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.

Is War between Ukraine and Russia on the horizon?

The crisis in Ukraine has reached a new height of tension recently with Pro-Russian activists attacking and occupying another official building in East Ukraine. Pro Russian activists stormed a police station in the town of Horlivka, near Donetsk taking control and occupying it. This occupation is one more in a recent string of occupations by pro-Russian activists in Ukraine, with other official buildings already being occupied such as the mayor’s office in Sloviansk. Armed men thought to perhaps be Russian Special Forces are also in the area. The occupiers and armed men have ignored the Ukrainian government’s deadline to leave and they don’t seem like they plan to go anywhere fast. This can’t be sitting well with the Ukranian government and pro Ukraine supporters in the area, who see it as an affront to their sovereignty and fear further Russian intervention.

The 16^th March referendum in Crimea proved to be a landmark event in the Ukranian crisis, with over 97% of voters choosing to be part of Russia. The Russian parliament didn’t take long to recognise the referendum and make Crimea part of Russia, at least in their eyes. Interestingly Google maps in Russia shows that Crimea is a part of Russia, but elsewhere in the world the border line of Crimea still remains disputed between Ukraine and Russia on the map. Google maps ambiguity on the whole situation sums up the general feeling the world seems to have on the matter. Without doubt the Ukrainian government still feels that the referendum was unlawful and that Crimea is still a part of Ukraine. But in reality this does not seem to be the case. In essence Crimea is a part of Russia now, with the majority of Crimean’s calling themselves Russian. The Ukrainian government have very little power over Crimea to say otherwise, no doubt enraging Ukrainian officials.

Compound the annexation of Crimea, the recent occupations in Eastern Ukraine and you get a very, very angry Ukrainian government. Whilst there has been no military action by the Ukrainian government as yet, it won’t take much more pro Russian activity in Ukraine to further escalate tensions. If the Ukrainian government feels suitably threatened, military action may seem the only logical response. Tensions between Ukraine and Russia have been simmering slowly, reaching highs and lows throughout the crisis. But if the pro Russian activity in East Ukraine continues as it has been and the occupiers refuse to leave, military action which could escalate into war may be Ukraine’s response. Although any military action taken by Ukraine may well be playing into Russia’s hands, allowing Russia to gain a more concrete foothold in East Ukraine by bringing in more troops to deal with the trouble.

It’s a volatile situation in Ukraine and any small misstep by both sides could prove to be the final catalyst for military conflict. The next few days will prove to be very interesting and will no doubt set the tone of the crisis in the future.

Should Scotland be an Independent Country?

The Scottish referendum on Independence has understandably been a hot topic in the news of late. It is scheduled to take place on the 18^th September 2014. The question posed to the voter will be “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Only Scottish and British citizens resident in Scotland will be able to vote. This means that the 800,000 Scots who live in other parts of the UK don’t get a vote, while the 400,000 people from elsewhere in Britain who live in Scotland do. Members of the armed forces serving overseas who are registered to vote in Scotland will also be able to take part in the referendum.

The referendum will be the most politically significant vote of recent history in the UK and in the event of a yes vote, lead to a radical reshaping of the entire landscape of the UK. The Scottish government proposes that its independence day will be 24 March 2016 in the event of a yes vote. However despite the Scottish government’s pro independence rhetoric, an independent Scotland might not be such a good idea.

There are some major problems Scotland would have to deal with in the event of independence. Firstly and arguably one of the most important hurdles Scotland would have to deal with is the issue of economics. What would happen to the currency in Scotland? Would it have to use a new, different Scottish currency and give up the pound? Chancellor George Osborne certainly seems to argue that there will be no currency union with an independent Scotland. It would be a great headache for Scotland if it could no longer use the pound, and perhaps lead to some financial instability. An independent Scotland trying to establish a new currency would be a logistical nightmare for everyone in the UK, not just Scotland. How would the banks and big business respond to the dissolution of the currency union? Would they be supportive of a new Scottish currency? Big businesses certainly seem to be very hesitant of the idea of an independent Scotland, most probably because of the problems it could cause them financially and the practicality of such a big change.

Another key issue an independent Scotland would have to grapple with are the defence arrangements. What would happen to the shared armed forces vehicles and troops? What about the naval ships and air force? It would certainly be very cumbersome to rearrange or divide up the military personnel and vehicles between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK. Furthermore determining what military assets would actually belong to an independent Scotland could prove to be a problem as well.

What would happen to Trident? Trident is based in Scotland at the moment and whilst the Scottish government is saying an independent Scotland wants no nuclear weapons, in the future this might not be the case. Who would get control of the nuclear weapons, if in the unlikely event Scotland starts pushing for keeping some? And if Scotland really doesn’t want the nuclear weapons, relinquishing control of the Trident submarines or moving the base could be a big problem in and of itself. The loss of jobs resulting from the closure of the Clyde naval base which currently hosts Trident in Scotland could be profound as well.

Another major issue an independent Scotland would have to deal with is its membership of supranational organisations, in particular the EU and NATO. At the moment Scotland is part of the UK, and therefore it is part of the EU and NATO. However if Scotland becomes an independent country, its membership of these organisations would be thrown into flux. An independent Scotland would arguably be no longer a member of the EU or NATO. It would either have to reapply or cut some deals during negotiations to be part of the organisations again. And who’s to say whether the negotiations would be swift or easy?

An Independent Scotland sounds good on paper, but in reality it would have many political and economic hurdles to contend with. The transition from being part of the UK to an independent Scotland in the event of a yes vote could prove to be too much of a herculean task for the Scottish government. Scottish voters will have to think long and hard about all the implications of independence. Ultimately, Scotland staying in the UK might be more practical in the long term and certainly in the short term.