The Seanad Referendum in Ireland: a lost chance for reform?

Across the media and in the Oireachtas, the legislative body of the Irish Republic, the recent Seanad referendum has dominated discussion over the past few weeks.

The discussion came to an end last Friday October the 4th, when the Irish electorate decided that they wished to keep the Seanad.

The Irish Senate is one of the three legislative bodies in Ireland, together with the Dail Eireann (the Parliament) and the President of Ireland.

All together they form the Oireachtas. The Seanad is consisted by 60 Senators elected after a general election. Eleven Senators are nominated by the Taoiseach (the Prime Minister) , 6 by certain national Universities (UCD and NUI) and 43 are elected from special vocational panels of candidates by local and national level elected politicians.

The Seanad has the power to delay only, not to veto legislative proposals. The Dail is the only House which can introduce amend financial and tax legislation. The government usually has a majority in the Seanad, which has not rejected a bill passed by the Dáil since 1964. Debate on the Seanad's future has focused on whether it would be better to reform it with or without constitutional amendment, or to abolish it altogether.

In October 2009, Fine Gael leader and Taoiseach Enda Kenny stated that it was his intention that a Fine Gael government would abolish the Seanad, and along with reducing the number of TDs by 20, it would "save an estimated €150m over the term of a Dáil."

Arguments in favor of the bill included that the abolition would save money and that the number of legislators is too large relative to the state's population. The method of selection is elitist and undemocratic and that the Seanad is a powerless "rubber-stamp".

The arguments against the bill were that a NO vote will create a mandate for reform of the Seanad and that the process of legislation needs greater scrutiny. Most countries with a Westminster system countries have bicameral legislatures and that the Irish financial crisis shows a need for more governance. (Wikipedia)

Ireland is an unusual case for a small country that has a Senate. The majority of EU Member States have one house of parliament, although it is interesting to note that more than five out of every six European citizens live in a country with two houses of parliament.  This is because most EU Member States with a bicameral system have large populations; countries such as Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK.  In fact, Ireland and Slovenia are the only two countries in the EU with a population under 10 million to operate under two houses of parliament.

Bicameral	Unicameral
Austria	Bulgaria
Belgium	Croatia
Czech Republic	Cyprus
France	Denmark
Germany	Estonia
Ireland	Finland
Italy	Greece
Netherlands	Hungary
Poland	Latvia
Romania	Lithuania
Slovenia	Luxembourg
Spain	Malta
UK	Portugal
	Slovakia
	Sweden

The composition and power of upper chambers varies quite considerably from country to country across Europe.  For instance, the Italian Senate’s 315 members are directly elected by all Italian citizens over the age of 25, with the upper house possessing equal power with the lower house. This is in contrast to most second chambers in Europe where the powers of the upper house are restricted, as is the case in Ireland, Slovenia and Poland.

The reason for the existence of second chambers also varies between countries; the House of Lords in the UK is steeped in centuries of tradition and is regarded as a historic institution, while the German upper house exists due to the federal nature of Germany. What is common across most bicameral EU countries though is the size of the state: the average population among the 13 bicameral countries is 35 million people.

Many of the 15 countries with unicameral systems are recent entrants to the EU with several of them being former Communist states. Of these unicameral countries, there is a fairly even split between those who created their political systems with only one house of parliament and those who abolished the upper house after some years of governance.

For example, both Denmark and Sweden abolished their second chambers in 1953 and 1970 respectively, while Croatia abolished its upper house as recently as 2001.  So it is not unusual or unheard off to abolish the upper house of the Parliament. Like the EU bicameral countries, the size of the population of the 15 unicameral states is similar: the average population among unicameral countries is 5 million. Greece is the largest country in the EU with a unicameral system with a population of 11 million. (talktoeu.ie)

The turn out on Friday was very low, at around 39% of the Irish electorate and the referendum was lost by a margin. The NO side won with  51.7% of the votes, when compared to 48.3% of the YES campaign. Interestingly this referendum divided the country in half with the west of the country voting YES, while the eastern counties rejected the bill.

Some of the parties that supported a YES vote did not engage as much in the process, notably the Labour Party of Ireland. There was some misunderstandings among the party's Senators and the impression received from many of its members, some privately and some publicly, was that they were largely in favor of retention, despite campaigning in favor of the Seanad's abolition.

Also there was an overall mishandling of the debate by the Government. Many accused the Taoiseach Mr. Enda Kenny that his reluctance to engage in an open debate with the opposition leader Mr. Michael Martin, resulted in the government's defeat in the referendum. It is not the first time that the Irish Government loses a referendum. In fact it was defeated in every referendum for the past few years.

There are many factors that lead to another defeat. A lot of No voters were clearly suffering from referendum fatigue. Others are angry at this government, largely because of the spending cuts and tax increases it has implemented at the instigation of the troika, and saw the referendum as an opportunity to give it a "black eye". And there is no doubt that a small number of voters were confused by the minimalist ballot papers or campaign messaging and thought that a No on the referendum would get rid of the Seanad.

The idea of a “power grab” and the prospect of a one house legislature dominated by the executive resonated with some in a variety of ways. The recent vote on abortion legislation was often mentioned. The harsh treatment of six Fine Gael TDs who dared to defy their party leadership on a single, highly emotive vote angered a cross section of voters who saw it as bordering on the autocratic. And as the closer than expected results in rural constituencies partly suggests, the incident put hard line pro-lifers firmly in the No camp. (The Journal)

Another interesting observation was the position of each one of the parties that campaigned in this referendum. The two governing parties, the Fine Gael and Labour were for the bill, even though the Labour Party did not participate in the campaign as it was expected. Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party of Ireland also supported the bill, two parties that were usually campaigning for a NO vote in most previous referendums, notably the EU Lisbon Treaty.

The Socialist Party of Ireland campaigned in favor of the bill to "end the rule of the 1%, fight elitism and austerity." Not because they agree with "the government’s hypocrisy or general attacks on democratic rights, but because the Seanad is an undemocratic, elitist, conservative body that should be scrapped." (The Socialist Party of Ireland).

Interestingly, the party that has led Ireland in this crisis and the one that has managed to become an institution in the Irish politics, has campaigned in support of keeping the Seanad. The Fianna Fail party opposed the bill and advocated for a reform of the upper house of the parliament, instead of its abolition. Clearly this party is keen to keep the political status and system, that has supported for all these years and exploited for its own benefit.

If the Seanad was to play any decisive role in Irish politics, having a say and watching over the government, why didn't they have done so all these years? Its contributions would have been most welcome during the tragic mistakes that the Irish past governments committed. But its roles are indeed very limited to be of any significance.

It remains to be seen which will be these proposed reforms and if or when they will take place. During the debate the NO side gave no hint of what those suggested "reforms" should be, or how should the government proceed after the defeat of the referendum. There is a chance that the Seanad and the Irish political system will continue to operate as they have for so long.

