Geanpaul Ojeda: El Presidente Daniel Noboa: How the NYU Stern Alumni Became the Youngest President in Ecuador’s History

Results from Ecuador’s second round of elections held on October 15, 2023 declared Daniel Noboa the next president of the Republic, beating Luisa Gonzalez (Citizen’s Revolution Party) having garnered 52.1% of the vote to her 47.9%. The 35 year old announced his candidacy under the National Democratic Action (ADN) party ticket promptly after the dissolution of Congress was called by President Guillermo Lasso through the use of a constitutional mechanism known as la muerte cruzada that also called for snap elections. 

After the bloodiest presidential election in the country’s history where one of its Presidential Candidates, Fernando Villavicencio, was assassinated, Ecuador finds itself as one of the most dangerous countries in the world and at the heart of the modern global narcotics Trade. This is a stark contrast from the nation’s reality just a decade ago, where it was known for the complete opposite as one of the safest nations in Latin America, regarded as one of the prime destinations for tourism and even retirement as the natural beauty, immense biodiversity, and friendly nationals made it a safe haven. Ecuador, once considered an anomaly in a region of the world that has been especially victim to mass-violence driven by revolutions and narco-terrorism, now finds itself submerged in a similar crisis.

In recent years, Ecuador has been impacted by immense political scandals and a growing network of corrupted officials that have systematically garnered control of the State’s Institutions. In the face of corrupt judges and a weak legal system, the country has ultimately fallen to chaos and immense violence, exemplified by deadly prison riots under the last two presidents Lenin Moreno (2017-2021) and Guillermo Lasso (2021-2023) who both had falling approval ratings after incredibly unfavorable and unsuccessful presidential terms. It’s easy to see that there’s an immense desire for change in the political landscape that moves away from the status quo, as career politicians consistently fail to meet their campaign promises of a better, safer and stronger Ecuador. Having gone from a model country of stability in the region to one engulfed in crisis in less than a decade, the biggest issue in this election came down to national security but others such as stabilizing the economy and the mismanagement of basic public services like electricity have been increasingly of concern for the overall electorate. 

The extreme circumstances of the election resulted in a victory for what many at first believed to be an unlikely candidate, based on the perceived lack of experience and political power. However, there are a number of combined factors which  contributed to President Noboa's victory. These factors include the assassination of candidate Fernando Villavicencio, his debate performances - particularly in the first debate, being considered a political outsider, and cleverly positioning himself as a center-progressive candidate having managed anti-Correa sentiment in his favor. 

In the face of the unfortunate and shocking assassination of candidate Fernando Villavicencio, the presidential race found itself in a unique situation as Villavicencio was running heavily on an anti-Correista platform given his outspoken opposition to the former President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. Following his death, many Ecuadorians who identified strongly as anti-Correistas rallied and were in search of a candidate to get behind which could lead them to the second round and to El Palacio Carondelet - Ecuador’s Presidential Palace. The assassination would have other drastic effects especially in the messaging of candidates and sharpen the focus of the country on the issue of Narcoterrorism and its ties to the government. With the debate stage set, shadowed by the assassination, Daniel Noboa established himself as a formidable candidate with his performance, having displayed a great knowledge of the country’s current issues. Focused on policy agendas rather than confrontational exchanges with his opponents, Daniel Noboa set himself apart from the candidates by discussing other issues affecting Ecuadorians such as labor, economics, and education.

An interesting aspect of Noboa’s messaging throughout his campaign dealt with his political ideology as he declared himself a Central Social Democrat and steered clear of denouncing Correismo or labeling himself  “anti-Correista.” This was a key distinction for voters when looking at other candidates, as the presence of a dichotomy between Correismo and Anti-Correismo has had a tight grip over Ecuadorian politics in recent history. Ignoring such labels and instead focusing on his own agenda and establishing his own platform, Noboa has allowed Ecuador an opportunity to move past Correismo where in the second debate he declared the need for all to be “Pro-Ecuador,” further explaining in his Inaugural speech the infinite potential the “Pro-” has and the limits associated with the “anti.” Having made it to the second round, Noboa was able to capitalize on the votes of other candidates as the appeal of an alternative to Correismo captured the attention of voters who were experiencing voter fatigue and bogged down by state of domestic political affairs.

However, as much credit as Daniel Noboa deserves for winning the election, the biggest obstacle of his presidency initially appeared to be overcoming the overwhelming majority that his opposition, the Citizen’s Revolution party, had in the National Assembly - Ecuador’s National Legislature. However, as President-elect, reports began emerging that both opposition parties, ADN and Citizen’s Revolution were coming to terms for an alliance that would allow them to manage a majority alongside the Christian Social Party. After taking office, this alliance was confirmed and in repeated instances leaders of the Citizen’s Revolution party have offered their support for the president’s agenda, making it clear that they will support legislation that does not conflict with their party’s values. The rare circumstances surrounding this term could explain why these parties are coming together, given the limited time in Noboa’s tenure as the next presidential elections will be just around the corner in the beginning of 2025. It appears that parties do not want to be the reason why legislation and reform is stalled especially in the face of increasing narco-terrorist attacks and are instead vying for the next, full presidential term. 

For these reasons Noboa has been vocal in his plans since taking office and has made his intentions clear for reestablishing order as he must also be planning for continuity. Amongst his plans was to call for a national referendum where he plans to pose 10 questions focused on national security for Ecuadorians to vote on. However, many critique this plan as ineffective and simply inefficient based on the expenses associated with holding elections again as well as considering that similar attempts by the previous administration ultimately failed. Still in the first months of his presidency, many hope his proposals outlined during the campaign will make way for progress as he identified 4 key axes as the basis for change: Social, Economic, Institutional, Production and the Environment.

A big crisis revolves around unemployment and the lack of opportunities in the country for the youth trying to enter the labor force in growing numbers. Many point to the lack of opportunities as the fundamental reason for the rise in crime and the emergence of an estimated 40,000 Narco-Terrorists in the country that have devastated the day-to-day lives of Ecuadorians. This was an issue addressed on the campaign by Daniel Noboa and in his presidential proposals where he emphasized the importance of investing in education, specifically increasing scholarships awarded for post secondary education as he announced 25,000 new scholarships accessible to women for technical or university education in a program that hopefully is expanded. Daniel Noboa was wise to utilize his age to connect to voters, appealing to a vital demographic in the country of millennials and centennials that are turning of voting age, making sure to also address the concerns of around 54% of the population..

While Daniel Noboa still finds himself within the first 100 days of his Presidency, there are high expectations for the change that will occur during his presidency. The president faces immense pressure to provide the country with relief from the issues it currently encounters but the reality of the matter is that Noboa only has a little more than a year in his term to enact vital reforms which clearly isn’t nearly enough time to address the issues impacting millions of Ecuadorians. Considering the instability the country is in and the weak infrastructure of the government’s institutions, it will take Ecuador around a decade, most likely longer, to stabilize the current situation and return to any sort of resemblance of tranquility the nation once had. Although Noboa must deal with a short term, it is safe to say that he will pursue reelection and as a result is making sure to use his time in office wisely by demonstrating that his administration is able to govern and legislate unlike the past administrations who found themselves deadlocked and stalled in the National Assembly. Time will tell how Noboa’s Presidency will turn out but so far he has demonstrated a distinct approach to leading the country that will hopefully see prosperity and growth for Ecuadorians.

Torin Fears: Stripping the King’s Word: How the Right has Co-opted the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

On October 30, 2023, American comedian Amy Schumer uploaded to X (formerly known as Twitter) a video of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stating the following:

“The whole world must see that Israel must exist and has the right to exist and is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world.” 

This tweet came as part of her slurry of pro-Israel tweets that highlight Schumer’s persecution fetish as a Jewish woman in the wake of the October 7 attacks on Israel by Hamas. Bernice King, daughter of Dr. King responded to this tweet, saying that King also believed militarism, racism, and poverty were interconnected evils, and would call for Israel’s bombing of Palestinians to cease and for hostages to be released. Dr. King did not live to see the aftermath of the conflicts in the Middle East, but he has left behind a clear stance and ideology against militarism and power used to extort the few. The original speech was used for the intention of standing against the antisemitism that was prevalent during the time, before the apartheid Israel began over the Palestinian people. King saw and condemned the South African apartheid during this time, and if King had lived to see it he would condemn the treatment of Israel today. Yet as new issues arise and we move further and further from King’s death, his words have become more and more separated from the context in which they were spoken. 

This isn’t Bernice’s first time calling out people for misappropriating her father’s words. Back on Martin Luther King Jr. day of 2021, she wrote of her frustration towards people who, “evoke him to deter justice today”, and claimed that many people who use his words now would likely hate, and may still, hate the authentic King. This post came just after the January 6 insurrection on the capital, where Trump supporters stormed Congress in an attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 Presidential election. Since this act of domestic terror, many have used Dr. King’s words to invoke sentiment towards the insurrectionists. Even over a year later on MLK day 2022, the Republicans for National Renewal posted a picture of the January 6 insurrection with Dr. King’s words overlaid, “Riot is the Language of the Unheard”. 

This co-opting of King is a product of the era we live in. It is too simple for anyone, no matter their affiliation, to find a quote or statement out of context and apply it to their own agenda. In reality, King’s ideas were not popular with most Americans. At the height of his influence, King had a disapproval rating of 75%. King was a big proponent of reparations, discussing how in the creation of America, the government provided aid, education, and subsidies to white people. This support allowed white people to take land and buy assets and build generational wealth, and the same people with that wealth tell black people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Even today, reparations for descendants of enslaved people is substantially unpopular, with only 30% of U.S. adults expressing that descendants should be repaid in some way. However, none of these people on the right using King’s words agree with that position. In fact, only 8% of Republican leaning people agree with giving reparations, and their views on the amount to give are very light. King also was vehemently anti-war. During the Vietnam War, he said the American government can find millions to send and maintain soldiers in south Vietnam, yet nothing for the children in Selma. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which thrust us into the Vietnam war, received an 88-2 vote in the Senate. These were all positions that put King in the crosshairs of America, and they are positions still held onto today. The vote to invade Afghanistan passed the senate with a 98-0 vote. The same people in power who would have called out King’s stances on these issues in the past would have done the same in the 21st century. 

