A friend showed me this quote, just love it!
Believe you can apply to life, your business or your marriage.....
"A winner makes commitments; a loser makes promises."
Love it!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The controversy...
Czech ratified the Lisbon treaty. Ongoing debates have continued since Ireland and Czech voted against the Lisbon treaty. Why?
One could argue that the nation-states lose their sovereignty or the reason that policies like immigration emerge and prohibit the successful or unsuccessful wheel from spinning.
Furthermore, a positive sign would be that EU unites for the sake of its survival but the real debate on this issue would be; who will become the president, or the EU Representative as Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish Prime Minister whom is designated to preside over the union describes it.
One potential president candidate would be Tony Blair as several agrees upon. Others on the other hand are strictly against this individual mostly because of UK was a puppet state to US during the Bush administration or was the person to accept the invasion of Iraq in UK or in a more general viewpoint; England’s ignorance versus EU.
One thing for sure is that the question will be argued for a long time if bureaucracy would persist within the union as it has in the past.
One could argue that the nation-states lose their sovereignty or the reason that policies like immigration emerge and prohibit the successful or unsuccessful wheel from spinning.
Furthermore, a positive sign would be that EU unites for the sake of its survival but the real debate on this issue would be; who will become the president, or the EU Representative as Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish Prime Minister whom is designated to preside over the union describes it.
One potential president candidate would be Tony Blair as several agrees upon. Others on the other hand are strictly against this individual mostly because of UK was a puppet state to US during the Bush administration or was the person to accept the invasion of Iraq in UK or in a more general viewpoint; England’s ignorance versus EU.
One thing for sure is that the question will be argued for a long time if bureaucracy would persist within the union as it has in the past.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Does the media encourage terrorism?
In this essay I will try to answer the complex essay topic “if mass media encourage terrorism”. I will begin with defining the words mass media and furthermore terrorism. The latter word is widely used in today’s globalised world and covered tabloids worldwide several times.
There are several views on media and terrorism, but there is a common academic view that; getting the political statement behind terrorism through is more important, than the act itself. In this essay I will examine if media encourages terrorism or if media is the cause of terrorism and without it there would be no terror? This relationship between media and terrorism is highly contested and a debated political issue. Also known, terrorism is a low cost and high-efficiency weapon to fight an otherwise superior enemy.
In short, media is not the essential factor for terrorist acts but an instrument to change the likelihood of terrorist occurrence and the direct cost the actual act generate. One could argue, on the other hand though that, terrorism would occur even if the media did not exist.
According to Cooper (1991) mass media’s function is to inform and be accessible to all citizens. It also plays an important role when it comes to educating other individuals. Thirdly, media should be a platform for public political discourse. As being the “watchdog” and give publicity to governmental and political institutions, media’s influence over the public sphere is massive. Public opinion can therefore only matter to the extent that the acts of whoever holds supreme power are made available for public scrutiny, meaning how far they are visible, ascertainable, accessible, and hence accountable (Bobbio, 1987, p.83). As Mikhail Gorbachev states, the media must have “a degree of ‘openness’ surrounding the activities of the political class if the ‘public opinions’ of the people are to have any bearing on decision-making” (Cooper, 1991).
Thus media style it selves as the ‘voice of the people’ are more effective at ensuring democratic accountability than the arrangements formally designated for this purpose (Street, 2001, p.7). The mass media on the other hand, does not simply cover observable events and report facts; it animates them by turning them into narratives with plots and actors (Street, 2005, p.36). Two good examples of this is, terrorism that appears as nothing more than ‘psychotic behavior’ and enemies of the state tend to demonize in ways that, reinforce their illegitimacy and deny rationality to their actions like as Saddam Hussein, portrayed as a modern ‘Hitler’ (Said, 2000).
For the second concept to be explained I believe a good starting point is to recognize that terrorism, unlike liberalism, communism or conservatism is not an ideology but a method; a method of political violence. Historically, the first terrorist act was first seen during the French Revolution. It has been a tactic utilized by a wide array of ideological movements: states, ethno-nationalists, religious and millenarian movements, extreme left wing, right-wing groups, single issue fanatics such as anti-abortionists and animal-rights movements, have all variously engaged in terrorism at certain times (Wilkinson, 2003 and Dannreuter, 2007).
Another common definition of terrorism – is an act of violence for political means and closely similar to the classical military proposition of Karl von Clausewitz (1976) that: war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means. This, in contrast to the framework of terrorism, of the perceived inability to reach one’s goal through more conventional means. On the other hand “one’s mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Dannreuter 2007, p.167) highlights the divide between those who see terrorism as malicious but others as striving for justice of the cause it promotes. Furthermore, terrorism always has a political nature (Brown, 2003, p.281). It seeks political change and has its roots in justice or at least someone’s perception of justice. The method target innocents and as Rapoport argues the method is a fourth wave of following three earlier phases in which terrorism emanated from the breakup of empires, decolonization, and anti-Americanism (Rapoport, 2004, p.282).
However, international security has changed in nature after the Cold War. The Shift of global focus and attention from East-West to the North-South axis, along with the growing concern and skepticism about the states exploitation of other countries natural-resources. Using economics of warfare to analyze terrorism is simpler than one might expect. Stahel (2002) outlines two kinds of warfare, asymmetric and dissymmetric. The concept of asymmetric warfare contains ideas of fighting a war against a superior enemy. It involves classical theorems of guerilla warfare such as espionage, violent resistance, non-violent-resistance, sabotage, electronic and information warfare. Dissymmetric warfare is the product of employment of massive force by the stronger military power against the weaker opponent in a military conflict. These broad inclusive terms denote that two sides in a conflict have such drastically different strengths and weaknesses that they resort to drastically different (thus asymmetric) tactics to achieve relative advantage. This theory firmly explains terrorism behavior as rational if one takes the state as the superior actor and the terrorist as the inferior (Betts, 2002). Terrorists are consciously conducting asymmetric warfare.
Having established that economics play a large role when it comes to terrorism we can then conclude that the statement of victory in terms of an inferior actor lies in inflicting costs higher than the opposition are willing to accept. Hence, warfare must have low-cost and high-efficiency in order to achieve maximum impact (Bell, 1978).
However, success or failure of a terrorist attack is therefore dependant on the monetary value of the act itself (see Landes, 1978: in Sander and Hartley, 1995).
Terrorism occurs when the expected utility is greater than the utility expected without terrorism. We can then conclude that as mass media is not an independent factor by itself, it must be examined in its ability to either change the estimate of success and failure or increase or decrease the monetary value of the outcomes. It can be said that investigation is whether media can change the expected utility from terrorism thus increasing the possibility for it to occur.
The question then lies if there is a possibility of media to effect on terrorist decision-making, is this possibility crucial for the occurrence of terrorism?
The true cost of terrorism is in term of losses to the superior actor and in collateral damage can be altered by the media. If initial costs have heavy impact upon public opinion, causing popular opinion to change it, can be said that, there is a virtual cost added upon the true costs. This also argues a case for censorship of the media if the loss is not made public at all it only carries the purely psychical cost.
Media can create additional cost of terrorism upon superior actors, but is this cost vital to the act itself, is for instance the media’s effect calculated when executing the act of terror? If there were no media, would the attack still take place?
Strategies conclude that utility expected from attacks are greater when choosing asymmetric warfare (Lee, 1988: in Sander and Hartley, 1995).
