Category: International

British Overseas Territories

Sam Bidwell writes on Britain’s Overseas Territories.

“the UK hasn’t been self-sufficient in terms of food production since the 1750s – and in the 1930s, only about 30% of food consumed in the UK was produced domestically”

On the 4th October, the UK Government announced that it would hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius The handover puts our strategic interests at risk – but why?  An overview of the Overseas Territories, and why they’re so crucial to our security and national interests.

Here is a map of Britain’s Overseas Territories Together, they form a network of staging posts that allows us to defend our interests abroad. But it doesn’t take a genius to notice that most of these territories are not close to the British Isles – so why do they matter?

For centuries now, Britain has been a trading nation, with commercial interests abroad. For example, the UK hasn’t been self-sufficient in terms of food production since the 1750s – and in the 1930s, only about 30% of food consumed in the UK was produced domestically.

Today, we import roughly 40% of our food and 37% of our primary energy sources. This means that we have an interest in the security of key trade routes and shipping lanes. Disruptions to these routes can drive up import costs, meaning higher prices for British consumers.

Even if Britain became more self-sufficient in food and energy production, we would still have overseas interests. Many of our largest businesses rely on their operations abroad to turn a profit. Also, we still need to collect military intelligence, to help us predict threats.

“The Overseas Territories are a crucial part of our efforts to keep trade flowing and exercise influence. For example, Gibraltar sits at the western entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, which accounts for about 15% of all global shipping”

Economic and military influence abroad also gives us a stronger hand when we deal with other countries – which brings us to the Overseas Territories.

The Overseas Territories are a crucial part of our efforts to keep trade flowing and exercise influence. For example, Gibraltar sits at the western entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, which accounts for about 15% of all global shipping. The RAF and Royal Navy both have a presence here, allowing for quick deployment into the Mediterranean or out into the Atlantic.

If the Strait of Gibraltar were disrupted, this would be a disaster for the flow of global trade – and Gibraltar helps Britain to keep it open. The Rock of Gibraltar is also an outpost for intelligence gathering, perfect for transmitting and receiving intel over long distances.

At the other end of the Mediterranean are Britain’s two sovereign base areas on the island of Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia from the RAF Base at Akrotiri, Britain can maintain influence over the other entrance to the Mediterranean, namely the Suez Canal.  Akrotiri also allows Britain to maintain oversight of the volatile Middle East, both in terms of intelligence gathering and in terms of forward military operations. Akrotiri has been crucial in joint US-UK efforts to keep the Red Sea shipping route open despite Houthi attacks.

Ascension Island in the South Atlantic is home to an RAF facility, which was critical to the success of the Falklands War in 1982 It serves as a refuelling point for Royal Navy ships, a signals intelligence hub, and hosts one of the four ground antennas that enables GPS.

Further south are the famous Falkland Islands, now home to RAF Mount Pleasant.  While traditionally not of enormous strategic value, a number of companies are now drilling for oil and gas off the coast of the Falklands – which we should be taking advantage of.

“The British base on the islands, Diego Garcia, allows the British military to refuel and restock when travelling between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is also ideally located for intelligence gathering”

Of course, the world’s most important shipping lanes are not in the Mediterranean or the South Atlantic – but in Asia. This is precisely why the British presence in the Chagos Islands is so important – it is a staging post for our operations in East Asia and the Persian Gulf.

The British base on the islands, Diego Garcia, allows the British military to refuel and restock when travelling between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is also ideally located for intelligence gathering, with easy access to some of the world’s most important theatres.

Diego Garcia complements British military instalments in the Persian Gulf, including our naval support facility in Bahrain, our military logistics centre in Duqm, Oman, and the RAF outpost at Al Udeid, Qatar.  These instalments help us to ensure the free flow of oil.

Diego Garcia also complements British military instalments in Southeast Asia, such as naval facility in Sembawang, Singapore and our military base in Brunei.  These instalments help us to ensure the free flow of goods from Asia to Europe and vice versa.

“What’s more, Mauritius regards China as a key ally – and is susceptible to Chinese economic influence”

Under the handover deal, Britain retains access to Diego Garcia for another 99 years – but this is a vulnerable position. After all, Mauritius promised that it would honour Britain’s ownership of the Chagos Islands in the 1960s, and reneged within a generation. 

What’s more, Mauritius regards China as a key ally – and is susceptible to Chinese economic influence.  Naturally, China has an interest in expanding its own ability to influence global trade routes from this key strategic position in the Indian Ocean.

The deal also removes Britain’s ability to use access to Diego Garcia as a bargaining chip when dealing with the United States. Allowing partners to use the Overseas Territories strengthened Britain’s negotiating hand – after all, we could always threaten to take it away.

Of course, not all of our Overseas Territories are of military importance. Caribbean territories like the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, and the Cayman Islands offer favourable tax treatment, and widen access to capital for our financial services sector.

What is certain is that our Overseas Territories are a key part of a self-interested UK foreign policy – giving us military flexibility and influence, leverage over our allies, and the ability to protect key shipping lanes. Handing over the Chagos Islands was a mistake.

Reproduced with kind permission of Sam Bidwell, Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute, Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, although views are his own.  Sam can be found on X/Twitter, on Substack, and can be contacted at [email protected].  This article was originally published as a X/Twitter Thread at https://x.com/sam_bidwell/status/1842213433044861296?s=46.

Singapore: reasons for the Lion City’s remarkable success

Sam Bidwell writes on the success of Singapore.

“Singapore was born – a poor city state, surrounded by enemies, and with no natural resources of its own. Yet today, Singapore is one of the world’s richest and most successful nations”

Today, Singapore is: – the safest city in the world – the world’s freest economy – #1 in the Ease of Doing Business Index But why has Singapore been so successful, and why is it such a great place for businesses? A on the reasons for the Lion City’s remarkable success.

First, some history. In 1819, Singapore was founded by Sir Stamford Raffles, a British official who believed that the site was perfect for a trading post. The city grew quickly, attracting traders from across the region who were drawn to the city’s ‘free port’ status.

