Mexico’s concoction of warring drug gangs, increased violence and police corruption, makes it notoriously unsafe for journalists. In an ongoing effort by organised gangs to silence reporting on drugs trafficking, an estimated 67 journalists have been murdered in Mexico since 2000. These attacks effectively work to censor news on an issue that instills fear in many Mexicans living in areas terrorised by gang violence.

At the beginning of his term, President Calderon placed tackling drug trafficking at the top of his priority list. It is undeniable that there have been consistent attempts to break up the influence and success of these infamous drug cartels. This, however has not stopped the consistent targeting of journalists. The rising number of reporters killed, or registered as missing, has caused concern regarding the state of the country’s human rights and freedom of expression. Much of the media are forced to practice a frustrating but necessary policy of self-censorship in order to protect staff. Angering these organised criminals is a precarious business and the long list of dead is evidence of this.

Gang activity often goes unreported as a result of this silencing of  the media. It must be a strange affair to see a complete absence of reporting on the spreading violence, the lack of tourists and closing businesses in areas hit  by cartel operations. Many Mexicans do not even wish to comment on the situation in their area as they fear the deep infiltration of spies who work for these organisations.

This week, “PEN international,” an organisation of writers promoting freedom of expression, issued a signed declaration of around 170 signatures urging the Mexican government to put a stop to this gagging of the media. “These violations diminish us all and threaten the right of Mexican citizens to live lives both safe and free from censorship.”

Recently the Zetas cartel has been named as overtaking their rivals the Sinaloa. This is apparently due to the fact that the former’s more generous use of violence and brutality has allowed it to outstrip its rivals, which are more reliant on bribery. The power struggle characterising the competition between these two different groups seems like something of an action thriller, but its violent fall out is very much real.

The problem seems to be exacerbated by corruption that seems to have crept to the higher ranks of the Mexican police. Drug gangs are able to smooth out operations with ease, by handing out generous pay offs to underpaid police. So much so, that the government itself holds the police in suspicion. In their efforts to break up the influence of these gangs, their choice to extensively deploy military personnel as opposed to the police was deliberate.

It doesn’t appear that the reign of these powerful cartels will end anytime soon. Drug smuggling is an issue that has haunted many Mexican Presidents and has been the subject of much elections campaigning. But as long as there is an opportunity to smuggle drugs across the US border, and also to the rest of the world, this extremely profitable trade will remain.

Gurdeep  Chhina
Features Editor

The Bishops have argued that the cap fails to take into account the number of children that a family has. A family with four children will face the same limit as a family with only two. The Lords Spiritual argued that this will cause thousands of children to enter into poverty. Iain Duncan Smith, the minister in charge of the reforms lambasted the Bishops asserting “I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don’t have as much money as they would otherwise because they’re paying tax for all of this”.

The Lords managed to block the bill with a sizable number of rebel Lib Dems and Labour peers, despite their parties supporting the introduction of a cap on benefits. The government however intends to push through their reforms in the face of opposition from the Lords, safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of the population support the concept of a benefit cap.

Chris Huhne, former Lib Dem leadership contender, and one of the highest ranking Liberal Democrat ministers, seems one step closer to losing his office this week. His problems centre on rumours that he asked his ex-wife to take speeding points on his behalf, a criminal offense.

His ex-wife reportedly informed the Sunday Times of this fact and the Essex Police Service, having won a court order to retrieve the relevant emails, have presented the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service and an official charge is expected within weeks. If he is found guilty, it is highly probable that he will have to resign from the government.

David Cameron also chose this week to increase his rhetoric on Europe. In a speech in Davos, to the World Economic Forum, he told other european leaders to stop the “madness” that was causing such havoc across the continent, and to focus on cutting red tape and regulations that are purportedly stifling growth. His solution is to follow a more economically liberal model, such as that found within the UK or America.

As the Bishops took to the airwaves to protest against the government’s benefit cap, this week also saw the right of abortion providers to advertise their service on public airwaves for the first time since abortion was legalised. Critics have argued that at a time when cigarette brands are banned from advertising, that those for abortion should be approved seems ridiculous. Proponents have argued that this is simply a natural extension of a woman’s right to choose, and a right to chose among providers.  The move has met considerable resistance from Pro-life groups, who argue that by allowing the advertisement of agencies which carry out abortions, the government fails to take seriously the significance of the act.

The question of Scottish independence moved closer to resolution this week as Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland and leader of the pro-independence Scottish National Party, released the question that shall be put to Scottish voters in just a few years time.

Presently, the main question is pencilled in as, “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” Critics have argued that this is a loaded question designed to provoke an affirmative answer. Scotland doesn’t have the legal powers to issue a referendum as constitutional affairs are reserved for Westminster, but Salmond intends to have frequent meetings with David Cameron to discuss staging a legal referendum. The question will have to be sent through the Electoral Commission first, and they may argue a more balanced question is required.

A transparency bill also succeeded in its second reading this week. In its current form the bill would see each taxpayer receive a break down of their tax money, and see where it was spent. Conservatives favour the move, believing that when people see just where their money is going, it will encourage a strong desire for reform.

