the Columbia Political Review’s
HIGH SCHOOL ESSAY CONTEST
CPR’s 2024 High School Essay Contest Has closed.
It is CPR’s mission to cultivate the next generation of politically engaged writers. To that end, we began our annual high school essay contest in 2017, aiming to amplify the voices of talented high school students from all across the country. In the wake of a global pandemic, war, and deep uncertainty, we hope that the Columbia Political Review can serve as a platform for bold and creative solutions to the world’s most pressing issues.
The prompt for the 2024 High School Essay Contest asked students to engage with the sheer magnitude of this global election year. The question students confronted was:
“In 2024, at least 64 countries (plus the European Union) have held, will hold, or are expected to hold national elections. Choose one country and write about the most important issue at stake in your chosen country’s election this year.”
CPR was deeply impressed by the number of submissions received and the diversity in both the nationalities of the applicants and the countries they chose to analyze. In total, CPR received 89 essays from students across 17 countries: Brazil, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, England, Ethiopia, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Poland, South Korea, Thailand, Türkiye, and the United States.
Over two months, the Executive Team of CPR’s Editorial Board—Editor in Chief Alan Chen, Publisher Lochlan Zhang, and Chief of Staff Max Hermosillo—read students’ analyses of elections in Bangladesh, Brazil, Britain, China, El Salvador, Ethiopia, the European Union, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Myanmar, Pakistan, Rwanda, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, the United States, and Venezuela.
Submissions were judged for their clarity, concision, cohesion, strength of argument, use of evidence, and consistency in style and tone.
CPR is proud to announce Yikai Zhao, of Shanghai Foreign Language School, as the champion of the 2024 High School Essay Contest. Mr. Zhao will receive a $300 award for his submission.
We are also proud to announce three Honorable Mentions. Congratulations to Jodie Fei, of Chinese International School in Hong Kong; Josh Zhang, of Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virginia; and Shreeya Ram, of Folsom High School in Folson, California. Ms. Fei, Mr. Zhang, and Ms. Ram will each receive a $100 award for their excellent submissions.
You may read the Champion essay and Honorable Mentions below. Essays were lightly edited for style and clarity. Students were asked to include citations as in-text hyperlinks, as per CPR’s in-house editorial guide.
We hope you enjoy reading these submissions as much as the Executive Team did. CPR continues to encourage high school students of all backgrounds to engage in political scholarship. Congratulations to these four students, and we look forward to opening the 2025 High School Essay Contest in June.
2024 High School Essay Contest Winner:
Drowning in Costs: Disillusioned Britons Voting for a New Parliament
By Yikai Zhao, Shanghai Foreign Language School
The pandemic is over, or at least, sort of, but life has not returned to normal in the United Kingdom. Starting in March 2021, the UK CPI Index has continuously risen, with the inflation rate peaking at 11.1% in October 2022, while wages have remained relatively stagnant. Though the index has fallen in the past year, it is uncertain whether it will rise again, and price levels remain unsustainable, with food prices 25% higher than two years ago. Beyond food insecurity, families face domestic energy bills that have, on average, increased by 72% and 12% in 2022 and 2023, respectively. The brunt of inflation has disproportionately fallen on those with lower incomes.
With the General Election approaching in July 2024, voters rank the cost-of-living crisis as their top priority. The calling of the election itself highlights the importance of the issue, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak riding a wave of recent media reports that the economy is on the right track. Both Labour and Conservative, the UK’s dominant parties, are appealing to voters with offers of economic stability. Yet, society remains pessimistic that the election will solve the problem.
One reason behind the cynicism is that the crisis is not merely the result of external factors but also of the UK’s own ill-conceived policies—in particular Brexit and austerity. Brexit reduced the number of workers coming from neighboring countries, especially low-skilled laborers, which led to a reduced workforce, lower productivity, and hence a lack of supply that put upward pressure on prices. Post-Brexit import charges, which raised prices for businesses and consumers alike, are increasing the cost-of-living for the average Briton, especially food prices. Apart from Brexit, austerity has also reduced the workforce. Under austerity, the Conservative government aimed to reduce public debts by cutting spending, which meant less funding for the National Health Service. With a shrinking public health sector and an unsuccessful private sector, an Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey suggests that one in five are waiting for hospital care in England. Research shows that ill-health is leading to people retiring earlier, and thus shrinking the workforce even after the pandemic.