This referendum was the first attempt to bring some decisive and much needed reforms in the country's political system, yet the Irish population decided that it would be too drastic to abolish something that has been part of their country's political life for so long.

The Fianna Fail victory will certainly give a much needed boost to the party's and its leader Mr. Michael Martin popularity. Perhaps that is what they wanted in the first place and why they campaigned against the abolition of the Seanad, as an opportunity to reassert themselves as a key player in the Irish politics.They have used populism and opportunities like this one many times before, to become a political establishment in Ireland.

The Lampedusa tragedy calls for a pan-European reaction.

More than 300 people are feared dead in the waters of Mediterranean, since last Thursday's tragic boat accident near the Italian island of Lampedusa. The boat that carried immigrants from the African continent seeking a better future in Europe, was capsized when all the people aboard moved to one side to avoid a fire.

The fire was set to a piece of material to try and attract the attention of passing ships, only to spread to the rest of the boat. The 20m (66ft) boat carrying some 500 people, mostly from Eritrea and Somalia, was approaching Lampedusa when it began taking on water and its motor stopped working (BBC News).

This is only the latest migrant related tragedy that takes place in Europe's territory, but surely it won't be the last one. At least not until European leaders act on the issue decisively. It is not a matter that should be dealt solely by Italy, as these migrants are leaving their countries to enter Europe for a better life, hoping to reach the more affluent regions of our continent.

Europe must act on this collectively and support the bordering nations like Malta, Italy, Spain and Greece. It is a European problem and all EU nations must come together for a solution. But they may have to take some very critical decisions to come to one.

The immigrants are coming to Europe because there is civil war, radical militant groups acting in the region resulting in instability and extreme poverty, combined with lack of opportunities and jobs. As long as there is great inequality in the world's population living standards, there will be always a migration flow from the poorer nations to the richer.

Western nations dominate culturally, financially and by trade the poorer regions of the world. When young people from these regions watch films or various product advertisements, that portray life in Europe and the West as ideal, it is impossible not to seek an opportunity to escape to these lands. Whereas they have very few opportunities in their own countries, there will be always an ever increasing number of migrants that want to enter Europe.

The problem is that often the only way to reach the "promise land" is by illegal migration that brings them to the mercy of human traffickers, who are making profit out of human misery and desperation. These people are exploiting the modern day slaves, by often charging per head to carry people across the Mediterranean in their boats.

The migrants odyssey does not end here though. Even if they do manage to reach Europe, they will again face exploitation by people who employ them to work for nothing. They will face discrimination in an ever intolerant and xenophobic continent. Women and children are particularly vulnerable. Sadly the migrants are coming to Europe, because there are people here that want their cheap labor.

Ideally if Europe really wanted to deal with the issue effectively, it should create either jobs in the countries of origins of the illegal immigrants, or agencies that will attract the right amount of migrants with the right skills. In other words Europe should set up employment agencies in Africa and other regions, once of course it manages to create a common immigration policy.

In that way immigrants will come into Europe through a legal and acceptable way, not being stacked like animals on a boat or a truck, facing an uncertain future and even death. Intense and further cooperation with transitioning nations for the immigrants to prosecute any traffickers, or clamping down on companies that employ and exploit illegal immigrants can also offer some solutions to the problem. 

But because Europe does not always have the best relations with these countries, or because of the instability in the greater region, investing to create job positions there can be difficult to achieve. Without a common immigration policy it is hard to create EU employment offices, though some steps have been taken to that direction is some countries.

Ending the instability and poverty in all regions across the globe is the obvious solution, but to achieve that Europe can not act on its own. All developed nations must be part of such effort under the coordination of the UN.

The problem here is how to achieve more harmonious and equal living standards for all people in the planet, when the very economic model that Europe and the West are pursuing, often needs global inequality in order to exploit certain regions and its people.

Political, ideological or religious clashes also play a role in preventing certain regions being lifted out of poverty. Europe is unable to allow all immigrants that seek a better future in its borders, especially now that it experiences itself an economic, political and social crisis that results in high unemployment and instability.

In many countries far right groups have gained popularity because of the inability of the mainstream political parties, to address effectively the issue of immigration and find solutions to their nation's economic woes. As long as Europe is unable to speak with one voice and convince other rich nations to join in the fight against global poverty and instability, tragedies like that of Lampedusa will become a common occurrence in the future.

What has Capitalism ever done for you?

Europe's division in its main regions is not coincidental or irrelevant from the main religions and ethnic groups that comprise our continent. There are historic and cultural explanations of why certain regions are rated better than others on economic or social grounds.

Capitalism has been our political system since it prevailed after WW2 in the half of our continent. Later with the fall of communism it expanded into the other half and that was an extremely welcomed development. But over the years Capitalism has evolved from something that everybody wanted into something that many are skeptical about.

Over the past few years and with the crisis throughout Europe exposing the weaknesses of this political and economic system, people even from former communist nations are realizing that something is not quite working in Capitalist Europe. The inequalities among the nations and the classes are great and the system needs to be revisited.

What we are experiencing right now are the consequences of the type of Capitalism that was very popular during the '80s and the Reagan-Thatcher legacy. The neo-liberal ideology on industry, way of doing business and worker's rights, that is only getting worse due to globalization and the entry into the global market and field of politics of the developing economies with their millions of consumers.

Competition between the established rich elites in the developed nations and these new economic "powers" is escalating and what we are witnessing right now, is a desperate attempt of Europe to come to terms with its past decisions and failed financial policies. Then we allowed all industries to be transferred to poorer nations with cheaper workforce, in order to increase our profits. Now these nations want a bigger say in the world affairs and a greater share on its wealth.

The elites of Europe are losing out now that China and India are rising and pose a threat to the monopoly the Western oligarchs and super rich capitalists had on people and resources all over the world. So how to compensate the loses and keep the profits coming? Scrap all social security policies and have us working for nothing in Europe. They never liked paying for them anyway. In fact there is a very intense debate going on as we speak in every political think tank or forum in Europe, on how to deal with the crisis and if our social security services are viable.

In Greece we used to have many social security benefits and rights, like Christmas bonuses, Sunday work pay and free health care if you worked continuously for a certain amount of time. Because we had strong and established unions, both in the public but also in the private sector and that is the reason that our country is targeted by the global capitalists.

Countries like Ireland on the other hand never faced such grilling by them and the media that they control, because in the private sector there is no union activity at all, they have established an absolute liberalized labor market that the capitalists love. That is why Ireland is being respected by the global media despite being also bailed out. On the contrary Greece is being brought to its knees, to destroy the unions and force compliance.

Europe is not like India or China, our culture is different. We fought hard for our rights, we should get paid whatever the law dictates. We deserve to have quality of life and to be looked after if we have a health issue that prevents us from working for some time. We are also entitled to pension, something that is now being put to question. As human beings we need to have a work -life balance, that will eventually lead to functional families having children, something that Europe needs desperately.

