“Why hellair, I’m sew frightfully gled you could awl make it, what-oh?”
The 3rd Baronet Swizzleton-Cockburn-Smythe adjusted his monocle and greeted the Labour club crew, who, by a happy coincidence, were also made up of tired, two-dimensional stereotypes. A member of the Labour club came forward, wiping his soot-blackened hands on his overalls. He doffed his hard hat, its lamp still aflame.
“Y’areet? Wor! By ‘eck man, its reet classy oop ‘ere. Sorry we’re leet but we ‘ad to come all the way cross toon like. Ah’ve ‘ad nowt to drink an’ ah’m canny thirsty, me.”
The members of OUCA and OULC took their seats, making an effort not to sit next to someone who shared their political views or genitalia. Tweed jackets and silk cravats mingled with jeans and t-shirts. The Labour girls were dressed much like the Labour boys, except without the unkempt beards. The conservative ladies wore cocktail dresses.
Conversations broke out. A girl was asked why she voted Conservative. “Father says I oughtn’t talk about politics.”
“Ach, ye must have some views o’ ye oon?”
“Actually, I mainly pour the Port.”
At another end of the table, a drunken OUCA member was trying to flirt with an attractive, if slightly prim, Labour girl.
“It’s just terrible how we consume so much in the West. We could learn a lot from indigenous peoples like the Inuit, who waste nothing, and who work together instead of pursuing private gain.”
“Yah. Totally. Yah.” The OUCA member nodded along at her earnest speech.
“Bankers should be taxed at 90 percent. The Big Society is a bourgeois conspiracy. Private education and private healthcare are a blight on society. Unhappiness, crime and disease are caused by disparities in wealth.”
“Mmm. Yah. Couldn’t agree more.”
“We need to abolish the monarchy…”
“I say, steady on! That’s Bolshevism. And that’s my Aunt’s second cousin you’re talking about.”
Someone chinked two glasses together and stood up. “Listen up cheps: here’s one for the gels. I sconce anyone who’s had a threesome or better!”
The Conservatives erupted in deep, bellowing guffaws. Everyone else looked faintly embarrassed. Now it was Labour’s turn. “I sconce anyone who’s a Blairite!” This was immediately met with the reply “I sconce Brownites!” The beardies fell into fits of laughter at this, and one girl nearly spilled her Guinness down her Che Guevara T-shirt.
The revels dragged on for some time, and a new spirit of cross-party co-operation and friendship was formed. That is, until the bill came.
“Alreet, ah say it’d be champion if we split the bill evenly. It’s the oonly fair way, like.”
“But I only had salad. He had two curries, bhajees and pakoras!”
“Why don’t we just pay for what we ate?”
“Oh. I see what you’re saying. Just because you have more money than me you should be able to eat more? Do you realise how fucking disgusting that is? I should not have to pay as much for the same thing as lord snooty over here.”
“How about the people with more money subsidise it for the rest of us?”
“What? Tories having to foot the bill for Labour excesses? Bloody typical!”
The argument went on for so long that the owner of Jamal’s put the bill on the slate. The rival clubs are currently disputing which one of them was responsible for the debt.

World leaders often call on Chinese consumers to buy more to rescue the global economy. Can they?

Perhaps. Consumer spending has nearly quadrupled since 2000. Just ask GM, Tesco, Apple, and all the other multinationals banking on Chinese consumer spending. Starbucks alone has just announced plans to triple its number of stores in China to 1,500 by 2015. Five years ago, when I began to research my latest book, I started a list of Number One’s for the Chinese consumer: largest consumer of mobile phones, beer, beef, etc. And China is also quickly becoming the largest luxury goods market. Someday soon you will have to go to Shanghai to see the hottest LV handbag or fanciest Tag Heuer watch.

This sounds like good news?

