Are Broadcast News Media using Ebola to fuel hysteria and boost viewership?

Ebola has been increasingly prominent in the broadcast news media recently. Arguably this is only because of an Ebola victim having entered the UK requiring isolation and treatment, otherwise broadcast media has been somewhat silent on ebola for a while now.

A sense of hysteria for some has been created by the broadcast media’s high level of focus on the UK case. Many people are regularly tuning in to the news to see if an outbreak will occur or if they are at risk, even though the likelihood of that happening is very low. Although that might not seem like such a bad idea on the face of it, it means that broadcast news media will benefit. The surge in ebola paranoia is only beneficial for broadcast media who bring the news to the people, increasing their viewership and profits as a result.

While it can be argued that many broadcast media corporations genuinely want to portray the news as accurately as possible without any financial motives, it cannot be disputed that some corporations might be fuelling the hysteria surrounding ebola to increase their profits.

You could say that broadcast media has been doing this for many years. But what we have to ask ourselves is that, is it right for broadcast media to thrive from artificially created hysteria surrounding ebola? Wouldn’t it be more fair and moral that broadcast news media stick to reporting the facts and not over hyping certain cases for profit?

In reality this phenomenon of ‘overhyping’ probably won’t change anytime soon. Nevertheless I feel that it is important to have a discussion of these topics, especially if it has the chance to influence a small positive change in media practice.

Are the Mass Media Objective in their Reporting?

The mass media has become more pervading and influential in modern society in recent years. However it can be argued that the mass media is not objective in its reporting of the facts. Many large media corporations and newspapers have become increasingly sensationalist in output, seeking to increase circulation and profits, whilst sacrificing journalistic integrity and objectivity. Often the mass media’s reporting is biased, only showing one side of the coin and reinforcing the status quo set by the political elites. The mass media’s lack of objectivity is clear in cases such as the War on Terror, mainly the Iraq and Afghanistan War, The Israel-Palestine conflict and in their excessive pursuit of economic interest.

The mass media’s bias and lack of objectivity is clear with some of the reporting which took place during the 2003 Iraq war. Much of the western media especially in the US and the UK, such as Fox and The Daily Mail, were strongly supportive of the war at the time. They were very effective in reproducing and reinforcing the views of their governments and supporting the rationale for war put forward by George Bush and Tony Blair. They did little to question the reasons for the conflict, or in challenging the status quo imposed by the political elites at the time. Instead they readily portrayed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as essentially a terrorist state and the harbingers of evil, following the mass opinion that the regime did indeed have weapons of mass destruction and that Hussein’s regime had to be toppled. Fox News (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch) who was a strong supporter of the war, displayed on-screen during all live war coverage a waving flag animation in the upper left corner and the headline “Operation Iraqi Freedom” along the bottom. The network showed the American flag animation in the upper-left corner since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.[1] A study conducted in 2003 by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) tracking the frequencies of pro-war and anti-war commentators on the major networks found that pro-war views were overwhelmingly more frequent. The FAIR study found that the two networks notably least likely to present critical commentary were Fox and CBS.[2]

According to Stephan Russ-Mohl, “There were few influential journalists who questioned the administration’s propaganda-style presentations or provided in-depth analysis of their veracity. The terrorist threat induced a kind of paralysis that resulted in near de facto cooperation between the government and the mainstream media. The few who questioned the prevailing wisdom were quickly branded as ‘unpatriotic’ and bowed to the climate of opinion, ensuring that there was little chance of a critical viewpoint taking hold.”[3] The mass media’s lack of objectivity and failure to critically analyse the events running up to and during the Iraq War allowed the public to be more supportive of the war, and to not question their governments actions too vocally in fear of being branded as unpatriotic or sympathetic to the ‘terrorists’ cause. Furthermore it can be argued that the mass media lost their objectivity by only portraying the Western point of view of the war, choosing to minimally discuss any other point of view and failing to highlight reticence to the intervention. Unfortunately the mass media’s focus on only certain prevailing points of view has been prevalent throughout history and is clearly noticeable even today with cases such as the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

