Luanda, the largest city in Angola, is home to over 10 million people. In addition to being the capital, it is the economic and industrial center of Angola, serving as the primary gateway for international business in the country. Despite this, there are on average only 27 flights departing from the city a day. In contrast, the city of Hyderabad, India, which has a comparable population of 11 million, hosts almost 300 departing flights daily. This pattern is reflected across the African continent, wherein large cities have significantly fewer daily flights than their similarly sized Indian counterparts. Kinshasa has 15 compared to Kolkata’s 204, Lagos has 72 while Bangalore has 388, and Dar es Salaam has only 40 whereas Ahmedabad has 137.

Flights are the primary means of international travel across long distances. People travel for business, leisure, and to visit friends and family. They represent tangible links connecting cities and countries. Thus, the lack of flights to a particular city suggests a disconnect from the global economy. Like India, the economies of most African countries are still developing. Yet, the difference in flight traffic between the two raises the question: why are African cities so much more disconnected from the global economy than Indian cities?

In order to answer this, it is important to examine how these cities have grown over the past few decades. In the case of Luanda and Hyderabad, both cities have added millions of new residents since the 1990’s, but this growth has been fueled by different factors. The growth of Hyderabad has been driven by job creation across a diverse array of sectors such as the IT, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing industries. Major international companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have set up offices in the city, bolstering its status as an international economic hub. On the other hand, urbanization in Luanda was primarily driven by the fact that there were few other places in the country for people to move to. During and after the Angolan Civil War, Luanda remained as one of the only safe locations in the country where people could seek out economic opportunities. Meanwhile, the economic opportunities within the city are largely limited to the oil industry, which is not sufficient to create a diversified economy and generate enough jobs to support a city as large as Luanda. People moved to Luanda not because they wanted to, but because they had to, while the few jobs that created actual wealth remained inaccessible to the majority of the population, creating a city with vast inequalities. This has left Luanda disconnected from the global economy.

The situation of Luanda is reflective of a larger trend occurring within various countries across Africa, where countries are urbanizing without globalizing. The economies of many African countries are dominated by the extraction and export of natural resources such as oil, timber, and minerals. The vast majority of Nigeria’s exports are petroleum products; Tanzania’s largest single export is gold; copper and cobalt make up the largest exports for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Resource extraction-based industries generate demand for certain urban goods and services, but the jobs created as a result of this demand are often low-paying service jobs in the informal sector. As a result, wealth in these cities remains concentrated in the hands of the socioeconomic elite, which creates little incentive to build and maintain public services and infrastructure. Only one city in all of Sub-Saharan Africa (Lagos) has a metro system, whereas 17 cities in India have metros. Greater investment in public infrastructure helps lower the cost of doing business in a city, which incentivizes companies to invest and create jobs. Poor infrastructure in cities also disincentivizes tourism, which is another large industry that creates jobs and increases the demand for flights. Out of the top 15 largest cities in Africa, the only two with more than 200 daily flights are Cairo, Egypt, and Johannesburg, South Africa. Egypt and South Africa are the second and fourth most visited countries in Africa respectively, which helps to explain the higher number of flights for cities in those countries. Cape Town, a major international tourist destination in South Africa, has 113 daily flights, whereas Yaounde, Cameroon, has only 8, even though both cities have around 5 million people.

Historically, urbanization has been a sign of economic development since the Industrial Revolution. Cities like London and Paris grew rapidly in the 19th century, New York and Tokyo in the 20th century, and Guangzhou and Shenzhen in the 21st. In these instances, urban growth was largely driven by manufacturing and service sectors creating enough new jobs to entice people to move from rural areas to cities. This traditional pattern of urbanization is the one that most Indian cities are following. Mumbai’s growth has been fueled by the financial and entertainment industries; Hyderabad and Bangalore by the tech industry; and Chennai by the automotive and healthcare sectors. Cities like Luanda, Kinshasa, and Lagos on the other hand, have urbanized due to factors like conflict, climate change, and the lack of rural job opportunities, pushing people to move to the only areas with wealth in those countries. Yet, this wealth remains inaccessible to most people who move, creating a society with severe economic inequality.  

The differences between the wave of urbanization taking place in India versus Africa highlights the failure of many African governments to build cities that serve the people who live there. Instead, many African cities have been built with the rich elite in mind, with projects such as grand stadiums, statues, and high-rise apartments being prioritized over public transit, power, and sewage infrastructure.  If these countries seek to transition from being developing nations to becoming industrialized, globalized states, then they must redefine their development priorities by starting at the city level.

The International Health Regulations (IHR) is the quintessential binding international public health framework. The IHR emphasizes surveillance, notification, and response systems, establishing clear obligations for countries and the World Health Organization (WHO) during public health emergencies. In a perfect world, the IHR, established in 2005, would have ushered in an age of global health cooperation. Yet, this is not the case. Five years removed from the 2020 shutdown, COVID-19 has highlighted the sheer failure that the global medical industry faced as a result of lackluster international policy and diplomacy efforts. While the IHR seeks to establish a clear baseline, it falls victim to delayed and inconsistent reporting, weak intrastate capacity for surveillance and response, and finally, significant political pressure and the weakness of the WHO’s authority. 