Singapore was governed by the British until 1963, when the city became independent as part of the ‘Federation of Malaya’. However, the union was not a harmonious one. Due to political disputes – including race riots in 1964 -, Singapore was expelled from Malaya in 1965.

And so, Singapore was born – a poor city state, surrounded by enemies, and with no natural resources of its own. Yet today, Singapore is one of the world’s richest and most successful nations, thanks largely to the work of its visionary founding father, Lee Kuan Yew.

A graduate of the University of Cambridge, Lee had initially tried to make a success of Singapore’s position within Malaya. But with independence forced upon him, he worked to build the ideal “start-up” nation in Singapore, using the city’s natural strengths to his advantage.

“Over 99 percent of all imports to Singapore are duty free. Corporation tax is charged at a flat rate of 17%, and the city has no capital gains tax.”

He was ruthlessly pragmatic in pursuit of his vision. His decisions were guided by empiricism rather than ideology. As a result, Singapore grew from an obscure post-colonial backwater into a world-leading city. What exactly did Lee do?

First, he recognised that Singapore’s openness to business and trade could be one of its greatest strengths. Over 99 percent of all imports to Singapore are duty free. Corporation tax is charged at a flat rate of 17%, and the city has no capital gains tax.

Thanks to efficient processes, it takes an average of 1.5 days to set up a business in Singapore, and just 15 minutes to register a company online. That’s alongside strong IP protections and light-touch regulation – many businesses have their Asia-Pacific hub in Singapore.

In order to make Singapore attractive to global businesses, Lee Kuan Yew insisted that English would be the main language of administration in the city. Alongside English, Singaporeans also learn a ‘mother tongue’ – Mandarin, Malay, or Tamil – depending on their heritage.

But low taxes and English proficiency alone would not be enough to guarantee Singapore’s success. The city also has world-leading infrastructure, designed with comfort and ease in mind. Singapore’s port is the second busiest in the world in terms of total shipping tonnage.

Meanwhile the city’s airport, Changi, is consistently rated as one of the best in the world. Changi Airport serves more than 100 airlines flying to more than 400 cities worldwide. It is clean, comfortable, and modern, designed to ensure efficient layovers and speedy boarding.

“One of the tragic illusions that many countries of the Third World entertain is the notion that politicians and civil servants can perform entrepreneurial functions.”

Within the city itself, travellers can get around using the fully automated Mass Rapid Transit network – a clean and comprehensive urban transit system, complete with functional Wi-Fi. Meanwhile the city’s roads are rated as amongst the best in the world.

Much of this infrastructure is funded and maintained by Temasek, an investment firm owned by the Singapore Government. Alongside GIC, Singapore’s other sovereign wealth fund, Temasek operates like a private company, managing many of the Government’s assets.

Temasek uses private sector incentives in the public interest. “One of the tragic illusions that many countries of the Third World entertain is the notion that politicians and civil servants can perform entrepreneurial functions.” – Dr Goh Keng Swee, 1st Finance Minister

Singapore also has a zero-tolerance approach to crime, with impartial and efficient enforcement of strict laws. Chewing gum is banned in the country, and littering can result in an on-the-spot fine. Vandalism and drug use can result in harsh penalties, including caning.

These laws, alongside an efficient system of municipal government, makes Singapore the world’s cleanest and safest city. Singaporeans regularly leave their phones as placeholders in public places – a civic culture of cleanliness and orderliness is extolled at every level.

Singapore also invests in its people and maintains genuinely meritocratic systems for hiring and firing. The Government consistently invests in education. At schools, at universities, and in public life, Singaporeans venerate intellectual ability and promote those who succeed.

Its political system is meritocratic too, prizing stability and talent. Though Singapore holds free multiparty elections, the Government maintains control over the political process. Protest is strictly controlled, and the press is regulated to prevent seditious acts and speech.

“Stability, low taxes, an efficient state, and an uncompromising approach to public order. These are the roots of Singapore’s success”

The result is the most stable political system in Asia, and amongst the most stable countries in the world. The People’s Action Party, founded by Lee Kuan Yew, has led Singapore since 1965, ensuring stability and continuity across the decades.

Public figures – civil servants and politicians – are paid well, to ensure that the best and brightest are attracted into Government. The Prime Minister of Singapore earns about ten times more than the UK’s Prime Minister, and about four times as much as the US President.

But Singapore also has a zero-tolerance approach to corruption. Public officials who take bribes while in office are removed from their post, fined, and often jailed. Just this week, the country’s former Transport Minister has been convicted of receiving gifts while in office.

Stability, low taxes, an efficient state, and an uncompromising approach to public order. These are the roots of Singapore’s success. In building Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew was not guided by ideology, but by what works. He was a pragmatic empiricist through and through.

Lee’s story is a reminder that national success is largely the product of pragmatism, competence, and vision. By studying what works in practice and implementing it, we can change society for the better. No obstacle is too big if we set our minds to the task of national revival.

The great man himself puts it best: The lessons of Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew should inspire us all.

Reproduced with kind permission of Sam Bidwell, Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute, Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, although views are his own.  Sam can be found on X/Twitter, on Substack, and can be contacted at [email protected].  This article was originally published as a X/Twitter Thread at https://x.com/sam_bidwell/status/1839676939444875461?s=46.

Dubai’s transformation: shrewd investments and a business-friendly environment

“Dubai’s remarkable growth is the product of shrewd investments, business-friendly tax and regulatory rules”

In just fifty years, Dubai has transformed from an obscure fishing village into a city of global significance.

Despite popular misconceptions, oil revenues contribute less than 1% of Dubai’s GDP today.  You read that right – unlike nearby Abu Dhabi, Dubai’s economy is not powered by oil revenues. In fact, Dubai’s remarkable growth is the product of shrewd investments, business-friendly tax and regulatory rules, and an uncompromising approach to political stability.

Modern Dubai was founded as a fishing village on the Persian Gulf at some point in the 18th century. Throughout the early 19th century, Dubai – as well as other neighbouring Gulf states – fell under British influence. In 1820, these small Gulf states fell under a British protectorate.

