A Geopolitical Profile of Russia

Introduction

Russia is one of the most influential geopolitical entities in the world today and this is mainly as a result of its unique position in the global arena. This country has been extremely influential in the Eurasian region for much of its history and this influence has not only been political, but cultural as well. The power of this state, from the time of the tsars to the post-communist world can be considered to have essentially remained intact within the region surrounding it. This country is normally ranked second only to the United States in its ability to project its power across the globe and it is mainly as a result of this that it has been able to retain its influence long after falling from its superpower status.

Geography

Russia is the largest country in the world with its borders stretching from northern Europe across northern Asia to the Bering Straits. As the largest country in the world, with an area of 17,075,400 square kilometres, it is one of the few countries in the world that have a diversity of natural resources, people, as well as neighbouring countries. The result is that this country has come to exert a lot of influence over a large territory as well as its neighbours for centuries. Its geographical position is unique because it allows it to wield some influence on three continents as well as being able to project itself militarily. Russia incorporates a wide range of climates and environments within its territory and these have had an effect on its historical development. Moreover, this country has borders with a diverse number of countries including China, Norway, Lithuania, Finland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the United States across the Bering Straits, among many others.  The geographical position of this country has also placed it on top of the largest oil and gas reserves on the planet and this country has been able to ensure that this resource is used to further its geopolitical power over the Eurasian region. In addition to oil and natural gas, Russia has other significant resources which include deposits of timber, coal, and as well as mineral resources that have given it an advantage over other countries in the region. As the largest producer of natural gas in the world, Russia is in a unique position to determine the futures of some of its neighbouring countries, most of which were former member states of the Soviet Union. It is through its unique position as being the number one producer of natural gas, in addition to oil, that it has been able to ensure that it maintains its influence over the region because it has the funding necessary to make its influence felt. The large forests that are found in the region of Siberia are second only to the Amazon jungle in Brazil and they are believed to absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide which helps to ensure that the air in the region is kept clean. The eastern parts of Russia are relatively sparsely populated when compared to the European side which carries the bulk of the population. While this may be the case, there are a significant number of people in all its administrative regions, these being individuals who have for the most part acclimatised to the harsh climate that occurs especially in the northernmost parts of the country. While Russia has come to occupy such a large area, this was not the case in its early centuries where it was essentially divided into diverse city-states and duchies controlled by members of the Rurik dynasty. However, all this changed when these disparate city states were unified and the Russian state began its expansion in earnest during the 16th century. The result was that it ended up conquering much of the land that had once been occupied by the Mongol Golden Horde. Its occupation of new lands sealed its fate in world history because it is through its size as well as its multiethnic make up that this state has come to be recognised into the modern world. Through its new found geographical acquisitions, Russia was able to make sure that it was no longer a victim of the aggression of other European powers. Instead, its geographical position became the basis upon which its status as a great European power was established and this would continue until the fall of Communism in 1991.

History

The Russian state was established in the tenth century by a legendary group of Vikings based in Kiev and this would later expand into what came to be known as Russia. The founders of this state, according to legend, were Rurik and his brothers who would eventually end up forming the Rurik dynasty that would rule Russia until the death of Ivan the Terrible. The early Russian state was essentially a pagan one with little interaction with the outside world until Prince Vladimir of Kiev converted to Orthodox Christianity, thus establishing ties with the Byzantine Empire. The growth of the Russian state was brought to a sudden halt in the thirteenth century during the Mongol conquest which resulted in the sacking of Kiev. The destruction of the first Russian state led to a shift of power to Moscow, which was ruled by another Rurik prince and was a vassal of the Mongols. The vassalage to the Mongols of the Golden Horde ensured the survival of the Russian state in Moscow in the form of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy. This would eventually rise to such great prominence that it would not only overthrow Mongol rule, but would eventually evolve into the Russian Empire, encompassing all the lands of the Golden Horde. With the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks, Russia, which had also established ties through dynastic marriage, claimed to be the heir to the power and glory of Caesars. In this way, Moscow came to be considered the third Rome and its rulers began to be called Tsars, Russian for Caesar.

Russia entered the modern age under the rule of Peter the Great whose efforts were directed at making his country a truly European state. He forced the Russians to cease some of the traditions that seemed to keep them back and were considered unEuropean. Furthermore, he established a new capital closer to Europe at St. Petersburg, essentially choosing it over Moscow as the preeminent city in the Russian Empire. In addition to these efforts, Peter the Great carried out campaigns which ensured that the empire was greatly expanded while at the same time gaining political leverage with other European states through developing modern means of shipping as well as adopting the European culture, especially that of France. However, despite these efforts, Peter was not able to end one of the institutions which held Russia back from becoming one of the most powerful states in Europe, serfdom. Serfdom had existed in Russia for centuries and this institution had developed to such an extent that individuals, particularly serfs, were essentially slaves in their own land. The serfs formed the majority of the Russian population and these were tied to the land which for the most part was held by nobles or boyars; individuals who practically owned the serfs on their land. Serfdom remained a stain in Peter’s legacy and it would eventually be the motivation behind the Russian Revolution centuries later in the early twentieth century.

The Russian Revolution and the resulting civil war is one of the most significant events to have taken place in the twentieth century because it ensured the rise of communism in the former Russian Empire, which became the Soviet Union, and later across the globe. The Russian royal family was put to death and the monarchy abolished to be replaced by a communist state under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin. Lenin was a charismatic leader who was a staunch believer in Marxist philosophy and sought to ensure that communism spread all over the world. His death and succession by Josef Stalin led to a new phase in the development of communism in Russia with Stalin choosing a more aggressive approach to that taken by his predecessor. He made a deal with the Nazi government in Germany for the partition of Poland and after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, he changed sides and joined the allies in the Second World War. The fall of Britain, Germany, and France as great powers after the Second World War paved the way for the Soviet Union to become a global superpower alongside the United States and this ushered in considerable rivalry between these states that became known as the Cold War. The power of these countries was based on their having considerable nuclear arsenals; the latter ensuring that there was no direct confrontation between these superpowers. The fall of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was one of the most significant events in the later twentieth century because it ensured American pre-eminence in a unipolar world.

