Jean Carrere points out the continuing absence of gender equality despite Saudi Arabia’s decision to grant women the vote

The expression “Arab Spring” has appeared in an astonishing number of headlines over the past eight months to describe the turmoil that characterized the Middle East and the broader Arab world since the uprising in Tunisia last December.

By Evan Musgrave

An enchanting, enigmatic force in Argentinian political and cultural life since his election in 2003, former president Néstor Carlos Kirchner’s death has come as a devastating blow to hopes of a different future for the country under the Kirchnerist banner. Life in Argentina ground to a halt in the days after his passing, and citizens filled the streets in a massive galvanised sentiment unseen since the financial crisis of the early 2000s, which Kirchner is credited with solving.

Born in the southernmost province of Santa Cruz, Kirchner attended his local public school, and went on to study law at the University of La Plata where he met his wife, current President Cristina de Fernández de Kirchner. In 1986, Kirchner became mayor of Río Gallegos, and following his political success in this area, he was elected governor of Santa Cruz in 1991. His policies reflected his left-wing ideology and he gained notoriety in openly criticising the performance of then-president Carlos Menem.

In 1999 Argentina entered a crippling economic crisis. After years of sky-rocketing inflation and allegations of corruption, investors quickly pulled out of the country. As a result, many began withdrawing large sums from their bank accounts and exchanging the Argentinian peso for the US dollar. The Government reacted by essentially freezing all bank accounts for 12 months, allowing only minor sums to be withdrawn. Protesting and rioting became a daily occurrence with banks and foreign businesses being targeted by mobs. In late 2001, amidst deaths from clashes between rioters and police, president Fernando De La Rua absconded via helicopter from Buenos Aires. With no vice-president in place, a leadership crisis ensued, exacerbating the country’s many problems.

After a series of stand-in presidents attempted to contain the financial mess, an election was called in which the Santa Cruz governor emerged as an unlikely contender for the seat with the Centrist Peronist Justicialist Party. In a runoff with Menem, the pre-crisis president decided to stand down amidst polls indicating a 30 to 40 percent preference for Kirchner.

The newly-elected president inherited a country with a $178bn debt, and an impoverished society which had, at the turn of the previous century, been one of the wealthiest in the entire world.

To reformat the nation, Kirchner sought to return to a somewhat agrarian focus. He exploited the high price of soy, personally promoting it to the emerging Chinese market, and took advantage of the competitive export rates for Argentine beef, while discouraging imports, in an endeavour to rebuild the country from the ground up. Throughout his presidency he maintained an emphasis on remodelling at a grassroots level, pleasing those from the provinces while deftly managing urgent macro-economic issues, handling foreign relations, while assuaging concerns of those in the capital.

His presidency successfully rallied for import substitution, provided accessible credit for small business, set aside new funds for social welfare and mounted an aggressive attack on tax evasion.

Most remarkable was his knowledge of the complacency which had so often plagued the region in the past. As Argentina’s economy bounced back, powered by its rich exports, its new-found foreign investment and imports flooded the market with US dollars which began to show signs of strangling the competitiveness of the peso. At this point, Kirchner’s cabinet enacted a series of reforms, aimed at limiting speculative foreign investment from destabilising the market.

During his presidency real GDP grew between 8.5 and 9.2 percent each year, and unemployment was contained to around 8.5 percent for most of his tenure, an impressive figure, owing to the poor flow of capital arising as a hangover from businesses reinvesting funds abroad during the crisis.

In addition to these feats, Kirchner’s cabinet firmly negotiated a deal restructuring 76 percent of Argentina’s external debt at a much lower nominal value of 25 to 30 percent and at longer terms.

Kirchner additionally went before the UN Assembly in 2004, denouncing the IMF as an organisation and implicitly accusing it of departing from its original goal of encouraging economic development in its creditors. The structural adjustment programmes put in place by the IMF had led him to believe that a more independent route was needed to rebuild the critically balanced nation.

