Bongbong and Sara are both the children of former presidents of the Philippines. Rodrigo Duterte’s time in office was one term and began in 2016. The elder Duterte’s reign ended when his daughter and Bongbong Marcos were sworn into their respective offices in June of last year. Bongbong Marcos’s father, Ferdinand Marcos, served from 1965 through 1986.

Ferdinand Marcos’s first term in office was not particularly noteworthy; he spent most of the term building a strong base in office by giving positions of power to his supporters. His main goals during this time included increasing the Philippines’ rice production and expanding the Philippine military . Marcos became the first person to be reelected to a second term as president of the Philippines in 1969. During this time, his campaign became associated with violence and fraud, as it was allegedly funded by millions from the national treasury. His second term caused great opposition as he assumed a more dictatorial style of rule which included the incarceration of opposing politicians and the heightened use of armed forces.

On Sep. 23, 1972, about halfway through his second term, Marcos declared martial law. A week before Marcos declared martial law, Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. exposed “Oplan Sagittarius,” a secret plan proposed by Marcos to place Metro Manila and outlying areas under Philippine Constabulary rule, which would act as a precursor to martial law. 

With that exposure, even the U.S. embassy in Manila knew about Marcos’s martial law plan by Sep. 17. Marcos had planned to justify martial law by highlighting a sequence of bombings that took place in Manila in 1971. A day after Marcos declared martial law, Aquino Jr. and other members of the opposition to Marcos were arrested. After seeking medical relief in the United States, a freed Aquino Jr. returned to the Philippines. Many Filipinos had placed the hope of a new president on his shoulder. Shortly after stepping off the plane, Aquino Jr. was shot by a member of the military. He died at the scene.  

The declaration of martial law, coupled with many other controversial and corrupt actions, brought about a phrase that is still associated with Marcos today: “crony capitalism.” Marcos and his wife, Imelda, used their position to prop up regime members financially. 

Imelda Marcos was known for giving high-earning government positions to family members, while Ferdinand Marcos used his position to seize private companies and give them to his supporters. These moves, along with the Marcos withdrawing large sums of cash from the national bank caused widespread economic instability in the Philippines. 

As the Philippines’ economy continued to drop and more attention was given to Aquino Jr.’s death, the amount of scrutiny directed at Marcos increased. Marcos even began to feel pressure from wealthier Filipinos, a group that had traditionally supported him, his campaigns, and his presidency. 

In 1985, 56 elected officials signed a resolution that proposed his impeachment. The Resolution cited the corruption that Marcos and his wife directly instigated, which allowed the majority of Filipino citizens’ livelihoods to hang in the balance.

In response to mounting opposition, Marcos allowed special presidential elections to be held in 1986, more than a year away from the end of his term. The slain Benigno Jr.’s wife, Corazon Aquino, quickly became the favorite to unseat Marcos as president. 

However, Aquino was defeated, and Marcos won his own office for the rest of his term. The result of the election brought with it widespread allegations of a fraudulent count. As allegations built, tensions rose among the opposition to Marcos.

On Feb. 25, 1986, Marcos and many members of his family fled to Hawaii in exile. A federal grand jury indicted Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos for charges of racketeering, but Ferdinand Marcos soon died in 1989. 

A standing contempt judgment against Ferdinand and Imelda was issued by the United States and was linked to a human rights class suit. With the passing of his mother and father, Bongbong Marcos inherited the suit. The suit is an attempt to obtain assets and distribute them among victims of martial law which were implemented by the elder Marcos. 

According to records from the United States District Court and Court of Appeals, Marcos is being held in contempt for “contumacious conduct causing direct harm to [a class of human rights victims].” The price tag connected to the suit has reached a sum of more than $353 million — a sum that Marcos has avoided paying. 

Even now, the elder Marcos administration has yet to be held accountable for the atrocities they committed, and Bongbong has yet to acknowledge the acts committed under his father’s supervision. It is unlikely that he will ever have to face any grievances against his father due to the spread of disinformation regarding his father’s reign that increased during his son’s campaign. 

Instead, Bongbong refers to his father’s time in office as the Philippines’ “Golden Age,” and emphasizes his ability to bring the country back to this period. The disinformation spread by the Marcos campaign is known by historians as “historical distortion.”

