Democracy

The threat to Iran is commercialisation, a political reply to economic growth that undermines westernisation and economic depression. The global response is divided by region, but in Iran the dilemma is urban against rural politics on this issue. The economy is divided between a politics of dissolution and a realist ideology behind growth. The religion is orthodox and is in charge of the state, the leaders threatened by political change and this may lead to continuity. The recent threat from nuclear issues is a threat to the opposition, which made itself known after democratic credentials were undermined.

The western issue is an ideological threat to neighbouring countries, the new Iraq a threat to Iran. The economic growth in these countries worries traders who must depend on the Iranian government. The regions to the north Israel and Syria seem to dominate its outward authority, but the religion is based on north African approaches to ideology, less globalisation or ideology of revolution. The threat is from the cohabitation of secular politics and religious veto, which threatens growth and undermines solidarity. The economy is stalling and the nuclear issue may be attempting to disguise it.

The superpowers have been prevented from public interference except as onlookers, the regional powers like Israel more routine in their response. The religion is arguing from economic isolation, while the social dialogue is delivering no freedom to change the politics of growth. This depends on nationalism and opportunity for political rule and depends on continuity. The ideology behind secularism is a belief in authority for leaders to increase leverage against dictatorship, but no obstacles are put in its way.

This victim mentality is neither ideological or religious, but a blend of liberal elites and authoritarian instincts. I suggest the west is attempting to find a peaceful Iran, while knowing that Iraqi strategies like it failed. Iran is not a terrorist nation either, but a kind of western influenced dictatorship, that now has gone it alone. The lessons from Iraq are significant, but not necessarily the remedies. These depend on the view of opportunities for democracy and the risk of sympathetic neighbours. The history more like civil war in near-by countries.

The community in Iran is more friendly to the west, and there is a communication not found in more Soviet style groups.  The religion may die out, but the secular powers are ideological in their aims and reinforce the veto. Nuclear power may undermine the opposition, because it is both symbolic of the two sides of government and may start a debate about the limits of the state. The religious dimension is threatened by defeat in its public strategies, but lays blame on the secular side for its home failings. The economy is more of an ideological approach, a sort of domestic undercurrent that threatens continuity.

This approach divides the leaders and the nation, and the west also falls for it. Conflict with other nations are part of both private aims and public strategies. I suggest division on the military and welfare areas is more of a concern and the economy reinforces it through cohesion. The global impact of this threat is of more concern, it suggests a global response to Iran is unlikely and authority leading to a more secular leadership is undermined because of isolation. The growth of influence is economic in origin and political in impact, but democracy is a concrete result. The threat from the economy more of a philosophical dilemma, combing region and state in a strategy of anti-politics. I argue the political side is more of a typical North African state. But globalisation may alter the divisions and political strategy of it.

Goals

The news from the Commons seems good, the west is encouraging a coalition bringing aid to Syria, civil war is being debated by non-aligned powers and the approach of dictatorial policy is rebutted. Domestic interests may convince the public at home, but refugees and military esperadoes tell a different story. Syria lies next to some of the most vigorous states, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq. Key points of interests in the past has been an attack on Iraq, a revolution supported by the west in Libya, next to Egypt, and Israeli war in Lebanon and Egypt's revolutionary status since the fall of a dictatorship. The problem is that none of this happened without the west's active participation.

Iraq was an attempt by the west to secure vital oil interests, Israel attempted to find its own solutions through Lebanon in the 1980s and then America supported a revolution in Egypt. These relationships show an interest in oil and powerful arguments about keeping a weight on Arabia. Syria turns to the west's ennemy to uncover a plot to realign interests behind Iraq's invasion. I suggest the backlash is in no-one's interest, neither the east nor the west.

British involvement shows an American relationship behind superpower politics, and would not be expected to intervene without the massive use of American military. Other events like Egypt's revolution is neither about interference or side stepping, it is an inability to solve the sovereign question without a major war. This was attempted in Iraq and by Israel, both led to uprisings that were defeated. But why was oil left out of these conflicts, when all sides had so much to lose. Secondly why did only a few states successfully overthrow their dictatorships? The reason is to safeguard the politics of oil, Iraq and Syria were never an attempt to overthrow western interests. Israel and Syria are an attempt to undermine domestic politics by the west, while domestic forces have their own reasons for their approach.

