Ch-Ch-Changes?

At their recent Ard Fheis, or party convention for those of you unfamiliar with the ‘cupla focail’, Sinn Fein delegates from north, south, east and west donned their collective party hats and performed a stirring rendition of ‘happy birthday’ for their party leader, Gerry Adams. The fact that the performance of this ubiquitous classic was delivered ‘as gaelige’ is but an optical aside in the bigger, all-encompassing picture that is Sinn Fein version 2.1.

The reason for this synchronized outpouring of song had, however, very little to do with the birth date of the aforementioned Mr. Adams (which actually occurs on the 6^th of October each year) but was instead a celebration of the fact that Gerry had reached the big three-zero milestone as president of the Sinn Fein parliamentary party. The highly unstable nature of party politics, particularly those at the higher echelons of it, as well as the added variables of having to lead a party in an environment where bombings, assassination attempts and all-out conflict were part of the daily grind, makes this achievement all the more remarkable.

A quick scan of the national and international political leadership top-table in 1983 illustrates the sheer scale of Adams’ most recent anniversary. In Ireland, Garret Fitzgerald and Charles Haughey had just finished their intriguing head to head battle as to who would lead the country, with the latter coming out on top after three election campaigns in eighteen months. The Cold War’s ideological ambers were still stoking when Adams’ reign began, with Ronald Reagan in the first term of his eight year tenure in the Oval Office, while Mikhail ‘glasnost and perestroika’ Gorbachev had yet to even roll the dice in the snakes and ladders platform that was the position of Soviet Union General Secretary. Whilst, in the UK, Margaret Thatcher was in charge as the situation in Northern Ireland continued to worsen.

The impact that Thatcher and her conservative government had in fast-tracking Adams’ political career should not be underestimated. Her hard-line approach in refusing the hunger strikers political prisoner status both re-invigorated domestic support for the republican cause while also elevating the conflict to an international audience – an issue that was further strengthened by Bobby Sands posthumous election victory in the Fermanagh-South Tyrone Westminster by-election in 1981. Adams’ advocacy for greater political engagement, from all facets of the republican movement, intensified during this period and this stance remains the cornerstone of his presidency of Sinn Fein.

Adams’ leadership has resulted in a gradual but significant shift in the political profile of Sinn Fein. The party has undergone an organisational and structural face-lift which has seen it discard absenteeism (with the exception of Westminster) and involvement in paramilitary activity in favour of stringent opposition in parliament and a progressive approach to a range of social and economic issues. In short, Sinn Fein has gradually transformed itself from a party that nobody would touch to one that some are wondering if they can afford to avoid.

This political progress has been astutely choreographed and managed by Adams and with the centenary anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising conveniently falling on an election year on this side of the border, is the stage set for Sinn Fein to announce its arrival as a government party in Leinster House? And if this turns out to be the case, what will it mean for Adams and the wider Sinn Fein leadership? 

The prospect of Adams, and a number of his Sinn Fein colleagues, holding ministerial positions in Dail Eireann, allied to the party’s continued power-sharing arrangement in Stormont is, undoubtedly, a top priority and major political incentive for Sinn Fein top brass, especially given the significance of 2016, but is the likelihood of this happening hampered by Adams’ position as party leader?

There is a growing body of opinion which argues that Adams’ transfer south of the border might not have been as beneficial to Sinn Fein’s electoral ambitions as had been previously anticipated. On the surface this viewpoint appears quite unfounded as his presence has, undoubtedly, given the party a figurehead that was, for so long, found lacking among their deputies in Leinster House. Similarly, the fact that Sinn Fein secured its highest ever seat total in 2011 would suggest that such claims are lacking a degree of accuracy. It is also important to remember that any criticisms of Adams’ leadership are confined exclusively to external sources and, at present, are but murmurings in the overall Irish political spectrum but nonetheless, the issue remains.

Adams’ detractors argue that he is out of touch with the contemporary policies and issues of Ireland in 2013 and his failure to sufficiently articulate realistic alternatives to a number of economic and social issues has reduced the party’s credibility as a potential government party. Similarly, there is a feeling that his leadership and presence in Dublin is a retrograde step in Sinn Fein’s continued attempt to disassociate itself from the IRA and other dissident activity. 

While this may not yet be a pressing concern for Sinn Fein party members it is worth noting that if the party is to deliver on its promise of a united Ireland that is fully equipped with the social provisions it deems essential, then it will invariably have to do so as a coalition partner and, at the present time, it is very uncertain if any of the ‘big three’ would embrace Adams and co. as government bedfellows. With that in mind, would the party push for a change in leadership to achieve this end and, more importantly, would Adams concede his position for the greater good of the party?

We, at ‘Who Is the Next Caesar?’ have decided to adopt a hypothetical mindset and assess what would a Sinn Fein post Gerry Adams really look like. As stated earlier, most people in this country associate Sinn Fein with Gerry Adams and vice-versa and while this is an obvious positive with regards to his popularity among his supporters it does pose the question; what can be achieved without him?

Adams’ current position within Sinn Fein transcends the relatively weak definitions articulated by titles such as party leader or president. It goes far beyond the remit shared by many of his contemporaries and his influence, either positive or negative, has been felt so acutely, by those both within and outside the party, that it is quite difficult to imagine a scenario where he wasn’t guiding the party’s political ambitions. The irony here is that it is this strong-minded autocratic brand of leadership, allied to the militaristic discipline imparted on all strands of the party by Adams, that has made the act of even contemplating a successor to his tightly guarded thrown all the more difficult. To use a football (association not gaelic!) analogy, he is the Alex Ferguson of Irish politics.

Much like fans of Manchester United, one of the most pressing issues for Sinn Fein supporters and observers outside the party alike is; what happens next? This point is exacerbated even further by the dual-jurisdiction nature of Sinn Fein which inevitably reduces the number of viable candidates that the party can present as potential future leaders. Mary-Lou McDonald is one such example. Cited by many as the future of Sinn Fein because of her combative political style and the fact that she is both female and under 45, she is, nonetheless, unlikely to appease the northern contingent sufficiently, particularly given the fact that Sinn Fein continue to poll far stronger north of the border, to get the top job.

Similarly, the possibility that Martin McGuiness could emerge from Adams’ shadow to lead Sinn Fein on an all-island basis is, again, stymied by the fact that he would also be tarnished as a coalition party leader in Leinster House because of his association with the IRA and intense paramilitary activity that resulted in the countless deaths of members of the civilian population on both sides of the border during the troubles.

Given the north-south nature of the party, as well as the more pressing need to have a southern representative as leader to continue the growth in less partisan areas of the country, it is becoming increasingly likely that the next Sinn Fein leader will emerge from a constituency in the republic but also one that has strong ties to the north. With those variables in place, it is apparent that one candidate fits the bill more than most.

