# data[].attributes.body
POI 1:

“If these artefacts are returned, won’t they be hidden in storage or poorly maintained due to lack of resources?”

Rebuttal:

“First, this assumes former colonies are incompetent — a deeply colonial mindset. Second, if the West truly cared about preservation, they could fund collaborative efforts instead of profiting from stolen culture. Ownership and display are two different questions — and ownership belongs to the people these artefacts were taken from.”

POI 2:

“Isn’t it better for humanity that these artefacts are accessible to a global audience in Western museums?”

Rebuttal:

“Global accessibility shouldn’t come at the cost of historical injustice. Artefacts can be shared through loans or digital access — but permanent ownership through colonial theft is not a legitimate way to serve ‘global good’. That’s just sugarcoating exploitation.”POI 3:

“Some of these objects were bought legally — why should they be returned?”

Rebuttal:

“Many of these ‘legal’ purchases happened under colonial occupation, where coercion was normal and locals had no power to refuse. Buying under a gun isn’t fair trade — it’s extortion. Legality under colonialism doesn’t equal legitimacy.”

POI 4:

“How do we decide who to return artefacts to? Some nations don’t even exist anymore, or there are disputes.”

Rebuttal:

“Complexity doesn’t justify injustice. We deal with international restitution cases all the time — from Nazi-looted art to stolen antiquities. The presence of difficulty doesn’t mean we should abandon responsibility. You don’t ignore a crime just because the paperwork is annoying.”

POI 5:

“Won’t this empty out Western museums and destroy their educational value?”

Rebuttal:

“Museums shouldn’t be built on stolen foundations. They can still tell global stories by collaborating, borrowing, and co-curating — without clinging to ownership of artefacts taken through violence. Education doesn’t require possession, it requires ethics.”

POI 6:

“What if artefacts get destroyed in politically unstable regions?”

Rebuttal:

“Then we support infrastructure and conservation efforts — we don’t punish entire cultures for instability caused in part by colonialism itself. Also, artefacts have been destroyed in Western museums too — think of fires at Notre Dame or Brazil’s national museum. No place is 100% safe, but denying return is not the solution.”

# data[].attributes.body
Can you name any other legal context where possession through violence or theft is considered legitimate?

Would you say a burglar deserves to keep stolen family heirlooms because they have a better display case?

How can a country heal from colonial trauma if its cultural memory is locked away overseas?

Should the narrative of world history be written by the looters or the looted?

# data[].attributes.body
Dominik:

-If populism most of the time leads to authoritarian behaviour once in power how does it not damage a democracy

-How can you support populism if in history it has gone to extremes?

-Won’t it be dangerous for a democracy when one singular person states that they embody the will of the people leaving no room for opposition or conflict?

# data[].attributes.body
Dominik:

-so should colonial theft be normalized if the countries can preserve the artefacts?

-why should museums and countries profit from theft in the past and are they not supporting injustice through this

-should countries like GB be allowed to hold the power wether or not a country gets a piece of their heritage back

-How would you feel if someone stole a family heirloom and told you „You wouldnt be able to preserve it“?

-If its all about the education of people wouldn't this educate people on the history of their country and how in the past they stole said artefacts?

# data[].attributes.body
Dominik:

-With how much technology has helped in the past such as renewable energies why doubt the Impact it could have

-limiting technological progress could lead to no progress showing in certain topics such as climate change how do you address this?

-is the technology really the issue or how people use it?

-wouldn’t the refusal of usage of said technological ideas maybe be seen as not confronting environmental issues if they are available solutions?

# data[].attributes.body
Dominik:

-If smartphones are used in class for learning how do plan on students not being distracted

-> how would you ensure students don‘t use their phones for social media or games

# data[].attributes.body
Argument 1: Smartphones reduce academic performance and focus

Multiple studies show that smartphone use in classrooms directly harms students’ ability to concentrate and retain information. In fact, research by Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013) found that students who texted during a lecture scored an average of 27% lower on a comprehension quiz compared to those who did not use their phones. The study concluded that even short bursts of smartphone activity split students’ attention and disrupted the learning process.

Source: Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917

Argument 2: Smartphones increase anxiety and reduce classroom well-being

Smartphone presence in classrooms doesn’t just distract—it also affects students’ mental health. A 2017 study published in the journal Environment and Behavior found that students who were physically separated from their phones experienced lower anxiety and better focus than those who had their phones nearby, even if they weren’t actively using them. This suggests that the mere presence of a smartphone can reduce mindfulness and disrupt classroom engagement.

