Why Hollande will bring winds of change across Europe

17 years; that’s the time it took for France to elect a social democrat President. 17 years of right-wing ruling, to only finish with five years of measures benefiting the rich and most favoured, together with an undeniable rise of harsh-stand policies against immigrants.

6th May 2012 will remain imprinted on everyone’s memories. Not as the day France stood still, but as the day the people took their future in their hands and rejected the austerity measures former President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel have so far dictated, set against a crisis background whose biggest financial institutions blithely pull the strings.

Of course, it logically led to a foreseeable decrease of the Euro, and to even more predictable criticism from the pro-Sarkozy and European rightists. Yet, I was surprised to see that most European newspapers backed Hollande’s election so as to even call it a stunning victory that will reshape Europe’s politics. And if we dig a tiny bit deeper, we can easily understand why.

Separating himself from Sarkozy in pretty much every aspects of life, Hollande seduces a new generation of French people with his ordinary appearance, which quickly gave him the label of Mr. Normal. Far from the image “bling-bling” Sarkozy fatally tagged himself within hours of his election in 2007, Hollande preaches for a new kind of President: not a “President of the rich”, but rather a President close to his people and ready to give a hand to everyone, immigrants, women, and the poor included.

Hollande also opposes Sarkozy in how he wishes to get over the crisis. Rather than backing up the austerity measures that Sarkozy and Merkel are desperately trying to stuff inside Europeans’ mouths, without much success though, Hollande calls for an end to austerity and the re-establishment of a real growth along with job creations. It will of course be a highly difficult job for him, especially as Sarkozy leaves France cribbed with debts, but at least I believe it is worth trying another solution, as the first one didn’t benefit anyone, except maybe the financial oligarchs.

But Hollande also distances himself from Sarkozy in the way he approaches the social aspects France has so much trouble to deal with. Whereas Sarkozy clearly and shamelessly attempted to grab votes from the far-right and promoted a France free from the surplus of immigrants, Hollande called for unity and equality among all people, advocating an efficient use of French multiculturalism and giving immigrants rights in the local elections. He also officially supports gay marriage and same-sex adoption and plans to make them legal as early as 2013, thus becoming the 7th country in Europe that has legalised such rights.

Surely, things won’t be as easy as I seem to picture them. Hollande will undeniably face tough challenges and strong opposition from the right parties in France as well as in Europe. One of his first moves will then probably be to maintain and work on his relation with Merkel’s Germany so as to preserve the entente cordiale between the two countries. Yet, after so many years of policies benefiting only one side of the society, I truly can’t think of anything else worse than what we’ve had until then. It only remains to Hollande to prove that he’s the man France has been longing for.

French elections: the outcome of the debate

Debate, debate. A word that was on every French’s mouth last Wednesday night, as around 20 million citizens watched the presidential duel, seen as to be the most aggressive and brutal debate in several decades. I’m going to spare you the suspense, Hollande shone way above Sarkozy. And I couldn’t be happier.

To those who said Hollande was a “softy”, the debate showed them the exact opposite. Confronting and pushing Sarkozy in his corner, the socialist candidate proved he has what it takes to be the next President. Opposite to him, Sarkozy almost seemed like a contestant rather than a sitting President, losing patience and calmness, calling Hollande a liar and an arrogant, and using words as he sees fit, thus making confusing and often false statements.

But Hollande, far from losing it, fought back at every bullet Sarkozy shot and managed to dominate in the most important confrontations, taking the words out of Sarkozy’s mouth, leaving him speechless.

He also ensured to point out Sarkozy’s mistakes, some of which were quite shocking. Among noticeable treats from Sarkozy, it’s worth remembering his close-to-far-right speech on immigration, mixing up the latter with Islamism and religious fundamentalism, thus preaching for an even more harsh-stand policy on the issue. Jumping on the confusion, Hollande quickly reacted, asking him why he makes such a comparison between immigrants and Muslims. Quite logically, Sarkozy avoided to give a clear answer.

Although I don’t think this debate has done much difference for the voters as 80% of them had made up their minds already, it is worth noticing Hollande’s lead narrowing, just two days before the big night. But let’s not panic, Hollande still has a comfortable lead: indeed the last polls give him a 52,5% win, against 47,5% for his opponent.