His social welfare reforms paid dividends later on in his presidency with the numnber of those living below the poverty line dropping around 37 percent overall during his tenure.

He was universally lauded for making significant changes to the justice system by overturning amnesty laws and encouraging the courts to go ahead with the trials of hundreds involved in the corrupt dictatorship.

In 2007 he surprisingly did not run for re-election amidst favourable public opinion, but rather promoted his wife, Cristina, as his successor in a successful campaign. Néstor had been expected by many to return in the 2011 to a likely landslide win.

Among Peronists and opposition voices, Kirchner will be remembered as a man who filled a perilous political vacuum. Through him Argentina was placed on a strongly independent path with stable regional cooperation.

His power rested on a paradox: He was at once a strong leader prone to controversial political showdowns yet he remained an amiable, charismatic character who managed to weather criticism.

Among Argentinians and foreign commentators alike Néstor was seen as the power behind the throne of the nation. His death is likely to force his widow to build new alliances and could spark challenges within her own party, even though at present her approval rating stands at 70 percent.

The future of Kirchnerism will depend on how she can weather this truly devastating loss. For the moment opposition leaders will need to endure a wave of public sympathy as their ratings plummet.

Argentina today sits in a comfortable position as the wealthiest nation per capita in South America with a liberal and progressive society and a much stronger regional trade system. The country is additionally set to benefit from the upcoming Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup in Brazil as well as the Copa América tournament in the summer of 2011.

While the legacy of the last decade in Latin America’s politics remains uncertain, Kirchner’s standalone role as a strong reformer and innovative centrist leader will be remembered in this region for decades to come.

By Neil Warner

The recent meeting of G20 world leaders has gained a large amount of attention. The focus of the meeting was apparently “currency wars”, the competitive devaluation of currencies that is being pushed by countries such as China. There is a general agreement that the recent rise in protectionism when it comes to global capital flows and cash transactions is a very dangerous development. To an extent this is very much true.

But this general preoccupation misses out on the overall picture. The competitive devaluations are merely a symptom of a different disease stemming from the manner in which global finances are conducted: as a game with high stakes and practically no policing. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, asserted last year, and has since repeated, that “we must rethink the financial system from scratch, as at Bretton Woods.” That assertion deserves consideration.

We have frequently heard over the last couple of years that we are experiencing the worst global crisis since the Second World War, something arising from the fact that 2009 was the world’s first global economic contraction for 60 years. Surely a crisis that draws such parallels should call for a concomitant reaction? The world in 1944 in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, responded with an unprecedented proposal of institutions for global economic regulation and came up with the IMF and the organisations we now know as the World Bank and WTO. Its purpose was essentially to facilitate the regulation of an economy which, if unregulated and unprotected by any centralised guidance, had the potential to send the world into catastrophe as it did in the 1930s.

What was dreamt up then now no longer works for our global economy today. Our current crisis should provoke a similar response to that in 1944, driven by the knowledge that we cannot regulate the world of 2010 with tools largely concocted in the 1940s.
The term “a Second Bretton Woods” has been interpreted in a number of different ways. However in general it involves a recognition that we have, for a long time now, been working with antiquated machinery. The old Bretton Woods system has not really been working since the United States went off the gold standard in 1971, a circumstance described by Noam Chomsky as the most important world event since World War II. Since this has happened, cross-border capital flows have been given a devastating liberty and operate at a rate which old institutions cannot keep up with. Since currencies have no intrinsic value, countries can engage in devaluations and beggar-thy-neighbour policies at will.

It is generally accepted that the atrociously liberal financial system that instigated the current crisis needs regulation. The main point, however, is that reforms cannot be limited to provisional, national stopgaps that are entirely focused on the specific causes of the 2008 crisis. Traders operate at supranational levels and can consequently avoid taxation and regulation that governments whose power is restricted to the parochial cannot deal with. Just as the anarchic international system of the interwar period limited governments to myopic self-interest, so the contemporary world is driven to a similar myopic deregulation and currency wars by the lack of an international mechanism to enforce our common interest. This helped precipitate the global financial crisis, but it also makes recovery from and repayment for the damage more difficult.

