The Democratic Piece

The Russian Election Commission announced the specifics for the international election observation missions permitted to cover the upcoming December 2, 2007 Duma elections. Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor has a good breakdown of the minutia.

Russia will allow a total of 400 election observers. This is a significant reductions from the approximately 1,200 observers they allowed for the 2003 parliamentary elections. Furthermore, invitations were not sent out until this week. In 2003 the invitations were sent out in September, a full three months before the election took place. This allowed for observers to conduct a preelection assessment of the electoral environment. These teams were able to gage factors that can impact the outcome of an election that are not necessarily reflected in the vote count. Issues such as access to media, the ability of various parties to campaign, use of official position and powers to carry out campaign work, and the production and auditing of voter lists are all important aspects of an election that can not be adequately assessed in the course of a month.

Another major issue in this announcement is that the OSCE’s election observation team will be limited to 50 people. That is down from approximately 400 in 2003. The other 450 observers will be form a host of different international organizations and countries. Also, observation groups will be prohibited from making any comments regarding the electoral process or outcome until all of the votes have been counted and an official result has been announced.

Thanks, Danny, for bringing this article to my attention.  The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative “think” tank in Washington, D.C., held a conference yesterday to laud us Jews for being more intelligent than the rest of you.  Dana Milbank’s description of the event did not mention whether or not the AEI panel  (Entine, the author of a book on the subject, Murray, another AEI guy, and Zoloth, who was invited to challenge the other two) addressed the veracity of any other claims about Jews’ genetic predispositions.  Now that we have the good news, we may want to determine if Tay-Sachs disease and intelligence are also accompanied by genetic mutations for hubris, bad judgment – a possibility raised by Milbank while reminiscing about the extraordinary decision-making capabilities of Paul Wolfowitz, another AEI fellow, during his time in office – or greed. 

Although I have about as much science on my side as these guys probably do, my theory is that Jews’ seemingly “higher” intelligence level stems from our deficiency of athletic ability.  Evidence for our less-than-average athleticism can be found in my bad lower back, knees, heels, and my shaky right hand.  In order to survive the thousands of years of persecution, people like me were compelled to be creative because our non-aerodynamic facial features and poor foot speed rendered us sitting ducks. 

But these theories of Jewish intelligence raise one question that our abnormally intelligent friends at AEI probably have not considered: if Jews are so smart, why are there so few of them?  Wouldn’t smart people multiply and seek to protect themselves by winning the numbers game? 

If I had to imagine the panelists’ answers (not Zoloth), they would probably bicker over who is to blame more for the paucity of people who claim allegiance to the Jewish faith: the Christians or Muslims.  Yet, there is probably another reason for the lack of Jews; people like these guys at AEI. 

In a roomful of Christians, I feel like a Jew.  In a roomful of Jews, I tend to feel even more ostracized.  Indeed, it’s the hubris of people such as Wolfowitz, Entine, and Murray that fuel my sense of isolation; the same hubris that causes Israel to avoid peace with the Palestinians (regardless of the Palestinians’ own efforts to avoid peace).  This hubris can also be found in the temple to which my family belongs, where, in the wake of the most recent destruction of Lebanon, we were handed contact information - with our prayer books - for foundations that support wounded and killed Israeli soldiers.  There was no piece of paper for the thousands of injured and killed Lebanese.  Nor was there a paper for the 1.4 million Israelis living in poverty. 

For people like Wolfowitz, Entine, and Murray, their hubris eats away at their intelligence like a cancer, rendering their ideas want of judgment.  In short, they are ignorant.  Fortunately, not all Jews suffer from this disease.  And, as it turns out, people of other faiths are not immune to it either; neither Bush nor Cheney are Jewish, thank god.

The Onion, America’s Finest News Source, reports that political scientists announce that they have discovered a new form of government: Megalocracy. I think we have a clear front runner for next years Nobel Prize race.

So the Kremlin says.

Last week the EU and Russia sat down for a regular summit. Russia made a surprising announcement during the course of the event: Russia would begin to fund think tanks in Europe to protect human rights and promote democracy. The new think tank organization may be located in Brussels or another European capital.

Asserting that the EU and US regularly provide funds to civil society organizations in Russia, the Kremlin argued that their establishment of an Russia-funded organization would be natural outgrowth of Russia’s development as a modern state.

Right…

The institute may focus on the treatment of Slavic populations in the EU, especially in the Baltic states.

