Author: rgsguildford

Reviving the Past: Unravelling the Magnetic Pull of Historically Informed Performance in the 20th Century

Post author By rgsguildford
Post date 4th Nov 2023
No Comments on Reviving the Past: Unravelling the Magnetic Pull of Historically Informed Performance in the 20th Century

This essay was written by Lower Sixth Form student Thomas McLean as an Independent Learning Assignment (ILA). It was shortlisted for the 2023 ILA/ ORIS award. The following provides a short introduction to the full essay:

How can we define Early Music?

To understand the impetus of the 20th-century early music revival and the significance of Historically Informed Performance, ‘early’ demands definition. If one utilises a literal lens, the definition of ‘early’ surely gets later as time progresses, as exemplified by the description of the 1776 ‘Consort of Ancient’s repertory of music that was more than just 20 years old – clearly illustrating the slowing of the rate that music has developed over time. However, in the 21st century world of early musicians, early music is generally regarded to be a collective term for the music from the Medieval to the Baroque, encompassing the period from the late 8th century to 1750. This essay will examine the historically informed performance (HIP) of Renaissance and Baroque music in the 20th century.

To view Thomas’s full article, follow this link below:

thomas-mclean-ila-2023 Download

Arts & Humanities Features Geography Independent Learning Assignment

Smart Cities: The Future of Mankind?

Post author By rgsguildford
Post date 2nd Nov 2023
No Comments on Smart Cities: The Future of Mankind?

This essay was written by Lower Sixth Form student Oliver Godkin as an Independent Learning Assignment (ILA). It was shortlisted for the 2023 ILA/ ORIS award. The following provides a short introduction to the full essay:

We’ve all heard the word smart added as a prefix to everything nowadays – smart speaker, smart businesses, smart plugs, smart air purifiers, and you can even buy a smart fridge.

There are also smart cities.

Smart cities are a relatively recent breakthrough in urban planning and design, and for the past few decades, have seen proponents far and wide from individual planners to governmental organisations, global tech firms, and billionaires.

With the current global population sitting at 8,036,344,468 at the time of writing, and with 4.4 billion people (56% of global population) living in urban areas as of April 2023, cities are at the forefront of tackling global issues, as a majority of the world’s population lives in urban areas. With rural to urban migration showing no signs of slowing, and with widening inequality in cities worldwide, the city of tomorrow is becoming more and more of a concern, arguably an issue, with which we need to deal with now, lest we forsake our descendants, and leave them a depleted, uninhabitable, planet.

Smart cities are one of the foremost defences against modern global issues, however currently they remain largely a theoretical concept, often confused with other urban design principles, and hence their application in the real world has been varied in success and support.

To view Oliver’s full article, follow this link below:

oliver-godkin-ila-2023 Download

Features Independent Learning Assignment STEM

“It’s a high time for Hypersonic Missiles” – their impact on geopolitics and the end of Mutual Assured Destruction

Post author By rgsguildford
Post date 2nd Nov 2023
No Comments on “It’s a high time for Hypersonic Missiles” – their impact on geopolitics and the end of Mutual Assured Destruction

This essay was written by Lower Sixth Form student Ben Tabberner as an Independent Learning Assignment (ILA). It was shortlisted for the 2023 ILA/ ORIS award. The following provides a short introduction to the full essay:

“It’s a high time for Hypersonic Missiles”¹ is a line from one of Sam Fender’s best-selling songs. Looking at the line in the context of the song, it is a plea to society to do something meaningful with their lives because hypersonic missiles have the potential to destroy life as we know it. For example, a hypersonic missile launched from Moscow now could strike London with a nuclear warhead in under 10 minutes. Such missiles are disrupting the relative security that the world has felt since the end of the Cold War. Since ex-United States Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara’s suggestion of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) in the 1960s the world has been living in relative comfort in the belief that no superpower will strike another for fear of ‘Mutual Destruction’. Hypersonic missiles may allow any country who has them to make a nuclear strike with more success. Mutual Assured Destruction relies on different countries’ military forces being equal – hypersonic missiles disrupt this balance because of the reduced response time and difficulty of defending against them. They have put the world in a precarious position; the ‘Destruction’ in Mutual Assured Destruction may not be ‘Mutual’ at all. Is it therefore time to look for a new way forward which will give the world a new era of relative peace?

To view Ben’s full article, follow this link below:

Ben Tabberner ILA 2023 Download

Arts & Humanities History

Assess the origins and effectiveness of the 1869 Habitual Criminals act.

Post author By rgsguildford
Post date 5th Jul 2023
No Comments on Assess the origins and effectiveness of the 1869 Habitual Criminals act.

This essay was written by Peter Jansen for the 2023 Cambridge Fitzwilliam History essay competition on the topic of criminal law in 1869, which was the year that the college was founded. Peter received a Certificate of Commendation for his essay.

1869 to 1871 was a period of significant change for the judicial system in Britain and the Habitual Criminals Act (1869) “(The Act)” had a wide ranging and long-lasting impact, revolutionising how repeat offenders were supervised in Britain and its legacy is evident in modern criminal legislation. The 1850s and 60s saw the cessation of transportation of criminals to Australia, the main method of addressing repeat offenders creating a key issue for parliament: “what shall we do with our convicts?”.[1] This question was fuelled by widespread worry in the press about the growing numbers of criminals living in Britain and the creation in 1857 of a pressure group called the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (“the SSA”) who demanded the government deal with serious and repeat offenders. Although the press were important in driving a public panic about controlling criminals in Britain, it was the SSA that was more influential in enforcing real change in parliament. The Actwas a response to the perceived “emergence” of a “criminal class” and included a registry of every known criminal in Britain. Although the Act held valid ideas over how to deal with criminals, its introduction into Britain was not completely effective as there were flaws in the register and so gave rise to the Prevention of Crime Act (1871). Together the Acts paved the way for our modern criminal justice system as they introduced a primitive concept of parole and built-in consideration of the impact of previous convictions at sentencing, including through the establishment of mandatory sentences.

Why was the act passed?

A changing landscape in the penal transportation of convicts to Australia necessitated the intervention into how criminals were dealt with. Transportation of convicts had first been introduced through the Elizabethan Act of 1597, with Australia the main destination after 1787. However attitudes to transportation had changed; it was no longer seen as an effective deterrent for crime due to the establishment of an Australian society, who began to refuse convicts due to the negative impact on societal harmony, and discovery of gold in 1851 contributing to its allure. The Act was implemented to replace this transportation which had formally ended on the 9^th of January 1868 with the final conflict transport arriving in Australia. This left a gap in the criminal justice system as convicts now had to be dealt with in Britain. The press were integral in raising concerns and fuelling the social pressure on the government to address the growing number of criminals living in Britain. Many newspaper articles exaggerated the problem, including the Morning Advertiser stating in 1850 that “the criminal class roamed through the country in summer, causing crime everywhere they went.”[2] The negative attitudes held by the press towards the criminal justice system, is exemplified by the Evening Mail writing in 1856 that those who were released from prison had “sunk deeper into crime themselves.”[3] The narrative was that the system was failing to protect society from those who had been previously convicted of crimes. In 1865 judicial statistics estimated the scale of the criminal class with 116,749 people living in Britain who had previously been convicted of a crime. The statistics were printed in most newspapers including the Globe, the Evening Mail and the Weekly Advertiser encouraging apprehension in Victorian society over the number of crimes being committed[4]. The impact of the press was exacerbated by the growth in literacy from 50% at the start of the 19^th Century to 95% by the end with the information reaching a wider audience than ever, especially when the topic was crime. Therefore, the press were influential in pushing a “media created crime wave” which increased pressure on government and resulted in the introduction of the Act, as argued by King[5].