The 1990s were a poor attempt at finding economic markets by the west while the 2000s have tried to find support in the south through domestic constituencies. The 1980s started this institutional approach to policy-making, relying on the east to counter pressure applied by the west. The danger is that in the South there are domestic movements and regional powers and the there is little choice but to support a balance between left and right. While this is going on Europe has consolidated in its traditional approaches, America and Russia also have traditional neo-colonial aims and regional powers have attempted to fight from a position of strength. Domestic movements have used the choice wisely despite an attempt by all these authorities to provide a client regime.

The civilians are not combatants and have been fought over by regional forces and local movements. The west has held back much like earlier post-colonial ideologies suggest. Israel has been consistently forceful as has Syria. The movements have been ruthless in their butchery and lack of  basic humanitarian policies. Oil has created an amphitheatre like trade in the colonies and the consequence has been a shaming of the west and a rise of regional forces, including Syria and Israel. Domestic forces have used this leverage to undo humanitarian resolutions, and divided communities. The rules has shown a regional dislike for community politics and conflict  has assumed a Shakespearian brutality. Of course this happens at the same time and oil is flowing despite strong local traditions and economic hierarchies.

Domestic constituencies have largely ignored images of this in Afghanistan and troops have fought in a sideshow bloody in intensity and colonial in ambition. The difference lies in conflicts over natural resources, and Afghanistan is about sovereign aims as well as political journeys. This focus has remind us that the east gets away from confronting the west through western aims, complex as its seems both are shaping history in their political rights they ignore and the foreign policies they try and hide. Politically obscure these states have terrorist leanings, as they have no standing army and although the relationships are stated that shift power away from the centre, a sort of resistance movement. Both sides have propaganda, but one is in charge and the other undermining it. The side show is worth it, there is a director and citizens and terrorists mix as one, but the west fails to show that both have a common identity and fare badly in international prestige.

The decision of institutions

The voice of Europe is not heard for good reason, the Union is an agreement between nations, and Britain is a force of nationalism that has its origins in economic boundaries from the nineteenth century. This means its leaders like to hear from those under its influence, which doesn't include Europe. European integration was never likely to work for these reasons, but the alternative may be unlikely to function either. Globalisation has led to a misreading of other nations willingness to entertain our idea of their economic position, and we may be heading for a fall in terms of political success.

The advantages of a Union is it can be agreed with the aim of mutual benefit, and can be adjusted with that in mind. This is still possible because it is an agreement, but leaving is against a belief in Britain having a place at all. I suggest the East and the Third World that are traditional alternatives, entertain different ideas, and the west and the Commonwealth has no reason to accommodate us. This means  a period of isolation, and a time to recover from this and other malaises, I predict a low level of political victory as we try and carve a way forward.

The disadvantages of Union are that our leaders are not in full control, and the public have more authority and influence with their governments. This alienation may be unwise and has on the surface resulted in leaders ganging up in places like Davos. The period since the 1970s have given a slow learning curve to those who now must take decisions by themselves, about former members and former political foes. I predict that mistakes will have to be made public, in a way the Union didn't guarantee, and for the future the Union was an instrument of accountability.

This direction is liable to be against the national interest, because we have had different political and economic origins to those of pre-Union approaches to politics, and the marketplace will be more dangerous and less predictable. Will this matter? If the recessions turn out to be fleeting they will not damage the economy, but we shouldn't look for dividends for our pensions or our youth out of this predicament. Some aspects of this is politics is predictable in a carry on as usual type of approach. Defence, the city, law and order, immigration will benefit, but foreign policy as has been said is not much of a political slogan at the best of times.

Integration has its losers and what might have been is beyond the imagination of the electorate. A safe bet then that we won't miss Europe. Unlike the French we will not leave Nato, but economically we may suffer more, than the prediction of an eclipse would suggest. In European terms we may become useless and this doesn't help our political parties and 'buy British' is no longer a slogan except for a very small minority. I argue if the loss takes place and foreign influence is something we inherited from abroad, we will no longer have European partners. Integration without us is unlikely to be a French success story. A bit like the Cold war, Cameron is dismissing something which has solved many of our problems.

