Perhaps more importantly however the nature of the agreement suggests some unfortunate trends throughout this period in the interplay between democracy and economics.  More and more leaders within the European Union have pushed against approaching these issues in a democratic fashion for fear (likely reasonable) that the public of states within the union would balk at many of these demands.  Given the already lukewarm public stance on the region’s supra-national government, these seem to be ever more bold moves in managing Europe’s economic woes.

The reaction to PM Papandreou’s desire to present a referendum to his nation on whether or not to accept the agreement though perhaps understandable was certainly nothing healthy for the state of the union.  Though there would doubtless have been public resistance, opportunities to educate the populace and make clear why hard decisions are sometimes necessary might serve well to create some modicum in public trust of politicians and societal elites.

At this point it is fairly evident that nothing is going to make austerity measures palatable. The populace is aware of the changes coming and the political maneuvering over who is not going to run the country should be more than a bit embarrassing.  Greece would certainly be well served by a leader, any leader, willing to handle the current unpleasantries with some manner of dignity and move on toward assisting in the nation’s recovery.

Other

Image courtesy of Boise Weekly & Getty Images

I was initially uncertain about writing more on the continuing crisis in Egypt.  Largely my purpose in blog writing tends toward discussing issues outside the spotlight of mainstream political news media, but the relevance of the current crisis to democracy promotion is such that it would be folly not to discuss the subject further.  The political change currently rolling through the Middle East has the potential to shape the region for the foreseeable future, and so I thought it would be worth taking a moment to discuss the reactions of other world powers to the current political change.  More specifically, the political reactions in the United States, European Union, China and Israel are vastly different and illuminating in regard to the nation’s issues with the Middle East and the ideological promotion of democracy.

In Israel, as in most nations, standards and opinions vary among the populace, the government and most obviously the media.  That being said the most regular sentiments expressed by Israel’s media have been of resistance to potential change and concern over “extremism”.  Of particular note has been the series of harsh critiques of President Obama’s approach to the crisis as naïve, ill informed and unaware of the region’s history.

Fortunately, and contrary to its news media, the Israeli government been rather cool headed about the situation, particularly in light of recent commentary from Egypt’s new VP regarding the continuation of peace with Israel.  However, as in America, the specter of the potential leadership by the Muslim Brotherhood has been one of many concerns among Israel’s conservative government.  Further given the division of the state and the issues with Palestine, there is obviously the added concern over protests in Israel. Israel’s stance on the situation might seem harsh to Americans, but the threats posed by political change in Egypt are much more tangible and immediate than they are to us across the sea.  Through all of this, the government of Israel has still voiced firm support for potential democracy within the state.

Though it is not exactly a subject of focus at the moment, China’s reaction to the current political crises in the Middle East has been telling.  Predictable in many ways, China’s activities have focused on controlling access to information on the crisis for fear of domestic uprisings.  While the differences between the governments of China and Egypt are- to put it bluntly- massive, China’s government has long been proactive on capping potential troubles before they have the opportunity to overflow.  We’ve discussed in the past the need for constant awareness among authoritarian regimes, and the ways they’ve risen to the challenge. In the current Middle East political crisis, China has provided a sterling example.

In Europe, despite all the tangible dangers and potential for problems presented by a transition from Mubarak’s authoritarian regime, the standard has been support for change and hopefully democratic growth.  As in the Unites States, European support has largely been limited for fear of meddling in the affairs of another state, particularly in a time of governmental transition.  This stance may have been expected to a degree, the EU as a body without a populace to be held accountable by has often been quite progressive in its assertions over human rights and the development of representative governance.  It is important to note however, that the EU is hardly the most representative of bodies, and that opinions throughout the governments and populace of member states vary greatly.