However, the SSA was more influential than the press in the passage of the Act. Its members (mostly from the Liberal Party) used debate to draw attention to the problems with the management of criminals and put it on the political agenda helping to formulate policies behind the Act. The SSA laid out their aim to “stimulate the legislature” in their inaugural address in July 1857.[6] Lawrence Goldman correctly identified penal policy as a “central theme” of their desire for change at the first meeting in 1857, as the SSA had been founded following the flawed Penal Servitude Acts of 1853 and 1857 which introduced penal servitude as a replacement for transportation but without any monitoring of criminals upon release.[7] The SSA were not content with this legislation as it was only prospective, and the issue of registering past criminals in Britain remained. A turning point in the introduction of the Act was the November 1868 election of Gladstone’s Liberal government which gave the SSA a greater element of control in Parliament as 64 of the 266 Members of the SSA in 1857 were Liberal MPs and by 1868 that number had grown.[8] The extent to the SSA’s impact on the Act cannot be understated with Goldman going as far as saying that “The SSA dictated the terms of the 1869Habitual Criminals Act”, an argument which is consistent with the Bill being introduced into the House of Lords within four months of the change of government.[9] The issues that had been highlighted by the press through the previous decades were once again brought up in the House of Lords with Earl Kimberly stating that the criminal class were “a great army making war on society, and it is necessary that society should for its own defence make war upon them.”[10] The common attitude in the House of Lords was that strict measures should be used to resolve the issue, stated by The Earl of Shaftesbury as “I believe you will effect a great deal in putting down crime by stringent measures.”[11]

How effective was the Act in shifting sentencing and policing practices?

Whilst the press and public were complementary of the Act, it ultimately was not successful in significantly improving police supervision of the criminal class. The Act bore a similarity to the provisional Bill outlined at the SSA conference in December 1868. First, it increased the power of the police force over ‘licence holders’ (those who had been released from prison) and created a register for them. Second, it increased supervision of criminals convicted for a second or third time and imposed a mandatory sentence of seven years of penal servitude on any twice-convicted felon who committed a further felony. Thirdly, those who had previously been convicted of a crime had to give proof over stolen goods. The final part of the Act contained general provisions including that previous convictions could be confirmed by a witness not only by written record.

A multitude of London newspapers supported the bill including The Pall Mall Gazette stating on the 21^stof December 1869 that the Act was a “pretty good bill of fare” and that if a register of those who “indulge in these evil practices is kept by the police” then the position of criminals will be weakened[12]. This article was released a few months after the implementation of the Act and so overlooked its actual effects and instead focused on the mission statement of the Act; that the police should have more power to deal with criminals in Britain. This same sentiment was shared by The Daily Telegraph, The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, The Globe, The Times, and The Courier who thought“the bill was good, enabling police to lay hands on that criminal class.”[13]Their later publication dates make them informative of the press’s reaction to the Act’s implementation. Moreover, the Act was defended by Mr Bruce, the Home Secretary, who stated, “the registration of criminals, which is now being carefully pursued and would have in a short time have excellent effects,” and provided the House with selected evidence of the Act’s supposed success saying that “12,277 have been registered as having committed and offence” between 9^th August 1869 and 28^th March 1870[14]. At first glance, the Act therefore appears to be a success as it was praised in the press and the House.

However, in practice the Act did notachieve its aims of maintaining an effective register and using that register to increase the severity of sentencing of habitual criminals. Although 12,277 had been registered by March 1870 the estimate for the number of released criminals in 1865 was 116,000 meaning that there were at least 100,000 ex-offenders in Britain who were unsupervised. Furthermore, the inadequate supervision provided by the police meant that those who were registered were not necessarily pursuing an honest living. Edmund Henderson, the head of the London police, wrote a letter to Adolphus Liddell, the Permanent Under- Secretary of State at the Home Office, in late December of 1869 with his complaints about the flaws within the Act. Henderson complained about the lack of clarity over who should be closely supervised because it required communication between the court and the wardens of the prisons to put the criminals on the registry. Henderson specifically focused on a case on the 30^thof December where two defendants were known criminals and were not put in the registry even when Henderson gave evidence that they had committed previous crimes, as he was allowed to do under thefinal part of the Act, as evidence thatthe “magistrates nullify the power of the police.” [15]The magistrates and judges undermined police supervision by failing in each case to make it clear they that supervision was a part of sentencing. This oversight by some magistrates and judges reflected the fact that they did not give the Act their full support. Their belief was that supervising all past offenders infringed on their personal liberty. Therefore, it was often the case was that they only assigned supervision to those who had committed crimes more serious than theft.

Moreover, from August 1869 up to August 1871 when the Prevention of Crime Act 1871 was implemented, there is only record of two cases in the Old Bailey Proceedings where the other clauses of the Act, which go beyond assigning supervision, are directly applied and stated. The first was the case of James Hardy on the 20^thof September 1869. Hardy was charged with theft, and due to Part Four of the Act his previous convictions reversed the burden of proof, so that he was “deemed to have known such goods to have been stolen, until he has proved the contrary.”[16] The second direct application of the Act was the trial of William Palmer on the 10^th of January 1870 where his previous convictions of theft increased his sentence to seven years of penal servitude. Evidently the other parts of the Act were not as impactful as the registration provisions due to the infrequency of their use[17].

Overall, although the principles of the Act aimed at supervising habitual criminals, in practice the Act was too vague on how to determine who to supervise, and the required level of supervision to effectively reduce the impact of the criminal class on Britain. The shortcomings of the Act led to the introduction of the Prevention of Crime Act (1871), which attempted to improve registration by introducing monthly reporting for licence holders and repeat offenders and requiring both to report any change of address to the police. The Prevention of Crime Act (1871) also added photographic identification onto the registry to improve searches of the registry for the police. This system was kept in place up until 1895 when there was the addition of finger printing to the registry. Whilst it can be argued that the Prevention of Crime Act (1871) was of greater success than the Habitual Criminals Act (1869) due to the longevity of its scheme, this fails to consider that it only built upon the principles outlined in the former Act.

In conclusion, the Act was unsuccessful in reducing the size of the criminal class in Britain. Indeed, some historians have questioned whether the Act only served to grow the criminal class, including Stefan Petrow who argued that the registration and different treatment of habitual criminals only resulted in the hounding of these individuals by the police. Yet, the concepts the Act introduced in sentencing and police surveillance were transformative of the criminal justice system and underpin our current approach. The police today still use a registration scheme and notification requirements to monitor sex offenders; all offenders who receive a custodial sentence shorter than two years are subject to post-sentence supervision upon release to help with their rehabilitation; and mandatory sentences remain for offenders who commit a third domestic burglary (3 years’ imprisonment), a second offence of possession of a knife or offensive weapon (6 months’ imprisonment), or a third-class A drug trafficking offence (7 years’ imprisonment).

