The Democratic Piece

Santa Fe, NM voters will decide March 4 whether to use instant runoff voting in municipal elections. The campaign website is here.

The area’s major daily, the Santa Fe New Mexican, has come out against Amendment 5.

Amendment 5 is for “instant runoff,” or “ranked-choice” voting.: Make your first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. This would, at last, ensure majority-elected politicians, más o menos — but it depends on well-run elections using special computer programs. We say wait and see how it works in huge numbers of other cities — and, for now, vote against.

Fear of technology is a bad reason to sideline principles like majority rule that the editors otherwise support - especially since the number of US cities successfully using IRV grows each year.

The campaign needs help. If you’re in the region, you can get involved (or donate) through this site.

The use of security and intelligence services to monitor domestic populations is always a tricky issue for a democracy. In recent months, we in the U.S. have been wrestling with the degree to which the government can enlist the intelligence services to monitor domestic communications.

This week a bombshell was dropped in the Russian media. Alexander Novikov, a activist in the United Civil Front civil society group which opposes the authoritarian policies of Putin’s government, revealed that he was an informant for the FSB (formerly the KGB in the Soviet Union). According to his statements, he has been providing information to the FSB for more than two years regarding the planned activities and inner workings of the United Civil Front.

If these claims are true, the FSB would have clearly broken at 1995 law that forbids domestic intelligence services to spy domestic civil society organization that are not illegal. According to Mr. Novikov, he was paid approximately $200 per month to provide regular reports regarding the groups activities and insight into the leadership structure of the organization.

Apparently Mr. Novikov decided go public because he began to sympathize with the United Civil Front and their struggle against the Kremlin:

Gradually, Novikov began to sympathize with the opposition activists he was spying on, which sparked arguments with his FSB handlers, who called the activists “sick people” and “idiots,” he said. “I told them, ‘If these people are sick, why do you beat them? Why do you attack them with clubs?’” Novikov recalled.

Although I doubt this story will get much additional coverage in the Russian media besides the initial story in Novaya Gazeta, events like this should demonstrate to the Russian people that the Janus-faced Putin regime is hollowing out the soul of their society. Stability and freedom are not mutually exclusive. Russians can have their rights protected and succeed economically. The false strength provided by high-energy prices can not last. At some point, as the energy prices fall, so to will the scales from the Russia’s eyes as they realize the new monster they’ve helped to create by their acquiescence.

David M. Mason, chairman of the Federal Election Commission, has rejected Senator John McCain’s request to pull out of the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Program that he entered when his campaign was in the doldrums. Mason has cited two reasons: 1) the FEC has only 2/6 seats filled at present and so lacks a quorum and, 2) McCain used the program as collateral for a loan he took out from a bank late last year. The details of the second point are not fully clear and it appears that there may be two loans involved and not just one loan from a Bethesda bank that the Washington Post talks about.

But who cares about the FEC? What should the Federal Election Commission have to do with this anyway? That’s what former FEC chairman Trevor Potter, McCain’s “top lawyer” seems to think. From the Post’s story: “‘We believe that Senator McCain had a clear legal right to withdraw from the primary matching fund system, and he has done so,’ Potter told the Associated Press. ‘No FEC action was or is required for withdrawal.’”

I enjoy it when former top officials of a given agency, with the change of a hat, suddenly seem to think that the rules of their previous institution of employment are mere suggestions. Potter’s lack of respect for the FEC’s rules demonstrate the most egregious problem in Washington, D.C.: the fact that politicians believe that they are above the law when it inconveniences them. Jan Baran, a lawyer quoted in the Post’s article, is entirely right: “Ignoring the matter on the grounds that the FEC lacks a quorum, Baran said, ‘is like saying you’re going to break into houses because the sheriff is out of town.’”

If we want to improve the American political system, we can start by empowering politicians who respect the rule of law. Good-bye, George. Good-bye Hil.

President Bush put all of his eggs in the Musharraf basket and the Pakistani people have smashed that basket right in his face by wholeheartedly rejecting Musharraf’s political party. President Bush undermined U.S. standing in the world and our security by believing that the best way to fight Islamic extremism and terrorists in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region was unquestioningly supporting President Musharraf and funneling billions of dollars to the Pakistani military without oversight. The results of the Pakistani parliamentary elections have left the Bush administration with a lot of egg on its face.

As the State Department scrambles to get its bearings in the fluid Pakistani political environment, it is important for us to consider three things. First, why did the Pakistani government allow these elections to be carried out in a relatively unfettered manner? Second, what are the likely outcomes? Third, what should the priorities of the U.S. government moving forward in terms of security and democracy promotion? Continue Reading »

Last month, incumbent Kenyan president Mwai Kibaki stole an election from Raila Odinga. Ethnic violence rocked what papers have been calling an island of “stability.” It appears the leaders have found a solution, to use the term loosely:

The rival political parties in Kenya have nearly finalized a deal to end the political crisis that has kept this country on edge for almost two months, with the government agreeing to create a prime minister position, one of the opposition’s key demands, a high-ranking government official said Thursday.

According to IHT, the prime minister will “coordinate and supervise government functions” while the president remains head of government. The PM’s survivability is still up for grabs, not that it matters. If the president is head of government, doesn’t that mean he’s numero uno when it comes to forming cabinets?

This is a stop-gap measure. Based on what we know now, it makes Odinga a figurehead in a nominal power-sharing arrangement. Hopefully it will signal ethnic combatants to demobilize.

