Only in exceptional circumstances are major splits caused by Primary election. What tends to happen is that Primaries act as a stimulus to healthy debate over what the party stands for, with candidates from all parts of the political spectrum engaging in a contest to define the party in line with the wishes of the electorate.  Candidates focus on themselves, while the party leaderships can still play the role of holistically overseeing proceedings to make sure that the focus still remains the general election and what happens after the ballots in the primary election have been counted. It is possible to have rigorous primary campaigns without there being major splits that harm the party’s performance in the general election (The performance of The Democratic Party in 1992 bears this out).  While there maybe an emphasis on candidacy and personality, it helps to form a clear of what the party stands for in the general elections, marking out a clear choice between the parties at election time.


Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate  Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate.  This may create a dangerous precedent of politics being little more than one constant election cycle, with decision being made to please constituents in order to win two elections. We see this the most in the US House of Representatives, where decisions influencing ‘pork-barrel’ spending are made with the main aim of keeping constituents happy in order to avoid primary defeat, to the detriment of government being more disposed to dysfunction. [1]  The constant election cycle can cause disillusionment with voters who fail to see tangible effects of what the politicians the elect do yet face constant electioneering. By only hosting general elections, a clear focus is provided for candidates and electorate alike, allowing for scrutiny to be based upon the actions of politicians and the party they represent against the opposition who seek to replace them.  [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, NationalJournal, 14 March 2009,


There is a large problem with lobbying in the United States but the influence they exert would be worse if there was no system. The efforts of interest groups would be exerted upon one candidate from each party, whereas Primaries make it harder for interest groups and 527’s to gain access to power as there are multiple hurdles for their candidate to overcome to win power and gain influence over policy. Primaries can also prevent capture of entire parties by interest groups as can happen in countries where funding of candidates comes directly from the central party such as the United Kingdom (where the role Trade Unions for example have 50% of the vote in the labour party conference [1] ). Candidate discretion is more likely in Primary systems, giving more choice over what the general election candidate will support as opposed to just following the lead of the party leadership, which causes more disillusionment to politics in the long run.  [1] ‘Ed Miliband ‘plans to water down trade unions’ influence over labour’’, The Telegraph, 3 August 2011,


While centrist candidates maybe preferred in Primary elections, but it is a choice that has been made by the people when presented with a full ideological spectrum by the range of candidates standing for elections.  Appeal to Swing voters is what matters in elections anyway so what Open Primaries do is make that abundantly clear, with the candidate most likely to carry swing voters in the general election most likely to win the candidacy. This makes party leaderships think hard about what voters want and how to incorporate that into policy.


The referendum is not an example of progress. It is not hard to see why many of those who demonstrated in Tahrir square were in the no camp for this referendum. “The president remains extraordinarily powerful. The amendments do nothing about due process and neglect other authoritarian aspects of the state” [1] The referendum was attacked for not dealing with large scale structural issues. Leading opposition figures such as Mohamed El Baradei argue “The referendum deals only with minutiae. It doesn't talk about the imperial power of the president, it doesn't talk about the distortion of the parliament, it doesn't talk about the need to have an independent constituent assembly that represents everybody. So we are going to say no.” [2] This means that the institutional problems that helped create an over-mighty presidency and autocracy have remained in place.  These countries have also not become much more stable. There have been clashes between Christian Copts and Muslims following the burning of two churches on the 7th of May, which have left 180 injured and raises the specter of sectarian violence. [3] Meanwhile in Tunisia the government has re-imposed night time curfews after four days of demonstrations were ended by police firing tear gas. [4] It is difficult to consider such unrest progress.  [1] Steven A. Cook, ‘Interview, Egypt’s Referendum: Nervous Steps Forward’, Council on Foreign Relations, 21st March 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [2] ‘Large turnout for Egypt's constitutional referendum’ BBC News, Mar. 19, 2011,   [3] Egypt Christians protest in Cairo after church attack, BBC News, May 9., 2011,   [4] Post-revolution Egypt and Tunisia gripped by unrest May 8, 2011,


Progress has been made.  Egypt as the biggest Arab state and one of only two so far that have had largely peaceful revolutions is perhaps the best example of the progress that has been made. There was a referendum in Egypt in March on amending the constitution that passed with a yes vote of 77.2%. That there was a referendum at all surely counts as progress. It limits the number of presidential terms to two, promises to strengthen the judiciary and abolish some of the emergency laws. A turnout of 41% is not as good as it could have been but it was a great advance compared to other polls in recent Egyptian history. Mohamed Ahmed Attia, the chairman of the supreme judicial committee that supervised the elections, explained its significance as being “the first real referendum in Egypt's history, we had an unprecedented turnout because after Jan. 25 people started to feel that their vote would matter.” [1] Because Egypt has historically been at the center of the Arab world success in Egypt will be vital to show that a stable Arab democracy can be created.  [1] Egyptian Voters Approve Constitutional Changes, New York Times, Mar. 20, 2011,


While these examples prove that in some iterations Islam can work with democracy, it is likely that other factors made democracy viable in Inodnesia and Turkey. Indonesia is free of the hostile relationship with the West that often undermines the stability of the Middle East, and has benefitted from a strong trade relationship. While the AKP in Turkey is Islamist, it operates within the Turkish constitution which requires the military to dissolve any government that threatens the secular nature of the state. Without a constitutionally defined commitment to strict secularism, like in Turkey, the Islamist parties in Egypt and Tunisia will resort to undemocratic practices.  While Indonesia’s revolution superficially looks similar it should be remembered that no two revolutions are really the same. They are different in almost every respect, culturally, geographically, economically. Indonesian Minister Natalegawa argues “I think the lesson form us is that it is possible for the democratization process to return to the military to it must be its original function.” [2] However this really shows a difference. In Indonesia the military never stepped in to take over the government as they have done in Egypt. If the key is reducing the role of the military Egypt has barely begun.  [1] Wolfango Piccoli, Full steam ahead on Turkish Constitutional reform, ForeignPolicy.com, 29th May 2011,  accessed 20/05/11  [2] Julia Simon, Reformasis and Revolutions, Asia Calling, 17th April 2011,  accessed 20/05/11


There are preexisting institutions in Arab countries.  Many middle eastern states already have institutions that are similar to the representative institutions that a stable democracy needs so can easily become the real thing. Arab dictators have grown adept at holding elections, setting up parliaments; constitutional courts etc. as window dressing to show either to their people or to the outside world that they are reforming and are ‘democratic’. No matter how undemocratic these regimes have been the simple existence of these institutions is useful when there is a revolution as they allow some continuity and the possibility of a transition to democracy.  To take Egypt where protests toppled the Mubarak regime as an example. It has a parliament with the Majilis Al-Sha’ab (People’s Assembly) as its lower house and Majilis Al-Shura (Shura Council) as its upper house. In both houses a majority of the members are directly elected. [1] Egypt held elections for its parliament as recently as November 2010, these elections had very poor turnout and blatant ballot rigging while the main opposition the Muslim Brotherhood have to stand as independents. [2] Egypt also has previously had local elections for 52,000 municipal council seats in some 4,500 towns and cities. These elections are just as fraudulent as those for the national parliament. According to Muslim Brotherhood MP Jamdi Hassan “The ruling party used to allow opposition candidates to run and then simply rig the elections. Now, it has adopted a new strategy to ensure its continued domination: preventing the opposition from fielding any candidates at all.” [3] This may not be the best democratic tradition but at least it is a start. Similarly Egypt has a Supreme Constitutional Court that is supposed to be independent. [4]  While these institutions may have ceased working in a democratic way they could quite easily be changed in to being fully democratic. This would create the necessary checks and balances to sustain democracy over the long term. The people are used to elections and will know what to do when they have the option to vote freely, they would vote in a broad range of candidates. Many of them may be islamist but it would be democratic.  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Parliament of Egypt’,  accessed 19/05/2011  [2] Egypt hold parliamentary poll, 28/11/2010, BBC News,   [3] Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani Opposition Squeezed in Local Elections, IPS News, 17/3/08,   [4] The Supreme Constitutional Court, ‘Historical Overview’,


While the presence of pre-existing institutions is an advantage in transitioning to a democracy, that advantage may be compromised when these institutions are largely seen as illegitimate and have not fostered a democratic political culture. Key to the development of a democratic political culture is confidence in institutions and a willingness to accept the popular will as carried out by those institutions.  The predominance of the Executive over the Legislature is rather reminiscent of the Imperial Russian State Duma (1905-1917) as with Tunisia and Bahrain the lower house was directly elected, although the system was heavily weighted to produce pliant Dumas from 1907 on, and the upper house appointed. There was quite a plurality of parties and the Duma had control over a wide area of legislation but not over areas such as military policy and the Tsar had veto powers. [1] It certainly cannot be said that the Duma’s existence proved to be conducive to the creation of a stable democracy after the fall of the Tsar, or even a stable state of any sort.  The existence of the necessary institutions therefore does not mean anything if those very institutions are not seen as legitimate.  [1] E. A. Goldenweiser, ‘The Russian Duma’,Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1914), pp. 408-422