The mass media’s emotional sensationalism and lack of objectivity is also visible with the reporting which took place during the 2001 Afghanistan war. Understandably after 9/11 there was an overwhelming response by the public to take some kind of action against those responsible for the attacks. It can be argued that the mass media jumped on the emotional bandwagon of pro-war rhetoric in order to galvanise the public in supporting the military intervention in Afghanistan. At the time reporting in the run up to the war was highly based on emotion and often patriotic sentiments were exaggerated to better support the troops and to strengthen the NATO allies’ actions. However the mass media’s reporting was very biased in scope, and like in the Iraq war only focused on the western point of view. Civilian casualties in Afghanistan resulting from the intervention were often downplayed or completely ignored by the mainstream media, and at times were even justified as a necessity. Ahmet Öztürk argues that, “The attitude of the media given below is a clear confirmation of this. Some examples that can be quoted from the American media are as follows. Mara Liasson from National Public Radio and Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report both agreed and stated: “Look, war is about killing people. Civilian casualties are unavoidable, Civilian casualties are not news”.[4] Arguably the mass media’s reporting during the Afghan intervention was more based on emotion than fact, as a result objectivity was sacrificed in order to promote a specific pro-war agenda favourable to the popular opinion at the time.

Also the mass media’s bias and lack of objectivity is very clear with the reporting which has taken place throughout the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Historically the US and the West have been strong supporters of Israel, providing high levels of funding and weapons to the Israeli government. Arguably the mass media reflects this bias and favouritism in their reporting of the conflict, showing only one side of the conflict in a very propagandistic manner. Their reporting shows a clear bias in support of the Israeli cause with minimal attention given to the plight of the Palestinians, perhaps best highlighted by the fact that Palestinian lives seemed to be valued a lot less than Israeli lives. Ruigrok, van Atteveldt and Takens argue that, “with respect to the casualties on both sides, differences may clearly be seen in the news coverage. Rinnawi in her research into the Israeli media and the Second Intifada shows that coverage of Palestinian victims is minimized while it is stressed that the Israelis are the victims of the conflict. The western media as well place greater emphasis on Israeli victims than on Palestinian victims. According to Philo and Berry, thirteen times as many Palestinian deaths could be counted compared with the number of Israeli victims, but in the news coverage the Israeli victims are greatly overrepresented.”[5] The mass media seems to proliferate a strong western bias which supports the Israeli government’s actions disproportionately more than the Palestinian side, forgoing objectivity as a direct result. Furthermore the mass media seems to treat the Palestinians as terrorists and killers in their reporting of the facts, often failing to mention that it is Israel which is occupying huge portions of Palestinian territory.

It can also be argued that the mass media lacks objectivity when reporting because of their pursuit of economic interest, in particular the pursuit of increased circulation and profits at the sacrifice of journalistic integrity. Chomsky and Herman assert that, “the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and constrain media policy.”[6] As Herman and Chomsky suggest, it can be argued that the mass media (for example newspapers such as The Sun and The Daily Mail in the UK), are slave to the economic interests of their respective corporations. Arguably therefore, the reporting of the mass media sacrifices objectivity in favour of sensationalist stories which have the potential to increase their circulation and profits. This means that the mass media actively chooses to report on stories which will gain more hype and readers for economic reasons instead of objectively representing the facts. Most certainly this is an unfortunate result of the capitalist society we live in, where nearly every interaction is driven by financial and economic considerations, instead of the common good.

Overall it can be seen that despite the mass media becoming more efficient and pervading in recent years, it is not objective in its reporting of the facts. Too often the mass media’s reporting is biased and sensationalist, only showing one side of the coin and reinforcing the status quo. Arguably this is because of the capitalist society we live in, where the mass media seeks increased circulation and profits, whilst sacrificing journalistic integrity and objectivity as a result.

[1] Steven Kull, The Press and Public Misperceptions About the Iraq War (June 15, 2004) <http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-press-and-public-misperceptions-about-the-iraq-war/&gt; [accessed 06/11/2014].

[2] Ibid.

[3] Stephan Russ-Mohl, ‘The coverage of terrorism and the Iraq War in the ‘Issue attention cycle.’’ In Seethaler, Josef, Karmasin, Matthias, and Melischek, Gabriele. (Eds.), Selling War: The Role of the Mass Media in Hostile Conflicts from World War I to the War on Terror, Bristol, GBR: Intellect Ltd., 2012. P. 224-225.

[4] Ahmet Öztürk, ‘International Politics and the Media: The Case of the Press/Media in the War on Terror’, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 8. Issue 3, (Fall 2009). P 57-8.