Not entirely. Even if Chinese consumers manage to spend enough to rescue the world economy, consider the domestic and global implications of the Chinese driving more cars, eating more meat, or taking more package tours to the UK. Nobody should begrudge the Chinese their Happy Meals or any of the other pleasures non-Chinese consumers enjoy. But everyone everywhere needs to contemplate the collective impact of these seemingly minor changes in Chinese lifestyles. China doesn’t need to be the Number One consumer in anything to have dramatic impacts.

Can you give an example?

The implications of Chinese consumerism are wide-ranging, interconnected, and often both good and bad. Take cars. Fifteen years ago few Chinese owned cars. But in 2009, China surpassed the US as the world’s largest car market and grew another 40% in 2010. This is good news for multinationals such as GM, which now sells more cars in China than in the US. Anyone invested in stock markets may already be benefiting from Chinese consumerism. But there are many more implications. Even with the continual addition of new and wider roads, cities like Beijing cannot confiscate land, demolish residential buildings, and build roads fast enough to accommodate all these new cars. These roads are gobbling up China’s valuable agricultural land. And cars aren’t fueled by goodwill. China lost its energy independence in the 1990s and now, as with the many Western countries, China’s need for imported oil forces its government into unsavory international relationships.

Is anyone countering the problems created by Chinese consumerism?
The Chinese state certainly is. But can legislation successfully offset the negative impacts fast enough? And if the downsides of increased consumption aren’t mitigated quickly enough in China, can we expect India, Brazil, and other developing consumer markets to be any different? China is a harbinger for much of the world.

Should we be worried?

Yes, but we should worry about the right thing. After all, there is no shortage of anxieties concerning China these days, including competition for energy resources, growing Chinese military budgets, an undervalued Chinese currency, and carbon emissions. But I think we need to focus on the more subtle, underlying challenge that connects all of these and many other China challenges: the effects of China’s ongoing development of a consumer culture-in other words, their replication of our lifestyles.

“Allow me to clarify my position,” said Aaron Porter, NUS prez and future Labour minister. “While I do, in principle, agree with the proposals, there is at the same time a vital balance to be struck between what is on the one hand a totally necessary course of action, with which I think everyone here would agree, and, on the other, the need to maintain an open dialogue and not to rule out the pursuit of other, perhaps, no less important channels and activities; maintaining all the while, of course, that the most direct and effective route is the one we must take, yet not forgetting the alternatives, such as staying completely still, taking a side road, or, indeed, going backwards. Put quite simply, I am totally in favour of what everyone is calling out that we should do, however, I am not totally in favour of it.”

“Do you want to go to fucking Kukui or not?” Asked one of the students. After his talk, Aaron Porter had found himself cornered by a tiny minority of determined individuals who had set out with the sole intention of causing anarchic mayhem on the dance floor.
“Don’t get me wrong. I absolutely, one hundred percent, want to go to Kukui. Let there be no doubt on this; no misunderstanding; no confusion. It is my expressed position on Clubbing that it is the just and proper action to take when other possible routes for enjoying the evening have been exhausted.”
“Great then. Let’s get going.” The other students made general noises of assent.
Porter led the march to Kukui. He later hailed this part of the night as a complete success. Seeing the size of the queue outside the club, he remarked: “Tonight students have come out in their hundreds to demonstrate their support for clubbing. This is a clear sign to those in authority that we stand united and in total solidarity. We have made our voices clear. We have conclusively expressed our opposition to staying in.”
“That’ll be five pounds please.” One of the small group of hardcore ravers had reached the front of the queue. She looked in her purse.
“I’ve only got four.”
The girl at the till began to serve the next person in line. This did not go down well. “What about my human rights?” She turned to the NUS President. “Aaron, do you think you should have to pay to get into a student club night?”
“Erm, I would be more in favour of a club night tax.”
“What the fuck?”
“You know, those who get the most fun out of the evening, it stands to reason, should have to pay a contribution to the club the next day. It’s progressive.”
“But won’t that discourage the most talented party animals from going out?”
“We need to ask ourselves what constitutes the fairest system for funding club nights. Clearly those who benefit more from clubbing should be expected to pay a higher proportion. Some people move on from clubbing to achieve hugely rewarding one night stands; it is not fair that the majority who go back to bed unsatisfied should end up twenty pounds out of pocket with nothing to show for it.”
At this point one of the group tried to shove his way into Kukui. He was stopped by a pair of bouncers.
“Me kyan stan’ dem fuckin’ pigs man. Come we merk dem rarsclarts. You get me?” Said the classicist from New College, adjusting his hood.
“Now now,” said Porter, nervously. “I believe we’ve made our point here. Look at all the people queueing peacefully; if a small minority take things too far our important message will be overshadowed by violence.”
“Hush your mout’, pussio.” In the commotion, Aaron Porter was struck on the head by a stray fire extinguisher. The culprit has yet to be identified.

