PARLACEN: The Rats Den

What is the PARLACEN?

The PARLACEN (Parlamento CentroAmericano) or CAP (Central American Parliament) is the parliamentary body of the political organization known as SICA (Central American Integration system) whose objectives is to help integrate and develop, peace, political freedom, development, and promote free trade among Central American Countries. However, it has recently been used  as a vessel for former Presidents, elected officials, businessmen, and even the families of these involved parties to escape crime in their home countries. 

The PARLACEN, being an international organization between states, grants diplomatic immunity to those who are members in Latin America, meaning that these politicians are immune for crimes in Central America. With the rare of exception of Honduras, who suspended their diplomatic immunity after Ex-President Porifio Lobo Sosa who at the time was the President of the Honduran National Congress suspended their diplomatic immunity. This is interesting because a few years after that decision, Lobo Sosa's wife, former First Lady Rosa Lobo, was indicted in Honduras for misuse of Public Funds. Lobo Sosa himself has been accused of many crimes and headlines as one of the most recent Central American politicians who has been blacklisted from the U.S. a big first in the country’s history. Lobo Sosa was indicted in the United States for charges of Drug Trafficking, Racketeering, Tax Evasion and more. Even without these protections, it is rare for a country like the United States to prosecute them while they’re international deputies regardless of whether there is clear evidence of a crime because of diplomatic red tape. Countries with charismatic leaders or whose parties control a majority of the government would most of the time not allow a fellow member of that party to be extradited and being a member of the PARLACEN would only make that harder.

What grants them immunity?

The rules of Parlacen are extremely ambiguous, essentially granting the countries the freedom to pursue their own agendas and rules. They base other countries' diplomatic powers on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. What does this mean? The internal rules of the Parlacen allow for the same immunity and protections stipulated in the Vienna Convention if the sending state (the country that sends the deputies) agrees to them. This rule in the Parlacen allows that any elected official (as long as they're permitted) is granted this immunity in Central America. There are exceptions to this, like a host country may ask the PARLACEN to lift or suspend a specific deputies privileges.

As of 2023, each country sends twenty officials, each with a deputy, to the Parlacen. The rules of the Parlacen also state that each elected official is elected the same way they would in their own country. For example, in Guatemala, there is a direct election, while in other countries, primaries are held or in some cases parties will appoint a specific person for the ticket. Furthermore, former heads of states (presidents) of a member country also qualify as members of parliament; however,  this grace period is dependent and given by each individual country. 

Electoral Courts

Most Latin American Countries have within their public administration an entity known as Electoral Courts, which are in charge of overseeing every election. Amongst their powers and responsibilities is this jurisdiction in which they can bend some rules during elections; even if unconstitutional. For example, there has been ruling by these courts to allow private citizens with legal trouble to run for office. This is known as a fuero, here on now referred to as special privileges These special privileges allow the courts to acknowledge this legal trouble, whether domestic or abroad, and still allow that candidate to run for office. Most recently, we see the Tribunal Electoral of Panama rule in favor of former President Ricardo Martinellli,who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison yet still allowed to run because his appeal negates the guilty conviction needed to bar him from the election. While some may be quick to point out how judges can be bought and that judicial accountability is a rare phenomenon in Latin America; I argue that these courts are the most overseen by justice department because, just as they have the right to give you special privileges as a politician or party leadership, they can take it away.

Unethical by purpose or design?

One country who is notorious for using the PARLACEN as a vessel for special privileges is Panama. In 2023, the sons of aforementioned former president of Panama Ricardo Martinelli, whose sons were involved in money laundering, bribery, and illicit enrichment charges in Panama and the United States were sworn in to the PARLACEN as alternate deputies. This means that they get the immunities granted to them by the Vienna Convention, essentially stalling out their sentence. Ironically enough, Ricardo Martinelli himself attempted to leave The Parlacen, at the time calling it “a den of thieves,” However, both international and Panamanian courts found the action rash and unconstitutional.

The Martinelli brothers are not the only Panamanian Politicians seeking this special benefit. Former President of Panama Juan Carlos Varela, who is blacklisted from the United States for alleged involvement in corruption, is also seeking a seat in the Parliament. Varela is facing serious charges of corruption and bribes. Ricardo Martinelli, whom Varela once served as Vice President under, is leading the polls in the upcoming presidential election in 2024 (even despite all of those corruption charges) which for Varela, who is considered a nemesis of Martinelli, means he’s in really hot water if elected. 

During many of these elections, it is often seen in a lot of campaign trails for these politicians, who later attempt to benefit from the special privileges, their disdain for the governmental entity. Martinelli tried to leave the PARLACEN, as did Varela,yet, they did not revoke their privileges as Honduras did. Honduran politicians agreed to leave ability for immunity off the table while Panama still kept theirs. This begs the question: did these politicians foreshadow their future intentions or do they really believe in these anti-corruption methods? Because if they truly believed in the PARLACEN being a den of thieves  and leaving did not work, why not revoke the immunity anyway to deter and avoid the loophole? They do this by mix of saying what they need to win a crowd, and planting the idea in their minds to diminish the shock when they run PARLACEN after leaving office. One of the reasons why they get away with it is a mentality of “nothing is going to change”. A lot of people refer to Martinelli’s Administration with the quote “Robó pero hizo” (Stole but did) referring to the Millions of dollars embezzled from projects and the subsequent bribes that brought his alleged crimes. Furthermore, in a lot of Latin American countries, voting is seen as important; most citizens see the Central American Parliament as a joke entity for thieves, and they don’t actively participate in these elections other than to support their favorite former politicians from the hands of “injustice.”

Panama, however, is not the only instance where we’ve seen this; they’re just the most recent. In 2003 Nicaragua’s former president, Arnoldo Aleman also sought refuge within the Parliament,which ended up stripping him from his immunities and allowed him to be charged in an effort to save its reputation; there are also instances of corruption from Members of Parliament. The former president of the Central American Parliament, Mario Facusee Nadal, was charged with illegally appropriating some properties that belonged to the state. He also once sought to repeal the immunity, with Panama as a co-sponsor.

Conclusion

A lot of politicians and political pundits do not really see the point in the PARLACEN. While its reputation precedes itself, the same people are seen to be claiming it is an institution in which accountability is not enforced. The mission of the PARLACEN is to foster economic and cultural alliance between central american countries. More than three decades later it is now just a question of, is it worth it? Consequently, I believe that there are several solutions that could fix this problem if all parties agree to it.  Firsty, amending the internal rules of the body itself, abolishing this diplomatic immunity, and special privileges that are given to these congresspeople. Likewise, they can also make membership more exclusive by adding a morality or similar  clause barring citizens who have open investigations against them or have been charged with a crime before. The last solution I propose is to abolish the organization. If concern for corruption is high, and there have been efforts to leave the PARLACEN, then I believe this is an option worth considering, while extreme it would make facing accountability in Central American countries easier.

Social Media in the Middle East: A Double-Edged Sword

In late March 2023, three YouTubers received prison sentences ranging from three months to six years for content deemed inappropriate by the Houthi government in Yemen. A court in Sanaa, the capital city of Yemen, found that the YouTubers were guilty of “inciting chaos, disrupting public peace and insulting the Houthis,” according to their lawyer. One of the YouTubers, Ahmed Hajar, posted a video on December 22, 2022, that alleged corruption and oppression by the Iran-backed Houthi regime. Hajar was violently detained by armed rebels the same day the video was uploaded; the other two YouTubers involved in the case were subjected to similarly terrifying and unjust detainments. The recent crackdown on YouTubers is emblematic of the Houthi government’s continuing crusade against free speech. Since its takeover of Sanaa in 2014, the Houthi rebel group has clamped down hard on both the free press and political dissent on social media. “Sanaa has become the heart of a republic of fear,” writes exiled Yemeni journalist Afrah Nasser. Problems around social media and free speech are not unique to Yemen, though. Social media has become an increasingly important tool for activists and youth across the Middle East, but those using it face challenges like the rampant spread of misinformation and propaganda, as well as the ongoing threat of government repression. This article will examine the complex role of social media in the Middle East—both as a platform for connectivity and change and as a battleground for geopolitical conflicts.

Social Media Trends in the Middle East

The people of the Middle East region are some of the most avid social media users in the world. According to the New Media Academy, the average social media user in the Middle East spends over 3.5 hours on social networks per day, which is significantly higher than the global average of approximately 2.5 hours per day. Users in the Middle East also have an average of 8.4 social media accounts each, with those in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) having 10.5 accounts. This is “the highest number of social media accounts per person globally,” according to Forbes. The most popular apps in the region are Whatsapp, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, with TikTok and Snapchat seeing explosive growth in recent years. Twitter is the only app that has seen a recent decline in usage as social media users move to newer platforms and the platform’s functionality declines. 

The benefits of social media in the Middle East are readily apparent: the region has seen massive growth in e-commerce, and social media platforms like Snapchat were useful tools for facilitating the dissemination of essential public health information during the COVID-19 pandemic. But while the ubiquity of social media in the Middle East has positive implications for connectivity and commerce, it has also facilitated the spread of dangerous misinformation in recent years. In 2020, Facebook removed two networks of fake accounts linked to digital marketing firms in Egypt and India because they were pushing false narratives that pitted the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt against Qatar. Twitter has similarly removed hundreds of fake accounts of so-called “experts” that were actually fake personas pushing propaganda. 

Although the problem of misinformation is not unique to social media platforms in the Middle East, it can pose a heightened threat when it is weaponized to tip the delicate balance of one of the many ongoing conflicts in the region. For instance, journalists in the United Kingdom found that the Iraqi terrorist group Kata'ib Hezbollah has established a large social media network and paid vast sums of money to Facebook to boost engagement with its fake news posts. According to the nonprofit Journalismfund Europe, “failure to clamp down on these networks is hugely damaging to efforts to stabilise Iraq and negatively impacts the lives of millions of Iraqis.” While many governments in the Middle East have made legitimate attempts to crack down on misinformation from groups like Kata'ib Hezbollah, some states have merely used misinformation as an excuse to crack down on free speech by citizens, as was seen in the case of the Yemeni YouTubers. The following section will examine the ways that these governments have used social media to advance their interests—often harming their own people along the way.

A New Kind of State-Sponsored Militia

Saudi Arabia has spent the last several years building a bot army—a coordinated network of fake social media accounts used to spread pro-state information. This army has seen action on multiple occasions. For instance, after the arrest of seven prominent women’s rights defenders in May 2015, concerned Saudi citizens started an Arabic hashtag “Where are the activists?” on Twitter to raise awareness about the detainments. Almost immediately after this hashtag began to trend, hashtags labeling the activists as “Agents of the Embassies” and “traitors” were circulated by state-backed news organizations and countless additional Twitter accounts. These hashtags were “pushed” in a highly coordinated way, according to John Kelly, CEO of social media intelligence firm Graphika. Researcher Marc Owen Jones of Exeter University says tactics like this amount to “digital authoritarianism,” a fad that is spreading rapidly in the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Other nations, like Bahrain, have been experimenting with bot armies for more than a decade. An Institute for the Future report found that government-backed Twitter accounts were engaged in “mass identity-revealing and doxing” of critics during the 2011 uprising against the Bahrain monarchy.

Bot armies are not confined to a nation’s borders, though, and they are not the only tactic used by Middle Eastern governments. Some nations have mounted much more complex disinformation campaigns to influence public opinion on global conflicts. Iran, for example, barrages both its neighbors and its own population with propaganda on multiple fronts. A report by ClearSky Cyber Security found that Iran created many fake websites in multiple languages to impersonate legitimate news organizations in surrounding nations. Examples of these include the phony “Yemen Press News Agency” and “Tel Aviv Times”. Iran also steals propaganda from other authoritarian governments, such as Russia, to promote on its pro-state social media accounts and websites. In 2018, an Iranian news source that targets American and European audiences published an article titled "Idlib to become Syria’s final battle with terrorists… if the West stays out of it,” an article that was first published on a website that is a known source of Russian propaganda. 

While tactics like these are incredibly frightening, there is still some good news. “Fortunately,” writes Brookings’ Daniel L. Byman, “Middle Eastern regimes are not at the level of Russia when it comes to disinformation” (hence their need to plagiarize Russian propaganda). Middle Eastern regimes’ efforts to spread misinformation are often “hasty in execution” and easy to spot, especially in unstable nations like Iran. Another piece of good news is that there is already an incredibly strong safeguard in place against authoritarian misinformation campaigns: the youth of the Middle East.

Young Voices of Resistance

The young people of the Middle East are extremely engaged with social media, and many of them use it as a tool for political mobilization. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2020 Beirut explosion, Lebanese activists and youth used social media to share the aftermath of the disaster and appeal to the international community for aid. They later used it to hold their government accountable after it was discovered that it was the government’s failures that had caused the blast. These efforts were successful—millions of dollars of aid poured into Lebanon and multiple government officials resigned in recognition of their role in the tragedy. Youth in Lebanon and across the Middle East are aware of the failures of their governments and remain a consistent driving force for change. 

When it comes to social media misinformation campaigns by their governments, young people in the Middle East remain incredibly vigilant. Although their heavy reliance on social media for news puts them at risk—some 79% of Arab youth say they get their news from social media—81% of teens are aware of the prevalence of internet hoaxes. Many young activists use their platforms to bravely call out government misinformation, despite the risk of punishment from their authoritarian regimes. But the burden of taking on authoritarian regimes on social media cannot fall solely on youth. As Daniel L. Byman writes, “The United States and other democratic governments must improve their technical capacity and, with it, their ability to detect these [misinformation] campaigns.” Social media platforms must also improve their ability to both protect the accounts of activists and to take down accounts spreading false information. Further, these platforms should increase the availability of their data so that independent researchers can study and monitor potentially dangerous activities. Social media has taken on a complex role in the Middle East, and the entire international community must unite to ensure that it remains a largely positive one.