[5] Nel Ruigrok, Wouter van Atteveldt and Janet Takens, ‘Shifting Frames in a deadlocked conflict. News coverage of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict.’ In Seethaler, Josef, Karmasin, Matthias, and Melischek, Gabriele. (Eds.), Selling War: The Role of the Mass Media in Hostile Conflicts from World War I to the War on Terror, Bristol, GBR: Intellect Ltd., 2012. P. 265

[6] Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York: Pantheon, 1988. P. 6

Why are Developing Countries so Disadvantaged?

Developing Countries (also known as LEDC’s) are still incredibly disadvantaged in this modern day and age. They suffer from widespread poverty and instability, often not being able to help alleviate the plight of their citizens or improve their situation. Developing countries are disadvantaged because of a wide range of factors, ranging from historical to more recent. Arguably some of the main factors are: the economic policies of international financial institutions, World Trade Organisation intellectual property laws, historical colonialism and the impact of racial or ethnic warfare.

One of the primary reasons why Developing countries are so disadvantaged is the impact of the economic policies of international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. In particular, the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP’s) pushed by the IMF and World Bank as compulsory conditions on their loans to the developing countries has had very detrimental effects. From 1979 onward, the United States and the West lent out loans with SAP’s attached to Developing countries through the IMF and World Bank to promote increased trade and free markets. It can also be argued that this was an attempt to counter the spread of socialist/communist ideology during the Cold War. But these SAP’s had very detrimental effects such as extreme austerity and privatisation, for example in countries like Sierra Leone and Zambia, government spending per head fell by over 60% as a result. Many people in developing countries suffered as a result, with job losses and insufficient healthcare a regular occurrence. Economists have very few examples where developing countries gained any significant economic benefit from SAP’s, and in reality SAP’s helped to further disadvantage than enrich these countries as we see today.

Another main factor for why Developing countries are so disadvantaged today is the negative effect of the World Trade Organisation’s Intellectual property laws. In particular the WTO’s IP laws governing drugs have had a profoundly severe impact on some of the poorest countries in the world. Under WTO intellectual property laws, the biggest drug companies have patents to their drugs for 20 years. In theory this isn’t a bad thing, as it helps prevent unlawful drug creation/selling. But the fact of the matter is that people in developing countries cannot afford such expensive drugs to help themselves. $100 a tablet is much more than some people can earn in a year in some of the poorest countries, to ask them to pay this much for essential medicines is ludicrous and extremely unjust. As a result of this it cannot be disputed many people have historically suffered greatly and died as a result. Drug laws for developing countries desperately need radical reform to prevent more unnecessary deaths in the future. Governments and drug companies need to stop chasing profits, and look to the greater health and wellbeing of the world.

Also the detrimental effect of colonialism in the past on developing countries cannot be denied. For many years developing countries were ruled by their empirical overlords without any real benefit, and even when they gained their freedom conditions often did not improve. After emancipation many former colonies erupted into racial and ethnic tension, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone due to a lack of good conditions and political unrest caused by the backlash to colonialism. These ethnic and racial wars served to greatly further impoverish and disadvantage many developing countries, not allowing them to improve their conditions or stabilise economically.

These factors are only a handful of reasons for why developing countries are so disadvantaged in this modern day and age. In reality, the disadvantage of developing countries is the result of a multitude more different factors as well, which when combined together have created an extremely dire situation for the poorest people all over the world. A lot of the blame rests on the shoulders of western imperialism and economic meddling in the past. But it cannot be denied that much of the blame now also rests on the shoulders of the governments and tribal leaders terrorising their countries, not allowing people’s suffering to alleviate. Developing countries (and the rest of the world) have a lot of work to do to in the future to successfully help reduce the severe deprivation their countries and citizens face on a daily basis.

 

Is the UK Controlled by a Small Group of Powerful Elites?

A recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page concluded that the US is politically dominated by a rich and powerful elite. However their analysis did not include the UK. The UK despite having a strong multi party system in Parliament (unlike the US which is dominated by only two) has many other democratic failings. In many ways the UK is controlled by a small group of powerful elites, just like in the US.