The case of COVID-19 seems like a distant past, but nearly half a decade later we are still reeling in its effects. Most notable is the lack of transparency states have regarding their reports. Take, for example, China’s delay in reporting initial cases to the WHO. China was criticized for delaying the disclosure of crucial information about human-to-human transmission, violating the IHR’s requirement to notify the WHO within 24 hours of identifying a potential threat. However, China faced little-to-no backlash from the WHO due to both the status the world superpower holds along with the IHR framework lacking an enforcement mechanism. Without enforcement, reporting is based on speculation and individual states’ willingness to come forward. Such expectation fails on the world stage, where states are heavily incentivized to protect their domestic information and assets. However, it is not just superpowers that have not been forthright in relaying information to the WHO, as during the 2014 Ebola crisis. Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone failed to report early signs of the outbreak, contributing to its rapid spread. The IHR’s fundamental goals of surveillance and notification fail at all levels, as states have no real reprimand.

The 2014 Ebola crisis displays a rarely discussed aspect of how meaningless the IHR’s requirements are, as it concerns states that have significant intrastate difficulties. Many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) lack the resources to meet the IHR’s core capacity requirements (the ability to detect, assess, notify and report events). This is for a multitude of reasons, from the neo-colonialist policies of states, such as China with its Belt and Road initiative, the U.S.’ strong military presence, or even just the after-effects of centuries of colonial rule. However, these effects culminate in the significant underfunding of critical national healthcare infrastructure, which was highlighted by West Africa’s Ebola outbreak. Yet, the IHR has limited resources to address this issue. The WHO itself provides no financial aid, let alone structure, for these states to begin creating robust healthcare infrastructure, choosing only to temporarily patch the leaks through initiatives such as COVAX and the African Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT). COVAX failed to have an impact due to richer states hoarding vaccines in the interest of domestic national security, further exacerbating the global pandemic. Fundamentally, LMICs prioritize domestic stability, causing international cooperation and information sharing to become low priorities. 

Nothing highlights the weakness of the IHR and the WHO as a whole as the disregard states have for its authority. With the U.S. exit from the WHO earlier this year, despite being a founding member, the purpose of the WHO has been called into question. When the WHO attempted to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) for COVID-19, there was significant political pressure from China for it to not be released. There is no real punishment for states failing to abide by the core tenets of the IHR, leading to gross negligence on the part of states. No “stick” to compel states to act means that states will simply act in their best interest, avoiding disclosing any data they deem detrimental to their image abroad or at home. On top of this, when the WHO released a PHEIC for the H1N1 pandemic (2009), it faced significant backlash from the international community for supposedly “over-exaggerating the significance of the outbreak,” which killed over half a million people globally. Even when the WHO does its job properly, states will continue to complain, leading to de-prioritization. This can have dire consequences in a context where 4.5 billion people worldwide lack access to basic health services and two billion people face financial hardship due to health costs.The best way to address the failing WHO is to take conditional aid and trade measures (soft penalties), emergency intervention protocols, and strengthen partnerships with regional bodies. Similar to the World Bank, IMF, or WTO, tying the requirements of the IHR to economic measures would ensure that states prioritize their domestic reporting infrastructure and decrease the likelihood of states failing to report to the WHO when concerns do come up. In extreme cases where a country conceals or suppresses critical public health information, the WHO could invoke emergency powers to deploy rapid response teams and work directly with states to be able to mobilize neighboring countries or regional coalitions to address the outbreak.

This framework has largely been ignored by states due to their national security concerns, but at the end of the day, human security is what should matter. Allowing for the IHR and the WHO to have a realistic, non-military enforcement mechanism is the best possible solution to its current failings. Finally, working with regional bodies such as the Africa CDC, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), or ASEAN BioDiaspora Initiative would allow for a more global approach as well as a general increase in the legitimacy of the WHO’s mission and existence. On top of this, regional bodies often have better diplomatic leverage and cultural understanding. Partnering and working with them would decrease issues related to sovereignty, as well as expedite information communication between individual states and the WHO. The best way forward is to create a path in which the WHO can truly operate on the world stage. Without these changes, we risk the collapse of the only significant international framework that seeks to benefit the health of people worldwide.

In a sociology course about gender and work at UGA, not a single man is enrolled. This may not be surprising, but it should be a concern. The way people learn is impacted by their existing values and views of the world. The idea of self-selection into education does not just apply to college access or careers postgraduate, but also to what people choose to learn while in college. When students choose to learn based on existing values, this can create an echo chamber where people are not exposed to new ideas and only reinforce what they already believe. This relates to the concept of endogeneity, where the independent variable (values and beliefs) is influenced by the dependent variable (class choice), creating a feedback loop of mutual influence rather than a single directional impact. In this case, students may choose courses that they have existing knowledge about, and then the course reinforces their beliefs.