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

The Earl of Carlisle, ‘Address on the Punishment and Reformation of Criminals’, in Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Sciences 1858, London: John W. Parker and Son (1859), p.70

Morning Advertiser (1850), 18 February, p.3 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001427/18500218/055/0003 [Accessed: 18 February 2023]

Evening Mail (1856), 22 October, p. 2 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001316/18561022/011/0002 [Accessed: 18 February 2023]

Globe (1866), 9 August, p.3 available athttps://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001652/18660809/053/0003 [Accessed: 14 February 2023]

Evening Mail (1866), 19 October, p1 Available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001316/18661019/002/0001 [Accessed: 14 February 2023]

Weekly Advertiser (1865), 6 August, p2 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004221/18650806/011/0002 [Accessed: 14 February 2023]

Huch, Ronald K. “The National Association for the Promotion of Social Science: Its Contribution to Victorian Health Reform, 1857-1886.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, 1985, pp. 279–99. Available at:https://doi.org/10.2307/4048958 [Accessed: 9 February 2023].

Earl of Kimberly (1869), Habitual Criminals Bill, 26 February. Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1869-02-26/debates/a400d2ac-8262-4756-8e21-662707dc2234/PresentedFirstReading?highlight=habitual%20criminal#contribution-5f844a72-f883-47d2-84d2-95554b3b5b16 [Accessed: 18 February 2023].

The Earl of Shaftesbury (1869), Habitual Criminals Bill, 5 March. Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1869-03-05/debates/f6d2eb80-fe97-45e4-92a1-cdd66916cd3a/SecondReading?highlight=habitual%20criminal#contribution-247698df-790f-40e1-8707-69b1a43535ff [Accessed: 18 February 2023].

Pall Mall Gazette, 21 Dec. 1869, p. 4 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000098/18691221/006/0004# [Accessed: 14 February 2023]

Daily Telegraph and Courier, Thursday 07 July 1870 page 5 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001112/18700707/029/0005# [Accessed: 14 February 2023]

Shipping and Mercantile Gazette – Tuesday 24 August 1869 Page 8 Available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001702/18690824/121/0008# [Accessed: 14 February 2023]

Globe – Friday 06 August 1869 page https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001652/18690806/005/0002 [Accessed: 14 February 2023]

Edmund ;Henderson to Adolphus Liddell, 30 December 1869, TNA, MEPO 3/88

; Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 16 February 2023), November 1869, trial of THOMAS RILEY (18) (t18691122-50).

Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 10 February 2023), September 1869, trial of JAMES HARDY (34) (t18690920-820).

Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 10 February 2023), February 1871, trial of WILLIAM PALMER (23) (t18710227-253).

Secondary Sources

Matthew Bach, Combating London’s Criminal class, Bloomsbury, 2020

http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/history-from-police-archives/Met6Kt/Crime/crmCrCrim.html#:~:text=Under%20the%20Prevention%20of%20Crimes,a%20crime%20in%20Great%20Britain [Accessed: 14 February 2023]

Matthew Bach, Combating Recidivist Crime in London, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Melbourne 2020

Lawrence Goldman, Science, Reform and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Social Science Association 1857-1886, London: Cambridge University Press, 2002 pg 86.

Pete King, ‘Moral Panics and Violent Street Crime 1750-2000: a Comparative Perspective’, in Barry Godfrey, Clive Emsley and Graeme Dunstall (eds.), Comparative Histories of Crime, Cullompton: Willan, 2003, p. 57.

[1] The Earl of Carlisle, ‘Address on the Punishment and Reformation of Criminals’, in Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Sciences 1858, London: John W. Parker and Son (1859), p.70

[2] Morning Advertiser (1850), 18 February, p.3 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001427/18500218/055/0003

[3] Evening Mail (1856), 22 October, p. 2 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001316/18561022/011/0002

[4] Globe (1866), 9 August, p.3 available athttps://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001652/18660809/053/0003

Evening Mail (1866), 19 October, p1 Available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001316/18661019/002/0001

Weekly Advertiser (1865), 6 August, p2 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004221/18650806/011/0002

[5] Pete King, ‘Moral Panics and Violent Street Crime 1750-2000: a Comparative Perspective’, in Barry Godfrey, Clive Emsley and Graeme Dunstall (eds.), Comparative Histories of Crime, Cullompton: Willan, 2003, p. 57.

[6] Goldman, Lawrence, Science, Reform and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Social Science Association 1857-1886, pg86, London: Cambridge University Press (2002).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Huch, Ronald K. “The National Association for the Promotion of Social Science: Its Contribution to Victorian Health Reform, 1857-1886.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, 1985, pp. 279–99.

[9] Goldman, Lawrence, Science, Reform and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Social Science Association 1857-1886, pg86, London: Cambridge University Press (2002).

[10] Earl of Kimberly (1869), Habitual Criminals Bill, 26 February. Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1869-02-26/debates/a400d2ac-8262-4756-8e21-662707dc2234/PresentedFirstReading?highlight=habitual%20criminal#contribution-5f844a72-f883-47d2-84d2-95554b3b5b16

[11] The Earl of Shaftesbury (1869), Habitual Criminals Bill, 5 March. Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1869-03-05/debates/f6d2eb80-fe97-45e4-92a1-cdd66916cd3a/SecondReading?highlight=habitual%20criminal#contribution-247698df-790f-40e1-8707-69b1a43535ff.

[12] Pall Mall Gazette, 21 Dec. 1869, p. 4 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000098/18691221/006/0004#

[13] Daily Telegraph and Courier, Thursday 07 July 1870 page 5 available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001112/18700707/029/0005#

Shipping and Mercantile Gazette – Tuesday 24 August 1869 Page 8 Available at https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001702/18690824/121/0008#

Globe – Friday 06 August 1869 page https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001652/18690806/005/0002

[14] Mr Bruce (1870), Volume 200, , Hansard: House of commons debates, Available at https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1870-04-29/debates/3807360a-fad8-4a04-a0d6-499244cdd7d2/Question?highlight=habitual%20criminals#contribution-c74c8006-1508-45eb-9ed5-1d320dd9ab55

[15] Edmund ;Henderson to Adolphus Liddell, 30 December 1869, TNA, MEPO 3/88

; Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 16 February 2023), November 1869, trial of THOMAS RILEY (18) (t18691122-50).

[16] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 10 February 2023), September 1869, trial of JAMES HARDY (34) (t18690920-820).

[17] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 10 February 2023), February 1871, trial of WILLIAM PALMER (23) (t18710227-253).

Arts & Humanities History Law & Politics Philosophy & Theology Social Sciences

Should modern-day organisations, who benefitted from the slave trade in the past, be expected to pay reparations today?

Post author By rgsguildford
Post date 4th Apr 2023
No Comments on Should modern-day organisations, who benefitted from the slave trade in the past, be expected to pay reparations today?

This article was written by Sam Chapman for the Exeter essay competition. The judges for this competition are currently reviewing the essays.

Estimated read time of essay: 5 minutes

On the 25^th of March 1807 the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was signed by King George III of England, signalling the end of perhaps the most destructive and inhumane chapters within the history of the British Empire and the United Kingdom itself. It is undeniable that the slave trade has had irreversible impacts upon the world, much of which can still be seen today. This therefore forces us to evaluate whether those whose ancestors benefited from the slave trade should be forced to pay reparations in response today. I hold the belief that these organisations are in no way responsible for the actions of the past, but they must still be held accountable for their unfair advantage within the economy through the use of reparations to redistribute the wealth these companies obtained through privilege.

