S
the Standard
THE STATE OF
DEMOCRACY Special Edition
November 2019
Inside the issue 3
Democracy demands free press
5
President Trump validates autocrats
7
Ethiopian PM could be Africa’s model
4
Electoral flaws undermine democracy
6
Odebrecht corrupts South American politics
8/9
Democracy by the numbers
10
Tunisia must remain on democratic path
12
Populism on rise in Europe
14
Israeli PM’s policies cause controversy
11
Facebook endangers informed democracy
13
Philippines president pushes reform
15
Letter to Lebanon
Online content
For more coverage on the state of democracy in the world, visit standard.asl.org for exclusive features, analysis, commentaries and multi-media.
The Standard
The Standard staff and adviser are dedicated to creating a collaborative, open forum that cultivates productive dialogue within the School community by publishing exemplary student news media according to the strictest standards of journalistic integrity.
SPECIAL EDITION STAFF JOHN TOWFIGHI Editor-in-Chief ISABELLE LHUILIER Deputy Editor-inChief: Print CAMERON SPURR News Editor: Print ISABEL LINK News Editor: Print LUCAS ROMUALDO News Editor: Online ALLEGRA ALBANESE Opinions Editor: Print SAL CERRELL Opinions Editor: Online LEA GEORGE Lead Features Editor ZAINAB ADIL Features Editor: Print HELEN ROTH Features Editor: Online EMILY FORGASH Culture Editor: Print LOUISA AVERY Adviser CARTOONIST Zainab Adil
2 Table of Contents
EDITORIALS Articles published without a byline and presented in the same location issue-toissue represent the majority opinion of the editorial board. They are unsigned. COMMENTARIES Articles with a byline and a photo of the author are opinions articles. They represent the view of the writer only, and not necessarily the staff of The Standard or any other individual or group in the community. ENGAGEMENT WITH READERSHIP The Standard encourages all readers to submit their thoughts through letters to the editor, guest columns, online comments and story ideas. Contact the appropriate section editor(s), or the online staff through the “Contact Us” box on our website for submissions.
The Standard: Democracy Special
Democracy demands free press A
Editorial
free press that condemns and criticizes the government is indisputably important to a strong democracy. Today, however, journalists have become increasingly censored, often times beholden to nascent totalitarian governments. A censored press creates a power imbalance that challenges potential shifts towards democratic practices. This was highlighted last year in Saudi Arabia, when journalist Jamal Khashoggi was kidnapped, tortured and killed by government-affiliated operatives at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Prior to his execution, which was ordered by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, Khashoggi was a prominent critic of the kingdom and Prince Mohammad’s autocratic style. As a correspondent for The Washington Post, Khashoggi used his writing to criticize what he viewed as a lack of freedom of speech in Saudia Arabia. A believer in a more democratic Saudi Arabia, Khashoggi was targeted by the country’s leaders and brutally murdered. He fell victim to the very practices he regarded as unbearable. Beyond the tragedy of Khashoggi’s death is a warning: undermining fundamental institutions threatens the stability of democracy around the world. Saudi Arabian news outlets initially reported that the government had no knowledge of Khashoggi’s murder. The lack of a
Illustration by Helen Roth and Zainab Adil
ism to hold them accountable, authoritarians have free rein to curtail fundamental civil rights and imperil the democratic norms we cherish. The purpose of this special edition of The Standard is to shed light on the state of
“
Whether liberal, conservative, Democrat, or Republican, each and every one of us depends on the principle that people can have a say in how they are governed, and that there is an outlet to express these opinions. free press outlet to cultivate public opinion and question the government gives way to propaganda and an ignorant society. Democratic governance depends on the existence of a free press and the right to dissent against poor leadership. However, a publication’s liberty to report on and critique their government is not observed by the vast majority of countries around the world. In 2019, we are at a crossroads, where a heightened prevalence of obscured, fake news and disillusioned leaders threaten the dissemination of accurate information to a global population. Without critical journal-
November 2019
democracy worldwide. From systemic issues in the U.S. to the regression of freedom in the Middle East and the rise of populism in Europe, it is imperative that people are aware of the status of institutions around the world. This edition is a wake-up call. It is an exposé of nations who have failed to represent democracy or have warped its definition, as well as praise for the countries that remain democratic and are making strides to strengthen freedoms for their citizens. Democracy is not a partisan issue. Whether liberal, conservative, Democrat
or Republican, each and every one of us depends on the principle that our voices matter, that people can have a say in how they are governed and that there is an outlet to express these opinions. The absence of democracy in even just a few countries will harm us all. Once-burgeoning republics like Brazil, Turkey and Hungary each face authoritarian challenges to their established institutions. The only way to avoid a similar fate in other countries is to stay informed and to understand the threats our democracies face. We need to analyze how leaders are exploiting political systems that, to most, may appear democratic and independent. We intend for this edition to spark discussion and foster a dialogue within our community and to help ensure that our readers are aware of the current fragility of liberty worldwide. This issue may only scratch the surface of an immense and complex topic, but it is, nevertheless, a vital first step. In the words of the late U.S. Representative Elijah Cummings, “When we’re dancing with the angels, the question will be asked: In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact? Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing?”
We won’t stay silent.
