Following the controversial sacking of ACMD Chairman Prof David Nutt, two of his colleagues on the council have resigned and the threat of more members of the Council following looms. In particular the resignation of the only pharmacist representative, Miriam Walker, poses a problem: without Walker the ACMD cannot function since the absence of a pharmacist representative contravenes its statutory requirements. Unfortunately for Johnson the fact that the ACMD is currently in limbo leaves the government powerless to amend or develop drugs policy.

In July Prof Nutt gave a lecture at Kings College London in which he discussed the relative harm of both illegal and legal drugs. He expressed his view that government classification of drugs should be proportional to their relative harm on the grounds that doing otherwise would be misleading to the public and make it harder to avoid injustices. Home Secretary Alan Johnson deemed the comments to be inappropriate given Nutt’s role as Chairman of the ACMD, after all according to Nutt’s findings several drugs were incorrectly classified. Johnson told Sky News “You cannot have a chief government adviser at the same time stepping into the political field and campaigning against government decisions. You can do one or the other: you can’t do both.”

Several of Johnson’s statements seem to make it pretty clear that Prof Nutt’s conduct was inappropriate for someone in his position. Yet if we look at the government’s own “Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees” it seems far from clear that Prof Nutt did actually break any rules. The Code states: “Rules of conduct need not affect a member’s freedom to represent his or her field of expertise in a personal capacity.” The rule is perhaps unsurprising given the nature of the work that scientific advisers do. As Chairman of the ACMD Prof Nutt was unpaid and, naturally, held many academic positions requiring him to discuss his and review the work that he does.

In terms of his conduct, then, it seems that the key issue for the government becomes that of whether or not Nutt was speaking in a “personal” capacity. The Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, Richard Garside, shed some light on this issue in a letter he wrote to the Home Secretary. “Professor Nutt gave his lecture, and agreed to its subsequent publication, in his capacity as the Edmond J Safra Chair of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London. This is stated clearly in the original publicity and in the subsequent paper. Professor Nutt made some references to the ACMD in his paper as it was relevant to his argument. At no point did he make reference to his role as chair of the ACMD, nor did he give the impression that he was speaking on behalf of the ACMD.”

An important part of being a scientist is having the right to discuss findings in public. It seems that controversy only creeps in when scientific advisers make public their views on how their science should shape policy. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that particular debate it seems that Nutt has acted in accordance with the government’s own advice. As a consequence he deserves to stay. If Johnson has an objection to this then he must surely seek to clarify the government’s Code of Practice or, better still, follow Nutt’s own advice in creating an independent organisation to replace the Council.

Traditionalists awaiting his inaugural procession into parliament squirmed as Mr Bercow appeared from the hallway wearing – gasp! – a shirt and tie, and a newly shortened gown.

Gone is the traditional train we all know and love, as well as the waistcoat, cuffs and stock and wing collar, at a total saving to the government of a credit-crunch-busting £700.

We’re certainly onto a bargain with this Speaker – by my calculations that’s enough to clean about a third of MP Sir Douglas Hogg’s moat. However, this fashion move won’t come as good news for those MPs mindful of unemployment statistics. I wouldn’t be surprised if the rather sheepish looking trainbearer (now, thanks to Bercow, without a train to bear) soon becomes the next Brit to join the dole queue.

“In terms of Commons chit-chat, this is pretty groundbreaking stuff…”

Along with his fashion reforms, which will, no doubt, fill the pages of Glamour magazine for the next few weeks, Bercow has also changed the feel of debate in the Commons. From Michael Martin all we could expect was “order, order” or the occasional “let the Prime Minister speak”. To be honest I don’t think people were really fussed about Martin’s involvement in the expenses episode, I think they just wanted a bit more banter.

Bercow has certainly delivered on that front… well… at least as far as Commons Speakers go. He seems to nuance every call for order that he gives just in case we lose interest. We had “you must calm yourself, it’s not good for your health!” at one point and “Order! I know it’s the third time but perhaps it’ll be third time lucky!” at another.

In terms of Commons chit-chat, this is groundbreaking stuff. Bercow is on fire. He hasn’t done badly for himself this week in general to be honest. Several MPs started off their questions to the House with statements of praise for the Speaker, sometimes even boardering on the flirtatious. “You know you’re getting old when the speaker starts to look young” is a personal favourite.