“In 1901, Sheikh Makhtoum bin Hasher Al Makhtoum established Dubai as a free port, with no tariffs on imports or exports”

As early as 1900, Dubai began to emerge as an important port. Its location at the mouth of the Persian Gulf made it ideal for trading into the Middle East, India, and East Africa. This geographic advantage, and its openness to commerce, has been the secret to Dubai’s success.

In 1901, Sheikh Makhtoum bin Hasher Al Makhtoum established Dubai as a free port, with no tariffs on imports or exports. Merchants, particularly those working in the pearl industry, were given parcels of land, guarantees of protection, and religious toleration.

In the first half of the 20th century, Dubai grew in importance as a hub for trade with Persia and India. However, the city’s position was supercharged with the emergence of a new leader. In 1957, Rashid bin Saeed Al Makhtoum succeeded his father to become ruler of Dubai.

Sheikh Rashid understood the young city’s potential. He set about transforming Dubai from a small coastal settlement into a modern port city. He also understood the keys to Dubai’s success – openness to trade, infrastructure investments, stability and order.

“In 1966, more gold was shipped from London to Dubai than almost anywhere in the world”

He set about creating private companies to build and operate infrastructure. In 1959, he established Dubai’s first telephone company; by 1961, it had rolled out an operational network. The city’s private water company established a regular supply of piped water by 1968.

By 1960, the city’s airport had opened, with flights operating across the Middle East. In 1963, the Sheikh opened the first bridge across Dubai Creek, paid for by tolls. The airport was expanded in 1965 to enable long-haul flights and was expanded again in 1970.

By the late 1960s, Dubai was also a hub for the global gold trade – much of which was based on the illegal sale of gold to India. In 1966, more gold was shipped from London to Dubai than almost anywhere in the world (only France and Switzerland took more).

And again, this is all before the discovery of oil. By the time that Dubai struck it rich in 1966, it was already a growing port, with a solid base of infrastructure and a low-tax, pro-business environment. Of course, the discovery of oil supercharged Sheikh Rashid’s vision.

“Roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools were constructed in a construction glut which propelled Dubai’s economy through the 1980s. As the old saying goes, build it and they will come”

But Sheikh Rashid had the foresight to know that one day, the oil would run out. He understood that one day, the city would need to survive without oil – and so set about making Dubai a world-leading hub for regional and international commerce.

In 1972, Port Rashid was constructed and in 1979, it was followed by the Port of Jebel Ali, today the busiest in the Middle East. In 1978, Sheikh Rashid opened the Dubai World Trade Centre. Dubai Creek was dredged and widened in the early 1970s. In 1983, Dubai Drydocks opened.

Meanwhile the city’s airport was expanded, and hotels were opened for business travellers. Roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools were constructed in a construction glut which propelled Dubai’s economy through the 1980s. As the old saying goes, build it and they will come.

This infrastructure-first approach was the foundational principle of Dubai’s pro-business policy environment. By leveraging the city’s geography and encouraging businesses to invest, Dubai made itself into one of the Middle East’s leading trade entrepôts.

The city sits at the mouth of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, with convenient maritime connections to Asia, Europe, and Africa. By air, more than 50% of the world’s population is 7 hours or less from Dubai – again, ideal geography for an international business hub.

“26 free trade zones, companies enjoy a 50-year corporation tax exemption, and no international tariffs. Many of these free trade zones use English common law”

However, it’s not just geography and infrastructure. Dubai has no income tax. Corporation tax is low at 9% – and in 26 free trade zones, companies enjoy a 50-year corporation tax exemption, and no international tariffs. Many of these free trade zones use English common law.

These zones create an extremely business-friendly environment – many international businesses have their regional or global HQs in Dubai. At the same time, the state invests in the infrastructure – roads, schools, hospitals – needed to keep business travellers coming.

And speaking of business travellers, Dubai – and the rest of the United Arab Emirates – is home to a large number of foreigners. In fact, 88% of the UAE’s population are expats. The territory’s tax-free status and world-leading infrastructure attracts high net-worth individuals.

However, unlike in Europe, immigrants in Dubai live under strict conditions. They do not benefit from state welfare and can be deported at any time. It is almost impossible to become a naturalised citizen. In return, migrants get to make far more money than they would at home.

This is particularly true for low-skilled migrants, often from South Asia, who come to the country under the so-called ‘kafala system’. Under the kafala system, all migrant workers need to have an Emirati sponsor – if their employment ends, so does their residence.

Which brings me onto the final aspect of Dubai’s success – law and order. The city has a zero-tolerance approach to crime and public disorder. The Dubai Police employs drones and has an average emergency response time of 2 minutes and 24 seconds, as of Q3 2023.

“Despite popular misconceptions, its rapid rise owes just as much to sensible policymaking as to oil. Not everybody can turn a patch of desert into a global megacity!”

Sheikh Rashid passed away in 1990. He was succeeded by his son, Maktoum, who ruled until 2006. In turn, Maktoum was succeeded by his brother Mohammed, who rules Dubai to this day. Though Dubai has grown considerably since Sheikh Rashid’s time, the basic principles are the same.

In many ways, the principles that built modern Dubai are the same as those that built Hong Kong, Singapore – or even, historically, London.

  • Openness to business
  • Ideal strategic positioning
  • Shrewd investments in infrastructure
  • Pragmatic governance
  • Law and order

Whatever you think of Dubai, the city’s growth is one of the most incredible stories of the 20th century.  Despite popular misconceptions, its rapid rise owes just as much to sensible policymaking as to oil. Not everybody can turn a patch of desert into a global megacity!

Yes, it really is true – as of today, less than 1% of Dubai’s GDP is generated by oil revenues. In fact, it’s commerce, financial services, real estate, and transportation that are the biggest drivers. The ultimate service economy!