King also shared very open critiques on capitalism, guaranteed income, and the redistribution of wealth. These stances would have made him incredibly unpopular with modern conservatives. For universal basic income, 78% of Republican-leaning voters oppose a basic income of just $1000. Only 66% of Democratic voters are in favor of this. Looking ahead at our future, prominent figures of the Republican party such as Governor Ron DeSantis, who is currently polling at 13% for the 2024 presidential election, are aggressively pushing for “Anti-Woke” policy. DeSantis issued the “Stop WOKE Act” in Florida in 2022, restricting the teaching of topics such as critical race theory as well as workplace diversity training. In the introduction of this bill, he quotes King’s words to invoke a sense of justness in his own bigotry. Per contra, King and his dissenters openly attacked anti-critical race theory legislation being passed back in the 60’s and onward. King led the “woke mob” that so many fight against in today’s political climate. During the Covid pandemic when vaccine rollout began, U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene began a political war against vaccinations, comparing vaccination cards and mask mandates to what the Nazis did to the Jews and segregation. NFL Quarterback Aaron Rodgers quoted Dr. King when it came out that he refused to get vaccinated, stating “The great M.L.K said ‘You have a moral obligation to object to unjust rules, and rules that make no sense.’” What he doesn’t mention is how King explicitly stated how he wanted everyone to have access to and receive vaccinations and medical care. 

It is so easy to take a quote off the Internet to justify one’s own beliefs. A quick Google search, find a nice quote, and shape it to fit your narrative. One could find support for any ideology with the plethora of Dr. King’s words out of context. It has been nearly 55 years since King was assassinated, and we have drifted further and further from the man that was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and more towards select words that prevailed after death. People don’t bring up his views on democratic socialism. Had he not died, he would be another woke communist trying to destroy America in the eyes of conservatives. His legacy has devolved into residing between the quotation marks of people forgetting that they would have been on the side of those who pulled the trigger. 

Doga Usanmaz: Bulgaria’s Schengen Standoff and an Anti-Immigrant Sentiment in the EU

In December 2022, Bulgaria’s accession to the Schengen Area was vetoed by Austria and the Netherlands. The Schengen Area comprises 26 European states—including four non-European Union member-states—that ensure the freedom of movement across one another’s borders and permit citizens and visitors to forgo passport checks. Initially established in connection with the European Union, the Schengen Area could be viewed as the de jure epitome of European integration; a concept that became popularized as a result of the need for reconciliation following the Second World War. It was perceived as the antidote of the ultra-nationalism that caused the war. It refers to the economic, political, social, and cultural integration of European states, under the supranational entity of the European Union, which has the ability to set particular policies and standards that reign over sovereign governments. The Schengen Area is representative of European integration, and could be viewed as an emblem of pan-European nationalism.

Bulgaria entered the European Union back in 2007, however its accession to the Schengen Area has been a controversial topic since 2011. Now over a decade ago, Bulgaria carried out a double bid, alongside Romania, and the two states were rejected by France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, “over concerns related to corruption, organised crime and judicial reforms.” The high standards for joining the Schengen Area include the upholding of common rules, the sharing of security information, police cooperation, and the management of external borders. However, it is important to note that Hungary is in the Schengen Area, a country that is arguably more corrupt than Bulgaria and is rated “partially free,” by the Freedom House, whereas Bulgaria is rated as “free.” This raises questions regarding whether corruption is truly the reason behind Bulgaria’s exclusion from the Schengen Area. The European Commission, an executive body of the European Union, has in the past voiced that the candidates have fulfilled these requirements, and the European Parliament has denounced their exclusion for being discriminatory.

Hence, it appears that the recent vetoing could largely be a result of Bulgaria’s external border with Turkey-the country that is the largest refugee host in the world, with approximately four million refugees, primarily from Syria. The lack of trust in the border security between Turkey and Bulgaria, coupled up with the anti-immigration and oftentimes xenophobic sentiment of European leaders, has resulted in it being immensely difficult for Bulgaria to be accepted into the Schengen Area.

In February of 2022, French President Emmanual Macron, said, "We must reform Schengen. There can be no freedom of movement if we do not control our external borders." The French politician is well-known globally for his stigmatization of Muslim communities in France, with him blatantly declaring that “the French identity does not include the Muslim community,” and implying that there is a clear notion of ‘us’ and ‘them’ when it comes to the French people and those who practice Islam (in spite of a nationality and a religion being two separate things), by saying, “They never respected us as French people.” Furthermore, as reported by Al Jazeera, the term used by President Macron to first describe French Muslims was “gloomy.” Given Macron’s harsh sentiment towards them, perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Muslims in France would be in a gloomy state of being.

The Islamophobic attitudes that European leaders such as Macron carry fuel negative sentiments towards Middle Eastern refugees, as demonstrated when the war in Ukraine first began and many typically anti-immigrant European nations supported and aided the acceptance of Ukrainian refugees. Hungarian leader Viktor Orban who previously referred to migration as “poison” was now welcoming his “Ukrainian friends,” and the former Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov, perhaps shooting himself in his own foot, emphasized that,

“These are not the refugees we are used to...These people are Europeans... These people are intelligent, they are educated people...This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could have been even terrorists."

The popular sentiment towards Muslim refugees is largely negative, with many European states believing the influx of Middle Eastern refugees to be disruptive, dangerous, and culturally unacceptable. Hence, Bulgaria’s Schengen accession remains an issue. The Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said, following the veto, that he wanted to ensure that no one would be able to “cross the border with a 50-euro note,” colloquially dismissing Bulgarian border controls, in spite of the European Commission’s validation of Bulgaria’s adherence to the regulations. Not only is this statement reflective of the hierarchical nature of the EU, with Bulgaria being treated as a second-class member-state, it also further emphasizes the importance given to preventing the entrance of refugees.

Leaders in Bulgaria have responded by arguing that there is relatively rare cross-passing of their external borders, claiming that Austria and the Netherlands' vetoing is due to underlying domestic motivations. They claimed that it is because the two governments are aiming to earn votes from portions of the public that are anti-immigration. The Austrian government has stated that there are approximately 75,000 irregular migrants within their borders, with the EU Border Agency Frontex reporting 128,000 irregular entries into the European Union from the West Balkans in 2022.

The common path into the EU from Turkey has been crossing the Aegean Sea into Greece, on refugee boats, however, once this dangerous trek became well-known, many have reverted to instead queuing at the border gates in Edirne, Turkish city situated by Turkey’s border with Bulgaria. From 2021 to 2022, migrants and refugees who crossed the Turkey and Bulgaria border doubled, with 85,000 recorded arrivals in 2022. This influx, coupled up with the Islamophobic, xenophobic sentiment towards EU countries put a strain on Bulgaria’s Schengen accession.

Therefore, Bulgaria’s border with Turkey can be seen as a gateway for refugees into the European Union—a path that could be eased with the accession of Bulgaria into the Schengen Area. However, whether this is fueled by domestic political concerns of garnering the votes of xenophobes or whether it stems from the personal anti-immigrant and Islamaphobic natures of the leaders themselves, it is apparent that as long as the Turkish-Bulgarian border security remains ambiguous, Bulgaria’s potential accession will remain uncertain. The EU does not want to threaten their years-long safe-haven of storing millions of refugees in Turkey—a country that has neither the political nor the economic stability to maintain such high numbers of refugees. In 2021, The Guardian reported that “the European Commission wants to fund “border control” at Turkey’s eastern frontier as part of efforts to deter refugees and migrants from coming to Europe.” Turkey has for long been a mediary between Syrian refugees fleeing the war in their home country, and the European Union, and the EU is determined to keep the refugees outside of their member states.

Ultimately, in spite of some EU member states’ claims that Bulgaria’s accession is problematic due to corruption, it is apparent that the underlying motive behind the vetoing is to prevent migrants and refugees from entering the EU. The notion of pan-European nationalism and European integration is limited to certain countries—excluding much of Eastern Europe and treating them as inferior member-states, subject to internal discrimination.

Rachel Mascolo: A Feminist Perspective on Sex Work

As a young feminist growing into my political and philosophical shell, I didn’t know much about formal feminist theory and hadn’t even begun to dig into the droves of research about sex work and female prostitution. My 16 year-old self only knew two things: the third and fourth wave feminists are infallibly right, and my mother is infallibly wrong. 

I can still hear the chants from the marches I attended with my friends:

“No bad whores! Just bad laws! Sex worker rights are human rights! When we say: Sex work! You say: Real work! Sex work! Real work!”

Black and white.

I thought questioning it was a betrayal of my new-age feminist identity. I thought anybody willing to question it was betraying their feminist identity. Every part of me thought that female prostitution should be not only legal, but celebrated as a reclamation after so many years of violent sexual objectification and patriarchal oppression of the female body. 

But this issue lives on the greyscale, anywhere besides black and white; the first step to coming to some sort of productive discussion surrounding female prostitution is both acknowledging and accepting this fact. 

That’s not to say I don’t support the decriminalization of sex work – I do. Criminalization especially harms groups disproportionately vulnerable to turning to sex work as a result of poverty and discrimination. This includes Black and Hispanic women, as well as transexual people. The criminalization of their selling sex is a criminalization of their poverty. 

In the United States, Black youth account for 62 percent of minors arrested for prostitution, a startlingly disproportionate number, as Black people make up only 13.2 percent of the U.S. population. The effects of arrest, ranging from fines to public shaming to being added to the sex offender registry, can last a lifetime

Arrest and/or police abuse has led sex workers to avoid reporting crimes committed against them or even to report the trafficking of others. Criminalization discourages women from meeting buyers first in safer, more public places, business premises, or in groups to assess potential danger. Additionally, they are less likely to use condoms because they can be used as police evidence of prostitution and consequently lead to arrest. 

The current laws surrounding women in sex work are, no doubt, extremely isolating and make the act far more dangerous than it should be. At the same time, however, I find it important to circle back to something I mentioned above: “Criminalization especially harms groups disproportionately vulnerable to turning to sex work as a result of poverty and discrimination.”

We tend to hear most of the first-hand testimony about sex work from white women who have access to large platforms. Take Chloe Cherry for example. The star was on season two of the hit Max show Euphoria and has garnered over one million followers on Instagram since. She has long worked in porn, and was quick to speak up about it on Emily Ratajkowski’s podcast. 

“I really, really, really don’t understand what is wrong with sex work. To me, it seems like people hate women,” said Cherry. 

