Category: Antonio Rolo Duarte

A farewell letter from the editor

9/29/2017

FROM THE EDITOR
António Rolo Duarte

Another academic year has passed. On my Facebook feed, I can see the climbing plants at the Old Quadrangle turning again to the pastel shade of burgundy which takes over The University of Manchester in autumn. This time, however, I am not there in person to witness this majestic transformation. I am writing to you, dear readers, from distant lands. My time as a student at Manchester has come to an end and it is time that I say goodbye to you as editor of this publication which I imagined, designed, founded, and led for almost three years.

It is true that most of the ideas developed at The Manchester Magazine never ended up appearing outside of our office at the Arthur Lewis Building. Video podcasts, political newsletters, high-profile interviews, and endless plans for special reports will never be enjoyed by anyone other than those who were part of the extraordinary team which, between 2014 and 2017, met every week with the intention of producing a magazine that would be "always one step ahead".

Even so, looking at the one hundred articles published under my editorship (this is the 101st), the website which hosts them, and the social media platforms where The Manchester Magazine is present, I get a glimpse into the magazine I imagined back in 2014. This magazine I pictured was something produced by students but radically different from what students had been doing until then. It was a sharp, avant-garde, diverse publication, which would unpack our world in an intellectually fierce way and discuss important issues in the depth they deserved. Of course, the way all this was framed was crucial: style, spirit and sophistication, embodied in modern design and outstanding photography.

The magazine we are in the presence of today is much better than the one I imagined nearly three years ago. The Manchester Magazine is a confident, elegant, nuanced young publication, built on an agile bureaucratic system guided by strong editorial principles. But it is also an institution, in its own way, and a name which represents integrity, independence and modernity. It is, I honestly believe, something representative of the very best of our generation.

The reason why today's TMM is so much better than the one on my mind three years ago has to do with the exceptional individuals who joined me in this journey. Jeanmiguel Uva, of course, was there with me from the very beginning. He accepted to be my right arm on this project in a blustery winter afternoon in Oxford Road, Manchester, having spoken to me only twice before in his life. He trusted The Manchester Magazine when it was no more than an idea; and without Jean’s presence, talent and reason, it might never have become more than that. Needless to say, he never left.

When Jean and I started actively planning the launch of the magazine, we came up with an initial list of people who we thought could be valuable for this project. Perusing the list now, I realize that none of them ever set foot in TMM. Although we spent hundreds of hours trying to find the best writers from our university, the people who made the strongest mark on the magazine always had a tendency to find us – rather than us finding them.

Jake Hampson first got to us via email. Applying for a position as marketing manager, he wrote: “The onus of starting a magazine and keeping on top of it as well as other commitments can lead to a loss of the initial enthusiasm that once brought about the venture. I believe the injection of belief and enthusiasm that I would bring is exactly what the magazine needs.” Jake was right, of course, and his presence ended up being one of the most determinant factors for the longevity of this publication.

Among the many different tasks Jake took on at The Manchester Magazine, there was one which he undertook with particular commitment in the academic year 2015-16. Every week, as we ended the editorial meeting, Jake would say in passing: “There is just another thing. Edoardo messaged me again. He suggests…”

Edoardo Tricerri was on exchange at Sciences Po, Paris, and by the second semester of 2015-16 he was contributing more to the development of The Manchester Magazine than almost everyone else in Manchester together. Before his departure to France, Edoardo and I had only spoken once. But I remember greeting him as family when he returned. Naturally, he had a position on the editorial board waiting for him.

Several others were crucial to the success of The Manchester Magazine in general, and of my editorship in particular. Richard Bolton is undoubtedly the most prolific writer this magazine has ever seen. It is a testament to his abilities and commitment that we have decided to give him the opportunity to lead The Manchester Magazine into a new era, taking over from me as editor-in-chief. Samuel Lindblad, who will be his deputy editor, has brought range, skill, and freshness to our work.

The one thing Richard and Sam have in common is the fact that it was Kirstine Rysbjerg Munk who first brough them to The Manchester Magazine. Besides being a fantastic public relations operative, Kirstine, the Dane abroad, injected life into this publication. She is still sorely missed at the office, and I suspect she will continue to be so for years to come.

Beyond our editorial staff, a word to those who frequently, occasionally, or at some point, contributed with articles, photographs and ideas to The Manchester Magazine while I was editor. To people like Margarita Poluektova, Lioui Benhamou, Riccardo Scroppo, Tyler Bryce, Candice Chau, Reuben Cutts, Jack Seymour, and others, I am sincerely thankful. For going beyond their job roles at The University of Manchester to help us and support us, Julie Tierney and Dr Aoileann Ní Mhurchu need to be mentioned here too.

