Some Good News from South Asia

First, a major milestone in polio eradication has been reached in India; the country has gone a full year without a reported case of the disease. The Indian government worked closely with local religious leaders to spread the message and increase cultural acceptance of vaccination. The World Health Organization and Sabin Vaccine Institute are hopeful this strategy can be copied in central Asia and in west and central Africa, where polio is still endemic.

But perhaps the even bigger story is the continuing democratic reforms in Burma. The reforms began after elections in 2010. Though there were widespread charges of fraud and the election was boycotted by Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD), Burma's military junta ceded some of its power to the new Parliament.

Suu Kyi was freed from house arrest in November 2010 and is running for Parliament in upcoming elections. Laws censoring the press have been relaxed and websites like Youtube have been unblocked. Construction of the controversial Myitsone Dam in northern Burma, which would endanger the Kachin people's cultural identity and (seeing as it's located near a major fault line) their lives, has been suspended. The government has signed a cease-fire with Karen insurgents in the east. Political prisoners, including student protesters from 1988 and Buddhist monks from 2007's "saffron revolution," have been released in two batches, first in September 2011 and then again this month.

The U.S. has been engaging with the Burmese government. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the country after the first batch of political prisoners was released. After the second, the U.S. announced that it would exchange ambassadors with Burma for the first time since 1990. The Obama Administration should be lauded for how they have handled the situation, though reforms have resulted more from conditions on the ground than diplomatic engagement.

So why has the Burmese government started these reforms? Partly there is a desire to ease Western sanctions, which have restricted travel of prominent members of the regime, frozen their assets, and limited foreign investment in the country. More importantly, argues Marie Lall of the University of London, is the government's desire to chair the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2014 and for greater economic integration with the rest of the ASEAN community.

Whatever the reason, let's hope that Burma continues down the path of democratic reform.

Could Athenian-Style Democracy Work Today?

The government of the United States is technically not a democracy; it is a republic. We elect people to represent us, but we otherwise have no direct role in government.

The democracy of ancient Athens, however, was a true democracy. The assembly (ekklesia) basically consisted of all the adult male citizens who bothered to show up that day. The assembly was the Athenian legislature, responsible for enacting laws, declaring war, and bestowing citizenship. The council (boule) was like the executive branch; they carried out the laws passed by the assembly, but also decided what proposals the assembly would deliberate. The members of the council were chosen by lottery. Trials were all decided by juries of one's peers, again selected by lottery.

The setup worked fine for the ancient city-state, but wasn't practicable when the U.S. was founded. A Georgia farmer couldn't be expected to ride north for the capital every time the American Assembly met. Even today, flying or driving to Washington would be onerous for the average citizen. But now, we don't have to be there physically when we could be there virtually.

So how do we adapt Athenian democracy to fit modern times? The complex bureaucracy necessary for modern governing poses an obstacle. These positions require a technical expertise that we cannot expect every citizen to have. So let's retain the executive branch essentially as it is.

But let's completely explode the legislative branch. Every morning, a daily boule of 100 people will be selected randomly. (Or whatever number and frequency is most sensible.) Each person, if they wish, will be able to propose one law or proposition. They can come up with their own or use a suggestion from citizens who have not yet been chosen for the boule. The proposal can be as simple or as complex as the person wants.

Over the course of the day, every adult citizen can debate and vote on the boule's proposals. Comments can be shown with the proposal and top-rated ones can be shown first like on YouTube. By the evening, the votes will be counted and proposals with a simple majority pass.

It is then up to the executive branch to turn the laypersons' proposals into reality. If people disagree with the actions of those in the executive branch, then a member of the boule could call for a vote of no-confidence. If that official does not retain majority support, they will hold that office as a caretaker for a month while others campaign for it. All Cabinet-level positions will be decided this way.

An independent judiciary will be necessary to check the "tyranny of the majority," i.e. to prevent our assembly from depriving rights from a minority. For this reason, judges and justices cannot be removed by no-confidence votes. Whether they will be elected by the assembly or appointed by the president and confirmed by the assembly...well, I'm not sure which is better.