All social security schemes across Europe are under threat, because business groups lobby our governments to abolish them, liberalizing our labor market. If our leaders decide that they want us to be privately insured, they should raise our salaries across Europe to the same level of the richer nations. Raise the minimum wage to at least € 1200 per month and lower the taxes we are paying. Let us find our own insurance and set up our own pension schemes. We will then be able to afford it.

What happens though is that the capitalist elites want us to be private insured so they won't have to pay for it, have a low salary so we won't cost them much, plus we should be paying high taxes to cover the mistakes they do when they take risks to invest in their various money making schemes.Worker's rights are basic human rights and you can not infringe on the first without doing so for the second.

There is clearly a clash of mentalities and economic and political traditions going on in Europe and the world in general. The dominant Anglo-Saxon/American one is trying to impose itself in all Western nations and in extend the world.

Capitalism is closely related to the Protestant ethos and its idea that seeking riches and wealth is something noble. As a reaction to Catholicism that saw the accumulation of wealth as sinful, the Protestants have included wealth in their Christian traditions.

Later of course during the age of colonialism and the new discoveries, the Catholic Church embraced capitalism itself and in fact they became very good at it, when they saw all the riches and possibilities coming from the new world.

Nevertheless capitalism is deep rooted in the Protestant nations, so that is why they are so good at and so defensive of it. It is no wonder also that these nations are always rated highly by the rating agencies, that are supporting Capitalism and they are based in the the richer and most powerful Capitalist and Anglo-Saxon nation on the planet, USA.

They rate a nation or the happiness and living standards of its citizens according their economic potential and traditions, but not on their values, heritage, lifestyle and culture. And of course that creates the divide between North and South, not just in Europe but America itself. When the South European nations were the ones who were prosperous, it was the North that was considered uncivilized.

Coming from a Mediterranean country, I pride myself of the very balanced work-life status I have established that contrary to many Anglo-Saxon nations' beliefs, is not about being lazy. It is irrational and sad, that they think that the meaning of life is to work two jobs, just to be able to have a large fridge, a big car, a big house and everything that the media promote and advertise, but deprive my children of my presence at home, sacrifice a normal social life, my mental health and find happiness just in consuming things that one does not really need.

The grounds that I disagree with capitalism are not in a ideological front, but with the practicalities of it and what it does to human beings. It just turns them into mad, sad, over-consuming, unsatisfied and moaning peoples, with large doses of perfectionism and delusion. That does not agree with the mentality of everybody that comes from a different religious or ethnic background. And it is the reason why many countries are struggling to implement policies that have worked or implemented in a Protestant Anglo-Saxon nation. The comparison is simply not fair.

I have never been a radicalized Left-wing activist for the reasons that I believe that any form of radical ideology is not healthy. I accept capitalism as an economic model and in fact I prefer it from most alternatives. But it is evident to all of us that it has gone out of control, it does not longer support a viable and fair system and it needs to be reformed immediately. It has been hijacked by wealth mongering people that put above all the accumulation of more power, with no morals.

Having worked in the customer services area for over a decade in the past, I have seen what Capitalism has done to people. Their attitudes have changed and the social structures have been altered dramatically. People think they are entitled to have more or behave as they wish because they are paying. As an employee I have seen the irrationality of an employer that wants greater profit, when he actually can not provide services that would offer him that.

I have also seen the absolute irrational demands and unrealistic expectations that customers often have, but because they are paying they think that they are entitled to them. The worse part is that they believe that they can treat the employees as they please, without considering that it could be their children in the future that will have to face obnoxious and rude customers like themselves. 

Your human and worker's rights are being demeaned by yourself, just so you can practice your consumer rights. Because when you use every mean to get what you think you deserve from a company, you unwillingly weaken the position of any worker by testing his patience and his skills. In fact your rights as consumer are getting more important than your human ones and that is because you expect more value and services for less money to feed your self importance. While it is clear that this system destroys our planet and exhausts our resources.

Bankers and economists are being given bonuses for the job they do, but a worker is not entitled to them. Of course a company must make profits to exist and that is for the benefit of both the employers and the employees. But the employers never seem bothered when giving bonuses to chief executives that cost thousands of euros for doing very little, but they get hot under the collar over the salary increase of the ordinary workers.

In the past I was working in a hotel in Greece and a German customer lectured me that if I was in Germany I would not be able to be so “relaxed” at work. I told him that I have done everything I was expected to do by that time. He replied that in Germany my employer would have me cleaning over and over my position in order to keep me busy. I replied that if my employer wants to see me busy then he should make sure that he brings enough customers in the hotel to keep me busy and I would be more than happy to work hard and serve them all.

It is his job to make sure customers keep coming by using marketing and organizing special events, or offering competitive prices. It is my job to make sure the service they are getting is within certain standards. If the customers are not coming to keep me busy then it is clearly his fault as it is within his responsibility to manage the place, not mine. Unless he offers me the salary and responsibilities of a manager then I should not take the blame.

In other words when a company is not going well it is often a bad management issue, but businessmen like to blame ordinary folk and their salary or working condition demands! If they managed their company well then they would succeeded. Greed and lust for quick and easy money is the main problem and this mentality is embedded in our culture now-days. So are you still supporting this economic model, now that you have seen what it does to you?

The lessons we can learn by exploring Ireland's political traditions.

I often come across comments from other people on how can Greece, or any other country in Europe can reform and change its political system, or its political elites. It is something that it seems unthinkable, though it is desired by many.

So let us explore the political institutions and traditions of one European country, in an effort to study how political traditions are formed and how difficult is to break away from them. I am going to use the case of Ireland and its political traditions, not because I wish to expose any failures or shortcomings in it, but explain how hard it is to reform a political system that often took centuries to form.

The Irish state is relatively new. It broke away from the British Empire to form an independent state, yet it based its political traditions on the British political system. Until recently Ireland was a peripheral, conservative, landowning but peasant rural culture, with an underdeveloped industrial class.

Its post colonial nationalist Catholic Irish identity is central, with a powerful authoritarian and dominant Catholic Church. For ideological, pragmatic and cultural reasons, Britain gave areas of decision making in Ireland to societal actors, especially the Catholic Church. Until the booming years of the '90s and '00s, Ireland's culture was based on loyalty to peasant kinship ties, rather on class solidarity. It was very authoritarian, conformist and anti-intellectual.

The main driving force of Irish politics was a pervasive populism in which the local pubs and political leaders were unusually vulnerable to each other's influences. The power overall is until today very centralized, with an underdeveloped working class and a nationalist stress on the unity of conformity.

One of the main political parties in Ireland, the Fianna Fail, grew from this culture and used it for its own political ends. The Irish political party system started with a single nationalist party within the British political system, in the 19th century.

Sinn Fein represented the widespread demand for Irish political independence and during the war for independence it was strong. A civil war was fought over the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty with the British Government in 1921. The Treaty proposed the ending of British rule in the 26 counties, but maintaining it in the 6 counties of Ulster.

