Books and Documents

Middle East Press (02 Jun 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Iran Is Key to Trump’s Second Presidential Term By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh: New Age Islam's Selection, 02 May 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

02 May 2017

Iran Is Key to Trump’s Second Presidential Term

By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

New Crisis between Lebanon and GCC

By Diana Moukalled

Why Has Qatar Turned Its Back On GCC Policies?

By Abdullah Bin Bijad Al-Otaibi

The Concept of the State and Developments of the Radical Phenomenon

By Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran

How to Overcome Populism?

By Diana Galeeva

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau


Iran Is Key to Trump’s Second Presidential Term

By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

2 June 2017

Some may say it is too early to discuss the next US presidential election, but in politics long-term plans are prudent. Any incumbent has to carefully conduct and evaluate every policy to see how it will affect their chances of re-election. Many so-called experts and scholars already predict that Trump will not have a second term. Some even said he would not be in office for more than 100 days. Prediction should not be a part of scholarly analysis.

A major foreign policy achievement has been a perquisite for getting many US presidents re-elected, because it shows that they pay attention to safeguarding national interests inside the country and abroad.

For example, many people point out that former President Barack Obama was extremely lucky with the military operation that killed Osama bin Laden. Obama also sent more troops to Afghanistan and remained engaged in wars. These got him his second term even though unemployment was high. Conversely, former President Jimmy Carter’s failure to deal firmly with Iran and the hostage crisis led to his defeat in his run for re-election.

Implementation of a major foreign policy initiative was more essential for those presidents who were elected to their first term solely by winning the electoral college, not the popular vote. For example, in 2001 former President George W. Bush scored 271 to 266 in the electoral college against Al Gore, but got more than half a million fewer votes. Many predicted that Bush would not have a chance at getting re-elected.

But what got him more votes in 2004 was implementation of major foreign policy initiatives before the election, in Afghanistan and more importantly in Iraq. People wanted a democratic solution for Iraq or an end to the war there, but were uncertain that Bush’s presidential contender and a newcomer to the White House would be able to finish the job.

I am not suggesting that a war with Iran is required to ensure a good foreign policy achievement and Trump’s re-election. Non-military options are always better. But a major foreign policy operation is required to rally votes behind him. Iran is a rogue and authoritarian state that is determined to control the region, interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations, export terrorism, kill Americans and damage US interests.

Forcefully countering Tehran is viewed as an informed policy objective by both Republicans and Democrats. Iran has managed to hurt everyone except for its proxies, Syrian President Bashar Assad and terrorist groups. Its ruling clerics publicly say they are determined to damage the national security interests of the US and its allies. Many American lives were lost because of Iran and its militia proxies such as those in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.

Iran exports its revolutionary ideals to the rest of the world. It is ranked the top state sponsor of terrorism by the US State Department. Iran has repeatedly and covertly tried to pursue its nuclear program and violated the policies of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the flimsy nuclear deal. Tehran continues to inflict billions of dollars’ worth of damage and scuttle US foreign policy objectives in every way.

Since 1979, Iranian leaders and generals have clearly said they view the US as their primary enemy. Their slogans of “The Great Satan” and “Death to America” are more powerful and alive than ever before. Internally, Iran is ranked among the top human rights violators. It brutally suppresses any opposition. It subjugates, dehumanizes and tortures women and children, and cracks down on religious and ethnic minorities.

A foreign policy that fundamentally counters this rogue state and helps democratize it would be welcomed by many nations and the Iranian people. This is Trump’s key to ensuring his second term.

Source: arabnews.com/node/1108676/columns


New Crisis between Lebanon And GCC

By Diana Moukalled

2 June 2017

Nothing seems to make us optimistic in Lebanon; we climb out of a hole only to stumble into another.

There are signs of a new diplomatic crisis looming on the horizon.

After the return of the Lebanese delegation from the recent Riyadh Summit, Lebanese President Michel Aoun, through his Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, tried to renounce the Riyadh Declaration, which set the highest ceiling of confrontation with Iran and termed Hezbollah a terror group.

Bassil said Lebanon had nothing to do with the declaration, a statement that was agreed upon and confirmed by Aoun.

