How should we talk about white majorities?

Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics, argues that we need to talk about white majorities and do so with understanding in his new book, Whiteshift.

Across the West, anti-immigration populists are tearing a path through the usual politics of left and right. Immigration is remaking Europe and North America; over half of American babies are non-white, and by the end of the century, minorities and those of mixed race are projected to form the majority in most Western European countries. The left-right distinction is being overshadowed by a culture war pitting whites who dislike diversity against those who embrace it. Ethnic transformation will continue, but conservative whites are unlikely to exit quietly; their feelings of alienation are already redrawing political lines and convulsing societies across the West.

Drawing on detailed and extraordinary survey, demographic and electoral data and enriched with illustrative stories, Whiteshift explores the majority response to ethnic change in North America and Western Europe. Eric Kaufmann, a leading expert on national identity and ethnic change, calls for us to move beyond empty and partisan talk about national identity and open up debate about the future of white majorities. He argues that we must move past the dominant storyline of ever-increasing diversity to enable conservative whites and liberals alike to see a positive future in “whiteshift” – a new story of majority transformation through intermarriage that can help lift anxieties and heal today’s widening political divisions.

Professor Kaufmann has been researching immigration, religion, and national identity for over twenty years. A native of Vancouver, British Columbia, he was born in Hong Kong and spent eight years in Tokyo, and is now Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. His previous books include Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? and The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America.

Share
. Reply . Category: Social Sciences History and Philosophy . Tags: , , , , ,

Female Genital Mutilation and social media

Dr Christina Julios, Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Geography discusses the research that has informed her new book on the changes in anti-FGM campaigning over time.

Against a backdrop of over 200 million girls and women worldwide affected by Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), I have explored changes in anti-FGM campaigning over time, while considering the various ways in which anti-FGM activists engage with Internet-based technology. In doing so, tensions between online and offline anti-FGM efforts have been exposed, raising questions about their effectiveness to bring about social change. My new book, Female Genital Mutilation and Social Media draws on twenty-one fieldwork interviews with anti-FGM activists, frontline practitioners and survivors both in the UK and abroad, highlighting the opportunities and challenges they face.

I was interested in examining the many polarised debates surrounding the practice of FGM, which include arguments rejecting FGM in all its forms as a violation of human rights; those justifying it for cultural, religious and aesthetic reasons; as well as those advocating the ‘medicalisation’ of FGM in clinical settings. Within the context of online gender activism, I have unveiled attempts to silence women’s voices in virtual public spaces through the spread of ‘cyber-misogyny’ and ‘online abuse. I have also considered the potential drawbacks of online mobilisation including, so-called ‘clicktivism’ or token activism together with ‘technological determinism’, which may undermine the importance of offline participation.

In order to illustrate the extent and diversity of online anti-FGM activism, I examined various key global online campaigns aimed at eradicating FGM. Featuring social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, they include: the UN’s International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM, the WHO’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Programme, The Girl Generation, The Guardian’s End FGM Global Media Campaign and the Massai Cricket Warriors’ campaign. In addition, I documented ten case-studies illustrating the work of prominent international anti-FGM campaigners. In the first instance, my book depicts five African-led narratives from celebrated activists, namely: Efua Dorkenoo OBE, Waris Dirie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jaha Mapenzi Dukureh and Leyla Hussein. The volume also features five international accounts from FGM survivors I interviewed for the book including: Mama Sylla, Chairwoman of La Fraternite Gineenne (Ginea); Masooma Ranalvi, Convenor of We Speak Out (India); Farzana Doctor, Member of We Speak Out (India); Fatou Baldeh, Trustee of Dignity Alert and Research Forum (DARF) (Edinburgh, UK) and Mariya Taher, Co-founder of Sahiyo and Member of U.S. Network to End FGM/C (USA).

The book’s methodology comprises analysis of primary data from the twenty-one interviews, including written personal narratives submitted via an online questionnaire, as well as content analysis of relevant materials on leading social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. In addition, I engaged in documentary analysis of a wide range of secondary sources including, official publications, parliamentary debates, legislation, scholarly books and journals, newspaper articles, grey literature, online films and documentaries. Such an array of sources and narratives provides a rich picture of the complex phenomenon of anti-FGM online activism in the first academic study of its kind.

Female Genital Mutilation and Social Media is now available from Routledge.

