EYP Voice Issue 2 by Robin Janásek

eypvoice ISSUE#2 // NOVEMBER 2012

Editorial // A BIT OF SERVICE // #AMSTERDAM 2012 // The Absence of a Foundation // And the Award Goes To… // FAIL FAST, FAIL SMART: A LIFE PHILOSOPHY // The Lesser of Two Evils? // THE AMERICAN DREAM IN THE ELECTION // On the Lookout // So, What Happened to Erasmus Funds? // STOP THE PRESSES? // EUROPE: The North-African Mirage // EUROPEAN IDENTITY: FACT OR MYTH? // MY BODY, NO LONGER TRAPPED IN A COCOON

Editors: Fanny Cohen (FR) Giada Benfatto (IT) Randolf Carr (DE) Layout: Konstantinos Kyranakis (GR) Robin Janásek (CZ) Sigrun Fagerfjäll (SE) Leo Kaindl (DE) Tim Keegstra (NL) Karolina Koleńska (DE) Felix Makarowski (SE) Anthony McKee (UK) Andreia-Gemma Moraru (RO) Daiva Repečkaitė (LT) Fabian Sommer (AT) Şayen Tokyay (TR) Robert Torvelainen (FI) Guest contributor: Marilena Saraidari (GR) Coordinators: Giada Benfatto (IT) Randolf Carr (DE) Robin Janásek (CZ) Benoit Viault (FR)

DOSSIER: United States Election

{

Editorial

A BIT OF SERVICE

#AMSTERDAM 2012

The Absence of a Foundation

And the Award Goes To…

FAIL FAST, FAIL SMART: A LIFE PHILOSOPHY

The Lesser of Two Evils?

THE AMERICAN DREAM IN THE ELECTION

On the Lookout

So, What Happened to Erasmus Funds?

STOP THE PRESSES?

EUROPE: The North-African Mirage

EUROPEAN IDENTITY: FACT OR MYTH?

MY BODY, NO LONGER TRAPPED IN A COCOON

eypvoice

editorial

On October 12th all of Europe was surprised when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union for its contribution to the pacification of our continent. The EU was thus credited with transforming a state of worldwide warfare into a prosperous economic and social cooperation of 60 years. The news caused such an uproar and difference in opinions that we could not withhold from having our say on the matter. Anthony McKee will come back to this controversial prize in the coming pages. Something that was not relayed by the media was the attribution of the ‘Ig Nobel Peace Prize’ – pronounced “ignoble” – by the globally respected Annals of Improbable Research (AIR), a humorous science satire magazine. The prize went to a laudable initiative from the Russian company SKN and its engineer Igor Petrov, who managed to find a way to transform products of warfare into valuable goods. His revolutionary method consists of detonating old Cold War ammunition under specific conditions, thereby transforming them into nanodiamonds used in cancer treatment.

The aim of the Ig Nobel Prizes, according to the AIR, is to “honour achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think.” Considering this, we at EYP2 can only appreciate that philosophy – and feel inspired by such a metaphor of harvesting life from seeds of violence. May this example stay in your mind: If ever you blow something up, find a profitable way to do it.

by Benoit Viault EYP2 Coordinator

A BIT OF SERVICE by Tim Keegstra (NL)

The behind-the-scenes of what was praised as one of the most successful sessions of the past years. A look at how the organising team of Amsterdam2012 was able to achieve such results and materialise its motto of “a bit of service.” Details, details and even more details. It is simple, but true: The difference between mediocre and exceptional is often found in the little things. Whether the International Session in Lillehammer 2010 was more remarkable than the one in Istanbul 2012 cannot be argued by generalising its components. Instead, it is the small and memorable elements added by the organising team that make the difference when one looks back on the event years after it happened. The organising team of the 71st International Session of the European Youth Parliament decided to put their focus on providing these details through the motto “A bit of service.” However, as many organising teams will attest, a session cannot be properly organised without all necessary funding. There-

fore, a team led by Niek Houterman was tasked in February of this year with the immense job of arranging another 100 000 Euros in funds for the International Session in Amsterdam. This assignment probably cost him easily twenty hours a week and over 400 Euros in train tickets. Furthermore, it came in addition to a year of intense fundraising by the core team of Amsterdam2012, which provided the ﬁrst half of the budget. During the months that followed, Niek and the ﬁnance team worked through lists of possible sponsors, sending them incomprehensible amounts of e-mails and letters, and calling them again a day later. Still, most of the requests ended in a quick rejection. Nevertheless, his team, consisting of Milan Petit and Yves Haverkamp, kept returning calls and

Photto b Ph Phot by y

letters consistently and professionally until quite a few companies replied with sympathy for the project. Niek explained how it became easier from that point onward, as the motivation from companies was evidently present. Additionally, he fondly elaborated on how he and Milan became a seamless team, extremely able to sell the project to corporate giants. Even though not every trip may have been successful in securing ﬁnancial contributions, some proved vital to the motto nonetheless. A great example was the addition of AkzoNobel as a partner, which after expressing their appreciation for the project, decided not to contribute ﬁnancially. However, they instead offered to assist by taking on the Gala Dinner planned for the end of committee work.

EYP: Exceptional Young People

y Boa oaz Ma M ng ger

This suddenly upgraded what was just a creative twist to the programme to an astonishing evening at the Rijksmuseum, the Dutch national museum. During this evening the participants were offered an exquisite dinner in the home of Rembrandt’s masterpieces. Moreover, the delegates were provided with guided tours through the marvellous collection of Dutch painters. Another remarkable acquisition was the sponsorship in kind acquired from Starbucks, who also found themselves unable to contribute ﬁnancially, but instead provided the caffeine boost necessary to deal with the long days of committee work. In a similar fashion, the organising team wanted to pursue meticulous detail in other parts of the programme. Once the budget was secured,

the teams were allocated their tasks and respective budgetary boundaries for the remaining six months leading up to the session. At this point, every organiser attempted to provide that extra bit of detail and service to the participants in their part of the programme. Boaz Manger fixed up the delegates who arrived first for transfers with a party bus, Julie van der Post set up a Silent Disco after Eurovillage, Stefan Trifunovic arranged a ‘poffertjes’ stand that handed out traditional miniature pancakes at an evening venue, and his sister Jana Trifunovic used her vision as a singer and songwriter to put together a magnificent Euroconcert. Aside from these specific examples, every other organiser fine-tuned the details of his specific element of the programme accordingly. How or when “a bit of service” became a

motto is hard to pinpoint, but the reaction of the delegates made clear that the efforts were noticed. It may all seem a bit distant and it may not hit home to those who were not there, yet the words of Stefan Vandenhende at the Closing Ceremony of the International Session in Amsterdam provided a wonderful summary to those who were. He spoke of the times that EYPers debate what International Session was most memorable or remarkable, and how often they cannot ﬁnd their favourite session amongst the many they have attended. He concluded that however, after having attended the 71st International Session in Amsterdam, many of its participants would now be able to.