As terrorism can be analyzed as war both in technical and political terms, interesting developments can be made. Applying our theory of terrorism on Warden’s (1995) warfare principles, that an inferior actor should be attacking from the middle and out. According to the theory's idea the circle with its five subcircles reflect the impact of the attack. The other circle affect fielded military, then population, furthermore, infrastructure, then system essentials and finally leadership achievement would be the maximum impact.
In this perspective, when terrorists attack upon a target they are not doing so solely because it carriers a media value, they are instead attacking an integral part of an enemy in order to inflict maximum costs. Looking at 9/11 we can see that the attack was aimed at all five levels of Wardens model.
Viewing terrorism from this model, we can conclude that attacks are not because they hold media value, but because they are strategically sound. Of course, impact was enormous, but this is a direct effect of an attack trying to achieve maximum cost. One other important issue to elaborate on is that all terrorist groups from Al-Qaeda to ETA have one trait in common: none commits actions randomly or senselessly. Each wants maximum publicity to be generated by its objectives. In the words of the late Dr Frederick Hacker, a psychiatrist and noted authority in terrorism, terrorists seek to ‘frighten and by frightening to dominate and control. They want to impress. They play to and for an audience, and solicit audience participation(Hoffman, 1998). Terrorism, therefore, may be seen as a violent act that is conceived specifically to attract attention and then, through the publicity it generates, to communicate a message, ‘There is no other way for us’ a leader of the United Red Army terrorist group once explained. ‘Violent actions…are shocking. We want to shock people; everywhere…It is our way of communicating with the people (Hoffman, 1998). The modern news media, as the principal conduit of information about such acts, thus play a vital part in the terrorist calculus. Indeed, without the media’s coverage the act’s impact is arguable wasted, remaining narrowly confined to the immediate victims of the attack rather then reaching the wider ‘target audience’ at whom the terrorist violence is actually aimed (ibid). With this media coverage the terrorist can reach a larger audience, also increase the chance of political change. ‘Terrorism is theatre’, Jenkins famously said in his 1974 paper, explaining how ‘terrorist attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press’ (ibid).
After 9/11 which led to around 3000 fatalities the countries of the industrialized West had enjoyed the reassurance of the great power peace, with the end of the Cold War appearing to bring an end to the long historical era of the constant threat of, and preparation for large-scale interstate war. Kirshheimer’s ‘end of ideology’, Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ and Huntington’s ‘Clash of civilizations’ all commonly mention the change the world is about to face or is already facing. Furthermore, all states – whether authoritarian or democratic, traditional or modern, religious or secular – fear being their targets. After the 9/11 attack Bush led America towards the ‘war on terror’; one root for United States failure that was the assumption that the terrorist attacks increasing is primarily due to the visceral and unconditional hatred of the US and its values. The second belief that the principal reason for the US vulnerability was its unwillingness to assert the freedom consonant with its power and interest, and its subjection to a variety of constraints, including the demands of allies, multilateral regimes and institutions, and international law (Dannreuter 2007, p.166). This was the start of a long lasting strategy that may eventually lead into the worldwide economic meltdown we face today.
The concepts of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ have put media in an influencing role towards the popular media. With the increasing number of individuals reading the newspaper due to the Internet, media play a more vital role when communicating the method of terrorism than before. The American media’s coverage of the hijacking of TWA flight 847 by Lebanese Shi’a terrorist in 1985 amply confirms that media coverage affect people’s emotions, public opinion but also highlights the censorship the media produce with help from the government (Hoffman, 1998). Indeed, on average two-thirds of NBC, CBS and ABC’s broadcasting news was covering the hijacking. Their ‘real news’ was put aside to increase the public hysteria about the terrorist threat the world is facing today (Hoffman 1998). Like today the terrorists knew that they could proceed ‘to challenge America, to humiliate Americans’, because they knew that the supine media would provide them with unlimited publicity and perhaps even some form of advocacy (Chomsky, 1986). Media’s ability to encourage terrorist may be limited but for sure one could argue that the actual impact and cost the terrorist act will generate is depending on the media’s average percentage of news covering the acts itself.
It is not a coincidence that terrorist aim their weapons towards United States and its allies because responses to 9/11 similarly suggest that, while there is recognition that a collective international response to Al-Qaeda is essential, it is states, rather than non-state institutions and groups, who coordinate and oversee this response (Dannreuter 2007, p.26). We can see that terrorist attacks has increased since the 9/11 but relatively seen; is this media’s or United States foreign policy strategy fault?
When President Clinton left office his popularity was 68 % among the American citizens. George W. Bush’s popularity on the other hand, is only 23 % and still decreasing. One could argue that Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs were financial resources is number one to affect individual behaviour. Since the “war on terror” and the crash of the United States house market may be the causes of the economic and financial meltdown therefore, public opinion may agree to sacrifice national security but actually supply your families with food on their tables?
On the other hand, have liberal democracies been particularly vulnerable when weakened by ethnic or religious conflict, by military defeat, by major economic crisis or by an erosion of popular support for democratic values. These states face a much greater economic and social stress. Their difficulties are exacerbated by shortages of resources, expertise and popular legitimacy, and such regimes are particularly open to terrorist attacks (Wilkinson, 1974).
However, governments and mass media from past lessons of terrorist campaigns show that it would be wise to bear in mind certain fundamental ground rules. They should not, for instance, blackmail or intimidate terrorists but secondly assure the citizens that the state can provide security for its population. Lastly and most important by the government and media must seek to avoid alienating the support of the mass of the population (Wilkinson, 1974). Following these ground rules that Wilkinson praise will help the state not to weaken its position.
In conclusion media do not have the affect on terrorists to stop terrorize the state. Their method is working to some extent especially affecting one’s target state foreign affairs strategy and fulfills its political change the individual seeking or aiming for. On the other hand media one could argue, do affect the actual impact of Warden’s five levels of destruction. Furthermore, if terrorists seek media attention and are given after an attack, their act will be seen as successful so, by not outnumber other ‘real news’ media, have the ability to affect the scale of an attack. With today’s worldwide Internet accessibility to anyone at anytime the support and especially funding of terrorism acts may increase. On the other hand Muslims for instance in Afghanistan where the literacy level is low can not see the difference from attacking a state for a religious or political purpose. But, however, the ‘CNN affect’ in other words may increase the number of casualties from a terrorist attack if international press exaggerating the hatred towards terrorism and ‘war on terror’. Out of this it is clear that media as the ‘voice of the people’ encourages the scale of the terrorist attack but not the actual terrorist attack in itself.
There are several views on media and terrorism, but there is a common academic view that; getting the political statement behind terrorism through is more important, than the act itself. In this essay I will examine if media encourages terrorism or if media is the cause of terrorism and without it there would be no terror? This relationship between media and terrorism is highly contested and a debated political issue. Also known, terrorism is a low cost and high-efficiency weapon to fight an otherwise superior enemy.
In short, media is not the essential factor for terrorist acts but an instrument to change the likelihood of terrorist occurrence and the direct cost the actual act generate. One could argue, on the other hand though that, terrorism would occur even if the media did not exist.
According to Cooper (1991) mass media’s function is to inform and be accessible to all citizens. It also plays an important role when it comes to educating other individuals. Thirdly, media should be a platform for public political discourse. As being the “watchdog” and give publicity to governmental and political institutions, media’s influence over the public sphere is massive. Public opinion can therefore only matter to the extent that the acts of whoever holds supreme power are made available for public scrutiny, meaning how far they are visible, ascertainable, accessible, and hence accountable (Bobbio, 1987, p.83). As Mikhail Gorbachev states, the media must have “a degree of ‘openness’ surrounding the activities of the political class if the ‘public opinions’ of the people are to have any bearing on decision-making” (Cooper, 1991).
