The Eagle - Summer Term 2021 by StJohnsLeatherhead

e l g a e the

ILS’ THE PUP GAZINE A M S C I POLIT 1 SUMMER

2 TERM 20

Edited by: Safoah Ntiamoah Annabel Greenbury

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

Safoah Ntiamoah Annabel Greenbury

e t o n s ' r o t edi IT IS NOT A SECRET THAT THE WORLD HAS SEEN SOME TURBULENT TIMES RECENTLY. DISSECTING THESE ISSUES AS POLITICALLY AWARE PUPILS’ AIDS US TO CONFRONT SOCIAL CHANGE. AS WE ARE CURRENTLY CELEBRATING PRIDE, WE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR GENERATION BEING GIVEN THE PLATFORM TO EXPRESS OURSELVES.

This edition covers matters ranging from Imperial Presidencies to Women’s rights. Our first section covers social injustices occurring throughout the world through the eyes of our brilliant writers, following into a section debating modern democracies and ending on the legacies of US presidents. This edition maintains a strong message of modern morality throughout. Our writers have delved into modern issues in an impressive and mature light, especially considering the difficulties of having to adjust to school and writing exams with the Covid-19 pandemic ever-present. We hope to increase political engagement and awareness through our nuanced and thoughtful perspectives. We want to leave our readers with a feeling of contemplation and a better sense of our world today and hopes for the future.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

s t n e t con Equality and Diversity “It was okay at the time…” by Safoah Ntiamoah (Lower Sixth, Gloucester) Finding the line by Hannah Sheppard and Louise Donovan (Lower Sixth, Hawkins) A humanitarian Crisis in China by Annabel Greenbury (Lower Sixth, Gloucester) Reflections on the growth of Nationalism in 21st century politics by Ollie Smith (Lower Sixth, North) Response to Sarah Everard’s Murder by Shria Crossan (Lower Sixth, Haslewood) Should the Death Penalty be fully abolished in the US by Izzy Kuhle (Lower Sixth, South) and Oli Latham (Lower Sixth, East) The latest Texan abortion legislation and how it could affect a woman’s right to choose by Isla McDonald (Lower Sixth, South)

4 7 13 18 20 22 24

Democracy Protest Lens by Radha Peratides (Upper Third) The correlation between morality and power seem through Boris Johnson and Donald Trump by Neve Hudson (Lower Sixth, Haslewood) Is the constitution still strong today? by Alice Hanson (Lower Sixth,Hawkins) Why does the analysis of crowd psychology matter in politics by Eleanor Wilson (Lower Sixth, Gloucester) Should the UK abolish the monarchy by Luca Hatwell (Lower Sixth, Surrey) Can the UK democracy be seen as healthy by Lily Byway (Lower Sixth, Hawkins)

27 29

32 34 36 38

Greatest US presidents of all time Franklin D Roosevelt by Eleanor Wilson (Lower Sixth, Gloucester) Ronald Reagan by Tali Gibbons (Lower Sixth, Haslewood) Woodrow Wilson by Neve Hudson (Lower Sixth, Haslewood) US Politics Word Search by Daisy Deuchar (Lower Sixth, Gloucester)

42 44 46 48

equality and diversity

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

y a k o s a w 'It ' e m i t e h t at ucester

wer Sixth, Glo

oah - Lo Safoah Ntiam

BEING A YOUNG BLACK WOMAN IN THE WORLD TODAY IS SUFFOCATING TO SAY THE LEAST. KEEPING UP TO DATE WITH ALL OF THE NEWS DEPICTING HOW BACKWARD AND OPPRESSIVE THE WORLD STILL IS. IT TAKES ITS TOLL. CONTRARY TO POPULAR MISUNDERSTANDING, THERE IS STILL A LOT TO DO! LIVING IN BRITAIN AS BRITISH BUT STILL FEELING A SENSE OF OTHERNESS. “WHERE ARE YOU FROM?” AS IF MY BLACKNESS EQUATES TO FOREIGN. I WAS BORN IN SURREY. THAT’S NOT WHAT THAT QUESTION IS ASKING, IT IS ASKING YOUR ORIGINS. AS IF SOMEONE WHO IS BLACK COULD NEVER BE FULLY BRITISH. “NO I MEAN WHERE ARE YOU REALLY FROM?” THAT’S THE QUESTION THAT IS BLATANTLY RACIST. IT’S NOT HIDDEN. OR CASUAL. OR OKAY.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

There is a burden that you carry with your skin, an unspoken one, which means that whether you like it or not you have a responsibility to break stereotypes. Completely destroy them. You have a responsibility to prove you belong every step of the way. At every turn you must prove you deserve to be there. Present them with an image that is so opposite to their expectations and preconceptions they have no choice but rethink their biases. It all does get too much, if that is what you are wondering. However, there are some relieving moments where you do prove someone wrong, when you know you belong. In those moments it is not a burden but a badge of honour. Pride. Personally, racism takes precedence over sexism. When someone attacks my femininity it’s not only me but all of the girls and women around me. We are all being patronised or having to endure some form of ignorance. When someone attacks my race, it is personal. It’s just me. The long-argued idea of ‘that was acceptable at the time’ is not acceptable at all. We cannot argue that anymore. Not for our grandparents. Not for our parents. Not for anyone. It is no longer acceptable to argue that morality or even empathy was different somehow in the past. People knew the genocide was wrong. That’s why it was stopped. People knew slavery was wrong. That’s why it was abolished. People knew apartheid was wrong. That’s why it was ended (supposedly). If someone’s defense for their hatred or ignorance is the past, it isn’t acceptable. They are aligning themselves with horrific and frankly inhumane ideals. Standing behind and defending it is immoral. Explain to whoever why that isn’t okay anymore. Embarrass them. Racists make me laugh. They do. If you were to sit one down and ask them, judgement aside, where their ideas stemmed from, why they felt the way they do, they would be stumped. A lot of the time it’s not about hatred or feeling they are better than you in some way. It’s what they can gain from making you feel uncomfortable. Maybe a laugh. Maybe a moment of vile superiority. Either way, once they feel the slightest bit uncomfortable the hatred escalates or dissipates. Then you’ll know if they really mean it or not. It’s not a real threat. They are not a real threat. The threat and the danger are how these ideas can hold you back, unfairly disadvantage you. That’s when it’s not just about feeling uncomfortable it’s about getting the opportunities that you deserve. Or getting what they think you deserve. Serena Williams is an American tennis player who has revolutionized women’s tennis as we know it. Get the recognition she rightfully deserves? Of course not. You know the drill by now. Williams is widely regarded to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time. Yet

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

in interviews Andy Murray has to correct ignorance. “The first person ever to win two Olympic tennis gold medals”, the interviewer foolishly stated. Murray corrected, pointing out that Serena and Venus Williams had both achieved the feat before him, “I think Venus and Serena have won about four each,” he said. Of course, Murray was hailed as a hero. He’s not. He pointed out a fact. Even on that level, even when talking about the greatest, she is blatantly disregarded. This was 2016 by the way. So not ‘acceptable at the time’. Not acceptable at all. I get scared to call out racism. It makes me feel uncomfortable saying it. I do always know when it’s about race. I don’t always mention it, because it’s another stereotype. Calling out racists ‘all the time, you never want to be the ‘boy who cried wolf’. You also never want to be taken advantage of. Racists will take advantage of your silence. Your tolerance. The worst thing is when it’s ‘indirect discrimination’. That’s when you are most uncomfortable. When it’s direct and blatant you know what you are dealing with. However, the subtle and secretive will really drag you down. The scariest thing is it has become inevitable. Inevitable in our world today. Prince Philip was a prolific racist. He got away with it because of the institution he represents, and that’s a conversation for another day. For now, why should we mourn someone whose rhetoric meant that I was less than? Meant that we aren’t all good enough. We don’t all belong. That black and brown people alike were the butt of some sick joke. If your humour means that a whole race of people are being dehumanised and attacked. Well, you might want to evaluate your twisted psyche. Look at it this way, the world is set up for the majority of right-handed people to find their way around easily. Nobody really puts into account how left-handed people have to adjust to even something as simple as a door handle. Right-handed people would not understand and will never understand, and that is their privilege. There is no such thing as unconscious bias. Once again, more excuses. It’s not our conscious mind that’s racist, so technically we can’t be blamed. The bias is always there. It has simply become such a habit that you do it instinctively. Let’s call it how it is. It’s not unconscious. It’s just become second nature, to immediately judge with ignorance. It is an afterthought. Like breathing. Unless we only breathe unconsciously now too. Reversed racism is another myth. You can’t be anti-semitic to a Christian. If a group has never been oppressed or discriminated against in history, prejudice and unkindness doesn’t carry the same weight and trauma.