Naturally, every editor’s farewell letter is little more than a love letter to his readers. So to you, who have faithfully been on the other side of the screen, goes my final word. When we started this magazine, we did so because we wanted to. The reason why we have kept it going, however, is that you pushed us to. You, dear readers, were truly always one step ahead. For these great three years, I thank you.

António Rolo Duarte is the outgoing editor-in-chief of The Manchester Magazine. He is a Politics and International Relations graduate of The University of Manchester

2 Comments

Optimism in the era of Donald Trump

1/30/2017

1 Comment

FROM THE EDITOR
António Rolo Duarte

For the past three years, I have periodically come across a quote which has never failed to keep me thinking. This particular quote is carved into a wooden wall in the Alan Gilbert Learning Commons – a twenty-four hour study center at The University of Manchester – and was apparently written by the late Marie Stopes, a botanist and women’s rights campaigner who was the first female academic to be hired by the University. In a dark shade of brown, evident against the lighter plywood which covers the walls, the words read: “We are surrounded in this world by processes and transmutations so amazing that, were they not taking place around us hourly, they would be scouted as impossible imaginings.”

From my point of view, Stopes conveyed in a literary fashion what is, in fact, a much more practically applicable notion – that we would often benefit from lifting our eyes away from the grand scheme of things which our conscious minds often dwell in. Rather than searching for meaning in an obviously meaningless great galaxy of a world, we would do best to enjoy the daily events which build it, the “processes and transmutations” which are so remarkable and which we often fail to pay attention to, given the frequency with which they occur. By taking life a moment at a time we may find the most incredible adventures in what could, otherwise, seem like a huge bore of normality.

This advice would serve us well for most of the time. However, it does not seem to me that 2017 follows the norm. One only needs to have a quick glance at the headlines while waking up on any given day this January, to immediately understand why, again, there would be a benefit in simply rolling over and burying one’s head under a stack of fluffy, duck-feathered, sound-muffling, reality-proof comfy pillows instead of going out into the wilderness of the modern world. Donald Trump is president, the UK is going for a “hard Brexit”, Marine Le Pen is leading the polls in France, Chelsea is top of the Premier League, and who knows what else may be around the corner. To appreciate the “impossible imaginings” taking place around us seems to be a recipe for hardcore depression.

What I propose when looking at politics in 2017, then, is that this year we do exactly the opposite of what Stopes implicitly recommends. Looking at the remarkable events of daily life will not bode well for mental sanity this year. In 2017, optimism involves engaging in a spate of temporary amnesia which can make us dismiss the daily news as completely irrelevant, and, instead, look at the larger realm of things.

I say this because the big picture is rather positive. Humanity today is working out political and social issues better than ever before. Genetically, we are pretty much the same as the humans of a century ago. We are, indeed, still quite similar to our gorilla cousins – with whom we share 98 per cent of DNA. But the big difference is that we now live in a political system, the modern liberal democracy, which is better than ourselves. Nature does not give an equal voice to everyone; liberal democracies do. Nature is, as Thomas Hobbes once described, “a condition of war, of everyone against everyone”; yet two liberal democracies have never fought each other. In nature, the strongest man rules; in liberal democracies, the strongest man is chosen by the people, and even then there are checks and balances which mean that if terrible candidates, such as Donald Trump, are elected, they are constrained by parliaments, courts, social movements, a free media, and all of the limitations which come with a free market. Humans may still be terrible animals, but the system we live in has created societies which have the highest potential for success ever.

Furthermore, we may be living in a time of post-truth and “alternative facts”, but this is only noticeable in the context of a society where truth itself is a valid idea. The West is the first civilization in history where the concept of “truth” has been employed in a meaningful way. Consequently, it is the first time that the strongest is not necessarily the one who is considered to be right. We saw this recently, for example, in the deliberation of the UK Supreme Court in favor of Gina Miller, a common businesswoman, in a case against the British government. Truth and falsehood might still not be of interest for many, but they are more embedded than ever in our institutions, and are used to limit the arbitrary pursuit of power. As a result, we live in the fairest societies humanity has ever seen.

We may be living in a time of post-truth and “alternative facts”, but this is only noticeable in the context of a society where truth itself is a valid idea.