The increasing sophistication of the use of “soft power” by Russia is impressive. This development is related to the story that emerged last week about Russia’s proposal for a new set of standards for OSCE election observation missions. Needless to say, these new standards would do nothing more than tie the hands of the OSCE to make the election observation branch more toothless than it is already.

The gaming continues as the authoritarian states of Eurasia adapt. How will Europe, and the United States, respond?

French Pres. Sarkozy yesterday received the Balladur Report with 77 prescriptions on making France “more democratic.” According to Le Monde, “two of the more sensitive subjects were installing a dose of proportional and strict limits on the dual mandate.”
Continue Reading »

Russia is gearing up for its election season this winter. The Duma, Russia’s legislature, will stand for election in December and Russia is set to elect a new president in March. As I’ve noted on the DP before, democracy in Russia is on life support. Regional governors are no longer elected, the activity of civil society organizations have been curtailed by new laws and registration requirements, long-standing parties have been denied registration, and the independent media has slowly been consumed by the Russian state or Kremlin allies.

While there is little doubt that the upcoming elections will fail to meet international standards and the results will strengthen the Kremlin’s hand, much can be gleaned from the process. The manner in which these elections are carried out will tell outsiders to what extent the Kremlin will go to solidify its hold on power.

Furthermore, the Putin-succession process adds to the drama of the election season. While some observers think that Putin’s recent announcement that he would agree to head the party list for United Russia may indicate Putin’s intention to redirect power to the prime minister’s office, I doubt that is likely to occur. I still believe that Vladimir has a few more twists and turns up his sleeves in the coming months.

I’m going to try and post some interesting stories related to this process during the next few months. While I can’t promise daily commentary, I’ll try to at least link to interesting stories in the press and posts from other blogs.

There are a few interesting stories today that are worth pointing out:

• Carnegie’s Morning Brief links to a NYTimes story detailing the Kremlin’s attempt to further extend government control over the Internet. The take away from this article, besides increased state control, is the extent that the Kremlin is using “pro-Putin” youth group to counter opposition groups, even in blog coverage of protest events.
• In the lead up to the parliamentary elections, the Russian government has reached an “agreement” with food producers and retailers to institute a freeze on prices. Inflation and price increases in basic foodstuffs in recent weeks has made the Kremlin uneasy. After all, when your legitimacy is tenuous when basing your legitimacy on circuses and bread, and the bread is too expensive.
• Pro-Putin demonstrations have recently taken place across the country. The events, allegedly organized by state officials, are urging Putin to stay on as president after his second term ends in March. The take-away: the extent of the cult of personality around Putin is strong. Don’t be surprised to see a “grass-roots” movement seek to change the constitution or pressure Putin’s successor to step down.
• Eleven parties have been approved by the Election Commission to contest in the December elections. Three parties were barred because of problems with the membership signatures turned into the Election Commission for registration. The take-away: eleven parties is a significant amount. Given Russia’s new PR electoral system with a 7% threshold to enter the Duma, this could lead to an utter sweep by United Russia, the pro-Putin party of power. A recent opinion poll stated that approximately 66% of voters plan to vote for United Russia in December.
• Lastly, the Russian Election Commission announced that Russia will invite international observers for the December 2 parliamentary elections. The invitations will be sent out this week and the delegation is expected to reach 400 people. The take-away: While it is good that Russia is finally inviting the monitors, it is too late for any meaningful oversight to be implemented. Obersvation missions typically have a smaller group that observes and analyzes the pre-election evironment and election process months in advance of election day. Additionally, this mission will be signiciantly smaller than previous missions. For the 2003 parliamentary elections the OSCE sent 400 observers alone. The 400 this time will include observers from the OSCE and the Nordic Council, along with the shame election monitoring organizations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

::Gulp::

I do not say this often: Robert Kagan makes some sense. While he doesn’t necessarily provide any original thoughts in this column, he does present a good summary of the argument. The priority should be democracy first, not only development. Pursuit of both could be beneficial, but a narrow focus on only development or stability without democracy can be counterproductive.

Last Thursday Georgetown’s Democracy and Governance program and the National Endowment for Democracy brought Larry Diamond to Washington DC to talk about his new book The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World.

