The Democratic Piece

I just finished watching Robert Schlesinger promoting his book on the Daily Show and I happened across the following op-ed by his father, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. I found it both beautiful and timely, so I figured that it might be worth sharing here. Let me know what you think.

“There is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war.” -Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

[Article on WashingtonPost.com]

Bush’s Thousand Days
By Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Monday, April 24, 2006; Page A17

The Hundred Days is indelibly associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Thousand Days with John F. Kennedy. But as of this week, a thousand days remain of President Bush’s last term — days filled with ominous preparations for and dark rumors of a preventive war against Iran.

The issue of preventive war as a presidential prerogative is hardly new. In February 1848 Rep. Abraham Lincoln explained his opposition to the Mexican War: “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’

[Article Continued]

Monday’s Supeme Court upholding of Indiana’s voter ID law deserves comment on a blog about comparative democracy.

The short story: you cannot vote in Indiana unless you present valid, state- or federal-issued photo identification. The longer version: there is a fairly narrow list of accepted forms. If you don’t have one, you can fill out a provisional ballot and sign an affidavit as to your identity. If you want that vote to count, you have to go to the county seat within 10 days and sign another affidavit.

I have nothing against voter ID, even if solves a problem that doesn’t really exist. Except for people who don’t want their pictures taken, there nothing intrinsically wrong with voter ID…

…as long as the state accepts responsibility for issuing IDs to all citizens in an equal and accessible manner.

The social inequality of the policy as-is will be clear to anyone with SES columns in his spreadsheet. To vote without ID, you need a car and/or public transportation and considerable free time to dance with bureaucracy. To get a free ID, you need a car and/or public transportation and a valid birth certificate, which, if you don’t have one, means you need a car and/or public transportation and the free time to go get all this stuff.

This certainly will not increase turnout in the world’s most low-turnout established democracy. Especially among the poor and elderly - those without cars, mobility, free time, money or jobs that give them time to vote.

But these old arguments will be familiar to TDP’s Americanist audience. Rather than rehash the projected effects and underlying methodologies, I want to make three comparative points.

One. If the US constitution contained an equal and affirmative right to vote, no amount of judicial balancing would have produced this outcome. Unlike in the world’s other, established democracies, no such right exists. As such, SCOTUS has opened the door to similar policies in states itching to promulgate them.

Two. Even right-to-vote countries risk social inequality spilling over into political inequality. That’s why Canada’s electoral management body goes to people’s houses registering voters. With its policy of compulsory voting, Australia is similarly proactive about filling its rolls.

Three. Some say voting is a right, not a responsibility. If you want to vote, get off your lazy duff and make the preparations. That argument is a mask - one that secures buy-in among libertarian-oriented masses - for systemic efforts to steal elections where technology and learning make overt fraud obsolete. Around the world, parallel vote counts and international pressure have forced authoritarian leaders to “upgrade” their methods. By squeezing participation, restrictive electoral laws let dictators steal elections long before election day. As the number of competitive federal jurisdictions in America drops, state-level entry barriers make electoral conclusions more foregone in all but the most competitive years.

American democracy will survive voter ID, but it’s a step in the authoritarian direction. The short-term solution is affirmative state action to issue those IDs. In the long term, we need a federally guaranteed, equal right to vote.

This is not a terribly academic posting, but I wanted to share the newest video by Florida punk band “Against Me!” on er, rocking the vote. It’s a bit different than their “Baby, I’m An Anarchist” that I remember from college, but a remarkably timely and catchy song nonetheless.

Stop! (Rock the Vote)

Just wanted to point out a few stories that I found particularly interesting and news-worthy.

1. Free trade anyone?

2. Iran = trouble

No, seriously…

Hope readers enjoy. Will post more stories as they become important :).

The New York Times reported today that Angola prohibited the offloading of the arms shipment destined for Zimbabwe. The Chinese vessel carrying the cargo - the “ship of shame” as it’s called in African newspapers - previously attempted to unload the 77 tons of arms - including rockets, ammunition, and bombs - in Durban, South Africa, but was blocked by dock workers.

Angola, a longtime ally of Zimbabwe, was probably Zimbabwe’s best hope for receiving this arms shipment. After Durban, the vessel bypassed Namibia when the Legal Assistance Centre of Namibia announced in advance that it would thwart the ship from unloading. After a second failure to unload, the ship will likely now return to China.

This is a critical point in the aftermath of Zimbabwe’s election debacle. Mugabe’s prospects for retaining his power are looking more and more grim. Lacking a definitive victory, Mugabe’s regime has resorted to violence to maintain its grip on the country. The Chinese arms shipment was key to the regime’s use of force. Without it, the regime may be dead in the water.

So what happens now that Mugabe’s regime has lost the election and cannot maintain its use of force? As Jack suggested several days ago, a democratic transition may not be so far out of the realm of possibility.

The NY Times reports a raid on the Zimbabwean opposition headquarters. Police claim the 215 they arrested are suspected of “political violence,” but this is clearly the next step in Mugabe’s effort to ensure he wins a presidential runoff election.

Security forces took “computers and documents,” allegedly including evidence that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai won the original election. They also targeted the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, NDI’s in-country partner.

According to Le Monde, opposition candidates will control parliament. Even if Mugabe’s Zanu-PF wins each of the five remaining seats in the 23-seat partial recount, it cannot retain its majority.

Mugabe’s loss of parliament makes retaining the presidency even more critical. If there is a transition on the horizon, Mugabe will want to bargain from executive office.

Albania this week scrapped its mixed-member system in favor of proportional representation. According to the IHT (above, as well as PressTV and Balkan Insight), the new system looks like some form of list-PR with seats allocated at the regional level. There are 12 administrative regions.

