Not the case in Pakistan. Two weeks ago, a reality television show where participants act like Saudi mutaween, accosting couples appearing together in public, debuted on a major TV network. For an hour, a pack of women chased teenagers and young adults through the streets of Karachi in true religious police fashion. The New York Times writeup, one of many that have cropped up over the past week, describes the show which, most incredibly, was broadcast live, the best:

Panting breathlessly and trailed by a cameraman, the group of about 15 women chased after — sometimes at jogging pace — girls and boys sitting quietly on benches overlooking the Arabian Sea or strolling under the trees. The women peppered them with questions: What were they doing? Did their parents know? Were they engaged?

Some couples reacted with alarm, and tried to scuttle away. A few gave awkward answers. One couple claimed to be married. The show’s host, Maya Khan, 31, demanded to see proof. “So where is your marriage certificate?” she asked sternly.

This hourlong spectacle, broadcast live on Samaa TV on Jan. 17, set off a furious reaction in parts of Pakistan. Outrage sprang from the Internet and percolated into the national newspapers, where writers slammed Ms. Khan’s tactics as a “witch hunt.”

“Vigil-aunties,” read one headline, referring to the South Asian term “aunty” for older, bossy and often judgmental women.

We’ve given an exorbitant amount of credit to citizen journalists in the wake of the Arab Spring. In addition to funding technologies which will increase their effectiveness and safety, the United States is actively training whistleblowers around the world as part of democracy promotion programming. These are the individuals, proponents of this spending say, who hold the key to democratic transition in places we previously overlooked.

Americans and Westerners seem to love it when media is used “for good.” But is that truly a reasonable expectation in places, like Pakistan, where media self-regulation away from extremism is almost incomprehensible? A show such as this one in Pakistan seems like no more than a logical and cultural extension than the United States’ own To Catch a Predator, which, for those not familiar,  lures purported sexual predators into police sting operations using decoys posing as underage teenagers.

When the United States encourages a “gotcha” culture of new media soundbites, live feeds, and citizen activism, what more do we really expect? Journalists using new trends and technologies to enforce the moral code of a society should not surprise anyone.

Other

Wall Street Journal: organizers said 120,000 came out this saturday

Organizers said they had about 120,000 participants, so I guess we can believe at least half of that were present. It’s a huge number. Reporters from Reuters said it looked as large as last year’s rallies. A counter-protest in support of Putin had about 20,000 elsewhere in the city. In a month, we will see how far the anger will go in the polls.

Other

Washington Post: Protests in Moscow, December 2011

Russian activists promise to shake things up again in the country with a new march this Saturday, February 4^th, to demand honest elections in a month, when Vladimir Putin will probably win the Presidency back. It will be a continuation of the wave of protests that occurred in Russia at the end of last year, when parliamentary elections were deemed less than free and fair. The uprising, if we may call it that way, has been compared to the Arab Spring and even to the American civil rights movement.

To me, it sounds a bit exaggerated. First, because results are not likely to be as dramatic. And second, because the goals are different.

On the optimists side, Leon Aron, from the conservative group American Enterprise Institute, says that the movement is more than a political wave. According to him, what is happening in Russia is a “moral awakening akin to the American civil rights movement”. “[Activists share] a profound sense that lasting liberalization of their homeland would come about only through the realization of a mature, self-aware civil society able and willing to control the executive branch.”

That shared sentiment has come not from a specific desire to form an opposition or get involved in politics. What happened, Aron explains, was that it became inevitable to deal with the government -and almost certainly to get in trouble with the Kremlin- if one was against anything that is part of the status quo, be it transportation taxes or the cutting of trees. Suddenly modest objectors got themselves elevated to civil society leaders.

In common with the American counterpart, in theory, the Russians have as an “ultimate goal dignity and equality before the law”. “And just like the leaders of the civil rights movement, Russia’s activists seek to effect vast political and social change by personal and deeply moral effort fueled from within” to achieve their goals, affirms Aron.

I’m not sure, however, if the comparison stands. Maybe the Russians want an awakening of civil society, but they are not protesting against the social building of the country. They basically want the system to work better, with less corruption, and to get Putin out. They do not plan to extinguish the current system and build another one with a different social structure. In that, I think it is fundamentally different than the American civil rights movement.

