title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | There are two problems: democracy is not necessarily the best form of government, and even if it is that does not mean it is our obligation to impose it. First, just because we believe that political self-determination is an important value, it does not mean that it is logically more important than other values. If, for example, a society places great value on stability, it may not want a government that changes every few years. If a society is very religious, its people may prefer to be ruled by a government claiming divine authority. Second, even if democracy is objectively better than other governments, that does not mean we must or should intervene in other countries to impose it. Perhaps we should intervene in the case of serious rights abuses-- such as genocide-- but the lack of complete political freedom is not a life-threatening issue. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | Promoting democracy promotes peace. By most accounts, there has not been a war between two democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace (1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own country.1 1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it. Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused1. 1 Fish, Stanley. "Why Democracy?" The New York Times. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | Even if individuals within a nation do not overtly support democracy, that does not mean that democracy does not serve their interests, and that they will not support it once it exists. There are two reasons this might be true. First, individuals may be too scared to show support for democracy, for fear of repercussion. Second, individuals may not realize that they want democracy, but come to understand and appreciate it once it is there. Power analysis theory helps us understand how individuals are manipulated into supporting systems that work against their interests: for example anti-feminists during the early and mid 20th century, who accepted male dominance as a necessary and desirable fact of life. Thus, it may take some foreign intervention to create support for democracy. And, despite the fact that imposed democracy often does fail, there have been success stories (as well as Germany and Japan, less oft-cited examples, like Sri Lanka), suggesting that democracy can be imposed with the right strategy and under the right conditions. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | Imposed democracy is better than no democracy. Ideally, every democratic government would be created by the people. However, given that this is often not possible -- corrupt governments are too powerful, populations lack the unity to organize, the lack of democratic tradition precludes effective transition without external guidance-- it is surely better to have imposed democracy than no democracy. Even if theoretically a democratic government is formed by the people, practically speaking that may not be a possibility, and we should not let abstract philosophical ideas prevent us from effecting real positive change. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerous. POINT The motion suggests that a particular government is imposing democracy, but in fact it is far better to try and encourage democracy multilaterally. Multilateral assistance, like the UN Democracy Fund which seeks to "strengthen the voice of civil society, promote human rights, and encourages the participation of all groups in the democratic process"1, is better, because it makes the support seem less political and colonial, and more honest. By using the international community to encourage democracy in a given country, we increase the chances of the people in that country respecting and supporting our attempts, rather than viewing them with suspicion2. 1 United Nations Democracy Fund, 'About UNDEF', 2010, 2 Doyle , Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | Attempting to impose democracy may escalate conflict. Intervening in a country, and attempting to impose a different government, is likely to a) result in backlash and b) destabilize the country by destroying infrastructure and disrupting services. Both these things make it far more likely that violent conflict will emerge, either between the country and the imposers, or within the country, as rival factions are forced to compete for scarce resources and rights protection. Iraq is a prime example of intervention causing a civil war. The previous gulf war combined with sanctions and weeks of bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure resulting in what General Odierno called 'societal devastation'1 and the disbanding of the army and debaathification forced the experienced administrators who ran the country out of their jobs.(Kane, 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', 2011) The result was the attempt to impose democracy was bloody and only partially successful. 1 Parrish, Karen, "Odierno, Crocker: Iraq's Future Still Hinges on U.S. Support", American Forces Press Service, November 15, 2010, 2 Kane, Sean., 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', ForeignPolicy.com, April 27, 2011, |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | The imposition of democracy violates national sovereignty Countries have a right to choose the form of government they want, and we do not have the right to violate this right by imposing the form of government we think is best. Nations may want to be ruled by, for example, religious or tribal law, or a Communist system which aims to remove government altogether. We can encourage nations to adopt democracy if we think it is better, but ultimately nations are self-directing entities which can only be interfered with in extreme situations. The United Nations has states as equals no matter their government and only authorises force in the case of an act of aggression towards another state1. 1 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1945, |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from within or else democratic government will not be sustainable. Unless the people within a country want democracy, they will not respect it. Unlike military dictatorships, democratic governments do not rely solely -- or even mainly-- on force to enforce the law. Rather, most people obey the law at least in part because they believe those laws are legitimate, as the result of free and fair elections. If citizens do not want such an electoral system, then there is no reason for them to obey the law, pay taxes etc. and the government will be unable to maintain order. Indeed, foreign-imposed democracies often slide back into authoritarian regimes because they find that they cannot uphold the law (at least without foreign support). Enterline and Greig found in a 2007 empirical study that half of imposed democracies fail within 30 years, and that this failure reduces the likelihood of democracy being successfully established in the future1/2. 1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael. "Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq &Afghanistan." 2 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | Governments can take actions to help reduce conflict. Most people agree that the strategy behind the Iraq War was extremely weak. Furthermore, it was clear that the American government had ulterior motives and that establishing democracy was not the only -- or even the most important -- goal, thus reducing the American government's legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community. Alternately, in nations where backlash against dictatorships causes violent conflict -- like in Syria or Libya -- imposing democracy could bring a chance of stability and a government that people actually trusted. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed. Democratic government is not only government for the people, but also government by and of the people. A foreign-imposed government is not a government established by the people which it rules, meaning that it lacks the legitimacy necessary to claim democratic status. It is wrong to force a government upon people, and imposers of 'democracy' do just that. This is exacerbated by the fact that foreign-imposed democracies often have a great deal of trouble governing themselves independently (like the Iraqi and Afghani governments, which are still very much reliant on the United States), thus de- legitimizing the government even further1. 1 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | It is wrong to suggest that the rule of law, or protection of civil rights, is less important in different regions. The fact is that democracy is the only form of government which respects every individual's right to political self determination (as explained in Proposition Argument 1). States may have the right to self-direct, but they do not have the right to deny their citizens basic political freedoms. |