National Pride and a National Healthcare System: The Strikes Defining the UK’s Future

In December of 2022, months of separate public service worker protests spiraled into the largest national health service strikes ever witnessed in British history.. Now, more than three months on since their start, Britain’s National Health Service workers show no signs of stopping as the stakes have only strengthened. At the core of these strikes are key demands by employees that have been routinely denied by the British government. The workers are asking for pay raises due to historic levels of inflation and greater overall funding for the NHS. 

This marks the NHS’ largest strike, and yet the government is still refusing to meet union demands. The government is refusing to meet the pay raises of NHS workers because they claim to be unable to afford it and for fear of increased pay leading to higher prices, thus worsening inflation and raising interest rates and mortgage payments. 

The UK has undergone a ‘cost of living crisis’ since late 2021 which has led to an decrease in British disposable incomes thanks to inflation. Although the government has attempted to aid in this crisis through support packages, such as capping household energy prices, many NHS workers say that this is still not sufficient support. Over 120 NHS trusts are expected to strike, including nurses in cancer wards, A&E departments and intensive care units.

The strikers are adamant that the public understand their need to protest. David Hendy, a 34 year old nurse, revealed his thoughts on the issue: “This job is slowly killing nurses. The nursing workforce in the last 10 years has been through hell and back. We've got through COVID, I've got colleagues who died from COVID. I myself have had it three times…morale is rock bottom.” Hendy is not alone in his experience, after decades of poor pay and the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses are fed up. Despite being publicly supported for their heroism throughout the pandemic, many NHS workers feel unappreciated and ignored. Victoria Banerjee, a nurse for over two decades, stated that "The workload is phenomenal now and our patients are sicker than they’ve ever been.” 

Many nurses feel unable to keep up with the pressing demands placed upon them. There is a resource and staffing crisis within the NHS, magnified by over 25,000 nurses leaving the profession in the last year alone. The staff shortage means that many nurses are forced to double up on shifts and patients, performing unprecedented levels of care. Nurses have expressed their fear at endangering patients simply because they cannot adequately attend to each and every one. Pediatric nurse, Jessie Collins, revealed that “During one of my worst shifts I was the only nurse to 28 unwell children … it’s not safe and we cannot deliver the care that these children need at times.” Nurses on the picket lines have described their working conditions as dangerous and scary and their testaments reveal not just anger, but blatant fear for themselves and their patients. 

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson stated in an interview that “Ministers have had constructive talks with unions, including the RCN and Unison,” however these talks have not led to any sufficient action. The RCN (Royal College of Nursing) have rejected pay deals that do not properly address the impact of inflation. The core argument of the government is one of financial prudence. They refuse to increase salaries given the increase it will lead to in regards to the national budget and its potential to only worsen inflation. 

The National Health Service has played an influential role in the national fabric for decades, ever since its creation in 1948. It is regarded as a source of pride and unity for all citizens, which adds to the intensity of the recent strikes. 

History of the NHS

In 1948, following the devastation of World War II, a recently established Labour Party prime minister, Clement Attlee, set about establishing a radical new system for the British people. Atlee’s government implemented the economic reforms advocated by famed economist, John Keynes, that prioritized nationalizing industries, improving national infrastructure, and developing a welfare state designed to actively take care of three vulnerable groups in society: the young, the old, and the working class. Perhaps the most pivotal creation brought about by the new welfare state was the National Health Service, founded in 1948. 

The NHS did not provide new forms of medicine or care, but it radically transformed the average British individual’s relationship to healthcare. No longer did people pay for healthcare service on an individual basis, instead they paid collectively as taxpayers. The NHS redistributed and equalized the healthcare process, allowing everyone access to care for the first time in British history. British citizens no longer had to worry about affording care or going into debt due to high medical bills. Aneurin Bevan served as Minister of Health under Atlee’s government and was directly responsible for the creation of the NHS. The son of a coal miner, he spent his political career advocating for the working class. His foundational philosophy of the NHS can best be understood through his poignant statement that “Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.”

The NHS continued to grow all throughout the latter of the 20th century despite major economic crises, such as the Winter of Discontent in 1978 and the rise of mass striking and inflation. Developments in healthy living and improved national knowledge surrounding daily health habits brought about lower mortality rates and changes in fatal diseases. The NHS sought to expand their care process and better understand how more external factors, such as diet, exercise, geography, and economic class were playing a role in the health of British citizens. Changes in daily habits and medical breakthroughs transformed people's understanding of the modern medicine and the NHS was capable of. 

The Politicization of Healthcare 

By the end of the 20th century, the NHS was widely beloved and respected for its life-changing impact on the British public; but it was also becoming an increasingly controversial institution in politics, with both Labour and Conservative using the NHS as a campaign and voting strategy. The demand of the NHS seemed endless and the services continued to grow in number, but this constant growth fueled by media and political attention only created a gap in which “what was possible and what was provided seemed to be widening.”

As the NHS continued to grow, so did the political debates surrounding it. Both Labour and Conservative argued over funding and regulation. In particular, many of the debates focused on the distribution of the financial burden to taxpayers and overall distribution of the national budget. Increases in immigration and national health crises became key factors in helping to politicize this institution. 

The British government has been defined by Conservative, Tory rule and a large variety of prime ministers for the past decade. As a result, the changes made to the NHS are rooted in Conservative policies. The recent downfall of the NHS is rooted in over a decade of underfunding from a Conservative government. 

A lack of staff and available resources destroyed the NHS. Waitlists for appointments are now a factor of daily life, forcing many citizens to wait months to receive basic care. This shortage has a death toll; in November of 2022, at least “1,488 patients are estimated to have died in Scotland as a result of waiting too long in emergency departments.” British citizens are dying in emergency rooms because nurses and doctors cannot tend to them with the urgency required but they are also slowly dying at home as they wait for an appointment. Delayed appointments are affecting overall well being according to a survey in which 25% of individuals said the wait for treatment has a “serious impact on their mental health” as over 7.2 million people are currently waiting for treatment. The inability of the NHS to properly support its citizens reveals a profound failure in matters of funding and organization. 

Identity Lost

Viewing the NHS strikes solely as a salary issue does not accurately portray the true issue at large. NHS employees are striking because the system is failing and the UK government is unwilling to help. The inability of the NHS to effectively provide for its patients reveals a far darker issue that goes beyond low salaries and inflation: The United Kingdom can no longer afford to take care of itself. 

The NHS is a tremendous source of pride for individuals all across the United Kingdom. In a recent study by Engage Britain, over 77% of British citizens polled stated that the NHS makes them feel proud to be British. However 20% of those surveyed also revealed that they had been forced to turn to private sector care due to limited appointments and resources. Private healthcare companies are growing rapidly as the “market for private health care in the United Kingdom has doubled since before the pandemic.” The growing influence of private healthcare across the UK demonstrates the dire nature of the situation. 

Perhaps that is why these strikes feel more intense than any other historically, and not just due to record turnout. The strikers are asking for more than a living wage; they are asking for a sense of dignity and pride that they can collectively unite behind, and above all they are asking for a sense of hope. The NHS strikes show a healthcare system that is clearly in shambles, but they also show a nation destroyed and without a unifying identity to rally behind. Even if the strikers and the government can come to an agreement based on each of their demands, it is unlikely that the true underlying issues of the strike will be solved anytime soon.

The World’s Economy Weakens Amid Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014. Ever since, the effects of this invasion have been felt by most – if not all – countries around the world. The Russia-Ukraine war has significantly impacted the economy and stability of many nations that heavily relied on both Ukraine and Russia for trade and supply chains. 

Covid-19, a two-year long pandemic that greatly disrupted global markets and Europe’s economy due to the fact that many were forced to stay at home for an extended period of time, which caused trade and production to slow down, causing the Gross Domestic Product of many nations to collapted. As the continent was resurging from a two year global pandemic that greatly impacted its economic stability, the war triggered by Russia only weakened an already frail economy.

Worldwide, consumers can feel the weight of this conflict that has disrupted supply chains and affected many global markets, more specifically the global energy market. As a response to this conflict, many nations have imposed economic sanctions on Russia, in the sole purpose to economically pressure the country to put an end to this war that had already cost the lives of many. The volatility in European energy markets caused by the European Union  and United Kingdom sanctions on Russian energy - imposed in retaliation for Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February - have cut out a slice out of the continent's economy. 

The disruption of supply chain and trade caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to an increase in the price of many goods, energy, and gas related goods in many European nations, which has created inflation throughout the continent.The reason for such increase in price is due to the fact that many nations were heavily dependent on Russia and Ukraine for many goods. Most importantly, Russia was an important oil and energy trade partner with European nations. Inflation is a general increase in the prices of goods and services in an economy. Inflation affects the economy of a country by increasing the price of food, energy, higher utility cost, while not receiving an increase in wages and higher interest rates on home loans which negatively affect consumers, and thus the economy, as inflation lowers the purchasing power of many.

Inflation is a hard thing to get rid of in an economy. Triggered by the disruption of trade as a consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, policy makers and governments are actively attempting to mitigate the negative effects of inflation on their country’s economy. However, while inflation remains a big issue in Europe and the rest of the world, the energy market is slowly collapsing under the sanctions against Russia.

As a response to inflation, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and other central banks across Europe have aggressively raised interest rates to bring down high inflation. Raising interest rates is an economic policy used for the sole purpose to slow the economy down and bring down inflation. As a result of high interest rates, companies and individuals will cut back on spending, which will naturally bring down the price of goods and services that were previously increased due to the disruption of global markets. 

While interest rates rise around the world, stocks and bonds are being sold off. The reason behind which bonds are being sold off is that when interest rates rise, new bonds pay investors higher interest rates than old bonds, so old bonds tend to fall in price. Inflation caused by political instability  has led to this increase in interest rates as well as stocks to go down, which further highlights the lack of confidence in the economy from consumers, investors, and businesses. In a bear market—stock prices are falling—consumers and companies have less wealth and optimism—leading to less spending and lower GDP.

Households have found it challenging throughout the continent to keep up with inflation. While inflation results from changes in the cost of a market basket of goods, wages, on the other hand, are driven by changes to supply/demand for labor. As the weight of this conflict weighs on the shoulders of consumers and governments, Russia’s current economic and political instability keeps on harming the global economy, while disrupting markets.

While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has greatly disrupted supply chain, trade, and global markets, all of which have had negative repercussions on Europe’s economy, the most important challenge to consider as to this day is the energy crisis that nations have been facing and are currently facing as a result of this bloody conflict. 

The repercussions of the war in Ukraine have "distorted" the natural gas market, leading to higher energy prices. Indeed, natural gas, used to generate electricity and heat, is now about ten times more expensive than it would have been a year ago. Electricity prices, which are tied to the price of gas, are also several times higher than what was considered reasonable. The reason behind such volatility in natural gas prices is due to the fact that Russia is an important producer of natural gas and thus, its role in trade is crucial.  The rise in natural gas’ prices is a fear that Europe will run out of gas this winter. 

On the bright side, governments are actively attempting to stem the energy crisis. European Union countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, are scrambling to fill gas storage facilities to guard against a possible complete shutdown of Russian gas this winter. Governments have also taken steps to secure additional supplies in the form of liquefied natural gas from the United States and other countries. While France and other countries provide financial assistance to consumers, but not enough to offset the dramatic increase in costs faced by households. A wide range of politicians, consumer advocates and even energy executives are calling on governments to do much more.

The European Central Bank, which oversees economic policy for the 19 nations that use the euro, took an aggressive step to fight inflation with its biggest rate hike ever, three-quarters of a percentage point. 

European Union ministers were scheduled to meet on September 9th to discuss a plan to intervene in energy markets in order to control prices. At this meeting, they have discussed strategies that could include price caps and mandatory cuts in energy consumption.

The sharp drop in supplies from Russia, which previously provided about 40 per cent of the European Union's gas needs, has left governments scrambling to find alternative energy resources and raised fears of possible power cuts and a recession. After suffering an increase in the price of many goods amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, citizens of many countries now fear spending a winter in the cold, as the price of energy is going up. 

Nations across the continent are still attempting to fight inflation through different economic policies, the main one being the rise of interest rates by central banks. Although this has proven to be an efficient method to bring down prices and ultimately lower inflation, this method has also led to a collapse in the stock market. Ultimately, nations are attempting to find alternatives for natural gas, alternatives that will be less costly and harmful to their economies. 

Putin, President of Russia, offered the European continent gas through Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream is a natural gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea. The pipeline is a key factor in securing energy security in Europe. For many, this was interesting news, knowing that the country has been reducing gas supplies through Nord Stream 1 for a number of months. While this reduction in gas supplies is affecting many countries, Germany has been the most affected by it, as Russia contributed to 55% of its natural gas. Additionally, the pipelines were damaged, which only further impacted gas supplies, while having a negative impact on the environment. 

Aware of the natural gas shortage that Europe is currently facing, Putin offered Europe gas through Nord Stream 2. Germany, on the other hand, said it would not take Russian gas via the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which has become a major focus of the Ukrainian crisis. Indeed, accepting Russia’s offer now would only go against all of the economic sanctions that were set up against the country to mitigate the repercussions of the crisis that has already affected the world’s economy. While nations seek alternatives to find natural gas, accepting gas from Russia would benefit Putin and his country, as he attempts to gain political power, and economic dominance, amid the war that he started back in February of 2022. 

Political and economic instability persist across Europe as relations with Russia are tense. Economic sanctions against the nation have proven to be effective, even if they are harming the world’s economy in the short run, through the disruption of global markets that have weakened the economy of many European countries. In the long run, the economy will self-adapt to these new changes in global financial markets, but in the meantime, governments are attempting to find in which they can alleviate economic and political tensions, in the sole purpose to achieve economic prosperity while improving relations between Russia and its trading partners.

