MASTHEAD
EDITOR IN CHIEF ANGELA SU EDITORIAL BOARD GLOBE
NATION
STATE
YOAN VIVAS-BARAJAS
CALEB BALDWIN
ITAMAR WAKSMAN
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER HYUN KANG DEVELOPMENT CHAIR MICAH LESCH
COPY CHIEF/ WEB EDITOR LEO BURKE COPY EDITORS DANIELLE TAYLOR GRACE WEILAND
CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC QUINTANAR
Cover design by Adrian Lopez. 2
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
MASTHEAD
STAFF WRITERS
STATE
INTERNATIONAL
NATIONAL
GRANT BONHAM
KIAN RAHIMNEJAD
LAUREN JOHNSTON
MALENA HANSEN
UPAMANYU LAHIRI
RAJITMEET SINGH
JACOB GANZ
ETHAN KHOE
SIERRA LEWANDOSKI
HUGO RIOS
ATANAS SPASOV
PETER MILLS
MILO KAHNEY
ISABELLA LORD MARCUS CHAN
ADRIAN LOPEZ
SETH BERTOLUCCI
RAJITMEET SINGH SERAPHIM SPARROW ADRIAN LOPEZ DAN DASKAL LULU ZHANG
Layout design by Angela Su. DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
3
CONTENTS | SPRING 2017
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW
6
In the Wake of Mosul: Iraq’s Bleak Future By Seth Bertolucci
11
North Korea: Peering Across the Yalu River By Itamar Waksman
16
Germany: An Outlier of Stability in Europe By Micah Lesch
19
After Brexit: The Taming of the EU By Jacob Ganz
23
The Flawed Resilience of the Electoral College By Sierra Lewandowski
26
Neil Gorsuch v.s. United States By Atanas Spasov
29
The End of Turkish Democracy By Upamanyu Lahiri
4
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
Davis Political Review is the first and only nonpartisan political commentary magazine on the campus of UC Davis. Our story begins with a simple question
weekly online articles and a quarterly printed
asked by Founder and Former Editor-in-
publication, writers of the Davis Political
Chief Alex E. Tavlian in October 2012: “Are
Review inform and educate students about
there any UCD Political Science majors
meaningful political issues they may not have
interested in starting a political commentary
paid attention to otherwise. While the
magazine?” The first editorial board was
editorial board of our publication remains
elected and the publication was formed on
nonpartisan, each writer is encouraged to
December 5, 2012. In late April, the Davis
take a distinct viewpoint in crafting opinion
Political Review launched its website and
pieces published daily online.
released its first print issue on the Davis campus.
After restructuring and condensing the makeup of the publication, the Davis
After a four-month rest period, the Davis
Political Review now consists of a 30-
Political Review was reestablished by
member team that is completely student-run.
previous Editor-in-Chief Kristine Craig, in
The dedicated writers, editors and board
January 2014. The baton was passed to
members of the Davis Political Review make
current Editor-in-Chief Angela Su in March
it possible to achieve our mission: engaging
2016.
students and members of the community in a constructive dialogue around complex
At a critical point in the Davis Political
political issues in a way it has never before.
Review’s history, our publication took on an entirely new approach to its capability to reach all students on campus. Through
Enjoy.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
5
IN THE WAKE OF MOSUL As ISIS nears defeat, a reflection on Iraq’s troubled past and bleak future.
BY SETH BERTOLUCCI
Western Mosul, Iraq May 29, 2017. (Reuters / Alkis Konstantinidis)
A
fter a long and devastating fight, immensely costly in both economic and humanitarian terms, Iraq is on the verge of finally dislodging the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). After being overrun by the terrorist organization in July 2014, the Iraqi government gradually fought ISIL city by city, driving the militants back to Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul. The Iraqi army, initially forced to flee Mosul in 2014, has now declared that its mission in 6
the city has finished, with ISIL now only controlling a few minor remaining pockets. Despite inevitable civilian casualties as the fight rages to a final finish, the Iraqi military will finish off the last remnants of the Islamic State in the city, and Mosul will soon be entirely liberated. The Islamic State no longer controls any major Iraqi cities as the battle moves into remote desert areas in the west of the country. Yet as Iraqis wrestle back control of their country from the
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
oppressive Islamic militants, all is not well. The nation we know as Iraq is a fractious state consisting of different ethnic and religious groups that hardly get along. There are three particularly large and powerful ones: the Sunni Muslim Kurds in the northeast, the Shia Muslim Arabs in the south and Sunni Muslim Arabs in the northwest. Iraq’s troubled modern history derives from the conflicts between these three groups, and it is up to both the government of Iraq and
international community to develop a political solution that can ensure some semblance of stability as the country rebuilds. Iraq was not always such a war-torn nation. It lies in Mesopotamia, the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which birthed some of the first advanced agricultural civilizations thousands of years ago. The modern day capital of Iraq, Baghdad, was founded as the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate in 762, and was one of the largest and most advanced cities on earth for centuries onward, positioning itself as a center of science, culture, philosophy and religious learning at the heart of the Islamic world. After being sacked by the invading Mongols in 1258, Iraq fell under the control of various empires, eventually falling under the thumb of the Ottoman Empire in 1639. As the Ottoman Empire began to crumble in the early 20th century, with World
War I marking the empire’s final demise, prior Ottoman holdings were carved up between Britain and France with the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. The British went on to receive “the Mandate of Iraq,” which effectively defined the boundaries of modern Iraq largely on the basis of British and French oil interests. The irony, of course, is that the Mandate of Iraq included a myriad of groups in its boundaries, including Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs. Lacking a clear dominant ethnic or religious group, the British unwisely appointed the Sunni House of Hashim as the monarchy of the new nation. Since the majority (65 percent) of Iraq is Shia Muslim, ethnic minorities immediately revolted. The troubles between Sunni and Shia Arabs and between Kurds and Arabs of both Islamic sects continued after the downfall of the monarchy in
A helicopter fires in western Mosul. (Reuters / Alkis Konstantinidis)
1958.