And finally, a minister helping to steer a bill through Parliament was found hidden in a toilet, after walking into the wrong voting lobby. Discovering the doors locked behind him, and unwilling to continue through the lobby past the tellers (those responsible for registering the votes) thereby voting against his own bill, he is reported to have hidden in the toilet in the Lobby until the vote had ended. The Shadow leader of the House questioned whether the incident showed that “government incompetence had plumbed new depths.”

Research in 2007 has shown that the pace around the world is 10% faster than ever before. Rushing around is regarded as an acceptable hazard of city living, we don’t like to sit still, sit in traffic, or wait in queues. Reading ‘Next train to: Cockfosters in 4 minutes’ is infuriating when we arrive on the platform having got so used to the 1 min time frame. Many of us are feeling pressured to move quicker, multi-task and yet still be productive, and it is through this need for constant availability, and online access that firms are beginning to see the potential in manipulating our choices.

It is said that we may soon live in a world where the distinction between being online and offline won’t be as clear cut. It is simple to see here why digital marketing has become one of the biggest growing industries in our economy. Being online means opening your arms to advertisement and implicitly allowing for the ‘Cyber Salesmen’ to approach and nag at you whilst you’re supposedly being busy with something else.

The famous Amazon.com suggestion list is well known for working out what treat you can convince yourself that you need. It is crucial, however, to remember that Amazon is not a real friend, even though it will remember your birthday, compliment you on your new shirt and recommend you a book. This data Amazon is using is your personal information, and this is how directed marketing has become one of the leading selling points online. Pay per click advertising space is on the rise, and the price of an advertisement on Facebook has risen by 54%. More products are seeking attention and competition is increasing, so establishing a market share is becoming more difficult. Even with Google’s reputable market lead, it is still threatened by the growing Bing search engine. Increased spending must mean potential for a profit to be made and more and more firms are funding these ‘sunk costs’ to hopefully find themselves out on top.

Last year, Facebook introduced ‘sponsored stories’, a way in which companies can be imposed onto your friend posts. A simple payment to Facebook, could entitle the likes of Starbucks to be a featured ad once a friend has mentioned the name and additional funds could warrant it to be the first story you read. Add our growing desires for fast paced flows of information, and our rising inability to go and visit a good friend, we settle for their life updates to stem entirely from our newsfeed.

Everything around us is becoming a marketing tool, and we embrace it as a way to save time. The need to search for restaurants is becoming benign as recommendations are flung at you from popular check-ins and status updates. Even upcoming artists become megastars in the time it took for second years to revise for the LSE100 exam. Our overwhelming obsession to be continuously available is distracting us from our natural mental processes and innate human needs — like digesting a full meal!

Rushed meetings in Garrick, and quick catch ups in the library are the only meetings that we seem to be able to have without having to add it to our ‘crammed schedules’. In the absence of our handy calendars on our iPhones and to-do list on the Blackberry, it wouldn’t be surprising if no one ever managed to actually meet one another. ‘Penciling you in’ has never been so appropriate despite the fact that pencils have all but disappeared in modern day society.

Even our private information is becoming more accessible. Many put their credit card numbers, ID information, and other personal details into their phone in hopes their lives will become ever more harmonized. But when the phone is stolen, all of that personal information is in the hands of criminals. Even companies are getting involved in the privacy game. People need to ask themselves where is this data going? How is it being manipulated into a profit making scheme and how far will it go before we decide that we want some privacy back? It seems like we are not ready yet, and although there are a few who insist on carrying antiquated mobile phones — or none at all — to prove a point, we all know they’re going to convert, because these tools make our lives easier. Our lives which are so jam packed that it is simply not enough to have one email, but rather two, three, or even four that are regularly checked and answered.

So in a world where things are going digital, and only octogenarians are protected, we are letting our personal information out to thousands of people — both friend and foe. What are the transition stages to come? Companies are completely re-inventing their corporate strategies, and beginning to innovate in entirely new fields. Before, a friend’s birthday would be embedded into your memory, now it’s in your phone or delivered to you every week by the Facebook fairy.

It is through our dependency and willingness to convert to a more modern world that we are allowing for the corporate firms to infringe upon our lives. The apps available to nearly all smart phones are either cheap or free, but once the user is hooked like a smoker to their last Marlboro, the prices sharply rise and the demand will sadly be met.

Every second of our online activity is monitored for marketing purposes, and the advertising we’re exposed to is narrowly selected by companies to peak our interest. Many companies now face new challenges in launching products into new markets, questions like: “How can selective advertising be improved? What’s the cost of advertising space? Does it vary per consumer? Is there a medium that controls the exposure of each advert?’ are crucial in analysing the consumer, and they’re continuously being used to analyse online consumers. So next time you close a website and then see an advert for that company in your new browser, take a moment to realise how and why that was achieved and the potential profits such clever advertising could reap.

While Romney’s path to victory seemed inevitable after Iowa and New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich managed to defeat him by the considerable margin of 12.6 points in the South Carolina primary. Moreover, although Romney was, until recently, considered the winner of the Iowa caucus, it was Rick Santorum who ultimately emerged as the unexpected victor, after a recount completed around two weeks after polls originally closed. Such developments can hardly leave the former governor indifferent, since Gingrich seems to have stolen his cloak of electability, as Alistair Bell stated on Reuters.