One of the main ways that the UK is controlled by a small group of powerful elites is the composition of Parliament itself. The UK Parliament is an elitist and unrepresentative institution. It is democratically and descriptively unrepresentative of society as a whole. The majority of MP’s and Lords sitting in Parliament are from a very select background of privilege, which is thoroughly unrepresentative of society. The majority of MP’s and Lords in Parliament are male, white; come from high social class and many are Oxbridge or Private school educated. Worryingly there is a stark lack of female and ethnic minority MP’s in parliament. Only 22% of MP’s are female and only 4% of MP’s are ethnic minorities or black. Furthermore 90% of MPs are university graduates, compared with 20% across the adult population, and over a quarter of MPs went to Oxford or Cambridge.

One of the main reasons why the UK Parliament is democratically and descriptively unrepresentative of society is the role of party candidate selection. Party candidate selection itself appears to be an elitist practice, with often only the most wealthy or ‘important’ candidates chosen (like in the US). This includes a surprising lack of women and ethnic minority candidates being chosen. Some of the key factors to consider when analysing party candidate selection are the impact of Gender bias, education bias, wealth and class considerations. Without doubt it certainly appears that these factors have historically played a big role in why certain candidates are chosen over others. Without reform of the party candidate selection itself, parliament will not be able to move towards becoming less elitist and descriptively unrepresentative of society.

Another major reason for why the UK can be seen as being elitist and unrepresentative of society is because of the voting system. The UK uses a single member, one vote plurality based method for its general election called ‘first past the post’. It’s a very disproportional and unrepresentative voting system. First past the post favours the bigger parties who are more likely to get slightly more votes than other candidates and win the seat outright. It completely discounts the other votes; as such the other votes are wasted because they have no influence in Parliament. This results in huge numbers of wasted votes and creates a very disproportional reflection of the voter’s wishes in Parliament, with often only the major parties and elites getting seats. Third parties or smaller parties have very little representation in Parliament, and can’t voice their opinion on behalf of the people successfully. The only was this can be addressed is with reform of the voting system. For elections to become less elitist and more democratic, a move to proportional representation is required. A good example is New Zealand’s proportional representation voting model, which results in more democratically and descriptively representative Parliaments.

Furthermore it can be argued that the UK is controlled by a small group of powerful elites because of the impact and power of big business and lobbying on UK politics. Like in the US, only the biggest corporations or wealthy few can have big lobbying influence on the government or sway policy in the UK. This is because lobbying is an extremely costly practice to engage in, it’s even more costly if attempted over a period of many years. As a result of this, less wealthy or smaller organisations don’t have as much influence over potential policy reforms set by the government. This gap can be summed up as substantive vs. formal representation of people and organisations in politics. By the Law all people and organisations have the same rights and voice in the UK, but like in many countries around the world, in reality their rights and influence are very different.

These are only some of the main reasons why it can be argued that the UK is controlled by a small group of powerful elites, much like the US. The UK has a lot of work to do towards becoming more egalitarian and less elitist. If the UK can manage that it will be good for democracy, and rightly go towards creating a political system where power is shared between the many instead of the few.

Will China be the Next Global Superpower?

China is the most populous country in the world, with a population of over 1.35 Billion. It has a GDP over $8.227 Trillion and rising, which is the second highest in the world, not far behind the USA. It is also the world’s largest importer and exporter of goods. In purely economic terms, China is already a global powerhouse and is set to overtake the USA in a few years if its economic growth continues at the same rate it has presently. For China to be the next global superpower it will not only have to maintain its incredible economic growth pattern, but become a cultural and political superpower as well.

This will be no easy task. Economically China’s extraordinary growth is already showing small signs of slowing down. Furthermore it appears that there are new concerns about China’s economy prompting fears of another global shock. Perhaps even greater than the 2008 crisis. This is because it seems that China’s exceptional growth has been fuelled by massive debt and government subsidies. Economic growth based on huge debt, (even if it’s too themselves) is not a sustainable pattern in the long term. In the short term it has provided huge economic benefit for China, but in the long term unless China introduces economic reforms to deal with the huge debt and economic bubble they have created, disaster could strike. It is imperative for China to reform their economic system in order to create a sustainable growth pattern in the future. If they manage to do this and also increase their economic growth in the future, they will be well set to become the next economic global superpower.

