Fukuyama explored the idea further in an interview with columnist Claudia Antunes, of the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo, with whom he talked openly about his fear of the “Latin-Americanization” of the US. “Im shocked at how much the US is starting to look like old Latin America”, he says. “If you ask the rich to pay more taxes, they will say no, arguing that the government will waste the money with corruption and bad services. The government’s performance cannot get better, since it does not have enough money, but no one wants to pay more exactly because the performance is bad. The US got out of this trap in the 30′s and now we are falling back into it.”

Fukuyama sees a “democratic deficit” in the US and affirms that it is related to the power of money and interest groups, which have a disproportional weight in the political system when compared to the social groups they represent. He insists that liberal democracy is still the best system available, but that it is dying and must be revived somehow.

The middle class dilemma, of course, is not exclusive of the US. And not all middle classes are for democracy. “Strengthening democracy is tied to the amount of people in a society who reach the middle class. When the middle class is small and part of traditional elites, it sees government as a protector of its interests and fears total democracy, which could threaten their gains. That is what is happening in China right now”, he declared.

Here are a few other interesting excerpts of the interview:

“I am not saying we should abandon liberalism; it is a matter of degree. The revolution led by [Ronald] Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 80′s (…) was necessary, but went too far and imprisoned the US in an ideology that is too rigid. A liberal society will always be necessary, but we need to go back to state regulation and social policies that preserve middle class gains and encourage the rise of the poor to the middle class.”

“Old recipes of social democracy will not work, since in many cases the state is problematic and is not able to implement policies. That explains to a great extent the weakness of the left in the US and in Europe. (…) A simple return to old formats of social democracy is no longer fiscally sustainable, nor could it improve public services.”

“I do not see in the US forces capable of building an alternative ideology. That is why I wrote the article.”

“There is a great controversy around the “Occupy Wall Street” movement because it is populated mainly by young people with a leftish ideology, who do not represent syndicates or the working middle class in a larger sense. I do not believe in the prospects of the movement in the long run. Its social base is too narrow. [But] if the working middle class mobilizes for more progressive policies, then we will have a powerful populist movement.”

“In the US, it is the right that has been populist. We see that in the way they attack cultural elites and powerful players. At the same time, the right is against economic regulation and tax increases. Now, why is the left resisting a more populist rhetoric? It is another idiosyncrasy of American politics.”

It will be interesting to see how this rhetoric will play out in this year’s election.

Other

Other

John Briley for the Washington Post

Most accounts about Brazil fall into one of two categories: they either talk about the country’s booming economy and rising political importance, or about rampant corruption, crime and delusional megalomania. Those are the more “serious” accounts, of course. I prefer not to delve into popular myths about pristine beaches populated by supermodels and endless parties (I have yet to meet someone who, after finding out I am Brazilian, does not talk about how he/she plans to visit this “idyllic” place very soon).

That is why I enjoyed the story the Washington Post published on its travel section this saturday. It was a realistic narrative about Rio, its problems and wonders, without falling into the temptation of seeing only the good or the bad nor gloating about the “country of the future”. No glorification of poverty, but a seemingly balanced appreciation for its culture.

When the reporter visited favelas (slums), he commented about how his initial fear turned into a sense of safety, a real change for the city. But he also talked about locals concerns about losing recent security gains after the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016, which would echo previous experiences. We all remember how Rio was “cleansed” before the “Eco 92” conference on climate and before the Pope’s visit in 97 (theme of the celebrated movie Elite Squad, which I recommend).

There is a joke that says that “Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be”. The joke is outdated: it is common now to say that the future has arrived. It is undeniable that we have risen considerably in political relevance in the past decade, much due to the diligence and ambition of our former chancellor, Celso Amorim, who currently serves as Defense minister. We also benefited greatly from the financial crisis: Brazil became an even more attractive destination for foreign investment, to the point where capital flows turned into a problem and forced the government to implement taxes and other measures to try to slow it down.