Islamic parties have led governments before  The economic, social, and political history of the region show there are many obstacles to establishing stable democracies in the Middle East. Many in the West fear that Islam is among these barriers, with claims that Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Ennahda in Tunisia will turn their countries into theocracies like Iran. However, there are majority-Muslim states with Islamist parties that have succeeded in creating stable democracies, including Turkey and Indonesia. Both countries are good case studies that disprove the widespread notion that Islam is incompatible with democracy.  Turkey is most often cited as a good example for the Arab spring to follow. The election of the AKP has shown that an Islamic party can also uphold democracy, so providing a good example for the powerful Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world. Elections are free and fair and the press is relatively free. The Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has faced down coup threats from the military, again something that may well be necessary given the large role the military has had in the previous regimes. Turkey’s economy is growing briskly and Turkey is following a foreign policy of reaching out to everybody and is touting itself as a model for Arab countries to follow. [1]  In Indonesia in 1998 there was a revolution that ousted President Suharto who had like Mubarak been in power for thirty years. This revolution progressed in a very similar way to the ongoing revolution in Egypt – in both countries the protesters were middle class and young, the president went relatively peacefully and the military helped during the transition. [2] Indonesia is now the largest Muslim democracy in the world and while there are islamist parties in parliament their support is now below 30%. [3] Indonesia can therefore provide a road map for moving from an interim government with the military in control to a fully functioning and successful democracy.  [1] A Muslim Democracy in Action, The Economist, 17th February 2011,  accessed 20/05/11  [2] Banyan, Remember 1998 The Indonesian Example, The Economist, 7th February 2011,  accessed 20/05/11  [3] Thomas Carothers, Egypt and Indonesia, The New Republic, 2nd February 2011,  accessed 20/05/11


In the Libyan case the dictator remains (as of 20th April 2011) but cannot sell oil even if he retakes the refineries. The rebels cannot sell oil either (legally) even though they control most of the infrastructure. The sanctions imposed against Gaddafi apply to the whole of the country. [1] Therefore the desire for oil pushes for further support of the rebels in this case as the sanction regime is only likely to be deconstructed following a rebel victory. Should Gaddafi remain in power the west may have to cut itself off from Libyan oil for years to come.  Obviously the above case represents a regime in flux. Once a regime is toppled then anything can happen. There is then no reason why outside actors should want to encourage another dictatorship rather than a democracy. A dictatorship may bring stability faster but a democracy is much more stable in the long run. Countries ideas of their strategic interests can be very divergent. An example is the Suez crisis. Prime Minister Eden considered it “an obvious truth that safety of transit through the canal…[is] a matter of survival [however] world opinion seemed to be that Nasser was within his rights in nationalising the Canal Company.” [2] As Nasser promised “freedom of navigation would not be affected by nationalisation” reducing the matter in the view of the US Secretary of Defence to “a ripple”. [3] So while Britain was still willing to fight for control over the Suez canal the US condemned that very action forcing a withdrawal.  [1] Libya oil stuck in legal limbo as UN panel shunned, Reuters Africa, 20th April 2011,  accessed 19/5/11  [2] Sir Anthony Eden, Full Circle: The Memoirs (Cambridge, 1960), p.533.  [3] Dwight D. Eisenhower, Waging Peace 1956-1961 (New York, N.Y., 1965), pp.39, 41-3.


The question is as much whether once a democracy has been established it can sustain itself as a system through multiple changes in government without reverting to dictatorship by coup. Notionally at least Lebanon has been a democracy continually since 1932, if the interruption of the brutal civil war is ignored. While that event shows that it can hardly be called stable in the general sense, it has been in the way that democracy survived even that cataclysm. Such ethnic tensions are hardly conducive to stable government even in Western Europe. [2] When Belgium’s current political quagmire is looked at next to Lebanon the differences between Flemish and Walloon seem insignificant compared those which a Lebanese government must bridge, so even if its effectiveness may be questioned Lebanon’s democracy surely holds out hope for all, particularly for countries that are much less divided.  There are excessively high hopes for Arab democracy this early, given that democracy has only been the prominent governing system in the West for the past century or so, and only without widespread violence since the end of World War II. It may take more than a few months for the Middle East to establish durable democratic systems, but the first steps are certainly established.  [2] Belgium: Still No Government, Mar., 1. 2011,


The west only supports democracies that fit with its world view.  Fincial and diplomatic engagement with the international community is essential for democracy to take hold. Tensions turn to conflict when governments are unable to provide basic services to the people, as was the case in Gaza when Hamas was elected in 2006 and the US and EU immediatey froze nearly all the funds and resources that were reaching the occupied territory. Furthermore, support from the West is necessary to provide the financial resources to rebuild after the revolutions damaged business and scared tourists away.  However the West’s does not support democracy unless the ruling party is guaranteed to act in the interests of the West. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the United States has either directly aided or executed the overthrow of over thirty foreign governments, many of which were popularly elected.a The US has in the past warned that aid to Lebanon could be jeopardized if Hezbollah was dominant in the government. [1] The US has a history of confrontation with the party that is the main political representation for the Shia element of Lebanese society which has eroded rather than supported Lebanese stability. [2] The victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections, winning 76 of 132 seats, did not result in any rapprochement with the Bush administration despite their professed desire to see democracy in the Middle East. [3] The result was that aid from Europe and the US was reduced to humanitarian aid only, rather than as before being a major element of Palestinian government income and expenditure. [4] The result being that in 2007 the ‘country’ was rent in two as Hamas seized control of Gaza. Of course another Middle Eastern state that holds democratic elections, Iran, is the very model of a pariah state from the western point of view. It seems that the west is less concerned about democracy in the middle east and more about stability.  a. Wikipedia, 'Covert United States foreign regime change actions;,   [1] ‘U.S. warns on ties with Hezbollah-backed Lebanon gov’t’, Reuters, 25 January 2011,   [2] Nicholas Noe, Lebanese government collapse: a history of missed opportunities, guardian.co.uk, 14th January 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [3] Scott Wilson, Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast, Washington Post Foreign Service, 27th January 2006,  accessed 19/5/11  [4] Palestinian Parliamentary Elections 2006, GlobalSecurity.org,  accessed 19/5/11


Rentier economies lead to dictatorships.  Most economies in the middle east are oligarchic with the wealth in the hands of a few. Oil has created rentier economies. These economies rely upon systems of patronage relying upon kinship groups, merchant communities and patron-client relationships, economic considerations become subservient to political considerations. [1] This occurred because of the small size of Middle Eastern private sectors forced the creation of state centred development programs. [2] While it remains the case there is a very small group of people in each Arab country that need to keep political power in order to perpetuate their economic power. As they already have the economic power and are often the best educated they are the most capable of forming any new government. In such an oligarchic society it would be very risky for these people to allow the creation of a democracy that may well wish to redistribute resources more equally.  [1] Michel Chatelus and Yves Scehmeil, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262  [2] Timur Kuran, ‘Why the Middle East is Economically Underdeveloped: Historical Mechanisms of Institutional Stagnation’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.18, No.3 (Summer, 2004), pp.71-90, p.87.


