A Greek Revolution?

Greek President Karolos Papoulias has faced difficult circumstances and situations in his short period in power in Athens.

Yet, it seems that his short spell as President may end sooner than had been hoped by international officials as last-ditch talks with various party members to secure support appear to have been fruitless.

Attempts to form a coalition and avert a further set of elections are Papoulias’ primary concern: even higher than economic issues. Should the Greek populace be put to the vote again, there is sure to be all manner of civil reactions from apathy to unrest.

Certainly, the Greeks will have lost all belief in the abilities of their leaders to govern and manage the state properly and efficiently. At best, politicians can hope for a resolution between party factions, for any further public disgrace could spell the end of Greek’s current political system.

In the event of an election, whilst a few may look with disinterest on a failing succession of Presidents and parties, the recent demonstrations and violence that have spread across the country suggest the possibility of widespread anarchism and potential revolution.

Of course, extremist positions that promote Greek exit from the Eurozone appear all the more enticing whilst faced with current alternatives. Riddled with debt, a persistently shrinking economy and mounting unemployment, Greece is certainly not the hotbed of industry and business that marked the new millennium.

Last week, a majority of Greeks voted for parties that want to rip up the country's bailout agreement with the European Union and International Monetary Fund (IMF) - including neo-Nazis.

The biggest winner was the leftist anti-bailout coalition, Syriza, whose share of the vote more than tripled and who describe the austerity imposed by the bailout as "barbaric".

Yet, the main problem that any incoming government could face is that there is no official guidance on a country exiting the EU. No, the naïve, bright brains behind the introduction of the EU did not foresee any member country wanting to leave the zone and so did not prepare for such an event.

Therefore, Greece could essentially issue a statement to Brussels stating its intent to leave the EU and then default on its debts. Its second default, that is.

The economic repercussions across both the EU and Greece however could be catastrophic as further member states could decide that restrictive measures on their economies are no longer suitable. As such, contributors such as the UK and Germany lose billions of euros in funds that have been pumped into these nations.

Meanwhile, a new Greek government could not guarantee the stability of any currency that it introduces or predict the volatility of markets towards the new position of the country.

Greece would probably have to impose capital controls to prevent all the money leaving, much as Malaysia did in 1998 after the Asian financial crisis.

So in the best-case scenario, Greece would have no buying power, and everything would be expensive: extremely expensive.

However, the play would be based around the hope that with such a weak currency, the economy would grow rapidly.

Whilst this route would be expensive and painful, it might appease those voters who feel manipulated and controlled by central authorities in Brussels who they believe have no appreciation of their situation. If the hypothetical economic reinvigoration were to pay off, to pardon the pun, it could be the lighting spark for further action in the EU zone and render relations difficult across the EU, ushering in a new era of European co-operation, or lack thereof.

Redefining Europe?

In a historic moment, this weekend saw a new president elected in France. But this is not a simple handover from one leader to another. French politics has been shaken and the results are clear to see.

Francois Hollande received around 52% of the vote to wave Sarkozy from office. But Hollande rise to President-elect was anything but smooth: yet perhaps the most overwhelming hurdle was the inherent psychology of French citizens, apparently predisposed in favour of right-wing politicians.

Sarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement (UPM) party was a centre right organisation, and ever since the 90s, the French presidency has exclusively belonged to the right. More so, there is only one blemish on the right’s record of power since 1958: Francois Mitterrand, who served the country as president from the 80s till the mid-90s, is the only left wing leader in more than half a century. On top of that, Sarkozy is the first French president not to have won a second term in over thirty years. Certainly, the statistics were stalked in the incumbent head-of-state’s favour.

Therefore, whilst the media may be drawing attention to numerous bits of luck on the part of the incoming president, and a multitude of misfortune on the part of the departing, there was first and foremost a seeming political allegiance, a political bond, between president and people that needed to be severed.

Perhaps the legacy of Mitterrand still holds coinage with voters in the European country. After all, Francois successfully deployed a substantial economic turnaround, made sweeping technology changes, supported various activist movements and carefully balanced the power of France within Europe and the world. His period of power produced a France that was not only one of the strongest countries at the close of the twentieth century, but in its strongest position across the century as a whole.