Due to the disagreement over the Treaty, Sinn Fein split. The more moderate pro-treaty nationalist leaders formed the Cumann na nGaedheal party in 1923 and ran the country until 1933, when it renamed itself to Fine Gael.

Fianna Fail, the anti-treaty nationalist party, was formed out of the group defeated in the civil war, but then accepted constitutional politics. A smaller more militant group, kept the name Sinn Fein and did not recognize the constitutionality of the 26 county Irish state, even to this day.

At the early stages of the Irish state, the Catholic Church ran many of the functions that a state normally would, like health and education. This led to subsidiarity, corporatism and a consensus society with centralized institutions, which lacked transparency and accountability.

The political system in Ireland provides since then many "veto points" where actors or interest groups have political power to veto decisions. So the state became captured of vested interests of groups, with too much veto power to stop reforms in their tracks.

This combination of highly centralized and unaccountable concentration of power, combined with strong vested interests can lead to a political culture of elite "group think." These elites reinforce what is already acceptable, while dissenting voices are marginalized and ridiculed.

The defining question for Irish parties is historically the national one, rather than class.  Irish politics derive from a culture of solidarity, cohesion and homogeneity. This culture was consciously sustained by Fianna Fail, which saw itself representing the interests of the Irish people as whole and did not want to see sections of the nation against others.

That explains the lack of political polarization in Ireland, of extreme political parties, ideologies and anything that would divide the nation in right or left wing supporters. And also it explains why the Irish people rarely protest, march or riot against their political system.

So Ireland has a passive citizenry with relative low voter turnout of 65% and low levels of political party membership. The dominance by multinational capital over the weakened trade union movement, whose base of support was more and more restricted to public sector workers, increased the power of the international capitalist class.

During 1987 and the years that followed the Fianna Fail government introduced social partnership, to bring together the employers' unions, trade unions and farmer's organizations. But soon it was clear that this kind of social partnership was giving businesses virtually anything they asked for: low corporation taxes, low capital taxes, low social insurance contributions and a virtually unregulated labor market. (David Begg, Secretary General of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, 2005)

It was soon obvious that social partnerships were not about democracy. The institutional arrangements to deepen deliberative democracy, did not work for democracy. The voice and ability of the civil society to criticize policy and lobby for social change were muted.

The community and voluntary sector became a tool of welfare provision, rather than developmental active citizenship. All the above together with the neo-liberal paradigm, has allowed elites to inflict severe damage on Irish society, with very few critical voices being raised.

Any ideology can appear to be absent in the Irish state, but Irish politics is not non-ideological. Conservative economic and social stances tend to predominate among Irish policy makers. The Irish state saw itself earlier as a subservient to the power of the Catholic Church, but now they appear to be doing so to the power of the global capital, which runs most of the economy.

The discourse in Irish politics rarely acknowledges its ideological neo-liberal content. This ideology has been hidden in the discourse about "partnership", combating "poverty" and fostering "equality." The absence of clear left-right political divide and the consensus mentality suggests a pragmatic, flexible state and bureaucracy, marked by the absence of critical debate about alternatives and dominated by a narrow range of voices.

The role of the country's media here is very important and decisive. The country's weak intellectual political tradition, the media ownership and the fact that writers, academics and critics depend on state funding, also contribute to that phenomenon. Fianna Fail was a dynamic populist party, that marred traditional "clientelistic" Irish political techniques with modern forms of manipulation of political opinion.

Its founder Eamon de Valera used the family owned Irish Press newspaper groups, to mould public opinion and discourse. In that way a dominant technocratic ideology, that is rarely challenged by other ideological perspectives was established.

The Irish civil service also plays a role in the formation of the country's political traditions, as it acts as the unelected state. In its creation, the Irish state inherited the British Westminster model of politics and the British Whitehall model of civil service and public administration. In fact the Irish civil service is still influenced by its colonial traditions.

It inherited a structure based on strict hierarchies of power and on the dominance of the Department of Finance. The civil service in Ireland has power. Only during the past two decades up to the financial crisis, power was shifted more to the political system, with ministers overriding the advice of civil servants on matter like the country's budget.

Until then, a lack of control, accountability and responsibility on the part of the Irish political class was widespread. The elected politicians allocated to the state bureaucracy and the civil service, the role of the principal initiator and designer of policy, rather the executor. The Whitehall culture let to conservative bias to policy and administration and a culture of secrecy.

Professional civil servants have much power in administration and in policy development, that it leads to incrementalism and the civil servants are using this power subtly, keeping the status quo and avoiding radical change. They are also in contact with interest groups without control, accountability and responsibility on the Irish political class.

Though a lot of important reforms took place in Ireland the past few decades, like the establishment of the Ombudsman's Office and the Data Protection Act, the country still maintains its neo-liberal political ideology that promotes the interests of the global capitalist elites.

The way that the Irish government has dealt with the current economic crisis, testifies this fact and it comes with the cooperation and involvement of the other European governing elites. And it achieved everything it wanted with very little reaction from the Irish voters.

From the Irish case we can understand how difficult is to reform a political system and I am sure that many of us, will find a lot of similarities between Ireland and our own countries. Especially when we are examining the case of countries like Greece, that has been through very similar transformations and political traditions over their very short modern history.

When your country's elites form a "national" consensus that all of us must accept in order to feel that we belong in a collective "national" culture and mentality, is it possible to break free and form our own? How easy is to criticize the current establishment and what actions can we take to push for reforms, when we are against a very old, established and well functioning political system that is influenced or controlled by global elites?

The only way is to study our nation's history with an open mind and explore the role of all actors that are, or have been involved in the past, inevitably forming our national and political conscience of today. But without a proper educational system that will allow and encourage this, or a platform that citizens can come together and discuss politics openly, this seems impossible.

If we do not change the way we think of or get involved in politics, our communities won't change. If our communities can't change, then our countries won't change either and so is Europe, or the way the whole world is shaped and develops. And that makes us accomplices of the current political reality.

The above article was written based on notes of the various publications by Dr. Mary Murphy and Prof. Peadar Kirby, that I read while studying politics as part of my journalism studies.

The meaning of the German Elections for Europe.

On the 22nd of September Europe's leading economy, will go to the polls to decide the future members of the 18th Bundestag, the main federal legislative house of Germany and its new government. The result of these elections will have an impact not just within Germany's borders, but on the whole European continent.

Since Germany's current government and its leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel are playing a major role in shaping Europe's and the euro-zone's financial policies, these elections inevitably matter for all Europe. As expected, there is going to be great media attention on the German electoral outcome, especially from countries like Greece, who are directly affected from the German inspired European financial policies.

The two main competitors of these elections are Angela Merkel with her CDU/CSU (The Christian Democratic Union of Germany) party and Mr. Peer Steinbrueck with the SPD, the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Mrs Merkel seems to maintain the lead and her popularity comes from Germany's current economic performance, but also the fact that the country and Mrs. Merkel seem to have such strong influence on Europe.