Source: Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting: Implications for attention and task performance. Environment and Behavior, 46(3), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512457630

# data[].attributes.headline
Statistics by PISA on distraction caused by smartphones - Julika

# data[].attributes.subject
Statistics by PISA on distraction caused by smartphones - Julika

# data[].attributes.body
Most of you can probably relate to feeling distracted when using a smartphone. Although feeling distracted by scrolling through e.g. TikTok may sounds harmless, it is for sure not.

According to PISA, students who felt distracted by smartphones in math class scored about 15 points less than those who did not report any distraction.

In countries were smartphones were banned from school, students performed better.

However, the problem is that those who are distracted are the majority - 59% in total were distracted and in Canada, it even went up to 80% of distracted students.

For your understanding, PISA considers scoring 20 points less a year lost of learning, making it even more harmful than it seems to be.

# data[].attributes.body
Numerous studies show that phones significantly reduce students’ attention span and lower academic performance, even when they’re not actively used (just being present is enough to cause cognitive distraction)

Students use phones to cheat by texting answers, using apps like PhotoMath, or searching the web during exams, compromising the fairness of assessments

Statistic: According to a 2023 Common Sense Media report, 35% of high school students admitted to using their phones to cheat during tests or assignments.

Example: In one California school district, teachers noticed a spike in identical answers on open-ended questions. After banning phones during exams, cheating incidents dropped by over 60%.

Not all students have the latest smartphones or unlimited data. Allowing phones in class widens the gap between wealthier and poorer students and reinforces feelings of exclusion.

Statistic: In the U.S., as of 2023, 17% of teens from low-income households do not have a smartphone or have one with limited access, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Banning smartphones promotes equality and reduces social pressure (Larina)

# data[].attributes.subject
Banning smartphones promotes equality and reduces social pressure (Larina)

# data[].attributes.body
Smartphones can create visible differences among students based on the brand, price, or condition of their devices. This often leads to competition, exclusion, or even bullying, especially when some students cannot afford the latest models. By banning smartphones, schools ensure that no one feels left out or judged based on their personal belongings. It creates a more inclusive and respectful learning environment, where students are seen for their ideas and efforts rather than the gadgets they own. In this way, a smartphone ban helps promote social equality and reduces unnecessary pressure on students and their families.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smartphones distract students and reduce classroom participation (Larina)

# data[].attributes.subject
Smartphones distract students and reduce classroom participation (Larina)

# data[].attributes.body
Smartphones can significantly disrupt the learning environment because they offer constant access to social media, games, and messaging apps. Instead of focusing on the lesson, students are often tempted to check their notifications or browse the internet, which leads to reduced concentration and lower academic performance. Moreover, when smartphones are present, students are less likely to actively participate in class discussions or group work. Without these devices, they are more engaged with the teacher and their peers, which leads to a more productive and interactive learning atmosphere. Therefore, banning smartphones in the classroom can help improve focus and encourage students to take a more active role in their education.

# data[].attributes.headline
Facts and Statistics AGAINST Smartphones in the classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Facts and Statistics AGAINST Smartphones in the classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Pro:

Populism replaces reality based governance with polarizing, emotional rhetoric
The Greek populists called a national referendum not to improve negotiations but to strengthen their political position. They ignored expert advice and facts, relying instead on emotional appeals and national pride. This strategy led to even worse austerity measures and long-term damage to the Greek economy, showing how populism prioritizes short-term popularity over responsible governance, endangering democratic stability.

Contra:

Populist failure can strengthen democratic systems in the long run
The Greek experience shows that populist governments, when exposed to the complexities of governance, often fail to deliver. In this sense, populism may serve as a democratic stress test, ultimately reinforcing institutions by forcing political renewal.

Bilge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rambunctious outsiders often have no solutions to offer. But their obvious failures will not guarantee their demise.

Yannis Behrakis / Reuters

While the crisis in Greece no longer captures international headlines as it once did, the country's troubles never went away. Greece remains the only Eurozone country still subject to a joint Eurozone-International Monetary Fund fiscal adjustment and structural reform program. In the long-running saga's latest episode, the recent completion of a crucial compliance review paves the way for the release of $7.6 billion in bailout funds to Greece from its creditors in exchange for further budget cuts and tax increases.