Reproduced with kind permission of Sam Bidwell, Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute, Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, although views are his own.  Sam can be found on X/Twitter, on Substack, and can be contacted at [email protected].  This article was originally published as a X/Twitter Thread at https://x.com/sam_bidwell/status/1827802745740337507

Hong Kong, from small port to global finance centre

“Hong Kong transformed from a second-rate port city into a global centre of finance and commerce. But how did it achieve this?”

In the 20th century, Hong Kong transformed from a second-rate port city into a global centre of finance and commerce. But how did it achieve this? An overview of the use of ‘positive non-interventionism’, the economic philosophy which powered Hong Kong’s rise to greatness.

Hong Kong Island was ceded to Britain in 1842, in the wake of the First Opium War. Its strategic location was ideal for projecting British military and economic power into south China.  At the time, it was home to around 5,000 people, spread across several small fishing villages.

The city grew quickly, powered by trade with China and British financial interests in East Asia. By 1859, the island was home to some 85,000 Chinese residents, alongside 1,600 foreigners.  In 1865, the now world-famous HSBC was founded in Hong Kong.

The Kowloon Peninsula was added to the territory in 1860, and the so-called ‘New Territories’ were obtained in 1898 under a 99-year lease.  Thanks to the legal and political stability offered by the British, Hong Kong’s role as a trade entrepot continued to grow.

By the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, Hong Kong was central to British interests in East Asia. The territory operated as a free port, with no tariffs on imports, which attracted merchants from China and Europe alike.  And then came the Japanese.

In 1941, Hong Kong was occupied by the Japanese after eighteen days of fierce fighting.  Japanese occupation was brutal. Civilians were regularly targeted for mass execution, banking assets and factories were seized, and a harsh rationing regime was imposed on the territory.

“he ensured that Hong Kong was granted financial autonomy from the UK, giving HK more freedom to make its own policy. He also resisted calls for a centrally planned industrial strategy”

On August 30th 1945, Hong Kong was liberated, and British control was restored. This is where Hong Kong’s remarkable rise really begins.  In 1946, Sir Geoffrey Follows was appointed as the territory’s Financial Secretary and charged with recovering from the occupation.

Follows oversaw a rapid short-term recovery of Hong Kong’s fortunes. In October 1948, he ensured that Hong Kong was granted financial autonomy from the UK, giving HK more freedom to make its own policy. He also resisted calls for a centrally planned industrial strategy.

In 1949, the Communist Party of China emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War. Capitalists, Chinese nationalists, and political dissidents who feared communist rule fled to Hong Kong.  From 1945 to 1951, the territory’s population increased from 600,000 to 2.1 million.  Follows’ emphasis on free trade and stability, alongside the cheap labour and expertise of these new migrants, laid the groundwork for Hong Kong’s economic miracle.

What was the ‘positive non-interventionism’ which shaped the approach of the next three Financial Secretaries?  In short, ‘positive non-interventionism’ starts from the observation that Government efforts to shape resource allocation are usually damaging to growth, particularly in the private sector.

That’s the ‘non-interventionism’ – but what about the ‘positive’?  Successive Hong Kong Governments recognised that the state can take positive steps to ensure improved market function – such as investing in infrastructure, maintaining law and order, and providing legal and political stability.  That’s the ‘positive’ part.

“The territory had no income tax, and instead raised revenue through land value capture”

What did this look like in practice?

The territory’s next Financial Secretary was Arthur Grenfell Clarke (1952-61). Clarke refused to introduce regulation of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, and the territory operated without a central bank or monetary policy.

The territory had no income tax, and instead raised revenue through land value capture.

At the same time, Clarke worked with his colleagues in Government to expand Kai Tak Airport, improve the Hong Kong Police Force, and crack down on triad-led gang crime.

“From 1961 to 1971, Government spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 7.5% to 6.5%. At the same time, real wages rose by 50% and acute poverty fell from 50% to 15%”

Yet the real star of the show is John James Cowperthwaite, the city’s Financial Secretary from 1961 to 1971.   From 1961 to 1971, Government spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 7.5% to 6.5%. At the same time, real wages rose by 50% and acute poverty fell from 50% to 15%.

Under Cowperthwaite, the territory imposed no controls at all on international capital flows. He refused to collect GDP statistics, fearing that these would only be used to enable economic planning.  Taxes were kept low, and Government focused on basic infrastructure delivery.

Hong Kong grew rapidly, powered by manufacturing, shipping, finance, and construction. The number of factories in the territory increased from 3,000 to 10,000 over Cowperthwaite’s tenure, while the number of foreign companies registered in HK almost doubled.

This approach was continued by Cowperthwaite’s successor, Philip Haddon-Cave. Indeed, Haddon-Cave coined the term ‘positive non-interventionism’ in 1980.  In 1975, Hong Kong emerged as the world’s freest economy, a position that it held continually in 2019.

Haddon-Cave worked with Governor Murray MacLehose to improve services without increasing taxes, tariffs, or regulation.  The pair agreed that Government should focus on delivering a few basic services, and should draw on private sector expertise for delivery of major projects.

With this approach, the duo clamped down on corruption and launched the famous Mass Transit Railway.  They also managed Hong Kong’s rapid transition from a manufacturing economy to a services economy – prompted, in large part, by a major change just over the border.

In 1978, Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping launched the Open Door Policy, which saw China open up to foreign businesses.  In 1980, Deng designated the small city of Shenzhen, just across the border from Hong Kong, as a ‘Special Economic Zone’, in order to encourage foreign trade.  Like Hong Kong, Shenzhen would boom in the coming decades.

“Rather than damaging Hong Kong, the growth of cheap manufacturing in China allowed the territory to transform into a hub for financial and legal services”

In the 1980s, its growth was powered by manufacturing. The city’s low labour costs and high regulatory flexibility made it attractive for businesses looking to reduce their costs – including firms in Hong Kong.

Rather than damaging Hong Kong, the growth of cheap manufacturing in China allowed the territory to transform into a hub for financial and legal services, with immediate access to cheap goods and cheap labour from China. Costs remained low and growth remained steady.