For similar reasons, I think comparing it to the Arab Spring is a bit too much. The Arab Spring did not succeed in revolutionizing every political system – look at Egypt right now, with the military still in charge – but it tried. It was not about replacing one person or improving the political machinery, but about tearing something down and building something else in its place.

The goals stated by the activists in charge of organizing the February 4th event are much more simple: annulling the parliamentary elections and preventing Putin from winning again.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies assesses that “those who expect Russia to follow the path of Arab revolutions are likely to be disappointed”.
“The protests may herald a period of greater instability, but they are unlikely to prevent Putin’s return to the presidency in March 2012 or to substantially transform Russia’s political regime, which is democratic in form but authoritarian in essence. The most that the protesters could realistically achieve is to impose greater accountability on Russia’s political elite.”

The institute argues that while protesters want the end of the “Putin regime” and demand new laws and new elections, they do not have a “common vision of what should replace it”.

In any event, this weekend’s march will be a test to see how much the Russian society still is mobilized. If the opposition continues to bring dozens of thousands of people to the streets in temperatures of about 20 F, then I guess Putin should trust they can do almost anything.

Other

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

For those interested in the interplay between technology and governance, these are exciting times.  The activity against SOPA and PIPA was relatively unprecedented.  Contrary to arguments from some that the responses to these legislations were fueled by businesses in the tech industry, or by people attempting to protect their right to piracy, the reactions were widespread and diverse.  Here and there news organizations have drawn attention to the impact of internet activists and the potential they present for social change.  Most recently some on Reddit have delved into a new experiment in essentially crowdsourcing concepts of legislation.  This is an easy idea to love if you’re one of those believers (like yours truly) in the the internet as a boon to democracy, yet it is also impressively outlandish.

These recent events raise critical questions for those in the business of technology as well as those who govern us.  There’s been argument over what right if any people have to the internet, yet ultimately a discussion of rights is in part irrelevant.  When, if ever, is a business responsible for more than that business’ bottom line? Just a few years ago we wouldn’t have been asking these sorts of questions about the internet, but it appears clear at the moment that in one way or another this technology has bolstered the ability of individuals to speak out publicly against repression.  In many spheres of business this question offers a foregone conclusion.  Yet perhaps in internet technologies the idea of corporate ethics and responsibility might find renewed vigor?

Other

Other

We saw one of these instances last week when an Armenian Genocide bill passed through the French Senate. The bill, which while approved by parliament has yet to be signed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, would make it a crime for any individual to deny that it did, in fact, happen.

Thought Police, sure–I could write volumes on that aspect. But it certainly provoked a high-profile reaction from the Turkish government. In December, when the bill was first passed by the lower house of the French Parliament, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan recalled Turkey’s ambassador to France, suspended political and economic talks–high-profile themselves due to Turkey’s jostling for admittance to the EU–, and closed Turkish airspace and waterways to French military craft.

On Tuesday, when the bill finally gained the approval of the French Senate, Erdogan pulled out all diplomatic stops. He threatened to pursue allegations of France’s own alleged (and quite well-documented) genocide in Algeria in the 1950s and 1960s, and made it clear that he would bar new state-to-state contracts with France.

Is the bill, as Erdogan has declared it, a “massacre of free thought”? Certainly, by American standards. But Turkey’s top-down, unrelenting insistence on this issue might also massacre Turkey’s geopolitical benefits. Sure, Turkey may not be angling for EU acceptance as hard as many believe. But if it wants to keep reaping the benefits of Western investment and political inclusion, especially in a world where many are both ready and willing to forgive a nation for past transgressions, it’s going to need to try a gentler approach.

Other

Right now it seems members of at least three D.C. based organizations – IRI, NDI and Freedom House – are under investigation by the Egyptian military, alongside dozens of other foreign and local NGOs. Their offices in Cairo were raided and shut down on December 29th, and now part of the staff is under travel ban, including Sam LaHood, the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who directs the Egyptian program of IRI.

After LaHood was prevented from leaving the country, the organizations probed and discovered that at least 40 foreigners (six Americans) are under the ban as a result of the investigation.

IRI said they have been questioned about funding and their legal status in Egypt, and that the investigation might lead to formal charges.

Neither inquiry is completely far-fetched: it is undeniable that there is foreign money coming to Egypt for purposes related to the political situation, and apparently the organizations still have problems in getting totally cleared to operate in the country.