Yet Mrs. Merkel is only taking the credit for Germany's success, in reality it was the SPD and their "Agenda for 2010" that actually made Germany the European powerhouse that it is today. It was the former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that has passed the reforming agenda, that drastically reduced Germany's state welfare system. That coming from Social Democrat, sealed the party's fate during the next elections and gave the opportunity for CDU to come into power.

So Steinbrueck and his party have actually something to show for and swing some votes in their favor. For Greece and many other countries under the Mrs. Merkel backed austerity program, Mr Steinbrueck looks like a hopeful candidate. In a recent and only televised debate of the campaign for Sept. 22 federal elections, the two candidates sparred over the debt crisis.

Steinbrueck said that Merkel was applying austerity in “deadly doses” to southern Europe and that far more emphasis must be placed on bolstering economic growth and stemming record unemployment. Steinbrueck dismissed Merkel's European policy as a "failure" because of continued recession and sky-high unemployment in the southern euro countries that have had to swallow deep spending cuts in exchange for bailouts. (Ekathimerini.com)

But will Mr. Steinbrueck bring real change in Germany's policies towards Greece and the euro-zone crisis, or will he remain silent after his potential electoral victory, just like Mr. Hollande? The Germans seem to like Angela Merkel just as she is and the opinion polls clearly show that.

If we think about it, these elections have a very peculiar character like everything in the EU at the moment. We are having some very European elections, because of their impact and importance for the euro-zone and Europe, but nevertheless the outcome will be decided solely on a national front and only by the German people.

Whoever wins these elections will be holding the reigns of the future financial policies and direction of the euro-zone, but the rest of us can only watch while the Germans decide. This is a new reality that Europe has found itself in, that all the parameters like the launching of the euro, the European economic integration and the current crisis, have led to it.

The German people have been given a huge say and influence over the rest of Europe, either they like it or not and independently from whether that was the primary purpose of the European integration process. Understandably since Germany is the most populous country and leading economy of Europe, it is inevitable to have a strong German influence in EU.

The problem is, will the German people and their leaders take this responsibility as a chance to rule and subdue the smaller nations of Europe under their influence, or will they start thinking more European? If they will eventually come out of their shell and take the reigns of the EU, they must start taking into consideration the various national sensitivities, economic traditions and practices, or the interests of each country in order to rule Europe fairly.

If they fail to do so, it is almost certain that they will face strong resistance from other EU member states that will oppose their leadership. And that will lead to more frictions withing the block, with the potential break-up of the European project. That is in nobody's interest, especially for Germany that benefits so much from the EU and the euro.

Right now the German people vote to elect the Bundestag by taking into consideration their national interests, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of  their outgoing government and the campaign of the contesting parties that focus on German issues and sensitivities. The German leaders in return, decide the future policies of the country according the wishes of their voters and of course the German mentality.

But when these same policies affect the rest of Europe too, then a problem arises. Germany can not be seen imposing its policies on other nations, that have not taken part in the election of the German government without a backlash, as it happened with Greece. And very rightly so, as we are dealing with the issue of losing the national sovereignty to another country and that is not how Europe should function.

If we are trying to create a more integrated and united Europe, it is all countries that must give up part of their sovereignty and that includes Germany. If the Germans ever decide to take on the role of Europe's leader, then they must integrate themselves fully in Europe and the rest of the EU member states.

And that means that the German leaders must also take into account and familiarize themselves with the problems or sensitivities that other countries have, or the exclusive economic and political factors that exist in every country. So when they decide on future European policies they will do so not by their experience on what works or has worked in Germany in the past, but what would be good for the whole Europe collectively.

Right now they clumsily are trying to "unify" Europe in the same way they did for Germany's re-unification. But it is obvious that what worked for the German nation, can not work for a mosaic of different nations that comprise the EU, simply because of the diversity of European economies, mentalities, cultures and the political and historic factors that have shaped them.

I can only wish as a European and a Greek for the German voters to take into their consideration what is good for Europe in general, not what it only appeals to them. It is clear that Angela Merkel's policies are damaging the European project, by creating divisions and fractures within the EU and the public opinion of its member states. Sadly the reality is that neither the German voters, or any other nation in our continent, are ready or willing to change their political mentality and traditions. And that is bad for Europe.

José Mújica – a labour president as one should be.

It is undeniable that what Europe lacks at this moment is an inspiring leadership, a true leader that will focus on the necessary reforms that are needed for his country. The crisis that our continent is currently going through, is not just an economic but also social, political, cultural and moral.

In Greece we have a saying, that "the fish stinks from its head." And that is a very good reflection of today's Greek and European political reality. Our politicians and their governments are rife with corruption, serving the interests of the global elites and the capitalist system. They bother little with the welfare of the ordinary citizens and they have lost any contact or reality with their needs.

In fact they are intoxicated with power and wealth, thinking of themselves as oligarchs. In a real democracy though, the politicians are appointed by the people and should be answerable to them. What really happens in Europe is that our politicians think that they know better and that they can ignore the concerns of their citizens.

One would think that will all their education, skills and background, because the European leadership is undoubtedly educated, that they would automatically attain people's and leadership skills. Unfortunately that is not the case. Because no matter how much you know about economics or politics, if you are unable to engage with the people who trust you with their votes, or you are unable to communicate your plans effectively preferring to ignore the public opinion, then unfortunately you are not a good leader.

Europe's misfortune is that it has too many professional politicians, that practice career politics and they will do anything to stay in power for too long. Anything but gaining the public's confidence that is. They prefer to engage with the big players in their country and with the international business and political elites, that will eventually support their political career inevitably prolonging it.

So what kind of politician is perhaps needed in Europe? For the first time the Eblana Blog will publish an article written by a friend, a Spanish Socialist living in Ireland, Mr. Álvaro Perez Escudero. He has found inspiration by the President of the small South American state of Uruguay, Mr. José Mújica.

Mr. Mújica has made himself heard in the last two to three years writes Alvaro, because of his unconventional kind of diplomacy and the citizen oriented politics that he's practicing, since he occupied his presidential position.

He was born on the 20th of May 1935 in Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay and he's a descendant of
Basques that immigrated in the country during 1840. Pepe as he is nicknamed, received a basic school
education in the city quarter he was born and later started his law studies, which he never finished.

He instead became an active member of the Tupamaros National Liberation Movement, an
extremely left urban guerrilla group, since the beginning of the '60s. In 1972, he was taken hostage together
with other Tupamaros, by the then dictatorial government and kept in prison, continuously
threatened to be executed should his people ever reinitialize armed actions.

When democracy returned in 1985 and an amnesty law was introduced, he was released and
dedicated his time to active politics. He formed in 1989 the Movement of Popular Participation, which
is a strong part of the coalition “Frente Amplio” (Broad Front- the Uruguayan left-wing coalition), one of the strongest Uruguayan parties.