Romney’s discomfort became obvious following his attacks on Gingrich. His accusations were largely based on the latter’s consultancy work in Freddie Mac, a company that had been intensely criticized for its risky mortgage investments and extensive contribution to the collapse of the housing market. In Romney’s own words: “I don’t think we could possibly retake the White House if the person who’s leading our party is the person who was working for the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac.” Gingrich has denied such allegations, labeling the former governor as a “desperate” candidate.

The tension within the Republican Presidential race is verified by the surprising volatility of the polls. Even though Romney is currently leading in Florida by an average of 8.0 points (according to a Real Clear Politics poll of polls), it was Gingrich who was in the lead just a few days ago. However, the former continues to enjoy a considerable wealth advantage, provided by the generous “super-PAC” supporting his campaign and this advantage may prove a crucial factor in determining the prevailing nominee. Nonetheless, Gingrich’s more conservative ideals, together with his charismatic debating skills render Romney’s victory anything but secure.

The high volatility of the Republican race raises the following questions: is the inability of the GOP to find a suitable candidate a result of a lack of options, or is the problem rooted in their shift towards more radical, Tea Party principles? Is Gingrich here to stay, or will he be another flash in the pan?

When the Republicans took over the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections of 2010, they owed their victory in part to the emergence of the Tea Party movement. This return to radical conservatism seemed to be the key in confronting and eventually defeating President Obama, and this conviction is still evident today. The line of the Republican Party – tax cuts, abolishing the “Obama-care” (and any other Obama-related project for that matter), making abortion all but illegal and opposing measures to combat climate change – is strict, and every GOP candidate must abide by it. Mitt Romney, for example, has profoundly altered his ideological positions, especially regarding health-care reform and the legality of abortion, as a means of acquiring the conservative credentials required of the GOP nominee.

As governor he defended a woman’s right to choose, while as a contestant for the Republican nomination he campaigns for the implementation of stricter control. Furthermore, “Obama-care,” the health care plan that he rails against so passionately, as a presidential candidate, bares a remarkable similarity to the health care law he passed in Massachusetts. Romney’s rightwards shift is indubitable, and it is a typical indication of the hard line taken by the GOP. Others such as Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush, were not as eager to change. Daniel’s statement following Obama’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday, defined by a directness and clarity that was unfortunately absent from the President’s report, must have generated a feeling of resentment amongst Republicans over his decision not to run.  Thus, in my opinion, the Republicans’ difficulty in finding candidates that will fire up their voters is not the result of lack of options, but a direct consequence of the limited freedom the party platform allows them in running for President.

It is now looking unlikely that Gingrich’s sudden upsurge will endure. He may emerge as the leader of the GOP, or , more likely, he might suffer the fate of Rick Perry. What this lack of certainty indicates is that the Republicans’ desperate search for the ideal nominee has proved fruitless. Even if Romney defeats Gingrich, the candidate’s challenge will be his ultimate encounter with President Obama. Despite the declining job approval rates and the harsh criticism he has received after his third State of the Union Address, Obama continues to lead National Presidental polls. According to a poll from NBC News/ Wall Street Journal, he is clearly preferred to Romney and Gingrich and is presently leading them by a margin of 6.0 and 18.0 points respectively. After all, we must keep in mind that Obama kept his promise in ending the war in Iraq, prevented the economy from suffering a second recession and tackled one of America’s most controversial domestic issues by initiating the health care reform.

Therefore, while the GOP is on its way to the “Sunshine State,” its biggest worry should be whether its obsession with undermining the incumbent President has led it a step too close to radical conservatism, and consequently a step too far from the White House.

Given this historical contingency, it seems reasonable to consider natural history museums as the architectural embodiment of taxonomy, a place where specimens are stored and labelled and eventually shown to bored gentlemen and curious ladies. Both these ideas of taxonomy and its reification however, were destined to change drastically.

This happened during the Victorian era when magnificent buildings such as the Natural History Museum in London where built to host such collections. It was in that period that a new perspective was taking hold in biology, namely evolutionism. Even if the idea of evolution was not Darwin’s novel thought, the mechanism of natural selection he proposed certainly was. It has been said once that Darwin came to rescue biologists from being butterfly collectors and turned them into scientists. In the famous words of evolutionary biologist Dobzhansky, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Darwin was the one providing that light and for what concerns us here, turned taxonomy into a dynamic science by adding a new dimension to it: time.

Since Darwin, species have been ordered not only synchronically, but diachronically as well. A new powerful tool has been added to taxonomy, namely the discipline of phylogenetics. By using different methods ranging from comparative morphology to genetic sequencing and comparison, phylogenetics informs us on the evolutionary relationship between living and extinct species, making sense of higher order taxonomic units in terms of common ancestry. Where older methods of taxonomy grouped together humans, whales and cats in the class mammalia because of their morphological similarity, this similarity is now explained as descent from a common ancestor. By discovering these relationships between organisms, we can draft the “tree of life” dreamed by Darwin. What could be more impressive than having a single branching graph linking all past and present living beings on earth? However, even if the fact that life originated only once and all presently living beings share common ancestry is reasonably well established, tracing the actual branching pattern is far from easy. Multiple factors come into play here, from the lack of data regarding disappeared intermediate forms to phenomena such as horizontal gene transfer, a phenomenon common especially in bacteria that adds lateral interweaving branches to the otherwise ascending tree. However challenging and ever changing this task could be, the point remains, Taxonomy remains a static collection.