But the accord does little for stability. Kibaki, an usurper, will hold the cards of governance. The agreement is only as good as the men’s will to rule by consensus. Were others to fill those offices, the entire arrangement could come into question. It blurs the separation of powers.

Kibaki signaled to Kenyans that elections don’t matter. In the longer term, the agreement doubles the blow to democratic legitimacy. When there’s a succession crisis, rejigger the most fundamental institutions.

The big news out of Wisconsin and Hawaii is that Barak Obama won in two states that he was expected to win. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on whether or not you are “on the hope train,” this news is not very big at all. In fact, most news outlets have decided to focus their articles on Obama’s win streak or what the exit polls tell us or both.

I’d like just to pause for a moment and bask in the meaning of Wisconsin and Hawaii. The fact that Obama won these states expectedly, particularly Wisconsin, which is seen as a swing state, is a very big deal. Had Hillary won, or even come close, the tenor of the post-February-19th-primary news cycle would have been entirely different.

Because Obama won Wisconsin and Hawaii, two weeks of news will focus on the despair and frustration of the HRC campaign rather than the hopeful optimism that might have been. She will fuel this descent by truncating her articulation of purpose and harping the urgency of her cause. Her message of hope, which was over matched by Obama’s in the first place, will be replaced by attacks on his. Hillary will blame the media for taking her statements out of context and for siding with Obama. No, it couldn’t be her fault that she’s struggling to hang on. Maybe she needs a new campaign manager.

Of course, most of the things I’ve written above have been characteristics of Hillary’s campaign for quite some time. They are more descriptive than predictive. Wisconsin and Hawaii prove that Hillary began digging her grave prematurely: despair became her story even though destiny was still something she could control.

Now, all she has is despair. She may want to make some campaign visits to churches, where maybe she can pray for a prayer.

I am leaving Pakistan in a few hours and I can honestly say that I am glad came. The election was a clear success and exceeded nearly everyone’s expectations. This may seem like a bold statement so let me justify it. First, President Musharraf mobilized the military and the police to allow for a peaceful election even though he knew it was likely to spell the end of his political career. Indeed, voters soundly rejected Musharraf’s regime. Second, voters broadly accepted the results. Thus, by and large, Pakistanis view the election to be a legitimate one. For those of you who are still skeptical, the Karachi Stock Exchange gained 3% today and the Rupee appreciated slightly against the Dollar. This is a clear vote of confidence from investors. Yesterday was a good day for Pakistan and a good day for democracy. The Pakistanis deserve a break and it seems as if they have received one.

On a personal note, the folks at Democracy International did an outstanding job and I would like to sincerely thank them for their efforts. The tight time line and the security situation made this an incredibly difficult election to monitor credibly. Nevertheless, they did their best to ensure this could happen and they succeeded. I am proud to have been a member of the delegation.

Finally, I must stress that these are my thoughts, not the position of Democracy International.

There’s still room at PREEA’s video conference tomorrow with students from the Moscow Institute for International Economic Relations. From PREEA:

Georgetown students have an opportunity to converse with their Moscow counterparts about US-Russia relations, politics and economics, in the Russian and English languages. Participants will include Fulbright scholars from several countries and researchers from the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Very timely given the geopolitical implications of Kosovo’s secession yesterday. 11 AM, Russian Cultural Center, 1825 Phelps Place NW, Washington D.C. RSVP by e-mail to rsvp@preea.org.

Jeffrey O’Neill just announced the release of OpenSTV 1.2. Time to update my copy.

The most significant changes in this release are the following:
- Changed output to be more descriptive and easier to read.
- Changed implementation of Supplemental Vote to use all rankings.
- Changed implementation of IRV to stop sooner (won’t change outcome).
- Print substages for ERS97 STV.
- Now possible to have unlimited precision (but max is set to 20 for gui).
- Meek/Warren implemented in fixed point.

For the uninitiated, the open-source program tabulates elections under different preferential (and non-preferential) systems including several single transferable vote algorithms.

The developers have launched a blog, too.

The polls have closed in Pakistan and election day was relatively peaceful. Thankfully, none of the DI teams encountered any serious problems (however I heard that our security detail had to extract teams from Multan and Peshawar when their polling stations became violent). Nevertheless, it would be a stretch to say that the election was free and fair. While I saw no outright fraud, the voter rolls are hopelessly inaccurate and it is not at all clear who will observe the physical transfer of the ballots to the official counting stations. Thus, while election day seemed to go off well, there was significant manipulation before the election and post-election vote rigging remains a possibility.

Despite the relative election day calm, Pakistan is far from out of the woods. First, the country may still erupt when the government announces the results. Second, it is still far from clear how the elections will affect President Musharraf. Third, and most important, the election is not going to resolve the problem of widespread terrorist attacks. Although most of the violence recently had occurred around political rallies, the terrorists have a long-term plan; their attacks are much more about destabilizing the country than affecting the outcome of this particular election.

I also think I have an answer for why the terrorist strikes seem so random and have begun to understand the political strategy within which these attacks are occurring. There is a fair amount of sympathy for these groups in the northern part of the country, especially along the border with Afghanistan. The attacks in that part of the country seem to be targeted at those who do not sympathize with their goals. This is in-line with the political strategies of Hamas and Hezbollah that I discussed in a recent post. Outside of this region, the attacks are far more random and their goal seems to be to undermine people’s belief that the government can protect them. According to some of the experts I have talked to, the terrorist groups know they are vastly unpopular outside the northern part of the country but don’t care since they have support there. Thus, the best guess is the terrorist groups will continue their strategy to discredit the government in order to achieve their long-term goal of taking over the country. It will take far more than an election to change this dynamic.