Thus media style it selves as the ‘voice of the people’ are more effective at ensuring democratic accountability than the arrangements formally designated for this purpose (Street, 2001, p.7). The mass media on the other hand, does not simply cover observable events and report facts; it animates them by turning them into narratives with plots and actors (Street, 2005, p.36). Two good examples of this is, terrorism that appears as nothing more than ‘psychotic behavior’ and enemies of the state tend to demonize in ways that, reinforce their illegitimacy and deny rationality to their actions like as Saddam Hussein, portrayed as a modern ‘Hitler’ (Said, 2000).
For the second concept to be explained I believe a good starting point is to recognize that terrorism, unlike liberalism, communism or conservatism is not an ideology but a method; a method of political violence. Historically, the first terrorist act was first seen during the French Revolution. It has been a tactic utilized by a wide array of ideological movements: states, ethno-nationalists, religious and millenarian movements, extreme left wing, right-wing groups, single issue fanatics such as anti-abortionists and animal-rights movements, have all variously engaged in terrorism at certain times (Wilkinson, 2003 and Dannreuter, 2007).
Another common definition of terrorism – is an act of violence for political means and closely similar to the classical military proposition of Karl von Clausewitz (1976) that: war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means. This, in contrast to the framework of terrorism, of the perceived inability to reach one’s goal through more conventional means. On the other hand “one’s mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Dannreuter 2007, p.167) highlights the divide between those who see terrorism as malicious but others as striving for justice of the cause it promotes. Furthermore, terrorism always has a political nature (Brown, 2003, p.281). It seeks political change and has its roots in justice or at least someone’s perception of justice. The method target innocents and as Rapoport argues the method is a fourth wave of following three earlier phases in which terrorism emanated from the breakup of empires, decolonization, and anti-Americanism (Rapoport, 2004, p.282).
However, international security has changed in nature after the Cold War. The Shift of global focus and attention from East-West to the North-South axis, along with the growing concern and skepticism about the states exploitation of other countries natural-resources. Using economics of warfare to analyze terrorism is simpler than one might expect. Stahel (2002) outlines two kinds of warfare, asymmetric and dissymmetric. The concept of asymmetric warfare contains ideas of fighting a war against a superior enemy. It involves classical theorems of guerilla warfare such as espionage, violent resistance, non-violent-resistance, sabotage, electronic and information warfare. Dissymmetric warfare is the product of employment of massive force by the stronger military power against the weaker opponent in a military conflict. These broad inclusive terms denote that two sides in a conflict have such drastically different strengths and weaknesses that they resort to drastically different (thus asymmetric) tactics to achieve relative advantage. This theory firmly explains terrorism behavior as rational if one takes the state as the superior actor and the terrorist as the inferior (Betts, 2002). Terrorists are consciously conducting asymmetric warfare.
Having established that economics play a large role when it comes to terrorism we can then conclude that the statement of victory in terms of an inferior actor lies in inflicting costs higher than the opposition are willing to accept. Hence, warfare must have low-cost and high-efficiency in order to achieve maximum impact (Bell, 1978).
However, success or failure of a terrorist attack is therefore dependant on the monetary value of the act itself (see Landes, 1978: in Sander and Hartley, 1995).
Terrorism occurs when the expected utility is greater than the utility expected without terrorism. We can then conclude that as mass media is not an independent factor by itself, it must be examined in its ability to either change the estimate of success and failure or increase or decrease the monetary value of the outcomes. It can be said that investigation is whether media can change the expected utility from terrorism thus increasing the possibility for it to occur.
The question then lies if there is a possibility of media to effect on terrorist decision-making, is this possibility crucial for the occurrence of terrorism?
The true cost of terrorism is in term of losses to the superior actor and in collateral damage can be altered by the media. If initial costs have heavy impact upon public opinion, causing popular opinion to change it, can be said that, there is a virtual cost added upon the true costs. This also argues a case for censorship of the media if the loss is not made public at all it only carries the purely psychical cost.
Media can create additional cost of terrorism upon superior actors, but is this cost vital to the act itself, is for instance the media’s effect calculated when executing the act of terror? If there were no media, would the attack still take place?
Strategies conclude that utility expected from attacks are greater when choosing asymmetric warfare (Lee, 1988: in Sander and Hartley, 1995).
As terrorism can be analyzed as war both in technical and political terms, interesting developments can be made. Applying our theory of terrorism on Warden’s (1995) warfare principles, that an inferior actor should be attacking from the middle and out. According to the theory's idea the circle with its five subcircles reflect the impact of the attack. The other circle affect fielded military, then population, furthermore, infrastructure, then system essentials and finally leadership achievement would be the maximum impact.
In this perspective, when terrorists attack upon a target they are not doing so solely because it carriers a media value, they are instead attacking an integral part of an enemy in order to inflict maximum costs. Looking at 9/11 we can see that the attack was aimed at all five levels of Wardens model.
Viewing terrorism from this model, we can conclude that attacks are not because they hold media value, but because they are strategically sound. Of course, impact was enormous, but this is a direct effect of an attack trying to achieve maximum cost. One other important issue to elaborate on is that all terrorist groups from Al-Qaeda to ETA have one trait in common: none commits actions randomly or senselessly. Each wants maximum publicity to be generated by its objectives. In the words of the late Dr Frederick Hacker, a psychiatrist and noted authority in terrorism, terrorists seek to ‘frighten and by frightening to dominate and control. They want to impress. They play to and for an audience, and solicit audience participation(Hoffman, 1998). Terrorism, therefore, may be seen as a violent act that is conceived specifically to attract attention and then, through the publicity it generates, to communicate a message, ‘There is no other way for us’ a leader of the United Red Army terrorist group once explained. ‘Violent actions…are shocking. We want to shock people; everywhere…It is our way of communicating with the people (Hoffman, 1998). The modern news media, as the principal conduit of information about such acts, thus play a vital part in the terrorist calculus. Indeed, without the media’s coverage the act’s impact is arguable wasted, remaining narrowly confined to the immediate victims of the attack rather then reaching the wider ‘target audience’ at whom the terrorist violence is actually aimed (ibid). With this media coverage the terrorist can reach a larger audience, also increase the chance of political change. ‘Terrorism is theatre’, Jenkins famously said in his 1974 paper, explaining how ‘terrorist attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press’ (ibid).
After 9/11 which led to around 3000 fatalities the countries of the industrialized West had enjoyed the reassurance of the great power peace, with the end of the Cold War appearing to bring an end to the long historical era of the constant threat of, and preparation for large-scale interstate war. Kirshheimer’s ‘end of ideology’, Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ and Huntington’s ‘Clash of civilizations’ all commonly mention the change the world is about to face or is already facing. Furthermore, all states – whether authoritarian or democratic, traditional or modern, religious or secular – fear being their targets. After the 9/11 attack Bush led America towards the ‘war on terror’; one root for United States failure that was the assumption that the terrorist attacks increasing is primarily due to the visceral and unconditional hatred of the US and its values. The second belief that the principal reason for the US vulnerability was its unwillingness to assert the freedom consonant with its power and interest, and its subjection to a variety of constraints, including the demands of allies, multilateral regimes and institutions, and international law (Dannreuter 2007, p.166). This was the start of a long lasting strategy that may eventually lead into the worldwide economic meltdown we face today.