The primary method of their spread of disinformation came in the form of social media ads. The campaign ran an abundance of ads that spread disinformation regarding Ferdinand Marcos’s presidency. The historical distortion has gone uncontested in the Philippines, a country where almost all of its citizens use the Internet and over half claim that it is hard for them to spot disinformation.

By placing his campaign in untested waters, Bongbong Marcos was able to win the election. He saw an option for him to use social media to not only spread his platform, but also to spread falsehoods that glorified his father and placed his own intentions in a better light. The election of a member of a Marcos family member after a period of exile is the realization of a long-known fact: social media is an unparalleled platform for political candidates to spread their messages, good or bad.

The election of another Duterte presents favor towards Chinese-leaning politicians. Rodrigo Duterte had made several moves to align the Philippines more closely with China. His moves were met by anti-China sentiment, but the election of his daughter paints a pro-China future for the Philippines’ international involvement. Duterte’s pro-China stance paired with the United States creating a strong opposition to Marcos and his father’s human rights abuses will make it difficult for the United States to have a strong rapport with the new executive. However, Marcos has recently shown U.S.-leanings. He discussed the implications of the tensions surrounding Taiwan for the Philippines. He said that the strained relationship between the United States and China is “very, very worrisome,” and he expects the Philippines military relationship with the United States. As the United States looks to expand its Indo-Pacific military presence, they may increase their reliance on Marcos and the Philippines. These remain key concerns to watch in the new year for this “new” administration.

The post From Exile to President: How Another Marcos Became the President of the Philippines appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Less than two months ago, Truss defeated Rishi Sunak with ease. She claimed leadership of the Tory Party, or the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, and with it, the office of the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Representing not only a change to leadership for the Conservative Party but also a change for the United Kingdom, Liz Truss assumed the position on the heels of a rocky end to Boris Johnson’s time as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party. Truss began her tenure in No. 10 Downing Street with hopes to turn the British economy around and set the United Kingdom on the right path with the country’s newly found independence from the European Union. Truss had set the tone early as prime minister. She neglected to appoint anyone to her cabinet who had not supported her in the election, leaving her selection extremely limited and giving many people a negative impression of how she intended to lead. 

Within her first few days in office, Truss saw the pound fall to its lowest value since 1985 against the U.S. dollar and was tasked with reuniting the country after the death of Queen Elizabeth II. With early turmoil in her tenure, Truss seemed to remain focused on her long-term goals, unphased by short-term shortcomings. When Truss came into office, she focused on economic growth rather than deficit and debt. However, the latter is how her time in office will be remembered.

By the sixth week of Truss’ tenure, she had fired two of the most senior members of her cabinet. On Oct. 14, Truss fired Kwasi Kwarteng, her Chancellor of the Exchequer. Kwarteng had partnered with Truss when she announced her campaign to become Boris Johnson’s successor. Kwarteng and Truss agreed that the economic change they wanted to see would not come with tweaks to the policies of the Johnson administration, but that they needed “radical” change to set the U.K.’s economy back on the right track. The focus on “radical change” was accompanied by promises to stop the national rise in insurance rates and corporation tax. Truss also planned to lift environmental policies in favor of economic development. Environmental policies such as a ban on fracking which increased energy and gas bills were lifted to ease the cost of living in the United Kingdom. 

Out of the gates, Kwarteng and Truss instituted a “mini-budget”. Many Tory supporters praised the budget for representing the party’s ideals. The budget included the largest tax cuts since 1972.  It removed barriers to bankers’ bonuses and gave large tax cuts to the rich. Kwarteng’s “mini-budget” had the opposite effect on the economy of what was intended. Not too long after its inception, the “mini-budget” caused the worth of the sterling against the dollar to plummet, a huge fall in the gilt market, and future mortgage rates to face a rise of four figures. 

Less than a week after the firing of Kwarteng came the second dismissal in Truss’ cabinet when she relieved Suella Braverman of her position as Home Secretary. She had to fire Braverman after a security breach in which she sent a government document to a member of Parliament via her personal email. Truss filled the positions of Kwarteng and Braverman with politicians who had supported Rishi Sunak in the election. On the same day she fired Braverman, Truss faced calls from numerous members of Parliament to resign. She defended herself exclaiming, “I’m a fighter and not a quitter.”