And what of that de Tocqueville quote? The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. Our system cuts out the middleman. If given more direct power over our government, will we use it responsibly?

Well, how responsibly is it used now? Senate Democrats don't want to propose a budget because "The Ryan budget is being so good for Democrats. Why mess that up?" Republicans are playing with fire on the debt ceiling due to their unwillingness to even hear the words 'tax increase.' Regardless of whether this is temporary posturing or permanent intransigence, both Congressional Democrats and Republicans are more interested in playing politics than, you know, actually governing.

Plus, it will be harder for moneyed interests to buy off members of Congress when essentially every American is a member of Congress. Granted, they can still use the mass media to sway the public, but that strikes me as more difficult and maybe even fairer.

But maybe you still have your doubts. So let's get together 10,000 people or so, a good cross-section of America, and do a practice run. After a year, compare the course our fake assembly has taken the country with that of Congress. And then we will have our answer.

Why Building the Mosque is Important

"Try to learn instead of burn, hear what I say." ~Jimi Hendrix

The "war on terror" has been compared to the Cold War, and while I think historical comparisons can obscure important nuances, the comparison makes sense in at least two ways. First, invading a country and imposing a government on it is going to be seen as imperialist, even if it's well-intentioned. And second, both wars are fundamentally wars of ideas.

Al-Qaeda's idea is obvious: Western liberal democracy is incompatible with Islam and must be fought. Looking at our history, our idea is also obvious: Islam and liberal democracy are compatible.

There are those who would cede the first point to al-Qaeda, who believe that our idea should be, 'Yes, democracy and Islam are incompatible, but it is Islam that must be fought.' But a war of ideas can not be won by force; it can only be won by persuasion. And the more we act like we are at war with Islam, the more Muslims will be at war with us.

A war on Islam is not a war that we can win, nor should it be a war that we want to fight. No, we win the war on terror by encouraging moderate Muslims to say and say it loudly, "Al-Qaeda, you are wrong. We do not need to fight democracy but to foster it. We reject your ideas, and you are not the true face of Islam." But if we continue to lump in our moderate friends with our extremist enemies, we undermine our allies and we lose the war.

The Peculiarity of American Conservatives

Gordon Brown's recent "interaction" with Gillian Duffy got me thinking about how different American democracy is from others around the world. (Not that Americans wouldn't let their inflammatory comments get accidentally caught by a live mic: See Jesse Jackson's desire to neuter Barack Obama and Joe Biden calling health care reform a "big fucking deal.") A sitting head of state is talking one-on-one with a regular Jill for a few minutes straight. Now maybe this sort of thing only gets press when the candidate shoots themselves in the foot right afterward, but when I think of a presidential campaign in the U.S., I picture giant rallies, not candidates taking time for individual voters.

A further difference, as Joseph Romm points out, is that all three major British parties--Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem--favor taking action on climate change, while Republicans in the U.S. remain defiantly anti-science. Even the military cannot sway right-wing minds on global warming. The opposition (on this and other issues) is so extreme that commentators are wondering if Republicans have insulated themselves from constructive criticism.

Julian Sanchez argues that this right-wing insularity comes from some combination of:

1. reactions to progressive viewpoints invading traditionally conservative areas via the Internet, and
2. conservative institutions (like Fox News) striving to counter a perceived liberal bias in institutions (like the New York Times) that are really striving for objectivity.

While this may be true, it begs the question, "Why isn't conservative opposition in Great Britain so insulated and belligerent?" Part of it may be that there are established conservative institutions in Britain that also strive for objectivity. Part of it may also be that British conservatives are insulated and belligerent by British standards.