To my surprise, our very own Mr O’Brien has opted not to cover Bercow’s extremely important fashion reforms in Muse this edition. I can’t think why.

Such acts of violent protest can do nothing to further the democratic cause that these people claim to be campaigning for. Regardless of whether the BNP are right to hold their views, two members of their party have now been democratically elected as Members of the European Parliament. We can no longer claim that they are an eccentric minority with views which are not represented by a significant, although still very small, percentage of the public. The only way to prove them wrong is to hear their views and to challenge them in the same way that we would challenge any other party. As Mr Griffin himself pointed out, such violence stifles debate, denying the public answers to the “awkward questions” that people are asking about their policies.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this attack, the actions of the protesters can only have been counterproductive. They have put the BNP back in the headlines and given Nick Griffin airtime to discuss an issue on which he is very much in the right. The discussion that will follow these protests will only make the BNP seem more credible in the public eye and allow them to portray themselves as the political underdogs. This position wins them sympathy and boosts their profile without any emphasis on BNP policy and its dangerous flaws; protesters have played straight into the party’s hands.

Opponents of the BNP should maintain the credibility of their arguments by tackling them on points of disagreement. Democracy allows space for argument and the party’s policies, for all their confident radicalism, are not immune to the normal democratic processes of argument; resorting to violence achieves nothing that political debate could not, it simply tarnishes the anti-BNP cause.

The BNP now represent too many people to be passed off as unworthy of discussion. We need to allow them to be challenged on the issues on which they are wrong rather than presenting them more opportunities to be in the right. As paradoxical as it may seem, discriminating against them in the way these protesters have done actually strengthens their position. Protesters turning to violence in order to defend democracy misunderstand and also under-estimate, exactly what democracy really means.

The test follows a diplomatic row surrounding North Korea’s failed satellite launch in April which, rather conveniently, would have helped the country to develop technology very similar to that used in the production of intercontinental ballistic missiles. A UN resolution denounced the attempted launch and Kim Jung Il reacted strongly by pulling North Korea out of the ‘six party’ diplomatic talks and announcing that he will resume his nuclear weapons program.

This step was fairly typical of Jong-Il who has taken to using North Korea’s military power as a bargaining chip with the US. In the past both the Clinton and Bush administrations have entered into deals with North Korea whereby resources such as oil and food have been offered in exchange for diplomatic cooperation and disarmament. These deals have been agreed but have all failed – North Korea has received aid and then broken the agreements, continuing to show a disregard for the rules of international behaviour.

President Obama has responded by saying that the US will take “stern” action to the launch which he described as “a blatant violation of international law.” There has also been a strong verbal response from the international community, perhaps most importantly from the Russians and the Chinese who have issued statements of strong condemnation. Obama’s Chief of staff, Raum Emmanuel, claims that the US administration will start being much tougher on North Korea. Nonetheless history has taught us that taking a hard line against the Jong-Il regime is notoriously difficult.

The weakness of the country’s centrally planned economy, combined with its geographical location, puts it in a unique position whereby it can exercise a great deal of diplomatic power. The Chinese and the Russians realise this more than anyone. Both countries have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in the region and cannot afford the massive and uncontrolled influx of migrants which would result from the country’s collapse. North Korea also acts as a useful military buffer to the South in which around 29,000 US troops are stationed. The Russians and the Chinese would have to significantly increase their military presence on the North Korean border if the South were to take control which would stretch their armed forces even further.

Any course of action that the US takes now will be incredibly costly. The might of the North Korean military is such that war is an almost inconceivable option. The imposition of economic sanctions would severely damage an already crippled economy and would likely lead to a humanitarian crisis in the area. Obama may well not have the option of waiting for the frail 67 year old Kim Jong-Il to pass away, and even when he does there is no reason to think that this will bring change. If the death of ‘Eternal President’ Kim Il Sung is anything to go by then the prospect any significant regime change when Jong Il dies does not seem likely. Jong Il’s next successor has already been announced: his youngest son Jong Un.