y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy | To rely on multilateral action is utopian. First, the motion does not exclude multilateral cooperation; this house may impose democracy with the support of others. But second, the UN doctrine of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of independent nations means that unilateral or bi-lateral actions are often the only realistic possibilities. This is especially important given that China has a veto on the Security Council and other Security Council regular members are not themselves democracies. If other countries are not willing to help us impose or fight for democracy, why should we not try ourselves? |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The accusation that the House of Lords is inherently conservative is an unjust accusation, as proven by their siding with the people on unpopular government policies such as student tuition fees and the 42 days detention. Today no party has a majority in the Chamber, with independent peers holding the balance of power in any vote. |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The House of Lords has an inbuilt conservative majority. The traditional provenance of the House of Lords translates to an in-built Conservative majority. Even so called Liberal and Labour peers are usually conservative in their opinions. They represent a social and economic elite and seem to flaunt diversity monitoring in a house with only 181 female peers and a staggeringly low 31 peers from ethnic minorities. [1] This unfair skew in the favour of the conservative has the power to slow down and revise legislation and is a gross misrepresentation of the British population. The House of Lords should be reformed in order to better reflect the British people so that their actions and decisions benefit the whole of society and not just their own. [1] Smith, Ben, ‘Ethnic Minorities in Politics, Government and Public Life’, House of Commons Library (18 November 2008) and see viewed 1 June 2011 |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | House of Lords reform defeats the point; firstly the election process would deter many industry experts and attract political opportunists instead, thus eliminating the current worth of the House of Lords. It likely that if elected the House of Lords would simply become a mirror for the House of Commons. By being non-elected the House of Lords is free from political sways and can work in the long-term interests of the country. |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The House of Lords is out of touch with the electorate. The 19th century US President Abraham Lincoln stated that democracy should be ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ [1] Therefore peers who sit in the house based on noble birth right or their membership of the Church of England, that is itself largely ignored by the people, do not represent the people of Britain. [1] A' Short Definition of Democracy’, Democracy-building.info, 2005, viewed on 1 June 2011 |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The House of Lords may not be representative of the British population but instead they represent an array of educated experts who can give informed advice on Government policy. |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | Although the House of Lords may not be a true expression of ‘democracy’, it has a positive function in the governing of the country and is based in a tradition and heritage that the people of Britain should not try and abandon. One could argue in return that those very decisions and wars that Britain is in involved in to defend ‘democracy’ do not reflect the will of the people and that modern states are not true democracies at all. In practice the British people have a limited say in how the country is run and it would be naïve to champion the idea of Britain being a ‘democracy’ by ignoring the existence of such an overpowering state machine. |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | Reform would strengthen the House of Lords Reform of the House of Lords would strengthen the legitimacy of the house and therefore improve its functions. By electing the second chamber they would gain the legitimacy to not simply stall bills but reject them all together or drafts bills of their own, thus facilitating a more dynamic government, able to change. Using a different electoral technique, for example Proportional Representation with members sitting for longer periods would allow them to still be of a different composition to the House of Commons and not sway to short-term political popularity. Electing different portions at different times would also guard against a freak landslide result affecting the house’s balance. By creating a worthy opposition to the House of Commons all issues would be debated and decided upon more fairly and government would be more closely monitored. |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The current House of Lords is undemocratic The House of Lords is undemocratic. Currently the members of the House of Lords consist of hereditary peers, senior members of the Church of England and those appointed by political parties. Whether or not there is an abuse of power or the outcome of the House of Lords is beside the point – its very existence in its current state is undemocratic and as such it should be reformed. It seems nonsensical that a country that lectures to the rest of the world the importance of democracy, to the point of war, should overlook such a grievance in their own society. |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The fear of controversy or of an ‘unworkable’ government is not reason to stall reform. If we adopt the stance that a government knows best or if we excuse a government to override the will of its people in the name of the greater good, then we pave the way for the misuse of power. Democracy should be held in the highest regard, only free societies can be secure and developed as shown in numerous historic example. Only fundamentally free societies can be fundamentally secure and developed, which is backed up by many examples from history. [1] Democracy has proved itself as better than the alternatives, where autocracies, oligarchies and theocracies have failed, democracy has prevailed. [1] Grizold, Professor Anton, Peacebuilding and the impact of post-conflict areas on European security (Department of Political Science, University of Ljublana) |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | Although a small number of members of the House of Lords are industry experts the fact remains that there is still a proportion of hereditary peers, which guarantees no expertise whatsoever. Furthermore political parties can elect peers which is simply absurd, parties should not be able to appoint their own watch dogs: David Cameron has already appointed 117 peers in less than a year. [1] [1] Barrett, Matthew, ‘Full House: Cameron warned against appointing more peers’, (20 April 2011) viewed 1 June 2011 |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | Reform would make the House of Lords simply a mirror of the House of Commons An elected House, even one elected every ten years, would still think about policies that are popular in the short term rather than the long-term welfare of the country, making it closer to the House of Commons in its interest and reducing its role as a balance. By subjecting the second chamber to election there would be two outcomes: if elected at the same time the House of Lords would simply become a mirror-image of the House of Commons rendering it pointless, if elected mid-term the composition of the House of Lords would reflect the tendency for a government to be unpopular mid-term, thus creating gridlock and making the system unworkable. Reform of the House of Lords is impractical and undesirable. |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The public is apathetic to reform. Whether or not reform of the House of Lords should be a top priority in the current economic climate is debateable, let alone whether or not a coalition government would be able to initiate and drive through such measures. Attempts to reform the House of Lords have been delayed time and time again, demonstrating the House of Commons’ reservations on change. [1] A feeling that is no doubt echoed in popular British opinion – as demonstrated by the recent outcome of the Alternative Vote – the public are either adverse to the idea of change or apathetic to it. [2] [1] Summers, Deborah, ‘Labour's attempts to reform the House of Lords’, The Guardian (27 January, 2009), viewed on 1 June 2011 [2] BBC News, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote, 7 May 2011, |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | Democracy should not be the end-point aspiration of government. One should not assume that the lack of democracy is wholly negative; do the majority of people know what is best for the country? Or do industry experts? Could the public reach a consensus on important governing decisions? Government can see the bigger picture and balance the needs of different interest groups to produce the best outcome for all: ‘true’ democracy is simply unworkable and can too easily lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as described by Fareed Zakaria. [1] Perhaps the best way to illustrate this point is to look at the two champions of democracy: France and America. France overturned its monarchy and government in the name of liberty, yet quickly descended into mob-rule and violence; ‘democracy’ had a bloody birth. [2] Similarly one only has to look at the appalling levels of inequality within the United States of America to question the nature and worth of ‘democracy’. [3] So if the nature of government is not simply to fulfil notions of ‘democracy’ but to ensure good governance then the House of Lords is still an important institution. [1] Zakaria, Fareed, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad (New York, 2003) [2] Doyle, William, The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2001) [3] American Political Science Association Task Force, ‘American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality’, Perspectives on Politics, 2 (2004) |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The House of Lords allows a number of experts to influence government policy. While the members of the House of Lords may represent a small section of society, they also include expert peers including lawyers, scientists, businesspeople, academics, doctors and civil servants that can balance out the sometimes short term, political opportunism present in the House of Commons. Election does not guarantee these expertise and knowledge, so having a second chamber that is appointed rather than elected improves the quality of the governance of the country. |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The AV campaign cannot be compared to reform to the House of Lords, furthermore one should not mistake a misinformed public due to political spin, with apathy. Often voters express that they are apathetic because they feel that they can’t change anything, that there vote won’t count: reform that ensures the people running the country are directly elected by the people would help to counter these feelings. |