As such, in times of similar economic failings, a possible identity crisis and continued French resistance and demonstrations against French rulings, Hollande appears a candidate very much in touch with his people, dubbed Francois II (signifying him as the second coming of Mitterrand). Other headlines proclaim him as ‘Mr Normal’.

Indeed, French presidencies of the late twentieth century were either held by old, hardened politicians, or apparent upstarts who had rose through their party ranks too quick for sufficient experience.  Here is an elect who not only has the fine-balance of experience and youth on his side, but is so seemingly straight-forward, if not a little reserved, that he has won the French people with his honesty and genuine persona.

A front-page "Letter to Mr President" by Francois-Regis Hutin in Ouest France wishes Mr Hollande "good luck". The paper says that "we count on you to arouse the dynamism of all the French... to reconcile the French, to help overcome the split between the included and the excluded, young people and old people, town and country, workers and pensioners, rich people and poor people."

Of course, this tackles the failings that are laid at the steps of Sarkozy’s regime. He was either despised as a friend of the rich by the left, or seen as the man that broke his word by the right, or by most as the man that promised reform, began to make steps in that direction and stopped far short of completion.

These issues need be addressed by the new President for sure. His period in charge will prove pivotal certainly to the shape of the French twenty-first century, if not for the most part of the next millennia. Hollande will govern a country where, as the historian and economist Nicolas Baverez says, "By 2025, we will know if France still ranks as a leading nation in the world."

Yet despite the new appeal of Hollande’s practicality and placidness, his offer of change and consolidation, there is remarkably little difference between the centre left and centre right candidacy campaigns. The deficit will be tackled slower under Hollande, and with more dependence on taxes, but otherwise, there is not too much that would rock the boat about this leader.

His trail, though igniting people with the promise of a zero deficit by 2017, has left little impression of the long term policies and positions of the President: rather, people have been swept along with the fervour of change, the promise of Mr Normal. After all, Hollande appeared less focussed on austerity measures that were favoured by his predecessor and Merkel. And with their policies only bringing about rising unemployment and debts, the public support has suddenly dried up for their strict measures.

All that is sure of Hollande’s term is that his decisions will carve out the path of future France: either rising like the beacon of the Eiffel from the storm of the Seine, or reaffirm dwindling power that would leave French surrendering to the mercy of Germans and Britons alike for the third time in a century.

Religious Misunderstandings and the Case of Cardinal Sean Brady

Religion is increasingly seen as outdated, outmoded and outranked by twenty-first century dilemmas such as politics, economics and the trivial but trendy fashion scenes. In fact, despite being classed a Catholic country, it gradually appears that we are perhaps more catholic in culture than by practice.

We distance ourselves from religion, which seems logical given that these organisations once proffering hope feature in our lives more and more through media stories, and negative media stories at that.

Whether it’s an anti-gay movement, or a slur on Islam, the religion crisis continuously rears its head and is so often something that twenty-first century paraphernalia attempts to shield us from.

Take, for example, the current case of Cardinal Brady, wrapped amidst a certain fervour concerning a, somewhat archetypal news piece, of paedophilia within the church.

On Tuesday, a BBC documentary revealed that in 1975, a 14-year-old boy who had been sexually abused by a paedophile priest, Fr Brendan Smyth, gave the then Fr Brady the names of other children who had been abused.

The scandal however is focussed on the fact that the Father did not then proceed to inform either parents or relevant police officials about the information that had been divulged to him.

Yet, whilst many people have suddenly jumped on the bandwagon, so to speak, in support of the Cardinal’s removal, that quick logic ignores cornerstone doctrine of the church itself that has been respected for centuries.

The idea that most probably held the Father’s tongue was that sanctity of confession, where the priest is not allowed to repeat, by oath, anything which he has been told over the course of the religious practice.

It is a fairly obstinate routine for twenty-first century officials, but it has well served various people across the millennia as a source of forgiveness and secrecy. Since it is not clear whether this confused teenager was more confused rather than angry, there is a problematic situation in deciding how far the priest is guilty of any wrong-doing.

This is not necessarily to read as an exoneration: from my perspective, the priest should have acted to protect those of his parish. However, it highlights that perhaps the now cardinal has risen to his current position by always practicing the letter of religious teachings. His mediation of his role has been taken extremely seriously and in fact he could consider that repeating something spoken in confidence would in fact injure his religious duties.