But what about museums? Are they left behind at the point where Darwin left them, or did they managed to keep up with the evolution of the biological sciences?

Since its foundation, the Natural History Museum in London has had a prominent role in taxonomical research, and it has kept up to date since then. Nowadays it is one of the world’s leading research centres in taxonomy, hosting a collection of more than 7 millions specimens, a massive archive and state of the art DNA sampling laboratories. It awards Masters Degrees and PhDs jointly with the university of London and it is home to some of the leading scholars in the field. Moreover, the Museum’s researchers contribute greatly to the international project attempting to reconstruct the tree of life. This is already impressive for what could be regarded as a collection of bones and bugs, but what is even more impressive is that the research and the display faces of the museum are not just two distinct worlds that happen to be hosted under that same roof, but they actually have a strong interaction. The newly built Darwin Centre provides the venue for these worlds to come together. Within the impressive and contrasting architecture of the new wing of the Museum are housed the ‘spirit collection,’ comprising of organisms preserved in alcohol, and the ‘dry collection,’ featuring entomological and botanical specimens. The collections are available for both visitors and scientists alike, with the former having the possibility to observe the latter performing their research in the many glass-walled laboratories surrounding the centre. Moreover, the Darwin Centre houses a curios egg shaped white structure – the Cocoon. Inside this multi-storey shell, visitors are guided by the avatars of the scientists working in the museum. Captivating for both kids and grown ups, the exhibition engages the visitors with questions such as what “species” are, which different approaches to taxonomy are possible and what role does DNA analysis play in modern biology. Much more than just roaring dinosaurs (even if we all love them!).

Summing up, if the Natural History Museum embodies taxonomy, it does so in the most coherent way: as evolutionary theory made the biological sciences evolve, so to, does it’s receptacle evolve into what we see today.

SD: What needs to be done to complete the transition to democracy?

OK: Well, as I am sure you’re aware the parliamentary elections have already taken place and the newly elected Parliament has been tasked by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), the body which has been governing the country since Mubarak stepped down, with drafting a new constitution. In my opinion this amounts to putting the cart before the horse. How can Parliament draft the constitution when it is in fact the constitution which must determine the powers and prerogatives of Parliament? Likewise, it is the constitution which creates a system of checks and balances and divides power between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. It also dictates which political system a country adheres to, i.e. whether it is a parliamentary or a presidential democracy, a federal or a unitary state. So conceptually it makes no sense for Parliament, as an organ of the state which itself ought to be governed by the constitution, to have the exclusive right to draft that constitution. More importantly, however, a constitution is meant to be a permanently binding legal document which governs future generations and is either impossible or very difficult to amend. So then why should today’s political majority, which is transient in nature, possess the right to, at least theoretically speaking, bind all future majorities by exclusively drafting the constitution? Finally, to allow the political majority to write the constitution is tantamount to the creation of a utilitarian democracy. In a utilitarian democracy the majority reigns unencumbered by any restrains and the minority is vulnerable to whatever acts are proclaimed to be in the interest of the majority. The constitution is the one document which limits this absolute power of the majority and guarantees the fundamental rights of all citizens which cannot be infringed by any government. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and all those rights that are often taken for granted in Western societies essentially derive their power from the constitution. So is therenot a clear conflict of interest in allowing Parliament, and therefore the majority in Parliament, to draft the very document that is meant to constrain that majority’s power?

Ideally, what I would have liked to see is a constitution being written by a panel that comprised all the political factions of Egyptian society. There would have been no voting procedure in this panel (that would lead to the same majority-minority problem outlined above) but instead a provision would only be included if it was the subject of a consensus. The sorts of compromises this setting would have necessitated would, in my opinion, have laid the groundwork for a sound constitutional democracy.

As for the SCAF, ideally they would have handed power over completely to a civilian transitional government. Instead what we ended up with were civilian governments that lacked any kind of prerogatives and were little more than secretaries to the SCAF. The greatest challenge lies in removing power from the military who has been governing Egypt since the military coup of 1952. Opportunistic manoeuvres by the Muslim Brotherhood may mean that the army could retain very broad competences, such as the ability to determine of its own budget or to veto any legislative proposals relating to the military or national security, even before Parliament has had a chance to fully consider such legislation. Essentially, the military would not be subject to any democratic controls.

Religious tensions seem to be growing, and fundamentalist factions appear to have popular support. What can be done to remedy the friction between religious groups?

The marginalization and under-representation of the Coptic population in Egypt is a very real problem. For example, there are numerous regulatory obstacles that must be overcome in order to obtain planning permission for the construction of a new church. In a country where there is an ad-hoc mosque on every street corner there is simply no justification for that. I think it’s also fair to say that there is a rising level of sectarian tension in the country that is further exacerbated by the failure of authorities to protect Copts against acts of violence and terrorism. One example of this is the failure to investigate a church bombing in Alexandria last year. More recently, fundamentalists destroyed a church built by locals in the city of Aswan. To add insult to injury, the Governor of Aswan issued a statement saying that the church had been built without planning permission thus impliedly justifying the attack on the church. This sparked mass outrage not only in the Coptic but also the liberal community in Egypt and led to mass protests in Cairo’s Maspeero Square. During the demonstrations the military clashed with protesters resulting in a large number of fatalities.