Editorial 3
Electoral flaws undermine democracy Structural loopholes in the U.S. government, such as gerrymandering and legislative gridlock, promote re-election at the expense of voters’ intentions. Lucas Romualdo | News Editor: Online
F
or 243 years, the U.S. has been widely considered the forerunner for modern democracy in the world. The American system of government has been the model for countries around the globe. Why then, does the U.S. now score 7.96 out of 10 on The Economist’s Democracy Index? How has the world’s first contemporary republic fallen behind 24 other countries, many of which have a far shorter history of democracy? Despite the progress made since the U.S.’s inception, the system of government has several flaws which impede maximized popular participation in America’s democracy. Among them are gerrymandering, partisanship, gridlock and faltering public trust in America’s government institutions. The most obvious defect of American democracy is gerrymandering, the process in which congressional districts and state legislative districts are drawn to favor one party. For example, certain districts might be drawn to include slightly more Republicans than Democrats, or vice versa, to ensure a Republican hold of that seat. Likewise, districts could be drawn to put most of the state’s Democratic or Republican voters in a few districts, so that the overall legislature has a clear majority for one party. This pattern is most prevalent in states like North Carolina, where Democrats won 48% of the popular vote in the state but only three of the state’s 13 House districts. Similarly in Maryland, Republicans won 32% of the popular
4 News Analysis
Graphics from Wikimedia Commons, Pixabay
vote but only one of the eight House seats. Gerrymandering results in the devaluation of the opposing party’s voters, as the districts are drawn to make their votes count for less. This process makes elections less legitimate, thus eroding public confidence in democracy. The situation does not improve in legislatures. In many state assemblies, gerryman-
House, ideological caucuses, or groups of like-minded representatives, block the passage of a great deal of legislation. During Republican control of the House, the rightwing Freedom Caucus forced Speaker John Boehner out and stalled healthcare reform. Under Democratic control, progressives and centrists have been unproductively fighting within the Democratic
“
Gerrymandering makes elections less legitimate, thus eroding public confidence in democracy. dered districts have created a lopsided balance of power, allowing them to pass a myriad of laws that are not supported by their constituents. Passing abortion restrictions, voter registration limits and education cuts, state legislatures are approving bills that would likely fail if the voters had a say. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is overrun with partisanship and gridlock. In the
Party, leaving meaningful legislation by the wayside without action taken on voters’ wishes. The Senate, however, faces the opposite problem. Though each party is mostly unified, this has resulted in blatant obstructionism. Nominees for cabinet positions often face party-line votes and filibusters from Democratic senators. This opposition to Trump’s nominees does not completely stem from ideological differ-
ences; rather, it is a result of political manoeuvring and an attempt to gain a win over the opposition party. Republican senators, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have not been any more conciliatory. McConnell, according to Politico, made his primary goal in the Senate’s majority clear in 2010. “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President [Barack] Obama to be a one-term president,” he said. Ignoring key Republican priorities, many of which are generally popular, such as tax cuts, deregulation, welfare reform, and immigration reform, Senator McConnell demonstrated his party’s commitment to blatant obstructionism. In 2016, he did just that when he refused to acknowledge President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, violating his constitutional duty. By no means do gerrymandering and obstructionism make the U.S. a hybrid-authoritarian regime. Voter turnout in the 2018 midterm elections was at a record high, according to the U.S. Election Project, and interest in the 2020 presidential election has already reached unprecedented levels. Despite increased political participation, structural issues with America’s political system will continue to be obstacles against successful governance. As long as senators stop approving meaningful legislation and gerrymandering undercuts voters’ choices, the U.S. will be unable to fulfil the Founding Fathers’ dream of a thriving democratic union.
The Standard: Democracy Special
President Trump validates autocrats Photos used with permission from (L-R): Wikimedia Commons Kremlin.ru The Chancellery of the Senate of the Republic of Poland White House
Sal Cerrell Opinions Editor: Online
T
hough he is a controversial figure in American politics, one thing about President Donald Trump that is indisputable for Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike is the unorthodox manner in which he conducts himself. This appears in the way he communicates information, the people he surrounds himself with and, most prominently, how he approaches foreign policy. The principles that govern his strategy on the global stage have baffled both his staunchest critics and most loyal supporters. Not only has Trump chosen to bash and betray our closest allies, such as the Kurds in Northern Syria, but he has openly and enthusiastically embraced autocrats around the world. While many presidents have met and negotiated with tyrants, predominantly in the hopes of ceasing their destructive actions, and bridging the divide between them and the global community, Trump has done all but that. He has instead validated their presence and sought to appease them through both rhetoric and policy, often at the expense of either American or European interests. Mohammad Bin Salman The young Saudi prince, who inherited power from his father in 2017, has drawn international condemnation for propping up a brutal civil war in Yemen that has led to
November 2019