The response came quickly and plainly with the blocking of the website of Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement in Saudi Arabia and through a series of criticisms in Saudi newspapers, which were the harshest since Aoun took power in Lebanon.

I would not say relations between Beirut and Riyadh returned to the point of crisis, especially since Riyadh maintains relations with other Lebanese components, notably with Prime Minister Saad Hariri, but Lebanon is prone to deep divisions and sectarian strife that threaten a worst-case scenario.

Will the Lebanese authorities be able to face the challenges dictated by the rapid developments around us?

It is true that some GCC reservations about Lebanon are sometimes expressed in harsh language, but that does not mean that Lebanon has reached a major crisis point. It could, however, reach it if the Lebanese leaders do not deal properly with the current events.

The Riyadh Declaration referred to Iran and the organizations it supports by name and, automatically, Lebanon finds itself in the direct line of Arab-American confrontation and, therefore, Iranian reactions.

The current situation will not be less dangerous if Iran exploits the Lebanese arena to respond to those who try to besiege it and force it not to interfere in Arab affairs.

Will Iran take a risk by meddling in Lebanon’s affairs in the next stage and taking advantage of Hezbollah’s position and its influence on the president of the republic?

The nature of the campaign against Hezbollah and Lebanese president will put a major onus on their shoulder vis-a-vis the Lebanese people.

Hezbollah has the potential to drag the country into war, but, at the same time, can take Lebanon’s national interests and the ramifications of a confrontation into account.

It has to be seen how the Lebanese government, represented by President Aoun, will deal with the stormy developments in the region and whether it will be able to stop Lebanon from being dragged into confrontation, particularly if Iran is no longer an external element but, rather, remains at the heart of Lebanon in its Arab and regional policies.

It will take some time before we see how the government will deal with the new situation, but pessimism prevails among the Lebanese due to the perceived inability of the current authority to deal with fateful issues.

This inability was clear in past experiences and it is still expected in the days and weeks to come.

No one should underestimate the dangers looming over Lebanon and the whole region.

Preparing to face dangers requires not escapism but unity of rank and severing dependence on foreign elements for relief.

At this stage, the Lebanese have no choice but to remove the thorn with their own hands.

Source: arabnews.com/node/1108686


Why Has Qatar Turned Its Back On GCC Policies?

By Abdullah bin Bijad Al-Otaibi

1 June 2017

Qatar is a brotherly country that has turned its back on more than two decades of brotherly policies with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). It put almost all the GCC countries in the face of inciting policies that serve destruction purposes and it did so via its media outlets and social media networks and through training, supporting and planting cells to sow chaos in more than one country.

We will not thoroughly engage in the details of these two decades but we will review what happened following the events of what was falsely called the Arab Spring. Qatar used all its media outlets to support chaotic movements in some Arab countries that witnessed revolutions in 2011, such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and others. It did that to support the terrorist organization of the Brotherhood and its branches.

Qatar, like its ally the Brotherhood, was overwhelmingly happy with these revolutions and thought it would be freed from the weak political status and become a superpower overnight. Qatar was deluded like the Brotherhood was deluded when it thought it was capable of toppling countries and be sovereign over the world. A weak party’s ecstasy usually exposes plots rather than grants the ability to achieve aims.

The weakness in Qatar’s policy lies in its great ambition, which is accompanied with weak capabilities. This is not wise. After the three summits were held in Saudi Arabia, Qatar surprisingly spoke against the summits’ decisions as Qatari media outlets attacked the brotherly country of Bahrain and defended Shiite terrorists and Iran’s agents saying they had a rightful cause. It therefore proved that it still adopts a hostile policy against Bahrain. It also defended these movements during the disturbances in Bahrain after 2011. O, why Qatar?

Gulf countries and the United Arab Emirates will not forget Qatar’s support to shake stability via sabotaging institutions such as Alkarama Foundation and the Academy of Change which have been active at using some citizens to serve chaotic purposes and how it supported all of the Brotherhood branches in the Gulf. Qatar supported them, gave them funds, supported their news websites, opened study centres for them and granted citizenships to some of them for the sole purpose of shaking security and stability.

