26 minute read
Travel
from Palatinate 839
by Palatinate
SciTech “Low self-esteem, high impulsivity”
Continued from page 15
Advertisement
Neurobiology at play
Since it is categorised as an impulse control disorder, gaming addiction is significantly more difficult to relate to causation than substance addictions. Moreover, it appears that not everyone is equally susceptible to developing an addiction to video games. Generally, gaming results in the release of the ‘happy chemical’ dopamine in the brain, triggering a reward response. The desire for online game play appears to be linked to activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal, orbitofrontal cortex, the parahippocampal gyrus, and the thalamus. An MRI study on the differences in brain structure between online gamingaddicted and professional gamer participants suggested that increased grey matter volumes of the left cingulate gyrus in progamers and of the left thalamus in addicts may contribute to the differing clinical characteristics of each group. Studying gaming addiction is complicated by the variety of games that exist. There are different motivators for playing single-player versus multiplayer games. It is thought that multiplayer games are most likely to cause addiction as there is no official ending, like there is with single-player games. The literature mainly focuses on addictions to multiplayer online games, so some papers define a distinct Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD). Notably absent from effects of gaming disorder is the oftcited ‘aggression’
Risk factors are repeatedly identified as diminished social competence, low self-esteem, and high impulsivity, although the latter has been suggested to correlate only to total playtime rather than directly to IGD. Earlier onset of weekly gaming, e.g. before age five rather than 10, has also been associated with increased risk of developing problematic gaming. Other traits associated with IGD are not as well-defined as causes or consequences of problematic gaming. These include increased loneliness, higher anxiety, lower family functioning, and lower school performance. The latter study also found that those who exhibited problematic gaming behaviours tended to sleep and wake up later. However, care must be taken when evaluating the results of studies utilising playtime as a metric. Based on a sample of 13,000 gamers, it has been suggested that raw playtime is an uninformative predictor of a gamer’s mental health. Better predictors of risk are reasons for engaging with games, such as achievement, escapism, and social context. Just one more level... (Anna Kuptsova)
Studies into single-player gaming addiction are far less plentiful, but one recent study found that addiction was more prevalent in online gamers than offline, and that maladaptive cognitions predicted both types of disorder equally, Another study explored whether there was any correlation between the type of game played and incidence of problematic video game usage. The researchers found no such correlation, and instead found that only self-rated impulsivity and frequency of playtime were uniquely and positively correlated with problem video game usage. Notably absent from any of the aforementioned causes and effects of gaming disorder is the oft-cited ‘aggression’. The literature suggests that there is only weak evidence that playing violent games at all is correlated with increased aggression, or even that it may not be correlated at all. Instead, it appears that aggression may be either a side-effect of frustration arising from the type of reinforcement and difficulty of a game, or a withdrawal symptom specifically related to gaming disorder, and a poorly understood one at that. Myself, reading the literature on this topic gave me the spooky feeling of relatability that drives the superstitious to read horoscopes. One paper found that those with ADHD tended to prefer role-playing games, which just happen to be my favourite genre. Another found that, while ADHD symptoms were consistently associated with gaming disorder, more frequent associations were displayed with inattention associations with gaming disorder than other ADHD subscales.
It happens that my particular flavour of ADHD is the ‘primarily inattentive’ presentation. Yet another study posited that internet video game play may be a means of self-medication amongst children with ADHD, and that treatment with methylphenidate hydrochloride, a common drug for treating ADHD, may relieve symptoms of IGD. Anecdotally, I can attest to gaming, in particular the welldefined feedback loops present in games, being one of the reasons I was drawn to gaming when I was unmedicated. After starting treatment with that same medication, my personal recovery from gaming addiction began, and to this day I find it be doing so to escape from an uncomfortable situation, or to mask underlying symptoms of stress, depression, or anxiety. The feel-good chemicals released in the brain when playing games can lead to them feeling the need to play for longer as the addiction gets worse. However, it’s not all doom and gloom. I have already mentioned the psychological and medication-based treatments available for those struggling with gaming addiction. A balanced parenting style, with emphasis on the benefits of emotional warmth in supporting self-efficacy, self-control, and autonomy through the promotion of time management, and avoiding overprotection and parental rejection, has been suggested as a positive influence for avoiding and recovering from IGD.
easier to resist the urge to game excessively when I have had my pill.