Obviously, these improvements come with caveats. We feel the pressure to be more present in general world affairs, which are sometimes beyond our capacity. And Brazilians are suffering from a generalized process of “gentrification”. Growing foreign interest in the country is bringing inflation (already above the Central Bank’s target) and a housing bubble. Rent prices are sky rocketing. When I visited Sao Paulo for the holidays a few weeks ago, I saw several friends looking to move into cheaper neighborhoods, not being able to keep up with the jump in living expenses in the nice areas they used to live.

It is not clear yet how much regular Brazilians will benefit from all the attention the country is getting abroad. We now talk with a certain longing about the days when “things were more simple and we weren’t on the cover of  The Economist every other week”, as one of my friends put it.

I do think it is all for the better. But we are clearly having growing pains.

Other

Other

Recognizing the backdrop of the Duma elections and dramatic citizen protests that have swept Russia, four US policy-specific issues emerged in the hearing:

The Obama Administration’s Policy of Dual-track Engagement: Bi-lateral Relations and Civil Society Support. ”We firmly believe that a credible dialogue about democracy and human rights should involve not only contacts between the American and Russian governments, but also direct communication and linkages between American and Russian non-governmental organizations, independent policy experts, and regular citizens to confront common challenges,” Melia’s written testimony stated. Further, in addition to the $160 million provided in civil society strengthening and civil society assistance since 2009, “the Obama Administration submitted Congressional Notification for the creation of a new $50 million fund to support Russian civil society” in October 2011. “The new fund would not require additional appropriations because the $50 million would come from liquidated proceeds of the U.S. Russia Investment Fund.” (also from Melia’s written testimony). Both Gordon and Melia provided statements that reflect the Administration’s new-found voice in support of democracy and human rights; while the voice had existed previously, it was arguably muffled to a whisper under the “reset” policy.

Trade: Terminate Jackson Vanik. Both Republican and Democratic Senators expressed support for the repeal, as did the Administration through Assistant Secretary Gordon and DAS Melia. The Jackson Vanik legislation, passed in 1974, has been a barrier to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization; Senator Corker provided a moment of levity by asking Gordon whether he agreed that Jackson Vanik is now causing us to “shoot ourselves in the foot” by restricting US trade with Russia with little to no benefit or human rights leverage in return. Gordon diplomatically repeated the Administration’s support for its termination. Kramer advocated for parallel legislation in support of human rights (in the form of the Sergei Magnitsky legislation or comparable legislation) to be passed if Jackson Vanik is terminated.

S. 1039: The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act. A bi-partisan cadre of senators has supported this legislation, which would impose US visa bans on individual human rights abusers, most notably those involved in Sergei Magnitsky’s tragic death.  Melia noted that the Obama administration has and is “taking action to deny human rights abusers entry into the United States…Consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and President Obama’s “Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Non-immigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights Abuses and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses.” Essentially, the position taken by the Administration is that this is already underway. The concern is perhaps that passing the legislation can open a Pandora’s Box of difficult questions: who in the US government maintains the list? What if a name is added by mistake? Is this duplicating the already successful Human Rights Reports produced by DRL? Is it going to bureaucratize issues that are too important to bureaucratize? Further, it has also been reported that the Russian government, in particular the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with orders from the top, may respond with its own list of Americans blacklisted from Russia should that legislation pass. Sponsors of the legislation, its supporters (including Kramer), and those debating whether to support it must be wary of paving the foreign relations road with good intentions. That said, this policy difference between the congress, which is seeking to institutionalize support for human rights (as Senator Cardin articulated), and the executive branch, which is seeking to proceed with dual-track diplomacy to include human rights, should not be taken as a reflection of wavering US support for justice for the 37 year old lawyer –  Sergei Magnitsky - who died because he dared to investigate state corruption and because of acts of commission and omission perpetrated by the Russian authorities. Gordon, Melia, and Senators Cardin and Shaheen recognized this terrible truth, though they may differ on how the US should respond.

Appointment of Michael McFaul. McFaul was nominated to be US Ambassador to Russia and a confirmation hearing was held in the senate on October 12^th. Gordon, Melia, and Kramer agreed that the US needs a permanent Ambassador – our man in Moscow – now more than ever, and asked the Senate to confirm McFaul as soon as possible. The conservative right mobilized against McFaul after his hearing, mobilization that is arguably dangerous to foreign policy goals in the region at such a critical time.