Power

Despite its loss of power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has remained an important player in regional and global politics. One of its greatest strengths is that it has been able to maintain a level of influence over a majority of former soviet republics especially through the significant number of Russians living in these countries. Furthermore, as a result of its size as well as abundant natural resources, especially natural gas and oil, this country has been able to ensure that it exerts a level of influence over its neighbours. This is especially the case with the European Union which for years developed deals of cooperation with Russia while the latter supplied it with one third of its natural gas supplies. Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, Russia has seen its influence rise on the global stage, with its becoming more assertive about its interests. Through its permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council, Russia has been able to ensure that it not only protects its legitimate interests, but also those of its allies. The result has been that it has increasingly cooperated with China to break the dominance of the United States and its allies over global affairs. Russia is also a nuclear state with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and this has helped in securing its position in the globe as well as acting as a deterrent to powers that would otherwise led to its demise.

However, despite its strengths, Russia also has several weaknesses which might create a situation where it loses its geopolitical position. Among these is its overreliance on its oil and natural gas production to cater for some 50% of its budget. This overreliance on its natural resources has created a situation where Russia has essentially failed to diversify its economy and this poses a potential threat from a geopolitical perspective. Furthermore, its aggressive stance to protect its natural interests has made it a target for American and European Union sanctions with the latter seeing Russian re-emergence as a threat to their global dominance. These sanctions, imposed in 2014 at the height of the Ukraine crisis and Russian annexation of Crimea, have been harmful to the Russian economy and have led to its shrinking. The fall of global oil prices has also diminished Russia’s budgetary capabilities; hampering its continued rise as a dominant geopolitical power in the Eurasian continent.

Russia has attempted to ensure that it no longer loses its influence over former soviet republics after Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania not only joined NATO but also the European Union. This is the reason why Russia has chosen to take on a more aggressive stance because it considers NATO encroachment on its borders as a threat. The wars first in Georgia in 2008 and the ongoing Ukraine civil war are actions which have been taken by Russia to prevent former soviet republics from joining NATO. Since the return of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency in 2012, the relationship between Russia and the United States has soured as each has come to view each other with increasing suspicion. The mutual suspicion between these two nuclear armed states has increased tensions to almost Cold War proportions and it has led to a situation where despite not confronting each other directly, they have become involved in a proxy war in the Ukraine as well as in Syria where Russian support has ensured that Bashar Al Assad has remained in power.

Conclusion

Russia has remained a powerful actor in the Eurasian region; a factor which can be attributed to its nuclear capabilities as well as the abundance of natural resources within its borders. The size of this country has also ensured that it pursues a complex foreign policy designed to address its interests with its numerous neighbours. Russia has increasingly aligned itself with such countries as China and Iran in a bid to diminish American influence over the rest of the world and in a bid to create a multipolar world. It is yet to be seen whether its geopolitical objectives will be met in the near future amid the economic sanctions that have been enforced by the United States and its allies. The rise of Russian nationalism as a result of the Ukraine crisis has seen a level of unprecedented support for the Russian government and its actions; a situation which has ensured that the government is able to pursue its objectives internationally with the full support of a majority of the Russian populace.

The Shaping of Gender Roles

Gender roles have existed for almost as long as the human race has existed and it is quite possible that they will continue to exist in the foreseeable future. They are a part of our daily lives and is manifested within the society by observable factors such as how one behaves or appears. They are patterns of feelings deemed appropriate or inappropriate because of one’s gender and they derive from the social expectations of how members of the different genders should behave. For example, if a person considers themselves to be female, then she would be expected to display the characteristics which are typically associated with being female, such as being gentle, dependent and expressive of their feelings. There are various factors that are used to determine the gender roles in society and the most important of these are biological, social, and cultural factors.

The biological make up of an individual in society has long been used to determine how that person should behave. However, there is yet to be proof of the fact that whether one is male or female, he or she is born with the innate knowledge of the characteristics that are often ascribed to their gender. In fact, those who support the idea that biology determines gender roles cannot explain how or why some males become very emotional and cry in situations where they are expected to be strong and unemotional. This helps to show that biology does is not necessarily a determining factor in gender roles.

The society plays a major role in determining the gender roles of the individuals within it. These individuals learn about their roles in society through their interactions with their family members, their socializing with their teachers and friends at school, and through the influence of mass media. The parents of a large number of people in society determine the gender roles of their children and rigidly enforce them. Therefore, these individuals grow up knowing the roles which are expected of their gender and are not allowed to choose for themselves because of the set societal norms.

Culture is another major factor that determines the gender roles of individuals in the societies within which they live. There are many different cultures around the world and each has its own expectations about what roles the members of each sex should undertake. While in most Western societies the male is expected to be dominant in society, in other cultures such as in some Asian communities, women are very powerful players within the society and major decisions cannot be made without consulting them.

The various roles that are ascribed to the various genders are mostly determined by the society within which one lives and by its culture. Biology only acts as a marker to determine how the society is going to socialize an individual to behave and it is not in itself a definer of gender roles. Within the modern world, gender roles are starting to become insignificant because it has been proven that women can take up the roles traditionally reserved for men with the same efficiency and the reverse has also been proven to be true. The gender roles are today slowly becoming blurred and they may cease to exist altogether in future.

The Role of Art in Making Political Statements

Art has, for a lengthy time, been used to make political statements among the Rapanui. The art of the Rapanui, in particular the statues of Moai, are the last part of the ancient history of these people and because of this, they still have a special impact on then Rapanui. When the Spanish colonized the Easter Islands, they discovered the importance of these statues to the Rapanui and in order to make a political statement, these giant statues were toppled from their pedestals, to show that the Spanish were dominant on the islands. While this may have been the case, these statues have come to be recognized as a unique part of the Rapanui heritage and attempts have been made by the Chilean government, which governs the islands, to restore them. The Rapanui have made these statues their rallying point when agitating for political independence from Chile, which they consider to be an oppressive colonizer.

A similar political statement was made in the past by the English in a bid to establish their dominance over the Scottish people. The English, after defeating the Scots in battle, took the important Stone of Scone, which was an essential part of the Scottish coronation ritual, from Scotland to England. This was used as a symbol of English dominance of the Scots, but in this instance it does not seem to have worked since Scotland came to regain its independence later. In essence, art and objects of power have been used throughout history either as rallying points for political causes, or as means to dominate people who hold them in high regard.