by Andreia Moraru (RO)

AMSTERDAM

2012 Pho Phot Ph ottto o by y Boa oaz z Ma Mang nger ng err

What are the chances that Amsterdam, commonly known as the most liberal European city, will ever host an International Session of the European Youth Parliament? If you would have asked this question two years ago the answer probably would have been: none. However, a group of people dared to dream big and ever since the announcement that Amsterdam will host the 71st International Session came out, everyone knew that it would have to be memorable. Being the ﬁrst International Session organised by EYP the Netherlands, the team lead by Mark Brakel (NL) aimed to raise the standards of this type of events and make their session unique. Guided by the words ‘boldness’ and ‘innovation’, the officials’ team of Amsterdam2012 brought numerous new elements to the predictable structure of any International Session. A new conﬁguration of the organising team, improved pre-

session academic preparation, a 30 000 Euro Gala Dinner, impressive locations for every event, an efficient system for resolution typing, high-quality press products; everything was bigger or better and generally perfect. The aim of making this session the best so far was then passed to Gillian O’Halloran (IE), the President of Amsterdam2012. She knew exactly what she wanted and needed to do to take things to the next level. “I could not have been happier with my chairs’ team after I selected them,” she stated. She challenged the chairpersons to have the time of their lives and make those ten days count. Gillian also engaged with Kerstin Mathias (DE), the Editor of Amsterdam2012, to complete the amazing trio and to ﬁnd a new way to record what was going to be the event of the fall. A brand new concept of the media team was introduced at this session: The journalists moved on from the traditional ‘entertainer’

role and engaged the delegates in a conversation that resulted in witty but informative products which truly took the session’s pulse. Amsterdam2012 kick-started in a fantastic venue, De Eemhof Centre Parcs. The rainy weather did not allow the participants to take advantage of the beautiful forest area, but that did not prevent anybody from having an active and fun beginning of the session. The evenings were spiced with parties like Silent Disco or Dutch Night and of course the Eurovillage that fuelled everybody with calories for the rest of the session. The next stop took the participants to The Hague. Like true parliamentarians, the participants begun their adventure as International Session delegates in De Ridderzaal or Knights’ Hall, where the Dutch monarchs open the parliamentary sessions. The inspiring speeches were made by illustrious people: Chris Buijink, Secretary-

EYP: Exceptional Young People

General of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Rainer Wieland, Vice-President of the European Parliament, Prince Constantijn van Oranje-Nassau, Deputy Vice-President for the Digital Agenda at the European Commission, Snežana Samardžić-Marković, Director General for Democracy at the Council of Europe, and Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action. Mr. Wieland words, “I’m jealous of you; when I was young there were no such activities,” made everyone realise that the best was yet to come. Therefore, with a boosted conﬁdence, the ﬁfteen committees, guided by their chairpersons and carefully observed by their journalists started committee work in Amsterdam. Three days of intense and high-quality debate followed, during which the delegates tried to end the crisis and address issues such as climate change, banking regulation, or youth unemployment. Their hard work was re-

warded with a Gala Dinner at the Rijksmuseum, which was opened especially for the delegates, since the museum will only officially re-open in a year. Meanwhile, the chairpersons were doing resolution typing, which thanks to the O’Halloran framework only lasted approximately 4 hours. While the Resolution Booklet was being printed, the participants experienced Amsterdam and discovered its cultural wonders from the Rembrandt Museum to the Anne Frank House. Later in the afternoon, the preparation for the General Assembly was enhanced with a training session held by professional debaters that notably raised the quality of the parliamentary debate. The Session ended with two excellent days of General Assembly. With more than 400 points of debate, passionate speeches, and innovative ideas, the GA of Amsterdam2012 was vibrant. The Euroconcert was an exquisite and sophisticated evening, host-

ed in the Royal Tropical Institute, and the Farewell Party by the sea marked the bittersweet ending of the Amsterdam2012 experience. After 10 thrilling days everyone was speechless. However, the words of Gillian O’Halloran manage to summarise the extraordinary 71st International Session of the European Youth Parliament, “It was a flawlessly organised, well led, fun-centric International Session with a fluid officials’ team that tailored everything towards that oh-so-memorable first time experience that we are so fortunate to have as EYPers at an International Session... I’m jealous of the delegates there, not just because they got to experience EYP at its best, but because they are just beginning on the extraordinary journey that I am now ending – bon voyage to them all!”

EYP: Exceptional Young People

The Absence of a

Foundation by Tim Keegstra (NL)

One of the main motivations behind the organisation of Amsterdam2012 was the Dutch EYP’s ambition to prove their capabilities. Not only did this result in hosting an International Session, but it also built an organisation.

We will not help building the future of Europe, or at least not yet. At the Opening Ceremony of the 71st International Session of the European Youth Parliament, Prince Constantijn van Oranje-Nassau asked all present to close their eyes and think of how we, the European youth, envision the future of Europe twenty years from now. After a few seconds of intense silence, he asked who in the audience had pictured themselves building that future; only a mere few raised their hands, amongst which were mainly organisers. Those raising their hands stared at those who had not and vice-versa. The coughless silence that followed was one of inner reﬂection. “Why did the rest not raise their hands?” And surely for most, “Why did I not raise my hand?” The aforementioned happening was in extreme contrast with the ﬁrst organisers’ meeting of the International Session, on the day prior to officials’ arrivals. Towards the end of the meeting, Mark Brakel, the Head Organiser of the session, posed a similarly

simple yet revealing question: Why are you here? Even though most organisers had been briefed on the question a few days earlier during a meeting within their respective sub-teams, the question still hit home. “Why am I here?” Some minds wandered off and pens scribbled on post-its, while others exchanged thoughtful pondering looks across the slightly oval circle we were seated in. Consecutively, after that moment of deliberation, answers came ﬂooding in slightly overwhelming amounts; and I found myself caught between two generations. The older alumni on our organising team, such as former Board members Rosa Douw and Ruben Wagenaar, spoke of their willingness to show that the organisation of the European Youth Parliament the Netherlands was ready to take on such a daunting organisational task as hosting an International Session. The emphasis was on their willingness to prove that they could fulﬁl this mission successfully. On the other hand the younger generation on our team spoke, for example, of their interest in personal development and gaining experience in the organisation of large-scale projects. In order to understand the origins of the determination to prove what the Dutch are capable of, one needs to attain a more

