Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the people who I admire the most in the world, not only as a leader of men, but also as a man devoted to his family. This admiration does not just stem from the fact that he is one of the greatest men to have ever lived in the Western world, but it also comes from the way he conducted himself throughout his life. Napoleon was indeed a unique man, who rose from extremely humble origins and became the emperor of the most powerful nation in Europe at the time. His life has been the subject of numerous literatures, with some writers supporting his deeds while others have condemned them. Despite these disagreements about Napoleon, one thing, which all writers agree upon, is that he was indeed an extraordinary man. Most historians consider Napoleon to have been one of, if not the foremost, military general in world history. Within a few years after becoming the French emperor, he had brought most of continental Europe under his rule. Furthermore, he had created a unique system of government, the like of which had never been seen in Europe. For the first time in the years after the French Revolution, the Catholic Church returned to France under his guidance. In addition, Napoleon was a man unique in his time because of the immense love he had for his family. He was also a man who was not afraid to take any path to satisfy his ambitions. It is because of all these distinctiveness and a lot more, which make him the person I have a high regard for.

Napoleon was born in the town of Ajaccio in Corsica, in 1769, to a local Corsican minor nobleman, and his birth coincided with the time when the French were trying to enforce their rule on Corsica, an island which had recently been ceded to them by an Italian ruler. Napoleon was born just a year after the French had acquired Corsica, and this occurrence ensured that he was born a French national. This ensured that while he was growing up, he did not share the same resentment as older Corsicans did towards what was locally termed as a French occupation. Instead, napoleon grew up with a great admiration for the French, something which would eventually guide him towards the path of becoming their ruler. Because his father had collaborated with the French from the early days of the occupation, he was given a particularly powerful position in the government of Ajaccio. This ensured that his family remained well off, and because of the influence his office carried, two of his sons, Joseph and Napoleon, were sent to the prestigious College d’Autun in France, where they were to be educated. It is thus that Napoleon came to France for the first time; little knowing that he would one day come to rule this country. His father passed away while he was still at a military college, and he was forced to act as the head of his family, despite his being a younger son. This was because his older brother, Joseph, was exceedingly incompetent and tended not to take his responsibilities seriously. This is one of the characteristics displayed by Napoleon that are most admirable. He was not afraid to take up responsibility, no matter how hard they seemed to be at first.

It was soon after he left the military college that he and his family permanently relocated to France, where Napoleon’s career would begin in earnest. For a person so young, he showed his ambitions early by joining a political group soon after relocating to France. Furthermore, he took up military service in the French army which was based in Nice. The tumultuous events, which were taking place in France during this time, gave Napoleon the opportunity to satisfy his ambitions. He got his first successful break when he saved the government of the time from a coup attempt by a rival group. This act ensured that he got the attention of the committee which ruled France at the time, who promoted him to the position of commander in the army. His new found influence earned him the command of the French army in Italy; a position, which he had coveted. This is where his martial ability came to be exhibited for the first time. When he was given command, he found the men to be disgruntled and underfed. His charismatic nature and organizational and military brilliance soon changed that as this became the best wing of the French military. Not only was there a complete turnaround in the men’s morale, Napoleon managed to gain victories over the Austrians which were crucial to the French cause. These actions vastly enhanced his image in France, and when he returned, he was a national hero. With his return to France, Napoleon truly started his political career.

This man’s political genius can be seen through his actions after his return to France from the war in Italy. He made what one could term a political marriage to one of the most famous women in France at the time, Josephine de Beauharnais. This turned out to be a tremendously popular marriage in the country, and it further enhanced Napoleon’s image as the national hero. Within a few years, Napoleon came to gain power in France, as one of the three men who ruled the country. His political genius then came into play as he had the constitution revised, making him the most powerful man in the country. This new power enabled him to have the authority to appoint all the people who were to occupy strategic positions. With Napoleon’s rise to power, it can be said that the French Revolution officially came to an end. His actions show that he was indeed a child of the revolution, as he used to say. He swiftly reformed all the crucial sectors in the government, making them more efficient than they had ever been before. Reforms were carried out in such sectors as the economy, the judicial system, as well as the education system. Napoleon’s greatness can further be seen when he restored those basic freedoms which the French people had been denied. One of these freedoms was the freedom of religion, which Napoleon reinstated by inviting the Catholic Church back to France. However, he did not give the Church the absolute authority it once had, and instead, its activities were placed under the supervision of the state. This ensured that the Church did not abuse its powers as it had done previously.