Why is this a problem? If people do not want to learn something, why should they? The mere exposure effect explains that people have a “tendency to develop preferences for things simply because we are familiar with them,” thus people tend to make better choices when they have more information. It is therefore likely that the students who typically enroll in gender studies, race-related courses, or other classes that discuss contentious topics already have some knowledge and interest in these areas. 

Although people tend to resist going out of their comfort zone, there are ways to make doing so more attractive. Carl Wieman explains that experts often design classes without fully considering how those new to the subject perceive the content. People familiar with a subject struggle to teach novices because their deep understanding of a subject makes it hard to see how beginners approach learning. Especially when discussing sensitive topics that are often politicized, it is even more crucial for professors to understand how those not exposed to these ideas process the new information. Wieman talks about science education and how the professor and student are unknowingly “speaking a different language.” The same concept applies to social sciences, especially courses discussing topics seen as political. To those accustomed to social science classes, it feels natural to discuss intersectionality or Marxism. Even concepts that social science students assume to be well-known, such as the gender wage gap or institutional racism, may feel foreign, abstract, or complex to those not used to discussing these topics. Further, Wieman explains how students often have misperceptions about science, seeing it as irrelevant to real-life problems. In social science, especially in departments like sociology, people view it as useless or too ideological to apply to their lives or careers.

Understanding the problem is not enough; it is vital to determine the steps needed to address the issue. The availability heuristic explains that experts draw on their recent experiences with a subject rather than their initial learning experiences due to misremembering their performance as novices. Intermediates may be better than experts at understanding novices due to their more recent experiences. In this case, that would require talking to people recently learning about these topics to understand how new people will process the information. Instead of simply assuming why certain people avoid topics like gender studies, data should be gathered to understand their perceptions and make the content more relevant and approachable. Using empirical evidence to improve teaching methods is crucial rather than relying on assumptions.Many potential solutions focus on fostering open dialogue and freedom of expression. For example, a researcher focused on improving climate change education in conservative, religious, or low socioeconomic status communities in the Southeast. They used public dialogue sessions to unite diverse groups and ensured everyone felt respected and free to express their views. The authors argue that “preaching to the choir” does not work when trying to reach groups that are skeptical or dismissive of an issue because it only involves speaking to those who already have knowledge or interest in the issue. In addition, social constructionism explains that reality is constructed through conversations and interactions. People can co-create a positive future through building relationships. Creating an environment where dialogue can flourish helps to overcome polarization in communities, in and outside of the classroom. It seems like stating the obvious that the way to encourage people to learn about topics they may avoid is simply promoting open discussion. Still, it is important to push beyond raising awareness among those who already care about an issue and bring in interdisciplinary perspectives. “Preaching to the choir” can incentivize people who already care to take action and become well-educated about a topic, but it is not enough to create change. Social science concepts can reach beyond the “choir” by focusing on intersectionality with other disciplines. Instead of fostering niche echo chambers, education should be designed to welcome people of all views and give them space for open dialogue.

For more than a decade, global superpowers have targeted the Pacific Islands in their race for hegemony. These islands, residing in the ocean between China, Australia, and the United States, are a key asset. Not only are they home to a trove of natural resources, they are geopolitically attractive locations for foreign powers’ military bases. Because of this, China and the United States compete through financial aid to garner the favor—and security agreements—of these island nations. While China has achieved moderate influence in comparison to the U.S., either country stands to take the lead by focusing on a relatively untapped area of investment: climate change prevention projects.  

The Pacific Island nations view climate change as their most significant threat. As global warming accelerates, the Pacific Islands suffer the increased effects of natural disasters. In 2022, the island nation of Tonga endured a 33% loss in GDP due to Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai’s volcanic eruption and subsequent tsunami. Cyclone Pam caused similar devastating effects to Vanuatu in 2015, with further disasters predicted. Moreover, the sea level in this region is rising three times faster than the global average. This will have devastating effects on the Pacific Islands. Their average elevation is less than two meters above sea level, with most of their populations and infrastructure near the coast. Because of this, these nations continue to push for further foreign assistance toward confronting the tragic consequences of climate change. However, their calls for help have gone relatively unheard. 

Historically, the U.S. and China have overlooked this Pacific Island policy concern, focusing on funding infrastructure rather than climate change prevention projects. From 2008 to 2021, the two superpowers each composed less than 5% of the Pacific Islands’ development partner financing for climate-focused projects. This, alongside a global failure to meet the Pacific Islands’ environmental financing goals, has left both a significant need and capacity for investment in climate resilience initiatives. The results of past investments suggest that, if China or the U.S. were to provide further aid to address this issue, each country involved might effectively achieve their regional aims.