About a day after her remarks to Parliament, Liz Truss resigned. Her resignation comes at a time when the British pound is at its lowest value against the dollar ever, inflation rates are in double digits and the Bank of England is making unprecedented moves. Truss stated that she will hold office until her successor is chosen. 

A successor for Truss will be chosen in a way similar to how she was elected to replace Boris Johnson, however, they only have a week to do it. Candidates will need 100 nominations from members of Parliament who are also members of the Conservative Party this time. In the election to replace Johnson, prospective candidates only needed 30 nominations from likewise M.P.s; 10 candidates met this requirement. This means that only three candidates will be able to vie for residence at 10 Downing Street.

One potential candidate to replace Truss is Rishi Sunak, the runner-up to Truss in the previous election and Chancellor of the Exchequer under Boris Johnson. The leader of the House of Commons, Penny Mordaunt, could also make a bid for prime minister. Mordaunt was previously Defense Secretary and made a run in the election that sent Truss to 10 Downing Street and ultimately landed Mordaunt in third. Ben Wallace, a veteran, and a top choice to replace Johnson, could represent a welcome change for the Conservative Party. He had opposed Brexit, the move made by Johnson to leave the E.U., and acted as an impetus for the tanking economy. Lastly, several analysts have mentioned Boris Johnson as a possible candidate. Although, the prospect of Johnson being elected or even running seems far-fetched. His lack of action during his time in office is blamed by many as the start of the downfall that has driven the United Kingdom to this point. 

The United Kingdom’s election process severely limits who will have a say in this election as it did when Liz Truss was elected. If multiple candidates receive the required 100 nominations, then the selection will be determined by a member vote. In this scenario, the eligible voters will be the dues-paying members of the U.K.’s Conservative Party; those same voters dictated the elections leading to the overall election of Liz Truss. The Conservative members tend to be a group that is more white, richer and older than the rest of the population. These members also tend to be more ideologically right-wing than what would be representative of the population. 

While it will be hard for Boris Johnson to win 100 Conservative members of Parliament’s votes, early polls indicate that he would be the favorite among voting members if he received the nominations. 

Regardless of who receives the required number of nominations, the fact is that if multiple candidates meet the threshold, the same group of people will decide the predecessor for the person they elected less than two months ago. Assuming Tory voter registration has not changed drastically since the last election, there are about 172,000 eligible Tory voters according to the Conservative Party, just 0.3% of the U.K.’s total electorate. In the previous election, out of the already small pool, only 142,000 cast a vote to decide who would lead the United Kingdom. The small percentage of eligible Tory voters means that the choice for the next Prime Minister will most likely not be representative of the eligible voting population as a whole.

The post Liz Truss Resigned: What is Next for the United Kingdom? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Where less water is available, this also means less available for livestock production. Livestock is a key driver of the Somalian economy and is many Somalians’ only source of income. In 2021, the exportation of livestock accounted for more than one-fourth of Somalia’s exports. 

When families see less food, water, and income, they eventually have to choose who gets to eat and drink. In Somalia, males are given priority access to the food supply. In many circumstances, young girls are either taken out of school to work or are forced into marriage so families have one less mouth to feed. 

Forced marriage is a subsection of gender-based violence that has continued to rise in most parts of Somalia. A recent UN report reported that female genital mutilation/cutting between the ages of 15 and 49 is 99.2%. Gender inequality is not a recent development in Somalia.

Consequences of the changing climate in Somalia have only exacerbated gender disparities. In 2019, the International Labor Organization estimated that 73.6% of Somalian men between the ages of 15 and 64 participated in the workforce, while 23.1% of Somalian women in the same age range participated in the workforce.

In the same way, Somalia is also one of the worst countries for obstetric care. According to Our World in Data: 5.08% of women are expected to die from pregnancy-related causes (3rd highest in the world), there are 829 deaths per 100,000 live births (5th highest in the world) and Somalia has a 3.87% neonatal mortality rate (5th highest in the world). The United Nations has stated that Somalia is the 4th worst country for gender equality in the world. 

