The Democratic Piece

It is finals season for us over here at the Democratic Piece, so content may be a bit light over the next week or two.

As I procrastinated tonight and avoided working on my final papers, I stumbled across this three piece Washington Post article series about democracy promotion from 2005. I originally missed this piece, so as they say on NBC during reruns “If you haven’t seen it, it’s new to you!”

This piece, a Pulitzer Prize winner in 2006, gives a pretty good introduction to the field of democracy promotion. Granted democracy promotion is a niche field, but I get a blank stare every time I tell my family, friends and acquaintances what I am studying and what I want to do with my life. Democracy promotion really is a misunderstood and under appreciated part of US foreign policy.

While there are some nit-picky issues I would raise about the article, I think it does a good job of providing both a micro and macro view of the field. The article provides a glimpse into the daily life, mindset and experiences of those working on the ground, especially in countries that are at times hostile to the idea of democracy. Furthermore, Finkel’s piece, perhaps inadvertently, gives some context to some important issues that define the field: Continue Reading »

Hundreds of thousands of Turks protested today in the second anti-government, anti-AKP rally of the last few weeks, this time in Istanbul’s ÇaÄŸlayan Square.  The issue at stake is the candidacy of AKP member and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül for president, a nomination made last week and then voted on by Parliament on Friday in a contested first round of voting.  Opposition MPs boycotted the vote and are appealing to the constitutional court for a ruling on whether or not the vote was constitutional. 

On Friday night, shortly after the vote, the Turkish military issued a statement which seemed to indicate that it would act if necessary to preserve what it sees as Turkey’s essential secular character.  (The Turkish military is known for its strong stance in favor of Turkish secularism; it has ousted 4 governments in the last 50 years, most recently in 1997.)  Gül made an equally strong display of confidence, saying that he would not bow out of the contest.     

A constitutional court ruling is expected by Tuesday or Wednesday.  A second round of voting for the post is (at the moment) also set for Wednesday.  If the opposition to the first vote is upheld by the court, Prime Minister Erdoğan will be forced to call an early parliamentary election.

The New York Times published an article yesterday about religion and politics in Turkey, linking the AKP’s choice of presidential candidate–Abdullah Gul, announced yesterday–to a “rising Islamic middle class.”  The article provides a positive perspective on the compatibility of religion with politics and with economic development.  It’s interesting; check it out by clicking here.

Last Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives voted 241 to 177 on H.R. 1905, a bill that would give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House, putting the District one step closer to enjoying the full benefits of American democracy.  In the video clip below, the District’s current Delegate to the House, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who can vote in committee but not on the floor, spoke in passionate defense of the bill.  While controversial and even inflamatory at times, Ms. Norton provides one of the best arguments I’ve heard for giving Dictrict residents Congressional representation when she is briefly interrupted by another member. In a speech reminiscent of such fiery American rhetoricians as Samuel Adams and Martin Luther King, Jr., who argued with equal force for equal representation in their own eras, she bases her argument on the fundamental, foundational right of representation we enjoy in this country.

I will not yield, sir.  The District of Columbia has spent 206 years yielding to people who would deny them the vote.  I yield you no ground, not during my time.  You have had your say, and your say has been that you think that the people that live in your capital are not entitled to a vote in their House.  Shame on you.

Congresswoman Norton’s remarks highlight one of the fundamental shortcomings of democracy in this country, and one that severely limits our credibility when we try to promote democracy abroad: that close to 600,000 U.S. citizens are legally disenfranchised because they live within the borders of our capital city.  The U.S. is the only democracy in the world in which citizens of the capital city lack representation in the national legislature.  But here’s the real hypocracy: the Bush administration strives to enshrine the promotion of freedom and democracy as a fundamental pillar of U.S. foreign policy and an important rhetorical justification for the global war on terror, yet they have shown at best a casual indifference toward efforts to secure democratic representation for those disenfranchised American citizens residing in the nation’s capital.