It’s important to note at this point that there are extremists on both sides, Muslim and Christian, but the root cause of the problem is, in my opinion, education. Public education in the country is in a deplorable condition. There are schools with up to eighty students in a single classroom and neither the syllabus nor the style of teaching promotes critical thinking. Moreover, the educational system was used by the former regime as a way of planting seeds of blind obedience and adherence to authority at an early age. This mental attitude of uncritical acceptance coupled with a level of religious conservatism, which has been taking hold in Egyptian society over the past two decades, meant that people were highly susceptible to the views and ideologies espoused by religious authorities in their local communities. In fact, most confrontations between Muslims and Christians in Egypt begin with local Imams’ anti-Christian sermons during Friday prayers. Now, I am painting a very bleak picture here but it’s important not to overstate the level of sectarian tension in Egypt. Extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are of course the main culprits and largely responsible for the international coverage this issue is receiving. However, whilst undeniably there is some level of rising tension average Muslims do not, in my opinion, feel deep hostility towards Christians and vice versa. Islamists are obviously a different story entirely.

That leads me to my next question. Do you think the results of the recent parliamentary elections show Islamists to hold a majority in Egypt?

The short answer to that is: No. The Muslim Brotherhood received over 40% and the Salafists about 25% of votes cast in the elections. No doubt these figures are alarming and both these groups admittedly do command significant followership in Egypt. Nonetheless, in my view, these results are in no way representative of the political landscape in Egypt. Rather, they are a direct reflection of the superior infrastructure Islamist parties have managed to build over the decades. The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, has been in existence for more than seventy years. Contrast that to all the newly formed liberal parties in Egypt who simply could not have had the time or resources to reach out to voters and explain their propositions, especially in rural areas, which comprise no less than 60% of the country. Liberal parties just need more time to get organized and I think that the presidential elections to be held later this year will attest to this by showing a significant increase of liberal votes. In addition, I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood has been very successful in steering election debates away from issues such as the economy, health care and education and toward religion. Casting the debate in those terms automatically meant that if you voted for a liberal party you were breaching some kind of a religious obligation to vote for the Muslim Brotherhood/Salafists. I think that one of the biggest mistakes the liberals made was to not take ownership of these public debates and draw Islamists out of their comfort zone of religion. The truth of the matter is Islamists had no legislative agenda or campaign platform besides religious indoctrination and not capitalizing on that was a grave error. Nonetheless, once people see the Muslim Brotherhood in action I think that that romantic enchantment with religion will start to dissipate as they realize that the performance of a government truly has nothing to do with how committed to Islam it claims to be. At the end of the day, people want to see results: They want jobs and higher standards of living.

So what can be done about the unemployment and worsening economic situation of the country?

The educated yet unemployed youth taking to the streets in January last year was the main spark that ignited the revolution. Those who first marched towards Tahrir Square weren’t school leavers or illiterates – they were doctors, engineers and lawyers who had spent years at university but upon graduation couldn’t land a job. Many either continued to live with their parents or took jobs as cab drivers, waiters, etc.. Between 2005 and 2008 the international press lauded Egypt’s high rates of economic growth. The IMF sent accolade after accolade; HSBC predicted that by 2050 the country will jump 16 places to become the 19th largest economy in the world. Yet after the revolution it became painfully clear that first of all the growth was driven by the agricultural sector, offering the youth no escape from the economic quagmire that they found themselves in. Secondly, this wealth did not trickle down to them in the form of minimum wages, a good health care system and, in general, improved government services due to a corrupt system of government which allowed only the elite classes of society to reap the rewards.

It’s obvious that whatever political change comes about, the needs of this stratum of society must be addressed. What’s interesting about this is that many of the Islamist political parties, who as I noted above never really presented any clear economic proposals, claim to possess the “magic bullet” for resolving the issues; they promise to tackle unemployment by offering job opportunities in the public sector. Yet, history has shown us time and time again that this is a flawed premise. The only way to combat unemployment is through the private sector. Promoting the establishment of small and medium size business and facilitating both domestic and foreign investment are the only sure-fire ways of generating jobs. The current situation is dire. Small businesses are an integral part of the economy and yet draconian measures are employed to deal with people who default on loans for example. Inevitably, some small businesses will fail; if their owners are sent to prison over such matters then risk-averse behaviour will become entrenched in the collective mindset. Entrepreneurship will die before it has been allowed to live, and the country’s escape route from its economic woes will be blocked.

This doesn’t mean that politicians should remove themselves from matters of the economy; correct government plays a crucial role in cultivating the environment in which industry can prosper. The foremost thing they need to do is maintain a transparent, democratic system that protects the fundamental rights of citizens and upholds the rule of law. A fair and predictable legal system is an essential prerequisite for most investors. After that they can consider commercial measures, tax waivers, and various forms of investment incentives and perhaps trade agreements which would facilitate free trade and open up the market to foreign capital.

Almost everyone is buried in their phones, these being predominantly iPhones. The point seems not so much to accomplish anything as to have an easy way to avoid any sort of eye contact, an impression I get after watching the girl two seats from me continually open apps and then close them after about three seconds.