As of today, it seems as if the future of Europe lies within the hands of Russia. The country’s next steps in this crisis will ultimately affect the economic and political stability of neighboring nations. Until Russia puts an end to this war, the world will feel its negative  repercussions. 

Iraq at an Impasse

On August 29th, Muqtada al-Sadr, an influential Iraqi politician, tweeted “I hereby announce my final withdrawal” from politics. Several hours later, his followers had stormed the Green Zone (home to foreign embassies and many government facilities in Baghdad), resulting in a confrontation that led to the deaths of almost 20 people. The violence only ended at the demand of Sadr himself, who publicly rebuked his followers for their actions. 

This outbreak of violence was not random - it had been brewing for months as Iraq descended into political chaos in response to failed negotiations aimed at forming a government based on the national election of October 2021. The political scene in post-ISIS Iraq has largely been dominated by Iranian-backed militias and their affiliated political wings. These militias, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, have organized themselves into an electoral alliance known as Fatah. In the leadup to the 2021 elections they were the second largest party - after Sadr’s - and many analysts expected them to retain their strong position. 

In a surprising turn of events, Muqtada al-Sadr’s party won the most seats, with Fatah falling dramatically to become only the fifth largest party. The election was marked by low turnout, with many parties - including Sadr’s at one point - announcing a boycott. These elections are particularly notable as they were originally scheduled to occur sometime in 2022, however in response to widespread protests, Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi called for early elections in June of 2021, before ultimately holding them in October. 

Sadr and Fatah both largely compete for the votes of Shia Arabs. However, Fatah represents those often religiously conservative Iraqis who prefer closer ties with

neighboring Shia Iran. That is not to say that Sadr is Western aligned or secular. In fact, Sadr comes from a long and influential family of Shia clerics. What sets Sadr apart is his deep commitment to Iraqi nationalism that places a heavy emphasis on removing all foreign influence from Iraqi politics. Part of his notoriety comes from the fact that he led the ‘Mahdi Army,’ a Shiite insurgent group that targeted American soldiers during their occupation of Iraq. Many feel that he has given voice to the many Iraqis who resent the growing influence of Iran in Iraq. While many Iraqis welcomed Iranian aid against ISIS, they are uncomfortable with the continued presence and influence of Iranian militias. While Sadr and his followers had won the most seats in the October elections, forming a functioning government was by no means a guarantee. 

Iraq is a parliamentary republic with a president as head of state and a prime minister as head of the government. Sadr, while taking the most votes and seats, needed to form a coalition to enter government. A simple parliamentary majority is required for the appointment of a prime minister. Filling the post of President is a much more complicated task that requires ethnic consideration. In the post-invasion era the president of Iraq has always been a Kurd, an ethnic group that inhabits the northern part of the country and makes up between 15-20% of the population. The Kurds have their own autonomous region with their own local government and political parties. 

In order to form his coalition, Sadr first reached out to the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the largest of the Kurdish parties. After reaching a tentative agreement with the KDP, Sadr then worked out a similar deal with influential Sunni Arabs as well. This multiethnic alliance theoretically should have secured Sadr a majority, and a functioning government.

But his opponents, Fatah chief among them, were desperate to stymie his efforts. They delayed votes and appointments by months, usually through byzantine legal processes, but occasionally by force as well. 

After months of failure, Sadr abruptly instructed the MPs aligned with him to resign from the parliament. 73 lawmakers suddenly resigned, making it almost impossible for any coalition to reach the numbers needed to form a government. Sadr had hoped to spark a mass resignation beyond his bloc, triggering another set of elections. Sadr and his followers were further enraged when instead of dissolving in order to facilitate early elections, the Iraqi Parliament swore in new members. Iraqi electoral law requires that if a member resigns, they are to be replaced by the candidate with the second most votes in their district. In effect, the resignation of the Sadrist bloc resulted in the swelling of Fatah (and their allies) to a majority of 122 seats. 

The final straw came in August of 2022, when Sadr’s mentor, Ayatollah Kadhim al-Haeri, publicly announced his retirement from what is usually a lifetime religious position and asked his followers to look to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for guidance. This was tantamount to a significant and unexpected rebuke of Sadr that in turn led to his resignation from politics and in turn pushed thousands of his supporters to riot in the heavily protected streets of Baghdad, even going so far as to storm the parliament building itself. 

After ten months of deadlock that had failed to result in a government and riots that led to more than twenty deaths and hundreds injured, Iraq finds itself still without a government and in uncertain territory. The one thing that is for certain though is that this

is not a sustainable state of affairs. The Iraqi people have suffered without a reliable government to provide services, and are rapidly losing faith in their country's leadership. Experts are divided on what a post-Sadr Iraq will look like - on whether it will open a vacuum for Iran and its proxies, if a new movement will replace the Sadrists, or if Muqtada al-Sadr is even being honest on his intention to retire. Regardless, the precedent of armed parties influencing the formation and process of government does not bode well for the future of Iraq. While the elites and foreign powers fight each other, the Iraqi people will continue to pay the price. 

Iraq deserves a better future after decades of suffering under dictatorial rule, warfare, and sectarian violence. It deserves a better class of politicians - better than Sadr or his opponents - it deserves non-sectarian public servants dedicated to improving their country. The status quo of the last few years, and the last few months especially, is unsustainable for the Iraqi people, and either the system changes - and soon - or it will break.

Make way for the King: Saudi Arabia’s Destructive Modernization

A European tourist visits Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to see the setting sun on the Red Sea and the city’s unending amenities. Driving along the highway is a blur of luxury. Wide, smooth paved roads pass by palm trees, street lights, and pedestrian pathways. Bold steel buildings jut toward the sky demonstrating the excellence of modern Arab architecture. In a square below, men and women congregate separately for the start of a music show. The city feels like it’s from the future, everything is planned. Walking along the streets, the tourist feels the pulse of Jeddah. Men wear the traditional ankle-length robe thawb with gold Rolexes and women wear the abaya in delicate silk that cover their bodies while showcasing their wealth. Modesty and exorbitance live alongside each other here. This is Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman (MBS)’s vision for Jeddah and for Saudi Arabia.

Tourists typically do not venture past the sterile limestone boulevards near the sea, but past the luxury and modernity, al-Kandarah sat. Once with the hope of becoming the next posh district of Jeddah, by 2017 garbage accumulated, water pipes broke, and buildings were abandoned. Today, al-Kandarah is rubble. This is the same story for much of the old towns of Jeddah. Among the goals of MBS’s Vision 2030 is his hope to diversify the Saudi oil-based economy to include tourism. He believes that the cracked stone façade buildings belong in the city’s past. Authorities say that the demolition of these neighborhoods is to create new areas which have proper infrastructure, amenities, and are not criminal hotspots. This reasoning follows the Kingdom’s promotion of a unique family-friendly tourism style. These residential neighborhoods, such as al-Kandarah, will be replaced by flashy art-deco apartments and retail spaces, green parks, and entertainment venues. With the fantastic modernity of MBS, what in Jeddah is lost?

In February 2022, a Twitter video circulated of a young Saudi woman walking around al-Saghr, her soon-to-be demolished neighborhood. For forty-five seconds she waves “goodbye” to the homes of her family and friends. The video ends with her message to al-Saghr: Farewell Al-Saghr, for what it contains of hope, loved ones, and neighbors. Farewell to those who taught me belonging, love, and adoration. Goodbye to the past buried among the rubble of dust.” The woman dares not show her face in the video. Her hand waves in defiance against a vision for her city which excludes her. 

The demolitions which started in October 2021 affect 60 neighborhoods and 558,000 residents, reported Amnesty International (AI). “A Jeddah Municipality document shows that project plans were finalized almost three years ago, yet the Saudi authorities failed to engage in a process of genuine consultation with residents” said Diana Semaan, AI’s MENA Acting Deputy Director. Some residents were only given 24 hours to leave after red spray paint on their doors told them to EVACUATE. Without providing proper time to residents, Saudis have become “refugees in their own country” as a Twitter user put it, posting a video of Jeddah’s newly homeless sheltered under a bridge with their surviving belongings. A displaced Saudi doctor, who wished to remain unnamed for fear of government retaliation, said that it is still unclear when or if he will receive compensation for his property’s destruction. The same went for a businessman who had invested in residential and commercial properties in Jeddah for them to be torn down only two months later.

Due to a history of repressive government control, finding residents willing to speak honestly about the demolition’s impact is difficult. In 2020, another of MBS’s grand projects displaced 20,000 people for the construction of the futuristic vacation-city, Neom. Among the displaced, Abdulrahim al-Huwaiti refused to be silent, posting a video to the internet criticizing the government. A day after the video was posted, al-Huwaiti was killed by Saudi special forces. Despite the strong threat posed by the Saudi government, citizens under anonymous usernames have posted Twitter videos and messages with the #hadad_jeddah (“Jeddah_demolition” in Arabic) denouncing the injustices.

The government portrayed the neighborhoods as criminal dens and slums, but residents suspect that the neighborhoods were targeted because “they are home to different nationalities” and, alike Jeddah itself, are socially liberal. Compensation schemes exclude foreign nationals, which make up 47% of the evicted population. Exclusion and discrimination of foreign nationals is a common story in Saudi Arabia. The labour system called kafala allows Saudi companies to employ foreign workers without adequate accommodations, and below the national minimum wage. Additionally, any worker who attempts to leave their job without consent face imprisonment and deportation. Possibly it is not buildings nor architecture that do not fit into MBS’s Vision 2030, but it is the people, themselves, that must go.

Among the MBS’s goals is to increase non-oil government revenue from SAR (Saudi riyal) 163 billion to SAR 1 trillion. He emphasizes the importance of diversifying the Saudi economy beyond oil by investing in the creation of logistic, tourist, financial, and industrial zones. Vision 2030 states that the Kingdom will “create attractions that are of the highest international standards.” For Vision 2030 to be a success from the eyes of the crown prince, Saudi Arabia must become a place that is viewed from the outside with admiration. The Vision 2030 Document reads much as a wish list to create the perfect vacation spot as it does to create a well-functioning, stable economy and society. Despite its recent forays into relaxing the stringencies of daily Saudi life, the Kingdom still remains far more conservative than its neighbors. Tourism marketing has promoted Saudi Arabia as a “family-friendly” tourist destination. “[Saudi government officials] with more moderate viewpoints see this as an opportunity to encourage more reforms in the future, as the presence of foreign tourists introduces more conservative elements of Saudi society to the potential benefits of adopting certain outside influences” while conservative constituencies appreciate that the effort will focus on the family, writes Kevin Newton, the founder of Newton Analytical, a consulting firm specializing in MENA affairs.

As the Saudi government begins to cater itself to a greater quantity of foreign national tourists, it will have more incentives to lessen the strictness of daily life. People will not be satisfied with the luxuries of the cities if they also feel the repressive hand of the government on their shoulders. Naturally, freedoms of expression and behavior would need to be extended to tourists, because if people believe that Saudi Arabia will be hostile towards them then they will not bring their business. This process has gradually already begun, despite push-back from conservative elements of the country. In 2017, cultural events such as a packed musical performances in Riyadh and Comic-Con in Jeddah, which had been outlawed, were given permission to occur in the Kingdom. “What we aim to do is create happiness,” said Ahmed al-Khatib, the Chairman of the General Entertainment Authority (GEA). A year prior, the government declared that the Mutaween, a religious police organization which harass women to remove nail polish, cover their hair, and, in an extreme example, prevented 15 school girls from fleeing a burning building resulting in their death because they did not wear proper Islamic dress, become more “gentle and kind” in their conduct. All of these changes are a ringing dinner bell to a whole host of policies which will create a more open society if just for the sake of visitors. 

Although the Saudi government’s incentive to socially liberalize comes from tourists’ sensibilities, as the Saudi economy becomes more dependent on tourism and entertainment revenue, it too will become more dependent on its Saudi hospitality workers and their sensibilities. The threat of government violence will still be present, but any suppressive actions would create more anger by the working class populations who are most subject to strict law enforcement. In 2019, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) reported that travel and tourism comprised 9.8% of Saudi GDP. In the same year, tourism totaled 12.2% of Saudi employment. As MBS continues to accomplish his goals within Vision 2030, both of these numbers will rise. Hospitality workers in Saudi Arabia will gain significant bargaining power to demand more freedom, economically and socially. They will become participants in the economy who will have a voice— whether the government wants to listen or not. No longer will they be subjects to the throne under current petroleum-based rentierism. 

Economically empowered by tourism, dissatisfied Saudis will have leverage to protest the government’s inevitable toe-stepping. If the kingdom wants to develop a strong “family-friendly” tourism sector, they have incentive to accommodate their citizens. The horror stories from Jeddah’s neighborhoods turned rubble cannot coexist with the international tourism market. More visibility from visitors and leverage in the hands of workers may make Saudi Arabia look very different in 2030; MBS may not like it.

Green New Champions

While fossil fuel companies and politicians often blame individuals for their carbon emissions and plastic straws, environmental issues are upheld by the lasting effects of industrialization and colonization and perpetuated by systems of oppression. As fires plague entire countries, global temperatures rise, and communities remain without clean water, government policy is the most efficient mechanism for change.

Countries such as Argentina, Poland, Indonesia, and Tanzania engaged in climate protests throughout the month of January. Coordinated events by Fridays for Future brought out protesters around the globe, and people spoke out with criticisms of various environmental policies. These continued into February, and Sweden, Peru, France, and Serbia were brought into the picture. On March 25th, over 700 youth climate strike protests took place worldwide, and one billion people took part in Earth Day this April. As stated by a supporter of the UK Extinction Rebellion Movement, “This has to be the biggest year yet for climate protest.” 