In the US, as mentioned in another of my posts, the government found itself in something of a difficult position.  Regionally our projects in democracy building have long been threatened by our support of Egypt’s authoritarian regime, and there was the small issue of Obama’s speech in Egypt in staunch support of democratic growth in the state.  On the other hand Mubarak was easily one of the United State’s most useful allies in the Middle East, thus I was quite pleasantly surprised at our government’s decision to voice support of regime change in the area.  At the same time, contrary to many I find that our reserved approach to the situation was precisely the right decision, rather than the perception that we were only hedging our bets. Few things are more important in the growth of potential democracy than the principle of self-determination.

In all, these last weeks have been quite a time for any student of governance or individual with an interest in international relations.  I consider myself rather fortunate to be alive during a period of such potential change, even if as always I have my pessimistic doubts.  Though certainly I can understand the desire to relate to the struggles for representation throughout the Middle East, I’d note that solidarity and self absorption are not one in the same, and that now certainly isn’t a time for self-centered news reporting.  The current protests aren’t a parallel for US Tea Partiers any more than they are for any other social movement or the 1979 revolution in Iran, and flawed analogies are seldom helpful to anyone.

Other

Other

At breakfast this morning, we learned that former President Jimmy Carter would be arriving at the Juba International Airport in a few minutes. We drove over to meet him and attended a private press conference, which might have been aired on BBC by now. His remarks reflected the same observations that we’d seen or heard from others- that the logistical difficulties of holding this election resulted in some irregularities. He noted that the 24 year gap since the last election meant that poll workers needed to be trained from scratch, and emphasized the Carter Center’s long term presence in the country. Though I know the Carter Center has observers in South Sudan, we haven’t run into any from that delegation. So far we’ve seen observers from the EU, Arab League, African Union, IGAD, and the Government of Japan. There are also thousands of domestic observers who have been trained by NDI and the Carter Center. Domestic observers are stationary and we’ve seen them in every polling station. Most are very professional and forthcoming with information, though sometimes I got the impression that they were unwilling to speak out on any serious irregularities.

From the airport, we headed out to the polls, this time venturing further outside “central” Juba into some villages. The three polling centers we visited (in the same geographical constituency) had either never opened or opened just for a few hours, only to close again. The polling staff and domestic observers told us that they had the wrong ballot for the geographical constituency seat (a portion of National Assembly seats are elected from geographical regions) and they couldn’t let voters vote for a candidate from a different district. Though it wasn’t clear, it is possible that two entire constituencies were  swapped, which meant either that these two districts never opened or were voting for the wrong candidates. In another case, ballots were printed wrong so that a candidate, who is considered quite popular, was excluded from the ballot and was replaced by a candidate form a different geographical constituency. This polling station was also closed and was waiting for a response by the NEC on how to proceed.

None of the voters we spoke with considered these irregularities to be deliberate, but some of the voters we spoke with said that they wouldn’t consider the elections to be free and fair if they didn’t get to vote. Poll workers said that the election commission would be delivering the correct ballots sometime that day, but didn’t know what time. Most remarkable is that voters camped out at polling stations baking in the sun with children in tow without any water to vote for the first time. While some went home, these people waited in the heat- and believe me it was hot- to vote for the first time, rather than risk missing their opportunity to vote.  The level of frustration was certainly on the rise, but the scene remained calm, likely due to the professionalism of the poll workers and police.

We took a break from polling stations to meet with political parties and candidates to see how they thought the process was going, a luxury of having a 5 day election.  Politicians in South Sudan are quite accessible. We walked into the party headquarters of the SPLM and managed to meet with the campaign manager , who gave us a report of his views on the process. He cited some areas of concern, such as the late opening of polls. We also met with a major independent candidate for a gubernational race who had harsher criticisms. The polling stations we visited in the afternoon were quite orderly and professional, with just about 50% voter turnout for the one we visited for closing.

Towards the end of the day, we learned that polis would be open for an additional two days, through April 15. The greatest concern we’ve seen in the South is the lack of administrative capacity in running these elections, which could potentially open the door up to accusations of fraud. The poll workers were generally very professional, diligent, and helpful, so problem is larger than a matter of training. Most interlocutors did not immediately call the process a sham and voters tended to exercise a remarkable degree of patience. But as they wait longer and longer to vote, it’s likely that this patience will wear thin, which could change in subsequent days.

