Those seeking to promote and block political reform exist in a dynamic environment. They must consider new techniques, technologies, and strategies as they become available and respond to the actions of their adversaries. Reformers and those seeking to maintain the status quo also can learn from allies in other countries as well as form organizations that allow them to share information across borders. To explore these processes of political learning, the Center for Democracy and Civil Society and Freedom House hosted a conference, “Demonstrators and Dictators: Sharing Strategies” on December 10, 2009. We have dedicated this issue of Democracy and Society to the conference papers.

The papers touched on two main themes. The first is how new technologies, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Ushahidi, affect the power dynamic between demonstrators and dictators. While many believe that these technologies inherently favor the former over the latter, the papers, especially those by Laura Mottaz and J. Hunter Price, question that assumption. Mottaz and Price show that while new technologies increase the capacity of demonstrators to organize and publicize, since governments control the communications infrastructure, demonstrators’ ability to exploit these platforms exists only to the extent that governments allow them to use the communication networks.

The second theme the papers raised was governmental learning across borders to counter the threats protestors pose. The papers highlighted three main strategies. The most common, as the papers by Jeanne Elone and Brandon Yoder, make clear is adopting laws to repress civil society. In the 1980s and 1990s, many countries transitioned to democracy, and enhancing freedom of political association was central in these political reforms. As civil society organizations have become more effective and begun linking with organizations in other countries to enhance their capacity, governments increasingly see these organizations as a threat. In response, Elone and Yoder notice a broad trend of governments imposing restrictions on these organizations, especially their capacity to seek external funding. The second strategy, most prominent in Sheena Chestnut’s paper on China, is governments learning the most effective way to silence protestors. Camera cell phones and internet web sites, such as You Tube, now permit near-instantaneous global transmission of pictures and video. As a result, governments are becoming more wary of repressing violently in public.  Instead, they are resorting to less visible forms of coercion. Chestnut explores the efforts of the Government of China in these tactics. The final strategy is cooperation on blocking political reform through international organizations, a theme most highly developed in Lauren Albright’s paper on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Often called the Dictator’s Club because non-democratic regimes comprise its entire membership, Albright examines how the SCO allows member states to share strategies on “best practices” for defusing internal demands for political reform.

Politics is dynamic contest. The main conclusion to emerge from the conference is that in the struggle between dictators and demonstrators, those who are best able to adapt to changing circumstances and opportunities tend to prevail.

Barak Hoffman

The Obama administration inherited a number of foreign policy crises. In the near term, the administration must address the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran’s determination to develop nuclear power, and a global recession. Beyond these exigent concerns, the administration faces a diverse range of foreign policy challenges, such as climate change, terrorism, and settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of this is taking place in a context where U.S. power is in relative decline and other powers, primarily China, are rising. While the administration may have been looking forward to developing a new foreign policy vision, the urgent issues the administration must address are likely to constrain these ambitions.

We have thus devoted this issue of Democracy and Society to foreign policy in the Obama administration. We have two thematic articles advocating that the Obama administration redesign democracy assistance strategies and two papers that urge changes to the U.S.’s bilateral relationship with Egypt and Mexico. We also review six new books on foreign policy suggestions for the Obama administration. The range of the policies they advocate reflects the number of challenges the administration faces, their diversity, and disagreements over the sources of the problem and solutions to them.

Our two papers on democracy assistance strategies encourage the Obama administration to redesign these programs. Each paper starts with the same premise, that the Bush administration’s militarization of democracy assistance programs was counterproductive, but they reach different conclusions. Michael Signer of the New America Foundation argues that the U.S. Must ground democracy assistance programs with the idea that the people are the guardians of democracy. Signer maintains that programs focus too much on building institutions and too little on cultivating democratic values. Jack Santucci, alum of the MA in Democracy and Governance Program and currently at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, believes the problem lies elsewhere and thus derives a different conclusion. Santucci argues that current democracy assistance programs developed during the peak of U.S. power and programs reflect that assumption. Santucci argues that U.S. strategies need to adapt to a world where the U.S. will face challenges to its global dominance and where political instability is likely to rise, in part, because of it. Santucci argues that the U.S. must change its democracy assistance policies to reflect its diminished capacity as a global power and greater need for allies.

