President Bush, in 1991 made a now infamous speech where he foresaw the coming of a “new world order” through which, and he quoted Churchill, “the principles of justice and fair play would protect the weak against the strong”. He was speaking at the end of the first Gulf War which saw the reversal of Saddam Hussein’s aggression in Kuwait. The President was laying out his vision for a peaceful Middle East, and more broadly a peaceful world where conflicts would be settled, the rule of law via the United Nations would be upheld and where economic development would be “fostered for the sake of peace and prosperity”.

In his speech, there was not a single instance of a loaded and now much-used and misused word: democracy. This is reminiscent of a time when the West, and America in particular didn’t openly push for democracy around the world. The “modus operandi” which the Americans preferred to deploy in previous decades of state manipulation was more likely to involve covert arms shipments to one or more sides of a conflict, the installation and support of undemocratic hard-men and attempts at assassination of specific political figures in different parts of the world.

As economic liberalism took hold, and globalisation slowly marched forward in the 1980s, economics became a tool in pursuing American foreign policy goals. The European Union placed the principle of a free community market unhindered by tariffs and barriers to the movement of goods and people, at the core of its mission to unite Europe. America, and later Europe, could use free trade with the largest markets in the world as a carrot in their efforts to bend certain states to their way of thinking and acting. The founding of the World Trade Organisation in 1995 underlined this principle, and if you look at the current map of WTO members, the vast swathes of land that are in the grey (non-members) are the least “democratic” countries in the world, with the exception of China and some Arab states.

The Middle East is often seen as a troubled part of the world. The 21st century’s largest conflict so far involved a theoretical clash of cultures: George W Bush & Tony Blair vs Osama Bin Laden & Saddam Hussein. The “Christian West” against the “Islamic East”. After 9/11 in New York, the Western world woke up to reality of a body of people numbering more than 400 million, who to varying extents vehemently disagree with the way the United States conducts its foreign policy in the Islamic, and Arab worlds. This led not to a period of reflection in the American psyche, but to a period of extended and deep-felt insecurity and a desire on the parts of many to isolate, put up walls and back off from the world. The Arab was the other, the enemy; Islam was the evil octopus, replacing the Soviet Union as the straw man of choice for those who wanted to pursue war.

It doesn’t take much to pull down these psychological barriers that have been erected between these two important cultures. Spend some time in the Middle East, talk to Arabs, read and absorb media written from the Arab point-of-view and you will quickly realise that there’s not a lot to really separate us. Arab parents want to raise educated, well-rounded children, Arab graduates are looking for the best career opportunities in their chosen fields, Arab entrepreneurs want to build businesses and create jobs, and Arab media figures and artists want to express themselves and entertain their citizens. Religion is important, yes, but the most pressing concerns are around jobs, family security and economic prosperity. People don’t tend to concern themselves with politics as much as in the West.

This “economic happiness” and political disengagement of Arab citizens keeps repressive and undemocratic regimes installed from the kasbahs of Morocco to the beaches of Dubai.

Tunisia is a prime example of this point. This small Arab state at the tip of Africa, the launching point of the ancient Carthaginian Empire and beach destination of choice for tourists from the UK, France & Germany is one of the most economically prosperous countries in the Middle East and Africa. According to the World Economic Forum Tunisia is the most economically competitive nation on the African continent, and 36th most competitive worldwide (ahead of European nations like Portugal, Italy & Greece – 43rd, 49th & 67th respectively). Tunisian children grow up with good education, universal healthcare and the prospect of a good degree from one of the country’s respected universities. They’re promised stable and well paying careers in engineering, medicine or information technology. Year-on-year GDP growth in Tunisia has been impressive despite the global recession.

Tunisia however is run by a government that, according to Amnesty Interational, regularly and systematically abuses the human rights of its citizens. President Ben Ali came to power in November 1987 in a “medical coup” when, after just five weeks as Prime Minister, Ben Ali had President Bourgiba declared medically unfit to run the country. Since his ascent to power, the Tunisian constitution has changed several times to allow Ben Ali further terms in office. Most positions of military, political and business importance are filled by members of the President’s entourage. Major international businesses won’t invest in Tunisia because of alleged bribery by Ben Ali’s own family members. As in most Middle Eastern countries, the Tunisian state created and perpetuates a personality cult around the President; there is a poster of Ben Ali on every street corner and in every business up and down the country. The Internet is censored – on a recent trip to the capital Tunis I was unable to access either YouTube or Flickr as they are deemed a risk to national security by the regime. There is no real political opposition, and elections usually end with more than 90% of the vote going to the incumbent Ben Ali.