thorough understanding of the history of EYP the Netherlands. Merely four years ago, there were only a handful of active alumni. Back in those days, most members only stayed active a year after their selection at National Selections and socialising happened within the different cities that delegations came from, rather than in an organisation as a whole. No large session was organised apart from the National Selection Conference and there was no real foundation of alumni that could host an international session. Nevertheless, former EYP NL presidents Ruben Wagenaar and Wim van Doorn, together with their Boards, initiated a quite radical policy change from primarily being an organisation focused on accommodating delegates, to one with an added focus towards being a home to the alumni. During their presidencies, two annual alumni weekends were hosted. The ﬁrst accommodated the socialising after the National Session, while the second aimed to prepare alumni to chair both nationally and internationally. Additionally, an active alumni commission organised more socialising events to keep alumni active for prolonged periods of time. In conclusion, these efforts, along with many others, slowly but surely helped EYP the Netherlands to retain alumni and helped

these alumni to understand the concept of EYP outside of the Netherlands. After four years, the organisation is now thriving and alumni weekends easily gather eighty people for different levels of training, while active alumni roam many sessions across Europe as officials. These efforts do not just explain the aforementioned willingness to prove that the Dutch are ready and capable, but also provided the manpower needed to organise an International Session to begin with. To conclude and to bridge the astounding Opening Ceremony at the Knight’s Hall in The Hague to that cosy organisers meeting on the ﬂoor of Milan Petit’s house, are the words spoken by Mark Brakel at both events. During both instances he was clearly moved when explaining what had led him to submit his bid for an International Session on a rainy October day in 2010. It was back in 2007, when he was a delegate himself at the autumn International Session in Dublin, when he decided that he had to organise a similar event in his home country. Even though he went on to study at Oxford University, not even his incredible study load could hold him back from submitting a bid. Luckily it did not, because through submitting and executing his bid he helped elevate the entire organisation of EYP the Netherlands.

And the Award Goes To… On the 12th of October in Oslo, the media and the public were stunned by the announcement that the European Union had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It was the ﬁrst organisation to receive the award since Médecins Sans Frontières in 1999. Eurosceptics scorned it as a disgrace that mocked the disaster of the Euro crisis, which had affected every member state in the Union. Even many who were indifferent toward the European Union were confused, ﬁnding the whole idea of the organisation being rewarded absurd. The EU had dominated the headlines for the past year, and several countries, including Greece, had been left to pick up the pieces of the economic disaster that most of the single market of Europe had faced. Why was the EU being awarded an accolade for peace when its wavering economic rule across Europe was interrupting the

cohesion that had existed throughout every member state – something that, in turn, upset both their trading partners worldwide and the global stock exchange? However, to understand the awarding of this Peace Prize to the EU, the context must be seen differently against the backdrop of the economic crisis that it currently faces. The EU’s forerunner, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) set the benchmark for unity between European countries. The ECSC was set up in the early 1950s with the primary aim being to prevent war between France and Germany. Robert Schuman, the French foreign minister at the time, who was pivotal in bringing about the change, said that the priority of the ECSC was to “make war not only unthinkable, but materially impossible.” Europe’s ﬁrst attempt at a supranational community was deemed

popular, as the treaty was not only signed by France and Germany, but also by Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. As it came into being and developed, it continued to foster the idea of a common market amongst its members, which in turn enveloped all of Europe in a sense of peace and unity. As the beneﬁts grew, its lustre shone brighter, and the European Community grew to new magnitudes, to the point that the EU admitted 12 new countries to the bloc from 2004 to 2007. Throughout all this expansion, Schuman’s idea has become a reality, even more so, perhaps, than what he had desired. Not once did Germany or France battle against one another as enemies, but in fact quite the opposite; they became huge powers in Europe that are wholly dependent on each other. It would be foolish, however, to assume that this is the sole reason why the

Europe’s Got Talent

by Anthony McKee (UK)

EU was deemed a worthy candidate for such a prestigious honour. There are several examples of how the EU has shaped dynamics of countries, both member and non-member states, and changed countries and nations for the better. Through schemes such as INTERREG, countries and regions have been able to work together and take part in projects which support interregional cooperation, as well as being able to share knowledge and resources more easily with each other. In terms of conﬂict, the EU has aided peacekeeping, from funding for the West Balkans during the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars, to cross-border projects primarily funded by the EU, to the PEACE Programme initiatives for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Its scope extends further than Europe itself; the organisation has lately donated millions to the newly-ﬂedged country

of South Sudan in order to aid its policies and institutions. In addition, the EU recently established the ‘Myanmar Peace Centre’ in the hope that the country will secure peace for itself after years of conﬂict. Taking all of this into account, the motives of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (NNC) in declaring the EU the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize become clearer. It is not just a PR ploy or an attempt to negate criticism against the EU, but instead an unbiased look at the organisation and recognition of the positive contribution the organisation has brought to the world. Even in these hard times its appeal is unbroken, as the Nobel Committee’s president Thorbjørn Jagland commented in relation to Turkey’s EU candidacy status that the EU’s inﬂuence had “advanced democracy and human rights in that country.” The NNC may have chosen a strange

time to award the Peace Prize to the EU, as the idea of the EU as a solid, cohesive force has rarely seemed so distant or fragile in all the six decades it has existed. However, as news spread about this surprising success story, words of praise for the organisation came from all corners of the planet, including from European leaders such as François Hollande and Angela Merkel, to Ban Ki-Moon. The Peace Prize gave recognition to the work that has been undertaken for peace by the organisation, and this recognition was echoed across the world by leaders worldwide. The dream of a solidified Europe, unified by peace and reconciliation may be faltering in the eyes of bankers and financial experts everywhere, but it obvious that the desire for this Europe is still present.