The two country analyses focus on how the Obama administration can improve its bilateral relationship with two strategically important countries, Egypt and Mexico. Dina Guirguis, Executive Director of Voices for a Democratic Egypt, is dismayed that the Obama administration has decided to listen to the Government of Egypt, and not the people. She argues this is a short-sighted strategy because while the Egyptian Government may have succeeded in stamping out democratic opposition, support for democracy in Egypt is strong, but currently silent. Guirguis worries that if the Obama administration sides with the Government of Egypt, not the people, it risks alienating the Egyptian people from the U.S. and squandering an opportunity to catalyze democratic reform in the Middle East. Brandon Valeriano of the University of Illinois at Chicago urges the Obama administration to reengage with Mexico. Despite sharing a long border and being the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, the Bush administration neglected the country’s importance to the U.S. Since Mexico and the U.S. Currently have similar positions on a number of issues of mutual importance, primarily drugs, immigration, and terrorism, Valeriano argues now is an opportune time for the Obama administration to solidify its policies with Mexico on these vital issues.

Broadly speaking, five of the six books we review argue that the Obama administration ought to change the direction of U.S. foreign policy, but differ, to varying degrees, on the nature of the problem as well as the solution. The varied responses reflect the complex world the administration faces. Andrew Bacevich, David Calleo, and Paul Musgrave argue that the U.S. Global military presence is unsustainable. Bacevich suggests the nature of the problem lies in demands for high levels of economic consumption. Calleo indentifies the U.S. desire to be a global super-power as the source of the problem and Musgrave argues it derives from the increasing cost of war. All three believe the U.S. can no longer sustain its aspirations for global military dominance. Rajan Menon contends that U.S. military alliances, such as NATO, are obsolete relics of the Cold War, and maintains the U.S. should pursue flexible alliances derived from the nature of the problem it is trying to solve. Finally, America and the World is a set of discussions between two former National Security Advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scrowcroft, moderated by the Washington Posts’s David Ignatius. Although Brzezinski and Scrowcroft disagree on much, they agree on the importance of bi-partisanship in U.S. foreign policy, that too many policy makers still see the world through a Cold War mentality, and that the U.S. has become excessively frightened by terrorism.

Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh are contrarians to the above analyses. They see far more continuity than change in George W. Bush’s foreign policy, arguing that unilateral military action, regime change, and inconsistent commitment to multilateralism has been typical U.S. foreign policy for decades.

I want to thank my able editors, John Morrill and Lindsay Robinson. John and Lindsay will be graduating the MA program at the end of the spring semester. I wish them the best of luck and am certain they will have promising careers.

We are seeking well-written, interesting submissions of 800-2000 words on the themes below, including summaries and/or excerpts of recently completed research, new publications, and work in progress. Submissions for the issue are due Friday, October 9, 2009.

Foreign Policy in the Obama Administration

In the first months of the Obama Administration, the President and his top foreign policy officials have attempted to outline their foreign policy priorities.  In Cairo, Egypt, President Obama made clear that closer relations between the US and Muslim countries was going to be a top concern, while in Accra, Ghana, he expressed a strong commitment to democracy in sub-Saharan Africa.  Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently claimed that foreign policy in the Obama Administration would be “based on common interests, shared values, and mutual respect.”

Nevertheless, events are challenging the ability of the administration to shape foreign policy according to these ideals.  Rising violence in Iraq, deteriorating security in Afghanistan, and instability in Iran are just a few of the unexpected challenges the new administration faces.  How should the Obama Administration react to these events?  Has the administration’s reactions to them been consistent with the ideals it has espoused?  Does the recent upsurge in violence in Iraq require the administration to review its policies toward that country?  Does the worsening security situation in Afghanistan suggest that the US and its allies need to increase the number of troops stationed there as the administration claims?  Alternatively, is the cost of the war beginning to outweigh the benefits of it as many foreign policy experts are beginning to assert?  Did the administration react wisely by not commenting extensively on the recent election crisis in Iran or did it send a message that the administration would not support beleaguered democratic reformers in that country?  Moreover, to what extent has the administration articulated a clear policy on other important issues, such as global financial reform, climate change, relations with key allies and other important countries such as China, and support for democracy?  Finally, the administration has still not yet nominated someone to fill the top position at the United States Agency for International Development.  How will it approach foreign aid?

This issue of Democracy and Society will examine the Obama Administration’s emerging foreign policy.  We are interested in articles that analyze the outlines of the policy objectives, the administration’s reaction to crises, and those that articulate exigent US foreign policy interests.  We welcome works in progress as well as summaries of work that have appeared or will appear in other publications.  Please email submissions (MS Word preferred) to editor@democracyandsociety.com. Endnotes preferred. Please include your name, department or organization, title, and contact information.

For additional information, please visit http://www.democracyandsociety.com or contact editor@democracyandsociety.com.