Working in Politics and International Relations at Aston University

This blog is intended to provide a bit of informal advice to prospective applicants about what the Politics and International Relations Department at Aston University does, who we are, and the sort of things we will be looking for.

 

First – a bit about our team.  We are a medium-sized department, with 28 current staff (23 of whom are full time, one part time, and one colleagues splits her time between us and the Spanish department. Three further colleagues are away on secondments or fullfilling university level management duties).  Of those 28 staff, 14 are men, 14 are women, and we are a diverse group in terms of our national backgrounds (with nationals of twelve different countries!).  We would welcome greater ethnic diversity in our department.  Several colleagues have young families, and all live either in Birmingham or within a sensible commuting distance.  We encourage a diverse workforce including representation of staff with disabilities and will provide support and reasonable adjustments as needed.  Aston is a ‘two ticks’ employer, which means that it has committed to offering an interview to all disabled applicants who meet the essential criteria for a vacancy.  Four news colleagues in the 2016/17 year, six joined us for the 2017/18 year, two in the course of 2017/18 and two further colleagues at the start of 2018/19 – this reflects the popularity of our department with students, and the university’s commitment to expanding our discipline.

 

Second – a bit about our students.  Our student body is very diverse (as is the West Midlands region, in which we are based): at the undergraduate level, we attract a good range of students, both on our Single Honours course (Politics and International Relations) and in our joint honours courses (such as Politics and Economics, International Relations and Business, and International Relations and Modern Languages).  These students are overwhelmingly from the state sector.  We strongly encourage them to undertake a work or study placement, either in the UK or abroad, in their penultimate year, and find this makes a real difference to their employability, which is very important to us at Aston.  At postgraduate level, we have a good mix of students, and many come from continental Europe, often as part of our joint and double degrees with Rennes, Lille and Bamberg University.

 

Third – while we are all active researchers, we are also passionate teachers – staff regularly observe each other’s teaching, several colleagues have won prizes in this area, and we often compare notes on ways of teaching and keeping students engaged (for instance, students may do “simulations”, policy reports, role plays, group assignments and produce films as part of their courses).  We take our MA students on an annual study visit to Brussels, and have also had regular study visits to London.  There is no “typical” teaching load, but colleagues with full time, research and teaching contracts might expect to teach courses for around 4 to 5 hours per week during term time, to a mixture of larger and smaller groups. The load is higher for teaching only positions, but we aim to provide our teaching only colleagues with significant scope for development, such as by giving opportunities for training, or ensuring they have space to work on research, with the view of obtaining a research and teaching contract in the future.

 

We are all strong believers in keeping our discipline relevant to everyday life.  So we hold regular lunchtime seminars for students and staff on current affairs, we often welcome visitors engaged in the practice of Politics and International Relations onto campus to talk with our students, and our team often write blogs aimed at an audience beyond academia.  We host numerous events outside Birmingham as well – we have strong partnerships with a number of think tanks and regularly engage with Members of Parliament and other policy-makers.  Several colleagues have also given oral evidence to Parliamentary committees, we are commissioned to provide training to British civil servants, and another colleague has recently been involved in providing research expertise to several governments of countries in Central Europe.  For us, “impact” is about a lot more than ticking a box for external evaluation of universities!

 

If you are interested in applying, here are some things to consider:

 

• The key document in shortlisting will be your answers to the questions in the online application form (which will be scored according to whether you have met our criteria), as well as your CV. Make sure you look carefully at our person specification before applying.
• We are likely to read a large number of applications, and so we are looking for applicants who have completed their Ph.D. and have a good track record of teaching Politics and International Relations or closely related disciplines.  For teaching positions, we will also consider applicants with Ph. D. dissertations submitted for examination. Expectations clearly depend on how long you have been in the profession, and career breaks would be taken into account.
• Shortlisted applicants will be asked to give a presentation to the members of the department about their research and teaching, as well as have an interview with the selection committee. In the interview setting, you would want to show how you can get your message across clearly and succinctly, how you would engage students and colleagues, and how you would see yourself fitting in with our department. Normally the first question will be about why you want to work at Aston, so you’d want to give this some serious thought in advance.  .

 

If you have any questions, please drop me a line at b.szent-ivanyi@aston.ac.uk, and we can catch up on the telephone or Skype if necessary afterwards.

 

Global Britain: Myths, Reality and Post-Brexit Foreign Policy

On 15 January 2019 the Aston Centre for Europe, in cooperation with the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) organized a seminar to explore the UK’s role in the World post-Brexit. The event was co-funded by the ACE Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence award.

Disclaimer:
The centre has been funded with support from the European Commission. This webpage and the publications of the centre reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

SPEAKERS

• Dr Judi Atkins, Lecturer in Politics, Aston University
• Dr Andrew Glencross, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, Aston University
• Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP, former Culture Secretary and FPC Political Council Member

Chair: Henry Mance, Political Correspondent, Financial Times

Here Dr Judi Atkins reflects on the national myths, narratives and realities that underpin the UK’s conception of its role the world and shape our understanding of what the future a ‘Global Britain’ might be:

Even though Brexit has unsettled perceptions of Britain’s role in the world, there remains a great deal of continuity between the government’s vision of ‘Global Britain’ and older national narratives. Throughout the post-war period, successive governments have depicted Britain as an important player on the world stage, a small island that ‘punches above its weight’ by virtue of its membership of organisations such as NATO, the UN Security Council and (for the time being at least) the EU, as well as its ‘special relationship’ with the United States. Underpinning this narrative of Britain as an exceptional nation is the legacy of Empire, a nostalgia that also informs conceptions of Britain’s role and standing in the world after Brexit.

Setting out her vision of Global Britain at Lancaster House in January 2017, Theresa May asserted that the EU referendum result was a vote to become ‘even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit’. After all, despite a common European heritage, she claimed, Britain is distinct from other member states because it has ‘always looked beyond Europe to the wider world’. To strengthen this contrast, May then called attention to Britain’s different political traditions:

Unlike other European countries, we have no written constitution, but the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of our unwritten constitutional settlement. We have only a recent history of devolved governance … and we have little history of coalition government (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech).

May thus drew on the exceptionalism narrative to create rhetorical distance from Europe, while at the same time suggesting that a Britain unshackled from EU membership would be free to fulfil its internationalist destiny.