End of Brotherhood Rule

This was after the 2011 developments; however, Qatar was extremely shocked in 2013 when the Egyptian people and army toppled the Brotherhood rule. Back then, Saudi Arabia and the UAE took a historical stance in supporting Egypt. The Brotherhood’s dream was shattered and so were Qatar’s policies.

Qatar then increased its chaotic practices and began to broadcast live interviews by Egyptian Brotherhood figures whom it granted a citizenship as they attacked the UAE and its symbols and leaders. It also broadcast the Brotherhood’s attacks from Egypt in a manner that is inappropriate on the level of relations with other countries particularly with brotherly ones.

The Brotherhood was deluded that the Saudi-Emirati alliance will weaken after the death of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, may he rest in peace. The surprise was that this alliance only became stronger with King Salman and the new Saudi leadership. The Arab coalition to restore legitimacy in Yemen was established and Saudis and Emiratis scarified their lives in Yemen.

The coalition reached an unprecedented historical level so the Brotherhood and Qatar tried to drive a wedge between the two strong allies in Yemen. Qatar sided by Iran’s agents in Yemen even if it expressed formal sympathy. In 2014, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar to protest the latter’s hostile policies and after Sheikh Sabah mediated, Sheikh Tammim pledged not to adopt these policies again but he did not commit to that.

Qatar must know that experience is sometimes deceitful when it makes someone repeat the same mistake in completely different circumstances. The world today is heading in the direction of adopting policies and practices that restrain Iran, the Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and ISIS. The decision maker must know where he stands otherwise the situation will escalate.

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/06/01/Why-has-Qatar-turned-its-back-on-GCC-policies-.html


The Concept of the State and Developments of the Radical Phenomenon

By Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran

1 June 2017

What radical movements and revolutionary countries have in common is their absolute hostility to the concept of the state. It’s dangerous to ally or make friends with these groups and entities whose major goals are toppling the state. This can be specifically said about the joint alliance between al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood in the guardian of the jurist system in Iran.

The supreme guide and his circle have been talking about the possibilities of the collapse of countries, such as Saudi Arabia, ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979. To achieve their aims, they went as far as working with other revolutionary groups such as communist ones which oppose the Gulf countries. Although these groups are outdated, they are still present especially in media outlets affiliated with the axis of “resistance” in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

These groups have not comprehended that ideologies which were famous and common in the 20th century have come to an end – that’s except for the radical phenomenon which historian Eric Hobsbawm said continues to flourish in the 21st century, unlike other totalitarian movements which came to an end.

Radical groups which are guarded and nurtured by Iran aim to undermine the concept of the state. This turns the conflict into one between the civil war and the social contract, the state and the militia and totalitarian despotism and individualism.

In his book The Barren Sacrifice: An Essay on Political Violence, professor of philosophy Paul Dumouchel spoke about the state, violence and groups in chapter 2. Dumouchel said “the concept of the state, as political theorist Carl Schmitt says, presupposes the concept of the political.

The Concept of the State

This means the field of politics is bigger than what is called the state which has been the focus of political thinking ever since the days of Hobbes. The political aspect is not only bigger than the concept of the state but it presupposes it and is more essential than it because it clarifies the circumstances of its emergence and disappearance.

According to Hobbes, the state as we know it and as the entity that monopolizes legitimate violence – in reference to Max Weber – is only a possible expression of the political aspect. According to Schmitt, the characteristic of every political relation is the friend-enemy distinction.”

What’s more important for Schmitt is to specify the standards of friendship and enmity between states. He compared internal enemies with foreign ones as the former threatens the state’s existence. This enables Sunni or Shiite radical armed terrorist groups and ideological parties that delegitimize the state. According to Schmitt, the ruler specifies who the enemy is, and he will thus “establish and reinforce the system which can be used to implement legal standards.”

This is similar to devising a strategy to confront internal enemies where the law sets the rules of discipline among individuals and protects institutions from individual and isolationist whims and separatist attempts. At this point, the state will have fully grown. It will be vibrant and capable of achieving internal peace. This is the summary of Schmitt’s explanation about the internal enemy, and it is useful here to further explain Dumouchel’s concepts and implement them on our present.

