Category: National Politics

In periods of economic distress, politicians who find scapegoats for the current situation are usually acclaimed by citizens that once might have felt discouraged to vote. However, the rhetoric used works as an attempt of dividing the population in native members and non-native members and minorities (cultural populism); honest members of the working class and big business owners (socio-economic populism) and victims of corruption and politicians (anti-establishment populism). Given that these arguments exploit societal concerns, they may pose a threat to democracy, by claiming that their opponents do not have people’s best interests in consideration and by excluding from “the people” each and every person whose support is not guaranteed.

In the past three decades, this trend has risen exponentially, even in countries with the most solid economies. According to Tony Blair’s global institute, in 2018, there were 20 countries with presidents or prime ministers that were considered populists, as shown in the graph below. Besides this, 40% of Asia’s population is governed by Populists.

Will populism thrive in the pandemic?

Before the global health crisis, the forecasts for 2020 were the continuous bet in dealing with inequalities and environmental issues. Although companies are increasingly investing in Environment, Social and Governance (ESG), that is not governments’ main concern anymore. The world leaders are trying to prevent the spread of the virus while attempting to reduce the economic implications that will arise. It is difficult to measure populists’ responses to this crisis as each country is adopting different policies and their role depends on whether they are in the office or in the opposition.

The graph presented above illustrates the idea that the rise in populism was hastened by the 2008 financial crisis. Research conveys that there is a significant correlation between the level of unemployment and the popularity of these parties. The virus has also helped uncover structural problems, such as an inefficient health care system or a dysfunctional government, which are likely to sustain populists’ arguments.

Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, is an example of a politician that is availing the pandemic to reinforce its position. After declaring a state of emergency, the government started to attribute the blame to illegal migration and eventually arrested students that were legally studying in the country, just for protesting. By taking immediate measures, Mr. Orban gained trust from the population, which allowed him to extend his mandate to an indefinite period to deal with the current crisis.

Another politician who has climbed in polls is Angela Merkel, for imposing mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions, thus controlling the death toll. Jair Bolsonaro, on the other hand, has made declarations underestimating the threat of the virus, just like Donald Trump, and has not taken any protective measures to ensure its civilian’s health, making him lose supporters.

In times of uncertainty, people look for the answers in their leaders. They prefer someone that actually deals with the situations and takes action from the beginning, whether he is populist or not, given that both populist (Victor Orban) and non-populist (Angela Merkel) politicians have surged in approval ratings.

Another factor that might influence the polls is data manipulation that misrepresents the hard times that the country is facing, or even the control of media pluralism. Besides the fact that populists’ arguments dismantle their opponents with ad hominem fallacies, some of these politicians live in countries with a low level of democracy, allowing them to promote their ideals even further, as it is depicted in the graph below.

Will populism stay in lockdown?

Despite the ability that populism has of growing and marching to brand new territories during economic and political setbacks, there are also some particularities in the pandemic that may constrain it.

Firstly, the strategy that most non-populists are using is the inclusion of messages of union in their speeches. The virus affects all social classes, races, ethnicities and orientations and there is no benefit in exclusion as everyone is working towards the same goal.

Secondly, the only way of tackling a problem is by not ignoring its existence. It comes as no surprise that the electorate demands experienced leadership with concrete goals and actions instead of mere comments, when faced with a recession. The anti-intellectualism promoted by some populists may also be in danger as it is not that appreciated when the entire world is waiting for the creation of a new vaccine and relying on doctors and governments to reduce the potential aftermath.

Lastly, with the increase in the level of unemployment and the decrease in aggregate demand, countries will not be able to survive by themselves. In the case of EU members, they will need financial aid from the European Union to combat this crisis, trying to fight the economic fallout. Thus, the nationalism nurtured by populists may no longer be welcome.

What can we expect?

There could be a significant decrease in populism in Europe if European citizens recognize EU’s assistance and realize the importance of inclusion and union, disregarding the priorly felt nationalist sentiments.

