However, the 2^nd February verdict was enough for the Russians to come out in support of him. Thousands of supporters of Alexei Navalny poured onto the streets and marched towards central Moscow. These protestors clashed with police in body armour who was also armed with staves to control the protest. According to OVD-Info, an independent monitoring group state that over 1,000 protestors were arrested across the country the following day. [3]

It is indeed a controversial decision as Navalny is one of the most prominent Kremlin critics and Vladimir Putin’s foe. It is not the first time that some Kremlin critic is being put behind bars. Mikhail Khodorkovsky [4] and chess world champion Garry Kasparov [5] are some of the people who were forced to leave Russia in fear of their lives for criticising Putin. However, Boris Nemtsov was not that lucky as he was shot dead in Kremlin, 2015. [6] It makes Alexei Navalny the last critic of the Kremlin to be standing alive and on Russian soil.

During the court visit, one could not miss noticing Alexei Navalny’s wife, Yulia. The verdict included the deduction by the judge of 10 months from the originally designated three-and-a-half-year sentence as Alexei Navalny had already spent that duration in house arrest. Yulia stepped out after the court session when Navalny smiled and shrugged his shoulders and yelled: “Don’t be sad! Everything is going to be all right”. [7] She waved back with Navalny’s two lawyers, Vladimir Kobzev and Olga Mikhailova. They have approached the European Court of Human Rights but to no avail. [8] However, all of these come as no news as Alexei Navalny is a nobody but one of the rising figures in Russian politics and a massive challenge to President Vladimir Putin.

Who Is Alexei Navalny?

Alexei Navalny is a lawyer turned activist. He is a very prominent critic of President Putin and his administration. However, to several Russians, he is not just a challenger to President Putin but is instead considered a contender to the leadership position. President Putin is a former KGB colonel who intends to continue controlling Kremlin for a few more decades. On the other hand, Navalny is seen as a revolutionary leader. 

Navalny is a rising figure who has been a symbol of protest against President Putin’s grey bureaucratic hold and his colleagues from KGB in the Kremlin. Navalny is seen as an opponent by several Russian elites. He worked as an organiser for the liberal Yabloko faction in 2007. However, he was kicked out of the party in 2007 for participating in a march with radical nationalists in Moscow. [9] 

He came second in the mayor elections of 2013 with 27% votes, although he alleged that it was due to the authorities’ ballot-rigging. Even though Sergei Sobyanin won the election, it cannot be denied that it was the first official challenge given by Navalny to President Putin. [10] As a result, alleged corruption allegations were put on his to debarred from the 2018 elections. Not just him, even his allies are frequently prevented from holding any office. Now, in the Duma elections that will take place in September 2021, he and his allies want to challenge the United Russia party. [11]

At the same time, Kremlin is getting ready to keep him away from one of the other reasons. Earlier as well, he has been jailed because of his connection to protests. He has also been convicted twice for financial misdeeds, although he claimed that they were politically motivated. Not only that, but he has also had significant eye damage due to a disinfectant thrown onto his face. [12]

How Is Alexei Navalny a Challenge to President Vladimir Putin?

Alexei Navalny gained prominence by using social media to reach out to people regarding matters concerning Russian politics. He makes videos on the Russian elites’ various details that they would like to keep in the dark. Navalny has over 2.5 million Twitter followers and about 6 million YouTube followers. He uses these social media platforms to expose the truth about the sources of the Russian elites’ wealth. One such video is that of President Putin’s secret Black Sea palace. [13] The video has garnered over 110 million views. Several other anti-corruption videos are made by him that tend to hit these Russian elites’ personal lives and big-shot names in Kremlin. [14] Thus, Navalny is no new to raids, lawsuits, threats, and jail stint. 

Alexei Navalny is evident in his objectives if he comes to power- to end corruption by state officials. Rampant state corruption has been one of Putin’s governance highlights, and President Putin is right in the centre of it stashing billions of dollars from strategic enterprises. It led Navalny to become a shareholder activist in 2007. He used his financial knowledge to purchase several shares of state-run firms that have a suspicious background. [15]

He has several foundations based out form other countries to expose the corruption taking place in the Russian power centre. Moreover, he is not a one-person army. Several people are ready to fight this menace in Russia. Vladimir Ashurkov and Leonid Volkov is the director of the London based anti-corruption foundation [16] and is an aide of Navalny in Lithuania. [17] 

So, President Putin has the state machinery in his realm as his tool to keep control over his critics. However, Alexei Navalny uses social media and his dark humour as a tool to keep up with other people. Many have come and gone, but Alexei Navalny is still standing. He has done something that no one could do before- get under President Vladimir Putin’s skin. He has been brave and has stood firm even when put in the worst of situations. President Putin so far, been unable to break him.