Because of the quick and easy supranational mobility of the current financial system, nationally-implemented policies cannot work in the long term. This applies to every government, whether it is the American government’s attempt to limit the size of financial institutions or the EU’s regulation of hedge funds and private equity. Additionally, unregulated capital flows will continue to bring the havoc they have already brought to Latin American and East Asia in the last few decades.

The IMF-centred system of regulating global finance is rotten on a countless number of levels and cannot work in a modern system which is so completely globalised. There needs to be an entirely new institution for regulating global financial transactions if we are to get a sane global economic system or any level of justice for what has already happened.

By Siri Bjorntvetd

Burma’s military junta held its first elections in over two decades on Sunday 7 of November, and, by its count, won about 80 percent of the vote. The main opposition party in Burma boycotted the election.

The poll was fraught by accusations of fraud and irregularities, but the junta claims the election represents Burma’s first step away from military rule.

Western governments have condemned the election as neither free nor fair, and the junta used new electoral laws, intimidation and imprisonment to ensure that they remain in control of the country.

The junta has been in control of the country since Aung San Suu Kyi’s party the National League for Democracy (NLD) won 80 percent of the parliamentary seats in Burma’s last free election in 1990.

The NLD’s landslide victory took the military junta by surprise and they nullified the results and reasserted their tyrannical rule, which ensured that Burma, once one of the wealthiest countries in southeast Asia, eventually became one of the most impoverished in the region. Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner was released a week after the election, having been detained for fifteen years.

In this election the junta used new electoral laws which guaranteed them a quarter of the seats in the parliament even before the election, and the new constitution banned Suu Kyi, along with many other key pro-democracy figures from participating in the election. The NLD is faced with an uncertain future as they decided to boycott the election and the new election laws stipulate that parties that do not take part in the elections have to be disbanded.

The two main parties that contested the election are both closely linked to the military junta. The Union Solidarity and Development Party is led by former junta members who have recently retired, and the National Unity Party is led by an ex-deputy leader of the military. In addition the structural design of the government ensured that the interior minister, the defence minister and the minister responsible for border affairs must be held by serving generals.

The junta has also detained and imprisoned opponents, closed their offices and harassed members’ relatives. According to a Human Rights Watch report from 2009 there are over 2100 political prisoners in Burma, and over the years millions of Burmese people have fled the country.

The regime continues to use forced labour, and the junta has been accused of committing serious human rights abuses. Most notably, 3000 people were killed when the military suppressed the student-led protest in 1988.
More recently the regime suppressed demonstrations led by students and monks in the autumn of 2007, in an operation which killed at least 31 unarmed civilians.

The junta also actively sought to prevent both international and domestic relief efforts when cyclone Nargis ravaged the country two years ago, killing 150,000. The regime arrested volunteers trying to deliver aid to victims of the cyclone.

Despite the magnitude and the devastation of the cyclone the junta pushed through with a referendum on the constitution the very same month, in which according to the junta 99 percent of the eligible voters turned out, and 92.4 percent voted in favour of the new constitution.

The military junta will remain in power in Burma using retired generals or civilians closely linked to the junta to give the regime a more civilian look.

Many saw the election as Burma’s most significant day in two decades. When Suu Kyi was released from house arrest, thousands of people greeted her outside her home in Rangoon. It is unclear, however, whether her release signals any real change in Burma.

By Jean-Baptiste Carerre

A suicide bomber injured 32 people and created panic in Taksim Square, the busiest area of Istanbul on 31 October. The bombing took place at the Ataturk memorial monument at 10 a.m., targeting a police vehicle stationed on the square. Of the 32 injured, only 15 were policemen, while the 17 remaining victims were civilians passing by.