While the ruling Conservative Party has attempted to mitigate the crisis, citizens have been critical of its methods. Liz Truss, the previous prime minister, pushed aggressive tax cuts, which were criticized as mostly benefiting the rich and eventually led to her downfall. Under current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, inflation is down, but voters attribute the improvement to the Bank of England. In early 2024, polls showed that the net satisfaction balance (the proportion satisfied minus the proportion dissatisfied) of the Bank of England was -5%, while that of the prime minister was -59%. Additionally, a survey indicates that 56% of voters impute the primary cause of economic problems to government mismanagement.
All agree that the cost-of-living crisis is the electoral priority, but there’s little consensus over the correct solution. As the General Election approaches, parties are competing to put forward their pledges. Labour pledges to build 1.5 million houses by 2029, while the Conservatives promise 1.6 million. However, with the British national debt equivalent to its GDP and both parties lacking a detailed plan, they are likely to fall short of their goals. UK Reform promises tax cuts. Less tax, however, has to be balanced with less spending, and Reform plans to save spending by scrapping the UK’s net zero target and the rest of the HS2 rail-link, which is bound to be harmful in the long run.
Viable means to generate government income are required to fund assistance to the most affected. Relatively promising are the two major parties’ reform of the non-dom status, a tax status allowing UK residents whose permanent home is outside the country to avoid taxes on income outside of the UK. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has announced that the UK will scrap the status, claiming that getting rid of the status will generate 2.7 billion pounds a year by 2028-29. Another possible income generator has been proposed by the Greens, which includes a wealth tax on assets of the top 1%, as well as increased National Insurance on annual wages above 50,270 pounds. The increased taxes on the rich will help generate more income, though the former of the two taxes might be hard to implement. However, the first-past-the-post electoral system means that the number of seats won by smaller parties, such as the Greens, are often disproportionately low, thus reducing the impact of the policies they advocate. Despite some promising pledges, most voters are disillusioned. Polling suggests that fewer than one in four believed that tackling the cost-of-living crisis was a priority for the two major parties.
The crisis has already led to the “largest wave of simultaneous protests” for years, with the growing fear that it may lead to “public disorder.” Rising costs force workers to strike for higher pay, resulting in the large-scale and still ongoing strikes that began in 2022. This has caused great disruptions in everyday life, especially in transportation, healthcare, and education. For instance, two days of nursing strikes in 2023 caused 5000 operations and treatments to be rescheduled, while millions of students missed school. Reduced flights prevented passengers from reaching work and home on time, leading to 13% who normally traveled to work by train reporting being unable to work at all. Though Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, attempted to calm workers by promising a rapid drop in inflation, which indeed happened, most workers still struggle under cost-of-living pressures. If the pains don’t subside, strikes will likely continue, if not increase.
The cost-of-living crisis is also an obstacle to economic growth. Increased prices dampen consumer spending, which still hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels. This hits especially hard on retailers, as shops closed at a rate of 14 per day in the last year.
Apart from the economy’s health, public opinion and national unity are also at stake. The cost-of-living crisis—especially the housing crisis—has provided populist politicians with an opportunity to scapegoat immigrants. People are led to believe that immigrants are unfairly advantaged when accessing housing at the expense of British citizens, despite the lack of evidence of causation between migration and the rise of housing prices. Such scapegoating increases xenophobia and racism, which are especially dangerous in cities such as London, where nearly half the population is non-white. Furthermore, the British people have also become especially sensitive to royal spendings, some questioning the King’s enormous expenditure on his coronation, which has partly contributed to the long-term decline of the monarchy’s popularity.
The facts are clear: Britain can no longer stand the cost-of-living-crisis, and it has to be solved, immediately. While the UK is largely dependent on the rest of the world and cannot prevent external shocks, it should focus on the measures it can take from within. As the country faces a heavy debt burden, all measures to assist the vulnerable in the crisis require an additional source of income, and one solution lies in taxing the extremely rich. However, pointing fingers at each other and immigrants seems like an easier alternative to reforming the tax system.
