MA program co-Director Dan Brumberg argues that the Obama administration can’t rely on supporting civil society alone to foment democratic reform in the Middle East.

Blog, twitter, and now we’re on facebook. Thanks, Mariel.

MA in Democracy and Governance alum Jack Santucci weighs in against donor consensus that Afghanistan needs more cohesive political parties at the Democratic Piece:

I wonder whether the ’strong’ parties that might result from more party-centric electoral rules would be all that great. If, for example, closed-list PR turns divided societies’ elections into “national identity referenda,”would programmatic coherence and party discipline be such great ideas?

I agree completely. A more cohesive party system is only likely to sharpen ethnic tension in Afghanistan. The country has enough problems already. Weak parties are probably an asset.

Guest post from David Jandura, a student in the MA in Democracy and Governance Program. David takes a look at Sudan’s electoral system:

In the world of electoral system design, there are advantages and disadvantages to the many types of systems that exist.  It would probably be incorrect to say that any one system is “better” than another, because better is dependent upon what your priorities are.  One of the many advantages of a proportional representation, or PR system, for example, is that it does a relatively good job of ensuring that electors’ votes accurately translate into who is elected with less “wasted votes.” While it may be wrong to say which system is better, however, I don’t think it’s wrong to look at a system and question what its priorities are.  Sudan is a good case in point.  The nation claims to have a parallel system, which includes a significant amount of PR seats, yet the Sudanese have managed to create a PR tier that doesn’t actually deliver any of the advantages the system is designed to provide.

Read the rest of this entry…

CFR’s Bernard Gwertzman interviews MA in Democracy and Governance co-director Dan Brumberg. Brumberg argues that Obama must engage Israel if he hopes to have any success in negotiating a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Dan Brumberg, co-director of Georgetown’s MA in Democracy and Governance, predicts a political stalemate for Iran’s Green Movement:

As long as the current Leader remains in power, or as long Khamanei has no close confident who can convince him to drink from the chalice of compromise, the road ahead will be long and difficult. The opposition must prepare for a protracted struggle, one in which non-violent defiance of injustice prompts from within the regime itself the shame and even desperation that points to the logic of conciliation.

In Fall 2009, The Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) hosted conferences in Amman, Beirut, and Cairo to examine the political dynamics in the Middle East.  Participants developed recommendations for U.S. foreign policy initiatives for encouraging meaningful democratic political reform. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the United States Institute for Peace, and Georgetown’s Democracy and Governance Program sponsored the conferences.

On January 19th, 2010, four emerging leaders working in the Middle East will discuss the recommendations formed at the POMED conferences, as well as their own experiences.  The participants will share their thoughts on issues of political change in the Middle East, with a response from Kenneth Wollack, President of the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

When: Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

5 pm

Where: Mortara Center for International for International Studies

3600 N Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20057

Reception to follow