Namely, China’s moderate success in exerting influence over the Pacific Island nations across the past decade exemplifies the importance of responding to the region’s concerns. China is the largest trading partner for most Pacific countries. Additionally, it began serious investment in 2016, long before the U.S. initiated its own intensive aid program. Although China has failed to maximize climate aid, Pacific nations often view its investments as a way to increase climate resilience. Given this history, in comparison to the U.S., China has more effectively convinced “…Pacific leaders that its interests in the region are broader than shaping the Pacific’s military environment.” This has yielded tangible results. In 2022, China signed a security deal with the Solomon Islands, a major accomplishment far exceeding the United States’ Pacific achievements. While China continues to overlook certain Pacific Islands priorities, its relative success indicates that investments aligning with island concerns lead to advantageous returns.

Following the Solomon Islands security pact, the U.S. seems to have jolted to action, igniting previously dormant engagement with the Pacific region. Secretary Antony Blinken’s 2022 visit to Fiji was the first U.S. Secretary of State appearance in the country in nearly four decades. Months later, the U.S. announced its Pacific Partnership Strategy, pledging $810 million to the Pacific Islands to serve a variety of objectives. This investment, spread over 10 years, designated $130 million for climate resilience projects and indicated a renewed focus on Pacific policy priorities. While not insignificant, this aid remains only a fraction of overall investment, leaving considerable—and critical—room to expand.This growing emphasis on U.S. climate initiatives in the Pacific Islands along with China’s success through the security agreement point to what experts have continuously maintained: superpowers seeking influence in the Pacific must be attentive to their policy concerns. Specifically, interested nations “will have to seriously consider climate change as a key security issue in order to secure cooperation from island partners.” While both China and the U.S. seem to have started along this path, they have failed to aggressively pursue these forms of investment, choosing instead to remain fairly insensitive to Pacific goals. This is a missed opportunity to advance all parties’ interests. Extended climate aid campaigns could address both Pacific environmental concerns and superpowers’ security goals, creating a mutually beneficial relationship. Climate safety is the path to military security: directly addressing Pacific needs would enable investors, like the U.S., to advance their objectives.

The U.S. is the most popular destination for studying abroad in the world. With its high-ranking universities and prestigious degree programs, it pulls a plethora of young minds from around the globe and is a melting pot for innovation and cultural exchange. 

The U.S., Soft Power, and International Education

Education has historically been utilized as a tool of soft power diplomacy. While hard power denotes the use of military force and economic sanctions, soft power is a country’s ability to influence others without resorting to coercive pressure. This is often done through the sharing of ideals, values, and culture to foster goodwill and partnerships abroad. The U.S. invests a significant amount in promoting soft power through education through institutions such as EducationUSA, a network of 430 international student advisory centers dispersed across 175 countries. Additionally, the U.S. holds the highest number of high-ranking universities in the world, attracting foreign intellectuals who seek prestigious degrees. Beyond its international student advising and academic rigor, U.S. culture has its own magnetism. American football, sorority-fraternity tradition, and American pop culture attract curious students. It is this combination of accessibility, prestige, and culture that convinces over one million international students to study abroad in the U.S. each year. These international students, in turn, bring a range of economic, social, and political benefits to the United States.

An Array of Benefits

The presence of diverse intellectual talent greatly benefits the U.S. economy. In 2024 alone, foreign students generated 43.8 billion for the U.S. economy and supported more than 350,000 jobs. Foreign students often choose to stay in the U.S. to start their own companies as well. Take Hamdi Ulukaya, the founder of Chobani Greek yogurt. He came to the United States in 1994 before starting a company valued at over 10 billion dollars today. Additionally, Mike Kreiger, originally from Brazil, traveled to the U.S. in 2004 to attend Stanford University and eventually founded Instagram. It is undeniable that foreign students leave their mark on the U.S., channeling their diverse perspectives and drive into groundbreaking entrepreneurship. However, the impact of international students is not only economic. These students bring cultural diversity to U.S. campuses, which helps enrich college life. International student festivals and organizations help bring vibrancy to campus communities, and in the classroom, foreign students bring diverse perspectives that enhance critical thinking and global-mindedness. Additionally, the presence of international students in the U.S. promotes people-to-people diplomacy, helping to foster goodwill across borders. Not only does studying abroad increase awareness and connectivity to host countries, but it also influences policy support for that country. Many foreign internationals go back to their country of origin to become diplomats, business executives, or prominent political figures. These individuals often carry positive experiences with American society and are more likely to support political initiatives led by the U.S. Attracting international students is a powerful tool for advancing U.S. international strategic interests. However, recent changes to the U.S. political administration are reducing the appeal of studying abroad in America. 

The Cost of Turning Away International Students

The recent weighing of a travel ban and spontaneous revocation of international student visas is creating a hostile dynamic for international students that is making the U.S. a less favorable country for studying abroad. Not only is this likely to decrease the number of international students coming to the U.S., but it also risks sending a message that the U.S. is intolerant of foreigners, making the country a less favorable political ally to work with. Allyships and collaboration are important because they allow for global protection of human rights, international trade deals, and the advancement of U.S. security interests abroad. In an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, international students are one of America’s most powerful diplomatic tools. If the U.S. wants to maintain its global influence, it must continue to invest in international education by expanding scholarship opportunities, streamlining the visa process, and funding cultural exchange programs to foster goodwill. Continued investment into international education to build lasting global connections is imperative for the U.S. diplomatic image and its strategic interests abroad.