mass famine and murdering Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist critical of his rule. However, Trump’s admiration for Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS) couldn’t be more obvious. In the two years since assuming his presidency, he has gifted Saudi Arabia nearly every strategic goal it had been hoping to obtain. He has instructed the Department of Defense to provide logistical and military support for the country’s horrific and ruthless conflict in Yemen, where U.S.-made weapons have been used to target schools and hospitals. Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, designed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, appeased radical factions within the Saudi Arabian government. This has sparked further unrest and violence in the region. Perhaps most strikingly, Trump was MBS’ sole defender when it was revealed that MBS ordered Khashoggi’s violent execution at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey. When a bipartisan group in Congress attempted to block further military assistance to Saudi Arabia, citing this murder and a host of other atrocities committed in Yemen, Trump vetoed the bill, standing alone in his defense of the Saudi Arabian leader. Vladimir Putin The long-standing president of Russia, though isolated
by the majority of western politicians in Europe, has seemingly forged an ally with one man: Trump. In just three years, the president has, either through malice or his own incompetence, overwhelmingly advanced the foreign policy interests of America’s greatest geopolitical foe. He has openly bashed NATO member countries, the military alliance designed to deter Russian aggression towards mainland Europe, for supposedly not paying their fair share in defense spending. In a sharp break from U.S. policy, Trump even threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the treaty altogether, something Russia has craved ever since NATO’s foundation in 1949. More recently, Trump’s seemingly erratic decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, which went against the recommendations of diplomats, generals, and experts alike, has provided Russia with an opportunity to command a greater foothold within the Middle East. Their military has begun to move troops into areas once held by U.S.-backed Kurds, who have been driven from the region. This will create space for their Iranian and Syrian-government allies to occupy this land, further splintering hopes of a democratic, unified country.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Throughout his term, Trump has shown himself to be incredibly submissive to the President of Turkey, particularly with regard to the U.S.’s Middle East policy. Though Turkey is a member of NATO, Erdoğan has increasingly grown fond of warmer relations with Russia, the alliance’s main adversary. Turkey’s military has increased its cooperation with that of Putin’s, conducting joint patrols of Syria, and rebuffed the U.S. by purchasing large orders of Russian fighter jets and weaponry. Trump, however, is indifferent towards the drift of Turkey, both militarily and politically, towards Russia. His removal of troops from Northern Syria allowed their military to ransack once-democratic Kurdish regions, torturing and killing prominent political figures. Through a destructive and illiberal foreign policy that harms allies and embraces autocrats, Trump has weakened America’s standing on the global stage. His presence has given autocrats free rein to continue their undemocratic behavior, as American global leadership that once condemned them has now run astray.
News Analysis 5
Odebrecht corrupts South American politics Lucas Romualdo | News Editor: Online
S
outh American politics have been turned upside down over the last three years, with a wave of fallen governments in several countries. Odebrecht, a Brazilian engineering and construction company, is behind these scandals that have shaken public trust in democratic institutions. Odebrecht has become embroiled in a corruption network including other corporations and prominent politicians across the continent. The scandal first came to light in Brazil in 2016, where authorities discovered that Odebrecht had paid out bribes to several politicians, as well as government-owned energy corporation Petrobras. In return for these bribes, Petrobras and other government officials granted lucrative contracts for upcoming con-
The scandals destroyed public faith in Brazilian democratic institutions. According to Vox, a year after the scandal broke, just 32% of Brazilians expressed support for the idea of democracy. As a result of this diminished support for democratic ideals, Brazil elected a far-right president in October 2018, Jair Bolsonaro. His endorsement of violent law enforcement tactics indirectly encouraged police killings of civilians, which have increased by 18% under his tenure, according to The Guardian. This has created an authoritarian environment where police raid homes of lawyers and activists, assassinate judges and murder innocent civilians. The root of this totalitarian spiral is corruption. Had politicians rejected illegal and unsavory advances from shady
just Brazil’s politics, but also the circumstances in various other South American countries. For example, earlier this year, a political impasse stemming from the corruption scandal resulted in a constitutional crisis in Peru. Peruvian President Martín Vizcarra announced that he
would dissolve congress and call for elections, using corruption in congress as justification. In response, Peru’s Congress stated that Vizcarra’s presidency was suspended.
So far, Vizcarra has been a saving grace for Peru, overseeing popular anti-corruption policies. But Turkey’s Erdogan and Russia’s Putin have proven that effective elected leaders can easily become dictators. In a nation with a weak constitution and nascent democratic institutions, Vizcarra has a prime opportunity to become a president with free reign and unchecked power and popularity. Such an outcome could stall the progress of democracy in Peru, threatening the livelihoods and security of millions of Peruvians. Odebrecht’s corrupt activities have already taken down two governments. As a result, Brazil has moved towards totalitarianism while Peru may soon have a president with unrivalled power.
struction projects to Odebrecht. As the details of the scheme were uncovered, many prominent Brazilian leaders, including former Presidents Fernando Collor de Mello, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Michel Temer, were charged with corruption, and subsequently jailed for their criminal activities.
businessmen, citizens would still trust their elected officials. Without this, few would choose to turn to a leader who backs a totalitarian police, adding yet another threat against the Brazilian people. Another shocking reality of the Odebrecht scandal is its breadth, which has upended not
However, Peruvian politicians and military leaders declared their recognition of Vizcarra’s presidency. As it stands, Peru’s democracy could be nearing its end. With sky-high approval ratings, Vizcarra is expected to win the upcoming elections in a landslide.
With the face of anti-corruption in South America looking increasingly authoritarian, we must look to the root cause of this crisis: choosing profit over political stability. It is time for corporations to consider: are a few contracts worth the liberty, prosperity, and security of millions of people?
“
Odebrecht’s corrupt activities have already taken down two governments.