That is the reason why Kremlin has been trying to eliminate him for a year with different methods. Jail, lawsuits, raids, threats. Nothing has worked so far. So, the Kremlin decided to use the shadiest method under their belt to silence him once and for all. Last year, Navalny was poisoned in Siberia by an undercover team of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) spy. They had applied “Novichok Nerve Agent” in the internal parts of Navalny’s underpants. It had earlier been used in 2018 on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal in Salisbury. [18] However, Alexei Navalny was able to survive due to timely hospital treatment. Navalny was even able to expose the FSB assassins. [19]

With this attempt, the Kremlin finally thought they had got rid of Navalny. Even though he survived, they assumed that he would not return to Russian soil from Berlin, where he was recovering. Nevertheless, Navalny again proved them wrong when he flew back to Moscow on 17^th January. It was seen as a direct challenge to President Putin. It was then he was detained from the passport control at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport within hours of his arrival. [20]

His lawyer Olga Mikhailova told the Echo of Moscow radio station that she could not meet her client. In other words, Navalny was denied legal representation. [21] All of this culminated into street protests in over 100 towns and cities in Russia. [22] From Crimea to Vladivostok on the Pacific, the streets were flooded with supporters. Protestors even gathered in- 50C in Yakutsk to show solidarity with their hero. [23]

International Condemnation of Alexei Navalny’s Arrest

Not just Russians, but there has been an international outcry for human rights violation by both USA and European diplomats and leaders in this case. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden who is now a Russian citizen, Jack Sullivan, Joe Biden’s incoming national security adviser, and even Mike Pompeo are prominent names who voiced their opinion against the state brutality on Alexei Navalny. Not just them, but even US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, have described this act as being “deeply concerning”, “cowardice”, and a “bitter blow” to the rule of law in Russia respectively. [24]

In a video conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a statement from Berlin- “We consider this expulsion unjustified and think it is another facet of the things that can be seen in Russia at the moment that are pretty far from the rule of law.” [25]

Showing solidarity with Germany, Poland, and Sweden, Macron stated, “I think this was a huge mistake even for Russian stability today.” Sweden’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mats Samuelsson said that “it considers this entirely unjustified, which we have also conveyed to the Russian side”. Stockholm “strongly rejects Russian claims that the diplomat took part in a demonstration in Russia” and “reserves the right to take appropriate response measures,” he said. [26]

Way Ahead

Nonetheless, nothing seems to change the minds of the Russian officials in this case. To make matters worse, Kremlin went ahead with expelling EU diplomats on 5th February. The Russian Foreign Ministry accused diplomats of Sweden and Poland stationed in St. Petersberg and a diplomat of Germany stationed in Moscow of taking part in the protests on 23rd January to show support to Alexei Navalny. all the three diplomats were declared “persona non grata” and were ordered to leave shortly. [27]

These have further worsened the situation and the EU’s possible attempt to re-engage talks with Moscow that EU Foreign Affairs Chief Josep Borrell was spearheading. In retaliation to this, on 9^th  February 2021, Germany, Poland and Sweden on Monday each declared a Russian diplomat in their country “persona non grata.” All the Russian ambassadors were told to leave the country immediately. [28]

Whatever is happening or will happen, one thing is for sure Alexei Navalny did not lose anything from his prison sentencing. Locking up Navalny for a long time is bound to make him a martyr.

In 2013, when he was arrested, a large crowd had gathered that forced the authorities to leave him. Since then, President Putin is stringent on dissent moves like this. Nevertheless, keeping him long now will surely increase the protest and may lead to political instability. If he is released now, he will be a massive challenge in the Duma elections scheduled in September 2021. Either way, it seems like Alexei Navalny’s win and a loss to the “Vladimir, the Underpants Poisoner.” [29]

REFERENCES

[1] The Moscow Times. “As It Happened: Navalny Sentenced to 2 Years and 8 Months in Penal Colony.” The Moscow Times, The Moscow Times, 3 Feb. 2021, www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/02/02/as-it-happened-navalny-sentenced-to-2-years-and-8-months-in-penal-colony-a72803.

[2] Times, The Moscow. “Russia to Try Navalny on WWII Veteran Slander Charges.” The Moscow Times, The Moscow Times, 5 Feb. 2021, www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/02/05/russia-to-try-navalny-on-wwii-veteran-slander-charges-a72841.

[3] Roth, Andrew. “Alexei Navalny: 1,000 Arrested after Protests over Jailing of Russian Opposition Leader.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 Feb. 2021, www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/russian-opposition-leader-alexei-navalny-jailed.

[4] “Mikhail Khodorkovsky Freed after Pardon from Vladimir Putin.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 Dec. 2013, www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/mikhail-khodorkovsky-freed-putin-pardon-russia

[5] Williams, Stuart. “Garry Kasparov Quits Russia.” Mint, 6 June 2013, www.livemint.com/Politics/7iTyaOSRom9xGeF2OmaYUI/Former-chess-champion-Garry-Kasparov-quits-Russia-over-fears.html.

[6] “Who Killed Boris Nemtsov? We Will Never Know.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 Mar. 2015, www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/02/boris-nemtsov-never-know-who-killed-moscow-vladimir-putin-russian-opposition.

[7] Feehan , Katie. “Russian Police Raid Navalny’s Offices after Wife of Putin’s Greatest Critic Flees Moscow for Germany.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 12 Feb. 2021, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9252195/Russian-police-raid-Navalnys-offices-wife-Putins-greatest-critic-flees-Moscow-Germany.html.

[8] Staff, Reuters. “Russia Dismisses European Court of Human Rights’ Call to Free Navalny.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 17 Feb. 2021, www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-navalny-court-release-idUSKBN2AH1XI.

[9] Coalson, Robert. “Is Aleksei Navalny a Liberal or a Nationalist?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 29 July 2013, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-aleksei-navalny-a-liberal-or-a-nationalist/278186/.

