The need for PR and an end to the two – idiot system

I’m sure many of us remember the coalition government of 2010 to 2015 between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, and, if like me, you remember it very fondly. I remember the coalition government representing a more modern, and progressive type of politics. Two parties who don’t have that much in common chose to work together for the good of the country; though this was primarily due to the fact that neither party won an absolute majority.

Recent political developments in the last few months have made me realise that the coalition was what we needed, and it’s what we need now.

Coalition governments are quite rare in British politics, before 2010 the only coalition government was the Churchill War Ministry of 1940 to 1945 as a result of the Second World War. Aside from this, coalitions just didn’t happen as most people often voted for either Labour or the Conservatives. For the most part of the Twentieth Century, both Labour and the Conservatives had vastly different agendas and one could easily tell them apart. Nowadays that isn’t so clear. I’m not one of those to say “they’re all the same” because that is a ludicrous statement to make. I am simply saying that both parties have split.

This has definitely become much more apparent in the last year or so with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party, as well as the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. The election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader was the first time in a while that Labour had elected a candidate who was far more left than previous leaders, particularly Tony Blair and Gordon Brown during new Labour who had sought to modernise the Labour party by creating a ‘Third Way’. Tony Blair’slegacy on the Labour Party has meant that it is now split between those who support the centrist ‘third way’ position of trying to reconcile left-wing social policies with right-wing economic policies; often referred to as ‘Blairites’. On the other side of the party however, we have those who follow Corbyn’s more socialist position of anti-austerity and social democracy.

In addition to this, the Conservative Party are also guilty of arguing amongst themselves. Up until the start of the Twenty-first Century, the Conservative Party and its leaders  were always firmly on the right of the spectrum, particularly on issues of welfare, immigration, and Europe. The election of William Hague in 1997 somewhat changed that, as  Hague had sought to modernise the party after it had been dubbed ‘the nasty party’. This was however flawed has Labour would stay in power for another thirteen years. In 2005 the Conservative Party elected David Cameron, a young MP who sought to modernise the party, giving it a more liberal and Pro EU stance. This was successful as Cameron was then elected as Prime Minister on the 6th May 2010. I have often agreed with Cameron’s liberal conservative policies, believing it to be the best ideology. This is not something shared in the party. Much like the Labour Party, the Conservatives are split between those on the liberal, Pro EU wing; and the more nationalist, Eurosceptic wing. These splits between the two main parties have, in recent weeks, called for a complete revamp of the political system.

I never used to be fan of coalitions, or even proportional representation, I was always content with how things were. However, I am always open to change my ideas if evidence is presented to me. The evidence of the past few months, the split in parties as well as the rise in popularity of other political parties. Most notably UKIP, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Liberal Democrats means that the United Kingdom is no longer a two-party system. If Britain were still a two-party system, then First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system would have been the appropriate choice as the electorate would vote either one party or the other. Recently however, the rise of other parties and the possible break up of Labour and the Conservatives strengthens the argument for Proportional Representation (PR) meaning that divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in an elected body; 30% of the vote would mean 30% of the seats. This was highlighted in the last general election as the number of seats taken by each party did not reflect their share of the vote.

Now, some may argue that coalitions and PR never work, that the parties will just bicker and that nothing will ever get done. However, living in Germany and learning about its political system has proved that it does work and that it has worked since 1953.For the most part of the 20th century and the 21st Century, Germany has known coalition governments as no party has been able to gain an absolute majority in the Bundestag. The current German coalition under Chancellor Angela Merkel is a coalition between the Christian Democratic Union (Angela Merkel), the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (Horst Seehofer), and the Social Democratic Party (Sigmar Gabriel). Three parties, each with distinct and often conflicting ideologies, choosing to come together to work for the people of Germany.

Germany’s example has inspired me that  proportional representation must be implemented to accommodate for the changing political landscape and for the need for new parties to form and to come together in coalitions. This is the only way to end what seems like constant bickering between parties who can’t even agree amongst themselves, let alone with each other. I understand this is not something that will be implemented with immediate effect, however it is definitely a future prospect for the ever-changing landscape of British politics.

Review of Anthony Anghie’s: Imperialism, Sovereignty and the making of International Law

The topic of the colonial encounter and the formation of modern international law is a topic that is often approached through the perspectives of colonisers and institutions, particularly in the field of international relations and post-colonial studies. The relationship between these two disciplines is often seen by scholars as something of a chicken or the egg dilemma (Bowden, 2006, 689-692).  Antony Anghie, Professor of law at the University of Utah on the other hand, takes a slightly unorthodox approach to this field of study. Hailed as a key figure in the discipline of post-colonial studies, Antony Anghie’s book, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, takes on the task of examining the relationship between international law and colonialism by considering the perspectives of the ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘uncivilized’ peoples throughout several different historical periods. This already presents the reader with the impression that colonialism and the concept of sovereignty are argued by Anghie to have been central to the formation of modern international law.