The Tunisian example is seen throughout the region. The trade-off between economic prosperity and a concentration of political power in a small elite can be witnessed in Morocco which is an autocratic monarchy disguised as a constitutional one, in Egypt which has been under a repressive “state of emergency” since the assassination of President Sadat in 1981, and in Saudi Arabia which has an aggressive religious police keeping its citizens in-check and following strict cultural & religious traditions. Many other Arab countries follow a combination of these models.

Morocco’s GDP growth last year was 5%, Egypt’s was 4.7% and Saudi enjoys lavish economic success based on its oil revenue. “Economic happiness” is present in all of these places and gives the repressive regimes in these and other countries a convincing answer when people ask why they aren’t more democratic and politically open.

In an age of growing economic insecurity around the world, and the openness of communication provided by the Internet and satellite television which is beamed from Hollywood throughout the Middle East, surely the days of repressive Arab regimes are numbered? It’s hard to say, although there are opportunities for change on the horizon. Morocco’s King Mohammad VI is a relatively young man at 46 and one can only hope that being of a younger generation he may be inclined to adapt a more open way of governing. Speaking recently to a British diplomat in the region, I understand that at the very least, being a relatively young King has led to a willingness to look at global best practice in various areas of society. Time will tell whether or not that will lead to real political reform.

Egypt is holding presidential elections in September 2011. It’s easy to forget that Ayman Nour, the candidate who ran against President Mubarak in 2005 was incarcerated just after the election and kept in prison for four years. This time around, the main opposition contender is Mohamed El-Baradei, the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Organisation (IAEA), and a respected international diplomat boasting strong relationships with Western diplomats and leaders. It should be harder for the Egyptian state to crack down on a presidential candidate with such international credentials. El-Baradei has recently become a high-profile face of a large group demonstrating against the apparent murder of a young Egyptian man who posted a video online about aggressive police tactics, and this has resulted in the appearance at least of leading a movement for change in Egypt.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, who ascended to the throne in 2005 is seen as something of a moderniser of Saudi culture. Last year he sacked the head of the religious police and appointed the first female minister in the Saudi cabinet, Nora al-Fayez as deputy education minister, pointing toward further reform and inclusiveness in the future.

Tunisia held elections last year, resulting in President Ben Ali’s fifth “mandate” to rule the country until at least 2014. Tunisians who are interested in politics wonder who will replace the ageing Ben Ali. The first lady of the country, Leila Trabelsi has been successful in harvesting her own personal power and fortune, and those of her children. Ben Ali’s son-in-law Sakher al-Materi has built an impressive business empire and was elected as a member of the Tunisian parliament last year. Being married to the President’s daughter has allowed him to create a power base of his own and he is widely seen as one of the most likely successors to his father-in-law’s throne. Perhaps there’s hope though, that when an opportunity for transition of power does come to Tunisia, the parties involved take a long hard look inside themselves and ask if perhaps the Tunisian people, a moderate, educated and forward looking people, might want a say in who runs the country and how it is run. This would send a strong signal to the rest of the region.

Economic prosperity is crucial in the global age. If somebody has a job, they have a stake in their future. If you have children, one of your main concerns in life is to ensure the career success and economic stability of those children. Until now, economic prosperity and relative political stability have helped keep a group of repressive leaders in power in an important region of the world with a massive amount of human capital ready to achieve its potential. It is time that the people of these countries are entrusted with their own destinies. The region will not in a fell swoop turn into a fiery anti-Western, Islamist melting pot if real democracy is “unleashed”, and this mustn’t be used as an excuse to keep the privilege of democracy from nearly half a billion people when we take that privilege so seriously here in Europe, America and in other democratic parts of the world.

As the Churchill quote goes, “the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong”. In the case of the Middle East, the freedom of the many is put aside to benefit the few. Justice, fair play and democracy, coupled with economic prosperity, will protect the weak in the Middle East and will result in a self-assured, vibrant and successful Arab world. And that result will be good for the whole world.

Many people are unable to achieve their goals in life because of the heavy debt burden which prospective university students are presented with. The perception that in order to get a good education, one must laden oneself with £30,000+ in debt to cover tuition fees and living costs, is a powerful disincentive to continue education post-18. That’s why I welcome Business Secretary Vince Cable’s announcements today on higher education reform.

The headline suggestion that Mr. Cable has announced today is the replacement of the up-front tuition fee system with a “graduate tax” which would see graduates paying back their student debt through the tax code. The current system already has a link between payback of debt and earnings post-graduation; graduates start to pay back their government-lent tuition fees when they earn £15,000 or above.