 While I believe promoting democracy is an important tool of U.S. foreign policy (probably for different reasons than many members of the Bush administration, however), with such glaring democratic deficiencies in our own backyard, literally right outside the President’s window, how can we possibly justify the time, effort, and now lives spent fighting for freedom abroad.  In this light, President Bush’s argument in his second inaugural address, that “[t]he best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world,” seems hollow and self-serving rather than principled and magnanimous.  As Americans, we need to take a hard look in the mirror so we know what face we’re presenting to the world when we promote democracy abroad.  Maybe then, we’ll know how silly we can look.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV3k8nERUOQ]

The Pew Center on the States, a division of The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the JEHT Foundation have announced $2 million in grants available to help diagnose how well U.S. elections are run and plan pilot projects to be conducted in 2007 and 2008. The request for proposals (RFP) is part of a larger Pew initiative called Make Voting Work. Make Voting Work is focused on improving the accuracy, convenience, efficiency and security of U.S. elections. Proposals will be accepted through June 4, 2007.

The RFP targets election officials and academics studying elections issues, diverse academic disciplines (e.g., computer science, economics, engineering, human factors and design, operations and management, mathematics), private-sector
companies with applicable expertise, non-profits and non-governmental organizations.

For more information please visit Pew Center on the State’s Web site at http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ to read the RFP or Frequently Asked Questions with details on how to apply and get connected with potential partners.

The Pew Center on the States point of contact is Scott Cody, Research Director scody@pewcenteronthestates.org.

With all of the focus on elections recently (Syria, Nigeria, and France)–a topic likely to receive major emphasis here on The Democratic Piece due to the interest of several of our bloggers in the issue of elections as well as the salience of elections for democratic theory more generally–it seems appropriate to talk about some future ones in order to (hopefully) provide some useful context before the fact. 

 A particularly interesting set of elections will occur soon in Turkey, beginning with the presidential election on April 26 or May 3 and followed by the parliamentary elections on November 4 of this year.  Indeed, the topic of elections formed the subject of some lively conversations I had with Turkish friends last January in Istanbul at a popular cafe. But the Turkish elections are not salient simply because they are looming; Turkey continues to represent the nexus of many of the dominant issues in contemporary academic and policy debates on the Middle East:  the expression of Islam within a democratic framework, the EU accession path of a Muslim country, and the role of the military in political life, among others.

Continue Reading »

Last weekend another round of protests took place in Russia. First, on Saturday, April 14, 2007 Moscow was witness to 4 separate demonstrations. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), Other Russia (aka Another Russia), and two pro-Kremlin organizations held competing rallies around the city. Although all four protests took place, media reports indicate that the Other Russia protests received the most police attention. In fact, I’ve yet to find an account of the protests that mention arrests or beatings of participants in non-Other Russia demonstrations.

Reports have Other Russia’s turnout between 2,000 - 3,000 people in Pushkin Square, while Police turnout numbered around 9,000. Garry Kasparov, the nominal leader of Other Russia which is a loose coalition of opposition groups, was arrested, charged with “shouting anti-government slogans in the presence of a large group of people.”

Although Other Russia received permission at the last minute to hold a rally, it was unable to acquire permission to hold a march. After the rally in Pushkin Square, part of the rally contingent attempted to march down one of Moscow’s main streets. Citing the illegal nature of the march because of lack of permit, the Russian government ordered the gathering to be dispersed. The response by the police was swift. Over 200 marchers (and apparently bystanders) were quickly arrested or beaten my the police. Although the cohesion of Other Russia is questioned, there is no doubt that the Kremlin is concerned about growing opposition to its policies and moves to tighten political competition.

Continue Reading »

The Middle East program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is seeking a research assistant in Arab politics. Candidate should have knowledge of current political developments in the Arab world and familiarity with relevant research methods and sources. The candidate must speak Arabic fluently and read with ease Arabic sources, including scanning several newspapers daily for relevant information. The research assistant will work closely with senior research members of the Middle East program. Bachelor’s degree required; Master of Arts optional. This position is based in Washington, DC.