Whilst this book takes on a rather historical narrative and looks at various historical periods of colonialism and how these impacted and influenced modern international law; it is the first chapter that provides the reader with a solid idea for how international law was created. The basis of this chapter focuses on the writings of 16^th Century international legal jurist, Francisco de Vitoria (1539), and his emphasis on the concept of domination and sovereignty. Francisco’s account of the Spanish colonisation of the Amerindians is taken into account by Anghie in this chapter as Anghie discusses Vitoria’s concern of the non-sovereignty of the Indians and the supposed ‘task’ of the Spanish to ‘civilize the uncivilized’. To an extent, this chapter provides modern scholars of international law a useful insight into the early ideas of sovereignty and how the doctrine of sovereignty is argued to have acquired its character through the colonial encounter. Scholars such as Fonseca (2010) supports this by arguing that the early colonisation of the Amerindians by the Spanish formed the basis of modern international law as the Indians were bound by jus gentium to accept the Spanish as their rulers under the jurisdiction of sovereignty.

Another useful aspect of this chapter is that it takes into account the works of Vitoria, rather than Grotius[1] and also presents the reader with one of the earliest examples of the Western colonial representation of ‘otherness’ (Anand, 2007). On the other hand, Anghie fails to take into account the experience of other colonized peoples; as the Spanish colonisation of the Amerindians wasn’t the only form of early sovereignty. As a result, it could be argued that the author doesn’t live up to his aspiration of showcasing ‘alternative histories’ if he fails to take into account other examples of colonialism.

The second chapter then dives into the 19^th century, focusing on the rise of colonialism and positivist jurisprudence. In this chapter, Anghie draws upon the works of Hobshawm (1987) who argues that the universalization of natural law was due to the imperial expansion of European powers during this time. Anghie’s focus in this chapter is on the legal doctrines and methodologies used by the European powers to justify their imperial expansion by means of positivist jurisprudence, which was used as a means of creating an international legal order between states by defining and excluding the uncivilized (p.52). This can often be reflected today as positivist jurisprudence is based on the position that states are principal actors of international law which continues to operate in the present international legal system. This strong focus on positivist jurisprudence and how the modern international legal system was developed by 19^th century European colonial expansion can prove to be of use to those studying the development of the modern international legal system, particularly scholars of international law, International relations and post-colonial studies. However, these factors may be less useful to those of other academic fields as the topic of positivist jurisprudence is unlikely to appeal to those beyond the aforementioned academic disciplines; therefore possibly resulting in a limited readership.

The subsequent chapters (3, 4, and 5) take a step forward into the narrative of imperialism and its impact on the formation of modern international institutions, with particular emphasis on the mandate system of the League of Nations.

Anghie’s focus in these chapters is primarily on the project of transforming former colonial territories into independent sovereign states as well as the international financial institutions that are responsible for such transformations (P.116).  This study of the League of Nations mandate system suggests a crucial step from 19^th century positivism to 20^th century pragmatism (p. 194) as the author suggests that systems of domination were no longer based on brute force which was the case in the 19^th century; but rather on “indirect rule” as a means of promoting economic progress in mandated territories. These new governmental technologies in the form of economic progress as a type of domination on the sovereignty of the post-colonial state is critiqued by Anghie, as he argues that the self-determination of these states was underpinned by the creation of international financial institutions.  The birth of institutions such as Breton Woods, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are argued by Anghie (2008) to have succeeded the Mandate system as another state in the development of international law, with a similar goal of civilising the non-European World by using new technologies of domination.

Anghie’s critique of the Mandate System and its succeeding institutions allow readers a chance to understand how these modern institutions reflect colonialism, most notably by their technological means of implementing Western notions political and social reform on third-world countries.  However, whilst Anghie argues that these technological methods of domination were innovations of the mandate system; in reality they were a component of late 19^th century colonial rule. Anghie fails to recognise that these technological methods sought to integrate the peoples of sovereign nations into the social order of the European States. This can be argued to still be the case today as the permanent Mandate System employs similar methods of control over non-Western societies.