Politically China is very powerful especially in Asia and the East. They also have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, along with the USA, the UK, Russia and France. This affords them huge influence upon global affairs, as well as regional due to their economic might. However due to China’s one party pseudo-communist state and iron fist rule, many democratic nations do not see China as a beacon of democracy or politics. Censorship is widespread in China, and many dissenters or vocal anti-establishment protesters are heavily suppressed. Although the situation in China does seem to be improving somewhat politically, their lack of democracy or liberalism is best illustrated historically with the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, a pro-democracy movement which ended on 4 June 1989 with the declaration of martial law in Beijing by the government and the death of several hundred or possibly thousands of civilians. If China is to become a political global superpower, it needs to be seen by the world as a beacon of democracy and freedom which protects its citizen’s rights and respects differing opinions, much like how the USA is seen classically. If that happens, China will have the ability to gain the status of a political global superpower, respected by the rest of the world.

Socially and culturally China also has a lot of power. Much of the world’s favourite cuisine originates from China, especially here in the UK. Chinese culture can be seen to be gradually permeating into many countries all over the world. There are many famous ‘Chinatowns’ in some of the biggest cities in the world such as London and San Francisco, which visibly celebrate Chinese culture and bring Chinese culture to a wider western audience. But for China to truly become a cultural superpower, it will have to transcend these confines and spread its culture further and deeper throughout the world, like the USA has done since World War Two. Some of this cultural permeation will come naturally as a result of greater political respectability throughout the world. But China will also have to create a wider appeal of its culture to western audiences than it already has. Western film, media and entertainment is still heavily dominant in the world, showing little signs of slowing down. For China to become a global cultural superpower it will have to work hard to match or surpass the USA’s cultural influence. If China can somehow achieve that level of cultural dominance, it will be able to more successfully become the world’s cultural superpower.

If China can maintains its incredible economic growth, become a respectable political superpower and become the most culturally dominant power in the world, than nothing will stop it from being the next global superpower. Whether China will be able to achieve these goals only time will tell, but one thing is for certain it will be a very challenging endeavour. China’s ‘exceptionalism’ has allowed it to come this far and if any country has the potential to become the next global superpower, it most certainly will be China.

Is the Crisis in Ukraine a Civil War?

The crisis in Ukraine has reached a breaking point. The recent violent clashes in the Ukrainian port city of Odessa between pro-Russian separatists and the pro-Ukrainian’s, has resulted in many casualties and deaths. The clashes on Friday left more than 40 people dead, mostly pro-Russian separatists killed in a building fire after Pro-Ukrainian protesters firebombed the building as a part of the ongoing street battles.

Furthermore, over 60 people arrested over Friday’s violence in Odessa have been freed by police after protesters attacked the main police station. Several hundred pro-Russian protesters besieged the police headquarters, breaking through windows and doors. These violent clashes have been broken out all over Ukraine, and Ukrainian troops are carrying out operations in the east to wrest control of government buildings from pro-Russia separatists. After vicious battles in and around Kramatorsk, pro-Ukrainian troops reportedly recaptured the town’s television station and security services building. Elsewhere in the east, fighting also rages. There are reports of clashes near Andreevka, Kostyantynivka and the rebel base of Sloviansk. The government and the pro-Ukrainians seem finally to be taking the battle to the separatists, but can they gain the upper hand?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary a Civil War is, “War between the citizens or inhabitants of a single country, state, or community.” Based on this definition, it cannot be disputed that the crisis in Ukraine has escalated to a small civil war. Violent clashes between pro-Russian separatists (who want Ukraine to be a part of Russia) and the pro-Ukrainian’s (who want Ukrainian unity) are erupting all over the country, and only seem to be getting worse. The Ukrainian government appears to be handling the violence very poorly, with little tangible control over the situation or its people. Following the annexation of Crimea by Russia, it was originally the pro-Russian separatists who were engaging in violence, but now pro-Ukrainian supporters have also started to fight back equally destructively. In response, the Ukrainian police has been struggling to manage the situation effectively. If the Ukrainian government fails to control the situation over the next few days, the crisis in Ukraine could very well deteriorate into an all-out civil war with casualties and death on all sides.

Additionally, the threat of Russian military intervention continues to be a major possibility, particularly if the situation in Ukraine deteriorates even further. Russia is not likely to hesitate to protect its Russian speakers in Ukraine, especially if it feels they are being persecuted by the pro-Ukrainian forces and the Ukrainian government. If that turns out to be the case and Russia does invade Ukraine, Western intervention by the rest of Europe or the USA might well follow to help protect the sovereignty of Ukraine. It would effectively transform the crisis in Ukraine into a massive Cold War era-style proxy war, between the West and Russia with Ukraine in the middle.