A system of inclusive institutions which balance pluralism and centralization of power has allowed for countless scientific wonders. The miracles of medicine are so extraordinary that I will not even try to delve into them here. I will just note the fact that science is so advanced that it can even explain why we are voting for people like Donald Trump – social scientists at Stratfor, a political analysis firm, have linked support for the now-president to the mental effect of the fallout from the Iraq War and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, which led individuals to feel cheated for being led to believe in false arguments and for not seeing those responsible appropriately punished (as a result, they punished the establishment at the ballot boxes). There may be unpleasant events happening around us, but we are understanding them better than ever before.

We are also living better – both with others, and with ourselves. The possibilities provided by the internet mean that a disabled, widowed pensioner in the suburbs of Manchester today no longer needs to live in loneliness, or in the shadows of society. He or she can be using online platforms to make friends with other people their age in Munich, Minneapolis and Mumbai – empowering individuals, connecting cultures, transcending acrimony and fostering cosmopolitanism. Social movements, such as those for LGBT or women’s rights, have been strengthened by the advent of new technologies. They have made gains to the extent that in some countries, such as my own, Portugal, it is now both legal and socially accepted for two people to live together, marry and adopt despite their sexual orientation, race or social class. The equal right to vote, laws cracking down on discrimination in the workplace, and the enforcement of property rights have equally empowered people to pursue their dreams and aspirations, creating stronger, fairer and more interesting societies.

The world is better today than it ever has been (particularly in the West, where all these marvels are accentuated). But even if all hope was flying away, we could still hold ourselves to one very steady prediction for success – millennials are starting to take over. This can only be a good thing. The new generation is more liberal, better educated, increasingly interconnected and more powerfully aware than the previous ones. Thanks to extra learning and better nutrition, we are also smarter and better at problem-solving (The Economist’s claim, not mine). There are 1.8 billion of us and we are already populating the lower ranks of governments, businesses and institutions. Most significantly, perhaps, is the fact that we are also creating our own projects, ideas and conceptualizations of what the future should behold. Every year that goes by we are dealing with people who are more capable, and adapted to the modern environment, than ever before.

All this tells us that 2017 has everything to be another great year for humankind. We may have a long way ahead of us, but we also have solid foundations to build on. Thanks to the social, political and scientific developments of the past decades, human life on Earth has never been as amazing as it is today. Being optimistic this year, then, does not involve engaging in a state of denial about what is happening out there. It purely means devaluing the importance of the daily news as compared to the extraordinary features of society in the twenty-first century.

We must continue to be informed about Donald Trump’s provocative policies, the road ahead for Brexit and Diego Costa’s latest goal for Chelsea. But we can also lift our eyes up from our smartphone screens every now and then, and remember, for example, that these “smartphones” did not even exist when Barack Obama stood for President. Humanity has not changed much, but the system we live in is more extraordinary than ever. Instead of being depressed about yet another piece of news, let us be consoled by the titanic marvels of life today, indeed those “impossible imaginings” of a different sort which show us how far we have come as a civilization. Are those not the ones that matter?

António Rolo Duarte is editor-in-chief of The Manchester Magazine. He is a Politics and International Relations student at The University of Manchester

1 Comment

Politics: Between the Extremes

11/22/2016

3 Comments

FROM THE EDITOR
António Rolo Duarte

Most people do not follow politics most of the time. Apart from the small group of policymakers, journalists and intellectuals who follow the daily happenings of Westminster, individuals generally catch only a few snapshots of political action every now and then. From these bits of information, they construct their own narrative about what particular parties, policies and politicians represent. Above all, it is from this broken narrative that they derive their opinion – and ultimately, their vote.

The problem, of course, is that the narrative which people construct from these snapshots rarely reflects the events on the ground. Few people could discuss this issue better than Nick Clegg, former Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, and he astutely does so in his insightful new book Politics: Between the Extremes (published by Penguin).

He argues, and perhaps rightly so, that this pervasive personal zoetrope is the main reason why the Liberal Democrats got hammered in the 2015 general election. The majority of the public built their own narrative about Nick Clegg’s leadership from two key events: entering a coalition with the Conservatives, and raising tuition fees against the party’s own campaign promise.

From this selection of information, a party which promised fresh, competent and honest leadership was painted in people’s minds as a party of cheaters and backstabbers, filled with politicians who are “just the same” as those from the traditional parties. By attempting to negotiate deals within a coalition government, and indeed by entering a coalition in the first place, the Lib Dems were seen as a “soft” party, which bent to the desires of the Conservatives. It was the way the public felt deceived by the Lib Dems, largely from personally constructed stories which focused on broken promises, which ultimately shaped their decision to abandon the party in the election.