To apply, please send a letter of interest and resume to: Human Resources–RA-AP, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC 20036. Fax: 202-939-2377. E-mail: HR@CarnegieEndowment.org. EOE.

In this weekend’s Week in Review (4/15/07), Craig S. Smith wrote an article under the heading of “Islam and Democracy” entitled “North Africa: Under Attack, and Relying on Repression”. Aside from the headline, it’s quite sympathetic to North African regimes and oddly evasive when it comes to Islamists. This article is embarrassing; I’m embarrassed to admit enjoying the New York Times. A couple of examples before I get to the main point:

The first sentence refers to “… North Africa’s secular social veneer…” I’m not sure what this means. Secular? In North Africa? Even many of the leftists are not “secular” in North Africa. “Secular” is a curse to most North Africans. While there is a “secular elite”, this phrase only describes a very small fraction of the population. Perhaps particular wealthy districts of wealthy cities have a “secular social veneer”, but this is not an accurate description of the reality across North Africa.

Shortly thereafter, Smith states:

“Every country on the continent’s northern rim, from Egypt to Morocco, has outlawed extreme Islamist parties that would be likely to win large parliamentary blocs — if not majorities — were they allowed to participate in free and fair national elections. (Libya bans political parties altogether.)”

Continue Reading »

Nigerian citizens turned out to vote last week for their regional governors in a much heralded prequel to Saturday’s Presidential election. Unfortunately, those Nigerian voters who expected a free and peaceful election process were disappointed. Reports of widespread fraud have been punctuated by news of violent protests with over twenty Nigerians reported killed in the days following the poll.

The Independent Election Commission (INEC) has yet to announce formal results for all 34 states, but it seems clear that if the preliminary results are allowed to stand, the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) will score a major victory over the combined opposition parties. Naturally, the questionable administration of last week’s election raises several concerns about Saturday’s Presidential vote, which will be (if all goes well) the first peaceful handover of power in Nigeria since 1960.

In contrast to the democratic setbacks of last week’s vote, observers have witnessed several small victories for the rule of law and democratic governance in Nigeria in the lead up to the elections. Last year, President Obasanjo’s supporters made a concerted effort to have the constitution amended to allow him to serve a third term in office. Their attempts were blocked by the legislature in a move thought by many to indicate the advent of a true system of horizontal accountability among Nigerian state institutions.

President Obasanjo then trained his sights on Atiku Abubakar, the major opposition party candidate in Saturday’s presidential poll, by expelling him from the PDP and bringing him to trial on charges of corruption that, if true, would disqualify him as a potential president candidate. While the INEC initially agreed and banned Abubakar from contending, on Monday the Supreme Court reversed this ruling to allow Abubakar to run in Saturday’s election.

While these small victories for democracy seem diminished in light of the violence and fraud that punctuated last week’s elections, they remain important indicators of the relative levels of accountability between different branches of the federal government, an element of democratic governance lacking in many new democracies. These and other recent developments point to increasing parity and oversight among the several branches of the Nigerian federal government.

What does all this mean for Nigerian democracy? In short, it indicates a complex political system that’s in the midst of a major convulsion in terms of its power structures and institutional arrangements. It cannot be forgotten that whoever comes out of Saturday’s presidential election on top will control the vast resources of the Niger delta oilfields. In many ways it is not surprising that the legislative and judicial branches both moved to exert their authority prior to the election, ostensibly in hopes of institutionalizing a set of more equitable relationships that would secure their institutions as relevant centers of power under the new government.

Regardless of the true motives of the judicial and legislative elites, the result of their actions was a set of victories for democracy. Whether or not these small victories will be build upon or summarily reversed will likely depend on the results of Saturday’s election. Stay tuned!