After several years of political instability, the Ba’athist political party began to consolidate power. The Ba’athists believed in “Pan-Arab nationalism,” meaning that, at least in theory, they were inclusive of all Arab people irrespective of religion. By the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein had risen through the ranks of the Ba’athists to become the de facto leader of Iraq. In 1979, he officially became president of Iraq. Saddam’s Ba’athist reign was marked by massive economic development but also egregious human rights abuses. After the 1979 Iranian Revolution that transformed Iraq’s neighbor into a Shia Muslim theocracy, Saddam (a Sunni) began brutally oppressing Iraq’s own Shia population, many of whom were sympathetic to Iran’s theocratic model. The Ba’athists began to increasingly rely on Sunni Arabs as their base of support within the country while alienating the Shia Arabs. Saddam also committed atrocities against the Kurdish population, which had an interest in independence or at least political autonomy from Baghdad. After a long fought battle against the Iraqi army, the Kurdish “Peshmerga Forces”, a militia partially funded by the CIA to undermine Saddam’s closeness to the Soviet Union, were successful in mostly driving out Saddam’s regime from Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991. The American invasion in 2003 was arguably the most destabilizing event in modern Iraqi history. As Saddam’s Ba’athist regime crumbled apart, sectarian
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
7
warfare broke out. The United States had to battle both Shia and Sunni uprisings against American rule, while both groups increasingly continued to fight each other. Radical Sunni militants attacked Shiite populations, often using terrorist tactics such as car bombs; and Shiite militias attacked and killed Sunnis indiscriminately out of revenge. The cycle of violence unleashed by the American toppling of Saddam devastated relations between the Sunni and Shia. Meanwhile, the Kurds began to gain significant autonomy in the north of the country, as they gained their own Kurdish autonomous region enshrined in Iraq’s 2003 constitution. Gradually, as the country partially stabilized after a surge of American troops in 2007, the Shia Arab majority, led by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, began to dominate the government of the country, relying on Shia militias as a base for political and military support. Needless to say, an alienated Sunni minority grew agitated. Once President Barack Obama pulled out the vast majority of remaining American troops in 2010, sectarian strife only worsened as frequent terrorist attacks rocked the country’s major cities. As the Syrian Civil War worsened through 2011 and 2012, a variety of increasingly radicalized Sunni militant groups crept upon Iraq’s western border. Once ISIL consolidated power in eastern Syria, it preyed on a dissatisfied and disillusioned Sunni population in the northwest of 8
Civilians in Western Mosul. (Reuters / Alkis Konstantinidis)
Iraq. Its message of an exclusively Sunni “Islamic State” held great appeal to Sunni tribes, many of whom initially supported the terrorist group as it entered the country in 2014. In July 2014, ISIL shocked the world by taking control of Mosul and its oil-rich peripheries. This brings us to today. After countless atrocities against Shias, Yazidis and Assyrian Christians, ISIL is finally on its deathbed in Iraq. Both the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga Forces have made significant gains against the militants, albeit with the help of American airpower. But defeating ISIL is not the only battle; Iraq as a nation is ruptured across ethnic and religious lines. A Shia majority still holds significant sway in Baghdad, and Iranian-financed Shia militias have a commanding influence in the south of the country. Sunni tribes, some still sympathetic to ISIL, will hesitate to
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
return to the Iraqi state where they feel they lack full and equal rights. As the Kurds have made massive military gains against ISIL through their Peshmerga Forces, there is little doubt that the Kurdish north will maintain near total autonomy from Baghdad. Devastated minority populations in northern Iraq, such as the Yazidis and Assyrian Christians, must search for some way to rebuild their communities free of abuse from Iraq’s Sunni population. This politically fragile situation will likely prove unsustainable. It is a matter of time before the Kurds demand full independence. Atrocities against the Shia population by ISIL, and against the Sunnis by Shia militants, have obliterated trust and understanding between the two religious sects. As the Syrian Civil War continues to rage, Iraq remains hugely vulnerable to invasions from its western border. And as ISIL forced millions of Shia to
flee to the safety of Iraq’s south, the country is more geographically divided along religious and ethnic lines than ever before. Over the past century, governments, whether Shia or Sunni, democratic or authoritarian, theocratic or secular, have all failed to create any lasting peace in Iraq. With the country now divided more than ever, where do things go from here? Iraq could break itself up into three separate states: Shia Arab in the south, Sunni Arab in the northwest and Kurdish in the northeast. But this solution is almost completely impossible in practice. Despite the fact that Shias, Sunnis and Kurds live in separate areas, there are still areas of the country that remain ethnically heterogenous, such as Baghdad, where Shias and Sunnis live side by side. Figuring out how to draw the lines between three separate states would be nearly hopeless, and would likely cause war if any of the newly created countries felt their boundaries had been drawn unfairly. More important than where Iraq’s ethnic groups live is where Iraq’s massive oil supplies lie. Although largely all three newly formed states would have significant oil fields, there would undeniably be conflict over who gets what, especially in ethnically and religiously mixed areas like Baghdad. Arab Iraq could attempt to remain a unified state, better incorporating both Shias and Sunnis into its government, as the Kurds gain full independence in the north. This is what was supposed to happen after the
American invasion in 2003. Yet, time and again, Shia governments have abused Sunnis and Sunni governments have abused Shias. Neither side has a reputable track record of social cooperation and inclusion. And with Shia-Sunni relations as bad as ever, there is little hope of Iraq becoming a functional democracy willing to embrace its own diversity. Further, an independent Iraqi Kurdistan is nearly impossible because of huge Kurdish populations in neighboring Iran, Syria and Turkey. Turkey especially, with its large, discontented and marginalized Kurdish population, will oppose any independent Kurdish state located so close to the Turkish border. And Turkey’s NATO membership gives it huge sway in determining regional policy. The most likely scenario is that not much will change at all, as Iraq continues to drift in political limbo, waiting for the next sectarian war to break every-
thing apart again. Once ISIS is fully driven out, talk of Sunniinclusion by the Shia-dominated government will likely end, and the Shia will use their majority to continue to dominate Iraq’s institutions. Inevitably, this will lead to further Sunni discontent, and the prospect of civil war will loom large. Kurds in the north, likely to be denied full stateship by Turkey, Iran and Syria, will continue to increase their political autonomy as they rule Iraqi Kurdistan from the city of Irbil, an independent nation in everything but name. Despite its rich and beautiful history, the modern state of Iraq is a Frankenstein-like creation of the British plagued by ethnic and religious conflict. It faces greater challenges than ever before. One thing is certain: its rebuilding will remain long and painful. With Iraq’s past and present so troubled, its future remains tragically bleak. ■
A member of the Iraqi forces rests. (Reuters / Alkis Konstantinidis) DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
9
With upwards of 500 views per day, advertising with DPR is a fantastic way to reach UC Davis students and community members. (See page 15 for details)
10
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
CONTACT DPR’s Development Chair Micah Lesch at DPRMAGUCD@GMAIL.COM for further information.