USA democracy

Congress is not ruled by its  President and the Supreme Court is a check against Presidential power. The candidates in this election are becoming overtight about the next four years, and the victory is liable to be that of Congress and the politics a kind of game of darts. The collective psychology relies on past experience, I suggest a new movement is present, that of the political class, a kind of no man's land of black politics.

The nationalists in the 1960s were more aware, Vietnam, racial descrimination and conservative politics made them more aware and today acceptance is a double jeopardy. Do we support our President or our local boss. Pork barrel politics is as ever rife and the President is likely to lose. The candidate is less important than the employer, and elderly America is realising it. Foreign policy matters to the mavericks and recession is a way to split the vote.

The black candidate must use both feet, one is for running, the other hopping and America is still the land of the cowboy. The next President is likely to get out of Afghanistan and many links are already known. I wonder how white america views the choice of black or white President. Does black mean a loss of both rows on the abbacus. I ask why black matters to a voter in America, with war settled and home US in a double bind, should it vote against recession or lose the race to someone who will lose that race.

The Presidency matters more in the next four years for the candidate because electors expect action on previous promises, the winner between the horses is likely to offer least, but the 1960s show black candidates need a strong electoral turnout and a hard black image, does Obama in the next four years offer it? He needs to begin a new chapter, not win old battles and this means a move away from peace talk to war, and love thy neighbour to domestic upheaval against foreign competition.

The economics of the Presidency is also half full. Not more but less, Romney needs to assuage white America that he is a better President, not by imitating Obama, but throwing the gauntlet to his campaign team.  Don't divide the campaign but make it stronger, offer something different and make policies that don't threaten the argument. I suggest Obama will win because of his colour, but that he will be a verbal genius not an historical one. The Presidency tends to go by outside events, and his vision has taken a divison between can do and make believe.

Disney is often the charge in peace time, a sort of Congressional aperplexy or low voter turnout. The politics of the Presidency is not decided by colour and Congessional politics is often an opposing degree, not a political argument. The senate must sound compromising amongst all these visionaries, I suggest it is black and white and the superpower is riven with social turmoil and foreign expeditionary adventures, the Presidency is a personal disappointment, and that matters in black politics for two reasons, firstly the leader must make a programme and he has few allies. Secondly the politician is opposing natural forces like a white Congressional majority and black rivals.

Political events

The Olympic movement did not start in Greece, it was an origin of post-war expansionism that led sport to be placed as a second attempt from the Cold war at European superiority. An approach to the Olympics should include poverty and unemployment, as well as foreign war and institutional growth. But the Olympics are more a solution to national spirit in ways that are less felt than understood. The problem is nationalism creates world states which fight each other and understand the origins of war more than most political actors. Nationalist movements are often believed to be all powerful in academic circles, and spirit is thought to be philosophical in origin. In fact globalisation is a nationalist spirit and academia is a suitable approach to political transformation.

The experiment is worth an extra attempt at international humiliation, and certain states benefit from their wealth and superior diet. The Olympics has had a history of success at times of global growth, and economically the state is an attempt at justifying its political existence. The disastrous Olympics came at times of economic recession and the European record is suitable evidence for this. Of course, recessions come at different times for different nations, and the indications are that this provides evidence for winners and losers. Of course politics is also a justification for Olympian victory. Poverty a reason for poor states to reduce their spending on it and the Olympics are not blind to gender.

The Olympic victories are best known when golds are won by one family or trainer and in the Cold War Russia was a well known example. The problem is facilities benefit some actors more than others and some powerful ethnicities more than the weaker ones. I argue the Olympics are racist and nationalism is a sort of purer form of this spirit. It also cleanses and the development of social inequality is not found because Olympians are not organised around popular principles. They have more wealth, less poverty and increased leisure time. They suffer less from the inequalities found in the general population and therefore are more fit.

The Olympics of 2012 are interesting for their economic success and political makeover, the UK at a time of resistance to depression is well known for its resilience, but the outward signs hide lack of strength in building community involvement or national ambition in winning it. This suggests globalisation and the Olympics are being white washed and political success at selling the games is being hidden by most governments. The Greeks were a starting point for internationalism and the Olympics were probably poorly attended except by international actors. I suggest the Olympics should be for the disadvantaged and poorly educated and that globalisation is a missed opportunity for creating a games worthy of the expectations it tries to raise.