Other

What the Election Monitors Reported

On December 5, OSCE elections observers, lead by delegates from Greece, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, issued a disturbing Statement of Preliminary Conclusions. There are numerous salient points in the report, two of particular concern. The first is election-specific: the Ministry of Justice denied registration to political parties, effectively ensuring a race only among seven Ministry-sanctioned parties. As the report stated, “Despite the lack of a level playing field, voters took advantage of their right to express their choice.” In other words, you can select any ice cream you want, but your options include seven variations of black cherry. The second represents a more disturbing trend: state actors used the leverage of their positions to influence results. “OSCE/ODIHR observers noted unequal treatment of contestants by the election administration, local authorities and service providers in favour of the governing party.” So you can choose any of the seven black cherry blends, but really, please choose the one called Cherry for United Russia.   

What Secretary Clinton Said: Neither Free nor Fair

On December 6, at the First OSCE Plenary Session, Clinton incorporated the following in her broader remarks: “We see setbacks for democratic institutions, the rule of law, and electoral processes. We witness prosecutions, such as that of Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine, which raises serious questions about political motivations. And when authorities fail to prosecute those who attack people for exercising their rights or exposing abuses, they subvert justice and undermine the people’s confidence in their governments. And as we have seen in many places, and most recently in the Duma elections in Russia, elections that are neither free nor fair have the same effect. We have serious concerns about the conduct of those elections. Independent political parties, such as PARNAS, were denied the right to register. And the preliminary report by the OSCE cites election day attempts to stuff ballot boxes, manipulate voter lists, and other troubling practices.” She further describes allegations of cyber attacks (to read more about these attacks and civil society responses, Freedom House published “A Victory for the Net in Russia” yesterday).

How the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Reacted: Refrain from Unfriendly Attacks

The response, issued on December 6, is available in Russian here. The translation: “The statements of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton relating to the parliamentary elections that took place in Russia, as well as similar commentary by the spokespeople of the White House and State Department are unacceptable.

With regret we are compelled to establish that in Washington, some long-exhausted stereotypes persist, and they continue to hang labels (on Russia), without even trying to figure out what is really going on in our electoral field.

Russian citizens made their (own) choice, (and) participated actively in the voting.  Only they have the right to define the future of our country, independent of anyone’s biased evaluations and politicized prescriptions.

We remind you that the electoral system of the United States is itself far from perfect.  This has been said many times.  It cannot serve as the standard of openness and fairness, which is evident in particular in the traditionally minimal voter turnout in elections at all levels.

The leadership of the United States ought to worry about the reasons for its own situation and the way to fix it.

We consider that in future the American side will refrain from unfriendly attacks that run contrary to the general positive trend of development in bilateral relations.”

On December 8, not to be upstaged, Putin added:

“Straight away the Secretary of State assessed the elections as dishonest and unfair even though she hadn’t even received the observers material. She set the tone for some of our personalities inside the country and gave them the signal and they heard this signal and with support from the state department started active work.” (Translation as reported by the AP)

Clinton Responded

On the same day, she stated: “the United States and many others around the world have a strong commitment to democracy and human rights. It’s part of who we are. It’s our values. And we expressed concerns that we thought were well-founded about the conduct of the elections. And we are supportive of the rights and aspirations of the Russian people to be able to make progress and to realize a better future for themselves, and we hope to see that unfold in the years ahead.”

Does it Matter?

It is a sign of individual and institutional weakness that Putin and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would blame the Secretary of State for internal dissent. A democracy comfortable in its electoral processes and secure in its electoral outcomes does not need to seek out a straw man (or woman) upon which to pin blame. A true democracy embraces the will of its people, it does not fear it. A true democracy would investigate the allegations and take direct action to address them, including by overhauling the party registration process, holding new elections, and welcoming international observers who remain friends of a democratic Russia. The international community must continue to stand on the side of Russians who seek representative government rather than cherry-picked leaders loyal to Putin.