FAIL FAST, FAIL SMART A LIFE PHILOSOPHY by Robert Torvelainen (FI)

Finland has quickly become a Northern hotspot for startup companies. Both investors and serial entrepreneurs recognise Helsinki as one of the few European cities able to even begin to compete with Silicon Valley. The other two are London, with easy access to venture capital, and bohemian Berlin, for low costs. Surprisingly, Finland’s success is not based on a government decision or indeed any top-down initiative. The buzz comes from Aalto Entrepreneurship Society, better known as Aaltoes, a grassroots movement founded by students. Aaltoes was founded in 2009 by a group of students from Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki School of Economics, and University of Art and Design Helsinki as a response to the lack of any support for someone wanting to start their own business. Highly motivated and with a great deal of conﬁdence in their initiative, the students were able to pitch the idea of a working space for beginning entrepreneurs

to the newly founded Aalto University, born from the three universities mentioned above. As a result, Aalto Venture Garage was created. Soon after, Aaltoes took flight and quickly became well-known, popular and highly respected. Its success was also one of the reasons why Aalto University was the first to connect with Stanford University and its Venture program. Now dozens of aspiring entrepreneurs have already visited their mecca in Silicon Valley. The aim of Aaltoes is to develop the Finnish startup community and environment. Aaltoes does this by organizing events such as ‘Pitch It’ (an event for sharing one’s very first business idea), ‘Build It’ (a 48-hour ‘hackathon’ to prove that one doesn’t need years of development to create a product) and ‘Speed Dating’ (helping people to find their startup team). “That is what’s so great about this community: It’s starting from the grassroot level,

Europe’s Got Talent

but at the same time showing that it’s how one makes a difference – from the bottom up,” describes Elina Uutela, an active student within Aaltoes. Elina got involved when a friend of hers told her they had “one little project they might need help with”. She ended up organising communications and press relations for a week full of events. She says that she is learning all the time and every day. “Every project in Aaltoes has a certain twist. It’s a combination of hands-on work and planning on how to change the whole culture and discourse of Finnish entrepreneurship”, Elina explains. When asked about the future of the hyped society, Elina smiles. According to her, the future is bright. Startups are noticed and valued more than just a few years ago; the Aaltoes team is great, and it also seems that Europe will recover economically. Many

great things have already happened, and if it is up to Elina, they will continue to happen. This is easy to believe, as the Entrepreneurship Society has already gathered impressive supporters and sponsors including a number of foundations, organisations, funds, and companies. One more thing: “Fail fast, fail smart” – that is the motto of Aaltoes. Only one or two startups in ten succeed, thus learning from failure is an essential part of the life of a young entrepreneur. Aaltoes began promoting their philosophy every year by celebrating Fail Day on October 13th. Now the tradition has already spread to a number of other countries as well. It is a token of their skill and vision: success even in promoting failure.

“The dossier”: United States Election

The Lesser of Two Evils? by Felix Makarowski (SE) Four years ago Barack Obama charmed the USA with the promise of “change we can believe in”. The charismatic senator from Illinois captivated his electorate through electrifying speeches, youthful enthusiasm, and his stark contrast to the failures of the previous Bush administration. Obama promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, end the unpopular war in Iraq, improve US diplomatic ties with the world, and save the economy. When he won the White House after a long election campaign, the world celebrated. Barack Obama’s presidency has been marred by disappointment. Domestically his greatest successes have been forcing an $800 billion bailout of the US car industry through congress and reforming America’s outdated healthcare system. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, provides 30 million previously uninsured US citizens with health insur-

ance and it is projected to produce $109 billion in net revenue over a ten year period. Some critics question the law on constitutional grounds however, arguing that the government shouldn’t be able to force employers by threat of a fine to pay for the health insurance of their employees. Furthermore, should people whose employers rather choose to be fined be forced to pay for the insurance? Unfortunately, Obama’s commendable work in health care reform is offset by the dire state of the US economy. Despite the massive 2009 bailout package, growth remains sluggish, unemployment lingers at 7.9 percent, and the budget deficit in 2012 comes to $1.1 trillion. During his first term in office Obama has done little to reduce the deficit, however, and thus US public debt has climbed to $16 trillion. If the prospect of a Greek default is frightening for the European economy, imagine the global implications of a similar American debt

crisis. Obama’s diplomatic performance has not been masterful either. US relations with Russia, China and the Middle East are poor, and nearly four years after his inauguration Guantanamo Bay remains open. Furthermore, his position for escalating the ‘War on Drugs’ is costing thousands of lives in Mexico and Latin America. The hope that he could be a conciliator between conﬂicting parties has almost completely vanished. With this in mind, Obama’s critics scoff at the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded for “his extraordinary work to strengthen international diplomacy and the cooperation between people.” The most controversial part of the Obama administration foreign policy, however, has been the War on Terror. The US has rightly begun withdrawing from Afghanistan, but replacing US troops with drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan is not a vi-

“The dossier”: US Election

able alternative. Neither is it a responsible policy to declare all victims of drone strikes enemy combatants to avoid the international repercussions of civilian casualties. History has repeatedly shown that fighting fire with fire is never a good solution. Looking back at President Obama’s first term, the fact that his most celebrated foreign policy accomplishment to date was the assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan is not very inspiring. Besides, how many Nobel laureates have kill lists? The EU was recently awarded its own Nobel Peace Prize “for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”. The old continent has come far since the end of the Second World War. It is only fair to ask whether the EU should stand idly by while US drones unjust-

ly drop bombs on parts of the Middle East in the name of preventative warfare. In terms of foreign policy, Obama’s challenger Mitt Romney made no better impression than the incumbent president. In addition to parroting most of Obama’s decisions on foreign policy in the third presidential debate, Romney branded Russia as America’s primary political threat and would label China a ‘currency manipulator’ had he been elected. Those decisions would have had dire consequences for both Europe and the US. Romney, who seems to have a difficult relationship with the realities of the 21st century, was not the American solution the Republican Party had hoped for. His views on women and their rights seem archaic at best, and his election campaign certainly did not portray him as a champion of civil rights. Regardless, economic policy and reducing the deﬁcit was supposed to be Romney’s forte. However, the magazine The Economist had this to say about his proposed economic growth plan, “In theory, Mr Romney has a detailed 59-point economic plan. In practice, it ignores virtually all the difficult or interesting questions (indeed, ‘The Romney Programme for Economic Recovery, Growth and Jobs’ is like

‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ without the sex)”. The most worrying aspect of a potential Romney presidency was, however, his tendency to ‘flip-flop’ on critical issues. Being able to recognise your own mistakes and correct them is an important trait for anyone running for office, but Romney alternating between radical and moderate opinions on a number of occasions, apparently to align himself with whomever’s votes he depended on at a given time, was only absurd. Fortunately, the US election season is over and Europe no longer has to speculate over who will sit in the White House during the next four year period. Europe should keep a watchful eye on the US human rights record abroad and keep hoping that it can overcome its vast budget deficit. An American debt crisis would potentially deal an already struggling European economy a knockout blow. Unfortunately, neither Obama nor Romney presented a convincingly clear solution to one of the most globally significant questions. Maybe Obama can turn his presidency around, but judging from his election campaign and first term in office America may have only elected the lesser of two evils.