According to Schmitt, resorting to force as a means to resolve foreign conflicts is only an option and it’s not a continuous policy. Schmitt does not differentiate between the threat of foreign and internal enemies on the people and he rather compares these enemies and their ability to undermine state institutions.

Evil Alliance

Sometimes, foreign enemies partner with internal enemies to stir chaos, topple the state and spread terror and brutality. This is specifically happening in our experience in Saudi Arabia as a “brotherly” country and another “regional” one work to create new phenomena to harm Saudis Arabia. A hostile theocratic regime like Iran has been doing so since the 1970’s. This has been happening with the brotherly country Qatar since the 1990’s as it made the historical alliance between it and the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.

The alliance with the Brotherhood is well-known. To serve its aims of harming state institutions, it established the Academy of Change and dozens of dailies, magazines, centres and awards to gain the support of young generations and appeal to their sentiment.

During the peak of Saudi Arabia’s battle with al-Qaeda, Abdullah Al-Nafisi appeared with Al-Jazeera’s host Ahmed Mansour several times and defended arrested terrorists and al-Qaeda organization on the basis that it’s an organization that – according to its whims – implements the prophet’s Hadiths regarding expelling polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula.

Fortunately, these episodes from defending Bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s ideology to the ones tackling Saudi Arabia’s war on al-Qaeda are all available on the internet. They were cheerful as they claimed it will be difficult for the state to eliminate terrorism. It was therefore an alliance between two enemies, a foreign sponsor and an internal enemy. This aggression, however, was harshly defeated.

The conflict is now between the state and the militia. Saudi Arabia and moderate countries are protecting and defending the concept of the state amid the suspicious attraction of some parties to terrorist militias. This behaviour has serious consequences. “And you will surely know [the truth of] its information after a time.”

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/2017/06/01/The-concept-of-the-state-and-developments-of-the-radical-phenomenon-.html


How to Overcome Populism?

By Diana Galeeva

1 June 2017

In the last few months we’ve seen a series of events which indicate that populism is widespread in Europe. Populism has deep historical roots in Western society, but it is only recently that we have witnessed such strong support of the phenomenon.

Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen are well-known politicians, who are associated with the move from unification to the withdrawal from the EU. This article argues that the rising popularity of populism is related to charismatic leadership, and could be defeated by the emergence of new pro-EU politicians who are equally charismatic.

In order to support my argument, this article will, firstly, define and differentiate populism and ‘new’ populism. I will then draw on the historical development of these ideas to demonstrate their attraction as it has increased and decreased over time. Despite Macron’s victory in the recent French elections, we cannot conclude that populism will not resurface in other states or in the future.

In order to overcome it a ‘remedy’ must be identified for use by future generations of politicians, who will learn from the experience of Brexit/Frexit-era politicians. Examination of two contemporary politicians, Mr. Farage and Ms. Le Pen, will demonstrate which tools have been used by populists to attract voters, and finally, the paper will try to suggest a mechanism for how to overcome populism in the European Union.

What Is Populism/New Populism?

It is important to consider the nature of Populism because it is not a new issue for Western politics, this phenomenon has long roots in the Western societies (agrarian radicalism, narodnichestvo, Peronism and the ideas of Social Credit) and the ideas of populists are still alive and supported by people. Scholars have described the differences between populism and new populism, as follows.

Shils (1956) concludes that populism ‘exists wherever there is an ideology of popular resentment against the order imposed on society by a long-established, differentiated ruling class which is believed to have a monopoly of power, property, breeding and culture’ (Shils, 1956: 100-1). Shils believed that populism is about relations between masses and elites. Di Tella (1965, 1997) considers populism a variation of the perception of the state by those who are poor and elites.

Canovan (1981) differentiated agrarian populism and political populism. Previously populism was considered to be the difference between elites and the masses (Shils, 1956), poor and elites (Di Tella, 1965), the mobilization of agrarian population against elites (Canovan, 1981) and political populism – the conflict between intolerant (reactionary, racist) masses against tolerant (progressive, liberal) elites.

Recently, populism has been understood as opposed to liberalism. In the US journal Telos another interpretation of populism appeared as an alternative to the hegemony of liberalism. These ideas emerged with ‘new’ populism. New populism rejects the harmony of the post-war environment, and tries to rebuild politics between ideas of immigration, taxation and regionalism/nationalism. For this reason ‘new’ populism is associated with ethical nationalism.