Illustration by Allegra Albanese
6 News Analysis
The Standard: Democracy Special
Ethiopian PM could be Africa’s model John Towfighi | Editor-in-Chief
A
biy Ahmed is a name that has recently brought extensive attention to the Horn of Africa. Ahmed is the Ethiopian Prime Minister and recipient of the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize, which recognized his role in ending Ethiopia’s 20-year conflict with Eritrea. Now in international spotlight, it is crucial that Ahmed uses the opportunity to make continued shifts towards increasing Ethiopia’s democratic identity. When Ahmed was inaugurated as prime minister in 2018, he inherited a country on the brink of political collapse. A state of emergency had been implemented in 2016 after violent clashes between police and anti-government protesters had erupted throughout the country. Citizens were demanding an end to human rights abuses, the redistribution of wealth and the overhaul of a repressive political system. Ahmed has introduced Ethiopia to a series of sweeping social, political and economic reforms. Notably, he had a pivotal role in formally ending a 20-year ethnic conflict with Eritrea that claimed thousands of lives and displaced thousands of people.
The Eritrea-Ethiopian border was subsequently opened for the first time in two decades, and daily commercial flights were resumed between the capital cities. This change highlighted the push toward increased cooperation between the two previous foes. However, there are issues in Ethiopia that Ahmed must sort out. While successful in creating peace with Eritrea, he is currently struggling to maintain peace at home. Following political activist Jawar Mohammed’s outspoken comments that Ahmed was acting like a dictator, there were violent protests that resulted in the death of 87, per The Guardian. There is a growing sentiment that Ahmed only represents his own Oromo ethnic people, and not the country as a whole. If not careful, Ahmed will lose popularity and allow for instability to resurface in the country. As Ethiopia embraces a newly freed press, it will have to learn how to respond to public critique of the government. Ahmed, who was criticized for lacking to comment on the protests, must reaffirm his position in the public view as a prime minister who is committed to establishing democratic systems that will succeed his time in office.
Sal Cerrell | Opinions Editor: Online At the head of a nation trying to be progressive in its political changes, Ahmed could set a strong example for neighboring countries. He must uses the global affirmation of his actions productively to emphasize his commitment to diplomacy. As prime minister, Ahmed has been instrumental in the resolution of regional disputes, mediating discussions between the president of South Sudan and his opposition leader in an attempt to broker peace between the two. For his accomplishments, Ahmed was named African of the year in 2018, and the following year was granted the Nobel Peace Prize. While in office, Ahmed has sacked many corrupt and inept bureaucrats who had been the source of political mismanagement. In 2018, keen on appointing more women to roles of governance, Ahmed appointed a 50% female cabinet. Ahmed must be active in highlighting these improvements to convince Ethiopians who question his image that he is making moves in the country’s best interest. In regards to the economy, Ahmed has sought to end full governmental control over the country’s largest corporations, such as the country’s
national airline. In 2018, Ethiopia secured nearly $3 billion in investment from foreign entities, tripling the grants the year before, according to the World Bank. Ethiopian Airlines has helped mold the country into an international hub with Bole International Airport serving to improve connectivity throughout the broader East African region. The work Ahmed has undertaken to aggressively implement both economic and political change is what has lamented him with international recognition. Moreover, his self-description as a reformist has translated into the release of political prisoners, including opposition members and journalists who wrote disapprovingly of the government. He has promised to hold the first truly free parliamentary elections in 2020, with opposition parties now devoid of the previously instituted constraints. In a region where dictatorship commonly infiltrates democracy, Ahmed has a crucial role. He has the recognition and the resume. He must capitalize on his progress and steer Ethiopia clear of avoidable turmoil.
Illustration by Zainab Adil and Cameron Spurr
November 2019
Commentary 7
Democracy by th
Grap
From the student body:
87% 86% 70% 75%
8
think the stability of global democracy has a direct effect on think democracy is the best form of government think democracy is threatened in the world think democracy does not work everywhere The Standard: Democracy Special
by the numbers
The Economist’s Democracy Index Germany - 8.68 (Full Democracy) U.K. - 8.53 (Full Democracy) Austria* - 8.29 (Full Democracy) U.S. - 7.96 (Flawed Democracy) Israel - 7.79 (Flawed Democracy) Italy* - 7.71 (Flawed Democracy) Brazil - 6.97 (Flawed Democracy) Philippines - 6.71 (Flawed Democracy) Hungary - 6.63 (Flawed Democracy)
Graphic by Lucas Romualdo/mapchart.net
Peru - 6.60 (Flawed Democracy) Tunisia - 6.41 (Flawed Democracy)
ffect on their lives
Lebanon - 4.63 (Hybrid Regime) Turkey - 4.37 (Hybrid regime) Egypt* - 3.36 (Authoritarian) Ethiopia - 3.35 (Authoritarian)
*For more coverage on these countries, visit standard.asl. org for an online exclusive Data collected from a survey of High School students over Oct. 31 to Nov. 6 with 152 responses
November 2019
China* - 3.32 (Authoritarian) Russia - 2.94 (Authoritarian) Saudi Arabia - 1.93 (Authoritarian) 9
Tunisia must remain on democratic path John Towfighi | Editor-in-Chief
I
t’s been nine years since Tunisian citizens uprooted their oppressive government and began the series of pro-democracy revolts that became known as The Arab Spring. When fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolated following harassment from police, he became a symbol for the excessive force used by government, and the lack of citizens’ freedoms. The protests focused on ousting President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali for his autocratic rule, and in just two months, he fled the country. Tunisia subsequently created an uproar for democracy that reached neighboring countries. Protesters in Egypt, Syria, Libya and more followed in suit and challenged authoritarianism in Northern Africa and the Middle East. Initially, the possibility of taking power from corrupt autocrats and giving it to the people seemed possible. However, nine years on, Tunisia is the only nation that has emerged as democratic. Its Arab Spring counterparts are engulfed in a variety of precarious conditions, including civil war, a return to dictatorial rule, and general instability. Despite this, Tunisia is in its formative years of establishing a government that aims to abide by democratic ideals. As a result of The Arab Spring, the country held its first democratic elections to form a constituent assembly in 2011. Since then, the country has continued to exercise practices of a democracy. Restrictions on speech and excessive use of police force has diminished. In 2014, a constitution was adopted. From Tunisia’s initial independence in 1956 until 2011, there were only two presi-