Is there a cure?
With so many factors to consider, concerned loved ones may find it difficult to distinguish between avid gamers and those with addictions. The Priory group of clinics recommends looking out for the following features to ascertain whether an addiction has developed: Those with addiction will be preoccupied by the idea of playing certain games, which may last many months or even years. Even during conversation, they may struggle to talk about anything else other than their gaming exploits, while their hygiene, social integration, college, and work performance may all suffer as a result of intensive and prolonged gaming sessions. There are two primary signs of addiction. Obsessional thoughts: a person is so preoccupied by the idea of gaming that they will be focused so much on previous gaming activity that this can get in the way of developing social relationships and can interfere in major aspects of their life such as work performance as well as physical and mental health.
Gaming activity can get in the way of developing social relationships Feel-good games like Animal Crossing: New Horizons have provided a creative outlet
If sufferers can re-establish a healthy relationship with gaming like I have, they stand to benefit from the myriad of positive influences games can have beyond plain and simple fun. Games like Minecraft can be powerful educational tools and drivers of creativity. Motioncontrolled games like Wii Sports and Ring Fit Adventure can encourage physical fitness. Games of skill, such as shooters and driving games, can impart increased hand-eye coordination. Games that require problem solving (a feature of most games) can increase cognitive performance. Challenging games with engaging primary gameplay loops and clear feedback loops can instil motivation and perseverance. Pro-social games can help to break barriers in interpersonal communication. Feel-good games like Animal Crossing: New Horizons have provided gamers with a powerful creative outlet and recreational tool that has correlated positively with mental well-being during the pandemic. My gaming addiction began around the age of 10. I was dependent and impulsive, but with the right diagnoses, treatments, and support from my family, I was able to overcome my addiction. Today, gaming is still my main hobby, one that I consider a ‘healthy obsession’ that does not detract from but rather feeds into my well-being, social life, and career pursuits. Just don’t ask me how many hours I spent reaching 100% completion in Death Stranding.
Politics
Is the USA’s gun problem unsolvable?
Anna Noble
The US has more guns than people.
Enshrined by the Second Amendment, gun rights have so far proved untouchable, but this comes at a deadly cost. In 2019, 38,300 people died from gun violence; statistics provided by the NPR in 2019 show that the US has a higher violent gun death rate – 3.96 per 100,000 – than Somalia, Thailand, Afghanistan, Syria, Cambodia and Yemen.
From 16th March this year, CNN reports that there have been 45 mass shootings in the US; including four in which four or more people have died. Put simply the US has had more mass shootings in the past month than the UK has had in modern history.
It is tempting to ask how many people have to die before the US would change its gun laws.
The recent mass shootings in Atlanta, Boulder and Indianapolis and renewed calls for stricter gun laws. Polls have found that the majority of Americans want stricter gun laws: Pew Research found that 93% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans said they favoured background checks, including at gun shows and private gun sales. A 2019 Politico poll found that 70% of Americans support an assault weapons ban, including 86% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans.
The US lags behind most of the world on enacting gun control. Most countries, when faced with mass shootings, have enacted robust gun control. In the UK, this was after Dunblane, in Australia it was Port Arthur; for New Zealand, the Christchurch massacre.
The argument against gun reform is that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms and as a constitutional right this should not be regulated. Yet this was written 200 years ago at a time when technology was vastly simpler, semi-automatic weapons capable of killing dozens of people in seconds did not exist.
In fact, as The Washington Post highlights, the authors of the Bill of Rights “were not concerned with an individual or personal right to bear arms”, with courts traditionally ruling “right of individual citizens to bear arms existed only within the context of participation in the militia”.
This precedent was only overturned in the National Rifles Association-backed 2008 Supreme Court Case District of Columbia v Heller which found the Second Amendment gives an individual right to own a gun for self-defence outside of a militia service.
Progress on gun reform has also long been rendered paralysed by the NRA’s influence over court cases, Republican presidents and crucially Congress. In 2018, half of Congressional incumbents received financial contributions and/or support from the NRA. In reality this means that the NRA has ensured there is not enough support in Congress to enact gun control.