government voting house believes house lords should be reformed | The House of Lords could be elected on a longer term basis than the House of Commons – ten years for example. Furthermore elections could be staggered during this period so the House of Lords would never simply be a ‘mirror’. Furthermore the House of Lords should be democratically elected and it should reflect the will of the people, whether or not this is a ‘mirror’ of the other house is not relevant as it reflects the results in a fair vote. Similarly if elected mid-term and the House of Lords reflected mid-term unpopularity of the ruling party, then this too would be the will of the people – any clashes would be part of the democratic process. |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Being a citizen does not come with a right to know everything that the state does. In much the same way being a shareholder does not mean you get to know absolutely everything every person in a business does. Instead you get the headlines and a summary, most of the time the how the business goes about getting the results is left to the management. Ultimately the state’s purpose is to protect its citizens and this comes before letting them know everything about how that is done. |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Citizens have a right to know what is done in their name The nation exits for its citizens; it depends on their consent to maintain order and to raise finances. The main purpose of the state is law and order, and national defence, both of which are covered by security. As an area that is so central to the role of the government it is vital that the stakeholders in that government, its citizens, know what it is the state is doing in their name for their security. The Obama administration for example refuses to acknowledge that it is carrying out a campaign using drones while at the same time saying it is “the only game in town in terms of confronting and trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership.” [1] If the US government is bombing another country then the US people have a right to know with much less ambiguity what exactly is being done, who is being hit, when and where. They also need to be informed of any possible consequences. [1] Kaufman, Brett, ‘In Court Today: Fighting the CIA’s Secrecy Claims on Drones’, ACLU, 20 September 2012 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Transparency in situations of international tension is tricky; with complete transparency how do you engage in bluffing? The state that is completely transparent is tying one hand behind its back in international negotiations. It is also wrong to assume that transparency will always reduce tensions. Sometimes two countries just have completely incompatible interests. In such instances complete transparency is simply going to set them on a collision course. It is then much better for there to be a bit less transparency so that both sides can fudge the issue and sign up to an agreement while interpreting it in different ways. |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Transparency prevents public relations disasters Transparency is necessary to avoid public relations disasters; particularly in countries where the media has some freedom to investigate for themselves. It is clearly the best policy for the military to make sure all the information is released along with the reasons behind actions rather than having the media finding individual pieces of a whole and speculating to fill the gaps. A good example would be a collision on 16th January 1966 between a B-52 bomber and a KC-135 tanker while attempting to refuel that destroyed both planes. Accidents happen, and this one cost 11 lives, but could have been much worse as the B-52 had four nuclear bombs on board were not armed and did not detonate. In this case an initial lack of information rapidly turned into a public relations disaster that was stemmed by much more openness by the military and the US Ambassador in Spain. The release of the information reduces the room for the press to fill in the gaps with harmful speculation. [1] In this case there was never much chance of national security implications or a break with Spain as the country was ruled by the dictator Franco, someone who would hardly pay attention to public opinion. But in a democracy a slow and closed response could seriously damage relations. [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.65 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Transparency is a good in and of itself The most essential commodity within a state is trust. Trust is essential in all sorts of aspect of our lives; we trust that the paper money we have is actually worth more than a scrap of paper, that doctors performing surgery know what they are doing, that we won't be attacked in the street, and that the government is looking after our interests. In order to create that trust there needs to be transparency so that we know that our institutions are trustworthy. It is the ability to check the facts and the accountability that comes with transparency that creates trust. And this in turn is what makes them legitimate. [1] The need for trust applies just as much to security as any other walk of life. Citizens need to trust that the security services really are keeping them safe, are spending taxpayers’ money wisely, and are acting in a fashion that is a credit to the country. Unfortunately if there is not transparency there is no way of knowing if this is the case and so often the intelligence services have turned out to be an embarrassment. As has been the case with the CIA and it’s the use of torture following 9/11, for which there are still calls for transparency on past actions. [2] [1] Ankersmit, Laurens, ‘The Irony of the international relations exception in the transparency regulation’, European Law Blog, 20 March 2013 [2] Traub, James, ‘Out With It’, Foreign Policy, 10 May 2013 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Trust goes two ways; the people have to trust that on some issues, such as security, the government is doing the right thing to protect them even when it cannot release all relevant information. But even if the military and security services do claim to be completely transparent then how is everyone to know that it really is being as transparent as they say? Unfortunately there are information asymmetry’s between members of the public and the government; the member of the public is unlikely to have the capability to find out if the government if hiding something from them. [1] Other countries too are likely to be suspicious of ‘complete transparency’ and simply believe that this is cover for doing something more nefarious. Trust then cannot only about being transparent in everything. [1] Stiglitz, Joseph, ‘Transparency in Government’, in Roumeen Islam, The right to tell: the roll of the mass media in economic development, World Bank Publications, 2002, p.28 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | This is clearly not always the case. Often transparency means that the public becomes aware when there is little need for them to know. There had been previous nuclear accidents that had caused no damage, and had not been noticed, such as in Goldsboro, N.C. in 1961. [1] If there had been a media frenzy fuelled by released information there would clearly have been much more of a public relations disaster than there was with no one noticing. Since there’re was no harm done there is little reason why such a media circus should have been encouraged. And even without media attention the incident lead to increase safeguards. [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.51 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Transparency may mean that mistakes or problems are found faster, but it does not mean they are going to be corrected faster. Waste in the defense budget has been known about for years yet it still keeps coming up. Transparency shines a light on the problem but that is not helpful if it does not result in action to solve the problem. |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Transparency helps reduce international tension Transparency is necessary in international relations. States need to know what each other are doing to assess their actions. Without any transparency the hole is filled by suspicion and threat inflation that can easily lead to miscalculation and even war. The Cuban missile crisis is a clear example where a lack of transparency on either side about what they were willing to accept and what they were doing almost lead to nuclear war. [1] It