If you are feeling attacked or defensive after reading this. I have news for you. You might be racist – my professional diagnosis. All I can do for you is tell you now and forever it is not acceptable anymore. We won’t accept it anymore.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

g n i d Fin e n i l e h t ard

Hannah Shepp

kins

er Sixth, Haw

novan - Low and Louise Do

W HE N I S CULTUR A L SI G NI F I C A NCE N O L O N G E R SUF F I CI E NT J UST I F I C AT I O N RE G A R D I NG WO M E N ’ S HUMA N RI G H T S I NF R I NG E ME NTS? A RE CULTURE A N D HUMA N RI G H T S LAW F UNDA ME NTA L LY I N O PPO SI T I O N? The argument of cultural relativism (not judging another culture by the standards of one’s own) is frequently used to justify the non-application of Human Rights in certain countries. To what extent, however, is this argument being used as an excuse by societies who continuously abuse the rights of their people? On the flip side, is the global implementation of internationally agreed upon Human Rights laws to blame for cultural marginalisation, suppression or even eradication? We in this article are addressing these questions, using examples from across the globe to try and weigh up the balance between cultural relativism and human rights infringement.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

THE IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE, A DELINEATION OF CURRENT HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS, AND BRIEF ANALYSIS REGARDING THEIR COMPATIBILITY:

SOME CULTURAL TRADITIONS THAT CHALLENGE THE FUNDAMENTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS: In a number of circumstances, arguments of cultural relativism are used as a justification for the facilitation of some cultural traditions which pose a threat to the rights and lives of individuals across the globe. But is it truly culture impeding the implementation of human rights legislation when traditional patriarchal systems of authority are being challenged? Here it is indicated how cultural relativism is often fallen upon as a reason for not implementing certain Human Rights laws, when in fact the challenging of traditional patriarchal systems is what discourages compliance. As acknowledged in the Malawi Human Rights Watch Report of 2005, in certain cases, the human rights infringements outweigh the cultural significance or legitimacy of a practice.

Culture represents the foundation of a society, and has an irreplaceable influence on social and individual identity. Family, education, lifestyle, belief systems, healthcare, and even governmental and legislative decisions are influenced by a country’s culture. Pivotal human rights laws tend to receive broad support on an international level, having made provisions to both protect individuals without impeding on their culture and religious traditions. However, some argue that several of the human rights stipulations outlined under the influence of Western culture are incompatible with certain cultural practices from across the world, and hence pit the two against each other. Whilst International Human Rights laws remain a Western construct, they specifically do not seek to eradicate long-standing and traditional elements of culture. The International Bill of Human Rights establishes the importance of these cultural rights and seeks to ensure that no culture can establish dominance over another. If these provisions have been made, why do some still believe Human Rights and culture to be incompatible?

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: Whether or not some elements of culture are being infringed, there are some practices which are utterly abhorrent and their existence acts as a stain on humanity. Female Genital Mutilation, a practice particularly prevalent within many African countries, is the non-medical removal of female genital organs, often resulting in infection and other health and reproductive issues. Recent estimates show that more than 200 million women and children around the world have undergone this traumatic procedure. Despite its illegalisation in most countries, FGM continues to be facilitated on a broad scale. Subjected to this at age five, Waris Dirie uses her accumulated platform to fight against FGM after escaping Somalia at thirteen years old. She explains how “FGM exists only for one reason: because there is still inequality between men and women. It is a matter of exercising control over us women. It is about power and oppression. FGM is cruel, has no medical background, and its only purpose is to subjugate the woman and her sexuality to the man.’’ In addition, she highlights the impact of immigration in Western countries on FGM rates saying that ‘‘Immigrants do not abandon their customs and traditions simply because they come to another country.’’

Cultural relativism innately caters to the belief western culture often maintains, seeing itself to be the default, the blank canvas if you will, from which other cultures deviate. It heralds itself for its doctrines of legal equality and the protection of its citizens in the upholding of their human rights. Yet, bills which strive to feed our hungry children living in poverty are rejected. Women are harassed on the street, abused and killed and raped at staggering rates, minorities are penalized by the police based on their identity alone, public statues hold greater legal weight than a woman’s body. Peaceful marches addressing the safety of one individual compared to another, and the greater value one life holds over another, are faced with tear gas and riot gear, violence and incarceration; while paramilitary attacks on state buildings leave participants largely unharmed and even protected. The point being made: agreeing in law that there are certain rights which must be upheld for every human, no matter their identity, is simply not enough. Western culture is hypocritical if it believes its hands to be clean when addressing global Human Rights infringements. Therefore, one cannot trust the parameters written into Human Rights laws alone to be enough in striking the balance between culture and the respect of individual Human Right.

An award-winning advertising campaign highlighting the worldwide problem of FGM.

Through this she argues the dangers that lie as a result of the neglected awareness surrounding this practice in countries such as the UK and demands that the problem is taken more seriously. This can be as simple as increasing education surrounding the topic and ensuring that all cases are reported and not overlooked by health authorities.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

GIRLS EDUCATION: Tapiwa H. Maoni, a Girl Up Club leader in Malawi, details in her Feminists Don’t Wear Pink and Other Lies essay her experience with malangizo or ‘cultural counselling’. At thirteen, she and her female cousins were taught, under the tutelage of her mother and her sisters, the various rules her culture dictated: kneeling to elders, giving a male or elder anything, receiving items from male family members with both hands. This social education, of obedience and importance of respect based on identity reinforces patriarchal socialisation and allows for other issues, such as sexual violence perpetrated against women, sometimes by the very people they are taught to respect and obey, to fall under the radar. Academic education, too, suffers at the hands of this social education. Though not systemically denied an education through legislative barrier, she was discouraged by teachers and peers from participating in subjects she was not deemed clever enough for, like maths and science, because she was a girl. This is the social and cultural influence on her human rights which is intangible and therefore cannot be addressed through Human Rights Legislation alone. A UNESCAP report aligns itself with the conclusions drawn in the paragraph above: “legislative change can only impact if it is combined with effective law enforcement and social policies”. The study, too, acknowledges that a more effective strategy for globally meeting Human Rights standards is through a focus on the implementation of positive, progressive social legislation which supports those who are oppressed, as opposed to the banning or prohibition alone of certain traditional practices which are infringing human rights.

es to the “The study com r, that eve conclusion, how ns are aditio customs and tr at it is not th d n a c ti ta s t no on alone, through legislati se culturally prohibiting the t human a th , s e c ti c a r p tied ents can be m e g in fr in ts h rig eradicated.”

Harmful South Asian cultural practices (UNESCAP study): This aforementioned report was also helpful in delineating some of the tangible human rights infringements taking place in the name of cultural practice in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. “Some of these practices such as dowry and child marriage are common phenomena. Others such as dedication to temples, witchcraft or virginity testing are country specific. Son preference is common to all of the countries and manifests in the denial of inheritance rights and/or health and education opportunities to girls and women, reinforcing negative stereotypical values that also contribute to intrafamily and domestic violence.” The study comes to the conclusion, however, that “customs and traditions are not static” and that it is not through legislation alone, prohibiting these culturally tied practices, that Human Rights infringements can be eradicated. It must be a social change, a shift in atttude, that accompanies such laws for them to truly be effective.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THESE EXAMPLES: In these examples, it is clear to us that cultural significance does not provide sufficient reason for maintaining these harmful practices. Unfortunately, women remain at the heart of these issues, continuously having their Human Rights jeopardised. These cultural practices stand in direct opposition to Human Rights law and therefore cannot co-exist with them. The dilemma of whether this places the entire culture under question, or these practices alone, is yet to be resolved. On the other hand, are international human rights being used as a form of cultural imperialism? As pre-discussed, the Human Rights Laws currently in place were conceived largely against the backdrop and under the influence of Western culture. Are they, therefore, enabling white, western cultures to condemn those cultures and peoples different to them, as cultural relativist theory suggests? The recent banning of the hijab in France might be indicative of this claim: which side of this debate is committing the human rights infringement? The religion of which this is a significant item of clothing, or the state which is disallowing and criminalising a religious practice/symbol/choice under the farce of liberation. There is, in Western media and culture, generally a fixation (arguably stemming from widespread Islamophobia) on ‘liberating’ Muslim women from this piece of cloth. This law prohibiting Muslim women in France to wear the hijab is entirely ignorant of the concept that they might even be practicing bodily autonomy by wearing a covering, and that removing their right to wear it would in fact be removing the bodily autonomy that is so ardently insisted they do not have. Here it is clear that it is in fact under the farce of Western Human Rights legislation that cultural and religious repression is taking place.

SO, TO CONCLUDE, IS THERE A THREAT OF ERADICATING CULTURE BY ENFORCING INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS? Can the two co-exist? Whilst Human Rights laws appear to attain universal support, cultural relativism remains the primary justification in the lack of implementation across the globe. Graeme Reid, the Director of the LGBTQ Rights Program at Human Rights Watch discusses how “traditional values are often deployed as an excuse to undermine human rights.” He then continues to argue the importance of overcoming this misconception by stating that “the human rights movement is not inherently at odds with customary law, religious law, and tradition, but with the aspects that violate rights. The task at hand is one of transformation, not rejection.”

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

“It is our joint responsibility to challenge traditions that say young girls can be married off as child brides. I don’t blame my parents; I blame the culture they are tied to.” Mercy Akuot

Individuals from cultures whose practices are deemed unethical, and who despite this stand in opposition to these practices, seem to come to a similar conclusion as Mr Reid. They do not believe these harmful practices to be a part of their culture; generationally, they accept that this is part of the culture of their ancestors but they themselves do not feel the need to carry them forward in order to retain their cultural identity. They still feel very much to be a part of the culture at large, just an evolved form of the culture which does not require infringing Human Rights to remain upheld. “It is our joint responsibility to challenge traditions that say young girls can be married off as child brides” says South- Sudanese singer, activist and child marriage survivor, Mercy Akuot. “I don’t blame my parents; I blame the culture they are tied to.” She stands in opposition to the parts of her culture which subjugate, abuse and victimise women. She acknowledges that it is the socialisation, or indoctrination, into these practices which has pushed her parents into abusing her Human Rights. Without such socialisation, through the evolution of her culture and the extraction of these harmful practices, those infringements would not have taken place. Similarly, Waris Dirie quotes in her book titled Desert Flower: “Because I criticize the practice of FGM some people think I don’t appreciate my culture. But they are so wrong. I thank God every day that I am from Africa, and I am very proud to be Somali.” Victims of these practices themselves explain the distinction between embedded elements of the culture which warrant retention and the inhumane and futile traditions which hinder the development of societies and generations. “The time has come to leave the old ways of suffering behind.” Cultures across the globe are radically different and must be accommodated for in the deliberation of international law. This is unquestionable. We have come to the conclusion, however, that they are not defined by certain problematic practices embedded within them and can undoubtedly evolve to uphold the rights of their people, whilst retaining their fundamental and defining beliefs and traditions.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

n a i r a t i n a a hum a n i h c n i s i s cri bury Annabel Green cester lou Lower Sixth, G

ALTHOUGH CHINA OFTEN DOMINATES THE WORLD NEWS BY GOING HEAD-TOHEAD WITH THE US OR UK, WHAT HAS BEEN PUT ON THE BACKBENCH IN MANY MEDIA OUTLETS AND HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SAME ATTENTION, IS ITS INTERNAL HUMANITARIAN CRISIS – THE MUSLIM PRISON CAMPS .