Greece's troubles date back to the implosion of its economy in 2010. Faced with a massive budget shortfall caused by a combination of overspending and undertaxing at a time of swelling global financial risk, Greece found itself unable to refinance its huge debt. As a member of the Eurozone and a debtor to several major European banks, it was able to elude outright default, securing a bailout from its European partners who, with the assistance of the IMF, demanded an onerous fiscal adjustment. With or without a bailout, an adjustment of such magnitude was both necessary and painful. But the hastily designed, poorly implemented program exacerbated Greece's considerable economic distortions-a large and inefficient public sector and an uncompetitive private one-triggering a brutal economic depression accompanied by massive unemployment. Combined with the inevitable political turmoil that ensued, this crisis sparked a global scare about Greece's imminent exit from the Eurozone, which carried dire implications for the survival of the common European currency.

All this made Greece fertile terrain for populism, long before Trump crashed onto the scene and a referendum brought us to the brink of Britain's exit from the European Union. In fact, Greece's experiment in populism-broadly pointing to political movements that emerge from the margins to challenge mainstream politicians in the name of the people, while preaching a gospel of sweeping change and scolding the "elites" as failed, corrupt, and responsible for most social ills-has a great deal in common with those in America and Britain.

By upending conventional political practice and highlighting their status as political outsiders, populists secure a political advantage in a time of crisis, change, and uncertainty. Yet, as Greece's experiment showed, such disruption is very costly. Embracing their outsider status might deliver victory to populists, but does little to help them navigate a complex reality that requires serious, long-term planning, and compromise. If anything, reality sets populists up for costly failure.

* * *

In 2010, few in Greece saw the trouble on the horizon. When it arrived, voters were quick to blame the political establishment, as represented by the center-left PASOK and center-right New Democracy-easy scapegoats that had traded power for over 40 years. In control when the crisis exploded, PASOK absorbed the brunt of the fallout, its poll numbers dropping from 43.9 percent in 2009 to just 12.3 percent by 2012. Although New Democracy was dealt a serious blow, it managed to preserve a substantial part of its electoral base.

In the first elections of the crisis period in May 2012, several populist parties competed to fill the gap left by the faltering PASOK and New Democracy. They ranged from the Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party and the far-right Independent Greeks (ANEL) to the Coalition of Radical Left (SYRIZA). They portrayed the elite as both corrupt and insufficiently patriotic, and promised a return to the good old days of debt-fueled prosperity. SYRIZA, a party of former student activists and far-left intellectuals that had hitherto struggled to win more than 4 percent of the vote, emerged as the strongest of the populist bunch. It advocated the repeal of all unpopular economic measures, including a particularly reviled property tax. Thus, SYRIZA, led by the 40-year old Alexis Tsipras, became the main opposition party. In January 2015, it defeated an unpopular coalition government led by the old political mainstays, New Democracy and PASOK.

While SYRIZA won a plurality, it lacked the parliamentary majority necessary to form a government. Its solution was to ally with the far-right ANEL, forming an unusual left-right coalition government united in its populist sentiment. (It was as if Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders decided to govern together.) The time had come to turn promises into policy.

Populists tend to ask the right questions. They raise legitimate issues about the economic and social fallout of globalization, and thrive on demands for political accountability. In Greece, they asked what brought the country to its current predicament, how corruption flourished, and why the economic medicine administered to cure its economic ailments appeared only to spread the contagion. Mainstream parties had failed to prevent the crisis; once it erupted, they could not manage its social impact.

But while the populists were right to blame the establishment, they had no solutions. While in the opposition, they peddled empty slogans and old-fashioned economic ideas, rejected necessary reforms, and argued that they could force Greece's creditors to fund their policies. That makes for good opposition policy. But when the populists win, they must deliver. In Greece, the populists not only couldn't deliver on their promises-they delivered the opposite of what they'd promised: even more austerity. Protracted negotiations between the Greek government and its European creditors failed to produce the breakthrough that SYRIZA had promised. In fact, they further damaged the Greek economy and killed the nascent recovery. The renewed fear of Grexit sparked a mass deposit flight from Greek banks, bringing the economy to its knees.

Even then, the populists refused to recognize what was possible, choosing instead to double down on their mistakes. In July 2015, they announced a referendum, asking the electorate to reject the deal on the table, which entailed the continuation of fiscal adjustment and structural reforms. They argued that such an outcome would strengthen their hand and lead to a better outcome. But they were wrong, ending up with a worse outcome that necessitated even more austerity.