Stabilising the situation in Ukraine will be crucial for the Ukrainian government in the immediate future. Will the violent clashes continue and plunge Ukraine into an all-out civil war? Will Russia decide to intervene militarily? The next few days will be very telling.

Should the UK Leave the EU?

The UK European elections are scheduled to take place in a few weeks on May 22^nd 2014. The Pro and Anti-EU debate has been intensifying, with both sides stepping up their political rhetoric. One of the main topics within the EU debate is whether the UK should leave the EU. UKIP is certainly a firm believer that the UK should leave the EU, they argue that the UK would be better off by leaving the EU. However this is not a proven fact. The benefits the UK gains from being a part of the EU are immense and should not be ignored. Leaving the EU would mean that the UK would have to give up a lot of political and economic benefits, and it would isolate the UK from the rest of Europe.

There are many benefits that the UK and its citizens receive from being part of the EU. For example the EU provides free trade between all EU countries, greatly increasing the volume of trade the UK can engage in without any barriers or protective tariffs. This provides huge benefits for UK businesses and the economy. Furthermore being part of the EU allows the UK access to Global free trade as well, not just European.

The EU has a massive number of global trade agreements in place, and as the world’s largest trade region, it is in a much stronger position to negotiate hard on behalf of its citizens than the UK by itself. The EU already has a number of agreements with the rising superpower India and the EU is also negotiating Free Trade Agreements with Brazil, the United States of America, Canada, and countless other countries, whilst China has made it clear that it potentially would like to enter into a deal as well.

The critics who argue that the UK does not actually gain much economic benefit from being part of the EU could not be more wrong. UK national income dependent on exports to the EU each year is worth £207bn to the UK economy every year, according to independent research from the Centre for Economic and Business Research. This figure represents 15% of British GDP.

One of the other great benefits that UK citizens get from being part of the EU is free movement within the EU. It is regarded as the EU’s founding vision, and because of the UK’s membership of the European Union, UK citizens can take holidays, travel, and work anywhere in the EU without requiring a visa.

Another great EU benefit which can be felt for UK citizens every day is The Working Time Directive which guarantees workers a minimum daily rest of 11 hours in every 24, a rest break during working hours if the worker is on duty for longer than 6 hours, a weekly rest period of 24 uninterrupted hours for each 7-day period (in addition to the 11 hours daily rest), and paid annual leave of at least 4 weeks per year. This EU law means that workers cannot be exploited by UK businesses, it allows workers more time to be with their family and to engage in leisure activities.

Finally, one other essential benefit (among many) which the EU provides for the UK is Cross-border crime prevention and investigation. The UK is subject to many crimes daily by criminals who often flee to other countries in Europe. Being part of the EU allows the UK police to coordinate and deal with criminals in other European countries efficiently. Furthermore the EU has measures in place to ensure minimum standards of policing and security across the common market. Crime crosses borders, so a cross-border effort to tackle it makes sense.

These are only a handful of important benefits which the UK and its citizens enjoy because of being part of the EU. The EU debate is an important one to have for sure, but overall the EU is organisation which the UK cannot afford to leave politically or economically. Without doubt the UK benefits a lot more from being part of the EU than it would if it left.

Is the US an Oligarchy or a Democracy?

A recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page concludes that the US is politically dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

The two professors conducted rigorous data-driven research to arrive at the conclusion. According to the BBC, “The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.”

The professors argue, “analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence”.

The BBC surmises this argument as meaning, “the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.” In other words the US is an oligarchy, not a democracy. Eric Zuess also boldly supports the argument in Counterpunch, he states “American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media).”

Gilens and Page state that the US has many features which make it democratic, but nevertheless their research firmly supports the argument that the US is more of an oligarchy than a democracy. There are also many other factors within the system of US politics which lend support to their conclusions.

The US political system is dominated by the two main parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. In the history of the US, no other political party has had control of congress or any significant majority. Out of a total 532 current members of the Senate and House of Representatives, only 2 members are independents. The rest are Democrats and Republicans. When you compare this to the German and UK Parliaments which are comprised of multiple political parties and interests, it is clear to see how the two parties dominate. The dominance by the two elite parties is certainly not very democratic at all. Legislative power in the US can therefore be argued is in the hands of a very small group of congress people, and it is made even more exclusive with the current two party system.