[10] “Alexei Navalny and the 2013 Moscow Mayoral Election | Princeton University Library.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, 27 Jan. 2021, library.princeton.edu/news/general/2021-01-27/alexei-navalny-and-2013-moscow-mayoral-election.

[11] “Russian Presidential Election: Alexei Navalny Barred from Competing.” BBC News, BBC, 25 Dec. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42479909.

[12] Kramer, Andrew E. “Kremlin Critic Aleksei Navalny Says Attack Left Him Mostly Blind in an Eye.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/world/europe/russia-aleksei-navalny-opposition.html.

[13] Putin’s Palace. History of World’s Largest Bribe. 19 Jan. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI.

[14] Don’t Call Him “Dimon”. 2 Mar. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrwlk7_GF9g.

[15] Schreck , Carl Schreck. “Russia’s Erin Brockovich: Taking On Corporate Greed.” Time, Time Inc., 9 Mar. 2010, content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1970475,00.html.

[16] AFP . “Alexei Navalny: Russian Opposition Leader Navalny Aides Push EU for New Russia Sanctions: World News – Times of India.” The Times of India, TOI, 9 Feb. 2021, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/navalny-aides-push-eu-for-new-russia-sanctions/articleshow/80767361.cms.

[17] Welle, Deutsche. “Navalny Ally Leonid Volkov: ‘Our Aim Is to Outsmart Putin’: DW: 15.02.2021.” DW.COM, www.dw.com/en/navalny-ally-leonid-volkov-our-aim-is-to-outsmart-putin/a-56573967.

[18] Harding, Luke. “’A Chain of Stupidity’: the Skripal Case and the Decline of Russia’s Spy Agencies.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 23 June 2020, www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/23/skripal-salisbury-poisoning-decline-of-russia-spy-agencies-gru.

[19] “’Do You Remember the Underwear’s Colour?’ – Navalny’s Call with Duped Spy.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 21 Dec. 2020, www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/21/what-does-alexei-navalny-say-the-duped-russian-spy-admitted-about-his-poisoning.

[20] “Alexei Navalny Detained at Airport on Return to Russia.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 Jan. 2021, www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/17/alexei-navalny-detained-at-airport-on-return-to-russia.

[21] AFP. “Alexei Navalny Lawyer Says Denied Access to Moscow Police Cell.” Hindustan Times, 18 Jan. 2021, www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/alexei-navalny-lawyer-says-denied-access-to-moscow-police-cell-101610962827751.html.

[22] Desk, Sentinel Digital. “The Russian Affair – Sentinelassam.” The Sentinel Assam, The Sentinel Assam, 17 Feb. 2021, www.sentinelassam.com/editorial/the-russian-affair-524975

[23] Troianovski, Anton, and Andrew Higgins. “Pro-Navalny Protests Sweep Russia in Challenge to Putin.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/world/europe/russia-protests-navalny.html.

[24] Times, The Moscow. “World Reacts to Navalny’s Arrest.” The Moscow Times, The Moscow Times, 20 Feb. 2021, www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/01/18/free-navalny-western-leaders-tell-russia-a72637.

[25] Ap. “Relations between EU and Russia Worsen over Navalny Jailing.” The Economic Times, Economic Times, 6 Feb. 2021, economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/relations-between-eu-and-russia-worsen-over-navalny-jailing/articleshow/80717773.cms.

[26] Staff, Reuters. “Russian Court Made ‘Huge Mistake’ in Jailing Navalny -Macron.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 4 Feb. 2021, www.reuters.com/article/us-france-macron-russia-idUSKBN2A42NJ.

[27] PTI. “Relations between EU and Russia Worsen over Navalny Jailing.” The Week, The Week, 14 Dec. 2020, www.theweek.in/wire-updates/international/2021/02/06/fgn49-eu-russia-ld-navalny.html.

[28] Jordans, Frank. “EU Countries Expel Russian Diplomats in Navalny Dispute.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 8 Feb. 2021, apnews.com/article/eu-countries-expel-russia-diplomats-69e018425fa2d0bc9dde29aa1fad8c60.

[29] Rfe/rl. “’Vladimir The Underpants Poisoner’: Navalny Mocks Putin In Court.” RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, ‘Vladimir The Underpants Poisoner’: Navalny Mocks Putin In Court, 2 Feb. 2021, www.rferl.org/a/russia-navalny-speech/31082857.html.

Featured Image by – Elena Ignatyeva, AFP

The post ALEXEI NAVALNY: CRITIC OF KREMLIN appeared first on WISER WORLD.

A Peek Into History of Bosnia Municipal Elections

Since 2008, municipal elections had not been held in Bosnia as the SDA and HDZ parties could not agree on electoral rules. However, both the parties had drafted the budget together, although transparency lacked as citizens were unaware were the money was spent. In the present scenario, the citizens argue that elites have had abused power as they had been living on the money of the taxpayer and shied away from showing any responsibility towards them. The unemployment rate in addition had accelerated during this period. The establishment of a city council signifies hope in Bosnia. Multi-ethnic parties are expected to win councillor which is believed to be a positive sign, although the two-party nationalist majority had been the trend. Bosnian city has been the witness to the ethnical division between the Bosnian Muslims and the Serbs. In the collective memory of the Bosniaks, the horror of the genocide remains etched.