Two days after the announcement of the negative growth last quarter and with anti-cuts protests still at the front of the nation’s minds, I met with Michael Fallon. Michael is currently the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, senior advisor to David Cameron and a notable parliamentarian. In the past he has also served as Minister for Education under Margret Thatcher and John Major, so there seemed few people within the Conservative Party better able to give the Cherwell an insight into how the Conservatives view their future and the future of the coalition government.

Throughout January both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems were suffering in the opinion polls, with Labour varying from a five to a ten point lead over the Conservatives, and striding thirty points ahead of the Liberal Democrats. These figures did not seem to worry Michael, and when I questioned whether the coalition could do more to resonate with the public he did not try to query their low support. Instead he admitted “We didn’t expect to be popular” and cited public sector pay freezes, the cuts which mean that “jobs will disappear”, as well as the VAT increases which will make “some households feel the pinch”. I was surprised. I knew that the coalition was not claiming to provide an easy ride through the recession but for a politician to offer so freely the reasons for their lack of public popularity seemed unusually honest. Michael continued that in order to get the economy growing the first and most important task was to “sort the deficit out.” Although protests and polls alike show that the Conservatives were right to calm their expectations of public admiration, their main aim of deficit reduction is being dealt with head on.

Comedians and students alike speculate that Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, currently lies amongst the list of most hated people in Britain. Evidence of which is seen in the polls, with the Liberal Democrats down to single figures. Now seemed like an appropriate time to ask Michael how the Conservative Party was faring in the coalition. Suddenly the conversation took a turn. No longer were we discussing the hardships of the nation, instead the reformer within Mr Fallon took the mike. “[It] seems a very strange consequence”, he said, but the coalition means that the Conservative party “are now able to do some things which we may have had great difficulty in doing had we won the election outright”. Listing off aspirations, Michael’s excitement showed. Welfare reform, education reform and “shaking up the NHS” were all projects, he said, which may not have been implemented with a weak Parliamentary majority.

Michael had written, in October of 2010, that the Conservatives would stand by their values throughout their time in coalition government, and after. I asked Mr Fallon to what extent this had remained true four months on. He admitted that there had been some compromises. The renewal of trident has been delayed, and capital gains tax has been raised above the manifesto level. However, the compromises and policy changes coming from the Liberal Democrats have not represented a reduction in Conservative conviction. The use of pupil premiums and the increase in tax allowances for the poorest, he claimed, “are very Conservative things”.

However, the need to preserve values whilst joining together two parties requires a careful balance. We “have to be careful here not to end up

with some Conservative achievements and some Liberal Democrat achievements.” Although Michael rejected swiftly John Major’s suggestion that the coalition should join together to run for the next election, stating that it would be impossible to “persuade either party to merge its identity with the other”, he emphasised that “both parties have to take responsibility for all the policies and all the decisions”.

Close ideology on policy areas of education and taxation help the coalition to stay consistent. The Liberal Democrats, although they have “modified their positions once they’ve come to the reality of government” have come together and “been pretty constructive overall”. Even the most left wing of the Lib Dems “want to see the coalition succeed”. An example of the coalition working together, Michael claimed, was the reform to the curriculum in the form of the English Baccalaureate.