It can be argued that within the capitalist society in which we operate it is perfectly acceptable to utilise all advantages given to us to strive for success economically, as to many it seems that we must accept privilege is an inevitability that will always be present so we must make the most of the relations and wealth that we have to begin with. A clear example of this mindset is Bill Gates who had access to computers early on in their evolution during his time at Lakeside School Seattle. Gates himself says, “If there had been no Lakeside, there would have been no Microsoft” illustrating that his privilege to afford such a school, setup the foundations for the idea of Microsoft. Therefore, many would argue that successful businesses today which profited from the slave trade in the past cannot be held accountable as they merely use the advantages available to them today, and that they have no connections to slavery themselves. Some view this as the reality of the world we live in, such that there is a ruthless brutality to accepting the cards we are dealt and making the most of what we have. Subsequently, reparations are a ridiculous measure which are too idealistic as forcing payments upon these organisations implies reparations are required for privilege of any kind which has led them to success, and this is simply not realistic.

However, I question this logic, as I propose that it is a mindset of a bleak pessimist to simply accept inequality, and it is ridiculous to call a demand for rebalance idealism. We cannot standby and accept an unfair system, and whilst the world has a magnitude of complex issues, addressing the imbalance due to the slave trade is a clear place to start. The use of reparations is an obvious and acceptable method of rebalancing the inequal ecosystem of the economy. On the 28^th of August 1833 legislation was passed by parliament that fully abolished slavery since the 1807 act had not successfully done so. A significant factor for the passing of this policy was the £20 million in compensation to slave owners who felt they were losing their own property and heavily resisted. According to the Bank of England, £3.4 million was compensated in the form of government stock and large amounts of money was received by London bankers and merchant firms. This was such a vast amount of money that the government only paid back the loans required to make these compensations in 2015, over 200 years later. University College London’s Legacies of British Slave Ownership project calculated that around 10-20% of Britain’s wealth has significant links to slavery. Many of the key British banks accept their part in the slave trade, including HSBC, Barclays, and Lloyds showing many prominent organisations were certainly involved. These figures hopefully provide a greater insight into the enormous impact of slavery, showing that many organisations have had blatant advantages within our economy. This must be accounted for, and reparations would immediately have impact, being a one-time payment, which could hinder businesses with proven ties to the slave trade. Organisations could take accountability of their involvement in the slave trade and the subsequent suffering it caused, allowing them not to forget the past, but to promote a new message of equality. I must reiterate that those who run the companies today are in no way accountable for the actions of their ancestors but accepting these reparations provides the opportunity to condone the atrocities committed and remove the undeniable advantage developed by the slave trade.

The money generated by reparations could then be used to promote new businesses which would have otherwise struggled to thrive in competitive markets where privilege has dominated. It must also be remembered that not only did the slave trade result in vast wealth, but great poverty. In America the average black family has a tenth of the wealth of the average white family, largely due to the consequences of slavery. This makes it blindingly obvious that even after eight generations the effects of the slave trade are apparent. Reparations provide a unique opportunity of redistribution, transferring money from organisations with unfair advantages to those whose relatives suffered from the slave trade and who are in poverty today as a consequence. Therefore, reparations are not just a tool to sanction and harm businesses, but will also help new growth in the economy from those who were unfairly in a worse position due to the lasting impacts of slavery.

Concluding, I strongly believe modern-day organisations have an expectation to pay reparations for their involvement in the slave trade. If anything can be learned from slavery, it is that humanity has the power to shape the world, the potential of absolute internal destruction or total harmony. We must strive for a world of acceptance and love for all people because only then will we have a world which is worth protecting. Reparations of this kind will force a change of mindset and allow equality where there is currently great imbalance. The figures used show undeniable advantage still prevailing today due to the horrors of slavery which must be accounted for.

Bibliography

Royal Museums Greenwich: history of slavery. https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/how-did-slave-trade-end-britain

CNBC: Bill Gates’ advantage due to access to computers. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/bill-gates-got-what-he-needed-to-start-microsoft-in-high-school.html#:~:text=Gates%20was%20first%20introduced%20to,placed%20in%20all%2Dgirls%20classes

Bank of England: slavery compensation. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2022/the-collection-of-slavery-compensation-1835-43#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20the%20compromise,behalf%20of%20the%20British%20government

The Guardian: Banks linked to slavery. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/barclays-hsbc-and-lloyds-among-uk-banks-that-had-links-to-slavery

The Washington Post: Racial Wealth Gap. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/19/why-racial-wealth-gap-persists-more-than-years-after-emancipation/

Tags ethics, reparations, slave-trade

Arts & Humanities History

In the twenty-first century, what is monarchy for?

Post author By rgsguildford
Post date 21st Mar 2023
No Comments on In the twenty-first century, what is monarchy for?

This long-read article was written by Edward Eves for the 2022 Robinson College essay competition, and was highly commended.

Estimated read time of essay: 15 minutes

The twentieth century was a disaster for royalty. In July 1900, King Umberto I of Italy was assassinated at Monza and in July 1946, his son, Vittorio Emmanuele III, scampers from the throne. In 1908, King Carlos of Portugal suffered the same fate as Umberto and two years later, the Portuguese monarchy was abolished. In 1913, the King of Greece was also murdered. As Leonard Woolf writes, the period was “a holocaust of emperors, kings, princes, archdukes and hereditary grand dukes” [1]. The most notable extirpation was in Russia, where the last Tsar and his family were murdered in the basement of their home on July 17, 1918. In each case, the killings were marked as prerequisites to the building of democracy in Europe. However, in almost every European nation which was ruled by monarchy, the void left behind was filled by an ambitious dictator. Was this really the solution the people envisaged when they ousted their monarchies? Now in the twenty-first century, there are only 12 European monarchies that remain. What do all these monarchies stand for? What did they stand for in the past? And what will they stand for in the future?

Since Charles I, considered the last absolute monarch of the United Kingdom, the monarchy in the United Kingdom has suffered a steady decline in political power. In the modern day, their role exists as unbending support for the party in power, whoever it may be, while they still hold various smaller roles such as the weekly meetings between monarch and Prime Minister. Such meetings have been fruitful for Prime Ministers, with Clement Attlee, a former Prime Minister, commenting,” Yet another advantage is that the Monarchy is continuously in touch with public affairs, acquires great experience, whereas the Prime Minister might have been out of office for some years.” [2] This experience and knowledge from an alternate perspective remains important as advice and counsel for each Prime Minister that holds office. Another common characteristic amongst surviving monarchies is subtlety. Their ability to exist as symbols of their state, whilst, in almost every nation, the people are more concerned with government than the monarchs themselves. As Amman, editor of The Economist magazine, writes of Queen Elizabeth II,” Indeed, one of her greatest achievements is that she has never said anything of any interest in public.” [3] Amman refers here to the Queen’s propensity for remaining unremarkable in opinion, and thus, unoffending towards the people. The monarchies that remain, remain as emblems of the nations they shepherd. Their role is not to disturb the public opinion, rather to remain neutral and in full support of their nation’s political leaders. In doing so, they can allow democracy to take its proper shape whilst their position on the throne avoids the threat of dictatorship that we have seen in other European nations.