However, there are arguments that progress could potentially be made if the gun lobby decreases in power, or its ties to Congress diminish. The NRA filed for bankruptcy in February and has decreased its spending on political matters: in 2018, gun control groups outspent the NRA. Nevertheless, even with the NRA’s power diminishing, Republicans remain committed to the Second Amendment and their “thoughts and prayers” response to mass shootings.
Bi-partisan gun control legislation is also unlikely when considering the hyper-partisan tensions which currently exist in US politics.
If the US were going to be shocked into changing its gun laws by horrific mass shootings, it would have already happened; after Columbine or Sandy Hook or Parkland or Virginia Tech or Las Vegas or Orlando.
In truth it is doubtful than any amount of deaths will convince the NRA, Congress and the Supreme Court to support gun control.
The best hope for gun control is that the Democrats either abolish the filibuster or significantly increase their Congressional majority in 2022 to gain the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to support such legislation. This is unfortunately unlikely.
From the Editors
Lilith Foster-Collins Deputy Politics Editor
This week we take a look outside of the UK with a focus on international politics.
We have two articles about protest: both Navalny in Russia and Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong face prison for criticism of Russia and China respectively. Our contributors consider the future of protest in the two countries.
We also narrow in on US relations with other states as Biden settles into the presidency: as Cuba moves away from the Castro name, could this lead to better relations with the US? And in a month where Biden met the Japanese President to discuss China and the Taiwan Strait, what implications might the alliance have for the region?
A piece on gun control draws our attention to the domestic debates still raging across the Atlantic. And finally, something a little more personal: one student’s experience of traveling to Ukraine just as the conflict escalates offers a unique view of the divisions within the country.
The “final battle between good and neutrality”
Sangeeta Unnikrishnan
Alexei Navalny, Russian opposition leader and anticorruption activist, was jailed on charges of embezzlement in February 2021, in a move widely believed to be politically motivated. He began a hunger strike on 31st March in protest of being denied medical treatment, and three weeks later, he was moved to a prison hospital notorious for its abuse of inmates.
Navalny announced on 23rd April that he is ending his hunger strike, after being examined by civilian doctors. Given his recent blood tests, as well as the lingering effects of his Novichok poisoning last year, his doctors have argued that he is in imminent danger of kidney failure or a heart attack. His request for access to his independent medical team, to address worrying numbness in his legs, continues to be denied.
Russian responses have varied from dismissing any issue with his condition, to Russia’s ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin, accusing Navalny of attempting to gain attention.
The price of protest is also growing
Since his arrest, thousands of protestors have come out across Russia in Navalny’s support. Mass protests occurred on 21st April, the day of Vladimir Putin’s annual address; an estimated 1,500 people were arrested, including several of Navalny’s closest aides.
It appears that crowds were smaller than those seen earlier in the year. Many leaders of the movement have left the country to avoid arrest, limiting their ability to organise.
The price of protest is also growing: the Kremlin is considering classifying the Anti-Corruption Foundation as an extremist organisation, which would leave supporters vulnerable to criminal prosecution. Many of those protesting in Navalny’s name are openly critical of his political views. He refuses to retract the controversial views he upheld in the early stages of his career, and espouses Russian nationalist sentiments, demonstrated recently over his ambiguity towards the annexation of Crimea.
An outspoken opponent of immigration, Navalny’s xenophobic comments caused Amnesty International to remove his status as a “prisoner of conscience”. However, Navalny’s treatment at the hands of the Russian government have rendered him larger than life. He is now a figurehead for a larger movement, a victim of torture, regarded on the international stage as he inches closer to death.
He is now a figurehead for a larger movement
Navalny’s anti-corruption activism, coupled with his nationalism, amplify the threat that he poses to Putin. He cannot easily be dismissed as a Trojan horse for US influence; he embodies several mainstream Russian views, with a demonstrated commitment to democratic freedom.
Navalny’s demands to the Russian government have historically never ended as he hoped: for example, his findings of corruption by senior officials have been followed by the promotion of the accused, or at most their quiet transferral. The state is determined to not appear weak, thereby refusing to give in to popular demands. This may indicate that the ongoing protests will be fruitless; combined with the Kremlin’s crackdown on the Anti-Corruption Foundation, they may be forced to an end.