But I contend that there is another reason for American peculiarity, and it stems from our differences in democracy. The United States is almost unique among OECD countries in having a presidential republic. (Mexico and South Korea are the only others, excluding the so-called "semi-presidential" republics like France and Russia, where both a president and prime minister wield executive power.) The GOP can accomplish their political goals by gumming up the Senate and ensuring that Democrats achieve as little as possible before the Republicans retake Congress. Almost every European nation has a parliamentary system, where consensus- and coalition-building is integral. There it doesn't make sense, for instance, for the Tories to make the Lib Dems their bitter enemies when the Lib Dems will likely decide who Britain's next prime minister will be.

How Much Do We Really Care About Democracy?

First of all, a shout out to the Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Associated Press for this one.

An article in the Sun-Sentinel last week highlighted a disappointing trend in American politics: nobody votes. As the article points out, residents in an unincorporated community just outside Tamarac, Florida, were faced with an annexation referendum, but apparently nobody there feels any sort of civic duty, and the outcome was 0 for, and 0 against. One voter (out of the 68 registered in the neighborhood) could have decided for all 200 residents whether their community would become part of the city of Tamarac. In all, $2500 were spent in keeping the precinct open for twelve hours, and now the city is considering whether to attempt a mail-in election instead.

Countless American soldiers have fought - and died - in the name of our democratic republic. And if you could, I would tell you to ask any of the old school women suffragists or even the Civil Rights Era leaders - the right to vote is a hard won privilege, and not one to be regarded lightly. It is especially not a right to be disregarded at all.

Beyond the fight for the ballot in the US, though, the fight against autocracy and tyranny has taken a huge toll across the globe, as well. Iraqis line up for hours to stain their fingers with a purple dye, showing they've voted, for instance, and the Great War was even fought to "make the world safe for democracy." Take into consideration the developments in China over the last twenty years, beginning with the student protests in 1989 (although one could easily include movements before then), as well as the recent atrocities in Tibet. It's clear. The allure of a vote is far too tempting for victims of tyranny, and quite rightly so. However, as soon as the vote is won, it becomes old hat. For those Floridians, and for every other citizen of the world's democracies who decides not to participate, I say this: you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.

And what are the solutions to this problem? The answers are elusive. It's a terrible paradox, then, that enacting legislation or some rule of law that makes voting required is antithetical to democracy. After all, how could a system be free and independent if its most basic and inherent institution were compulsory? Furthermore, if this were the case, the logical outcomes would be two-fold. First of all, the number of uninformed voters would increase exponentially, and secondly, many more votes would simply be bought by the powers that be. But what we have now is the option to vote, not the right, and apparently not the responsibility, to do so.

Perhaps our democratic foundations were flawed, and I hope no one will label me a heretic for saying so. But for anyone who has studied American government in the slightest, it's a well-known (and embarrassingly well-founded) truth that our Founders and Framers had little or no faith in the common citizen's ability to govern him- or herself. Hence, they established a republican government, leaving decisions in the hands of elected representatives. The greatest degree of involvement for the citizenry, for the most part, has thus been reduced to electing representatives, save for the occasional referendum.

But does the republican system perpetuate low voter turnout? Is it because the real decision-making power does not lie with the public that voters feel they can make no difference? I for one feel this is definitely the case when the only choices we have in the way of political candidates are stuffed shirts and talking heads, who happen to be fighting mostly for reelection. Of course, there is also the assumption that one vote cannot make a difference; however, this is clearly not true, as shown by the apathetic residents outside of Tamarac, Florida. However, when the thought that a single vote will not make a difference discourages a substantial portion of the voters, the fewer resulting votes are worth far more individually.

Whatever the cause for our apathy, shame on us. Who are we to fight a war in foreign lands, espousing democracy, when we apparently feel no affinity for it at home?

More Irony

Frank Rich's Sunday editorial, "The Audacity of Hopelessness," is amazing and worth reading in its entirety. Here are some excerpts:

It’s not just that [Hillary Clinton's] candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco [Iraq]. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup....

The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating....