The concepts of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ have put media in an influencing role towards the popular media. With the increasing number of individuals reading the newspaper due to the Internet, media play a more vital role when communicating the method of terrorism than before. The American media’s coverage of the hijacking of TWA flight 847 by Lebanese Shi’a terrorist in 1985 amply confirms that media coverage affect people’s emotions, public opinion but also highlights the censorship the media produce with help from the government (Hoffman, 1998). Indeed, on average two-thirds of NBC, CBS and ABC’s broadcasting news was covering the hijacking. Their ‘real news’ was put aside to increase the public hysteria about the terrorist threat the world is facing today (Hoffman 1998). Like today the terrorists knew that they could proceed ‘to challenge America, to humiliate Americans’, because they knew that the supine media would provide them with unlimited publicity and perhaps even some form of advocacy (Chomsky, 1986). Media’s ability to encourage terrorist may be limited but for sure one could argue that the actual impact and cost the terrorist act will generate is depending on the media’s average percentage of news covering the acts itself.
It is not a coincidence that terrorist aim their weapons towards United States and its allies because responses to 9/11 similarly suggest that, while there is recognition that a collective international response to Al-Qaeda is essential, it is states, rather than non-state institutions and groups, who coordinate and oversee this response (Dannreuter 2007, p.26). We can see that terrorist attacks has increased since the 9/11 but relatively seen; is this media’s or United States foreign policy strategy fault?
When President Clinton left office his popularity was 68 % among the American citizens. George W. Bush’s popularity on the other hand, is only 23 % and still decreasing. One could argue that Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs were financial resources is number one to affect individual behaviour. Since the “war on terror” and the crash of the United States house market may be the causes of the economic and financial meltdown therefore, public opinion may agree to sacrifice national security but actually supply your families with food on their tables?
On the other hand, have liberal democracies been particularly vulnerable when weakened by ethnic or religious conflict, by military defeat, by major economic crisis or by an erosion of popular support for democratic values. These states face a much greater economic and social stress. Their difficulties are exacerbated by shortages of resources, expertise and popular legitimacy, and such regimes are particularly open to terrorist attacks (Wilkinson, 1974).
However, governments and mass media from past lessons of terrorist campaigns show that it would be wise to bear in mind certain fundamental ground rules. They should not, for instance, blackmail or intimidate terrorists but secondly assure the citizens that the state can provide security for its population. Lastly and most important by the government and media must seek to avoid alienating the support of the mass of the population (Wilkinson, 1974). Following these ground rules that Wilkinson praise will help the state not to weaken its position.
In conclusion media do not have the affect on terrorists to stop terrorize the state. Their method is working to some extent especially affecting one’s target state foreign affairs strategy and fulfills its political change the individual seeking or aiming for. On the other hand media one could argue, do affect the actual impact of Warden’s five levels of destruction. Furthermore, if terrorists seek media attention and are given after an attack, their act will be seen as successful so, by not outnumber other ‘real news’ media, have the ability to affect the scale of an attack. With today’s worldwide Internet accessibility to anyone at anytime the support and especially funding of terrorism acts may increase. On the other hand Muslims for instance in Afghanistan where the literacy level is low can not see the difference from attacking a state for a religious or political purpose. But, however, the ‘CNN affect’ in other words may increase the number of casualties from a terrorist attack if international press exaggerating the hatred towards terrorism and ‘war on terror’. Out of this it is clear that media as the ‘voice of the people’ encourages the scale of the terrorist attack but not the actual terrorist attack in itself.
Why have Green Parties made such a small impact on party systems? – Investigation of Green Parties in UK, Germany and Sweden
In Europe, the Green Parties (Greens) began to take shape in the 1970s and 1980s as a “new social movement” campaigning against the supposed unsustainability and exploitative nature of growth-oriented economic development sought parliamentary representation. Their post-materialist values focus on less emphasis on material goods, more individualism, self-realization and self-determination. Mobilized masses favoured quality of life instead of the standard of living and this set their agenda in opposition to nuclear power, anti-militarism and anti-discrimination (Bale, 2005, p.116). Issues like air and water pollution and the preservation of scarce resources have entered the political debate and have politicised opinions mainly among younger, middle class and urban highly-educated in United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden (UGS). This essay will cover Green parties in the mentioned three different countries and how they affected the party systems.
Before continuing the essay a key concept, party system, has to be defined.
Most democracies have many parties, and each country has it own unique combination of them. Nonetheless, parties of democratic countries have two major features in common. Firstly, they often group into party-families and secondly they form party systems. Since large parties are built upon political cleavages, there is a connection between the number of cleavages and the number of parties (Bale, 2007, p.225). Nations with one main cleavage –usually class – tend to have two main parties, one on the centre-left and one on the centre-right. Nations with two main cleavages – class and religion for example – tend to have three main parties, one to represent the middle class and its main religion, and two others to represent the working class and its different religious or secular values. According to Inglehart, (1977) historically formed party identifications affect the average voter when the individual deciding whether to vote “Left” or “Right” that furthermore has an impact on the Green parties electoral success. This association between the number of cleavages and parties is expressed by the formula:
P = C + 1
Where P stand for the number of parties and C, for the number of cleavages.
Because there is usually room only for one party to articulate one side of a cleavage, we rarely find more than one large party at the same side (Bale, 2007). Green Parties in most scenarios are “new social” movements closer to the Social Democrats or other established left-wing parties.
Hague (2007) distinguish between three different forms of party systems. In Japan for instance the dominant party systems exist were only one predominant party is in control and in USA or UK “two party system” is the current structure were one party, form a government. Last, in a “multi-party system” smaller parties compete to form coalition government with a common goal, such as reaching above 50 percents majority like in Sweden or Germany. As we can see in the first two scenarios, minority parties like the Greens, have difficulties and limited possibilities to influence. The UK is a primary example of this.
Like Duvarger (1954), Kirchheimer (1979) was concerned with a contrast between two types of parties. He referred to the “mass integration party” on the one hand, and the new “catch-all-party” on the other. Kirchheimer continues and argue that the West European systems face more or less an irresistible rise of the catch-all-party with characteristics like: drastic reduction of party’s ideological baggage, downgrading the role of the individual party member and de-emphasis on the social-class in favour, to recruit voters among the population at large (Mair, 1990, p.5). On the other hand these characteristics are clearly against the environmentalist movement thoughts and ideas. Their ideological core values were established party families by their ecologically oriented disposition, an anti professional, participatory and decentralised attitude towards party organization, and a close link to the new social movements in 1960s (Burchell, 2002, p.43). They established firstly on local level debating about parks and cycle-tracks but furthermore emerged as an opposition to nuclear power-plants, NATO’s stationing of cruise-missiles and antiwar movement that a few years later entered National governments with a common goal to change people’s perspectives (Müller-Rommel and Poguntke, 2002).
Why is value change taking place? According to Inglehart (1977) it seems to be linked with a cluster of socio-economic changes including rising levels of education, shifts in the occupational structure, and the development of increasingly broad and effective mass communications networks (Mair, 1990, p.248). In short, people are safe and they have enough to eat. These two basic needs have far-reaching implications. Abraham Maslow (1954) argues that people act to fulfil a number of different needs, which are particularly connected with enough food supplies and economic security. When these requirements are fulfilled then other needs become increasingly important. Environmental issues has high priority when the basic needs are fulfilled and in this case it is clear that during the 1980s after the nuclear reactors exploded 1986 in Chernobyl, people in UGS got reminded of the importance of the survival of nature. At the same time “caring-services” such as health and education was produced and therefore a generation with its basic needs satisfied led people to pursue “higher order” values beyond the satisfaction of material wants (Eatwell and Wright, 1999, p.233).