NORTH KOREA
PEERING ACROSS THE YALU RIVER BY ITAMAR WAKSMAN
(KCNA / Agence France-Presse / Getty Images)
T
hough it was originally one of the most miniscule facets of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, the imminent threat stemming from a nuclear-armed North Korea has forced the confrontation on the Korean Peninsula to the forefront of international attention. After North Korea conducted two nuclear tests last year and tested new ballistic missile technology on May 13, it has become apparent to U.S. pol-
icymakers that the status quo on the Korean Peninsula will not maintain itself much longer. Action must be taken to ensure that the North Korean regime does not obtain the nuclear capabilities or advanced missile technology to strike the U.S. or its allies in the region. Calls for a fresh round of sanctions have begun, starting with China’s banning of all coal imports from North Korea in February. However, the Obama administration’s nuclear
deal with Iran demonstrated that sanctions are not sufficient to stop a nation seeking nuclear weapons for the sake of strategic self-preservation. To prevent direct confrontation and the risk of completely destabilizing the region, the United States and its allies will have to offer something substantial to the North Korean regime. Any concession large enough to entice North Korea may be politically impossible and domestically unpopular, making a
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
11
deal between the North Koreans and the United States and its allies highly unlikely. Only Chinese participation in negotiations, which has far more leverage over the North Korean regime than the United States, can ensure a stable solution that improves the security and wellbeing of all parties involved. If there is any actor that can force the Kim regime to bend the knee, it is China. China accounts for 80 percent of North Korea’s trade, importing coal, minerals and other manufactured goods from the poverty-stricken nation. China’s border with North Korea offers the nation its only link to the outside world. Without this trade and the constant stream of foreign currency it brings, the Kim regime would be unable to grant its elites their current life of opulence and pay for the country’s nuclear program, which includes buying equipment and hiring scientists. Additionally, North Korean trade has doubled since 2000, an era that also marks the rapid development of the state’s nuclear ambitions. Apart from economic support through trade, China also acts as North Korea’s most important diplomatic ally, advocating for the “hermit kingdom” in the U.N. Security Council and guaranteeing its protection from U.S. aggression. In 1951, during the Korean War, the Chinese invaded the Korean Peninsula in response to U.S. General Douglas MacArthur marching his army up to the Yalu River, which separates North Korea and China. This invasion pushed the U.S.-led 12
army back to the 38th parallel and secured the existence of the modern North Korean state. If institutional memory serves right, a direct U.S. or South Korean attack on North Korea will likely result in a confrontation with the Chinese military.
(KRT / AP Video)
The question that continues to arise in the minds of people around the globe, including U.S. policymakers, is why does China continue to support such an authoritarian and unstable regime? The answer lies in China’s strategic interests and geopolitical situation. There are two main reasons China continues its tepid support of the North Korean regime: a fear of instability on its border and the threat of opposition forces having access to China’s heartland. The Chinese support the Kim regime, despite its unpredictability, and they share an irregular relationship to prevent anarchy in North Korea. In the event that a strike destroys North Korea’s nuclear facilities or that Kim Jong-un, the nation’s leader, is incapacitated, North Korea may descend into a state of anarchy as various North Korean elites vie for political power and citizens escape an army they have been convinced
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
seeks their annihilation. If North Korea falling into disarray will create a cheap source of weaponry for various paramilitary organizations around the world, including rebel groups in Xinjiang and Tibet which directly threaten China’s internal security. Additionally, the Chinese fear a massive influx of North Korean refugees seeking to escape poverty, destitution and instability within their borders. With the collapse of the North Korean state, there will be little to prevent millions of individuals from crossing the Yalu River in search of a better life in China. China, facing a future of increasingly slow growth, does not believe it has the resources to assist these refugees, who will be unprepared for life in the modern world. The three Chinese provinces bordering North Korea constitute China’s “rust belt,” a region that grew rapidly in the early communist era due to heavy investment by state-owned firms. However, the region has faced continuous economic decline since China’s economic liberalization program gutted many inefficient state-owned enterprises in the 1990s. Today the region is dotted with abandoned factories and apartment blocks, with millions of its residents forced to migrate south in search of opportunity. In the case of a massive influx of North Korean refugees, China would have to absorb millions of people in a region that is already experiencing hardship. The stability of the Chinese Communist Party stems from the great economic gains the Chinese people have made
over the last three decades. An increase in economic hardship in northeastern China will beget questioning from the Chinese populace, directly challenging the legitimacy of the Communist Party and its decades of authoritarian rule. Instability in North Korea presents a clear danger to China’s elites, leading to their implicit and explicit support of the Kim regime. With this in mind, it can seem puzzling that Chinese policymakers do not support Korean reunification as the best option to maintain stability and solve the international situation created by North Korea’s efforts to develop nuclear strike capabilities. However, China also sees a U.S. or U.S. ally’s presence on their border as strategically unacceptable. It has been well documented that General MacArthur requested permission to cross the Yalu River and invade China as his forces approached the border in 1951. Although U.S. leaders rejected MacArthur’s request, the Chinese understand that having a U.S. military presence on their border is a clear and present danger to their national security. The city of Dandong, which lies on the Yalu River and acts as the main port of entry to and from North Korea, is less than 1,000 kilometers from Beijing. If the U.S. is able to place a sizable force on the Yalu River, they could easily threaten the Chinese heartland, substantially increasing its leverage over China. This security concern is especially important in the modern age, as China sees itself on a path of reclaiming the power and
regional primacy it believes to be its right. However, China cannot continue to expand its regional and international power if its core territory is not absolutely secure. The idea that the United States could have a direct route to attack the Chinese capital fundamentally alters China’s future plans and geopolitical strategy. A U.S. military presence on the Chinese border directly threatens China’s ambitions and what it views to be its fundamentally proper place on the international stage. China’s difficult situation in relation to North Korea is the root cause of the status quo. Nevertheless, the meeting between President Trump and President Xi Jinping in March led to an understanding that something must change. The question is: how do policymakers create change that is acceptable to all parties involved? The first option is a return to talks. North Korea pulled out of the six-party talks in 2009 and immediately began to aggressively pursue nuclear capabilities. China must first use sanctions to bring the North Koreans to the table. With the election of Moon Jae-in, a leftist, prodialogue politician, as South Korea’s new president, the South Korean side should be energized and encouraged to open a new dialogue with their Northern counterparts. But even new talks may not be enough to come to an acceptable solution. The North Koreans seem to wholeheartedly want nuclear capabilities for the purpose of deterrence, and no combination of
aid, improved diplomatic relationships or increased economic activity is sufficient to entice them to abandon their nuclear program. Additionally, when taking into account that the Trump administration plans on drastically cutting funding for the State Department and has yet to select and confirm ambassadors to China, South Korea and Japan, the prospect of a comprehensive diplomatic solution seems grim. It may be time for the United States, its allies and China to discuss alternatives to diplomacy. While a direct military strike against North Korea’s nuclear facilities will likely result in conflict, creative ideas will be essential to finding a lasting solution. A normally unpalatable solution may be the answer to these international concerns. North Korea’s missile tests are advancing their technology at a pace that will soon allow them to strike Japan with a nuclear warhead. The only one ideal scenario today is one that prevents war between China and the United States while removing the unstable Kim regime. It is no secret that the Chinese have deep connections within the North Korean elites. Being the North’s most important trade and military partner, only the Chinese interact with bureaucrats and military officers on a daily basis and have a realistic idea of the political landscape within North Korea. In coordination with the United States and its allies, the Chinese can use their connections within the North Korean elites to support a coup against Kim Jong-un and