There is also the possibility of a second wave of infections. The sudden increase in cases would prove that the previously taken measures were inefficient and would decrease population’s support of their leaders. As the majority of the politicians haven’t got a secure spot in the office, some current populists might lose its power. However, they usually last longer in the government than the rest of the people and this might be an opportunity for a new brand of populists to arrive with an improved rhetoric that meets the new economic challenges.

In 2015 the German Constitutional Court received a request from a group of 1750 german citizens, raising some doubts about the public debt purchase program undertaken by the ECB near its member states, claiming this to violate article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The article states that the ECB does not have the power to directly finance its member states, either through credit concessions or direct purchase of public debt. At the time, the ECB argued the validity of their operations given the legal support from the European Court of Justice.

On the 5th of May of the present year, the German Constitutional Court analyzed once more the 2018 response from the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the doubts raised in 2015 by a group of German citizens, and demanded that the ECB deliver, within a 3 months deadline, an analysis of the proportionality of its monetary policies. That is, the German Court does not question whether the monetary policy undertaken by the ECB violates article 123 of the TFUE, it rather wants to infer whether the public debt buy program complies with the principle of proportionality to which the ECB is obliged to stick. The German judges consider that the monetary policies led by the ECB are followed with disregard towards the consequences that those policies may have, and that this approach constitutes a violation of the principle of proportionality. Until the report is delivered, the German Constitutional Court  has used its power to prohibit the Bundesbank (the German central bank) from buying any more foreign debt and it has even allowed the Bundesbank to sell the securities it is holding, if it wishes to do so.

Germany being the strongest economy of the European Union, the decision taken by the German Constitutional Court represents a serious drawback in the monetary goals established by the ECB. The decision gets even more preoccupying given that currently all Europe is combining efforts in trying to tackle the major economic crisis striking European economies.

While the German Constitutional Court claims to have power over national institutions, the CJUE already condemned the Court`s decision claiming this to seriously affect the European monetary policy strategy and the latter not to have the right to jeopardize or to contradict ECB measures that are backed by the CJUE, given that the principle of proportionality was always taken into account. CJUE also claims precedence in matters that involve the European Union and, therefore, does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the decision taken by the German Constitutional Court. Isabel Schnabel, member of the executive committee of the ECB, said that the public debt buy program will continue to happen, “regardless of the decision of the German Constitutional Court, given that CJUE has exclusive jurisdiction over BCE and its actions”. The fact that European legislation is above national legislations was not a part of treaties, it merely came into play in 1964 when the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided so.

Is this the first time that a member state clashes with EU justice?

This is not the first time there is a clash between national courts and European law. A few countries have sought to mitigate this by enshrining the primacy of EU law in their constitutions. And most national constitutional courts have, at some point, declared that, based on article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, EU law takes primacy over national law as long as it doesn’t violate the human rights protected by their national constitutions. Constitutional courts have addressed these conflicts in different ways.

One alternative is to interpret constitutional law more broadly, so as to accommodate European law. For example, in 2011, the Greek Council of State recalibrated its interpretation of article 14(9) of the Greek Constitution. This article had previously been understood to prohibit owners of media corporations from applying for government contracts in other areas. But the Council of State decided that, according to the European principle of proportionality, this interpretation was doing more than what was necessary to ensure the objective of the law: transparency in public contracts.

The second alternative national judges have is to interpret European law in accordance with their national constitutional law, assuming the former cannot contradict the latter. This is based on the idea that the national constitution protects certain rights and freedoms that cannot be violated by any law, local, national or European. Few cases like this have appeared so far, but several national supreme courts, namely in Germany, Italy and Spain, have asserted that they have the power to review European law in this way and check if it complies with their constitutions.

A third possible alternative is for national judges to convince the Court of Justice of the European Union to change its interpretation of European law, so that the new interpretation is compatible with their national constitution. For example, in Taricco I, the CJEU held that the statutes of limitations in the Italian penal code violated European law, because they harmed EU financial interests (1). The Italian Constitutional Court then asked the CJEU for an opinion, arguing that complying with their decision would force the Italian penal code to contradict the Italian constitution. The CJEU granted their point and clarified their decision in Taricco I in a more relaxed way.