“Hong Kong’s remarkable growth continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, guided by positive non-interventionism”

For those wanting to access the lucrative Chinese market, Hong Kong was a perfect entry-point. The stability of Britain’s common law system and HK’s light touch regulation gave foreign businesses confidence that their investments would be protected.

Hong Kong’s remarkable growth continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, guided by positive non-interventionism.  In 1997, HK was returned to China, after more than 150 years of British rule. Nevertheless, positive non-interventionism has continued to shape HK’s economic policies.

Though HK faces challenges today, it continues to stand as a global hub for financial and legal services.  Its remarkable story is testament to the power of free markets – but also to the importance of limited, effective government which focuses on stability and order.

Reproduced with kind permission of Sam Bidwell, Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute, Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, although views are his own.  Sam can be found on X/Twitter, on Substack, and can be contacted at [email protected].  This article was originally published as a X/Twitter Thread at https://x.com/sam_bidwell/status/1817279031345352801

India: A democracy rising.

By Mike Swadling

“the world’s largest democracy and country, India is going to the ballot box”

With a 20 mile stretch of golden sand, a shallow continental shelf allowing you to walk far into the Arabian Sea, a dry heat and beach bars every few hundred yards my spot in Goa wasn’t a place to be thinking about politics.  

However, go about a mile inland and flags, boards and posters start to pop up for the Aam Aadmi Party, the Revolutionary Goans Party, Congress, a selection of BJP candidates, and even graffiti about the Portuguese (Goa used to be a Portuguese colony).  As well as a likely general election in the UK and the Presidential election in the US, the world’s largest democracy and country, India is going to the ballot box.

No signs of revolution on the beach as long as the Peoples Lager kept flowing.

“The Indian National Congress is the traditional party of power in India having held the position of Prime Minister for 54 of the 77 years since independence”

The election is dominated by two main groups the BJP led ‘National Democratic Alliance’ and Congress led ‘Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance’.  The Indian National Congress is the traditional party of power in India having held the position of Prime Minister for 54 of the 77 years since independence.  The Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People’s Party) was formed in 1980 and is the current party of power being led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Whilst no Pakistani PM has ever completed a full-term, India has had many peaceful transitions of power.  Not that India has been devoid from political violence, far from it.  But this is a nation of 780 spoken languages (23 official), from four major language families, with 1.4 billion people, and 5 religions with over 8 million followers, it is amazing India functions as a democracy at all.  For all its challenges function it does.

Not often you see anti-Portuguese graffiti.

I turned to Nimit Shishodia to explain some of the main differences between the main party’s:

BJP

  • Right-wing ideology: Aligned with Hindutva, a Hindu nationalist ideology, emphasizing cultural nationalism and a strong central government.
  • Economic focus: Leans towards privatization and economic liberalization, attracting support from sections of the middle class and business community.
  • Social positions: Often takes conservative stances on social issues, appealing to traditional values and rural communities.

Congress

  • Centre-left ideology: Advocates for secularism and social welfare programs, historically drawing support from diverse groups, including minorities and lower-income populations.
  • Economic approach: Promotes a mixed economy with government intervention in key sectors, appealing to working-class voters and some sections of the middle class.
  • Social positions: Generally, takes more progressive stances on social issues, aligning with urban and younger demographics.

Important Caveats:

  • Both parties have diverse internal factions with varying viewpoints.
  • Their policies and stances evolve over time and in response to political realities.
  • There’s significant overlap in their voter bases, with both parties drawing support from various social and economic groups.

Nimit’s last point that “There’s significant overlap in their voter bases, with both parties drawing support from various social and economic groups” is perhaps the most significant.  Functioning democracies require people to be able to change who they are voting for, not just vote based on identity.

“Modi is widely expected to win again”

The election will take place between April and May to elect 543 members of the Lok Sabha (House of the People) each coalition has 20+ party’s.  The country has 8 recognised national parties, 55 state parties, and 2,597 unrecognised parties.  It’s fair to say everyone has a point of view.  Modi is widely expected to win again.  I wrote briefly about a debate at the Battle of Ideas on Indian Politics, giving lots of background in an easily digestible way, you can listen to it at: Understanding Modi’s India – Battle of Ideas.

“I want the 5th biggest economy, and most populous country to be democratic and free”

“the people of India benefit from that basic enabler of liberty the ability to ‘kick the buggers out’”

Why does all this matter?  Democracy’s support and advance human freedom, something we should all want.  Democracies promote general economic growth and their citizens wellbeing, and democracies don’t tend to ever go to war with each other.  In a world reverting to a more multi polar state, quite apart from the benefits to its own people, I want the 5th biggest economy, and most populous country to be democratic and free.

We should all be thankful this massive country and significant power is a democracy and the people of India benefit from that basic enabler of liberty the ability to ‘kick the buggers out’ when the party of power no longer meets the people’s needs. 

Australia’s Voice

By Mike Swadling

“The Voice referendum result has been described as Australia’s Brexit moment, with the referendum backed by the metropolitan elite and major institutions being thoroughly rejected by the people”

I happened to be in Sydney Australia for October’s ‘Indigenous Voice referendum’.  Whilst my focus was mainly on glorious views of Sydney Harbour and sampling a few schooners worth of the local brew, I did notice the election campaign going on around me.

The Voice referendum result has been described as Australia’s Brexit moment, with the referendum backed by the metropolitan elite and major institutions being thoroughly rejected by the people.  I’m not best placed to write about the issues at play and the referendum result, but rather what I observed in Australia during the campaign and just after the results were in.  For more on Australian politics, I would recommend following Helen Dale, and you can read her here on ‘Why Australia’s Voice vote failed’.

Maybe this is the way of the modern world, but whilst in Sydney I probably saw more about the Voice referendum on my phone from international social media and political web sites, than on the streets, in conversation or watching the local TV news.  Ordinary Australians just didn’t seem that bothered by the vote.  Now this may be because in past 120 years Australia has already had 45 referendums (for constitutional changes) and 4 plebiscites (for non-constitutional issues).  Also, with compulsory voting there is no need for the ‘Get out the vote’ (GOTV) campaigns we see here.