The final chapter then takes the reader to the modern day, in which Anghie argues that the recurring pattern of international law continues, albeit in a rather unorthodox manner. This final chapter focuses on the War on Terror and its impact on the sovereignty of certain states, which for Anghie reflects the civilizing mission discussed by Vitoria and his perceptions of ‘the other’ in the first chapter.

This modern perception of ‘otherness’ is argued by Anghie to have culminated in a response that could ultimately “result in a dramatic shift in the character of the law” (P. 301) as a result of the consequences of doctrines of violation, self-defence and intervention. Anghie’s main argument in this chapter is that although the War on Terror invokes new military postures, it is nothing more than an attempt by the West to widen the gap between the civilized and non-civilized. As a result of this, the West, particular the United States of America, can maintain control over sovereign territories with the use of military imperialism by intervening in the affairs of other, most notably sovereign states. This final chapter argues that the imperial ambitions of the War on Terror reflect a new type of imperialism, notably one that lacks the support of international law. Scholars of International Relations and International Law may find this chapter particularly useful as it implies that the legality of techniques and doctrines used by the U.S in the War on Terror can indeed be questioned.

Anghie’s historical narrative of the creation of international law, from the early colonisation of the Americas, through to the creation of the Mandate System of the League of Nations and finally culminating in the War on Terror with its essence of military imperialism, support the argument that Anghie’s work offers a unique and truly alternative perspective into the study of international law and post-colonialism. The author’s decision to look at the historiography of international law through the perspective of the colonised, rather than the colonisers, presents scholars with a rather unorthodox perspective into this field of academic study and is considered by many to be a truly original contribution.

Though there are some negative attributes of Anghie’s book, most notably his lacking in alternative histories, despite the initial aspiration of the book. As well as his focus on the work of Anglophone authors and their work on post-colonialism, thus resulting in a narrowed perspective. The overall contribution of this book to the wider academic field does deliver an almost unique perspective to the academic field of post-colonialism and evaluation of the foundations of international law. It is therefore without doubt that Anghie’s book represents a significant contribution to the research into the study of sovereignty, colonialism, imperialism and the international legal system.

[1] Hugo Grotius: Dutch Jurist who along with Vitoria, laid the foundations for International law based on natural law

Abortion. The facts and the pro-choice. Guest post by Victoria Lisek

After the industrial revolution and the boom of scientific discoveries – many practises on the human body have flowed into society normally and easily. These include child vaccinations, which are compulsory in places like Denmark, and cures for scoliosis, malaria, and TB. (Kate Dries, 2013)
However one of the most controversial and discussed topics is abortion. Abortion is the deliberate termination of pregnancy, by killing the embryo or even foetus in some cases. Abortion has been done since the Roman times and was used in the UK until the early 1800’s, after which it was banned. It continued being lawful in the USA throughout most of the 1800’s but near the end it was banned in most states which soon after led to a complete ban on abortion. Over the years some states turned back to allowing abortion, but only a small minority (OBOS, 2014). This all changed in 1973 – when the Supreme Court of USA ruled that every state which banned abortion were unconstitutional. So in simplicity, abortion was made legal in every state.
The decision is called Roe v. Wade and it came after a Texan woman was unable to obtain a legal or illegal abortion. She was grouped together with two attorney’s whose goals were to challenge the Supreme Court with the issue of abortion (Planned Parenthood, 2014). After three years the case was finally picked up by the Supreme Court – by this time many pro-choice campaigners were battling with the two attorney’s and the Texan woman; this was a chance to finally get their voices heard.
It was eventually decided on the 22nd of January, 1973, to name any state which had banned abortion as unconstitutional. To the disappointment of many Southern states, they were going against the conservative and Christian ban they had created.
The USSR was in fact the first country which in modern day legalised abortion, they did so in 1920. Many are surprised by this fact as the population in the Soviet Union were mainly Christian Orthodox, but the reason for the Soviet Union’s decision is that poverty was the norm and they could not risk an overpopulated country with not enough money to take care of everyone.
Denmark, on the other hand, followed America in legalising abortion, in 1973, after it had been illegal for 107 years (Emmelie Hytting, 2013). Previous laws lowering the years of jail time for women who had illegal abortions and allowing abortions for certain cases had created a pro-choice movement which the Social Democrats decided to build on.

Abortion itself is performed in most countries in the first 23 weeks of a woman’s pregnancy. In the United Kingdom it is possible to receive three different types of abortion: medical, suctial and dilation & evacuation. Suctial and D&E is surgical and commonly you are only at the hospital for a few hours. Medical is only supposed to be performed in the first two months of a pregnancy as it includes taking two pills (mifepristone and prostaglandin) and it is uncertain if it is strong enough to remove the pregnancy if it is after the two months. If it is the case that a British woman wants to receive a medical abortion after her two first months of pregnancy – then she’ll usually need two doses of the prostaglandin.