Given the extent of globalisation, critics have described May’s commitment to leave both the EU and the single market as a ‘national act of self-harm on an epic scale’ (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/03/britain-being-led-to-epic-act-self-harm-brexit). However, May herself was confident of success, on the grounds that Britain has:

One of the world’s largest and strongest economies. With the finest intelligence services, the bravest armed forces, the most effective hard and soft power, and friendships, partnerships and alliances in every continent. And another thing that’s important … The strength and support of 65 million people willing us to make it happen (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech).

As a nation with these ‘exceptional’ qualities and assets, therefore, Britain would be uniquely able to make its own way in the world after Brexit.

So, what form would Britain’s international relationships take? For senior Conservatives like David Davis and Michael Gove, Brexit affords an opportunity to negotiate free trade agreements with the ‘Anglosphere’ – Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK – and the US. Others, such as Liam Fox, seek to reinvigorate trading relations with the Commonwealth nations, and particularly with India (https://theconversation.com/beyond-brexit-global-britain-looks-to-the-emerging-anglosphere-for-new-opportunities-77562). These visions are, of course, consistent with May’s definition of Global Britain as ‘a country that reaches out to old friends and new allies alike’ (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech). However, critics suggest that they are founded on ‘a nostalgia-infused, post-imperial “amnesia”’ (https://theconversation.com/beyond-brexit-global-britain-looks-to-the-emerging-anglosphere-for-new-opportunities-77562), one that also permeates the exceptionalism narrative that underlies the government’s conception of Global Britain.

If Britain is to make these relationships work, it must approach its ‘old friends’ (i.e. the governments of Commonwealth countries) on an equal footing. This would require a profound shift in its self-image, an honest reappraisal of Britain and its place in the world. In an age of post-truth politics, where stories trump facts and storytellers are eagerly granted a hearing while experts are derided, the challenges involved in such a re-examination are clear. It may well take a direct confrontation with the realities of Brexit for Britain to find the humility needed to do this.

Donald Trump and North Korea – The Dangers of Playing with Fire

For students of international relations, President Trump highlights the relevance of human agency in global affairs and the study of conflict. That is of little comfort, given that he has managed to escalate tensions with North Korea in a relatively short time. A war of words is raging between both sides. Alas, there is a very real possibility that this will turn into an actual military confrontation.
About a week ago, in his first major speech to the United Nations, President Trump lashed out in his typical bombastic manner by threatening to ‘totally destroy North Korea’ if it the US should be forced to defend itself or her allies. Such rhetoric can be expected from a reality-TV star. It may also have a place in a B-rated Hollywood action movie. Yet, coming from the US President at the time of heightened tensions stoked by Pyongyang’s nuclear proliferation it is extremely unhelpful and outright dangerous. The speech may have been designed to send a clear signal to Kim Jong Un. If so, it is unlikely to improve the situation. On the contrary, North Korea’s regime will most likely intensify its nuclear efforts. After all, Donald Trump’s speech provides the best justification for the need of a nuclear deterrent. North Korea has long portrayed the US as a major threat to its security and survival. To some extent, that very threat has been part of the reason d’etre of Pyongyang’s nuclear proliferation strategy, despite the immense economic and political costs incurred. In 2002, George W. Bush portrayed North Korea, Iran and Iraq as forming an ‘axis of evil’. In 2003, a US-led coalition invaded Iraq. From Pyongyang’s perspective, the message was clear – only a nuclear capability might deter the US effectively. After all, Iraq was not in the possession of weapons of mass destruction and its conventional military forces failed to deter the US intervention.
Donald Trump’s not so veiled threat will only serve to further entrench the perception of the US as an existential threat to the North Korean regime. This was not helped by raising the spectre of US interventions against regimes that Washington disapproves of: Cuba and Venezuela were mentioned here. So was Iran. Indeed, President Trump expressed his displeasure with the Iranian nuclear deal, insinuating that the US will terminate the agreement. So, what is Pyongyang to make of that? Well, the obvious conclusion may well be that a nuclear capability is the only deterrent against US intervention. Any diplomatic conclusion to the ongoing crisis has just been made ever so much more difficult. What is the point of concluding an agreement with the US, if the US President is simply deciding to walk away from it? Better to be safe than sorry! North Korea so far has defied all sanctions and threats. Now, it’s leadership will feel vindicated by Trump’s rhetoric. It remains to be seen whether both sides are heading towards a military showdown. Alas, rather than seeking a constructive solution, however difficult that may be, the two main protagonists, Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump, appear to be engaged in a game of flinging lit up matches at each other while sitting on a powder keg.

Relying on Basque nationalists, but still in power: Where next for Spain’s ‘weak’ government?

Article by Caroline Gray, Lecturer in Politics and Spanish, originally published on the LSE EUROPP blog on 25th July. For the original article, please visit: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/07/25/relying-on-basque-nationalists-but-still-in-power-where-next-for-spains-weak-government/

Spain was thrown into uncharted waters last year when conservative Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy formed the weakest minority government since Spain transitioned to democracy. Yet, despite predictions at the time that the Popular Party (PP) government would not last, the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) has spared it from an early death. With their five seats in the Spanish parliament, the Basque nationalists’ crucial decision to support the PP’s 2017 budget – backed also by the centre-right Ciudadanos – transformed the outlook. In some ways, it’s back to business as usual then. Except what’s ‘usual’ in Spanish politics has fundamentally changed, and clinging onto power by striking traditional bilateral deals with the Basques does not resolve the many issues now requiring broader consensus and compromise.

Minority governments are nothing new for Spain – both the traditional conservative and socialist parties have frequently fallen short of an absolute majority in Spain’s 350-seat parliament and relied on regionally-based parties to make up the numbers. And yet on this occasion, the record low number of seats secured by the winning party, combined with the lack of scope for deals with Catalan nationalist parties due to their pro-independence agenda, put the Basque nationalists in the position of kingmaker. With the PP’s 137 seats, combined with 32 from Ciudadanos, the government just managed to reach the 176-seat majority needed to approve the 2017 budget in May thanks to the PNV’s 5 votes plus one each from two regional parties based in the Canary Islands. The PNV has also saved the government’s skin by supporting other bills too, such as Spain’s new stowage law.