Akin, who works as a valet at the Marmara Hotel, a palace located on Taksim Square, witnessed the bombing: “I just heard a massive noise and saw smoke coming from the Attaturk monument. People were screaming and running. I ran to see what had happened, and saw people injured. There was a lot of blood and even severed members on the ground.

“I wanted to help, but was stopped immediately by policemen. They said we shouldn’t do anything, and wait for the medics. They arrived very soon and started evacuating the injured. It was all chaotic, and very scary. Everyone was afraid another bomb was going to explode.”

A second bomb could have gone off, since the bomber had been carrying several explosive devices in his backpack but they were successfully diffused by the police.

The entire area was immediately sealed by the police, disturbing traffic in the city.

“As I was heading towards Taksim, I noticed it was even busier than usual,” said Ares Shporta, a student from Kosovo who arrived at Taksim shortly after the bombing.

“When I got nearer, I heard people screaming, and saw a lot of smoke and dust coming from the square. I got alarmed, since I was supposed to meet my mother there but I couldn’t get any closer as the police blocked the whole area around Taksim with barriers. It turned out all alright, with nobody dying, but it still is scary to imagine that one person can block the whole center of Istanbul for hours.”

The attack was partcularly alarming considering the threat of international terrorism currently looming over Western Europe, as Interpol officials declared that France and Great Britain are regarded as potential targets for serious terrorist attacks. The level of security in the two countries, and throughout the continent in general, has been raised.

Several terrorist plots were uncovered in recent weeks, like the plane rigged with explosive from Yemen intercepted in England, or the explosive packages destined for Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi have pronounced the seriousness of these threats.

Even though involvement of Al-Quaeda was at first considered to be behind the Istanbul bombing, since the terrorist organisation had already attacked Turkey in 2003 (targeting two synagogues, and killing 62 people), this theory was soon discarded in favour of the Kurdistan workers’ party (PKK). The attack took place at the end of the ceasefire between the PKK and the Turkish government.

A PKK spokesperson strongly denied any involvement in the attack, stating that they did not want to target civilians, and that they advocated pacifist resolution, even agreeing to a new eight-month ceasefire.

However, further investigations revealed that the bomber, Vedat Acar, was indeed linked to the PKK, having recently travelled through the Turkish-Iraqi border, where a PKK base is known to be located.

Even if the attack is the result of internal Turkish issues, it is still alarming considering the current international climate.

By Lauren Shaw

Last week an attack by armed rebels on a peacekeeping mission was condemned by the United Nations Special Representative to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Roger Meece. Peacekeeping operations have been in full force since this summer’s attacks when, despite appeals to the UN for protection, over 200 villagers in the Democratic Republic of Congo were raped, with victims ranging from elderly women to a one-month-old baby boy. These atrocities were merely the latest in what has been a complex and blood-soaked history for the Congolese people. Survivors of the attack have blamed the FDLR (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda) rebel group which is led by those who fled to the Congo after carrying out the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

A British MP has claimed that the best solution is to appeal to Rwanda for military support, but this solution seems unlikely. A recent leaked UN report has accused Rwanda of wholesale war crimes including possible genocide during the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report claims that the army embarked on a “relentless pursuit and mass killing” of Hutus who had fled to the Congo. Rwanda’s first invasion of the Congo (known then as Zaire) in 1996 was to search for those responsible for the Rwandan genocide who were using the UN refugee camps as bases from which to continue their war against the Tutsi led government . The victims of the invasion were often women, children, the elderly and the ill that were butchered with hoes and axes, bayoneted or burned alive. These attacks are reported as “systematic, methodical and premeditated”.