Five years later he was elected as a deputy of Montevideo, then as a senator and ten years later his M.P.P. party received the highest number of votes ever. He was assigned by the then President of Uruguay as Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries in March 2005. This position made him very popular because of his ability to communicate open-heartedly with the ordinary people. Many others criticised him because of his "lack of professionalism."

Three years later he returned to the senate, announcing that shortly after he would run for president in the next elections. In June 2009, he was elected as the only candidate coming from the Frente Amplio and five months later, after the second election that the Uruguayan electoral system requires, he finally won with 52% of the votes. On his presidential oath swearing ceremony were present among others, Hillary Clinton, the Argentinian president Cristina Fernández, her husband Néstor Kirchner, the Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa, and Hugo Chávez.

Pepe and his wife Lucía Topolansky, also a senator herself, have renounced the presidential
residence, preferring to continue living on their farm in a north-west region of the metropolitan area
of Montevideo. They work there as horticulturists for the past decades, under quite frugal conditions.

But his legacy and inspirational politics is not his struggle to become Uruguay's President, but his actual work and political ethos. He has been described as "the world's 'poorest' president", as he donates around 90 percent of his $12,000 monthly salary to charities to benefit poor people and small entrepreneurs.

One of them is “Juntos” (Spanish for Together), a housing project to provide poor families with appropriate accommodation. How many European leaders can you name that have actually done such thing? Their salaries are much higher than that of the Uruguayan President's, yet not only they do not donate part of it for charity, but they proceed with austerity policies for the citizens they are supposed to serve. Without of course taking a substantial salary cut themselves.

In June 2012, Pepe's government decided to legalize and regulate the sale of marijuana. This move brought him a lot of international criticism, but also plaudits from the British magazine Monocle . In September 2012, abortion is decriminalized and in April 2013, same-sex marriage legislation is approved in the country. For a small Latin American country all the above consist a great achievement, that many countries in Europe are still struggling to produce.

If we want to reform Europe and create a better, fairer and equal united continent, we should leave aside the ultra-liberal yet conservative "Thatcherite" legacy that our leaders are promoting behind. What we need is inspiring leaders that will get on with the job, pushing for necessary reforms that will promote better living standards for all Europe's citizens and by all means, lead by example.

The problem is that the European ruling elite has a different, industrial and capitalist background. They are spoiled and used to the amount of wealth and power that they have accumulated. They have concluded their studies in the best American or European Universities, in which they have mastered the art of public opinion manipulation.

Their goal is not to serve the citizens but the capitalist system itself and preserve it at all costs. Perhaps the only hope or solution for Europe is to try and find politicians with less academic education, but with passion and love for their country, its people and the whole continent.

Written by Christos Mouzeviris and  Álvaro Perez Escudero. Edited by Christos Mouzeviris.

Reforming the United Nations.

The recent Syria crisis has once again outlined a very important problem, that hinders any quick political or humanitarian response to any crisis in a country in need. The issue is the inability of the United Nations Security Council of reaching to a quick agreement, on how to deal with a problem and take action fast.

We witnessed during this crisis how the Security Council was split and two of its members opposing the rest of the nations initial proposed response. And how can this be avoided since the United Nations and especially the Security Council, are reflecting and representing an era that will soon belong to the past.

The current formation of the Security Council was established right after WW2 and it includes the main players that came out as winners of the great war. It represents the then great powers, the two main sides of the Cold War. If we insist in keeping the U.N. and its Security Council formation as it is, then the organization does not longer represent the current political reality and all the changes that our world is going through.

There are 15 members of the Security Council. This includes five veto-wielding permanent members that are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.There are also 10 non-permanent members, with five elected each year to serve two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter. The current non-permanent members are Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Korea, and Togo. (Wikipedia)

What we immediately observe is that the 10 countries that are also members of the Security Council are small and they do not represent the BRICS countries, the developing and rising economic powers of the world. Countries like Luxembourg, Guatemala, Azerbaijan, Rwanda and Togo are small to make any difference to the Council decisions and others like Australia are very close to Britain.

The very existence of the Security Council is controversial, as it establishes elite nations with more say in the global affairs. The right of a veto is given only to the five permanent members of the Security Council and no other member state.

If any countries should join permanently the Council, these should be the BRICS countries. Brazil, India and South Africa perhaps even Japan, Germany and Indonesia should join as permanent members, so that the U.N. will reflect the new political reality of our planet. A more globalized world, with more emerging blocks and countries that deserve more say in global affairs.

Such new reality not only will reflect the real status of our planet, but it would end the monopoly and hegemony of the powers that ruled our world since WW2. Their squabbles during the Cold War, resulted to a lot of inequality and troubles in many parts of our planet.

The UN currently as it is acts more of block that promotes the old status quo of the planet. It does not represent all regions equally and is rather a organization that either has limited authority, or its authority can be ignored by the global powers if it does not suit them. A typical example of this situation is America, that has repeatedly ignored the UN's decision and enacted wars that did not have the organization's approval.

An option would be to scrap the Security Council altogether and give an equal say in all countries that are UN members. But such thing would mean unanimity in any decision would be almost impossible. So since we need to have a body within the UN that would regulate the organization, the Council's existence is  non-negotiable. But not its formation, responsibilities and functions.

Apart from the proposed expansion of the Council, another solution would be the rotation of its membership. There would be no permanent member and even the USA, Russia and China would have to lose their permanent seats for a period of time. In that way their influence over the UN and the world will be weakened.

Another scenario is for the European members such as France and Britain, to lose their seats in the Council, replacing them with just one. That of an EU representation, allowing Europe to speak with one voice in the world. Britain and France will retain their representations in the UN, but not in its Council. That of course can only be achieved, if Europe ever forms a common foreign policy.

We need to reform the UN if we like to see any real progress, but also equality in the world. America and the rest of the great powers of the past, should stop acting as the policeman in the world and have an absolute say on what is happening in it. The decisions of the organization should be respected by all and implemented fast.

For that to happen we need to give more powers and authority to the UN, limiting the influence of USA and the Security Council, or diversifying its membership and its roles. The organization should become more active and fast acting. And even the location of its headquarters should be reconsidered, if America decides to ignore the UN's ruling ever again. Perhaps a new proposed location would be away from the old powers and in one of the rising countries like Brazil or India. 

We need to promote a more politically and economically diversified world, that will not continue the old traditional divisions between East and West, North and South. And for that to be achieved we need to embrace the rise of new powers in our planet, giving them a stronger voice to counterpart the established ones. It is within the interests of all of us to end the hegemony of the winners of WW2, creating a more equal planet for everybody.

Thoughts on the upcoming war against Syria.

As the world holds its breath for a new war against Syria, it is impossible not to have a sense of anger and disgust about what has been, is and is going to happen in the region.

We all knew that the possibility of the Western allies to intervene in Syria was high, but somehow we were hoping that common sense and humanity would prevail.