One of the distinctive characteristics of new populism is charismatic leadership. From William Aberhart in Alberta to Juan Peron in Argentina (Taggart, 2000), populists have relied not only on personalized leadership but also on charisma. According to Weber (1968:241-5), who differentiated charismatic authority from legal-rational and traditional forms, modern society viewed the increase of legal-rational authority as the form where we can trace the justice of leaders via institutions and law and, in democracy, via the agreement of the governance.

Charismatic authority, by contrast, is based on neither history nor structures, but the specific personal characteristics of leaders and assets ascribed to them by their supporters (Weber, 1968:244). Taggart (2000) believes that there are similarities between the concept of populism and charismatic authority.

The nature of charismatic leadership is to swap rules and institutions with the desires of a charismatic leader. Moreover, charismatic leadership might happen at times of hardship or distress. Populists occur while there are believers, often when there is moral collapse or a sense of crisis.

Charismatic Populists: What Can We Learn From Them?

Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen have become some of the most discussed populists within the European Union. Nigel’s enthusiasm about leaving the EU, which is based on his 20-years slogan campaign ‘I want my country back’, made him one of the most discussed politicians in the European Union. His personality raised different emotions from politicians and the public, from the very critical to very positive, but not neutral.

While opposing his comments about migrants’ use of the NHS for expensive HIV treatment, Plaid Cymru Leanne Wood told to Mr. Farage: ‘You ought to be ashamed of yourself’; Russell Brand on Question Time in 2014 said: ‘This man is not a cartoon character, he isn’t Del Boy or Arthur Daley, he’s a pound shop Enoch Powell and we’re watching him’; Boris Johnson mentioned in 2013: ‘We Tories look at him, with his pint and cigar and sense of humour, and instinctively recognise someone fundamentally indistinguishable from us’.

Similarly, as the comments from Yougov 2017 show us, the general public’s attitude towards Mr. Farage is divided, ranging from the intensely critical; ‘bigoted’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘dangerous’, ‘racist’, to the positive; ‘in touch with ordinary people’, ‘good speaker’, ‘stands up for ordinary people’, ‘patriotic’ (Yougov, 2017). On June 28, 2016 after the Brexit vote at the plenary session at the EU headquarters in Brussels, Mr. Farage said: ‘Isn’t it funny – you know, when I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me. Well I have to say, you’re not laughing now’ (POLITICO, 2016).

By broadcasting controversial ideas of immigration during the Leave campaign (for example, suggesting a Romanian crime wave in London and claiming that shortage of healthcare, school places and housing, jobs for young people because of migrants), invoking a negative attitude towards migrants with his huge poster ‘Breaking point: the EU has failed us all’, and by combining these ideas with his familiar ‘man in pub’ image, he attracted a lot of attention from the media and the public.

Marine Le Pen is the leader of Front National (FN) party, which was founded by her father - Jean-Marie Le Pen in 1972. However, under Marine’s leadership and her reformation of the party, FN made clear breakthroughs. By 1984 the party had created a status for armed right-wing populism and an electorate of voters, which brought 11 per cent of the votes in the elections to the European Parliament. By 1997 the party had built itself as an essential part of the French party system and extended 15 per cent of the vote in parliamentary and presidential elections (Taggart, 2000).

When Jean-Marie was a leader of the party, they wanted to deport three million immigrants, but during Marine’s leadership, which started since 2011, the party started to distance itself from such controversial ideas (BBC, 2017). As a result, the party became more popular in France, gaining, in 2010, 18 percent of the vote, and about 24% today. Despite the loss at the Presidential elections, the first round’s results spread concerns about the future of France and the EU, Ms. Le Pen got 21.53 percent, which is very close to 23.75 percent Mr. Macron had (the Guardian, 2017).

‘Charismatic Le Pen, boring Macron […]’ was the title of one article about the French elections (Financial, Review, 2017), which basically characterises the candidates (from the author’s point of you) and clearly proves the idea that populist leaders have charisma (Taggart, 2000). Le Pen’s key issues of the Presidential campaign were the following: she promised to crush ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ and hard-line against immigration.