is notable that one of the responses to prevent a similar crisis was to install a hotline between the White House and Kremlin. A very small, but vital, step in terms of openness. Today this is still a problem; China currently worries about the US ‘pivot’ towards Asia complaining it “has aroused a great deal of suspicion in China.” “A huge deficit of strategic trust lies at the bottom of all problems between China and the United States.” The result would be an inevitable arms race and possible conflict. [2] [1] Frohwein, Ashley, ‘Embassy Moscow: A Diplomatic Perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis’, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 7 May 2013 [2] Yafei, He, ‘The Trust Deficit’, Foreign Policy, 13 May 2013 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Transparency prevents, or corrects, mistakes Transparency is fundamental in making sure that mistakes don’t happen, or when they do that they are found and corrected quickly with appropriate accountability. This applies as much, if not more, to the security apparatus than other walks of life. In security mistakes are much more likely to be a matter of life and death than in most other walks of life. They are also likely to be costly; something the military and national security apparatus is particularly known for. [1] An audit of the Pentagon in 2011 found that the US Department of Defense wasted $70 billion over two years. [2] This kind of waste can only be corrected if it is found out about, and for that transparency is necessary. [1] Schneier, Bruce, ‘Transparency and Accountability Don’t Hurt Security – They’re Crucial to It’, The Atlantic, 8 May 2012 [2] Schweizer, Peter, ‘Crony Capitalism Creeps Into the Defense Budget’, The Daily Beast, 22 May 2012 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | The public is rational and can make its own assessment of risk. The best course in such cases is transparency and education. If all relevant information is released, along with analysis as to the risk presented by the threat, then the public can be best informed about what kind of threats they need to be prepared for. Terrorism has been blown out of proportion because they are single deadly incidents that are simple to report and have a good narrative to provide 24/7 coverage that the public will lap up. [1] As a result there has been much more media coverage than other threats. It can then be no surprise that the public overestimate the threat posed by terrorism as the public are told what risks are relevant by the amount of media coverage. [2] [1] Engelhardt, Tom, ‘Casualties from Terrorism Are Minor Compared to Other Threats’, Gale Opposing Viewpoints, 2011 [2] Singer, Eleanor, and Endreny, Phyllis Mildred, Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters and Other Hazards, Russell Sage Foundation, 1993 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations. |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Provides information to competitors Where there is international competition transparency can be a problem if there is not transparency on both sides as one side is essentially giving its opponent an advantage. This is ultimately why countries keep national security secrets; they are in competition with other nations and the best way to ensure an advantage over those states is to keep capabilities secret. One side having information while the other does not allows the actor that has the information to act differently in response to that knowledge. Keeping things secret can therefore provide an advantage when making a decision, as the one with most information is most likely to react best. [1] Currently there is information asymmetry between the United States and China to the point where some analysts consider that the United States provides more authoritative information on China’s military than China itself does. [2] [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.7 [2] Erickson, Andrew S., ‘Pentagon Report Reveals Chinese Military Developments’, The Diplomat, 8 May 2013 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | In security too much transparency endangers lives Transparency is all very well when it comes to how much is being spent on a new tank, aircraft, or generals houses, but it is very different when it comes to operations. Transparency in operations can endanger lives. With intelligence services transparency would risk the lives of informants; it is similar with the case of interpreters for US forces in Iraq who were targeted after they were told they could not wear masks because they are considered to be traitors. [1] In military operations being open about almost anything could be a benefit to the opposition. Most obviously things like the timing and numbers involved in operations need to be kept under wraps but all sorts of information could be damaging in one way or another. Simply because a state is not involved in a full scale war does not mean it can open up on these operations. This is why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen in response to WikiLeaks said “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing… But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” [2] [1] Londoño, Ernesto, ‘U.S. Ban on Masks Upsets Iraqui Interpreters’, Washington Post, 17 November 2008 [2] Jaffe, Greg, and Partlow, Joshua, ‘Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen: WikiLeaks release endangers troops, Afghans’, Washington Post, 30 July 2010 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Transparency can lead to conflict The idea that transparency is good assumes that the people watching the government be transparent are likely to provide a moderating influence on policy. This is not always the case. Instead transparency can lead to more conflict. First a nationalist population may force the government into taking more action than it wants. One obvious way to quiet such sentiment is to show that the country is not ready for war; something that may not be possible if being transparent. Instead if it is transparent that the military could win then there is nothing to stop a march to war. It then becomes possible for multiple interest groups to form into coalitions each with differing reasons for conflict trading off with each other resulting in overstretch and conflict. [1] Secondly when there is a rapidly changing balance of power then transparency for the rising power may not be a good thing. Instead as Deng Xiaoping advised they should “Hide your strength, bide your time”. [2] Showing in the open how your military is expanding may simply force action from the current dominant power. Transparency, combined with domestic media worrying about the other’s build up can make the other side seem more and more of a threat that must be dealt with before it can get any more powerful. It is quite a common international relations theory that one way or another relative power and the quest for hegemony is the cause for war, [3] transparency simply encourages this. William C. Wohlforth points out when studying the cause of the First World War that it is perception of relative power that matters. Germany’s leaders believed it had to strike before it out of time as a result of Russia rapidly industrialising. [4] Transparency unfortunately reduces the ability of the government to manage perception. [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.17 [2] Allison, Graham, and Blackwill, Robert D., ‘Will China Ever Be No.1?’, YakeGlobal, 20 February 2013 [3] Kaplan, Robert D., ‘Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things)’, The Atlantic, 20 December 2011 [4] Wohlforth, William C., ‘The Perception of Power: Russia in the Pre-1914 Balance’, World Politics, Vol.39, No.3, (April 1987), pp.353-381, p.362 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Don’t panic! The role of the security services is in part to deal with some very dangerous ideas and events. But the point is to deal with them in such a way that does not cause public disorder or even panic. We clearly don’t want every report detailing specific threats to be made public, especially if it is reporting something that could be devastating but there is a low risk of it actually occurring. If such information is taken the wrong way it can potentially cause panic, either over nothing, or else in such a way that it damages any possible response to the crisis. Unfortunately the media and the public often misunderstand risk. For example preventing terrorism has been regularly cited in polls as being the Americans top foreign policy goal with more than 80% thinking it very important in Gallup polls for over a decade [1] even when the chance of being killed by terrorism in Western countries is very low. If the public misunderstands the risk the response is unlikely to be proportionate and can be akin to yelling fire in a packed theatre. While it is not (usually) a security, but rather a public health issue, pandemics make a good example. The question of how much information to release is only slightly different than in security; officials want to release enough information that everyone is informed, but not so much that there is panic whenever there is an unusual death. [2] In 2009 the WHO declared swine flu to be a pandemic despite it being a relatively mild virus that did not cause many deaths, so causing an unnecessary scare and stockpiling of drugs. [3] [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘Americans Say Preventing Terrorism Top Foreign Policy Goal’, Gallup Politics, 20 February 2013 [2] Honigsbaum, Mark, ‘The coronavirus conundrum: when to press the panic