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

WHAT IS GOING ON?

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE CAMPS?

China has reportedly secretly built hundreds of highsecurity prison camps to hold Muslim minorities, in the Xinjiang region. China has refuted the claim that they are prison camps, instead they are supposedly ‘reeducation camps’, and the Chinese government has described the camps as ‘training centres’ to help deter extremists; they have insisted there are no human rights abuses.

Amnesty International found Muslims were being starved, beaten, electrocuted, and shackled to chairs for hours on end. There have been reports from more than 50 former detainees that have exposed the cruelty of the camps towards Muslim minorities. Descriptions of being held in horrendous, brutal conditions with many blindfolded and handcuffed, have been shared by former detainees and there are examples of the types of torture and abuse that the Muslims in the camps have been subjected to – two former detainees have said they were forced to wear heavy shackles, one for an entire year. Others told stories of being shocked with electric batons or pepper sprayed, and many had to sleep two to a bed or take turns sleeping in shifts because of the over-crowding.

The camps have been identified by survivor accounts, project tracking internment centres, and satellite images. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute was able to obtain satellite images in September 2020, showing almost 400 camps in the Xinjiang region, and some of their specific coordinates. The images showed huge compounds surrounded by guard posts and layers of barbed wire on either side of a high wall. As well as this, an investigation found that an estimated 260 camps have been built since 2019, with at least one in almost every county of Xinjiang. The governor of Xinjiang, Shohrat Zakir, in October 2018, delivered a ‘justification’ for the camps; he described the inmates as ‘students’ in Xinjiang’s ‘vocational education training program’. According to Zakir, camp inmates live in air-conditioned dorms under ‘humane’ conditions, where they acquired job skills to become tailors, e-commerce traders, hairdressers and more. However, China has not allowed journalists, human rights groups or diplomats to access the camps. Most information about the camps, and a wider government campaign against Muslim minorities in the region, has come from survivors and satellite images. Former prisoners who have been able to escape and have taken refuge abroad are now telling their stories of their experiences inside, that the camps are being used to curb the country’s Muslim population. It is the largest-scale detention of ethnic and religious minorities since World War II – there is suggestion that China is carrying out a policy of cultural and ethnic genocide against the Uighurs. Many Muslims have been confined and detained for activities such as, abstaining from alcohol and cigarettes; having too many children; refusing to let officials take a DNA sample; or giving deceased relatives a traditional Muslim burial instead of cremation. The UN has stated that more than one million ethnic Uighurs have been detained and are being held in these camps, since 2017.

The detainees are forced to remain silent for hours and are then indoctrinated with forced brainwashing sessions about the Communist Party and are bullied into rejecting Islam and their own languages, being forced to speak only Chinese. These practices of restricting religious and cultural beliefs and forced sterilisation of women have amounted to cultural genocide. There has been footage showing large groups of detainees kneeling in rows and being surrounded by guards as they wait to be loaded onto a train going to these camps, wearing blindfolds, with their hands bound and their heads shaven. However, China responded, stating that it showed officials carrying out ‘normal’ tasks. Drone footage that emerged in one of the camps, that China defended as ‘normal’ practice.

WOMEN Muslim women in these camps are being subjected to rape, sterilisation and forced abortion and former prisoners have described how younger women were taken from their cells by guards in the night. There are other accounts of women being forced to smear ground chilli peppers onto their genitals before showering or being forced to implant intrauterine devices – devices inserted into the uterus to stop pregnancy. This sexual violence being used against female Muslims has become a weapon for China against its Muslim population; they are essentially sterilising women to stop them from reproducing – limiting and reducing the Muslim population, provoking the question of whether this is a genocide. Whether or not this question can be fully answered, it is still clear to see the truly abusive and despicable practices that are being

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

used in these camps against Muslims, highlighting dangerous similarities between these camps and the concentration camps of World War II.

HOW HAVE FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS REACTED?

One survivor – Ruqiye Perhat – spent four years in prison after the 2009 Urumqi riots, triggering her arrest in Xinjiang. She said that any woman aged under 35 in the camp was raped and sexually abused. She, herself, was forced to abort her baby without any anaesthetic, and was repeatedly raped by the camp guards, resulting in two pregnancies, which were both aborted while she was in prison. Critics had made parallels between what is occurring to Muslim women in these camps, with the dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale.

From the UK, Dominic Raab has stated that “whatever the legal label, it is clear that gross, egregious human rights abuses are going on. It is deeply, deeply troubling and the reports on the human aspect of this – from forced sterilisation to the education camps – are reminiscent of something we have not seen for a very long time. We want a positive relationship with China, but we can’t see behaviour like that and not call it out.”

CHILDREN China has also been accused of keeping thousands of Muslim children away from their Muslim parents and attempting to indoctrinate them in camps, posing as schools or orphanages.

In 2016, US Congress passed the Global Magnit Sky Human Rights and Accountability Act, which allows the US government to sanction foreign government officials involved in human rights abuses. This Act enabled the US to join with the UK, Canada, and the EU in March 2021, to announce sanctions against a number of Chinese officials for ‘serious human 16 rights abuses’ against Uighur Muslims, the officials were named as Wang Junzheng, and Chen Mingguo. The sanctions came just after the US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken and the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan had a tense meeting with senior Chinese officials. Blinken condemned China saying it “continues to commit genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang” and that the US would stand with their allies to call for an end to China’s crimes and justice for the victims, he also warned that the US will step up against China on issues if necessary. President Joe Biden, who has spoken to the Chinese President Xi Jinping in February 2021, promised he would join with allies to mount a harsher pushback; the US has condemned China’s treatment of the Uighurs. Will world leaders decide to step in once and for all to end these abhorrent practices, and violations of human rights?

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

e h t n o s n o i t c Refle m s i l a n o i t a n f o h t w s c gro i t i l o p y r u t n e c t in 21s rth

wer Sixth, No

o Ollie Smith - L

My own experiences growing up in a period of transition – between Brexit Britain and post-Brexit Britain have certainly shaped how I view national identity, racism, political divisions and such like. However, the bubbling undercurrent within British politics that Dominic Cummings, leader of the Leave campaign, tried to tap into in 2016, is sometimes seen as a modern phenomenon. Nationalism, in its very definition can trace its origins to the very dawn of nations in themselves. It is hard to conceptualise that our tribal affiliations with our countries did have a genesis as it were. There was a point of conception – albeit a complex one, but a point, nonetheless. The Mappa Mundi, one of the earliest pieces of evidence we have of a map that divides us through boundaries, is unrecognisable to us as a modern map as it rather shows a spiritual journey. Jerusalem lies at the centre; religious iconography adorning the sides, and mythical beings, races, kings, and tales of magical empires also subtracting from any geographical value. Therefore, national communities in the medieval period, were not at all based on geographical means, but religious ones. Benedict Anderson’s defining book, Imagined Communites, is by far the most complete work on nationalism. He asserts that before the modern period of European History – for this example, I will take a Eurocentric view – communities in a national sense were abstract based on the idea that what united people was a mutual recognition through religion or vernacular language. Latin, for example, the state language of the great dynasties of the 1200s, was seen as a sacred language and the key to understanding religious texts and achieving salvation. As a result, an imagined community was born out of the

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

mutual recognition that there was an elitism within language and thus a defined community who guarded it. States in themselves were not nations, although those defining political theorists such as Rosseau and Hobbes talk about the state as if it were an entity in itself. Instead, the real defining communities were religious and linguistic; just as the Mappa Mundi displays how national identity was not even in the religious psyche. The complex process of nationalisation and the resultant partisan divides that we see today, only really gained significant traction with the emergence of print capitalism in the 1600s, as Benedict Anderson explores in great detail. Though this is not the point of this investigation, the condensed chronology is that the reformation and the popularisation of vernacular religious texts, rather than state Latin versions, meant that religious communities broke down in the ancient form, and were gradually replaced by more imagined communities that could be united by ideas, rather than by language itself. The relevance of this to a Brexit Britain, and an ugly 21st century political sphere, is that we are seeing an anger in the uniting of nations, rather than a unity – either through ideas, language, religion, or borders. George Orwell, a man who wrote about his nation better than anyone, typically deconstructed how nationalism is a disease of the mind, in his book Notes on Nationalism. What is salient, is how at the time of writing – the 1940s – nationalism was seen as the attempt to prop up ideas or nations in blatant disregard of the atrocities they have caused. He titles this obsession. Neo-tories, for example, may have defended imperial exploits in Africa and India for fear of Britain’s influence dwindling after World War II, however, they will condemn the very same principle for the nations of Japan that simply seek to place themselves onto the military world stage. After emerging from a period of isolationism with the ancient Shogunate, the Meiji Oligarchy reformed Japanese foreign policy, and is a key example of how this form of nationalism is transferrable from nation to nation. It is not a primarily British institution, but as Orwell would argue, the same seed of nationalism is sowed in the minds of all. Just by highlighting the breadth of nationalism and how it originated, we can understand that the product of Brexit Britain, events such as the murder of Jo Cox by a member of Britain First, are not just instances of nationalism gone rogue, but instead a trend being followed that was catalysed by the growth of nations as individuals. Through this, it is important to understand that an investigation into the actual origins of nationalism is far too complex, but at least the principles that I have highlighted go some way to rebuke the growing idea that nationalism is a modern concept and is simply a ‘them vs us’ rhetoric. In fact, history is the key to understanding its growth.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