Other

Today’s editorial in The Punch, Nigeria’s most popular newspaper, warns that failure to handle the situation correctly could unleash a wave of instability. Governors in the North, for example, have already announced they are against the move. It also makes the correct point that institutions don’t enforce themselves, people enforce them. Putting pressure on leaders to respect democratic institutions in times of political crisis can mean the difference between democratic consolidation and democratic collapse. Leaders in the US, the EU, the African Union, and Africa’s democracies, such as Ghana and South Africa, can play that vital role now. Nigeria is edging towards a tipping point. It will be vastly easier to put pressure on politicians now than to clean up the wreckage of a flawed turnover in power. Preparing for the worst and hoping for the best is far better than the opposite.

Other

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

And why was the Chinese government so intent on wrecking the negotiations?  According to Lynas:

China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal…Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

So I get partial credit, but in a way that bolsters my argument. True, China did play a major role in these negotiations, contrary to what I wrote in the post. But the role it played was to make global cooperation more difficult because the Chinese government understands that combating climate change is bad domestic politics. This is not good news.

Other

President Obama uses stirring rhetoric on democracy, such as his recent speech on Afghanistan at West Point:

…we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

Sorry Mr. President, the road to freedom, justice, and opportunity is not through entrepreneurship, science and technology, and education.  It’s through democracy.  Speaking out on behalf of entrepreneurship, science and technology, and education doesn’t bring moral authority.  Standing up for democracy brings moral authority.  I expect that the Obama administration will eventually come around to supporting democracy more forthrightly.  Until they do, I will pound away at them on it.  After all, it’s my right in a democracy.

Michael Allen at Democracy Digest has more.

Other

Positive Consequences:

• Spread of Democracy. While the third wave of democracy began in the mid-1970s, the trend gained substantial momentum after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  According to Freedom House, since the end of the Cold War, the percent of not free countries in the world has dropped from 41% to 22%.  The European Union deserves particular praise for its efforts to ensure democratic transitions in Central and Eastern Europe.  More important than the change in the number of democracies is the general perception that democracy is the most legitimate form of government.

• Decline in War. Starting in the early 1960s, the number of armed conflicts began to rise from about twenty active per year, steadily rising to about 55 in 1993.  Since then, the number has dropped to about 35, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program.  Even more remarkable is the decline in the number of war deaths.  According to the Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO), between 1950 and 1990, about 200,000 people per year died fighting wars.  Since the end of the Cold War, the number has plummeted to about 80,000.

• Reduction in Threat of Global Nuclear War. The Cold War was not a friendly rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union.  As hard as it is for us to remember, the greatest fear during the Cold War was global nuclear war.  When the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962, this possibility became all too real.  When the Cold War ended, the fear of global nuclear war did as well.       

Negative Consequences:

• Nuclear Proliferation. Since the end of the Cold War, efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons have faltered.  Today, two unstable regimes, North Korea and Pakistan, both have nuclear weapons, and Iran is attempting to develop them.  As the number of countries who have nuclear weapons rises, the possibility that one country will use them increases as does the possibility that non-state actors, primarily terrorist groups, will acquire them.

• Failed States. Failed states did not exist during the Cold War because the Soviet Union and the United States were prepared to prop up weak regimes in return for political alliances.  Since the end of the war, this exigency has subsided.  The result has been state collapse in a number of places, primarily Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Somalia.  Failed states are not pleasant places.  Close to six million people have died in the DRC’s civil war, making it the deadliest conflict since World War II.  When Afghanistan fell into civil war after the Soviet Union left, the Taliban and its brutal form of justice emerged as the only force capable of providing security. While the cost of keeping these countries together during the Cold War may have been high, the cost of letting them fail seems far higher.