Residents aim to exit the region any way they can, cramming themselves onto buses, cars and lorries or simply getting as far as they can on foot. “It is an all-out war. Rockets are landing everywhere, we have with us the clothes on our bodies and a hope in the house of God. Nothing else,” one resident told the press.

The attacks mark the breaking of a controversial appeasement deal agreed between the Pakistani government and the Taliban, which was settled in February. The government agreed to implement a strict interpretation of Sharia law in Swat Valley in the hope that the Taliban would lay down their arms – something which they did not do. The laws implemented in the region include a ban on women attending school and the eradication of music and dancing.

One commentator accused the Pakistani government of “buying peace at gunpoint.” The government struggle against the Taliban has intensified in the period leading up to the ceasefire with spates of suicide bombings and the burning down of some 170 government-owned buildings.

The timing of the offensive is significant as Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai are currently in Washington for talks with US President Barack Obama. The Obama administration has demanded that Pakistan and Afghanistan intensify their efforts to unite against the Taliban and President Zardari will hope that the offensive is seen as a show of strength on his part. The US is preparing to deploy more troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan to deal with the insurgencies. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton commented: “We have made this a common cause because we face a common threat. We have a common task, and a common challenge. We know that each of your countries is struggling with the extremists who would destabilise and undermine democracy.”

There is one problem with these large, loud protests: they aren’t really suited to those expressing more moderate views. The rallying cry of “Burn the bankers!” that we’ve heard in London today has a bit more of a ring to it than “conduct an independent inquiry into actions of executives and revise regulatory frameworks for our institutions!” The latter has problem with the word count – it’s too long, not punchy enough… perhaps its best just to burn the bankers and avoid being long-winded.

We’ve all heard about protests on campus which are normally over genuinely controversial issues. Given all the rhetoric, the excitement, and the chance to talk to the cute dreadlocked protester that you’ve been ogling at in seminars, it’s easy to get sucked in and join whichever camp happens to be protesting. Choosing between going to a vector calculus lecture or joining the nearest excited throng to further your credentials as a ‘politically active student’ seems like a no-brainer – whether you actually care or know anything about the cause might sometimes be a secondary consideration.

The temptation is also there, perhaps even more so, in London. I wonder about how seriously these protests should be taken – do they reflect the attitudes of those with genuine, well informed political opinions? I don’t doubt that some people are genuine. I do, however, think we should avoid underestimating the ease with which people can get seduced by these demonstrations. In a big crowd no one is going to cross question you about the details of the issue, you’re at the centre of the action, you get a great story to tell to your friends, and you might even get a chance to pretend that you’re humping a fellow protester as a BBC reporter broadcasts live beside you. You can’t lose.

Will these protests make any difference to G20 decisions? Probably not. Maybe there’ll be a slight compromise – perhaps the singeing of Adam Applegarth’s toes. But, on a serious note, I remain sceptical about how happy these people would be if their demands were actually met – especially those who call themselves ‘anarchists’. Being an anarchist is probably a bit of laugh but I’m sure that living in an anarchist society is much less fun than being an anarchist in a capitalist society. Still, as the anarchist movement has no real chance of having its demands met I guess it’s all good from their perspective – they may as well enjoy all the perks of a good old protest.

What’s the figure now? 4000 protesters? Let’s take this statistic with a pinch of salt. We shouldn’t kid ourselves about how people just came along for the ride.

Fuller has gone against the grain by attacking a view held by the vast majority in western society: the view that theories about divine creation should be kept out of science lessons. Fuller is a respected academic at Warwick University but despite the possibility of career damage he defended his view in the controversial ‘Dover trial’ of 2005. This trial gained worldwide publicity as the first in which the idea of teaching intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinian evolution was challenged through the US federal courts.

Fuller has become a somewhat unlikely hero of the intelligent design movement since he does not profess to believe in a God or anything supernatural. During his time at Cambridge he was even head of the Humanist’s Society. Fuller is not motivated by any personal religious beliefs; he is motivated by a desire to improve the teaching of science which he thinks is impossible without a consideration of intelligent design theory.

Intelligent design or ID, then, is the view that the complexity of the universe is such that an intentional designer (something like God) is required to explain it. As Fuller sees it, ID theorists seek to embark on an evidence-based inquiry. Like evolutionists, ID theorists look at evidence (DNA, fossils, skeletal structures etc) in order to come up with an explanation of how that evidence came about. The difference between the two theories is that ID theorists interpret some findings as revealing a level of complexity within organisms that can only be explained by positing the existence of a designer.