Lobbying in US politics is another major issue. At the moment only the very rich or big corporations tend to have much access and influence on politicians. This is due to the cost intensive nature of lobbying, which allows very minimal lobbying access to the poor or less influential Americans. As such the big corporations and wealthier individual’s voices tend to get heard much more clearly than other less wealthy groups and individuals. The heavily capitalised nature of lobbying is a big barrier to democracy.

Due to the nature of elections and campaign finance in the US, the more economically supported candidates tend to be able to get their message out to the public far more effectively and efficiently than their less financial well off opponents. Unless a candidate’s election campaign manages to raise enough money through donations or pledges, they are very likely to be unable to stand up politically to an opponent with far greater financial support or clout.

Economic and social influence historically seem to be the keys to power in US politics, as is the case in many other countries. However this is where the problem lies. Only a very select few elite individuals tend to have the economic or social power to enter or influence US politics. And as Gilens and Page’s research suggests, if you aren’t part of the small number of “elites” in the US, you have very little political influence. Unquestionably that is the hallmark of an oligarchy. The US certainly has a lot of work to do to regain its right to be called a true democracy.

The EU Elections: Who Will Win?

The European elections are scheduled to take place in a few weeks on May 22^nd 2014. It comes as no surprise then that the debate on the EU has been intensifying, with passions flaring on all sides. The Nigel Farage Vs Nick Clegg televised debates on the topic of EU membership which took place a couple of weeks ago really got the debate going. The polls certainly seemed to suggest that Farage was the clear winner and that UKIP’s popularity had increased, lending ample credibility to their anti-EU agenda.

More recently Farage and UKIP have been very proactive, going as far to suggest that they may even win the European election ahead of the three main parties. A bold claim to be sure. Whether or not UKIP will be able to successfully galvanise enough support to secure the votes to back up their bold claim will have to be seen. Furthermore Clegg recently stated that he believes UKIP to be part of a longstanding tradition of Euro-scepticism and that UKIP’s surge in popularity isn’t a new phenomenon.

Nick Clegg without doubt still believes that his party might do well and that the pro-EU movement is stronger. But the polls after the TV debates definitely suggested that Clegg was the loser, and the Lib Dems have never really recovered from their failed tuition fee promise to the students. Their popularity has dropped greatly ever since the 2010 election. Could they really become the fourth party in the race? It will be a hard pill to swallow for the Lib Dems if they not only come forth in the EU elections, but if UKIP win as well. Clegg will certainly have to re-evaluate his party and his leadership if that turns out to be the case.

It certainly seems that with their recent surge in popularity, UKIP is set to do very well in the EU elections. They may very well come out on top. The anti-EU movement would be greatly strengthened with a victory in the EU elections. But as history has shown before, polls and popularity in the run up to an election don’t always equate to results on the day. It will be fascinating to see how the country votes, are the UK voters anti-EU or Pro-EU? We’ll find out soon.

MP’s Expenses: Is the Current System Good Enough?

Following the huge scandal in 2009, MP’s expenses have never been far from making the news headlines. The recent expenses scandal involving former Culture secretary Maria Miller, who was forced to resign as a result of all the media attention and scorn from the public over her expenses has thrown the topic back into the limelight.

The expenses scandal in 2009 revealed flagrant, historical abuses of the expenses system by many MP’s and led to reform over how expenses should be regulated. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was introduced to establish and monitor a system to review expenses. However, expenses claims submitted before 2009 are still investigated by the 13 members of the Commons standards committee, 10 of whom are MPs from the three main political parties.

Surely it would be more sensible and fair for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to review expenses claims before 2009? It would most certainly lead to a more equitable Parliament and remove any chance of favouritism or leniency by fellow MP’s in regard to their expenses. If all MP’s expenses claims, historical and new, are not treated equally it undermines Parliament’s attempt to be more legitimate and appear less dishonest. If parliament is to fully rid itself of the spectre of elitism and the notion of ‘one law for the rich and one law for the poor’, the expenses system’s loopholes need to be fully addressed and tightened to root out unfair claims and prevent more abuses in the future.