After the use of chemicals on innocent people allegedly by the Assad regime, there was an outcry throughout the Western world. But the UN hasn't yet investigated who used chemical weapons in Syria and it did not come to any conclusions. Hastily Europe and the USA are already preparing for war. A sense of deja-vu comes to mind, as we have seen similar cases many times before, like that of Iraq.

To understand what is going on, we need to stop thinking or reasoning the politics of Syria and the whole region of Middle East as we do for Europe. They have a very different way of thinking, they are a different culture. And their political heritage and reality is very different from ours. The Islamic and Arabic traditions have influenced politics in the region. Also foreign factors and meddling, especially during the era or European colonization in the Middle East have left their mark. 

The Arab states do not have the same version of democracy as we do. In fact most they do not believe in it and that is why most Arabic states are not democracies with European standards, but they have established their own version of our most cherished political system. We just do not understand Arab politics, but that is not a reason to support as citizens a further intervention in Middle East, as the situation is tricky. From one side we have a dictator oppressing his people and in the other we have rebels with links to radical extremists. 

Whose side do we get on? In reality this decision was taken for us a long time ago, as the Western media made it clear that the enemy of the West was the Assad regime. Obviously America and Europe just needed an excuse to strike. They have been supporting the rebels against the Assad regime openly and even promised to supply them with weapons, their kind remains unknown. Since we have no official evidence on who used the chemicals, ideally we should not condone to a war on Syria so easily. 

There are a lot of parties involved in the conflict and not all things are as they seem. Some of these parties are supporters of the USA in the region and many are their enemies. But when two parties have the same enemy, who can exclude the option of them cooperating in one case, while fighting each other in another?

The rebels in Syria are supported by Al-Qaeda that are enemies of the Assad regime. If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as Al-Qaeda. (The Independent)  

Will it be unreasonable to think that perhaps it was the agents of America or Al-Qaeda that used the chemical weapons, to provoke and initiate their involvement in their region? For too long now the West was looking for an opportunity to invade. Either it is Russia, America, China, Britain or France, they all have a reason to get involved and secure their interests. 

This is how it has always been and how it works. When the interests of big powers are conflicting, innocent civilians and soldiers die. And what we will have in the end is another Afghanistan. In the past the Americans supported the Taliban against the Soviets. Thirty years later it was them who were fighting against them. Now they support the rebels in Syria, despite their Al-Qaeda links and despite their crimes against the Christians of Syria and other groups of people. Thirty years from now, they will invade again to fight the very same people they are helping now.

The war is definitely good news for the US weapon industry, as they probably have secured few more months or even years of profits. The Americans and their European allies will do whatever they want to serve their interests and the interests of those who they serve, the weapon and oil industry.Sadly, war is profitable business for some. 

Syria could also be the next Iraq by all means. As stable is Iraq today and as successful was the Western intervention there, the same will be the future for Syria. The Westerners have a tradition of lies, when it comes in promoting their interests and achieving what they want, as they proved in Iraq and the "weapons of mass distruction" argument. The Russians are no better either. So the Syrian people are captured between the interests of the big powers of this world and local old feuds and political, ideological, religious and social struggles. 

And that makes this conflict very dangerous and we should be far more careful. Russia and China have repeatedly expressed their objections on a Western military intervention. The Russians even have sent warships in the region to protect the Russian citizens based on the region. Syria is Russia's last ally in the Middle East and it is doubtful that they are going to let it go as easily. 

They and the Chinese have walked out from a UN Security Council voting on the Syrian situation and that is a serious warning. (InvestmentWatchBlog) Iran has also condemned any military strike by the US and made threats on bombing Israel. There are many parties from neighboring countries like Lebanon and Palestine that will get involved, if the conflict escalates. Also what if Britain attacks Syria from their bases in Cyprus and the Syrians retaliate hitting back and implicating the island nation? 

It is very possible that the war will spill over to all neighboring nations, like Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Iraq and Iran. This operation can have far worse implications for the region and all the people living in it. European states should be very careful when deciding to enter a war, that could escalate in a greater conflict that could engulf the whole region and Europe itself. 

Scenarios that led to the Turkish riots this summer.

In the beginning of this summer season, we witnessed another uprising of the people in yet another Mediterranean and Muslim state, Turkey. The riots that took place turned violent and they resulted to human casualties, but they also brought to light the reality of the country's politics and public opinion.

The riots seemingly started by an outrage at a brutal eviction of a sit-in at Istanbul's Taksim Gezi park protesting against an urban development plan. Subsequently, supporting protests and strikes took place across Turkey protesting a wide range of concerns, at the core of which were issues of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the government's encroachment on Turkey's secularism. (Wikipedia)

The timing of the protests coming in the same period with the Arab Spring and its aftermath, but also the Occupy movement elsewhere, place the developments as highly important for the greater Euro-Mediterranean region. And that because the whole region is engulfed by an economic, political and social crisis and upheaval that has not settled yet, therefore we haven't been able to draw conclusions or see any immediate results.

In the center of the Turkish protesters' anger was the country's Prime Minister Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party, the AKP. They have been ruling Turkey since 2002 and have led the country out of recession, boosting its economic growth and placing the country in the G20 and the top economies of the World. But as this economic growth is mainly based on the construction industry boom, it remains to be seen if this boom is permanent or Turkey is going to follow Spain and Ireland in a construction industry meltdown.

That of course does not stop the country's leadership continuing with their plans and pushing their agenda, hoping to make Turkey a major player in the region. The country has paid off the loans that it received from the IMF and it is asserting itself in the Middle East and in the Balkans. But what about Turkey's EU membership bid?

It is true that the success and long term in power, have made Turkey's leadership overconfident for some people's likings. The recent spat with Israel for example and Mr Erdogan's passionate outburst on the alleged Israeli involvement in Egypt's military coup , confirms that. (Hurriyet Daily News). And that is not the first time that Mr. Erdogan spoke out against Israel, a country that Turkey had formerly very close relations. A few years ago, the incident of the killing of several Turkish activists on a aid flotilla destined for Palestine, strained the two countries' relations.

But it is not just people from outside Turkey who start feeling discomfort with Erdogan's leadership and increasing power or influence. Since 2011, the AKP and Mr Erdogan have been accused of driving forward an Islamist agenda, having undermined the secularist influence of the Turkish Army.

During the same period they also increased a range of restrictions on human rights, most notably freedom of speech and freedom of the press, despite improvements resulting from the accession process to the European Union. They have allegedly also have increased restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, internet use,television content and the right to free assembly. (Wikipedia)

So is there any wonder that these protests came at a time that seems to be a general upheaval, or perhaps a redesigning of the greater region of the Middle East, the Balkans, Southern Europe and the Mediterranean? Mr Erdogan himself has stated in a speech on 18 June that "internal traitors and external collaborators", prepared the riots very "professionally."

And he is not deluded by believing this. The whole region is being reshuffled according to some people/groups' interests. If Israel did not take part in Egypt's coup, certainly others have who didn't approve the Islamist oriented policies that the ousted former President Morsi pursued. Could Mr. Erdogan also be warned by foreign powers on his seemingly ever increasing Islamist agenda, by stirring protests that could shake his government?