Share
. Reply . Category: Social Sciences History and Philosophy . Tags: , ,

Why governments loosened their grip on EU treaty making

Dr Dermot Hodson, Reader in Political Economy in Birkbeck’s Department of Politics, discusses the rise of parliaments, the people and courts in EU treaty making, the subject of his new book with Prof. Imelda Maher.

Treaty making is a site of struggle between those who claim the authority to speak and act on international matters. Being closely connected to questions of war and peace, the power to make treaties in medieval times lay to a large extent in the hands of monarchs. Modern treaties are negotiated by states, although not exclusively so. The conference that produced the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015, for example, had more than 25,000 delegates drawn from governments, international organisations, NGOs and civil society.

The European Union (EU) is fertile ground for students of treaty making. This is not only because the Union’s frequent recourse to treaty amendment is so publicly contentious, as evidenced by the Eurosceptic backlash against the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties. The EU has also witnessed fierce competition over who has the right to negotiate treaties. The 1951 Treaty of Paris, the EU’s founding treaty, was negotiated in a tightly sealed intergovernmental conference. Today, the European Parliament and national parliaments, have a seat at the table alongside governments when major EU treaty revisions are negotiated.

This competition extends to the question of who should approve EU treaties. National parliaments endorsed the Treaty of Paris on the basis of simplified majority votes. No member state held a referendum and none saw court challenges before the treaty took effect. Now, most member states need a parliamentary majority of three-fifths or higher before they can approve a major EU treaty. Treaty-related referendums are relatively commonplace in the EU, as are prior constitutional reviews of treaties before higher courts.

The UK, although it is leaving the EU, exemplifies the changing constitutional rules and norms surrounding EU treaty making. Citizens have already used the courts to reaffirm the need for parliamentary approval of the UK’s withdrawal treaty. The campaign for a second referendum, meanwhile, shows that Parliament’s right to decide on the terms of Brexit is heavily contested.

This book explores this transformation of EU treaty making over the period 1950 to 2016. Drawing insights from EU law, comparative constitutionalism and international relations, it considers how and why parliaments, the people and courts have entered a domain once dominated by governments. It presents qualitative and quantitative evidence on the importance of public trust and political tactics in explaining this shift and challenges the idea that EU treaties are too rigid.

Our study shows how governments, having tentatively deviated from the traditional intergovernmental conference format in the 1950s, did so conclusively from the 1990s onwards. This shift was driven not only by the European Parliament’s insistence that it be involved. It also reflects a turn to more participatory modes of treaty making as the problems of legitimacy facing the EU mounted.

The involvement of parliaments, the people and courts in approving EU treaties is sometimes seen as an attempt by national governments to boost their bargaining position. Our analysis of the changing constitutional rules and norms surrounding treaty making in the EU’s 28 member states over six decades supports this view. The EU thus offers a rare case of governments ‘tying their hands’ in international negotiations, something that Robert Putnam theorised in his work on two-level games but which has rarely been seen in practice.

Trust is at play here as well as tactics, our findings suggest. Member states that saw declining public trust in national government tended to give their parliaments a greater say in EU treaty making. Those that saw declining trust in the EU were more likely to allow referendums and constitutional challenges. In this sense, member states are not only engaged in a two-level game when they revise EU treaties. They face, what we call, a problem of two-level legitimacy. Governments, though they remain key players in EU treaty making, do not legitimate this process as they once did because their own legitimacy and that of the Union is open to question.

Should the EU make treaties differently? The consensus in the literature is that EU treaty making should become easier, with recurring reform ideas including the approval of treaties by a majority of member states, restrictions on national referendums and a pan-European referendum. We question this consensus. Our findings show that the rate of treaty revision has slowed as parliaments and the people have assumed a more prominent role in this domain but that it has by no means ground to a halt.

Viewed from a two-level legitimacy perspective, there is a case for making it more rather than less difficult to revise treaties. This book explores a range of reform ideas, including citizen-led treaty making, time-locks on treaty reform and greater judicial and parliamentary oversight. It asks whether allowing EU treaties to fail, rather than saving them at all costs, is a more appropriate response to the problems of legitimacy facing the EU.

Dermot Hodson is Reader in Political Economy in Birkbeck’s Department of Politics. Imelda Maher is the Sutherland Full Professor of European Law, University College Dublin. Their book The Transformation of EU Treaty Making: The Rise of Parliaments, Referendums and Courts Since 1950 is published by Cambridge University Press.

Share
. Reply . Category: Social Sciences History and Philosophy

Constitutional crisis?