When I spoke to Fuller he made sure to make a distinction between ID and creationism, the latter of which, he thinks, is an attempt to justify a similar view but on purely religious grounds. He told me: “Creationists are basically teaching the bible as science. They have abandoned the scientific method.” For Fuller, ID and evolution ought to be taught alongside as they both, unlike purely religious theories, approach evidence in a scientific manner.

Fuller’s defence of ID goes beyond its credibility as a modern scientific theory. Even if we reject the ID’s scientific legitimacy Fuller wants to say that its teaching is still important as a means to understanding evolutionary theory. “My argument is that intelligent design has a strong historical track record and, in fact, it is the actual theory that Darwin opposed [...] At the very least you can make an argument for teaching intelligent design to understand what it was that Darwin was rejecting.”

He is pointing out that in the 19th century, when Darwin was writing, divine creation was the accepted explanation of the way our world had come to be. It was this position that Darwin was specifically trying to refute.

Evolution by natural selection is a theory that originated with Darwin. What Fuller points out is that without an understanding of ID we cannot have a full understanding of Darwin. As a result our understanding of modern evolutionary theory, at least in the public sphere, is doomed to be half baked unless our system of education on this topic is revised.

Fuller thinks that just as Darwin had a position to refute modern evolutionary biologists need one. Just as evolutionary theory has itself evolved so have arguments in opposition to it. Fuller worries that evolution, which is often seen as one of the defining theories of modern science, is actually being taught in a way that is quite unscientific. For Fuller consideration of a theory with respect to opposition is essential for scientific development. Evolution is no longer being taught scientifically, in Fuller’s eyes, because opposing arguments are no longer being taught, or at least given proper emphasis, in the way that they should be.

Fuller worries that evolution is starting to become taught as dogma without reference to what he calls “the critical foil of intelligent design.” Since it is essential to constantly antagonise scientific theories it is not helpful for us to decide that evolutionary theory is ‘true’. In fact he thinks that the very idea of teaching ‘true’ theories in science and rejecting ‘false’ ones is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.

“The issue here is not whether intelligent design theory is ‘good’ or ‘better’ than neo-Darwinism. The issue, when we’re talking about scientific inquiry (where in the future we may not believe what we currently believe), is whether a theory ought to be taught. It’s a fool’s game to say “this is ‘true’ so we should be teaching it” or “this is ‘false’ so we shouldn’t.” We need different criteria other than just straight ‘true’ or ‘false’ judgements because what is considered ‘true’ or ‘false’ can change over time.”

The Dover trials were designed to rule on the publication of a textbook which was said to aid the teaching of ID theory. Fuller was consulted to defend the scientific legitimacy of ID theory as a whole. It should be said that his views were not intended to support the specific teaching methods employed by the Dover Area School District or the specific textbook on trial. As a result the eventual loss of the case was viewed with mixed emotions by Fuller. He told me that the textbook that the DASD advocated was, “basically a warmed-over creationist textbook” with “just a couple of words changed.” He was glad to see that particular textbook rejected but disagreed with the way that the judge delivered his verdict.

“What I was not happy about was the way in which the judge did not separate the disposition of the School Board from the disposition of the theory. In other words he took the textbook as indicative of the theory itself. A court case is always about a lot of things at the same time so in one sense it’s about the big ideas, it’s about whether intelligent design is science (that’s certainly what made the headlines), but of course it’s also about the particular litigators and the details of the School Board. What’s going down there, in Dover Pennsylvania, ends up colouring how the big issues look.”

Fuller still has a lot of convincing to do in his defence of the scientific legitimacy of intelligent design as the majority of the scientific community would still like to see the theory discredited. But regardless of the current scientific consensus on the theory it seems that the pedagogical point that Fuller is making is a fundamentally valuable one: providing a historical backdrop for our scientific theories is essential to fully understanding them. As far as evolution is concerned understanding ID is crucial to understanding Darwin. Ironically, on Fuller’s view, ‘God’ now has to play the role of Devil’s advocate if we are to breed a new generation of biologists who view evolutionary theory from a critical scientific standpoint.