The fourth alternative national judges have is disobedience, or non-compliance with European law as the CJEU interprets it. This is, of course, an option of last resort. It occurred, for example, when the CJEU declared that a Social Security rule in the Czech Republic that gave an old age benefit only to Czech nationals in Czech territory violated the rights of EU nationals from other member states living there. The Czech Constitutional Court decided it would not apply the CJEU decision and would allow the rule to remain unchanged. The arguments were that the CJEU had exceeded its powers and that the CJEU had failed to take into account the historical fact that that rule was related with the dissolution of Czechoslovakia.

While in many cases national and European justice reach a consensus, it is unavoidable that other cases, like the German Constitutional Court one, will continue to happen. Some consider that these persistent challenges towards European Law from national courts undermine the strength and credibility of the European institutions. Others say that the preference from European Law over National one was a severe and non-democratic imposition over its member states. Nonetheless, this is an important question that urges to be answered in order to better define the future of the European Union: What are the limits, if any, that Europe wants to impose over National Courts in their interference on European policies?

(1) The European Union is partly financed by a share of member states’ VAT. The statutes of limitations for fiscal fraud in the Italian penal code, in the CJEU’s opinion, did not give people enough incentives to not commit fiscal fraud, and therefore harmed the EU’s financial interests.

Sources: Euronews, Expresso, Observador, Renascença, EUR-LEX

Taiwan in the Past

The island of Taiwan was first settled by the Chinese in the 7th century AC. Its early history is intertwined with that of mainland China. The Portuguese reached the island in 1590 and named it Formosa, “beautiful”, it was then known by this name in the West for the following centuries. Taiwan was once a colony of the Netherlands and Spain, until mainland China regained control in 1683, under the Qing Dynasty.

In 1895, after the Sino-Japanese War, the island was ceded to Japan, who retained it until the end of the Second World War. After Japan’s defeat, the Allies conferred Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC), a democratic republic that had replaced the Qing Dynasty in 1912.

However, at the time the ROC was fighting a civil war against Communist rebels in the mainland. Even Though the Nationalists, or Kuomintang, led by General Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party of China, led by Mao Zedong, had made a truce during WWII to fight the Japanese invasion, after the war, hostilities resumed. In 1949, after losing four successive capitals in the mainland, General Chiang took refuge in Taiwan and declared Taipei the temporary capital of the Republic of China. He was followed there by two million people – mostly soldiers, members of the Kuomintang intellectual and business elites – and brought with him many Chinese national treasures and much of China’s gold reserves.

Henceforth, Taiwan was ruled as a single-party autocracy under martial law.

General Chiang regarded himself as the legitimate ruler of China, promising to one-day reconquest the mainland. His government retained China’s seat in the UN General Assembly and on the Security Council until October 1971, when both were transferred to the People’s Republic of China. Along with Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to Beijing recognizing the PRC, this marked the end of the ROC’s plans to reconquer the mainland.

In 1987, martial law in Taiwan was lifted, opening the doors to democracy. In 1988, Lee Teng-hui became the first Taiwan-born president. Lee continued democratic reforms and replaced many mainland-born high officials with ones born in Taiwan. He promoted Taiwanese culture and held the first legislative elections in four decades. The old Parliament, elected in 1947, still had representatives of mainland China; the new Parliament only represented Taiwan, acknowledging it had no control over the mainland.

Throughout the 1990’s, Taiwan continued to move towards democracy and away from its territorial pretensions. A constitutional amendment in 1991 designated Taiwan as the “Free Area”, the only area under the government’s jurisdiction.