Accusing the Congolese government of supporting the Hutu rebels, Rwanda invaded again under the guise of national security, but greed and self-interest took over as the conflict descended into the mass plundering of the Congo’s minerals. While the fighting officially ceased in 2003 the exploitation of the countries natural resources continues with the Congolese army and rebel groups such as the FDLR controlling the mines and using acts of violence like the recent rapes as a way to suppress the population and maintain their control. While these acts of brutality ought to receive full attention and media coverage from the West’s influential nations, the sad reality is that these nations are benefitting from the Congo’s resources. Apart from gold, the Congo exports cassiterite (used in laptops), coltan (mobile phones) and wolframite (light bulbs). Many international companies who get their supplies from the Congo directly or indirectly pay the army or rebel groups, with almost none of the profits going to the Congo’s treasury.

The fact that pieces of the Congo are found in our homes, workplaces, and even in our pockets shows that the West must take some form of action to end the injustice. The complexity of the issue means the international community must bring Congolese nationals into the discussions with the intention of re-establishing the Congolese state before the reformation of the mining industry can be achieved. The US should put pressure on its allies Rwanda and Uganda, to whom it gives aid, to cease the destabilisation and looting of the Congo. And perhaps, most importantly, Western nations must pay greater attention to where their resources are coming from and companies who continue to purchase blood minerals should be held accountable. As Global Witness, an international NGO that works against natural resource exploitation, has said “The illicit exploitation of natural resources in [Congo], and the accompanying serious human rights abuses, would not have taken place on such a large scale if there had not been customers willing to trade in these resources.”

By Lauren Shaw

The Global Gender Gap Report, published by the World Economic Forum has shown “a strong correlation between gender equality and a country’s prosperity and economic competitiveness.” The report, which combines five years of data examines the gap between men and women in economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and political empowerment.

Once again the Nordic countries top the list with Iceland remaining in first position since the last report in 1999 and second and third position going to Norway and Finland respectively. Out of the 134 countries included in the report the greatest inequalities between men and women were seen in Pakistan (132), Chad (133) and Yemen (134). The co-author of the report Ricardo Hausmann has stated that “Progress will be achieved when countries seek to reap returns on the investment in health and education of girls and women by finding ways to make marriage and motherhood compatible with the economic participation of women.” It is, however, difficult to say how this investment could be achieved in countries marked by instability, violence and regional confrontations. Even in developed countries such as the UK (15) there is still work to be done. While it ranked highly in the categories of education and health, there is a great disparity between men and women in political empowerment and economic participation. In fact, the UK ranks 78 in the area of wage equality for similar work.

If it is true that gender equality and a county’s prosperity are linked, should a policy of positive discrimination be imposed in the UK and Ireland? The report points out that in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, political parties introduced voluntary gender quotas in the 1970s leading to a large number of female political representatives. Sweden has one of the highest percentages of women in parliament (47 percent). The other Nordic countries also rank highly and have the same positive record when it comes to women in ministerial level positions (Iceland 45 percent, Norway 53 percent Finland 63 percent, Denmark 42 percent, Sweden 45 percent).

However, the idea of imposing positive discrimination to increase female participation in politics and the workplace could in fact fail in its mission to promote gender equality. Firstly is opens up the possibility for a more able man to lose out on a job or promotion in order to achieve quotas. Secondly, it devalues the achievements of women who may be seen to have reached a certain position on the basis of their gender rather than through personal merit. Take for example the “Blair Babes”. These were the women that New Labour pushed to the front of their election campaign. The idea was to promote a New Labour agenda of gender equality. The reality was in fact a cynical and fundamentally patronising treatment of women. In the Labour party, eight women were voted into Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet. This appears to be a sign of a changing attitude until it is highlighted that under the new rules introduced by Labour this year, MPs were required to pick at least six women and six men for the shadow cabinet. Even when women do make it in politics they are often faced with discrimination and sexist remarks. Therefore, whether it be Blair’s Babes, Gordan’s Gals, Cameron’s Cuties or whatever title is chosen for the Miliband harem, it is not enough to push women into positions of power in order to satisfy a statistical requirement. Rather, greater education and a change of attitude are necessary so that the genuine achievements and potential of women are recognised.