Different ideals between religion and other aspects of society are frequent cause for divide then, and there are calls for reformation of practice. Yet, it is interesting that this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of the Second Vatican Council which made profound reforms in the Church. The Roman Catholic mind-set is one in which admissions and revisions have been granted for this age of society, even if others think it needs to go further.

Whilst the 2001 census found more than 71% of people in the UK to deem themselves Catholic, a Guardian/ICM pollin 2006 found that just 33% describe themselves as "a religious person" while 82% see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. The Ipsos MORI poll in 2003 reported that only 18% were "a practising member of an organised religion".

Marred by a crisis of faith and a constant string of negative images from child abuse to supporting social inequalities, the Catholic church, and particularly the Roman Catholic church, has to come a considerable way towards twenty-first century life if it is to spark a revival and capture the imaginations of the majority.

To read more about various perspectives on the Cardinal’s position, see this BBC news report.

A Small Step for Internet Censorship

Earlier in the year, the internet came under attack from American government bills, with the infamous SOPA act to attempt to block and take down a number of sites believed to be infringing copyright laws. The result was a resounding victory for the public, who rallied support in order to save their most trusted and most visited websites.

Whilst a number of hosting services fell victim to pre-emptive attack on these streaming hosts, largely, the number of sites taken down was minimal and new domains have sprung up to plug the gaps left.

However, yesterday saw a new invasion into the internet’s freedom of ownership, speech and usage. High Courts in the UK ruled that major internet service providers had to block their subscribers from accessing file-sharing site The Pirate Bay. 

The Swedish based website has come under attack several times in the past, as it is currently one of the most recognised and most visited sites for sharing copyrighted medias. Indeed, back in 2009, Swedish courts ruled that the four founding members of the sites were guilty of helping people to circumvent copyright laws.

Despite this, the site has continued to thrive. Whilst the original founders are found responsible as being the powder-keg for this peer-to-peer service, the onus now rests with public demand.

Under the new laws, Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site. BT, meanwhile, has been asked for a further period in which to consider its position. Instantly, there is already fragmentation in how this act is to be carried out and monitored on a nationwide scale. Should even just one major provider fail to support the ban, then consumers with little conscious guilt about avoiding purchasing their music and video will simply switch provider.

Additionally, the idea of attacking The Pirate Bay alone is such a limited and naïve outlook from the British Courts. A wide network of these sites are active and removing the most popular offender will only provide the opportunity for another site to rise to prevalence. Consider the closure of the Limewire service, a group that were at one point synonymous with illegal file sharing.

Whilst I empathise with a wide selection of music and film industry persons who are losing money thanks to such services, there needs to be a greater understanding of the consumer demands. 99p for a single song on ITunes or Amazon does not provide great value for money. CD albums and movie releases, which have dropped in price considerably since the mid-90s as consequence of the sharing phenomenon, still need to be introduced to the consumer public at a cheaper price. Although such a suggestion may appear to damage these industries, if it would encourage and stimulate further legal purchases, then the overall effect could be to galvanise a higher gross income and reduce the popularity of these illegal services.

Yet, my own issue with the new court ruling is that which incited many to action back in February: the beginning of internet censorship could lead to a mass cull of websites and information deemed to be illegal or in need of restriction. Wikipedia, for example, is an online encyclopaedia database, where just a decade ago, people would have had to go to a library or purchase an almanac for such detailed results. Or even high street chains, put out of business by online giants such as Amazon. The array of services that could be deemed damaging to different groups are almost infinite.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called the move "pointless and dangerous". "It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism," he said.

The popularity of the internet is based on its public orientation, built to offer information and services at the lowest price in the easiest way. File-sharing sites blocked in this haphazard fashion are only piecemeal solutions and at best, short-sighted. Where the demand and software is available, new services will entice the public with offers of free media.

With the advent of free services such as Youtube and Spotify for music, and free film channels on TV, the problem of piracy is none too clean cut. These were seen as things that may kill off their respective industries, but instead provided another outlet to reach an increased demographic. Some may want to watch or listen to material to be sure they want to buy it; others wouldn’t buy the product even without pirate sites. The pros and cons of these institutions are diverse, and whilst it is certainly morally indecent to essentially steal a film or song, perhaps it is also wrong to force the hands of the public in a free state, utilising a free domain.