As mentioned before, abortion is opposed by numerous people. Most of them include people who follow a religion deeply and go by a religious book (the Torah, Bible, Koran etc.) The Christian ‘terms of service agreement’, the Bible, does not mention abortion directly. But paragraphs from the Bible like Genesis 9:6 and Acts 3:14 claim that a person should not kill another person without dying themselves (ChristianAnswers.net), and you are unloyal to God if you murder. These are only two of the several examples followed by the Bible. People have interpreted these examples to be valid during abortion, because as more verses prove (Jeremiah 1:5) God he knows all human beings before they are born. And furthermore; women should not be able to choose.
Jews, on the other front, are more open to options. It is against the halakha (Jewish law) to kill a baby midway through birth (Tzvi Freeman); but they do not consider a fetus a living person.
One of the most debatable topics is whether or not the pregnancy is to be considered alive or not; and if it is, should it be killed?
We know for a fact that a foetuses heart starts beating already after six weeks: way before the deadline is for receiving an abortion. Pro-life campaigners argue that a beating heart is what it takes to distinguish life and death, while many argue that braindead human beings are not really alive. Another valid point in the pro-choice community – which consists of mainly atheists, left wings and libertarians – is that a baby is inside a woman and the woman should decide what she wants to do with her body. Just like a mother would choose which school her child should attend, she should be able to choose if he or she will even attend school.
An interesting point somebody on Twitter proved to me is how illogical it is that a substantial amount of left-wingers are pro-choice, because they believe in regulation and control of a person’s money; but why not their body?

Returning to perspectives: a rather amusing fact is that the Texan woman who was responsible for Roe v. Wade has ‘converted’ to pro-life after working at an abortion clinic for a number of years (Norma McCorvey).

There are six countries which have a imposed a complete ban on abortion: the Vatican City, Malta, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Chile (Rose Buchanan). You might already know that these are highly Christian countries (although Malta is slightly less known for that.) However many African countries only allow abortion if it is a vital case to save a woman’s life.
Efforts across the US to reduce the available weeks a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, and for what purposes she may do so, has gained support from former presidential candidates such as Marco Rubio (Geoffary Guray, 2015). A previous politician running for president, Jeb Bush, shares similar views to Marco Rubio although he claims that an abortion should be permitted if the mother’s life is in danger. During Jeb Bush’s time as Governor of Florida; he passed a law saying every woman who asks for an abortion shall see an ultrasound scan of her baby before the abortion is done, in hope of her changing her mind.
Something to keep in mind is that a regular court can not overturn the Supreme Courts decision.
Myself, I’m pro-choice. I haven’t always been but I’ve been convinced by all sides of the spectrum. What really got me was a quote from Bernie Sanders, “I’d like to give a message to my friends in the Republican party; when you decide what a woman can do what her body that is extremism.” And he’s absolutely right.
Sure, I am a liberal, which may be a part of my pro-choice opinion, but I am also active in religion but don’t think that church and personal will should clash. When countries and politicians impose tax, they’re doing so to benefit a country’s healthcare and education (and more) as a whole. But what goes on in a family, is private matter. I simply do not understand people, who seek to make life changing decisions in another persons life, solely for the purpose of an ancient book. I’m fourteen years of age, and already encountering decisions which can set me down a certain path. But these decisions are nothing like deciding whether or not you’re going to bring a new life into this world, and that decision is not something the government should take. Especially if it is a Republican one in the US, one which will certainly not support an easier life for a poor women and a child, in fact 75% of the time a woman in the US has an abortion, she claims it is the fact that she can not afford to raise a child.

Extremists is a group of people who hold extreme religious or political views, often resulting in illegal activities and violence (dictionary.com). Due to the KKK’s extreme Christian views; one should not have an abortion without them dying aswell. All this does is yet again ban woman from deciding something themselves.
I don’t find pro-life with exceptions campaigners to justify it at all. Because once you have said that abortion in cases of rape, incest, threat to woman’s health or life, or a woman is not able to take care of her child is okay; you’re discriminating wealthy and healthy women. I would feel rather sorry for a child if he or she is raised in a family which had considered to not have him or her at all. Especially if they are told that, then I can imagine it would lead to self doubt and possible depression.
It is delusional if a government should make a decision on whether a woman should have a child or not. It would be like them stopping her from going to the dentist. Should she be allowed to get a surgery to remove a tooth if it is affecting, or will affect, her health? Yes. Should she be allowed to remove a tooth if somebody has hurt her and she will not be able to live with the tooth? Yes.
Now read my previous four sentences and replace the tooth with baby.

