem. In the event that the popularity of Mrs May begins to wane, the grounds for Boris Johnson to become the backseat driver of this government could look strong. Providing Boris Johnson with such stature could come back to kick Mrs May, and could be detrimental to the stability of her brand new premiership.

On the other hand, allowing Boris Johnson to have a degree of political ammunition is a somewhat clever move. Undoubtedly, Boris’ careerism and ambition to work his way into the top seats of government still exists. Keeping the man who has the power to be most divisive in the cabinet forces a great deal of responsibility upon him.

His ability to largely manage the UK’s global affairs, and, needless to say, implement the Brexit for which he so desperately advocated, shows that sympathy is not one of Theresa May’s defining characteristics as a politician. If the operation of leaving the European Union backfires, it will not be Mrs May who takes the blame. And, of course, an ability to broker deals and negotiate with international neighbours is essential for truly great politicians.

Should Boris Johnson fail to become a hit with the rest of the world’s biggest economies, the future premiership hopeful’s reputation will be destroyed. Currently, his global record isn’t wholly clean, having made several offensive remarks in relation to other cultures, prompting worldwide hostility. Johnson was booed at a French press conference today, is reportedly hated in Brussels, and many Germans cannot believe Boris’ new status. Judging by Theresa May’s ‘take no prisoners’ attitude to government, Boris Johnson and his future chances will be eaten alive by his fellow party members should he make detrimental diplomatic blunders.

Albeit considerably better organised, the Tory party is still precariously balanced upon the controversy of issues relating to the European Union, immigration, and the only very recently more earnest Boris Johnson. Prime Minister Theresa May has made the decision to feed Mr Johnson the power for which he eternally begs, but keeping Boris at bay is vital to the stability of her leadership. Gaffes, policy rejection, and rebellion could result in a challenge to her leadership just as messy as that carried out by Gove towards Johnson.

Theresa May has shown in the past that she is a formidable leader. She is one of few Home Secretaries to emerge from the position with their reputation unscathed enough to battle on in the cabinet. With the right foresight and meticulousness, Mrs May could indeed revive the Tory party to its former robustness. As the internal lining of the Conservative party fabric is now close to tearing, it is vital that stitches it back together, with Theresa May pushing her cabinet ministers and backbenchers into line with her tough approach – especially Boris Johnson.

UK politics has never before been so Machiavellian, based on opportunism, and required such precise tactics. If the nation’s new Prime Minister shows any signs of flinching, those on the other side of the Tory party will surely squirm their way out of their muzzles immediately, Boris Johnson clenching the reins. Theresa May had better have had her game plan drawn up weeks ago. The careerism and ambition of Boris Johnson has certainly not been halted, but the Prime Minister must fast minimise it. Clever manipulation by Mrs May of her internal opponents is what will veer them away from her new political stomping ground. Johnson is the Prime Minister’s biggest threat, but whether or not he will be a success or a failure is her call.

Advertisements
Standard
europe, human rights, World Politics

Refugees, extremism, and the EU do not justify curbed press freedoms

erdogan.png

It seems that the existence of our free press, liberal social networks, and a largely unrestricted internet maze are the foundations of our societies that we are failing to appreciate. Recent months have seen a draconian crackdown on countless activists and journalists worldwide, most notably throughout Turkey, Poland, and Middle Eastern nations. Without giving citizens the ability to criticise their leaders, only tyranny and inequality will prevail. As governments are placed under mounting pressure to restore public order and dissolve the marked threats of rampant extremism, global populations are at risk of viewing an independent media as a more sporadic luxury.

Headlines in past months have seen the stringent curtailing of speech freedoms in myriad nations. More and more, the rights of citizens to criticise from the interior of controversial regimes are declining.  Turkey’s government, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is on a rights rampage, crushing protests over intense media regulation, and closing numerous media outlets which actively speak out against the government. March saw the Committee for the Protection of Journalists declare Turkey as “under siege” in the war against its free press. Further punctuated by the prosecution of a German comedian for his outspoken poem tormenting President Erdoğan, and the government’s new control of multiple private news agencies, perhaps there will soon be no robust check on the Turkish government. The situation is all too similar worldwide, especially in Poland and Egypt. In January, President Andrzej Duda similarly moved a large proportion of the country’s media under state control. The February murder of Reuters journalist Giulio Regeni in Cairo shows that the suppression of our global media is fast mushrooming.

The sad reality is that the above examples are only a small fraction of the assaults carried out against international media. The EU and the UN, two of the most authoritative rights organisations in the world, have declared the right to freedom of speech and the existence of a free press are essential human rights and key pillars of liberal democracies. Denying citizens this liberty should is a crime. Without a free press encircling our societies the significant corruption which riddles too many communities would not have been exposed. Last month’s Panama Papers scandal is just one of the many underhand operations that  came to light thanks to a co-operative, forceful global media. With harsher press clampdowns, similar discoveries will only become fewer and less frequent. Our governments are in real danger of becoming despotic and unaccountable.