ETHNICITY AND RELIGION: CAUSES OF THE GENOCIDE IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINIA

Bosnia-Herzegovina formed a part of the Republic of Yugoslavia. Croatia and Slovenia declared independence which thereafter saw military retaliation by the Republic itself. The violence that erupted in Yougolsovia in 1991 must be perceived as the first major conflict that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, during this period there was no British intervention because it was argued that this was merely an internal dispute. It had been led by Milosevic, the President of the Republic of Serbia who had been invigorating violent uprisings of Serbian nationalist parties and envisioned an ethnically Serb-dominated state which was hailed by Dobrica Cosic, the most popular writer in Serbia. It was him who espoused that Slavs were the most superior of all the Balkans.

The Croats and Bosniaks, constituting 60 per cent of the population voted for secession which had been opposed by the Ethnic Serbs that led to violence. Gunmen had been deployed to instigate fear in the minds of the minorities. Thereafter, the necessity of cleansing this population began by the ethnic Serbs, first of which began by detaining the Bosniak or the Bosnian Muslims. Then there were deported by a train to Hungary. Many have become refugees, 40,000 of them been Muslims and it has been argued that the Local Red Cross was complicit in this genocide. Not only that, the Serbia militia forces had been supported by the then President (Gutman, Roy, 1993) Yet, it cannot be denied that the United Nations was established by then and could not prevent the Serbenican genocide. It has been argued that the soldiers of the United Nations Peacekeeping forces were complicit in this.

THE DAYTON AGREEMENT AND AN ANALYSIS OF ITS SUCCESS

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia-Herzegovinia known by the name of Dayton Agreement of Peace ended the long-drawn conflict. An agreement was officially reached in 1995 at Wright Petterson Air Force. The Agreement epitomized the triumph of diplomacy by the Western Powers. Annex 1A which is concerned with the deployment of the Implementation Force, whereas Annex 1B outlines regional stabilization, security measures and as well as principles regarding regional arms and ammunition. Although it was against the wishes of the Serb and Croatian ultra-nationalists, Bosnia had been announced as a unified state which allowed those displaced to return to their homes.

The Federation was established as well as the Republic of Srpska or Republic of Serbia was recognized as a political entity which was awarded rights to self-govern itself. The media has indeed portrayed the Serbs as the criminals of the genocide and the Commemoration Day only deepens this memory which is of despair. (Murphy, 2011) Nevertheless, Serbian leadership undermines the legitimacy of the Dayton Agreement. The US involvement has been heralded because of their might to end war-torn Bosnia. In addition to that, the Clinton administration wanted to ensure the signing of this agreement as he would be running for re-election campaign against Robert Dole.

Now Bosnia has three separate armies, police forces and a national government whose functioning can be clearly argued is only on paper. Power remains still in the hands of its nationalists who aim to prohibit refugees returning to their homes. However, it can be argued that the Dayton Agreement has succeeded only in the prevention of armed conflict after it had been signed. In addition, SFOR or the NATO-led force in failing in the execution of the agreement.

CONCLUSION

The Municipal elections must be perceived as an indication of improvement in Bosnia as there will be the establishment of the City Council. It may lead to reconciliation as its leaders have forgone issues of ethnicity and ready to propound issues of employment and the economy. Nevertheless, it remains a necessity that the United Nations must play an active role in ensuring that the holding of the elections are not disrupted and can return to normalcy.

The post BOSNIA MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 2020: FIRST LOCAL VOTE IN 12 YEARS appeared first on WISER WORLD.

According to the World Bank, women make up 49.5 percent of the world’s population, however, there are only 3 countries (Rwanda, Bolivia and Cuba) in the world that have 50 percent or more women in Parliament in single or lower houses. It is important to identify why women don’t get into politics to combat these reasons and lead to the betterment of the whole society. 

Social Barriers

Firstly, the underrepresentation of women is caused by social barriers before their entry into politics. The general populace’s ideas of traditionally feminine characteristics are incompatible with the characteristics that people in positions of powers need to have. This does two things – from their childhood, girls are not encouraged to be leaders as much as boys are. They are instead taught to be docile and homely and puts them at a disadvantage from the very beginning. Parents, even today, bring up their daughters and sons in different ways. Since women are never made to believe that they can suit leadership roles, as well as men, can, they become less likely to enter politics. Moreover, this gender stereotyping leads to another phenomenon – when we eventually do see women in power, it causes people “discomfort” due to the mixture of two supposedly incompatible set of characteristics. This sentiment can be summed up by Alexandra Ocasio Cortez’s quote – “The idea that a woman can be as powerful as a man is something that our society can’t deal with.”

Unequal Starting Points

The traditional differences in the way that men and women are brought up also leads to a difference in their professions. Men are much more likely to have better careers and be in more positions of power. For example, there are less than 5 percent of women who head Fortune 500 companies.  This inequality can be a huge hindrance to entry in politics. Resources and money are important to become potential candidates for parties. There is not just a disparity in material resources, but also immaterial resources, such as time (women have to take on the burden of household responsibilities more), self-confidence (due to the earlier mentioned different upbringing for women which doesn’t help build their image as a leader) and networks. 

Often times political parties recruit their candidates from the corporate world. However, this is a field dominated by men which means that they have the upper hand in forming the right networks. This obviously makes it more likely that more men, rather than women enter politics. Moreover, political gatekeepers tend to be most often men who tend to recruit political candidates via their male-dominated networks.  Therefore, the fact that people who are into politics are mostly men kind of creates a cycle that prohibits women from getting into politics. 