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

Sidenote #1: From Time magazine's Swampland blog:

"While [the Clinton campaign advisers] were busy 'discovering' the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited [Clinton's chief strategist] Mark Penn I suppose."

Rich continues:

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid....

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Sidenote #2: Mark Penn's tendency to marginalize states where Obama won was labelled the "insult 40 states strategy" by Daily Kos, but I prefer "Is Your State Insignificant According to Hillary?":

#1. States that have a lot of black people are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Alabama, DC, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina).

#2. Small states are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, North Dakota and Utah).

#3. States in the middle of the country are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and North Dakota).

#4. States that have a lot of Mormons are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Utah)

#5. States that run caucuses are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota and Washington)

Czar Vladimir?

Highlights from an article in today's New York Times, detailing "Putin's iron grip on Russia":

"In my opinion, at a certain stage, like now, it is not only useful, it is even necessary — we are tired of democratic twists and turns,” said the leader of Mr. Putin’s party in Nizhny Novgorod, Sergei G. Nekrasov....

A refrain often heard here and across Russia is that the distressing years right after Communism’s collapse left people craving stability and a sturdy economy far more than Western-style democracy. These days, they care little if elections are basically uncontested as long as a strong leader is in charge....

Today, authority flows from the Kremlin to a regional governor appointed by Mr. Putin, who abolished the election of governors in Russia in 2004. The governor, Valery P. Shantsev, was brought in from Moscow and is charged with running the region and ensuring that Mr. Putin’s party, United Russia, wins elections. The lines between the government and party have become so blurred that on election day in December, regional election commission members wore large United Russia badges....

A few weeks before the elections, [Andrei] Osipenko gave up, renouncing his party at a news conference that was heavily covered on state-controlled television and had the feel of the Stalinist-era public confessions that followed show trials. Other party officials did the same. The party’s remaining candidates in the region were too fearful to campaign. “You begin to think: you have a family, you have a business, and you may value this significantly more than a political career,” said Artur Nazarenko, an official with the Union of Right Forces. The party, once a regional power, received only 1 percent of the vote in the parliamentary elections.

Why the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, India Should be Rebuilt

This is the rebuttal I gave for my MC 202 debate supporting the reconstruction of the Babri Mosque that was torn down by radical Hindu nationalist groups inciting riots across India. It is also my first official post as J-Mad.

India is a country established and envisioned to be a civic nation in which there is a legal political community and equality of all citizens. As Khilnani describes, this is an image of India where its history follows the Nehru view of a series of cultural interactions and exchanges. Khilnani argues that “citizenship was defined by a civic and universalist rather than ethnic criteria, which guaranteed a principle of inclusion in India’s democracy” (173). The result is that Indians acquired a modern self, a political identity guaranteed by the state (194).

In civic nations, such as India, following a classic liberal model of democracy, it is the duty of the government to protect the rights of all individual citizens. In the events surrounding the destruction of the Babri Masjid mosque in Ayodhya, the government failed to fulfill its duty of protecting its citizens from the actions of radicals that constituted terrorism. The United Nations defines terrorism in all its manifestations as, “activities aimed at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threatening territorial integrity, security of States and destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments.” Such actions are viewed by the international community as unjustifiable under any circumstance regardless of the “political… ideological, racial…religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”

In 1992, when the BJP, VHP, and Shiv Sena tore down the Babri mosque inciting riots leaving more than 2,000 people dead, these groups were participating in terrorism. By holding these parties accountable for their actions and supporting the reconstruction of this historic building, the Indian government is acting within the realm of a civic nation and fulfilling its duty of equal, liberal democracy to all of its citizens.

Works Cited:

51/210. Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism. December 17, 1996. United Nations General Assembly. February 20, 2008.

Khilnani, Sunil. The Idea of India. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997.

Timeline: Ayodhya Crisis. July 5, 2005. BBC News. February 20, 2008. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1844930.stm>

UNODC and Terrorism Prevention. 2008. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. February 20, 2008. <http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism/index.html>