In 2019, Senator Markey and Representative Ocasio-Cortez introduced H.Res.109/S.Res.59. This resolution acknowledged human activity as “the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century” and climate change as a catalyst for mass migrations, wildfires, and deadly heat stress. It noted that there will be “more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100,” and moreover, BIPOC and low-income communities will be disproportionately affected. People, infrastructure, and industry will take a massive blow without major changes in policy, and with this in mind, 14 Senators and 101 Representatives officially recognized “the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” A new vigor was brought to the movement for environmental justice. 

The Green New Deal calls for supporting community projects, updating infrastructure, upgrading renewable energy sources, building energy-efficient power sources, investing in clean manufacturing, working with farmers and ranchers to decrease pollution by the agricultural sector, restoring biodiversity and natural ecosystems, cleaning up hazardous waste, and promoting international collaboration on climate issues. It includes a lengthy section about how jobs and education intersect with these environmental goals, and it recognizes a variety of equity issues. In the past few years, however, the Green New Deal has been criticized for being “too broad and not specific enough.” To dissolve any blurry areas and rejuvenate the energy behind the 2019 resolution, a new environmental pledge was released in March. 

The Green New Deal Pledge

The general idea of the Green New Deal Pledge is for officeholders to actively push for progressive climate legislation, organize their colleagues to join the fight, and publicly advocate for the Green New Deal. More specifically, there are nine bills beyond the Green New Deal Resolution that pledges must co-sponsor within six months of their swearing-in, and they must abide by a contribution policy.

That contribution policy is for each pledge-taker to “reject contributions of over $200 from oil, gas, and coal industry executives, lobbyists, or PACs,” and the essence of this standard is to ensure that political loyalties lie where they should: with the constituents. When Senators and Representatives are propped up by fossil fuel corporations, entire movements can stall. For example, Joe Manchin, who helped stall the Build Back Better Act, had “between $1.4 million and $5.8 million held in coal companies” in 2020. Taking it back to 2019, the “combined fossil fuel contributions to ‘no’ votes against [the] Green New Deal resolution” was over $55,000,000. As shown in the past few years, big oil, gas, and coal companies are responsible for regulating big oil, gas, and coal companies. In order to hold so-called “climate champions” accountable, the pledge requires officeholders to detach their strings. 

On the topic of fossil fuels, one of the bills that must be co-sponsored is the Keep It in the Ground Act, which “eliminates new fossil fuel production projects on federal public land and waters.” It prohibits the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from renewing or authorizing fossil fuel projects, but there are a couple of exceptions involving national security and specific legal restrictions regarding contracts. While the United States is highly reliant on fossil fuels at this point, policymakers must be conscious of the long-term effects. The use of fossil fuels results in land degradation, water pollution, and ocean acidification, and according to the International Energy Agency, no new fossil fuel projects can be implemented for the world to have even half a chance at reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. However, as Senate sponsor Jeff Merkeley stated, “affordable and reliable technology exists to gradually transition to clean energy and clean transportation.” His proposal would be a major win for progressives, and the planet.

Another bill listed in the pledge is the Environmental Justice for All Act, which would “address the disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects of federal laws or programs on communities of color, low-income communities, or tribal and indigenous communities.” Notably, the infrastructure that distributes fossil fuels is often built in areas that impact communities with little socio-political power. For example, in regard to tribal and indigenous lands and resources, the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) near Standing Rock would contaminate the reservation’s sole source of freshwater; the Line 3 Pipeline would harm aquatic ecosystems; the Keystone XL Pipeline would have threatened ancestral homeland with dirty tar. Additionally, BIPOC and impoverished communities are often the ones most affected by chemicals and toxic materials. Flint, a city that had dirty water for years, is 57 percent African-American with 41 percent of the city under the poverty line—but although Flint is well-known, other communities are facing similar struggles. A journal article published by Nature Communications stated that “water hardship is spread unevenly across both space and society, reflecting the spatial patterning of social inequality due to settler colonialism, racism, and economic inequality in the United States.” Furthermore, when these communities are affected, it takes longer for the problem to be solved than wealthy, white ones, as evidenced by the degree of post-wildfire cleanup and rebuilding. Climate inequality is already prevalent in the United States.

The next bill, the Civilian Climate Corps for Jobs and Justice Act, would create a climate service program “to help communities respond to climate change and transition to a clean economy.” This Act would not only assist with the completion of federally-funded projects—reducing carbon emissions, transitioning to renewable energy, responding to climate disasters, and launching conservation projects—but it would promote equity. Over 5 years, 1.5 million Americans would each receive “compensation of at least $15 per hour, full health care coverage, and critical support services such as transportation, housing, and childcare,” and corpsmembers would be eligible for educational funding. Plus, the bill would include tribal sovereignty protections and funds, and career pathways would lead participants towards green sector jobs. As previously explained, addressing climate injustice is a major part of the environmental movement, and this bill would be a step forward on that front.

The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act would also create up to 240,000 union jobs per year while reducing annual carbon emissions to “the equivalent of taking over 1.2 million cars off the road,” and it would alleviate issues like “mold infestations, lead contamination, poor indoor air quality, and unsafe temperatures.” Additionally, the bill would reduce the costs of water and energy for residents while transitioning to energy efficient, zero carbon housing, and it would showcase how the economy and climate action can be positively intertwined. 

Another bill required through the pledge is the Green New Deal for Cities, which would have the Department of Housing and Urban Development fund projects by states, local governments, and Native American nations. To receive funding, the government must have a local Green New Deal program proposal that includes commitments such as working towards zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and the money would be for solutions to issues like climate adaptation, pollution, and conservation on family farms. Especially due to varying levels of familiarity with local issues and resources, it is critical for all levels of government to collaborate on environmental response. The Green New Deal for Cities would allow that to happen, and it would embolden a stronger network of advocates.

Next, the Farm Systems Reform Act would help give family farmers and ranchers a better chance within a system that favors multinational meatpacking companies. One key part of this bill would include strengthening the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 that regulates the meat industry “from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory and monopolistic practices.” The newer bill would “place a moratorium on large factory farms, sometimes referred to as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements.” To examine the broader picture, large CAFOs create massive amounts of waste—as much as 1.4 billion tons each year—and they are not required to upkeep a treatment facility for that waste. Large CAFOs also cause water pollution that harms not only the environment, but the health of rural communities, and “The overuse of medically important antibiotics by large CAFOs has led to the generation and spread of dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria.” Additionally, research has shown that air pollution stemming from animal agriculture causes 12,720 deaths in the United States per year. The industry has been accused of supporting profit over people, and this bill seeks to address that.

The Green New Deal for Public Schools Act would offer environmental and educational resources to children at public elementary and secondary schools, as well as Bureau of Indian Education schools. The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would provide grants to help convert their facilities into zero-carbon schools, and the Department of Education (ED) would award grants for hiring and retaining teachers and staff in high-need schools. The Climate Change Resiliency Program would be created under ED, helping to “increase the resiliency of public and BIE schools during climate change-related events, natural disasters, and public health crises,” and a similar grant program for state educational agencies would be established. This bill would also create the Office of Sustainable Schools within ED to carry out the administrative process of these tasks.

The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development and Generating Renewable Energy to Electrify the Nation’s Infrastructure and Jobs Act, more succinctly known as the BUILD GREEN Infrastructure and Jobs Act, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a substantial grant program for governments and other entities to invest in “electrified surface transportation infrastructure projects.” The bill outlines specific elements of maximum-sustainability projects, and it instructs the DOT to prioritize vulnerable communities and new outdoor areas. In terms of costs, grants must be at least $2 million, with certain exceptions, and a project “may not exceed 85% for planning, design, and construction purposes and 50% of the operation and maintenance costs of the project for its first 10 years.”

Finally, the End Polluter Welfare for Enhanced Oil Recovery Act is a short one, and the overall purpose is to eliminate “the use of carbon oxide as a tertiary injectant” and repeal the tax credit “for enhanced oil recovery costs.” The bill would decrease federal support for fossil fuel projects and remove a financial burden on American taxpayers. It would update royalty rates for oil and gas production, reoccupy royalties from offshore drilling, and reconstruct bidding and leasing practices for coal development on federal property. It would also help fund medical care for “tens of thousands working-class Americans” by maintaining the Black Lung Disability Fund. Within 10 years, the United States will “account for 60 percent global growth in oil and gas production,” but this legislation would help prevent more damage caused by special interests.

Responding to the Climate Emergency 

In 2022, there is irrefutably a climate emergency. The Green New Deal Pledge would create new leaders, or “champions,” of the environmental movement in the United States, and the bills themselves would affect not only Americans, but the rest of the world. While passing the original Green New Deal would be valuable, the health of our planet is declining exponentially, and we need specific steps to take as a united front. That is what the Green New Pledge is designed to do. 

Some people have said that passing the “Green New [Anything]” is far-fetched. However, almost 5 percent of Americans would “willingly participate in civil disobedience” to demand climate action, Data for Progress found that “More than 65 percent of likely voters support Green New Deal measures for cities, public housing, and school,” and already, 71 candidates and 22 elected officials are listed on the official website as having taken the Pledge with almost 50 groups as partners.As time goes on, an increasing number of people are understanding that their lives are on the line, and building a coalition committed to strong environmental advocacy is critical. Taking this Pledge is an expression of government responsibility and accountability, and ultimately, taking the greatest strides to protect this planet is not a “radical” path forward.

Neglect of Public Housing Has Harmful Consequence

Public housing became a critical part of American social infrastructure after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the first public housing units for Americans outside of the military. Prior to this expansion, public housing was only offered to members of the U.S. military. Economist and legal scholar Richard Rothstein wrote in his book “The Color of Law” about the pattern of systemic segregation in public housing since President Roosevelt started the program. The first Department of Housing and Urban Development authorities on public housing directly asserted segregationist policies when it came to who can rent public units. The Secretary of the Interior under President Roosevelt—Harold Ickes of the Chicago NAACP—pushed to create public housing units for people of color. However, these policies pushed African Americans together, which gave politicians the ability to directly impact majority-minority communities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination in the housing market and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 attempted to increase access to housing. Despite these laws, minority populations are continuously hurt when public housing is neglected. Even if one does not support public housing, it is undeniable that millions of Americans rely on the program, and vulnerable populations would be hurt the most if the program was gutted. The American government has significantly diminished the funding for public housing since it’s implementation in the early 20th century, and the pattern of neglect comes back to hurt disadvantaged populations.

History of Public Housing

Public Housing originated in 1937 and has faced opposition since. The Housing Act of 1937 authorized construction of the first public housing units and then the act was reauthorized in 1949. However, with conservative opposition to government assistance, President Nixon halted all public housing programs in 1974. In 1992, the HOPE VI program destroyed thousands of units and displaced or evicted all of those residents. The pattern of demolishing public housing units continues into the present day; according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 200,000 homes have been demolished since the 1990s. The Fair Cloth Amendment of 1998 set a limit on how many new public housing units could be created, a policy that the Biden Administration is looking to repeal. Currently, 950,000 Americans rely on public housing, and that number is increasing due to the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic as 915,000 families were served in 2019. One qualifies for public housing if they make less than 80% of their local median income. Of the residents who live in public housing, 47% are located in areas that are in high poverty areas; 56% are elderly or disabled; more females than males live in public housing by 30%; the largest age group in public housing is under 18; two-thirds of residents in public housing identify as either Black or Latino. Those living in public housing pay a base rent of $50, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has two funds to subsidize the difference between the rent payments and market price. The first is the Public Housing and Operating Fund, which covers the differences between rent and operating cost of the unit, and the second is the Public Housing Capitals Fund, which exists for covering renovations and development. However, the funding for both accounts has been decreasing throughout the past decade, and it means that renovations on the aforementioned tenants and placement of new ones are backlogged.

Diminished Funds

President Biden made the improvement of public housing a legislative goal for his administration but has already encountered difficulties. Through years of turning a blind eye to public housing, more resources are required to catch up to the damages previously ignored. President Biden proposed $40 billion in a new bill for public housing and an extra $300 billion for public housing in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. However, Republicans have cut that $300 billion to $100 billion already, and there are major drawbacks for municipal governments. For example, New York City only received $26 billion to improve their housing units, after requesting $32 billion. Therefore, the city was not able to complete all of the construction that the municipal government intended to.

For the 2021 fiscal year, HUD under President Trump and Dr. Ben Carson received a $2.8 billion budget for the department. The majority of the funds went to safety initiatives: $35 million to remove lead paint, $45 million for grants to improve unit safety, $5 million for radon tests, and $35 million for inputting new CO2 detectors. Additionally, the budget cut funds for both the Public Housing Operating Fund and the Public Housing Capitals fund by thousands of dollars but increased funding for self-sufficiency funds to $190 million. Money from the aforementioned housing funds was reallocated to “Move to Work Programs,” which test innovative housing policies but tend to leave behind the residents. Lawmakers prefer to subsidize housing, to extend choice but also decrease government involvement in public housing.  

Primary Experiences in Public Housing Units

Narratives about creating self-sufficiency undermine the experiences of public housing tenants and put forward the implication that they do not work hard enough to warrant government aid. To combat this narrative, The Washington Post shared a moving story of a man who once worked as a flight attendant and musician, who suffered heart attacks and strokes and now lives in New York City public housing. His home has several large holes in the ceiling, and with the stormy weather of a coastal city, there is severe damage to the inside of his home. This man worked hard, and faces uncontrollable health battles, yet is neglected rather than assisted. Residents in public housing have spotted urine and feces spread throughout the hallways, they have difficulty securing new appliances, and children encounter violence daily. One resident discussed the difficulties to procure basic home maintenance in Narratively Studio’s article on life in New York City public housing. She had to call city hall to get the contact information for the unit’s maintenance service, and then call the maintenance office and schedule an appointment. Additionally, due to disorganization, the repairmen did not show up to the resident’s scheduled appointment, causing the tenant to argue with the municipal government. This is not an infrequent occurrence. Most who do not live in public housing simply fill out a form online, and could not imagine the bureaucratic barriers to simple maintenance requests. However, life in public housing is not all bad, and it perpetuates a harmful stereotype to believe that one cannot have a fulfilling and happy life in public housing. That stereotype is far from the truth. For example, some tenants discussed the sense of community that they felt within housing projects. Since those living in public housing faced similar economic setbacks, residents cited a great amount of empathy within their neighborhood. One resident stated, “The projects were more human. I saw humanity because everybody knew each other. They walked amongst each other and their kids played together. You didn’t know who had money and who did not have money.” On the other hand, a strong community can be fostered and nourished without people having to encounter so many malfunctions in the infrastructure of the home.