Another way to see how women are valued in Somalian society is to look at their representation in government and law. In the 2020 elections for the seats of the 11th parliament, Somalian citizens appointed a record proportion of upper house seats to go to women. However, the amount was only 26%. Out of the 295 judicial positions, only two belong to women. 

Later in the same year, the Somalian parliament drew international scorn for the passing of a bill that superseded laws protecting women and children and permitted forced child marriages. Pramila Patten, the United Nations Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, called it “a major setback for victims of sexual violence in Somalia.” Somalia cannot address gender inequality without giving its female citizens the platform to effect change. 

Another problem that plagues Somalia and draws attention away from its social deficits is war. Al Shabaab, a militant group associated with the Islamic Courts Union, was founded in 2004 to help bring order after the collapse of the government under Mohamed Siad Barre. Al Shabaab quickly became viewed as an extremist group and began to draw international attention. 

In 2012, Al Shabaab announced its allegiance to al Qaeda. Al Shabaab is responsible for attacks such as the attack at the Westgate Shopping Mall in Kenya, where they killed 68 civilians, and a bombing of a viewing of a World Cup soccer match which killed 75. 

Al Shabaab continues to maintain a strong presence in Somalia and Kenya and continues to be a main focus of the Somalian government. The prevalence of al Shabaab in Somalia and the surrounding region has left the government’s attention divided and added to the barriers surrounding an appropriate reaction to the changing climate.

Al Shabaab’s presence in Somalia has made it difficult for foreign representatives, diplomats, and reporters to visit the country. Recently, Matt Gutman, a reporter for ABC news, visited Somalia to see the effects of the climate crisis firsthand. In his time there, he was not able to move freely without a police escort because of al Shabaab’s presence in the country.

During his visit, Gutman witnessed a camp provided by Save the Children International. He spoke with Ebrima Saidy, the Chief Impact Officer for Save the Children International, and asked Saidy about the Somalian government’s response to the widespread famine. 

Saidy was very critical of the government still not declaring a national famine exclaiming, “for me, the declaration of famine is irrelevant… look around you, what is this if this is not famine?” 

During Gutman’s visit, he also interacted with several children afflicted by the famine. One, he remarked, was three years old but only as big as a one-year-old. Gutman observed another child was “too sick to eat, too weak to cry.”

With the Somalian government spread thin between Al Shabaab and the newly emerging famine, the aid given by international organizations will be a vital factor in the ability to mitigate the famine’s effects. On Wednesday, September 21st, the United States Agency for International Development pledged 151 million U.S. dollars to assist the citizens of Somalia. On the same day, the United Kingdom’s Development Minister stated that the United Kingdom would pledge 22.8 million pounds toward assistance in the Horn of Africa. Specifically, humanitarian organizations have pledged much of their Somalian monetary aid to local organizations which are working to address the gender disparity and create opportunities for Somalian women.

As the effects of climate change continue to be seen in devastating ways across the world, governments are tasked with finding different ways of adaptation. Olufunke Cofie, principal researcher and country representative for West Africa at the International Water Management Institute, claims that many of the countries experiencing drought in Africa experience enough rainfall throughout the year to provide for their citizens. 

Cofie states that the problem is a combination of a lack of infrastructure, a lack of maintenance on existing infrastructure and a lack of education on how to efficiently use existing infrastructure. The questions remain for Somalia of how to prepare for another drought and how to tackle its gender imbalance.

The contributions from international organizations and other governments are crucial to Somalia’s response to the changing climate and the gender disparity, but there must be Somalia-driven action to turn the corner on these problems. The inclusion of women should be a nationwide priority and the consequences of the climate crisis need to be equally felt and prioritized across the country. 

A successful response from Somalia’s government would involve establishment of institutions and infrastructure. The institutions will protect the rights of women and children, and the implementation of infrastructure will increase freshwater resources and decrease the effects of future droughts in Somalia. For Somalia, international aid has been beneficial, but it only provides short-term solutions. Only when the Somalian government begins to view these issues as preeminent priorities can long-term change be established.

The post How Somalia’s Climate Crisis is Fueling Gender Inequality appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.