Furthermore, post-material thoughts emerged during this period and it clearly affected the success of the Green Parties in UGS. The Swedish Miljöpartiet (Green party), gained in 1988 election 5,5% (20 seats), and in Germany Die Grünen gained 8,3% (44 seats) of the national vote. In UK the Green party received an impressive 14,9%. But did this have any impact on the party system?
In order to evaluate this claim we must understand the vital role the electoral system has on the success of the Green parties in each country. In single-member district systems such as the UK, and even in single-member portion of the German electoral system, Green parties have been able to elect only a handful of members to the lower houses. In the most recent German Bundestag elections, the Green party only managed to capture one seat through the districted electoral-method. However, Die Grünen, was more successful in the PR portion of the electoral system (Adams, 2003, p.15).
The general election of 1993 and the European election of 1994 brought low electoral support which was likely a consequence of the British majority electoral system, where smaller and minority parties stand hardly any chance of winning seats in the National parliament but also discourages people to vote for the Greens because the vote may be wasted (Müller-Rommel, 1994). In 1989, in the European election, the British Greens gained surprisingly 10,4% of the votes but no seat. So the question lies if there is a possibility that minority parties will ever affect the party system in UK were the system is designed to minimize small parties impact and participation in order to provide strong government (Adams, 2003, p.17). The Green party at the time was the third largest party with 20,000-strong party membership but still ended with zero seats in the lower house (Talshir, 2002, p.225).
Nonetheless, in PR system in Sweden for instance, the Green Miljöpartiet gained 5,5% of the parliamentary presence and was not large enough to cause government difficulties for the ruling Social Demokraterna party and Vansterpartiet that, gained above 50% of the majority votes in 1988 election (Rihoux and Rüdig, 2006).
Political success in this case is defined as Green parties concentration in a national parliament measured by the proportion of “Green seats” in relation to the total seats in a national government. Furthermore, for the strategy of the Green parties focusing on vote-seeking, office-seeking and policy-seeking the challenge depends on four characteristics; tolerating a minority-government without taking office like in Sweden, and co-opted into government and sometimes remained there without showing any strong Green presence and, participation in pre-coalition to secure seats and last, post-electoral negotiating position (Rihoux and Rüdig, 2006). The Green Parties in UGS took over large established parties traditional role of “normal life” as human rights advocate, women’s programme, internationalism, unilateral disarmament, ecology and ecology. This shift of emphasis towards a strong profile as a social-justice party was to dominate Green politics and creating a role for them in UK, Sweden and Germany (Talshir, 2002). This post-materialistic way of thinking mobilized large groups in each country and generated support rapidly.
Having established that the Green Parties in these three countries completed successful elections in the late 1980s problems was yet to occur. A small party, representing powerful and dominant interests in society is likely to be treated differently than a party representing interests that are considered marginal. The core identity of the Greens defines them as defenders of the public interests without a well-defined constituency: everybody benefits from the protection of the global environment and, paradoxically following the logic of collection actions, this should mean that the Greens would have difficulty mobilizing support for the public good. But, during the 1990s environmental issues emerged as mainstream thoughts and in “multi party” systems parties changed strategy and became “catch-all-parties” and the environmental issues were taken into account on the political agenda. Clearly, as a consequence of this, the outcome was that Green Parties in UGS perceived lack of responsiveness and could either fundamentally change their policy approach and transform their party away from their ideological core values like in Germany or like the Swedish Miljöpartiet who remained a grass-roots, decentralised and confederated organisation that was unable to translate popular support into electoral success and existed without any alignment with the “left” parties (Müller-Rommel, 1994). An outcome of this is that, decentralized, grass-roots parties seem unable to manage sustained viability in the face of large, national, centralized, and catch-all parties that are capable of governing, providing a single national party-label and list of candidates, and raise money to advertise, campaign and compete (Adams, 2003).
No Green party in Sweden or UK have played such a vital role in the party system as Die Grünen in Germany. The centralizing reforms of the Green Party, including providing a single national Green party leader in Joschka Fischer, provided the mechanism that allowed the Greens to form a coalition government with the SPD under Schröder (Adams, 2003). Without the centralized and unified party structure of the Die Grünen, the SPD could not definitely count upon maintaining its coalition with the Greens and would have had to seek out a coalition with the Free Democrats. The party had never before played an role at a federal level just because it abandoned any notion of pushing for a radical, paradigmatic policy change like ecological proposals that had survived in the party since the beginning (Müller-Rommel and Poguntke, 2002). The important point here is that before 1998, government change in post-war Germany had always involved change of coalition partner. Instead, government change had meant that one government coalition-partner dropped out to be replaced by another. In the past, the liberal FDP had been able to decide which larger party it was prepared to heave into government and the Greens had potentially threatened the FDP’s monopoly (Müller-Rommel and Poguntke, 2002). The interesting part here is that a Green party had disrupted the party system. Usually Germany consisted of a three party system and the Liberal democrats formed a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour, but now a fourth party destroyed the party system (Blüdorn, pers. Comm., 15th April 2008). On the other hand this happened only during the 1998 election but still not to forget was that, a Green party that was forced to take a broader range of policy ideas and programs to maintain their existence actually had an impact on government participation and party system. Moreover, the electoral support halved and the Greens suffered he gravest political crisis in their history.
Green parties on the other hand find difficulties in the UK because of the electoral system but in Germany and Sweden because of the 5% and 4% threshold that exist to keep extremist parties away. Sartori (1976) argues that “the critical factor in altering the nature of a party system and in bringing about its structural consolidation is the appearance of the mass party” and by this it is clear that catch-allism to maximise parties vote-seeking make, voters affiliate with larger established parties instead of the Greens (Mair, 1990). Despite the rapid expansion of environmental issues and awareness that increased in the electoral support in UK in the late 1980s, the Green Party was still isolated from the party system. The Labour and Conservatives incorporated environmental issues into their political agenda instead of forming a relationship with the Green Party (Burchell, 2002). An example of this was in 1988 when Thatcher held and speech to the Royal Society and introduced a White Paper entitled Our Common Inheritance which would “set the environmental agenda until the end of the century” (ibid). Similar assimilation of green issues into the platform of catch-all parties role existed in Germany and Sweden as well.
Probably the greatest threat to all post-material parties in UGS is the domination of political system by the traditional left-centre-right catch-all parties. These parties with strong national, regional, and local organization, large fundraising capabilities, professionalized campaign staffs and often favoured by electoral laws constitute the greatest threat to post-materialist parties (Adams, 2003). Fischer in Germany solved this when he transformed the Greens and for the first time the Die Grünen received 50,000 D-Mark from the state (Müller-Rommel and Poguntke, 2002).
In order to affect the party system the party needs to gain votes. Without votes a party wont gain seats in the government. For a Green party to generate votes it has to be a public mainstream support like, the anti-nuclear movement during the 1980s or as today global warming in order to mobilize masses. Voters on the other hand look for other policies on the political agenda and if Green parties are not willing to transform its agenda like SPD in Germany then the Green party will loose electoral support. But, changing core values also affect core-voters like the young, middle-class and rural high-educated. Whatever the parties strategy will be the catch 22 situation will occur.
Green parties cannot on the other hand rule the government by itself because lack of support so this ever-ending searches for a coalition partner will dominate the agenda setting. Despite problems like thresholds and electoral systems the post-material thought may still play a significant role in UGS because of the media coverage.