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
13
replace his absolute leadership with a one-party state similar to China, Vietnam and Laos. This scenario may seem impossible with the grip Kim Jong-un has on power, but clearly the current political elites of the North continue to support Kim because it is beneficial and provides them with a high quality of life. These elites have seen the wealth of their authoritarian neighbors like Vietnam and China, who chose to join the international community through trade. The example of these countries and their now incredibly affluent elites can entice North Korea’s powered interests into thinking outside the box. With enough pressure and support, these same elites can be convinced to build a one-party communist state to create a true governing party based on consensus. China will aid the new North Korean leadership in the various reforms the country will need, including restructuring
their economy to mimic the pseudo-liberal system that has brought massive success to China and Vietnam over the past three decades. The United States, its allies and China can also assemble billions of dollars of aid to assist in implementing these reforms, including paying for massive infrastructure projects, housing and educational expansion. Finally, the interested parties can work to have North Korea admitted to the World Trade Organization, opening North Korea to international trade for the first time in its modern history. This scenario leaves North Korea as a Chinese buffer state while removing the unpredictability and instability stemming from the Kim regime and its nuclear ambitions. The United States should have no input over the new North Korean regime because it has no leverage in the current situation, but should accept any outcome because it is sure to be an improve-
(Agence France-Presse / Getty Images) 14
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
ment over the status quo. This solution answers the security concerns of China, the U.S. and its regional allies while also leaving the North Koreans satisfied by decreasing tensions and providing them billions of dollars in aid and investment. Deposing Kim through supporting China is not the only option. Whatever actions may be taken will have to begin with a more comprehensive dialogue between the United States and China. The Trump administration must reconsider its prospective 30 percent cut to the State Department’s budget in order to have the resources available to begin working with China toward finding a solution. It is important to keep in mind that regime change is messy, unpredictable and illegal according to international law. Nonetheless, North Korea’s rapid technological advancement has reached a point where U.S. and Chinese leaders need to take all options into account. The United States will have to understand that China holds the leverage and connections required to change the status quo. While the United States always wants to lead international crises, it has no choice but to support China if it hopes for a lasting peace. ■
PRINT ADVERTISING
WEB ADVERTISING
Single Issue Advertisement:
Box ad (250 pixels x 250 pixels):
•
Quarter-page: $25
•
2 weeks: $50
•
Half-page: $45
•
1 month: $85
•
Full-page: $65
•
3 months: $250
Multi-Issue Advertisement: •
Quarter-page: $45
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
15
GERMANY
AN OUTLIER OF STABILITY IN EUROPE BY MICAH LESCH
(Financial Times)
O
n Sunday, May 14, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) – the center-right sect of Germany’s Bundestag (parliament) and party of current Chancellor, Angela Merkel – won a sweeping victory in the most populous German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, a traditionally liberal-leaning district and homeland to Merkel’s closest competitor, Martin Schulz, former president of the European Parliament and leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Home to 18 million peo16
ple – one in five German voters – North Rhine-Westphalia is often cited in the German political sphere as a harbinger for the national election, which will take place in Germany on Sept. 24 and was the third in a series of victories of Merkel’s CDU over the Social Democrats and other competing parties. Although nothing about the CDU’s victories at the state level is particularly shocking on the surface, considering the party’s long-standing majority in the Bundestag (309 out of 598 seats) and that Merkel is now pursuing
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
her fourth term in office, the election environment in Germany is a unique outlier in the series of federal elections in Europe. Many of these elections have been dominated by the rising influence and increased media presence of right-wing populist, nationalist and, in some cases, neofascist parties, while the German election has not. However, it makes sense that these parties – which have slowly traveled from the fringe of the European political spectrum to garnering support in the wake of a migrant crisis, rising trends
of economic inequality and a growing disillusionment with the European Union (EU) – would not gain significant traction in Germany considering the country’s historically catastrophic consequences of populism and nationalism in government. Indeed, the history of the Nazi regime’s seizure of power after Adolf Hitler's appointment to the chancellorship in the mid-1930s – which was, in part, due to the bottomup support of the disillusioned and disaffected German populace – has created a political culture in which overt nationalism and claims to being the “people’s party” or advocating on behalf of the “silent majority” are taboo in elections. It is often these taboos which motivate pundits to classify the German national elections as dull. However, when one steps back to analyze how German politics have progressed since the end of World War II, it is not difficult to see that, in less than a century and through a series of political roadblocks, Germany has become one of the most powerful and sustainable democracies in a relatively short period of time. How then, on a continent where many countries have endured political turmoil in the wake of economic and immigration-related crises, has Germany remained so stable? In essence, it was the unspoken codification of this taboo culture that arose after World War II that has arguably allowed Germany to enjoy primarily consensus-driven politics, quell the trend of right-wing populism and become a model for
other democratic nations around the globe. In other words, the trends of instability and the rising influence of fringe, alt-right parties in Europe are patterns which have not significantly breached Germany’s political climate, and likely never will, due in large part to the country’s history, reconciliatory culture and the status quo framework in the Bundestag that this culture has precipitated. For example, Chancellor Merkel’s decision in 2015 to officially grant asylum to one million refugees from war-torn regions in the Middle East (particularly Syria), Asia and Africa – a decision which likely would have been met in the United States or other European countries that bolster powerful conservative factions in government with significant protest – ultimately received little backlash. The principal reason for this is that Merkel’s government has been highly successful in remediating the effects of the global financial and Eurozone crisis – an economic catastrophe that began in 2013 when many of Germany’s partner countries in the EU, including Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus were forced to rely on third-party banks to bail out and refinance their governments. Reliance on these banks created high rates of unemployment, stifled trends of economic growth and fostered a widespread disillusionment with the Euro currency. This, in combination with the rise in asylum seekers in Europe, led to the rise of the fringe: anti-EU populist parties. Germany has been suc-
cessful in staving off the economic and political effects of this disaster because, according to Douglas Webber, a political science professor at the European Institute of Business Administration, of “comprehensive reforms to labor market laws and social welfare legislation” combined with the non-reactionary culture surrounding the country’s politics. The Eurozone crisis was met in France and the United Kingdom with extreme uncertainty, and even a withdrawal from the EU, motivated by the outcry of anti-Euro parties. In contrast, Germany’s political culture has allowed members of established parties and their constituencies to maintain their faith in the EU and not succumb to the fringegroup ideologies which threaten destabilization from Germany’s membership. It is true that the two most significant political decisions by Germany’s government in the past five years – the resolution to provide financial support for bailed-out EU countries and the installation of open-door immigration policies – have motivated the formation of a German nationalist, anti-EU party, the “ A lte rn a tive fo r Ge rm a ny” [Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)]. However, since these decisions were put into action, the German economy has not wavered significantly, giving little ammunition for such parties to criticize Merkel’s government. This forced them to shift ideologically toward more racially justified policies, including rejecting Islam and advocating for reduced
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
17