YouTtube star Trish Paytas is another example. She announced to her 5 million subscribers that at the height of her career on OnlyFans, an online sex-content platform, she was making $1 million per month. To be frank, with those numbers, it’s not much of a surprise that she’s an unwavering advocate. 

But sex work is historically linked with poverty, and the majority of women who turn to it have no other option. These are the same women who more than likely do not have any sort of platform or safe opportunity to speak out in support of any sort of sex work in a positive and/or negative way. The public is far less likely to hear stories of violence or exploitation because the women who experience it on a daily basis are afraid of coming forward; they could lose their tonly sources of income, face arrest or worse. 

This is partially why decriminalization is a necessary measure to promote safe conditions and to limit the consequences of structural racism and police abuse on sex workers, particularly sex workers of color. However, it’s also just a bandaid on a bullet hole.

We’ve been asking the wrong questions. It shouldn’t be a debate about whether or not prostitution is moral or immoral. About whether it’s empowering or degrading. About whether the old-age or the new-age feminists have it right. Rather, why do so many women feel they have no other choice besides sex work, and what is that indicative of? 

Sex work is not simply a feminist reclamation of sex or an exercise of female power. It is evidence of a much deeper structural issue – female poverty – and it’s paramount that this part of the conversation not be swept under the rug in the name of progressivism. It’s paramount that if we talk about sex work’s potential to empower, we consider its roots in disempowerment.

Melisa Sahinkaya: The Turkish Opposition Party’s Elderly Issues

A version of “I don’t care about Turkish politics anymore, I’m fed up with it, disappointing as always” was uttered by Turkish opposition party CHP’s voter base in the weeks following the presidential elections in May 2023. CHP’s presidential candidate Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu lost to incumbent Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Both figures have been in the political scene for more than two decades. Özgür Özel’s election as the new chairman of CHP on November 4th was a crumb of long-overdue change for CHP, the main Turkish opposition party. What attracted public attention to this change was that he is only forty-nine years old.  

The hopelessness of 48% who voted against the current regime reached new heights after Erdoğan’s re-election. His grip on power increased exponentially since 2002 and he is generally known as Turkey’s strongman now. Despite his monopoly on the political scene, others have been in the game as long as him. Kılıçdaroğlu gradually rose to prominence after being in parliament that year. He has been leading the opposition party since 2010 despite how unsuccessfully it performs. Likewise, so many senior politicians remain in their positions with extremely low approval rates. The faces never seem to change. Ever. The dissatisfied opposition voters, and mainly the young population, are tired of watching the grandfathers at the top. 

The problems are not limited to faces being old. The institutional and ideological issues are as notorious as the senior people. CHP and other opposition parties lacked activity, unity, and consistency for a long time. The original Republican party since the nation’s establishment, CHP advocated for the status quo. Its main pillars consisted of secularism, republicanism, reformism, and nationalism. In the 60s, it rebranded itself as “left-of-center” to align with global ideologies at a time when left-wing vs. right-wing politics was heating up domestically. Now, no one knows. There is no ideology about the opposition that can appeal to people besides the party’s historical importance and that it’s not the current regime. So far, Özel called for “return to true self” and expressed intentions to get rid of the “worn-out.” While still ambiguous what his claims mean, the opposition’s reformation is this decade’s longing. 

No party can face the ruling party AKP alone, but coalitions are also inadequate in providing an alternative. AKP is considered right-wing and conservative, but has revivalist ideological tendencies as well. The Middle East Institute observes AKP policies as being neo-Ottomanist and pan-Islamist, and they became increasingly influential in the region. On the other hand, the opposition coalition during the elections called themselves the Nation Alliance which involved ideologies from all over the spectrum. However, the only substantial cause for the alliance was overthrowing Erdoğan. During the presidential election, Kılıçdaroğlu claimed his vote count was incorrect and AKP was rigging the ballots. Ironically, he and his coalitions fell dead silent right after the loss. Their failure to act against alleged injustice and foster morale faced public scrutiny. 

Few days after being elected, Özel announced that CHP has a new open door coalition strategy and is planning “to meet with all parties.” Transparency will become an important asset to regain support, but the road will not be easy. The differences among opposition parties are so stark that how effectively the compromises can be managed is yet to be seen. During the elections, unity of antagonistic versions of nationalism, radical Islam, and conservatism under a common goal did more harm than good. However, new talks will begin with new faces, and this means more possibilities for a genuine reform. AKP built operation webs and altered systems in every level, from executive to judiciary. While a survey done by MetroPoll research shows that 50% saw this as a positive development, another question indicates that only 39% believes that Özel’s election will increase support for CHP. 33% believes that there will be no change. Many from the opposition promised change in the past and delivered nothing. The groundwork is necessary to persuade voters that there will be a difference this time. CHP needs to demonstrate its willingness to act starting from the local level and come up with a plan to reinstate a viable system. To change the calcified dysfunctional order, the opposition needs to stop acting as if deep down they want the incumbents to stay. 

The local elections scheduled to take place in March 2024 is going to be an important indicator of the opposition’s success in the near future. Currently, the mayors represent CHP in Istanbul and Ankara. Both Ekrem İmamoğlu and Mansur Yavaş confirmed their candidacy for re-election. The stakes will be high for these important spots. İmamoğlu in particular is an interesting candidate, as his political trajectory is often compared to Erdoğan’s. The general public regards him as one of the rare individuals who might threaten the current regime’s reign. In 2019, he had won the local elections to become the mayor of Istanbul by a small margin, only for AKP to denounce it as being corrupt. They demanded the elections to be held again, which resulted with İmamoğlu’s victory by a more significant margin. This phenomenon revealed a voter base that opposed AKP but refrained from voting in the initial elections, which later gained hope upon the win and became more determined to support İmamoğlu. Moreover, prior to the presidential elections, İmamoğlu was arbitrarily charged with insulting the incumbent. He received a political ban which prevented him from running against Erdoğan. For many, this mirrored the prison sentence Erdoğan faced early in his political career as a result of his fundamentalist Islam stance, back when secular values reigned supreme in Turkish politics. Political path similarities and charisma resemblance hints at İmamoğlu’s leadership potential. At 53 years-old, he is perceived as a more potent threat to the current regime than his elderly counterparts. Thus, his re-election as the mayor of Istanbul next year is crucial. 

It is known that Turkey is having an identity crisis and is rather inconsistent regarding where it stands in foreign policy. However, important decisions are ahead. Considering the rapidly escalating situations in near regions, determining the country’s place as a regional and international actor is increasingly critical. The world can use a reliable Turkey for a variety of geopolitical reasons like the East-West balance and having an approachable power in the Middle East. But it needs to address domestic inconsistencies to do so. The change inside starts with mobilizing the hibernating opposition and focusing on March 2024 local elections. 

Deviyani James: Covert Economic Exploitation of Black Americans: An Investigation into Economic Disempowerment

“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about

billions of dollars.... [W]e are treading in difficult waters, because it really means that we are

saying that something is wrong... with capitalism. There must be a better distribution of

wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”— Malcolm X

Interdisciplinary changes within our evolving society has fostered a modern examination highlighting the mass corruption of black bodies and experiences in America. This is superseded by previous historical examinations stemming from the nation’s tumultuous political legacy of redlining. This is concurrent to a longstanding grapple with the economic development, freedom, empowerment, and radicalized interests of black Americans; a recurring American pastime. Overcome by exploitative measures, this conceptual issue not only calls attention to the enduring impact of redlining, but the perpetuation of systematic racism in this country. On the grounds of white supremacy, race, and ethnicity, they simultaneously represent a structural foundation for the adversity that prevails within contemporary politics. Particularly as it pertains to economic disempowerment and equality in housing and real estate.

In acknowledgment of America’s perplexing history, black Americans' rights to fully express their freedom and autonomy have continuously been obstructed and not fairly recognized. As it regards their economic rights and liberties, black Americans have not had equal economic rights and liberties as compared respectively to their white counterparts. Enlisting the placement of responsibility upon black Americans' generational endurance in a life of poverty and instability. But rather than examining and understanding a simplistic analysis between black/white relations— it is pivotal to recognize the subsequent economic disadvantages that conceptualize the fate of black suffering at present.

Historically, systematic issues such as redlining and discriminatory lending practices have created barriers for the economic advancement of black Americans. These factors have resulted in a cyclical pattern of poverty that has been passed down through generations. Leading to the detrimental socio-economic landscape plaguing black communities and resulting in poignant developments such as the #BankBlack movement. A movement that emerged to dismantle this systematic barrier and work towards fostering an equitable environment for the generational wealth and stability of the black American community.

The term redlining was used during the 1950s by the U.S. government to explicate surveyors that graded neighborhoods from different cities in America based on a color coded system. The color green was referred to as “best’, the color blue was referred to as “desirable”, the color yellow as “declining” and red as “hazardous.” Thus, the areas that were “redlined” were discounted as credit risks for their hazardous nature, largely based on the racial and ethnic demographic groups that comprised those neighborhoods. These areas were not seen as desirable and were more or less considered to be “a detraction from the value of the area.” Therefore, the economic downfall of black Americans is made possible by a futile political climate.

A climate that simultaneously negates economic policy and shapes the economic success for all demographic groups that comprise America. Regarding the absence of generational wealth that stems from historical injustices, opportunities for financial stability within this community have been hindered. This is supported by the lack of resources along with limited access to well-paying jobs and business opportunities that exacerbates all forms of economic hardships. However, significant amounts of political determinants inherently impact the economic advantages that are available to the black community; where political and economic power are synonymous as it pertains to influence and control along with decision making authority. Political power often translates into a decision-making authority that allows groups to shape laws, policies, and regulations— whereas economic power similarly provides control over decisions that influence production and distribution. Additionally, both economic and political power involve the ability to influence and control resources. In politics, power is exercised through government, laws, and policies, while in the economy, power manifests through control over financial resources and markets. Consequently, the lack of resource further deepens the barrier that exists between white and black Americans and establishes a common thread of economic inequality.