10 Commentary
Illustration by Zanaib Adil
dents. Just last month, Kais Saed was sworn in as the new president of Tunisia, the second since The Arab Spring. Tunisia’s current success is imperative to sustain the long term possibility of democracy in the region. The Oct. 23 election resulted in a 72.3% of the vote in favor of Saed, a retired professor who has no previous political experience. Saed, a self-described independent, played off the socio-political climate by running on an anti-corruption campaign that garnered support from youth who became disillusioned with Ben Ali’s crooked ways. Saed’s commitment to diplomacy and improving the economy managed to get him the presidency. However, he now has the responsibility of actually reforming the country. The future of this young democracy is contingent on the growth of the economy. However, unemployment rates have remained consist-
ently around 15% since the initial spike up to 19% during The Arab Spring, per CEIC data. While oppressive, Ben Ali’s government provided strong economic reforms that caused Tunisia’s GDP to triple from 1986 to 2008, per the United Nations. It is essential that the citizens do not become disillusioned with the initial effects of the revolution on the economy. Given it’s fragile state, validation from other democratic nations would benefit Tunisia. On Oct. 29, The European Council passed a movement that gave Tunisia the Partner for Local Democracy status. This special status creates a platform for the EU to work with Tunisia’s government to facilitate a strong, committed shift to democracy. In an area where some countries are in civil unrest, Tunisia could model a successful transition and become a stronghold for democracy. As politicians work toward solidifying parliamentary prac-
tices, public opinion must not wane. While oppressive, the presidency of Ben Ali offered stability. Yet, Ben Ali also committed various human rights abuses and remained in office for over three decades. To condemn autocratic leaders, it is essential that the democratic leaders succeed. While students in London may overlook the relevance of Tunisia’s government, I encourage people to see the means of connection. Tunisia’s youth swayed the vote in favor of Saed. As I grow older, I hope to see my peers think about the importance of exercising the democratic freedoms we have. According to The Economist’s Democracy Index, Tunisia is a flawed democracy. If successful, Saed’s presidency will weigh heavily on the country’s future. The people have made their way onto a path toward more democracy. Now, as the country embraces change, sight of the end goal must not falter.
The Standard: Democracy Special
Facebook endangers informed democracy Sal Cerrell | Opinions Editor: Online
S
ince its founding in 2004, Facebook has established itself as the largest social media platform in the world. With over 1.5 billion daily active users across all seven continents who share nearly 5 billion pieces of information, the company has achieved near-perfect market monopolization. On top of that, it is estimated that they have generated nearly 1,500 petabytes of data every year since 2014. To put that in context, they have amassed more data in the past five years than all of the words ever spoken by human beings, ever. The total value and use of that data alone, independent of the company which possesses it, is immeasurable. Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder, CEO and chairman of the tech giant, has repeatedly said that his intention is to use his platform to promote connectivity, ensuring that users’ access to information and content would be unrivaled by any other entity. This, in some instances, is true. Pro-democracy movements in the 2011 Arab Spring used Facebook as a means to communicate with one another to coordinate protests throughout the Middle-East. These mass demonstrations led to the ousting of several dictatorial regimes, specifically in Tunisia and Egypt. Black Lives Matter, an American organization that promotes activism around police brutality, has frequently credited Facebook with aiding them to in bringing about change. However, these stories of hope should not excuse Facbook’s downsides. Time and time again, Facebook has been utilized by foreign actors to purposely
November 2019
spread disinformation, intended to pit demographics against one another for one’s political gain. Users have, for years, unintentionally exposed personal information to the site, which has been bartered, sold and weaponized. The 2016 American presidential election underscore
through mass-misinformation campaigns have been seen worldwide. In the 2016 E.U. Referendum in Britain and the 2017 French Presidential Election, millions of Russian bots spread fake news through Facebook. Facebook has also been used by demagogues to identify and target minority racial groups, as was the case in
this. Heaps of Facebook users’ data was used by Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics firm in the U.K., to specifically target voters with misinformation to alienate them against Hillary Clinton. Concurrently, millions of Russian-made bots perpetuated these stories through likes and reposts. These two factors heavily tipped the scales against Clinton, and served to benefit Donald Trump. Though the two were not coordinated, as confirmed by the Mueller Report, similar efforts to dissuade voters from participating in electoral processes
the 2017 Rohingya genocide. The platform was used by Myanmar’s military to incite violence against the Muslim faction, as many on the platform called for their extermination and forcible removal from the country. Nearly 800,000 people fled the country, as horrendous reports of extreme brutality streamed in from the country’s borders. One incident claimed that a newborn baby was thrown into a fire in front of its mother and father. As the platform served as the means through which ethnic cleansing was com-
Illustration by Emily Forgash
mitted, Facebook also stifled those who attempted to document these violent incidents. Given the nature of the atrocities which were committed, most of the content which documented them was inevitably going to be graphic and disturbing. However, Facebook chose to remove these posts, as they were not consistent with their guidelines. This was also the case in the Syrian Civil War, as many journalists risked their lives to photograph the violence on the ground, all to see their posts be taken down. Facebook has consistently been exposed for the hypocrisy that is rampant throughout their corporate culture, refusing to accept, either out of their own ignorance or incompetence, the extent of the damage their platform has aided and abetted. Government reports on both sides of the Atlantic have bashed the social media giant for knowingly and willingly violating data privacy laws, while also serving as a mouthpiece for the worst of society. Democracy cannot exist without healthy dialogue and a free flow of information. This eternal conversation relies on the acceptance of facts and falsehoods, and the lack of a grey area between the two. In its current state, Facebook has proven itself incapable of facilitating this given their apparent inability to manage themselves. The beast they have unleashed is now beyond their control. The company must undergo a series of sweeping reforms, so as not be subject to government intervention.
