Offering opportunities to express ideas and passion.

PRIZE: £500 for Vihaan and a free all-day workshop for his school.

Essay Submitted:  To what extent has the United States ceased to be a reliable strategic partner for fellow allies?

I chose this question because I wanted to look at some of the current headlines in a deeper way, like Trump’s tariffs against the UK, threats of annexing Greenland and incorporating Canada as an additional US state, and understand the underlying geopolitical issues driving them. To get a broader perspective on why the US is targeting historic allies, I researched how newspapers from various countries covered these events, which tied perfectly into this prompt.

In my essay, I argued that while the US hasn’t completely abandoned its partners, it has become increasingly unpredictable, causing a massive loss of public trust in allied nations. This decline in reliability isn't even; it directly tracks how closely our shared interests align. As a result, historic allies have faced a sharp drop in economic and political consistency, even though the formal military alliances themselves survive.

Taking part in the competition was a great opportunity to sharpen my communication and writing skills under a strict 2,500-word limit. It really deepened my understanding of international politics, forcing me to view foreign policy through the eyes of world leaders balancing abandonment versus entrapment. I also learned how to strengthen my arguments by rebutting opposing viewpoints, using NATO defence spending data to show that rising budgets could indicate countries arming for self-reliance out of fear of abandonment, rather than just an alliance adapting.

Standout Quote: "The United States has not abandoned its allies outright, but it has substantially ceased to be reliable in the ways that matter most to them."

PRIZE: £500 for Atharv and a free consultation with Teresa Song, UHNW career and strategy consultant.

Essay Submitted:  How far is it accurate to claim that Elon Musk is more powerful than the British Prime Minister?

I chose this question because it exposes a modern contradiction: political authority still belongs to states, but increasingly important infrastructure belongs to private individuals. Musk served as a highly relevant case study for this dynamic, as his control over vital global platforms like Starlink and X forces us to re-evaluate what the concept of "power" actually means in today's world.

In my essay, I argued that Musk is not more powerful than the British Prime Minister overall; rather, they possess fundamentally different categories of influence. While the Prime Minister holds broad command power backed by state authority, Musk possesses a narrow but extraordinary chokepoint power, giving him the unique ability to control critical systems on which modern governments may depend.

Academically, the competition taught me to move beyond simple yes-or-no conclusions and build a much more precise framework for comparing complex political constructs. It strengthened my ability to evaluate sources, challenge my initial assumptions, and connect theoretical politics to real-world developments. On a personal level, it made me far more comfortable questioning seemingly obvious claims and constructing an independent argument rather than just defending my starting position.

Standout Quote: "One man has to survive politics, while the other can alter the conditions under which politics operates."

PRIZE: £100 for Noah and a half-day workshop for his school.

Essay Submitted:  To what extent has Britain succeeded in redefining

its role in the international order post-Brexit?

Growing up during a period where its consequences have been a constant feature of British politics, I have always been fascinated by how the decision to leave the EU has reshaped Britain's identity and international influence. Brexit is especially compelling to me because it blends a major historic event I have seen unfold with broader, critical questions about sovereignty, power, and Britain's evolving place within the global system as it attempts to define its new role.

In my essay, I argued that Brexit has changed Britain's international role more in rhetoric and presentation than in underlying power or autonomy. While the UK has certainly gained greater freedom and visibility in areas like Ukraine and Anglosphere security ties, these benefits remain heavily limited by the economic costs of leaving the EU and a continued dependence on the United States. Ultimately, Britain has rebranded its global role far more successfully than it has fundamentally strengthened it.

The competition significantly developed my academic skills by challenging me to research complex political issues independently, assess competing interpretations, and build a sustained argument from a wide range of evidence. It taught me how to clearly distinguish between highly persuasive claims and well-supported analysis when dealing with fiercely contested issues. Personally,  the process built my confidence in managing a substantial piece of independent work, forming my own judgements, and engaging critically with current affairs far beyond the classroom.

Standout Quote: "Britain may have sovereignty in name, but it remains contingent on Washington’s approval in practice."

PRIZE: £100 for Angélica and a politics career-based consultation.

Essay Submitted: 'The rise of populism is not an irrational backlash, but a logical response to the failures of neoliberalism and globalisation since the end of the Cold War.'  How far do you agree? 