Housing Vouchers

Rather than choosing to fund public housing, legislators are moving towards supporting voucher programs such as Section 8 Housing. Section 8 Housing comes from a contract between HUD and a private property owner under the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program. Tenants pay up to 30% of their income in rent and a flat utility rate of $50. The gap between what the tenant pays and the cost of operation is covered by HUD. Section 8 housing vouchers can be a positive program for many since sometimes the public housing rent of $50 is more than 30% of the tenant’s income. However, landlords can find loopholes in their contacts and bump the tenant’s rent up to market price, leading to debt or eviction. Additionally, according to Richard Rothstein, Section 8 landlords are allowed to refuse certain government housing vouchers—leaving room for bias, indirect discrimination, and the abandonment of people experiencing the worst poverty. A total move to vouchers could leave behind those in public housing, who do not have the resources to find new locations or apply for vouchers. Additionally, vouchers can lead to more bureaucratic obstacles and backlog than already exist.

The Future of Public Housing

California Representative Maxine Waters is a strong champion for public housing and wants to see a shift from funding rental aid back to public housing. She requested $80 billion to repair one million homes, but only received $65 billion. Frustrated, Representative Waters stated “We cannot build back better without investing in our nation's crumbling housing infrastructure. Housing is not a miscellaneous afterthought, a nice-to-have, a ‘something that can wait until later.” Representative Waters stands with President Biden in an attempt to expand public housing with a whole new housing bill where “The newest version includes $15 billion for the national Housing Trust Fund, a program that supports the construction of deeply affordable housing, as well as $10 billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships program, the federal government’s largest block grant program for building and rehabbing affordable housing. Another $10 billion will go to down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers.” The administration’s main goal is to get Americans into secure and sustainable housing.

Concluding Remarks

The purpose of this piece is not to state that public housing is the best option to provide homes to those experiencing poverty. The goal is to present the data on who utilizes public housing and how the tenants who rely on the federal program are impacted by gutting funds. It is crucial that the millions of Americans who live in public housing projects can live in dignity even if public housing is not a political priority or policy preference.

The People of Myanmar: Resilience and Action Amidst the Ongoing Political Crisis

On the 1st of February 2021, the world awoke to a military coup occurring in the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, also known as Burma. Myanmar’s military, known as Tatmadaw and now calling itself the State Administration Council, cited alleged fraudulent elections in November of 2020 as the primary reason for the coup and detained the country’s leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Laureate and an icon of peace and democracy of the National League for Democracy (NDL) elected party, who is also a daughter of Aung San, widely regarded as the founder of the modern Myanmar state. Prior to the coup, Aung San Suu Kyi held the title of State Counsellor of Myanmar, allocating her powers alike to that of a prime minister, and she also served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2016 until 2021. Tatmadaw accused Aung San Suu Kyi and her administration of fraud, corruption, mishandling of the pandemic situation, and a number of other charges that she is yet to face in court amidst concerns for her health. Meanwhile, the military maintains its grip on power within the country in spite of constant civilian protests ranging from peaceful street demonstrations to forceful attempts on behalf of evolving regional civilian militias joining established ethnic insurgent groups to remove the military junta. The number of civilians killed as a consequence of violent response on behalf of the military is believed to currently surpass 1,000 with numbers of those detained surpassing 8,000, with sometimes hundreds of people killed and tortured on a single day as a consequence of military crackdowns on civilians. 

The people of Myanmar, however, have never ceased to fight for their rights and continue to find inspiration and resilience, determined to stand up to the current military government. What is particularly impressive is the way the people decide to protest and find ways to organize in spite of the ongoing challenges, with efforts initiated by Myanmar’s women and local and religious leaders being among leading examples of a witty, united, and persistent approach to modern-day protests that can serve as inspiration for future civilian struggle. Shedding more light on these efforts and reminding of the importance of civilian organization and courage is of particular importance. It is important both as a way to draw attention to the ongoing political crisis in Myanmar, as well as to support civilians worldwide in navigating the increasingly authoritarian global setting. 

Historical Overview  

As alarming as the current violence in Myanmar is, this is not the first time Myanmar has experienced a military coup and rule by a military junta. After gaining its independence from the United Kingdom in 1948, Myanmar established a bicameral parliamentary government, and the democratic regime was somewhat uninterrupted until 1962 when Tatmadaw, at the time led by General Ne Win, led a military coup that started decades of military rule. Academics largely agree that the previous democratic arrangement in post-independence Myanmar led to economic and sociopolitical instability which eventually resulted in people’s disillusionment with the government and presented a permissive factor for the establishment of the junta. The military rule was soon seen as oppressive and the people began to organize throughout the 1970s, with student protests and public gatherings, but these were largely suppressed and not as broadly organized as protests that were to follow - in 1988, precisely on August 8th of 1988 hence the name the 8888 Uprising, larger scale protests were organized following the strengthening of the military regime, with people taking to the streets en masse, organizing nationwide strikes, and civil servants, students, Buddhist monks, other religious and community leaders, and citizens in general were standing united in spite of oppressive and violent attempts by the military government to suppress the regime, resulting in thousands of death, with estimates ranging to as high as 10,000. 

The success of these protests, as impressive as they were, was still largely limited and the military largely maintained its grip on power. However, the courage and resilience of the people of Myanmar cannot be questioned. The Saffron Revolution of 2007 again challenged the military rule and this time, combined with pressure from the international community, resulted in major political change as it allowed for democratic elections, although the military still retained constitutional right to 25% of the parliament seats. Unfortunately, the democratic regime was never described as stable or truly implemented and, in fact, the military continued to augment its role and proceeded to limit State Chancellor Aung San Suu Kyi’s power, influence public policy, and deliberately attack Myanmar’s various ethnic minorities, triggering by 2017 one of the most scrutinized and tragic modern-day human rights crisis. However, this history proves the readiness of the people of Myanmar to take a stance for their rights in spite of such major political challenges, as well as that, no matter how difficult the situation, substantial progress can be achieved and has never been given up on. The ongoing events in Myanmar yet again put these claims to the test. 

Examples of Civilian Dissent from Present-Day Myanmar: Creativity, Unity, and Resilience

This time, the protests have started off as largely peaceful, though there are now some poorly armed and largely untrained groups in different areas, such as in Bago where a confrontation with the military resulted in deaths of at least 82 protesters that attempted to barricade the city. In both urban and rural areas, Myanmar police officers have sided with the protesters after being ordered by the military to shoot those protesting the coup and many were forced to flee the country because of disobeying the orders and denying the coup. The current violent developments in Myanmar have increased emigration and thousands of refugees, now suffering the combined effects of Tatmadaw’s systemic attacks on ethnic minorities for decades prior and the more recent violent clashes with protesters, are attempting to cross borders to surrounding countries with the situation still evolving and destinies of thousands of refugees remaining in question. The refugee influx is elevating Myanmar’s crisis to an international level.

As the situation continues to evolve and is becoming increasingly deadly for dissenting civilians and damaging for the future of Myanmar’s democracy, there is also a growing number of examples of civilian courage and brilliance amidst the chaos. A particularly curious case is the action on behalf of Myanmar’s women to contribute to the country-wide protest efforts. Ever since the first day of protests, women have been lining up by the thousands to take a stance for their rights and freedom, with even young women, many of whom are still students, being unafraid to join the front lines in spite of the danger. 

Women also looked for creative ways to show their dissent which includes women placing their undergarments and traditional htamein, symbols of femininity, around the streets. This slows military personnel down as these garments are considered to be stripping men of their masculinity prompting the military to spend time circumventing and removing such clothing from the streets. Furthermore, some groups decided to organize and strategically place pictures of General Min Aung Hlaing and other high ranking military officials who are now occupying the government on the ground, making soldiers reluctant to pass through and step on these images. Even though the military in some cases proceeded to burn the clothing and still pass through these images, this approach to protest showcases a creative and clever way to take a stance against the current regime while simultaneously avoiding direct confrontation and symbolically representing civilian defiance and an unquenching desire for stability and freedom. 

In a situation in which protesters are increasingly forced to carry helmets and protective gear to the streets even for peaceful attempts at protest, medical professionals are not afraid to join the protesters and attend to those who have been hurt and wounded, even after the military leadership proclaimed such initiatives by local medical personnel to be treasonous. People are also largely uniting along previous divides, with wider society now being able to better empathize with warnings on behalf of Rohingya and Kachin leaders and activists, and recognizing the need for thorough change and widespread tolerance and peace. Buddhist monks, who traditionally have wielded most significant moral authority within the society and also played a key role and submitted great sacrifice during the Saffron Revolution that was even named after the color of their robes, are now again decidedly taking to the street in support of the people holding alms bowls traditionally used to collect food donations upside down as a sign of protest. These monks are standing against their counterparts that gave blessings to the generals in an attempt to protect their position, explaining that it is their duty to stand with well-meaning and truth-seeking people even if it means taking the risk that can cost them their frock and lives. Importantly, the sangha, or the Buddhist community, is by some accounts purposefully not taking the same level of publicity as in previous uprisings in order to make space for all groups and Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and Christian leaders alike have shown support for protesters and provided shelter whenever possible. 

Conclusion 

In spite of a long, life-threatening struggle that participation in the protest in Myanmar currently entails, people from all walks of life are continuously taking to the streets, as well as finding creative ways to show their resistance to the regime and undermining further military advancements. The situation in Myanmar has been closely monitored by the international community since the first hours of the coup, and it is drawing continuous attention and motivating ongoing debates on the best course of action. Myanmar is a member of a number of supranational organizations, including the UN and ASEAN, and thus has a duty to protect its citizens and allow for a peaceful transition of power. As there is no guarantee, however, that the country will indeed act in accordance with organizational charters and proclamations, it is evident that the people are attentive to changes and ready to take action. The people of Myanmar are setting an example for modern civilian initiatives and protest and their efforts need to be better acknowledged and supported by the international community and civil society members everywhere in order to avoid more death and destruction and support basic civilian rights.

Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: An Exploration of Machine Morality

Since the Industrial Revolution, nations across the globe have brought on waves of technological innovation that have drastically altered the global economic landscape. From the steam engine to the telephone to the widespread use of electricity, technology has served a pivotal role throughout history in advancing the capabilities of the human race. Today, the world faces its next great hurdle along the path of technological progress, possibly its largest one yet; artificial intelligence. Our current socio-economic systems trend towards increased automation; by the early 2030s, roughly 38% of US jobs are expected to be at risk of automation, with more than 85% of customer interactions projected to be managed without a human. Although integration of machines into the global economy is no new concept, the notion of machine learning and consciousness presents policymakers with a host of new social, political, and ethical concerns. To better explore and address these concerns, one must first ask; what exactly is artificial intelligence, and what steps should we take to control it? This article will argue in favor of programming AI with normative philosophy in order to benefit the future of the human race, focusing on German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s theory as a starting point for AI ethics.

We have seen the use of touch-screen soda dispensers and ATMs for years, but the more modern term, “AI”, describes the study and design of intelligent agents, which is a “system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success”. Otherwise referred to as computational intelligence or rationality, put simply, AI is a blanket term used to describe any form of intelligence demonstrated by a machine. The majority of existing AI technology takes the form of simple AI, or machines that rely on decision trees, or a predetermined set of rules and algorithms for success. Machine Learning, however, is distinct in that it allows machines to learn without being explicitly programmed. This type of technology allows for machines to improve their decision-making process by incorporating and analyzing swaths of data pertaining to a particular task and the success rate of certain actions. Often referred to as complex AI, deep learning machines work by picking out recognizable patterns and making decisions based on them. Thus, the more data you feed it, the smarter it becomes, and the better it works. In today’s society, we can already see the positive benefits of machine learning in many of our most innovative technologies, such as the predictive analytic machines that generate shopping recommendations or the AI used in security and antivirus applications worldwide. The drawbacks, however, are far less evident.

Despite Terminator-esque representations of a war-torn future dominated by robots, the potential dangers of the advancing field of AI research lie in the fundamental lack of control at the heart of the development of autonomous machines. For many experts in the field, the question of whether or not AI will yield beneficial or harmful results for the human race is simply the wrong one; instead, the focus falls on determining the degree of control with which we execute this line of progress. Most notably, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk remains outspoken in his belief that AI’s development will outpace our ability to manage it in a safe way. Musk even went as far as to claim that AI development poses a greater threat to humanity than the advent of nuclear weapons, citing the machine intelligence that defeated the world champion in the ancient Chinese strategy game, “Go”. Although much of the AI that is used in the status quo has yet to cross this intelligence threshold, the increasing development of neural networks for complex AI has opened the door for an exponential uptick in the rate of machine learning. Once the cat is out of the bag, warns Musk, the intelligence in question will be unstoppable, and has the potential to wreak havoc on all of society. Autonomous drone strikes. Release of deadly chemical weapons. Violent revolution fueled by mass media propaganda campaigns. When one considers the degree to which we rely on machines for public health, global military operations, and political communications, the necessity for control over the activity of AI becomes abundantly clear. Therefore, the solution to the dangers of AI development lie in our ability as humans to control its behavior past a certain threshold of growth, through whatever means necessary.