In Greece, many experts were appalled by the government's call for a referendum on the deal, which they viewed as a dangerous gamble. In fact, Greece's top economists advised against rejecting the deal. But their warnings went unheard. Facts did not matter; only emotions. With banks closed and capital controls in place, voters followed the populists, defiantly rejecting the deal. Faced with no realistic options, the populists then executed a complete U-turn, accepting a deal even worse than the one that had been rejected, but suddenly necessitated by the damage their tactics had inflicted on the economy. The estimated price tag of their policy error? A staggering 86 billion euros. The populist governed reacted to this failure by doing what all populists do: sow division and polarization, a strategy it honed while in opposition, and painting its opponents as puppets in the hands of foreign patrons, thus appealing to deep-seated nationalist feelings.

The abysmal incompetence of populists leads to the mistaken belief that their rule will end quickly. Although SYRIZA's deafening failure looked certain to spell its political death, Tsipras engineered a snap election in September 2015, which he won easily. It was just too early for the stunned electorate to admit its mistake and turn back to the discredited mainstream parties. Through its complacency towards populist parties, the opposition placed itself at a marked disadvantage. By assuming that the populists' inability to deliver on their promises would doom them, it ultimately helped them remain in power.

The lesson here is that voters often resist a return to mainstream parties once they have abandoned them. They also don't like to be reminded that they were wrong to jump on the populist bandwagon in the first place. Rather, it is up to the non-populist parties, the fetid mainstream, to convince the electorate that they themselves have changed and are ready to offer credible solutions. In Greece, SYRIZA managed to reclaim power in September 2015, even after its policies failed, partly because it faced a tired, unreformed opposition. Only when the underdog Kyriakos Mitsotakis, a younger reformist, won New Democracy's leadership, did this old, tired party gain political traction.

Paradoxically, this suggests that there's nothing like a populist experiment to re-legitimize the mainstream. With their promises in tatters and their incompetence on full display, populist parties are eventually exposed. At this point, they face the choice to either go mainstream or disappear. Populism may well be a necessary, perhaps effective treatment for the belief that there are easy solutions to hard problems-for belief that one can escape reality.

It is when populists falter that their internal contradictions and hypocrisies are exposed. In Greece, the supposedly hyper-democratic SYRIZA government has adopted policies that have eroded the institutions that are supposed to check the executive, including tighter control of the Supreme Court and attempts to restrict media opposition by limiting the number of operating licenses given to television stations and awarding winning bids to pro-government oligarchs.

Populists also often show they're not immune to the temptations of corruption, despite their promises. As outsiders rather than insiders, they play up the fact that they are untainted by corruption, unlike the political establishment. Yet, they fail to deliver. In Greece, the populist government has already been embroiled in an array of scandals, including one involving preferential loans for political clients; it has shored up its very own "capitalist cronies" and used clientelistic practices to reinforce its political power, appointing hundreds of supporters to public jobs.

However, where democratic institutions are strong, populists face the choice between political death or mainstreaming. When this is the case, populist experiments might reinforce democratic institutions. They can serve as a mechanism for the renewal of the political system and a wake-up call for mainstream politicians who have grown complacent and ineffective.

Transposing the Greek populist experience to America or Britain yields some clear insights. Trump and the Brexiteers succeeded politically by identifying and capitalizing on some real social concerns. However: They have no solutions to offer. They scammed their way to power, but now that they have attained it, they face some unforgivable realities. They will try to avoid them, of course, by dividing and polarizing, and by blaming foreigners and "unpatriotic" political rivals. They are likely to double down when confronted with failure, at considerable economic cost. Yet, their obvious failures will not, in and of themselves, guarantee their demise. This will require mainstream parties to up their game and offer real alternatives. Only then, with the support of resilient democratic institutions, can the havoc wrought by populists be undone.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Stathis Kalyvas is the Arnold Wolfers Professor of Political Science at Yale. His latest book is Modern Greece: What Everyone Needs to Know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Democracies Can Learn From Greece's Failed Populist Experiment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rambunctious outsiders often have no solutions to offer. But their obvious failures will not guarantee their demise. While the crisis in Greece no longer captures international headlines as it once did, the country's troubles never went away. Greece remains the only Eurozone country still subject to a joint Eurozone-International Monetary Fund fiscal adjustment and structural reform program.