Factors that Determine Regime Stability

Introduction

Political stability is a concept that is often discussed as an extremely valued condition because it brings about a situation where there is good political development. Instability, on the other hand, is considered to come about because of a lack of political development on the part of the state involved. This project presents a case study of the determinants of regime stability with specific reference to the Middle Eastern countries of Egypt and Iran, on one hand, and Mexico on the other.

Hypothesis

Most definitions of regime stability tend to be based on the prominence of regularity which has a positive effect on the system of government involved, and fail to consider that stability depends on the unique circumstances facing each regime.

Definition of key concepts

Regime – a government, especially one that is considered authoritarian.

Stability – the state of being stable, in this case political or concerning government.

The justification for dependent variable: positive representations of regime stability

A considerable number of studies present regime stability as the having a positive effect on the system of government involved. It is a means through which governments are assessed by internal actors and brings about a situation where there is the advancement of policies towards such regimes by external actors.

The justification for independent variable

Regime stability is dependent on the prevailing political conditions at home. Some regimes might seem to be highly stable yet prove to be quite vulnerable in the long run. Moreover, those that are seen as being highly volatile end up proving more durable.

Other significant variables

Lack of democratic space: despite the relative stability of a regime, there are instances where the population might end up revolting because they do not participate in politics.

Slow move towards change: the world is rapidly changing and this process has also come into politics. Lack of political reforms could lead to regime instability.

Influence from external actors: there might develop a situation where external actors seek to influence internal events, leading to considerable instability.

Review of Studies on the Topic

The belief in political stability is one that has for the most part promoted the policies of most countries towards others. This is because stability tends to be given more prominence than any other aspect of politics because it enables the achievement of goals that would otherwise be extremely difficult to bring about. Therefore, there is a constant need by countries, especially those that are international players, to ensure that they bring about the maintenance of regime stability in order to serve their own interests (Game III, 2011). Under such circumstances, predicting abrupt political change is often an extremely difficult task because it is often influenced by the way that political analysts conceptualize regime stability. Countries such as the United States and those that make up the EU have pursued varying policies in the Middle East with the aim of promoting a situation where their interests are based on the stability of the non-democratic regimes in the region. A consequence has been that whenever political changes have taken place, they have happened in such a way that has caught them by surprise. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that there is the advancement of greater efforts aimed at bringing about a greater understanding of the stability of regimes in the Middle East and other parts of the world in order to help in the development of more effective policies. There seems to have been a failure in the foreign policies of both the United States and the EU when it comes to understanding the determinants of regime stability in the Middle East and this has been an extremely costly mistake as seen with the events of the Arab Spring and their aftermath.

Apart from the Middle East, another area of concern for the United States for decades has been Latin America (Holden & Zolov, 2000). The political instability in Latin America has been represented through the Roosevelt Corollary and the revolutionary movements that pervaded the Central American nations for decades (Ricard, 2006). A sense of urgency to ensure an understanding of the factors that lead to the development of stable political systems, especially when considering the extralegal means through which power has been seized in the history of some South American countries, has been a hallmark of American policy in the region (Hart, 1977). Despite these events, a study of the political development of Mexico can be considered an essential one when it comes to regime stability. This is because despite revolutions taking place in the country, unlike other Latin American countries, Mexico has been able to ensure that it enjoys a relatively stable political environment for more than half a century (De Janvry, Gonzalez-Navarro, & Sadoulet, 2014). Despite considerable pressure having been placed on its political system due to rapid economic growth as well as other challenges, Mexico has been able to ensure that it continues to remain stable. Under such circumstances, Mexico can be considered a country that has remained fairly stable despite facing similar challenges to its Latin American counterparts, which have not fared as well.

Presentation and Justification of Cases

Claude Ake promotes the idea that political stability is essentially the regularity in which there is the flow of political exchanges within a society (Ake, 1975, p. 273). This is especially the case considering that political stability can only come about because of the decision of members of a society to put restrictions on themselves in such a way that they conform to the limits that have been imposed on them through the expectations brought about by political roles. Moreover, there is need to ensure that there is no confusion between political stability and the lack of political change. Ernest Duff and John Mccamant define a stable political system as one that can essentially withstand change, but also within the political structure that has been developed in society (Duff & McCamant, 1968, p. 1125). Leon Hurwitz identifies five approaches to the study of political stability and concludes that the most effective is to study political stability as a multifaceted social attribute. This view sees political stability as systemic stability and is a synthesis or integration of the other approaches (Hurwitz, 1973, p. 449).

Stability is considered to be desirable for a vast number of reasons and these are based on the need to ensure that there is the provision of an advantage to external players when it comes to the predictability of government actions. The predictability of government actions can be considered to be essential in helping in the development of policy because it determines the direction that a government or regime is likely to take at certain times (Rodrik & Zeckhauser, 1988). Under such circumstances, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the advancement of a situation where external players are able to adjust their policies accordingly in order to bring about the achievement of the most advantage to themselves in their dealings with the regime. This is especially considering that dealing with a failing state can be an extremely daunting initiative, because it is often difficult to identify a counterpart that can be interacted with effectively in order to ensure that there is the establishment of strong policy initiatives. It is normal for countries to make use of a diversity of initiatives aimed at ensuring that their counterparts are able to accept their point of view and become influenced towards achieving desirable outcomes. However, in the case of an unstable regime, it becomes troublesome because the latter does not have full control over the state (Aisen & Veiga, 2013). Therefore, it becomes necessary for government to ensure that there are efforts to get as accurate an understanding of regimes and the possible risks surrounding them before undertaking to bring about a threat to their stability. The ramifications of an unstable regime can be catastrophic not only to the said state, but also to the region within which it is situated. There is need to promote the creation of a scenario where there are limited foreign interventions that might end up risking the stability of states, because regimes, especially authoritarian ones, can end up proving to be highly unstable whenever challenges by massive popular discontent.

