ideology

Emmanuel Macron: A Centrist Myth?

Last April, France elected their youngest leader since Napoleon, Emmanuel Macron. A year on, the President of the Republic’s popularity is waning as his approval ratings continue to fall. Some critics say Macron’s centrist platform is a fallacy and correlate his actions, perceived to be far from centrist, to be the reason why.

However, the case can be made that Macron is governing France as a centrist; the same ideology he ran on during his presidential campaign.

A working definition of centrism is seen to be the political position that favours a degree of social egalitarianism, whilst simultaneously defending a degree of social hierarchy; avoiding the dogmatism of the political left and right.

Macron’s actions, over the past year, have been predominantly centrist. He has been consistent in his opposition of the far-right with his avoidance of nationalist rhetoric, but nevertheless been pragmatic in his approach to immigration and anti-terrorism.

Macron’s actions, over the past year, have been predominantly centrist

Regarding the left, he has consistently opposed left-leaning economic policies reflected in his moderating of labour market regulations, giving more autonomy to employers to hire and fire workers, and controlling the influence of the unions.

As of April 2018, over 40% of railroad workers have been involved in strikes regarding the new proposed reforms of the SNCF (state-owned railway), designed to bring France’s national railway in line with new EU requirements by 2020.

Even though Macron’s policies have caused protests, most recently in May 2018 on the fiftieth anniversary of the riots of 1968, it is unfounded to call these policies radically right, even though perceived to be from a French socialist viewpoint. Macron’s reforms can be viewed to be relatively moderate from the wider European perspective.

Macron has never shied away from his neo-liberal economic policies. In his 2017 budget, he outlined €15 billion worth of cuts to public services and a desire to cut corporation tax from 33% to 25% by 2022.

France’s youngest president since Napoleon: what’s causing the drop in approval ratings for Macron?

However, Macron is not just committed to fiscal austerity; he has simultaneously committed €1.5 billion into AI (Artificial Intelligence) research and the adoption of the Big Investment Plan of €57bn over the course of five years.

This fiscal stimulus aims to tackle unemployment, to promote the competitiveness of the market, enhance France’s digital economy and reduce carbon emissions.

Whilst economically, Macron takes a right-wing position in many areas of his fiscal strategy, this does not undermine his overall ideology as a centrist politician. He does believe in the value of selective public investment and is left-leaning in other areas beyond economics.

Seeming contradictions in Macron’s ideology only strengthen his claim as a centrist because he adopts important elements from both ideological traditions.

In terms of curbing civil liberties, Macron, nonetheless, has been radical by adopting an authoritarian approach. His new anti-terrorism laws, that allow local government to conduct surprise-search private property and limit judicial oversight for suspected terrorists makes France the only country in Europe to be effectively in a permanent state of emergency.

All the same, Macron’s continued vocal support of strong environmental policy continue to ratify him as one of Europe’s leading centrist politicians. His condemnation of President Trump’s removal of the USA from the Paris Climate Change Accord in June 2017, and his reaffirmation during his state visit to America in April 2018 shows Macron has not changed France’s policy course regarding climate change, adopting the consensus of many European nations and the EU’s positions.

Additionally, on the global stage, Macron’s centrism persists. He has been unfaltering in his support of the Western liberal consensus upholding the West and the EU’s opposition to Russian interference in democratic nations.

Macron has denounced Russian state-sponsored news channels such as Russia Today and Sputnik, whilst being diplomatically firm with President Putin in May 2017. His collaboration with the USA and the UK in the Syrian bombing of government sites in response to President Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Douma in April 2018 show that he still values the support from his traditional allies.

The French President’s defence of the European liberal status-quo is also reflected in his enthusiastic support of increased integration at the European Union level and the maintenance and progression of France’s position within the union.

it is unfair to perpetuate Macron as right-wing in all aspects of his ideology and actions, proclaiming that his centrism is a myth

Macron’s zeal for the European project can be argued to be Europhilic, which is proved through his support of Junker, President of the European Commission’s proposals for an EU standing army in the form of a European Defence Force that would be under a single doctrine and budget; and in addition, a common budget that encompasses the whole of the Eurozone.

Nonetheless, overall, Macron’s support for the EU is moderate and centrist as he maintains France’s precedent as a founding member of the community.

Whilst the left will continue to rail against Macron and accuse him of being an “ultra-liberal” with his hard-line monetarist policies, his support of tax cuts and his labour law reforms, it is unfair to perpetuate Macron as right-wing in all aspects of his ideology and actions, proclaiming that his centrism is a myth.