One of the most admirable things about Napoleon is his dedication to his family. When he rose to greatness, he made sure that members of his family also shared in it. He was exceedingly generous to them, often giving his siblings powerful positions in his empire. In fact, all of his siblings, except one, became monarchs of various parts of the continent during his rule. Even Joseph, the brother who had abandoned his responsibility as the oldest son, was made a king of Spain. This just shows the true nature of Napoleon; he was a loving man who did not hold grudges. Napoleon had one known illegitimate son, Alexandre Walewski, whose mother was a Polish noblewoman. While many men in that period tended to ignore their illegitimate children, Napoleon recognized his son and took responsibility for him. This can be said to be an example of his loving and caring nature. Despite the many wars which took place under his rule, the French people did surprisingly well. Their government was for the first time highly efficient, and the bureaucracy whom Napoleon had put in place worked far better than previous governments. It is because of all these achievements, made by a man from such humble origins, that I consider Napoleon to be one of the greatest and most admirable, men in history.

Were Atrocities Committed in Vietnam?

The United States throughout its history has gone to war starting with its war of independence until most recently, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In most of the wars that it has been involved in, there have been claims that the United States military has committed atrocities against the civilian populations of the countries it has invaded. The reports of such atrocities have been reported during the following instances: the Philippine-American war; the Second World War; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; in Yugoslavia in 1999; and finally, during the War on Terror. In this paper, we shall discuss some American atrocities committed during the Vietnam War with specific emphasis on the crimes committed against the noncombat civilian population within Vietnam.

Atrocities such as the killing of noncombat civilians or the torture of prisoners occur in all wars but that it became a particular issue in the Vietnam War. Violence against the civilians of Vietnam by the American military was an intentional act of war and they acted with indifference to the destruction of noncombatants and to that of their property. Most of the military commanders of the United States were aware of the laws governing ground warfare that had been established by various international agreements but atrocities were still committed by some American soldiers and officers. Throughout the entire war, only two hundred and seventy eight soldiers and marines were convicted of murder, rape, and other violent crimes by the military justice system but many more incidents went unpunished or were not even reported. The policy of heavy bombing by in South Vietnam with high explosives and napalm by American forces to support ground operations in and around villages and the widespread use of artillery for the same purpose generated many accidental civilian casualties.

The United States military used herbicides and defoliants as part of its herbicidal warfare in Vietnam, and one of these, known as Agent Orange, was used extensively from 1961 to 1971 in South Vietnam and in portions of North Vietnam. At the time the herbicides were being used, there was little consideration within the American military about the potential long term effects of the widespread use of Agent Orange towards the Vietnamese population. It is further unclear exactly where in Vietnam the Agent Orange herbicides were sprayed and the amount sprayed at each location and this has ensured that virtually every aspect of the effects of this herbicide in Vietnam is infused with uncertainty. These herbicides were used on the crops of the Vietnamese civilians so that the crops could die causing mass starvation. The American army commanders mistakenly believed that starvation would force the Vietnamese population to support the American backed South Vietnamese regime but this turned out to be counterproductive because instead the people lost all confidence in the southern government and secretly supported the North. Another major result of the use of these herbicides was the mass starvation that occurred after their use and a lot of the civilian population, which had nothing to do with the war, died in the resulting famine.

It was the fear, anger, and incentive for promotion or commendation for a high body count (which was a requirement by the military at the time) that led the American soldiers to an over application of their weaponry which constituted atrocities against the civilian population. Individual Vietnamese and sometimes even entire villages could be killed because they were suspected of being the enemy or in certain incidents; they were simply killed just because they got in the way. The Vietnam war, with its tactical use of high altitude bombing and artillery fire, and the search and destroy missions resulted in mass killings. These weapons were used indiscriminately by the American military and in the process many civilians were killed accidentally. The number of these accidental killings may border in the tens of thousands because there were no statistics, whether private or official, at the time to show their extent. Furthermore, while platoons were on missions, their leaders rarely restrained them from committing such acts as would be deemed atrocities in normal human societies. One of the major and most notable of these incidents, due to the high media attention it gained, was the My Lai massacre of 1968.

The My Lai massacre in Vietnam was the mass murder of between three hundred and five hundred Vietnamese civilians in the village of Son My by American soldiers during the Vietnam War. Most of the victims of this massacre were women, children and the elderly and when investigations were carried out, some of the bodies were found to have been mutilated and many of the women had been raped preceding the killings. When news of this massacre first came to light, the army tried to deflect any concern about it by blaming it on the South Vietnamese military. This incident prompted global outrage when it became public and it increase the domestic opposition for the United State’s involvement in Vietnam. The My Lai massacre had numerous complex causes which included psychological stress on the soldiers, poor unit leadership, bad intelligence, and an overall American strategy that put more emphasis on killing than on protecting the people. The American strategy of having body counts to show their progress in their progress in the war was very detrimental to the lives of the Vietnamese civilians because they could not be differentiated from the North Vietnamese soldiers who also wore peasant clothing. This led to the American soldiers’ killing of random Vietnamese civilians on suspicion that they were enemy forces. Some soldiers, bent on having a higher body count in order to establish their reputations within the military ranks, wantonly killed Vietnamese civilians in order to raise their counts.