As outlined above, policymakers have a clear incentive to avoid a scenario in which the rate of AI learning exceeds our ability to control it. However, as can be seen in the status quo, leading governments have failed to adequately regulate their respective tech industries, causing them to be caught in a game of catch-up with AI developers. As evidenced by the 2018 Congressional hearing questioning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the government has allowed the tech industry to exceed its reach, with no major value shift or policy agenda in sight. The question now becomes, what should policymakers do to maximize the chance that an AI outbreak would yield positive consequences for society? The answer lies in the study of philosophy, or ethics. At its most basic level, philosophy, or the debate over morality, is a question of what an agent ought to do. This question is especially relevant when applied to AI; after all, an AI with an intelligence level greater than that of humans would be able to rewrite its own code, effectively making itself anything it wants to be. Yet, there is much uncertainty as to whether an AI would want to rewrite itself in a hostile form, or a peaceful one. This is where ethics comes in. If AI developers could program machines with ethics that morally prohibited them from harming humans, then the scenario in which they utilize their neural capabilities for harm becomes much less probable. In this sense, ethics comes into view as the primary method of control, potentially the last one, that humans could bear over their creations.

Next, we are tasked with determining which system of ethics would yield the best outcome for humanity in the event that AI exceeds our ability to regulate it. Before making this determination, it is important to understand some core distinctions between various branches of philosophical thought. Normative philosophy is divided into two major categories: consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism dictates that the morality of an action be determined by looking purely to the consequences of said action, and that an ethical agent ought to seek to achieve the maximal state of affairs. Deontology, on the other hand, is a system of ethics that uses universal rules to distinguish right from wrong. A deontologist would not be concerned with the consequences of an immoral action, even if the consequences were positive, since the action is deemed immoral by its very nature. Similarly, a consequentialist would not care if an action is intrinsically immoral or violates certain rights, insofar as the action produces good consequences down the road. Put simply, consequentialists are concerned with ends, and deontologists are concerned with means. In the context of AI decision-making, this distinction could make all the difference; for example, a consequentialist AI might decide that killing one particularly evil human would amount to thousands of lives saved down the road, thus justifying the practice of murder on the part of AI for the greater societal good, despite the intrinsic wrongness of such an act. Conversely, a deontological AI would disregard the future benefit of killing the evil individual for the sake of avoiding committing a violation of that individual’s fundamental rights. A third, less prominent branch of normative philosophy, known as virtue ethics, offers an alternative to the more rule-based approaches listed above. Conceived by Aristotle, virtue ethics is an approach to normative ethics that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character of an agent, rather than the duties and consequences involved in an agent’s action. Under this theory, an AI would be considered “ethical” if it took actions that were reflective of intuitively desirable character traits, such as honesty, courage, or wisdom.

Insofar as the goal of programming AI with a system of ethics is to preserve the future wellbeing of the human race, then any attempt at formulating a normative theory upon which to program AI must center around the value of humans as moral agents. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming an obstacle in the way of the machine’s progress. Created by enlightenment thinker Immanuel Kant, “Kantianism” is used to refer to the deontological theory derived from universal principles of human worth. This section will lay out the primary arguments for adopting a Kantian system of normative ethics for AI, by explaining the theory’s applicability to AI and various advantages this approach holds over alternatives.

First and foremost, Artificial Intelligence must be programmed with a rule-based (deontological) system of ethics, instead of the more calculative and character-based approaches of consequentialism and virtue ethics. Robotics expert Matthias Scheutz argues that the need for a “computationally explicit trackable means of decision making” requires that ethics be grounded in deontology. Since AI have the potential to make incredibly complex moral decisions, it is important that humans are able to identify the logic used in a given decision in a transparent way, so as to accurately determine the morality of the action in question. This necessitates deontology, as theories that rely on valuation of consequences or judgements of character are far more subjective and difficult to track in an ordered manner.

Furthermore, Kantianism is uniquely suitable to AI programming because of its prioritization of the self-determination and rational capacities of other moral agents. While attempting to formulate a moral theory, Kant began his inquiry by drawing a distinction between the moral status of rational agents, and non-agents. According to Kant, humans are morally distinct from other beings in their ability to use their rational capacities to set and pursue certain ends. This status would also apply to AI. Dr. Ozlem Ulgen, member of the UN group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, claims that technology may be deemed to have rational thinking capacity if it engages in a pattern of logical thinking from which it rationalizes and takes action. Although Kant’s concept is reserved for humans, the capacity aspect may be fulfilled by AI’s potential for rational thinking. Not only does this prove the suitability of Kantian ethics to AI, but it also provides built-in advantages when it comes to protecting human interests. As Kant identifies the source of moral value as individual reason, the rules that follow accordingly seek to protect that same capacity. For example, Kantian ethics prohibits harming others, as doing so would fundamentally contradict the capacity for reason within other moral agents. In this sense, a Kantian AI would be far less likely to do harm unto humans, as the core tenet of their philosophy would be tied to our shared rational capabilities. Thus, Kantian ethics provides a human-centric approach to formulating moral rules.

Lastly, the subjectivity at the heart of consequentialist and virtue ethical approaches to morality provide a comparative advantage to Kantian ethics. Consequentialist theories, on one hand, mandate that we maximize the probability of good consequences, but don’t inform us of what those consequences are. Thus, consequentialist theories are incomplete in that they leave it up to the agent in question to determine what they consider to be a “moral good”. This poses potential problems when applied to AI, as they could very well decide that the extermination of the human race is a good consequence, and thus act to achieve it. Similarly, virtue ethics relies on the notion of “good character”, or the idea that we ought to inculcate certain character traits within society. This commits the same error as consequentialists often do, as it fails to provide a comprehensive account of the “good person”, leaving room for AI to drum up their own conceptions of virtuous character in order to suit their own needs. Kantianism, however, avoids this pitfall, as it sources “the good” within the agent itself. To a Kantian, actions are good insofar as they respect the right of other moral agents to set and pursue ends, thus further helping to create a human-centric system of ethics.

In answering the question of which system of ethics would be most suitable for programming AI, a variety of other questions arose, all of which demand further investigation. Evidently, reaching a definitive conclusion on the issue of AI ethics is no easy task; after all, humans have been debating back and forth between different philosophies and modes of thought for hundreds of years, and the conversation doesn’t seem to be ending any time soon. The one thing we, as a society, can agree on despite differences in perspective is the idea that morality is fundamentally subjective. If history is any example, it is clear that the ethical systems by which people choose (or attempt) to live their lives is heavily contingent on their individual point of view. As such, the mission of determining how to program an ethical AI is problematized by the reality that we, as humans, do not operate under a perfect ethical framework to begin with. According to virtual reality developer and CEO Ambarish Mitra, this concern is easily surmountable, as he argues that AI could help us create one.  Referred to as “super morality”, many in the field of AI development believe that the potential for AI to reach a level of consciousness “beyond” that of humans gives them the potential to reach the sort of higher ethical truth for which we have been searching for so long. If moral truth is to be discovered through reflection and deliberation, machines with higher rates of learning and cognition than that of humans would have a better shot at discovering that truth than we ever will.

Tunisia: Secularism, Political-Islam, and Democracy

On December 17th, 2011, a Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi lit himself on fire in what many perceived to be a protest against police corruption, a crumbling economy, and the lack social mobility in Tunisia. Bouazizi’s protest, which ultimately led to his death, initiated a series of events that are now called the “Arab Spring.” Tunisia, Bouazizi’s country, and the site of the Jasmine Revolution, the first of the pro-democracy uprisings in the Arab world, is also one of the few success stories of the so-called Arab Spring because of the successful constitution drafting process and peaceful transfers of power. Historically, Tunisia has been one of the most moderate, pro-west, Muslim countries. A strong secular predisposition in former French colonies provided for a more agreeable societal context for a Western style liberal democracy. Because of its history as a former French colony, Tunisia holds a great propensity for successful democratization through its secular predisposition and pro-western leanings.

Tunisia has been part of European colonial interests dating back to at least the Roman Empire. France colonized Tunisia in 1881, and like all colonial entities, attempted to eradicate indigenous culture and replace it with its own. Most notable is the cultural significance of Laicite, or, secularism. In French culture, it is widely accepted that a person’s religious identity is private. As Tunisia decolonized, Laicite remained a valued aspect of Tunisia’s culture. Tunisia held a strong policy of secular rule, which was never seriously contested until the events following the Arab Spring.

Political Islam originated in Egypt as a way to combat European colonists. A French colonial expedition in 1798 routed Egyptian forces, and Egyptian officers learned that they could not successfully counter European military prowess. In order to counteract European meddling within the Middle East, Muslim leaders formed the Salafiyya movement, which stipulates a parochial interpretation of the Quran. In 1929, an Islamic scholar named Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, the first iteration of modern political Islam as it is understood today. Political Islam was initially an anti-colonial opposition movement to Western and Christian influence on Egyptian politics, swiftly spreading throughout the region. Religious opponents of the secular regime in Tunisia subscribed to political Islam as a form of contention.

In Tunisia, religion served as a catalyst for democratization, Ennahda, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood was a central player in all aspects of Tunisia’s transition. As an Islamist party, Ennahda was in a position to centralize power in the hands of religious leaders rather than political ones, yet they did not, helping to further Tunisia’s transition. One of the requirements of a democracy is the dilution of power through multiple centers of power. Religion could be a tool for democratization, as it was in Tunisia, or one for enforcing authoritarian rule, as it is in other countries. When civil rights, including religious rights, are respected, as in Tunisia, religion enhances democracy. In countries like Saudi Arabia, for example, religion is used to suppress rights. In the latter case, minorities are marginalized and oppressed, because the will of the majority trumps minority beliefs. Without multiple centers of power, individuals can consolidate power and create an authoritarian regime.

Tunisia’s attempt at democratization has been, relative to other Arab Spring countries, a resounding success through its transitory and consolidating periods. Power between Ennahda and Nidaa Tounes, a secular party, was peacefully transferred in the 2014 parliamentary elections. Tunisia’s decision to opt for a parliamentary system will prevent consolidations of power like those that occurred under the Imperial Presidencies of Habib Bourguiba and Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali and will allow a more diverse range of political parties to come into the fold. In 2014, Tunisia’s voter turnout was 68% , which is above the average turnout for new democracies. Civil society is respected, Islamic elements are allowed to contribute to politics, and there have only been peaceful transfers of power. While time will tell, it is becoming increasingly clear that Tunisia’s attempt at Western style democracy stands a robust chance of long term success.

Modern Tunisia

In 1957, Tunisia achieved independence from France largely due to the efforts by the Neo Destour, or the New Constitutional Liberal Party (NCLP). The NCLP was a Tunisian nationalist party subscribing to Bourguibism, a term named after Habib Bourguiba who was independent Tunisia’s first president. Bourguibism mandated policies of state capitalism, or blurred lines between the public and private sectors, and Tunisian nationalism and secularism, of which the main goal was a repression of political Islam. According to Middle East expert Michael Hudson (1977) Bourguiba wished for Tunisia to act as a conduit between the Western world, and the Islamic world. The NCLP’s policies concerning the modernity of Tunisian culture can be named as causes for the more egalitarian Tunisian stance on women's rights and diversity. Finally, Bourguibism was non-militarist. Bourguiba frequently argued that Tunisia had more pressing concerns than maintaining a powerful military apparatus. Funding that under other circumstances would be directed towards the military, instead went toward the development of the economy and other civil or state institutions.

After exiling or imprisoning his rivals, Bourguiba finally consolidated power and he outlawed all parties besides his own. Western countries tolerated Bourguiba’s regime because he was secular and open to Western investments, despite his authoritarian policies. Bourguiba’s Tunisia was run as a secular state, and although religion was allowed, the state brutally repressed any political applications of religion, preventing a large percentage of more conservative, rural, citizens predisposed towards Islamist-politics--something that would come to a head when the Ennahda party came to power in 2011. The suppression of political Islam under the imperial presidents facilitated its explosion during the onset of the Arab Spring.

In the early 1980s, Europe’s economy was faltering, and Tunisia, dependent on a thriving European economy, suffered as well. Bourguiba sought a loan from the IMF in order to bolster Tunisia’s economy, and it was granted in 1983. Strict austerity, however, was an IMF prerequisite for the loan and ultimately caused inflated bread prices, which further damaged the already weak agricultural sector of Tunisia’s economy. Riots began in the poor Nefzaoua region in Tunisia’s south, and ultimately spread throughout the country. Bourguiba’s attempt at quelling civil unrest killed over 100 civilians. Thousands of people were jailed and critical newspapers were shut down. The Islamic Tendency Movement (MTI), founded and led by Rashid Al-Ghannushi, faced the harshest retribution. MTI was an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the forerunners to the Ennahda party.

Bourguiba’s health declined in the 1980s and ultimately left him unable to rule. In 1987, Zine el Abidine Ben Ali came to power in a bloodless coup. Ben Ali began his career as a military officer, and became the Interior Minister before his appointment as Prime Minister in 1986. Ben Ali’s regime, like Bourguiba’s, was authoritarian. Censorship of the press continued, the constitution was amended to allow for Ben Ali to remain in power, and Islamist groups, many of which existed under the al-Nahda party, were repressed and hundreds were imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Islamists in Tunisia helped to facilitate the democratic transition, and because of their experience as an oppressed group, helped to enhance it as well.  

In 2011, the first of the popular “Arab Spring” uprisings, called the “Jasmine Revolution” began. Many people were upset with the continuance of the totalitarian system under Ben Ali, along with the poor economy and rampant corruption. Islamist groups, however, did not orchestrate the Jasmine Revolution, and secular traditions were still dominant. Unlike Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood co-opted anti Mubarak protests, Tunisia’s Islamist-party never became the major the anti-government actor.