Described by Navalny’s team as the “final battle between good and neutrality”, the protests in Russia undeniably pose a significant challenge to Putin’s United Russia party, in an election year where they may struggle to maintain their two-thirds majority. Whether they can spark tangible change, however, is yet to be seen.
(Evgeny Feldman, Creative Commons)
GOT AN IDEA FOR AN ARTICLE?
Send your thoughts to politics@palatinate.org.uk
Politics Biden and Suga’s Taiwan Strait meeting
Ellie Agu Benson
When Biden stepped into office in January earlier this year, he inherited an innumerable set of issues from his predecessor. High on the agenda was China, with the intractable trade war raging and tensions heating in the Taiwan Strait. Hence Biden’s first in-person summit with Japanese Prime Minister Suga on Friday 16th April was paramount for demonstrating the shape of Asia- Pacific foreign policy during his tenure.
The meeting signalled the US’ commitment to maintaining a “free and open Indo-Pacific” and the sovereignty of states under territorial disputes with China. Alleging their joint commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait in a joint statement released after the meeting, the US presented their strengthened alliance dedicated to confronting China’s “intimidation” in the South and East China seas.
The statement showboated their reinforced alliance but, mentioning Taiwan for the first time since 1969, it was always set to aggravate Beijing. Thus we witnessed the hallmarking of Bidenist foreign policy.
The utility of such an alliance is dubious. China has become an indomitable force since the happy days of Biden’s Vice-Presidency. Quantitatively, China’s navy is superior to the USA’s, among other military capabilities. Its aggression in South China is not merely a facade. In contrast, Japan is a pacifist nation. Enshrined in their constitution is the declaration that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” By national policy, Japan does not possess the firepower to be an effective comrade.
However, American leadership is derived from projecting their power forward rather than relying on actual resources. In this case, one may question the effectiveness of a country dependent on their perceived power joining forces with the perpetual pacifist. Aggression in the South China Sea is not merely a facade
Perhaps Japan could act as a conduit for US to ASEAN affairs? As the centre of AsiaPacific regionalism, the US highlighted its support for the international organisation. Thus, US policymakers excitedly await the reciprocal message marking the return of American liberal internationalism. But they are mistaken. Liberal internationalism is not merely a commitment to multilateralism – it is a commitment to the use of American military force.
Support of ASEAN rejects this. Like Japan, the international organisation holds eminent respect for the strict sovereignty of the state, observing inherently non-interventionist policies. It garners the support of members under stringent norms of a prohibition against force. ASEAN support would substantiate into something insubstantial. Japan’s greatest benefit against China is its trade opportunities. The countries are set to invest billions of dollars to produce advanced technologies, including 5G telecommunications networks, biotechnology and quantum computing. These sectors all form emerging fields where the US competes with China for global dominance and are all areas of Japanese technological artistry. Hence Japan opens a pathway allowing the US and other countries to circumvent reliance upon Chinese technology.
This, however, is futile. Circumventing China would only exacerbate a trade war that should not deteriorate. Already the tariffs have cost close to a quarter of a million US jobs and 0.5 per cent of global domestic product. By placing Japan as their de facto technology exporter, the US would only add to this malfeasance.
Ultimately supply chain concerns and tariff damages demonstrate the interdependence of the global market. Aggravating Chinese trade is too costly. As such, alliances against China are ineffective. Western democracies should ditch such containment policies in place of pragmatic solutions.
(US State Department, Flickr)
Living in a country at war: Ukraine’s conflict
Harry Drew
In keeping with the general shambles that has been this year abroad, I decided to travel to Ukraine at the precise point that a war in the east of the country began to seriously escalate. After a year of plan after plan being dashed by coronavirus, when Russia banned travel into the country the decision to travel to Ukraine instead seemed logical.
If you are unaware of the origins and causes of the war with Ukraine, I don’t blame you. I was shockingly oblivious myself at the point at which I found myself on a plane to Kyiv secure in the delusion that I had made a smart decision to leave the UK.
The regions of Ukraine closest to Russia are predominantly Russian-speaking. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many people who considered themselves Russian now found themselves living in modern-day Ukraine. Since then, the east of the country has tended to support closer ties with Russia while the west advocate European integration.
