Cameras in Russian polling stations

From the WSJ comes this story about Russia’s plan to install web cameras in polling stations for the March presidential election.

Russia Friday launched the presidential election website, www.webvybory2012.ru, that will allow web users to access video recorded at any of the approximately 92,000 polling stations across the country. One camera will give a full panorama view of each polling station and a second camera will be directed at the ballot box.

[...]

The website allows users to select as many polling stations for monitoring as they wish, although only until Election Day. Users will be able to monitor the election from 12 a.m. to 8 p.m. Moscow time. For an hour, recording will continue but nothing will be shown to observe the secrecy of the ballot. Starting at 9 p.m., when voting closes in Kaliningrad, Russia’s westernmost province, the service will show ballot counting and viewers will be able to see video from 8 p.m. local time.

Webcams in polling stations aren’t a bad idea by themselves, but I have a lot of problems with the way this is being implemented. My first concern is that it may contribute to the common development practitioner practice of assuming impact from an output. As with all transparency initiatives (making public records available, etc..) it’s not enough to simply produce the information and assume civil society will use it.  Often times they won’t. There are many similar “citizen monitoring” projects being done through the Ushahidi platform, which produce neat maps. Often the assumption is that people will actually do something with that map. I don’t want to bash Ushahidi too hard as I think it can do interesting things, but producing data should not be viewed as a behavior-changing impact of an intervention. It’s just an output that we hope will lead to the behavior change.

The webcams do, however, remind me of an innovative experiment done in Afghanistan: In 2010, local election monitors took photographs of the final tally sheets in local Afghan polling stations, which was shown to reduce fraud by 60%. The Afghanistan experiment was done through a Randomized Control Trial (RCT), which brings me to my next problem with this experiment.

It’s always difficult to determine if election monitoring actually reduces fraud (although Susan Hyde has done great work showing that it can). This is for the simple reason that we don’t know the counterfactual level of fraud if the observation wasn’t there. Because of this, I think it would be much smarter if  - instead of trying to put webcams in nearly every polling station – they randomly assigned the web cameras to certain stations. This would  allow us to measure if the intevention was actually effective or not. Aside from the fact that so many webcams will make monitoring of any of them less effective, not randomizing the cameras will make it impossible to actually determine impact.  Of course this assumes the actual goal of the project is to reduce fraud and not just give the appearance of transparency.

Cross posted at Ahwatalk.

Citizen Media Sharing at a Crossroads

Pinterest! It’s all the rage, right? I’m doing it. He’s doing it. She’s doing it. Everybody, it seems from the media coverage over the past few weeks, has signed up for the photo-sharing website where users curate a “virtual pinboard.” It’s a simple concept, really: a combination of the Facebook “like” feature and Tumblr. Delightful to look at and easy to use.

“New media” certainly keeps delivering interesting products. That much is for sure. But wasn’t it just yesterday when we were fawning over Tumblr itself? When it was just becoming en vogue for politicians and companies to adopt a Twitter handle? When you just had to secure an invitation to Google+?

The world of citizen journalism seems to be facing the same trends. Where the iconic conflict-related viral images and videos of “yesteryear” were shared via Twitpic and YouTube (think Egypt’s “girl in the blue bra” from December’s police crackdown), today witnesses to revolution have a plethora of hosting options for their media contributions. Lulu Live, a Pinterest clone curated by the Middle East Voices news site, launched last week to feature videos of Bahraini government violence. CrowdVoice is similar but targeted towards the entire region. Both want to serve as a platform for media exchange during trying times. And these two, thanks to grant monies and tech development initiatives, almost assuredly won’t be the last of their kind.

But is increased competition to YouTube and Facebook-hosted content what Arab Spring-type movements really need? When there are more options for where “groundbreaking” media is reposited, doesn’t that just result in an obfuscation of content discovery? While we may have been all over +1ing things last Fall, how often have we actually heard of videos or images shared on that platform “going viral”? Really, now.