Commentary 11
Populism on rise in Europe Sal Cerrell | Opinions Editor: Online
O
ver the past three years, countries within the EU have faced political backlash from populist leaders as fringe political parties have galvanized support. Institutions like the EU, originally created to unite the continent, are struggling to assert authority in its member states due to the rise in populism. Jean Gailly de Taurines (’20) said that these populist movements are growing because they feed off of how the public feels. “[Populism is] based off of emotion not necessarily what’s best for the people,” he said. Ily Brigui (’22) agrees and said that the rise of populism is credited to its efficiency in fueling public sentiment. “I think that [populism] is an easier way to get angry, and therefore get more votes, and to get people more passionate,” he said.
France
T
hough President Emmanuel Macron managed to fend off a populist challenge led by Ma- rine Le Pen in 2017, his first term in office has been politically tumultuous. De Taurines explained how Macron’s economic policies were seen as too submissive to the needs of those with high incomes, which has resulted in the nickname “President of the rich.” Workers were furious after Macron gave corporations greater mobility to hire and fire employees resulting in protests demanding a reversal of the policy. “A lot of controversy around him has been related to these alleged certain actions he has taken as a president that have benefited the rich,” de Taurines said.
12 Features
In Winter 2018, a proposed fuel tax sparked an enormous backlash from those residing in rural regions, resulting in protests in Paris. Parisian police worked with the French military to quell the nearly 300,000 “Yellow Vest” protesters. De Taurines explained how the Yellow Vests movement is fueled by an angry middle class, and with this, far right movements in France have gained support behind an anti-elite sentiment. De Taurines attributes Le Pen’s popularity to Macron’s struggles from the Yellow Vest movement. “Marine Le Pen and her party are going to jump on every opportunity possible to profit off of this,” he said. However, de Taurines said that combatting populism is possible should the government take the appropriate steps to do so. “Make sure that people such as farmers in the middle of nowhere are actually heard. That’s one of the main target audiences for the populist movement in France – those that “have no voice,” he said.
Hungary
H
ungary’s politics have succumbed to elements of populism, as Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has granted himself near-dictatorial control over the country’s institutions. Since assuming office in 2010, the country has seen its democracy ticker on Freedom House regress from free to only partially free. This is largely due to the increased aggression from police towards journalists and the press. The largest newspaper in the country, Népszabadság, which had reported on the multitude of scandals
Lea George | Lead Features Editor
surrounding Orbán’s premiership, was suspended from further publication. It was later revealed that the publication’s parent company had been sold to a cooperation linked to those close to the office of the President.
Illustration by Zainab Adil
For de Taurines, the most threatening part of populism is the publishing of wrong information. “For a whole democracy, one of the main points you want to achieve is to negate all forms disinformation. Make sure that 100% truths are being put out to the people,” he said. Social Studies Teacher Sana Shafqat also said that Orbán has refused to admit many immigrants from the middle-east and North Africa, resulting in an anti-immigrant sentiment. “Being geographically where Hungary is, and with a lot of people crossing from Hungary into other European countries, Hungary is really at the forefront of this influx of people fleeing for their lives,” she said.
United Kingdom
T
hough a number of countries on the continent have had concerted movements to secede from the EU, only in Britain have those beliefs re-
ceived political oxygen to both be placed on a ballot, and win in a referendum. Since the 2016 vote, Brexit has dominated the political scene, producing the resignation of two Prime Ministers, two general elections and a failed vote of no-confidence. However, Shafqat is “concerned” with the methods used by those who advocated for the U.K. to leave the EU. “The rhetoric often used by parties such as UKIP has been very anti-immigrant, very Islam- ophobic,” she said. Brigui also believes that the rise in populism in Britain has led to an increase in racial tensions and discrimination from certain political parties. “Now you have the rise of the English Christian Party, what you call nationalist parties, generally on the far right. I think those are the biggest [where] the racial tensions overbuild,” he said. De Taurines believes that populist parties have increased influence in the U.K. as a result of Brexit. “People like Nigel Farrage of the Brexit party have used incorrect facts to stir up emotions that were negative towards immigrants and towards the EU,” he said. “Eventually that gave them the referendum, and we’re still seeing the repercussions today.” Brigui said that although he does not believe in open borders, he feels as though extreme populist parties are dangerous. “[Populism] hinders actual critical solutions because I do think [immigration] is an issue in society,” he said. Around the EU, parties like Alternative for Germany have gained support. For more information on European populism, visit standard.asl.org for exclusive online content.