button’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2013 [3] Cheng, Maria, ‘WHO’s response to swine flu pandemic flawed’, Phys.org, 10 May 2011 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Clearly transparency in real time might cause some problems allowing the disruption of ongoing operations. However most of the time information could be released very shortly afterwards rather than being considered secret for 25-30 years. [1] A much shorter timeframe is needed if the transparency is to have any meaning or impact upon policy. In the case of WikiLeaks most of the information was already a couple of years old and WikiLeaks said it made sure that there was no information that could endanger lives released. We should also remember that a lack of transparency can also endanger lives; this might be the case if it leads to purchases of equipment of shoddy equipment without the proper oversight to ensure everything works as it should. For example many countries purchased bomb detectors that are made out of novelty golf ball finders, just plastic, that do not work from a Briton looking to make a fast buck. It has for example been used to attempt to find car bombs in Iraq. A little transparency in testing and procurement could have gone a long way in protecting those who have to use the equipment. [2] [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.8 [2] AFP, ‘Iraq still using phony bomb detectors at checkpoints’, globalpost, 3 May 2013 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Transparency can result in normalisation While something is secret it is clearly not a normal every day part of government, it is deniable and the assumption is that when it comes to light it has probably been wound up long ago. However making something transparent without winding it up can be a bad thing as it makes it normal which ultimately makes a bad policy much harder to end. The use of drones by the CIA may turn out to be an example of this. At the moment we are told almost nothing about drones, not even how many strikes there are or how many are killed. There have however been recent suggestions that the drone program could be transferred to the Department of Defence. This would then make the targeted killing that is carried out seem a normal part of military conflict, somehting it clearly is not. [1] And the public reacts differently to covert and military action; already more Americans support military drones doing targeted killing (75%) than CIA ones (65%). [2] [1] Waxman, Matthew, ‘Going Clear’, Foreign Policy, 20 March 2013 [2] Zenko, Micah, ‘U.S. Public Opinion on Drone Strikes’, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2013 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Coalitions can form behind expansionist policies regardless of whether there is transparency. If there is no transparency then it is simply an invitation for these groups to overestimate the strength of their own state compared to their opponents. Where there is transparency the figures will at least be available to counter their arguments. It should not be surprising that interest groups do not have as much influence in creating expansionist policy in democracies. [1] Transparency showing when a state is to be eclipsed is a greater concern but a lack of transparency in such a case is just as bad. No transparency will simply encourage the fears of the state that is to be eclipsed that the rising state is hostile and not to be trusted. [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.18 |
ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms | Transparency clearly does not have to extend to things like technical specifications of weapons. Such information would be a clear benefit to a competitor allowing them to build their own while being of little help in terms of transparency as most people could not understand it. On the other hand knowing what a weapons system does simply prevents misunderstanding and misjudgement. |
onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy | Consultation, collaboration and the attempted creation of a common set of values has not worked and is not likely to work. This language is not much different from what we have heard with every attempt the EU has made to push for further political integration. The role of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as agreed upon back in 1993 during the Maastricht Treaty, was in fact presented very much along similar lines. Fifteen years later however, that united front has not been created. If anything, the EU’s political union, and certain any attempts towards a common foreign policy, have completely disintegrated when faced with the War in Iraq and the larger war on terror and more recently the Euro debt crisis on another front. |
onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy | The creation of a combined post of High Representative for foreign and security policy and Vice President of the Commission for External Relations marks a needless complication of decision making. It adds an expensive and largely pointless layer of European bureaucracy to a substantively weak and poorly coordinated foreign policy. This failure is made worse by the member states’ refusal to appoint a senior European politician with international credentials to the post. This suggests that the European Union is simply not ready to pursue a serious and substantive foreign policy. 1 1 Charlemagne, 'The test for Ashton and Europe', The Economist, 1st February 2011,accessed 1/8/11 |
onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy | The very creation of a common military framework has been fraught with disagreement. The UK and France have only been willing to cooperate bilaterally and outside the EU framework, within a set of nationally-framed security interests. Both states are also very traditional military powers. While some states pretend to support the creation of a credible EU military capacity, they are unwilling to contribute seriously to its construction and when faced with a crisis almost always turn to the United States for military solutions. While the EU does like to see itself as the diplomat of the world and flaunt its achievements with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it still ponders the possibility of a middle-of-the-road strategy of militarization and securitization. In the meanwhile, it continues to reside comfortably within the US sphere of military protection while acting as an enfant terrible who rebels against and yet continues to accept US protection. It is a contradiction to argue that the EU is both attempting to build up its military force as well as providing an alternative sense of security that does not rely on military power. |
onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy | The position of High Representative will be, and has been, largely powerless, because the member states have such divergent interests that agreement will be rare, and that attempts to devise a common foreign policy for the EU are doomed. Because control of foreign policy is such a key aspect of sovereignty, it would be wrong for national governments to give this power away to the EU, which is less democratically accountable. If the EU and its High Representative do try to pressure states into common positions this may well backfire, creating strong anti-EU feeling in both national governments and public opinion. Pushing too hard for a common foreign policy and giving too much power to an unelected High Representative may instead begin to tear Europe apart. 1 1. Traynor, Ian, 'EU foreign ministers round on Lady Ashton', guardian.co.uk, 23rd May 2011, accessed 1/8/11 |
onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy | The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territory have certainly heightened levels of anxiety, its ‘foreign policy’ is still based on an inclusive approach: bring threatening nations under your economic and political umbrella and provide them with incentives to collaborate. Academics such as Allen David and Michael Smith have argued that the EU’s ‘foreign policy’ seeks to go beyond the nation state and thus treats what lies outside its borders not necessarily as ‘foreign’ and ‘threatening’ but rather as a different system.1 The EU provides a subsystem of international relations within a larger global system, in which threats and fears subside as a result of economic and military integration. The most pressing challenge is to learn how to extend this system beyond the current borders of the EU, keeping in mind that the accession process is a mechanism not to be abused. 1. Allen, David, and Smith, Michael, 'External Policy Developments', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 43. (2005) pp.109-26 accessed 1/8/11 |
onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy | One should not forget that a uniting Europe in itself has been a very bold undertaking that has taken several centuries to develop, and is certainly far from being a finished product. It would be unfair to argue that the EU has made no progress in its collaboration on foreign policy since the initial establishment of the CFSP, or that the past fifteen years have seen more decay than progress on further political integration. The mixed EU reaction to the war in Iraq has long been a point of contention and criticism, yet it represents only a small and exceptional failure, in a much larger common EU foreign policy. The Enlargement Process has been by far one of the most successful elements of EU foreign and security policy, along with many other success stories with aid to third parties and management of international conflicts, for example the EU’s role in Kosovo. |
onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy | Creating a common EU foreign and security policy will in fact be easier than many people suppose, because many of the 21st century’s most important issues in external relations are already part of the ‘normal’ EU policy routine; climate change, development, trade, aid and the environment, for example. Most such issues are ones on which any single member state, even one as significant as Britain, France or Germany, cannot hope to make a real global impact alone. Only by coordinating policy at EU level will the interests of member states be advanced at all. Having a High Representative to coordinate and promote this work on behalf of the Union as a whole makes sense and actually gives all member states a greater international effectiveness – the true measure of sovereignty. |
government local government house supports scottish independence | It may well be the case that the model of politics at Westminster needs to be reviewed but that does not speak to the issue of independence. Furthermore, it is interesting how many of the parties’ ‘big beasts’ (influential) chose to stay at Westminster – including Alex Salmond for a term. Equally, in the light of the credit crunch, it is questionable as to whether constantly giving away populist freebies such as free eye-tests [i] when the parliament is not responsible for raising the taxes to pay for it hardly represents good politics. Furthermore, in its brief life, there has been no shortage of political scandal at Holyrood, including the resignation of one First Minister in disgrace over an expenses scandal. [i] BBC News, ‘Scotland brings in free eye tests’, 31 March 2006, |
government local government house supports scottish independence | Devolution has demonstrated the ability of Scots to govern themselves not only as well as Westminster but with more civility Not only has the policy agenda been different in Scotland but so has the model of politics. It has seen the emergence of new political parties and a better representation of the diversity within existing ones. The nature of political discourse, although vigorous and not as consensual as initially hoped, has proved to be more consensual – both during the time of the SNP minority administration and the preceding coalitions than politics south of the border. [i] The contrast between the coalition governments at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament, where Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were allied between 1999 and 2007, and the internecine warfare going on between Conservative and Liberal members of the current Westminster coalition could not be more stark. [i] Cairney, Paul, ‘Coalition and Minority Government in Scotland’, Political Studies Associations Conference, 1 April 2010, |
government local government house supports scottish independence | Firstly, if these industries are already emerging under the devolved powers then there seems to be little reason for expanding those powers. Nationalism has always relied on the fantasy that magically everything about the country will change the day after independence. [i] The reality is not quite so rosy; with a disproportionately high level of employment in the public sector [ii] as well as consistently high levels of multi-generational unemployment, pretending that these problems would be swept away following autonomy is just fantasy. These constitutional wrangles are a distraction from the real issues of addressing employment and chronic ill-health are much higher concerns. [i] Chakrabortty, Aditya, ‘Can Scotland pay its own way?’, The Guardian, 20 May 2011, [ii] Simon Rogers. “The public sector employment map of the UK: the full data.” The Guardian. 21 November 2011. |
government local government house supports scottish independence | Scotland has a proud history and has demonstrated since devolution different political interests The Union has now passed its 300th birthday and throughout that time Scotland has maintained as distinct role and identity. This is grounded in a tradition and history that is quite different from that south of the Border and includes legal and education systems that have always been separate. That has manifested itself in a distinct policy agenda since devolution and areas such as free care for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees. Despite the opinions of doomsayers before devolution it has been proved as a remarkable success and massive approval throughout the UK with 70% saying it has been a success. [i] [i] The Scotsman. “70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests” 8 May 2009. |
government local government house supports scottish independence | There are many differences between devolution and independence. Surviving events such as the banking crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis are much easier within the confines of a larger, richer state such as the UK. Nobody denies that devolution has, broadly speaking, been a success. However, it’s been achieved in quite a different context than that facing a nation state. It has left difficult decisions to Westminster. It allows the Scottish Executive the luxury of being oppositionist on issues such as nuclear power, fantasists on renewables while leaving the problem of how to keep the lights on to politicians at Westminster. |
government local government house supports scottish independence | An independent Scotland has enormous economic potential to join other small European nations, especially as a leader in technology and renewable energy Many of Scotland’s problems are grounded in the fact that its potential has consistently been held back. Because the focus for economic development from a Westminster perspective has focused for generations on North Sea oil and the coal fields of Lanarkshire, huge opportunities were missed and the best and the brightest tended be dragged down south for jobs worthy of their skills. Even with the limited powers allowed by devolution a burgeoning life-sciences sector, a growing IT sector in silicon glen are adding to the traditional industries. Since 2003 Scotland has generally had faster economic growth than the UK with 13% during the period from 2003-2007 compared to the UK’s 11.4%. [i] Independence would stretch people still further. [i] CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, ‘The changing pattern of Scotland’s economic growth since Devolution’, CPPR Briefing Note, June 2011, |
government local government house supports scottish independence | The Scottish budget runs at a surplus of about 1%, unlike the UK’s, and so the Scots are actually subsidizing their neighbours. [i] It is also important to take into account the vast amount of wealth that has fled south in the shape of North Sea oil revenue and the talent that has been sucked up by London in terms of not only work but also with the number of Scots soldiers sent to fight English wars. Perhaps the best example of this historically is Glasgow which literally built the British Empire – mostly to English benefit – only to be discarded to some of the worst poverty in the developed world when it was no longer useful [i] Chakrabortty, 2011 |
government local government house supports scottish independence | Scotland already has a distinct global profile including world-class national brands such as whiskey and salmon. Arguing that Scotland would have ‘less influence’ as an independent state is frankly absurd as, at the moment, it has none. Westminster leads in international negotiations and rarely considers Scottish interests. Additionally, considering the damage that the UK government has managed to do to its international reputation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan putting some clear, tartan water between Edinburgh and London would seem to be quite a strong diplomatic move. |
government local government house supports scottish independence | The union has worked for over three hundred years and most people feel comfortable with the joint Scots/British identity For over three centuries the two nations have cooperated much to their mutual advantage. The majority of Scots are happy with their British-ness. In terms of culture and art the two nations have maintained distinctive traditions but ones which have been enhanced by their interaction. There are many people who have relatives from Scotland and another of the Home Nations for whom British is the more obvious identity. [i] After centuries of fighting with each other the Union brought peace and mutual benefit. [i] Mitchell, David, ‘If Scotland does secede, I won’t be alone in mourning for my country’, The Observer, 15 May 2011, |
government local government house supports scottish independence | Scotland needs English economic muscle as through the Barnett formula England, especially the Southeast effectively subsidizes the rest of the UK in general and Scotland in particular The Barnett established the model by which money is divided up within the regions and nations of the UK. The formula works greatly to Scotland’s advantage with a net flow of funding heading north. The English taxpayer subsidizes Scots to the tune of £19bn a year (2009-10). [i] Without that subsidy The Scottish government would not have been able to give away the many benefits that have been handed out by the devolved authorities. Scotland needs English support financially just as she does in terms of diplomatic representation or political muscle. [i] McLaren, John et al., ‘Financial Implications of Different Fiscal Arrangements For Scotland’, CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, June 2011, |