Of course, authoritarian, semi-authoritarian, transitioning or in any way questionable governments will always have an interest in making life difficult for foreigners who try to get in any way involved in local politics. If that was reason enough to prevent the organizations from working, they might as well give up now and close their offices. The fact that there is work to be done in opening up, strengthening and democratizing the political scenario is exactly why they are needed. Not to mention it is a common scapegoat to blame foreigners for popular unrest.

On the other hand (and let me be clear: I am NOT talking about Egypt or any of the above mentioned organizations right now), I wonder if in some cases the involvement doesn’t turn into interference. Let’s face it, sometimes foreigners are indeed engaged in supporting uprisings. And with good reason. But where should it stop? Or shouldn’t it?

I personally would never side with, for example, the Kremlin in its attempts to circumvent the work of international NGOs, but I do think there is space to talk about how far they can or should go. With so many new countries joining the list of transitional ones right now, the situation in Egypt might provide a good opportunity to re-discuss the safety and boundaries, if any, of the activities of international pro-democracy groups.

Other

We are seeking well-written, interesting submissions of 1500-2000 words on the themes below, including summaries and/or excerpts of recently completed research, new publications, and works in progress. Submissions for the issue are due Monday, February 27th, 2012.

After the Revolution: Looking Forward

The wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011 set a precedent for political and social change. Starting with Tunisia, people began to publicly call into question the leadership of governments and individuals that hitherto they feared challenging or accepted as their political fate. However, shortly after the Arab Spring, the stark realities of political transitions have become clear. Some regimes, such as in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria, sought to use force to crush nascent uprisings. Even in the successful revolutions, most notably Egypt and Tunisia, securing political leadership that acts in the interests of the people remains a challenge. More broadly, we are witnessing revolutions still in progress, where the prospects for successful democratic transitions seem uncertain. What challenges exist to these nascent democratic movements? A number of questions emerge, including:

Opportunities and Dangers: Political transitions present groups with opportunities influence the direction or nature of the change. Notably, in the context of the Middle East and North Africa, revolutions may present Islamic parties with an opening to advance their ideologies and gain support. On one hand, this may lead to a more peaceful redefinition of groups that were repressed by previous regimes. But on the other hand, the political vacuum revolutions create may encourage the rise of more extreme ideological parties.

State and Society: The revolutions and uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa have also called into question the fundamental basis upon which the state relates to society. To what extent have these political transformations altered peoples’ expectations about government accountability and notions of popular sovereignty?

The Role of the External Actors: To what extent has political change in the Middle East and North Africa called into question the capacity of external actors, such as the United States and Iran, to cultivate politically compliant regimes? Can democratic countries that were supporters of overthrown dictators, like the United States and France, play a constructive role in helping to foster democratic transitions?

The Role of the Media and Technology: There exist many untested hypotheses about the role of the media, notably Al Jazeera and technology like the Internet, added to the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Can we state with any degree of specificity the role these media played in them?

The Challenges of Governance: Democratic transitions often place political groups previously in opposition to the regime with the challenges of actually having to govern. What are some of the problems they face, or impose on these transition?

Slow Pace of Change: Many lament the slow pace of political change in the region since the uprisings began one year ago. Is this pessimism justified? Or should we expect political transitions in much of the region to be lengthy processes that are prone to backsliding?

Resistance from Regimes in Power: In the case of Bahrain, Syria and Yemen the regimes in power resorted to harsh tactics to crush dissent. Whereas in Egypt and Tunisia, leaders stepped down without much of a fight. How can we account for these differences?

These are just a few of the questions that arise as the challenges of the Arab Spring become more prominent. This issue of Democracy and Society will take a broad, analytical perspective on determining what these issues are. We seek to understand it from both a US, global, regional, and country-specific perspective. Please email submissions to democracyandsociety@gmail.com by February 27th, 2011. For additional information, please contact Andrea Murta or Ayesha Chugh at democracyandsociety@gmail.com.

Other

Many have argued the benefits of the internet as a venue for protest or the potentially damaging impact of rising “slacktivism” and the meager value of clicks as a form of protest.  However effective it may be in bringing sustained, long term change, it is evident that the use of the internet to organize and communicate is nothing to take lightly.  As with the Occupy movement and the Tea Party, whatever one’s stance may be on SOPA, PIPA and those who stand against these pieces of legislation there is something deeply positive in pushing US Legislators to realize now and again that the people who vote for them are paying as much attention as those who line their pockets.

Other