Alongside political discretion, the pageantry associated with monarchy provides tremendous joy and a vivid sense of community for the people every year. From performers to military parades, to street parties and live music, events such as the Queen Elizabeth’s platinum jubilee this year provide an enormous feeling of patriotism and pride in one’s own nation. Johnathan Welch of The Critic perfectly sums up the essence of these events, writing” Yet our need for solidarity remains. For want of battle, we can find such solidarity in festival. In days such as these, that need is met through celebration of a person who embodies our whole nation” [4]. In bringing the nation together in celebration and festival, the monarchy underlines its importance to national pride. Inevitably, there are those who do not buy into the occasion and the collective buzz of pageants. The same article from The Critic writes,” To the cynic, perhaps this all tells the sorry tale of cultural decline. Of a people lost at sea, searching without rudder for cohesive cultural identity” [5]. A growing portion of the population have fallen out of touch with the monarchy and Welch highlights the increasing feeling of cultural uncertainty around the surviving monarchy and its unnecessary ceremonies. Nonetheless, whether foraging for cohesive cultural identity or painting a thick facade over a nation’s cultural decline, the value of national parties in celebration of the monarchy cannot be understated.

In the UK, the Queen and other members of the royal family are patrons of over one thousand charities and organisations in the UK and the Commonwealth [6]. This staggering number of charitable organisations that the royal family continue to support highlights their desire to aid those who are less fortunate. The late Prince Philip alone was associated with 992 charities in one capacity or another throughout his 99-year-long life. A testament to his remarkable devotion to his people and a strong example of all surviving monarchies and their capacity for charity. A strong argument amongst those in opposition to the continuation of monarchy throughout Europe is their extreme wealth and the flouting of this wealth while there are those who live in desperate poverty. However, the distribution of this wealth via charity and support of over a thousand organisations helps to distil this animosity. In addition, it must be noted that whilst monarchies are of a particular burden to the average taxpayer, in the UK, for example, in 2021, the Sovereign Grant to the monarchy was £86 million [7] while the estimated income via tourism alone due to the monarchy every year is around £500 million. Therefore, while growing numbers of republicans are particularly offended by the wealth and extravagance of the monarchy, there is strong evidence to suggest that the monarchy is highly profitable, especially in the UK. Considering these figures and the sheer number of charities that the British royalty continue to support, the influence of monarchy over social and financial equality is a crucial element of their existence in modern times.

Moreover, Britain’s Royal Family and its Armed Forces have a special relationship which goes back centuries. As sovereign, the Queen is the official Head of the British Armed Forces, and this is extremely important. Paxman emphasises this, “armies work by cultivating emotion…To do so requires the development of an instinctive loyalty. Military organisations act upon commands, so they need a hierarchy, at the top of which will inevitably sit an individual – the monarch.” [8] The army has a very strong commitment to the queen and their loyalty towards her is unmatched. Further on Paxman quotes The Commandant of Sandhurst who states that he “never, ever heard a soldier say that he is fighting for Britain. They’re fighting for the Queen.” [9] For many soldiers, simply fighting for their own country is not enough motivation, but to fight and defend their Queen, and their monarch is an honour. More to this effect, the Royal Navy has particularly close ties with the Royal Family with numerous members of the House of Windsor such as George V, Edward VIII and Prince Charles all attending naval college and training to become sailors. The idea was for these future monarchs to gain important virtues like punctuality and self-reliance that would be required as future kings of the country. This idea highlights the monarchy’s respect towards the Armed Forces and the close connections which continue to exist between the two prove to be extremely beneficial for the spirit of the Armed Forces and the defence of the United Kingdom.

Similarly, the monarchy is hugely beneficial for the Church of England. As ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’ the Queen is a vital figure and essential for the promotion of faith in the UK and the Commonwealth. The Queen’s strong association with the Church was symbolised at her coronation when she was anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and took an oath to “maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England” [10]. The strong ties to religion and faith add to the mystical aspect of the monarchy which convinces many that they are almost “above human’’. Additionally, with the advice of the Prime Minister, the Queen appoints Archbishops, Bishops, and Deans of the Church of England, who then swear an oath of allegiance to her. Furthermore, the Queen is known to be a devout Christian who regularly attends services with other members of the Royal Family. This is regularly documented and is the perfect advertisement for Christianity and other faiths in England where atheism is on the rise. Once more, the close ties to the monarchy bring huge benefits for religion and particularly the Church of England, with the Queen a perfect image of hope and faith.

However, beside all their current roles and functions as monarchy, one question still remains. What will the monarchy be for in the future? With Queen Elizabeth II turning 96 this year, it is only a matter of time until her legacy is passed down to her first son, Charles. The Queen has endured the longest reign ever seen in the United Kingdom and has rightfully earned the undying support of the majority of her people. How will this change when she dies? The Queen’s death will mark a new age for the monarchy and Prince Charles will have to adapt the monarchy’s function in order to remain relevant and maintain the majority backing from the British public. In his support for global conservation and as a champion for environmental concerns, Charles has found his cause. In a world where global warming is on the rise, serving as a serious threat to human existence, Charles will garner huge support in his campaigning for the protection of our planet. The most important balancing act for the monarchy continues to be staying in touch with the people whilst staying far enough ahead to be marvelled at and admired. In championing conservation across the globe, Charles can connect with the people whilst remaining an idyllic figurehead of our nation. This is only one example of how King Charles may wish to lead his country when the crown arrives on his head, but the central problem that will no doubt outlive his reign, will be how the monarchy, an ancient system of rule, can survive in the twenty-first century.

To draw to a close, in the twenty-first century there are still may roles that remain for monarchies. Arguably the most important, is the devout support for government and the increasing modesty and discretion of modern monarchies which allow democracy to thrive. In the UK, the Queen’s roles as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Head of the Armed Forces prove vitally important for the sustained popularity of the Church and the strength of will of the British Armed Forces. Lastly, monarchy’s numerous roles in charity and their importance for tourism in modern states continue to provide enormous benefits to their economies and contribute heavily towards social equality. As we look ahead into the future and the rest of the twenty-first century, the problem that surviving monarchies face is their relevance and suitability in modern governments and economies. Their ability to modernise and adapt to the current climate whilst preserving their enchantment of their people. However, for now, the monarchies prove to be tremendous symbols of devotion and commitment to their nations and whether they are removed or not, they will remain hugely important figures of history.

References

[1] Woolf, After the Deluge, (London: Penguin, 1. Jan 1937), pp. 71-2.

[2] https://www.politicalscienceview.com/what-is-the-role-of-the-monarchy/

[3] https://www.economist.com/international/2019/04/27/how-monarchies-survive-modernity

[4] https://thecritic.co.uk/the-power-of-the-pageant/

[5] https://thecritic.co.uk/the-power-of-the-pageant/

[6] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-role-monarchy

[7] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/royal-finances

[8] Paxman, On Royalty, (London: Penguin, 2006), p.112

[9] Paxman, On Royalty, (London: Penguin, 2006), p.113

[10] https://www.royal.uk/queens-relationship-churches-england-and-scotland-and-other-faiths

Bibliography

Amman, ‘How monarchies survive modernity’, The Economist, April 27 2019; online edition,[ https://www.economist.com/international/2019/04/27/how-monarchies-survive-modernity , accessed 27 July 2022 ]

Johnathan Welch, ‘The power of the pageant’, The Critic, June 5, 2022; online edition, [ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-power-of-the-pageant/ , accessed 25 July 2022 ]

‘What is the role of the monarchy?’, UCL, The Constitution Unit, [ https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-role-monarchy , accessed 27 July 2022 ]

‘Royal Finances’, Institute for Government, June 1, 2022, [ https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/royal-finances , accessed 28 July 2022 ]

The Week Staff, ‘How the world’s monarchs are adapting to modern times’, June 16, 2019; online edition, [ https://theweek.com/articles/847076/how-worlds-monarchs-are-adapting-modern-times , accessed 23 July 2022 ]

Jeremy Paxman, On Royalty, (London: Penguin, 2006)

A.Purdue, Unsteady Crowns – Why the world’s monarchies are struggling for survival ( Cheltenham: The History Press, 2022)

Andrew Marr, Elizabethans – A history of how modern Britain was forged, (London: William Collins, 2020)

Arts & Humanities Features Philosophy & Theology

How the criticisms of Utilitarianism underline a fundamental error in our approach to ethical discourse

Post author By rgsguildford
Post date 15th Mar 2023
No Comments on How the criticisms of Utilitarianism underline a fundamental error in our approach to ethical discourse

This article was written by Stuart Brown and was the winning article of the David Garlick essay competition. The judges commented ‘This is a very well written piece with a strong argument, which shows detailed and nuanced understanding of the issues.’