Pearse Doherty, TD for Donegal South-West, has made a significant impact in parliament since his 2010 by-election victory. His age (36), bilingual ability and, crucially, proximity to Northern Ireland, make him a perfect representation for the profile of the ever-changing Sinn Fein support base. This has not gone unnoticed by the party’s hierarchy as he was chosen as Sinn Fein’s finance spokesman in 2011. The lack of credible and realistic legislative plans is one of the biggest criticisms against Sinn Fein and although Doherty is not immune to this contagion he has, nonetheless, made many insightful and media-grabbing proposals both in the chamber and as part of the Oireachtas finance committee.

His profile is also certainly benefitting from the fact that he is not identified with the IRA and the countless murders and atrocities that they carried out during three decades of conflict. This would, undoubtedly, work to Sinn Fein’s advantage should he ascend to the role of party leader and would certainly increase their chances of becoming a government party in the medium-term future. In public, Adams and co. have stated that they will only enter government on their terms but the reality is that, barring a complete meltdown of the current status quo, they will have to do so as part of a broader coalition and with that comes compromise. Initiating such a compromise would be extremely challenging for any party (most likely Fianna Fail) with Adams at the helm.

The key issue at play here is that certain factions of Sinn Fein are intrinsically linked to the IRA and, whether they like it or not, that connection will remain as long as Adams is party leader. The dilemma for the party is whether they can justify severing the ties of the past for the electoral gains of the future. Only time will tell if they will address this thorniest of issues.

Out of Africa

Six months after leading Chelsea to their first Champions League triumph, Didier Drogba returned to London last month to present a number of his team-mates with commemorative rings to honour that fateful night in Bavaria. In total, the rings were rumoured to have cost the striker in excess of $800,000, which, given his current wage packet, is slightly above his monthly salary – thereby maintaining the time honoured tradition of spending a month’s pay on a ring (or in this case – rings) for the one you love!

The intervening period, following the Ivorian’s departure, has seen a lot of change for the west London outfit. The biggest alteration to the SW6 landscape was, undoubtedly, the decision by Chelsea owner; Roman Abramovich to dispense with the services of manager Roberto Di Matteo in November. Similarly, the ongoing contractual negotiations, or lack thereof, with Frank Lampard indicate that there may well be a significant changing of the guard at Stamford Bridge in the coming months and, in many ways, Drogba’s decision to relocate to Shanghai last July may be an extremely well-calculated adjudication, but why Shanghai Shenhua? And more importantly, what distinguishing features of the Ivorian’s sporting and personal profile appealed so much to the Chinese Superleague (CSL) outfit that they were willing to part with almost 200,000 GBP per week for his services? To better understand this question, it is necessary for us to contextualize the position that China now holds at the top table of global super-powers.

The past decade has seen a plethora of both state-owned and private sector Chinese companies investing heavily in Africa. It is estimated that Chinese investment throughout the continent currently exceeds $40 billion, in addition, there is reportedly over 2,000 Chinese companies with investment projects in the region, the majority of who are engaged in the manufacturing, mining and constructing industries. Initially, much of this investment was concentrated in the resource-rich countries of Angola, Nigeria, Sudan and South Africa in order to facilitate the domestic manufacturing demands of the fastest growing economy in the world. However, since 2007, a significant proportion of this investment has spread to other regions across Africa and has also evolved so as to incorporate a number of secondary and tertiary industries such as aviation, tourism and television.

This expansion was, to a large degree, amplified by the Chinese government’s commitment to a more progressively outward-looking approach to issues of an economic and political perspective since the turn of the century, as well as that, the global economic downturn that beset many of the traditional economic powerhouses of Europe and North America in 2008 meant that they had far fewer opportunities for investment in Africa. This has resulted in a very visible upsurge in trade volumes for companies within the two regions and this allied to the formation and strengthening of economic and political bonds between China and respective governments in Africa, has resulted in the creation of a new and alternative dynamic to the international relations playing field.

The proliferation and creation of a new block of global superpowers has also had a tangible impact on the world of football. The era of billionaire tycoons purchasing clubs in leagues throughout the world is, most definitely, a 21^st century phenomenon and one which has been particularly prominent among the wealthiest strands of the emerging global economies – it is therefore no great surprise that the Chinese Superleague has increased its profile so much in recent years.

The last eighteen months has seen the steady migration eastwards of a number of top-tier European based footballers in the autumn of their careers and, for the most part, the Chinese Superleague has been the primary destination for these players. The influx of international players and managers of the caliber of Nicolas Anelka, Seydou Keita and world cup winning coach Marcelo Lippi has certainly raised the profile of the CSL and football in general in the region, but it is the significant African contingent now plying their trade in the CSL that has garnered the most interest among football commentators both in Europe and throughout the world.

In addition to the acquisition of Drogba and Keita – two former champions league winners with Chelsea and Barcelona respectively – CSL side Beijing Guoan also attracted the Malian international, and former Spurs and West Ham striker, Freddie Kanoute to the nation’s capital city, while the much travelled Nigerian international Yakubu Aiyegbeni signed a three year deal with Guangzhou R&F last July. There is little doubt, that these high-profile signings have increased the media and public interest in the CSL and their African origin has most certainly contributed to the ongoing ‘special relationship’ between both regions, but what impact has it had on the grassroots of the game in the world’s fastest growing economy, and what lasting legacy will their time in China leave on a population who have yet to be completely converted to the beautiful game?

China’s position as a global power in the fields of university attainment, economic development and Olympic medal lists means that it must be slightly difficult for their national football team to locate the positives in their current world ranking of 88, which, ironically, is lower than African teams such as Angola, Uganda and South Africa, who have, most likely, benefitted to some degree from China’s continued investment in their respective states. In addition, the team affectionately known as ‘Team Dragon’ has only managed to reach the FIFA world cup on one occasion – this occurred in 2002 when fellow Asian nations Japan and South Korea hosted the tournament; thereby increasing the Asian participation rate and the current squad contains no instantly recognizable names. There have been some silver linings of late however, with the current squad breaking back into the top five in Asia for the first time in eighteen months but such achievements seem trivial in comparison to the figures being invested in the wages of foreign players in the CSL on a weekly basis.

There are a number of competing hypotheses that attempt to explain why China has failed so emphatically to incorporate football into their national and sporting landscape but one more than most tends to re-appear as an explanation in this regard. The cultural disposition towards achieving academic excellence is so strong in China that it leaves time for little else, especially  something as time consuming as participation in football teams. This point is exacerbated even further by the single-child policy that places additional pressure on the only son or daughter to achieve a university place so as to acquire a higher-paid job that will help support his parents later in life.

Given the nation’s incompatibility with the global game, it is perhaps a little surprising that Shanhai Shenhua owner, Zhu Jun, and his CSL counterparts have agreed to spend such vast sums of money on bringing such international starts to the Far East. Perhaps, it is their laissez-faire approach to increasing the profile and popularity of the game but with 2012 average attendances for CSL still shy of 20,000, this does not appear to be the case. Add in the sub-standard nature of the infrastructure within the league and the lingering stigma attached to the match fixing controversy of 2002-2005 and it is apparent that it is going to take more than a high-profile transfer quick-fix to remedy the ills of China’s fractious relationship with football.