By its nature, atrocity defies rationality, marking the limits of understanding and he uses this to explain what happened in Vietnam. The order to kill anything that moves caused many American soldiers to commit vast and unthinkable atrocities in Vietnam. American platoons had a tendency of waylaying civilians, raping the women among them, and at times murdered them in cold blood. In certain instances, if the American soldiers did not find anybody to fight in the various villages across the countryside of Vietnam, they would instead indulge themselves by raping, torturing, and murdering the hundreds of civilians living within such villages. Most of these cases went unreported because the people of Vietnam at the time did not have did not have any legal authority they could turn to for justice because they were in the middle of a war and furthermore, the government which claimed to represent them (South Vietnam) had allied itself with a foreign power in order to maintain its authority. In fact, the South Vietnamese government actively supported the American involvement in Vietnam despite the fact that atrocities were being committed against its civilian population.

America committed genocide in Vietnam and admits that individual atrocities and war crimes did occur in that country. One would agree with Sevy’s opinion because of the statistics showing the American military casualties of the war. It is said that about fifty eight thousand United States soldiers died in the Vietnamese war and this was despite their having a weapons technology that was far superior to that of their opponents. Now that it has been determined that the Americans had superior weapons, we should now the casualties in the Vietnamese side. If the American lost nearly sixty thousand soldiers despite their superior weapons, it is only logical to assume that the Vietnamese lost many times more that number in armed forces and that would be without counting the civilian casualties of this war. The random killings that were committed by all the armed forces involved in this conflict may put the number of civilian casualties in the millions. It is my suggestion that if the Americans had not involved themselves in the war in the first place, then it would have come to a swift end much sooner than it did.

The American atrocities in Vietnam are real and that they happened on a much grander scale than have been reported. It is up to the United States government to recognize and acknowledge these atrocities and not only do so, but also apologize to the people of Vietnam for committing them. If the American government would do this, then there would definitely be an improvement in the relations between America and Vietnam which would bring them even closer than they are today. Furthermore, America would earn global respect for owning up to its failures and because of this new found respect; America would be able to retain its hegemony over the world with the good will of all the nations of the world. This would be to its advantage especially considering that new world powers, such as China, Russia, and Brazil, are rising to challenge America’s authority as the only world superpower.

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 Need for the Legalization of Marijuana

The validation of the substance known as marijuana is one of the most divisive issues in the public stage today. Marijuana has, for a long time, been banned in many countries but those who advocate for it have recently gained ground. Some countries are decriminalizing the possession of this drug, with the aim of gaining control its movement. Opponents of this action state that marijuana is s harmful drug which comes to adversely affect the health of those who use it.

It is a fact that the public support for the legalization of marijuana has more than doubled since the 1970s, and this has created a strong case. The rise in public support can be attributed to the belief that the substance has become too common for it to be controlled. It has been found that a sizable number of Americans, some 38%, have at one time or another in their lives tried the drug and this may have contributed to its acceptance by many Americans. This shows that the American public, in general, is ready to accept the legalization of marijuana because it has become a basic part of their way of life.

The legalization of marijuana is an extremely desirable thing because of the fact that its consumption has not been found to have the lasting effects. While other drugs such as cocaine have adverse effect on the individuals who use them, marijuana’s effects are relatively mild. The legalization of this substance would ensure that the stigma associated with the use (medicinal or otherwise) and distribution of marijuana is done away with. In addition, the public acceptance of marijuana and its legalization will ensure that there is freedom of use for the substance, hence guaranteeing a basic human right of all adult Americans.

A benefit for the legalisation of marijuana would be the enabling of the elimination of the criminal market for the same substances. It is a fact that the production and use of some of marijuana creates an environment where organised crime becomes the norm as they fight to control the market for marijuana. The legalization of this substance would ensure that organised crime is forced out of its trade because they would be starved of their constant income. In addition, the legalization would enable the government to regulate and control the market for marijuana, ensuring that there are laws against selling the substance to minors.

In conclusion, as has been seen above, the fact remains that the legalization of marijuana is more beneficial than detrimental for the American society. The American society has become more accepting of the substance and the public support for its legalization may lead to its eventual acceptance. Marijuana is not the harmful drug to the extent that it has always been thought because quite a significant number of the American population has used it. The acceptance of the substance will also ensure the decriminalization of the trade in it since the cartels involved will no longer have the influence to control it. Therefore, the legalization of marijuana is a desirable development in the United States, since it will enable the sustaining of the right of Americans to make their own choices.

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.