“The Yes campaigners outnumbered No’s considerably, but there were good natured interactions between both, some of whom were chatting, and both occupied the same area to hand out leaflets”

This is not to say the referendum wasn’t spoken about or campaigned on.  Getting off the ferry at Manly Wharf I saw a dozen or so campaigners from both sides handing out leaflets to those on their way to the famous beach.  The Yes campaigners outnumbered No’s considerably, but there were good natured interactions between both, some of whom were chatting, and both occupied the same area to hand out leaflets.  Having done many a street stall and leafleting session in the UK I can say generally opposing parties or sides would be civil and occasionally friendly.  Civility is however generally maintained by having a respectful distance between both (or multiple) groups, and where occasionally needed, calming down more excitable participants.

“The suburban Sydneysiders of all ages I spoke with were voting No in the referendum, which seemed a statistical anomaly until the results came in”

This contrasted with the media representation of a nation divided.  Much like in our EU Referendum many in the media had decided only a Yes vote was acceptable and somehow even contemplating a No vote was beyond the pale (an example here from our ever even-handed and impartial BBC).  Whilst famously plain spoken, it was noticeable that older Australians with little to lose were much more vocally critical of referendum proposals than those in middle age, and with teenage children.  As one explained “ahh they keep correcting what I say, they get brainwashed with this stuff at school”.  The suburban Sydneysiders of all ages I spoke with were voting No in the referendum, which seemed a statistical anomaly until the results came in. 

“for most of the week leading up to the referendum the main political activity I saw in the area was for the ‘Don’t Block The Rocks!’ campaign against proposed harbourside development”

The whole referendum didn’t feel like a big a deal on the ground as it did in the media.  Staying in The Rocks, an area sandwiched between Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Central Business District, with great views, and average ‘unit’ prices of over AU$2million (~£1million), I was in what should be the passionate centre of Yes voters.  Indeed, in a site unusual for us in the UK, on voting day the local polling station was engulfed in Yes campaign posters.  However, for most of the week leading up to the referendum the main political activity I saw in the area was for the ‘Don’t Block The Rocks!’ campaign against proposed harbourside development. Even at a 21st Birthday party on the day of polling none of the young guests appeared to be talking about the vote.

“The next day Australians just seemed to get on with their lives as much unaffected by the result as I found them to be unbothered by the vote in the first place”

Ultimately Australians are just not as woke as their elites would like them to be.  Even in The Rocks, the heart of young metropolitan culture two of the major pubs are called ‘The Lord Nelson Brewery Hotel’ and ‘The Hero of Waterloo Hotel’, both of which are covered with suitable patriotic décor.  The results came in and 60% rejected the referendum proposals.   The maps in The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney) below show how the Yes vote won in all the city central areas you might expect, with limited support beyond.  The next day Australians just seemed to get on with their lives as much unaffected by the result as I found them to be unbothered by the vote in the first place.

You may also like Mike’s previous article about politics spotting in Australia: ‘Newly risen, how brightly you shine’.

Herman Sabo, member of the Georgian Parliament for Girchi (libertarian) Party

The country of Georgia sits in the Caucasus at the intersection of Europe and Asia. With access to the Black Sea, it borders Russia, Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan.  Georgia regained independence in 1991 following the collapse if the Soviet Union, and is now a parliamentary democracy, with a 150 member unicameral chamber.  Four members come from Girchi and classical liberal / libertarian party, and we spoke with Herman Sabo (also Herman Szabó) from Girchi and a Member of the Parliament of Georgia.

By www.pia.ge, CC BY-SA 4.0,

How did you first get involved with libertarian politics and Girchi?

I got involved in Girchi and politics in 2015 when 4 MPs from the opposition split from the “United National Movement” party and in 2016 created their own political platform called “New Political Center – Girchi” (“Girchi” translates in English as “Pinecone”). At first, I was hired as a media relations manager. I was arranging press conferences and communicating with media representatives.  Soon after, I got interested in the ideas of my party and started listening to our politicians.  YouTube was also a great help in understanding what our political goals are, and why. Also, what kind of morality libertarianism based on.

While still serving as a media manager, I started my own educational project, “Sabo’s translations“.  I was selecting short videos on YouTube about politics, morals, economics, and philosophy, translating them into Georgian for public access.

In 2020 our party gained 2.9% in elections, and now we are holding 4 seats in the 150-seat Parliament of Georgia.

“We’re still fighting with the Soviet legacy in almost every social or government institution. Our education system is almost the same as 50 years ago. Our Criminal code is the same (even stricter) as the Soviet criminal code.”

For those that don’t know much about Georgia, can you tell us about the big issues facing the county?

Georgia has population of 3.7 million, a post-soviet country with lots of issues.  We’re still fighting with the Soviet legacy in almost every social or government institution. Our education system is almost the same as 50 years ago. Our Criminal code is the same (even stricter) as the Soviet criminal code.

The biggest issue is that after the fall of the Soviets, all the “government property” is still on the balance sheets of a free and more-less-capitalist Georgian government.  This means 70% of land, 100% of all forests, and 100% of all mineral goods are owned by the government and excluded from free market economics.

Our judiciary system is a mimicry of the Soviet system, as none of Georgia’s rulers have had the will or desire to truly reform it to achieve an independent and transparent court system.

As a result of all of this, we remain a poor, underdeveloped country, 7 times poorer than the average EU country.

“We are also very concerned by inflation caused by our Central bank (THE only source of inflation is a fiat-money issuer in every country), and we’d love to have a multicurrency regime in Georgia”

What are the party’s main policies, what would you most like to change in your country?

We are focused on spreading classic liberal values.  We understand that drastic reforms and changes could be suicidal for a political party if those reforms are not based on well-explained and well-understood ideas.  If we’ll succeed in explaining ideas like self-sovereignty, private property, and freedom of expression, we could lead Georgian society on a way of prosperity and rule of law, free and independent courts, and true decentralization of regions.