This is particularly true of Shenhua, as it appears Zhu Jun has not only employed Chelsea’s former striking partnership but has also absorbed a lot from the autocratic nature of club owner; Roman Abromovich. In recent months, Zhu has raised his claim for ‘autocrat of the year’ by sacking former manager Jean Tigana on a matchday, selling one of the club’s longest serving and most admired players; Yu Tao to rivals Shanghai Shenxin and also demanding that he be named on the squad’s team sheet for a friendly game against Liverpool. These actions have undermined the club severely and it now appears that Anelka is unlikely to rejoin Shenhua in the new season. As for Drogba – it appears he will remain in Shanghai but who knows for how long? One thing is for certain however, a relationship comprising of pushy, single-minded business tycoons with a thirst for publicity, an under-developed grassroots system with no great affiliation to the game and an influx of players who have used football as a vehicle for survival and social elevation is, almost definitely, destined for failure.

This article first appeared on the International Political Forum.

Panic on the Streets of Belfast…

“I wonder to myself, could life ever be sane again?” – S.P Morrissey

Formed in Belfast in 1970, the Alliance Party was originally perceived as moderate and more progressive branch of unionism, this was, to a large degree, because of its embryonic ties to the New Ulster Movement – a faction of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) which sought to achieve a less sectarian UUP. In the subsequent years however, the agenda and philosophy of the Alliance party evolved considerably, and by the 1990’s it had established itself as non-sectarian party and this point was articulated most succinctly by the fact that it held a completely neutral position on the United Kingdom versus united Ireland debate and instead concentrated its efforts on emphasizing the need for Northern Ireland’s political elites to acknowledge and strengthen their collective common bonds rather than focusing on the sectarian lines of the orange-green divide.

The creation of a so-called ‘third way’ in a society that, for many decades, had been defined by an ‘us or them’ mentality and punctuated by brutal paramilitary violence was never going to be an overnight venture. However, the Alliance Party’s persistence in this regard has resulted in a number of significant policy developments and electoral successes. Their continued objection to the power-sharing structures at the Stormont Executive and the entrenching sectarian divisions that, they argue, it creates is articulated by the collective decision of all its MLA’s to register their designated heritage as ‘other’ when entering the Northern Irish Assembly. The party has also aligned itself quite successfully with the ever-expanding ethnic minority community in the region and has also been an outspoken advocate for more equitable treatment of same-sex couples.

David Ford – Alliance Party Leader

From an electoral perspective, the party’s continued elevation within the Northern Irish political spectrum is visible from the fact that they now have eight MLA’s in the Stormont Assembly, one of whom is Anna Lo; the first ethnic minority candidate to be elected at national level in Northern Ireland, following her successful 2007 campaign. In addition, the party also currently holds two ministerial positions in the Stormont Executive – In 2010, party leader; David Ford became the first Northern Irish politician in over 38 years to head the, highly contentious, Justice Ministry. The Alliance Party also secured its first seat in Westminster in 2010, when Naomi Long defeated DUP leader and Northern Ireland First Minister; Peter Robinson in the Belfast East constituency. This electoral upturn has, most certainly, bolstered the Alliance’s profile throughout the region and this was strengthened even further in 2011 when they overtook the UUP in the Belfast City Council. The impact of this electoral achievement was always apparent but in the past week it has taken on an even greater degree of significance.

On Monday, December 3^rd, the Belfast City Council voted in favour of an Alliance Party motion which proposed to reduce the number of days that the union flag could be flown above city hall in Belfast. Prior to the vote the union flag had flown continuously at this location for over a century, but since Monday’s vote it has been limited to seventeen designated days per year. The Alliance Party has argued that such a measure is not only in keeping with the protocol in similar city halls across the UK but is also a significant symbolic gesture in the development of Northern Ireland’s status as a post-conflict region. The vote passed with a 29-21 outcome and the Alliance’s six councilors proved pivotal in securing the motion’s success. The ideological centre ground occupied by the party ensured that a compromise existed to the nationalist’s councilor’s demands that the flag be removed completely from the city hall building but the decision enraged both unionist party representatives and more pertinently, thousands of their supporters, in particular, those in working class areas of east and north Belfast, who have reacted with disdain to the council’s decision.

Belfast City Hall

The intervening days since Monday’s vote has seen Belfast, as well as a number of adjoining suburbs and towns, littered with scenes of violent riots where images of burnt out cars and attacks on police vehicles have become commonplace. Over twenty PSNI officers have required medical attention since the protests broke out and there is a grave fear that if the situation worsens then lives will be lost. Some of the most vulnerable targets in this volatile situation are Alliance Party representatives. In the past six days, councilors in Bangor and Newtownabbey have seen their homes attacked with paint bombs, death threats have been made to a number of MLA’s as well as Naomi Long who has also been advised to leave her home and, in Carrickfergus Co. Antrim, loyalist protestors burned down the constituency offices of MLA Stewart Dickson- the PSNI have confirmed that there was a strong paramilitary presence evident in all of these attacks, thereby contravening the terms of the UDA and UVF’s ongoing ceasefire.

The Alliance’s vote in the Belfast City Council, allied to their visible presence within many unionist strongholds, such as Bangor and Carrickfergus, has definitely made them a prime target for the pent-up aggression and sense of anger felt by loyalist gangs but what role has the wider unionist community played in this set of unprovoked attacks? In the weeks leading up to last Monday’s vote over 40,000 leaflets were distributed by the DUP and UUP criticizing the Alliance Party’s proposal within the Belfast City Council. The Alliance has argued that this decision was a strategic and deliberate attempt by the unionist party representatives to raise tensions among their supporters, and in turn, is why so many protestors took to the streets and engaged in riots of such a violent manner. This argument is countered by DUP leader; Peter Robinson who condemned the rioting but also suggested that Sinn Fein, the SDLP and the Alliance Party representatives were stoking the political fires by provoking the unionist community in such a conspicuous manner. It would, undoubtedly, be ill-advised to apportion all the blame for this week’s riots on the leadership of the DUP, UUP and other unionist groups but it is, nonetheless, vitally important that we examine the deteriorating relationship that exists between the unionist political parties and a large proportion of their supporters, particularly those in traditional unionist strongholds.

Rioting outside City Hall in Belfast

The general consensus among the working class unionist community in Northern Ireland is that their British heritage has been consistently eroded since the Good Friday Agreement was implemented in 1998 and that many of their rights and privileges, as British citizens, have been seceded to the nationalist community, and, in particular, Sinn Fein. Last week’s vote in the Belfast City Council is the latest and, possibly, the most emotive example of this sense of cultural erosion – a point of particular relevance given the elevated position that flags and other symbols have held within the community during the past century.