Yesterday Lord Stern held a press conference at the German embassy in London to discuss his latest environmental report which is due to be submitted at the G20 summit on Thursday. The 48 page report ‘Towards a Global Green Recovery’ summarises his recommendations for G20 action, among them seven specific strategies for both short and long term economic recovery by green investment.

The global financial crisis will be the main focus of the G20 meeting. As the need for fiscal measures in the short term becomes more apparent the opportunity for wide scale investment presents itself. The economy is in need of a strong fiscal boost at a time when resources are relatively cheap and workers are underutilised.

Stern told the press that “a good case can be made for a stimulus of around [...] US $ 2 trillion over the next 12-18 months” designed to get the global economy moving again. He argues that channelling this money into a green investment plan would provide this much needed fiscal stimulus as well as “high social return” at a time when morale is low and confidence needs to be restored. It is particularly important that we act immediately since as climate change worsens the cost of preventing further damage rises dramatically.

Stern commented: “Failure to seize this opportunity will mean that resources will be squandered, further cementing our economies’ carbon dependence and leaving behind enormous financial and environmental debts for future generations to pay off.”

Stern has often been accused of painting an unreasonably bleak view of environmental decline in the past but yesterday his tone was quite optimistic. The response will have to be immediate but will not be as costly as many think. To stand a chance of meeting the EU target for stabilising climate change by 2050 and preventing a rise of more than 2°C, a financial commitment of 2% of global GDP every year will be required. Such an investment could reduce world carbon emissions to 50% of their 1990 level, which would involve at least an 80% decrease in the emissions of developed countries. The details of the green recovery plan are to be finalised at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change conference in Copenhagen.

When asked about his hopes for the G20 summit Stern responded “With only a few hours and 22 leaders you can’t expect the details of the investment plan to be decided. What we can expect is a strong sense of direction. We needed to see a united front against protectionism – which includes ‘green protectionism’.”

An 80% reduction in the emissions of developed countries may sound very large but Lord Stern thinks this is possible and anticipates radical change. He spoke of a ‘third industrial revolution’ led by those in the developed world based on investment in green technologies.

This G20 conference needs to be decisive given the scale of the problems the world currently faces. President Sarkozy has already threatened to walk out if the conference produces “false success with language but contains no commitments.” A sense of direction needs to be established on Thursday so that plans for environmental reform can be successfully enacted in Copenhagen. The world is starting to wake up to the scale of the environmental problem; we’re unlikely to be convinced by “false success with language” now the stakes are so high.

Although Obama refrained from making any promises he has, at least in principle, backed Brown’s regulatory plan and seemed keen to liken his economic policies to those of the Prime Minister. His readiness to identify with Brown came as a surprise to many given the way the Labour Party is perceived in the US. This public perception seems to have been summed up fairly well by CNN anchor Lou Dobbs who described Brown, somewhat unfairly, as head of the “socialist Labour Party”. The images that the word “socialist” conjures up in a post-cold-war US will not be overly positive and, in fairness to New Labour, not even that accurate. Perhaps aware of the doubts of the American public Obama made sure to emphasise Brown’s “belief in the free market” and “government that is not overbearing”.

Brown will be pleased with the boost that Obama’s backing will give Labour who currently trail behind the Tories in opinion polls. After a particularly gloomy period for the Labour party this good news will be much welcomed. Their hope will be, however, that Obama’s backing is the thing that people remember about the trip rather Brown’s refusal to admit any responsibility for the financial crisis when reminded about this at a press conference in the Oval Office. Chancellor Alistair Darling has admitted that mistakes had been made but Brown maintains that his policies were “right for the times of 1997”. Despite this one doubts that the ‘Brownonomics’ of 1997 were intended to have such a short sell-by date.

The highlight of the visit was Brown’s address at a joint session of congress, arguably one of the most important speeches of his career. Through suitably Americanised rhetoric he praised the country and emphasised the need for global cooperation, radical response to climate change, and condemnation of protectionism which, he said, “in the end protects no one.” Needless to say Brown enjoyed the treatment that speechmakers are accustomed to in the US, among them the 19 standing ovations he received (conveniently the same number as his predecessor in 2003). But despite this apparent enthusiasm there was a noticeable lull following his advice on protectionism. Brown may have been preaching to the choir when speaking about the greatness of America but he has a lot more convincing to do on this particular economic issue, particularly among Republicans who were noticeably the more timid in their applause.