In 2010 the pro-Russia ‘Party of Regions’ led by Viktor
Yanukovych won a closelyrun general election against the pro-EU party Ukrainian. if you want to speak Russian get on the next plane and go to Russia (followed by a long string of insults which, thanks to my complete lack of Ukrainian, I did not understand).’
Or sometimes you encounter the opposite viewpoint.
While putting the bins out in sandals, an old babushka started making fun of me for not wearing socks. We joked about it for a few minutes until, with no prompting whatsoever, she began an extensive monologue on the glory days of the Soviet Union.
Occasionally and tentatively, I have asked locals if they think that the war will escalate. ‘Of course not’, an International Relations student told me. ‘Everyone is happy right now. Ukraine doesn’t want Donbass and neither does Russia, really.’
It appears she may have been right as, at the time of writing, the Russian defence minister has just announced that they are withdrawing troops from the Ukrainian border. Despite this superficial sign of de-escalation, however, the fundamental divide between pro- and anti-Russian sentiment is far from resolved.
‘Batkivshchyna’ led by Yulia Tymoshenko. The voting map will give you an idea about just how clearly the country is geographically torn.
In November 2013, a series of protests broke out due to Yanukovych’s decision to suspend the signing of an agreement with the European Union and instead pursue closer union with Russia. In February 2014, a violent revolution took place in Kyiv, resulting in the ousting of elected president Viktor Yanukovych and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government. At this point a proEU government replaced it under Petro Poroshenko.
Faced with a Ukraine tending towards the European Union, Russia made two key interventions. Firstly, Russian troops installed a pro-Russian government in Crimea, solidifying Crimea’s independence from Ukraine with a referendum on 16th March 2014.
Secondly, Russia took the decision to militarily support the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbass region which, since the deposition of Yanukovich, had declared themselves independent from Ukraine.
Since 2015, there had been very few developments until a few weeks ago when Russia threatened war with Ukraine if they continued to fight the separatist governments in the Donbass region.
This threat has resulted in both countries amassing troops around the region, with some reports saying that Russia had moved as many as 100,000 troops to the Ukrainian border.
As you can imagine, arriving in a country at war with Russia to improve your Russian fluency is about as good an idea as going to Glasgow and loudly proclaiming that you are there to learn how to make the perfect English trifle.
As a result, it’s not uncommon to have a conversation along the lines of:
‘What are you doing in Ukraine?’
‘I am studying Russian.’
‘In Ukraine, we speak
Politics Jimmy Lai and democracy in Hong Kong
Ian Cheung
Hong Kong news tycoon Jimmy Lai, arrested last August following the passing of the National Security Law, was recently found guilty of participating in two unlawful protests back in 2019 and was sentenced to 14 months in prison.
However, Lai faces further charges such as conspiracy to collude with foreign forces which could see him face a maximum sentence of life in prison. To many, this outcome will be depressing, but sadly unsurprising.
Lai has been one of the most outspoken opponents of Beijing and there have been no shortage of attempts from Chinese state media to demonise Lai, labelling him as things such as the “black hand” behind the protests, or an “extremely vile anti-China element”.
In recent years, despite an increasing number of newspapers in Hong Kong folding to Beijing’s iron fist and avoiding any negative coverage of China, Lai’s newspaper, Apple Daily, has refused to yield and instead emerged as a leading voice for the pro-democracy movement.
Since 2019, the newspaper has published numerous columns criticising Beijing. As such, he was inevitably going to be a target for Beijing.
The sentencing of Lai, amongst other pro-democracy leaders, was met with condemnation by the international community. Amnesty International’s AsiaPacific regional director, Yamini Mishra, accused the convictions of violating international law, adding that the sentencing of these activists “underlines the Hong Kong government’s intention to eliminate all political opposition in the city.”
Indeed, participation in unlawful protests had traditionally been characterised as a low-level offence attracting fines, not hefty prison sentences. To some, this is an obvious attempt from Beijing to put a muzzle on the movement’s most vocal leaders and deter others from attempting to openly speak out against the regime, the first example of the Beijing’s National Security Law at play.
The National Security Law was ratified last June at the height of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. On the surface its contents look familiar to similar security laws that exist in many other developed countries, but upon closer inspection, terms such as ‘sedition’ and ‘subversion’ lack concrete definition, which makes the ordinance particularly worrying.