So let’s keep our fingers crossed until Sunday night and until then, don’t forget to go cast your ballot!

Indifferent youth no more!

As we approach the election year, Pakistanis seem to be harbouring a range of mixed emotions. Uncertainty and doubt, like always, are very prevalent but on a surprisingly happier note, a sense of hope is also emitting from some quarters. The urban youth, albeit a minority, is heavily charged in favour of Imran Khan, former cricketer and the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI). For years this country has suffered corrupt politicians and a power hungry military. These factors have given birth to a generation of people who have mostly been hopeless and then indifferent. Imran Khan has at least changed the latter.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Though still disillusioned with both the democratic and the dictatorial process of government, the youth is now beginning to show signs of life. Score one for Imran Khan! He has single handedly changed the way political rallies and campaigns are run in this country. More youth targeted with slogans of not just righteousness but hope, really has uplifted the spirits of the young. His political processions have seen the largest number of youngsters in recent memory. Interestingly, unlike ever before, most of these participants are urban, educated kids with a striking inclusion of mass numbers of young women. With a legion of fans which include a lot of musicians and sports celebrities, he is set to conquer this and next generation’s hearts.

What has worked in favour of this young, inexperienced politician has mainly been just that: his inexperience. His idealism acts as the catalyst that this nation needs. With his charisma infectious and his stance revolutionary, he is what the youth of this country have dreamt of for ages. He is well known for his philanthropic work, work that is already very transparent and effectual. He also had an unblemished cricket career as the only captain to have led the country to victory in the World Cup; these factors have only added to his credibility. And obviously good looks, charm and an Oxford education have lent a helping hand too.

Lately there has been so much emphasis on his political aspirations that half the urban population is hell bent on bringing him to power. Their main argument being that the guy has never been given a chance unlike every other politician. I’d say that is a great step forward. After all, what else does saturation of power mean? It is only this that can bring true democracy to our political shores. His popularity is also in his cry for political accountability for all – the answer to every pro-democracy pundit’s prayers.

But then, there is the other side too – some political analysts, other political parties and the self-proclaimed liberals. Their criticism is simple: the man is too religious for their liking. True, that his stances have strong religious overtones, but then he is the same man whose ex-wife, with whom he has excellent ties and who happens to be his staunchest supporter, is the British heiress Jemima Khan nee Goldsmith. He is also the same man who has the largest support from the liberal, modern urban men and women. However, there is no denying that he shares a comfortable relationship with some of the religious parties of the country.

Many critics laugh at his foreign policy ideals; he does not want to bow to the US needlessly and talks about negotiating with the Taliban. Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not exactly what America itself is now opting for? In recent interviews, he has clarified that he is not anti-US but in fact wants Pakistan to stand its ground when need be. Other political parties allege that he is being supported by the establishment behind the scenes – well I wonder who exactly were they supported by when they came to power and why only talk about him being an ‘agency’s man’! In a county where establishment rules the day, the rumour mills are run by the agencies themselves who benefit from the political rifts more than anyone. The fact that the establishment is aware of the nation’s fear of their involvement, it could be argued, that they themselves fuel the rumours more that Imran Khan’s also in their pockets.

I am not saying that Imran Khan is our answer to all the problems, but there certainly is no harm in giving him a chance. Having tried everyone several disappointing times, it is time to move forward with an idealist. The urban youth’s interest is a huge step forward and if one man has garnered this support then true democratic principles demand that we adhere to the majority’s say. In all fairness, true democracy will only flourish if all participate and if their vote is for Imran Khan, then so be it.

For democracy and laicité

I’ve been wondering lately why France is having such a hard time dealing with immigration and multiculturalism. When I compare my country with England, where I lived last year, I see all the many differences that oppose them. Sure, England is no saint, it has its issues as well, especially lately regarding alleged police racism. But what stroke me is the way it deals with “ex-colonies” citizens. When I look at England, I think of the cultural and religious diversity in Universities, or at the Sikh policemen who proudly wear their turban, and most importantly, are allowed to. But when I look at France, all I think about is the law that bans wearing ostentatious religious signs in public schools (and which clearly focuses on the Muslim veil, let’s face it) or the headscarf ban that was implemented last year and that forbids all full headscarf public wearing.