government local government house supports scottish independence | Deliberately turning away from the international clout the UK brings to play on the global scene is simply odd The UK acts as a big player on the international scene sitting at the top table of most international institutions. It is questionable as to whether the remaining part of the UK would continue to sit on the UN Security Council; one thing that is certain is that Scotland would not. Equally they would have little clout on European bodies, damaging their influence on key Scottish interests such as fisheries policy. It would also lose the advantage that many companies see Edinburgh as a convenient base within the UK but would be unlikely to see much benefit to it as a base in an independent Scotland [i] . [i] David Sinclair. “Issues surrounding Scottish independence.” September 1999. Published by the Constitution Unit, Tavistock House. |
government local government house supports scottish independence | Ignoring the fact that Opp is putting forward a version of history that is decades rather than centuries old there are other flaws. Scottish cultural traditions were actively destroyed by English dominance and continue to receive very limited support. Linguistic traditions such as Scots and Gaelic were completely ignored and frequently suppressed. In addition it has not been 300 years of mutual benefit as Scotland has been largely overwhelmed by its more populous neighbour. Scotland’s resources, including its intellectual ones, have been – and continued to be – effectively stolen by England. |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | Banning skin whitening on such a basis also requires the acceptance of the racial overtones. Some form of tan is popular in many societies of people of European ethnic origins – that is not a racial matter, it is more based on economic social perceptions (that of holidays to warmer climates). Ascribing a racial element to everything to do with skin tone is at best a lazy analysis. Irrespective of issues of race and perceptions of ethnic origins, and its intersection with beauty standards, some people will be given advantages in life due to their appearance. Banning a certain form of cosmetic, even if it can have some racial and ethnic undertones, won’t change that. |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | They fuel colourism in society Allowing the use of racial overtones – the perception that a product will bring a person towards a “white ideal” is harmful for several reasons. It could cause communities to generate a form of inferiority complex, and it reinforces the structural difference rather than aiming to minimize it. While it may sound absurd, in the US darker-skinned African Americans (and darker skinned latinos) are less well educated and have lower incomes [1] . Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, such as in Brazil, race is seen as an issue of colour and socio-economic background, not ancestry highlighting a much more obvious link between whitening creams and racism [2] . Is it not the role of the state to reduce that discrimination, not to fuel it? Banning such creams would help prevent such harmful effects by discouraging the notion that people should aim to make themselves lighter skinned. [1] Hunter, Margaret L., “If you’re light you’re alright: light skin color as social capital for women of color”, Gender and Society, 2002, , p.35 [2] Telles, Edward, Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Colour in Brazil, 2004, online sample chapter, |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | If there is a demand for it, people want it. Not only do indigenous skin-whitening products exist, they are so widespread and popular it cannot be ascribed to a “cringe” on a small area of society. It is wrong to consider skin whitening to just be a colonial import as if being white is all about looking like a westerner. Many cultures, particularly in Asia but also some in Africa such as Egypt, valued lighter skin tones before colonisation; such tones showed that you were a woman of leisure who did not need to toil under the hot tropical sun. [1] Maintaining a desire to look lighter may therefore neither be an effect of a neo-colonial mind-set nor create neo-colonial business ties. [1] Goon, Patricia, and Craven, Allison, ‘Whose Debt?: Globalisation and Whitefacing in Asia’, Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context, issue 9, August 2003, |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | These products are dangerous Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] . States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur. [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011, |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] . States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur. [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011, |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | Monetizing colonialism Skin whitening can be seen as an attempt to fit in with a form of a neo-colonialist mind-set; a form of cultural imperialism driven by capitalism. These products, often sold by big international FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) companies feed off a neo-colonialist mind-set – one of a cultural inferiority complex. These products form part of the process of tying African people into a globalised consumer world where non-westerners feel compelled to buy western products that they don’t need. They are therefore kept in a colonial situation where they are dependent on the west both mentally and in terms of the products they buy. That is reason enough for nations that have been victims of colonialism by the Global North to take action against them. |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | No-one is pretending that a ban on whitening products is a solution to every social ill. What is being suggested is that these products are harmful, and that the culture they create is also potentially harmful. A race-colour-class nexus exists – that is why the proposition is concerned about the normalization of skin bleaching. |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | States can and do ban products that are physically or socially harmful – that’s not illiberalism, it is common sense. It clearly does not suggest that non-white women do not have the capacity; white countries such as the USA engage in similar bans for health reasons. Anyway, In a society with mass media and celebrity-lead marketing campaigns, do people really make entirely autonomous decisions? Consumers almost never have complete information about what they are buying. When they don’t the government has to prevent them from making mistakes that may be harmful to themselves. |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | Prohibition is counterproductive As tempting as it is to feel that banning is the solution to problems, it doesn’t work. Almost all states prohibits certain drugs, but that does not stop them being used. [1] Despite being banned in Ghana, skin whitening creams are still openly advertised on billboards [2] . Counterfeit cosmetics of all types exist worldwide [3] , they are illegal for a variety of reasons, not least intellectual property abuse: banning skin lighting creams would simply give more space to the counterfeits. A ban could lead users towards either a homemade substance, or pills and injections which would almost certainly be more damaging as a result of a lack of regulation. [1] See the Debatabase debate ‘ This House supports the legalisation of drugs’ [2] Al Jazeera English, “The Stream: Fair Beauty”, YouTube, 22 August 2013, , roughly 18 minutes in [3] RIA Novosti, “Counterfeit cosmetics: Turning beauties in to beasts”, RT, 08 November 2010, |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | Run education campaigns instead Education is an alternative. Campaigns such as #darkisbeautiful (dark is beautiful) in India are the model for advancing equality and marginalizing colourism in India. The campaign has had some success attracting stars, including some such as Vishaka Sing who have modelled for fairness creams, to campaign against the prejudice against darker skin tones. [1] The heavy hand of legislation is not the correct tool – other methods from social media campaigns to changing practices in the fashion, beauty and media industries (such as has occurred in Dakar Fashion Week [2] ) will reduce the cultural demand. [1] Krupa, Lakshmi, ‘Dark is beautiful’, The Hindu, 8 September 2013, [2] Reuters, “Dakar fashion week bans models who use skin lightning cream”, South China Morning Post, 01 July 2013, |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | Banning these is papering over the issue It would be all too tempting for governments to consider that a ban on these products would sort out issues of skin tone discrimination as they would be hidden away from public view. Class and race are both divisive issues, and are often inextricably linked. Those with lighter skin will still have advantages over those with darker skin hues. The banning of whiteners will simply reduce the ability of individuals to change how others perceive them. We can all agree that there needs to be less colourism but that has to be achieved by reducing prejudices. Only broader education on the issue of skin colour discrimination can achieve such a change. |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | Personal autonomy Like many other debates, this simply boils down to personal autonomy. Individuals should be free to take actions, even ones harmful to them as long as they do not harm others, at least not without good reason. Thus things that are almost entirely harmful such as smoking are allowed. It is a matter of personal choice – to suggest otherwise non-white women do not have the capacity to make that choice. |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | Educational campaigns can and do work on many issues. However, they can only do so much in terms of making genuine progress. If you want to change attitudes – generally subconscious – more concrete action is needed. Legislation affects everyone while a campaign will only ever reach comparatively small numbers. |