A mere hour after Brown boarded his plane back to boring old Britain, Obama was on the phone congratulating him on his congressional speech. No doubt the gunging of Lord Mandelson on Friday provided our Prime Minister with a reminder that this side of the Atlantic political life isn’t quite as glamorous. Somehow I doubt that there’ll be as many standing ovations tomorrow at Prime Minister’s questions. For now it remains to be seen whether the bond between the UK and the US will turn out to be one that, as Obama put it, “will only get stronger”. ‘Obama-Brown’ simply doesn’t have the same alliterative ring to it as ‘Bush-Blair’. Let’s hope that when Obama comes to visit us next month for the G20 conference we’ll be reassured.

Twenty years ago Bishop Richard Williamson, who has a conspiracy theory of his own, was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. According to Williamson “there was not one Jew killed by Nazi gas chambers”. In fact, he denies that such chambers even existed. Apparently the chimneys wouldn’t have been tall enough. The Bishop reckons that only 400,000 Jews ‘perished’ due to illness in concentration camps and that the figure of 6 million exterminations that these silly historians have come up with is rubbish.

Now 2009 is upon us the Catholic Church has thought it appropriate to lift the excommunication of Bishop Williamson (making him now, presumably, ‘communicated’) to kick the year off to a good start. There we were thinking that other faiths had the monopoly on lunacy. I thought that 7/7 and 9/11 had sealed the deal. Maybe the Catholics are jealous that their religion has failed to recruit as many maniacs as other faiths and have decided to step up their game. Or maybe there’s another option.

Here’s my conspiracy theory: Williamson is actually world renowned atheist Richard Dawkins in disguise. Think about it. They have the same first name, are roughly the same age, and certainly have the same Oxbridge accent. Obviously Dawkins has got bored of documentary making and campaigning on buses. He’s finally decided to take it to the next level: bringing down the Church from the inside. What better way of making them look bad than by posing as a maniac and becoming one of the clergy?

The question on everyone’s lips is “Has Dawkins gone too far?” We all know he is an athiest, but posing as a holocaust denier? There is only one sensible reaction to this news. Catholics of the world unite! Let’s campaign to get Dawkins re-excommunicated!

These government measures are a response to the global financial crisis which has provoked a major rethink in the way that economies worldwide are regulated. The G20 summit this month saw the coming together of countries that produce some 90% of the world’s wealth in an attempt to give the world economy a ‘fiscal boost’. The summit has been criticised for the vagueness of its outcomes but despite this there has been a clear message that lack of economic regulation, of some kind or the other, has been the cause of our current troubles.

Following the summit George W Bush announced his views on the solution: “the best way to solve the problem is economic growth, and the surest path to this growth, is free-market capitalism.”

Rightly or wrongly, this “free-market capitalism” is the very thing that most people are blaming for the crisis in the first place. Poor financial regulation has led to what has become known as the ‘sub-prime’ lending movement in the US, with bankers being allowed to sell off bad debts as attractive-looking investment packages. In the UK our currency has been overvalued and credit has been allowed to reach unsustainable levels. We are now, according to the Tories, paying the price for the so called ‘champagne years’.

The response has been to take steps back towards our post-war financial system. We have already seen the nationalisation of Northern Rock and the promise of long-term taxes rises despite temporary cuts. “The idea of credit went way too far; we definitely need to take one or two steps back towards our former economic system. It is now just a question of how many steps back we need to take in order to work for everybody’s benefit and not just the banker’s bonus” commented the University of York’s Professor P. Spencer.

Opinion is divided on the extent to which our economic regulation must be revised. Journalist Steven G Brant described the $85 dollar bailout of AIG as signalling the “death of capitalism”, a phrase that has become commonplace in the world media.