Nothing the PNV does is for free, so its support has come with hefty price tags. The tradeoffs agreed so far include, for example, funds and a clear timeline to progress long-awaited Basque routes for Spain’s high speed train network. Arguably the most significant deal made has been in relation to the Basque economic agreement (concierto económico), which governs fiscal and financial relations between the region and Madrid, and provides the fundamental basis for Basque regional autonomy. Since 2007, the PNV had been in disagreement with successive Spanish governments over key aspects of the economic agreement. And yet all the relevant disputes have now been resolved, largely in favour of the Basque position.

For historical reasons, the Basque Country is one of only two Spanish regions that have bilateral economic agreements with Madrid (the other being Navarre), granting it far more substantial revenue-raising powers than other regions in Spain. Under the arrangement, the Basque authorities collect almost all taxes in the Basque region. They keep most of these to pay for devolved policy competences and pay a much smaller annual ‘quota’ (cupo) to the Spanish government to contribute to the few remaining centralised competences.

The quota is calculated according to five-yearly quota laws, under a complex (and often disputed) methodology agreed upon bilaterally between the Basque and Spanish authorities, which takes into account factors such as the valuation of devolved competences. For the past decade, Spanish-Basque fiscal and financial relations had been beset by disagreements over the figures. The details of the new quota law for 2017-21, fleshed out in the draft legislation approved by both the Basque and Spanish sides on 19 July following the political collaboration over the budget in May, show that it is not just the numbers that have now been agreed. Further revenue-raising powers are also being devolved to the Basques in areas where there is still scope to do so.

The deal demonstrates the PNV’s longstanding politically savvy pragmatism, which is facilitated by the scope for bilateral deals that the Basque economic agreement offers. Since former Basque regional president Juan José Ibarretxe’s attempt to push through a self-determination plan for the Basque Country a decade ago somewhat backfired, the PNV has returned to a slower, more incremental pathway towards the sovereignty it seeks for the Basque Country under the regional premiership of Inigo Urkullu and the party leadership of Andoni Ortuzar (in the PNV, the regional president and party leader are two distinct roles). In the meantime, it is not hesitating to use the party’s leverage in the new more fragmented parliamentary reality of Madrid to ensure more practical Basque demands are met.

Of course, to be seen to be upholding the government of the PP – which is highly unpopular in the Basque Country – is not without potential political costs for the PNV. Its left-wing opponents have seized on this, accusing it of keeping a corrupt right-wing party in power. Certainly, Ortuzar was not about to have his photo snapped shaking hands with Rajoy in the same style as the famous Arzalluz-Aznar photo from two decades ago. Then, Basque PNV party leader Xabier Arzalluz struck a deal with Spanish PP Prime Minister José María Aznar which has remained firmly etched in Basque and Spanish political memory and bears close parallels to the new PP-PNV deal reached this year.

In Catalonia, such historical relationships between the once leading nationalist party Convergència and the Spanish PP ultimately proved too cosy for Catalan voters’ liking, pushing many to switch to other left-wing pro-independence alternatives. This might serve as a warning to the PNV, which is struggling to appeal to younger generations. But it perhaps has the advantage of being more practised in shifting alliances as needed than Convergència was – whereas the latter at times ended up reliant upon PP support in the Catalan parliament too, the PNV’s preferred ally in the Basque parliament has almost always been, and continues to be, the Basque Socialists. And securing extra money for the Basque Country inevitably helps to sweeten the bitter pill of propping up the PP in Madrid in return for the moment, at a time when there is no clear left-wing majority alternative on offer.

For the PP’s part, the deal is a much harder sell to its Spanish electorate. Spanish treasury minister Cristóbal Montoro made a statement to the effect that only the financial crisis had prevented the PP from reaching such a deal with the Basques before, but in reality it was also because it was so politically unpalatable. A reform of the common financing system for the rest of Spain’s regions has been repeatedly postponed in recent years as cash-strapped regional governments clamour for more funding, and the refusal of a better financial deal for Catalonia is one of the many factors that have contributed to the burgeoning of pro-independence sentiment in that region. In this climate, giving back money to the Basques – who are already perceived to have a better deal than other regions – was not on the cards until the PP became so desperate for allies in parliament.

Thus, the PP may have secured its survival for now via a traditional ‘mutual backscratching’ arrangement with the Basque nationalists, but the real test of its strength or weakness in government will be whether it can make any headway toward addressing the serious issues on the agenda that require more complex cross-party and inter-regional negotiations and compromise. In that regard, the prognosis remains bleak.

Working in Politics and International Relations at Aston University

Our department at Aston University is thrilled to be recruiting up to two posts (at Lecturer, Senior Lecturer or Reader level), and this blog is intended to provide a bit of informal advice to prospective applicants, especially for the lecturership positions (though it may be useful background for those interested in other levels), about what we do, who we are, and the sort of things we will be looking for.  There is then a short interview with Parveen Akhtar, who joined the department as Lecturer in Politics and International Relations last year.

 

First – a bit about our team.  We are a medium-sized department, with 20.6 current staff (20 are full-time, one is part-time, and one splits her time between the Spanish Department and our own), excluding one colleague who heads our School, and another who is currently on sabbatical at the Foreign Office.  Of those 22 staff, twelve are men, ten are women, and we are a diverse group in terms of our national backgrounds (with nationals of ten different countries!).  We would welcome greater ethnic diversity in our department.  Several colleagues have young families, and all live either in Birmingham or within a sensible commuting distance.  We encourage a diverse workforce including representation of staff with disabilities and will provide support and reasonable adjustments as needed.  Aston is a ‘two ticks’ employer, which means that it has committed to offering an interview to all disabled applicants who meet the essential criteria for a vacancy.  Four news colleagues in the 2016/17 year, and six joined us for the 2017/18 year – this reflects the popularity of our department with students, and the university’s commitment to expanding our discipline.

 

Second – a bit about our students.  Our student body is very diverse (as is the West Midlands region, in which we are based): at the undergraduate level, we attract a good range of students, both on our Single Honours course (Politics and International Relations) and in our joint honours courses (such as Politics and Economics, International Relations and Business, and International Relations and Modern Languages).  These students are overwhelmingly from the state sector, and have scored highly in their A-levels.  We strongly encourage them to undertake a work or study placement, either in the UK or abroad, in their penultimate year, and find this makes a real difference to their employability, which is very important to us at Aston.  At postgraduate level, we have a good mix of students, and many come from continental Europe, often as part of our joint and double degrees with Rennes, Lille, and Bamberg (with a new programme Metropolitan University in Prague coming on stream soon).

