Streit Talk

by Griffin W. Huschke

Voting in the 2004 plebiscite

The leaders of the United Kingdom’s ruling coalition, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, have seemed a bit like the odd couple in the last several weeks.  Cameron, the conservative leader who famously slashed governmental services and raised tuition for students, has thus far been effective at maintaining the coalition’s focus on the Conservative party’s agenda, even if many of those planks were expressly repellent to the coalition’s junior partner.  But Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats were only going to play nice for so long, and part of the reward for holding their nose through all this NHS drama was a referendum to revamp First Past the Post electoral system currently in place.

The Liberal Democrats argue that the current system is broken because it isn’t proportional, and marginalizes minority parties.  Opponents of the Liberal Democrat’s proposed system, including the Conservative Party, say the new system is confusing, and would create weaker ruling parties, leading to more dissolved Parliaments and ineffectual government.  And in general, the public has agreed with the Conservatives–in a referendum held last weekend, voters widely rejected the Liberal Democrats proposed “Alternative Vote” system by almost 2 to 1.

In thinking about various voting systems used around the world in governments and international institutions like NATO and the EU, it’s almost impossible to offer some sort of objective analysis; voting systems are the result a country’s culture, history, and underlying political philosophies.  The system used to elect officials or make decisions speak to the values a country places on intangibles like preoperational representation, consensus, minority opinion, and the amount of political agency in the electorate.   While there are changes that can be made that affect the efficacy of an institution—the Streit Council has long argued for changes in the decision-making processes of NATO and the election methods of the European Union—the counter-arguments to these changes are usually rooted in arguments about political philosophy and state sovereignty that are convincing to many state leaders.

It seems that the public of the United Kingdom has spoken loudly about the value it places on these issues, but that doesn’t mean the First Past the Post system is necessary better or more capable of electing the best leaders in the most democratic way possible.  Sometimes issues are just a matter of public opinion.

Griffin W. Huschke is the Mayme and Herb Frank Fund Research Fellow at the Streit Council. Photo credit: Peterwalshprojects (http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterwalshprojects/2494369663/)

by Jack Detsch

Today we open a new chapter in a long history of co-operation on defense and security between Britain and France,” British Prime Minister David Cameron remarked yesterday as French President Nicolas Sarkozy looked on. Yesterday’s landmark British-Franco defense agreements may forever change the scope of military cooperation in Europe, as it calls for:

a new combined force available for deployment at times of international crisis that is expected to involve about 5,000 service members from each nation, with land, sea and air components, and rotating French and British commanders. The pacts also foresee each nation alternating in putting a single aircraft carrier to sea, with the vessels operating as bases for French, British and American aircraft in times of need.

The nuclear agreement was in some ways the most surprising, since it committed the two nations to sharing some of their most carefully kept secrets. Although the two leaders emphasized that France’s “force de frappe” and Britain’s similar, submarine-based ballistic missile force would remain separate and under the sole control of each government, they agreed to establish joint research centers, one in France and one in Britain, to further research on their stockpiles of nuclear warheads.

The agreement comes two weeks after London carried out its first Strategic Defense Review in over a decade, which recommended the withdrawal of over 20,000 troops from continental Europe, the elimination of Harrier fighter jets, and the decommissioning of the Royal Navy’s aircraft carrier. Considerations of fiscal austerity, currently sweeping the Europe, have had a radical effect on bloc defense, and could serve to accelerate similar agreements between other European states hoping to improve their military effectiveness.

Britain and France are Europe’s two greatest military powers, and this agreement will likely increase their effectiveness in strategic missions around the world.  Using pooled resources, Britain and France can dually commit themselves to globally significant crisis management missions in the near-abroad and elsewhere.  Now that it is further entwined with its French allies, the UK could also be more open to committing resources to Common Foreign and Security Policy and Common Security and Defense Policy missions. The creation of a joint expeditionary force and a British-Franco program for spare parts, maintenance, and pilot training of the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft will also allow Europe to project hard power on a much greater scale, which will improve Europe’s effectiveness in peacekeeping and crisis management situations.

However, this pact faces significant challenges in both the Britain and France, even among Mr. Cameron and Mr. Sarkozy’s party faithful. A Conservative MP and a back-bencher in UK Parliament, Bernard Jenkin, expressed concerns to the BBC about France’s “record of duplicity.” In announcing the agreement alongside his French cohort, Mr. Cameron acknowledged his critics, but argued that “Britain and France are, and will always remain, sovereign nations, able to deploy our armed forces independently and in our national interest when we choose to do so.”

Euro skeptics, who still represent a large minority in both nations, will find this deal a bitter pill to swallow, although the Labour party’s shadow defense minister hailed the agreement. Still, the Labour Party is closing the gap in polls with Conservatives, so the Prime Minister must be careful in his political approach.  It is less clear what a regime change in France would mean for the agreement. Future elections are looking much direr for Mr. Sarkozy, with approval ratings tumbling toward the mid-twenties as a wave of protests hit France last week. Several credible challengers for the French Presidency are emerging, including IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who is polling 18 points ahead of Mr. Sarkozy.

Jack Detsch is an undergraduate at George Washington University and a Research Intern at the Streit Council.  Photo credit: Anja Johnson