Removal of men from political photographs shows the dire need for more women in politics.

Continuation in the Political Field

The gender stereotyping and the way we differently bring up men and women means that even if, despite these hindrances, a woman does get into politics, continuation is difficult. The discomfort that the voter base has with women in power means that they are held to a different standard to those of men. Female leaders are held more accountable than their male counterparts and the media is much harsher on them.

This uneven punishment is because the media and the people involved subconsciously do not think that women are cut out for politics, which makes them tougher on women in case they fail. The media especially can continue to treat female politicians poorly. The way the media presents female politicians shows us that they are not as worthy to be in power as men are, or that their priorities are supposed to be different – they are asked more questions about their families and personal relationships than male politicians are, and have their personal lives invaded. Their appearances are also given more importance than their substance. Despite all of these, some women still rise to enter politics.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is important for us to promote the representation of women in politics. But simply doing this is not enough – it is also important to promote it in the correct way. When we do commend women in politics, we tend to do it through a narrow scope – we view these achievements as individual efforts of exceptional women, whereas the truth is that there are also numerous parties at play here – women in political party backrooms, riding associations and women’s organizations.  Recognizing the efforts of everyone in promoting women’s participation is the first step to make sure we have more women and a better democracy.

Moreover, the discussion of female representation cannot end here. Caste, economic status, sexual orientation are all factors that affect the experiences of women in politics. Women from lower castes or lower economic strata will have a much harder time becoming politically successful. Similarly, the experience of a trans woman or a non-heterosexual woman is bound to be tougher due to ingrained biases. Representation of women in politics does not only help better women’s issues but leads to a betterment of society as a whole – in areas where Indian panchayats are headed by women, the number of drinking water projects was 62 percent higher than in areas with men-led panchayats. This is why it’s crucial to encourage women in politics and facilitate discourse related to this.

The post WHY DO WOMEN NOT GO INTO POLITICS? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Talking of political culture, people in Eastern Europe are still characterized as having less personal autonomy, less responsibility as citizens and members of a global community. In some cases, people also struggle with seriously disturbing national and social identities.

Source: PEW FORUM

As far as economic efficiency is concerned, east European countries have made remarkable progress in the past years, but this progress isn’t enough. The differences in per capita income, productivity and efficiency, output, capitalization, savings, investment, integration into global networks are still huge.

Trading and Colonisation

One historical factor in the development of west European nations is the influx of wealth associated with its sea trade and exploration. Their favourable locations on the Atlantic and Mediterranean gave them advantages in trade and exploration through the sea route with minimal cost. The colonization of lands in America, Africa, Asia and Oceania by several Western European countries brought a huge influx of wealth and resources, which stimulated the economies of these countries. These resources made them global superpowers as early as the 16th century. The effects of colonisation are still being felt in these countries.

Division of Germany

In the aftermath of World War II, defeated Germany was divided into four zones by the allied powers. The Soviet Union occupied the east, while the rest of Germany was divided amongst the United States, Britain and France. With hundreds of thousands of wealthy American soldiers posted in West Germany and spending their American currency, the area flourished. The Deutsche Mark was introduced in 1948 which added to the region’s growth. In the 1950s and 1960s, West Germany experienced industrial growth and low inflation contributing to their prosperity. The security of private property rights and reliance on the price mechanism also contributed to the success of these economies.

Much of the European side of the Second World War happened in Eastern Europe, in today’s Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic countries, the Balkans and Russia. These countries were utterly ravaged. Russia and Germany stole many assets. The Soviets literally dismantled many factories and took many industrial machines East. In addition to this, East Germany inherited highly specialised industrial districts, which were cut off from their major suppliers of inputs as well as their market which was in western Germany. This caused a departure of skilled labour and a number of small and medium-sized firms.

Communism

East Germany, under the authoritarian rule of the Soviets, saw much worse conditions than its Western counterpart. When the rest of the world experienced strong economic growth after World War II, the nations of eastern Europe suffered due to socialism which caused shortage of resources, a highly politicised system and a regressive attitude to progress. Soviets neglected the economy and focused on military power causing an economic crisis. Western Europe, not being the vassal state of the USSR for 40 years probably made a difference.

To start with, Eastern European nations weren’t that developed as they have mostly been the borderlands between various empires. Apart from some exceptions like Hungary, they were Russian hinterlands, not real centres of development, industrial or otherwise.

Communism was ultimately very inefficient. There was no incentive for work as individuals knew that the reward will be the same. Accumulating wealth was not really possible. It led to stagnation in economy, technology and culture. It was the mix of the intense poverty, injustice and the presence of absolute anarchy that crippled these economies.

Marshall Plan

America supported western European countries with aid to stop communism from spreading during the years of the cold war. Dollar aid enabled recipient nations to eliminate raw material shortages in exchange for trade liberalisation. The resource funds allowed governments to finance public projects without the need to cut back on welfare spending.

The U.S. provided $13.3 billion in assistance between 1948 and 1951 to 16 Western European countries through the Economic Cooperation Authority. The Marshall Plan helped in reviving the western economies by controlling inflation, reviving trade, restoring production and rebuilding infrastructure. The Soviet Union rejected the aid on behalf of eastern Germany.

When the Marshall Plan ended in 1951, industrial production, trade and exports had increased far above pre-war level. Employment and standard of living were rising. Politically, communist parties lost influence everywhere.