 

Third – a bit about working here.  We are all active researchers, but our areas of specialism vary widely, as you will see from our staff profiles.  Our standards are high – at the last REF, we entered under the “umbrella” of the Aston Centre for Europe in the Area Studies section, and were ranked the highest in this field outside London.  We have recently become a Jean-Monnet Centre of Excellence.  But it is important to remember that ACE, and our department, are “ecumenical”, and that we are not exclusively interested in European Studies.  For instance, our students often tell us they would like to learn more about the Politics of the Middle East, or the Politics of China or Latin America; the truth is we are open to applications from any interesting sub-field of Politics and International Relations.  We have recently re-established a departmental seminar where a colleague presents “work in progress” and discusses it in a supportive environment.  We are encouraged to bid for external funding from a variety of sources (and have had success from sources like the European Commission, Leverhulme, the German Academic Exchange Service and the ESRC in recent years), and comment on each other’s bids to give them the best chance of success.

 

We are also passionate teachers – staff regularly observe each other’s teaching, several colleagues have won prizes in this area, and we often compare notes on ways of teaching and keeping students engaged (for instance, students may do “simulations”, policy reports, role plays, group assignments and produce films as part of their courses).  We take our MA students on an annual study visit to Brussels, and have also had regular study visits to London.  There is no “typical” teaching load, but a colleague might expect to teach courses for around six hours per week during team time, to a mixture of larger and smaller groups, and in addition offer four hours a week of office hours, as well as time for dissertation supervision and meeting with personal tutees.  Every member of staff is entitled to a “research day” each week, including during term time, when they would not be expected to teach or be at meetings.

 

We are all strong believers in keeping our discipline relevant to everyday life.  So we hold regular lunchtime seminars for students and staff on current affairs, we recently held an event with the Parliamentary Outreach Service on Parliament and BAME communities and another with local young people on their views on the EU referendum, and our team often write blogs aimed at an audience beyond academia.  We also regularly engage with policy-makers, holding events in London and Brussels where we can discuss our ongoing research with practitioners, and feed into and shape policy discussions.  For us, “impact” is about a lot more than ticking a box for external evaluation of universities!

 

If you are interested in applying (especially for the lecturership positions), here are some things to consider:

 

• The key document in shortlisting will be your answers to the questions online application form (which will be scored according to whether you have met our criteria), as well as your CV. Make sure you look carefully at our person specification before applying.
• We are likely to read well over 150 applications, and for that reason we need candidates to have a completed Ph.D., and evidence of “successful research publication”. This will probably involve having published, or at least advanced plans for, a book, and also some articles in peer reviewed journals, and far more weight will be given to publications which are published or accepted for publication than those which have not yet been accepted.  Expectations clearly depend on how long you have been in the profession, and career breaks would be taken into account.
• Remember that we all regard our teaching as really important, as well as our research, and think about how you would ensure Aston students are really engaged in and excited about what they are learning.
• When thinking about income generation, by all means include good ideas for research grants (including those with collaborators outside Aston), but also think about whether there might be any new incomes streams you could develop for the department or ACE.
• We will involve the all staff and several students in recruitment, as shortlisted applicants will give a presentation to the whole department in the morning (including student representatives), and will then have an interview in the afternoon. In both these settings, you would want to show how you can get your message across clearly and succinctly, how you would engage students and colleagues, and how you would see yourself fitting in with our department (and possibly the Aston Centre for Europe). Normally the first question will be about why you want to work at Aston, so you’d want to give this some serious thought in advance.  Since we pride ourselves on our practical, relevant research you can expect to be asked about this.

 

If you have any questions, please drop me a line at e.turner@aston.ac.uk, and we can catch up on the telephone or Skype if necessary afterwards.

 

Interview with Parveen Akhtar, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations

 

Why did you decide to apply to work at Aston?

 

There were a number of reasons why I decided to apply to work at Aston.  Birmingham is a super-diverse and rapidly changing city, and, as such, provides a fascinating backdrop to the kinds of research issues I work on around political inclusion and representation.  When I applied to Aston in 2016, there were 7 vacancies across the School and 4 of those were dedicated to Politics and International Relations.  This pointed to a genuine commitment to the Social Sciences and, of course, it’s always exciting to join and contribute to an institution when it is developing and expanding.   There is a real energy and buzz in the atmosphere and this comes across when you visit the campus.

 

How have you found the first year?

 

It’s really flown by!  The students are so fantastic and really bring a diverse set of experiences and viewpoints to the classroom.  In a year that has been politically interesting (!) with the Brexit vote and the US Presidential election, classroom discussions and debate have been super energised.

Outside of the classroom – memorable moments include the PIR Christmas dinner and Karaoke night which was huge fun and a useful reminder of why I should stick to the day job!

 

Is it a department where people feel part of a team, or do they tend to get on and do their own thing?

 

The team in PIR is incredibly supportive and welcoming.  There is some fantastic research going on and the lunchtime seminars are a great way of getting to know what colleagues are up to and also to get some feedback on whatever research paper or project you are working on.

New colleagues get to present their research at the School Seminar and since doing this I have started two new collaborations with colleagues here.  There is a space to get together for lunch if you want a screen-free sandwich.  Overall, there is real dynamism within the group and also opportunities to socialise together outside of work.

 

 

What would be your advice to anyone thinking about applying for one of these roles, and do you have any tips on the process?

 

PIR at Aston is a great place to work if you are looking for a friendly and dynamic research and teaching environment.  There is always a lot going on in Birmingham – from the Literature Festival to the German markets – there is something for everyone.  Come along and visit the campus to get a sense of the diversity and energy at Aston; speak to students, sit in on the guest lectures and talks and Aston will work its magic on you!

Being a Teaching Associate in Politics and International Relations at Aston University

Our department at Aston University is recruiting at least one new Teaching Associate for next year. This blog is intended to provide a bit of informal advice to prospective applicants, about what we do, who we are, and the sort of things we will be looking for.

 

First – why do we need a teaching associate and what would you do?  Normally, our teaching is done by full-time lecturers with long-term contracts, but in this instance we need maternity cover for one colleague, and there are some other teaching needs in the department, for instance due to study leave.  We also need to cover some other teaching needs that have arisen.