# data[].attributes.body
Pro:

Populist regimes risk prioritizing equality over liberty
According to the research, voters may accept lower economic freedom and personal liberties in exchange for greater equality. This trade-off can create environments where authoritarian practices are tolerated or even welcomed, undermining liberal democratic values like free speech, open markets, or institutional independence.

Contra:

Populism can reduce inequality democratically
Populist governments may slow growth, but they often succeed in making economic systems more equitable. This redistribution—even if costly—can restore a sense of fairness and rebuild public trust in political institutions, which strengthens the democratic bond between government and citizens.

Bilge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The University of Chicago Booth School of Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Voters Who Support Populism Are Perfectly Rational

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Countries with higher inequality, more financial development, and higher current account deficits are more prone to populism.

# data[].attributes.body
2. Pro: -Inclusion of populists can normalize anti-democratic Trentino populists as ordinary opponents may mainstream their narratives, shifting public discourse toward intolerance, nationalism, or anti-pluralism. When centrist parties adopt populist rhetoric, the overall democratic culture and the boundaries of acceptable speech and policy can shift dangerously.

Populists claim exclusive legitimacy, rejecting opposition
By declaring themselves the only true representatives of “the people,” populists delegitimize other political actors. This undermines the democratic principle of pluralism and can lead to authoritarian behavior masked as democratic will – especially when combined with strong electoral support.

Contra:

- Not all populists are anti-democratic or authoritarian
Malkopoulou warns against automatically equating populism with authoritarianism. Populist movements exist on both the left and the right and can promote inclusion and equality. When populists turn authoritarian, they should be labeled as such this is not inherent to populism itself.

Bilge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anthoula Malkopoulou warns against conflating populism with authoritarianism and thus over-reacting and supporting repression. But treating populists as regular political opponents may lead to the opposite: under-reacting to the risks posed by some populist parties and individuals

# data[].attributes.headline
Artical: What is populism, and what does the term actually mean?

# data[].attributes.subject
Artical: What is populism, and what does the term actually mean?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro:

Promotion of Authoritarian and Illiberal Practices

Many populists adopt authoritarian leadership styles, often consolidating power through legal or extralegal means. They use rhetoric like “draining the swamp” to justify limiting opposition voices and suppressing dissent. Populist regimes may curtail civil liberties, silence critics, and even change constitutions to stay in power longer. This shift toward authoritarianism is particularly dangerous because it is often done with electoral legitimacy, giving it a democratic façade while hollowing out democratic norms from within.

Us vs Them mentality

Populism creates division in society by portraying it as a struggle between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite” or between “real citizens” and “outsiders.” This oversimplifies complex issues, fuels political polarization, and makes compromise difficult. As a result, it weakens democratic dialogue, threatens social cohesion, and can even lead to violence or democratic decline, as seen in Venezuela.

Contra:

Not All Populism Is Anti-Democratic

Populism is a political style or strategy—not a specific ideology. Left-wing populists, such as Spain’s Podemos or Greece’s Syriza, often champion democratic reforms, social justice, and citizen empowerment. They promote direct democracy through referenda and local assemblies, which can enhance rather than undermine democratic engagement. These movements criticize elites not to destroy democracy, but to make it more inclusive, transparent, and responsive to ordinary people

Bilge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What do Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, and Rodrigo Duterte have in common?

Despite their differences, each man has been labelled a populist.

Populism is on the rise - especially among Europe's right, and in the US, where it helped crown Mr Trump.

Italy's populist Five Star Movement and anti-immigrant League parties have emerged as two major players in the latest elections - the most recent of several such results in Europe.

But there's a difference between being popular and being populist.

The pure people

In political science, populism is the idea that society is separated into two groups at odds with one another - "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite", according to Cas Mudde, author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction.

The term is often used as a kind of shorthand political insult. Britain's Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been accused of populism over his party's slogan "for the many, not the few" - but that's not quite the same thing.

The word "is generally misused, especially in a European context," according to Benjamin Moffitt, author of The Global Rise of Populism.

The true populist leader claims to represent the unified "will of the people". He stands in opposition to an enemy, often embodied by the current system - aiming to "drain the swamp" or tackle the "liberal elite".

"It generally attaches itself to the right in a European context... but that's not an iron rule," Dr Moffitt said.

Rise of the Right

Populist parties can be anywhere on the political spectrum. In Latin America, there was Venezuela's late President Chávez. In Spain, there is the Podemos party, and in Greece the label has also been applied to Syriza. All these are on the left.