By Jean-baptiste Carrere

It doesn’t look very good for the 2010 European Capital of Culture when artists get beaten up with clubs on an exhibition night, but this is what happened in Istanbul last month. Gangs trashed three art galleries and injured several guests.

Tophane, where the attack took place, is a traditional and impoverished neighborhood in the centre of Istanbul. In recent years it has been experiencing gentrification: artists are settling in, galleries are opening, and even the Modern Art Museum was moved there. This phenomenon has consequences for the neighborhood: prices are rising, and the new arty crowd does not share the values of the traditional Muslim residents.

Moreover, the recent decision of the mayor of Beyoglu, the district encompassing Tophane, to destroy numerous derelict buildings – some inhabited – has created discontent among the lower classes.

On the night of 21 September, three galleries organising a common exhibition were attacked simultaneously by gangs carrying clubs, knives, shattered bottles and tear gas. The number of attackers was estimated to be about 40. Two of the galleries were trashed and both hosts and guests were targeted. Several sustained minor injuries, and five were seriously hurt but all were in deep shock. The victims reported that the attackers were shouting about the consumption of alcohol in the street, which became the first clue as to the cause of the attack: drinking on the street is considered a sign of disrespect by the Muslim locals.

Bari, who works at Gallery NON, does not believe it to be the main cause. This young man, who recently graduated from university, received tear gas in his eyes and was clubbed in the ribs. According to him the drinking did not trigger the attack. “It was too well organized,” he said. “They must have planned it for a long time”.

He is convinced that it was the work of extremist Muslim groups that operate in Tophane “sending a message” against the gentrification of the area. “It happened in New York, it happened in London, now Istanbul has to deal with it. And it’s not doing good so far,” he declared.

Indeed, the gap between the new residents and the local people is widening and the attack did not attract a lot of sympathy towards the new crowd. Ibrahim, who works in a restaurant next to Gallery NON said that “Tophane is a good place, a safe place” and that the artists “had it coming”.

Istanbul is the European Capital of Culture for 2010. The events of September may lead to questions about the stability of the city, especially considering Turkey’s aspirations for EU membership. Indeed, even though Ankara is the political capital, Istanbul is the actual face of modern Turkey.

Do these attacks reveal conflicts lying beneath the surface of Turkish society between tradition and innovation? At the very least Turkey should be concerned by the growing cultural gap between its citizens.

By Siri Bjorntvedt

Sweden has long been considered to be among the most open and liberal social democracies in the world, and in 2005 the Guardian deemed Sweden the most successful society the world has ever known. Now five years later an extreme right-wing party, the Sweden Democrats (SD) is on the rise, winning a staggering six percent of the vote in the general election in mid-September. The SD, a party which has publicly stated that Islam is the biggest threat facing Sweden since Hitler, and claims that multicultural societies have never succeeded in any part of the world, now has 20 representatives in the Riksdag, the Swedish Parliament. In the aftermath of the election questions have been raised: is SD’s breakthrough the only logical conclusion of an open and liberal immigration policy which has allowed 100,000 immigrants to enter every year or is Sweden yet another country being swept by the dark blue wave of racism and Islamophobia?

Fredrik Reinfeldt will stay on as Prime Minister of Sweden. Even though his centre-right coalition did not win a majority in the Riksdag, Reinfeldt can stay in office with a minority, as long as the majority does not vote against him. Both the coalition of Reinfeldt and the opposition lost votes in this year’s election, and the biggest winner was the SD. They are now at least theoretically holding the balance of power in the Riksdag between the two main coalitions. This leaves Reinfeldt somewhere between relying on the Green party and appealing to individual opposition party representatives, which might prove a daunting challenge. However, if that fails, the SD could prove to be a dangerous ally or a paralysing enemy.