His stances on the EU, environmental policy, the role of the state and public investment, and his rejection of the rhetoric of the far-right and far-left prove that Macron’s ideological profile continues to point towards the centre.

Why I owe it all to: Latin American journalism

For many, Latin America is the far-flung realm of exoticism, the epitome of passion, dance and the humanoids that are Victoria’s Secret models. It’s a reputation, however, which has been tainted over recent years as brewing political corruption, drug wars and gang violence have highlighted the ever rickety struggle for ideological power.

It’s a conflict which has had severe repercussions for numerous sections of society; women, transvestites, homosexuals and the poorer classes have (as is all too often the norm) been most at the mercy of the exploitation such instability hails. However, under an ever more watchful eye, is Latin America’s media. Last year, 12 journalists were murdered in Latin America alone, with Brazil and Mexico holding fort amongst the world’s 11 deadliest countries for journalists since 1992. Indeed, such cases as the murders of Mexican photojournalist, Rubén Espinosa and Brazilian blogger, Italo Diniz in 2015 have emphasised the consistent struggle between liberty and repression which has characterised Latin America’s turbulent history. Yet, as a symbol of progression, many journalists have demonstrated their influence, offering more liberal hopes for advancement.

Last year, 12 journalists were murdered in Latin America alone

To say that history is always written by the winners is perhaps all too true of Latin America. As far as written documents show, Latin American history can be traced from the 15th and 16th centuries when the Aztec, Inca and Mayan civilisations were overthrown by the invading conquistadores who imposed their own Western values on these indigenous cultures. In spite of this consistent Hispanic influence, however, the indigenous identity of Latin America has still remained potent. Indeed, the emergence of the literary genre, ‘indigenismo’ in the 19th and 20th centuries explored the impact of native minorities on political ideologies – a relationship which seemed to manifest itself in the growing popularity of left-wing philosophies.

In a culture which remained inherently opposed to Western capitalism, historical sympathies almost facilitated the rise of such rulers as Salvador Allende in Chile, Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala and Víctor Paz Estenssoro in Bolivia. However, for many governments, such political advancements were short-lived; continuous interventions by the United States and the CIA helped to instigate and underpin some of the most repressive military dictatorships of the twentieth century, most notoriously those of Argentina’s Jorge Rafael Videla (1976 – 1981) and Chile’s Augusto Pinochet (1979 – 1990).

Although many nations have now returned to a democratically-elected system, such interferences have completely destabilised Latin America’s search for an ideology, particularly in Mexico and Central America where drug cartels and gang violence have seized swathes of control.

such interferences have completely destabilised Latin America’s search for an ideology

It is these interventions which have had a significant impact on press freedom throughout the continent. Although the 1990s appeared to signal an explosion of liberalism, this was rapidly undermined in many nations. Cuba, Mexico, Honduras and Venezuela notoriously face significant press limitations with many major news channels encountering strict censorship by the government and local drug lords.

However, many journalists have still not allowed this to deter them from their work. The Colombian journalist, María Jimena Duzán was renowned for being one of the most active critics of Álvaro Uribe’s regime (2002 – 2010), regardless of threats to take legal action against her. Indeed, even the death of Rubén Espinosa in Mexico has only strengthened media criticisms, as students, photographers and journalists have protested against severe press repression in cities such as Veracruz. Independent news outlets such as El Faro (El Salvador), IDL-Reporteros (Peru) and The Clinic (Chile) have all acted as vehicles for unfettered criticism. This resolve was strengthened in 2013 when they united with seven other Latin American publications to create the ALiados network, enabling ‘mutual cooperation and finding new ways to sustain independent journalism.’

students, photographers and journalists have protested against severe press repression

Within this climate of fear, it would be easy to assume that all Latin America media will simply fall under such repressive mechanisms. However this consistent search for journalistic independence has proven otherwise, offering more liberal hopes of progression and advancement. Far from submitting to the corrupt grip of local politicians and the judiciary, many journalists are waging a powerful war of words which aims to not only publicise but actively reform. It’s a cause which has attracted not only students and intellectuals, but the international media.

The venality which is actively dissected does not only surround Latin American issues, but implicitly pioneers reform in all sections of the world. Be it media censorship in the Middle East or mafia violence in Africa, the problems being tackled in Latin America are only an intrinsic aspect of a global network. It is these journalists, be they in Mexico City or Santiago who are fiercely, potently advocating reform. They are not submissive cogs in a greasy political machine but autonomous sparks seeking for liberty and human rights in all sectors of life.