This sense of anger displayed by sections of the unionist community may be directed towards non-sectarian targets like the Alliance Party but it, almost definitely, emanates from somewhere much closer to home. Disgruntled unionists have cited the UUP’s support of the Good Friday Agreement as a complete betrayal and the beginning of the end for their community. They reacted to this by switching their vote preferences to the DUP so significantly that they all but destroyed the UUP’s electoral ambitions in every election since 1998. In 2007, the power-sharing assembly returned to Northern Ireland after a number of lengthy suspensions and after five years the political institution is still up and running – no mean feat given the preceding decades of political turmoil in the region. However, the power-sharing nature of this agreement has irked many working-class unionists who regard Sinn Fein as little more than ex-IRA members and this has, consequently, increased the distance between the unionist party candidates and those who they rely on for votes.

US Secretary of State; Hillary Clinton

Here at ‘Who is the next Caesar’ we believe that the decision by a number of unionist parties to distribute leaflets attacking the Alliance party in the lead-up to last Monday’s vote was an ill-fated attempt at reducing the widening gap that exists between the party representatives and it’s, more hard-line, supporters and this, unfortunately, has had unforeseen implications for the entire region. This is not to suggest, in any way, that unionist representatives engaged in the deliberate promotion or encouragement of such violence and destruction, but given the volatile nature of Northern Ireland’s recent history it is hardly inconceivable that such disorder has taken place.

The reality of the situation is that, the working-class unionist community has been the biggest loser since the Good Friday Agreement was enacted; this is due, in no small part, to the systemic advantages that they previously enjoyed across, almost, all strands of Northern Irish society. Regrettably, in recent weeks, the DUP (and to a lesser extent the UUP and PUP) have attempted to remedy this sense of internal divergence by taking a very aggressive position on what was, after all, a democratic decision by the elected representatives of Belfast City Council, and in doing so, they have added fuel to a fire that always had the capacity to rage. The social disorder on display this week has over-shadowed Hilary Clinton’s final visit to a region that she has contributed significantly to improving, as well as damaging the economic and social landscape of Belfast city centre in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Most worryingly however, is the fact that it has undermined the democratic liberty of a political party that seeks to rid the region of its sectarian shackles and this is, most certainly, a cause for panic.

 

A Stepping Stone To Something Bigger?

Comprising of over 40,000 interlocking basalt columns, the Giant’s Causeway, situated on the northeastern coast of Northern Ireland, is regarded as one of the most unique geological landscapes in northern Europe. It was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1986 has subsequently managed to attract thousands of admirers each year, making it one of the most popular tourist destinations throughout the UK and Ireland. The Giant’s Causeway’s history is also steeped in legend with one particular version of its creation claiming that the mythical Irish warrior Fionn Mac Cumhaill built the causeway from Antrim to Scotland following a challenge by a Scottish counterpart by the name of Benandonner. To this day, there are still competing theories surrounding the origin of the site.

The causeway was without a tourist centre for twelve years following a fire to the original building in 2000 but the opening of the new centre in July of this year, by Northern Ireland’s political ‘top two’ of First Minister; Peter Robinson, and Deputy First Minster; Martin McGuiness, was supposed to usher in a new era for a landmark that dates back over sixty million years, and in recent weeks, the newly designed centre has succeeded in making headlines throughout the world. Unfortunately for supporters of the new design however, this new-found glory is not because of any architectural ingenuity or innovative exhibitions on the centre’s part; rather, a reference, in the audio section of the guided tour, to the belief system of the Young Earth Creationists, is responsible for the resultant media controversy.

Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is, as the name suggests, an evangelical Christian religious belief which claims that the world and all its earthly components (Causeway included) was created in six days slightly over six thousand years ago by Christ himself. This belief system is premised on a most literal interpretation of the bible and, in particular, the book of Genesis, which is regarded by the group as factually accurate account of history.  

YEC is supported by evangelical Christians across the globe, and this is especially the case in Northern Ireland where a number of independent Christian churches actively promote the scientific picture painted by the YEC. In fact, outside of the US, Northern Ireland is regarded as one of the strongest locations for evangelical Christians who comply with the creationist framework, with a 2009 survey, carried out by religious think-tank Theos, indicating that over 25% of the adult population in the region believe in some sort of creationism – interestingly however, only 10% consistently chose YEC as their creationist belief of choice, a potential indicator of the independent and fractious nature of evangelical religions.

The decision to include a reference to the YEC belief system in the newly designed site has most certainly divided popular opinion both in Northern Ireland and further afield. Numerous evangelical churches who support the views espoused by the YEC have welcomed the decision of the National Trust (the independent group selected to implement the design of the new centre) to include a creationist option in an otherwise scientific menu. In this regard, the Caleb foundation (an umbrella group who represent the views of mainstream evangelicals in Northern Ireland) were the chief advocates for the visitor centre inclusion and their primary line of argument follows the course that the Giant’s Causeway is a landmark for the citizens of Northern Ireland and, as a result, should be representative of all these people, even if such beliefs conflict directly with the scientific reasoning behind the formation of this unique landscape. 

On the other side of the fence lie a wide range of scientists, academics and local citizens who oppose the creationist teachings and have been very vocal in their opposition of the National Trust’s decision. Richard Dawkins claimed that the National Trust should not have given in to pressure from such ‘intellectual baboons’ and felt that by doing so they were pandering to the wishes of an extreme-minded minority who were not representative of the majority of the regions citizens.

There is little doubt that the debate and controversy surrounding this decision by the National Trust is going to resonate for the weeks and months to come but it is important to remember that this is not an isolated incident. Over the past decade there has been a concerted effort made by certain sections of Stormont’s elected representatives to implement evangelical teachings into the Northern Irish education system, and in conjunction with this development, there has also been a noticeable increase in elected officials who publically espouse creationist views when referencing wider societal issues.

At the center of this attempted merger of church (or churches) and state is the aforementioned Caleb Foundation. The primary function of the foundation is to act as a representative group for mainstream evangelical followers in Northern Ireland. In reality, however, it appears that they are much more akin to a political lobby group and their chairperson; Wallace Thompson, appears to hold significant political sway with regards to pushing the evangelical and creationist agenda in the northern political spectrum. Thompson is a former advisor to the Democratic Unionist Party’s (DUP) deputy leader Nigel Dodds as well as being an ally of the DUP’s health minister Edwin Poots, a fully-fledged member of the YEC.

Another link between the Caleb Foundation and the higher echelons of the DUP can be found in the form of MLA Mervyn Storey, the foundations vice-chairperson. Storey is a senior member of both the DUP and the Orange Order and in 2006, along with DUP MP, David Simpson, wrote a letter in a unionist newspaper which strongly encouraged the Stormont executive to integrate creationist teachings into the new tourist centre at the Giant’s Causeway. In the letter, Storey referenced Rev Dr Greer, a creationist who claims that the causeway provides explicit evidence of Noah’s flood. This letter is one example in a long list of instances where the Caleb Foundation has successfully exercised its political muscle and according to a recent survey carried out by The British Centre for Science Education, there are about six or seven senior politicians within the DUP who are strongly involved with promoting the teachings of the YEC.