focus on the Holocaust in German education – extreme policies that have not garnered significant support in light of the country’s history and modern antinationalist culture. This culture has also arguably motivated a national feeling of status quo among German citizens who prefer, as one can see by Chancellor Merkel’s party’s vote share (42 percent in the 2013 election), the wide-ranging policy platforms of the CDU to anything more drastic. Merkel reinforced the status quo during the Eurozone crisis, following the implementation of her immigration policies and her goal to phase-out nuclear power from Germany's energy sources. The latter followed from the earthquake and subsequent mass leakage of radiation from four nuclear power plants at Fukushima – an issue that likely would have al-
lowed the German green party, known as the "Alliance 90" or "The Greens," to increase their popularity and implement a shift in Bundestag seats. In a time of political paralysis in many European countries, Germany remains a beacon for democracies trying to prevent the harmful effects of populism and anti-globalist ideologies. In pointing out the ways in which Germany is an outlier in modern Europe and outlining the positive reasons why, I am by no means denying the issues that the country – much like any other – has. This status quo ideal that Merkel’s government has played into since it gained the majority in 2005 has not always resulted in beneficial policies, as we observed when Merkel, in an attempt to appeal to citizens on the far right, advocated for banning full-face veils in Germany. These
Chancellor Angela Merkel (Thilo Schmuelgen / Reuters)
18
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
and other policies Merkel’s government put into practice were established to appease the farright sect of their supporters and indicate the occasionally harmful polarization in the Bundestag. Despite the German government needing to appeal to both sides of its constituency to maintain the status quo that the nation has enjoyed for much of the 21st century, the country’s culture and political system, as shaped by its history, have staved off the impending instability that defines European politics today and remains an example for other democracies. A country whose culture was once defined by widespread anti-Semitic and xenophobic ideologies, fear, dictatorship and destruction, has become, in less than a century, the model for politics, government and society in the Western world. ■
AFTER BREXIT
THE TAMING OF THE EU BY JACOB GANZ
Theresa May at a rally in Twickenham. (PA)
O
n June 23, 2016, Theresa May was the home secretary of the United Kingdom. Her career seemed to have stalled on its upward trajectory, which used to seem destined for becoming prime minister. The next day, however, everything changed. The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union and, in doing so, repudiated the leadership of Prime Minister David Cameron. May seized the spotlight and
emerged as the next prime minister of the United Kingdom. The results of the Brexit (British exit) referendum sent the United Kingdom’s politics into chaos, leading to a quickly shifting political landscape that has rocked the United Kingdom for the past year. Monumental change has been crashing onto the shores of the British Isles, and it seems that the upcoming elections in early June will be the culmination of these events.
Since Britain joined the European Union, there have been loud voices arguing that it should remain separate from continental Europe. This pressure has been consistently building over the years, especially among far right circles, and finally forced Prime Minister David Cameron’s hand. In 2013, he announced that if the Conservatives won the election in 2015, they would host an European Union Referendum before 2017.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
19
Cameron’s announcement was deemed a shrewd political move – it secured his right flank with the promise of referendum while not sacrificing anything politically, because experts were confident that the Brexit campaign would fail. The results of the referendum shocked the world. Over 51 percent of the electorate voted to leave the European Union, while 48 percent voted to stay. The ramifications of the referendum were immediate and farreaching. David Cameron, who had forcefully argued to remain in the European Union, resigned as prime minister, resulting in a tumultuous fight to replace him. May, who had advocated to remain, emerged from the crowded field as the last woman standing. The other main contenders for the positions, such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, took themselves out with backstabbing and palace intrigue that tarnished each of their reputations. May stayed above the fray and remained unscathed as she became Prime Minister. After May became prime minister on July 13, she immediately set about making the government her own by dismissing members of Cameron’s cabinet. She also affirmed her strong ties to the people by fighting for the best possible Brexit deal. May has governed efficiently and effectively thus far, which is reflected in her strong poll numbers. Her leadership appears to have calmed the United Kingdom over the past year. The calm was short -lived, however, when on April 20
18, Prime Minister May called for new general elections on June 8, 2017. Because May had repeatedly stressed her desire to serve her full term as prime minister until 2020, her announcement came as a surprise. May’s reversal came as the negotiations for the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union were about to begin. By calling for new elections, she is hoping to gain a larger majority for the Conservative Party in the House of Commons, thus ensuring stronger bargaining positions on Brexit. However, this decision has placed the United Kingdom back into political turmoil, and many other parties who have seen their fortunes fluctuate over the last year are seeking to take advantage of the volatility of British politics and gain seats in the House of Commons. Because May’s Conserva-
tive Party holds the most seats in the House of Commons, they are expected to build on their lead by gaining seats in the upcoming June elections since they are seen as the party who can successfully manage Brexit. With these elections, the party is hoping to gain a significant number of seats to consolidate their grip on United Kingdom politics and obtain a more confident bargaining position with the European Union. The latest polls have the Conservatives with 49 percent of the vote, which would give them the majority that they seek in the House of Commons. The Conservatives’ main opponents are the Labour party, which has struggled with an identity crisis since its 2015 general elections defeat. They had high hopes that their candidate, Ed Miliband, would become prime minister, but he proved to be less popular than expected. After the
Ian Lavery with Jeremy Corbyn. (EMPICS Entertainment)
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
electoral loss, Miliband resigned and the race to find his replacement began. Eventually, Jeremy Corbyn stunned party insiders by emerging as the new party leader. Corbyn comes from the extreme far-left of the Labour party and his stances have pushed many centrists away. During the 2016 referendum, the Labour party was officially opposed to Brexit, but Corbyn was criticized for providing lukewarm support for the Remain campaign. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, other Labour leaders seized the opportunity to try to oust Corbyn. These efforts failed, however, and Corbyn remains the Labour’s leader heading into the 2017 general elections. This failure does not bode well for their chances at the ballot box, where they are currently polling at only 31 percent, almost the exact percentage they received in 2015 with Ed Miliband. Labour has yet to take advantage of the instability in British politics since the referendum, and if they fail to gain more seats, they could fall even farther into the political abyss. The third-largest party in the United Kingdom today is the Liberal Democrats (Lib-Dems), a center-left-leaning party who strongly supports free markets and remaining in the European Union. They had been gaining in popularity since 2010 when they managed to win over 20 percent of the vote in that year’s election. However, their support vanished after they agreed to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party, which many voters saw as a betrayal of principles. Since then,
Nicola Sturgeon. (The Independent)
the Lib-Dems have struggled to remain relevant and were defeated in the 2015 general elections. The current Lib-Dem leader, Tim Farron, seeks to capitalize on the lack of a strong anti-Brexit voice amongst the other parties and regain the standing that the LibDems held before 2010. However, the numbers show that they have yet to gain significant traction, as they continue to poll around only 10 percent. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) was one of the main driving forces behind the Brexit campaign. They are a far-right party whose main goal was to get the UK out of the European Union and curb immigration. They were led by Nigel Farage, a bombastic rightwing provocateur who played a key role in advocating for the Leave campaign. However, even Farage and UKIP were not immune to the chaos of British pol-
itics over the past year. Only a week after the results of the referendum, Farage resigned as leader of UKIP. Since then, UKIP has struggled to find an issue to inspire voters and has suffered the political consequences, collapsing in recent elections to the point of irrelevancy. The 2016 Brexit vote was not the only recent referendum that shook the nation. In 2014, Scotland also held a referendum to determine whether to remain in the United Kingdom. The voters decided to remain by over 10 percent points, but the sense of Scottish nationalism did not dissipate. During the 2016 Brexit Referendum, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. This disparity with the rest of the UK led the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, to argue for Scotland’s