Specifically, one appointee would teach our new, second year undergraduate module on Political Ideologies and Theories each week throughout the year.  This is a new course, a reading list has been prepared, but you would need to prepare each two-hour sessions with the group of around 60 students.  You have a fair amount of freedom in how you structure that.  In addition, we would ask you to support seminar teaching (following content devised by another lecturer) with smaller groups, probably in Introduction to Politics, Introduction to the European Union, and Security Studies.  Another appointee might teach an optional final year module (we can discuss the exact topic), and Introduction to International Relations seminars.  In all of these, you would also be responsible for marking students’ work (though your marks would be “moderated” by a colleague, as happens for all our modules).  There would be other opportunities to teach as well – for instance, we have some final-year optional modules we would like to run on African Political Thought (but this is by no means a requirement) and you might be asked to contribute to group-taught modules for MA students.  In addition to this, you would have some personal tutees who you would support with pastoral issues, you would supervise undergraduate dissertation projects, and you would support undergraduate study skills workshops.  We would ask you to help with outreach activities, such as open days.  We really want all our colleagues, including Teaching Associates, in developing their own initiatives, so if you had an idea for a project, or a guest speaker for instance, you could expect an enthusiastic reception for your ideas.

 

Second – a bit about our team.  We are a medium-sized department, with 17.2 current staff (15 are full-time, three are part-time), excluding one colleague who heads our School, and another who is currently on sabbatical at the Foreign Office.  Of those 18 staff, eight are men, ten are women, and we are a diverse group in terms of our national backgrounds (with nationals of ten different countries!), and we would welcome greater ethnic diversity in our department.  Several colleagues have young families, and all live either in Birmingham or within a sensible commuting distance.  We encourage a diverse workforce including representation of staff with disabilities and will provide support and reasonable adjustments as needed.  Aston is a ‘two ticks’ employer, which means that it has committed to offering an interview to all disabled applicants who meet the essential criteria for a vacancy.  We recruited four new colleagues last year, and have appointed 4.5 new lecturers for next year, reflecting the positive view the University and prospective applicants have of studying with us at Aston.

 

Third – a bit about our students.  Our student body is very diverse (as is the West Midlands region, in which we are based): at the undergraduate level, we attract a good range of students, both on our Single Honours course (Politics and International Relations) and in our joint honours courses (such as Politics and Economics, International Relations and Business, and International Relations and Modern Languages).  These students are overwhelmingly from the state sector, and have scored reasonably highly in their A-levels.  We strongly encourage them to undertake a work or study placement, either in the UK or abroad, in their penultimate year, and find this makes a real difference to their employability, which is very important to us at Aston.  At postgraduate level, we have a good mix of students, and many come from continental Europe, often as part of our joint and double degrees with Rennes, Lille, and Bamberg (with a new programme Metropolitan University in Prague coming on stream next year).

 

Fourth – a bit about working here.  We are passionate teachers – staff regularly observe each other’s teaching, several colleagues have won prizes in this area, and we often compare notes on ways of teaching and keeping students engaged (for instance, students may do “simulations”, policy reports, role plays, group assignments and produce films as part of their courses).  We take our MA students on an annual study visit to Brussels, and have also had regular study visits to London.

 

We are all strong believers in keeping our discipline relevant to everyday life.  So we hold regular lunchtime seminars for students and staff on current affairs, we recently held an event with the Parliamentary Outreach Service on Parliament and BAME communities and another with local young people on their views on the EU referendum, and our team often write blogs aimed at an audience beyond academia.  We also regularly engage with policy-makers, holding events in London and Brussels where we can discuss our ongoing research with practitioners, and feed into and shape policy discussions.

 

In this blog, I am not referring specifically to research because this is a “teaching only” post.  However, it would be very welcome if you had experience of conducting and publishing research, and in the recent past many of our teaching associates have gone on to full lecturerships elsewhere.  We will offer you a mentor to help with your professional development, and you would be very welcome to present your research to our fortnightly PIR research seminar (colleagues would also welcome your input on their research).

 

If you are interested in applying, here are some things to consider:

 

• The key document in shortlisting will be your answers to the questions online application form (which will be scored according to whether you have met our criteria), as well as your CV. Make sure you look carefully at our person specification before applying.
• We are likely to read quite a few applications, and for that reason we need candidates to have completed, or at least submitted, their Ph.D.
• Do think about how you would make things work at Aston (based on the information in the further particulars and this blog!) and set these out, relating them, if you can, to your experience. For instance, if you found a particular way of teaching students worked very well, do say so!
• If you are shortlisted, you are likely to have a job interview with me, Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik, and one or two other colleagues, for about half an hour. The date of Monday 24^th July is unlikely to change, so try to keep this free.  If you can possibly attend in person, this is always best, though if you are abroad on that day, we may be able to set something up with Skype.  We will pay travel expenses to the interview.  Normally the first question will be about why you want to work at Aston, so you’d want to give this some serious thought in advance.

 

If you have any questions, please drop me a line at e.turner@aston.ac.uk, and we can catch up on the telephone or Skype if necessary afterwards.

ARTICLE 50 AND THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TREATY OF ROME: BREXIT AND THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

On 25 March 2017 EU Heads of State and Government celebrated the 60^th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the founding document for the project of “ever closer union” that eventually became the European Union. The United Kingdom, however, was absent at the festivities, just as it was when the document was signed in 1957. Skipping this diamond jubilee was perfectly logical given that on 23 June 2016 British voters decided to leave the club.

But despite the lavish setting at the Palazzo dei Conservatori that boasts a façade designed by Michelangelo, this was not a moment of unbridled joy for EU leaders. Rather, it is a time of profound soul-searching about the future of European integration. In this context, Brexit is a symptom more than a cause as the difficulties of devising and justifying more cooperation are felt across Europe. The UK’s absence though is strategically problematic as the country has so much at stake in any re-foundation of the EU project.

To coincide with the anniversary, European federalists organized a March for Europe on 24 March. This initiative comes on the back of a call by various European public figures to turn the EU into a fully-fledged majoritarian form of government that would transcend national interests. The chances of this happening are very slim because EU leaders worry first and foremost about their national electorates. Nevertheless, the EU is at a cross-roads when it comes to delivering on expectations that integration makes countries better equipped to tackle policy challenges together.

Thinking about Europe’s future comes under the job description of the European Commission. It recently published a White Paper outlining five scenarios for the evolution of the EU, which was discussed at the meeting of the European Council in Rome. The federalist option is one of these scenarios, alongside a re-focus on the single market, a carrying on as now option, a less is more approach, and a multi-speed model.