The increasing rise in profile of the creationist agenda was, most certainly, given an added boost with the recent developments at the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre but it is clear that this is merely a stepping stone to their ultimate goal of having creationism taught alongside science in schools throughout Northern Ireland. This clearly stated ambition highlights the fact that several members of the DUP’s frontbench truly believe that creationism is a legitimate alternative explanation to science and their intention to have it implemented in the curriculum further backs up this point.  

There is no doubt that the introduction of creationist classes into the primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland would prove extremely detrimental to their education system, but in addition, this potential development contains a number of other lasting implications for the overall state of society in the north. In recent months, there has been an emerging school of thought, among an increasing number of social experts in Northern Ireland, which argues that the recent upsurge in creationism is gaining popularity as the peace process begins to mature. The general consensus in this line of argument is that the robust implementation of an evangelical creationist agenda undertaken by sections of the DUP is, at least, partly a replacement for some of the more sectarian rhetoric directed at nationalist opponents in previous decades.

This argument is in, undoubtedly, still in its embryonic stage and, as a result, its validity is very hard to determine, but it is common knowledge that the DUP superseded their unionist counterparts; the UUP, through a process of extreme rhetoric and more hard-line positions on the IRA ceasefire and power-sharing in the years following the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. It is, therefore, well within the realms of possibility that once such an electoral upper hand was achieved the more evangelical DUP would then begin to introduce some extreme measures that would have faced far more opposition when they were the minority party within the unionist community.

So to conclude, in a month where Olympic medalists, presidential candidates and musicians in stadiums have cited Jesus Christ as their inspiration, is it really so surprising that the creationist movement has succeeded in elevating its scientific agenda in Northern Ireland? Well, in a word, yes. The aforementioned platitudes that were directed so generously in the direction of Jesus by sporting and political stars were personal beliefs regarding a desire to acknowledge their creator and to thank him following a moment of personal success.

On the contrary, the decision to include a creationist perspective in an information centre representing one of the most unique scientific manifestations in northern Europe is something completely different. This decision has legitimized and increased the profile of a belief system that has more questions than answers and one which blatantly ignores centuries of scientific research and development. In effect, the National Trusts’ decision in this regard has put the creationist agenda on an equal footing with the scientific community and by doing so has diminished the rationality and objectivity of the role that science plays in understanding our very existence. 

Guns Don’t Kill People…

Early in the 1860’s, a group of pioneering miners sought to establish a settlement that was within striking distance of the much coveted gold deposits that were nestling in the South Platte River, located just south-east of the Rocky mountain range, in an area now known as Colorado. Within a decade the frontier town of Denver was fully-functioning, its pivotal location along the central plains ensured that its population and commercial importance grew very quickly and by 1890 it was the second largest American city, west of Nebraska.

Denver (and Colorado as a state) has remained true to its pioneering past and have staunchly opposed any, perceived, unnecessary government interference that may seek to impinge on the civil liberties of its citizens – To this day; Denver has the unenviable title of being the only city to have refused the opportunity to host an Olympic Games, following a decision by Colorado voters to reject the 1976 Winter Olympics because the financing of the games would have been partly supported by public funds. This desire to exist outside the clutches of ‘big government’ also permeates across other strands of society, most notably in relation to the second amendment of the US constitution – the right to bear arms. 

In the US at present, 44 of the 50 states have legal provisions in place that are directly related to the legislation from the second amendment, in effect, this means that purchasing guns and ammunition in these states is quite a straightforward process. Background checks vary from state to state but, in essence, only citizens with a serious criminal record will encounter any problems in obtaining a fire arm of their choice. In this regard, Colorado is regarded as one of the easiest states to purchase weapons.

This process is simplified even further due to the fact that Coloradan state law does not require gun owners to carry a license, a state permit to purchase weapons or any form of firearm registration. The horrific results of such lax gun control were clearly visible in Aurora (a suburb of Denver) last Friday when a local Medical student; James Holmes, opened fire in a cinema and ended up killing twelve people and injuring many more. This latest atrocity has propelled the contentious ‘gun debate’ back into the collective consciousness of all US citizens, and particularly, residents of the mile high city, who have previously experienced the devastation of a mass public shooting firsthand, following the Columbine massacre in 1999.

There is little doubt that the aftermath of this event will continue to garner global attention for some time to come and will, most likely, result in certain implications for the president. The fact that this crime took place in an election year only serves to intensify the level of scrutiny on Obama, and Romney to a lesser degree, and there will, almost definitely, be a call for gun reform from representatives of northeastern and more liberal leaning states as well pressure from the associated press, at home and abroad. But what tangible changes will occur? Will there be a tightening on the sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Or a legislative challenge to the second amendment? If recent history is any indicator then the answer to both these questions is, almost certainly, no.

A recent poll carried out by Gallup, a US based polling company, has indicated that support for gun controlling measures is at an all time low. An excerpt of the survey illustrates this point quite succinctly. In 1959, 60 per cent of people polled said that they would support a measure to ban the possession of all handguns, except in the cases of police officers and other authorized personnel; in 2011, this figure has plummeted to 26 per cent.

In addition, in January of last year, Congresswoman Gabriella Gifford was shot at close range during a consultancy clinic in Tucson, Arizona; in the intervening months no concrete piece of legislation has been enacted to tighten gun control in the state. In actuality, the opposite is the case, as demand for the Glock 9mm handgun that was used in this shooting almost doubled, with spikes in popularity visible across the country from Ohio to California. The Glock 9 mm weapon is regarded as being light and easy to use and was also the fire arm of choice used by Seung –Hui Cho in the Virginia Tech shooting spree in 2007. The lack of a legislative or legal response to both of these atrocities is a further, and more damning, correlation between these two events and there are a growing number of comparable cases. One group, more than most, is responsible for this aversion to gun regulation and they are increasing and exerting their influence on a continual basis.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) was established in 1871 following the US Civil War. The initial aim of the NRA was to protect the second amendment from any constitutional alterations while also promoting gun sports and creating a network of clubs across the country, where gun enthusiasts could hone their skills in a supportive environment, however, in recent decades, the NRA have become far more politicized and are now regarded as one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington D.C. Evidence of this lobbying power is not always publically visible but a number of NRA campaigns have, most definitely, influenced US legislation and their policy-makers as well as the hearts and souls of everyday Americans.

In 1994, following the Long Island Railroad shooting (in which six people were killed) a law was enacted which banned the purchase of 19 military style assault weapons; one of these weapons was the AR-15 assault rifle, the semi-automatic weapon deployed by Holmes in the shooting in Aurora on Friday. The 1994 law lasted for ten years but was not re-implemented in 2004, primarily because of NRA lobbying on the matter and an aversion from policy-makers to tackle the issue in a meaningful way.

The US Democratic Party suffered one of their heaviest defeats in the 1994 mid-term elections and lost their majority in the house for the first time in almost 40 years, a mere two months after Bill Clinton passed the 10 years ban on assault weapons. Similarly, in 1999, the former democratic presidential candidate; Al Gore, casted  the deciding vote in the senate on legislation that restricted sales at gun shows before narrowly losing to George Bush in the presidential election of the following year. 