Lawyers and prodemocracy politicians in Hong Kong have voiced their concerns for this seemingly draconian bill, labelling it as an easy way for Beijing to crack down on the pro-democracy movement and prevent any similar movements from materialising in the future.
This fear seems widespread among the population at large, with 300,000 Hong Kong residents expected to emigrate to the UK alone according to the South China Morning Post, among whom was pro-democracy leader Nathan Law, who self-exiled to the UK to seek political asylum shortly after the passing of the National Security Law last year.
What does this all mean for Hong Kong’s prodemocracy movement going forward? As of right now, the future for the movement looks grim. With its leaders either being arrested or fleeing to the West, the movement will likely have to adapt to these rising challenges and move away from vocal and disrupting protests to quiet, underground resistance. Despite these pessimistic signs, Lai and Apple Daily refuse to surrender, reaffirming that their staff remain committed to defending press freedom.
Regardless of whether you support Hong Kong’s prodemocracy movement, pressfreedom and the freedom of expression should be a fundamental human right, not something that results in arrest and imprisonment.
Hong Kong’s future as a democratic and free state look bleak, but judging from its people’s resilience in the past, it most definitely will not go down without a fight.
(Studio Incendo, Flickr)
The uncertain future of Cuban socialism
Maddy Burt
Raúl Castro’s decision to resign as head of Cuba’s Communist Party brings an end to over six decades of Castro rule in the country. Miguel Diaz-Canel, President of the country since 2018, has been selected as the new leader, and must now manage a country crippled by an economic crisis alongside the pandemic.
In 1959, Fidel Castro and his younger brother Raúl successfully led a revolution against the American-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. The 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion saw the CIA support Cuban nationals in an attempt to overthrow Castro, only to be quickly defeated by the Cuban army. Cuba’s alignment with the Soviet Union led to a trade embargo from the US, and relations have been poor to hostile ever since.
During Raúl Castro’s speech in the Eighth Congress of the ruling party in which he announced his decision to step down, Raúl referenced the days of the 1959 revolution, whilst promising to continue to defend “the fatherland, the revolution and socialism.” Cuba’s Communist Party remains, but Miguel Diaz-Canel may face increased opposition without the Castro name to support him. Further, within the majority of the population born long after the revolution, there exists a great generational divide.
The Party and older generation are sustained from the achievements of the original revolution, and many recall the difficulties that preceded the 1959 revolution, despite the hardships that also followed. The younger generation, on the other hand, are calling for economic and political freedom and a loosening of the grip that the government holds over the country after years of economic crises.
In recent years, the country has been reforming, albeit slowly, with a hesitant bureaucracy afraid of sliding away from the original aims of the revolution and towards capitalism. In 2008, Raúl Castro’s government allowed Cubans to earn private incomes, whereas before all jobs had been government-provided.
In January, Raúl allowed a broader range of private enterprise in the country. Still, the current and persistent economic crisis threatens to undermine any gradual reforms, and calls for something more radical.
Cuba’s gross domestic product dropped 11% last year alone, and shortages of basic necessities such as food and medicine are commonplace. With the rapid growth of access to the internet across the country since it was first allowed on phones in 2018, and the legalisation of social media, the younger generation is finding solidarity through sharing their opposition to the government online.
In 2014, Raúl helped facilitate an opening to Cuba with US President Barack Obama, but all progress was quickly reversed by Donald Trump. A 2015 poll revealed that most Cubans want a closer relationship with the US. Diaz-Canel could find support in the younger generation and a chance to improve the economic situation by pursuing a better connection with America. However, this is by no means guaranteed. The Communist Party remains cautious of change, and Raúl Castro will continue to operate behind the scenes.
The Party is still predominantly made up of a generation detached from the younger generation. Also, Joe Biden may not be in a hurry to pursue relations. The Biden administration has said that Cuba is not a current priority for foreign policy. Biden also has to face the fact that 45% of CubanAmericans support Trump’s embargo, and that the majority of Cuban-Americans supported Trump in the previous election.
Either way, as opposition continues to build, the future of Cuban socialism is under threat from a generation pursuing an open and modern society.