Outside powers want oil so support dictatorial regimes who can deliver it.  Oil creates interdependence between the producing states in the Middle East and the consumers in Asia and the West. Although rising prices are good for producers they can also threaten the world economy and create inflation that in turn will damage the producers by reducing demand. [1] The consumers have to listen to Saudi Arabia and the other Arab regimes who provide their oil whereas they often don’t for poor countries in Africa who would otherwise be no different. Oil is the main reason for external interest in Arab regimes some of the strongest alliances in the Middle East are built with oil as their foundations. [2] Saudi Arabia is a US ally due to it being a major supplier while Egypt is an ally due to its vital position controlling a major trade route – the Suez canal. In neither case would any external powers such as the EU nor the U.S. really want a long an unstable transition to a democracy making a strong man a much easier option. This is shown by how the Obama administration has always been behind events, being unwilling to call for democracy in Egypt and President Mubarak to go. Instead the administration made statements such as that by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people”. [3] Many previous administrations would probably have been even more supportive of Mubarak.  [1] Daniel Yergin, The Prize The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power (New York, N.Y., 1993), p.703.  [2] Eric Watkins, ‘The Unfolding US Policy in the Middle East’, International Affairs, Vol.73, No.1 (Jan., 1997), pp.1-14, p.1  [3] John Barry, Inside the White House’s Egypt scramble, Newsweek, 30/1/2011,


Factionalism is too strong  Since the 1970s, Arab state governments have become especially corrupt and oppressive, and have failed to provide essential social services on a consistent basis. Over the past forty years, people in the region have had to become increasingly reliant on informal networks and institutions in order to ensure personal and familial security and livlihood. This has degraded hopes of a relationship of trust between the state and people, causing people to committ themselves to differing factions, gangs, tribes, and parties in order to sustain themselves. It is apparent that the resulting factionalism may stand as a barrier to democracy, as parties hold fast to ideological committments and interest groups instead of political compromise and power-sharing.  This is especially rampant in post-conflict states, as is the case in Iraq. The current Iraqi government took 249 days to form. [1] The conditions for creating a stable government in Iraq seem to be based more on appeasing all the relevant groups than creating a working government. Lebanon, perhaps the most democratic Arab country also has its problems, the national unity government collapsed this month after 11 ministers from Hezbollah and its allies resigned. [2] , [3] The third example of an emerging democracy is of course Palestine. President Mahmoud Abbas, elected in 2005, continues in office despite his term having expired in January 2009. He extended his term, which opponents say breached the Palestinian Basic Law. [4] In 2007 clashes broke out between Fatah and Hamas, the two most prominent political parties, as a result of over a year of attempted political sabotage after Hamas won the election and Fatah refused to form a coalition in order to govern. These examples show that in environments where there are high levels of violence and conflict, factionalism takes hold over democratic governance. When law and order become difficult to establish under normal means, these regimes tend to seek security through autocracy and de-facto martial law, as has been happening under Maliki in Iraq or under Hamas and Fatah in the Occupied Territories.  Libya may face this same challenge after its July 2012 election, as tensions remain high after the country was divided between Qaddafi loyalists and the patchwork rebel network. Egypt also faces the risk of the military seizing power from the civilian government, as SCAF has already given itself additional powers and intends to create a shadow council that would allow it to veto parliamentary decisions.  [1] Ranj Alaaldin, The Iraqi government’s patchwork alliance may struggle to survive, guardian.co.uk, 24th December 2010,  accessed 19/05/11  [2] Hezbollah and allies topple Lebanese unity government, BBC News 12th January 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [3] Lebanon is the most democratic Arab country, ranks 86th Globally, iloubnan.info, 25th December 2010,  accessed 19/05/11  [4] Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas challenges Abbas term extension, The Jerusalem Post, 29th September 2008,  Accessed 19/05/11


For these states perpetuating the resources that give their regime its legitimacy, as a provider, is absolutely vital, the regime needs to be able to fulfill its side of the bargain with the people. [1] This is exactly what Egypt and other Middle Eastern states have been failing to do for the last couple of decades. Increasing food prices sparking riots shows that this is the case. Instead they have to rely more and more on force.  Once a rentier system has begun to break down there may well be an opportunity for a more democratic system to take hold and better redistribute the economic resources of the state that have previously been so concentrated in a few hands.  [1] Gerd Nonneman, ‘Rentiers and Autocrats, Monarchs and Democrats, State and Society: The Middle East between Globalisation, Human “Agency”, and Europe’, International Affairs, Vol.77, No.1 (Jan., 2001), pp.141-162, pp.146-147.


The western reaction to victories by Hamas or Hizbollah while on one level hypocritical do not show that the west would be unsupportive of Arab democracy. Both parties are opposed because they are perceived to be both anti-democratic in nature and, through their opposition to Israel, agents of instability. Opposition to Hamas was always qualified, according to Tony Blair former British PM “Of course, we recognize the mandate for Hamas because the people have spoken in a particular way in the Palestinian Authority. But I think it is also important for Hamas to understand that there comes a point, and that point is now following that strong showing, where they have to decide between a path of democracy or a path of violence.” [1] Certainly when it comes to more moderate parties like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP)’s victory in 2002 was cautiously welcomed by the United States despite the party’s islamist roots. With State Department spokesman Richard Boucher saying immediately after its electoral victory “Let's not speculate on the future of the Turkish government, but let us at this point congratulate the Justice and Development Party on its electoral success. [2] Although the press tended to present the party’s islamist leanings as a problem this was balanced by some in the western media welcoming the opportunity to marry Islam with liberal democracy, and the example that Turkey could show. [3] It has to be remembered that there is a great deal of religion in US politics, to dismiss any parties that had Islamic roots would be seriously hypocritical. It has to be assumed that democrats in Muslim nations would express piety in order to connect with the general population, if politicians did not reflect the views of their constituents they would not be very good democrats.  [1] Bush: no change in US policy on Hamas, The Independent, Jan., 26, 2006,   [2] Michael Rubin ‘Green Money, Islamist Politics in Turkey’, Middle East Quarterly Winter 2005,   [3] Christian Christensen, ‘Pocketbooks or Prayer Beads? : U.S./U.K. Newspaper Coverage of the 2002 Turkish Elections’, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2005 10: 109, pp.120-1


NATO cooperates with Russia to decrease tensions. Since 2002, NATO and Russia have an on-going dialogue to discuss strategic issues in the NATO-Russia Council. This Council aims to ‘enhance political consultation and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests’ with Russia as a ‘true strategic partner’. [1] Obviously, political differences over specific issues remain: NATO stresses Georgia’s and Ukraine’s sovereignty and maintains an open door policy for their membership if they themselves want this. What matters is that through this on-going, institutionalized dialogue, NATO makes clear it sees Russia as a strategic partner, and possibly even as a future member, not as a potential enemy.  [1] NATO. NATO’s relations with Russia.


NATO destabilizes peaceful relations with Russia  There are two issues keeping Russia cautious of NATO as a military alliance. The first is a proposal by the U.S. to put up a missile defence system in Poland, the Czech Republic and on warships in the Black Sea under the flag of NATO to protect against missiles from Iran or North Korea, which, according to Russia, would never fly over these countries in any attack. Russia concludes that the missile defence system therefore must be directed at them. The second issue is NATO’s plans to expand with Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia has traditionally regarded as part of their ‘sphere of influence’. As Russian president Medvedev stated in 2008: “No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders.” [1]  [1] BBC News. Medvedev warns on Nato expansion. 2008


NATO has sufficient safeguards to prevent accidental escalation. Article V indeed specifies that members commit themselves to assisting a fellow member when attacked, but this clause leaves enough room to remain on the safe side. First of all, the clause is only defensive, to ensure that NATO doesn’t become involved in a war of choice of any of its members, like the Gulf War. Secondly, article V allows members to choose their assistance in proportion to the actual security threat and according to their own means and goals, instead of the automatic triggers that led to World War I.


Continued existence of NATO makes the world less safe  Originally, NATO had a clearly defined purpose and a common enemy: the Soviet bloc. With the demise of that shared enemy, NATO’s original purpose has disappeared but its well-functioning military structure remained, leaving it open to be seized by opportunistic politicians in a classic case of ‘scope creep’. This has happened with U.S. President George Bush jr.’s push to let Ukraine and Georgia in as new members in his global campaign to spread democracy. This has only served to increase tensions with Russia (see next argument). Who is to say that something similar isn’t going to happen vis-à-vis China? [1]  [1] Hamilton, Time to disband Nato now the Cold War is over? 2008


Continued existence of NATO doesn’t make the world less safe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only natural for the members of NATO to have been trying to define a new purpose. But discussing to define a new threat, whether that be an enemy state or a broader global security threat, isn’t the same as creating that threat. It’s not NATO’s so-called ‘scope creep’ that makes the world more unsafe, it is actual threats that make the world unsafe, and NATO’s formidable military structure can be useful in combating these. [1]  [1] NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010


NATO does not cont too much it saves money. Through joint exercises and sharing intelligence, member states learn to cooperate and communicate more effectively with each other, saving efforts when, if ever, they are forced to cooperate. These benefits alone are worthwhile. Moreover, defence contractors could expect a larger, more unified market, thus driving down average cost per unit, because of NATO’s efforts in standardizing requirements.


NATO runs the unacceptable risk of accidental escalation  The clause that ‘an attack against one means an attack against all’ (Article V) runs the risk of entangling the entire alliance in an unwanted conflict. This has happened before: World War I started out as a local conflict between the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia, but through their security alliances inadvertently drew in all the major powers of the world. Given that many members of NATO have unstable countries near their borders (i.e. Turkey bordering Iraq) there is a risk they could become involved in a small regional war, which then inadvertently draws in the entire world.