The Sweden Democrats were founded in 1988, rooted in the neo-Nazi organisation “Keep Sweden Swedish” (Bevara Sverige svensk) and from the beginning there was a considerable overlap between the SD and various neo-Nazi groups. While none of the current SD leaders have any connections to any neo-Nazi groups, many early leaders and prominent figures were closely connected to neo-Nazi groups. In the municipal elections in 1991, 1994 and 1998 SD candidates in several cities were known members of neo-Nazi groups. Robert Vesterlund, a felon and leader of two neo-Nazi organizations was an active member of SD between 1993 and 1995, and was even chairman of the Sweden Democratic Youth, though under a false name. Over the last couple of years SD has attempted to distance itself from skinheads and street-rioting, and claims to be a respectable party. However the SD campaign video was banned from the mainstream media, as it featured an old lady racing burqa-wearing women for government money, while the voice-over claims that “you can slam the brakes on pensions or slam the brakes on immigration”. The ad is on YouTube with over 45,000 views.

One of the most striking features of SD’s breakthrough is the unevenness of their electoral gains; they were strong in some pockets in the south, but barely marginal in the north. One SD stronghold is Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city with a large immigrant population. The city has had a tough year, with multiple riots and gang violence, not to mention it has been terrorised by over 40 separate shootings, mainly targeting immigrants. Most of the shootings took place in or around Rosengård, where about 80 percent of the city’s immigrants live. And it is in the Almgården area, which neighbours the Rosengård estate, that one in three voted for SD.

Sjøbo is another SD stronghold, where they won 15.85 percent of the vote. The small municipality became almost synonymous with racism and opposition to immigration when it passed a ban on accepting more refugees. This ban which came about through a referendum was in place until 2001. Far from being the norm, these two municipalities stand in stark contrast to SD’s failure in the North, as they failed to get any representatives elected in ten constituencies.

While some claim that Sweden had reached a “Muslim breaking point”, Sweden is not singular in embracing radical right-wing populist parties, with an overtly anti-immigration stance. Radical right-wing populist parties are gaining ground all over Europe, and they are in government in Hungary, Switzerland and Italy, and in parliament in the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Belgium, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Greece. Geert Wilders, the controversial leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, has been on trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination, having said that “the Koran is the ‘Mein Kampf’ of our time” and that Islam is out to destroy Western civilisation. However, in the Dutch elections this summer his party won 15 percent of the vote and in Italy the anti-immigrant party Northern League, which talks of eradicating the Roma people, is Italy’s fastest growing party. Most worryingly these parties and movements seem to influence the political debate and other parties, as seen in France when President Sarkozy expelled Romanian Gypsies, and Germany Chancellor Merkel stated that the idea of multiculturalism has failed.

The election in Sweden has proven that even in one of the most open and liberal social democracies in the world an extreme right-wing party can take root. Only the future will tell if SD will be able to exert any political influence and whether it will be a permanent feature. One indication might be the Skoleval, which gives students between the ages of 13 to 17 the opportunity to cast a vote before they can legally vote: the SD won 13 percent of the vote nationwide. The future might be very dark blue in Sweden.

By Kate Rowan

In mid-September I arrived in Philadelphia and the first thing I did in my hotel room was turn on the television. I had been vaguely aware that primaries for candidates for the forthcoming midterm elections would be taking place while I was visiting the USA, but the barrage of cutting, personal and sometimes nasty attacks on opposing candidates made me well aware of what was happening.

Despite being in the state of Pennsylvania, as chance would have it I had selected a local news channel from just over the state line in Delaware. This was how I was first introduced to Christine O’Donnell. Since then many bizarre facts about her past, from dabbling in witchcraft to an anti-masturbation campaign aired on MTV in the 1990s, have been revealed to the world. However, before I knew any of that I was confronted by a “message” backed by her rival Republican candidate and former governor of Delaware Mike Castle. A jigsaw of a face was being constructed while a corny-sounding male voice told us “this woman had not paid all her college tuition” and various other revelations about her shoddy financial records including that she spent $20 of her campaign funds on gas for her own personal use. As the voice-over continued, the puzzle revealed the smiling face of a woman and proclaimed “This is Christine O’Donnell!”