I do think healthcare and universities should be tax paid but when you are paying tax you are doing it to benefit everybody, when you are pregnant you may feel you aren’t benefitting yourself. Being a mother is the greatest responsibility in the world, and if a women doesn’t feel she can fulfill that responsibility for whatever reason then there is no need for her to be forced into it.

Never tell me that abortion should be illegal because so many couples want a child badly and are unable to get one. If you do plan to tell me that then, first, say it to the 100,000 kids in the US alone who are ready to become adopted.

“He that gives should not remember, he that receives should never forget.” – the Talmud.

Why liberalism is best able to account for change in the international system

The discipline of international relations is often subjected to interpretation by a plethora of various theoretical perspectives and paradigms. Whereas some of these perspectives, particularly theories such as Realism, may have been relevant in the past; however other theoretical perspectives are much more suited and better able to explain and account for change in the international system in today’s world. One particular theory that comes to mind is that of the school of Liberalism, which despite being centuries old, is extremely relevant in today’s changing international system. First proposed by English philosopher’s  Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in the 18^th century; the notion of Liberalism was devised as a reaction to what at the time was seen as the barbarity of international relations and what Kant himself  referred to as the ‘lawless state of savagery’ (Kant, 1795). Although the seeds of Liberalism were sown many centuries ago, the core ideas of liberal theory are more relevant today than they ever have been. This paper will explain and justify the reasons why liberalism is better able to account for and explain change in the international system; and why other theoretical perspectives of international relations, such as realism and feminism,  have been discounted in favour of the Liberalist perspective.

When one interprets the various changes  in the international system from a liberal perspective, one often interprets how the liberalist school of thought influenced how modern states within the international system implement the idea of freedom for citizens. The notion of freedom is inherently important to human beings as this arised from the fact that humans are essentially choosing creatures, constantly taking decisions that determine what actions they take (Birch, 2007, 160).

In today’s changing international system, there is a rising importance of the individual within society.  This idea of political liberalism and of the importance of individual liberty is reflected within the United States Constitution which dictates  that “all men created equal” (U.S. Constitution, 1788). Writers such as Guedes Sorianio (2013) argue that the political constitutions of modern day liberal democracies often include fundamental rights which guarantee freedom to citizens (Guedes Soriano, 2013, 588-589). This reflects the ideas of liberal thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek who argues that an individual is free is he is not subject to unjustifiable coercion. In order to recognize that an individual is truly free is for that individual  to acknowledge  that there is a domain, defined by rules,  in which he may pursue his own aims (Kukathas,1990, 132). This is also supported by Van de Haar (2009) who argues that this emphasises the importance that  liberalism has in international relations and within the changing international system,. He argues that the liberalist school of thought is correct to assume that the individual is of ultimate value, and that politics must serve the greater benefit of individual people (Van de Haar, 2009). Although the liberalist school of thought emphasises freedom of the individual, there are however, other theories which perceive freedom quite differently. For example, the Marxist perspective of freedom is that freedom is man’s ability to exercise conscious rational control over his natural environment and over his own social forces (Walicki, 2005). Despite this however, it can still be argued however,  that liberalism is the theoretical perspective better able to explain and account for change in the international system due to the profound importance it places on the concept of freedom and the individual, a concept included in the constitutions of many modern states.

This idea of individual freedom also coincided with the idea of human rights which Forsythe (2006) proclaimed “projected liberalism into a realist world” (Forsythe, 2006 3-4). Scholars such as Richardson (2001) argue that the promotion of liberal democracy and of individual freedom gave prominence to the idea of human rights as economic growth will lead to democratization, which he argued offered the best protection for human rights in the long run (Richardson, 2001, 89).

The liberalist idea of human rights and the “rights of man” has its foundations in the age of enlightenment; particularly as more recognition was given to the experience of individuals struggling against the arbitrary rule of the state (Donnelly, 2003). However, this liberalist idea of the importance of human rights is not without its criticisms. Marxists for example, dismiss the liberalist idea of human rights as mere bourgeois freedoms which inevitably fail to address the class based nature of exploitation (Linklater, 1992, 27). Similarly, Realists are also rather pessimistic regarding the liberalists idea of human rights. Realists argue that when push comes to shove, human rights are often very low on the list of policy goals of states in modern international society. Suggesting that despite the spread of liberal democratization, the importance of human rights isn’t as important has initially thought (Dunne and Hanson, 2009). Despite these criticisms however, it can still be justified that liberalism is better to account for change in the international system with regards to human rights. This is primarily because human rights are almost always regarded as a core fundamental aspect of liberal democracy, which in itself is a result of the processes of globalization.