Whichever path is pursued will matter greatly to the UK. What the EU will look like in the future will be of great significance now that Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, has declared her intention to seek a new referendum on Scottish independence. Will voters in Scotland who would have preferred to stick with the EU status quo be more or less enthusiastic for membership if integration is just about the single market? An a la carte EU is definitely in line with the ruling Scottish National Party’s desire to retain an opt-out from Economic and Monetary Union.

Keeping the pound is a perfectly plausible scenario for an independent Scotland, if the EU agrees. However, it cannot be done without acknowledging Westminster and the Bank of England’s demands. With the euro as an object lesson in poorly designed currency union before them, British policy-makers will be at pains to avoid repeating the same mistakes. Breaking up the Union will leave Scotland facing the prospect of a sterling currency area that is as much of a straightjacket for public finances as the euro.

Moreover, the strength of European unity will greatly affect the outcome of future UK-EU relations. A cluster of major foreign policy issues will depend on close cooperation between Brussels and London, most significantly, security cooperation and global trade. The known unknown in this context is the need for a new institutional architecture to make such cooperation work. That is why the UK government’s White Paper on Brexit spends considerable time discussing the subject. Yet a lack of European unity could jeopardise the EU’s ability to create a sufficiently robust framework. At the same time, a strong shared commitment stemming from a move towards federal-style integration could make the EU’s demands on matters such as regulatory equivalence problematic for the UK to comply with.

Discretion is, admittedly, a key part of diplomacy. But by avoiding rubbing shoulders with fellow heads of state and government when the champagne was flowing, Theresa May put more distance between her government and its negotiation partners. In many ways, Brexit is a consequence of the evolution of the EU because as competences were transferred a vocal minority of British Eurosceptics came to dominate the European debate in the absence of any pro-EU voices. It would be a mistake, following the triggering of Article 50, for British policy-makers to fail to understand the future direction of the EU.

This blog is part of the ERASMUS+ project AwarEU http://www.cesue.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=143&Itemid=521&lang=en

 

Working in Politics and IR at Aston

Working in Politics and International Relations at Aston University

 

Our department at Aston University is thrilled to be recruiting up to four posts (including possible appointments at Senior Lecturer  / Reader level), and this blog is intended to provide a bit of informal advice to prospective applicants, especially for the lecturership positions (though it may be useful background for those interested in a more senior role ), about what we do, who we are, and the sort of things we will be looking for.  There is then a short interview with Parveen Akhtar, who joined the department as Lecturer in Politics and International Relations last year.

 

First – a bit about our team.  We are a medium-sized department, with 17.2 current staff (15 are full-time, three are part-time), excluding one colleague who heads our School, and another who is currently on sabbatical at the Foreign Office.  Of those 18 staff, eight are men, ten are women, and we are a diverse group in terms of our national backgrounds (with nationals of ten different countries!), and we would welcome greater ethnic diversity in our department.  Several colleagues have young families, and all live either in Birmingham or within a sensible commuting distance.  We encourage a diverse workforce including representation of staff with disabilities and will provide support and reasonable adjustments as needed.  Aston is a ‘two ticks’ employer, which means that it has committed to offering an interview to all disabled applicants who meet the essential criteria for a vacancy.  We recruited four new colleagues last year, and hope to do the same again this year – this reflects the popularity of our department with students, and the university’s commitment to expanding our discipline.

 

Second – a bit about our students.  Our student body is very diverse (as is the West Midlands region, in which we are based): at the undergraduate level, we attract a good range of students, both on our Single Honours course (Politics and International Relations) and in our joint honours courses (such as Politics and Economics, International Relations and Business, and International Relations and Modern Languages).  These students are overwhelmingly from the state sector, and have scored highly in their A-levels.  We strongly encourage them to undertake a work or study placement, either in the UK or abroad, in their penultimate year, and find this makes a real difference to their employability, which is very important to us at Aston.  At postgraduate level, we have a good mix of students, and many come from continental Europe, often as part of our joint and double degrees with Rennes, Lille, and Bamberg (with a new programme Metropolitan University in Prague coming on stream soon).

 

Third – a bit about working here.  We are all active researchers, but our areas of specialism vary widely, as you will see from our staff profiles.  Our standards are high – at the last REF, we entered under the “umbrella” of the Aston Centre for Europe in the Area Studies section, and were ranked the highest in this field outside London.  We have recently become a Jean-Monnet Centre of Excellence.  But it is important to remember that ACE, and our department, are “ecumenical”, and that we are not exclusively interested in European Studies.  For instance, our students often tell us they would like to learn more about the Politics of the Middle East, or the Politics of China or Latin America; the truth is we are open to applications from any interesting sub-field of Politics and International Relations.  We have recently re-established a departmental seminar where a colleague presents “work in progress” and discusses it in a supportive environment.  We are encouraged to bid for external funding from a variety of sources (and have had success from sources like the European Commission, Leverhulme, the German Academic Exchange Service and the ESRC in recent years), and comment on each other’s bids to give them the best chance of success.

 

We are also passionate teachers – staff regularly observe each other’s teaching, several colleagues have won prizes in this area, and we often compare notes on ways of teaching and keeping students engaged (for instance, students may do “simulations”, policy reports, role plays, group assignments and produce films as part of their courses).  We take our MA students on an annual study visit to Brussels, and have also had regular study visits to London.  There is no “typical” teaching load, but a colleague might expect to teach courses for around six hours per week during team time, to a mixture of larger and smaller groups, and in addition offer four hours a week of office hours, as well as time for dissertation supervision and meeting with personal tutees.  Every member of staff is entitled to a “research day” each week, including during term time, when they would not be expected to teach or be at meetings.

 

We are all strong believers in keeping our discipline relevant to everyday life.  So we hold regular lunchtime seminars for students and staff on current affairs, we recently held an event with the Parliamentary Outreach Service on Parliament and BAME communities and another with local young people on their views on the EU referendum, and our team often write blogs aimed at an audience beyond academia.  We also regularly engage with policy-makers, holding events in London and Brussels where we can discuss our ongoing research with practitioners, and feed into and shape policy discussions.  For us, “impact” is about a lot more than ticking a box for external evaluation of universities!