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
21
the United Kingdom down a new and uncertain path toward independence and separation from Europe. This separation could be the demise of the United Kingdom as a powerhouse, as the loss of their economic power could result in a break into multiple countries; or it could be a step toward a more powerful and independent United Kingdom, away from the hold of continental Europe. The uncertainty that hovers over the United Kingdom is palpable and the upcoming general elections will finally determine which direction the nation will go after a year of chaos. ■
Tim Farron. (Getty Images)
independence. Sturgeon is a force to be reckoned with: as the leader of the SNP, she controls the third-most seats in the House of Commons. If the Conservative Party emerges with a majority in the elections, it is likely that Sturgeon will call for a new referendum to allow Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. However, recent polls have shown the SNP is on track to lose eight seats from its current total, which would hurt their calls for independence. As the United Kingdom careens toward their general elections on June 8, the world watches with nervous anticipation. In the United States, President Trump has been a proponent of Brexit since last summer. In late January, Trump told May that “Brexit is going to be a wonderful thing for your country.” He has also reaffirmed that regardless of the outcomes of Brexit, the United States and the United Kingdom will retain their rela22
tionship. The leaders of the European Union are also waiting with bated breath for the results of the elections. If May strengthens her hand with a big electoral victory, it will make the negotiations more difficult. The European Union prefers that the United Kingdom remains, but wants May to be in a weaker bargaining position should the United Kingdom decide to leave. The chaos in the United Kingdom over the past year has made its way onto continental Europe, and the results of these elections could have significant ramifications on the politics of many European countries. The June 8 general elections will have a massive effect on the world. If May and the Conservative Party retain control of the government, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. This tumultuous year will come to a close and a new chapter will begin, one that will lead
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
THE FLAWED RESILIENCE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE An outdated tradition which misrepresents the will of the people.
BY SIERRA LEWANDOWSKI
(Mark Makela / Getty News / Getty Images)
S
hock filled the hearts of many American voters and political analysts on Nov. 9, 2016. Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, won the presidency of the United States while losing to Hillary Clinton by nearly 2.9 million votes. What? How is this possible? If you answered “the Electoral College” then you, my friend, took an American government class. Before just accepting this answer and moving forward, it is important to understand the intricate rules and workings of
this rare electoral system. The Electoral College in the United States operates by rule of first-past-the-post, meaning any candidate winning 50 percent plus one vote in a given state wins all of that state’s electoral votes. Because of this rule, the margin of a candidate’s popular vote win does not matter. While Hillary Clinton received 61.6 percent of the popular vote in the state of California, a striking number for a single candidate, her electoral vote share was the same as if she had won 51 per-
cent of the vote share. All she needed to win was the majority of the votes, 50 percent plus one, to earn all 55 of California’s Electoral College votes. Many criticize that this facet of the system results in “wasted votes,” or votes that are not accounted for after the 51 percent of the total vote share has been reached. The “electoral votes” are separated by state and represent actual electors, or people that make up the Electoral College and directly cast their vote for the president and vice president.
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
23
The number of electoral votes is based on the number of representatives in the House of Representatives and Senate for a given state. Each political party comprises a list, or “slate,” of electors to represent their party within a state when an election occurs. Once the candidate of a given party wins the most votes in a state, those electors cast their direct vote for the president and vice president. While there are no formal constitutional rules that bind an elector to vote for the candidate who wins the majority in their state, as most are aligned with a given party, they generally vote for the candidate their state selects. Okay, but how did the Electoral College system lead to Donald Trump winning the election without winning the majority support of the people? In Pennsylvania, for example, Trump won 48.6 percent of the popular vote, compared to Clinton’s 47.9 percent, accounting for a margin of approximately 44,000 votes. However, despite the narrowness of this margin, Trump earned all 21 electoral votes because of the first-past-the-post rule and thus “winner take all.” The goal of presidential candidates in the United States is to win by just enough in each state to win the majority, by the slimmest margin possible, to ensure they earn all of the electoral votes without wasting resources on votes that will push them over the 51 percent threshold. This system not only puts significant emphasis on swing states, where the electoral votes are always close and unpre24
dictable, but also disproportionately places importance on swing state individuals’ votes. California’s 55 electoral votes represent nearly 38.4 million people. Wyoming, on the other hand, gets three electoral votes. While this may seem like significantly less, the population of Wyoming in 2016 was approximately 589,000 people. This means that individuals in Wyoming have roughly 3.5 times the representation, or voting power, per person than an individual in California. This malapportionment is unavoidable within the Electoral College system and will only worsen as the population of states such as California steadily rise. The total number of electoral votes for the country is capped at 538, which is based on the number of congressmen per state and three electoral votes for the District of Columbia. As the population of states with large urban centers such as California and New York continue to increase, their 55 and 31 respective electoral votes will continue to represent more and more people without giving a larger weight to the total electoral vote percentage. However, despite the total being capped at 538, states can lose or gain electoral votes based on the U.S. population census that occurs every 10 years. While the 2016 election will be deemed an anomaly for countless reasons, the ability of the Electoral College to elect the candidate who lost the popular vote has been seen five times in our country’s history: 1824, 1876, 1886, 2000 and 2016. Most re-
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
cently, as many of us remember, George H.W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and still became president, though complications with vote counting/re-counting in Florida ultimately turned the decision over to the Supreme Court. So, what does this mean? Rather than dismissing these cases as aberrations, perhaps criticism is best directed at the disproportional representation inherent to the Electoral College. If democracy represents the idea that the people are in control of who governs them, and the United States is praised for being one of the most successful democratic countries in the world, then it may be surprising that the president is elected indirectly. It seems appropriate that the winner of arguably the most important position in the world should be the candidate that receives the most amount of votes from the people. The system in the United States is inherently problematic. But what could be better? While there are many systems around the world that directly elect leaders based on their percentage of the vote-share, the system that would be most effective and most likely to be adopted in the U.S. is a two-round system, similar to that used in France. This system, as its name suggests, is done in two parts. The overall winner must first earn the most or second most votes in the first round, and then must win the majority of votes in the second round. However, the second round only occurs if a single
candidate does not receive at least 50 percent of the national vote share in the first round. For the sake of comparison, this has only actually happened four times in the history of the United States: FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan and Obama. This second round determines the winner by a simple majority, or whoever earns the most votes. The 2017 French election saw 11 different candidates vying for the presidency in the first round, resulting in Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen proceeding to the second, and Macron ultimately winning the presidency. This system inspires other parties to campaign and mobilizes a greater share of the public to go out and vote. Once the final two are determined, the other candidates push their support towards one of the remaining two, increasing alliances between parties. The two-round system encourages multiple parties to participate at the national stage, which would dramatically alter the binary system of Democrats and Republicans in the United States. If there were a two-round system, third-party candidates could run at the national level and gain support without risk of taking away votes from the major two parties. This could serve to dismantle the two-party system over time in the United States. The two-round system prevents any other institution from getting involved in the process, meaning that the people possess the sole power to determine their president. While the winner of the first round does not always win