It encouraged the economic integration that led to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community among six nations in 1950. It took a leap into a more integrated European Economic Community (EEC) after eight years. It finally became what is called the European Union today. This integration helped the nations to revive their economies through trade.

Demographic Dynamic

The population density in the 19th century was much more in Western Europe more than Eastern. In addition to that, across Western Europe, the casualties of war were offset by natural population growth and post-war mass migration. The impacts of the war and the post-war settlement were different for the eastern and western regions. The population growth was scanty in Eastern Europe which deprived it of flexible labour supply that has been recognised as an imperative factor in western reconstruction and development.

In the Eastern Front, millions fled west, running from the advancing Soviet troops. The effect of war casualties combined with the post-war settlement was devastating. The populations of Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia stagnated in the 1940s. Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Soviet Union faced a population decline over the same period. The shortage of skilled labour proved to be detrimental. The province of Prussia was temporarily depopulated resulting in its industrial districts losing their pre-war labour force level.

The war left a distorted demographic structure with a shortage of able-bodied young men. Conventionally, they were the one who constituted the backbone of the industrial workforce. It all brought the region an excess of industrial and commercial enterprises without their original owners, the necessary skills and managerial know-how required to operate them.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall

The Berlin Wall was a concrete barrier that cut across and divided the city of Berlin from 1961 to 1989 and was constructed in the aftermath of World War 2. The fall of the Berlin Wall symbolised the fall of the ‘Iron Curtain’ that divided the Eastern countries from Western Europe during the Cold War.

East Germany was provided with aid of around €1.6 trillion by the government and private German businesses to bring it at par with the West. The dismantling of the wall had a profound impact on the neighbouring economies as well. Hungry and Czechoslovakia opened up their borders and allowed East Germans to take refuge in Austria. The influx of people meant the economies of neighbouring countries took a hit.

Shortly after the collapse of the Wall, the German Democratic Republic (GDR), the party which was in power in the East also came to an end. Unemployment escalated to extremely high level and the economy was thrown into uncertainty. Those who had government jobs found themselves suddenly out of work. The GDR economy also faced bankruptcy due to the change of currency. Before the reunification of the two regions, 1 Deutsche Mark was the equivalent of 4.5 GDR Marks.

When eastern countries joined the EU, it made it easier for the Western companies to buy up assets in the east. Some also took advantage of the cheap labour market and started companies. Eastern European companies found it challenging to compete with gigantic Western corporations who could afford to undercut prices. In certain industries, prices were set for a certain amount of time so that Eastern European companies could not undercut Western companies which took away their advantage and eventually many Eastern European companies went bankrupt.

Agrarian Economy and Raw Material Exporter

When Western Europe started on the path of capitalist development, the Eastern part of the continent was transformed into an exporter of raw material for the West and an importer of finished goods. The result was a never-ending loop that strengthened Western industries and system that promoted capitalism. Specifically, as the West became more urban, there was a growing demand for agricultural goods, animals and other raw goods. East European people satisfied this need by transforming their domains into farms that exported for the Western market. With the exception of what became the Czech Republic, most of Eastern Europe became more agrarian and therefore poorer than much of Western Europe.

The post EUROPE: EAST, WEST AND THE GULF BETWEEN appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Academics have been seeing this region as a role model for making policies and providing social security. These countries are unique in the sense that they have adopted a socioeconomic model which combines the features of capitalism like free markets and efficiency with social benefits like free education, healthcare and pension payment for retirees. These social welfare schemes are financed through the taxpayers’ money and are administered by the government keeping in mind the interest of all the citizens. This system essentially minimises the gulf between the rich and poor through redistributive taxes. The model is popularly known in the world as the Scandinavian Model or the Nordic Model.

Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism?

The prevailing sentiment in the world is that the Scandinavian nations achieved what they did by adopting socialism. The truth is far from that.

• The only element of socialism which seems to exist in the Scandinavian model is the rampant presence of welfare schemes provided by the state. Apart from that, the means of production are owned by private individuals and the resource allocation takes place through the forces of demand and supply, not through central planning.
• It is important to point out that the Scandinavian nations developed their current economic system after years of free economy and trade. They were economic successes even before they built their welfare states. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but it was the wealth of people that allowed the luxury of such generous programs by imposing high tax rates.
• In contrast to the general perception about the Scandinavian economies, there is actually an absence of government interference. None of these Scandinavian countries have minimum wage laws. Instead, wages are decided by collective-bargaining between unions and employers, and not through government-imposed floors. In fact, the Nordic nations have some of the highest unionization rates in the world.
• Sweden has complete school choice as the government provides its citizens with education vouchers. The vouchers provide funding to a student at any school whether public or private. This choice benefits the citizens and the future of the nations. If these nations were to be socialist, they wouldn’t have promoted free choice.

In addition to these facts, the Scandinavian countries rank quite high on the index of economic freedom given by the Fraser Institute. All the countries are in the top quartile in the rankings. In fact, all the three Scandinavian nations are among the top ten countries to start a business according to the Ease of Doing Business Ranking, 2020 given by the World Bank. The best proof of the free-trade background of Scandinavian countries might be Volvo’s buyout by Geely of Hong Kong in 2010 and the bankruptcy of Saab in 2012, in which the Swedish government did not interfere in any way even though they were two of its most iconic companies.