NATO costs too much  Maintaining an administration for NATO, with personnel and buildings, costs money. Moreover, whenever NATO-members engage in a mission, they’re supposed to fund their activities under these missions themselves. [1] Given that the original threat has passed and given that the organisation still struggles to redefine itself, why spend money on it?  [1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011


The EU would do better to develop its own military capability. Slowly but surely, the European Union is attempting to build its own defence capability through the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a strategy, defence agency and coordinating official separate from NATO. The process of creating this is slow, because it involves EU-member states sharing the sovereign control of the monopoly of violence on their territories. The EU wants this because in its own region, the EU has its own interests which it wants to protect by itself. Moreover, why would NATO-members outside of the EU consider it fair that their collective assets are used for Europe’s particular interests, especially when it involves their own related interest, as for example Turkey’s strenuous relation to the Berlin Plus Agreement shows? [1]  [1] Ülgen, The Evolving EU, NATO, and Turkey Relationship.


Strategic alliances should reflect the specific interests they serve. The threats mentioned are global threats affecting all developed countries, but they affect different countries differently. For example, Australia and New-Zealand are closer to North-Korea than Europe is. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with U.S.? Indonesia and India are growing economies and burgeoning democracies, both regularly suffering terrorist attacks. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with the U.S. and Europe? Turkey continues to have a different strategic view of the threat Iran poses and has a radically divergent strategic interest in Cyprus than the EU-members in NATO. Why is the EU allied with them through NATO whilst it has opposing strategic interests?  Without a clearly defined shared purpose and shared enemy, NATO will remain a talking shop where members with divergent interests will continue to frustrate any possible ‘coalition of the willing’, rendering NATO practically useless.


NATO provides the UN with an effective joint military capability  When in early 2011 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, calling upon countries and regional organizations to take “all necessary measures” to protect the citizens of Libya against its dictator Ghaddafi, NATO provided effective support through their ‘Operation Unified Protector’, through which it enforced the arms embargo against Ghaddafi and the no-fly zone over Libya. Moreover, the smooth cooperation between France, the UK and the US in their active campaign to provide air support for the rebels in Libya has probably been made easier by the previous cooperation these countries have had through NATO.


NATO allows burden-sharing and specialization amongst its members  For many members, maintaining a fully operational military that has all the required capabilities (air, sea and land plus required logistics) is impossible: they don’t have enough budget, manpower or political will to maintain a full military. NATO allows members to share their burdens and to specialise. Examples of this are NATO’s AWACS-aircraft (Airborne Warning & Control System) and NATO’s Strategic Airlift Capability. Both are instances of NATO-allies pooling resources and sharing burdens. [1]  [1] NATO. AWACS: NATO’s ‘eye in the sky’.


NATO provides the EU with an effective joint military capability  As of yet, the European Union has little independent military capability to intervene in regional conflicts in neighbouring countries. The relevance of this became glaringly apparent during the 1990’s Bosnian war and later, the Kosovo War: the EU called for the ending of hostilities but only when NATO and/or the UN became involved militarily, was peace effectively enforced. Consequently, in 2002 NATO and the EU agreed on the Berlin Plus Agreement, allowing the EU to use NATO assets, provided no NATO members vetoed it. Under this agreement, the EU has been able to hold their own peacekeeping missions in the Republic of Macedonia (EUFOR Concordia) and Bosnia Herzegovina to oversee the Dayton Agreement (EUFOR Althea). [1]  [1] NATO. NATO-EU: A Strategic Partnership.


NATO is a vital instrument to make the world safer  In spite of all the bickering, the members of the NATO-alliance still face shared threats: a nuclear armed North-Korea for example, but also international terrorism, threats to international security stemming from weak or failed states and a possibility of a nuclear Iran. As in the past, NATO provides an institutionalized dialogue between partners with shared interest: America has an easily accessible diplomatic forum through which it can garner an international coalition for its policies, and European member states can benefit from access to US military technology and know-how. That’s why throughout 2010 and 2011 NATO has successfully formulated a new ‘Strategic Concept’, a joint strategic vision shared by all members, as well as a policy to improve NATO’s involvement in stabilisation and reconstruction. [1]  [1] NATO. Key NATO policy on stabilisation and reconstruction released to the public. 2011. NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010.


NATO has allowed many members a free ride on U.S. military capability. The little ‘burden sharing’ that is going on can’t hide the fact that the main contributor is the U.S. and that especially the EU-members have not been investing enough in their own military capability. This has led to NATO becoming, in the words of U.S. Defence Secretary, a “two-tiered alliance” between “those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership”. As long as Europe continues to take a free ride on the U.S., it will never be able to either shoulder its fair share of the burden, or operate independently outside of NATO. [1]  [1] Gates, Transcript of Defense Secretary Gates’s Speech on NATO’s Future. 2011


NATO actually undermines the authority of the UN. The attack against the Libyan regime, as well as NATO’s participation in it, has drawn severe criticism, especially from Russia and China, who see the military campaign NATO and the UK, US and France undertook as overstepping the boundaries set by resolution 1973, against their explicit wishes. If NATO ever were to operate as the de facto military arm of the UN Security Council, then China and Russia would feel alienated from the UN Security Council, simply because they’re not (veto-wielding) members of NATO. [1]  [1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011


The suggestion that superdelegates vote for one of their own are simply disproved by the selection of Obama over one half of the most influential couple in the entire party. [i] Obama drew his support from the grassroots and his funding and that was quite sufficient.  There is simply no evidence that the superdelegates act as a drag on the party, indeed they have consistently followed the popular decision of party activists and respected that decision. Indeed the Republican system, without superdelegates, have most recently selected George Bush followed by John McCain; it would be difficult to think of two candidates who would more accurately fit either of the descriptions “old, powerful, white men” or “party establishment”.  [i] 2008 Democratic Delegates, Real Clear Politics, 2008,


The disproportionate influence of former politicians inevitably benefits old, powerful, white men  The influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting someone from outside the political class or their friends in business. It was worried that this might happen in 1998 in the close primary contest between Clinton and Obama. [i]  There is no reason that this decision should not be left to the members, it is after their party and they should be represented by whosoever they see fit. The decision in a democracy over the governance of the country – or the leadership of the party – should be determined by the populous or the members.  Allowing a disproportionate influence to past leaders and those they have selected inevitably discourages new ideas and new voices.  [i] Younge, Gary, ‘It’s up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy’, The Guardian, 18 February 2008


Overwhelmingly senior party figures have publically declared for a candidate and the suggestion that this does not involve a degree of horse trading is simply naïve. Equally the suggestion that leaving such negotiations until after the election is over would be reckless in the extreme.  For anyone seeking reelection their most likely request is the candidates involvement in their campaign. In terms of cash donations the amounts concerned are tiny - Obama donated under a million to election campaigns and Clinton less than half of that, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that someone wanting to lead the party into an election campaign should deploy some of their own funds to help get a congress they can work with.


One person, one vote is a basic principal of democracy when the vote of one person is worth 10,000 time as much as that of another is simply undemocratic  It’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of party members and activists to select candidates by party insiders keen to sew up the selection without members being consulted, super-delegates were created as a watered down response to one of these but the effects are the same [i] .  Regardless of how votes are actually cast it gives a very poor appearance a sends a bad message for a major party – especially one called the Democratic Party - to be justifying such a situation.  [i] Paul Rockwell. “Screw the voters. Let the superdelegates decide!” Common Dreams. 18 February 2008.


Primaries are a process of selection, not one of election. There are plenty of other situations in which political parties recognise the need to introduce particular expertise into their processes such as in drafting policy or developing campaign materials.  Superdelegates act as a balancing mechanism in the event of an emergency or a tie. Other than that the system simply ensures that the winning candidate has a clear majority and to provide the leadership with the party a legitimate reason to attend and show their support to those watching at home.  Rather than providing an unwatchable parade of faces and names that the electorate has never heard of the superdelegate system means that senior party officials have the opportunity to say that they have actively and publically voted for the successful candidate.


Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support  Superdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy. [i]  The system of superdelegates simply extends the pork-barrel buffet into the convention. With votes to be bought through offer of jobs or political support, the political process is distorted and corrupted [ii] .  [i] Czawadzki, ‘Ohio’s Superdelegates Hold Endorsements Hostage’, Ohio Daily, 6 March 2008,   [ii] Robert Schlesinger. “Superdelegates: Show me the money!” Huffington Post. 17 February 2008.