THE AMERICAN DREAM IN THE ELECTION by Fabian Sommer (AT)

We have all heard of the American Dream and the chance for anyone, American or otherwise, at prosperity. This dream is personiﬁed by many rags to riches stories, such as that of the renowned Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie, who immigrated to the United States from Scotland as a child, was impoverished and began his career in the mid-19th century in a spool factory. Through indefatigable effort, he went on to eventually found Carnegie Steel Company, one of the world’s largest and most profitable enterprises to date. And yet, after becoming one of the wealthiest men to have ever lived, Carnegie did not forget his humble roots and invested vast amounts of his fortune into charity and humanitarian causes. However, would Andrew Carnegie be able to live the American Dream today? The 2008 recession has disillusioned Americans in their belief in such an ideal. The American Dream is now doubted by the Americans themselves. As a result, both candidates in the recent presidential election saw reason to make restoring the American Dream a subject of their campaigns. Former governor Mitt Romney’s paper ‘Securing the American dream and the Future of Housing Policy’ aims to bring back a further part of the American Dream: the ability for each US citizen to own their home. He says that the current problem in the housing market is caused by over-regulation

“The dossier”: US Election

and the fact that the government is playing a far too great a role in the housing sector by backing housing loans. He, by contrast, would encourage private lending ﬁrms to play a larger role in the recovery.

you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity… you reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.”

Like Mitt Romney, many Republicans see the ‘Reaganomics’ of the 1980s as a second ‘Golden Age’ when the economy as a whole was strong. Then, the American Dream was alive and well. They hope to bring the Unites States back to a spirit of conﬁdence in the economy – an atmosphere Reagan famously described as, “It’s morning in America.” They believe that a core set of values – deregulation, protecting the sanctity of marriage (a euphemism for not allowing same-sex marriage), protecting the right to bear arms, etc. – will be able to restore the United States to former prerecession glory.

His critics claim this is excessive government interference that actually endangers the individual’s right to the wealth one has achieved, and thus economic freedom. Additionally, he is blamed for ruining the American dream through his perceived mismanaging of the American economy and the fact that the government is now, through health care reform and intervention, becoming a “nanny state” – taking the people’s freedoms and allowing the government to manage them.

This is also outlined in the Republican platform’s section entitled ‘Restoring the American Dream: Economy & Jobs’. Here the party is presented as the party of freedom and the path to prosperity as “selfdiscipline, work, savings, and investment by individual Americans.” The noteworthy core of the idea here is the fact that this is to be accomplished by individuals rather than society as a whole. This is characteristic of a deep-rooted belief that the wealth of a single individual will beneﬁt of society as a whole. Thus, regardless of distribution, creating wealth is in itself good. While advertisements such as this aim to portrait Romney as a champion of the American Dream, President Obama – at least superﬁcially – has a much more direct angle for arguing in favour of it. Barack Obama’s own life story can be described as living the American Dream. As his wife Michelle Obama said in her speech at the Democratic Convention in September, “Barack knows what it means when a family struggles... Barack knows the American Dream because he’s lived it.” Elaborating on the rationale between her husband’s policies, she explained, “He believes that when

Nevertheless, almost as important as the Dream itself is the continued discussion and pursuit of it. While it is ambiguous in some regards, the pursuit of this higher ideal encourages discussion and different viewpoints on achieving prosperity for all. This becomes increasingly dangerous, however, with the radicalisation of the opposing sides and their refusal to compromise – and neither party is fault-free. Still, the idea of the American Dream lives on: Anyone could follow in the footsteps of Andrew Carnegie. Its continued discussion evokes many emotions, be it that it is unjust as some fall by the wayside as others prosper, or be it that it is for the beneﬁt of society when a smaller number succeeds. This discussion, though, still continues to show that no matter if Republican or Democrat, while the visions differ, the central unifying goal to enable the American Dream remains. What can Europeans take away from this? The question for Europe is: Does it also have a unifying aim – a dream that it wants its people to live? Do we have a central goal that we are pursuing as a continent? With the test that the European Union is facing at the moment, the next years will be a telling time.

“The dossier”: US Election

On the Lookout by Leo Kaindl (DE)

With 56 states from Europe, North America and Central Asia, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the world’s largest regional security organisation and leading in the ﬁeld of election observation. Thomas Rymer, spokesperson for its respective subunit, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), on his employer and their ﬁndings about the 2012 United States Presidential Election.

In the course of the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission, the ODIHR has 13 election analysts in Washington D.C. and 44 long-term observers throughout the United States. Are those people actually employed for election observations on a full-time basis? Thomas Rymer: No, with regards to the election experts who are here with the core team we maintain a database selection where candidates can submit a CV showing their qualiﬁcations just like for any job. It is a pretty extensive database, so that we can collect a really good group of qualiﬁed experts. As far as the long-term observers are concerned, these are dispatched from OSCE participating states, depending on the number of observers we requested in

order to meet the purposes of that election monitoring process.

The agenda of the United States mission seems like usual practice, but still the observers’ presence was heavily contested beforehand, even threatened with criminal sanctions. Has the ODIHR Election Observation Mission actually been compromised? No, not by any means. Although monitoring polling stations on election day is part of the process, the speciﬁc format as a longterm observer mission reduces the relative signiﬁcance of that part, as we are looking at a much broader range of issues: The legislative framework, voter and candidate registration procedures, the balance and

interview

role of the media in campaigning, how electoral disputes are resolved, and a number of other things. This rests upon the basic understanding that elections are not just what happens on election day. To gain a comprehensive view of an electoral system, you really have to observe that entire process.

You mentioned another issue that caused quite a stir: voter registration. New voter identification laws were introduced or passed in several state legislatures, seemingly with the objective to benefit one candidate. How can the ODIHR mission differentiate between anti-voter fraud and relatively explicit manipulation? Whatever kind of motives there may be for a certain actor within the system is really not the issue. For us it is the process and whether its parts match the international standards, rather than who wins an election. And so with domestic legislation: Most United States election law is effectively state law and consequently voter registration and identification questions are regulated at the state level. This was highly polarised, however the point is that there has to be a balance. The idea is to ensure the integrity of the vote on the one hand by reviewing if somebody actually does have the right to vote, and taking care that people who should be eligible voters are not disenfranchised on the other. The diverse legislation is the way the United States has chosen, and in order to provide comprehensive and accurate observation that means we have to look at fifty different states, which is what we did.