Bye bye social mobility

At the start of the next academic year, maintenance grants will be gone. And with this move, the last scrap of social mobility in the higher education system will be dead. In place of the grants will come loans, which students will be expected to pay oﬀ on top of their existing debt. As a result, the huge levels of debt which currently sit at around £40,000 per student – plus interest – will increase to a crippling £53,000.

What this means is that students will pay back more money for a longer time. For every pound over £21,000 that you earn each year – the income at which you start to pay oﬀ the debts – the government will take 15p in student loans repayments. This is almost as much as they take in income tax, and more than they take in national insurance contributions.

This £21,000 repayment threshold, unlike tuition fees, will not rise with inﬂation as it has now been frozen. This is barely a subsistence wage and probably a below subsistence wage should you have the audacity to live in London or have children. That one is expected to start paying such a high price at such a modest income is a disgrace.

What is particularly unjust about the system of debt is that the poor will pay more than the rich. While high earners will be able to repay their debts quickly and before interest builds up, lower earners will spend longer repaying their debts and therefore spend more on interest.

35 per cent of students say that they would not have been able to attend university without the maintenance grants. The extent to which the scrapping of the grants will have an eﬀect on access to education is diﬃcult to forecast but what is certain that those poor students who do choose to study after ﬁnishing school will be punished for it.

There is something particularly chilling about the process in which this was done being absent from the Tories’ election manifesto, they have no mandate to scrap the grants at all.

The ten MPs who did vote to scrap the grants have never had to face the levels of debt that they are forcing on students, nor will they ever have to. They are from the generation that beneﬁtted from both free education and government grants, and now they are kicking the ladder down from underneath their own feet.

The government says that it is not able to aﬀord the grants, yet each year it spends £85 billion on payouts to large businesses in the form of corporate welfare, loses £119 billion in tax evasion and will spend £167 billion on replacing the trident nuclear weapons system. By contrast, the grants cost £1.3 billion.

The scrapping of the grants therefore, like so many of the Tories’ cuts, is completely ideological. They are committed to cutting spending wherever they can, no matter the eﬀects on the poor. The party dominated by those notorious for trashing restaurants and burning £50 notes in front of the homeless during their time at university would probably like nothing more than to price out the poorer students and make universities every bit as elitist and exclusionist as the public schools that they attended themselves.

The Foreign Perspective: The danger of propaganda

One of the more entertaining items of news this week was the erecting of a giant golden statue of Chairman Mao in Tongxu county in rural China. The slightly excessive statue was erected to commemorate the former Chinese leader and the influence he had in propelling China towards modernisation. Yet it raises the issue of a new trend called ‘Mao worship’ which is currently gaining traction in China, and reveals the astonishing power decades of propaganda and indoctrination have had on China’s population.

The statue cost a small fortune to build, coming in at £312,000, and is located in Henan Province, an area which was one of the worst hit by famine during Mao’s efforts to rapidly industrialise China. There are no exact figures but tens of millions of people died during the “Great Leap Forward,” and so it seems natural to question how and why people are commemorating their former leader. Mao prioritised his own ideology and goals over the well-being of his people, and I find it hard to understand the motives behind remembering a man who killed more of his own people than anyone else in history.

The reality is, however, that Mao’s three decades in power have never been open to critical assessment by the Chinese population. The Communist Party of China has never revealed facts, such as the death toll resulting from Mao’s policies, as the government’s own legitimacy is based on Mao’s legacy and it relies on Mao’s image to maintain support.

It seems as if the lack of honest press in China, free from censorship and from global sources, has caused the majority of the Chinese public to be indoctrinated into maintaining a specific view of Chairman Mao. The cumulative effect of decades of censorship and propaganda forced down the throats of the Chinese public, allied with the current government’s legitimacy issues and the continued presence of Mao in Chinese society has resulted in the phenomenon of ‘Mao worship.’

the government’s own legitimacy is based on Mao’s legacy

Mao’s following is so extreme that in 2013, at celebrations to commemorate the 120^th anniversary of Mao’s birth, one individual was quoted as saying, “Mao is a god in the East.” This view of Mao and his role in people’s lives has led Xi Jinping, the current President of China, to say, “revolutionary leaders are not Gods, but human beings.” However, whilst downplaying Mao’s transcendent nature, the government only has itself to blame for allowing people’s views to escalate to this level. The suppression of freedom of thought and speech in China, especially in the media, denies the public the chance to learn the truth about Mao and the failures of some of his policies.