The proposed graduate tax would alter the balance between state and individual in a positive way – instead of handing out debt at the start of university, and therefore making students dependent on the state early on, the state pays for one’s education with the bargain that the state will create a job for each graduate in order to be able to pay that debt back. Instead of a large handout of debt, one’s education is paid for at the point of use by the state.

I would like to see more initiatives like this, and I think Labour lost an opportunity to transform the culture of this country by making people slaves to the state instead of freeing people up to achieve their own goals. Tax credits is an example of this: instead of removing people from paying tax, you spend the same amount as the revenue you would lose by reducing the tax burden on the lower-middle income groups on handing out money each week or month to those people, making them clients to state handouts. It even costs more than a tax burden reduction would, because of administrative costs. Tax credits are an amazing achievement of the Labour government but the same goal could be achieved at the same time as making people feel independent and in charge of their own destinies.

Ed Miliband, one of the front-runners in the Labour leadership contest, supports the proposed Graduate Tax:

"the Graduate Tax is a fairer alternative (to tuition fees), and one I’ve been arguing for for some time"

The Graduate Tax will make it easier for people from less privileged backgrounds to become socially mobile through education. This is one of Labour’s principles is it not? Therefore, the whole of the Labour Party should support Cable’s proposal today and work towards removing huge up-front tuition fees which keep those less well-off from achieving their aspirations.

Ideally we would scrap tuition fees for people from certain socio-economic backgrounds altogether.

There’s a bit of a hoo-hah today around the latest news on graduate employability in the UK. According to the Association of Graduate Recruiters, there are now on average almost 70 applicants for every graduate position available. So if you’ve just had your new degree minted, you have a 1 in 70 chance of getting a job that might somehow be related to anything you’ve just spent 3-4 years learning at university. Oh and a sting in the tail comes with the apparent fact that more recruiters than ever are now looking for a 2:1 or a first in the qualifications part of an applicant’s CV.

What does this say about the way we educate our young in this country? I was always uncomfortable with the “let’s get at least 50% of young people into university” mantra that Tony Blair & Gordon Brown spouted as their answer to making Britain more economically competitive in a globalised age where British workers have to compete with Indian, Chinese, European & American counterparts. I mean I’m sure it’s a worthy aim trying to raise the number of people who go to university. Education is one of the most powerful tools we have in improving people’s chances in life. But when more and more people are getting degrees, the law of markets (supply & demand) would suggest that the value of each degree would be reduced.

But alas, hundreds of thousands of young people over the last few years have gone to university and studied for degrees, ending up in a tight market with no work experience and tens of thousands of pounds in debt. Labour did “successfully” raise the number of people going to university: in 2001 only 20% of the population had a degree, but in 2007 that figure went up to 30.8%. But today’s anecdotal evidence reflects on the fact that there are too many graduates, and in a struggling economy, not enough jobs.

Perhaps our graduates are being spoiled and inflexible in demanding higher paying, more professional jobs simply because they have degrees. You can’t really blame them though, this is the system our politicians created. The chief executive of the Association of Graduate Recruiters suggested that graduates might want to be more flexible in their choice of jobs, and even encouraged some to consider working at places like McDonald’s (I can hear a gasp all across Middle England as I write this!). In the light of austerity Britain, his quote is quite apt “Any employment is better than no employment [even] if it’s about flipping burgers or stacking shelves rather than being sat at home feeling sorry for yourself and vegetating”. I do agree Mr. Gilleard, and indeed I worked at McDonald’s when I was unable to find more professional work, without an ounce of shame.

I left school at 16 with a lot of motivation and some good ICT skills. I later went into politics and I’ve been lucky enough to advise Prime Ministers, MPs, presidential candidates and government agencies. I can provide for my family, and I have good work options in the future. I managed all this without a degree. Today, hearing about the exasperations of 2010’s graduates, I have to admit to a pang of schadenfreude and remember all the naysayers in my life who tell me I can’t get to where I want because I don’t have a fancy degree. I’m already half way there, and at least I have a job.

The answer, in my opinion, lies in helping people to find alternative career paths which don’t require a degree. We should make education through primary and secondary better, by implementing the International Baccalaureate which provides a broad, challenging and internationally compatible curriculum. At the same time we should spend more time and money exploring how vocational careers can be developed from an early age. For this we should be looking at Switzerland & Sweden, as well as other countries, for lessons and pointers. One thing is for sure: New Labour’s model of pushing more and more people into university has only de-valued the idea of a degree and has left hundreds of thousands of educated, bright young things on the heap of unemployment. We need to look a-fresh at how we tackle this challenge if we’re to get anywhere near 10 Downing Street ever again.

@chrisjw133 & @clairee_french also wrote on this subject.