The media has also deﬁnitely played another major role, and there is a very sharp divide between newspapers or TV stations that supported the president or his challenger.

generally provide actual coverage, and there is a broad range of information so the voters have no shortage of choice or access to information on the electoral process and the candidates. The media environment itself is free and quite fairly balanced, but of course there are highly politicised forms, like partisan cable stations or newspapers with deﬁnite editorial standpoints that traditionally support one party or another. In any case, that seems to be in accordance with the OSCE commitments and freedom of the media.

Beyond its monitoring tasks, can the ODIHR actually support non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or work as a facilitator on an international level? Working closely with civil society actors is a commitment that OSCE participating states have made, and there is a lot of information sharing between different NGOs. We talked about police reforms and we do work with police on issues of racism, hate crime and intolerance. Often there is a good practice developed by one NGO in one participating state that generates real results. Then, with our resources and contacts across the OSCE area, we are able to spread that information and help it do more good because it is applied in a broader geographical area and different contexts. The work we do in Human Rights and Democratisation is fairly broad, but the approach to it, I think, is captured in that example.

I would like to thank you very much for this highly informative talk. Have a nice evening! Take care, good bye!

It is a very vibrant, multilayered media environment. The major national networks

So, what happened to Erasmus funds? by Daiva Repečkaitė (LT)

Major pan-European news sources have dramatically announced that the EU budget lacks funds to finance the EU’s so-called most successful programme: ‘Erasmus’. In early October, the European Commission was asked to come up with an emergency budget proposal to cover the shortage of funds for Erasmus student exchanges and the European Social Fund. The EUobserver claimed that Erasmus was ‘facing bankruptcy’, and EuroBusiness.com alarmed its readers by announcing that the programme was ‘nearly broke’. The European Social Fund, which finances programmes implemented by member states in the areas of social inclusion and human resources development, was the first to fall, and, according to responsible politicians, Erasmus was expected to be next, with the Research and Innovation Fund following after. Researchers across Europe signed a petition against austerity in the areas of research and innovation. For Erasmus, emergency funding was to be found from the member states. The shortage was expected to worsen because seven net contributors to the EU budget refused to sign an increase in expenditure, and the final budget agreed by the member states and

the European Parliament was lower than the Commission’s proposal, according to which expenditures were planned. Eventually, the amended budget that allowed the EU to meet its obligations was agreed upon during the penultimate week of October. According to the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, the Commission did not exceed the commitments already made. The extra funding was needed to provide uninterrupted financial support, after more exact figures of incoming bills had arrived. The mismatch between the expenses planned and the payments agreed by the member states is the result of several factors. First of all, there was a conflict between the yearly budget, which faces austerity cuts, and multi-annual financial planning, of which Erasmus is a part. Like most programmes, funding for Erasmus is planned for the years 2007-2013, until the next programming period starts in 2014. During the next period, Erasmus will be merged with several other programmes and its budget will be planned differently. With less than two years to go, most of the budget for Erasmus exchanges has been

We Care About It: Decoding and Analysing

carefully planned and contracted. As could be expected, programmes take some time to ‘mature’, and the full funding needs are clearer towards the end. Does the funding crisis mean that students risked losing their grants or that the EU’s most famous programme was at risk? According to a press release, 70% of the funds had been transferred to implementing agencies for distribution to universities and students for this academic year, so there was no way that the planned exchanges could be halted. However, it was still possible that towards the end of the programming period there would be fewer students going abroad, or grants would be reduced. Erasmus started in 1987, and its aim was to facilitate study exchange experiences for three million students by its 25th anniversary, which it was on track for achieving. Concerning funding needs, Erasmus is likely to become a victim of its own success. It has always been about numbers, and the sheer number of students moving around Europe is its most inspiring feature. Yet in the middle of austerity pressures, the Commission is faced with a choice between reducing grants and keeping its commitment

to numbers, or letting go of ever-increasing numbers and improving the standard of living for the students. The pressures are two-fold. EU institutions are very careful not to make their funding exclusive and only accessible to those who could have participated anyway. However, as more universities are inclined to join Erasmus, the pressure to support more students will also persist. What will the Commission do about it? It will solve the problem with whatever emergency means it can take until 2014, and hope not to face the same problem after ﬁnancial planning changes. And planning is expected to change. From 2014 onwards, a new education and mobility programme, ‘Erasmus for All’, will replace earlier initiatives. Exchanges for students, trainees, teachers, European and non-European students will be under one large umbrella programme. Erasmus will swallow Erasmus Mundus (international master degrees and scholarships) and other smaller initiatives. Predictably, the merger will make it easier to take funds unused in one part of the programme and relocate them to where they are in high demand.

We Care About It: Awareness Raising

STOP

THE PRESSES? On December 31st of this year the very last issue of Newsweek will be published. The 80-year-old American magazine is cancelling their four English editions and their twelve global ones in favour of one online version named Newsweek Global. This historic event illustrates the ongoing transition from traditional forms of media to online journalism. Newsweek’s announcement fuelled the discussion about the future of journalism as a profession and the issue of free press that has been going on for the last few years. Do we have reasons to worry? Are quality journalism and free press to die along with the printed paper? All over the world people are cancelling their subscriptions and passing by the newsstands without as much as a glance. Instead, they get their news online for free. The migration of readers from print to the Internet has been going on for years and newspapers and publishers are in a state of distress. There have been several attempts at developing new models to ﬁnance online journalism, for example with online subscriptions

and ads, but it has been difficult to ﬁnd one that is economically sound. The development can be compared to that of the music business and even more than musicians, professional journalists have to wonder if their pay checks are endangered. Apart from the fact that online journalism is free, there is also another factor that attracts readers to digital news sources: The information online is constantly updated and easily accessible wherever you are, which means that you can update on recent developments without delays. It is essential to always be up-to-date with the latest information when making decisions, not least in the business world. Nevertheless, without analysis and in-depth journalism it will still become harder to take all the different perspectives on a situation into account and make good decisions. In published journalism, a distinction has to be made between pure information, opinion, and propaganda. Information is not biased; it is published so that people will obtain the knowledge needed to form their

by Sigrun Fagerfjäll (SE) own conclusions without fear or favour. Opinion writing is independent analysis that favours a certain conclusion based on observation, evaluation, or values. This type of writing can appear in the form of a column in a magazine or an editorial. Propaganda, however, gives a recommendation in support of the writer’s own political or ﬁnancial interests. It is difficult for an individual to distinguish a reliable source from a biased one. Journalists are paid not to have an agenda, to inform people and help them gain a better understanding of society and make better decisions. In a democracy as well as in the market economy, quality journalism is needed to give people real freedom of choice. There will obviously always be a need for quality journalism and people will always be willing to pay for it. However, the news industry must ﬁnd new sustainable business ideas and ways to combine independent journalism with revenue sources. It will not be the death of journalism, but maybe of the kind we know today.