The Nordic countries offer government-paid healthcare, tuition-free education, and generous social safety nets for all. It is allowing businesses to be productive without interfering which in turn produces the high incomes that support the tax collections. The system prevalent in these nations is actually social democracy in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.

Is it Sustainable?

Though it is working wonderfully for the time, it is losing ground due to many reasons. There is two fundamental phenomena which come into play namely the “Wagner’s Law” and the “Baumol’s Law”. Wagner’s Law says that the demand for welfare services tends to increase faster than income. According to Baumol’s Law, productivity in the production of welfare services tends to increase at a lower rate than that in the production of goods and services. If we assume equal wage growth across all sectors, costs must increase faster in the production of welfare services than in the economy as a whole. These two taken together imply that the total spending on welfare services rise faster than GDP over time. As these services are tax-financed, the tax burden must also rise continuously with GDP. Starting from an already high tax burden, further increases in tax wedges will eventually cause serious harm to employment and growth. This is particularly imperative in view of the consequences of globalization and demographic change.

Globalisation is in general beneficial to economic growth as it provides an opportunity to increase the returns to factors of production through the international exchange of goods and services and factor mobility. Nonetheless, increasing international mobility of labour can jeopardise the welfare state and the Scandinavian model. As social welfare schemes belong to all citizens, it becomes increasingly possible for them to benefit from the services without paying the taxes (bearing the cost) due to international factor mobility. For example, citizens who have spent most of their working lives abroad may return to their home country after retirement to collect the benefits of free hospital care and care for the elderly.

The most serious challenge to the Nordic model is caused by the changing demographics given the extensive role of the public sector in providing age-dependent social services and benefits. The age composition of the population in most European countries have changed dramatically in recent years. The shift is driven by two factors: a “baby boom effect” as the generation has reached retirement age, and a continued increase in life expectancy. As a consequence, dependency ratios have been increasing since 2010 in all the Scandinavian nations and now stands at 57% in Denmark, 53% in Norway and 61% in Sweden. The balance between those contributing to and those benefiting from the welfare state is shifting to such an extent that the financial sustainability of the system is in danger.

How it evolved?

Till the 1950s, Nordic countries were the top free-market, competition-based nations in the world. In the ‘70s, however, intense social government and regulatory systems were put in place with high tax rates. All of the economic growth came to an end in the early ‘90s with the burst of the housing bubble and the advent of a recession. Sweden’s economic growth fell to 1% lower than the rest of Europe and 2% lower than in the United States of America.

By the ‘90s, government spending was up to 70% of GDP, and the debt to GDP ratio was 72%. Even the unemployment rate rose by 5%. The Scandinavian states were strained and were forced to increase taxes drastically to keep their model alive. As soon as policymakers saw the socialist approach failing, things changed. In 1991, parts of health care were privatized, schooling vouchers were first introduced, and some welfare programs were cut back. In 1993, the collapse of the housing bubble forced the Swedish State to scale down their generous welfare system in a context of lower growth, growing unemployment, and to manage public accounts. Between 1995 and 2000, the debt-to-GDP ratio was dropped down to 50%, and citizens earned more income owing to the new 28% tax rate. As of today, Sweden’s public spending has decreased to 49.3% of their GDP, and their corporate tax rate is 22%, below the OECD’s average of 23.9%. Denmark and Norway allow private firms to run public hospitals and Sweden has privatized part of its retirement system.

Conclusion

Are the Scandinavian countries a model for the rest of developed countries? We may answer in affirmation by looking at the top rankings achieved by them for most of the elements that make a country successful: education outcomes, health and life expectancy, happiness index and economic development. But a large part of the Scandinavian system is unique and reflects the Scandinavians’ long tradition of governance which emphasizes on consensus, compromise and trust. Also, the Scandinavian nations raised the taxation rate only after their economy grew and the citizens had high incomes. A government should never begin with enormously high rates and expect its citizens to keep pace. The population of the region is merely 21 million which is fundamentally homogeneous and thus any big and multi-ethnic state might not be able to adopt the Nordic model. Instead of adopting the model, nations should view it as an inspiration and customise their policies according to their needs and demographics.

The post NORDIC ECONOMIC MODEL – IS THE GRASS GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Jayaprakash Movement 

As the Gujarat riots resulted in coerced resignation of the Gujarat government; a similar student protest, which came to be known as the JP movement, began in Bihar. The opposition parties gave their full support to the movement and even announced a statewide strike from 1973. As a result of owing to their involvement in the Bihar movement, 8 students were killed in police firing in Bhopal. The government was not able to handle the situation properly and this incident provoked the protestors. On 18 February 1974, students union of Patna University invited student leaders from different states for a meeting.  They came together to form a Bihar Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti (BCSS) to spearhead the agitation. Lalu Prasad Yadav was elected as the president of this committee. Sushil Kumar Modi, Ram Vilas Paswan, Basisth Narayan Singh were among the many contemporary youth leaders who were a part of this. The demands were to improve the education system in India as well as to improve the quality and taste of food in hostels. 