Justifying this change, Michael said that “Softer GCSEs… have been a bit of a deception. They have deluded a lot of previous school leavers into believing that they were properly equipped for university or indeed for working life”. The coalition hopes that creating a more rigorous GCSE system will help to create “higher aspirations and higher standards” ensuring that no one is “deterred from pursuing a more academic route to university”.

Finally our conversation turned to the economy. With negative growth in the last quarter, I asked Michael if he was optimistic about the recovery. “Over the longer term, yes”, he responded “we’ve taken the measures needed both to stimulate growth and to control the deficit”. He claimed that following every recession there are “choppy periods where growth falters, [which were] combined… with one month of particularly bad weather.” Although a double-dip recession is “theoretically possible” he warned that we should not “get bewitched by one month or one quarter’s figures. What we need to do is get the long term changes in the economy right”.

Michael continued to establish the four reasons that, he believes, the growth under New Labour was “pretty unsustainable”: “it centred around a housing boom, a banking boom and public spending out of control and immigration out of control”. He considers that the coalition’s policies, which have already pushed through cuts in corporation tax and reduction in regulation on business, are “doing the things that will help create growth”, a more stable growth than was seen under New Labour. These policies should have the result of creating “the foundations for a better balanced economy in which the financial sector, especially the banking sector, will be slightly smaller than it was at the height of the boom, and that’s a good thing.”

Thus, with headlines riddled with speculation over the possibility of a double-dip recession and discontent being felt both in the polls and in the streets, Michael Fallon is adamant that there is still a bright future for the Conservative Party, the coalition and the nation it will leave. He hopes, and believes, that the coalition’s aims will be achieved; that the economy will recover, education will be improved and the NHS will become more productive. The coalition has faced opposition throughout its existence however, regardless of disagreement over the ways and the means, the ideology and the values; these are aims, at least, which we can all agree on.

Cameron’s speech this week kept a delicate balance, delivering a blow to right-wing demons such as multiculturalism and political correctness, sugaring the pill for Lib Dems with a principled commitment to liberal values, and minimising offense to all concerned by proposing almost no actual policy. It’s hard, though, to find fault with the core of his message – the state should not support religious extremists, and should have the wit to recognise that the boundary between violent and non-violent extremism is often permeable.

And yet, the stress fell heavily on the failings of ‘multiculturalism’, rather than on the virtues of liberalism, plainly because defining liberal values is a prickly issue for a Conservative leader – his party still contains a substantial wing of MPs uneasy about ‘state promotion of homosexuality’, or the erosion of the nuclear family, sentiments held in common with many of those singled out by Cameron as ‘extreme’.

It is therefore odd that Cameron chose to single out liberal values not just as vital, but as British. ‘British values’ rarely enter public discourse, and in private allude to little more than stoic determination in the face of wet walks and Nazi bombs. There are two ways to interpret his choice of this rhetorical blank slate. Either, he is playing on its vague nationalism to gloss over the more divisive connotations of liberalism, or his speech represents a reasonably genuine attempt to shore up liberalism’s position as political orthodoxy. The effects such an effort if made by a Conservative leader, however half-hearted, should not be underestimated.

Still, it is perhaps too much to think that identifying illiberal values with implicitly backward extremists will make liberalism any more popular; the headlines kept the focus firmly on proposed measures against Muslim groups, while the EDL took it as a sign that Cameron understands what ‘everyone’ is thinking. The speech smacks of compromise, and whether it represents xenophobia dressed up as political ideology, or liberalism made palatable with a scattering of right-wing buzzwords is, given the limited actions actually proposed, and indeed Cameron’s own shifting stance on social issues, is anybody’s guess.

Our political system is quietly suffering its most profound crisis for a very long time. Whilst the protests against the Coalition government have dominated the press’ political coverage, it is another threat to our system which may in the long term prove most damaging. What is this political snake in the grass? It is the steady but seemingly inexorable breakdown in the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents.