Response to Sarah Everard ,s murder Shria Crossan – Lo

wer Sixth, Haslew

The tragic case of Sarah Everard was something that truly shocked so many of us. Sarah was making her way home from her friend’s house when she went missing on 3 March 2021. She disappeared in the evening whilst walking through Clapham Common – a place commonly used by families and dog walkers - and was later found dead in Kent. What was most concerning about this case was that her murderer, Wayne Couzen, was a Metropolitan Police officer who also pleaded guilty to raping her before her death. These are the sorts of men that vulnerable women are expected to place their trust in, and yet so many people still see no problem? Sarah was described by her family as, ‘kind and thoughtful, caring and dependable’ and were understandably distraught by what had happened. However, Sarah’s family were not the only people deeply affected by the incident. Women across the UK felt a huge level of unease and fear in the aftermath as many felt the people responsible for keeping them safe could no longer be trusted. Simple things like walking alone at night or taking public transport which are normalities for men are a huge cause of concern for women. Large crowds gathered – predominantly women – in the following days to show support for Sarah’s family and protests took place to show that this was not just ‘women being dramatic’ but the cold hard reality of what life is like for women. After the incident took place, it immediately dominated social media, which highlighted a survey from UN Women stating that 97% of women aged 18-24 across the UK have faced some kind of sexual harassment in their lifetime and only 4% reported the incident.

ood

What was most disappointing about the statistic was the general response from men. Despite so many men being supportive and spreading awareness there was an overwhelming number who immediately claimed that it was ‘not all men’ completely choosing to ignore the real focus of the movement. Although it is most definitely not all men who behave in such a way, the fact of the matter is that it is almost all women who have been a victim of such behaviour and that is where the problem lies. The immediate reaction to be defensive instead of seeking to solve the problem highlights how overlooked this issue is and the focus is once again put on men instead of trying to better the circumstances for women. To exacerbate matters an online trend started circulating on platforms like Tik Tok, claiming 24 April 2021 to be ‘National Rape Day’ and that rape should be legalised on that particular day, highlighting the little remorse these sorts of men have and that this issue is still not being taken seriously, explaining why so many women don’t feel comfortable coming forward. Alongside this, Boris Johnson trivialised rape convictions referring to them as ‘jabber’. If this is the mindset of our own Prime Minister what hope do we have in tackling the systemic misogyny that is so deep rooted in our society.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

y t l a n e p h deat

e h t d l u o Sh

d e h s i l o b a y l l u f e b ? S U e h t n i outh

th, East and S

Oli Latham

– Lower Six and Izzy Kuhle

SHOULDN’T BE ABOLISHED. Capital punishment for many years has engaged considerable debate about whether it should be used, and its morality. People who argue that the death penalty should be used today argue this case under three headings, those being: moral, utilitarian and practical. Despite arguments which state that the death penalty is wrong based on reasoning such as using it means that we are no better than the murderers themselves, people who argue moral debates would state that murderers have forfeited their own life and that the death penalty is a just way of retribution. Lastly, the death penalty can act as a deterrent to other people which therefore could reduce crime – this is surely a just reason in itself to not abolish the death penalty. Furthermore, people who argue in favour of the death penalty could use the fact that only very few people are actually executed, and only for the worst crimes such as murder and rape. The process takes years and years, and so if finally convicted and given the sentence, these people are deserving of a punishment as cruel as their crime. Some people would believe that they are not entitled to the chance of retribution, they deserve a punishment equal to the act they committed. I would argue the point that, whilst the death penalty may seem wrong and pointless, how can anyone argue to save the life of a murderer. Surely that argument in itself is flawed and wrong? These people who commit such abhorrent crimes are surely deserving of such a punishment as the death penalty? It is just and equal to their crimes.

I would lastly add that whilst it is just to argue that the death penalty should not be abolished in countries such as America for offences like murder and rape, countries such as Iran, Singapore and Malaysia impose a mandatory death sentence for crimes of possessing relatively small amounts of illegal drugs. For these offences, the death sentence does not follow the idea of ‘an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’, as their crimes did not involve murder, and this means it is not so just. Singapore as a country has the highest execution rate of any country per capita and three quarters of these executions were due to drug offences. In this case, it could be argued that the death penalty is inequitable; however as a whole I feel there is no real argument to defend convicted murderers and rapists from the same treatment that their victims would have faced; that being death, therefore the death penalty should not be abolished in the US as it is a just and equal punishment that fits the crime that has been committed.

SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. Only 54 countries still actively use the death penalty. While most modern western cultures have rejected the death penalty as an abhorrent and primal method of punishment, 28 out of 50 states in America still use it. Many people who support the death penalty are of the contention that those who commit murder should in turn be killed to serve justice. However, this is not how justice works in practicality; the crime someone commits is not done to them but rather, they receive a sentence in return for their crime. Therefore, to argue that murderers deserve the death penalty because it is serving justice, doesn’t align with the system of justice that is utilised in the US. Others might argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to stop people committing crime. However, there is little evidence to suggest that

the death penalty is any more effective at reducing crime rates than long prison sentences, in fact it can be argued that life in prison is more of a punishment that the death penalty as it requires the criminal to reflect on their crime for the rest of their life. The US does suffer from a high rate of re-incarceration as the average re-conviction rate is 43%. However, while some may see this as an argument in support of the death penalty, that is unrealistic and clearly not the real issue. The problem stems from the prison system itself and the evident lack of rehabilitation that occurs in prisons. If anything, for some who commit minor crimes, rather than receiving the necessary rehabilitation they often end up in a worse position than before they committed their crime. Therefore, to try and fix this problem it makes sense to completely re-envisage the way that prisons are run which would include abolishing the death penalty which clearly does not deter people from recommitting further crimes. Norway represents a perfect example of what prison has the capability to be like. The prisoners are properly reformed, and the reincarceration rate is one of the lowest in the world at only 20%. Therefore, rather than keeping the crude and outdated death penalty which is in line with the US’s outdated and failing prison system, it is time for reform on a national scale which should include abolishing the death penalty.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

n o i t r o b a n a x e T t s e d t l a u l o c e h t T i w o h d n a n o i t legisla woman, s right to a t c e f af choose. Isla McDonald

SO, WHAT DID THE RULING STATE ABOUT ABORTION LAWS? Roe vs Wade established a ‘trimester-dependant’ set of regulations. It gave a woman the right to an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy, it allowed for some government regulation in the second trimester of pregnancy and declared that states could exert control, and even restrict, abortions in the last three months of pregnancy as it would be likely that the foetus could survive if it was born, outside the womb. If in the final trimester, an abortion was required in order to save the mother’s life, this was also an exception to the ruling.

outh

Lower Sixth, S

THROUGHOUT AMERICAN, AND ARGUABLY INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, THE TOPIC OF ABORTION HAS BEEN WIDELY DEBATED AND DISCUSSED, BUT IT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY APPARENT OVER MORE RECENT YEARS THAT IT IS A MECHANISM THAT ENCOURAGES GREAT IDEOLOGICAL DIVISIONS. Furthermore, what with Trump’s latest nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, a traditional conservative legacy within the judiciary is looking all the more likely. With the prospect of a rehearing of Roe vs Wade looming in the not-so distant future, could it be all up in the air for rights of women’s bodies? The original Supreme Court decision surrounding Roe vs Wade took place in 1973 and saw a 2-7 vote in favour of the motion that governments lacked the power to prohibit abortions. The landmark decision declared that denying a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy came under the freedom of personal choice in family matters as protected by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The name of the case Roe vs Wade comes from a 25-year-old woman, called Norma McCorvey under the pseudonym “Jane Roe”, who challenged Texan criminal abortion laws that forbade abortion as unconstitutional except in cases where the mother’s life was in danger. ‘Wade’ was Henry Wade: the Texan Attorney General who was on the defence, in support of the anti-abortion laws.