***
2024 High School Essay Contest Honorable Mentions:
A National Identity Crisis: Finding France’s Role and Purpose Through The 2024 Legislative Election
By Jodie Fei, Chinese International School
As a founding member of the European Union and a prominent voice on the global stage, France’s role in shaping the future of the continental bloc and its position within the increasingly interconnected world has never been more pivotal. In the highly anticipated 2024 legislative election, also referred to as the 2024 snap election, the nation stands face to face with its very own identity crisis: what role does France play, or will play, on the global stage?This year, it will be and has been confronted with critical questions surrounding its relationship with the European Union, its stance on globalization, and its vision for navigating the complex geopolitical landscape of the 21st century.
The European Union, once heralded as a bastion of unity and cooperation, has faced significant challenges in recent years, from the turmoil of Brexit to the rise of Eurosceptic and populist movements across the continent. France, a traditional powerhouse within the EU, has found itself at the center of these debates, grappling with the delicate balance between preserving its national sovereignty and promoting further European integration.
Eurosceptic candidates, such as Marine Le Pen of the National Rally, have capitalized on public discontent over issues like immigration, austerity measures, and perceived erosion of French sovereignty. They advocate for a loosening of ties with the EU and a reassertion of national control, proposing measures such as renegotiating key EU treaties, implementing stricter border controls, and prioritizing French workers and industries over those of other member states.
Conversely, pro-EU candidates, including the incumbent President Emmanuel Macron, have championed the benefits of European cooperation, arguing that a united front is essential for addressing global challenges and maintaining France’s influence on the world stage. Macron has positioned himself as a champion of further integration, advocating for deeper economic and political ties among member states, a stronger EU voice in global affairs, and a more robust common defense and security policy.
However, Macron’s vision for a more integrated Europe has faced resistance not only from Eurosceptic opponents but also from some traditional allies who fear the erosion of national sovereignty. The debate over the EU’s future trajectory has exposed deep fault lines within the French political landscape, with some advocating for a more decentralized, intergovernmental approach, while others push for a “United States of Europe.”
Beyond the EU, France’s approach to globalization and its role in the international order has emerged as a critical issue. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a nuclear power, and a leading voice in international institutions like NATO and the World Trade Organization, France’s foreign policy stance carries significant weight, influencing everything from global trade agreements to international security and conflict resolution.
Candidates on the left, such as Jean-Luc Mélenchon of La France Insoumise, have criticized the current administration’s perceived embrace of neoliberal policies and globalization, advocating for a more protectionist stance and a reassertion of France’s economic sovereignty. Mélenchon has called for renegotiating free trade agreements such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) [between the EU and Canada], implementing stricter regulations on foreign investment, and prioritizing domestic production and job creation.
On the other end of the spectrum, centrist and right-wing candidates like Macron and Valérie Pécresse of the Republicans have positioned the nation as a champion of liberal values and a counterweight to rising authoritarian powers like China and Russia. Referring to past initiatives such as the European Political Community (EPC), launched in 2022 by no other than Emmanuel Macron himself, these advocates argue that withdrawing from the global stage would decrease France’s influence and limit its economic opportunities in an increasingly interconnected world.
Underpinning these debates are deeper philosophical questions about France’s national identity, its role in the world, and its vision for navigating the complex geopolitical landscape of the 21st century. As the nation grapples with the challenges of a rapidly changing global order, from the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia to the ongoing threats of terrorism and climate change, the competing visions put forth by the candidates will be scrutinized for their ability to safeguard France’s interests while promoting stability and cooperation on the international stage.
Critics of Macron’s globalist approach argue that it has come at the expense of domestic priorities, pointing to issues like stagnant wages, rising income inequality, and the perceived erosion of French cultural identity. They contend that a more inward-looking, protectionist approach is necessary to safeguard French workers, culture, and industries in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.