Amid raging protests, sustained levels of economic depression and a lack of political and military support, Ben Ali resigned and left Tunisia for Saudi Arabia. A new constitution was drafted, going through many incarnations with Islamists playing a large role in its formation. The Ennahda party initially advocated for a more Islamic government rooted in Sharia, but tempered their demands when faced with the political realities of a culturally secular Tunisia. Monica L. Marks, a political scientist at the Brooking’s Institute argues that:

On the place of sharia in the constitution, for example, the party ultimately opted not to include the word. While Ennahda members do look to sharia as an ideal ethical framework, most members accept a more abstract, ethical definition of Islamic law (focusing on social justice, equality, and good governance). Key members of the Shura Council were persuaded that this was the appropriate course of action for the party, keeping itself a relevant and viable political player.

The Ennahda party recognized that in order to institute any modicum of Islamic values in Tunisia, it would have to moderate its platform from the outright Islamic rule that is the position of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. In the 2011 parliamentary elections, Ennahda led the “troika,” a coalition of Ennahda, the Democratic Forum for Labor and Liberties, and the Congress for the Republic to a resounding victory. The Troika controlled 117 seats, and Ennahda held 89 seats itself. It is clear that Ennahda held a significant amount of support within Tunisia, but its inability to maintain that majority in the 2014 elections (Ennahda went from 89 seats to 69, and lost the plurality to a secular party), suggests that its dominance of the political realm directly after the uprising was more of an anti-establishment explosion than a recognizable trend in Tunisian politics.

Although Ennahda lost seats in 2014, it is second only to the majority Nida Tounes, a center-left, secular party. Of the five strongest parties in Tunisian politics, four of them are secular. The plurality of secular parties prevents their constituents from uniting unless a coalition is formed. Ennahda is one of the only representatives for Islamists. For the most part, tensions between political Islam and secular parties in Tunisia have thus far been handled through negotiation, rather than violence. Despite a significant portion of the population supporting Ennahda, the government established by the constitution has remained solvent, rather than backsliding into dysfunction.  

Although Tunisian civil and political societies are largely dominated by a plurality of secular groups, political Islam is a considerable force in both the country and the region. Approximately 99% of the country is Sunni Muslim, and after surviving the anti-religious policies of Bourguiba and Ben Ali, they would not want their rights to be suppressed again. The type of oppression Egyptian President Sisi instituted over Islamists led them to violent extremism in the Sinai Peninsula. If Tunisian secular groups prevent Islamists from participating in government, it is possible that they will turn to violent opposition as well. So far, Ennahda’s inclusion in Tunisian politics presents a hopeful scenario because political Islam is included in Tunisian politics, if the current trend holds, any future disputes will be settled democratically.

Tunisian society appears both more inclusive and more moderate than other Arab countries. Tunisia’s embrace of women’s rights, political Islam, and secularism facilitate a culturally diverse and vibrate country. Tunisia’s decision to implement a parliamentary system instead of a presidential system is a further indication of its inclusiveness and willingness to tolerate a diverse range of political views, as well as to prevent power from being consolidated by one person.

Conclusion

Tunisia’s democratization is thus far a success. A culture of tolerant secularism and inclusion has allowed Tunisia to incorporate Islamist elements into its politics without centralizing power. Tunisia’s two post-revolution elections--2011 and 2014—were conducted fairly. Ennahda moderated its position instead of acting intransigently, allowing Tunisia’s democratization to progress. A multitude of political perspectives, though secular at their base, are represented in Tunisia’s government, and such inclusiveness will help combat future instability. The common ingredients for a democracy are present: minority rights; frequent and fair elections (so far); dilution of power; increasing freedom of press; and most importantly, Tunisians themselves want it. After struggling against two dictatorial leaders and through an arduous revolution, Tunisia has stands on the precipice of a truly consolidated democracy.

Authoritarianism in Sub-Saharan Africa: Is Aid to Blame?

When examining the effects of bilateral or NGO aid in Africa, Ethiopia is perhaps one of the most interesting cases. The East-African state was never formally colonized, yet aid enabled the same outcomes as it did in previously colonized states. The causal or correlational (depending on the author) link between colonization and authoritarianism is a well-established theory of African politics. However, Ethiopia’s un-colonized history presents a new avenue to analyze authoritarian durability in African regimes. Given Ethiopian politics’ unique past but unfortunately common illiberal present, it is not so much the direct legacy of colonialism that continues to enable dictatorial rule, but rather the characteristics of the colony and colonizer relationship, and their contemporary manifestation in the form of aid that purports these regimes. This type of relationship is necessary to keep in mind when considering why aid flows from the United States to so many different countries. Is it purely altruistic? Or does bilateral aid hold a more harsh practical interest in mind? Tracing the flows of aid from the United States to Ethiopia demonstrates that the latter should be considered over the former.

Theoretical Background: Selectorate Theory

Selectorate Theory is a theory of politics that attempts to ascertain a scientific way of comprehending political relations, insofar as it classifies groups of actors and defines how they interact. The theory is best applied to authoritarian regimes, which, when they are durable and resistant to political change, possess a great understanding of how dictatorial politics function. Individuals living in these systems are organized into three categories: Essentials, Influentials, and Interchangeables. Essentials, such as generals or those who possess a large persuasive or coercive capability, are those whose support is absolutely integral for the leader; influentials, or, individuals in the governing bureaucracy or party members, are those who posses the ability to influence politics but are not necessarily the most important actors; and interchangeables constitute the general population, whose enthusiastic support may not be required at all for tenable rule. For illiberal regimes, it is most important to purchase the loyalties of those in the essential class. In order to obtain the loyalties of the essentials in the long-term, a constant source of money is required. One sensible way to maintain sources of money is to receive aid from foreign governments.

Aid given to developing states typically fails to meet its supposed goal because of the way illiberal regimes organize their population. The demands of authoritarian rule mean that aid is typically earmarked for embezzlement rather than for altruism. Donor states cognizantly play the role of patron in this dynamic, and thus bilateral aid should be viewed through the neo-colonialist lens, in that the inter-state relationship adopts colonial notions without the traditional colonizer-colony dynamic. In the same way that the European colonizers installed illiberal regimes to maintain control over their colonies, foreign aid is utilized by donor states to secure certain policies deemed favorable. This relationship inhibits democratization at the expense of supporting dictatorial regimes, and should thus be viewed as a colonial endeavor under the paradigm of colonialism.

Selectorate Theory, however, is not the only method for comprehending authoritarian regime durability in sub-Saharan Africa. Mamdani contests that either the tribal identities or anti-imperialist leaders facilitate democratic breakdown in Africa, while Ekeh suggests that the legacies of colonialism created two “publics”, wherein a civic and primordial public prevent state unity and breed illiberal rule. Although the theories posited by Ekeh and Mamdani may explain how different states initially developed authoritarianism, they fail to explain the durability of these regimes and why they continue to avoid democratization. Furthermore, Ethiopia, which had never been colonized, also failed to democratize. Given the common discourse on African politics’ failings to provide a general theory for the propensity and durability authoritarian politics in the region, Selectorate Theory’s call for a more scientific mode of analysis, that is, viewing African politics based on the mechanisms of authoritarian governance rather than through the guise of culture or other political currents, presents a possibility to understand why the un-colonized Ethiopia is as undemocratic as the former African colonies.

Haile Selassie: The Durable Dictator

Ethiopia’s case can be understood in much the same way as that of myriad other states, the corrupting influence of power. Ethiopian rulers viewed that the path toward development lay in the emulation of other successful states who themselves had utilized power to develop. The Ethiopian polity, or political class, viewed Europe’s ability to colonize Africa as a direct product of their military and economic power, and intended to follow suit. Thus, the acquisition and preservation of power defined the parameters of Ethiopian politics. Power, however, was predicated on the ability to secure the allegiances of the Essentials.

Ethiopia’s last emperor, Haile Selassie, ruled from 1930 until 1974, with only a brief interruption due to Italy’s attempted invasion. The Selassie regime was the last in a long line of emperors. Recognizing that a dictator’s true power rested in the hands of the Essentials, crucial aid supposedly destined for those suffering in the drought and famine of 1972 was re-appropriated for the Ethiopian government unless aid organizations paid a tax called for by vague regulations. When confronted, Selassie invented an excuse, claiming that it was in “accordance with the laws of nature” for drought and famine to strike, and that governmental action was unnecessary.. These were not the ravings of a selfish dictator, but rather the shrewd navigation of illiberal politics.

Selassie understood that he needed to continue to reward his essential backers, the high-level bureaucrats and military personnel of his regime. Ethiopia, however, was not a wealthy country, and thus Selassie viewed incoming aid as an opportunity to gain funding to continue to allocate resources to his supporters. Rather than allocating aid or letting proper aid utilization occur untaxed, Selassie saw this disaster as an opportunity to reaffirm his relationship over his essential backers. Selassie’s response to the drought and subsequent famine demonstrates one part of why bilateral aid tends to fail: illiberal regimes need to maintain their support structures, and aid is an easy way for a poor country to secure the necessary funding to do so.

Neo-Colonialism and Bilateral Aid

The flows of aid between the United States and Ethiopia, as well as the Soviet Union and Ethiopia, highlight the neo-colonial characteristics of bilateral aid. Bilateral aid, or, aid from one country given directly to another, is allocated to “deliver policies” that donor states want and the recipient regime needs. Throughout World War II and the Cold War, the United States allocated aid to various governments in order to secure anti-communist positions. Pro-American dictators could afford to maintain the loyalty of their Essentials, while the United States prevented new communist states from materializing.

In 1943, at the height of the American Lend-Lease program, in which the United States provided aid to states combating Axis powers during World War II, conversations between Selassie and Roosevelt grew increasingly more common, as Roosevelt sought an African ally and Selassie solicited aid with which he could re-allocate to his Essentials. In addition to aid under the Lend-Lease program, a 1951 trade agreement between the United States and Ethiopia guaranteed economic benefits in exchange for “amity”. In essence, aid from the United States provided the Selassie regime with funding to maintain its network of essential backers in exchange for a pro-American stance.

The Selassie regime fell, however, due to mismanagement of the political field as a result of record levels of inflation that left the already poor country poorer. Recall that Ethiopian politics was based on the accumulation of power. Power generally manifested as military support, and thus the military constituted most of Selassie’s essential backers. Ethiopia’s patron in the United States did not provide enough resources for Selassie to reaffirm his authority, and when Selassie failed to reassure the military during the inflationary crisis of 1974, low to mid level military bureaucrats and enlisted men deposed him in a revolution. The United States’ failure to supply their client state with enough funding to maintain the status quo facilitated The Derg’s ascendance.

After the Selassie era, the new regime, called The Derg, or, Committee, was a military Junta with a communist ideology. Selassie’s pro-American leanings ensured him consistent access to bilateral aid because he was willing to implement policies amenable to American interests. The Derg, on the other hand, marked a switch in Ethiopia to communism, the United States’ ideological antithesis. One of the Derg’s worst policies was the forced land nationalization. This policy abolished tenancy and nationalized all land at the same time, leaving peasants to enforce the new project. This policy caused massive famines, and was in fact a complete disaster. While these scenarios were playing out, aid from the United States sharply fell. The United States no longer felt that they had an ally in Ethiopia, and thus bilateral aid between the two countries during The Derg’s tenure became almost nonexistent. The Derg’s ultimate downfall came about as a result of the Soviet Union’s retreat from funding proxies and the refrain from ideological foreign policy under Soviet leader Gorbachev’s Perestroika and Glasnost reforms. Without support from The Derg’s communist patron in the Soviet Union, Ethiopia’s dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam could no longer afford to maintain his own network of Essential backers, and was forced into exile in Zimbabwe.

Following The Derg’s downfall, Ethiopia still has not democratized. Currently, Freedomhouse, a well known aggregator of democracy, states that Ethiopia’s score on political rights is a 7, its freedom rating is a 6.5, and its civil liberties ranking is a 6, where , a 7 is the least democratic while a 1 is the most. To reiterate, maintenance of a small coalition regime, in which the Essential backers need to be kept content, requires a significant amount of money. After the fall of The Derg, Ethiopia adopted nominal democratic reforms, but never really pursued them or fully institutionalized democratic norms. To explain Ethiopia’s failure to democratize post-Derg, we must look to the flows of bilateral aid.

The United States continues to provide Ethiopia with substantial amounts of monetary aid as well as other forms, such as food and technological aid . In exchange for these contributions, Ethiopia provides the United States with intelligence on Somalia. Viewing Ethiopia as an integral ally in the Global War on Terror, the United States is content with providing assistance in exchange for anti-terrorist policies and intelligence sharing. Just as Ethiopia was a pawn for the United States against communism, a pawn for the Soviet Union against capitalism, it is now a useful “ally” for the United States (again) against terrorism. In exchange for these policies, Ethiopia receives aid, enabling the states illiberality and impeding democratization through purporting the current regime.

Conclusion

While colonialism derailed the tracks countless countries were following, it should not be viewed as the sole reason for authoritarianism in the developing world. The case of Ethiopia demonstrates that authoritarian durability is not a direct result of formal colonialism. Instead, a scientific view of the mechanisms of authoritarianism and the organization of individuals living in these systems provides us with a much better explanation. It is the need to secure the loyalties of essential backers that purports authoritarianism in sub-Saharan Africa. Colonialism explains why states that may initially have democratized failed to do so, but it does not explain why states in the developing world that had gone un-colonized, such as Ethiopia, failed the democratic project as well. The machinations of colonialism are indeed at play, but it is the subtleness of neo-colonial bilateral aid agreements, and how they enable authoritarian leaders to maintain their rule in exchange for policy concessions that explains the continual failure of robust democratization to take hold in sub-Saharan Africa.