Ms. Le Pen said to the supporters that ‘the EU will die’ and she wanted to exit the Schengen agreement, close French borders and leave the euro and return to the franc, promising Frexit within six months of taking power (The Guardian, 2017a). The key idea of Marine Le Pen’s campaign was the same as the main idea of the Front National since 1972: keeping France for the French.

During her campaign, similarly to Mr. Farage in the UK case, she made global media and international community speak about her, for example, she refused to wear headscarf while meeting with Lebanon’s Grand Sunni Muslim Mufti Sheikh Adbel –Latif Derian, meaning the encounter had to be cancelled in February 2017.

From these examples, we could conclude that, during their campaigns, the two leaders mostly discussed immigration within the EU, drawing differences between Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans. Secondly, Farage and Le Pen’s ‘images’, behaviour, and strategies helped them to attract their audiences.

The main themes of their speeches were directed at, and designed to appeal to, particular demographics. Thirdly, during their campaigns they tried to attract as much media-attention, domestic and international, as possible and they tried to be controversial (above mentioned: Farage’s poster ‘Breaking point’, Le Pen’s behaviour in Lebanon).

How to Overcome Populism?

Resolving populism could be achieved with the same strategy, but in the opposite direction. If populism mainly relies on charismatic leadership, overcoming populism should also be related to charismatic leadership, but with ideas of having a strong European Union with a prosperous future. Responding to the first lesson from populists, the European Union needs new charismatic leaders within the EU who will work together with other EU members, who will be interested in keeping institutions and rules within the institution, and who will work hard to enthusiastically promote ideas of institution, and implement them.

In order to overcome populism, and prevent its development in other states, strong/charismatic leadership should present a clear plan for the reformation of the European Union, and should demonstrate that the strength of the Union depends on a mutual respect for the diversity of its members. However, it seems that current EU politicians are behaving according to a populist scenario: demonstrating that there are only certain states in the EU, which are important.

For example, the inauguration of Emmanuel Macron was held on May, 14 2017 and he met with Angela Merkel the day after to discuss changes to the EU treaties and the reformation of the European Union. By excluding all the states for which an issue such as this would have consequences, these two leaders gave the impression that the future of the EU depends only on the future of their countries.

Pillars of Liberalism

This attitude contradicts the main principles of the EU and the pillars of liberalism in general, which should preserve the equality and importance of all states. In addition, it is probably easy to deal with negative discourses, pointing out only the negative outcomes of current policies (as populists do), but it is perhaps more difficult to suggest peaceful ideas which will bring prosperity to the institution. It is, however, also extremely important for politicians to convince people of their beliefs and of the advantages of their political strategies.

New populists mainly focus on immigration, taxation and issues related to regionalism/nationalism, the examples of discourses suggested by Mr. Farage and Mrs. Le Pen demonstrate this as well.

In this regard, pro-EU charismatic leaders should simply find counter-arguments and deliver them with the same enthusiasm and strength of belief as populists do. Populists’ ideas are historically mainly the same, if they found the subjects that have divided societies, why cannot pro-EU politicians express strong clear statements about the advantages of particular issues, or by drawing attention to other problems.

For example, in response to the accusation against Romanians of criminality (as mentioned in the Brexit case), why not show the proportion of law-breaking Romanians as a percentage of the total number of Romanian immigrants, to highlight the vast majority of law-abiding citizens that this demographic comprises?

Finally, the two mentioned leaders concentrated on one class of society, for this reason it is essential for charismatic pro-EU leadership to learn to speak with all groups of society. They should know the discourses and interests of all people, taking into account their gender, class, age, and, while meeting with them, should communicate appropriately.

Simply, they should learn to promote the same policies with all people. It is hard work to find new political mechanisms which attract everyone, but if Farage could create the poster ‘Breaking Point’, I strongly believe that other pro-EU politicians will be able enthusiastically promote EU principles and ideas which bring prosperity for their organization.

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/06/01/How-to-overcome-populism-.html


URL: http://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/iran-is-key-to-trump’s-second-presidential-term--new-age-islam-s-selection,-02-may-2017/d/111377


Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.