the second round in France, the final winner of the French presidential election is the overall most well-liked candidate. Okay, great Sierra. You just spent this entire article arguing that the United States has a flawed political system. Big surprise. But what does this matter? It’s true. The United States has historically been committed to upholding tradition. The metaphor of a bald eagle soaring over waves of freedom, while the ghost of our Founding Fathers seemingly strangle the psyche of millions of Americans, embodies Americans’ resistance to change. The U.S. Constitution not only has one of the lowest number of amendments compared to other countries, but it is also the oldest written Constitution still in use in the world, lasting 230 years. It is safe to say that a radical disbandment of the Electoral College by
the next presidential election is unlikely. With only 55 percent of the eligible population turning out to the polls in 2016, perhaps the mobilization of the American people will one day lead to a more democratic system and the abolishment of indirect voting for the election of the president of the United States. â–
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
25
SUPREME COURT
NEIL GORSUCH VS. U.S.A. Looking to the past to move forward.
BY ATANAS SPASOV
Western Mosul, Iraq May 29, 2017. (Reuters / Alkis Konstantinidis)
(Melina Mara / The Washington Post)
W
hen Justice Antonin Scalia died nearly a year ago, he left behind a legacy of scathing, textualist opinions, lasting firearm and personal privacy protections and an open Supreme Court seat. To fill it, former President Obama fulfilled his constitutional responsibility by nominating Merrick Garland, the chief justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 26
only to be kneecapped by a Senate that would neither advise nor consent, but merely stagnated to preserve the court’s conservative leaning. It was one of the biggest gambles ever taken by Senate Republicans, and to the surprise of many, it paid off. The 2016 election resulted in a Republican presidency and majorities in both the House and the Senate, allowing Republicans almost free
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
reign. Ever since, the question has been asked time and time again why the Republicans will not extend an olive branch and consider Garland to the next vacant Supreme Court seat as a gesture of a humble victor; and again, I am reminded that the party is under no obligation, excluding that of mere etiquette, to do so. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, “There are no permanent
friends or enemies, only interests.” It was on April 10 that the Republican party’s interest came to fruition as Neil Gorsuch was sworn in as the 101st associate justice, maintaining the conservative ideology of the court. One cannot argue that Gorsuch is unqualified for the position he holds, having earned degrees from institutions such as Columbia, Harvard Law and Oxford. He has clerked for Justices White and Kennedy before dabbling in private practice. These jobs were followed by a stint as counsel in the Justice Department, which culminated in his ascension to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. It now remains a mystery as to how he is to rule, guided by a melange of ideological pursuit and pragmatism. Upon the announcement of a Supreme Court appointment, a president will usually make known the reasoning for their choice. This act of persuasion is perfectly epitomized by Trump’s comments on Gorsuch, as one who “looks to original intent,” and Clinton’s speaking on “siding with the people, not corporations.” While some presidents sought a specific translation of the constitution, others desired a particular outcome. It is reminiscent of FDR’s courtpacking plan, in the form of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. The motion was born out of Roosevelt’s determination to swing a court that had previously struck down his New Deal implementations as unconstitutional. The mere threat of ex-
(AP Photo / Carolyn Kaster)
panding the court to include 15 favorable judges was thought to have persuaded Justice Owen Roberts, the lone Republican on the court, to change his vote on a New Deal case being considered to prevent the bill from being passed. Regardless of political persuasion, both parties have sought to rule from the court. This technique is effective, there being a reason to push what can be considered as activist judges because the United States adheres to constitutional supremacy and follows the common law theory of jurisprudence. As such, judicial rulings that conflict with legislation will always supersede congressional acts, so a president may overrule majority desire by adding to a set of favorable unelected judges to decide in his stead. The above, combined with the inherent difficulties in swaying public opinion to engage the
amendment process, solidifies SCOTUS’s decisions as the law of the land. In the case of conservative opinion, including that of Gorsuch, the notion of a living Constitution is a malicious subversion of the principle of rule of law that should be discarded as a blatant overreach in the judicial authority that it represents. The Constitution has a legislature to change statute and an amendment process to overhaul it. It is textualist opinion that living constitutional theory has been used to create new “protections” that are not mentioned in the actual document while disregarding explicit protections as anachronistic, all the while never even touching the amendment process. Gorsuch is held up as a strict originalist, believing that the Constitution should be considered in regard to its
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
27
interpretation at the time of enactment. He is also a firm opponent of judicial activism, writing that judges should aim “to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be – not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.” It is fair to assume that Gorsuch will be as orthodox in interpretation as the man he replaces, which will bode well for originalists. Now, with the pieces in place, Republicans have finally been given a chance to push through some cases they have held back on. Most notably are two Second Amendment rights cases that occupy the same level of importance as the Heller decision. The first is Peruta v. San Diego, regarding the carrying of firearms outside the home. It challenges San Diego County’s “may issue” permitting system that allows the denial of a gun permit for any reason. This system is in opposition to the “shall issue” system used by some states where a permit must be provided to any applicant who meets all the necessary criteria. Another pivotal case is Kolbe v. Hogan, which has already been appealed to the Supreme Court and returned with a 4-4 decision. However, a new ruling invalidating all assault weapons bans and magazine capacity limits would be consequential. In addition, there 28
is a slew of partisan gerrymandering cases that come into play, such as Whitford v. Gill, that could drastically alter our election process. Considering the intense seniority of many of the presiding judges, it is unclear what the Supreme Court’s future will look like. There have been rumblings of retirements in the past few months that have shaken the foundations of the Democrats’ confidence in maintaining as small a conservative majority as possible. Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee known for being a centrist conservative who occasionally accepts liability as the court’s swing vote, is now balancing his sense of judicial mission with the reality of old age. Hanging above the rumors of his retirement is the fact that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 84 years old, has had cancer twice, heart surgery once and has a tendency to fall asleep in public (see Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address). If Kennedy retires, the court is one 84-year-old heartbeat away from a 6-3 conservative majority, with many of the Republican-leaning judges on the younger side. The only remaining aged conservative is Justice Thomas, who will likely rather die gavel-in-hand than be replaced by a Democrat. It is not improbable that we will see six young traditionalist judges on the bench by 2020. In all likelihood, we will witness enraged Democrats protesting before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Republicans will ignore by ramming through a hard liner, aided by the
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
lack of a filibuster. As soon as Justice Scalia’s death was broadcasted during the election, everyone knew that judicial appointments would matter, but most failed to grasp how much American jurisprudence could be shaped for decades to come. This solidification of the court’s ideology comes at the hands of Neil Gorsuch, a respected, albeit relatively unknown jurist. Some of his views are conceivably traditional while others remain inscrutable, as he has either vaguely or never publicly commented on hot-button issues like same-sex marriage and abortion rights. His conventional approach comes as a sigh of relief to many Republican voters who may have held their nose and pulled the lever for Trump specifically to secure a court seat. Our eyes are now upon Gorsuch and how his colleagues adorned in black may vote. Nearby, the White House stands as a monument to an individual’s dreams and desires and the Capitol Building to those of the people. And by the words of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in regards to the Supreme Court building, “The Republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith.” ■
THE END OF TURKISH DEMOCRACY From the young Turks to the old Turk.