EUROPE The North-African Mirage by Marilena Saraidari (GR)

Every year, thousands of immigrants undergo a long and tortuous journey, often travelling in critical conditions, in the hope of ﬁnding a better and successful life in Europe. Most are quickly disillusioned and faced with segregation and difficult living conditions. The effect of immigration is felt disparately from one part of Europe to another; therefore it is important to remember the perspective of those countries most severely affected. Migration is a social phenomenon that is particularly relevant to countries of the European Union. Greece and Italy, as well as Turkey, are especially affected, as due to their geographical position, they ﬁnd themselves hosting immigrants not only

from North Africa, but also from the Balkan Peninsula and Asia. Causes of immigration are diverse and can be of political, social, or ﬁnancial nature. Political instability in countries of origin, such as the collapse or creation of a dictatorship, or the outbreak of a civil war, causes large masses of people to leave their homeland to avoid being persecuted. They then seek political asylum in the closest and most accessible stable countries – European countries. Political and social crisis almost always leads to the destruction of estates, shortages, unemployment, and poverty. Because of this, even members of the population who are not involved politically are forced to leave their homeland, due to poverty and

We Care About It: Opinion

deprivation. Many of them are motivated by the willingness to search for a better life. A life, however, which proves to be elusive. Migrants undergo an uncertain and dangerous journey in the certainty that their destination will, because of the political stability, guarantee their survival and better conditions of life. However, they have to face various kinds of headwinds: living in a social, cultural, or religious environment completely different from the one where they were born and raised in is one the harshest elements of their difficult fate. Language becomes a barrier to communication between immigrants and the inhabitants of the country hosting them. As a result, integration becomes hard and the different customs, lifestyles, values, and beliefs of European societies make these new guests feel excluded and miserable. Together with the difficulty to integrate comes the trouble of finding a place to stay, quickly followed by difficulty in finding a job. In the past, when many European countries needed extra workforce, finding work was easier for immigrants, though under very different conditions than residents. Most would take up jobs that native people refused to take, often because it meant working under harmful conditions. Even today there are many cases where legal immigrants take up jobs for lower wages than the local workers and remain uninsured. The situation described above was accepted years ago because there were plenty of jobs available for immigrants to undertake and get paid for. However today, with the financial crisis affecting most European countries, the future looks dire for European workers, with drastic consequences on the situation of immigrants. The situation worsens, while the number of immigrants rises dramatically due to the political crisis there. Last but not least, an important consequence for immigrants is discrimination. While the situation varies widely across Europe, immigrants may become victims of

xenophobia from a large part of the citizens native to their host country, as shown in the Eurobarometer report 296 on discrimination issued by the European Commission in 2008. Prejudices, phobias, a sense of threat, and national fanaticism are believed to be the causes of this social phenomenon. Today, these factors are in constant increase in countries that have been strongly affected by the crisis, due to the destitution of citizens and the degradation of their quality of life. As a consequence, in many cases immigrants are not only marginalised and socially excluded, but also feel that their lives are in danger. The host countries themselves are now facing the consequences of discriminatory behaviour. As far as these countries are concerned, the impact of migration is only negative. As a result, these host countries are now unable to integrate the immigrants, let alone help them become citizens of the local communities. Through this attitude, they are disregarding the fact that immigration can also be beneﬁcial to host countries. As mentioned before, immigrants are willing to work on difficult and less-paid jobs, and thus certain areas, such the construction sector, have developed and become more proﬁtable thanks to them. Luckily, local communities are developing the principle of tolerance towards diversity, thus improving the attitude of the residents towards immigrants. Today, with the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, the international situation seems to be harder than ever before. The implementation of a credible immigration policy thus seems necessary, so as to provide support to those desperate immigrants seeking shelter in our countries and the worried citizens struggling to keep up in a time of crisis. The issue of immigration is not an isolated event, but affects every member state, and is thus something that should be discussed on a European level, so that measures can be taken in order to balance the interests of all stakeholders.

EUROPEAN IDENTITY FACT OR MYTH? by Karolina Koleńska (DE)

What is it in Europe – a bunch of national identities, the so-called “unity in diversity”, or do we have a common European identity? Identity as explained by George Herbert Mead, the founder of symbolic interactionism, is a mental construct created by people in interaction. As social beings, we create our own image through relations between individuals, making interactions signiﬁcant. Thus, every identity is formed by people in an interactive manner, and is a symbolic construct wherein the ‘construction materials’ are culture and cultural symbols. Not only that; we are also in a never-ending process of ‘becoming’, as our actions also determine our image. In general our identity determines who we are not only as an individual, but also as a group. For a long time national identities played a major role in our self-understanding. Ernst Gellner deﬁnes nationalism as the projection of a world in which political units coincide with cultural units. That means that social groups sharing a common origin and culture would lie at the basis of the nation-

What’s on your mind?

building process. Since the 19th century this model steadily changed: From an ethnic-centred concept, it evolved into an approach of civil affiliation, based on the belief that we are a community due to our shared (political) goals. Nowadays, we often hear of a ‘European’ identity. However, according to Ulrich Beck, a well-known German sociologist, ‘Europe’ as such does not exist. However, there is a process of ‘Europeanisation’ that is leading us Europeans to our own unique identity. From a political point of view, Europeanisation means a submission to the impact of European institutions. It is not only about the EU institutional system, but also about other organisations such as the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe gives a good frame to delimit what we could deﬁne as European. Even without instruments of coercion, it is an important organisation dealing with the essential and fundamental catalogue of European values and norms, such as democracy or human rights. It is true that these values are not exclusively ‘European’, as they also exist in other societies, but in Europe they are systematic and common, and thus they act as membership criteria. When it comes to the European Union, it is not only a political organisation with a common mar-

ket, but also an alliance of countries sharing common values like peace, solidarity, or regional development. For instance, the European Parliament creates a European identity by establishing ethical and symbolic standards, even while having relatively little decision-making power. In this context both Bourdieu and Foucault talk about life occurring in a certain “symbolic world”. As we have established, our identity is also determined by our actions, thus Europeanisation also consists in the involvement of the communities within the institutional framework of the EU. We as a country, a region, a community, or as citizens are engaging in activities that have a European dimension: European projects, transactions, exchanges etc. Therefore our identity is changing, and there is actually also a European level. There is also a football metaphor explaining this process, wherein the ‘match’ consists of three basic elements. We have a certain playing ﬁeld, signifying the geo-political space, which is variable. Then there are the players, individual identities such as nation states, regions, cities and minority groups. Last but not least, the ball representing the idea of Europe is understood as a changeable discourse. Playing together creates a common identity, a ‘we’ category of Europeans.