For democracy and laicité, says the French state. For the greater good of the French Republic. Greater good, you said? What greater good?

Liberté, égalité, fraternité, proclaims the national motto of the République française. Would this be equality, then? Ensuring to shape all citizens in the same French image, thus banning all foreign signs? But then, why do French people have a problem with Blacks and Arabs but not with, say Asians and Latinos?

It’s been decades, very long and painful decades, that France has split up with its colonies. And yet, it feels like it has never really parted from them, that the problems the French state faced at that time are still very much alive. The relation France has with its ex-colonies is tricky. First, because of the way decolonisation happened: in the unwillingness to let them go which triggered a bloodshed; second, because of the relation France feels it mandatory to maintain, and of the French ghost that continues to hover above each of its ex-colonies. Having no idea how to deal with the mass of ex-colonies immigrants that settled in the country, the French state then thought it best to put everyone in the same traditional French boat so as to avoid clashes.

But the trick is that the issue doesn’t lie in immigration per se: it lies in the aftermath of the decolonisation process. Precisely I believe it lies in the resentment and hate that the French have towards ex-colonies citizens who moved there. Arriving en-masse in the late 60s, they settled at the peripheries of the big cities and re-formed what they had left behind: the typical bled (the hometown). Speaking their language, living their religion, eating their food, making their business, this complete new way of life shocked die-hard French. Quickly then, immigrants from ex-colonies were targeted by the police, were accused of stealing jobs from the French, and were pushed away into “modern” ghettos, those huge areas of high-rise blocks of council flats. Sadly but quite logically, it created fierce reaction among them, which led to more hate from both sides.

Years have passed, Presidents followed one another, and yet nothing has changed. French-born people still refuse to acknowledge other cultures and religions, and fear the Black/Arab youth while the latter feel rejected and out of the society. Yet, I believe things could be changed. I mean, I just don’t see how the actual situation – everyone on the same level of laicité – does any good to France: it gives less freedom to people who “physically” practice their religion, which leads to more frustration and tensions; it triggers a false feeling of legitimacy among French-born people, who feel they have more rights than ex-colonies citizens; this to only demonstrate the supremacy of the traditional Christian France over any other kind. But why couldn’t Muslim wear their own clothes, why couldn’t they practice freely their religion (i.e. street prayers) and speak their own language? I’m sure most of the people find it shocking and disturbing to see an Arabic girl wearing the hijab. But would they be as shocked to see an Indonesian girl wearing it?

My point is, French people have had so much grudge in them in the past decades because of the mass-immigration from the ex-colonies that it has genuinely become a natural thing to distrust and suspect all Blacks and Arabs. You think I’m wrong? Then why do Blacks or Arabs always get their identity checked in the metro, whereas other foreign-origin (I won’t even talk about White) people don’t? It all comes down to that. It is all these historical causes that are responsible for the current plagues that hit France. And it is certainly not a divergence of religion, culture or language (as the French don’t mind Pakistanis or Chinese for instance) but a divergence of power: they colonised and now, in a certain way, they are colonised.

But the French should know by now (thankfully some do) that their country is not a one-religion one-culture state anymore. It is evolving toward a multicultural and multi-religion state that, if only tolerance and equality weren’t missing, would set a wonderful example for the rest of the world. So let’s only hope that the Presidential elections will bring a wind of change among French citizens, so as to put the past behind, at last.

What’s new in the world?

Sorry for my lack of writing – and for my laziness, Easter chocolates slowed me down a bit. Yummy!

Alright, so the latest news: not many bad stuff is happening right now, I’ll take that as a sign that the world hasn’t been completely abandoned to the sweaty palms of Evil, yet.

Let’s start!

Schmitt Pál, Hungary’s President or should I say ex-President has resigned amid critics concerning his plagiarised PhD thesis. Finally someone in the government who realised he’s not higher than the little people. But don’t rejoice yourself too fast, Prime Minister Orbán has already announced he would name an even more right-wing puppet. Things promise to get pretty around here…

Breivik not insane? Yes! I can’t believe people actually read my post and decided to change their decision! Yeah OK it’s probably (definitely) not because of my post but whatever, I like to think it is. That will be the highlight of my day! Yay me! More seriously, the good thing is that he will be tried and send to prison rather than in a mental institution. Finally a bit of common sense around here!