As a result, the general consensus among political commentators and analysts in the US at present is that the democrats are very reluctant to enact legislation on gun control because of the influence possessed by the NRA. Of more concern is the fact that the NRA seems almost hostile to any debate on the issue and last year, their executive vice president; Wayne LaPierre, refused to engage with the Obama administration on the matter. This disregard for dialogue, as well as the lack of legislative reform following the murder of Trayvon Martin by a community patrol officer in Florida in January, have highlighted how the NRA have managed to change the public debate from gun control to gun rights

Advocates of the second amendment argue that gun reform isn’t the answer as states with the most restrictive regulations often have the highest percentage of murders, and in this case they are correct, with the District of Columbia proving this point in 2010. They also reference countries in Scandinavia, such as Norway, where gun control is far more stringent yet atrocities like last year’s Oslo shootings still occur. So do they have a point? Here at ‘Who Is the Next Caesar’ we don’t believe so.

In 2010, 8,775 out of the 12,996 murders in the US were carried out using firearms; this percentage is much higher than the UK, Canada and Germany, countries with a similar social make-up but much tighter gun laws. In addition, the number of robberies and non fatal assaults is also proportionally higher than in other comparable states and this is another serious issue. However, the most worrying aspect of this debate is that the NRA’s lobbying and self-marketing machine have managed to create a situation where a mass shooting, like last week’s in Aurora, results in an upsurge in firearm sales rather than a debate on how to resolve the issue. Their continual alignment to the second amendment (an article constructed in 1791) instills a false siege mentality among average Americans and any attempt to regulate these weapons is seen as an attack on their freedom and patriotic tendencies.

So what does all mean for the November Presidential elections, and US society, in general?  The reality is that it is very unlikely that the gun debate will have a significant impact in the election, simply because Obama and his team are unlikely to risk ostracizing the lower middle class support base in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan by making it one. He needs at least half of these so-called ‘swing states’ to ensure a second term and, as a result, it is likely that we will witness vague, open terms like hope and forgiveness in the forthcoming months as opposed to actual specific and deliberate policies on how to deal with this most deadly of societal ills.

Back To The Future?

“The future has already arrived. It’s just not evenly distributed yet.” – William Gibson

In December 2011 Brazil surpassed the United Kingdom in the, most recent, list of international economic standings. Having leapfrogged the UK into sixth position, Brazil, well and truly, announced its arrival at the financial top-table and justified the vast amount of column inches that the country has received in recent years from both local and global publications. For decades Brazil has been touted as ‘the country of the future’, so, has this development seen it, finally, come of age?

With a population of just under 200 million people and a very advantageous geo-political location, Brazil’s emergence as a global force is hardly surprising. The fact that the county is home to the some of the world’s most valuable natural resources (a recent oil discovery off the north-east coast highlights the abundant resources available), as well an ever-expanding middle class also indicates the fact that Brazil has all the ingredients to maintain its position as an international superpower for many years to come.

Recent Brazilian presidencies sought to maximize this upturn in global standings by, successfully, competing for the 2014 FIFA World Cup, as well as the 2016 Summer Olympics, making Rio de Janeiro the first South American City to host the games. Both of these international sporting events are being touted as prime opportunities for 21^st century Brazil to showcase itself to a global audience and to cement its position as a leading nation on more than just the football pitch. This societal revolution is far from complete, however, and in recent weeks, one of its chief architects has found himself in the eye of a political storm.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (or Lula to his friends and followers) swept to power on a mandate of social and political reform following Brazil’s 2002 presidential election. He held the position for eight years and completed his second term in December 2010 when he was succeeded by, his former chief-of-staff; Dilma Rousseff. His background as a trade union activist, who rallied against the state’s military dictatorship, as well as being a founding member of the party that he represented as president for eight years; the Worker’s Party (PT), indicated that he was the perfect candidate to implement the reforms that Brazil required to reduce the inequality that plagued the country for generations, and in this regard, he produced some unparalleled results.

Bolsa Familia (Family allowance) was one of Lula’s most successful reformist policies during his tenure as President. This allowance provided financial aid to families in working class communities, on the condition that their children continued to attend school. The implementation of this policy subsequently led to the formation of The Ministry of Social Development and Eradication of Hunger and, this in turn, allowed millions of Brazilian citizens the opportunity to leave the poverty trap that had defined their existence under previous regimes.

Policies such as Bolsa Familia and Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) ensured that Lula’s popularity soared throughout Brazil, and his pragmatic approach to foreign policy meant that he made allies from both sides of the ideological divide during his time in  power. However, in 2012 much of this ground-breaking reform has been put in jeopardy because of a meeting much closer to home.

Sao Paulo’s 19 million residents make it the largest city in South America and its role as the centre of finance, banking, and all things big business in Brazil mean that its October mayoral elections are attracting considerable media and political attention, so much so that the contest is already garnering front page attention in many Latin American and international newsrooms.

Jose Serra is the Social Democratic Party candidate and was the firm favourite to top the polls. He was the opposition party candidate, who lost out to Rousseff, in the 2010 presidential election and is a former governor of the state of Sao Paulo, in addition, his party, with assistance from some like-minded allies, have held Sao Paulo’s top job since 2004. Nevertheless, the Workers Party regarded this post to be of paramount importance and went to unprecedented lengths to ensure they are successful in this, most coveted, of city hall contests.

In their quest to have former education minister; Fernando Haddad elected as mayor of Sao Paulo in October, the Workers Party have crossed both party and ideological lines, and formed an alliance with former mayor and long time political pariah; Paulo Maluf.

Maluf’s reputation, most definitely, precedes him. In 2007 he was indicted in a US court for charges alleging to money laundering to the sum of $11.6 million dollars. In his native land, he fares little better, having been found guilty of political corruption and abuse of office on a number of occasions, most recently, in a case relating to offshore bank accounts held in Jersey (Jimmy Carr eat your heart out) and was, in turn, forced to pay $500,000 to the state.

In addition, Maluf, and his son; Flavio, were arrested in 2005 for allegedly intimidating witnesses and to make matters worse, he has an international arrest warrant out on his name from Interpol and has only avoided arrest because the Brazilian constitution does not allow its citizens to be extradited. However, the ‘piece de resistance’ of Maluf’s notorious career to date, most definitely, has to be the creation of the verb ‘Malufar’ in Brazil, which, in short, translates rather succinctly as; ‘to steal public money’.

Be that as it may, the deal was cut and as part of the alliance Maluf, and his Progressive Party (PP), agreed to actively support Haddad’s campaign but, more pertinently, the Worker’s Party also became beneficiaries of the PP’s one minute and fifty seconds of television and radio advertising time. Under Brazil’s complex electoral rules this segment can be aired twice each day and on three different days per week. This may appear a rather insignificant aside but what it means is that Haddad now possesses over five minutes of political broadcasting time per day (more than his main competitor; Serra), and, as such, has placed himself in a commanding position to achieve his party’s electoral ambitions.