But "most successful populists today are on the right, particularly the radical right," Prof Mudde said.

Politicians "like Marine Le Pen in France, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Donald Trump in the US, combine populism with [anti-immigrant] nativism and authoritarianism," he added.

Commentators - from Time magazine to the President of the European Commission - have been warning about the rise of right-wing populism for years.

But in reality, it's nothing new.

"Political scientists have been catching on to this for the last 25-30 years," Dr Moffitt says - but admits "there's been an acceleration."

Experts point to both societal changes like multiculturalism and globalism, and more concrete crises as behind the rise of populist parties in Europe.

Martin Bull, Director of the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), says the emergence of populist parties in Europe could be seen in the early 2000s - but they remained small for several years.

The swell in support seemed to happen "from 2008 - and particularly in 2011, when the banking crisis turned into a sovereign debt crisis", he said.

It was a rare occasion when an elite class - the wealthy bankers - could be identified as more or less directly responsible for a crisis which affected the majority of society.

'I am the people'

In his book The Global Rise of Populism, Dr Moffitt argues that there are other traits associated with the typical populist leader.

One is "bad manners", or behaving in a way that's not typical of politicians - a tactic employed by President Trump and the Philippines' President Duterte.

The other, he says, is "perpetuating a state of crisis" - and always seeming to be on the offensive.

"A populist leader who gets into power is 'forced' to be in a permanent campaign to convince his people that he is not establishment - and never will be," according to Prof Nadia Urbinati from Columbia University.

She argues that populist content is "made of negatives" - whether it is anti-politics, anti-intellectualism, or anti-elite. Here lies one of the populism's strengths - it is versatile.

It is "extraordinarily powerful because it can adapt to all situations," she said.

Another common thread among populist leaders is they tend to dislike the "complicated democratic systems" of modern government - preferring direct democracy like referendums instead, according to Prof Bull.

That also ties in to its links to authoritarianism, he argues - a lack of trust in the established system gives rise to "strongman" leaders.

"Ultimately, the leader makes the decision in a way that just isn't possible in traditional democracies," he says.

That sentiment is perhaps best embodied by the late left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who once said: "I am not an individual - I am the people".

Such thinking "can lead to people thinking they're infallible," Dr Moffitt said. "It restructures the political space in a new and scary way".

After all, if you're not with "the people" - then you must be against us.

That is why populist leaders are often viewed with suspicion - and why the term is often used as a type of insult for a politician who promises too much.

It's what Prof Bull says is called "irresponsible bidding".

"In order to garner support, they're quicker than the establishment party to make offers, or to promise to change things... that on closer inspection may not turn out to be feasible," he said.

"You might question how good that is for democracy," he added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is populism, and what does the term actually mean?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We're told that populism is on the rise - but what exactly does that mean?

# data[].attributes.body
• The author finds himself agreeing with George Osborne (about the Elgin Marbles) and at odds with historian David Abulafia.

• Context: In the early 1800s, Lord Elgin took away about half of the Parthenon friezes—likely with the Ottoman authorities' okay. The British Museum later bought them, but Greece has always disputed the legality of their removal and has long pushed to get them back.

• The UK might have a legal leg to stand on, but the author thinks the moral, cultural, and artistic reasons carry more weight. The marbles were created for a specific spot and setting—the Parthenon—and lose a lot of their significance when taken away.

• To Greece, the marbles mean much more than just art—they're a big part of modern national identity and the country's link to its ancient roots.

• The author takes issue with Osborne and Greece's talks saying this matter is too big to handle behind closed doors.

• His idea: a government-led return of the marbles as a show of goodwill, as part of a bigger UK-Greece cultural team-up—including museum swaps, scholars working together, and joint work to bring back other scattered pieces.

# data[].attributes.body
Egyptian archaeologist Monica Hanna criticizes the continued display of such artifacts as a form of “cultural colonialism”.

Elias

# data[].attributes.body
Germany argues it was taken rightfully and that it’s too fragile to be moved.

Elias

# data[].attributes.body
He claims the bust was taken illegally in 1913 by German archaeologist Ludwig Borchardt.

The petition also demands the return of the Rosetta Stone and the Dendera Zodiac.

Elias

# data[].attributes.body
Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass launched a petition to repatriate the Nefertiti bust from Berlin to Egypt.