Taiwan Currently

Despite operating independently since 1949, China still regards Taiwan as a rebel region that they urge to recapture.  Plus, due to Chinese pressure, merely 15 countries have official diplomatic ties with Taiwan, and though the US is not among them, they provide Taiwan with military support, serving as their grand ally and protector. Therefore, the China-Taiwan relationship is somewhat combative. However, it has been improving: transport, trade and communications were restored between the countries in 2008.

Though initially deep-seated in Chinese tradition, Taiwan has been able to move far enough from the Chinese core ideals for them to be differentiated. For instance, even though their official language is Mandarin, they have also developed their own dialect, Min Nan Chinese. Moreover, they have their own currency, and their political system is visibly disparate from the mainland´s.

The current Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, became Taiwan’s first female president, after winning the 2016 elections with 56% of the votes in favour of her traditional, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), 16 years after the party’s first presidential victory. Tsai’s vision has always empowered the idea of an independent, Taiwanese identity, while putting democracy at the country’s steering wheel. 

While Tsai devotes her political involvement to Taiwanese sovereignty, she must mind the consequences of her actions, in order to prevent estranging China, and throwing to waste the 8 years of friendly ties, under the former President, President Ma Ying-jeou.

In defiance of China’s oppression, Taiwan ranks among the world’s leading computer technology producers, with Foxconn Technology Group as its leading firm, netting an income of 4.24 Billion US Dollars in 2018, making it a major economic player in Asia. In addition to that, it has marked its presence globally, as one of the freest places to live, despite the uncertainty surrounding it being an independent nation.

Freedom, according to data, is correlated with the political system – democracies seem to provide freer living standards. In a report done by the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute and the Liberales Institut at the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, the Human Freedom Index (HFI) represents the state of human freedom globally, to what pertains personal, civil and economic freedom. It is estimated that Taiwan has an HFI of 8.4, ranking closely to Nordic countries in terms of freedom; while China merely has an HFI of 6.17, which ranks closer to less developed countries, such as Libya (4.64) and Iraq (4.34). This could be rooted in their different political systems, though other factors contribute too.

Taiwan in the future

Taiwan’s future remains uncertain. The last elections were the result of Taiwan’s will to remain detached from China. Tsai Ing-Wen, the re-elected president from the democratic progressive party, had an expressive victory, in the 2020 presidential elections, over the second favourite pro-China candidate. He is the only hope, for many citizens, to maintain and reaffirm Taiwan’s sovereignty.

China, however, doesn’t seem to give up on Taiwan that easily. President Xi Jinping has already clearly stated that Taiwan’s issue “should not be passed down generation after generation”. China’s plan to finally solve Taiwan’s question seems to be near. Many doubts arise from this desire. How will China accomplish the so-called Chinese reunification, after already having retrieved Macau and Hong Kong territories?

Many say that Taiwan will not be able to manage China’s growing diplomatic and military pressure. Others argue that Taiwan is willing to fight for their recognized independence, at whatever costs. The truth is that military investment from both countries has been growing during the past years: In 2020 Taiwan announced that military expenses would amount to 11.9 billion dollars, roughly 2% of their nominal GDP. China’s army, on the other hand, will have a budget of 180 billion dollars, corresponding to 1,3% of their GDP.

An obvious interrogation arises:

Can we be witnessing the escalation of an unavoidable war?

Sources: BBC, Statista, Taiwan Government Website, CATO Institute, Economist Intelligence Unit, Financial Times, Council on Foreign Relations

Ever since the Saddam Hussein regime fell in Iraq in 2003, Iran been slowly expanding its sphere of influence, which now encompasses much of what it is called Middle-East. In Lebanon, the Iranians have the proxy group Hezbollah, which functions as a party/parallel administrative entity/military group. In Syria, the Assad regime relies heavily on Iranian support, a help which has allowed the government to remain in power despite the civil war, and even allow them to recover lost ground. In Iraq, the Americans ousted Saddam, only for the shias (a sect of islam), which had been persecuted by him, to take power and begin their own authoritarian like rule. Finally, we have Yemen in which the Iranians are covertly funding and supplying weapons the Houthis rebels.