The interaction between the public’s personal narratives of politics, and what actually goes on in the legislative and executive, is only one of the many themes tackled by Clegg in his new book. The volume is not an attempt to settle old quarrels or justify controversial decisions. It is, instead, an appropriation of his experiences in government for a deeper theoretical and empirical observation of the position of liberalism and the politics of compromise in the twenty-first century.

In this sense, the book is as much a memoir as it is a political thought monograph. It is, above all, a radical yet almost academically-styled defence of the centre ground as opposed to the politics of anger, grievance and hatred, and the populism and factionalism, which at this very moment challenge political sanity from Britain to Austria, France to the United States. I spent an enjoyable few evenings reading the book, and can thoroughly recommend it.

Some excerpts:

On the way identity politics is changing the conventional right-left divide (pp. 4-5):

New divisions are hardening in our society between those who feel comfortable with the pace of change in a modern, globalised economy and those who feel disoriented by it; between those who feel at ease with the growing diversity of society and those who feel alienated by it; between those who relish the opportunities offered by information technology and those for whom it remains a mystery; between those who celebrate the openness of Britain to the outside world and those who wish to seal her off from the outside world.

Identity politics – where you live, what country you come from, what community you inhabit, what religion you practise – is displacing conventional left-right arguments about state, market, tax and spend.

On the importance of messengers and messages (pp. 18-19):

Stories enable you to understand something instinctively, to feel and see it for yourself, in a way that is much more compelling than simply following a logical argument to a rational conclusion. It’s the difference between showing and telling. In the end, people follow stories, not policies, in politics.

The Brexit campaign told a story – Britain can be great again if it “takes back control” – which was far more compelling than a barrage of statistical predictions about household finances from George Osborne.

On the mannerisms of British politics (p. 46):

Politics is not a “normal” job. It is a competition for power pursued by people who are often powerless; a race for voters’ affections by people who are invariably held in contempt by them; a clash of high ideals steeped in petty rivalries; a vocation devoted to shaping the future, conducted in an out-of-date setting; a game of teamwork populated by fragile egos and loners; a profession that requires calm, considered judgement, composed of individuals who are strung out and exhausted; a trade that relies on the semblance of normality, conducted according to the most peculiar traditions in the land.

António Rolo Duarte is editor-in-chief of The Manchester Magazine. He is a Politics and International Relations student at The University of Manchester

3 Comments

There is no middle ground in this war on terror

11/16/2015

4 Comments

FROM THE EDITOR
António Rolo Duarte

The number of terrorist attacks, genocide incidences and other tragedies that happen across the Middle East on a regular basis is too large to keep track of. On the other hand, that does not happen with the West. It does not happen with Europe. And it certainly does not happen with France – the land of liberty, equality and fraternity. Are we right to give more attention to this attacks than to others, or even disregard other events worldwide in order to provide full coverage of the Paris attacks? Of course we are.

At The Manchester Magazine we are not complaining about Facebook making a photo filter especially for this occasion and we are not writing about attacks in Lebanon, Afghanistan or a dozen other places I have seen mentioned in social media over the past couple of days. We are writing about Paris, we are solidary with Paris and we are in this together with Paris.

After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, many attempted to justify the tragedy with the newspaper’s satirical depiction of Islamic figures. It was disrespectful, they said, so by doing it the cartoonists were asking for retaliation. Well, now I would like those people to justify the attacks at the Bataclan, the Stade de France and across Parisian restaurants and streets. I would like to know what did these people do wrong. I would like to know what part of enjoying music, football or coffee offended Islam.

On Friday we saw a new kind of terrorism in Europe, one which involved little preparation, time or money but caused large amounts of damage. As Ricardo Costa, editor of Portuguese weekly Expresso explained in a brilliant article yesterday, the randomness of the event and the possibility of it easily being replicated elsewhere is the nightmare European security services had been dreading for a long time. More than 120 innocent, random people died in one of our capitals, with the number expected to grow as time goes by. Terror in its most disturbing expression, terror which seeks solely to cause death in the most cold-blooded and arbitrary way. Terror that comes from distant lands immerged in chaos. Terror in the name of an ideology we do not understand and do not want to have anything to do with.

On Friday we saw clearer than ever that our enemies might come from abroad but many of them now live concealed within our own societies. They live in the shadows. Islamic extremists have to hide, lie and scare to succeed. But we do not. We fight in broad daylight. We gather in the streets, as 600 of us did in Manchester yesterday night. We sing our values loud and clear at concerts and conferences, we talk to each other in coffee shops and restaurants, and we write all over the newspapers and magazines.