For most of the 20th century, Scottish politics mirrored the rest of the United Kingdom (UK), being split between a center-right Conservative Party and center-left Labour Party. By the 1970s, however, a new party emerged that turned Scottish politics on its head: the Scottish National Party (SNP). Unlike the Conservative or Labour parties, the SNP is neither right or left wing and advocates for a Scotland independent from the UK. Since the late 2000s, the SNP has been able to capture voters from across the political spectrum and dominate Scottish elections.  

However, since 2020, the tide seems to have turned on the SNP. Support for the party in the polls has slowly declined, and so has public enthusiasm for the party’s ultimate goal, Scottish independence. In the face of this waning support, commentators are once again asking if this is finally the end for the SNP. 

However, this isn’t a novel prediction: Over the past 50 years, the death of Scottish nationalism has been declared again and again by the British press, but it has always managed to survive. The SNP is not a “flash party,” which rises quickly before disappearing forever. It is the product of a post-industrial, secular Scotland, and has profited off of the decline of institutions that previously defined Scottish politics. Despite being successful in this new Scotland, internal division, exhaustion, and the resurgence of old competitors are threatening its position. If the SNP is to retain its relevance, it must find a way to reaffirm party unity, reignite enthusiasm for Scottish independence, and create a clear alternative to a Conservative- or Labour-led Scotland. 

An Unlikely Success Story  

The SNP was founded in 1934, 227 years after Scotland was united with England and Wales to become the UK. Until the late 1960s, Scottish independence was a romantic, yet unserious, ideal. However, the party grew rapidly in the 1970s, winning 11 seats in the House of Commons in the October 1974 elections. This sudden success is usually credited to the discovery of North Sea oil. The “It’s Scotland’s Oil” movement, an SNP media campaign demanding that oil revenues be devolved to Scotland, convinced many Scots that the country should have more autonomy over political and economic affairs. 

After the 1970s, the SNP’s prospects can best be explained by the party’s lack of institutional linkages to churches, trade unions, and other civil society organizations. As explained by Gregory Baldi, the Conservative and Labour parties, which dominated Scottish politics until the 2000s, had strong institutional ties to the Church of Scotland and the Trade Union Congress, respectively. In the 1980s, the SNP’s lack of institutional linkages made it difficult for them to establish any base of support. However, as other parties’ institutional linkages frayed in the 2000s, the SNP was able to capture disaffected voters and mobilize them around the goal of Scottish independence. Although these voters might have disagreed on economic or social issues, they were united by a desire for Scottish autonomy. 

Party Troubles 

The breakdown of traditional linkage institutions is a major factor in how the SNP was able to become Scotland’s largest party. Although they lost the 2014 independence referendum, the SNP continued to win elections on both the regional and national level, dumbfounding political commentators. However, since Covid-19, this era of dominance has waned. The party’s support among Scots has steadily declined, and so has support for Scottish independence, falling from 53 percent in August of 2020 to 44 percent in September of 2024. 

This decline can be attributed to a few factors. Firstly, the SNP is experiencing internal divisions over sociocultural issues, specifically transgender rights. Admittedly, this is not a new problem for the SNP. As explained by Vernon Bogdanor, a professor of political science at Gresham College, the SNP, like other nationalist parties, are neither purely left or right wing. As a result, the party has had to accommodate many differing viewpoints that often come into conflict with each other. Secondly, the SNP’s main adversary, the Labour Party, has experienced a resurgence after a decade in the political wilderness. This is due to a general desire among Scots to prevent a Conservative government in Westminster. Lastly, since losing the 2014 referendum, the SNP has deliberately downplayed Scottish independence in favor of other issues. This tactic, while once electorally successful, has had a strong demobilizing effect among party activists who could previously be relied upon to campaign at elections and advocate for party positions. 

What’s Next? 

By any appearance, the SNP is in dire straits. The party is facing internal strife, reinvigorated opposition, and an unmotivated base of support. Nonetheless, their position is not hopeless. Many of the seats lost by the SNP in the last general election were lost by very close margins, and since the general election, the SNP has once again surpassed Labour in opinion polling. Furthermore, although support for Scottish independence has decreased, there is still a sizable block of the Scottish public that wants independence. 

Any gain in support from the SNP will most likely come from a loss in support for Labour. On the whole, Scotland is much more left leaning than the rest of the UK. As the Labour government in Westminster tacks to the right, many within the SNP are hoping to capitalize on public frustration towards the central government. In fact, this happened in the 2000s, when Scottish voters, disillusioned with the Labour government, decided to throw their support behind the SNP. As British Prime Minister Keir Starmer continues to advocate for social spending cuts, there are signs this could happen again.