Prior to the 1950s, the policies associated with redlining have created numerous hurdles for Black Americans entering the real estate market. Homeownership is coined as the number one method for groups to accumulate wealth in America. Consequently, racial discrimination in mortgage lending during the 1950s has shaped the wealth patterns of Black Americans today. A study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition shows that 75% of the neighborhoods that were “redlined" approximately 80 years ago still maintain their economic struggle. The findings from this study implicate some of today’s most infamous political debacles over banking, housing, finances; planting intersectionalities that connect back to the civil rights movement.. This is evident as the role Congress plays is vital to the withstanding power held by the government to implement fair-lending requirements for housing that either weaken or strengthen residual patterns. Access to capital and credit have proved to present lasting effects on the economic growth and accumulation of wealth in households.

A soaring racial wealth gap continues to perpetuate economic disempowerment , as white Americans have nearly quadrupled the net worth of black Americans. Despite the Fair Housing Act that banned racial discrimination in housing, the Federal Housing Administration has institutionalized the system of discriminatory lending for housing. Cities that host more neighborhoods populated by minority residents show signs of greater economic inequality, falling in the lower-middle percentile income. Contrarily, the neighborhoods that host predominantly white residents remain in the upper-middle percentile for income. This applies on a state to state level within other various cities towards the south—from Denver, Montgomery, to Michigan.

A solution to desegregate the problems stemming from economic disempowerment is seemingly the #BankBlack movement that has gained momentum in recent years. The movement whose motto is “make your money do more” was formed given the legacy of black communities subjected to limited financial services and capital directly connected to indicators of poverty, income, or lack of homeownership. Inasmuch, black communities, and black Americans as a whole have been plagued by the injustices of economic inequality for centuries—from the segregation and rise of black wall street, collapse of economic powerhouse Greenwood, to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the bank-in movement. #BankBlack aims to create transparency while eliminating bias as it regards ownership of black-owned financial institutions. By harnessing the economic power of the collective, banking black has the opportunity to facilitate change within Black communities. That is to go far beyond the promotion of financial advocacy, but to undo the economic disempowerment spilt into the DNA of previous generations in order to close the substantial racial wealth gap.

At the outset of economic inequality and injustice for black Americans, from the opposing view, a book by George Parkin Grant, English Speaking Justice offers the conceptualized meaning of modern justice as perceived by white Americans. Grant takes their conception of equality into a justice meant to be prescribed as an applicable and meaningful meditation for the minority— but he reaches the conclusion that it may be inevitable:

“How, in modern thought, can we find positive answers to the questions: (i) what is it about human beings that makes liberty and equality their due? (ii) why is justice what we are fitted for when it is not convenient for White property interests? Why is it our good? The inability of contractual liberals (or indeed Marxists) to answer these questions is the terrifying darkness which has fallen upon modern justice”

[p. 86 ; Grant, G. P. (1985) English-Speaking Justice. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame]

To suggest that such an economic calamity exists given the topic of black/white relations, the interplay between power, politics, economics, and race— concern “the terrifying darkness which has fallen upon modern justice.” This segment undeniably supports the economic disempowerment of Black Americans. But it is also evident that both liberals and Marxists have failed to address their economic exploitation. Despite advocating for social justice and equal opportunities, liberal policies don't go far enough in dismantling structural barriers that contribute to the economic disparities that exist. Additionally, from a Marxist perspective which focuses on class struggle and the critique of capitalism, addressing the economic exploitation of Black Americans would require the restructure of the entire economic system. This is because Marxist solutions often promote practical challenges that would hinder the relief in economic struggle for black Americans. Nonetheless, there are distinct strategies to address their economic exploitation that are seemingly complex and multifaceted from various perspectives.

Although belatedly conceded, the very obvious implications that contribute to black suffering simply cannot be challenged. While differences in opinion may prevail as it regards the specific economic factors, policies, and political power as reasons for the disempowerment— the outcome is unmoving. It may very well be a plethora of economic processes in addition to those that knowingly exist, but the exploitation of black Americans as forces of economic inequality and disempowerment are now beyond dispute. As a collective, in order to dismantle the economic exploitation of black Americans, it is necessary that we advocate for the protection of stakeholder interest with initiatives such as the #BankBlack movement. Black Americans should have equity and ownership of initiatives that are aimed to uplift them. Without these protections the cyclical pattern of instability will have the opportunity to perpetuate these communities.

Angel Xia: Reevaluating BDS: The Case for Consumer Activism

BDS refers to Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, a Palestinian-led nonviolent protest movement using boycotts against Israel, divestment, and economic sanctions to pressure Israel’s government to submit to international law and change its policies towards its Palestinian citizens. Boycotting is the action of refusing to buy or cooperate as a form of protest, usually on an individual level. Divestment focuses on reducing investments through selling stock, on institutional, organizational or company levels. Sanctions are official penalties (like trade tariffs), taken by the federal government — in the United States, this is through the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

As of 2023, 38 states have passed anti-BDS laws, designed to punish companies that boycott Israel. In 2020, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for all countries to "recognize the BDS movement for the cancer that it is." Much of the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been shrouded in dogma, exacerbated by an increasingly partisan divide. BDS as of late has become a popular tactic espoused by international supporters of Palestine, a political movement that struggled to gain traction for years trended on social media sites under #BDSMovement. Users called for boycotts of massive companies like McDonald’s, Domino’s Pizza, and Starbucks. At the same time, vitriol about the movement has heightened — Republican Senator (R-FL) Marco Rubio reintroduced the Combating BDS Act into the Senate, calling BDS the “single most destructive campaign of economic warfare against the Jewish state of Israel.” This article seeks to examine the BDS movement as an effective form of consumer activism and a legitimate exercise of free speech, as well as the danger of an anti-boycott legislature. 

Since its formation in 2005, the movement has been subject to charges of anti-semitism by supporters of Israel and diluting efforts by being ineffective and divisive by supporters of Palestine. The Israeli government has spent millions of dollars lobbying against its efforts and the Israel lobby within the US has made anti-BDS one of its primary concerns. In 2017, the government banned all supporters of BDS from entering Israel. The Israeli ambassador to the United Nations in 2016 said that the goal of his government was “so that it will simply be illegal to boycott Israel." Anti-BDS laws in the United States are either contract-based, compelling government contractors against boycotting Israel, or investment-based, obliging public investment funds to avoid groups or corporations boycotting Israel. Meanwhile, free speech organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American–Islamic Relations have challenged these laws in court. According to a poll from the University of Maryland in 2019, 72% of Americans oppose anti-BDS laws. 

BDS itself is a political action rather than a typical organized group, but its goal, defined by co-founder Omar Barghouti, revolve around three core demands: to end the occupation and colonization of Arab lands and the dismantlement of the West Bank barrier, a recognition of the fundamental equal rights of Palestinian citizens to full equality, and the rights of refugees to return to their homes and properties, as proposed in UN Resolution 194.  BDS is modeled after the Anti-Apartheid Movement, a British organization that opposed the South African apartheid system through organized consumer boycotts. Supporters of BDS compare the Palestinian struggle to that of black South Africans under British colonial rule, based on the forceful displacement of an indigenous population, the division of citizens into groups with disparate rights, and restriction of movement and forceful quashing of resistance. Several Organizations and human rights groups have declared that Israel meets the definition of an apartheid state, including the United Nations, the African National Congress, as well as several prominent Israeli figures and NGOs. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, known for his anti-apartheid activism in South Africa, said the parallels between Israel and South Africa were “painfully stark.” 

Calls for the boycott of Israel originated in 2005 by over 170 Palestinian grassroots and civil society organizations, following the International Court of Justice’s opinion that the Israeli-built West Bank wall was a violation of international law. At the time, more than 4 million Palestinians had been displaced. BDS itself is a political tactic, not necessarily a traditional hierarchical organization, while the movement's leadership is atomized and lacks concrete structure. Its broad focus is on utilizing peaceful protest to pressure Western support of the Israeli government, hoping to focus the narrative on Palestinian rights, composed of unions, academic associations, churches, and grassroots movements.  The BDS movement describes itself as an antiracist movement, focused on struggles against racism, sexism, and poverty:  Barghouti states that BDS challenges the ‘tyranny’ of corporations, and thus becomes a “small but critical part” in a struggle against socioeconomic inequality and injustices. 

The range of BDS actions are from individual consumer actions like abstaining from certain companies to calling on governments and politicians to impose sanctions against Israel. One common request is for the conditioning of military aid on a federal level. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders wrote in an opinion for the New York Times to call for the end of the American “blank check” to Israel, stressing the defense of international law and decency.  In the original 2005 declaration, BDS organizers urged strictly “nonviolent punitive measures.” Barghouti emphasized that BDS “considers violence targeting noncombatants as illegal and immoral.” This is underscored by his belief that any Palestinian violence is a reaction of the oppressed to violence from the oppressor, and not equivocal. 

That is not the belief of all supporters of BDS: several prominent figures and organizations have varying ends from the act of boycotting. While the organization stresses a one-state solution with the unencumbered right of return for displaced Palestinians, Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has both publicly endorsed BDS while calling for a two-state solution. Advocacy groups like the Jewish Voice for Peace (an anti-Zionist left-wing Jewish activist organization), Democratic Socialists of America, and the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights have endorsed BDS as a political strategy, just as the ACLU has defended BDS’ right to exist, all with differing solutions to the international conflict. However, supporters are united by the focus on nonviolent activism, and go beyond political figures. Musician Lauryn Hill, writers Naomi Klein and Sally Rooney are among others in the creative media field to support BDS. Support in the United States has grown: a survey from February suggested that one in five Americans approved of BDS as a way of opposing Israeli policy. A 2018 University of Maryland poll of a much larger sample put American support at 40 percent. 

BDS has a history of accomplishments: boycotts include not just Israeli products and companies, but corporations the movement claims are complicit in Palestinian oppression, like SodaStream, an Israel-based manufacturing company. One current BDS target is Hewlett Packard (HP) known for its printers, due to the charge that its tech has aided Israel in surveillance with biometric ID systems. BDS made definitive gains: Ben & Jerry’s and French telecommunications company Orange SA both agreed to stop selling in occupied Palestinian territories. When Orange ended its business in Israel, SodaStream closed its West Bank factory in 2014. BDS successfully pushed government pension funds in Luxembourg, New Zealand, and Norway to divest from Israel. Meanwhile, cultural boycotts have been particularly prominent in the United States. American musician Sam Smith canceled a show in Israel after BDS pushback in May. Other musicians who have canceled or postponed performances or visits to Israel as an expression of BDS include singers Lauryn Hill in 2015, Lana Del Rey in 2018, Lorde in 2018, as well as Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett in 2017. 