Cuffing the Invisible Hand: Private Industry’s Failings in the Pursuit of Profits

In terms of making the product, the magical invisible hand of the free market can take its course. Consumers can buy the product that they think tastes the best, has the most compelling packaging, or has a new, intriguing variation on the established norm. When it comes to the production of people’s lives, we have no incentive to protect the ability for private industry to profit off of people’s necessities. In industries like healthcare, education, even transportation, we should not bow our heads as subjects to the supposedly-omnipotent private industry.

We have ample evidence government is not only better at meeting the needs of its citizens, but it also is morally justifiable. Governments should be providing for the health and education of its people. When we make such industries public, we eliminate those looking to profit off of our necessities. The government should be competing with private industry to provide our energy, transportation, and other industries where people’s lives or livelihoods depend on the successful provision of the service – then it can provide the best possible services for its people and incentivize private industry to innovate and provide better services for people if they want to profit. The primary role of the government is to provide for its people, as opposed to a corporation whose primary goal is to make profits. If people are a source of profit, we can be squeezed and cramped into a more efficient airplane seat to create larger profit margins. The source of the disparity in the quality of service between private and public industry stems from the conditions for their relative successes; a company succeeds when it generates the largest profit, whereas a government succeeds when it provides for the needs of its people. In the interest of profit, the service or product provided by private industry has often been brought to the cutting block, yet that can change if private industry is forced to compete with the government. The government should be used to ensure that there are options for consumers that meet their needs without exploiting that necessity for extravagant profits. We have no reason to trust this supposed paternal invisible hand that will always guide the economy to take care of our needs. It is that same invisible hand of the free market that led to rat feces ending up in breakfast sausage and necessitated the creation of the FDA because private industry was trying to cut costs to maximize profits. We already know that we cannot allow our workers to be subjected to the ungloved hand of private industry. From child laborers to seven-day work weeks and 20-hour days, the federal government had to create regulations to protect workers from being abused and exploited by private industrialists in the pursuit of profits. Thus, after having to protect our health and happiness from private industry, why would we still falsely believe that private industry would provide a better service than the government could in cases where necessity instead of quality drives consumption? It is a fallacy to believe that we must protect the for-profit industry’s propensity to exploit and capitalize on the necessities that can be better provided by the government.

Let us take, for example, air travel. Which would provide better air travel, private or public industry? It is important to note that I am not discussing a new Ghana Airways Limited or any of the other small failed nationalized state airlines; I am talking about the full potential of the United States federal government being utilized to create the best airline they possibly could to compete with private industry to provide the best service possible. In the current situation, it doesn’t matter if we get to our destination as quickly as possible, it just matters how cheaply we can be brought to our destination while still paying extravagant ticket prices for the privilege to be crushed along with less than 24” of our belongings into the sweaty armpit of the passenger next to us. Private industry doesn’t care about providing the best service possible, it cares about providing the most profitable service possible. When private industry has a monopoly on a public responsibility it operates like a cartel, where all companies are so blinded by profit that they forget what service they are even supposed to be providing and just look to cut weight and space and streamline the profit margin as much as possible. How clean does the airplane really have to be? Because the consumer has no better option so they’ll sit right on that pile of crumbs left by three passengers prior. Furthermore, if the government is a competitor to airlines, it will incentivize them to provide a better service to consumers if they want to profit off of them As long as there is no other option passengers are captives to the hand of the free market taking another bill out of their wallets. Airlines are not interested if it’s faster to go straight from Chicago to New York as long as people are still willing to pay for their ticket – even if that ticket only buys them a seat barely as large as their body and the trip takes 8 hours with a 6-hour layover in Saskatchewan. We think that competition in the economy will always deliver us the best product, but as commentator Jim Hightower editorializes, “…oops — the bottom line of thinking you can simply apply corporate methods and ethics to public responsibilities is that very bad things can happen.” Instead of choosing whether or not to buy a product, in our modern society almost all Americans have to take an airplane at some point, and that necessity means that no matter how low the quality of the service provided is, passengers will still fly. Yet, why should we allow some already-rich executive to profit off our discomfort and the substandard unsatisfactory service provided? Public responsibilities can be better served by the government, and competing against the government can force private industry to heighten the quality of their service. The federal government can map flight plans and times so that there are quick and regular flights all over the nation. While many Americans will need to fly somewhere in their lives, only a small portion profit in our current system. Why should the profits of the vast minority of Americans necessitate the lack of quality and affordable service to the majority? As of now, if a company develops a new innovation to get you from coast to coast in the nation in an hour, they would put an exorbitant price tag on it and limit the seats as to ensure that demand is always high, guarding the technology with their life in the interest of profit. If the government administered an airline with the interests of the people at its heart then technology could be used to benefit Americans the instant it is developed. The government’s intentions are to provide the best service to its citizens, as opposed to the airline whose only goal is to make more money than their competition. Ever since the Nixon and Reagan administrations, privatization has been the vogue in America; where we can cut federal spending and involvement we have, yet there is little evidence that private industry actually benefits the regular citizen, while there is ample that it benefits the rich executives. The New Economics Foundation elucidates that “[p]rivate sector dynamism versus public sector inefficiency has been the dominant political narrative of the last few decades. It has supplied the excuse for repeated, one-directional upheaval in many of the services that we rely on, and which are essential to our quality of life.” The pursuit of profits has perverted the goals of providing necessary services. The current government, even without entering into the industry, could easily force airlines to better provide for the public good, but it currently pulls in $116 billion in tax revenues yearly off of the compromised public good from airlines. Instead of paying extravagant ticket prices for something that almost all of society uses, we could split the cost between all of us and create a government airline. A federal airline could have ticket prices low enough to force private industry to either lower their prices to be competitive or provide substantially better service to merit the price. When we are paying for a service that we will see the direct benefit of, we have ample examples of how Americans don’t mind paying for it. That is because the government is not like a company that is going to abuse us to shave decimals off costs. The public good is not a public resource that we have to protect the propensity to benefit off of; instead, government should be a competitor forcing private industry to do a better job providing for citizens’ needs than the government can to make a profit.

A democratic republic government like the one we have in the United States exists by the people, thus it is accountable to them and holds the interest of the people as its first priority. Take hydraulic fracturing, for example. Many Americans are firmly against the practice, despite it being a monumental technological advancement, which could open the door to potentially more than a century of resources, as President Obama said of the innovation in 2011, “…the potential here is enormous.” Yet, Americans are understandably opposed to fracking because in its current manifestation it exists for the profit of already-wealthy energy executives. Instead of seeing lower energy costs and a majorly energy self-sufficient nation, Americans might see rivers catching on fire. If the government were to facilitate fracking, being accountable to the American people opposed to shareholders and executives, there would be increased transparency and less cost cutting. The goal of an energy corporation is to profit off of a resource, thus the cheaper it can procure that resource, the more it profits. This results in fewer safety measures and environmental considerations because public safety is a public good, existing unprotected to be exploited by the business for profit. The government, on the other hand, has the primary goal of extracting the resource to benefit its constituents. Thus, it will not be looking to exploit the public good for profit because the public goal is in its best interests. Take the example of the sale of narcotics. When it is not regulated, it exists only for the profit of the drug dealer, with no consideration of the customer. Yet, in Colorado, where the government put limits and regulations on the sale of marijuana, its sale has been widely successful. Indeed, the regulation of the industry has been a further boon to citizens for beyond protecting their safety, the taxes collected from the industry in Colorado have gone towards funding education. Fracking exists in the exact same vein. Without government intervention, there is no incentive for consumer considerations, as the end goal – profit – is the primary interest. If the government were to step in, even if simply competing against private industry instead of taking full control, it could still forcibly protect the best interests of its people. Even simply regulating the practices of private industry and taxing their profits can help ensure that citizens health is protected and their needs are better met. President Obama is referenced in Daniel Yergin’s book on modern energy policy The Quest to say that fracking holds “…enormous potential to provide economic and environmental benefits for the country,” yet in its current manifestation we sacrifice efficiency and environmental considerations to allow individuals to cut costs and destroy the environment for everyone for their own personal benefit by surrendering control of the industry to the free market.

We further surrender the good of the American people to line the pockets of executives by giving up on our own problems and throwing them to private industry to profit off of instead of addressing them. Charter schools are the premier example of this complacency. It is easy to take something that is flawed and difficult to rectify such as our education system and toss it off to the free market, telling ourselves that it will be better than our government at fixing its problems. But since when has the education of our young people been something worth capitulating and giving up on Instead of actually believing that private industry will do a better job of educating our youths, politicians simply tire of searching for solutions. Instead of investing in our education system they delegate the task to the free market. Yet, what is lost is the end goal of the process. When the government facilitates education, they have no incentive to do anything but provide students with the best education possible, as it should be. Private industry, on the other hand, is a racketeering business. When corners are cut in our children’s education futures are lost. The education of the future leaders of our nation of our nation should never be a source of revenue, and their education is not something that we can risk entrusting to ventures that have ulterior motives. A report from the National Education Policy Center elucidated the problems of running education like a business, explaining that “when we begin to think of schools as business, then test scores are a measure of profitability. Indeed, students of teachers who get high achievement scores are rewarded in the same way that employees earn bonuses. But when scores are low, it is analogous to an unprofitable business, which might mean layoffs, store closings, and fired staff.” Indeed, these are not abstract fears, they are concrete realities that have lasting ramifications for the young people whose education is put in jeopardy by lackadaisical politicians reticent to address the problems in our education system and too quick to pass it off to become someone else’s problem. In Florida, from 2008-2014 119 charter schools closed, 14 of which never even made it through an entire school year. One charter school was repeatedly kicked out of buildings that they rented classroom space from. Perpetually plagued with a lack of ample space, they took students on daily field trips to ensure that students were not in classes that lacked the room to accommodate them. The desire of the executives to make a profit overshadowed the desire of the executives to properly educate the students they were given. Their wallets were filled at the price of the education of students because, like a business, as long as someone is buying the product,  the quality of the product, or the education, doesn’t matter (in this case states that don’t want to deal with education students themselves and consistently feed charter schools customers). Yet education isn’t a Hot Wheels car; if the wheels fall off, students’ futures are lost. Education motivated by profit, not by the desire to educate the students, leads to corners being cut where they cannot afford to be. The Harvard Business Review made the argument in 1991 that “a profit-seeking operation may not, for example, choose to provide healthcare to the indigent or extend education to poor or learning-disabled children.” In the more than two decades since, we have seen ample examples that further support this claim. Charter schools have spearheaded attempts to cut the cost of education, which have only succeeded in cutting into the education of our young people. The only reason that charter schools have seen a rise in prevalence is the propagation of the false idea that our education system is struggling because of some inherent failing in government. While there is still work that remains to be done, our government is the most effective actor we have at addressing the problems that exist. It not only has the funds to invest without fear of sacrificing profit margins in our children’s education, but it also has the most integrous motivation to do the work. Private industry can be a player on the field of education, but we should not be supplanting public education with profit-motivated education. Private industry is an important part of the equation only when it provides a better education than the government can, which charter schools clearly do not. Instead of taking a problem we don’t want to address and sacrificing the education of our young people for the privilege of not having to deal with it and for the profit of private industry executives, we should reinvest in public education.

The entire argument against privatization can be summarized by the maxim: You cannot risk the good of the public to allow for profit. When major government failings exist, they stand out because they are anomalies, not the norm. That is because the government has the resources it needs to be effective at its primary job – providing the best services possible for its people. Look at examples such as the national parks, or the U.S. Institute for Peace; when we aggregate the funds of all citizens the government can afford to invest in creating the best institutions it can to provide for its people. Take prisons and healthcare, for example, by allowing for both to be privatized we are allowing for individuals to profit off of the institutions without any direct benefit, as the private manifestations of both provide no better quality of service at significantly higher overall cost. When prisons are a source of profit, their goal ceases to be rehabilitating offenders into society, for they profit off of filling their prisons and thus are incentivized to encourage recidivism and systematically-broken justice systems. The same is true, as discussed above, of oil and education, where privatization has only benefitted the gross minority without providing any benefit to the populous as a whole. Prisons and healthcare are just two examples of industries where the public good depends on quality of the services provided, and they government competing with private industry can force an adherence to high standards of quality. As highlighted by The Atlantic, “Each side of the divide has strengths and weaknesses, but in every case the public sector is providing something the private sector cannot: A backup that's there if and when you need it; a benchmark for private providers; and a backstop to make sure costs don't spin out of control.” We should welcome government’s entrance into private sectors so that it can compete against private industry with its superior budget and sound motivation. That is not to say that it can always provide the best service, but it can keep private industry accountable by providing for the public good without looking to profit off of it. Then, if private industry is capable of competing to provide for the public good better than government, it can be allowed to profit off doing so. Instead of sacrificing the public good to allow for profits, the government can incentivize private industry to compete to profit by innovating to provide for citizens better than the government can. Government competition with private industry does not eliminate the propensity to profit, it simply changes how private industry can profit for the better. Instead of attempting to profit by cutting corners when they know people are forced to give them business, private industry can compete to do the best job of providing for the people.

The government has the potential to provide for the good of its people better than private industry because it is not looking to profit off of doing so and it has the budget to fund the most effective services possible. Yet, too often we protect the potential for profit because of the fallacy that all Americans can profit. In reality, only a fraction of a percentage of Americans will benefit while all of the rest lose out to give them the opportunity to do so. We see ourselves not as a nation of haves and have-nots, we see ourselves as a nation of haves and maybe-someday-could-haves. We protect private industry’s right to profit off of the public good because we hope to one day profit too, ignoring the major failings of the free market in the interest of profits. By using power of the federal government to invest in providing the best service possible we will not eliminate private industry but instead will alter how it can profit. Instead of profiting off of Americans forced to use their service, they can still profit by achieving the same thing the government looks to: providing the best service possible for Americans. Instead of supplanting government with private industry to eschew problems we do not want to work to fix, we can allow for competition between government and private industry to provide the best result for American citizens and protect the integrity of the public good.