This does not mean, however, that renewed success will fall into the party’s lap. If the SNP is to survive, it must resolve its internal divisions and reinvigorate its disillusioned base. How the party will resolve these issues remains an open question. Nonetheless, it is certain that if the SNP does not change, its downward trajectory is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Germany’s most notorious celebration hinges on two things, mockery and parody. As hundreds of thousands of people take the streets to engage in the historic tradition of Carnival, they are met with parade floats that not only showcase politically relevant figures, but controversial scenes depicting recent political events. The lively figures are crafted from wire, paste, and acrylic paint and can exceed up to 50 feet in length. Some depicted figures include not only German politicians but U.S. political figures such as Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Popular sculptors like Jacques Tilley are the superstars behind the creation of these elaborate floats. This year, Tilley oversaw the building, shaping, and painting of 100 floats. As a float builder in the city of Düsseldorf Carnival for 40 years, many find that his role as a satirist is necessary especially in politically turbulent times within Germany and beyond. 

Carnival originated as a means to build community by “temporarily abolish[ing] existing social barriers.” Since the time of the Roman Empire, Carnival has been a relevant political tool used by Germans. The festivities begin in November and continue into March, where elaborate street parades commence. In major cities like Cologne, Aachen, and Düsseldorf, parades attract hundreds of thousands of attendees each year. Visitors are attracted by more than just celebration; the political floats draw the eyes of thousands not only at the parade but on social media. One such float, pictured above, mocks the right-wing political party the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Elon Musk, and the United States. When asked about the influence of Carnival, Tilley, the float’s creator, stated, “[i]n Carnival this is our time. We have the power.” Political sensitivities are heightened on a massive scale, encouraging viewers to creatively express their political grievances. Other popular floats in this year’s celebration highlight Putin and his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the failures of Germany’s coalition government, and Donald Trump. These floats do not shy away from controversy. Despite being neutral in party politics, Tilley explains how “[h]e treat[s] all parties equally, only the AfD more equally.” Political satire has always been used, yet the existence of Carnival elevates it to a much larger scale. 

A celebration with the same level of political awareness and impact does not exist in the United States. Each float is controversial, yet showcases a level of political freedom that ultimately is not matched in the U.S. Ridicule, caricatures, and more are all integral to debate culture, mirroring the key elements that define various carnival floats. Outside of Germany’s borders this celebration is viewed in a very different light. While the U.S. upholds freedom of speech, the use of political satire in such a popular celebration would subsequently lead to significant controversy or backlash.

How is this allowed in Germany then? Article 5 of the Basic Law (Germany’s Constitution) guarantees freedom of expression and artistic freedom. The celebrations have been constantly protected by German courts claiming that the floats are “acknowledged as a form of exaggeration” which does “not need to be either objective or factual.” The concept of Carnival originates from the need for arenas of critique. This need has been met in Germany — but what about in the US? Political critique is considered a democratic necessity. In the US, different cultural spaces such as online forums, late-night shows, and protests provide a space for political critique. However, the storied tradition of Carnival does not have its equivalency in the US. For one, Carnival is still an area for tolerance of diverse opinions. Despite floats aimed at certain political parties or politicians, they aren’t a vehicle to incite direct violence. Symbolic political expression reigns supreme as satire is employed not only through Carnival, but popular German television shows such as “Nur im ersten,” “Die Anstalt,” and “heute-show,” which have gained popularity in making fun of top German politicians. Similar networks, such as late-night shows in America, do exhibit satirical elements but ultimately don’t hold the same political power as other public means of protest. The question of accessibility is also a part of this conversation. Carnival is unique in the breadth of its celebration, ranging from large cities to small towns. 

The political spectacle of Carnival not only engages citizens but raises awareness for political events on a global scale. Reforming the ideal of the public protest into a celebratory form serves populations with alternative forms of political expression. As political polarization rises in the US amidst the recent election of Donald Trump, it is beneficial to view alternative methods of protest to enact change in different forms.

Whether you heard of it first in your favorite legal drama or a class discussion, the death penalty is often referenced in the context of crime and punishment and the ethics surrounding it. Despite capital punishment already being abolished in 24 states and under a moratorium in three states, many Americans would be surprised to learn that the United States is in the global minority of states that still actively use the death penalty. It is also surprising that many notable high-income democracies continue to use the death penalty and that, in recent years, capital punishment has increased in many countries. Despite its negative implications, the death penalty persists around the world, both in democratic countries such as the United States, Japan, and Taiwan, and authoritarian countries such as China and Iran. Shockingly, capital punishment is retained by high-income democracies but resurging in authoritarian states. While the global movement to abolish capital punishment has had some successes, it has also seen recent backsliding as democratic and authoritarian states alike are struggling to end capital punishment, often due to historical, cultural, and sociological factors, rather than economic ones.