It is not just China which continues to suppress freedom of thought in the 21^st century; North Korea and Iran use the same policy, and it is most apparent in the Middle East in areas controlled by the terror group ISIS. These countries’ governments use propaganda to indoctrinate their populations into a specific way of thinking, suppressing freedom of thought and demanding loyalty to their cause. For example, in North Korea, televised audiences were seen uncontrollably weeping after Kim-Jong-Il’s death as the population knew there would be severe punishments for anyone who was not openly distraught.

When considering ISIS in particular, it is worrying how successful the terrorist organisation’s propaganda has been in recruiting new members, and especially its members devotion to their extremist ideology.

For example, there were reports of an ISIS member publicly executing his own mother this week because she had attempted to persuade him to leave the terror group. Examples like this, or the British man who executed five prisoners and threatened David Cameron force us to confront how such an extreme group has been able to effectively brainwash so many.

However, we cannot separate the propaganda used by the terrorist organisations from the impact the West’s actions have had. Killing innocent civilians in raids on Syrian towns and cities will only serve to incite hate against Western countries, potentially radicalising younger generations. This combined with well-publicised attitudes and remarks by individuals such as Donald Trump and Katie Hopkins fuel the extremist group’s rhetoric and provide it with all they need to gain the attention and following of vulnerable, impressionable young adults.

Living in a country where blatant propaganda has no real role means that we often forget about the power and impact it can have on individuals. We are fortunate to have freedom of speech in Britain, enabling us to criticise and nullify any effective attempts at propaganda, unlike in China or the Middle East. Contrast this with China’s sustained propaganda campaign during Chairman Mao’s rule, or ISIS’ use of propaganda in the Middle East where propaganda is a tool and a weapon. It is used to ensure people show their loyalty to an extreme ideology and dangerously makes such extremism the norm.

‘Beyond Carnism’ – An interview with Jeff Mannes

We’re all undoubtedly eager to meet someone we look up to, whether it’s out favourite journalist, actor, or author. In a nutshell, we all look up to public figures at some point in our life for inspiration or through mere gratitude. One of my most admired public speakers is Melanie Joy- a vegan advocate that describes our conditioning to eating meat as ‘carnism.’ Whilst going through a transitional phase of becoming a vegan myself, watching her TedX talk was the ultimate turning point. Having the opportunity to interview Jeff Mannes, the European coordinator of ‘Beyond Carnism’ -the organisation founded by Melanie Joy, was a delightful experience.

A relatively new term, Jeff explained that the concept of Carnism underlined the notion of“the invisible belief system that shapes our perception of the meat we eat.” It was made apparent that this ideology conditions us to eat animals, whilst it simultaneously maintains itself through certain defence mechanisms, a self-justification matrix, if you will.

Specific means of justification are reflected onto society as we’re made to think that “eating animals is normal, natural and necessary.” There were strong suggestions that we’re all trapped inside the concept of Carnism, because it’s a system that we’re born into, and thus it becomes internalised and entrenched within our culture and society.

Jeff further elaborated that Carnism is the sub-ideology of “speciesism, that puts some animals below humans, and allows us to exploit them for their resources”, whether it’s through the meat and dairy process, our cloths, furniture, or various forms of animal testing and experimentation. Carnism doesn’t only put humans on top of other animals in the hierarchy of importance, but it even prioritises certain animals as ‘pets’ whilst others are disregarded as ‘meat,’ ‘fur’ or ‘leather.’ These perceived conventions are exactly what carnism aims to dissolve.

it even prioritises certain animals as ‘pets’ whilst others are disregarded as ‘meat,’ ‘fur’ or ‘leather.’

Kicking off my interview with Jeff, we spoke about the experiences that served as his turning point towards becoming a vegan. It was made apparent that going to a sanctuary in north Germany had visually exposed him to the exploitation that animals are subjected to. Jeff drew fundamental links to his childhood. He grew up in a hunting family where he cared deeply for the hunting dogs that accompanied him on those brutal family outings. Realising that we’re taught to love some animals whilst happily eat others, and breaking away from these false boundaries is what allowed Jeff to empathise with all animals on the basis of their existence. Drawing from this, it becomes evident how the system shapes us to treat specific animals differently, which is a mould that ‘beyond Carnism’ seeks to inform us about in order to break away from it.