Conversely, supporters of Macron’s vision counter that retreating from the world stage would be a strategic mistake, undermining France’s ability to shape global events and leaving a vacuum that could be filled by authoritarian powers with competing interests. As seen in the past few decades, the nation has flourished economically with its adaptation to globalization. It has been argued that France’s strength lies in its ability to project influence through multilateral institutions and its commitment to liberal democratic values.
The results of the 2024 legislative election will directly impact the nation’s decisions on economic and political policies, influencing and changing its role on the global stage. As the election approaches, the French electorates will be tasked with making critical decisions and statements that will shape not only the nation’s domestic trajectory but also its global influence and standing. Will they embrace a more inward-looking, protectionist approach or double down on France’s commitment to international cooperation and multilateralism? Will they prioritize national sovereignty or further European integration? The answers to these questions will reverberate far beyond France’s borders, influencing the future of the European Union, the global trading system, and the delicate balance of power in an increasingly multipolar world.
In a world marked by unprecedented challenges and rapid transformations, France’s ability to navigate these complex issues will serve as a bellwether for the fate of liberal democracy, the resilience of multilateral institutions, and the prospects for global cooperation in addressing the pressing issues of our time. The outcome of the 2024 legislative election will not only shape France’s future but will also have profound implications for the entire European project, the global economy, and the international order.
***
Democracy Staged: Rwanda’s Political Paradox of Progress and Repression
By Josh Zhang, Episcopal High School
In the middle of July, when the lush hills of Rwanda are their greenest, millions of Rwandans will head to the polls to vote in an election that is already over. For the past 24 years, the general-turned-president Paul Kagame has led the small but densely populated African republic. Winning through rigged elections in 2003, 2010, and most recently in 2017 with a crushing 98% of the vote, Kagame’s iron grasp on power and victory appears as unshakable as the trunk of a baobab tree.
For another reason, July of this year is also a special month for Rwanda. On July 4, in tandem with the United States’s own Independence Day, Rwandans celebrate “Liberation Day:” the anniversary of the 1994 capture of the capital city of Kigali by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which toppled the government that perpetrated the Rwandan genocide. Kagame himself led the attack. Since then, Rwanda has come a long way from the war-stricken and failed state it was just thirty years ago.
Nowadays, the Rwandan state is anything but failed. Commonly dubbed the “Singapore of Africa,” Rwanda under Kagame has exhibited impressive growth metrics, averaging 7.28% in GDP annual growth since 2000. Furthermore, Rwanda boasts one of the most gender-equal governments, with nearly two-thirds of Rwanda’s parliament being female and a gender quota requiring at least 30% of all elected positions to be held by women.
Although it is obvious why Kagame is genuinely popular among Rwandans, the “Land of a Thousand Hills” enshrouds a darker and more complex reality: a perilous struggle between its seemingly efficient development and the repressive governance tactics used to maintain it. Since the last presidential election in 2017, at least five opposition members and four major critics of Rwanda’s government have disappeared or died under questionable circumstances. Additionally, Rwanda struggles to confront its turbulent past as censors silence all narratives that question the state.
Rwanda’s political repression appears much the same in the upcoming election. The only candidates that have been cleared by Rwanda’s National Electoral Commission are Mr. Habineza of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda and the Independent Philippe Mpayimana. Neither candidate poses more than token resistance to Kagame’s RPF. In 2017, Mr. Habineza’s Democratic Green Party, whose vice president was found beheaded in a parking lot before the 2010 election, struggled to garner just 0.45% of the vote. Mr. Mpayimana fared slightly better with 0.72%. Kagame won a staggering almost 99% majority.
However, with falsified data and rigged elections, these farcical statistics only reveal the illegitimate nature of Rwandan democracy. True opposition candidates critical of Kagame are barred from campaigning for a variety of bureaucratic reasons. Diana Rwigara, whose RPF financier father was killed in a controversial vehicular accident in 2015 after a fallout with Kagame, was banned from running in 2017 over dubious allegations of forging signatures and inciting insurrection. She and her mother were imprisoned for a year before being stripped of seven million dollars in family assets through tax evasion charges.