Politicians have always ranked alongside estate agents as a profession which we do not particularly like but seem stuck with. Even a cursory glance at William Hogarth’s Eighteenth century satirical political illustrations will show you just how deeply these feelings run. MPs have, however, always been very useful: if your granny can’t find sheltered accommodation; your Thai “girlfriend” can’t get a Visa (true story, apparently) or if you simply want to rant about how your local traffic wardens have a personal vendetta against you – in the words of Ray Parker Jr., “Who you gonna call?” That’s right, your MP. In fact, ghost-busting is one of the few fields they are seemingly unable to act on. Aiding constituents is the side of the job that the majority of MPs, except those who single-mindedly seek a ministerial career, seem to take most pleasure in.
This system, whereby your parliamentary representative can assist you with almost any grievance, has been gradually eroded over recent years. This is because it is built on a relationship which relies purely on trust and reliability. Both qualities have been brought under question through recent journalistic investigations, as well as politicians’ own actions and statements. The political class’ relationship with the general population has always been one of mild distrust and contempt, however it has worsened dramatically over the last decade. Anecdotal evidence from ‘canvassers’ of any of the major political parties shows that the ratio of doors-slammed-in-face to welcoming-smiling-constituents has been particularly affected. The current onslaught on parliamentary credibility began with the Expenses Scandals of 2009. It implanted in the public consciousness the idea that all politicians are self-serving criminals. Whilst the ongoing High Court cases and imprisonment of politicians show this was the case for a minority, it has permanently impaired the work of the vast majority who were, and remain, good public servants. More recently the Daily Telegraph’s so-called ‘fishing expeditions’ aimed at outspoken, potentially disgruntled Liberal Democrat ministers who might embarrass the Coalition in the safe confines of their constituency surgeries has, less dramatically but more damagingly, rocked the relationship between MPs and their constituents.

The latter case has been particularly damaging because it is at their weekly or monthly surgeries that constituents can raise their concerns directly with their MP, exactly as one would in the medical equivalent from which they take their name. This means that, since Telegraph journalists posed as constituents, for the first time not only do constituents not fully trust their MPs but MPs cannot fully trust their constituents. Clearly it is here, from the Shetlands to Cornwall and in everything from a Scout hut, to Tory office, to Working Men’s club, that the true breakdown in our political system lies. The loss of such productive relationships would mean the loss of a vital cog in the British political system. It is a silent menace that is a long way from the high profile protests and industrial action seen in London and elsewhere around the country over the Coalition Government’s proposed policies. To use an analogy from the medical world, imagine visiting a doctor who has begun to question whether every patient is a hypochondriac because of a couple of dodgy insurance claims they fell for, and where every patient secretly believes their GP is, at worst, selling prescription drugs on eBay, or at the very least, having an affair with their receptionist. You can see why one of the greatest assets British democracy possesses is so under threat.

As with any relationship built on trust it will take years to recover, if it ever does. But it is one which, I would argue, British society would be much much poorer without.

When does stress become a medical issue?

When you are becoming unable to cope with it and can’t see how it could change. Symptoms like anxious thoughts together with physical symptoms such as palpitations, butterflies in the stomach and insomnia, if they have gone on for more than a week, all indicate that the stress has caused an anxiety disorder.

What can be done before an anxiety problem occurs, and to deal with it if it goes too far?

Step back from the stress if you can and take a break for a defined period of say a couple of days or a week to get your equilibrium back. Stay physically healthy but don’t obsess about fitness. A lot of people at high pressure institutions feel they have to be perfect all the time. Remember that such an ambition is impossible for anyone to achieve. If it does go further, we can help you with symptom control, with judicious use of medication, and help you address the underlying causes of the anxiety with cognitive and other therapies. Priory is able to see most people very quickly, within a day or two, while the NHS concentrates on those with severe mental illness and has a waiting list.

What is drug dependency and what should be done to take the first steps to tackle it?