The very fact that the only time since its creation when the superdelegates played a significant role, they managed to select the most unelectable candidate in modern American history – and by their involvement made him, more unelectable still suggests that the system may not be working.  Their intervention in 1984 to nudge Mondale over the winning line produced a candidate who lost in 49 states. If ever there were a situation when the party elders subtle understanding of the electorate might have been useful then it was at that election.  Instead they supported the party insider with a mechanism he had helped design and for exactly the purpose he had wanted it in place.


In such a scenario – which is a little concerned – it can be assumed that exactly the same party elders could be relied on to pressure the candidate to resign.  Equally the only ‘crisis’ it is conceivable to imagine after months of primaries being raked over by the press and political opponents would seem to be that party grandees considered that the voters had made ‘the wrong choice’.  The reason that the Mondale case was contentious was that he wanted – and had wanted for some time – the party apparatus to have an even greater say but this was the best he could get. It also gives the lie to the party ‘experts’ capacity to ensure winning candidates are selected.


It’s in the interests of ordinary party members that they don’t have to compete with congressmen to be a delegate  Most delegates are either party activists or, in some states, those selected by the candidate or state party leaderships for a particular role in the campaign.  It would be unfair to all concerned if they had to compete for their place at the convention with senators and congressmen, as is the case with the Republicans where the elected representatives often get to be delegates due to being a recognisable name. [i] Likewise ensuring that former party leaders and other elders are in attendance shows both continuity and unity.  It seems unlikely that the average activist from Arkansas would be likely to be sent if the alternative was W.J. Clinton  [i] Klonsky, Joanna, ‘Backgrounder The Role of Delegates in the U.S. Presidential Nominating Process’, Council on Foreign Relations, 10 June 2008,


The party leadership has the experience and expertise of actually winning elections, they provide a useful buffer against activists – usually from the party’s extremes  It is a standing joke in both parties that to win the nomination candidates need to run to the extreme and then, to win the election, run back to the middle. The very fact that this disparity exists suggests that having a stop button of people who have actually won some elections because, by definition, they have an understanding of the electorate might not be a bad idea.  In essence the superdelegates act as what in parliamentary terms as a reviewing chamber, rarely used but useful in a crisis. [i]  [i] Thurow, Glen E., "The 1984 Democratic Primary Election: Issues and Image," in Peter W. Schramm and Dennis J. Mahoney, eds. The 1984 Election and the Future of American Politics (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press), 1987


It’s useful to have an informed and experienced group involved in the event of a tie and also to deal with any other issues such as a last minute scandal  The superdelegates are really a valve to deal with the unexpected. Even in the most contentious case of Walter Mondale – in reality only contentious because it was the first time the system had been used – the party had already decided and the superdelegates were just ensuring a clear majority.  Imagine a scenario in which a candidate had won the popular vote only to face a major scandal on the eve of the convention. The role of those electors with a free hand would suddenly look very useful to party members.


There is absolutely no reason for the party leadership not to be invited – and to speak – without being given a vote. Every other party manages to do so.  Working on the basis that Bill Clinton managed to get an invite to – and address – the British Labour party (with Kevin Spacey as his sidekick) in 2002, [i] it seems unlikely that Democrat party managers would forget to give him an invite.  Indeed the fact that the parties great and good have already had an influence over the outcome of the nomination in terms of giving their support and appearing on the campaign trail with candidates to give them an extra say at this late stage seems doubly unfair.  [i] ‘Speech by Bill Clinton, former US President, at the Labour Party Conference, 2002’, Winter Gardens, Blackpool, Wednesday 2 October 2002,


If the terrorist organisation was elected as Hamas was it is likely that as in 2006/7 when much of the power in the PA remained with the Fatah President, Mahmood Abbas, one or other of the presidency or the parliament would remain in non-terrorist hands so funding should be continued in order to strengthen that party. In any case, any party that is willing to stand and contest relatively free and fair elections, is in the long term likely to want to bring peace. Working with such a government would encourage the moderates within that organisation, and allow them to understand that helping the Palestinian people to a better future requires compromise and negotiation. This move from terrorism to a political process will take time in order for attitudes to change and trust to build. It can only be achieved by western commitment to work with the new government rather than to cut it off entirely.


Withholding funds will prevent PNA terrorism and anti-Semitism.  It is clear what Hamas, or any other terrorist organisation, has to do in order to convince western governments to continue funding the Palestinian National Authority with it in charge. It must formally give up terror, accept the existence of the state of Israel and drop any anti-Semitic ideology. Yasser Arafat’s PLO and Fatah Party made these commitments in the early 1990s, and this allowed them to become negotiating partners in the Oslo Peace process. [1] Hamas has to take the same steps if it wants to enjoy the same level of support from western donors which the previous Fatah government had. Until it makes these public changes, there would not be any funding.  [1] Schlaim, Avi. “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process.” International Relations of the Middle East. 2005.


It would be anti-democratic to punish the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote. Their vote may not be a vote for terrorism or against the peace process, but rather a response to the corruption and anarchy of the ruling party, currently Fatah, and its mismanagement of the Palestinian National Authority. Withdrawing funding is not just a signal of disapproval for the party which is elected, but a clear attempt to bring down the PNA government and overturn the election result. After all the years of western criticism of corrupt dictatorial regimes, what message does it send to Arab governments and people if the west refuses to respect the result of an election and imposes a collective punishment?


The law prevents US and EU governments from funding terrorist groups.  Hamas is a terrorist organisation, responsible for killing hundreds of civilians, often by sending suicide bombers into Israel. Both the European Union and the US State Department have recognised this by listing Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Their governments are barred by law from providing any funding to such groups. [1] It is extremely worrying that such a violent organisation managed to win power in the most recent Palestinian election, and that committed terrorists are in government in Gaza and in control of the Palestinian budget and security forces. In 2007 both Western law, and the moral disgust at the thought that aid funding could be used to fund terror attacks, required the EU and US to stop funding the Palestinian Authority while under a Hamas government, the same would almost certainly be the case again if Hamas were to regain power.  [1] Schulenburg, John. “Fatah Reconciles With Hamas.” Gateway Pundit. 27/04/2011.


It is these western governments themselves who define what groups are terrorist groups. They both make the definitions of terrorism and decide what groups fall into these definitions. For example the United Kingdom regarded the IRA (Irish Republican Army) as being a terrorist group while the United States did not consider them a terrorist organisation. [1] Therefore if these countries wished to deal with and provide financial aid to a new Palestinian government, even if it was the political arm of a terrorist organisation they could simply redefine it, as would almost certainly be the case if the terrorist organisation was perceived as doing something that is in the interests of these western nations.  [1]


The outcome of the Palestinian elections should not be rewarded with aid.  A terrorist organisation such as Hamas may be democratically elected, but that does not mean we have to fund its government. Respecting the decision of the Palestinian people is not the same thing as liking their choice or rewarding it with aid. The Palestinian people should realise that a vote for Hamas or any other terrorist organisation is a vote for international isolation. Showing our clear disapproval of terrorists in government sends a clear message for future elections both in Palestine and in other countries.


The history of the IRA does not provide a useful precedent for dealing with Hamas. Leaving aside questions of how genuine the IRA’s conversion to peace and democracy really is, parallels with Hamas and the Palestinian conflict are misleading. Compared to the religious fundamentalism of Hamas, Irish republicans were pretty secular and focused on gaining and using power in this world. They wanted to force Britain out of Northern Ireland, but not to wipe Britain itself off the map. There has never been an IRA suicide bomber and, faced with a failing armed struggle, the movement’s leaders chose to compromise. Hamas is entirely different in its beliefs and attitudes, and there is no reason to suppose that funding it in power will encourage it to change its strategy or aims.


Arab and Muslim states won’t necessarily make up any budget shortfall if the EU and USA stop funding the PNA. Many Arab governments would be deeply unhappy at seeing Islamists in government and even though they do not like Israel, they have no wish to inflame the situation further. More moderate countries in the region recognise Israel and want the peace process to move forward so would be just as likely to demand that a terrorist group gives up terror and disarms as the west. Iran may be more sympathetic, but almost all Palestinians are Sunni rather than Shia Muslims, and Iran has its own international problems such as sanctions that are making an economic impact so it may not be in a position to subsidize other governments.  There is also no evidence that the Palestinians would turn to such states. In December 2007, 87 countries and international organisations, including Serbia and Nicaragua, pledged to donate $7.4 billion to the PNA over three years. [1] This amount is far more than previous US and EU funding and there is no evidence that its acceptance has led to Palestine depending on anti-Israel regimes.  [1] Stotsky, Steven. “Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?” Middle East Quarterly. Summer 2008.