The concept of regime stability is one that has a diversity of definitions and this creates a situation where they end up becoming quite controversial (Hurwitz, 1973). A broad definition of this concept is that it involves a situation where there is the absence of any sort of domestic civil conflict or widespread violence that might end up marring the functions of the state. Instead, the regime can be considered to be one that has essentially rid itself of instability in such a way that there are no systematic attacks on persons and their assets within the boundaries of the state. Furthermore, there is the advancement of a situation where there is need for the regime to ensure that there is the creation of an environment where it is in full control of the situation and it can enforce its will on its people. However, this definition might prove to be problematic, because there are instances where despite the political situation of a country looking stable at the moment, the entire system of governance can end up collapsing quite quickly. This means that despite there being no systematic attacks on individuals or property, the regime could actually be quite fragile; only awaiting an incident to trigger unrest and show its fragility for what it really is. An example of this situation is President Jimmy Carter in 1977 praising pre-revolutionary Iran as being one of the most stable countries in a region that was extremely troubled (Carter, 1977). At the time he made this statement, little did he know that the entire regime would end up unraveling within two years and that there would be a revolution in Iran that would overthrow the Shah. Thus, regime stability cannot be effectively defined based on the above definition because the signs of stability tend to end up actually being only a veneer that hides the decay that is actually being experienced within the political system.

Another interpretation of regime stability is one that essentially equates regime longevity with stability (Harymawan & Nowland, 2016). This is an extremely challenging definition because it involves the definition of a country that experiences constant changes in government as unstable. There is a failure to consider that there are some countries in the world that have experienced constant changes in government yet have for the most part maintained the same policies as their predecessors. Such states might even have very stable administrative systems that are not adversely affected whenever there is regime change. A country such as Italy, which had over sixty changes in government over a similar number of years, was able to maintain a fairly stable policy throughout this period without undergoing any form of instability that would have made the nation extremely vulnerable (Curini, 2011). Under such circumstances, this definition becomes redundant because there is a lack of consideration for those states that remain stable even when there is regime change. Another example is that of Belgium, which had to undergo over a year without a cabinet and would have ended up being ranked even lower that Egypt when it came to regime instability (Hooghe, 2012). However, these circumstances proved wrong because Belgium was able to ride out the storm through the ability of its institutions to not only weather the political storm, but also keep administrative activities going throughout the period. This can be compared to the uninterrupted thirty year old rule of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, which despite its longevity ended up falling within days of public protests in the country (Shehata, 2011).

Moreover, another approach to regime stability is based on the concept of lack of structural change (Maoz & Russett, 1993). This is an approach that seeks to promote the idea that a stable regime is one that essentially has the absence of internally or externally induced change in its basic configuration; resulting in a situation where it remains stable at all times. While this approach can be considered pertinent when it comes to the discussion of regime stability, it is also quite problematic because it promotes the idea of structural change, which is often quite difficult to define. Furthermore, there are instances where deep changes take place in regimes that despite the changes end up remaining quite strong to such an extent that there is a level of continuity in their economic, social, and constitutional formations (Eckstein, 1988). Therefore, the stability of regimes can be considered to be based on the unique situation of each state because there are instances where change can happen in a positive manner to such an extent that it leads to the advancement of stability rather than a failure of the regime. Furthermore, there are instances where it becomes possible for the progression of strong regimes through the development of locally induced changes that gradually bring about positive shifts in the power structure that enhance rather than break regime stability.

Speculative Conclusion

The review of literature above has shown that there is a diversity of definitions of the determinants of regime stability. This is because each regime has to be considered based on its own unique situation rather than being generalized. A study of the regimes has shown that those that seem to be the most stable could turn out to be extremely vulnerable and vice versa. It is therefore essential to make sure that the stability of each regime is studied based on its own unique development and the manner through which it has been able to develop towards the promotion of its institutions and their durability.

References

Aisen, A., & Veiga, F. J. (2013). How does political instability affect economic growth? European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 151-167.

Ake, C. (1975). A definition of political stability. Comparative politics, 7(2), 271-283.

Carter, J. (1977). Tehran, Iran Toasts of the President and the Shah at a State Dinner. The American Presidency Project, 31.

Curini, L. (2011). Government survival the Italian way: The core and the advantages of policy immobilism during the First Republic. European Journal of Political Research, 50(1), 110-142.

De Janvry, A., Gonzalez-Navarro, M., & Sadoulet, E. (2014). Are land reforms granting complete property rights politically risky? Electoral outcomes of Mexico's certification program. Journal of Development Economics, 110, 216-225.

Duff, E. A., & McCamant, J. F. (1968). Measuring social and political requirements for system stability in Latin America. American Political Science Review, 62(4), 1125-1143.

Eckstein, H. (1988). A culturalist theory of political change. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 789-804.

Game III, F. G. (2011). Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring. Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 81-90.

Hart, J. A. (1977). Cognitive maps of three Latin American policy makers. World Politics, 30(1), 115-140.

Harymawan, I., & Nowland, J. (2016). Political connections and earnings quality: How do connected firms respond to changes in political stability and government effectiveness? International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 24(4), 339-356.

Holden, R. H., & Zolov, E. (2000). Latin America and the United States. A Documentary.

Hooghe, M. (2012). The political crisis in Belgium (2007–2011): a federal system without federal loyalty. Representation, 48(1), 131-138.

Hurwitz, L. (1973). Contemporary approaches to political stability. Comparative politics, 5(3), 449-463.

Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624-638.

Ricard, S. (2006). The Roosevelt Corollary. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 17-26.

Rodrik, D., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). The dilemma of government responsiveness. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(4), 601-620.

Shehata, D. (2011). The fall of the Pharaoh: how Hosni Mubarak's reign came to an end. Foreign Affairs, 26-32.

The Political Career of Margaret Thatcher

The political career of the formidable Margaret Thatcher began in the voting of the year 1950 and 1951, when she ran for a parliamentary seat on a Conservative ticket. During these elections, she was not only the only female candidate in the race, but she was also the youngest, at twenty five. Although she lost in both elections to the Labour party candidate, she managed to significantly reduce their majority in this constituency. Despite not being able to participate in the 1955 general elections, Thatcher, in the same year ran for the Orpington seat in a by-election in which she was also defeated, but in this case, the margin of defeat was quite narrow. This brought a realization that she could only win in a constituency where the Conservative party was downright dominant. To realize her ambition, she went looking for one such constituency, and as a consequence, was selected to run as the Conservative candidate for Finchley, where she was elected Member of Parliament in the 1959 general elections.