Robert Singh, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck, defends the US constitution at a time when many say it offers more problems than solutions. His ideas are explored further in his new book In Defense of the United States Constitution, available from Routledge. 

According to that eminent politics scholar, Morrissey (Spent the Day in Bed), we should stop watching the news, “because the news contrives to frighten you.” As far as politics in the United States goes, he surely has a point. Breathlessly excitable news coverage and learned academic pronouncements of the “death” of democracy together induce a sense of bewilderment, producing more heat than light about what ails America. And invariably this is traced to the ultimate political “original sin,” the US Constitution, faulty more by defective design than cack-handed execution.

Nowhere more is this true than the Trump presidency, whose macabre logic – feed a craven media that thrives on outrage with its daily dose of “controversy” – rarely fails to produce the desired ratings hit. Opinion surveys confirm the resulting disenchantment: in 2017, only 46 percent of Americans were satisfied with how democracy was working. In 2018, a mere 50 percent said their system was basically sound. 81 percent thought the Founders would be upset with the functioning of federal institutions while only 11 percent imagined they would be happy. Four in five Americans were either dissatisfied (60 percent) or angry (20 percent) at Washington.”

But is the Constitution, as many scholar-activists assert, the source of, rather than the remedy to, US problems, from gun violence to agitated air passengers invoking the “right” to travel with “emotional support animals”? Does Trump’s presidency again reveal its inherent fragility, proclivity to periodic crisis and the hollowness of eighteenth-century parchment promises? These altogether more problematic claims are triply doubtful.

First, we should separate politics from constitutionalism and beware the all-too-promiscuous use of the term “crisis.” A genuine constitutional crisis requires a disagreement about constitutional obligations that is impossible to resolve via constitutional means. The Civil War was the one undisputable such crisis in US history: an existential conflict posing a choice between alternatives that allowed no compromise. Others, from Watergate and Iran-Contra to Monicagate and today’s lurid charges, are more resolvable political crises with constitutional dimensions.

Second, while Trump has undermined multiple norms and conventions previously taken for granted, the extent to which these indict the constitutional design is questionable. Even if a Democratic House of Representatives begins impeachment proceedings against him in January 2019, the question of whether Trump’s alleged violations of statute law rise to the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanours” is ultimately a political, not a legal, one. Trump’s tempestuous encounter with the Constitution has proven only his most recent and important instance of serial infidelity. But it has damaged, not endangered, the republic.

Third, there exists a powerful case – which impeachment would vindicate, not repudiate – that “the system worked.” The political circus since January 2017 may have been compelling viewing in its car crash qualities, but it also demonstrates certain enduring structural strengths of the US design. Trump has not had his way on public policy, despite his own party controlling both houses on Capitol Hill. The courts have been able and willing to strike down laws and executive actions they deemed unconstitutional. Civil society remains a cacophonous and vibrant force.

None of this is to suggest that all is right with things constitutional. The Constitution is far from flawless and some modernizing fine-tuning would not go amiss, regarding the composition of the US Senate, the method of allocating votes in the Electoral College, and the amendment process. But it merits neither rubbishing nor romanticizing. A rare focus for unity in an otherwise fractious polity, the Constitution is not the source of today’s problems (the Second Amendment, for example, does not prohibit strong firearms regulation). Nor are constitutional “fixes” the solution. Radical change, where feasible, is mostly undesirable, and where desirable, mostly unfeasible. It is politics – above all, the deeply entrenched partisan polarization that preceded and will outlast the 45th president – that is responsible for contemporary maladies.

On most comparative metrics, the Constitution performs well and emerges much better than others. An effective constitution should provide a stable framework for government by channelling societal conflict into everyday politics, allow the expression in law and policy of majority preferences while safeguarding protections for individual rights and liberties, ensure the peaceful transfer of power, and permit the means of its own revision through amendments and interpretation. The Constitution meets these core requirements, and its own Preamble’s six objectives, now more fully than at any time in US history. It is not merely adaptive but “antifragile”: gaining strength from the tests to which it is periodically subject.

All of which suggests: Keep calm and carry on constitutionalizing. The republic has not been read the last rites. The Constitution has not been trampled under goose-steps. American democracy is not in its death throes. The news might frighten you, but the US Constitution should be a cause for enduring comfort rather than disquiet.

Share
. Reply . Category: Social Sciences History and Philosophy . Tags: , , , , ,