The loss of funding would destabilise and radicalise Palestine.  Palestine is very dependent on foreign aid, the PNA is dependent on aid for 50% of its budget and per head the Palestinians are the biggest recipients of aid in the world. [1] The loss of funding would therefore destabilise both the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian society as a whole. 140,000 PNA jobs are dependent upon the income from western funding, and these workers in turn help support more than a third of the Palestinian population. [2] Cutting funding could lead to the collapse of any government system and cause great suffering among the people who would lose their chief source of income has gone. Both these things are likely to radicalise the Palestinian people further and make peace less likely.  [1] Levy, Judith, ‘Palestinian economy dangerously dependent on foreign aid’, The Washington Times Communities, 27 May 2011,   [2] “Palestinians ‘face financial crisis’.” BBC News. 21/02/2006.


Western donors should support fair government  The west should support democratically elected, just, uncorrupted government no matter who provides it. Hamas could make a much better government than Fatah, it is a religious movement dedicated to political and social action. For many years it has run the most effective welfare programmes in the Palestinian territories, especially Gaza, including orphanages, schools, clinics and help for the needy. [1] The honesty and discipline of its leaders and followers provide a stark contrast with the corruption and chaos of the Fatah-run administration of Yasser Arafat and Mahmood Abbas. They paid lip service to the peace process but either could not, or would not control their followers so as to make a clear commitment to peace. At least with Hamas in power, the Palestinians would be better and more honestly governed, and billions of dollars in aid money will no longer be stolen by a corrupt elite. Hamas in Gaza by comparison has established an efficient public administration and has an ambitious infrastructure program. [2] In addition, militias and security forces are likely to be under much more effective control, making genuine negotiations about a long-term ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians much more plausible. After all, a deal which excludes Hamas has no chance at all of holding.  [1] Putz, Ulrike. “Uncle Hamas Cares for Palestinians.” Spiegel. 12/20/2006.   [2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011,


Engaging with Hamas is the best way to secure a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.  There is a clear precedent for engaging with terrorist groups moving towards a political track. Like Hamas in recent years, at the end of the 1970s, the IRA was a terrorist organisation which rejected the political process. In the early 1980s, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, decided to stand for elections. As elected representatives grappled with local issues and had to work with others on councils and committees, the movement changed and, in 1994, the IRA declared a ceasefire. [1] More recently, Sinn Fein leaders have held ministerial positions in Northern Ireland and the IRA has ended the armed struggle. This was a long process but it shows clearly how, if we respect any elected terrorist group’s popular mandate and are prepared to engage with them, they may be encouraged to give up terrorism and make concessions for peace. Indeed some hard liners in Hamas controlled Gaza worry that exactly such a scenario may happen. [2]  [1] Schmidt, William E. “Cease-Fire in Northern Ireland.” New York Times. 01/09/1994.   [2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011,


Withholding funds will cause Palestine to rely on anti-Israeli regimes.  Cutting off aid to the Palestinian National Authority would be counter-productive no matter who is elected in. The PNA would have to replace funding from somewhere, this would inevitably mean turning for aid to Muslim and Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran as Hamas did. [1] The west may therefore simply force the Palestinians in to the arms of countries that are much more hostile to Israel resulting in the Palestinians simply being more hard-line to please their new paymasters. Allowing the Palestinians to become dependent upon such anti-Israel regimes will end any influence the west has had with the PNA and push it in a more extremist direction. Potentially, such alliances could make a regional conflict more likely.  [1] Watt, Nicholas. “US urges Arab states to fund Palestinians after Hamas victory.” The Guardian. 31/01/2006.


This assumes that it is Hamas that is elected or another group that has been involved in running welfare programmes. It should however be noted that while Hamas has effectively provided welfare programmes it has at the same time used those same civilians as human shields. During its time in power in Gaza Hamas has had little impact except for starting a conflict with Israel, as a result Gaza is in a worse position than the West Bank with 80% of the population dependent on international aid, 61% are food insecure and 90% of water supplied is not suitable for drinking. [1]  [1] Hasan, Mehdi, ‘No end to the strangulation of Gaza’, New Statesman, 6 January 2011,


Cutting off aid to the PNA need not result in mass suffering among the Palestinian people. Humanitarian aid would certainly continue, although this could no longer be channelled through the PNA but rather to individual schemes run by non-governmental organisations. In any case, the greatest suffering is caused by a lack of a peace process with Israel. A commitment to peace talks shown by a terrorist group pledging to end terrorism would help allow the economic development needed to create jobs and relieve poverty in the Palestinian territories.


Buying time only helps the terrorists. It gives them time to arm themselves and gain allies abroad so enabling a more deadly series of attacks later on. Terrorist groups usually only have a very finite number of resources so the state should seek to press the terrorist group until it has nothing left to fall back on. It is notable that each time Israel has failed to destroy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza they have quickly been resupplied b allies in Syria and Iran making them more difficult to fight next time. [1]  [1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006,


No negotiation encourages the hunt for a bigger lever  When fighting terrorists the state either needs to answer some of the terrorists demands or fight back. When the state fights back the by the terrorists response is almost always more bloodshed using more and more extreme methods for example the first intifada was fought using sticks and stones, but when this, and the peace process that followed it failed, or rather did not show the results that was hoped for, the second was a major step up to suicide bombing. This is because when the terrorists fail they are unlikely to pack up; instead they will try to find a bigger lever to course the state into making the move they want. In this case Arafat hoped a round of violence would bring about concessions. [1] The best way to prevent this cycle of violence is to negotiate, even if this is mostly to buy time. Even when there is no cease fire there will be no reason for the terrorists to escalate if their demands are being taken seriously.  [1] Pressman, Jeremy, ‘The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’, The Journal of Conflict Studies, Vol. CCIII, No.2, Fall 2003,


Whether this happens really depends on the negotiations. Unfortunately negotiations without result are likely to strengthen the radicals who can show that the peaceful route is not going anywhere. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to give them what they want, and if this has to be done the concessions could have been given before there was a turn to terrorism.


Negotiation isolates those who are only interested in violence  Just as negotiations strengthen the moderates they isolate those who are most radical and interested in a violent solution. This isolation is key to actually winning a fight against groups using terrorist methods because terrorists are almost always hiding within the community. The only way to prevent these acts is therefore to encourage their community to persuade the terrorists to reject violence, or if they are not willing to change to aid the state. The need for help from the community is recognised in almost all conflicts against terrorist groups and insurgencies. The state succeeds when it gets the moderates on board, this is shown by the conflict in Iraq where the United States turned the tide against al Qaeda in the Al-Anbar Awakening. This victory was only made possible through the engagement and cooperation with local leaders who wanted an end to violence so were willing to talk to, and join with the US military if the result was likely to be security. [1]  [1] Smith, Niel, and MacFarland, Sean, ‘Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point’, Military Review, March-April 2008, pp.41-52,  p.48


Negotiation saves lives  Almost all terrorist groups kill people, whether innocents or members of the military. Even those who limit casualties by giving warnings of their atrocities are unperturbed when they do end up taking lives. Negotiation can then be the best way to save lives both in the short and long term. In the short term negotiating can mean a cease fire, and if there are hostages their release. Over the long term negotiation is necessary if there is to be any peaceful conclusion to the conflict. As the right to life is the most fundamental right, and the duty of the states to protect its citizens is primary role of the state it is clear that the protection of these lives should be the main consideration for the state.


In the long term negotiation and compromise of some form is needed to bring about a final peace but it is not correct that negotiations in the short term saves lives. First of all not all terrorist groups will initiate a cease fire if they are negotiating with the government, about half continue their violence while negotiating, [1] and even if they do there is no saying all their supporters will take part. Negotiating also shows that the government is weak; the determination to 'save lives' can end up costing more lives as the terrorists see that they violence is paying dividends. They may come to the conclusion that if they kill more they will gain more concessions.  [1] Cronin, Audrey Kurth, ‘Negotiating with groups that use terrorism: Lessons for policy-makers’, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Background papers, 2008,  p.6


Negotiations are not needed to isolate terrorists. The vast majority of citizens will abhor violence as they simply desire a quiet life in which they can make a peaceful living. The best way for the government to isolate the terrorists is to ensure the security of the community and meet some of their grievances. When the community sees that they government is in a better position to provide what they want they will support the government. The situation in Iraq was unusual in that there were important people in the community who at one point or another actively supported Al Qaeda so there needed to be negotiations with these people. In most circumstances the important members of the community are on the sidelines so negotiating with them would not be analogous to negotiating with terrorists.