We are also very concerned by inflation caused by our Central bank (THE only source of inflation is a fiat-money issuer in every country), and we’d love to have a multicurrency regime in Georgia.  Citizens should be free to choose which money they trust and want to use – fiat, crypto, gold, etc.

How engaged are Georgians with Libertarian ideas?

Many classic liberal ideas were natural for Georgian society before the Soviet occupation of our country in 1921.  The founding father of modern Georgia, Ilia Chavchavadze, was a classic liberal (libertarian, in modern terms). He was translating and spreading books by famous libertarian author Frederic Bastiat.

Georgians were freedom-loving property owners, with guns/swords in every family, minding their businesses, and had a system of elected judges to resolve their everyday problems.  The Soviets changed everything and almost erased the image of “Old Georgian” from the minds of our parents and grandparents.

Our youth are more receptive to Libertarian ideas. They love freedom and feel that those ideas are organic to them, with some kind of gut feeling.  The older generation is not very fond of our ideas and ways. They see them as a threat to Georgian identity, but we try to explain that “Georgian identity” is whatever we are saying, not the ideas the Soviet KGB planted in our society.

So far, our success rate is only around 3%. [Note from Editor: This is far higher than in most countries]

“We’ve supported our communication with actions to prove that we believe in the ideas we talk about”

How does your party go about gaining support?

Since the beginning, we’ve chosen social media platforms and the internet as our main sources of spreading ideas and communicating with the potential electorate. Amongst Georgian political parties we’ve got;

Youth loves our tone of voice – straight-forward, down-to-earth, easy-to-understand, with good visualizations and infographics.

We’ve supported our communication with actions to prove that we believe in the ideas we talk about.  Girchi was fighting against Marijuana criminalization, so 84 of us planted Marijuana on 2017 New Year’s Eve. We were facing 12 years in jail for that Public Disobedience Act. Then we won in the Constitutional Court of Georgia, and now cannabis consumption is legal in our country.

Made before the party gain elected representatives.

We also fight against mandatory army draft, so we used our Defence Code, which says that “Priests are exempted from the army”. We created our own religious organization – “Biblical Freedom,” and ordained around 50,000 young Georgians up till today.  You can read more about this on our Wikipedia Page, in Euraianet, and at Radio Free Europe.

You can also find Girchi online and on Twitter.  To help fund Girchi go to https://www.girchi.com/donate/politician.

Martin Hartmann, President of the Libertarian Party in Switzerland.

Always keen to speak to those promoting liberty and freedom not just in the UK but across the globe, we were delighted to speak with Martin Hartmann, President of the Libertarian Party in Switzerland.

How did you first get involved with libertarian politics and the Libertarian Party?

In 2012, the Hayek Club of Zurich gave some lectures on Austrian economics at the university in the evening. This made more sense to me than what I had learned in my economics studies. In 2014, the Libertarian Party was founded, in which I have been involved ever since.

“people have forgotten self-responsibility. They can no longer decide for their lives. And they don’t want to”

For those that don’t know much about Swiss politics can you tell us about the big political issues facing the county?

Better safe than sorry – With Corona as well as with the whole climate discussion, people have forgotten self-responsibility. They can no longer decide for their lives. And they don’t want to. They would rather be “on the right side”. So they look for a general guide or leader to tell them what to do. The consequences: A bigger state, more debt, higher taxes, more laws and rules.

“Our constitution emphasizes federalism and subsidiarity. Unfortunately, we are experiencing just the opposite: centralism and one-size-fits-all solutions. Returning to the principles that have made us successful is crucial”

What are the party’s main policies, what would you most like to change in your country?

Our constitution emphasizes federalism and subsidiarity. Unfortunately, we are experiencing just the opposite: centralism and one-size-fits-all solutions. Returning to the principles that have made us successful is crucial. Better alternatives to a centralized one-size-fits-all approach would be a federal competition of systems and ideas – or even better – privately competing solutions. Private solutions outperform services provided by the state by far.

How engaged are the people of Switzerland with Libertarian ideas?

Unfortunately, they are not really committed. The majority follow the existing system, which leads to all the failures we currently have. Perhaps they live in fear of trying something themselves and taking responsibility. At least some awakening during Corona has made the Swiss think about alternatives.

How does your party go about gaining support?

We participate in elections – without a real chance, but to reach the public. We meet physically at least once a month. And we maintain a network of freethinkers by means of our libertarian calendar with all liberal events in Switzerland. We also write quarterly election recommendations and participate in legislative deliberations.

“Remain independent! Allow secession. Reject all centralism and socialism”

Lastly, do you have any thoughts on British politics?

Remain independent! Allow secession. Reject all centralism and socialism. Don’t let the EU take control away from you again. Stop all government spending outside your country – no development aid and no wars abroad.

Wir lieben Freiheit – We love freedom

The Libertarian Party in Switzerland can be found online, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on Instagram.

Shalom

The straightforwardness found in Israel.

By Mike Swadling

“Before I left I was told to be careful and asked if it was safe.  As any resident of Croydon or London generally would know, safety can be a relative thing.”

I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that there’s something to be said for living under an existential threat.  I don’t want anyone to be threatened or come to harm, but the reason for being, and the drive a common enemy gives, really does seem to improve a society.  Much is made of the blitz spirit, but I’m not sure the benefit was worth the nightly visits from the Luftwaffe.  But as I’ve written about before Britain used to know how to react to evil in a way we no longer do.

I recently visited Israel, staying in Jerusalem.  Before I left I was told to be careful and asked if it was safe.  As any resident of Croydon or London generally would know, safety can be a relative thing.  What I found was a city that despite recent events, felt very safe, and a society where people could wander around engrossed in their lightly held mobile phones.  Something most Londoners know better than to do.

“As a history buff it’s great to be in a land when you can be snobbish about not taking much of an interesting in anything not BC”

As a history buff it’s great to be in a land when you can be snobbish about not taking much of an interesting in anything not BC, and certainly not anything less than a thousand years old.  Israel uses the BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) notations for years.  Whilst I find these generally dreadful (what for heaven’s sake denotes the Common Era) I can just about forgive a Jewish state for not wanting to recognise “anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi” (AD).  Beyond the history though this was a country that, to put not too fine a point on it, cut the crap.