The laxity of many global leaders is coming at a hefty price. Many nations may, in just several years, have no real accountability mechanisms in place. Whilst the eternal struggle against extremist militants across the world continues, the European influx of refugees fleeing war-torn states becomes greater, and the European Union becomes closer to tipping point, it is vital that political solutions are, of course, sought. But we absolutely cannot concede press freedoms for increased peace. The shutdown of our media outlets will only increase the toil and the danger.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, portrayed as the queen of Europe and pioneer of one of the world’s greatest democracies, is one leader who has unforgivably succumbed to such pressures. In an attempt to prevent the break up of the European Union, and to save the German export economy, Turkey has been urged to take the brunt of the continuing refugee crisis. Some form of payback is absolutely right. But the accelerated EU membership process of Turkey will threaten the core principles of the Union, including those of our societies’ press freedoms. Accepting Turkey into the EU whilst it fails to comply with several of the 72 membership pre-requisites, is certainly not a master stroke. Coercing Turkey into housing a large proportion of Middle Eastern refugees is all for political advantage. Turkish membership will make the existence of weak political freedoms somewhat acceptable, and Germany, one of the biggest promoters of such democratic principles, is shamefully abandoning its national morals. One of the largest world democracies has now authorised Turkey’s lax political society, which will now allow the replication of weak media regulation in nations elsewhere.

Our leaders’ ploys of taking reduced press freedoms for increased political advantages will not work eventually. Without strong opposition to these moves from global powers, such media suppression will become more commonplace. Our inability to crackdown on blatantly harsh regimes is fostering a rise in authoritarianism as people yearn for some form of immediate stability. One recent report showed that civilians caught up in the Arab Spring would forego democracy in return for increased stability. Whilst vehement authoritarianism will, in several cases, bring stability in the short term, a reduction in the ability to speak out will create internal opposition and unjust dictatorships. The promotion of truly democratic principles is the only way of tackling political problems in Middle Eastern states, as well as nations such as Turkey and Poland.

The most worrying prospect is that such democracy-threatening politics could become the norm in our societies. As citizens look for solutions to political instability, as well as an end to prevalent barbarism – and quite rightly so – we can’t just forget our democratic morals in return for a quick and short-term remedy. The removal of a vibrant, challenging press is criminal, and will result in the eventual explosion of pent up fury, restarting the vicious circle. The only solution is for our Western leaders to demonstrate their solid grip on democratic principles. A free press is essential, but by no means existent in many societies. Without fast-paced, immediate action, global citizens’ voices will become increasingly drowned out, and tyranny will triumph.

Standard
American Politics, World Politics

The White House should be sweating over the FBI’s liberty abuse

apple_FBI

Over recent months, a worrying increase in organised crimes and devastating shootouts all over the United States has shocked citizens worldwide. As politicians and security officials have become hard pressed for security legislation, a balance of civil liberties and state protection has proven seemingly hard to weigh out.

The past few weeks’ events involving the formidable FBI and tech giant Apple have accentuated this conundrum all the more. No one advocates for such catastrophic terrorist attacks, but ensuring privacy when monitoring criminal suspects is vital. There is no denying that this form of criminal investigation can be valuable when enforcing the law. Serious organised crimes and terrorist atrocities are more frequent than ever, and monitoring the movements of suspect individuals is paramount for the protection of a nation’s citizens.

But there is something gravely worrying about such robust precautions. The guaranteed right to privacy of many civilians is at threat. Apple’s resilience towards the FBI’s coercive demands, however, is reassuring news for many liberals. The company’s decision not to aid US agencies in the recovery of personal data on a suspect’s phone has highlighted the need for clamping down on the state’s data monopoly.

Last week, however, with third-party support, the FBI succeeded in breaking through what used to be Apple’s impenetrable wall of security. The highest criminal investigations agency in the world had defied the passcode of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook’s iPhone. George Orwell must be turning in his grave. The FBI’s hacking has proven that the US government – and, evidently, many other global governments – can summon the personal details of any citizen, exposing vast details of their private life. Needless to say, technology use is widespread today. The possibility of those either wrongly or correctly accused of criminal activities having their right to privacy taken away from them is worrying likely. Apple dominates a large section of the worldwide technology market, meaning that the number of individuals who could be at threat from such stringent surveillance measures is considerably large. In the wrong hands, these capabilities could prove to be detrimental. Within myriad governments, the unwarranted tracking of citizens may now become more normal.

The United States isn’t the only nation that must be brought into focus when it comes to the liberties versus security debate. Rigorous monitoring has caused discontent across the world. The information provided by whistle-blowers like Edwards Snowden is pivotal, and shows the large extent to which the US government already spies on its citizens. Other national governments the world over have succeeded in using data monitoring as a source of crime deterrence. China’s strict internet monitoring, the United Kingdom’s ‘snoopers charter’ and the arrest of a Facebook executive in Brazil highlight the rigid surveillance measures which have emerged internationally. Individual liberties are fast becoming unduly curbed. Just because many other states’ governments have succeeded in such wide-scaled monitoring does not mean that the United States can operate a similar system which is free of controversial agenda.

Surely it is time that the White House took definitive action, standing up for its traditionally libertarian principles. There is a large potential for such invasive powers to be used wrongly, and for innocent citizens’ privacy to be crushed. In Obama’s last-minute legislative rush, he and his left-wing democrats should spend the last few months of administration over the protection individual freedoms. Attitudes towards civil liberty and national security could, of course, rapidly change under Presidents Clinton, Trump or Cruz. News that President Obama has failed to either condemn or support the probing actions of the FBI shows up his indecisiveness in relation to the matter. In order to protect his nation’s people, the US President must lucidly proclaim his stance, taking radical action.

Ron Wyden, Senator for Oregon, is just one of the high-profile politicians whom have condemned the controversial actions of the FBI. It seems that, despite the fact that there are plausible arguments for such monitoring in our growingly insecure society, the livelihoods and safety of citizens are at risk. The right to privacy is one which is becoming eroded, and one that is in danger of being forgotten. Unless global governments strike the correct balance, citizens may soon have their individuality and privileges taken from them.

Standard