HOW HAVE ABORTION REGULATIONS CHANGED SINCE THEN? However, since the Supreme Court decision almost half a century ago, this ruling has been argued to have been gradually unwound. In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld a law that banned the use of federal funds for abortion except when necessary to save a woman’s life. Later, in 1989, further restrictions on this were imposed including allowing states to prohibit abortions at state clinics or by state employees. However, arguably the most significant ruling since has been in 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs Casey which apparently continued to uphold Roe vs Wade, introducing new legislation which established that states could restrict abortions, for non-medical reasons, even in the first trimester.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

And now, in more recent news, Governor Greg Abbot’s decision to sign into Texan law a new measure which prohibits abortions from any point after six weeks, new global conversations are being had looking into how far a woman’s right to choose has been infringed. Nationwide, it has claimed to be one of the most extreme decisions since the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling and this law takes place in September of this year. Abbot’s signature on the ‘Heartbeat Bill’ comes just after the Supreme Court said it would hear a case concerning a piece of Mississippi law that would ban most pregnancy terminations after 15 weeks, and which could lead to further limits on abortion rights. While a dozen states have passed similar so-called ‘Heartbeat Bills’ - bans on abortion once embryonic cardiac activity is detected - none have yet been enforced due to court challenges. It is the first major abortion case heard before the courts newly expanded conservative majority, and could have overarching effects for the state of Texas, where a pending bill would outlaw almost all abortions if the Supreme Court overruled Roe vs Wade. The bill also includes pregnancies involving rape or incest, except in medical emergencies.

on Pre Picture credits to the Houst

Furthermore, there are going to be significant financial impacts following the state’s judicial decision. As a result, any individual can sue anyone who “aids or abets” abortion care or someone who “intends” to help an abortion patient, a breathtakingly wide range of possible people and groups. While those who sue can collect a minimum of $10,000 if they are successful, those unjustly sued cannot recover legal fees. The antiabortion laws private enforcement provision is the first of its kind in the country. But the real question is:

are all of these restrictions constitutional? That is something which I think is subjective and a question to which we will get no real answer to in the near future.

democracy

HOW HAS IT CHANGED RECENTLY?

t s e t o r P s n e L ird

es - Upper Th

Radha Peratid

For my Lower School Project, Protest Lens, I decided to compare the recent US senate protests and the Hong Kong protests of 2019. I love how these protests are so similar yet, in half-century, we may only be able to gather evidence on one of these scenes. Making my project a time capsule. On numerous days around the world, we have seen violent fights: fights for peoples’ voices to be heard. On 6 January 2021, a peaceful march turned bloody when protesters stormed the US Senate. Similarly, on the 1 July 2019 a small group of Hong Kong protesters broke off from a larger demonstration and stormed the Legislative Council building. These became known as the Capitol Riots and the Hong Kong AntiGovernment-Protests. Blood, tear gas, spray paint and cries of desperation, were all common factors of these two large scale protests. They startled people as they woke up across the world; well, not all around the world, one country was oblivious to the Hong Kong protest.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

CHINA After these shocking events, pictures and videos were shared around the world. One day, knowledge and evidence of the Hong Kong riots and what happened may disappear, just like the events of Tiananmen Square. In China, if you search for the Tiananmen Square protests, you will find a perfect tourist picture of the square itself. People of China, young and old, were never told of this massacre and will never know what happened. There is a so called ‘tank man’ of this massacre who blocked a parade of tanks slowing them from reaching his fellow protesters. No one knows what happened to him. Now there is a ‘tank man’ of the Hong Kong protest. A man standing in front of hundreds of the press, and protesters in LegCo. And there is another iconic figure for the US riots, a man dressed as a bull in the Senate. As the original tank man slowly fades so will the Hong Kong man. But as the US man is identified and locked up, he will one day be released, and we will have no problem finding his picture still up online. 1.4 billion people, a seventh of the world’s population does not have access to student protests in Tiananmen Square and possibly the Hong Kong protests in the future. For Protest Lens, I have selected the most powerful images from the Hong Kong and US protests and collaged them side by side into the form of a camera. The images revolve around the US senate and the LegCo. On either side you can see both figures that lead each of the protests. A Hong Konger stands up on a desk in front of a defaced Hong Kong/ China logo. On the other side there is a US protestor dressed in an animal skin hat and cow horns, his face is painted with the US flag. He is shouting angrily at the camera. Mounted to the top of the camera is a flash that can be activated by tapping it; it is reminiscent of a CCTV camera. As media feeds take over our lives, we must protect our access to non-biased news in Western democratic countries and work to bring awareness to those who live with government censored news feeds. Protest Lens is a time capsule that one day may be illegal to show in countries around the world.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

n e e w t e b n o i t a l e r The cor n e e s r e w o P d n a y Moralit nald Trump o D h g u o r th . n o s n h o J s i r o B d an od

ixth, Haslewo

– Lower S Neve Hudson

THE LINK BETWEEN MORALITY AND POWER HAS BEEN EXPLOITED BY MANY WORLD LEADERS, BUT MOST NOTABLY BRITAIN’S PRIME MINISTER, BORIS JOHNSON AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DONALD TRUMP. Both leaders can be suggested to have acted in their own interests, abandoning a sense of morality, especially when trying to achieve credibility. Johnson has been accused of having no ‘moral defence’ by John Major and being ‘morally bankrupt’. In comparison, former President of the United States, Donald Trump, has been suggested to be amoral, overlooking fundamental morality in his four year term. As his sister, a retired federal judge, Marianna Trump Barry has said, ‘He has no principles. None. None’. Even the internationally respected Dalai Lama stated that Trump had a ‘lack of moral principle’ in 2019. Boris Johnson has been seen to make many immoral actions, as Theresa May accused him of ‘abandoning global moral leadership’ in

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

January 2021. This was a consequence of Johnson’s threat to break international law during Brexit trade negotiations through breaking an international treaty. The Prime Minister’s rejection of the portrayal of Britain on a global scale is evident as he sought to further his own interests and policies, thus highlighting his manipulation of power and disregarded morality. Similarly, the 6 January storming of the Capitol this year, incited by Donald Trump’s claims of a rigged election, is perhaps the most evident example of his exploitation of power. His claims led to the potential destruction of American democracy and resulted in numerous fatalities. Trump completely abused his power and had no moral inclination to the effects of such an attack on democracy. Like Boris Johnson, Trump overlooked the international perception of the insurrection, placing more value on his personal interests, and promotion of his power. Therefore, the failings of morality when subjected to personal power are evident through Johnson and Trump’s actions. Both Johnson and Trump have subjected groups of people to harm as a result of their policies, demonstrating the weakness of morality when faced with large amounts of power. With a potential lockdown and a rising number of Covid-19 cases in the UK, Johnson stated that if he were to not reopen schools it would be ‘socially intolerable, economically unsustainable and morally indefensible’. The harm that was being done to adolescents social and mental health was arguably exaggerated, and ‘far more damaging’ than any risk from the virus. Johnson stated that he had a ‘moral duty’ to act, undermining the significant fatality and case numbers in the UK and overlooking the transmission of the virus through younger age groups. He clearly overlooked his ‘moral duty’ when handling other aspects of the Covid-19 crisis. The Prime Minister oversaw the moving of thousands of sick, elderly

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

people from hospitals to care homes, resulting in an increase of deaths. Furthermore, he was a catalyst for more fatalities, as he deferred the treatment of cancer patients, resulting in 35,000 excess deaths. Evidently, the link between Johnson’s morality and power come into play as he was willing to oversee the deaths of thousands of citizens in order to reject a lockdown, and send children into dangerous environments, perhaps an ignorant and amoral act. Trump could also be suggested to lack morality when asserting his own power in the US. When appealing to the Conservative middle class of America, Trump continually discussed ‘law and order’, alluding to his characterisation of minorities as dangerous people. His suggestions allowed Trump to depict himself as the only figure in charge that could keep the people safe. Thus, demonstrating his lack of morality, and enhancement of law and order and policing, creating an abuse of power, and subjecting mass groups of people in America to violence and segregation. Moreover, despite initiating a larger emphasis on ‘law and order’ and the strength of the military, Trump was seen to significantly undermine the service of soldiers, calling them ‘losers’. Also, he maligned respected Senator and Naval Officer John McCain’s experience as a Vietnam War prisoner, embracing torture as a military tool. Trump’s exploitation of his executive power while undermining others roles is a clear demonstration of his poor morality. Thus, it is clear that both Johnson and Trump have manipulated their own power, whilst overlooking the potential danger that they cause to others as a result of these actions, highlighting their weak morality. In addition, it can be argued that the Covid-19 crisis has truly uncovered the failure of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump’s morality and abuse of power to a further extent. The allegations by Dominic

Cummings, Johnson’s previous Chief Advisor, suggested that Johnson was said to have been so against another lockdown that he would ‘let the bodies pile high in their thousands’. Johnson’s amoral attitude towards the death and suffering of the British public strongly highlights his selfish intentions of manipulating power. Such a clear representation of an abuse of power and avoidance of consequences conveys the Prime Minister’s acceptance of the cost of human life when avoiding the political and economic effects of another lockdown. Additionally, at the recent G7 summit, Boris Johnson rejected claims of ‘moral failure’ when not providing vaccines for poorer nations. Previous prime minister Gordon Brown’s criticism of Johnson further highlights his mishandling of the Covid-19 crisis. The decision to not provide developing countries with vaccines could perhaps emphasise the Prime Minister’s poor morality and abuse of power, as he is subjecting others to worse situations, for his personal, political and economic benefit. Likewise, Trump has been accused of mishandling the Covid-19 crisis to a significant extent, calling it ‘kung flu’ and suggesting to the public that the virus will disappear. When recovering from corona virus, Trump was seen to take off his mask in public eye, completely disregarding the fact that this action undermined and made a mockery of the mass number of deaths in the US from the virus. This action symbolised Trump’s lack of morality for the hundreds of thousands affected by the virus and portrayed the abuse of his personal power through his influence and significant position. Trump’s continual disregard for the severity of the virus sheds light on his amoral nature and is arguably worsened by his position of mass power. Ultimately, Covid-19 has allowed for Johnson and Trump’s weak morality and abuse of power to be exposed further.

Thus, the correlation between morality and power can be exposed by both Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. British politics and society can be critiqued as we are led to question the extent that Johnson can manipulate power to his benefit and still remain ‘safe’ in his leadership of the Conservatives, all while casting aside morality and the impacts of his actions on human life and the international image of Britain. Furthermore, an evaluation of US politics can also be conducted, through the idea of the ‘Imperial President’ Trump, who has manipulated and extended Federal Power to his own will, with disregard to morality. American society can also be questioned. Within his term, surveys regularly showed that the public rated Trump as lowest among modern presidents on ethical standards, including Nixon and Clinton. Despite this, Trump still remained a president with an array of support, as people were seen to judge him by his actions rather than who he was, seen through, 60% of Americans say their opinion of Trump is based more on what he has done as president. Thus, the impact of poor morality and abuse of power on the public’s perception could be suggested to be small.