According to ACE Project, the old system was MMP with 100 single-member districts and 40 seats in the proportional tier. The IPU says a two-round system was used in the single-seat districts. PR seats were allocated to parties clearing 2 percent in the first round.

On the other hand, Freedom House says the PR thresholds were 2.5 percent for parties and 4 percent for coalitions.

All reports above cite opposition by small parties who think this reform (among others) is intended to force them out of parliament. Similar reforms in Ukraine had that effect in the 2006 election. Whether the same will happen in Albania depends largely on the magnitude of each district and the formal threshold. No details yet on either.

With Mugabe unable to tap foreign support, hints at a power-sharing deal and the release of election results, a democratic transition could be underway in Zimbabwe.

According to the New York Times, a neighboring democracy won’t let Mugabe bust opposition heads:

South Africa’s High Court on Friday barred transport of the ammunition, rockets and mortar bombs across South Africa from the port of Durban to landlocked Zimbabwe, after an Anglican archbishop argued that the arms were likely to be used to crush the Zimbabwean opposition after last month’s disputed election.

The 77-ton shipment from China was worth $1.245 million. Inflation notwithstanding, Zimbabwe’s dictator has missed out on a lot of guns.

The Times also said Zimbabwe’s state news, “deep in a long editorial,” hinted at a “national unity government.” If I have found the right article, the suggestion is quite near to the top. Here is the first mention:

The [International Crisis Group] report suggests that a negotiated way forward for Zimbabwe need not necessarily exclude President Mugabe, and should that inclusion be part of a genuinely negotiated agreement that aims at reconciliation and renewal, the Euro-Americans “should not hold back”.

On my way over to find the editorial, I noticed on the front page of the site that the ZEC has started releasing election results:

Zanu-PF retains Goromonzi West
ZANU-PF has retained Goromonzi West House of Assembly and Senate seats in the first batch of poll recount results released last night while the Sadc observer team says it is satisfied with the vote recounting process currently underway in 23 constituencies.
FULL STORY

These developments raise several questions.

Is Zimbabwe moving toward a pacted democratic transition or a Kenya-style band-aid solution? Mugabe is an old man, and the rest of the editorial could be read as celebrating his legacy. Will he tap a successor or negotiate his way out?

Is the regime’s repressive capacity dwindling? The coincidence of the “unity government” announcement and failed Chinese arms shipment suggest it might be. If so, what is the opposition’s capacity to get concessions from Mugabe?

In blocking the weapons, is South Africa nudging the country toward democracy, or is this an isolated attempt to maintain social peace?

No word yet on what electoral system will be used to elect Iraq’s 18 governorate councils. I want to revisit the point because now is an historic opportunity to be proactive. Using another high-magnitude list system is alarmingly likely to reinforce the zero-sum disaster that is Iraq’s party system.

Last week I argued for open-endorsement SNTV in governorate-wide districts. Under that system, parties would have little control over nominations. Each district would seat several members. Each voter would get one vote. He or she would cast it for a person, not a party.

That system could foster clientelistic constituent linkages. Such linkages would get parliamentarians talking about more than sect. This must be the goal because religious disputes are intractable under democracy.

Ayad Allawi ran a topical op-ed in the NY Times last November. Mainly because of closed-list PR, Allawi argued, “the vast majority of the electorate based their choices on sectarian and ethnic affiliations, not on genuine political platforms.”

I propose that a new electoral law be devised to move Iraq toward a completely district-based electoral system, like the American Congress, or a “mixed party list” system like that in Germany, in which some representatives are directly elected and other seats are allotted based on the parties’ overall showing. In either case, the candidates must be announced well in advance of the election, and they must be chosen to represent the people in their locality.

Furthermore, a new law should ban the use of religious symbols and rhetoric by candidates and parties — these have no place in democratic elections [...]

This restructuring of the electoral process will be the beginning of the end of the sectarianism that now dominates Iraqi politics and our dysfunctional government [...]

Allawi is onto something in advocating for a large nominal tier. But Iraq does not need to ban religious campaigns. Supplying incentives to talk about something else could suffice. SNTV would do a better job of that than MMP or FPP. Both MMP and FPP would require boundary delimitation that’s impossible given the lack of census data. Both systems moreover would be easy for current parties to game.

Open-endorsement SNTV can generate pork-barrel campaigns. It avoids the districting nightmare. It empowers individual candidates at the expense of the current parties. It could make Iraqi politics about more than religion.

According to a press release I just received (emphasis mine):

Common Cause’s election reform team will monitor voting problems and concerns that may arise tomorrow during the Democratic presidential primary in Pennsylvania, where an unprecedented turnout is expected, including a huge surge of new voters.

Some 7 million Pennsylvania voters are expected to vote tomorrow on paperless electronic voting machines that lack the ability to do a recount. Common Cause will help monitor problems reported to the Election Protection Coalition’s national voter hotline, 1-866-OUR-VOTE.

Pennsylvania election officials are bracing for unprecedented turnout in a state with a recent history of voting machine problems, and where voter registration and registration changes have surged in recent months.

How will PA affect the big picture? Not very much, according to PoliBlog:

I must confess, it is difficult to get too excited about the Pennsylvania primary, given that no matter the result, we will be in basically the same position: Obama with more popular votes and pledged delegates, and therefore on the surer footing for the nomination.

Another part of the big picture concerns close elections. As Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 taught, close elections strain the legitimacy of rules otherwise considered minutiae. Will voting equipment and voter rolls join Michigan and Florida as flash points in the Clinton-Obama saga?