Elias

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: Technological Progress Can Solve Environmental Issues

•Innovation is essential: Political solutions like the Paris Agreement have largely failed; innovation is now the only viable path.

•New technologies are more effective: Current renewable solutions are insufficient; we need radical new tools and ideas (e.g., geoengineering, carbon capture, solar shields).

•Historical precedent: Humanity has solved past crises through technology (e.g., replacing whale oil with kerosene).

•Economic development needs tech: Developing countries won’t stop burning coal unless cheaper alternatives are provided — innovation is key.

•Technology enables efficiency: We can do more with less through progress (e.g., energy efficiency, alternative materials).

•Delaying innovation is dangerous: Climate change from innovation (steam engine, combustion engine); we must invent our way out, not retreat.

•Geoengineering options exist: Projects like artificial mountains or space-based solar shields are being considered.

•Market-driven change: If green energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, global warming could be solved without drastic lifestyle changes

# data[].attributes.body
Pro (Technological progress will not solve environmental issues)

1. Technology is unproven and risky

Many green technologies like CCUS are still unreliable.

Example: Most CCUS projects have failed and still cause CO2 and methane emissions.

→ May delay real action instead of helping.

2. Extends fossil fuel dependency

These technologies often rely on natural gas.

Example: UK could import LNG until after 2050 due to CCUS and blue hydrogen.

→ Keeps us locked into polluting energy sources.

3. Proven solutions are ignored

Effective measures like insulation and renewables are underfunded.

Example: Campaigners say we should invest in things that already work.

→ Tech hype distracts from real, working solutions.

Contra (Technological progress can solve environmental issues)

1. Needed to reach net zero

Some emissions can’t be avoided without tech like CCUS.

Example: Climate Change Committee calls CCUS a “necessity.”

→ Helps fill gaps where other solutions can’t work.

2. Strengthens energy independence

Reduces reliance on imported fossil fuels.

Example: Government says CCUS will make UK less dependent on gas.

→ Supports national security and stability.

3. Boosts innovation and leadership

Green tech creates jobs and global influence.

Example: UK aims to lead in hydrogen and CCUS through investment funds.

→ Economic and environmental benefits combined.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate scientists call on Labour to pause £1bn plans for carbon capture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Letter says technologies to produce blue hydrogen and capture CO2 are unproven and could increase emissions

# data[].attributes.body
essential Reading: For- Hannah , Against-Lasse

Backround: Bilge

In depth: Blanca

In the News: Julika,Finn

# data[].attributes.body
Technological Progress Alone Will Not Solve Environmental Issues

•Behavioural change is essential: Over-reliance on technology avoids the hard truth that we need to change our lifestyles.

•Tech can be a smokescreen: Governments use future tech as an excuse to delay necessary and unpopular climate policies.

•Unrealistic expectations: Many proposed technologies (carbon capture, geoengineering) are unproven, expensive, or speculative.

•Overconsumption is the root problem: Environmental damage is tied to unsustainable growth and consumerism, not just outdated technology.

•False optimism: Belief in “progress” can be a comforting illusion, ignoring the limits of innovation.

•Environmental impact of tech: Even “green” technologies have their own environmental footprints.

•Moral hazard: Relying on future fixes may reduce current efforts to cut emissions.

•Covid shows behaviour can change: Societies are capable of making sacrifices for the greater good, as seen during the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Think democracy means the people are always right? Wrong

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Think democracy means the people are always right? Wrong

# data[].attributes.body
Facts:

Democracies rest on three pillars: the will of the people, trust in politicians, and strong institutions.

Democracies only work if the people trust the elects

Arguments:

A democracy is always safeguarded by its laws

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Populists are out to divide us. They must be stopped

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Populists are out to divide us. They must be stopped

# data[].attributes.body
Facts:

Populism only focuses on one group, called “the people“. Anyone else is excluded from their group.

It takes a longer period of time to become a powerful populist party and it takes a long time to reverse populism through the creation of a new political language, determination and consistency.

Populists are mostly misogynist, xenophobic and racist - > they have to be stopped

Examples:

General examples of populism: nationalist populism now, 1990s globalized liberalism, fascism and communism in the 1930s/1940s, and imperialism in the 19th century

Arguments:

Populist waves take  a long period of time in order to be reversed; so one has to act against it -> Danger of creating a post-liberalism world if there is no action taken

# data[].attributes.body
Julika - Guardian

Bilge - BBC, The Conversation

Hannah - New York Times