Citizen journalists, of the type much lauded by pretty much everyone, obviously think their content needs to be viewed. It is, after all, the need-to-see video and images from places where few AP crews would dare to go. So why jeopardize it on a site which, even in addition to a second-rate UI, could be easily thrown offline by surges in traffic or hackers? Where people want their images and video to really matter, they need to leave it to the companies with the resources invested in growing traffic to a live site.

How naive of me, defending the for-profit behemoths of YouTube and Facebook and Twitter. The same giants that have proven all too willing to censor themselves at the request of authoritarian regimes. There seems to be no diplomatic answer to this.

Egypt Update

Amidst rising tension, Egyptian leaders seemed to have changed their minds about the presidential elections, advancing it a month to the end of may, but are still stubbornly set on prosecuting american and other foreign democracy workers in the country, in spite of all sorts of pressure coming from Washington.

Anyone still think it is a bluff? Recent news stories tell a different tale, and the frantic activity in the DC offices of the organizations involved – IRI, NDI and Freedom House – show how serious the situation is. Other democracy organizations, meanwhile, are following developments closely, trying to figure out how to help and what this means for the safety of their own activities. However, with the exception of the targeted programs, thankfully nobody seems to be putting anything on hold.

The IRI just released a fact sheet about their work in Egypt that I think it is worth sharing:

Facts on IRI’s Work in Egypt and the Crackdown on NGOs

The International Republican Institute’s (IRI) offices in Alexandria, Cairo and Luxor were raided on December 29, 2011, by Egyptian authorities.  The raids were conducted as part of an investigation opened by the Ministry of Justice at the urging of the Ministry of International Cooperation.  The raids were an aggressive action that ironically was never taken against IRI under the former regime of Hosni Mubarak.  The actions taken by the Egyptian government following the raids against IRI and other organizations have intensified.

 The Ministry of Justice has conducted 20 interrogations of 17 IRI staff since December 2011.  The grounds for the overall investigation were politically motivated and instigated by a Mubarak-era holdover attempting to stifle the voices of civil society organizations in post-revolution Egypt.  During interrogations, staff were asked to respond to assertions made by the Minister of International Cooperation that the IRI had conducted political activity in Egypt in violation of the Egyptian law.

 During the raids, the government of Egypt took hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of cash, equipment and documentation from offices in Alexandria, Cairo and Luxor, none of which has been returned to IRI.  The Cairo offices have remained sealed since December 29.  Much of the cash was for an official election observation mission that the Egyptian government invited IRI to undertake in support of the country’s people’s assembly elections.

 IRI’s Country Director, Sam LaHood, was prevented leaving the country on January 21, 2012.  LaHood was not notified that he was on a no exit list until he attempted to leave the country on a routine trip.  IRI has learned that the government of Egypt has officially barred nine IRI staff from leaving the country.  The government has also issued detention warrants upon arrival for five expatriate staff currently outside of Egypt.

 The raids have been followed by rumors and statements from the Ministry of Justice that 43 staff from IRI, the National Democratic Institute, Freedom House, the International Center for Journalists and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation will face trial as a result of the findings of the investigations.

 The rumored charges against IRI: 

IRI was not legally registered to work in Egypt.  IRI applied for official registration in 2006 with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to which the government of Egypt never responded.  At the request of Egyptian authorities, IRI resubmitted registration paperwork in 2011 and is awaiting a decision from the ministry.  IRI was not asked to close it offices and Egyptian authorities were thoroughly briefed on IRI’s work.

IRI gave money to political parties. In accordance with U.S. law, IRI does not give
money to political parties in Egypt, nor does it show any bias to any single political
entity. IRI training activities were conducted with a spectrum of political parties,
regardless of faith or party ideology. IRI has held workshops on candidate preparation
and registration, Election Day poll-watching and on the use of survey research in election
campaign design.

IRI conducts polling in violation of Egyptian law. IRI has conducted several public
opinion polls in Egypt in 2011 to gauge citizen perspectives on the political, social and
economic environment since the revolution. Poll results have been shared with the public
and with political parties to inform their party platforms and election campaign strategies.
Data for IRI’s public opinion polls was collected by a licensed Egypt-based marketing
firm. IRI has shared poll results with Egyptian officials.