Turkey under Erdogan became very confident, even to the point of scorning EU membership and pursuing to create a new Turkish-led block in the Middle East, in order to expand the country's influence there. One can actually doubt that EU membership for Turkey is seriously still considered by either the Turks or the Europeans.

By just being an EU candidate country, Turkey receives a vital lump-sum to push for the necessary reforms that are needed in order for any country to achieve full membership. Reforms that in Turkey's case are either not happening or they are proceeding in a very slow pace.

But in that way Europe does not close the door to Turkey for good and it keeps it under its influence. Turkey also receives not just funds, but also access in the European market with a lot of other benefits that it gains through various bilateral agreements. Will this relationship evolve into a full membership one day? It is doubtful under the current Turkish political reality, especially under Erdogan.

Since they receive much of what they would like from a full EU membership already, I doubt that they will proceed with total reforms in order to meet the criteria that Europe placed as condition to join EU. The Turks would have to alter the country radically and break a lot of their nation's traditions. Changing the role of the military's involvement in the country's politics for example, could prove very difficult to achieve.

Nevertheless Turkey continues to pursue its own interests in the Balkans and over Cyprus, knowing that some of their activities could hinder all of their efforts to join the European club. They made clear their objections over the Israeli-Cypriot collaboration for gas exploration in Cypriot waters. They invest in FYROM and support the country, building strong links and spreading their influence in a nation with a dispute with Greece, an EU member state.

They also promote their interests in the Muslim minorities all over the Balkans, from the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, the Muslim populations of Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and of Greece, which are not considered to be all of Turkish ethnic background. Yet Turkey keeps the Pomak communities in Northern Greece, well under their sphere of influence.

Either the protests were indeed fanned by foreign powers or they were a protest of the citizens towards their government's policies, they were definitely used by the foreign press to damage the Turkish government's image. Not that they were wrong in doing so. The Erdogan government, perhaps knowing that the protests were not strictly what they seemed or being aware of the consequences that it would have to deal if the rioters were successful, used an overwhelmingly amount of violence in order to place it under control.

But what has been achieved by the protests so far and why the media stopped focusing on Turkey, redirecting their attention once again on Syria and Egypt? We haven't seen any results or closure from last June's Turkish protests. Maybe the Erdogan administration has compromised with the protesters or the media attention on the incident simply fizzled out, captured by events with a greater importance in the neighboring countries.

It will take more than one protests to change Turkey and the Turkish citizens, their governing elite, their NATO allies and European partners know that. It would be great if we saw the protests evolving into a real citizen movement, working for the democratization of the country. But will the Erdogan government and these "external collaborators" as he called them, allow such movement ever succeeding in its cause?

The greater region is very unstable and things are still shifting. Turkey is located in the region and one way or another it will be affected by the whole process. The question is how the Turkish people will be impacted and how can the international community help them in achieving a better country for themselves first, then perhaps turning Turkey into a fully democratic European country.

Closing this article I would like to express my deepest condolences to the families of those killed in the protests and my best wishes for those injured or affected by them in any way. 

The importance of encouraging Entrepreneurship in Europe.

One of the things that characterize Europe and that is harming its economy is the lack of entrepreneurship across the continent.

A stereotypical explanation for this is that Europeans are too ashamed of failure and too unwilling to take risks to be successful entrepreneurs. 

Contrast this attitude with that of America, where anybody – as long as they’ve got a “can-do” attitude and enough elbow grease – can start a business in their garage and watch it grow it into a billion-dollar enterprise. (Debating Europe)

So, why is America able to encourage its people to experiment and to be bold, when starting a new business from scratch, making the American market and economy more competitive than the European one? What are we doing wrong on this side of the Atlantic?

Europe basically lacks two things. Firstly our governments, our political and financial systems do not encourage or even allow entrepreneurs to flourish. In some countries, it is very hard to start a business and that is deliberate. Our political elites want to keep the established financial status quo and do not encourage new business to blossom. 

Taxation, red tape and over-regulation are the means that are used to stop any young or new businessmen to start their own business and bring more competitiveness in their region. Also in many countries, it is very hard to start a new business if you do not bribe the local authorities, or do not know any high ranked official in them. 

Europe is a very rigid and conservative continent and it is no wonder that nowadays it finds itself in a crisis, that is not just an economic but also a political, social and cultural one. The narrow-mindedness of the ruling elites, but also their power mongering, lack of vision and true leadership is the real problem, not the "laziness" of the ordinary citizens. 

Secondly, the other problem is concerning our education system, but also our mentality as people that are not very independent or innovation-oriented. We are teaching our youth outdated modules in school in an outdated way, like religion for example. Modules such as this should not be made compulsory or be taught in the traditional way in our classrooms. 

Instead, we should introduce new modules that will enhance the ability of our youth to become real businessmen. Our education system should overall change and include modules that will teach our youth about new industries and how to become more innovative. Encourage young people to experiment and take risks, not to crush them through the austerity measures and force them to stay with their parents until they're well in their 30s.

How can anyone in Europe be bold enough to become an entrepreneur if the risks are too high and there are no guarantees of recovery or support by the government? 

Also, the European population like to stick to what it knows. This originates in the post WW2 era, when an income and job security was very important for our survival. Generation upon generation grew up with this mentality and that has lead to the crisis we are facing now. The world has changed, but sadly we have not. 

Our predominant industries are fishing in the North, agriculture in the mainland, the public sector in small peripheral states. The property, tourism and banking industries also flourish just because they offer a chance of easy and quick money, seasonal profits in some cases but without the ability of exports. 

The globalization process has forced our biggest industries to move into countries with a cheaper workforce, thus leaving Europeans with fewer options to find a job. And how can there be innovation without an industrial background and the possibility of finding employment, to financially support you during the first years of becoming an entrepreneur?

Our established business elites support and perpetuate this situation because they have invested millions in developing these sectors and economic models. Introducing any new sectors would alter the financial makeup of the country and shake up vested interests. 

The austerity that Mrs. Merkel and other European leaders have placed upon us badly hits young people, and how do the European elites expect Europe to recover in the future, if the youth on the continent are incapacitated and have their wings clipped in their most creative stage? 

They are making sure in that way that the wealth remains in certain rich and powerful elites' hands, of certain rich and powerful nations, while forbidding any chance of changing this status. So, the only way Europe can find a way out of this crisis is for its political and business elites to realize that it is either reform or doom at this stage. 

It is in their interest to have an active European population that is engaged in innovation and entrepreneurship. The wealth that is going to be produced can fuel the transformation of the European economy and with an educated population, we could overall become more competitive. 

The solution could happen on a pan-European level with the direct involvement of the EU and its institutions, but it is doubtful that the local authorities will cooperate and implement the new regulations fully. The problem is that seemingly there isn't any European politician with enough leadership and backbone to proceed with the necessary reforms.