THEREFORE, THROUGH BORIS JOHNSON AND DONALD TRUMP IT IS EVIDENT THAT WORLD LEADERS ARE SUBJECT TO EXPLOITING THEIR POWER WITH LITTLE MORALITY. MORALITY CAN BE QUESTIONED WHEN THEY MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE ONLY TO FURTHER THEIR OWN IMAGE OR BENEFIT THEMSELVES RATHER THAN OTHERS. THROUGH RECENT CRISES SUCH AS COVID 19, THE TRUE ABUSE OF POWER AND LACK OF MORALS HAVE BEEN EVIDENT.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

n o i t u t i t s n o C K U e h Is t ? y a d o t g n still stro ns

wer Sixth, Hawki

Alice Hanson - Lo

The UK Constitution can be argued to be weak today due to the lack of protection of human rights. For example, until 1998 there were no laws guaranteeing people’s rights. This was addressed by the Human Rights Act 1998, but this can be set aside or overturned by a government quite easily. Furthermore, the Constitution allows for pre-democratic elements to survive like the Monarchy and House of Lords. The House of Lords is undemocratic as the public cannot vote for who is in the House of Lords like they can for the House of Commons. The Constitution also encourages strong executive which then leads to centralised government – this makes it necessary to change the Constitution to fit the values of today as parliament is ruled by the executive and there are minimal checks and balances to reduce their power. This highlights the weaknesses of the Constitution and its irrelevance today – it allows for undemocratic elements, like the House

of Lords, and there is little protection of human rights as the Human Rights Act can be easily set aside by a government, which is dominated by an executive. However, the Constitution is still strong today as its evolution over time has allowed it to reflect the values of the British public and adapt to modern beliefs in society. Institutions have been ‘tested by time’ and they have not been broken or deemed unfit, proving the strengths of the Constitution today. Furthermore, the Constitution provides a coherent and strong system of government, and the parliamentary sovereignty allows for a clear centre of authority. Also, the rule of law ensures protection over the rights of citizens and is the ‘second twin pillar’ of the Constitution – the other being parliamentary sovereignty – the rule of law means that the law applies to everyone, including those in the government. This shows the strength of the Constitution today because it has evolved

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

over time and applies the rule of law to everyone, even those in power. Therefore, it provides a clear system of government, and parliamentary sovereignty allows for a clear and strong centre of authority. Arguably the UK Constitution is past its ‘use-by date’ as it can lead to elective dictatorships. This is because once elected, governments can effectively act how they like due to the combination of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary governments. Furthermore, as the Constitution is uncodified it can lead to it being hard to interpret because it is not written down in one document. For example, after the 2010 general election there was uncertainty to what should have happened, and this led to a hung parliament. This shows that the UK constitution is weak and irrelevant today because it is hard to interpret due to its uncodified nature and it can lead to elective dictatorships. However, the stronger argument is that the UK Constitution is still strong today because of the advantages of it being uncodified. As it is uncodified, the Constitution is easier to change which makes it dynamic and flexible and therefore more amendable to Constitutional reform. This makes is especially relevant today as it can change and adapt easily to modern beliefs, and necessary situations. Because of the uncodified nature of the Constitution, outdated laws can and have been changed. For example, the Marriage Act 2013 allowed for same sex couples to be married. This shows the relevance and strength of the Constitution today because it has a dynamic nature which allows for outdated laws to be changed, and for modern beliefs to be reflected. Therefore, because the Constitution is uncodified it allows for it to be changed easily and adapted, and so outdated laws can be changed, like the Marriage Act 2013, proving its strength in today’s modern world. Some may argue that the UK Constitution is weak today because even despite judicial reform and devolution, executive and legislative power in the UK is still blurred. This means that power is still too concentrated in the executive which allows it to become an elective dictatorship as the executive can reshape the Constitution as they wish. There are meant to be checks and balances in place to limit government power; it is a key feature of a liberal democracy

but one that the UK lacks. Furthermore, this allows governments to almost act how they please in between elections. This shows that the UK Constitution has no relevance in a modern and democratic society because of the missing checks and balances, that should be there to stop abuse of power in government, and also the concentration of power within the executive, which creates an executive democracy rather than a parliamentary one. However, the more credible argument is that the UK Constitution is still strong and relevant today because the UK allows for changes to happen due to democratic pressure. Furthermore, in the UK the influence of unelected judges is minimal, unlike in the US where judges interpret the meaning of the Constitution and have the power to declare laws passed by an elected legislature, unconstitutional – this is wholly undemocratic, as they have not been elected by the public. Therefore, in the UK, government decisions backed by Parliament cannot be overturned by judges and because of parliamentary sovereignty, the government normally get their way which allows for strong decisive action. For example, the Atlee Government of 1945-1951 set up the NHS by doing this. This shows that the UK Constitution is still strong today because it allows for changes to be made due to democratic pressure and there are limits on the influence of unelected judges, unlike the US. In conclusion, the UK constitution is still strong today as it allows for changes to be made to outdated policies and laws, this is because of its uncodified nature, and it is reflective of the values of the British people. There is also the restriction of the influence of unelected judges unlike in the US. However, there is an argument that it is not strong enough today, it is still missing checks and balances against the government and there is still the possibility that it can lead to an elective dictatorship.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

f o s i s y l a n a e h t s e o d Why

y g o l o h c y s p d w o cr ? s c i t i l o p matter in Eleanor Wilson –

ucester

Lower Sixth, Glo

Donald Trump’s presidency began with an argument over a simple number. The New York Times posted the number of people at his inauguration as being only a third of that of Obama’s, which sparked a great emotional reaction from Trump, including various Twitter rants. The White House secretary at the time, Sean Spicer, accused the media of seeking to ‘minimise the enormous support’ which Trump had managed to win in his election victory. Sean Spicer also lied about the number at the inauguration, stating that it was ‘the biggest audience ever’, leading to simplistic emotions of the crowd, which then in turn leads to the most primitive forms of expression. Deindividuation theory is largely based on the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and argues that in typical crowd situations, factors such as anonymity, group unity, and arousal can weaken personal controls (e.g. guilt, shame, self-evaluating behaviour) by distancing people from their personal identities and reducing their concern for social evaluation. This lack of restraint increases individual sensitivity to the environment and lessens rational forethought, which can lead to antisocial behaviour.

Crowds serve to unlock the unconscious mind, and that in a crowd, the moral centre of consciousness is displaced by a larger crowd and is replaced by a charismatic group leader.

More recent theories have stated that deindividuation hinges upon a person being unable, due to a situation, to have strong awareness of their self as an object of attention. This lack of attention frees the individual from the necessity of normal social behavior. This means that for instance, one could be deindividuated as a KKK member, which would lead to higher levels of unacceptable behaviour, and therefore, greater levels of social decay. This explains why crowds can be so powerful, as individuality is forgone, and anonymity is placed at the forefront, it leads to a sense of there being a ‘safety net’ and a mob mentality that politicians can use to their advantage. To further this, we as human beings are so heavily dependent on social cues, that a crowd can be a very effective way of convincing someone of a view. Research has shown that people tend to trust the opinion of a large group, whether it comes from a liberal or a conservative. Essentially, as a crowd is such a compact group of people, with social cues being displayed every second, the infiltration of an opinion becomes very rapid, as the effect of social cues snowballs. Freud also suggests that crowds serve to unlock the unconscious mind, and that in a crowd, the moral centre of consciousness is displaced by a larger crowd and is replaced by a charismatic group leader. Moscovici hypothesised that this effect was extremely powerful in relation to political indoctrination, and that autocratic leaders such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong used the utilisation of crowds in this way in order to effectively maintain their cult of personality. Some argue that where politics becomes infused by the logic of crowds, it becomes less about peaceful political representation, and more about mobilisation, and who can mobilise the most people. Crowds matter to politicians as they represent a profound depth of feeling that comes with having so many people in one place at one time. Essentially, crowds allow people to become a part of something that is so much larger than themselves. This needn’t be a bad thing, but it certainly does carry risks.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

e h t d l Shou e h t h s i l o b a UK ? y h c r mona wer Sixth, Surrey

Luca Hatwell – Lo

THE DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE UK SHOULD STILL HAVE A MONARCH IN THE CURRENT DAY IS ONE THAT DIVIDES MANY PEOPLE. ALTHOUGH THE POLITICAL CLIMATE OF THE UK HAS EVOLVED SO THAT THE MONARCH NOW HAS NO REAL POLITICAL AUTHORITY, THERE ARE STILL PROBLEMS, WITH THE MAIN CRITICISM BEING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE ROYAL FAMILY COSTS THE TAXPAYER, AND SOME PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POSITIVES OUTWEIGH THE NEGATIVES. Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State, although today, her role in politics is just a formality for the sake of tradition, as she opens parliament and gives a speech every year, although this is written by the Prime Minister, not by her. She is also responsible for signing every bill into law, but once again, she has no real political power to veto a law, as parliament is sovereign. She must approve every law that has been passed through the House of Commons, the elected legislative, and ratified by the Lords. The Queen is also the Head of the Church of England, the armed forces, and the justice system, although all her actions must be based on advice from the people who are at the heads of these organisations. There is substantial support for the abolition of the monarchy, especially in the younger generation, as seen in a YouGov survey that indicates that at least 41% of people aged 18-24 preferred an elected Head of State as