A middle-aged woman steps on before the doors close at Covent Garden and after looking around sits next to me out of necessity. A backpacked young man is playing what appears to be an iPhone game across the aisle. The people beside him watch in a way that projects a casual yet not unseemly interest.

Businessmen and lawyers pretend to be utterly and completely absorbed with their Blackberries in order to convey status and importance in the world above. Otherwise, they stare off into space in a way that indicates the maximum amount of boredom and contempt possible, a contempt that seems to be borne of the conviction that us Cretans don’t have enough appreciation for either their net worth or the positive macroeconomic effects of their providing liquidity and capital, that if we could just see them in their glass castles in Canary Wharf we’d be a whole lot more respectful.

Across the aisle, two seats from the iPhone gamer, a rather normal looking man is listening to an iPod, the porous headphones of which blare, “Marry the Night” by Lady Gaga. This is making everyone else in the train uncomfortable because it’s funny but to laugh would be socially unacceptable given the current dynamic, a dynamic which could be best described as atomistic.

A hipster with multi-colored hair and corks in his ears stands with a friend near the door, both of them the type of people that enjoy looking alien but kind of dare you to look at them as alien.

What is clearly a homeless man steps on the train at Piccadilly Circus and perhaps the best word is collapses into a seat. Immediately the atomism is ended and everyone else in the train is united against the other, as if a strong electrical field had all of a sudden polarized what had been a heterogeneous solution. Even the businessmen look up from their pseudo-reading of email. Everyone seems vaguely put upon that the man is in this car, the way they might respond to someone talking on the phone in a quiet part of a library. The man stares downwards, huddled up in himself. Had I not seen him walk on I wouldn’t be able to tell if he was alive or dead. And then it further occurs to me that no one seems to care whether he is alive or dead, and perhaps the reason that people appear put upon is that because his presence in this car forces them to either consider the implications of this not caring or at least expend effort trying not to think about it.

The homeless man is larger than everyone else on the train. I wonder to myself as we’re accelerating through the tunnel whether other people realize that whatever structural aspects of the world have somehow put this guy in this position are completely null while we’re in this train, that he could forcefully take whatever he wanted if he so desired, and that the only reason he shouldn’t is that that real world exists both at the beginning and end of the tunnel. I also wonder how long the train would have to be in the tunnel before he realized it as well. An hour? A day? A week?

The woman next to me for some reason seems to be sitting as far away from me as is physically possible while plausibly appearing to remain on her seat. The reason for this is unknown. Two businessmen/lawyers in particular seem to be competing over who can possibly stare/type into their Blackberry in such a way that it makes them look most senior and busy. Any sort of physical or verbal contact whatsoever is total anathema.

The teen hipster and his friend are talking kind of loudly so that you can’t help but overhear their conversation. The benefit of this is that it makes eavesdropping unavoidable. The hipster throws around the F bomb a couple times which, even though a lot of us on the train probably consider ourselves new age and tolerant, is still somehow grating. I am wondering to myself as I listen passively how long the homeless guy will stay on the car, whether someone will eventually force him off. How many other permutations of passengers he will unite in defense of civilization against its afterbirth?

Everyone would probably feel better if the seats were facing the windows or at least perpendicular to them, as people seem relatively uncomfortable trying to not look at those across from them. It occurs to me after seeing a sample size of about 500 during my few months in London that the sheer fact of being in an underground car gives every woman over the age of 50 a look of terminal sadness.

The pressure to be silent seems unbelievable, the social equivalent of a deep-sea dive. It would be fascinating to see what exactly you could pull off in an underground car without eliciting a response. Could you watch porn on an iPad? Could you carry a dead animal? Could you be profusely bleeding from one side of your head? At this point it seems plausible you could get through a few stops unmolested in any of these situations.

I wonder why it is that everyone looks so hollow. Is this just a skewed sample of the population, the outliers on the normal distribution? I doubt it, as there seems to be no compelling link between hollowness and frequency of subway patronization. Is there something about the underground itself that saps the life out of us? It doesn’t seem like it – the cars are generally clean, the rides smooth, the woman PA’s voice soothing and agreeably British.

In the end, there may be some small part of everyone’s subconscious that looks at the scene and realizes how pathetic it is that no one can muster a word to anyone else. That we’re all so awkward and dull and suspicious and completely unequipped to deal with other people that when placed in forced proximity we have to resort to things like burying ourselves in our phones even though they don’t have service. That we have to avert our gazes towards the ads above even though they’re incredibly simplistic and maximize the possible distance from each other on the seats as if the slightest brush of fabric will cause the other person to become uncontrollably horny.

All these details might seem odd or trivial, but the subway is our modern agora. This is where we are placed out of necessity into communion with strangers. This is where we can see human interaction at its most basic. And the results are deeply telling – not all good, not all bad. Sure, we see apathy and boredom, but we also see generosity (witness a man give up his seat to an older women) and sensitivity to others’ comfort. Seeing the dynamics in a subway car makes it hard to believe some of the more bold pronouncements about human nature – the typical dichotomies between good vs. evil, religious vs. the secular, liberal vs. conservative, etc. Maybe we’re not fundamentally good or fundamentally bad. Maybe we’re shy and scared, fundamentally cautious. Maybe we just want to get from  Point A to Point B.