She made her first speech when she defended her bill, which required members of the local authorities to hold their council meetings in public. She displayed her strong will and character by going against the official position of her party by voting for the restoration of birching, which was a form of corporal punishment using a birch rod. From the outset of her career in politics, she declared herself a friend of the Jewish community. She was not only a founding affiliate of a pro Jewish group in her constituency, but she was also a member of the pro-Jewish association of the conservative party. Despite this friendship, however, she was of the opinion that Israel had to give up some of the land it had occupied in order to bring peace in Palestine. Moreover, she considered some of the actions of the Israeli government, such as the bombing of Osirak, as a severe abuse of international law.

In 1961, Thatcher was given an endorsement to the front bench by the Macmillan government of the time, and in this new capacity, she served as the Parliamentary Undersecretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. However, when the Conservatives failed to win the elections in the voting of 1964, she developed into the spokesperson for Housing and Land. Here, she showed her strong support for her party’s stand on allowing those tenants living in council houses to be allowed to buy their residences. In 1966, she was selected into the shadow treasury lineup where she was strongly in opposition to the policy of the Labour party which set compulsory price and income management, she stated that such policies would not help the economy and that they would, in fact, damage the economy. At a party conference in 1966, Thatcher criticized the high taxation policies of the Labour government, stating that they were going against the established order of British society and turning towards socialism, and perhaps they would later turn towards communism. Her main argument for this position was that low taxes encouraged people to work harder to earn an income.

She was among the small number of Conservative MPs to hold up the bill whose purpose was to decriminalize homosexuality in men. Moreover, she was also among those who voted in agreement of a bill to decriminalize abortion. She further gave her support for the maintaining of the death penalty but voted against the easing of the laws concerning divorce. These stances serve to show that while she was progressive in some of her views, she was extremely conservative in others. Edward Heath led the Conservative party to triumph in the 1970 general elections, and this proved to be an opportunity for her, as she was appointed Secretary for Education and Science. In her new position, she came to draw much public attention through her promotion of cutting spending in the education system. One of the most controversial moves during her first few months was the abolition of milk for school children at no cost. Because of this move, she encountered a lot of disapproval not only from the ranks of the Labour party, but also from the media.

The Conservative government, during its term, experienced a lot of difficulties resulting from the oil crisis of 1973 to the demands, by trade unions, for the increase of wages for workers. These difficulties led to the slender Conservative thrashing by the Labour party in the 1974 elections. This loss considerably weakened Heath’s leadership of the party, and Thatcher took this opportunity to challenge him for the leadership. Heath was forced to resign his position in the party after she trounced him, in the first vote, and William Whitelaw, the former’s preferred heir, in the second party vote, to become the new party head in 1975. To maintain the backing of the entire party behind her leadership, she appointed Whitelaw as her deputy. Because of the influence of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Thatcher was utterly opposed to the type of welfare state which then existed in Britain, believing that such a system was weakening the country. This institute was a firm proponent of the need for a reduction in the size of government, low tax, and more freedoms to allow businesses and consumers to run their activities without interference from the government. It is most probable that these ideas came to profoundly influence the policies of Thatcher, once she took the reigns of government.

In a 1976 speech, she made an attack on the Soviet Union’s aim to dominate the world, stating that while it did not care about what its people thought and put guns before everything, those who opposed them put everything before guns. These comments provoked a response from a soviet newspaper, which referred to her as the Iron Lady, a reference which stuck. In 1978, despite the economic improvement and the high ratings on the opinion polls in favor of the Labour party, the prime minister at the time, James Callaghan, chose to postpone the elections to 1979. The Labour party lost its popularity due to a series of events, such as strikes which occurred during that winter. The Conservative party took the opportunity to attack the Labour government, and this eventually led to its losing a motion of no confidence in parliament. This led to elections in 1979, with the Conservative party winning a comfortable majority in parliament, and its leader, Margaret Thatcher becoming the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Thatcher’s stand on domestic policy, as in all other issues was clear from the start of her administration. During her term as Leader of Opposition as well as prime minister, there was an increasing racial tension within Britain. When asked about it, she stated that the minorities in Britain added a wide variety and richness and that when these minorities became influential, then the local people became frightened. She further stated that Britain had done so much to bring democracy to other parts of the world and that because of this, it was only natural for the British to feel threatened by those coming into the country, not knowing what influences they would bring. The Conservative party, under her leadership, managed to take away the majority of the support of the far right National Front, almost leading to the latter’s collapse. Thatcher, in her duties as prime minister, was required to meet every week with the Queen to confer about matters of government. This led to a lot of speculation concerning their relationship, with some media stating that they did not agree on many issues, and that, in fact, they could not stand each other. Such speculation gave rise to rumors that a constitutional crisis was at hand, but this was headed off when the palace issued a statement that the media stories had no basis on fact. During Thatcher’s term, she practiced immense thriftiness in Downing Street, which included her insistence on paying for some of the things she used.

Thatcher’s economic policy was based on the belief that the government needed to be in control of all the money in circulation. To achieve this, her government came up with policies that ensured the lowering of direct taxes, especially on income, and the increase of indirect taxes. Moreover, the interest rates were increased so that the money supply in the economy would be reduced, and as a consequence, there would be a lowering of inflation. Thatcher not only established limits on the cash that was used on public spending, but also on social services. Because of her cuts on the government expenditure on tertiary learning, she became the first Oxford educated, prime minister, after the Second World War, to be denied an honorary doctorate. Despite the expression of doubt concerning her policies among some members of her party, Thatcher declared that although they might want her to turn away from them, she would not do so. This expressed her will not to abandon her guiding principles because of her belief that what she was doing was right. Her economic policies came under a lot of criticism from the public, especially during the recession in the beginning of the 1980s, which saw her popularity drop. To counter this recession, she ignored the advice of the leading economists, and instead increased taxes.