There is a lot of potential for American protest, particularly in the realm of sanctions: some politicians have called for policies like an embargo on providing weapons and military aid to the cessation of trade and diplomacy with israel. More centrist policies focus on conditions of aid to Israel, which is increasingly popular in the US. The US has sent $158 billion in aid to ISrael, and the Biden admin has proposed another $106 billion foreign aid package, $14 billion of which is for Israel. The US vetoed a UN security Council resolution for a humanitarian pause in Gaza — while nearly sixty percent of Israelis and two-thirds of Americans are in favor of a ceasefire and de-escalation,. Even while a majority of Americans support Israel, a CBS news poll showed that fewer than half of respondents wanted to send military aid and supplies to Israel. Despite lacking popular support (and even less so within the Democratic Party), the Biden administration has staunchly emphasized conditionless aid — despite a statement that Biden suggested it was a “worthwhile thought” and US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s criticism of Israel’s actions in the Gaza offensive. Blinken stated that “The way Israel defends itself matters. It’s imperative that Israel act in accordance with international humanitarian law and the laws of war.”, but without any sanctions or conditions of aid, the emphasis on human rights cannot be enforced. It is an ultimately empty sentiment. Politicians, in a classic view of democracy, are meant to reflect their constituents, and BDS is a tactic to enforce this. Voters must put pressure on their politicians to express their political opinions. 

There is a history of the American government using economic sanctions to express disapproval of wartime actions by other countries: there are nearly 100 sanctions on Russian elites and institutions to undercut Russia’s actions in its war against Ukraine.  Since 2009, the US has 

The 2016 Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act,

Evidence of human rights violations in israel 

Many of the accusations of antisemitism are focused on the claim that the movement’s goal is the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Equality for its Arab citizens requires altering existing laws that automatically grant Jews citizenship, and defining the country as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Granting the right of return to Palestinians would end a Jewish majority.

The right of return principle divides BDS supporters and the left-wing generally, though this comes down to a question of imagination, and is not inherently mutually exclusive. As references earlier, BDS supporters do not have a hegemonic solution to the conflict, but rather, use it as a method of ensuring the protection of human rights and as a form of political activism. BDS is a political tool, not a strict ideology. 

In 2019, the House voted 398 to 17 to support a bill denouncing B.D.S. for allegedly promoting “principles of collective guilt, mass punishment and group isolation.” The bill claims that BDS tries to “end the right to Jewish national self-determination on any portion of this contested land.” Pro-Israel nonprofit the Jewish National Fund filed a lawsuit against the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights using the Anti-Terrorism Act made extreme claims, painting BDS participants as supporters of terrorism led by Hamas and Jihad. While the lawsuit was dismissed, it is very much the crux of the accusation. Many supporters of BDS are faced with these questions: are you antisemitic? Do you condemn Hamas?

The BDS movement’s goals are established by international law and UN guidelines. UN guidelines mandate the right of resistance to military occupation and colonization.  UNGA Res. 37/43) and UNGA Res. 45/130, focus on strictly not targeting non-combatants, which BDS upholds. 

BDS calls for a democratic state with self sovereignty; a democratic state could still allow asylum for Jewish refugees. The question of anti-Zionism is not anti-semticism. The Palestinian BDS National Committee officially opposes anti-semitism and encourages its proponents to select boycott targets based on human rights violations and likelihood to succeed rather than national origin or religious identity. The goal of BDS is more primarily to focus on Palestinians and supporting the protection of human rights.

One common line of rhetoric revolves on the idea of why BDS focuses on human rights violations in Israel, and not, say, China with the treatment of Uyghur Muslims or modern slavery in North Korea.  This practice of whataboutism neglects the fact that Palestinians who are fighting for their own equal rights do not have to give the same amount of attention to other groups before prioritizing their own liberty. The same criticism was once lobbied against supporters of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. Fighting for the right of self determination and sovereignty in an indigenous land — and safeguarding human rights in Palestine is not any weaker for the fact that other countries also violate international law. 

. Focuses on the understanding of Israel as a colonial project. 

Roots of Israel as supported by Britain: Jewish Colonization Association (now known was the Jewish Charitable Association) 

Despite some victories, BDS is categorized as unsuccessful by its critics: despite the few pullouts, Israel’s foreign direct investment is at an all time high. Due to the Israeli economy’s dependence on commodity exports rather than sales of 

“Despite scattered pullouts from Israel by some companies, foreign direct investment in Israel is at an all-time high. Israel’s economy is well-suited to resist boycotts because it is less dependent on exports of commodities, which can be sourced elsewhere, than on sales of intellectual property, like software, and business-to-business products, against which it is harder to mobilize consumers. And while Ireland advanced legislation to ban imports of goods produced by Israeli settlements on the West Bank last year, the BDS movement acknowledges that few foreign governments have imposed sanctions on Israel.”

A 2015 report estimated that Israel’s GDP would lose around 15 billion (rand corporation); still a tiny portion of its GDP of more than $500 billion. Bloomberg reported foreign investment in Israel fell significantly in 2023: due to turmoil and military conflict and Netanyahu’s increasingly authoritarian right-wing government and mass protests from israeli citizens and investigation

“Brad Sherman, the Democrat, admits: “Am I worried about the overall B.D.S. movement worldwide as an economic matter? No. As an effort to delegitimize Israel, of course.” Some studies argue that bds has had little impact on israel economy  “But these are exceptions to the fact that by all measures, Israel’s normalization in the world is complete.” BDS has also been conflated/inflated by “pro israel” groups— McCarthyism attacks on pro-Palestinian BDS supporters (harvard crimson) Boycotts have been used for years — boston tea party, montgomery bus, anti-trangsegnder law,  The boycott against bud miller by the right; its a tool to express political expression and challenge (perceived) injustice. Most boycotts are unsuccessful! 

Boycotts are criticized for being ineffective but the media appeal w big successes from groups like PETA make them popular. Effective strategy for black americans suffragettes used consumer spaces for their cause  The importance of the BDS movement is political signaling

Consumer activism, Americans used purchasing power to support causes and punish perceived wrongdoers for centuries— abolitionists who refused to buy slave goods, 1930s boycott of silk from a fascist japan  Consumer activism needs a goal, self presentation, and an adversary. Consumer activists target companies that support causes or practices activists consider unethical. Media-oriented boycotts are to get media attention: damaging a brand’s reputation can result in dips in the company’s stock prices; boycotts can gain attention and cause fast mobilization and find success there as it represents a major societal issue. Reputational damage is important. Israel has two approaches to BDS: world stage that it has no effect but warns Israelis that it is. 

In 2017: 43 US senators proposed a bill backed by the Israeli lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee criminalizing support of BDS by up to 20 years in prison; 2019, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bill that would make it easier for states to impose their own anti-BDS laws. BDS is a legitimate political tool with some real potential/value. Regardless of support for its underlying movement, laws banning it are dangerous to our democracy and exercise of free speech.

Cem Okandan: The Hungry Bread Basket

Egypt is a land of contrasts, between the arid desert and the lush Nile, well preserved monuments and crumbling infrastructure, its youthful population and gerontocratic politicians. Once the leader of the Arab world in cultural, political, and economic fields, the country of over 110 million is now forced to play to the tune of its wealthy backers in the Gulf. Ever since the false hopes of the Arab Spring, the country has struggled to develop its economy and offer an attractive future for its people.  With the passing of the presidential elections this December, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has secured a third term in office. With the political horizon set, it is timely to examine the challenges facing the often overlooked but crucial nation.

President Sisi was all but guaranteed to extend his mandate for six more years. In the absence of serious opposition candidates that were either intimidated or straight out barred from running, the former general has won both previous elections with over 96% of the vote and this election has ended with a similarly flattering result of 90% of the votes being cast in his favor. The president’s principal worry was not winning the election but stemming a collapse in turnout that would erode his legitimacy. Nonetheless, below the cosmetics of electioneering the real challenge to Sisi’s authority comes from the economic crisis which has been brewing since his capture of power in 2014.

 Coming on the heels of the revolutionary instability of the period from the overthrow of Hosni Mobarak’s thirty year reign in 2011 to the military coup against Egypt’s first democratically elected president Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013, President Sisi had promised stability in exchange for obedience to a population exhausted by years of turmoil. His answer to the persistent problem of development that Egypt has faced since independence from the British Empire, has been debt fueled mega projects. 

Among these are a brand new capital city complete with the tallest building in Africa coming at a cost of $58 billion and covering an area seven times larger than Paris intra-muros, an expansion of the Suez Canal, and flashy items such as a carefully choreographed parade for the transfer of mummies through the center of Cairo. These extravagant undertakings that rival those in the oil-rich Gulf countries have turned out to be more vanity projects rather than real investments to increase the productive capacity of the country, generating returns far lower than initially anticipated. 

The difference with the Gulf is that Egypt can ill afford to misuse its resources. With 30% of its population living in poverty and a median age of 24, the country desperately needs to create jobs for its younger cohorts. Its education system has been neglected, transport infrastructure is infamous for its spotty safety record, and blackouts are a regular occurrence that the population has to live with through the blistering summer months. This comes on top of the increasing difficulty Egypt is having in feeding its population.

Overpopulation is having a two-fold effect on this problem, firstly by increasing the number of mouths to feed, but also through expanding urban agglomerations occupying arable land. Even though Egypt is a large country by total surface area, only 5% of its land along the Nile is fertile with 95% of its population also living on this narrow strip. Once the breadbasket of the Roman Empire, Egypt now relies on imports for most of its foodstuff, including half of its grain. Bread being a crucial part of the Egyptian diet, wheat is one of its principal imports. In 2021 it imported $4.53 billion of the grain it consumes with its two biggest suppliers being Russia and Ukraine. The escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict in 2022 and the following skyrocketing of international grain prices have dealt a heavy blow to the already high current account deficit.

This external shock came just as Egypt was recovering from the effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic, which had damaged the country’s crucial tourism sector. The industry accounts for 15% of its economy and employs a tenth of the workforce.  More importantly, tourism is one of the few reliable sources of hard currency that the country needs for necessary imports, most importantly the aforementioned foodstuffs. Bread subsidies already account for 2.9% of the annual budget and are set to increase as climate change and global instability continue to suppress agricultural production. 