 

If you are interested in applying (especially for the lecturership positions), here are some things to consider:

 

• The key document in shortlisting will be your answers to the questions online application form (which will be scored according to whether you have met our criteria), as well as your CV. Make sure you look carefully at our person specification before applying.
• We are likely to read well over 150 applications, and for that reason we need candidates to have a completed Ph.D., and evidence of “successful research publication”. This will probably involve having published, or at least advanced plans for, a book, and also some articles in peer reviewed journals, and far more weight will be given to publications which are published or accepted for publication than which have not yet been accepted.  Expectations clearly depend on how long you have been in the profession, and career breaks would be taken into account.
• Remember that we all regard our teaching as really important, as well as our research, and think about how you would ensure Aston students are really engaged in and excited about what they are learning.
• When thinking about income generation, by all means include good ideas for research grants (including those with collaborators outside Aston), but also think about whether there might be any new incomes streams you could develop for the department or ACE.
• We will involve the whole department in recruitment, as shortlisted applicants will give a presentation to us on the first day, and then there will be an interview on the second day with a group of colleagues (most probably myself, Prof. Green, Prof. Gaffney, Dr. Rowe, and a colleague from another subject group). In both these settings, you would want to show how you can get your message across clearly and succinctly, how you would engage students and colleagues, and how you would see yourself fitting in with our department (and possibly the Aston Centre for Europe).  Normally the first question will be about why you want to work at Aston, so you’d want to give this some serious thought in advance.  Since we pride ourselves on our practical, relevant research you can expect to be asked about this.

 

If you have any questions, please drop me a line at e.turner@aston.ac.uk, and we can catch up on the telephone or Skype if necessary afterwards.

 

Interview with Parveen Akhtar, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations

 

Why did you decide to apply to work at Aston?

 

There were a number of reasons why I decided to apply to work at Aston.  Birmingham is a super-diverse and rapidly changing city, and, as such, provides a fascinating backdrop to the kinds of research issues I work on around political inclusion and representation.  When I applied to Aston in 2016, there were 7 vacancies across the School and 4 of those were dedicated to Politics and International Relations.  This pointed to a genuine commitment to the Social Sciences and, of course, it’s always exciting to join and contribute to an institution when it is developing and expanding.   There is a real energy and buzz in the atmosphere and this comes across when you visit the campus.

 

How have you found the first year?

 

It’s really flown by!  The students are so fantastic and really bring a diverse set of experiences and viewpoints to the classroom.  In a year that has been politically interesting (!) with the Brexit vote and the US Presidential election, classroom discussions and debate have been super energised.

Outside of the classroom – memorable moments include the PIR Christmas dinner and Karaoke night which was huge fun and a useful reminder of why I should stick to the day job!

 

Is it a department where people feel part of a team, or do they tend to get on and do their own thing?

 

The team in PIR is incredibly supportive and welcoming.  There is some fantastic research going on and the lunchtime seminars are a great way of getting to know what colleagues are up to and also to get some feedback on whatever research paper or project you are working on.

New colleagues get to present their research at the School Seminar and since doing this I have started two new collaborations with colleagues here.  There is a space to get together for lunch if you want a screen-free sandwich.  Overall, there is real dynamism within the group and also opportunities to socialise together outside of work.

 

 

What would be your advice to anyone thinking about applying for one of these roles, and do you have any tips on the process?

 

PIR at Aston is a great place to work if you are looking for a friendly and dynamic research and teaching environment.  There is always a lot going on in Birmingham – from the Literature Festival to the German markets – there is something for everyone.  Come along and visit the campus to get a sense of the diversity and energy at Aston; speak to students, sit in on the guest lectures and talks and Aston will work its magic on you!

François Fillon’s nomination was the worst case scenario for Marine Le Pen

Blog post by John Gaffney

This article was originally published in the EUROPP blog on the 30th of November. For the original article, please visit: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/11/30/francois-fillons-nomination-was-the-worst-case-scenario-for-marine-le-pen/

It has been the received view until recently that Marine Le Pen would go through to the second round of the French presidential election in 2017, possibly with the highest round one vote, in the high 20s, but that almost any other candidate would beat her in round two – except perhaps François Hollande on account of massive abstentions. There are many people on the left who say they would not vote Hollande even if it meant she might win, unlike in 2002, and in some opinion polls Hollande’s approval ratings are as low as 2%.

But since the 2014 European elections, the German Regional elections, Brexit, and then Trump (and the Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, and Five Star Movement in Italy…) it is clear that no one has a grasp on what is happening. The analysts, like the opinion polls, are consistently wrong. And in French domestic politics Le Pen’s popularity has begun to look seriously ominous given the chaos within both the left and right.

Add to this the very great disillusion/disaffection in France itself with government and the political class generally as well as – since the Bataclan and Nice terror attacks – a palpable fear (the breeding ground of populism), and you have a potentially dramatic and volatile situation. This is made even more so by the twists and turns of the presidential race – ironic in that the presidency was created to bring stability.

So, into this unpredictable situation steps the ultra-calm François Fillon. Fillon is the huge surprise of the ‘Right and Centre’ presidential primaries. And the rally around him rather than around the favourite Alain Juppé and second favourite, Nicolas Sarkozy, is extremely informative. It was first an anti-Sarkozy vote; but it was also an assertion that there remains a clear mainstream right. Fillon, strangely, is more of a threat to Marine le Pen than Alain Juppé. He is, like Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, closer to the ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics, and the anti-marriage pour tous, Sens commun, and Printemps français. He is himself a practising Catholic and is anti-gay marriage, and anti-abortion – although would probably only try to repeal ‘gay adoption’ rights, which might be a popular initiative given worries (myths, but no less powerful for that) about protecting children.

Fillon’s presidential candidacy not only puts the right back on the map, he is also the real danger to Marine Le Pen because his views are nearer the far right. Many of his views are like his first round rival Nicolas Sarkozy’s (on immigration, for example) but – and this is crucial – his personality is very different. Unlike Sarkozy, he is quiet and reassuring. Economically, too, he is for deep reforms to open up the markets; he supports cutting 500,000 civil servant posts (France has twice as many civil servants as Germany and is half as efficient), and abolishing the 35-hour week, among other reforms.

Also, unlike the other candidates in the primary, his ‘programme’ was clear and known, so he exuded if not charisma, then confidence (which in turn is transformed into a kind of charisma). His success is largely the result of people knowing what he intends to do. He is an admirer of Margaret Thatcher, although he can balance this with his ‘social Gaullist’ past. Le Pen will, like Trump, go for protectionism, easy solutions, ‘follow me’, helping the workers, and the ‘little guy’ style of populism. But she will be forced now to emphasise this further in the face of Fillon’s far-reaching reform programme, which will be popular: less state, reform of the labour laws, lightening tax burdens on business and families.