BY UPAMANYU LAHIRI
(Greg Groesch / The Washington Times)
L
ast month, Turkish voters narrowly approved a constitutional referendum giving President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wide-ranging powers and the ability to potentially stay in power until 2029. The referendum was considered the most expansive structural change to the country since its founding in 1923. With 51.3 percent voting yes, the measure passed with a slimmer-than-expected majority. The vote was marred by widespread allegations of voting irregularities, and the opposition vowed to contest the results. The referendum was held in an atmosphere of fear, given that Tur-
key has been in a state of emergency since the failed military coup last summer. There was alleged intimidation of opposition members by goons affiliated with the ruling party and unfair campaign restrictions in the run up to the vote. The opposition further questioned a last-minute decision by the election board to increase the burden of proof needed to prove ballot box irregularities. The referendum included 18 amendments under which the prime minister post can be abolished, thus transforming Turkey from a parliamentary system to a presidential one. Under Turkey’s constitution, the post of presi-
dent was a largely ceremonial one. However, ever since Erdoğan won the post in 2014, he has asserted himself in the role. Former prime minister and one time Erdoğan ally Ahmet Davutoğlu had to resign in May 2016 to make way for Erdoğan loyalist Benali Yildirim following disputes between them on a range of matters, including implementing a presidential form of government. After the new amendments, the president will appoint the cabinet and have a number of vicepresidents. Parliament will no longer oversee the ministers, as their power to initiate a motion of no confidence will be removed. The president will no longer have to maintain the guise of neutrality and can affiliate with a political party, whereas under the previous system, a president had to sever ties with his party once elected. The president will also have the power to appoint 4 of the 13 judges to the highest judicial body in the country. Seven additional judges will be appointed by the parliament. It is important to note that the president will get to appoint, and not just nominate, judges, which is unlike in the United States, where the president’s Supreme Court nominee has to be confirmed by the Senate. The two remaining members of the body are the minister of justice and his deputy. The amendments also allow the president to handpick his ministers, which means that 6 of the 13 judges on the nation’s highest judicial body will effectively be presidential appointees, thus
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
29
raising serious questions about judicial independence. The amendments also include limiting presidents to two five-year term limits but giving them an option of running for a third term if the second term is truncated by the parliament by calling for early elections. These changes mean President Erdoğan can now call for elections in the middle of his tenure, thus allowing him to potentially remain in power until 2029. Naturally, these amendments, which represent the most significant changes since Turkey was established as a modern secular republic in 1923, raise legitimate fears about the intentions of President Erdoğan. Erdoğan has shown a concerning disregard for the rule of law and due process in recent years, especially since the failed military coup last summer. The government has cracked down on people suspected to be associated with the coup, with over 130,000 government employees suspended or fired and over 45,000 arrested. Critics have alleged that the government has taken advantage of the coup to effect a widespread crackdown on not just those involved with the coup, but Erdoğan’s political rivals and the opposition in general. The changes to the constitution mean that Erdogan could stand for reelection in the 2019 and 2024 elections, and if he wins both times, he could remain in power until 2029. To put this in perspective, Erdoğan became prime minister of Turkey in 2003, so if he stays in power until 30
2029, he will have spent 26 years at the helm of Turkey. Additionally, he will retain leadership of his Justice and Development Party (AKP), which holds an overwhelming majority in parliament, meaning there could effectively be no check on his power. The AKP is a conservative political party with roots in moderate Islamism. Critics have long questioned AKP’s commitment to the secular principles enshrined in its Turkey’s constitution, given its moves to restrict abortions and alcohol consumption. In addition, the party has long supported a strong centralized government and advocated for a presidential system, and in 2013 it significantly reduced the number of local government positions. Given the sweeping new powers that the constitutional amendments have given Erdoğan, he will have the power to remake Turkey in his own image, a shift that has been underway since he took reins of the country in 2003. Many fear these changes will include moving Turkey away from its staunchly secularist roots and towards a more Islamist paradigm. The government and other supporters of the changes argue that it will create a strong executive branch that can bring about much needed economic and political reforms, as opposed to unstable coalition governments that Turkey has experienced in the past. Supporters also contend that these changes will somehow help Turkey deal with the challenge of terrorism by Islamist and Kurdish militants, which has ravaged Turkey over
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017
the past couple of years, killing over 500 people. Supporters also push back on the argument that there are no checks in the system, arguing that the president can be impeached by the parliament. However, even in mature democracies, presidential systems are often criticized for being prone to abuse by the executive branch. For instance, in the United States, President Trump’s recent firing of Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, who was heading the investigation into his campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, has attracted accusations of abuse of power. In Turkey, where judicial freedom is shaky – now further gutted by these amendments – and where there is no tradition of a robustly free press, these amendments seem guaranteed to lead to far more abuse of power, if not guaranteed to sound the death knell of democracy. ■
We
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | Spring 2017
31
32
DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPring 2017