Western Wall and The Dome of the Rock.

The old city of Jerusalem demonstrates a knack for avoiding the superfluous when visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall (often known as the Wailing Wall).  Both require men and women to pass via different entrances, both have different dress codes for men and women, and the Western Wall had different sections for men and women to ‘wail’ at.  There is no choice of pronouns.  If the armed IDF (Israel Defense Forces) guards and Police don’t persuade you of the seriousness of the rules the religious guardians will.  Israel is consistently ranked highly as a LGBTQ country and markets itself as “The ultimate LGBTQ travel destination”  but when it comes down to it some things weren’t up for debate in the City of David.

“turn one corner and see ‘free Palestine’ T-shirts everywhere, turn another and be surrounded by Menorahs, walk on a bit and follow the path Christ took to his crucifixion”

The old city of Jerusalem is a fascinating place where you can turn one corner and see ‘free Palestine’ T-shirts everywhere, turn another and be surrounded by Menorahs, walk on a bit and follow the path Christ took to his crucifixion.  One of the best sites to visit in the old city is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  A site from the 4th century which covers the sites Christ was crucified and buried at.  The church is shared by the Catholic Church, Armenian, Greek, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Coptic Orthodox churches.  Although the primary custodians are the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic churches, the keys are held by a Muslim family as the various Christian denominations couldn’t agree who between them should be able to open the church.  The current holder popped by as we toured and said hello to our guide, a friendly elderly man he checked on the work going on inside the building and wandered off, seemingly passing blessings to all he encountered.

The keyholder for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

“On approaching them you see what looks like any school trip, teenagers in a uniform, laughing and joking.  It’s not until you notice that every so often one of them is carrying a machine gun”

I joked on one tour with some fellow Londoners that we probably often walked past teenagers carrying guns back at home, here of course, they were IDF soldiers.  Whilst on national service, soldiers are taken around major historical sites.  On approaching them you see what looks like any school trip, teenagers in a uniform, laughing and joking.  It’s not until you notice that every so often one of them is carrying a machine gun, and many have side arms.  This isn’t a normal school outing.  But that’s not all you notice, whilst all Jewish, almost 2000 years of the diaspora since the failed revolt against Rome, and the 2,500 years since the deportation to Babylon and migration to Ethiopia (although this date is contested), has meant Israelis at least look a very mixed ethnic bunch.  Aside from ethnicity the IDF volunteers will come from a variety of cultures, and whilst all speaking Hebrew (and most English) will likely have differing third languages.  All this leaves aside the many Arabs that volunteer for service.  But the thing you notice is the shared sense of purpose, you notice these teenagers enjoying each other’s company, whilst still acting responsibly.  You notice they are as one, pulled together in adversity, and through service.  Later out in a bar I happened to chat to a couple of staff about how they found national service.  One barmaid who had finished her 2-year stint a few years earlier (men serve for 32 months, women for 24 months), said she felt national service was like kindergarten, “a very hard system I wanted to break free from”.  But she showed no animosity, no anger, no hysterics, you all too often see from westerners of the same age.  It was matter of fact; it was regardless of her relative youth, mature.

IDF soldier standing guard.

Israel has no written constitution, but like the UK has a Supreme Court who in recent years has grabbed more power, becoming a modern Kritarchy.  With no constraining document the court has become in effect a new legislative body, holding power without the democratic accountability.  Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government is trying to change this, allowing the parliament to overturn the court’s verdicts with a simple majority in the Knesset.  I confess to knowing none of this as I visited the museums across the road from the legislature.  Seeing a protest gathering I decided to wander up to ask what was going on.

“this was a friendly protest and a protest by patriots.  One group made a point of showing they were ex-IDF, another was singing all the way, most all held Israeli flags.”

Having been on a couple of protests I can say the first protester made the common mistake of protestors, of eyeing everyone not 100% on board with their views with suspicion.  Whilst polite enough he clearly couldn’t accept that my asking him what the protest was for was born from ignorance not disagreement.  As an aside a note to protestors, not everyone is as fascinated by your subject of protest as you are.  Maybe you should consider using the protest to grow the number of those aware of the issue, not just making it a test of the depth of faith of those attending.  Anyway, eventually I found someone who could explain the protest to me, and in what I was finding to be an increasingly typically Israeli way (the first protestor aside) was able to explain both sides of the issue.  Whilst giving her own view she was able to show balance.

Speaking to a few more people it became clear, this was broadly a left-wing protest.  A protest by those who believed in (often global) rules by an anointed class, more than they believe in democratic mandates.  Whilst my sympathy wasn’t by nature with them (I don’t pretend to know enough, to hold firm views on the issue), this was a friendly protest and a protest by patriots.  One group made a point of showing they were ex-IDF, another was singing all the way, most all held Israeli flags.  You simply couldn’t imagine a similar level of patriotism from a centre right protest in the UK, and certainly not from a centre left protest in the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand or much of Europe.

Israeli protestors
Israeli protestors
Israeli protestors.

Upon getting back to some free Wi-Fi I googled the issue to find out some more.  I could immediately see the difference between the straightforwardness I had been finding in Israel and the hyperbole of the west.  The top 3 stories where from the supposedly politically neutral NPR proclaiming “Israel’s far-right government wants the power to override its Supreme Court”, the biased but reasonably written Israel Hayom asking “Would the Ten Commandments have survived the Israeli Supreme Court?”, and most reasonably from the city that will have to deal with any fallout, the Jerusalem Post with an opinion piece suggesting “Israel, it’s time for a grand bargain on judicial reforms”.

The history of Jerusalem made it a fascinating place to visit, as was my short trip to Bethlehem in the State of Palestine.  But the people of the city were fascinating in the way they acted, similar to how I remember we did, in a more straightforward time. 

St George at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.