I chose this question because the word "logical" immediately made me curious, forcing me to wonder whether a response can make sense without necessarily being right. Since my primary interests lie in sociology and journalism, I welcomed the room for doubt and uncertainty in the prompt, which allowed me to look at the topic through social and economic lenses rather than treating it as a simple statement to accept or reject. It gave me the space to compare case studies, test opposing perspectives against one another, and let my conclusion grow organically through continuous questioning.

In my essay, I argued that while the failures of neoliberalism and globalisation create real and understandable grievances, it does not mean every part of the populist response is logical. I broke this down into three stages: grievance, diagnosis, and prescription. While the initial grievance may be completely valid, people will still interpret its causes differently, blame different actors, and support vastly different political solutions. Ultimately, understanding where public dissatisfaction comes from is not the same as understanding the political response that follows.

Taking part in this competition gave me a vital opportunity to explore Global Politics deeply—a subject I had wanted to study for a long time but could not take formally at high school due to my specialization. Developing my argument taught me how people can view the exact same issues so differently, and it made me much more willing to let empirical evidence challenge my initial assumptions. I am incredibly grateful for an experience that gave my curiosity a structured place to grow.

Standout Quote: “The mistake is not to call populism logical. The mistake is to assume that the logic of the grievance determines the politics that follows.”

PRIZE: £100 for Irini. 

Essay Submitted: 'The rise of populism is not an irrational backlash, but a logical response to the failures of neoliberalism and globalisation since the end of the Cold War.'  How far do you agree? 

I chose this question because populism has evolved from a fleeting trend into an influential political framework embedded in global governance, shaping our societies on fragile foundations. Participating in this competition gave me the perfect opportunity to critically examine this phenomenon through a political and philosophical lens, exploring how the unintended failures of globalisation and neoliberalism created the exact economic anxieties and social grievances that populist movements now exploit to promote divisive nationalism.

In my essay, I argued that while the public's frustrations with financial distress and inequality are completely rational, the story-driven, "us versus them" solutions offered by populism are fundamentally flawed. The rise of populism actually reveals an urgent need to restore democracy to its core values, moving away from passive citizenship and top-down elite mandates. Grounded in Immanuel Kant’s ethical framework and the civic engagement of the classical Greek Polis, I proposed the construction of a "modern global Cosmopolis", powered by digital connectivity, where we distribute accountability across society and view ourselves as active citizens of a shared human community.

Taking part in this competition allowed me to move past simply absorbing information to filtering it critically. It challenged me to thoroughly evaluate complex global networks, handle highly contested data, and balance structural political issues with ethical philosophy. Ultimately, the process deeply strengthened my academic confidence, transforming how I analyse current affairs and teaching me how to craft a deeply sustained, independent argument about the future of global governance.

Standout Quote: “Populism shows what can happen when people believe that economic decisions are being made around them rather than with them.”

PRIZE: £100 for Zain. 

Essay Submitted: 'Developing nations should not be expected to sacrifice economic growth to solve a climate crisis they did not create.' Is this a fair argument?

I chose this question partly because of where I'm from. Being from a Global South country myself made me want to interrogate the loop that development theory keeps describing, and this essay let me test whether climate policy is quietly reproducing that same loop under a new name. I kept noticing how easily climate change gets framed as a shared global problem—a “we're all in this together” narrative—when the people least responsible for it are so often the ones asked to absorb the cost of fixing it, with little say in the matter. I wanted to work out for myself where the line falls between a call for genuine solidarity and a demand that just repeats an unfair history in rebranded language.

In my essay, I argued that the Global South should not be forced to sacrifice essential development to solve a crisis it did not create. Historical responsibility and the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC) give it strong grounds for differentiated treatment, but this argument only holds if it is framed as a demand for adequate climate finance and technology transfer, rather than a license for indefinite inaction. Because contemporary emissions from major emerging economies are rising, and climate inaction itself carries severe domestic costs, historical grievance alone cannot settle the question. The only fair resolution is a just transition: universal participation differentiated strictly by capability and finance.

Having to argue both a claim and a counterclaim on the same political issue completely changed the way I look at everything, forcing me to consistently build the strongest possible case for a position and then immediately build the strongest case against it. This competition also gave me a rare and comforting chance to properly engage with my love for global politics, an interest I rarely get to exercise since it sits entirely outside my formal field of study in veterinary medicine.

Standout Quote: “Climate change exposes a profound inequality in global politics: the economic bill for a crisis authored elsewhere lands squarely on populations with almost no role in writing it."