Basically it’s an addiction to a drug. An addiction occurs when you can’t stop doing it. You also notice that you need to take more of it to get the same level of high and that you get withdrawal symptoms when you stop doing it. It takes over your life and becomes more important than family and friends, work and social life. That all applies to behavioural addictions like gambling and sex as well as to chemical addiction.Seek help as soon as someone tells you that you have a problem. Accept it for what it is and listen to friends when they tell you that you have a problem. Then get help from a professional. This will normally involve some form of therapy but the kind of treatment will depend on the nature and severity of the addiction.

What should be done in the wider world to prevent drug dependency occurring?

There needs to be a wider availability of education and treatment programmes. But even before that the most common and damaging drugs of addiction need to be harder to obtain. The most effective way to do that is to put up the price of alcohol, as that’s still our favourite drug and the one that does most social harm.

There have been few years in modern African history not described at some point as ‘decisive’ or ‘crucial’. 2011 though, has started particularly dramatically and shows no signs of slowing down. Is the forecast set to brighten? Or is it overcast, with a few blustery winds capable of upending an old tree or two?

North Africa has seen a longstanding, autocratic president removed in Tunisia and talk of unrest in neighbouring countries. The apparent cause? Economic woes coupled with a rapidly growing population dominated by ageing autocrats. The conditions are replicated throughout North Africa and whilst the developments are not all positive there is hope that true democracy could develop in a region so recently viewed by the West as stable but undemocratic. Elsewhere in the north a Sudanese referendum on dividing the country between the dominant Muslim North and the Christian and Animist South appears to have passed relatively peacefully. Whether the world’s newest nation can survive remains to be seen.

West Africa is a region so unpredictable that it resembles the British weather or Blackpool in the Premiership. Signs from Cote d’Ivoire are particularly mixed, with the disputed presidential election still hanging in the balance and the defeated incumbent, President Gbagbo, refusing to leave office. There are positives: UN peacekeepers seem to be maintaining peace where Civil War only officially ended in 2007 whilst the French, so willing over the last fifty years to meddle in their former colonies, have resisted the temptation. Most promisingly, other regional powers have for once refused to legitimise a defeated incumbent president and have used the economic grouping, ECOWAS, to put Gbagbo under intense pressure. In Southern Africa however, Zimbabwe could re-escalate tensions. President Mugabe, strengthened by an unprecedented diamond discovery, is pushing for an election to end the coalition forced upon him in 2009.

Whilst it is certainly not the place of an Africa-obsessed student to comment on the intricacies of African politics there are undoubtedly reasons to be hopeful, but as so often before, it could all prove to be a mirage of optimism.

Didn’t the Korean War end in 1953?

The Korean War is not over. There is no peace, only a cease-fire, and 2010 saw tensions rise to levels not reached since the early 1990s. Two violent incidents occurred: the 26 March sinking of the ROK corvette Chŏn’an (Cheonan) with the loss of 46 sailors and the 23 November shelling of Yŏngpyŏng (Yeonpyeong) island killing two soldiers and two civilians.

When did the current status quo begin?

In June 2000, President Kim Dae Jung flew to Pyŏngyang, met with Chairman Kim Jong Il, and inaugurated the Sunshine Policy of southern detente towards the north. In October, General Jo

Myong Rok (d. 6 Nov. 2010), number two in the DPRK, met Bill Clinton in Washington, agreed to limit DPRK missile exports, and invited Clinton to Pyŏngyang. Madeleine Albright visited Pyŏngyang two weeks later and met Kim Jong Il. Denouncing these opportunities, the Bush administration shifted from engagement to containment with obvious failure: the DPRK conducted nuclear tests in October 2006 and May 2009. Although the Sunshine Policy ended official demonization of the north and led to northern, non-belligerent attention focused on the south, by 2008, southerners felt triumphalist, had tired of accommodating the north, and elected President Lee Myung-bak to ‘get tough’.

What does the north want?