Estimated read time of essay: 6 minutes

Utilitarianism as a normative ethical theory is attacked in a number of different ways, however I hope to show how these criticisms demonstrate a fundamental mistake in the way in which we go about breaking down an ethical theory.

The first criticism which is often asserted is the impracticality of Utilitarianism when it comes to decision making in our daily lives. Even if we accept the idea that we must act in the way that best tends to produce happiness it is impossible to know which actions will cause this. We cannot predict the vast and unforeseeable consequences of our actions and hence Utilitarianism seemingly fails as we cannot effectively and accurately fulfil the task of promoting happiness in the real world. Mill strives to object to this in his book ‘Utilitarianism’ writing ‘that there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species.’ His point here is that humans know basically which actions tend to produce more happiness as a result of the cultivated experience of humanity and the general attitudes that we have formed over time to specific actions due to such experience. Therefore, we know which actions to undertake to produce overall greater happiness. However, one must question whether Mill is even obligated to respond to the challenge of impracticality. The truth of the principle of utility and the very ethical theory itself is unaffected and detached from the question of whether it can be usefully applied in the real world. If it is true to seek the happiness of the greatest number, then this remains the case whether or not we able to do so. Hence, we see that when discussing the validity of normative ethical theories, the issue of practicality is unimportant as it has no bearing on the actual truth of the theory. The question of practicality is however not useless but rather misplaced. It should come later once a base ethical theory has been established and we look to how it can be applied.

Another popular yet erroneous approach is to argue from the starting point of a known ethical truth to try and establish or dismiss an ethical theory. To say for example, that murder is always wrong, and then to identify a specific case where Utilitarianism justifies murder is not necessarily a valid argument that Utilitarianism fails as an ethical theory because it appears to justify a wrong action. Whilst this argument may seem logical at first it presupposes that murder, or another action is simply inherently wrong. This is to fall into the fallacy of question begging as it assumes that Utilitarianism is incorrect and that some actions must have inherent value to prove that Utilitarianism is in fact incorrect. This structure of reasoning is common and often used especially in the case of Utilitarianism, but it fails crucially in all cases because it cannot without using circular reasoning establish that any given action is wrong. This problem illustrates a common mistake in how we approach ethics in that we try and find a theory to cohere with our current values. This is problematic as our self-held beliefs cannot act as a firm groundwork for an ethical theory. Instead, we must build up an ethical theory from its very foundation and derive attitudes towards specific actions later.

The trolley problem and how it is discussed often shows our disposition to starting from judgements of specific actions and then working towards an ethical theory to match such assumptions. This is a common introductory thought experiment to the topic of ethics and is one where most start with an opinion on whether it can be right to pull the lever to kill one and save five and work backwards to an ethical position. However, this is foolish as the point of an ethical theory is not to justify our previously held beliefs and judgements but rather to provide a starting framework to build our ethical perspectives anew.

Whilst many of the criticisms of Utilitarianism fail, there is one which is very difficult to overcome and demonstrates the correct way to go about analysing an ethical theory. This criticism is that Utilitarianism fails to successfully establish happiness as having inherent value. Bentham falls victim to the naturalistic fallacy when trying to establish the value of pleasure. This is the fallacy outlined by David Hume that we cannot derive an ought from an is (in this case it is Bentham’s argument that we naturally pursue pain and avoid pleasure and hence we ought to do so). In ‘Introduction to the principle of morals, legislation’ Bentham writes on pleasure and pain ‘it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do’ showing how his assertion of the principle of utility is fallacious. Most however, accept the inherent value of happiness as a brute fact and do not seek to break down Bentham’s starting assertion although this is exactly what must be done. We must adapt our philosophical approach to examine the foundational assertions of ethical theories and hence decide their merit rather than focusing on the practical application of the theory. This is the key point in the failure of our approach to ethics as it is the starting value assumptions (such as the value of happiness in Utilitarianism) of ethical theories that must be examined as these are the foundations of ethical theories and hence their success is entirely dependent on their truth.

In conclusion, as seen in the mishandled approach to the criticisms of Utilitarianism, we must adapt our approach to the analysis of ethics and shift our focus from the practicalities and repercussions of accepting normative ethical theories. Instead, we must judge their validity on the surety of their foundational claims as only then can we properly assess the truth of an ethical theory.

Tags ethics

Law & Politics Social Sciences

Must We Always Obey the Law?

Post author By rgsguildford
Post date 15th Mar 2023
No Comments on Must We Always Obey the Law?

This long-read article was written by Adam Zhang for the Northeastern University London essay competition, and received a finalist position.

Estimated read time of essay: 12 minutes

Before we can answer the question, it is important to first understand what the law is. Laws are defined by the Collins Dictionary as “a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of a state, the relationship between the organs of government and the subjects of the state, and the relationship or conduct of subjects towards each other” [1]. Laws define the political, economic and social factors of the environment we live in.

So what is the purpose of such pieces of legislation?

An important reason for why it exists is that it protects basic human rights through the legal system. When charged with an offence, before any proceedings, a citizen is guaranteed a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, and is entitled to access legal representation, and will be granted the presumption of innocence, which is the maxim of “innocent until proven guilty”. They cannot be unlawfully detained or arrested and are guaranteed a trial to determine their innocence, or guilt. As a result, it is made certain that citizens are treated fairly, since power can be given to the accused to contest the state/prosecution’s decisions effectively in a trial, which means that they can only be prosecuted if they had solid reason and evidence to do so. Such rights are enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which merged the European Convention of Human Rights with British law, with Article 6, the right to fair trial, and Article 5, the right to liberty and security [2]. Thus, a basis is provided for the individual to uphold and defend their position against unfair treatment, whether it may be infringements on other articles of the HRA, such as the prohibition of torture and slavery and the freedom of expression, as well as on other areas of law such as criminal, employment and family law, no matter the circumstances.