media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should | Obviously, not every policy is 100% effective. However, a ban on products that is well created and adequately enforced could at least reject a material from the mainstream, and signals disapproval. Not everyone will follow a ban but many will see that the ban is there for a good reason and will not seek alternatives. Counterfeit cosmetics are a different issue – one is the attempt to capitalize off of a brand, the other is to provide a product to achieve people’s goals. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | People are unhappy because they can't have everything, not because they are given too much choice and find it stressful. In fact, advertisements play a crucial role in ensuring that what money people have, they spend on the most appropriate product for themselves. If advertisements were not permitted, people would waste money on an initial product when, given the choice, they clearly would go for another. A meta-analysis incorporating research from 50 independent studies found no meaningful connection between choice and anxiety, but speculated that the variance in the studies left open the possibility that choice overload could be tied to certain highly specific and as yet poorly understood pre-conditions1. 1 ^ Scheibehenne, Benjamin; Greifeneder, R. & Todd, P. M. (2010). "Can There Ever be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload" . Journal of Consumer Research 37: 409-425. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy. Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on1. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. A recent advertisement for make-up was banned in Britain due to the company presenting its product as being more effective than it actually was2. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all. 1Schwartz, The Tyranny of Choice, 2004. 2 Kekeh , Too Beautiful? British MP Draws Line in Sand for Cosmetic Ads , 2011. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want. Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | There are too many advertisements in everyday life. The sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control'1. People shouldn't have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases, redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement. 1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely to See an Ad. New York Times. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Though there are a great many advertisements in everyday life, there are not so many that they can't simply be ignored. Advertisements attempt to get you to buy a product, if you're not interested, then don't buy the product. For every person who finds all the advertisements stressful, another person finds them enjoyable and something to read or watch while they make their daily journey to work or school. Out of control could mean simply that customers think businesses are spending too much on advertising. Without proof that the number of advertisements is having a negative effect, the point is worthless. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Our society is built around the idea that companies produce things that people want, and this is what makes us prosperous. If consumers suddenly stopped wanting to buy so many products then what happens to the people whose job it is to make them? The economy will suffer terribly. Of course some people take materialism too far, but most people buy just what they need and then a little extra when they treat themselves. This is a much better situation than one in which people can only afford to buy the things they need - that would be a step backwards. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | The media and celebrity magazines do much more harm, by mocking unattractive or overweight people, and glorifying models who are often dangerously thin. Adverts never criticise people - that would be terrible for the companies behind them. Their aim is to understand and provide what people want, and so their adverts only ever reflect what people think. If people's perceptions are wrong, then it not the advertisers' job to put them right, but politicians, the media and schools. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers. People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices. 1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely To See an Ad. The New York Times. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low self-esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Research that proved this effect also concluded that 'the media can boost self-esteem (happiness with one's self) where it is providing examples of a variety of body shapes. However, it often tends to portray a limited (small) number of body shapes'1. 1 Skinny models 'send unhealthy message'. The Guardian. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do their work - they only care about making profit. This means that they regularly advertise unhealthy or harmful things. Fast food adverts are a large part of the reason so many children are obese. Researchers have found that children aged 6-13 who were shown commercials for junk food were more likely to pick meals that were bad for them1. The adverts just try to make children eat as much bad food as possible without any concern for the health costs. 1 Junk Food Harmful for Kids. Hindustan Times |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Advertising in fact gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better products, but they cannot afford to advertise them as well and so people don't find out about them. In the film industry, the big film studios spend more than $75 million on advertising alone1. Small films cannot compete. This restricts the quality of products for consumers, and places a huge roadblock to the success of small businesses. 1 When Is Too Much Advertising Too Much? Spinoff Online. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Advertising helps us choose between different goods. Advertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping us choose between competing goods. Many adverts are drawing our attention to products with new features, for example more powerful computers, telephones which are also cameras and music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other adverts try to compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value products. In most cases advertising does not make us go shopping – we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make better decisions about how to spend our money, by giving us more information about the choices available. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Advertising is only as annoying as you want it to be. No-one is forced to put advertising on their property - for many companies it is an important part of their income. Football teams would have much less money if they were not sponsored. Manchester United's shirt sponsorship deal with Aon is worth £80 million. For the small annoyance of having to have a logo on the shirt, the football club can afford to buy new players and hopefully win more games. And no-one is forced to look at advertising - you can turn the TV off between shows, or just flick past adverts in newspapers. If you don't want to see the adverts, then just ignore them. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles. Advertising is used to promote healthy activities, products and lifestyles and is further regulated to ensure that unhealthy products are not promoted. The School Food Trust in Britain, for example, used celebrities in advertisements to promote healthy eating in 20071. Furthermore, adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under control. 1 Schools Food Trust uses celebs to promote healthy eating. Campaign Live. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known. If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | It is hard to ignore advertising when it is everywhere in modern life. Advertising may be welcomed by companies which profit from their sponsorship, but fans do not like it nor necessarily want it. Barcelona in Spain went without commercial advertising on their shirts for a long time, proving sponsorship is not necessary to win trophies and buy players. |
media television house believes advertising harmful | Advertising does not help us choose, it merely confuses customer who are not sure who is offering what. This is particularly true with advertisements that compare products with other businesses. In Britain, advertising for broadband (internet) services confuse nine out of ten people1. With different costs and add-ons, it's hard to for a customer to know what they are actually paying for and whether it is better than going somewhere else. As a result, many customers end up stressed and confused. 1 Misleading broadband advertising confuses customers. Virgin. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.