This year, Mrs. Rwigara was once again restricted from running due to being accused of failing to provide campaign documents. “I’m representing the vast majority of Rwandans who live in fear and are not allowed to be free in their own country,” she said. “Rwanda is portrayed as a country where the economy has been growing. But on the ground, it’s different. People lack the basics of life, food, water, shelter.” Ms. Rwigara is right: despite immense progress and development, Rwandan living standards are still almost incomprehensible to those living in the developed world. As of 2024, 56.5% of Rwandans live on less than $1.90 a day, placing most of the population below the international poverty line. Furthermore, reports have also shown that progress on poverty reduction has slowed since a decade ago, with the government being accused of manipulating poverty rates and Tutsi favoritism.
Kagame regularly cites Rwanda’s distinct national condition to justify his stringent political laws. According to Kagame, “democracy is often misunderstood or interpreted differently by people,” but “Rwandans have made a sovereign decision to choose a form of democracy that appeals to their history and culture.” Although this line of thought undoubtedly has its truths, emphasizing the “unique reality of Rwandans” strongly echoes the excusatory rhetoric used by many other less-than-democratic governments. These regimes then resist fair elections and human rights protection while neglecting actual engagement with the ways in which their people have experienced and created the history and culture in question.
Among Rwanda’s unique history and conditions, the genocide that occurred thirty years ago still remains undoubtedly the most influential and sensitive topic of the day. Similar to Germany’s hate speech laws, the Rwandan government keeps a keen eye on any speech related to the events of 1994, rendering most discussions about ethnicity illegal. While ostensibly designed to prevent and quell ethnic tensions, the “Law relating to the punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology” has been wantonly abused in practice by Kagame to silence and discredit political opponents. Although few Rwandans are likely to invoke the traumatic memories of three decades past willingly, the vague red lines and qualifications of what counts as “genocide ideology” are common tools in the political arsenal of the RPF.
However, from many Rwandans’ perspectives, the international community is wholly unqualified to comment on Kagame’s human rights shortcomings. Many Rwandans painfully recall that it was European colonialism that first divided the nation along ethnic lines for the ease of governing. During the genocide, it was also “Western” and foreign neglect that enabled the conflict to rapidly escalate into a genocide that killed upwards of 800,000 people. In the end, the RPF under Kagame were the only ones that effectively ended the bloodshed, albeit having perpetrated atrocities of their own.
While Rwandans are rightfully skeptical of foreign criticism, they should be equally wary of suppressed political tensions and authoritarian media masquerading as truth. Another legacy and lesson of Rwanda’s genocide was the role the Hutu-government media played in mobilizing racial hatred between neighbors. Although the media under Kagame acts oppositely by silencing all discussions of ethnicity, that is no solution either. If anything, Rwanda should have taught us that without free minds and open reflection about underlying issues, entire societies of ordinary people risk becoming servile cogs in the social machine, even if that machine perpetuates genocide.
In conclusion, Rwanda is engaged in a paradoxical conflict between its successful governing model and the repressive state apparatus that claims to be essential to its progress. While Rwandans should certainly seek to uphold the rule of law, many would prefer to make ends meet first. Democracy is a luxury, and from a Rwandan point of view, it is easy to sit and criticize imperfect regimes from one’s cushy media office in a modern “Western” city. After all, Rwanda’s problems with its history are complexified by the international community's complicity in creating them. There are no easy fixes to the nation’s woes, but if there is a path to envisioning a more just society, it cannot begin without honest dialogue between its leader and his people.
***
India at a Crossroads: Secularism vs. Religious Nationalism
By Shreeya Ram, Folsom High School
In 2024, India’s national election saw Prime Minister Narendra Modi secure another term, reinforcing his administration’s pro-Hindu nationalist agenda. Despite being home to over 200 million Muslims, the Indian government’s policies have increasingly marginalized this significant portion of the population. Modi’s continued political dominance is deeply rooted in his promotion of Hindu nationalism, exploiting the religious preferences of the 79% Hindu majority to consolidate power. It is clear that Modi fully relies on the religious beliefs of his people to gain power and that it is prioritized over the overall wellbeing of his country. Most countries see that religion and government should be separate. However, in India, the lines between religion and the state have become so blurred it is no longer there. The lack of secularism in India is concerning especially when it so clearly favors one religion. Many officials including Modi have voiced their wishes to see India become a full Hindu nation. This is resulting in policies and political actions that target other religions, specifically Islam.