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

compared to 31% who wanted a King or Queen. There are many reasons for this point of view, one being that the British sovereign is the most expensive in Europe – £69.4 million was spent on the Royal Family in 2020, according to the Sovereign Grant accounts, and this is without taking hidden costs into account, such as an additional £13 million to renovate Buckingham Palace last year. This figure has risen exponentially in recent years, as they received only £47.4 million in 2018. Another reason as to why some believe the monarchy should be abolished is because they question the fact that the Head of State is chosen not because of their achievements, experiences, or skills, but due to who their parents are, meaning they may not be well suited to the role. More recent arguments for the abolition of the monarchy are seen in the light of allegations from The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Harry and Meghan, which include alleged racist comments from family members, as well as the links between Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein, both of which suggest the UK Royal Family is an outdated institution. Others support the UK monarchy because the Queen is seen as a nonpolitical figure that symbolises Britishness and national values and is the figurehead of our country seen by the rest of the world, and the monarchy is a traditional British institution that has evolved over the years to cater to modern society. A useful function of the Queen is that her positive image helps to secure trade deals, especially after a Royal visit, and on top of this, her role as Head of The Commonwealth means she is a vital figure in upholding the bond we have with the 53 other countries in this group. The Royal Family is also responsible for heading numerous charities, with their popularity helping the cause of the charity, examples include the Duke of Edinburgh Award and the Prince’s Trust, both of which are charities that play a vital role in the UK. The abolition of the monarchy would not necessarily save money, as the alternative would be a President, which is also expensive, as seen in France, where £90.4 million was spent on President Macron in 2019. The idea that the monarchy costs the UK taxpayer too much is also a flawed one as although they cost a lot of money, they bring in a lot more money through tourism, as seen in 2016, where more than 2.7 million tourists visited Buckingham Palace and other royal sites such as Windsor Castle and the Palace of Holyrood, which brought in around £550 million. Therefore, the abolition of the UK monarchy is not necessary, as it would destroy a traditional, positive part of British culture. Although it costs a lot of money, this is not a problem as it also attracts tourism, which generates even more money. On top of this, the alternative to the Royal Family would be equally as expensive but there would not be the positive features of charity work and the healthy link with the commonwealth, that are given to us solely by the Royal Family.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

K U e h t n Ca e b y c a r c demo ? y h t l a e h s a n e se er Sixth, Hawkins

Lily Byway - Low

WHAT IS A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY? A healthy democracy can be defined as freedom and equality between people.

TURNOUT Turnout massively contributes to the UK being an unhealthy democracy. Notably, turnout statistics in recent elections highlight that we are experiencing a ‘participation crisis’. In general elections, the averages of turnout are still below the averages of 1945 and 1992. Moreover, turnout in other forms such as general political engagement, is still very low. A representative democracy cannot be considered healthy if increasing numbers of citizens are uninterested or unwilling to engage in political life. This ultimately shows the unhealthy democracy; particularly as the whole ethos behind democracy is a fair system where everyone has their say, hence if people are not voting, not everyone is involved in decision making. However, turnout has massively improved since 2001. In successive elections, especially in 2006, voter turnout rose by 61%, however, those who chose not to involve themselves in decision making, risk jeopardising their future.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

PARLIAMENT DOMINATION Furthermore, another reason that contributes to the argument that the UK is an unhealthy democracy is parliament being dominated by a single party. The First Past the Post system enables the winning party to have control over the executive and dominate parliament through its majority control of the House of Commons. Theoretically, the UK has a system of ‘parliamentary democracy’; however, it is arguable that the UK in practice has a system of ‘executive democracy’. This therefore is a considerable argument demonstrating how unhealthy UK democracy is; this reality is bad for democracy because there is too little effective scrutiny and accountability of the government as the winning party has disproportionate and unrepresentative power over government. However, the government was elected on a mandate and thus this reflects a healthy democratic outcome. Moreover, this ‘fusion of powers’ suggests that the governing process is very efficient. Although, parliament is seen to have dominating power, healthy democracy involves efficient decision making which represents people’s views. Furthermore, the fusion of these powers reflects that all branches of the government working together using a healthy democracy as a basis of decision making.

DEVOLUTION Devolution is the transfer or delegation of power to respective principalities. Some suggest that devolution has created an imbalance in British politics with different areas having different degrees of control. They argue that it has created an extra bureaucratic layer, hence enhancing the inequalities between nations within the UK. Parliament uses devolution to determine how funds are split between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This concept suggests that funds should go where they are needed in the UK at a finer level so the boarders should not have any significant relevance. On the contrary, devolution is key as the cultural differences these nations have is necessary for power to be spread differently.

Furthermore, I believe that devolution has created institutions that can better respond to local needs to add an extra layer of representation for those who live there. It is evident that devolution has its flaws but ultimately is necessary to share power so those in smaller, local areas are represented equally; this equality of power leads to healthy democracy as a key principle in an effective democracy is equality between all people. Therefore, underpinning the unhealthiness of the UK’s democratic system.

REPRESENTATION The system does not necessarily allow everyone to be properly represented. The First Past the Post electorate system means that smaller parties often gain little traction and cannot win enough votes to gain a seat in parliament. This was exemplified in 2015, where the candidate standing for SDLP in Belfast won the seat with only 24.5% of the vote, meaning 75.5% of those who turned out in Belfast were not effectively represented by the person or the party they aligned. Moreover, another argument that not everyone is properly represented is portrayed by the lack of minority groups and women in parliament; under 10% of the House of Commons were non-white and only 24% of parliament were women. This leads to an unhealthy democratic system in the UK, as effective democracy involves equality between all people. Democracy requires that everyone’s voice needs to be heard, and by not representing certain groups of people those who are from these groups struggle to be expressed. However, the First Past the Post electoral system in the UK is hard to change as alternative systems of more proportional representation may result in uneasy coalitions which generate little meaningful policy thereby making representative democracy less effective and efficient. Moreover, the representation of more ethnic minority groups in parliament is massively improving as was evident through Blair’s Babes and Cameron’s A team.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

Evidently, representation of all people is improving; the First Past the Post system is necessary in our democracy to ensure an efficient and effective system, and minority groups in parliament are set to improve to ensure that our democracy can represent everyone to make it an equal, healthy system. Considering both sides of the argument, it is clear to see that UK democracy has its flaws, but it must be remembered our democracy is overwhelmingly legitimate and it is difficult to invent ways in which it could be easily improved. The UK democratic system has worked since it was created in 1918 and 1928 in The Representation of the People Act. Pragmatically, it is a supposedly a fair, healthy system that is set to improve with turnout and numbers of minority groups in parliament. Devolution and The First Past the Post System are overbearingly unjust; they are both an integral part in our democratic system to ensure that not only power can be held in localised areas but also to create an efficient, effective system that means people in the UK share power to enable the electorate to express their views and what they feel is salient for politicians to focus on.

The First Past the Post system suppresses representation of millions of voters. Demand proportional representation in the House of Commons. Greens, Lib Dems & UKIP Everyone else

Seats in 2015

Votes in 2015

24.4%

1.5%

t s e t a Gre s t n e d i Pres e m i t l of al

ic r e m A f o s e t a t S (United

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

Franklin t l e v e s o o D. R ester

wer Sixth, Glouc

Lo Eleanor Wilson -

THE ONLY PRESIDENT ELECTED FOUR TIMES, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT SHOWED HIMSELF TO BE ONE OF THE MOST, IF NOT, THE MOST EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. He led America through the most challenging political issues of the 20th century, World War II and the Great Depression. However, his smaller achievements and positive attributes must not be over-shadowed by the momentous; his excellent relationship with Congress, the media and the citizens of America are also very notable. Essentially, he played an integral part in transforming the US into the superpower that it is today. In his early life, Roosevelt was brought up with very traditional Christian values, and later went on to use these values as moral influence over his later political activities. He went to a private preparatory school, and was raised to be a gentleman, and it is clear to see, that he fostered these values in his later presidential career. After attending Harvard and Columbia law schools, he was keen to launch his political career, due to considerable pressure from his uncle to enter public service. That opportunity to enter mainstream politics came in 1910, when party leaders of Duchess County, New York, persuaded him to run for a seat in the state senate. Surprisingly, he won the election, and emerged as a very promising political figure, who was extremely capable and successful. These early successes eventually spiralled into his presidential career, and it was at this time that he showed himself to be the most influential and effective president in US history. In his first term, Roosevelt was faced with a massive domestic crisis. The Great Depression had gutted America, unemployment was over 20%, and GDP had declined by 30%. The US was in a dire situation and was arguably facing the most serious economic crisis in its history. Roosevelt showed himself to be the man to take on the momentous task of repairing America’s economic situation, and when he was elected in 1932, he quickly set to work on plans

to solve this dire situation. Roosevelt managed to achieve much electoral success; his promise of A ‘New Deal’ to aid economic recovery, with focuses on limiting too much private economic power, balancing the budget, and making extensive use of the Federal Government for the purposes of economic recovery proved to be extremely appealing. This factor combined with Republican ‘laissez faire’ economic policies, which were becoming increasingly unpopular due to their perceived nature of being tired, old fashioned and ineffective, led to him winning the 1932 election by a massive margin, with 32 million popular votes compared to Hoover’s measly 16 million, and the Democratic Party winning extremely significant majorities in both the House and the Senate. Roosevelt showed himself to be particularly effective in the way that he interacted with the American electorate during this time of great economic and social distress. He hosted a series of radio broadcasts cleverly named ‘fireside chats’ in which he clearly and informally explained his planned policies in order to gain the trust of the American people, and it certainly worked. Roosevelt’s clever use of the media meant that the American people trusted their president more than ever before, and to further this, it meant that the electorate felt more included in the political discourse than ever before; setting the bar very high for any future president regarding