What counts is taking part in the game, and not a specific definition of this identity. The problem is that the construction of identity always happens against someone or something, i.e. by defining ‘us’ against ‘them’. During the Cold War the role of the ‘significant others’ was clear, as Europe was trying to define itself as a third player against two superpowers: the USA and the Soviet Union. Against whom are we now creating our identity? There is another problem: Zygmunt Bauman, a famous Polish sociologist, comments that Europe never has been discovered and thus never described from the outside. Therefore, no one could ever hold a mirror to show us who we are. Finally, there is the issue of mass immigration to Europe, which causes the continent to become more and more a cultural hybrid. In the end though, we all have more than one identity and all of them can coexist in a relative balance. Therefore we can feel not only close to our national identities, but also to our European one. The Citizenship of the European Union introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht, which is additional to our national ones, reflects this very well. Maybe it is not so much a matter of choice but rather of complementarity, leading at last to a fuller image of us.

What’s on your mind?

MY BODY NO LONGER TRAPPED IN A COCOON by Şayen Tokyay (TR)

From May to October, the exhibition Revolution Revelation was open to the public in the exhibition centre “Borusan Muzik Center”, in Istiklal Street in Taksim, İstanbul. Mercan Dede and Carlito Dalceggio invited their visitors on a psychedelic journey through over 60 different works that included collages, sculptures, mixed media, installations, canvas and 3D paintings, music and video, encouraging them to transformation and inner change.

“Dear Seeker, Awake!!! Kiss the ancient wisdom.”

in the brilliant chaos and wondrous palace that follows the manifesto, one immediately understands that the step out the exhibition would not be led by the same soul.

It’s Mercan Dede and Dalceggio calling. For Revolution. And Revelation. As you take one tiny step into the “The Palace of Free Spirits”, you will receive this declaration, the manifesto of “The Romantic Rebels”, in a ﬂamboyant catalogue. This proclamation begins by enchanting its seeker with these mesmerised words and carries on with dedicated orders about illumination, love, revolution, resistance, compassion and magic. After one is done reading it and turns their head around to get lost

One Eastern and one Western soul came together in their passion for pure love and freedom, feeding on each other’s inspiration. Surrounded by friendship and companionship, it led them to a brilliant and harmonious project in the Borusan Music House, an exhibitions centre in the middle of Istiklal Street in Taksim, İstanbul. This street, symbol of the exhausting energy of one of the world’s biggest metropolises, with its incredible daily chaos and centre of numerous revolutionary protests in the city each day, is a delicate choice to display this

truly magical kaleidoscope-like project that goes under the name of “Revolution Revelation.” Carlito Dalceggio and Mercan Dede, after having spent more than two months in their studio in Quebec, moved to Istanbul and located in the first floor of the exhibition centre, where they transformed the place into a masquerade host. This host, once the long-lasting preparation process was over, awakened screaming for revolution and revelation dressed in neon-lighted drawings, tangled figures and alternative touches. Here, it waited to witness the evocation of these same feelings in any visitor that should enter through its doors. This exceptional exhibition, as its name neatly defines, is centred on the two concepts of revolution and revelation, the preliminary one represented by Dalceggio and the latter one by Mercan Dede. The two artists, composing their works as a question-answer round to each other, attempt to open a door of enlightenment in the viewer. Thus, the works of two ‘romantic rebels’ perfectly complement each other and invite the visitors to a new adventure, a bright realm and an inner transformation. In this temptingly colourful exhibition and unworldly invitation to free “our bodies, trapped in cocoons”, the works are a composition of Dalceggios’ canvas works, 3D shapes, sculptures, music, video, and Mercan Dede’s collages and mixed techniques. While all installations interact with each other and form a common story, there are also works that the two artists realised by combining their talents and putting their brushes and hearts together. One of the most thrilling elements of the exhibition is a four-metre high, gigantic Buddha sculpture, whose energy and splashy composition is bewitching. While the viewer is bewilderedly looking to the gargantuan sculpture, he is also surrounded by sufi-like music. Around the Buddha, there are also four rooms, full of 3D works, statements scribbled all over to bring out the theme. My personal favourites however were the sumptuous collages making repetitive use of religious figures,

history’s revolution heroes, and love stories. Looking at the complex figures in the cartoon houses through blacklight and 3D glasses has been an unworldly experience. Also, the elephantine wall-to-wall symbols and statements on revolution, life cycle and peace were wonderfully striking. Ultimately, the most tempting element of the Revolution Revelation exhibition is that Dalceggio and Mercan Dede’s studio is public and can be observed by the visitors. This way, one still feels the artists’ vibrating energy floating around engaging itself in the resplendent provocative thinking process of two fabulous individuals. In the studio, one could even see the working pants of Dalceggio hanging on the wall, stained by the many colours of illumination. The very last incredible detail about the exhibition is that, unlike in many similar modern art exhibitions and galleries, touching is allowed! The visitor, in the exhibition, is given a chance to actively engage in this joyful journey to discover oneself. One is absolutely free to take one colourful feather piece as a souvenir from the huge inspiring bird sculpture, scribble on the walls with the Sharpies and chalks left around, or take pictures on the sofa deliberately painted and then abandoned by the artists to let anyone sit on it. While sitting, one may also pick up the red vintage phone, that has “Call Rumi” written on it, and perceive an absolute spiral of deep whispering voice with a reed flute melody in the background, as I with absolute luck did. After I put the phone down, stood up from the sofa and attempted to leave the Palace of Free Spirits under the spell of the past two hours I had been spending in the exhibition, I felt someone’s calling again. I glanced at one of the walls once more, and heard a magical sound coming out of the statement on the poster. It is Mercan Dede and Dalceggio, saying: “Provoke your own illumination Set yourself on fire.”