In addition to this notion of the liberalist idea of individual freedom, it is important for one to also consider the changing role that states play in the international system. Among the various principles that are central to the tradition of liberalism, one of the most profound is the liberalist claim that states should protect individual liberty without dictating the goals and purposes espoused by free people (christman, 1991). In the past, states were often always regarded as the single most important players in international affairs. On the other hand, liberalists argue that states are indeed important actors in international relations; but just as important are individuals and Non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Scholars such as Florea and Gales (2012) argue that the main purpose of the state lies in defending the general interest, which is common good.  They also argue that states should help individual citizens to realise their potential (Florea and Gales, 2012). This is supported by Cooray (1996) who writes that though the state is not superior to other institutions – states should have a limited number of tasks in order to maximise individual freedom (Cooray, 1996). A key proponent of limiting the role of states is neo-liberalist thinker Friedrich Hayek (1973) who argues that the role of states should be to focus on providing institutional safeguards for individual freedom, and not to interfere in public life too much (Hayek, 1973).

This point is further elaborated by Vanberg (2011) who argues that the democratic state should act only as the agent of its citizens; and that the  activities of the state should be legitimized in terms of the common interest of its citizens (Vanberg, 2011). The changing role of states in the international system is therefore better explained and accounted for by the liberalist school of thought. Academic scholars such as Burchill et al (2009) argue that in a changing world of continuous global integration; cooperation between states is possible as states can discover a coincidence of strategic interests which can be turned into formalized agreements (Burchill et al, 2009, 67).However, when one compares the liberalist view on the role of states to other theories of international relations; it is clear as to why the liberal perspective is better able to account for the changing role of states in the international system. For example, although constructivism emphasises co-determination of agents and structures through certain processes (Wendt, 1999, 194). The liberal perspective is thus  favoured over the constructivist theoretical perspective as liberals argue that the role of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)  and individuals in the changing international system are just important as that of nation-states.

According to rational choice theorists however, states only appear to act in the pursuit of self-interest (Berman, 2013). The Marxist perspective of the role of the state also differs as Marxists often argue in favour of granting more power to the state, and that decision-making power over the economy should be concentrated in the hands of public administration (Tătulescu, 2013, 81). Furthermore, the neorealist perspective of the role of the state is frequently seen as inadequate by liberalists as it analyses  the state system in isolation from processes of cultural and economic changes, the likes to which states are now subject to as a  result of continuous  changes in the international system (Linklater, 1995. 250). Thus, it can clearly be justified  that liberalism is better able to account for change in the international system as liberalists argue that modern day states are indeed  important actors on the world change; however they are not the only important actors. Liberalists also argue that modern day states should seek to further ensure the security of their citizens

Further emphasising the importance of Liberalism and why it is best at accounting for change in the international system as opposed to other theoretical perspectives; it is important to acknowledge the profound modern influence that liberalism places on the concept of liberal democracy. The end of the Cold War gave way to an influx of new liberal democracies, with many countries undergoing dramatic democratisation. Fukuyama (1992) heralded this era as the “end of history” as he regarded the collapse of the Soviet Union and the shift towards liberal democracy as the key point that marked the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government (Fukuyama, 1992). An astonishing number of autocratic regimes around the world were replaced by democratic regimes. Today, there are hundreds of states all over the world which can plausibly claim to have freely elected and democratic governments (Plattner, 1998).

Writers such as Chan (2002) argue that this example of the triumph of liberal democracy laid down new rules of international coexistence following the end of the Cold War (Chan, 2002). On the other hand, whilst it can be argued that democratisation is an important aspect of liberalism; and one that makes it better to account for change in the international as opposed to other theoretical perspectives. There are contrasting theoretical perspectives with regards to the concept of democracy. Most notably is the Marxist perspective which views democracy as an unrealistic utopia under capitalism, and that a capitalist state can’t democratic as it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (Held, 1992).

In contrast however, the feminist argument calls for the further democratization of democracy; ensuring new pathways for women into politics and enhancing women’s political participation (Dryzek and Dunleavy, 2009).