One of Diamond’s main arguments is that good governance may be the key to consolidating gains in recently democratizing states. Unlike elections, good governance is one of the least sexy aspects of democracy. It is such broad, ephemeral aspect of democracy that its impact of on a citizen’s life regularly goes unnoticed. Functioning public transportation, clean drinking water, transparent permit application procedures, and honest public servants are all aspects of good governance that most of us probably take for granted. However, it is the quotidian nature of good governance can impact citizens’ preference for a government system. If a society associates corruption and instability with with democracy, they may be tempted to support other governing systems. Sadly, the turmoil of the post-Soviet experience for Russia has lead many in Russian society to seek stability through Putin rather than work to improve their nascent democracy.

Two touching stories in the NYTimes caught my eye this weekend. The stories detailed the struggles of two separate Russians fighting against the corrupt Russian state in order to improve governance and rule of law. Ivan Pavlov and Kirill Formanchuk have something else in common besides their seemingly futile struggles - they were both severely beaten for their work. While one can not say that there is any direct link between Putin’s Kremlin and these attacks, these stories are demonstrative of the broader political environment that Putin’s rule has brought to Russia.

Ivan was targeted because he sought to ensure that the public has access to basic government information. For example, he recently won a court case to require the government to freely publish the standards governing manufacturing sector. Such basic information is guarded by the state agencies because the civil servants can solicit bribes and other rents in exchange for the information. For this he was attacked at night and almost run over as the criminals left the scene.

Kirill sought to fight corruption against police shaking down drivers. Driving in Russia can at times be a hazardous activity. Law abiding citizens face threats from bribe-seeking cops and aggressive drivers who know that they can bribe the police $5 - $20 if they get stopped by the police. This everyday corruption has affected more people has vehicle ownership has increased in recent years. As a result, regular citizens are beginning to form civil society organizations to protect themselves from these shakedowns and to seek reform from the government. After confronting the police on multiple occasions, Kiril was detained and thrown into a cell when he sought to register his car. In the following days he was viciously beaten.

The daily struggle of local actors such as Kirik and Ivan make up a large portion of the spirit of democracy. Seeking to protect your rights and improve the government for all of society can sometimes be a dangerous activity in Russia. While so much of my daily reading about Russia depresses me, stories like these instill in me a sense of hope for Russia. As long as this spirit stays alive, it will find new life when they Russian people realize the extent of the damage of their Faustian bargain of stability through acquiescence to authoritarian rule.

My weekend Americanist kick continues.

Via Connecticut Local Politics comes this commentary by a new state rep back home in CT.

As a freshman legislator, I should probably be frustrated by the process, or the gridlock, or the struggle to get things done. Or maybe just by my low standing in the Chamber. But I’m not. I’ve been surprised, in fact, to discover that being productive and effective is largely a matter of effort. What is most frustrating, on the other hand, are the labels and assumptions we have to overcome to begin working at all. Me Democrat. You Republican. Liberal. Conservative. Moderate. Politician. [emphasis in original] That last label is the worst of all. Because I chose to run for office and to serve, colleagues or constituents can sometimes make negative assumptions about my motivations, my judgment, my effectiveness, and worst, my integrity.

This struck me for a few reasons. As an adolescent, I thought I’d run for office some day. As a DC resident, I constantly notice how the partisan divide pervades life in our nation’s capital. As one who aspires to a living from ideas and the written word, I’m conscious of a “gotcha” impulse in myself and others.

Whether in foreign policy, nation-building, democracy promotion or domestic reform, we should aspire to make politics less zero-sum - to the ends of better public policy-making and, moreover, building trust and respect. Democracy is nothing without those.

The Providence Journal reports City Council interest in adding some number of at-large seats to its ranks. Currently 15 councilpersons are elected in single-member districts.

Councilman Seth Yurdin, representing Fox Point, has put forth a plan that would dramatically increase the size of the council, to 21 members. It would keep the existing 15 wards, and add 6 at-large seats. The citywide seats would be elected by a method of proportional representation known as the single transferable vote to ensure that council members come from across the city, and not solely from economically powerful areas.

A competing proposal calls for adding just two at-large seats elected under the bloc vote.

Dubbing the PR plan “fifteen and six,” a good letter to the editor by a RI state legislator gets into some of the considerations: citywide accountability, campaign costs, women and minority representation and council size more generally.

Council domination - by a neighborhood, class or some organized interest - usually comes up when people start talking about moving away from wards toward at-large elections. STV is a good way to address those concerns.

Most (but not all) local-level electoral system reform talk happens on the west coast, so it’s fun to see the same in a ‘classic’ northeastern city like Providence.