In return, it is expected that Maluf and the PP will receive some high-ranking positions within Haddad’s team, should his campaign prove to be successful. More importantly, however, is the fact that this alliance was sealed with a meeting between Lula and Maluf at the latter’s residence last week. The resulting photograph has become one of the most striking images in Brazil in 2012 and is beginning to receive worldwide media attention.

Proponents of the deal argue that it is an everyday example of bi-partisanship in action, and is a progressive step for the city of Sao Paulo. For his part, Maluf has claimed that the world of the left/right political divide is finished and, as a result, had no problem supporting the federal government. Haddad has rowed in behind this sentiment and appears perfectly content to have received Maluf’s blessing but there is little doubt that Lula’s decision to agree to the meeting has most definitely damaged his, almost infallible, reputation among Brazilians at home and abroad.

Many political commentators in Brazil were shocked by the cynical nature of the alliance and have, subsequently, resurrected a plethora of jibes and retorts that Lula and Maluf directed at each other over the past thirty years. In essence, the deal appears to be both a risky and, potentially, erroneous maneuver by the Worker’s Party and this is already illustrated by Luiza Erundina’s decision to drop out of the race. She had previously been Haddad’s running mate but, following the pact with Maluf, opted to leave the ticket.

There is little doubt that this controversy will rumble on until its climax in October but what does this alliance mean for Brazil and its former charismatic president? Following a recently successful bout of chemotherapy for throat cancer, Lula has re-emerged as a more visible presence within the Brazilian political spectrum. There are murmurs that he is considering running for president in 2014 if Rousseff decides not to run for re-election but, at this point, that issue remains highly speculative. One thing is for certain however; this alliance with Maluf does not bode well for any future electoral attempt.

In addition, the deal may have more lasting implications for both the Worker’s Party and Brazilian democracy in general. For decades Brazil’s vast resources, strategic location and industrious inhabitants were thwarted from achieving their full potential as a nation by a culture of systemic corruption that afflicted all strands of society (see the Brazilian football championship’s fragmented past).

Here at ‘Who is the next Caesar’ we believe that the recent developments in Sao Paulo highlight a worrying trend for the Brazilian political system. The country is enjoying strong economic growth, increased societal reform, an emerging and increasingly influential middle-class and, most importantly, respect from its previously more illustrious North American and European counterparts.

That being said however, there is still a large degree of social inequality apparent within the country and the culture of fostering trust in governmental institutions and politicians is still in its embryonic stage. Maluf’s ostentatious demand to seal the alliance between the two parties with a photograph depicts the archetypical Brazilian politician of the past; a highly corrupt and misguided figure who regards himself as a ‘Robin Hood’ type character. Alliances of this nature are both damaging to the specific parties involved, but, more pertinently, to the democratic system in general and they need to be completely avoided if Brazil is to achieve its full potential and ensure that its future doesn’t pass before its eyes.

Walk like an Egyptian

As the dust settles on another night of protests and mass demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahir Square, there is little doubt that Egypt currently finds itself in a distinct state of flux.  Less than eighteen months after Hosni Mubarak was ousted from power, in a rising that was as bloody as it was symbolic, it is apparent that not much has changed for the ordinary citizens of Cairo. It is now clear that the frequent and impassioned declarations of hope and freedom, that were pinned as tweets and status updates on various social media platforms at the time, have been nullified and eroded by judicial failings and an increased level of apathy among the general population.

In addition, the composition of next month’s second round presidential election has left many of the protesters, who lined the streets in and around Tahir Square last January, disillusioned and unwilling to accept the results of the first round, where voting irregularities were widely reported. The two remaining candidates are the Mubarak loyalist; Ahmed Shafiq and the ultra conservative Muslim Brotherhood pick; Mohamed Mosri.  To say that this is a choice between ‘two evils’ for the proponents of the spring rising is quite an understatement, but as one revolution appears to be on the demise another is just beginning.

Two goals in nine minutes from Mahmoud Fathallah and Mohames Zidan, in an empty Alexandria stadium, ensured that Egypt began their 2014 World Cup qualifying campaign with a win against Mozambique. The game was played behind closed doors because of a ban imposed by FIFA following the Port Said stadium massacre in February when seventy-nine people were killed following clashes instigated by supporters of Al-Masry, the home side, against both the visiting Al-Ahly players and supporters. This atrocity led to the cancellation of the Egyptian league and Cup competitions and resulted in all of Egypt’s friendly matches, prior to last Friday’s victory, being played outside the country. This is, clearly, far from ideal preparation for any national team manager, especially one who is accustomed to slightly more serene surroundings.

Bob Bradley was appointed as manager of the Egyptian national team in September 2011 with the sole purpose of ensuring that Egypt qualified for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. The New Jersey native is the first American to manage an international team outside of the US and his elevation to the most pivotal position in Egyptian football raised quite a few eyebrows, among the native football community, last autumn. The North African state may not be the most glamorous of destinations for ‘outside’ coaches; a point exacerbated even further following the massacre in Port Said in February, but the fans here are passionate and football is, most certainly, more than just a passing interest.

In addition, the Pharaohs have been crowned African Nation Cup champions on seven occasions (a continental record), but only two world cup appearances (most recently in 1990 where they played out a nil-all draw with Ireland in, what is often described as, one of the worst world cup games ever) have ensured that ‘Brazil 2014’ is, most definitely, priority number one for Bradley and his management team.

Prior to taking up the post with Egypt, Bradley was at the helm with three MLS clubs; New England Revolution, Chivas USA and Chicago Fire, as well as leading the US national team for five years. During his tenure as head coach, which lasted from 2006 until 2011, he guided America to the last 16 of the 2010 World Cup, the Confederation Cup final in 2009 and a Gold Cup victory in 2007. The high point of this period was undoubtedly a victory against, the European and future World champions, Spain in the Confederations Cup semi-final. However this victory, as well as other notable scalps, was not enough to keep him in his job following a disappointing Gold Cup final defeat to Mexico last July. Bradley was swiftly replaced by former German player and manager; Jurgen Klinsmann and, there is little doubt that, Bradley was seen as ‘yesterday’s man’ among much of the US’s soccer fraternity.

 Some of the most pointed criticisms of his reign as US boss were his overtly-conservative tactical approach, and possibly even more importantly, in the land of perpetual celebrity, his uncharismatic post-match personality. This, on the whole, seems both inaccurate and unfair but with the US national team’s global position constantly on the rise, it is unsurprising that a ‘big name’ candidate got the job. This setback did not deter the garden state native, however, and he was back in work within two months. There were rumours of interest from a number of European clubs but nothing concrete prevailed so, instead, Bradley chose Cairo as the next step in his quest to be recognized as the first American to coach football at an internationally competitive level.

 Bradley champions quite a regimented and focused style of play with the cornerstone being a strong defensive set up (4-2-3-1 being his formation of choice), but he also invests a significant degree of emphasis on the counter-attack and his teams have illustrated this to great effect in both the World Cup and the various Gold Cup competitions.  It is very early to be making judgment calls on the suitability of this appointment but, it would appear that, the tactical nuances that Bradley possesses allied to the natural flair and technical ability of the Egyptian players will make them a very difficult proposition for whoever they face in this qualifying campaign (even if they have to play their home games to an empty stadium).