 Nonetheless, the amount budgeted for subsidies pales in comparison to the cost of debt servicing to the Egyptian state. The state now uses half of its revenue to make interest payments on its mountain of debt nearing 100% of GDP. The national debt, which was at $40 billion when President Sisi took power now stands at $165 billion. Combined with the global increase in interest rates, this has led to a cascade of problems from a shortage of foreign currency delaying imports, thus further damaging the economy with the Egyptian Pound losing half of its value against the US Dollar in 2023. 

Therefore, it is clear that a combination of dire mismanagement and external shocks has put Egypt in a situation where it is facing a precipice with debt payments of $28 billion in 2024 alone. This comes in tandem with yet another crisis in the form of the conflict in Gaza. Sharing a land border with Gaza, Egypt is the sole viable destination for potentially millions of Palestinian refugees and fears a further escalation of the conflict scaring away the tourists that Egypt so desperately needs.

Although the feared decline in tourist numbers has not materialized, Egypt continues to be exposed to destabilizing forces of the conflicts on its borders. Not only is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declaring his intention to continue the war in Gaza for “many more months”, raising further questions about Gazans’ ability to return to their flattened homes, but the conflict is also raising tensions around the Middle East. The most pressing concern of the Egyptians is the Houthi attacks on civilian ships crossing the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, which is a chokepoint on the eastern approach to the Suez Canal. It is yet to be seen whether the US-led coalition dispatched to protect the crucial trade artery will be able to assuage the fears of shipping companies that have resorted to rerouting their ships through the longer and costlier route around the Cape of Good Hope. Furthermore, the civil war in Egypt’s southern neighbor Sudan continues to escalate, while the strife in Libya appears far from being resolved. Consequently, Egypt is surrounded by active wars on all of its land borders.

Even though the proper reaction to the situation Egypt finds itself in is one of despair, there exists a straightforward path for the country to exit its current predicament. With its youthful population and proximity to Europe, Egypt is in a prime position to benefit from the post-pandemic trend of near-shoring. The country holds immense potential for renewable energy with its perennial sunshine and 12% of global trade crosses its territory through the Suez Canal. The force holding the country back is not its misfortune, but gross mismanagement by its leadership.

The prime culprit of this is the military establishment. On top of forming the political elite, the military controls swaths of the economy ranging from construction to tourism.  With tax exemptions, opaque budgets, and influence within the government, these military-owned companies stifle competition and private entrepreneurship. Furthermore, this concealed web of influence is further buttressed by American military aid. Coming at $1.3 billion a year, Egypt is the second largest recipient of US military aid after Israel.

The prescription given by Egypt’s traditional international creditors such as the IMF is clear; deliver on the long promised market-oriented reforms and curtail the influence of the military in the economy and you will unlock billions in additional credit. The Gulf countries, on the other hand, are mainly after economic privileges and political support. However, there still exists a situation akin to a Mexican standoff. Home to one out of four Arabs and hosting some of the most influential institutions in Islam such as Al-Azhar, Egypt is simply too big to fail. Its neighbors cannot afford a country of this magnitude to descend into chaos as Lebanon, Libya or Syria have, and knowing this Egypt’s leaders leverage the threat of self-immolation to squeeze more money out of its funders without engaging in meaningful reform. 

It is clear to the most elementary follower of geopolitics that such a situation is unsustainable. Over the past decades Egypt has been mired by poverty, but it has nevertheless not witnessed the levels of violence and emigration many of its neighbors have. Seeing the agitation fewer than half a million irregular migrants that have entered the EU in 2023 has caused, it is difficult to envisage the tremors that a fraction of the predicted 50 million new Egyptians by 2050 heading to Europe can unleash in the case of economic failure or simply a change in power gone awry.

Moreover, any obstruction of the Suez Canal would cost Europe dearly. Not only would it hit the global supply chains, especially on the Europe-Asia axis, fragilized by the Pandemic, but it would once again endanger the continent’s oil and natural gas supplies. Since the price shock of 2022 Europe has been shifting from piped Russian gas to LNG, much of which is shipped from Qatar and crosses the Suez. Any impediment to shipping through the canal would unleash these pressures, significantly increasing inflation and once again sparking a cost of living crisis for Europeans, with unpredictable political consequences.

Therefore, Egypt should be on every international observer’s watchlist for the coming period. It is now more urgent than ever for Western governments and international institutions to revisit their policy of supporting seemingly stable regimes which only confine pressures for larger future crises. This approach has characterized Western relationships with the MENA region in the past decades and is only as sustainable as the hollow regimes it relies on. In the case of Egypt, without any pressure to change tack from the regime’s backers, we can only hope that the standoff ends with its leaders acquiescing to genuine reforms and the former bread basket once again offering a prosperous future for its people. It is time Egypt is allowed to unleash its full potential and rediscover its historic role as a source of stability and a model for the region.

Cara Gepilano: The Philippines’ Cover-Up Of Child Prostitution

Everything had a price in the Philippine city of Olongapo.

One pound of rice was $0.5.

A 20-pack Marlboro was $3. 

A hotel room would be $11. 

A virgin girl was $900. 

However, in 1987, young Rosario Baluyot was only priced at $4. 

No one was certain of Rosario’s age. Some say she was twelve, others say she was younger, but many “consumers” used that to their advantage. Dr. Heinrich, an Austrian doctor, is one of them. He brought her and her young friend, Jessie Ramirez, to a hotel where he sexually abused them. Rosario died seven months later. Her death was a result of a cervical infection after parts of an electronic sex toy were discovered inside her genitalia. 

Following her death, the Regional Trail Court of Olonngapo City sentenced Heinrich to life imprisonment after being charged with the rape and homicide of Rosario. Yet, the Supreme Court of the Philippines acquitted the regional court’s decision, ordered him to pay $500, and deported him back to Austria. 

Heinrich returned home, while Rosario died alone in the streets. 

To be a child in the Philippines is to live with the possibility of being trafficked for sexual exploitation. 

In a report by the International Justice Mission and University of Nottingham Rights Lab (2023), nearly half a million children in the Philippines are subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation through the production of digital content to be purchased by pedophiles and offenders. 

However, there is a clear contradiction in the reports and statistical data reported by the local governments and international institutions concerning the issue. In the 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report, the Philippine government was recognized for meeting “the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking,” which includes the conviction of traffickers and investigation of such erroneous crimes. Despite prostitution remaining illegal, Philippine cities, such as Olongapo, still cultivate hubs and bars dedicated to prostitution and sexual exploitation “even actively backed by the state” (Paz, 2020, p.35). 

The prevalence of child trafficking in the Philippines is closely intertwined with the nation’s remnants of Filipino women during the nation’s periods of colonization, weakness in the legal system, and institutional poverty.

Amidst the American occupation in the Philippines, American Naval and Military bases, namely in Clark and Olongapo, have served as hotspots for sex work and trafficking. Sexual services catering to U.S. military personnel were institutionalized and sponsored by the government through “pink health certificates,” posted on bulletin boards to identify Filipino women infected with sexually transmitted diseases (Enrile & Weiss, 2019). In 1914, shortly after the Japanese military forces landed in the island of the northern island of the Philippines, Filipino women were forcibly removed from their homes and provinces by Japanese soldiers to work as sex slaves in the area named “comfort stations,” where over 1,000 women and girls were abducted, coerced and raped under a Japanese sanction system of sexual slavery. 

Even with the independence garnered by the Philippines 125 years ago, foreigners and tourists can still see, written on Olongapo’s entrance arch: “Home of the most beautiful women in the world.” 

The remnants of colonialism still stand the test of time as brothels and sex bars catering to foreigners, specifically from developed nations, serve as a main contributor to the city’s revenue (Jeffreys, 1999). 

In a debt-ridden country and just recently recovering from a 9.6% economic contraction brought on by COVID, sex work has transformed into a means to survive. Filipino children often face the internal battle that follows them in a state of poverty: sacrificing their families or sacrificing themselves. Children choose the latter as a form of moral repayment to their parents and families. 

Jeannette Ampog, Executive Director of Talikala Incorporated, a nongovernmental organization run by women for women forced into the sex trade in Davao City, could only worry as the poverty of the Philippines brings and, sometimes, returns children into sex slavery. 

“It is poverty; it is economic hardship that families are facing,” said Ms. Ampog in an interview. “There is an ingrained culture that, as children, we need to help our families, and sometimes it means being exploited.”    

An exchange occurs between the child and the offender. After contacting the young victims, the perpetrator would fund the child’s education, food, and even housing but chain them with sexual debt. The gravity and abhorrence of these requests were exacerbated in one of Talikala’s cases, where a Hawaiian man contacted a young Filipino girl and showered her with luxurious gifts: a new phone, a camera, and full tuition for her sister’s studies at university. 

However, all these gifts had a condition.

In return, he asked for naked photos of the girl and for her to perform sexual intercourse with another young child in front of the camera. With the desperation of poverty and lack of government assistance, the benefit of $180 outweighs the trauma of sexual exploitation. 

In tandem with poverty, the Philippines’ faulty legal system aids in the expansion of child sexual exploitation. In cases such as Rosario’s cases, institutions of justice come to full public view and criticism when pedophiles are acquitted at the cost of a child’s life. Cases such as the acquittal of Heinrich are a historical testament to the loopholes, such as the definition of the age of consent and penalties of statutory rape utilized by perpetrators. 

Human rights lawyer and former Filipino legislator Atty. Neri Colmenares specifically highlights the lack of implementation in the Philippine legal system. Despite developing child-trafficking laws to penalize traffickers and perpetrators, such as Republic Act No. 9208, the Philippines still maintains an increasing amount of child sexual exploitation due to insufficient fulfillment of such penalties and the misdirection of legal prosecution which are directed at sex workers instead of the consumers.  

“The framework of the Philippines is very victim-blaming,” said Atty. Colmenares. “If you notice, there have been victims of trafficking, but these syndicates, most of the time, go scot-free – trafficking cannot be done without the connivance of government officials.” 

With the deep cuts of colonialism, poverty, and politics bleeding into the rise of child trafficking, a tangible solution becomes an ever-present need. Non-governmental heeded the call and dire situation of Filipino children, serving as torchbearers and hands-on assistance in saving prostituted children from sex bars and brothels. The People’s Recovery, Empowerment, and Development Assistance Foundation (PREDA) and the previously mentioned Talikala Incorporated are some front-runners in such advocacies. 