During a budget session on 18 March 1974, the BCSS decided to ‘gherao’ the assembly. They blocked each and every road to the assembly and dented government properties. The chief minister convinced the students that he would look into the matter, but still, the protests and the damaging of government property continued. In order to suppress the protests, the police opened fire. As a result of which, few protestors were killed, thus angering and provoking the students across the whole country. It eventually became a national level movement, people from different states started supporting the cause; it was not only bounded to students now. Jayaprakash Narayan emerged as a very important and powerful leader during this movement. He was earlier a part of national congress but after independence, he left it as he was not in support of the new polices. He decided to lead the movement. He demanded the dissolution of the state assembly and the government resignation due to the prevailing inflation, unemployment, economic crisis in the state at that time.  

In May 1974, the biggest railway strike in the history of India took place. More than 70% of the railway workers participated. It was a fight against the low wages, harsh working conditions and long working hours. The strike was brutally suppressed by the government with thousands being sent to jail and losing their jobs. This led to more aggression amongst the people and more and more people started joining the JP movement.

On 5^th June 1974, Jayaprakash organized a rally at Gandhi Maidan in Patna to achieve total revolution. He expressed his concerns about the lack of freedom of speech and the increasing economic crisis in the country. He wanted a social transformation by the participation of youth in social activities. Students in various colleges boycotted their exams to show support to the movement. The government was trying its best to suppress the movement and even lathi-charged a lot of protestors. In November, Jayaprakash met Indira Gandhi and demanded to remove the Bihar government. Unlike in Gujarat, Indira Gandhi did not cave in and kept Bihar’s chief minister in position. Then the movement took a turn and demanded the resignation of the central government and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Soon after this Jayaprakash realized the importance of fighting within the democratic system, and formed a party known as Janta party in coalition with the opposition parties. 

State of Uttar Pradesh VS Raj Narain 

While Indira Gandhi was facing the JP protests, in June 1975 came a verdict on the state VS Raj Narain case in which Indira Gandhi was directly involved. This was related to the petition filled in 1971 by Raj Narain alleging that Gandhi used bribery, government machinery and resources to gain an unfair advantage contesting the election. The court found Indira guilty on charges such as misusing government machinery, availing her of the services of a government officer and use of electricity from the state electricity department. Serious charges such as bribing voters and election malpractices were removed. The court declared her elections null and void, unseated her from her seat in the Lok Sabha and banned her from contesting any election for an additional 6 years. Indira challenged the high court’s decision and went to the Supreme Court. 

On June 24 1975, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the high court. It ordered all privileges Gandhi received as a Minister of Parliament to be stopped and that she be debarred from voting. However, she was allowed to continue as the prime minister, pending the complete resolution of her appeal. 

Emergency: The Other Side of the Coin

Indira was not only facing the court pressure but there was a lot of moral pressure too. The JP protest was gaining more and more support and people were forcing Indira to resign.  In July a rally was organized in Delhi to coerce Indira Gandhi to resign. Jayaprakash gave a speech to persuade the police to reject the government’s order based on moral and ethical grounds. He legitimized the actions of the protestors and defended them. This alarmed Indira Gandhi. In the face of massive political opposition, desertion and disorder across the country and party, Gandhi stuck to the advice of a few loyalists and her younger son Sanjay Gandhi, to impose an “internal emergency”. After a quick question regarding the procedural matter, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared emergency upon the prime minister’s advice on the midnight of June 25, 1975. 

Gandhi asserted that the emergency was proclaimed because there was an internal disturbance in the country which was a threat to the security of India. After the drought, war and oil crisis of 1973, the economy of the country was already in a very bad position. The government claimed that the strikes and protests had paralyzed the government and further destroyed the economy of the country greatly.

 Since the prime minister got the president to issue ‘ordinances’ – a law-making power in times of urgency, invoked sparingly; completely bypassing the parliament, it gave her the power to rule by decree. She now had the right to make her own rules without any approval from parliament. 

Some harsh measures were taken during the emergency. Leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan, Advani, Ashoka, and Vajpayee were arrested and were put behind bars. Anyone who opposed the decisions of the government was jailed. Almost all the leaders of the opposition parties were punished and put in detention. Political detainees were tortured. There was a purge in the country. Not only the political leaders but common people were also a part of this suffering. The fire was opened on slum dwellers in Delhi to suppress a movement which was initiated against the prime minister. Forced sterilization campaigns were introduced.

Press censorship was imposed. A student from Kerala was put behind bars for publishing an article against the government. He was tortured and eventually died in jail. All the fundamental rights, including article 20 and 21 were suspended. Numerous laws and ordinances were rewritten. The judiciary was subverted by the fear of incarceration. There was no freedom of speech and democracy in the country. Indira Gandhi herself claimed in an interview that things went out of control once the emergency was announced.  Due to a lot of international and national pressure, after more than a year, in March 1977, the emergency was finally revoked.  Soon after this, the general elections were held and Congress lost to Janta party, for the very first time in the history of India. 

Despite everything that took place from 1975 to 1977, Janta party was dissolved and Indira Gandhi rose to power yet again in 1980. 

Conclusion 

This whole incident showcases the power that the people hold in a democratic nation, where their movements and protests alone led to the dissolution of the ruling party.            

At the same time this whole incident highlighted the irony of the situation where despite their eventual success, the people had no other option than to re-elect the government they fought against. It may be because of the lack of leadership and the strong political hold that the Congress government had at that point in time. Perhaps it’s time we ponder upon on how these series of events shaped the Indian politics and the constitution as we know it today.

The post UNFOLDING THE UNLIT CHAPTER OF INDIA: JP MOVEMENT appeared first on WISER WORLD.