By 1982, there were indications of economic mending because of the lowering of inflation, but this was shadowed by the fact that there was a high unemployment rate. In this period, the unemployment rate was so high, the like of which had not been seen since the 1930s. By 1983, however, due to her economic policies, the economy was much stronger with low mortgage rates as well as less inflation. Because of the falling unemployment rates as well as a strong, stable economy, the opinion polls in 1987 showed the Conservatives in the lead. This prompted Thatcher to call for elections a year early, taking advantage of the situation as it was at the time. This must have been an attempt to avoid the same mistake which the Labour government had made in failing to call for an election in 1978.

The 1987 elections saw Thatcher elected for a third term, a sign that her move to call for elections early was exceedingly wise for her and the Conservatives. In the 1980s, a ninety percent tax was imposed on the extraction of oil from the North Sea, and the Thatcher government used the revenue derived to balance the economy as well as to cater for the expenditure of reform. She brought reform to the local government by putting a poll tax in place of the domestic rates. The latter was a tax based on the ostensible rental value of a home, while the former was to be charged to every adult occupant. The imposition of this new tax proved to be one of the most unpopular moves that her government had ever made, and this led to a large demonstration in London, which ended up becoming riots against the poll taxes. These taxes were s unpopular that when her successor came to office, he had them abolished.

Thatcher was determined to ensure that the power of the trade unions was reduced because of her belief that they undermined parliamentary democracy as well as the performance of the economy through their right to go on strike. Her government introduced legislation aimed at reducing the influence of trade unions, and despite going on strike in response, the resistance of the trade unions crumbled. During the elections of 1983, an unexpectedly low number of trade union members (some thirty nine percent) voted for the Labour party. Some have stated that Thatcher singlehandedly destroyed the power of the trade unions in the United Kingdom for a whole generation. Notable among the confrontations between Thatcher and the trade organizations was during the 1984 – 1985 miners’ downing of tools. This was due to the proposal by the National Coal Board to cut several thousand jobs as well as close over a hundred state owned mines. The National Union of Mine Workers, was at the forefront of two thirds of the miners in the kingdom to protest the actions taken by the Thatcher government. In response, Thatcher rejected their demands, comparing the confrontation to the Falklands war, stating that the unions were more difficult to fight, making them a dangerous threat to liberty. The strike went on for a whole year, during which Thatcher refused to back down, and because of this, the trade union had to concede.

The strike gave the economy enormous losses and these were further added when the government went ahead with plans to close more mines, even those that were profitable. As a consequence, thousands of jobs were lost and this led to the devastation of whole communities whose livelihood depended on them. Thatcher had noted that miners had had a hand in the bringing down of the Heath government, and she was determined that they would not do the same to her own. She gained victory through ensuring that there were adequate fuel stocks, and that she had appointed a leader for the National Coal Board who was tough on trade unions. Finally, she ensured that the police had received adequate training and were well equipped to counter any riots. Due to the strong policies which Thatcher initiated against them, the trade unions in Britain came to lose a lot of their power, and with this came a decline in membership. Throughout Thatcher’s government, the trade union membership dropped steadily to number less than ten million.

One of the most fundamental policies of the Thatcher government was privatization and this was accelerated especially after the elections of 1983. More than £47 billion was collected from the privatization of government owned business as well as the auction of council houses. The preparation of state owned industries for privatization ensured that there was a marked improvement in the performance of these industries. Moreover, since most of the privatized industries were monopolies, their privatization did not significantly affect their activities since there was no significant competition. While the privatization of government owned industries benefitted consumers in many ways, there were also some negative consequences, such as job cuts. It can, therefore, be said that the results of these actions were neither good nor bad. The sector which Thatcher considered to be most exempt from privatization was the rail industry. She believed that doing so would be disastrous to the government. The selling of state owned enterprises was accompanied by the easing of the regulations on the financial sector to hearten the expansion of the economy. In 1979, the monetary management of the United Kingdom was abolished, and this allowed the investment of an increased amount of capital in foreign markets. The Thatcher administration promoted the development of the fiscal and service segments to make up for the decline in the mechanized industry of the United Kingdom.

Among the issues which were of significant concern to the conservative government was that of Northern Ireland. The earliest of these was when the prisoners in the Maze Prison held a hunger strike in an attempt to regain their former status as political prisoners. For the duration of the hunger strikes, there was an increase in violence in Northern Ireland in support of the detainees’ actions. Thatcher, as was characteristic of her, did not accept these demands, and declared so in public. However, her government privately negotiated with the Irish republican principals to bring their influence to bear so that the starvation strikes would come to an end. After the deaths of some of the prisoners, however, some of their rights were restored, but the Thatcher government refused to concede to reinstating their former status. In 1984, Thatcher had gone for a party conference in Brighton, where she barely escaped being assassinated by the IRA, in an attempt which left five people dead. Despite this incident, she led the Conservative party in a conference the next day, showing that she would not be cowed by the attempt on her life. This action increased her fame with the public, who derived confidence from her action.

Thatcher saw the need to involve the Republic of Ireland in the governing progression of Northern Ireland as a way of fostering harmony in the troubled area. To achieve this, alongside the Irish prime minister, Garret FitzGerald, she created Irish Inter-Governmental Council in the year 1981. The meetings of this council resulted in the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, which made available to the Irish republic an advisory task in matters concerning the administration of Northern Ireland.  This move provoked a protest in Northern Ireland and prompted Ian Gow, a Minister of State, to resign his post in protest. Gow was opposed to any form of compromise with the Republic of Ireland, believing that Britain had to take a tough stance on issues related to Northern Ireland.

In 1989, the earliest confrontation Thatcher received to her position as leader of the Conservative party came from Anthony Meyer. While she managed to defeat the little known MP from the backbench, his challenge showed the growing discontent with her leadership within her party. Her supporters within the party played down these allegations, stating that her landslide win showed that the majority of the party members still backed her. Although Thatcher received poor approval ratings in opinion polls, Thatcher declared that she did not care about what they said, often citing her unbeaten record since she first got elected. Instead, she chose to stick to her way of thinking without having to change to please anyone. The growing discontent with her leadership within the Conservative party continued to increase, and by 1990, poll results showed that the party had been trailing behind the Labour party for months. Thatcher’s aggressive personality as well as her tendency to overrule the opinions of her associates further led to the dissatisfaction within the party.