All these proxy groups rely heavily on Iran, which is seen as the Defensor of all the shias and uses that image as well as its resources to support such groups. This, in turn, gives Iran a tremendous amount of influence in the countries in which these proxies operate.

However, most of the sunni (the most popular sect of islam) countries in the region don’t see this growing Iranian influence with good eyes, as it jeopardizes their own influence and security (some of these countries have large shia minorities that would like to oust their sunni overlords).

As such, a coalition has been created to counter this growing Iranian influence, which is being spearheaded by Saudi Arabia. All this clash of interests and hostilities have effectively turned the Middle East for the ground of a Saudi-Iranian style cold war, in which the two sides never use direct confrontation, using instead proxy groups.

One big example of this is Yemen (where this article will be focused). In Yemen, the Saudis have been supporting the Yemeni government, and the Iranians, the shia affiliated Houthis rebels, which has resulted in a brutal civil war which has largely been overshadowed in the media. The civil war started in 2015. Divisions in the country had existed for decades, if not hundreds of years (Yemen, due to its mountainous configuration, has never been a very unified country, lacking the social cohesion and sense of national identity; people identify themselves more with the tribe or community rather than the country).

In very brief overview, the Houthis took over Sana’a, the capital, and large parts of the country, meaning the Yemeni government only controls the southern coastlines making Aden its new capital. Not even Saudi direct intervention with airstrikes, tanks and combat unites has pushed back the Houthis.

However, in the mist of this growing Iranian power, the greatest adversary to Iran is actually the US, which does not want a hegemonic power in the Middle East that could challenge its influence. Because of this, the Americans have mounted a coalition of countries that, even though they don’t see eye to eye, have the same objective: push back against Iran (it’s important to be noted that these countries don’t have any public affiliation nor official agreement).

In Syria and Southern Lebanon, the Israelis are countering Hezbollah and striking Iranian military assets, and in Yemen, the Saudis and the UAE are directly involved. Thus, the Iranian sphere of influence is not yet secure and has been attacked on all sides, which means Iran may seek alternative ways to beat back the coalition, and has identified the weakest link in it: Saudi Arabia. The kingdom is experiencing internal divisions following the reforms and actions of crown prince Salman. Moreover, the country has come rely almost exclusively on oil revenues to maintain the different factions content, and needs the expected funds of the Saudi Aramco (believed by many to be the most valuable not public company) projected IPO to  finance the economic reforms in the kingdom, which will completely restructure the society, and are absolutely necessary to ensure the survival of the Saudis in a post-oil economy.

With this in mind, in the 19th of September a drone strike or missile strike (no one really is sure of the used instruments) occurred against two separate crude oil refineries belonging to Saudi Aramco. The nature of the attacks means that no one can tell where the projectiles came from (giving large plausible deniability to the author). In the aftermath of the attacks, the Houthis rebels took credit for them, however, the strikes where carefully planned with exact precision and advanced weapons, capabilities not demonstrated in the past from the Houthis, which are not known to even possess projectiles capable of breaching Saudi air defences.

A more plausible author is Iran, which possesses all the required tools to conduct such an attack, and the obscure nature of these provide the necessary deniability.

The attacks have made the Saudis delay the IPO, in order to recover the damaged assets, as well as restore the investor confidence. Nonetheless, some loss of the last is inevitable, meaning the value of the IPO will decrease, as it has been exposed to just how vulnerable the assets are. With these attacks, the Iranians have damaged Saudi Arabia and exposed the biggest weakness in the American led coalition, and cornered the Trump administration. Trump cannot seat heddle, risking emboldening Iran and its proxys to carry out more of such attacks. However, Trump cannot risk a direct military confrontation in the mist of the election cycle either. A confrontation that could lead to a costly war where many lives would be taken, and risk the world’s oil supply, which could trigger the next recession.