Founder and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Fr. Shay Cullen recalls the foundation's endeavors in disclosing child trafficking rings in the US military base in the Philippines.

“We started a home for girls,” said Fr. Cullen. “Our home for the victims of human trafficking and sexual abuse continues today with a therapeutic center for the healing and empowerment of child victims and filing of legal cases in which we have a lot of success.” 

Beyond removing children from exploitative and abusive environments, PREDA and Talikala call for justice and accountability by pursuing legal action against perpetrators. 

“The biggest challenge of our work is on the legal side,” said Emmanuel Drewery, PREDA Executive Director. “We don’t just accept children in our shelter sometimes; we do the case build-up ourselves.” 

The nobility of the work done by non-governmental organizations is undeniable. Yet, with a deeply rooted issue, the local and international governments must join in actively addressing child trafficking, specifically through national accountability and education. To safeguard the rights of children, national authorities must also adopt more decisive legal action in addressing criminal cases committed by individuals entering the Philippines for sex tourism. The slow legal system will provide a wedge for international consumers to either evade legal sanctions or continue abusing minors. 

“We always write about how local and national officials are complicit in the abuse and trafficking of these girls when they are given permits and licenses to sex bars,” said Francisco Bermido Jr., Vice-President of PREDA,  “There will always be challenges when speaking truth to the authorities.” 

Education and awareness regarding the matter were raised as a suggestion in the interviews. A child’s understanding of their rights and the state’s inherent responsibility to protect them would provide an avenue for children vulnerable to trafficking to be aware of sources and outlets to seek assistance before they are brought into exploitative situations. 

The denial of child exploitation undermines and disrespects the thousands of children killed, raped, and abused for their means of survival in a poverty-stricken country. Awareness must be enforced into mobilizing and supporting the upheaval of child trafficking in nations, specifically in the Philippines, so that children such as Rosario’s life would not cost only $4.

When Political Movies Pretend to be Apolitical

All good art is political! There is none that isn't. And the ones that try hard not to be political are political by saying, 'We love the status quo.” - Toni Morrison

One of the most acclaimed films of this year is RRR, directed by S.S. Rajamouli. The film, à la The Motorcycle Diaries, tells the fictional origin stories of two Indian freedom fighters, Alluri Sitaramaraju and Komaram Bheem. Nothing in historical records suggests that these two figures actually met in real life, and the plot of the film is based on the fact that both left home for a few years at around the same time. The film has beautifully shot action set pieces with a definite narrative purpose, a rare combination that Western audiences especially have been yearning for. From the layered performances to the stirring background score, there is so much to like about this film and it is no wonder that RRR is still playing in cities across the United States. While praising the film, some critics have noted that RRR presents a revisionist version of history that is more amenable to right-wing audiences. Examining RRR can inform us about how movies that seem to lack politics or have universally acceptable politics can convey pernicious ideas that are more consequential than they appear. 

On the surface, RRR depicts significant political events in an uncontroversial manner. The film is fundamentally about an anti-colonial struggle against the British Raj. However, the film takes liberties in depicting the two main characters and their relationship. These liberties, which non-Telugu audiences might not be familiar with, indicate a lot about the politics of the film and its makers. For most of the film, Rajamouli depicts the main characters as ordinary people who, through the force of sheer willpower, become superheroes. By the end of the film, however, both of these characters take on certain qualities of Hindu deities, despite Bheem not being Hindu. There also is a teacher-student and a noble-savage dynamic between them, which is troubling considering the caste differences between their real-life revolutionary counterparts. Many of these embellishments, products of South Indian mass cinema, have more to do with appeasing the cult-like fanbases of the main leads and the families they come from than emphasizing a certain political agenda. However, these plot developments are especially concerning in the modern Indian context where right-wing nationalists employ historical revisionism to target oppressed communities, including Muslims and lower-castes.

In response to these criticisms, director S.S. Rajamouli has said that the movie is not about politics or even history but is simply a tale about friendship. RRR fits into a significant subsection of movies that have explicit political content but claim to be apolitical. In a recent New Yorker article, Rajamouli rejected criticisms that his movie has right-wing messages or themes, condemning the far-right ruling party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and caste discrimination. He states that he is “not catering to them [extremists]. I’m just catering to the emotional needs of the audience.” At the same time, he cites prominent right-wing figures such as Ayn Rand as influences. Speaking about Rand’s influence on his work, Rajamouli explains that he “understand[s] parts of her philosophy, but that goes over my head once she gets into it. I’m not such a deep thinker, I’m more of a dramatic thinker, so I like the drama part of it.” What Rajamouli’s statements indicate is that he is trying to create films that are separated from politics, which he seems not to be very interested in.

However, even when a filmmaker does not intend to inject a political bent into their movie, they should still be acutely aware of the political outlook that their film expresses and the political conditions that made their film possible. Rajamouli of all people knows from experience that cinema does not exist in a vacuum separate from politics; a moment in a teaser for RRR where Bheem goes into disguise as a Muslim prompted a far-right BJP leader to threaten to burn down every theater that screened RRR. What makes RRR and Indian cinema interesting to study from a political lens is that conflicts and debates over political content in movies are much more intense in India and can even foster communal violence. Although India is a particularly extreme example, films from other countries also serve similar functions as RRR does in their respective contexts.

            Blockbusters claiming to be apolitical with clear political ideology are especially prevalent in the West, and a notable example is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In many recent MCU releases, the villain consistently attempts to change the status quo while the protagonist is the protector of it. For example, the villain Erik Killmonger from Black Panther (2018) attempts to arm oppressed communities around the world so that they can fight back against their oppressors. Having bad guys with believable motivations that audiences can empathize with is a positive for blockbuster films. Nevertheless, there is always a point where these bad guys overstep their boundaries and reveal that their intentions are not sincere, usually by killing civilians or acting out of selfishness. At this point, the heroes neutralize them. However, our protagonists never seriously consider the social problems that villains criticize or attempt to remedy the conditions that produced the villains. They instead opt for a middle road that accepts a return to an unjust status quo, even if it has been producing mass violence, as the most desirable outcome.

Marvel’s consistent villain problem is just one aspect of its politics. The same Marvel heroes who put down any dissent to the status quo also routinely partner with right-wing characters. In Black Panther, the protagonist collaborates with a CIA agent to defeat the villain. Through coups and destabilization efforts, the CIA has done more damage to the African continent in the twentieth century than Killmonger could ever do. Characterizing CIA agents as being noble and virtuous, especially in the context of Black Panther, is ideological but presented as apolitical. Presenting inaccurate depictions of real life might be narratively expeditious, but it is dangerous revisionism and an insult to the audience’s intelligence.

Another example of an apolitical political film is Top Gun: Maverick, a legacy sequel to Top Gun. Just like the first film, it follows Top Gun, a military program consisting of naval aviators. The sequel chooses to avoid controversy and remain as politically neutral as possible by never having the antagonists appear without their helmets or display country-related insignia. However, the terrain of the conflict appears Eastern European and the concerns over unsanctioned uranium enrichment echo Republican nightmare scenarios in the wake of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Characters in the film never question whether the United States, as the only country to have used nuclear weapons, can dictate to another country what its nuclear policy should be. Art is inherently political, created by a certain set of material, social, and political conditions. By presenting certain assumptions as a given, filmmakers of movies like RRR, Black Panther, and Top Gun: Maverick attempt to remove them from the realm of debate for the sake of immersion. As thoughtful viewers of cinema, we must understand the socio-political dimensions of every movie and critically evaluate whatever a movie presents to be true.

It is also important to note that the filmmakers of a particular movie might not be the most politically educated or cognizant of the political impact of their films, so solely blaming the directors and writers of big blockbuster movies for their films’ inadvertent messages is not always useful. These filmmakers are working within an industry that requires financial backing from wealthy financiers and the state. They should still be held accountable for the political messages of their films, but there are others, including studio executives and financiers, who arguably have more influence. The institutions and individuals that make large-scale filmmaking financially possible benefit from the status quo and therefore will not sponsor any film seeking to challenge current social, political, or economic relations. Until filmmaking becomes a more democratic art form, mainstream films with politically subversive and challenging ideas will be few and far between.

This does not mean that people should completely divest from big blockbusters just because of their political ideologies. Living at the tail end of a deadly pandemic and the beginning of climate catastrophe, modern audiences derive a much-needed hiatus from big-budget extravaganzas, but consuming critically is vital. It is possible to appreciate and thoroughly enjoy the efforts of thousands of technicians and craftspeople while also fully understanding the political context of any film that insists on its political neutrality.

The Progressive Case for Nationalism

            In a famous scene of James Joyce’s seminal novel Ulysses, the protagonist Leopold Bloom is asked about his nationality. Bloom responds that his nation is “Ireland, I was born here, Ireland.” In response, the Citizen, Joyce’s personification of narrow-minded nationalism, spits in disgust. For the Citizen, Leopold Bloom, a Jew of Hungarian descent, can never be Irish.

            For many liberals and progressives, the attitudes represented by the Citizen epitomize what they associate with nationalism: close-mindedness, bigotry, and intolerance. This reputation is neither undeserved nor completely unsubstantiated. Far-right ideologies, such as white nationalism and Christian nationalism, have proven destructive to our country, leading to violence against minorities and concerted attacks on our democratic institutions and norms. Throughout history, many forms of nationalism, particularly in Europe, were rooted in the idea of a “people”' with a shared ethnicity and ancestry. Expressions of xenophobia derived from certain strands of ethnic nationalism should be definitively rejected by progressives as they have no place in a pluralistic, multiracial democracy like the United States. However, I also believe that it is important to draw a clear distinction between right-wing strands of nationalism and a more progressive form of civic nationalism, if Americans are to truly appreciate and constructively mobilize the values underlying the idea of a nation.

            As a self-identified liberal, I will argue for a particular type of nationalism. Nationalism has never been a fixed concept and in fact, it has proven exceedingly difficult for political theorists to attach a single definition to nationalism. If liberals and progressives abandon the idea of nationalism, I fear that they will be missing the opportunity to harness the energies capable of building solidarity and achieving long-standing progressive goals. There is tremendous potential for nationalism in the United States, particularly to address critical problems in our country such as economic inequality and poverty.