Not surprisingly, green economics is characterised as no-growth economics as in the society we live in today were profit maximisation is key to success has furthermore lead to that people do not vote for Green Parties because their political agenda do not fulfil their basic needs. Electoral votes are keys for Green parties if they should make any impact on a party system. But, in UK, Germany and Sweden the electoral system, thresholds, and catch-allism has played a major role for the Greens electoral results. The environmental protection movement has gained massive support and mobilized groups and the outcome of this has lead to that mass-parties has implemented these ideas in their political agenda and as Kirshheimer’s “catch-all-parties” system has affected Green parties electoral support negatively. In order for Green parties to maintain their support and responsiveness in UGS, the party has to transform and centralize to generate and maximise electoral votes. Green political parties, pressure groups and media coverage have certainly made an impact, as have exhortations to change lifestyles either in home or in sustainable communities in UGS but yet, party system structure, “lost vote” syndrome, electoral system, high thresholds, kidnapping of green agenda, industrialism and profit maximisation remains the practise across most of the planet therefore, has not Green parties made an impact on party system.
Before continuing the essay a key concept, party system, has to be defined.
Most democracies have many parties, and each country has it own unique combination of them. Nonetheless, parties of democratic countries have two major features in common. Firstly, they often group into party-families and secondly they form party systems. Since large parties are built upon political cleavages, there is a connection between the number of cleavages and the number of parties (Bale, 2007, p.225). Nations with one main cleavage –usually class – tend to have two main parties, one on the centre-left and one on the centre-right. Nations with two main cleavages – class and religion for example – tend to have three main parties, one to represent the middle class and its main religion, and two others to represent the working class and its different religious or secular values. According to Inglehart, (1977) historically formed party identifications affect the average voter when the individual deciding whether to vote “Left” or “Right” that furthermore has an impact on the Green parties electoral success. This association between the number of cleavages and parties is expressed by the formula:
P = C + 1
Where P stand for the number of parties and C, for the number of cleavages.
Because there is usually room only for one party to articulate one side of a cleavage, we rarely find more than one large party at the same side (Bale, 2007). Green Parties in most scenarios are “new social” movements closer to the Social Democrats or other established left-wing parties.
Hague (2007) distinguish between three different forms of party systems. In Japan for instance the dominant party systems exist were only one predominant party is in control and in USA or UK “two party system” is the current structure were one party, form a government. Last, in a “multi-party system” smaller parties compete to form coalition government with a common goal, such as reaching above 50 percents majority like in Sweden or Germany. As we can see in the first two scenarios, minority parties like the Greens, have difficulties and limited possibilities to influence. The UK is a primary example of this.
Like Duvarger (1954), Kirchheimer (1979) was concerned with a contrast between two types of parties. He referred to the “mass integration party” on the one hand, and the new “catch-all-party” on the other. Kirchheimer continues and argue that the West European systems face more or less an irresistible rise of the catch-all-party with characteristics like: drastic reduction of party’s ideological baggage, downgrading the role of the individual party member and de-emphasis on the social-class in favour, to recruit voters among the population at large (Mair, 1990, p.5). On the other hand these characteristics are clearly against the environmentalist movement thoughts and ideas. Their ideological core values were established party families by their ecologically oriented disposition, an anti professional, participatory and decentralised attitude towards party organization, and a close link to the new social movements in 1960s (Burchell, 2002, p.43). They established firstly on local level debating about parks and cycle-tracks but furthermore emerged as an opposition to nuclear power-plants, NATO’s stationing of cruise-missiles and antiwar movement that a few years later entered National governments with a common goal to change people’s perspectives (Müller-Rommel and Poguntke, 2002).
Why is value change taking place? According to Inglehart (1977) it seems to be linked with a cluster of socio-economic changes including rising levels of education, shifts in the occupational structure, and the development of increasingly broad and effective mass communications networks (Mair, 1990, p.248). In short, people are safe and they have enough to eat. These two basic needs have far-reaching implications. Abraham Maslow (1954) argues that people act to fulfil a number of different needs, which are particularly connected with enough food supplies and economic security. When these requirements are fulfilled then other needs become increasingly important. Environmental issues has high priority when the basic needs are fulfilled and in this case it is clear that during the 1980s after the nuclear reactors exploded 1986 in Chernobyl, people in UGS got reminded of the importance of the survival of nature. At the same time “caring-services” such as health and education was produced and therefore a generation with its basic needs satisfied led people to pursue “higher order” values beyond the satisfaction of material wants (Eatwell and Wright, 1999, p.233).
Furthermore, post-material thoughts emerged during this period and it clearly affected the success of the Green Parties in UGS. The Swedish Miljöpartiet (Green party), gained in 1988 election 5,5% (20 seats), and in Germany Die Grünen gained 8,3% (44 seats) of the national vote. In UK the Green party received an impressive 14,9%. But did this have any impact on the party system?
In order to evaluate this claim we must understand the vital role the electoral system has on the success of the Green parties in each country. In single-member district systems such as the UK, and even in single-member portion of the German electoral system, Green parties have been able to elect only a handful of members to the lower houses. In the most recent German Bundestag elections, the Green party only managed to capture one seat through the districted electoral-method. However, Die Grünen, was more successful in the PR portion of the electoral system (Adams, 2003, p.15).
The general election of 1993 and the European election of 1994 brought low electoral support which was likely a consequence of the British majority electoral system, where smaller and minority parties stand hardly any chance of winning seats in the National parliament but also discourages people to vote for the Greens because the vote may be wasted (Müller-Rommel, 1994). In 1989, in the European election, the British Greens gained surprisingly 10,4% of the votes but no seat. So the question lies if there is a possibility that minority parties will ever affect the party system in UK were the system is designed to minimize small parties impact and participation in order to provide strong government (Adams, 2003, p.17). The Green party at the time was the third largest party with 20,000-strong party membership but still ended with zero seats in the lower house (Talshir, 2002, p.225).
Nonetheless, in PR system in Sweden for instance, the Green Miljöpartiet gained 5,5% of the parliamentary presence and was not large enough to cause government difficulties for the ruling Social Demokraterna party and Vansterpartiet that, gained above 50% of the majority votes in 1988 election (Rihoux and Rüdig, 2006).
Political success in this case is defined as Green parties concentration in a national parliament measured by the proportion of “Green seats” in relation to the total seats in a national government. Furthermore, for the strategy of the Green parties focusing on vote-seeking, office-seeking and policy-seeking the challenge depends on four characteristics; tolerating a minority-government without taking office like in Sweden, and co-opted into government and sometimes remained there without showing any strong Green presence and, participation in pre-coalition to secure seats and last, post-electoral negotiating position (Rihoux and Rüdig, 2006). The Green Parties in UGS took over large established parties traditional role of “normal life” as human rights advocate, women’s programme, internationalism, unilateral disarmament, ecology and ecology. This shift of emphasis towards a strong profile as a social-justice party was to dominate Green politics and creating a role for them in UK, Sweden and Germany (Talshir, 2002). This post-materialistic way of thinking mobilized large groups in each country and generated support rapidly.