Despite the fact that in some circles capitalism’s obituary seems already to have been written, it seems unlikely that we will see a drastically more “left-wing” system of economic governance in the long term. The assumption tends to be that capitalism is synonymous with lack of regulation rather than the principle that markets should be as free as possible to allow for competition. What capitalists generally agree on is that in order to be ‘free’ the market needs to be regulated such that trade is honest, Monopolies do not emerge, and welfare is provided for those who can not compete. What we have seen is the failure of under-regulation, not necessarily the failure of capitalism.

Spencer is hopeful that we can find a compromise. “If we can’t find a hybrid system that works to our benefit then we may have to go back to that post-war banking system. However, I’m much more optimistic that we can find a happy medium that does work [...] If people had a dose of what the alternative was like then they would be clamoring for the capitalists and the bankers back.”

These comments followed the violent seizure of a white owned farm in Harare and the evacuation of the interviewee, who wishes to remain anonymous, along with all whites from the surrounding area. “We came back about 10 days later – we expected to find a ransacked house, but everything was intact.” This fortunate experience was not one shared by many of his friends, who also owned land there.

Robert Mugabe’s highly controversial land ‘redistribution’ program is ongoing in Zimbabwe, and involves handing over once-productive farmland from the experienced white farmers to the inexperienced indigenous population.

While Mugabe would have the international community believe that his program is aimed at giving land owned by evil, white colonialists back to its ‘rightful owners’, what has escaped the attention of many is that many of the white land owners purchased their land legitimately, following the independence of Zimbabwe in 1980. “Their land was deeded, their farms were productive, and many of them were extraordinarily charitable towards their local communities and their workers.”

Mugabe’s main opposition, the Morgan Tsvangirai led Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has strong connections with white-owned farms, which produced 60% of Zimbabwe’s GNP prior to 2000. These farmers recognise the corruption of the Mugabe regime and, as such, provide funds to the MDC. By targeting the white population under the veil of post-colonial justice, Mugabe sought to hit his political opponents at their source.

Mandi Madavo, one Zimbabwean student at York, recognises Mugabe’s obsession with race commenting: “He got too fixed on this idea of ‘black empowerment’ and ran with it way too far.” Through this, Mugabe has been able to cripple the financial base of the MDC, but only at the vast expense of the economy at large. The Zimbabwean dollar is currently in a state of hyperinflation, at 231,000,000%.

Tiné Okoro, another Zimbabwean student at York, commented on the economy in her home city of Bulawayo: “The situation just keeps getting worse, nothing improves.” She described how the black market prevailed as it provided the only viable source of food. “You need to have ‘contacts’ in order to buy even the most basic of items.” Mugabe has blamed EU and US economic sanctions for the collapsing economy.

The lack of response from Western leaders on this issue causes the world to question its position. Past actions have lost Western nations much needed credibility in the eyes of Southern Africa. It is even being argued that US and EU intervention has actually slowed action against Mugabe in Botswana, Zambia, and Mozambique. Worries that their government will follow if ZANU-PF is ousted have no doubt begun to preponderate in the minds of Southern Africa’s leaders. The uniting of African nations against a common enemy seems to have distracted them from the atrocities committed closer to home.

Better distribution of land, the revival of the economic system, the end of human rights violations, and the installation of a just democracy all seem like fanciful aims without the removal of ZANU-PF. With the current Mugabe-Tsvangirai power-sharing deal underway, the world looks on with waiting but pessimistic eyes. Mugabe’s reputation for mitigation of power is not one that inspires hope in the minds of those who oppose his rule. While the long-term ability of the MDC to run Zimbabwe has been questioned, their proposed setup of a democratic system, regardless of their expertise in ruling a country, will no doubt be an incredibly positive legacy. “It may not be possible to implement the ideal first time, but it is a lot easier to steer a car once it’s moving. The first thing is to get the car moving, and that is to oust the Mugabe regime” commented the community worker.

Unfortunately for the UK, it looks as though its options are limited. As much as modern Britons might want to act in spite of their government’s past, their actions seem to be tainted by the post-colonial suspicion of Southern Africa. The UK is left largely as a spectator in this crisis, with no obvious way of speeding up the collapse of Mugabe’s regime. Despite this, the community worker is optimistic that the downfall of ZANU-PF would eventually come. “Sooner or later Mugabe is going to die, and hopefully sense will prevail on both sides of the political divide at that time. When he goes I think the country will find a corrective path.”