The north wants normalization with the US and Japan, but US diplomacy is stuck on nuclear issues and Japanese on abductees. The status quo favours the south: the north talks to the south, while the US and Japan promote containment via the six-party talks. The north uses nuclear tests and disputations of the Northern Limit Line (NLL) to draw attention in hopes of changing the status quo. Nuclear weapons also provide deterrence, and the NLL was a UN creation.

What is the NLL?

In 1953, the north relinquished certain islands but contested surrounding seas. Since 1999, Pyŏngyang has openly contested the NLL. The north ‘probably’ torpedoed the Chŏn’an, ‘probably’ in retaliation for previous NLL incidents that killed northern sailors. The DPRK denies responsibility, so we do not know. The north gave its reason for the November shelling: southern live-fire drills from Yŏnpyŏng (even southwards) throw shells into northern waters and violate northern sovereignty. But the DPRK crossed a tacit line when it killed two civilians. Pyŏngyang expressed ‘regret’, while accusing the south of using human shields. In December, the south again held live-fire drills, but the north did not respond.

Over 2010, the north has extracted revenge, grabbed US, Japanese, and southern attention, and developed a ‘revolutionary pedigree’ for the new leader. Now, they want to revive the six-party talks, probably to obtain food aid, but this could be an opportune moment to address normalisation issues and move towards comprehensive peace.

What’s happening in Tunisia?

Since 17 December 2010, Tunisia has been going through a popular uprising, which resulted in toppling the head of state, Zine al-Abidin Ben Ali who ruled from 7 November 1987 to 14 January 2011. The revolt started when Mohamed Bouazizi, 26, immolated himself after being denied permission to sell vegetables in the central city of Sidi Bouzid. He was a graduate with no other job to support his family. The city reacted with angry, spontaneous demonstrations, which soon spread to other parts of Zidi Bouzid governorate, and four people were killed by the police. In neighbouring Kasserine and Thala,

protests turned more deadly when police killed at least 50 people there. Nationwide demonstrations followed, led by lawyers, trade unions as well as legal and illegal opposition parties, calling for “Jobs, freedom and national dignity”. The Government responded with dismissal at first, then promises of free speech and regional development. People persisted in peaceful but more vocal demonstrations until Ben Ali, who failed to bring the army on board, was forced to flee the country.

What are the main grievances?

Unemployment, particularly of university graduates; uneven regional development; repression of descent and corruption of top officials and Ben Ali’s family are the main grievances. Tunisia, known as popular tourist destination, stable country and relatively prosperous economy, maintained a repressive political regime and an economic development model, which disadvantaged the interior parts of the country. The president’s family amassed great wealth, largely through favourable contracts. High unemployment affected a highly educated young population. Free speech, including bans on YouTube and critical websites and individuals were the norm. Yet, Western governments hailed the “Tunisia miracle” and propped Ben Ali for keeping Islamists at bay.

Has anything like this happened before?

Tunisia has had various revolts and unrest since its independence from France in 1956, notably serious unions-led protests in 1978 and the “Bread Riots” of 1984, but the scale of the current revolt, some have called it a revolution, is unprecedented. The scope of the protest, the speed with which it grew and the clearly politically radical content it developed are new. Like 1984, it was spontaneous and triggered by economic factors; but this time, concessions did not stop people from elaborating radical demands and seeing them through thanks to sustained popular protest.

What are the implications for the wider Arab world?

Most observers were surprised that a revolt would emerge from Tunisia, that it would not be Islamist in content and that it would bring about the collapse of an authoritarian government. Popular support has been expressed in Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria; countries whose people share similar grievances. Already copycat protest suicides have been noted in Algeria and Egypt. This successful revolt has shown that it was possible to dislodge authoritarian states without resorting to violence or the army. Social media have been key to bypassing news restrictions and organizing protest. (About 2 million Tunisians are on Facebook). Arab cyber activism has been emboldened by the Tunisian example. Breaking free from fear is now a reality, and neighbouring people are closely watching Tunisia. Arab governments have already began lowering prices of essential goods and appeasing their dissatisfied citizens to pre-empt any emulation of a completely homegrown revolt.