Today there is not only a distinction between us and them, there is a clear distinction between what is right and what is wrong. In the West we have a long and bloody history which has led us to protest many times. When we are dissatisfied about something, we may call for a vote on it, organize a petition, rally in the streets, or a number of other options. But we do not go around blowing people up. We are different.

So as news outlets report fighter jets moving in on Syria since Sunday and talks develop within the international community, it is good to see that our politicians are not shying away from their duties. If we need to declare state of emergency in order to prevent more deaths, then we should. If we need to close borders and ground airplanes, then we must. And if we need to call our soldiers and ask them to defend us abroad, then it is our duty to do so.

It does seem like the people of the world must, once again, choose which side they are on – our side or the terrorists' side. There is no middle ground. And believe me when I say this: we are right, they are wrong.

António Rolo Duarte is editor-in-chief of The Manchester Magazine. He is a Politics and International Relations student at The University of Manchester

4 Comments

End the refugee crisis by not letting the people become displaced

10/27/2015

0 Comments

FROM THE EDITOR
António Rolo Duarte

This Sunday leaders from Central European and Balkan countries converged in Brussels to discuss Europe's current refugee crisis, in an emergency mini-summit called by European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. The practical results of this meeting are yet unknown but at The Manchester Magazine, we thought it made for an appropriate time to reflect on the events of the last few months and draw some conclusions – or open up new questions – from them. Our special report this week aims for just that.

From my perspective, there are two central issues in this refugee crisis. One is very large in numbers and it refers to the people who have made it into Europe already. The solution for that one is straightforward. Despite the costs involved and hassle that it might cause, European leaders should come together quickly and smoothly, put history aside and start working seriously in distributing people and integrating them. German chancellor Angela Merkel has made a good start.

If countries like Slovakia, Hungary, Poland or the Czech Republic make a point of being an obstacle to teamwork, then they should be asked for a significant and long-lasting contribution of money, bureaucratic assistance for processing applications and humanitarian aid in order to compensate for their lack of will to participate in the common policy. And the sooner they get their wallets out, the better – countries like Italy could use a budget boost for coast guard and security services.

The second central issue in the current crisis concerns the people who are yet to come. We simply cannot accomodate everyone who would like to live in Europe but the reasons making people flee are still too striking to ignore. Thus the solution has to go by ending those reasons.

If humanitarian disaster was a disease, it would not be cured by smoothing the side effects, but by targeting the source of infection. In relation to places like Syria or Iraq, displacement should then not be answered with allowing more refugees into Europe and trying to accommodate them. It should instead be solved by eliminating the push factors which make people leave. It is easier and significantly more effective to help a group of people when they have a home, a set of belongings and a familiar atmosphere than when they arrive starving, badly dressed and empty-handed at a deserted Italian island or crowded Hungarian station. And if the causes for well-founded fear of persecution are eliminated, so are the reasons for seeking asylum.

Foreign intervention is a delicate matter which has throughout history been controversial both when it happens and when it fails to happen. However what has also been seen at different times is that the results of inaction are often worse than those of action. The examples of Rwanda or Somalia come to mind.

I deeply believe that Europe should once and for all come together and invest in the ending of the current crisis. For that, the "vigorous arming of the rebels, the creation of humanitarian corridors and the imposition of no-fly zones" in Syria, which the Economist argued for in 2012, all still make sense today. But that is not enough. A solid coordination of at least four strategies will be needed: a large, well-orchestrated military mission to progressively reduce the violence in Syria, Iraq and neighboring countries; a robust humanitarian assistance and state-building policy initially aimed at the safe havens of the region; a speedy and smart diplomatic discourse with influential world powers such as Russia and regional powers such as Iran and Saudi Arabia; and an Australian-style “stop the boats” approach, targeting people-smuggling criminal networks in the Mediterranean and the Balkans who feed on the fear of the populace.

The problem right now is still that apart from sporadic, feeble attempts at seeking a coordinated policy – such as this Sunday’s effort by Mr Juncker –, the European decision-making concerning the refugee crisis has been weak, selfish and largely narrow-minded. This must not go on.

To deal with a continental problem, more than the sole voices of Mr Juncker or Mrs Merkel are needed. European states must leave their small differences aside and band together. It is our only hope that in unity there might still be strength.

António Rolo Duarte is editor-in-chief of The Manchester Magazine. He is a Politics and International Relations student at The University of Manchester

0 Comments

<<Previous

Search the site...

A farewell letter from the editor

Optimism in the era of Donald Trump

Politics: Between the Extremes

There is no middle ground in this war on terror

End the refugee crisis by not letting the people become displaced

Columnists

The manchester magazine