The Hollywood actress, who rose to fame in her home country through state-sponsored and highly censored movies which forbade the touching of hands became the first Iranian actress to star in a Western film, playing alongside Leonardo DiCaprio in 2008’s “Body of Lies”. After moving to Paris, she sparked a heated debate by choosing to appear nude in the French magazine “Madame Le Figaro” in protest against the ultra-conservative policies that she claims are restricting Iran’s film industry.

The Iranian government banned her from returning to the country in response. The semi-official Fars news agency asserted that she had “auctioned off her modesty and honour in front of the Western cameras”.  The move has taken the social media by storm, prompting mixed responses within the Islamic Republic. Facebook comments on her page have ranged from cries of support to accusations that she has turned her back on her Muslim faith. One particularly poignant comment reads, “I am ashamed to call you an Iranian”. In a society such as ours, where glamour models enjoy celebrity status and nudity is embraced in the arts, it is hard to imagine that a place exists where women are not entitled to the same liberties, or at least the choice to enjoy them without fear of reprisals. Iranian women live in a painfully unequal society, and their history is a most unhappy one.

Before the 1979 revolution, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi led Iran. Under his leadership the Shah brought about the “White Revolution” in 1962, introducing female suffrage, restricting polygamy and working to establish a society that resembled those of his allies in the West.

Unfortunately, such poverty followed that the entire population began to rise up against the monarchy in the 1979 revolution, where many women believed that the Ayatollah Khomeini, a religious teacher, would grant them the freedoms they truly deserved. This was the greatest travesty of all.

Upon gaining power, which would have been impossible without the efforts of female Iranian protesters, Khomeini went on to strictly enforce “Sharia law”- the religious code of Islam – as the official law of the state. Khomeini made the chador, a full-body cloak, obligatory for women, and effectively removed any liberties that they had enjoyed in the past.

The next national rise of women in pursuit of equality came in the form of the 2009 election protests, where fears of four more years under conservative president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forced thousands onto the streets. Despite their best efforts, Ahmadinejad won under suspicious circumstances and a harsh government crackdown followed. Horror stories began to emerge via the Internet of beatings, torture and rape of protesters aligned with the movement. Three hundred women are known to have been arrested since the uprisings, but thousands more are too terrified to speak out. Not only to the threat of being re-arrested, but the social stigma that is still attached to harassment and rape. One unidentified victim laments “I didn’t even have nail clippers in my purse for them to say I had anything remotely sharp or dangerous, all I had done was give one vote and that was to Mousavi. A vote that was never counted.”

So what of women’s rights in Iran today? Iranian laws still highlight a chasmic divide between the sexes. A woman’s testimony in court is worth half than that of a man. Women who appear on streets and in public without the prescribed “Islamic Hijab” will be condemned to 74 strokes of the lash by the Basij (government-backed militias). A husband may ban his wife from any technical profession that conflicts with family life or her character. Men can marry non-Islamic women (males are allowed up to four wives, as long as they can provide equally for all of them) but women cannot marry non-Islamic men. The list goes on. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani awaits imminent execution after confessing to adultery under torture before retracting her statement. The presiding judge was able to ignore the lack of evidence due to Iran’s fickle and sexist judicial system.

Despite these astonishing setbacks, there is hope for the future. The new generation of Iranian women are more determined than ever. 65 per cent of university students are female and women are competing in many different markets. Thirty-three years after the revolution, many leaders are trying to reinterpret the constitution in women’s favour and talks are in process on amending several of the more extreme laws. Although still a theocracy by definition, it seems that an organic sense of equality may be taking root. By no means is the West a perfect model to follow, but if figures such as Ms Farhadi continue to draw attention to the stark contrast between the rights of women around the world, then it can only serve to narrow that gap, and perhaps find a happy medium in which so many women would not have to suffer needlessly.

She is a founding member of the 30% Club, an organisation launched in November 2010, promoting the inclusion of more women on UK corporate boards. By encouraging diversity the group aims to have at least 30% senior female leaders in major UK companies, as a means of which to drive profitable growth through a rebalancing of firm culture and an adjustment in the decision-making processes of such leading institutions. The organisation boasts prominent Chairmen as their members, from UK companies such as Deloitte, Allen & Overy and GlaxoSmithKline.

Congratulations on all of the philanthropic work you have done thus far. You were hugely active in pushing through The Equality Bill in 2010. Do you think if more women worked in parliaments around the world, there would be more equality legislation, and specifically gender equality legislation, introduced?

Considering the world is made up of 51% of women, and that 70% of all financial decisions globally are made by women, it is important that all parliaments should have much better representation of women of at least 40 to 50%. If women were part of the decision-making process, gender equality would become part of all legislation.

Why is it, to you, so important to promote the role of women in the global economy? 

I think that if women were involved at all levels of the global economy, we would get much better decision-making because women would consider very carefully how the outcomes of their decisions on employment, education and health would have an impact on their community. Furthermore, a large proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) around the world are started up and run by women, in the same way that microfinance loans are taken by women for setting up businesses and in 99% of the cases they pay back on time. My view on diversity is that at every table, women should be playing an active part. One of the most important roles for women is at peace tables. The Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) specifically addresses the impact of war on women and women’s contributions to conflict and resolution and sustainable peace. It is most important that governments insist on women being there.