            I am going to conceptualize the nation as an “imagined political community,” using the definition proffered by political scientist Benedict Anderson. As Anderson argues, even though the members of a nation will never meet most of their fellow members, they feel a special bond with them. In order for any nation to exist, there needs to be a national spirit or shared consciousness among its various members. This consciousness can be built by appealing to common ancestry and culture or by laying claim to a shared system of values and principles. While conceptions of the nation have been broadly and narrowly tailored throughout history, I believe that the idea of an “imagined political community” has always been at the heart of nationalism. This concept is particularly evident at the FIFA World Cup or any other international sports competition where multitudes of attendees collectively cheer on their national team.

            A particularly compelling idea of nationalism is found in Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” speech, delivered over one hundred years ago in Osawatomie, Kansas. As Roosevelt put it, “The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional and personal advantage . . . [and] regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare.” For me, Roosevelt captures exactly how progressives should understand and mobilize nationalism: to serve the broader public need and welfare. It was this form of nationalism that mobilized the volunteers who removed over 100,000 tons of debris from Ground Zero after 9/11 and motivated the over 90,000 health care workerswho signed up to assist overwhelmed hospitals in New York City during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

            Progressives should not be shy about expressing their patriotism. They need to stand strongly and unambiguously behind their own brand of nationalism, a version that prioritizes tolerance and inclusivity. As research by behavioral economists has shown, national identity can be deployed to encourage people to act more selflessly in the public interest. During World War II, Americans were mobilized to serve in the army and to work in war plants by an acute sense of patriotism and national identity. These efforts were bolstered by massive recycling efforts to save metal, rubber, and other household goods that generated much-needed supplies for those at the war front. Recently, American doctors mobilized national identity during the pandemic when they encouraged their fellow citizens to wear a mask and follow public health measures by appealing to a patriotic sensibility.

In a similar manner, we must utilize nationalism to convince Americans that we have a civic duty to provide each other with sufficient means to survive and the opportunities to pursue a fruitful life. Income inequality in the United States is significantly higher than in other developed nations in the world and has only been exacerbated by the Great Recession of 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic. While some amount of economic inequality is necessary to incentivize entrepreneurship and economic growth, excessive inequality erodes trust in democracies and can fuel authoritarian movements. As of 2021, approximately 38 million Americans are living below the poverty line. Economists and policy experts argue that much of this poverty is due to a “reluctant welfare state.” The traditional sense of rugged individualism in the United States has led to the “tragedy of the commons,” a term coined by 19th-century British writer William Forster Lloyd to describe how purely selfish behavior on the part of individuals can lead to suboptimal outcomes for the whole group. Nationalism can be a tool to build solidarity across various coalitions in the United States and encourage individuals to contribute more to the public welfare through a fairer taxation code.

Nowadays, we hear much discourse about identity politics. Author and journalist Jonathan Rauch has provided a working definition for identity politics: “political mobilization organized around group characteristics such as race, gender, and sexuality, as opposed to party, ideology, or pecuniary interest.” While identity politics is often derided for being divisive and alienating, it is not inherently bad. Identity politics may even be necessary if people are being discriminated against because of a specific group characteristic that they hold. However, as intellectual historian Mark Lilla has argued, it is a mistake to think of the United States as being composed of various identity groups with discrete interests. We need to have a broader conception of what binds us together as Americans so we can address the problems that affect the majority of us. Our national identity can provide us not only with a sense of the individual rights we are entitled to, but also the duties that we have towards our fellow citizens. A shared national identity can also allow American citizens to work together to fight for those who are less privileged and bolster the struggle for a more equitable and just society.

            I understand that many of my fellow liberals and progressives chafe at the idea of nationalism because it includes some people while excluding others. But this is true of any of our core identities. Humans are inherently tribal and we derive meaning through belonging to groups. For better or for worse, the nation is one of the few ideas that has allowed large groups of humans to come together beyond superficial characteristics and based on shared ideals. As the philosopher Anthony Appiah has argued, nationalism and cosmopolitanism are not mutually exclusive or fundamentally opposed to one another. We can have special bonds with fellow members of our nation while acknowledging that we have broader obligations to humanity as a whole. The brand of nationalism that liberals and progressives should harness can be found in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his Letter from a Birmingham City Jail: “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly . . . Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”

Before liberals and progressives give up on nationalism, we must consider what it can be rather than cede its potential to the far right. We should not perceive the hundreds of white supremacists who attended the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville or those who stormed the Capitol on January 6 to be the exemplification of nationalism. A narrow formulation of American identity is a choice made by certain extremist groups but is not by any means an obligation for American nationalism. Progressives and liberals should proudly stand by their brand of civic nationalism and utilize it to create solidarity and reach their policy goals.

Young People and the Rise of an Ethno-Nationalistic Sweden

Formerly seen as a beacon of center-left rule, Swedish politics are now following the emerging trend of the rise of fascism in Europe. In the recent elections, the Sweden Democrats (SD), a far-right party with neo-Nazi ties, became the second-largest party in the parliament, earning 20.6% of the votes. The previously outcasted far-right party is now running as the largest competitor to the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP). The SAP is the country’s oldest party and strongly opposes racial discrimination. The rise of the SD in the recent elections marked the nation’s shift into conservative, right-wing politics. What is striking about this shift is that the support the SD has received from the younger voting-age population in Sweden has almost doubled in the last four years. In 2018, 12% of voters between the ages of 18 and 21 voted for the SD (Walsh). In 2022, this percentage went up to 22%. This immense increase can be attributed to the rise in anti-immigration sentiment in Sweden, which the SD has masterfully employed by embracing xenophobic and ethno-nationalistic rhetoric and pushing such ideals onto the younger population through various social media platforms.

The 2015 European migrant crisis left its mark on Swedish politics, heightening anti-immigration sentiments within society. The number of asylum seekers in Europe reached 1.3 million that year, far surpassing prior years, and Sweden received the second-highest number of asylum applications per capita. Since the 1970s, which was when Sweden began accepting increasing numbers of immigrants, Swedish discourse on immigration was dominated by what was known as “the politically correct elite,” which was a socioeconomic group of socialists and liberals). This group was accused of causing the supposed loss of Swedish sovereignty by promoting multicultural values. The predominance of this group meant that since the 1970s, immigration was rarely politicized in Sweden. By linking the refugee crisis of the mid-2010s to the high crime rates, the SD developed xenophobic, Islamophobic, and ultimately ethno-nationalistic rhetoric, which changed the game. From 2019 to 2020, there has been an 11.01% increase in crime rates in Sweden, and a gradual and significant increase can be seen since 2015. The SD exploited this by placing its blame on migration from non-European countries.

The SD directly molded this link between the rise in crime rates and the increase in immigration. In stating that immigration from non-European nations leads to “high crime numbers, divorces and broken homes, abortions and low Swedish nativity,” they evoked the idea that non-European individuals contradicted an idealized version of Swedish morality and Swedish ethnicity. The idea of “Swedish nativity” is a remnant of the early years of the SD, when they would depict immigration as the “Islamification” of Sweden, and hence the loss of the “inherited essence” of being Swedish, which is ultimately an ethno-nationalistic ideal that glorifies the social and political domination of a Western European ethnic identity. By targeting a specific group (non-European Muslim immigrants in this case), the SD created a common enemy of the people, placing themselves in the position of the savior. They labeled themselves as the “defenders of the people’s home,” which references “folkhemmet,” a term used by Social Democrats in the 1930s to unite the working class. The SD, in contrast, uses the phrase to refer to the unity of Swedish nativity, claiming that they are defending it from the criminality and immorality induced by non-European immigration. What is striking about this rise in fascism in Sweden is that it appears not to be economy-driven. The SD, in its economic policies, is largely centrist. What marks it as a far-right party is its social ideals—primarily its nationalistic views. As a result of the high rates of crime being linked to the high rates of immigration, Swedish discourse on immigration stopped being dominated by “the politically correct elite.” Hence, the SD could now push its ideals onto the Swedish people, and predominantly onto young voters.

Throughout its campaign, the SD spent around $132,000 on social media advertising, which was the highest amount of money spent among all the parties. The runner-up, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, spent around $91,600. One study by Oxford University found that online misinformation, also known as “fake news,” played a crucial role in the 2018 Swedish election. They found that there was widespread circulation of such news on platforms like Twitter and Facebook and stated that “for every two professional content articles shared, one junk news article was shared.” They also found that the content of these articles perpetuated a right-wing narrative of immigration and Islam. Joakim Wallerstein, the head of communications of the SD, responded to the study by saying, “I think it is strange that a foreign institute is trying to label various news outlets in Sweden as “junk news” and release such a report in connection to an election.” He attempted to discredit Oxford University simply by drawing attention to its “foreignness”.

Moreover, what perhaps dominated the SD’s ideals circulating on social media was its popularity on TikTok, a platform designed to create echo chambers. Echo chambers are environments in which individuals solely encounter views that reiterate or reinforce their own, rather than being exposed to new ideas. TikTok’s algorithm works to create these environments as it functions in a manner that results in individuals almost exclusively being exposed to content that is like the ones they have interacted with previously. Before the elections, TikTok accounts that have a significant following have been posting content that argues the SD will be the one to solve the pressing issues in Sweden, particularly crime. The content is often centralized around Jimmie Åkesson, the leader of the SD, creating a cult of personality around him and designating him as this idealized “savior.” What makes TikTok a particularly unique social media platform when it comes to political campaigning is that it is primarily used by young people and as mentioned before, it is designed to create echo chambers. It develops this notion that anti-immigrant sentiment and an admiration for Jimmie Åkesson is the widespread view among young people. The money that the SD put into social media advertising and the circulation of their ideals and the support for them on different platforms show how they used social media effectively to promote their ideology and gear it towards young people. Having grown up in a society that is no longer dominated by the “politically correct elite” nor where immigration is discussed as apolitical, young people are more likely to be open to such negative discourse around immigrants, and social media platforms are the ideal mode to circulate and popularize this discourse among them.

Hence, a country that has long been known for its liberal, left-wing politics is now shifting towards conservative rule. Even in the age of Greta Thunberg, young people appear to play a significant role in this shift. Moreover, under the umbrella of anti-immigration, the SD’s rhetoric glorifies the idea of not only Swedish nationalism but also the idea of an inherited sort of Swedish ethnonationalism, which marks a considerable step back in building a more inclusive, equal society.