So, the Americans are cornered, and are expected to resort to more economic sanctions and cyber-attacks, however, these will likely not have the necessary deterring effect. This all means that we are likely to see more of such attacks in the future, which will surely weaken Saudi Arabia and thereby allowing Iran to strengthen their sphere of influence.

All in all, these attacks mark a new strategy of countering its foes by Iran, and mean a new stage for the Saudi-Iran cold war where the Saudis continue to come short to their rival, which now smells blood and will likely take advantage of Saudis’ weaknesses, thereby ensuring the survival of its sphere of influence allowing Iran to be closer to their hegemonic desire.

Since 1949, the Chinese Communist Party has been leading the fate of the Chinese Population. The Republic of China was firstly led by one of the bloodiest dictators the world has ever known, Mao Zedong, and it is currently under the power of President Xi Jinping. Many things have changed during 70 years of communist govern, but many argue that government undemocratic, oppressive and intrusive actions still take place. But how does the government manage to keep its influence near the population? What strategy has the government adopted to watch its inhabitants?

In 2010 the Chinese government started developing a nationwide social credit system that allowed the regime to closely monitor every move its community made. The System was first piloted in 2014.

How does it work?

Each citizen is initially assigned a total of 1000 points. The social credit score then varies according to the behaviour of the individual. Behaviour is monitored by government employees specifically hired to report the community members’ actions to local institutions. Monitoring is compounded by highly complex data analysis technology that, through street cameras, drones, AI – and even rumoured robotic birds – that aids in identifying not only each citizen, but instantly track, rate and record his or her actions. All of the technology required for the system has either been developed for it or was previously being used in private corporations to monitor its workers, despite there being no doubt the Chinese are still developing more capable supporting technologies. 

A big portion of government surveillance is performed through collecting data on Wechat, an app largely used in China. It somewhat resembles a combination of Instagram, Facebook and Whatsapp (since all of these are forbidden by the Chinese Government). Tencent Holdings, the founding and developer company of Wechat, operates under the Chinese Law, which means they apply strong censorship and they augur interception protocols. Wechat has the right to access and expose contact books, text messages and the location of its users. 

In 2016, Tencent was awarded a score of zero out of 100 in an Amnesty International report ranking of technological companies. International Amnesty reported the absence of end-to-end encryption, a system that only allows the communicating users to read the messages. It also reported Tencent’s disclosure towards Government data request.

Foul conduct, extending from speeding tickets, to internal family arguments, to playing too many video games, even to recycling incorrectly, and criticizing national politics, either publicly or via Wechat, translates to credits deducted from the citizens’ scores. 

Positive actions, such as donating money to charities, or buying diapers for an infant, correspond to an increase in scores. It is expected of every citizen, young or old, that they gain at least 2 points per year.

How has the System been received?

The legitimacy of the Chinese Social Credit System is divisive. A study led by Genia Kostka (Professor of Chinese politics at Freie Universität Berlin) concluded that “80 per cent of respondents either somewhat or strongly approve social credit systems, 19 per cent perceive the social credit systems in value-neutral terms (don’t disapprove or approve) while merely 1 per cent reported moderate to strong disapproval.” Respondents perceive the social credit system as an instrument that closes institutional and regulatory gaps, promoting honesty and law-abiding behaviours in society, and not strikingly as an instrument of surveillance. For instance, 72 per cent of survey respondents stated that their purchasing decisions were affected by the social credit assessment of the company offering the products or services. Hence, social credit systems are seen as a helpful means to making things work and improving quality of life.

The international community, nevertheless, does not recognize this Chinese program as a way of improving social habits, but rather as the greatest social experiment ever carried out. For many, it is a clear violation of human rights, with unconsented personal data being collected, and, thus, a serious threat to Chinese citizens.

China’s stance on undemocratic actions and its support for undemocratic regimes, such as the North Korean, reveals the existence of a still very weak democracy in the most populous and, certainly, in one of the most influential nations in the world. Might China be approaching a level of privacy invasion and mass control similar to that in Orwell’s dystopian 1984 novel?