It was Thatcher’s willingness to overrule her contemporaries which contributed to her demise. Her decision not to be in agreement to a schedule for the United Kingdom to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism made her second-in-command, Geoffrey Howe, to resign from the cabinet. This resignation prompted her leadership of the party to be challenged and although she won the first round, she did not do so decisively. As a result, a second ballot was called, and despite the fact that she wanted to fight on, her cabinet advised her to withdraw. She resigned her position and was substituted by John Major as party head as well as in the premiership. The latter managed to bring back the party fortunes and in the 1992 general elections, the Conservatives were victorious. Thatcher remained in the backbenches as a representative for her constituency until 1992, when she chose to resign from the House of Commons.

In conclusion, it can be said that Margaret Thatcher was one of the most formidable politicians and prime ministers in the history of Britain. Not only was she firm in her beliefs, she stuck to them no matter what those around her thought of it. The policies of her government were directed at making Britain an environment which was free of government interference, especially when it came to economic matters. Her confidence in her convictions are what kept her going since she was first elected to the time of her ouster from leadership of her party. While this may have been her strength, it also proved her undoing because her unwillingness to compromise led to her losing the support of members of her party.

The War in Syria: American Blindness to its Realities

The war in Syria has become one of the most controversial issues in the modern world, and mainly because of its beginnings, divisions between major political parties in the United States have been developed. The Syrian war has brought with it huge human casualties, and although it was expected that it would be completed quickly like the Libyan War, thanks to the support of the United States and its allies, the war is currently continuing. This situation has left a lot of doubt among both the Democrats and the Republicans about whether it was reasonable for the United States primarily to participate in the Syrian conflict.

When President Obama announced his intention to attack Syria after what was allegedly the use of the Syrian government's chemical weapons against its own people, the PPS, it is expected that there will be that wide gap between the two sides in Congress. However, this was not so, because in a rare demonstration of unity between Republicans and Democrats, it was widespread to resist any airstrikes against the Syrian government or direct participation of the United States in the conflict. The fact that there was widespread opposition to the United States Participation in Syria on both sides is a true statement about the sensitivity to this issue of the American that the public feels. In the rare case of unity, representatives of both sides seem to have almost unanimously chosen to represent the true feelings of their constituents, who are mostly tired of the war. In fact, the polls showed that the United States should stop concentrating on solving external conflicts and instead focus on solving a growing number of problems in the domestic arena.

Despite the seeming unity of the two sides with regard to Syria, the fact is that the United States government does not have a clear policy towards Syria, and this may be the reason that the conflict lasted for the past two years. This conflict has, however, also created a situation where it has become difficult for the United States to deal with the diverse consequences such as the development of the refugee problem. It is more likely than not that the continuation of the Syrian conflict will create a refugee problem, as Syrian refugees seek to settle in the United States. The fact that Syrian refugees will likely continue seeking asylum in the United States has become a worrying subject in both parties and this is likely to be another issue which will unite the Democrats and the Republicans in a bipartisan way. In addition, the Syrian war has caused US allies in the region, Turkey and Jordan to have such as the influx of refugees that has created a sad situation in these countries. The fact that Democrats and Republicans, despite having been proven that they can work together, have not yet come up with a clear policy towards Syria, is the most alarming. The United States Congress must exert pressure on the government so that it creates a clear policy that will put an end to the Syrian conflict that will provide lasting peace for the Syrian people.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the Assad regime lost its mandate to rule the Syrian people, and because of this, it must go. It has been a standing position of both of these parties since the onset of the conflict. However, because of the changes of the status on the ground due to Russian and Iranian intervention has led to a situation where it is essential to come to an accommodation. The latter step would an extremely important one because it would curb the number of internally displaced persons in the country, but the number of refugees in neighboring countries creating similar situations to those that failed states the situation.

However, the United States has only been indirectly involved in Syria. This process has involved the government, supported by the Democrats, working to support the Syrian rebels in providing weapons and training. There has been coordination with the allies in the region to train militant groups and help them transit to Syria to fight government forces. Although the United States has not been directly involved in the conflict, in the form of boots on the ground, it has worked with its allies to provide logistic support to the rebels, which apparently has been approved by both Democrats and Republicans.

The Issue of Race in America

Racism in America is a problem that has existed almost since the beginning of the European settlement in this country five hundred years ago. Racism has not disappeared as might be expected, but instead has worsened over the years, since theory as white supremacy has been internalized by the various multiracial groups that occupy America. The racism that began for the first time with discrimination against the American Indians within their own land that finally expelled them from the lands they occupied and in reserves by force and a large slaughter of large numbers of them; the racism that was used to justify the capture of Black people of Africa and their being taken to the United States to be placed in the bondage of slavery; and later, racism was manifested against Asians who came to settle in the United States in the nineteenth century to seek opportunities to improve their lives. All these incidents have worked hand in hand over time to shape the racial attitudes and beliefs that are common in the United States today, spreading the idea of ​​white supremacy, though in such a way that most people just they notice it.
Racial discrimination generates a grammar that helps to reproduce the racial order as such and how things are. This is a result of the work of nineteenth-century scientists who used inaccurate data and faulty samples to draw their conclusions about the races, partly to justify the imperial activities of their countries in Africa and Asia, and to "scientifically" secure their dominant position In society. The standard grammar of American English has much in it that still reinforces the idea of ​​white supremacy. An example of this is how the media uses endearing terms as beautiful when reporting news of white victims of tragic events, while nothing is said about those victims of minority races who are simply under the same circumstances. This is an unconscious action that is the result of the terms used especially against blacks during the era of slavery in relation to the two races; that the white was beautiful and superior, while the black was ugly and inferior.