Having established that the Green Parties in these three countries completed successful elections in the late 1980s problems was yet to occur. A small party, representing powerful and dominant interests in society is likely to be treated differently than a party representing interests that are considered marginal. The core identity of the Greens defines them as defenders of the public interests without a well-defined constituency: everybody benefits from the protection of the global environment and, paradoxically following the logic of collection actions, this should mean that the Greens would have difficulty mobilizing support for the public good. But, during the 1990s environmental issues emerged as mainstream thoughts and in “multi party” systems parties changed strategy and became “catch-all-parties” and the environmental issues were taken into account on the political agenda. Clearly, as a consequence of this, the outcome was that Green Parties in UGS perceived lack of responsiveness and could either fundamentally change their policy approach and transform their party away from their ideological core values like in Germany or like the Swedish Miljöpartiet who remained a grass-roots, decentralised and confederated organisation that was unable to translate popular support into electoral success and existed without any alignment with the “left” parties (Müller-Rommel, 1994). An outcome of this is that, decentralized, grass-roots parties seem unable to manage sustained viability in the face of large, national, centralized, and catch-all parties that are capable of governing, providing a single national party-label and list of candidates, and raise money to advertise, campaign and compete (Adams, 2003).
No Green party in Sweden or UK have played such a vital role in the party system as Die Grünen in Germany. The centralizing reforms of the Green Party, including providing a single national Green party leader in Joschka Fischer, provided the mechanism that allowed the Greens to form a coalition government with the SPD under Schröder (Adams, 2003). Without the centralized and unified party structure of the Die Grünen, the SPD could not definitely count upon maintaining its coalition with the Greens and would have had to seek out a coalition with the Free Democrats. The party had never before played an role at a federal level just because it abandoned any notion of pushing for a radical, paradigmatic policy change like ecological proposals that had survived in the party since the beginning (Müller-Rommel and Poguntke, 2002). The important point here is that before 1998, government change in post-war Germany had always involved change of coalition partner. Instead, government change had meant that one government coalition-partner dropped out to be replaced by another. In the past, the liberal FDP had been able to decide which larger party it was prepared to heave into government and the Greens had potentially threatened the FDP’s monopoly (Müller-Rommel and Poguntke, 2002). The interesting part here is that a Green party had disrupted the party system. Usually Germany consisted of a three party system and the Liberal democrats formed a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour, but now a fourth party destroyed the party system (Blüdorn, pers. Comm., 15th April 2008). On the other hand this happened only during the 1998 election but still not to forget was that, a Green party that was forced to take a broader range of policy ideas and programs to maintain their existence actually had an impact on government participation and party system. Moreover, the electoral support halved and the Greens suffered he gravest political crisis in their history.
Green parties on the other hand find difficulties in the UK because of the electoral system but in Germany and Sweden because of the 5% and 4% threshold that exist to keep extremist parties away. Sartori (1976) argues that “the critical factor in altering the nature of a party system and in bringing about its structural consolidation is the appearance of the mass party” and by this it is clear that catch-allism to maximise parties vote-seeking make, voters affiliate with larger established parties instead of the Greens (Mair, 1990). Despite the rapid expansion of environmental issues and awareness that increased in the electoral support in UK in the late 1980s, the Green Party was still isolated from the party system. The Labour and Conservatives incorporated environmental issues into their political agenda instead of forming a relationship with the Green Party (Burchell, 2002). An example of this was in 1988 when Thatcher held and speech to the Royal Society and introduced a White Paper entitled Our Common Inheritance which would “set the environmental agenda until the end of the century” (ibid). Similar assimilation of green issues into the platform of catch-all parties role existed in Germany and Sweden as well.
Probably the greatest threat to all post-material parties in UGS is the domination of political system by the traditional left-centre-right catch-all parties. These parties with strong national, regional, and local organization, large fundraising capabilities, professionalized campaign staffs and often favoured by electoral laws constitute the greatest threat to post-materialist parties (Adams, 2003). Fischer in Germany solved this when he transformed the Greens and for the first time the Die Grünen received 50,000 D-Mark from the state (Müller-Rommel and Poguntke, 2002).
In order to affect the party system the party needs to gain votes. Without votes a party wont gain seats in the government. For a Green party to generate votes it has to be a public mainstream support like, the anti-nuclear movement during the 1980s or as today global warming in order to mobilize masses. Voters on the other hand look for other policies on the political agenda and if Green parties are not willing to transform its agenda like SPD in Germany then the Green party will loose electoral support. But, changing core values also affect core-voters like the young, middle-class and rural high-educated. Whatever the parties strategy will be the catch 22 situation will occur.
Green parties cannot on the other hand rule the government by itself because lack of support so this ever-ending searches for a coalition partner will dominate the agenda setting. Despite problems like thresholds and electoral systems the post-material thought may still play a significant role in UGS because of the media coverage.
Not surprisingly, green economics is characterised as no-growth economics as in the society we live in today were profit maximisation is key to success has furthermore lead to that people do not vote for Green Parties because their political agenda do not fulfil their basic needs. Electoral votes are keys for Green parties if they should make any impact on a party system. But, in UK, Germany and Sweden the electoral system, thresholds, and catch-allism has played a major role for the Greens electoral results. The environmental protection movement has gained massive support and mobilized groups and the outcome of this has lead to that mass-parties has implemented these ideas in their political agenda and as Kirshheimer’s “catch-all-parties” system has affected Green parties electoral support negatively. In order for Green parties to maintain their support and responsiveness in UGS, the party has to transform and centralize to generate and maximise electoral votes. Green political parties, pressure groups and media coverage have certainly made an impact, as have exhortations to change lifestyles either in home or in sustainable communities in UGS but yet, party system structure, “lost vote” syndrome, electoral system, high thresholds, kidnapping of green agenda, industrialism and profit maximisation remains the practise across most of the planet therefore, has not Green parties made an impact on party system.
Would an unimpressive title hold a job seeker back?
A senior compliance manager in a big bank is merely ‘controller’. Many colleagues of her have less senior jobs but much grander sounding titles – for instance, ‘head of corporate liquidity management’ sounds more impressive than hers but is a junior position with just one direct report. Are hiring managers going to take one look at her title and put her CV straight in the bin?
Supply Chain Finance
When KPN, a Dutch telecom giant decided to extend how long it took to pay suppliers it know it would not be a popular decision. As today, it moved its payment terms from 45-90 days; it looked into a mechanism called supply chain finance, in other words, the lengthening of payment terms, which is a negative thing for suppliers. So they were looking on a sweetener to smoothen the implementation and found this. Several analysts see supply chain finance as a great hope for easing problems with suppliers during the current recession.
The superior idea behind supply chain finance is the crucial importance of the allowance of the supplier to sell its invoices to a bank at a discount as soon as the buyer approves them. Furthermore, that allows the buyer to pay later and the supplier to secure its money earlier. Instead of relying on the so to called creditworthiness of the supplier, the bank focus and deals with the buyer – usually in many occasions the less risky prospect.
KPN, Nestle’, Sainsbury and Volvo Trucks are among a number of companies to use supply chain finance, a tool for them especially Volvo; not to call for emergency loans from the state.
The superior idea behind supply chain finance is the crucial importance of the allowance of the supplier to sell its invoices to a bank at a discount as soon as the buyer approves them. Furthermore, that allows the buyer to pay later and the supplier to secure its money earlier. Instead of relying on the so to called creditworthiness of the supplier, the bank focus and deals with the buyer – usually in many occasions the less risky prospect.
KPN, Nestle’, Sainsbury and Volvo Trucks are among a number of companies to use supply chain finance, a tool for them especially Volvo; not to call for emergency loans from the state.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The unlawful and illegitimate Taliban's
According to Carlotta Gall in Kabul a major problem we are facing today are the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are running a sophisticated financial network to pay their insurgent operations, raising hundreds of millions of dollars from illicit drug trade, extortion, kidnappings and foreign donations.