There is nothing wrong with attempts to solve the individual grievance without reference to the terrorist group. The aim of resolving the grievance is to prevent more people joining the extremists and to isolate them from the people. When this is done it will be much easier to catch the people who are responsible for the terrorist atrocities and bring them to justice. Being willing to negotiate with the terrorist group on the other hand will likely lead to some of the concessions being that terrorists or former terrorist manage to escape justice for their acts as they will want such an amnesty to be a part of the concessions they receive in return for giving up violence.


Negotiation encourages moderation  In every terrorist movement there are different factions and disagreements about how best to achieve their collective aims, and often terrorist groups have either direct or indirect ties with political parties with whom they share the same goals. It is clearly then in the interest of the state to strengthen the more acceptable parts of the movement whether can seriously talk to. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to negotiate. This then makes their path to a solution the more credible course for the movement as a whole to take. To demonstrate a negative example the United States and Israel were unwilling to negotiate with moderates within the PLO for fifteen years during which time not only was there a lot more bloodshed but much more radical groups formed on the Palestinian side making negotiations much more complicated in the long run as there would be multiple groups who would need to sign up to a final peace treaty. [1]  [1] Chamberlin, Paul Thomas, ‘When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists’, The New York Times, 3 September 2012,


Negotiation is the only way to solve the underlying problem  UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2003 “terrorism will only be defeated if we act to solve the political disputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for it. If we do not, we shall find ourselves acting as a recruiting sergeant for the very terrorists we seek to suppress.” [1] Terrorist campaigns don't just come out of nowhere (with the exception of some single individual acts), there is a grievance behind the acts. The terrorist is trying to have this grievance dealt with and believes the best way to this end is through violence. It is clear that the easiest way to end the conflict is simply to resolve the grievance. Even when there are no negotiations the state will usually attempt to resolve some of these grievances, however doing so unilaterally will simply show that the terrorist's violence is working without getting any guarantees of an end to the violence in return. Negotiation therefore benefits both sides. It is notable that 43% of terrorist groups that have ended since 1968 have done so as a result of negotiations compared to only 7% being defeated militarily. [2]  [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Ability to reason vital in fighting terrorism, Secretary-General tells conference’, un.org, SG/SM/8885, 22 September 2003,   [2] Jones, Seth G., and Libicki, Martin C., How Terrorist Groups End, RAND, 2008,  p.xiii, xiv


It is very rare for such negotiations to provide a benefit to terrorist groups. Many states, such as the UK and USA, are unwilling to provide ransom payments so where they are provided they are often privately raised thus cannot be considered to be a result of negotiation. In such circumstances the state will have secured the release of hostages and the life of a state's citizens should be placed above comparatively small amounts of money. Where prisoners are being released as a confidence building measure the terrorists will usually be making some concession as well such as giving up some arms so the state does not end up worse off but there is more trust to enable negotiations to prevent more violence.


A precondition that terrorists must give up their arms and renounce violence before negotiations will ensure that negotiations never come and the violence will continue indefinitely. Terrorists realise that their influence is only as a result of their threat of violence; once this has been renounced the government will never have any reason to give them what they want. The only response to such a precondition is to force the government to drop that condition through violence.


Negotiation encourages more terrorism  There are two ways in which negotiation encourages more terrorism. First it shows that violence can achieve its aims, a group that has committed violent acts and received negotiations in return will believe that they will gain even more from greater levels of violence. Secondly as argued in the previous point negotiations with terrorist groups gives legitimacy to political violence. This in turn will encourage other groups to resort to violence to achieve their political goals as they have seen it work for another group. Thus for example when the Fatah movement and the Palestine Liberation Organisation were legitimised by a peace process and the recognition of a form of Palestinian government other groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas came to believe that they could take terrorist actions further in order to liberate Palestine through an armed struggle. [1]  [1] Schweitzer, Yoram, ‘The Rise and Fall of Suicide Bombings in the Second Intifada’, Strategis Assessment, Vol.13, No.3, October 2010,  p.40


Even if negotiation with one group is successful others will take their place  Terrorist groups are rarely static, they change, evolve, and break up. Negotiating with one group may create peace with that group while at the same time causing a split that creates another group that is more willing to use violence. This is what happened in Northern Ireland where the peace process tamed the IRA and spawned the Real IRA, [1] a group that was more even more willing to kill innocents than its predecessor through attacks such as the Omagh bombing which killed 29 people in 1998. [2]  [1] Moran, Michael, ‘Terrorist Groups and Political Legitimacy’, Council on Foreign Relations, 16 March 2006,   [2] Elliott, Francis, ‘Real IRA admits to Omagh bomb and disbands’, The Telegraph, 20 October 2002,


Terrorists can’t be trusted – better to crush them  Any group that is willing to resort to violence cannot be trusted not to simply take up arms again as soon as they perceive some new grievance. Groups that believe they can achieve what they want through force of arms will turn to violence again and again. This can be seen all over the world; thus ETA regularly declares ceasefires and breaks them just as often (1989, 1996, 1998, 2006), [1] or civil wars that have seemed to be coming to a close reignite because one or more groups believe they can gain more from another round of fighting. Thus the Tamil Tigers fought what might be considered to be four separate wars with the Sri Lankan state with a lot of ceasefires along the way. [2] It was however not negotiations but the pursuit of a ruthless military campaign that finally brought the reunification of the country. [3]  [1] Dingle, Sarah, ‘ETA militants declare end to armed struggle’, ABC The World Today, 21 October 2011,   [2] ‘Sri Lanka profile Timeline’, BBC News, 16 May 2013,   [3] Smith, Niel A., ‘Understanding Sri Lanka’s Defeat of the Tamil Tigers’, NDU Press, 2009,


Negotiation provides more resources to terrorists  Negotiation can help the terrorists who are negotiating in several ways. First it buys time; if the terrorist group has previously been hard pressed by the state's military then this time can be used to rest, recover and resupply, in effect for preparing for the next campaign. This is what happens whenever there is a ceasefire, or a unilateral break, in the campaign in Lebanon or Palestine as those states which are aligned to the terrorist groups such as Syria and Iran seek to resupply their allies. [1]  Second in some cases negotiation can involve the state handing over resources to the terrorist group. This is most often the case with hostage negotiations where the terrorists demand the release of other terrorists who have been captured so boosting the groups manpower or else demand a ransom in return for the release of hostages. Somalia has over the last decade regularly seen payouts of ransoms to groups of pirates who have links to islamists [2] and are accused of having links to terrorists. While pirates are the highest profile ransoms the same occurs with terrorist groups, it is estimated that $70million has been paid to secure the release of western captives since 2010. [3] Releasing terrorists can also sometimes be used as a confidence building measure leading up to negotiations, which can mean helping the terrorist groups even before there are negotiations. This has most recently occurred with Israel releasing 26 Palestinian prisoners, including Yusef Irshaid who murdered an Israeli, three suspected ‘collaborators’ and planned car bombings, in order to restart peace talks. [4]  [1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006,   [2] Spiegel Staff, ‘Terror on the High Seas: Somali Pirates Form Unholy Alliance with Islamists’, Spiegel Online, 20 April 2009,   [3] Press Association ‘David Cameron To Tell G8 ‘Stop Paying Ransoms To Terrorists’’, Huffington Post, 18 June 2013,   [4] Harris, Ben, ‘Who Israel released’, Jewish Telegraphic Association, 14 August 2013,


The real IRA also shows how negotiation is successful. The new group did not have the tacit support from abroad in the form of the Republic of Ireland or the USA or resources of its predecessor. The violent campaign destroyed any public support and the group disbanded, its leaders were eventually found liable for the bombing. [1] The political process through the Stormont Parliament is now the accepted way to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.  [1] McDonald, Henry, ‘Four Real IRA leaders found liable for Omagh bombing’, theguardian.com, 8 June 2009,


Negotiations cannot take place while innocents are being threatened  Governments cannot negotiate while innocent civilians are being threatened by illegitimate violence. The state is the only wielder of legitimate violence in the form of the police and military that are needed to keep order and defend the state's citizens. To negotiate with terrorists is to provide them with legitimacy making violence an accepted way of achieving political aims. Before legitimacy is granted upon the terrorist group they must first give up their weapons and renounce violence. By taking such a position the state ensures that no lives will be taken during the political process.


Simply because a terrorist group has broken ceasefires numerous times does not mean that the next attempt will get nowhere – in ETA’s case the current ceasefire is holding. [1] We should also remember that not every time the terrorist group breaks a ceasefire it has been result of actions by the terrorist group – the state can also be the one that is walking away from talks. Ultimately there needs to be trust on both sides, to the terrorists the state seems as untrustworthy as the terrorists do to the state.  [1] ‘Spain and ETA Always around’, The Economist, 17 August 2013,


There is no question that violence can sometimes achieve its aims but each individual campaign is different and is responded to in different ways thus for example a terrorist group that achieves minimal aims through violence cannot be used as a model by a group whose aims present an existential threat to the state. Thus for example the IRA achieved devolution after years of bombings but this does not them mean that the Real IRA was ever going to be successful in obtain a complete break with the UK.