The road to Brazil is both long and winding for Egypt and with only five African teams guaranteed a place at the world cup, it is probably one of the most competitive qualifying regions, but this is only half the battle. There has been a distinct, and very apparent, vacuum left in Egyptian society following the revolution that overthrew the Mubarak regime last year, and the upcoming elections, as well as the Port Said massacre, have done very little to alleviate this sense of national erosion. As a result, it is very possible that the outcome of this campaign could have a lasting impression on how Egyptians view themselves for years to come.  With that in mind, it is reassuring to know that there is a possibility that this particular balding, straight-faced American can help foster a new cultural identity in the Middle East that isn’t based on oil or vested interests. Football, more important than life and death, and all that.

Le Duel – Je ne sais pas or Je ne sais quoi?

Henin-Beaumont is a former mining town in northeastern France that straddles the Belgian border. Coal deposits were discovered here as early as 1852 and the subsequent wave of immigrant workers from Poland, and later, Italy and Algeria has ensured that there is a strong multicultural presence in the region. This ethnic mix still resonates today but, unfortunately, any positive side-effects derived from such cultural diversity are countered drastically by a number of societal ills that afflict the area.

Unemployment levels have risen steadily since the closure of the coal mines and other heavy industries in the 1980’s. Earlier this year the figure was measured at 15.8%, which is more than six points higher than the national average of 9.7%. This statistic is echoed throughout the surrounding hinterland and some smaller towns in the region have seen one in every four adults out of work.

In addition to these economic woes, the region has one of the worst health records in the entire country. Recent reports have indicated that premature deaths in Henin-Beaumont and the surrounding area are 65% higher than the national average with cancer and cardiovascular related illnesses being the most deadly threat to the inhabitants well being. To compound this, in 2009 the local Socialist Party Mayor (and party of new French President Francois Hollande) of nearby Libercourt resigned following allegations of corruption and abuse of office. 

So where (or more pertinently, in what direction) have the voters of Henin-Beaumont turned to as they seek refuge from this, most vicious, of societal storms. The extreme set of circumstances that this region finds itself in has resulted in, somewhat of, an extreme solution as the voters in this constituency are being courted by two of the most outlying proponents in the French political system; Marine Le Pen leader of the far-right, National Front party and Jean-Luc Melenchon head of the Left Party, an alliance of the far-left, whose membership includes elected representatives of the Communist party.

On June 10^th voters in this region go to the polls in a contest which French political commentators have dubbed as ‘Le Duel’.  This former industrial constituency is garnering interest from political anoraks all over France, and further afield, for a number of reasons. Firstly, in a continent where overtly technocratic referendums have left citizens unsure of what they’re actually voting for (see Ireland’s referendum on the Fiscal Treaty 2012) and where most elections are decided a centimeter either side of the median voter, it is fascinating to witness a contest that is, in theory at least, so black and white.

Equally, this is the first time that two leaders of political parties in France have sought election in the same constituency. France’s Presidential system means that the Presidential election is, generally, held a month before the parliamentary elections and with Hollande reigning supreme in that contest, it is expected his Socialist party will follow suit in the parliamentary elections. One, unexpected, byproduct however, is that those former presidential candidates can subsequently contest parliamentary elections as Le Pen and Melenchon are now illustrating. Le pen garnered almost 18% of the first round vote Presidential vote in May (including a poll-topping performance in Henin-Beaumont), while Melenchon scored just over 11% of the national vote.

All this ideological fanfare may be somewhat of an electoral wet dream for curious outsiders but what does it say about everyday life in northern France. In recent years, terms like ‘Credit Crisis’, ‘Opposition Unrest’ and ‘Societal Upheaval’ have been bandied around like greeting card messages in classrooms, offices, bars and restaurants throughout the continent of Europe but the reference to the Weimar Republic in 1930’s Germany is a comparison that still cuts deep. It is, undoubtedly, an exaggeration to claim that any of the atrocities witnessed in Nazi Germany are just around the corner but the emergence of Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders’ in the Netherlands has highlighted the discontent with mainstream parties across Europe.

Le Pen is seen as a more accessible and a less hard-line version of her father, and former NF leader; Jean-Marie. She, nonetheless, is an outspoken critic of immigration, same-sex marriage, abortion and believes that immigrants wishing to become French citizens need to prove this by accepting French republican culture in all aspects of life. Melenchon, for his part, is an advocate for same-sex marriage and euthanasia as well as France’s removal from Afghanistan and NATO. He also supports a ‘Citizens Revolution’ similar to the Chavez led revolution in Venezuela whereby private capital wealth would be redistributed to the citizens of France.

The ideological proposals on display from both sides in this debate might appear a little radical to the average voter but this is the prospect that faces the voters in Henin-Beaumont in less than ten days time. ‘Who is the next Caesar’ believe that this has arisen due to years of ineptitude on behalf of the two strongest parties in France; the UPM and the Socialist Party. It is our view that years of neglect, ill-informed social planning and a lack of investment in jobs, healthcare and education has left the region broken and susceptible to some of the extreme rhetoric being espoused by Le Pen.

We also believe that Melenchon’s decision to contest this constituency (when he could have chosen a much ‘easier seat’) is a rare instance of political courage in a realm dominated by populist parties with catch-all agendas. Yes, he is benefiting from the exposure that this contest has created but his presence has provided a credible alternative, for much of the electorate, to the highly disliked Socialist Party and the radical Le Pen, whose numerous xenophobic views are in direct conflict with the people she could potentially represent in the Nation Assembly.

The outcome of this election is very hard to predict and will most likely depend on how well Socialist candidate; Philippe Kemel polls. However, the more pressing issue in this regard is the contest itself. France, the former bastion of liberty and multiculturalism, has seen ethnic division reach its zenith in recent months, with mass deportations of immigrants, riots in ‘le Banlieues’ and the controversial ‘Burka’ law all coming to the fore. This election may only be concerned with a small, depressed region in northern France but its result could have lasting implications for both France and Europe as a whole.

Hello Cruel World, Are You The Next Caesar?

Hello people of the world (virtual or otherwise), my name is Patrick and I hope you can join me on this new adventure into the murky swamps of planet blog.

I hope to explore many facets of contemporary society in this blog. I am an avid fan of a whole range of different things and I intend on covering a wide spectrum of topics in this blog.

‘Who is the next Caesar?’  will deal with everything from the rise and fall and subsequent rise of far right groups in Europe to the US’s football imperialism in the Middle East and everything and anything in between. I hope to analyse and discuss stories that are on the periphery of the mainstream media while also maintaining a certain relevance for readers.

Please feel free to comment on any of the stories as all feedback is greatly appreciated.

I hope you enjoying reading what I have to say.

Many Thanks

Patrick Pio