It was only at the end of World War II and its atrocities that the idea of abolishing the death penalty gained global traction. Since then, 142 countries have abolished capital punishment in law or in practice. Nevertheless, many notable states retain it, the most striking examples being the United States and Japan. Both countries share two characteristics that favor the usage of capital punishment: a long-held and widespread view descended from the disproven idea that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime and a populace that still possesses notably strong support for the death penalty. In this manner, traditional notions of crime, punishment, and justice often underpin a desire to maintain capital punishment even when such notions have been heavily criticized or even disproven. This persistence of capital punishment is also largely seen in authoritarian states. However, it is also worth noting that low-income and undemocratic states have also abolished the death penalty, most recently Zimbabwe in 2024. As such, public perception towards crime and punishment and historical trends, among other factors, are often more predictive of that country’s decision to continue using capital punishment than the country’s economic or democratic development.

Due to varying levels of willingness to challenge deeply-held beliefs surrounding crime and punishment within each country’s populace, the success of capital punishment abolition will also vary wildly.. Another crucial factor to consider is the historical and political context. Typically, countries that abolished the death penalty early-on in the abolition movement were either formerly belligerent European states during WWII or former colonies. For these reasons, seeing such a form of punishment as a relic of their inhumane pasts, many such states have unsurprisingly abolished capital punishment both in law and in practice. Lastly, it is important to consider the role of international organizations in rewarding countries for abolishing capital punishment. For instance, during the 1990s the EU mandated that prospective member states would have to abolish their practice of the death penalty to be considered for membership. 

Despite the myriad reasons to abolish capital punishment that states are presented with, recent years have seen increases in executions as punishment, particularly in already authoritarian states, primarily as a tool against political dissent. For instance, in countries such as Belarus, China, and Saudi Arabia, executions are carried out on the basis of perceived political dissent as such behavior is seen as a great threat to national security. Another common justification for increasing executions has been anti-drug campaigns and other missions of justice to preserve traditional notions of law and order. For instance, an increase in death penalty executions has been seen in both Malaysia and Indonesia due to drug-related offenses, which are socially stigmatized. These tactics, combined with a shared history of colonization and violence brought by WWII, have facilitated an increase in the usage of capital punishment in recent years. 

Taking all of these different factors together, the current state of global capital punishment faces an increasing amount of rightful opposition in the form of a concerted, large-scale abolitionist movement brought by international organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, a movement that has seen many recent successes. Nevertheless, capital punishment remains prevalent, regardless of regime type. As such, as a result of various historical, cultural, and sociological factors surrounding crime and punishment, the death penalty is far from obsolete globally.

For many, the idea of living within a surveillance state is one that evokes feelings of fear; like any other political reality, however, there exist benefits that are often overlooked. Surveillance states are those which employ mass surveillance, often through the use of sophisticated technology, to monitor visitors and citizens alike. However, despite the progress in surveillance technology over the past few decades, traditional surveillance techniques are still employed to this day. For example, law enforcement officers will visit the families and neighbors of those viewed as being in opposition to the government, and the email accounts of journalists, political activists, and human rights advocates who are critical of the government are hacked. 

While the use of mass surveillance techniques are often justified with arguments of national security and crime prevention, mass surveillance is largely seen as an unjust intrusion into the lives of citizens and as such, a violation of citizens’ right to privacy. Despite the claims of the use of widespread surveillance solely for crime prevention and improved national security, mass surveillance is often used within surveillance states to suppress criticism of the government from those opposed to its practices. Additionally, the lack of citizen privacy as a result of mass surveillance can impede the enjoyment of other human rights, like freedom of expression and assembly. The former Soviet Union and East Germany serve as historical examples, though their governments did not have the technical capabilities that surveillance states do today. Modern examples of countries that employ mass surveillance are China, Russia, Morocco, and even the United States. 

The Chinese government, for example, employs a far-reaching surveillance system called “Skynet,” which is comprised of over 700 million surveillance cameras — approximately one camera for every two citizens.  Surveillance in China is not just limited to Skynet, however; citizens’ and visitors’ movements and online activities are tracked through the use of IDs to buy tickets for public transportation and SIM cards, as well as to sign up for WeChat, a messaging service used by nearly everyone in China. During the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens were required to download an app that allowed the government to track their movement. While this was intended to prevent and track the spread of the virus, the app was abused by authorities in the Zhengzhou province to prevent protests. 

In Morocco, similar surveillance technology, along with social media monitoring and mobile phone spyware, is used to target journalists, politicians, and peaceful activists for arrest, harassment, and torture. While the Moroccan government employs fewer surveillance cameras than the Chinese government, it is an “avid consumer” of  internet and phone interception technologies. Despite the codification of the right to privacy in the 2011 Constitution of Morocco, these tools are used frequently by law enforcement and intelligence agents to surveil not just opponents but regular citizens as well.