There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. [2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood. [3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.” [4] Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system.  [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009  [2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009  [4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007


Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money  Earmarks usually represent expensive programs of little worth to the American people. As the main means of pork barrel politics, earmarks are typically vanity projects with little economic benefit. Examples include the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (a $400 million project to connect an island community of just 50 people to the mainland), [1] $1 million for shuttle buses at Western Kentucky University, [2] and a grant of $300 000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Hawaii. [3] Worse, a recent Harvard Business School study found that states which received the most federal spending via earmarks from well-connected Congressmen actually suffered economically as a result, because the federal money crowded out private investment and distorted the local jobs market. [4]  [1] Volpe, Paul, ‘Politifact: ‘Bridge’ Going Nowhere Before Palin Killed It’, 2008  [2] WKU News, ‘Funding secured for 2 more projects’, 2009  [3] Mendoza, Jim, ‘McCain criticizes Voyaging Society earmark’, 2010  [4] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011


What erodes trust in Congress is the endless squabbling between parties who put their own partisan advantage over the national interest, not the lobbying of individual representatives and senators on behalf of their constituents. Politicians erode trust by loudly arguing that government is the problem. [1] Earmarks are in fact important in linking Congress to citizens, as they produce concrete benefits at a local level that can be associated with the activities of elected officials. This increases trust and helps to legitimise the wider activities of the federal government, including its taxes. This helps to explain why opinion polls find that most people trust their own Congressman to do the right thing, even as confidence in Congress as a whole sinks to record lows. [2]  [1] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009  [2] Reich, Robert, ‘House of Ill-Repute: It’s Time to Ban Earmarks”, 2006


Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice  Earmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set objective criteria and organise competitive bidding processes for specific projects. Earmarks avoid this merit-based approach and instead channel money to specific projects according to how well-connected their Congressional representatives are. [1] Congressmen on the key spending committees, especially the Appropriations Committees, are best placed to channel pork back to their districts. It has been found that earmark spending rises between 40-50% in a state if one of its Senators becomes Chair of a top-three committee. [2]  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [2] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011


Abolishing earmarks will save money  Scrapping earmarks will save billions of dollars and contribute to reducing the appalling US budget deficit. Earmarks totalled about $16 billion of the 2009-10 budget, [1] unnecessary spending which should be cut in the interests of both present and future US taxpayers. Earmarks can be a large amount of a department’s budget, in 2005 the Office of Naval Research derived a quarter of its budget through earmarks. [2] Granted, removing earmarks alone will not be sufficient to eliminate the budget deficit and get rid of wasteful government spending, but earmarks are the obvious place to start. Until these most egregious examples of waste are tackled, it will not be possible to move on to cut bigger spending programs.  [1] Kane, Paul, ‘Congressional earmarks worth nearly $16 billion’, 2010  [2] Charging RINO, ‘The Problem with Earmarks’, 2006


Scrapping earmarks won’t save money, it’s just a distraction from the real challenge the government faces. As Earmarks are just a way of describing a government funded program [1] they do not represent additional government spending, they simply appropriate small amounts of it (less than 0.5% of the whole US budget, and only 1.5% of discretionary spending) for specific projects. [2] If the earmarks were not there, the money would still be spent; its use would simply be decided by the executive branch rather than directed to a particular end by Congress. For this reason, ending the use of earmarks will do nothing to cut the deficit. If you were serious about doing that you would have to think about cutting entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, raising the pension age further, reducing military expenditure, and increasing taxes. [3]  [1] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009  [2] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009  [3] Hoyer, Steny H., ‘’Pork’ doesn’t fatten budget’, 2009


All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. It is right that those who are determining where money is going should be elected representatives rather than a bureaucrat or a simple formula.


Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a representative to ameliorate the adverse impact of a policy at a local level and allow necessary bills to be passed. [1] However, even if you think this is bad, eliminating earmarks will not get rid of undue influence on voting in Congress. Instead it will hand that power to the executive, with the White House being able to offer incentives to wavering Congressmen to get them to vote for its programs in the form of promises about increased spending on projects in their state or district.  [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006


Earmarks erode trust in the government  The use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in order to aggrandise themselves and ensure re-election. Second, it assumes that the answer to every local problem or issue is for the federal government to raise yet more tax revenue and bestow it from on high because Washington-knows-best. It is a symbol that makes it hard to resist spending both for politicians and their constituents. [1]  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’


Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership  The ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska. [1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation.  [1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009


Earmarks may represent relatively small sums in themselves, but they act as a “gateway drug” to more profligate spending. By giving individual Congressmen the gratification of directing small amounts of taxpayers’ money to their own advantage, it makes it more likely they won’t say no later when major new spending proposals like Obamacare are put up for a vote. An addiction to earmarks also reinforces the Washington assumption that more government spending and intervention is always the answer.


The power of the purse was given to congress in order to keep taxation down, and therefore spending as well. Unnecessary spending on earmarks is therefore opposed to the founding fathers intentions. [1]  [1] ThisNation.com, ‘Congressional Power’


Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process  The use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years. [1] [2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well as a certification obligation that they declare that neither they nor their family will benefit from the requested appropriation. Earmarks are thus a “nonbureaucratic, transparent system of rapid-response grants for pressing local concerns”, something which is genuinely useful. [3] There however could be further reforms such as having committees authorize all spending and banning last minute vote buying. [4]  The attention given to earmarks by the media and campaigning groups means that requests now receive far more scrutiny than they did in the past so we can be sure that campaigners and the press will make sure what they do is benefiting their constituency. [5]  [1] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007  [2] Marlowe, Howard, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2008  [3] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [4] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009  [5] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009


Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss  There is very little chance of Congress ever being willing to give up on having earmarks for their constituency’s. If the ban is voluntary many will not comply and if the ban is mandatory it will need congress to agree to it in the first place. Even those who voice opposition to earmarks make use of the system so it would never pass. [1]  [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009


Earmarks help to create congressional stability  In a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media attention a Congressmen rightly receives back home, perks of office such as large staffs and generous travel expenses, redistricting, and the ability of an incumbent to call upon an existing network of volunteers and donors to support their re-election bid. In any case, earmarks are only a tiny share of overall spending, and donations from local interest groups are usually heavily outweighed by both individual contributions and those from national organisations. Their money goes to candidates who share their ideological position and who they feel will vote to support the major legislative and budget initiatives they favour.


Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch  The ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent. [1] There are plenty of examples of US administrations spending money wastefully, [2] and others of Congress forcing them to commit money to worthwhile programs – both the improved body armour for troops and the Predator drone program originated as earmarks. As it is difficult to determine what is waste and what is not the books should be opened to scrutiny letting the public decide rather than there being an outright ban. [3]  [1] Rockwell, Lew, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2008  [2] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009  [3] Los Angeles Times, ‘Earmark games in Washington’, 2009


A ban is perfectly possible and Congress has come close already, for example with the house banning earmarks to for profit companies. [1]  [1] Kane, Paul, ‘House bans earmarks to for-profit companies’, 2010


Earmarks are part of the power of the purse  Earmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century. [1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriation to particular spending areas. Directing federal funds to individual projects at a local level is an important part of this; [2] indeed many Congressmen such as Rahm Emanuel consider it their duty for which they can be held accountable by voters. [3] It is part of having several layers of accountability and representation at the federal level, congressmen for local interests, Senators for states and the President for the whole country. [4] The unconstitutional alternative is for Congress to cede this power entirely to the executive branch.  [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006  [2] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009  [3] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007  [4] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009


Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired, [1] which the Congressman can point to as an argument for their re-election, especially if they have seniority and a place on a major spending committee. [2] They may also make it easier for incumbents to raise large campaign contributions from grateful companies and industry associations, in 2007 people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million. [3] These reasons help to explain why incumbent re-election rates in Congress are regularly above 90%, a worrying trend as it suggests there is limited democratic accountability.  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [2] Henke, John, ‘Why Earmarks are a Problem’, 2008  [3] Heath, David and Bernton, Hal, ‘$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted’, 2007


Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks. [1] [2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption. [3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contributions in exchange for using earmarks to provide federal investment, subsidies, tariff protection and tax breaks for individual firms and industries is worrying. [4]  [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [2] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [3] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [4] Lessig, Lawrence, ‘the wong in earmarks’, 2008


Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011)