Thus, to conclude this discussion on democracy; it can be argued that the liberalist view of democracy should be favoured as liberal democratic states in the modern international system are less likely to use force in their relations with one another.  As a result, liberalism is better at accounting for change for in the international system due to the influence it has had on the increase in the number of liberal democracies within the international system

This concept of liberal democracy is said to be a direct response of globalization. Scholars of the liberal school of thought argue that the move towards a global democratic system organized along neo-liberal lines is seen as a significant trend; and that the globalization of the world economy coincided with neoliberalist thinking in the Western World. Liberalism often argues in favour of globalization as liberalists tend to place focus on the importance of the growth of free trade, the capacity of Trans-national Corporations (TNCs) to escape political regulation and the liberation of capital from national and territorial restraints (Micklewait and Wooldridge, 2000). Writers such as Kukoč (2009) argue that most governments and states have often promoted liberal policies towards globalization. In addition to this, Kukoč also argues that influential multilateral agencies have continuingly linked globalization with liberal thinking and liberal ideas recently gained widespread unquestioned acceptance as ‘common-sense’ (Kukoč, 2009). In addition to this however, there are also contrasting theoretical perspectives with regards to globalization. Most notably is the Marxist perspective which argues that globalization is, as Marx predicted, an expansion of capitalist relations across the globe.

Thus stating that globalization is simply a triumph of capitalism (Munck, 2010, 51). Similarly, the Feminist school of thought also takes a pessimistic view towards globalization.

For example, Jaggar (2009) argues that recent feminist analysis of globalization tend to regard globalization to be a result of systematic, structural injustices on a global scale and that the global structure in itself is implicitly biased against women (Jaggar, 2009). Other feminist philosophers even go so far as to argue that globalization has contributed to gross human rights violations against women (Parekh and Wilcox, 2014). However, it can still be justified that the liberalist perspective on globalization should be favoured over other theoretical perspectives. This is because liberals argue that globalization is about the benevolent spread of liberal economic, political and cultural processes throughout the world. It can be argued that these processes bring political benefits through the spread of liberal democratic institutions in which liberty; freedom and justice for all peoples are guaranteed (Weber, 2010. 109). Thus, it can be stated that liberalism is better able to account for change in the international system as most governments promote liberal policies as a result of globalization being designed on neo-liberal ideas of free trade economics and democracy.

Another key aspect of liberal thinking is the aspect of free trade. The principles of free trade as enunciated by Adam Smith (1776) continue to have profound relevance even to this day. Free Trade dictates that commercial traders should be allowed to exchange money and goods without concern for national or international barriers. Liberalists argue that this will therefore maximise economic growth, which is considered necessary for nations in the changing international system (Burchill et al, 2009b, 75).  Scholars of liberalism often advocate the notion of free trade as they believe it respects the individual freedom of citizens; particularly when governments attempt to intervene and dictate how citizens should spend their money (Kicsi, 2009). Liberalists argue that free trade produces economic growth and development among all parties. Free trade is considered to be a key proponent of globalization and liberal democracy as it reduces poverty in less developed nations (Spencer and Moe-Lobeda, 2009).  However, liberalist perspectives on free trade are often criticised by other theoretical perspectives. Realists for example, argue that that the “Utopian-like promise” of free trade has been eroded by the realities of the market place. Thus, suggesting that advocating the idea of free trade is “pointless and unreal” (Yeager and Tuerek, 1984). Scholars of feminism also criticise the liberalist notion of free trade by arguing that free trade and trade liberalization often neglects gender discrimination issues (Ulmer, 2004). Feminist scholars such as Elson at al (2007) build on this by arguing that women are more likely to be hired as cheap labour, thus often involving them in more exploitive situations (Elson et al, 2007).

Finally, the Marxist perspective also takes a critical stance towards the liberalist idea of free trade by arguing that the concept of free trade only benefits the wealthy within countries, suggesting that the “benefits” of free trade are only for the few (Shah, 2006). Despite this criticism however, the Liberalist perspective  is still favoured over other theoretical paradigms in regards to the concept free trade. The profound and deep-rooted relevance of free trade in the modern age as a result of globalization in the changing international system transcends the classic liberal ideas regarding the freedom of the individual. Thus, it can be justified that liberalism is better at accounting for change in the international system as opposed to other theoretical perspectives. It could be argued that this is a result of the increasing importance of free trade economics which is considered a necessity for the economic growth of developing nations such as India and Brazil within the international system.