Crossposted here: http://lizaprendergast.wordpress.com

Other

from the Cain campaign website

Other

Garrison provided the most compelling argument in support of this facility, noting that it will give notice to finance ministries around the world that consulting and engaging civil society should be the modus operandi. Mary McNeil, Senior Operations Officer, announced that the facility will have two primary roles: (a) to serve as a knowledge platform/exchange facility and (b) to provide “long term core funding” for civil society organizations for a period of 5 – 7 years. She also noted that the Bank’s goal is not to duplicate existing regional or country-level efforts or those funded by multi- and bi-laterals. Garrison and McNeil agreed that the Bank’s unique role allows it to create an “enabling environment” for CSOs to engage in evidence-backed advocacy work, particularly focused on transparent and accountable budgeting in government.

Garrison and McNeil acknowledged a series of procedural challenges that will determine the success of the overall effort:  Who will review and select grant recipients? How will funding mechanisms deal with governments that have restrictive or bias NGO registration laws/regulations? What level of participation should members of government and civil society have on the proposal review committees? How close/distant should in-country governments be in the grant selection process? How will countries participate or not participate – can governments just not object, or will they have to opt out or opt in for CSOs in their countries to receive funding?

As the Bank grapples with these issues, it must seriously consider the implication of this funding mechanism in countries with weak civil society capacity and heavy government oversight and regulation of NGO activities. If governments are involved in the selection of NGOs that will receive core funding for 5 – 7 years, the Bank could facilitate a parallel structure that in fact strengthens governments’ abilities to regulate civil society activities even further in countries like Angola, Ethiopia, and Egypt. Government officials benefit by supporting particular NGOs and excluding others, while the chosen few NGOs benefit by tamping down legitimate criticism of government to receive extended funding. In the end, the cycle of citizen exclusion continues as it did before – just funded and authorized by the Bank under the banner of “civil society engagement” instead of by the country government.

How the Bank establishes and implements procedures governing the facility and the dissemination of funds will determine whether this effort is a revolutionary step forward or merely a new funding mechanism for non-democratic governments to manipulate for their own benefit.   

Other

The state of affairs in Nicaragua is getting more and more similar to Mexico under the PRI, long regarded as some sort of “perfect authoritarian state”. Two separate rules should have prevented Ortega from running: one forbids former presidents from going back to power (he had ruled Nicaragua before, from 1984 to 1990); the other forbids consecutive terms for presidents. In theory, only a Constitutional reform approved by Congress could change those rules.

Ortega did not have enough votes to win on such a reform, but found another way to bypass the Constitution: He made a petition arguing the articles were discriminatory, and the Supreme Court decided that preventing his bid would violate the principle of equality under the law. Did I mention that he had replaced some of the liberal judges with more favorable ones right before this specific vote?

Lawyers, judges, the opposition, the media, civil society and the Church all protested and made plans to take the case to international courts. But, says analyst Carlos Chamorro, “the fundamental political fact is that the protests were not able to generate a political crisis neither in parliament nor on the streets, while the government keeps its political machine in a permanent state of mobilization to support the reelection project”.

Part of that support was bought lavishly with petrodollars coming from his ally Hugo Chavez, and Ortega also has IMF money circulating in the country. With that abundance he was able to implement a bunch of populist programs and give bonuses to the people, including a weird ice skating ring in the middle of Managua. After all, “the children have the right to learn how to ice skate, even though it is so hot in here”, said First Lady Rosario Murillo.

That is not to say his government isn’t good. Ortega made great economic choices and Nicaragua is supposed to grow 5% this year. Foreign investment has doubled in the past five years, and his orthodox policies are praised internationally. Is he popular? Of course.

But his authoritarian and populist style is eating up the already fragile democratic basis of the country, concentrating all power in a model of State-party-church government and using a religious rhetoric to appeal to the masses. Ortega clearly has no qualms in positioning himself above laws and institutions. Now, Carlos Chamorro warns that the biggest risk of his new government is the cooptation of the Armed Forces and the police. “It would mean go back in history to the starting point of the Somoza dictatorship”, he said.

Other

Other