Later, not just the local news channel from Delaware but all the major news channels were reporting on the shock victory of O’Donnell over the Republican-establishment-backed Castle. I was informed that this result had been helped by the Tea Party Movement. I knew this was a grass-roots organisation of the more right-leaning Republicans and that Sarah Palin was a key figure.

This group derives its name from the Boston Tea Party protesters who took a stand against British taxes on their tea in 1773 in the build-up to the American War of Independence. The Tea Party movement of today has many causes but one at its heart is the belief that ordinary Americans are being too highly taxed by the Obama administration.

I spoke with Trinity student Alex Towers who found himself in the midst of the Tea Party movement’s “Restoring Honor” rally which took place in Washington, D.C., on the 28 August. There were numerous speakers but the star attractions were Palin and Fox television host and conservative political commentator Glenn Beck. The event was oraganised by Beck and the Special Operations Warriors Foundation (SOWF) which sounds a bit ambiguous but is in fact a charity which supports former special forces troops such as Green Berets and Navy SEALS. Towers explained, “The rally was incredibly well-organised, even the bottles of water that they had for sale had ‘Restoring Honor’ and ‘SOWF’ printed on them”. The proceeds of all merchandise sold went to SOWF.

Continuing in the area of organisation, Towers was surprised by how quickly and smoothly the event passed. “As soon as it was over, it was like everyone just disappeared, it was a bit like flash mob in that way”. As well as watching some of the speeches on big screens the self-proclaimed “news addict” spoke to some of the rally’s attendees and he told me “they came from a very broad spectrum of American society”. Many of these people were in Washington because they were worried about, as one woman from Sioux Falls, South Dakota said, “Spending, tax hikes, the socialization of our healthcare, the atheist direction our country is being taken, the leftist media hijacking”.

Many of the views and values of the Tea Party supporters seem extremely right wing but Towers said: “As worrying as some of the movement is, I think there is a large proportion of relatively normal, decent, hard-working people that are simply ignorant about the workings of government.” As for being against causes such as national healthcare, “they are against taxation as they feel their hard-earned money is being taken from them at a time of great economic depression and being used to fund things they either have no idea about or are inherently against. I really don’t think there is a true malevolence here. Instead, people are drawn to Washington with the vague worry that somewhere, something is terribly wrong.” There has been huge variation in reports of the figures who attended the rally with pro-Tea Party media putting figures at towards a million and others reporting a turn out of 80,000.

However, the character that perhaps we should be worrying about is Beck who, despite having organised the rally and provided all the information to attendees, says he is not the leader. Towers describes him as a “charlatan and opportunist”. Time Magazine recently painted this conservative activist as “the teary-eyed conspiracy- minded Pied Piper”. During my time spent channel-surfing in Philadelphia I happened upon his programme on Fox News. It involved him explaining various conspiracies relating to the current US government and the “liberal media” using a giant chess set and a blackboard. In one way it was comical, but still rather sinister and I think this is where many have concerns about the Tea Party movement. Also some of their particular beliefs about the media and the merits of Fox News are worrying because the media has so much power to shape preferences, particularly in a country as big as the US.

The Republican establishment are feeling the strain as their candidates such as Castle are losing out in almost guerrilla-style campaigns by Tea Party candidates. On the current home page of the Republican Party website there is a large picture of Palin inviting Republicans “to join her” midterm “victory rallies”. This could show that the Republican mainstream is trying to embrace the Tea Party message in an attempt to gain popularity. Yet there are many who see a gulf developing between the centre-right Republican Party and the further right views of the Tea Party. Could this difference in ideologies lead to the birth of a third major political party in the US?