In conclusion, the evidence profoundly suggests that the liberalist school of thought is the theoretical discipline of International relations which is truly best at accounting for change in the international system as opposed to other theoretical perspectives as it provides a much more detailed and comprehensive account and explanation for the vast changes in the international system.. The ideas of liberalism identify the key instruments that states can use in order to achieve shared common interests which can be almost essential for modern states in the changing international system (Walt, 1998). Although the theory of liberalism has its roots in the early 18^th century, the ideas of liberalism have never been more relevant as they continue to transcend into nearly every aspects of the changing international system. The emergence of the modern democratic state based on liberal democracy echoes the classic liberal idea of constitutionalism and the importance of the freedom of the individual (Jackson and Sørensen, 2013, 101). This idea of individual liberty trickles down into the political constitutions of various democratic states, thus highlighting the rising importance given to human rights and individual freedom and liberty. The increasing appearance of these democratic states is of course an almost inevitable result of the process of globalization which saw the triumph of western liberal ideas of free trade which thus enabled the economic growth of less developed countries under neoliberal principles. Whilst other theoretical perspectives such as Realism, Marxism and Constructivism may have been relevant and perhaps even influential in the past; the changes in the international system are only best explained by Liberalism as these changes are almost entirely based on the liberal principles based on the original ideas of Kant and Bentham.  Thus, the evidence of the triumph and influence of liberal ideas in the modern age  truly reflect the importance of liberalism and justify as to why Liberalism is the theoretical perspective which is best at accounting for change in the international system.

From left to right and back to centre

My early years of political activism was largely limited to my time spent as a member of the Youth Council in my local area. Here I would attend meetings and discuss and debate issues which affected the young people of the district of Blaby in South Leicestershire. Aside from this, I never really took any interest in politics.

Fast-forward a little bit and I am in college studying for my GCSEs. At this point I have become fascinated by the idea of Marxism and Marxist revolution after reading the Communist Manifesto whilst on the train to Cardiff. The idea of sudden change brought about by revolution was something which had always intrigued me; could one man really change the world with a bullet in the right place? (If…1968) . For the next few years I read more and more into the history of Marxism and Communism, fascinated how so many nations had attempted to recreate a Marxist Utopia based on the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. However, this soon changed as I entered 6th Form and began studying for my A-levels.

During the general election of 2010 I became fully engrossed in the field of national politics, three parties all competing for a place at Number 10. I scarcely remember the resignation of Tony Blair and sudden succession of Gordon Brown as Prime minister; never the less I knew that I did not feel that Gordon Brown was suitable for the job of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.It was during this time that I began reading about the Conservative Party and the type of policies and ideas that the Conservative Party stood for. So I decided to write to my local Conservative Association and I became a member of the Conservative Party.

For the last few years I have been an active member of the Conservative Party. I remember spending many evenings after college going out and canvassing on behalf of the party for various local elections. I was even lucky to have the chance to meet several MPs, take part in Bi-elections across the country, and even meet David Cameron. In 2013 I also ran as the Conservative Candidate in my local council elections. Sadly I lost to the Labour candidate, however I did manage to gain 46.5% of the vote which was almost unheard of for a Conservative in that ward. Then I went to university and my political beliefs took a turn.

Many of my friends may remember that I was, to put it bluntly, extremely right wing.I was a firm Eurosceptic, avid reader of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, and I was firmly against the idea of any form of social benefit unless desperately needed. I joined the Conservative Society at my university and soon became quite active, always enjoying my time. During this time I decided to put my name forward as Vice-President of the Conservative Society. However, I was unable to manage my workload, part-time job, and Vice-Presidential duties. So I stepped down. I do not regret doing this as this was the point in which I can began to become disillusioned with the Conservative Party.Although I had remained a Conservative for quite a while, I had always seen myself as something of a liberal conservative. I believed in liberal social policies and conservative economic policies. But I never rejoined the party and began to lose faith.

In recent months, the news and headlines have been swamped with the upcoming referendum on Britain’s relationship with the European Union. As someone who speaks various languages and had gone from a Eurosceptic to a Europhile, I knew that I would be voting to remain a member of the European Union. I fully supported David Cameron andthe Stronger In campaign. This has somewhat changed. I have noticed that the Leave campaign are beginning to take over the Conservative Party and that the party I was once  a proud member of was turning increasingly more Eurosceptic. I felt that the Conservative no longer represented my views so after consideration, I have become a member of the Liberal Democrats.

I have many friends who are passionate Lib Dems and believe firmly in what the party stand for. They have all made excellent points and have been succesful in persuading me to join the party. I am happy to be a member of a party that I feel perfectly reflects my views on most topics and I intend to remain a Liberal Democrat for the foreseeable future. I really have travelled the length and breadth of the political spectrum.