The Standard: Democracy Special
Philippines president pushes reform Emily Forgash | Culture Editor: Print
F
ilipino President Rodrigo Duterte has been in office since June 2016. Since his election, his policies have received extensive international media coverage and mixed reactions from the Filipino and international community. The Philippines was the first constitutional democracy in Asia beginning in 1898. However, former president Benigno Aquino III was charged with alleged corruption fines. In the eyes of the international media, Duterte’s presidency has maintained this trend of corruption in the Philippines. In addition, in an effort to protect himself from international backlash and criticism surrounding his response to the Filipino drug crisis, Duterte removed the Filipino President from the International Criminal Court. At the moment, Duterte’s most controversial and topical policy has been his approach to combat the drug addiction crisis in the Philippines. His plan has consisted of giving the Filipino police force the power to kill and carry out raids on anyone suspected to be involved with drugs. According to the H u m a n s Right Watch, 12,000 Filipinos have been killed since the introduction of Duterte’s “War on Drugs”.
Jay Heyman (’21) lived in Cebu, Philippines from 20032006, and frequently visits his family all over the country during the summer In his experience, Duterte’s strict drug policies have sometimes proved to be beneficial for certain individuals. “My two cousins that were addicted to drugs, they only turned their lives around because of these laws,” he said. In fact, after an incident with the police, Heyman’s family believed that one of his cousins who was addicted to drugs had been shot and killed by the police because the same had happened to someone else wearing his clothes. He attributes his cousins’ rehabilitation to this wake-up call. “They have a whole family and they’re working abroad now, so that’s changed their lives,” he said. On the other hand, the Filipino opinion on Duterte seems to depend on the people’s socio-economic class. The upper class tends to lean in favor of Duterte, whereas the lower socio-economic classes do not. M a c e y O ’ M a l i a ’s g ra n d p a rents live in Manila and Davao in the Philippines. They favor Duterte over past presidents because,
Lea George | Lead Features Editor in their eyes, he has actually created change for the country. However, they understand that their privilege contributes to their outlook. “They’re super biased because nothing bad has happened to them. They live in a gated community, they don’t do drugs, they’re on the rich side of the Filipinos,” she said. Her grandparents view the drug laws as straightforward and extreme. “My grandparents were like, ‘if you do the right thing it’s fine. If you do something minor, you might get killed’,” she said. O’Malia�s grandparents feel the effects of this change as her grandmother’s family “have good business, they benefit in the Filipino economy,” she said. Heyman believes that prior to Duterte’ s presidency, the drug crisis in the Philippines was hidden from the international community. “Before you just thought the Philippines was a nice place didn’t you?” he asked. Although Duterte’s presidency has highlighted this
issue, his relationship with the press and its reporting on his policies has deteriorated. As described by Social Studies Teacher Terry Gladis, he has frequently referred to articles surrounding his extreme reform methods as “fake news”. According to the South China Morning Post, Duterte attempted to shut down Rappler, a Philippines based news source that criticized his drug policies. He was quoted saying that he “did not give s***” about his government’s actions in regards to Rappler. Gladis said that Duterte is ultimately a “terrible person” when it comes to infringing on democracy. Although the Philippines are far away from London, Heyman said that regardless of one’s location, it is imperative that we learn about the circumstances of nations like the Philippines. “Not all people around the world have a voice or are able to stand up for themselves. That kind of makes us value and recognize what we have,” he said.
By the numbers
Duterte’s war on drugs
5050 164,265 115,435
casualties
drug-related arrests anti-drug operations
Photo used with permission from Philippines Presidential Communications Operations Office
November 2019
Statistics from The Guardian
Features 13
Israeli PM’s policies cause controversy Isabelle Lhuilier | Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Print
T
hroughout her time living in Tel-Aviv, Israel, it was apparent to Daya Benami (’20) that she was living in “a country at war.” She recalls being in a park with her mother in 2014 when a bomb siren went off and they had to take cover. “You lie on the ground and you hear the Iron Dome hitting,” Benami said. “In Israel, every house has a bomb shelter and you kind of have to be prepared for anything.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been in office since 2009, and previously held the position from 1996 to 1999. Netanyahu is currently under investigation for corruption and fraud. Benami said during Netanyahu’s time as prime minister, Israel has been “moving further and further away from democracy.” “In terms of basic rights of expression, almost every single newspaper is either censored or owned by the government,” Benami said. “I definitely think it is a militant state.” On the other hand, Israeli student Laura De Beer (’20)
Illustration by Zainab Adil
14 Features
said that he has promoted extensive economic growth. According to HAARETZ, under Netanyahu’s leadership, the GDP has risen an average of 3%, the national debt has fallen by 60%, and unemployment is at a record low. “Netanyahu has a lot to be proud of,” De Beer said. “He became Prime Minister when Israel was being crippled by the great recession. Ten years later, Israel’s economy is one of the world’s biggest.” However, Liam Hamama (’20), who lived in Israel, the biggest issue with Netanyahu’s government has been its failure to promote peaceful negotiation between Israel and Palestine. Before Netanyahu was first elected in 1996, a peace treaty was close to being formed between the two countries. “Netanyahu ended that [trety], which I think was entirely wrong,” Hamama said. During the period between Netanyahu’s terms, Hamama said that Israel was once again close to having peace with Palestine, but, once re-elected, Netanyahu reinstated his stance. “He’s expanded settlements and