Fillon’s further advantage is that Juppé’s star rose as a kind of father (or grandfather?) figure versus the volatile Sarko (and useless Hollande). Fillon is a kind of conflation of Sarkozy and Juppé: tough but reassuring, economically sound, yet socially conservative. Probably the best candidate to stand against Marine le Pen if, as expected, she goes through to the run-off in 2017. His two potential disadvantages being that first, fewer of the left will be as happy to vote for him as for Juppé, and second, France’s huge civil service electorate will be worried as regards their job security. But to block Le Pen they will all have no choice.

When we speak of populism, it depends on what we mean, but if we assume a kind of everyday definition, Marine Le Pen will certainly use it to the full in 2017. Fillon cannot so readily use populism as he is popular because he is the anti-demagogue. But – and here’s the magic wand – what he will do is develop the Gaullist idea of the rally (rassemblement) seen in round one of the primaries and dramatically increased in the run-off.

From now on, his team will encourage this idea of the rally ‘autour de sa personne‘, a rally of opinion and emotion around a person or persona who ‘incarnates’ ‘a certain idea of France’ (the opening lines of de Gaulle’s Memoirs­). He will also appeal to another deep myth of La France profonde: quiet, small town and rural, ‘decent’ France, the France Fillon lays claim to. And although there is a worrying populist/far right strain in French political culture, there is also, as is the case in Greece, Italy, and Spain, for example, a real political ‘intelligence’ in the culture and the electorate. Fillon will appeal to this.

On the themes for 2017 (assuming it will be Fillon and Le Pen who go through), there will be ‘real’ ‘perceptible’ choices between the candidates. These include a clear debate between strong Schengen borders and strong French borders; remaining an active member of the European Union vs ‘Frexit’; ‘modernisation’/responding to globalisation vs ‘raising the drawbridge’ style protectionism; and getting the market economy going again vs strong social state protection.

On immigration, Le Pen’s advantage is diminished because Fillon is also ‘tough’ on immigration and assertive of an imagined French ‘identity’ that is being lost. These contrasts will make for extremely good rhetorical jousting, but the real ‘theme’ will be that of ‘personality’, the characters of the candidates, and over the next six months this aspect will be central to political developments.

There is then the more prosaic issue, namely, of not only how Le Pen would govern, but with whom. Currently she only has 2 MPs. You need a minimum of 289 to govern with an overall majority of one in the French National Assembly. We can assume that the left will be decimated. Fillon would have a potential landslide majority. It is therefore likely that – at least this time – the French will vote for an economically and socially bumpy ride with François Fillon rather than go over the cliff with Marine le Pen.

Poppies, football and political symbols

Blog Post by Daniel Fitzpatrick

Despite appeals from the respective football associations of England and Scotland, FIFA has refused to allow players of both teams to display poppies on their shirts during the World Cup qualifier at Wembley tonight. The match coincides with Armistice Day when the United Kingdom traditionally pauses to remember the fallen service men and women killed in conflict.

FIFA’s ban appears to rest on the assumption that the poppy represent a political symbol and as such contravenes Law 4 of the Rules of the Game banning political, religious or commercial messages on shirts or equipment. The Prime Minster took the opportunity at last week’s PMQs to lambast FIFA for its rigidity, decrying its stance as ‘utterly outrageous’.

The controversy over of the poppy ban lies in the confusion on what does and does not constitute the political. Many people would argue that the poppy appeal is beyond party politics certainly (notwithstanding Jeremy Corbyn decision to wear a white poppy). Others still would contend that the poppy is too closely associated with the imperial past of the British state and an implicit endorsement of militarism.

The question is not really whether the poppy is a political symbol; the answer to this is entirely subjective and contingent upon one’s position and relationship to the British state. The more intriguing puzzle is why the poppy is not permitted, when football, and sport in general, is replete with political symbolism. Since the 19th century modern sport (that is organised, codified and then increasingly professionalised) has been an important mechanism for inculcating a sense of national pride, culture and belonging. Important unifying traditions such as singing the national anthem and displaying the national flag are deeply embedded within the fabric of modern sport. So-called sports mega events, such as the World Cup and the Olympics, are utilised for building and consolidating a sense of nationhood and projecting a particular construction of a nation for strategic influence on the global stage.

If the poppy is deemed too political it may be asked why England are allowed to display the Three Lions badge on their shirts. The Three Lions, derived from the Royal Coat of Arms, represents the connection between the monarch and the nation. At the very least the Three lions badge symbolises support for the Crown in the UK (not only England). The motto at the base of the Royal Coat of Arms reads: Dieu et mon droit. The literal translation of this phrase is ‘God and my right’; while now arcane it nevertheless establishes a line of continuity between the period of absolutist monarchy according to the ‘divine right of kings’ and the contemporary era of constitutional monarchy. It also points to a history of military conflict and conquest; it was the symbol used on the King’s shield to identify him in the midst of battle and was displayed by Richard the Lionheart during the Crusades. In this context the badge is far more political, and redolent of war and militarism, than the poppy.

Being more cynical we might question FIFA’s motivations for wanting to keep a clear delineation between sport and politics. FIFA, which is struggling to shore up the crumbling foundations of its legitimacy as the international governing body for football, is attempting to maintain the façade that politics has no place in football. In maintaining the pretence that it is sporting rather than political organisation FIFA is able to preserve its sphere of private governance from incursion from democratic politics. The governing bodies of sport cling to what Lincoln Allison called ‘the myth of autonomy’ for particular institutional imperatives. In arguing that sport and politics can and should be kept apart those in charge of sport seek to perpetuate their position as power holders and arbiters of morality in sport.

This is obvious a fallacy. FIFA, itself, ‘believes that football is more than just a game.’ It publicises a number of laudable policies, programmes and awards on anti-discrimination, poverty and development, and sustainability. In practice its record on these matters is mixed at best, and mere window-dressing at worst. Nevertheless the existence of such wider social and economic aims suggest that FIFA considers such non-sporting issues appropriate for discussion and purposive action in the arena of football. The distinction is that that FIFA launches and administers these programmes in an effort to consolidate its own legitimacy. The more hard line stance over the wearing of poppies now – opposed to the compromise reached in 2011 – speaks to the crumbling legitimacy of the world governing body of football more than the politicised nature of the poppy.