Tax the cultivation is a strategy the Taliban imposed but also processing and shipment of opium and other crops like wheat grown in the area they control. Officials estimate that the revenue vary but from at least $70 million to $400 million a year according to Pentagon.
How the Taliban receive money from the drug trade: At the farm:
Taliban commanders charge poppy farmers a 10% tax, and Taliban fighters can make extra money harvesting poppy from fields.
At the lab:
The Taliban get taxes from traders who collect opium paste from farmers and take it to labs, where it is turned into heroin. The Talibans are paid to protect the labs.
On the road:
Truckers pay the Taliban a transit tariff on opium paste or heroin as it is smuggled out of the country.
At the top:
Drug trafficking organizations make large regular payments to the Quetta Shura, the Taliban’s governing body.
United States may have solved one problem in Middle East but created several others...?
Tax the cultivation is a strategy the Taliban imposed but also processing and shipment of opium and other crops like wheat grown in the area they control. Officials estimate that the revenue vary but from at least $70 million to $400 million a year according to Pentagon.
How the Taliban receive money from the drug trade: At the farm:
Taliban commanders charge poppy farmers a 10% tax, and Taliban fighters can make extra money harvesting poppy from fields.
At the lab:
The Taliban get taxes from traders who collect opium paste from farmers and take it to labs, where it is turned into heroin. The Talibans are paid to protect the labs.
On the road:
Truckers pay the Taliban a transit tariff on opium paste or heroin as it is smuggled out of the country.
At the top:
Drug trafficking organizations make large regular payments to the Quetta Shura, the Taliban’s governing body.
United States may have solved one problem in Middle East but created several others...?
Raj Rajaratnam, The Magnate!
I was recently visiting Sri Lanka for the first time and was quite amazed of the friendliness and kindness I met in Colombo, the capital. I remember asking a bartender at the hotel I stayed in about the Sri Lankan Cricket team, their beloved stars!
He elaborated on that point and eventually another fellow was mentioned; Raj Rajaratnam with his multi-million hedge fund, based in New York that glorified Sri Lankan’s with pride and inspiration!
However, on Friday 16th of October he was arrested at his expensive New York flat, accused of running the biggest insider trading scheme involving a hedge fund.
Believe the momentum of success may be over!
He elaborated on that point and eventually another fellow was mentioned; Raj Rajaratnam with his multi-million hedge fund, based in New York that glorified Sri Lankan’s with pride and inspiration!
However, on Friday 16th of October he was arrested at his expensive New York flat, accused of running the biggest insider trading scheme involving a hedge fund.
Believe the momentum of success may be over!
Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift
Imagine there is a bank account that credits your account each morning with $86,400. It carries over no balance from day to day.
Every evening the bank deletes whatever part of the balance you failed to use during the day. What would you do? Draw out every cent, of course?
Each of us has such a bank. It's name is TIME.
Every morning, it credits you with 86,400 seconds.
Every night it writes off as lost, whatever of this you have failed to invest to a good purpose.
It carries over no balance. It allows no over draft. Each day it opens a new account for you. Each night it burns the remains of the day.
If you fail to use the day's deposits, the loss is yours. There is no drawing against "tomorrow."
You must live in the present on today's deposits. Invest it so as to get from it the utmost in health, happiness and success!
The clock is running!! Make the most of today.
To realise the value of one year, ask a student who failed a grade.
To realise the value of one month, ask a mother who has given birth to a premature baby.
To realise the value of one week, ask the editor of a weekly newspaper.
To realise the value of one hour, ask the lovers who are waiting to meet.
To realise the value of one minute, ask a person who just missed a train.
To realise the value of one second, ask someone who just avoided an accident.
To realise the value of one millisecond, ask the person who won a silver medal at the olympics.
Treasure every moment that you have! And treasure it more because you shared it with someone special, special enough to spend your time with. And remember time waits for no one.
Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why its called the present.
Quoted from "Sun Dials and Roses of Yesterday: Garden Delights..." by Alice Morse Earle, it is noted that the words "Time Waits for No Man"
Every evening the bank deletes whatever part of the balance you failed to use during the day. What would you do? Draw out every cent, of course?
Each of us has such a bank. It's name is TIME.
Every morning, it credits you with 86,400 seconds.
Every night it writes off as lost, whatever of this you have failed to invest to a good purpose.
It carries over no balance. It allows no over draft. Each day it opens a new account for you. Each night it burns the remains of the day.
If you fail to use the day's deposits, the loss is yours. There is no drawing against "tomorrow."
You must live in the present on today's deposits. Invest it so as to get from it the utmost in health, happiness and success!
The clock is running!! Make the most of today.
To realise the value of one year, ask a student who failed a grade.
To realise the value of one month, ask a mother who has given birth to a premature baby.
To realise the value of one week, ask the editor of a weekly newspaper.
To realise the value of one hour, ask the lovers who are waiting to meet.
To realise the value of one minute, ask a person who just missed a train.
To realise the value of one second, ask someone who just avoided an accident.
To realise the value of one millisecond, ask the person who won a silver medal at the olympics.
Treasure every moment that you have! And treasure it more because you shared it with someone special, special enough to spend your time with. And remember time waits for no one.
Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why its called the present.
Quoted from "Sun Dials and Roses of Yesterday: Garden Delights..." by Alice Morse Earle, it is noted that the words "Time Waits for No Man"
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Professional
A person who has a professional work dealing with dead bodies lives in the outer part of New Dehli. Unclaimed dead bodies. His name is Naresh and came to Dehli as a child. One day his mother and Naresh needed to live on the streets but his mother made enough money to support him. One day his beloved mother got sick and was admitted to a hospital and her son made the streets outside. A few weeks later her mother died but Naresh refused to move back to his city and instead helped the hospital and an old man. Naresh grew up under the man's tutelage.
One day a police cop came and asked him if he could bury an unclaimed dead body and paid him Rs 200 (5 dollars) for the job. After doing the job he hanged around the hospital to be summoned to dispose of the next unclaimed body.
Naresh did his work with such dedication, focus, care and concern that he was demanded quite often.
He bought his own horse-drawn carriage and a horse but three years later the horse died. People who had watched Naresh taking care of more than thousands corpses raised money for an auto-rockshaw. The local petrol pumps did not charge him for his selfless service to the abandoned citizens of Dehli.
Naresh is proud of his work and business, and today his son joined him.
In his business, Naresh doesn’t choose his clients. He accepts them in whatever size, shape or state they come. He treats them with care and respect and due to dignity, covering them with a white sheet.
Naresh has buried more than 42.000 corpses in his lifetime and his dedication has earned him phenomenal public recognition.
The cops do not supervise Naresh, he is not an employee and he has no boss. In most work environments on the other hand, people who produce anything of economic value usually need supervision.
Whenever Naresh picks up a corpse, it goes straight to the burial ground – no place else. He completes the task with the immediacy it demands.
That certifies his own completion of the assignment: between the living and the dead there is no one to question him.
The project reminded me of the Flying Tigers in China...undermanned, overworked, and successful.
The most outstanding and skilled leaders are apt to be found among those executives who have a quite strong component of unorthodoxy in their character. Instead of resisting innovation, they symbolize it.
Some would argue that innovating regurlary, at all levels and in all functions is the second basis for sustainable advantage. The most significant issues in this sense is the smell of innovation that will bring the company forward.
Therefore, should inaction be tolerated or not?
Some would argue that innovating regurlary, at all levels and in all functions is the second basis for sustainable advantage. The most significant issues in this sense is the smell of innovation that will bring the company forward.
Therefore, should inaction be tolerated or not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