How did the 30% Club come about?

I was at a lunch at Goldman Sachs and my friend, Helena Morrissey (chief executive of Newton Investment Management and founder of the 30% Club), was there. A few months later, with colleagues and friends, we decided to set up the 30% Club to promote voluntarily to bring more women onto the UK boards. On average, among the FTSE100 companies, the boards are only 14.8% women.

What is your role within the organisation, and what specific actions have you taken within this role to help the organisation achieve its aims?

I have been working with my colleagues to further the aims of the 30% Club by speaking at meetings both in this country and abroad, raising the issue with the government and opposition, and in the private sector.

Some people could argue that a quota of 30% on the number of women occupying boardroom positions in Britain’s biggest companies would be demeaning to women and counterproductive in terms of advocating gender equality. How are the 30% Club’s actions different and more progressive?

The 30% club is promoting a voluntary commitment for boards instead of an imposed quota. I do not think that then having 30% of women on companies’ boards would be demeaning. Women on boards add a different dimension to deliberations and importantly will act in the long-term as role models to many talented women who are in the pipeline.

Do you believe that the present level of 12.5% of boardroom positions in FTSE 100 companies being occupied by women is only due to gender equality in the workplace or do you think that there is also a large issue of female workers being discouraged from applying for such positions?

The present situation is that boards have increased only slightly to 14.8% women in the FTSE100 companies. It is partly the problem of inequality in the workplace but also because women do not push themselves for the positions. I think in this present economic situation women have to say we have the knowledge and the know-how to assist the world to overcome the present global problem. This cannot be managed by a few people in government and boardrooms.

Lastly, as the student body at the LSE tend to be very career minded, often aiming for workplaces that are currently very male-dominated, do you have any advice for our female students with regards to their future career paths?

There was a time when all major professions were more than male-dominated. Once you’ve decided what career path you wish to follow, it is important to arrange to meet a number of people from that profession to discuss the difficulties that they had in getting accepted and moving up the career ladder. Furthermore, it is important to be motivated in spite of setbacks.

This year’s political race witnessed a similar blend; moderates such as Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, contesting with the evangelical candidates such as Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann. Of the two wings of the party only two serious contenders are left in the race: Romney for the moderates and Gingrich for the conservatives.

In order to pick a Republican candidate to run against Obama in the presidential election in November, potential candidates must be chosen by the states, through a complex process involving primaries and caucuses, which elect delegates who go off to a national convention, who in turn elect the party’s presidential candidate.

Both candidates have received influential backing. Romney received the support of John McCain, securing the moderate vote, whilst Perry withdrew and put his support, and potentially that of the evangelical right, behind Gingrich.

Both presidential candidates have faced pressure under the intense scrutiny of the press, Romney – whose major problem is his perceived distance from the ordinary voter – crashed by offering a $10,000 bet to Rick Perry during a Republican debate. Gingrich’s ex-wife asserted in an interview with ABC News that Gingrich had asked her for an ‘open marriage’. However Gingrich was able to turn this seemingly disastrous event into political capital, attacking the American media in a debate and receiving a standing ovation from the audience.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are the other candidates still in the race, but they are trailing in the polls and look likely to pull out soon as campaign costs grow and victory seems further from their reach.

Last week Romney seemed a dead cert to gain the Republican nomination for President, and was in effect the presumptive nominee, with wins in Iowa and in New Hampshire.

However, Romney’s apparently unassailable lead has faced set back after set back. With Rick Perry pulling out of the race and with a endorsement, the evangelical right has, to a certain extent, rallied around Gingrich. In contrast, Romney has faced criticism over his role as CEO of companies that laid off workers, and releasing his income tax forms.

Meanwhile the recount in Iowa, which Romney won by a whisker-thin margin, has found instead that, though no official winner could be declared as 8 precincts didn’t turn in their votes, Santorum had won the most votes counted in Iowa. This dealt a sharp blow to Romney’s image of the ‘inevitable’ candidate.

The biggest upset to Romney’s image was Gingrich’s resurgent victory in South Carolina on Saturday. Just a week ago, polls were showing that Romney was leading by 10 points; Gingrich’s result has almost been a reverse of this prediction. South Carolina is seen as particularly important in the Republican race, since the winner in this state has gone on to gain the Republican Presidential nomination in every race since 1980. Santorum, in failing to present himself as a rival conservative candidate to Romney, is likely to pull out soon, whilst Paul may remain in play for a few states yet.

The focus is now on Florida, where Romney currently holds an 18 point lead; however with his resurgent victory in South Carolina, Gingrich may have the funds and motivation to bring Florida back into play.

Does this shatter Romney’s image of the presumptive nominee? Probably not.  Romney maintains a  better equipped organisation. If Gingrich wins here, he still has the difficult task of pulling off more wins in upcoming states to keep the race competitive.

Romney’s more professional machine, and backing from party elders such as John McCain, make it an uphill struggle for Gingrich, who though not out  for certain, will face an intense fight to make it to Super Tuesday, when large numbers of states will go the polls at once and the race is usually decided. Never the less, Gingrich’s win here will ensure the contest continues for a while yet.
Chris Rogers
Features Editor