The Human Rights Act is a fundamental example of the importance of law, but there is also another key function, namely maintaining the economy. According to John Maynard Keynes [3], the government has the responsibility to maintain economic growth and low unemployment. Therefore, it needs the law to do so. This can be achieved using taxation, made mandatory under the law by statute such as the Finance Acts[4]. The subsequent tax revenues contribute to the government budget maintaining the public sector, which employs around 1/6 of the UK workforce [5], including nurses and police officers, but also the maintenance of key infrastructure, like ports, airports and motorways. Additionally, it can be used to help businesses in less economically developed areas, in the form of subsidies. An example of such policy would be the government’s new “levelling up” scheme, which plans to allocate £3.1 billion pounds [6]to communities across the country to help them recover after the Covid-19 pandemic, under Section 50 of the UK Internal Markets Act [7]. Although it could be argued that sometimes these funds are allocated inefficiently, with the recent strike action over pay being a prime example [8], the law is nonetheless vital in maintaining the government’s ability to help the economy, since without taxes the government would have no funds for wages in the first place.

However, the economy is only one facet of society in which the law must be implemented – the political aspect is also tremendously important. This is because laws protect the parliamentary democracy that gives power to the people to make important decisions, rather than a small collective of individuals. Arguably one of the most crucial pieces of legislation in this regard would be the Bill of Rights 1689 [9], which laid down the foundations of our modern parliamentary system. It removes the power of the monarch to levy tax and to issue excessive fines or punishments, as well as most importantly to stop them from suspending or making laws without Parliament’s approval. The Act also safeguards freedom of elections, the freedom of speech of MPs in debate and proceedings and the right to petition the government. This way, power is given to parliament, to run the country in the interest of the people, without the fear of interference from undemocratic elements such as the monarchy or the military. And so, the law is critical in providing a voice for ordinary citizens. Without it, we would not have a say in the most decisive political flashpoints, such as Brexit, the cost-of-living crisis [10] or the windfall tax on energy companies [11].

Finally, it cannot be ignored that the law stands up for the individual as well. There is plenty of public legislation protecting citizens’ civil rights, such as the Race Relations Act 1965 [12], which outlawed discrimination based on “grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins”, or the Representation of the People Act 1928 [13], which gave votes for women, as well as the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, which “decriminalised” homosexual acts [14], though gay marriage was not to be legalised until the passing of the Marriage Act 2013 [15]. On top of this, the law also provides regulation of private, domestic affairs. Such was the case of R V R [16], where in 1991, the House of Lords ruled that it was illegal under English criminal law that a husband could rape his wife. The defendant had attempted to appeal his conviction on the grounds of an imaginary “marital rape exemption” under common law but was rejected by the Court of Appeal. One of the court judges, Lord Chief Justice Lane, stated that “a rapist remains a rapist subject to the criminal law, irrespective of his relationship with his victim”, and described the grounds of appeal as “common law fiction” [17]. Hence, it was removed as part of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 [18].

Therefore, these points lead to a theoretical answer – citizens must always obey the law. If it provides civil liberties, maintains the economy and protects our human rights as well as our democracy, then it seems in our best interest to do so, as not only do we help ourselves, but the whole of society as well.

However, the case of Gard and Others V United Kingdom highlights a key limitation of the law. It demonstrated that in some situations, obedience to legislation transcends political, economic, or human rights justifications, because sometimes there is simply no better outcome whether the law is obeyed or not.

Charlie Gard, a young infant, was born on the 4^thAugust 2016, with a rare mitochondrial disease, MDDS. It meant that he could not respire properly or use his arms or legs – he relied on a ventilator at all times, meaning that he was required to stay at Great Ormond Street Hospital, where care could be provided. In January 2017 began suffering deadly seizures, and his doctors felt that it was time to end his life support and begin palliative care, to the opposition of his parents. For them, there was still hope of Charlie’s survival – they had consulted an American neurologist named Michio Hirano, who was working on a potential cure named nucleoside therapy. However, Dr Hirano felt the chances of success were only a “theoretical possibility” [19], owing to the treatment’s highly experimental nature.

Charlie’s parents were not willing to give up on young Charlie’s life, and so the case was brought to the High Court by GOSH. They ruled in favour of GOSH, citing the Children’s Act 1989 [20], with Section 1 stating that the “child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”, or in other words, because it was in Charlie’s best self-interests to not receive the nucleoside therapy, as its experimental nature may cause more harm than good. The case was then subsequently brought to the Court of Appeal, then Supreme Court, until finally it reached the European Court of Human Rights, where the decision of the High Court was upheld each time [21]. On the 27^{th of} June 2017, Charlie was moved to hospice, and on the following day his mother declared that he had passed away [22].

Though the law had been obeyed, the result was extremely polarizing for many [23]. Even though placing Charlie into palliative care may have been the best way forward for him, it could be argued that the decision should have been up to his parents. It makes perfect sense if they did not wish to follow the guidance of the courts, as it would be emotionally shattering to give up the life of their child, especially if there was even the smallest chance of recovery.

But no system is perfect, and it goes without saying that with all the benefits that the law can bring, it is undeniable that as a country, we must still obey the law. If the government or the people did not uphold the law and went against the Human Rights Act or NHS Act 1946 [24], Charlie’s parents would not have been able to contest their decision in a court of law for such a long time, and GOSH wouldn’t have had the funding from tax revenues to keep Charlie alive on a ventilator. If you disagree with a law, you should not disobey it – from R V R, we can see that laws can be changed, but only using correct procedure like using the rights that the law gives you to argue your case in court or for example, by creating a petition to get an amendment passed through parliament. This way, the order of society is respected, and as aforementioned, not only the individual but the whole of society has something to gain.

Tags law, Long Read

Law & Politics Social Sciences

What would have to change about ‘democracy’ in order to restore faith in democracy among young people?

Post author By rgsguildford
Post date 15th Mar 2023
No Comments on What would have to change about ‘democracy’ in order to restore faith in democracy among young people?

This long-read article was written by Joshua Inglesfield for the Northeastern University London essay competition, and received a finalist position.

Estimated read time of essay: 12 minutes

What would have to change about ‘democracy’ in order to restore faith in democracy among young people?

Young people – who I shall class as anyone aged 16-24 (taking the 18-24 grouping used by Parliament and extending it to include those who may be enfranchised in the future) – are the future of democracy, and thus it is critical that they have faith in its operation; lest we fall into the enclave of authoritarianism. An increasing number of protests worldwide and a surge in populism signals that youth are tired of democracy’s inefficiency. Populist success can be seen worldwide – from the historic city of Rome where you can find the newly elected far-right Fratelli d’Italia, to Orban in Budapest, across the Mediterranean to Syriza in Greece – the list goes on. Correlations drawn with figures showing that 55% of Italian youth no longer believe that democracy ‘is the best form of government’ – 7% higher than the average for European youth [1] – demonstrates that the rise of ‘Fratelli d’Italia’ is alongside a growing lack of faith in democracy. This is no coincidence and is happening across the globe. Thus, it is clear a solution is needed.