IRI staff receive funds illegally from abroad. As is standard practice, IRI’s Washington
headquarters procures all funding for its programs abroad. IRI’s Egyptian and expatriate
Egypt-based staff did not sign any grant agreements in Egypt on IRI’s behalf.

IRI had a map in its Cairo office that showed it wanted to divide Egypt. IRI used
Internet-generated maps that displayed Egypt’s four natural geographic regions: Greater
Cairo, Upper Egypt, the Canals and the Delta. The maps were used to prepare for IRI’s
international election observation of the people’s assembly elections to show where IRI
would be deploying observers. Egypt’s Higher Elections Commission officially invited
IRI to witness the elections and gave official accreditations to all foreign witnesses.

Regarding the general situation in post-revolution Egypt:

IRI and other organizations believe that Egypt’s repressive law number 84 on
nongovernmental organizations seeks to control and repress civil society. The Egyptian
government continues to instill fear among Egyptian civic groups that carry out activities
or take funding not specifically authorized by the government. In the U.S., registered
nongovernmental organizations do not have to seek approval for funding or activities
from the federal government if they remain within their mandated mission, and they can
accept foreign funding, including funding from foreign governments.

The investigations carried out by the Ministry of Justice mirror politically-motivated
detentions and/or charges brought against Egyptian activists who have criticized the
Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in recent months. This suggests that there is a
well-coordinated plan to limit the space for political and civic activism in Egypt.

In accordance with the annual State and Foreign Operation Appropriation Bill, U.S.
democracy and human rights programming “shall not be subject to the prior approval by
the government of any foreign country.”

Democracy Promotion in Hostile Climes

A recent ABC article detailing the impacts of USAID programs in Cuba touched on a valuable question and recurrent theme in democracy promotion.  Specifically focusing on the concept of covert democracy promotion operations and whether or not they serve a purpose, the article avoids overarching challenges regarding the legitimacy of regime change motivated by external actors.  In asking whether or not these types of programs might best be left to clandestine services the article essentially calls to question the ultimate purpose of democracy promotion efforts in hostile environs.
Continue reading »

Turbulent waters in the Maldives

If every story has two sides, this one has them worlds apart. On one side we have a recently ousted president who is crying “coup”. He happens to be the first leader elected after the end of a lengthy dictatorship, but could not implement reforms, got the boot and now demands new elections.

On the other side we have his vice president, who climbed to power as soon as the boss left. Accused of being a puppet of forces loyal to the old regime, he says there was no coup and decides not to hold elections for the time being.

The Washington Post: groups opposed to former president Nasheed take the streets of Male

This is happening in the Maldives, and the only thing clear is how fragile the country’s infant democracy is. It all started with a script that is now familiar: A dictator, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, was overthrown after three decades of rule with multiparty elections in 2008. A young activist, Mohamed Nasheed, was then elected with 54% of the vote. Masses are jubilant, the outside world applauds.

Now turn to 2012: after disputes with powerful judges (allegedly loyal to the old dictator) and street protests, Nasheed resigned in a press conference on February 7th. He later said he was forced to do so at gunpoint and claims he was the victim of a coup. The vice president takes over, and the Judiciary issues an order for the former president’s arrest. To complete the picture, the rise of Islamic forces starts to worry the West.

Hopefully the second part of the script will not become commonplace. There are many doubts about what is actually happening in the islands. The process that led to Nasheed’s overture presents itself as a mass revolt, but many suspect it was orchestrated by supporters of the old regime – “looks much like an old-fashioned coup”, writes “The Economist”. Assistant secretary of State Robert Blake just flew to the Maldives this Saturday and supported the government’s decision not to hold elections, arguing that the country is not ready for them. But he got the new president to agree to an independent probe into the facts.

Of course no one wants to compare the Maldives with any other country in transition, but it is a dark reminder of how long and dangerous the path ahead is after a revolution. “Dictatorships don’t always die when the dictator leaves office”, wrote Nasheed the other day. Don’t we know it. As Barak would say: we gotta have patience.