The 2024 election’s most pressing issue was the erosion of secularism and the targeting of the Muslim community. Modi’s administration has systematically blurred the lines between religion and state to the point where the line is no longer visible. This is evidenced by the government’s significant endorsements of Hindu projects and goals. In January of 2024, Modi inaugurated a Hindu temple that cost $217 million in construction; much of this money came from the government or devotees. This conspicuous support for Hinduism by a government claiming to be secular raises critical ethical and constitutional questions, particularly in a country struggling with poverty and homelessness.
Policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) have starkly highlighted the exclusionary agenda of Modi’s government. The CAA passed in 2019 and provides citizenship pathways for non-Muslim refugees from neighboring countries, effectively excluding Muslims and sparking fears of mass statelessness. The NRC, intended to document all legal citizens, has exacerbated these fears, potentially disenfranchising millions of Muslims. This is concerning not only at an ethical level, but also because many Muslims from the Middle East migrate to escape oppression or conflict, and the increasingly apparent anti-Muslim movement in India is dangerous for these migrants and sets a negative precedent.
These policies and political speech reach far beyond that and have a huge influence on the people, fueling a violent fire. Communal tensions and violence have surged, with lynchings, mob attacks, and hate crimes against Muslims becoming increasingly common. On July 31, 2023, an Indian police officer shot and killed four Muslim police officers and passengers at a railway station, facing limited repercussions. This incident highlights the pervasive nature of anti-Muslim violence and the impunity often granted to its perpetrators. The normalization of anti-Muslim rhetoric in political discourse emboldens extremist groups and deepens societal divisions, threatening the fabric of India’s democracy.
We not only see general violence and exclusionary policies, but we also see policies specifically targeting the way that Muslims live even on a state level. Educational institutions have also become battlegrounds in this cultural and religious conflict. The hijab ban in several states, most notably Karnataka, justified under the guise of maintaining secularism and uniformity, directly infringes on the religious rights of Muslim women. In these instances, Muslim women were not even allowed to enter their school campus if they were wearing any head covering. This ban has sparked widespread protests and highlights the systemic efforts to marginalize Muslims, undermining their cultural and religious identity and impeding their access to education. The Assamese Cattle Preservation Act, which prohibits the sale and consumption of beef, disproportionately affects the Muslim community. On May 14, 2022, the Muslim headmistress of a middle school in Assam was arrested and suspended for bringing beef to a school lunch during a local festival. Acts such as these are justified by the notion that many Hindus believe that cattle are sacred. These clearly act show the broader issue of state-imposed cultural conformity, infringing on personal freedoms and targeting specific religious practices.
The implications of these policies extend beyond individual incidents, contributing to an environment of fear and discrimination. Violent Islamophobic outbreaks have become distressingly common, fueled by political hate speech. Modi has articulated his vision of transforming India into a Hindu nation, with policies that marginalize and exclude Muslims from the political and social fabric of the country. Internationally, India’s democratic credentials are under intense scrutiny. The 2024 election results are closely analyzed by the global community, which is increasingly concerned about India’s commitment to its pluralistic values. The reelection of Modi signifies a continued path toward religious majoritarianism, raising alarms about the future of democracy and human rights in the country.
The 2024 election in India was a referendum on the nation’s secular identity and the treatment of its Muslim population. With Modi’s victory, the country stands at a crossroads. The path chosen will have profound implications not only for India’s Muslims but also for the broader principles of equality and religious freedom that underpin the nation’s constitution. The stakes were extraordinarily high, with the potential to shape the future of India’s democracy and its place in the world. The question is: Will India’s government continue to go down this destructive path, leading to its Muslim population becoming another genocidal story in a textbook? Or will Indian Muslims start to gain equal protection under the law? The challenge now is to reconcile the nation’s deep religious divisions while upholding the values of a secular and inclusive democracy.