Direct democracy would appear to be the perfect solution to loss of faith in democracy among youth – the turnout for the 2016 Brexit referendum being 10% higher than that for the 2017 election among 18-24 year olds [2] is evidence enough that youth prefer a form of direct democracy. Not only would this give young people the impression that they could make a tangible difference, but it would also reduce this notion of ‘democratic disconnect’ [3] – the alienation of young people from democratic processes. Youth also have a lack of trust in governments – with such a process young people will be confident that governments will no longer be able to ‘sell’ policy decisions to the highest bidder through party donations to as great an extent. Further to this, Colin Crouch argues that; ‘democracy requires the formal mechanisms of citizen participation but also proof of genuine political agency’- which in the eyes of young people is not being fulfilled, seeing little ‘political agency’ (actual actions) taking place with regards to their concerns. Consequently, we can conclude that young people would, by Crouch’s argument, be seeing a failure and consequently be having a lack of faith in democracy, due to this perceived absence of ‘political agency’– a situation Crouch labels a ‘post-democracy’ [4]. Such an implementation would deal with the perceived lack of action alongside strengthening ‘citizen participation’ and so increase faith in democracy. But there is a significant drawback to this suggestion. Imagine you wake up to a notification on your phone – notice of the 2^nd referendum this month. Before you can even consider the proposition you must go to work, cook dinner, and go to the supermarket. 349 minutes [5] – the average amount of ‘leisure time’ per day for Britons – is all you have left. 349 minutes dwarfed by the amount of time Public Bill Committees spend inspecting a bill, and certainly too little time to properly understand the subject of the referendum. This is the constraint of time. The average person simply does not have enough of it to consider the wider implications of their vote, nor how the policy enacted by the referendum might fit in with existing policy. Consequently, their voting behaviour will become a lottery, an impulse on the day rather than a considered vote. So, while direct democracy may seem inviting, once realised the population would find themselves confused, overwhelmed, and not able to make a decision to benefit even themselves. Thus, if this were to take place the number of referendums would have to be strictly limited, and be on larger, more straightforward questions such as capital punishment.

The voting age is a hotly disputed topic in British politics. For years groups such as the Electoral Reform Society [6] have campaigned for the voting age to be lowered to 16 – mentioning arguments such as increasing political participation for generations to come [7] – but few cite increasing faith in democracy as the primary argument. The Electoral Reform Society’s argument is a valid one – they argue that if you “don’t vote, you are less likely to vote in future” [8] – and that by enfranchising these new groups we could encourage greater lifelong participation. This would have the additional benefit of increasing faith in democracy, increasing involvement and again reducing a democratic disconnect to youth– with Dr Foa and Dr Mounk writing that in the UK young people are less likely to vote for the often-anti-democratic populists when ‘mobilised to vote’ [9] – which here would be enfranchising 16- and 17-year-olds. An additional argument for lowering the voting age being the solution to declining faith in democracy among young people is the idea that when youth are not directly involved in democracy, they lose faith in it [10]. This action would therefore seem to fulfil all criteria to increase faith in democracy among youth – but there is an obvious drawback – nothing has changed for the currently enfranchised youth. Such a change would therefore do nothing to deal with the current decline in faith in democracy among the ages 18-24, a dangerous risk given that these are the ages which are already propelling extreme populists to power in nations such as Greece. Far from ameliorating the situation, this would risk escalating it. The youth ignored by such a reform may feel further alienated and see another failure of democracy to criticise, one that risks pushing the democratic disconnect to an irretrievable state of separation between democracy and young people.

First Past The Post (FPTP) – a voting system which suppresses the votes of millions. That is, from a critic’s perspective – but the fact is that FPTP’s nature ensures that only two large parties can ever realistically hold government, a feature which while does produce strong majoritarian governments (usually – 2010 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition is a notable exception), results in smaller parties receiving almost no seats. But why is this a problem regarding faith in democracy? If we take the argument that the principal reason for loss of faith is not seeing action, would not FPTP be the obvious choice, empowering a strong government to take decisive action without being hindered by Parliamentary squabbles or half-baked coalitions? Those arguments certainly hold some water; however, the issue of representation must be raised. One of the issues young people are most concerned with is climate; so many may support the Green Party; but despite getting 2.7% of the vote share across the UK in the 2019 general election, they only received approximately 0.15% of seats available [11]. Thus, many young people who voted for a party that would pioneer their beliefs have been left unrepresented. This feeling of being unrepresented will likely lead to dissatisfaction and a lack of faith in democracy, as the problem lies in the very essence of democracy, the voting system. The clearest solution would be proportional representation – as used by 40 European nations [12]. Such a system would ensure that smaller parties pioneering the views of minorities or smaller groups such as young people are heard and would allow for greater political pressure to be applied for tangible action. Critics, however, would argue that it gives opportunity to potentially dangerous populist parties such as Syriza, or even extremist ones as seen with the rise of the Nazi party under proportional representation, portraying it as a vile breeding ground for hate. However, it is necessary to note that in modern democracy this is rarely the case to such an extent, with parties such as ‘Alternative for Germany’ [13] being kept out of government – in fact, it almost seems as if FPTP is the envy of populists at present, leading to Trumpism and pro-Brexit populist groups rising to power and succeeding [14]

To conclude, young people will need to see a change to the very structure of democracy to prevent further decline in faith in democracy – with it being imperative that these changes are not superficial PR stunts but tangible changes. What is needed is a two-fold implementation – With this in mind, I would suggest that what is necessary for the UK is the simpler change of increasing the number of referendums to involve youth to a greater extent in democracy, and the more structural change of shifting to proportional representation as a system to give the silenced minority parties a voice. These two implementations would allow for an increase in participation in democracy, which in turn would lead to an increase in faith in it as young people see their policy aspirations manifest into tangible change. Thus, as Aiden Correia writes; ‘democracy is about providing everyone with a voice. The youth are willing to talk; governments just need to start to listen’ [15] – through the measures outlined above we can fight the democratic apathy of young people before it spills over into antipathy.

[1] TUI Stiftung/YouGov. (2017). “Young Europe 2017: The Youth Study of the TUI Stiftung.” www.tui-stiftung.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/All-results-TUI-Stiftung_European-Youth.pdf .

[2] Stephan Mashford/89 Scotland. (2020). “Youth turnout – How does the UK compare to other European nations?” https://89initiative.com/youth-turnout-uk-europe/ .

[3] Foa, R.S., Klassen, A., Wenger, D., Rand, A. and M. Slade. (2020) “Youth and Satisfaction with Democracy: Reversing the Democratic Disconnect?” https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Youth_and_Satisfaction_with_Democracy-lite.pdf .

[4] C. Crouch. (2004). Post-Democracy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press

[5] ONS. (2017). “Leisure time in the UK: 2015” https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/satelliteaccounts/articles/leisuretimeintheuk/2015 .

[6] Electoral Reform Society. (2017). “Background on Votes at 16” https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/parliamentary-briefings/votes-at-16/ .

[7] Electoral Reform Society. (date not disclosed). “Votes at 16” https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/votes-at-16/ .

[8] Electoral Reform Society. (date not disclosed). “Votes at 16” https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/votes-at-16/ .

[9] R.S. Foa/Y. Mounk. (2019). “Youth and the populist wave” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0191453719872314 .

[10] A. Correia. (2021). “The necessity of youth support in sustaining democracy” https://diplomatmagazine.eu/2021/11/20/the-necessity-of-youth-support-in-sustaining-democracy/ .

[11] BBC News. (2019). “Election 2019 Results” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results .

[12] M. Palese/Electoral Reform Society. (2018). “Which European countries use proportional representation?” https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/ .

[13] L. Drutman. (2022). “10 Ideas to Fix Democracy – Abolish Two-Party Systems” https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/07/10-ideas-fix-democracy/ .

[14] L. Drutman. (2022). “10 Ideas to Fix Democracy – Abolish Two-Party Systems” https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/07/10-ideas-fix-democracy/ .

[15] A. Correia. (2021). “The necessity of youth support in sustaining democracy” https://diplomatmagazine.eu/2021/11/20/the-necessity-of-youth-support-in-sustaining-democracy/ .

Tags Long Read, politics