Aung San Suu Kyi paving the way for democracy in Burma, who would have thought of this even a few months ago? Well, the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner has finally managed to obtain a seat in Parliament and her party to win 40 of the 45 contested seats, thus officially making her the opposition leader. Although this is great news, there’s no need to put the cart before the horse: as big as this one step might be, it is only one tiny one among many others. The road to democracy is long and tricky, and Burma is only at the very beginning of things. It will surely take years before the Lady can expect her country to become fully democratic.

KONY 2012, who hasn’t heard of it, seriously? Viewed by more than 100 millions people, the first video created fierce critics all around the world, due to a quite large amount of false and confusing information concerning the African war lord Joseph Kony. Its founder, Jason Russell, calls this worldwide awareness, I call this publicity for his NGO. Fact is, he simply couldn’t resist the pressure and after running wildly naked in the streets of San Diego, he is now taking a much needed rest in a mental institution. That’s probably why the second video explaining the reasons for the confusing information made a flop comparing to the first one. But what’s more important than his mental condition, is that Russell simply created a new way to get to the people and to get to their wallets, and it’s quite an evil one. I wouldn’t be surprised to soon see other NGOs give it a try. Sigh.

Santorum, so long! Finally, after weeks and months of US Republican campaign, America’s fiercest bigot has quit the race at last, lagging behind Mitt Romney in the states votes that mattered the most. Although I couldn’t be happier and relieved to see him leaving, one thing darkens my shiny day: the surprising rise and popularity of Santorum shows that American social conservatives are more alive than ever, and that the battle for equality and rights is far from being over, if not just begun. Double sigh.

And that will be all for now! Of course, there are loads of other news that I could talk about, like what’s going on in Syria, or the Trayvon Martin case, or the fears of a new tsunami near Aceh following an 8.6-magnitude earthquake. But frankly I don’t really feel like talking about depressing news, so we will stay on these bright notes!

Where are you from?

Below is a list of all the countries that have visited this blog since the beginning of 2012. And to my greatest surprise, the last continent that wasn’t covered yet brightened up yesterday. A special thank to that one person in Kenya, and many more thanks to all of you around the world!

Ph+D = (Ctrl+C) + (Ctrl+V)

Remember your first days at University and the workshop you had about plagiarism and the consequences of doing it? Right, so this is something that quite logically is taken very seriously in all higher-education institutions; plagiarising your essay or thesis or whatever else can induce effects such as being expelled. It’s that simple, and everyone knows it.

So what if now I’d tell you that not all people are affected by the consequences of plagiarism? You would probably say: “duh?” Please, let me introduce you to Pál Schmitt, Hungary’s President, and king of plagiarism – sorry, copying. Back in the 1990s, the man submitted his thesis and received the best distinction possible. But 20 years later, some people did a little research and discovered that Mr President had plagiarised most (94.6%) of his dissertation. Quite logically then, they asked a committee to review the thesis and to decide whether it is valid or not. The response of the committee is the following: although hundreds of pages have indeed been copied from someone else’s work and Schmitt’s dissertation lacks proper citations, sources, and bibliographic references, the committee cannot condemn hum as his thesis had been approved back in the days. Therefore he gets to keep his degree.

Now, the main criticism of the Schmitt partisans is to say that he doesn’t hold a PhD but a “little doctorate”, and therefore doesn’t have the title that goes with it. Furthermore, they assert that the requirements were at that time different and that the degree “little doctorate” doesn’t exist anymore.

To these people, I’d like to say: plagiarism is plagiarism, never mind if it’s a PhD, “little doctorate”, Master thesis, essay or whatever else. Sure it does not exist anymore, but then Schmitt should have had the decency and integrity to mention that slight fact, copying from someone else’s work. Coming from a President, I find this to be a little bit “low”.

If you’re too lazy to come up with your own words, don’t do a degree. It’s as simple as that.