 The use of mass surveillance by the state is dangerous, as it is a tool easily abused for the intrusion into the privacy of citizens by the government — especially for those perceived as opponents of the government. However, there are some benefits to mass surveillance that are oftentimes overshadowed by these dangers. Though mass surveillance is abused by many governments to repress critics and opposition, it can actually be used to improve national security and address crime. The constant monitoring of citizens nationally allows for an increase in safety for citizens who are not actively in opposition to the government. For instance, the presence of security cameras can be extraordinarily helpful in identifying and tracking perpetrators and witnesses of crimes, and by providing visual evidence of the crime. 

 Not only does mass surveillance aid in solving crime, but it actively helps to prevent crime because citizens are aware of the fact that their activity is being monitored. By constantly being watched, criminals are left with “‘nowhere to hide.’” In Baltimore and Chicago, surveillance cameras were found to be linked to reduced crime. Mass surveillance can also benefit national security efforts by allowing for the interception and analysis of communications among members of groups posing a threat to national security, such as members of terrorist groups. Mass surveillance improves the state’s ability to identify hostile actors and provides a large amount of data that helps “connect the dots between disparate pieces of information.”

The presence of mass surveillance is neither inherently good nor bad; the determination of surveillance systems’ worth is based on how they are used by the government. When abused by the government to target members of its opposition or minority groups, the effect on society is overwhelmingly negative. When used to find perpetrators of crimes and stop threats to the public, these systems can have an immensely positive effect on society. By centering the discussion of mass surveillance almost entirely on the negatives, we fail to take into account other ways this technology can be used for good. Finding a way to ensure that mass surveillance is not abused is a near-impossible task, but it is one that we must take on as our technological capabilities continue to advance.

A child marriage is classified as a marriage involving an individual that is under the age of 18. In 2024 it is estimated that 1-in-5 women worldwide entered into a child marriage, with 12 million girls entering into these marriages every year. Most common in Africa and South Asia, the issue disproportionately affects girls, with many international organizations classifying it as a form of violence against women. Girls are often forced into child marriages as a result of factors  including poverty level, gender and societal norms, educational experience, as well as political stability within their home nation.

Girls who live in families that experience economic stress are often entered into transactional marriages that involve the payment of a bride price in exchange for marrying a young girl. In Niger and other areas of Central Africa, child marriages have been used to “settle debts.” In this same region, girls are seen as a financial burden on their birth family, with their only value coming from their ability to become wives and mothers. In Bangladesh, a country with a child marriage rate of 51%, the average age of marriage is 15 among low income families. The bride price paid to the girl’s family decreases as girls get older, encouraging families to marry their child off at younger ages.

Another common reason young girls are entered into child marriages by their families is protection. In nations that are experiencing political instability, violence against young women is common, and it is believed that a marriage will protect them. However, this is not the case. Child marriages often involve physical and sexual violence. Girls married before 18 are twice as likely to receive some form of physical violence from their husbands, and 81% of child marriages described their first sexual interactions as forced. In Kenya, girls who enter child marriages are 50% more likely to receive HIV infections than unmarried girls. In Uganda, where 34% of girls are married before 18, 88% of married girls age 15-19 have HIV as opposed to 63% of single girls. Additionally, girls who give birth between 15-18 are twice as likely to die during childbirth than women 20 and older. They also face a highly elevated risk of suffering from other complications such as sepsis, post-partum hemorrhaging, and eclampsia, which are all potentially life ending. Obstructed labor, another common occurrence, often leads to obstetric fistula—the development of holes in the bladder and rectum—which can lead to chronic medical issues, depression, and isolation among mothers. 88% of girls who give birth before 18 develop this complication that can lead to life-long issues.

Girls in child marriages are not protected from violence but are instead exposed to greater domestic threats. Moreover, girls in child marriages face social and economic hardship. Long standing gender norms are often used to pressure girls into marriage. Families encourage girls to enter into marriages so as to prevent them from committing “shameful acts” that might affect their social status. Girls are also told that they must become wives and mothers. As a result, girls are discouraged from pursuing an education so they can be married. This affects their ability to become a part of the workforce, placing a complete reliance on their husbands to be the financial provider. One study, conducted by the activist group Girls Not Brides, found that girls who enter into child marriages earn a lifetime average of 9% less wages than girls who marry after 18. Girls are also unable to get remarried in the future as they are considered undesirable. Girls who are abandoned by their husbands are left with no means of being independent, thrusting them into extreme poverty and increasing their likelihood of being exploited by others.

The detrimental effects of child marriages are obvious, but what can be done to prevent them in the future? The answer is simpler than one would think. Girls are faced with the choice of pursuing an education or getting married, as marriage requires girls to dedicate all their time to home and child-raising duties which are demanded of them. It is the belief of activists and scholars that if nations prioritize the education of young girls, and work to disincentivize families from forcing young girls to sacrifice their education, it will in turn prevent child marriages. In addition, by encouraging girls under the age of 18 to pursue primary and secondary education, they are able to enter the labor force and provide for themselves. This provides additional protections against furthering poverty but also challenges the strict gender norms that are present within nations with high rates of child marriages. As these norms are challenged, families become less likely to force their daughters into marriage.