[term] bilateral dialogue and movement towards peaceful negotiation with Palestine has diminished,” she said. In contrast, De Beer said she disagrees with the statement that Netanyahu does not promote peace in Israel. She said that in past discussions with Palestine, Israel has attempted to compromise but the Palestinians sometimes want more than what has been offered. “Israel has given up a lot in these discussions. It’s just the other side [Palestine] sometimes will want more unfavorable things for Israel and will not accept a halfway mark,” de Beer said. “Overall, Netanyahu does promote democracy and that is something that in Palestinian lands they do not have.” Although Netanyahu was re-elected in April 2019, he was unable to form a coalition, which has led to a series of subsequent elections. As he is under criminal investigation, Netanyahu is determined to hold onto powe r
expanded human rights violations against Palestinians,” he said. “It has become less and less viable for Israel to ever have peace.” Similarly, Benami said tensions between Israel and Palestine have worsened under Netanyahu. She emphasized a growing deprivation of Palestinian rights, especially in the Gaza Strip. “Under his decade long
to avoid going to prion, which Benami sees as evidence that the system of democracy is “incredibly flawed.” “[The elections] are a huge economic wound for Israel and even now it’s unclear who the prime minister is going to be. I think that puts the country in a lot of turmoil,” she said. Hamama said that, by questioning the legal system and attempting to alter it to
work in his favor, Netanyahu is bringing Israel further away from democracy. “He is trying to argue that there is something fundamentally wrong with the legal system in Israel … which is entirely filled with people that he voted, so he is questioning a system that he supported in the past just because it is going after him,” Hamama said. Also, he said the bigger issue in Israel is not the Prime Minister, but the public perspective on Palestine as a whole. “The majority of people who vote in Israel are very right wing and they don’t believe in human rights for the Palestinian people,” he said. “Even if Netanyahu is replaced it’s not like the person who replaced him is suddenly going to want peace with the Palestinians and withdraw from the West Bank.” For Benami, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a catalyst for a deterioration of democracy in Israel. “When a country is in a situation of active conflict democracy is definitely on the decline,” she said. “Democracy in Israel is definitely being sacrificed for the sake of fighting a war.” However, De Beer views Israel as a “thriving democracy” citing the fact that a wide variety of backgrounds are represented in politics, including Arabs, orthodox Jews and liberals. “What Netanyahu tries to do is to really bring Israel back into the international community,” De Beer said. “I think he definitely promotes democracy in Israel. If you look around the Middle East, Israel is the only democracy and that says a lot already.”
The Standard: Democracy Special
To the Lebanese Government, Lea George | Lead Features Editor
I
live in London. I was born here, I was raised here and yet I feel 100% Lebanese. I am proud of my nation, proud of my language, of my roots. But, I am ashamed of the government my people have been forced under. I need you to understand that you are fundamentally flawed, and that your actions have consequences.
“
And yet, at the hands of your corruption, according to Statista.com, we have managed to cultivate a national debt of 91.97 billion dollars. At the hands of your corruption, the money of Lebanese taxpayers who no longer have anything to give are forced to extract the little money they have left to pay for your camaraderies.
If it takes a 16 year old girl to drive you out, or an entire nation, eventually, you will have to fall. From as far away as the U.K., your corruption is being felt by millions of Lebanese citizens. Listen carefully to what I am going to tell you, because if it takes a 16 year old girl to drive you out, or an entire nation, eventually, you will have to fall. Firstly, what happened to our country? We used to be the jewel of the Middle East. We used to be luxurious. We were exotic and wealthy. Our economy was based on the resources we drew from our lands, and we flourished in international trade and commerce.
You have wedged a further divide between the rich and the poor in my country, almost entirely eliminating the middle class, harming our economy’s stability and ability to grow. When we were placed under threat by the wildfires during early October, you were forced to go to Cyprus to ask to borrow planes that would help put out the fires because you couldn’t pay for them yourselves. I am embarrassed and angered that at the hands of your financial corruption, the lives
of the Lebanese are put at risk by environmental factors that could otherwise be dealt with. It would be foolish of me to say that you don’t understand that your actions have punctured our economy. You recognize this. And yet, your impulsive actions to further tax us by placing a tax on our WhatsApp calls shows not only a lack of understanding of the general public, but also a lack of empathy. What are you taxing? You are taxing a nation who cannot even afford to put food on the table for their children or pay for an adequate education. Your meaningless and insensitive solutions to restore our crippled economy have simply exhausted us. There is no more money left to funnel into your corrupt system. Your side deals, your individual wealth, your donations to South African models, they mean nothing to us, to the nation that you are supposed to be cultivating and developing. What does it mean to be the longest withstanding democracy in the Middle East if the country’s democracy is twisted? Enough is enough. That money should be ours, and it’s
time that our government uses it for the benefit of the people rather than themselves. It’s time for you to go. We need technocrats who will rebuild the economy and place political corruption aside. We need to diversify our government. We need more females and younger politicians who are willing to fight for the people rather than themselves. We need a balance of socio-economic classes, and although I may not have all the answers to this country’s problems, the one thing I know for sure is that my country has spoken, and my country wants you out. Now.
Illustrations by Emily Forgash and Lea George
November 2019
A Letter 15
The American School in London | One Waverley Place | London NW8 0NP U.K. | standard.asl.org