media presence. Not only did he have an exemplary media presence with regards to direct contact with the electorate, but he also held regular conferences with media outlets and journalists, to ensure that they felt included, and had access to the information they needed. This was an extremely clever move and is particularly telling of his excellent political capabilities and skills, as it made sure that he formed good relationships with the media, limiting the amount of bad press and media slander that he received. It is little achievements and shows of overall capability like this which make him the greatest and most effective President in US history; it is not just the large-scale achievements which matter. Roosevelt’s New Deal was undoubtably one of his greatest achievements. Not only did it facilitate economic recovery, but it was also revolutionary in its ideology. You see, the US had never had such an expansive Federal Government prior to the implementation of the New Deal; it was a completely novel idea of high government fiscal and economic intervention, one which had been thought of but never actually put into practice before. Roosevelt dealt with the banking crisis quickly prior to the implementation of this relief plan; he ordered all banks, even the Federal Reserve banks, to shut for four days, in order for Congress to act. This clever move bought a considerable amount of time for Roosevelt and Congress, meaning that he could put a suitable plan in place for economic recovery, which later materialised into the New Deal. Part of the New Deal were the Alphabet Agencies, which aimed to provide extensive employment opportunities for those who had lost great amounts of money on the stock market. Roosevelt really did have too many achievements to list, but he was arguably one of the most effective Presidents in US history. His accomplishments across the board, on both domestic and international levels were momentous, and their legacy have lived on throughout the 21st century.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

Ronald Reagan wer Tali Gibbons - Lo

Sixth, Haslewood

RONALD WILSON REAGAN SERVED AS THE 40TH PRESIDENT FOR THE UNITED STATES FROM 1981 TO 1989, WHERE HE IMPLEMENTED NEW POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IDEAS WHICH ULTIMATELY SAVED THE US ECONOMY. He was raised in a low-income family in a small town of northern Illinois where he succeeded in serving as the 33rd Governor of California from 1967 to 1975 prior to his presidency. Reagan was also the first president of the United States to have been divorced and his charisma and optimism further advanced his popularity. Reagan became a highly influential voice of modern conservatism and he accelerated his supply-side economic policies to save the US economy, in which he succeeded significantly in doing so. Additionally, his policies also included the largest tax cut in American history as well as increased defence spending as part of his Soviet Strategy, whereby both policies effectively worked and succeeded in achieving his goal. To begin his successful two term presidency, Reagan won the Republican presidential nomination and defeated the incumbent President, Jimmy Carter. At the time of his inauguration, he was the oldest first term US president at age 69, but this further highlights his success during his presidency because of all that he achieved. Furthermore, he was re-elected in 1984 where he won 58.8% of the national popular vote. Moreover, he only lost Washington DC and his opponent Walter Mondale’s home state of Minnesota, in one of the greatest landslide victories in American history. Thereby, his victory during his re-election illustrates his extreme popularity and displays that those opposing his political and economic ideas were of a minority in addition to achieving the greatest landslide victory in American history. This further instantiates the mass support for him and the success he brought to the country was definitively reflected in the result of the election.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

Reagan immediately began implementing new political and economic initiatives, as he successfully won over enough conservative democrats to pass his program through congress. Reagan’s policies stressed conservative economic values and were undoubtedly successful as over his two terms the economy saw a reduction of inflation from 12.5% to 4.4%. Additionally, real GDP grew over one third during his presidency with an over $2 trillion increase. The compound annual growth rate of GDP was 3.6% during Reagan’s eight years, compared to 2.7% during the preceding eight years. Furthermore, economic conditions had deteriorated under Carter, with slow growth and high inflation and Reagan impressively reversed this and constructed a new and booming economy. Reagan had promised his supply-side economic policies would turn around the economy with lower tax rates and economic deregulation and this proved to be effective, which further reflected his optimism for the country and his strong and stable leadership to save the deteriorating economy. Additionally, Reagan’s administration saw the longest period of economic growth in peacetime American history up to that point, lasting 44 months. This exemplifies the success he achieved with his economic initiatives and displays his strength, compared to predecessor Jimmy Carter. With the economy booming due to his brilliant ideas of supply side economics, foreign affair crises dominated his second term. Moreover, in foreign affairs, he denounced communism and invaded

the island country of Grenada after communist elements took control. As a result, a new government was appointed by the Governor General; thereby, illuminating another success of his. In June 1987, four years after he publicly described the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”, Reagan challenged the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”, during a speech at the Berlin Wall. This ultimately captures his bold and powerful sense of character. Furthermore, Reagan then successfully transitioned Cold War policy from détente to rollback by escalating an arms race with the USSR. He then engaged in talks with Gorbachev that culminated in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The INF Treaty formally banned all the two nations’ land-based missiles and ultimately shrank both countries nuclear arsenals. His determination is evidently illustrated through this, as he believed in certain policies and diligently worked hard to achieve his desired goal which further reflects his strength and optimism that he displayed during his presidency. Ronald Reagan left office in January 1989, and he held approval ratings of 68% which was one of the highest ratings for departing presidents in the 20th century. Still to this day, he is regarded as one of the most popular presidents in American history, largely due to his successes but also because of his self-pride and optimism for the country.

T H E E AG L E - T H E P U P I L S ’ P O L I T I C S M AG A Z I N E

Woodrow Wilson d

er Sixth, Haslewoo

w Neve Hudson - Lo

Woodrow Wilson was an extremely successful president who should have more recognition for his achievements. The 28th President of the United States, Wilson was a two-term president, holding the position from 1913 to 1921. Wilson regarded himself as a personal representative of the people and was the leader of the progressive movement. He had a large and notable impact over the economy and international affairs of the country. Moreover, Wilson made an active effort to act in the best interests of the people. Significantly, he led the United States out of World War I victorious. His objectives of self-determination, collective security and free trade made him a strong leader. As a result, it can be strongly argued that Woodrow Wilson was a great and extremely underrated US President. Wilson and Congress enacted a very cohesive, complete and elaborate program of economy. Through focussing on tariff reform, Wilson achieved the most significant reduction in rates since the Civil War. He initiated a program of progressive reform; introducing lower tariffs and campaigning on a program called New Freedom, stressing individualism and states’ rights. The introduction of tariff reduction engaged the economy. He became especially popular in the South and West, highlighting his use of the economy to look after the people. Furthering this, Wilson introduced the Underwood Act, reducing levies on manufactured goods, and attached to this was a graduated federal income tax; this Act could be considered one of Wilsons biggest successes. Also, by introducing the Federal Reserve Act, he provided the nation with the elastic money supply they needed to restore the economy from the war. Wilson enacted banking reform under the auspices of this system. Effectively, he federally regulated business and supported labour and collective bargaining. Significantly, Wilson initiated the modern income tax. To further from this, in 1914 antitrust legislation under Wilson established a Federal Trade commission to prohibit unfair business practices. It is evident that through his dealings with economy, Woodrow Wilson was a strong and notable president. In addition to this, a massive strength of Wilson’s presidency was his assertion of international leadership and creation of New World Order

after World War I. After a discussion with Congress, Wilson entered and won World War I. Wilson’s war victories for the US are likely overlooked when reflecting on the President; however, his position in winning the war should be noted as extremely significant. Furthermore, after long periods of Republican isolationism and mistrust of the global community, the war allowed Wilson to assert himself and the US on an international scale. Due to this, Woodrow Wilson transformed the United States and its foreign policy, from isolationism to internationalism. He was also a key negotiator during the discussions of the Treaty of Versailles, emphasising his position and power through his ‘Fourteen Points of Peace’. Most importantly, he had a significant role in creating the League of Nations, shielding the United States into a more international superpower. This establishment focused on peacefully managing conflicts between states and putting an end to senseless warfare. As a result, Wilson highlighted the need for collective security among the international community. Thus, it is clear that Wilson completely transformed both domestic foreign policy and international dynamics through his acts as President.

Lastly, in regard to looking after the people, Woodrow Wilson was always acting in the best interests of the nation. This can be noted by a number of small but significant actions. For example, he prohibited child labour in 1916. Additionally, Wilson gave federal aid to education and agriculture in the US, placing a larger emphasis on the people. Also, he acted to look after the nation during and following the years of the war. After the years of laissez-faire attitude and hands off Republican government, Wilson’s government acted to interject and look after the people. Therefore, it is obvious that Woodrow Wilson aimed to look after the American public. Ultimately, it can be strongly argued that Woodrow Wilson has not got enough recognition for his achievements as President. Through the strength of his economy, his government during the war and his international position it is evident that Wilson was a strong and capable leader. He has shaped the United States to be the global superpower it is today through his actions and aided the development of the country to a major extent. Overall, he should be more widely regarded as a strong and driven President who impacted the United States for the better.

s c i t i l o US P h c r a e S Word ester

wer Sixth, Glouc

Daisy Deuchar - Lo

Amendment Democracy Impeachment Legislative Mandate

Bipartisan Executive Imperial Legitimacy Veto

Epsom Road, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 8SP T: +44 (0) 1372 373000 stjohnsleatherhead.co.uk Registered Charity No: 312064

Constitution Federalism Judiciary Lobbying Washington

The Eagle - Summer Term 2021

Articles inside

Reflections on the growth of Nationalism in 21st century politics

Should the Death Penalty be fully abolished in the US

A humanitarian Crisis in China

Finding the line

Response to Sarah Everard’s Murder

The latest Texan abortion legislation and how it could affect a woman’s right to choose

“It was okay at the time…”