• 9/11. It would not be accurate to argue that terrorism was a consequence of the end of the Cold War (ask the British about the IRA).  It would also not be accurate to argue that fundamentalist Islamic movements were a consequence of the end of the Cold War either.  Rather, because the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and because the Mujahideen were the main force fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, fundamentalist Islamic movements were more a product of the Cold War than a consequence of it.  One can plausibly make the claim, however, that 9/11 was an unintended consequence of the end of the Cold War.  After the Soviet Union left Afghanistan and the US pulled its support as well, Afghanistan collapsed into civil war.  The Taliban emerged as the only force that was able to provide security and by the mid-1990s was governing large parts of the country.  It also allowed Al-Qaeda to use its territory for terrorist training camps.  Although we can never know for certain if 9/11 would have happened without Al-Qaeda using Afghanistan as a base of operations, that it was able to do so should give pause to those who think the country poses no threat to the US today.  I am not saying that if the US leaves Afghanistan Al-Qaeda will return.  In fact I do not believe this would happen.  Rather, my point is that we need to have some imagination when thinking about unintended consequences.

On balance, my belief is that things could have turned out much worse.  In the mid-1990s, many thought they would.  Wars in the Balkans, the Caucuses, and Central Asia led many to believe that the collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed frozen conflicts that would engulf the region in an endless series of bloody wars.  That has not happened.  Instead, democracy has spread (thanks in part to the EU’s admirable efforts in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe), wars have become less frequent, and the threat of nuclear annihilation does not exist.  True, terrorism, failed states, and nuclear proliferation are big problems, and Afghanistan in particular looks increasingly hopeless.  However, in my estimation things could have turned out far, far worse.  Perhaps there is hope for humanity after all.

Other

Zimbabwe has been making international headlines recently not for harassing opposition leaders and stealing elections, but for its attempts to reengage with the international community and solicit funds. Headlines on major papers are debating the questions of whether to lift sanctions and provide aid (with moderate amounts of aid and loans from the US, UK, EU, China, Germany, and now the IMF). While most countries’ responses are negative on sanctions and tepid on aid, few papers these days are carrying the specific and ongoing reasons why we should not be helping out the regional basket case. This absence of bad news from the headlines (beyond the cholera epidemic a few months ago) might lead one to believe that the situation in Zimbabwe has improved, which is not the case.

The “different reading” of the GPA is that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) saw it as a way to form a unity government and transform the country democratically, while ZANU-PF saw it as a way to get the international community off its back; it seems unlikely the party ever really intended to cede any meaningful powers.

While economic conditions have certainly improved, the state of democracy in Zimbabwe has not advanced much further than where it was when ZANU-PF and the MDC agreed upon the GPA a little over a year ago. Mugabe and his party ZANU-PF have subverted the agreement and the “partnership” at every turn. Beyond the most egregious act, the “accidental” killing of MDC leader Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s wife in a car crash that easily could have killed the PM himself,  ZANU-PF agents continue to kill, abuse, harass, arrest, abduct, and detain MDC supporters. Mugabe and his party undermine the power and legitimacy of the MDC whenever possible, through propaganda (recent examples in the state paper here and here), unilaterally reassigning ministerial duties counter to the GPA, failing to consult the MDC on important decisions, refusing to swear in key MDC appointees, and delaying work on a new constitution.

For whatever reason, whether it is inability or unwillingness, Morgan Tsvangirai has failed to push the MDC successfully into a meaningful partnership with the government to achieve democratic reform. The economic improvements are certainly welcome, but it would have been difficult for the situation to decline further than last year’s worthless currency and lack of goods. Lasting improvements and attracting international investment are unlikely in the current uncertain political climate.

The EU delegation’s talk of “progress” is misplaced, unless one can count as progress making fewer international headlines for blatant attacks on the opposition. Mugabe has certainly made some progress in his approach to public relations – instead of saying the opposition will come to power over his dead body, he now claims to have given it substantial power without really having done so and while more quietly subverting it. The international community, particularly the Southern African Development Community (SADC, a regional organization that has repeatedly failed to denounce Mugabe), should be much more critical of the sham government in Zimbabwe.

Other