Whilst trying to get to the core of Jeff’s transitioning to a vegan diet, it was established that he was previously vegetarian, mainly due to health reasons. However, what brought about fundamental benefits was a transition to a vegan diet as he subsequently lost 13KG. Therefore, in relation to health benefits- I couldn’t help but ask Jeff about the longstanding ‘protein argument,’ since it’s a constant question that I find myself having to answer more often than not.

Elaborating on the apparent misconceptions concerning our health and fitness as vegans, Jeff gave examples of professional athletes who chose a vegan diet in order to enhance their performance through clean eating. He himself claimed to have “far more energy on a vegan diet over the past seven years”, and also finds it easier to get out of bed in the morning on those brisk winter days. – It’s a claim that I can easily relate to, evident even in the first couple months of my transition.

Moving on to the analysis of Carnism as an ideology within itself, it was described as a special kind of ideology- “a dominant ideology, which means it’s woven into the very structure of society, shaping norms, laws and behaviours.” It’s also a “violent ideology” as it encourages not only the slaughter of animals to obtain meat, but also the eggs and dairy industry, which harms animals physically and psychologically. Jeff’s interpretation of ideologies that consist of dominance and violence, are squandered into a defence mechanism. They are therefore used to “distort out thoughts” in an attempt to “numb our feelings to cause us to act against our values of compassion, authenticity and justice.”

Prior to my interview with Jeff, I researched ‘Beyond Carnism’ in more depth and discovered that Jeff had a particular interest in human-animal relationships, which became clearer when he linked human suffering to animal suffering. Compelling links were made between animal farming and the entrenched capitalist system that we live under, as it’s an industry that’s constantly funded by the institutions which we live under.

Comparing dominant and violent ideologies of the past (such as ones that normalised oppression on the basis of one’s race, class or sexual orientation) to Carnism, purified the notion of conditioning that ‘Beyond Carnism’ seeks to help us escape from. Jeff undoubtedly recognises how unique the experiences that each oppressive system encompasses; however, he highlights how psychologically connected these ideologies are on a structural level with regards to how our mentalities are being shaped.

Jeff was keen to elaborate on Carnism’s ideological influence, with regards to it being a dominant and violent ideology, and the power it has over our minds; by distinguished between primary and secondary defence mechanisms.

Which animal did this come from? Image: Wikimedia.org

“Primary defences are there to help maintain the system. These encompass denial, Justification, and distorted perceptions that are all concealed through invisibility. As a result, our trail of thought is moulded into seeing animals as abstractions, without a distinct personality.” A further perpetuation of this occurs when, as consumers, we don’t even see the animals we eat, as most of them come from factory farms and are then placed on supermarket shelves in a sugar coated platform that’s disguised from the suffering behind the items.

Secondary defence mechanisms are there against “those who criticise the status quo, for example vegans are given extremist / radical stereotypes.” Interestingly, this was paralleled with other social justice movements such as the gay liberation movement, the feminist movement, and the civil rights movement. Individual groups that sought to challenge social norms as opposed to conforming to them were stigmatised in the same way that vegans are nowadays.

Despite the long standing perception that most vegans go around trying to so-called ‘convert’ others around them, Jeff acknowledges this behaviour as one derived from one’s passion about animal justice and good will. When asked what the most effective way to spread veganism is, Jeff made a reference to our past: “Vegans should always remember that most of us weren’t born vegan, however we should nonetheless analyse our past with an aim of self-growth and improvement. What is important at beyond carnism is what direction people are moving in once the faults in the system are highlighted.”

we should nonetheless analyse our past with an aim of self-growth and improvement

“We shouldn’t seek to ‘turn people vegan’ or expect everyone to be persuaded.” During the interview, Jeff emphasised that we should always “allow people to make free choices, however the problem with Carnism is that it conceals information about the use of animals” for our everyday activities. Carnism is explained to be “contrary to our core human values, and once people realise that then they use the information given to them” in order to make more informed conscious choices. Jeff ended off our interview with a cliché, but nonetheless an effective quote by Gandhi: “be the change you want to see in the world.”

Through carnism, the meat and dairy industry is becoming more exposed, which thus welcomes with it an enlarged platform for discussion. As a result, we become more aware of our conditioning, by challenging the customs we’re subjected to. Whilst acknowledging that the most sustainable route to veganism is through compassion, we should also recognise the exploitation and oppression that animals suffer on our supposed superiority that is merely a perception filtered through our social status.

Throughout the interview, Jeff come across as inspiringly optimistic, especially when he admitted to veganism as being one of the fastest growing social justice movements. Hopefully this movement will continue, and help to lead us towards a greener, more caring world.