It is not logical to think that more than five hundred years of formalized racial inequality in the United States can be so easily eliminated. Blacks, for example, continue to be disadvantaged even after the guarantee of formal equality of rights in 1965, which was expected to put an end to all forms of racial inequality. In the search for new employees, white employers tend to prefer to hire white people to black people because of the racial stereotype that represents black people as unreliable, even though the black person involved in this case is probably more qualified for the job. Residential segregation between black and white communities in the great cities of America has ensured that these races have remained isolated from each other and this has reduced the possibilities of understanding that would have developed due to a close interaction. It is the responsibility of white people as the dominant group in America to pave the way to end racial discrimination since all the practices of racism that occur today are as a direct consequence of their unconscious desire to maintain their position in society. Racial harmony cannot be achieved if only a single racial group continues to dominate almost every aspect of the lives of others.  Instead, it can only be achieved if all racial groups in the United States receive the same treatment without prejudice.
In conclusion, racism is a subject that is very much alive in the United States today and affects all racial groups living in this nation. This is a social problem that must be addressed as quickly as possible before it explodes into something worse, such as a conflict between the dominant white race against minority races. In the discussion above, some aspects of racism in the United States have been addressed, as well as their effects on minority, and the majority groups. These are just one part of the problem of racism and more research is still needed to be able to deal better with it in the future.

The Ku Klux Klan

The Ku Klux Klan is a racist, anti-Semitic society with a dedication to excessive violence to attain its goals of racial separation and white dominance. It first emerged in 1866 following the American Civil War and it is considered to be America’s first terrorist group. Its first target was African – Americans and the white people who supported them. Later incarnations of this group added more categories amongst its enemies including Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, and the various immigrant groups in the United States. In most of these cases, these recognized enemies of the Klan were marginal groups that came into direct financial competition with the working class whites that formed the core constituency of these groups. According to Newton (202) the activities were however surpassed by growing neo – Nazi organizations in the United States in the 1990s and in the early 2000s.

The Ku Klux Klan was basically based in the Southern states of America where they targeted the African Americans set free after the American Civil War. The Klan had never considered the former slaves as being free and they terrorized the African Americans to maintain their supremacy as well as to express their anger at the freedoms granted to these former slaves. The root cause for their actions was that although America experienced great economic prosperity after the Civil War, not much of the wealth generated filtered to the South and it was the racism, mixed with anger at their economic plight that inspired the activities of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan was a violent organization and they burnt the churches of the African American population, murdered, raped and castrated those who they targeted and they were rarely caught because most senior law enforcers in the South were also high ranking Klan members or were sympathetic to its aims.

According to Bullard (9) he earliest branch of the Ku Klux Klan was created in Pulaski, Tennessee in 1866 and most of its leaders had been previous members of the Confederate army in the Civil War. During the next two years after its founding, they tortured and killed African – Americans and those whites who were sympathetic to them. Immigrants, who the Klan blamed for the election of radical Republicans, were also targeted and between 1868 and 1870, the Ku Klux Klan was instrumental in the restoration of white rule in the states of North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. West (110) states that the original objective of the Ku Klux Klan was to stop the African American people from voting so that white domination of the Southern states would be maintained. After all-white governments had been established in the South, this group continued to undermine the power of African Americans by attacking successful black businessmen and by stifling any attempt to form black protection groups such as trade unions. Since the Ku Klux Klan had achieved its main objective in the Southern states, by the end of 1871, the organization had practically disappeared.

It is claimed by Gitlin (133) that after its formation, the Klan quickly became a terrorist organization in the service of the Democratic Party and white supremacists and that its main goal was to destroy Congressional Reconstruction by murdering blacks and some whites who were either in active Republican politics or educating black children. They burned churches and schools and drove thousands of people out of their homes and because local law enforcement representatives were incapable or reluctant to stop them, Congress approved the Force Bill in 1871 giving the Federal government the authority to take legal action against the Klan. Dedicated prosecutors managed to win convictions and break up Klan activity and although relatively few people were punished, federal action did put an end to Klan activities, at least for a while.

Maclean (23) states that the Ku Klux Klan was reorganized in 1915 by William Simmons, a preacher who had been influenced by the book The Ku Klux Klan written in 1905 by Thomas Dixon and a film version of the book which glorified the past actions of this group. After World War One, the Ku Klux Klan became very antagonistic towards various religious and political groups and ideologies which they considered to be foreign to the United States. It was under the charismatic leadership of Hiram Evans, the group grew quickly and by the 1920s, Klansmen had been elected into positions of political authority and these included officials in Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Oregon, and Maine. By 1925, the Klan members had reached a record four million members and this gave them so much power that on the rare occasions when they were arrested for serious crimes, Klansmen were unlikely to be convicted by the local Southern juries. However, after the conviction of a senior Klan leader for murder and the revelation of evidence of corruption by other senior members of this group such as the then governor of Indiana and the mayor of Indianapolis, the membership of the Klan started falling and this trend went on through the Great Depression and the Second World War. Eventually, the organization was weakened by disagreements amongst its leadership and because of the public criticism of its violent activities and by 1944, the Klan had lost most of its influence and membership and it was disbanded.

Chalmers (16) states that the emergence of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s resulted in the revival of the Ku Klux Klan movement and it saw a surge of Klan activity which included terror attacks on black schools and churches. The various Klan groups put pressure on African Americans not to vote mostly through lynching which the Klan employed as a method of terrorizing the local African American population. The success of these Klan activities can be seen in the state of Mississippi in 1960 where although the African Americans formed 42% of the population, only 2% were registered to vote.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Ku Klux Klan movement, despite its violent history, is still a part and parcel of the general history of the South of the United States. It however only developed to a position of great power during what can only be considered as emergencies. For example, it came into existence as a result of the emancipation of the slaves after the Civil War, the influx of immigrants after the First World War, and the rise of the Civil Rights movement. The Klan’s existence has been very persistent since its founding and it is as yet not known what its next incarnation is going to be.

References

Bullard, Sara. The Klu Klux Klan: A History of Racism and Violence. Darby, Pennsylvania: Diane Publishing, 1998.

Chalmers, David Mark. Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement. Lanham, Maryland, 2003.

Gitlin, Marty. The Ku Klux Klan: A Guide to an American Subculture. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2009.

MacLean, Nancy. Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Newton, Michael. The Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi: A History. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2010.

West, Jerry Lee. The Reconstruction Ku Klux Klan in York County, South Carolina, 1865 – 1877. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2002.