Post from: EveryJoe

Making the Effort to Vote

Tomorrow (08/08/08) marks the opening of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China.

Of course, the Olympics are, primarily, an athletic event. But over the years, other factions (social, political, religious and humanitarian) have used the Olympics as a global platform. And these games, given the venue, has already sparked controversy and concern.

US President, George Bush, has made the trip to China – and is planning to attend both the Opening Ceremonies and many sporting events as well. Many foreign leaders and activists had called for a “diplomatic” boycott of the games in protest of the Chinese government’s Tibetan policy, and other cited human rights violations.

There are a multitude of issues (from basic rights to the genocide in Darfur) and there’s no “easy” answer – but President Bush has publicly condemned the detainment of political and religious protesters, while recognizing the importance of the growing relationship with China – primarily economic, but also culturally and politically.

And, I’ll admit that I was surprised to learn that President Bush is the first US President to attend the Olympic games on foreign soil. That is remarkable – especially regarding the contoversy surrounding this Olympiad.

Post from: EveryJoe

Let the Games Begin!

Image details: Thinkstock Single Image Set served by picapp.com

Robert Mugabe ‘won’ the recent presidential election in Zimbabwe through intimidation tactic. This election marks Mugabe’s third decade of ruling Zimbabwe — democratically, if you ask him.

Mongolia’s election this week was marked by the deaths of five people who protested fraud during the election process. They were caught in a riot. Democratically-ruled Mongolia is currently in a state of emergency.

Today is the 4th of July. That may not mean much in most countries, but it marks the independence of the U.S. We didn’t dream up democracy, as much as we might think so. The U.S. broke off from a country ruled by an elected Parliament, with a few aristocrats thrown in. I could talk for hours about the problems in our representative democracy, even if I just limit myself to the mechanics. Hanging chads, electronic voting machines, third parties’ difficulties in getting on the ballot. Problems are legion with our system.

But…

Our system is pretty good. People don’t die during American elections. Elected officials don’t commit rampant fraud just to stay in power. American democracy, with all its little problems, still works.

There’s a quote from Robert Heinlein that often comes to mind when I read the day’s political news:

The only good thing about democracy is that it’s about a hundred times better than anything else we’ve come up with.

Some days, the U.S.’s brand of democracy seems the same way — it isn’t perfect, but it’s better than all the alternatives.

So, get out there. Light some fireworks. Have a hot dog. And, come November, vote. Because democracy isn’t democracy if you don’t participate.

Post from: EveryJoe

A Few Thoughts About American Elections

According to Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution, the President of the United States has the power to “…receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”

This means that the US President has the power to accept the legitimacy of a foreign government by accepting its ambassador or other representative to the United States. If the President does not choose to receive the ambassador from another country, there is nothing that Congress or the Supreme Court can do about it. The power to recognize the existence of foreign countries belongs to the President alone.

US Presidents don’t get to use this power very often. In 1996, when the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, they sought diplomatic recognition by the United States, but President Clinton refused. Therefore, as far as the US was concerned, the real government of Afghanistan was not the Taliban, but the government that the Taliban had deposed. When the US invaded Afghanistan a few years ago, the war was billed as the restoration of the rightful government. Since the US had continued to recognize the pre-Taliban system of government, the US saw itself as deposing an unlawful regime.

President George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton also had the chance to use their power to receive ambassadors in the early 1990s, when many former Soviet Republics were declaring their independence. After careful consideration of each one, the President decided whether or not the US would recognize the independence of each country. For instance, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan were recognized by the US, but Chechnya was not.

By the way, President Jefferson was a little touchy about this power. He refused to receive an ambassador from France who arrived with a letter of introduction addressed to the US Congress. He declared that he would only receive ambassadors who arrived with properly addressed credentials.

Post from: EveryJoe

Diplomatic Recognition for Kosovo

In Cuba, Fidel Castro formally stepped down as President, ending one of the longest tenures as head of state in the world today. He encouraged the Council of State to choose his brother, Raul, as the next President. This Council of State is itself chosen by a National Assembly. Although the process might technically be considered democratic, it is controlled by Castro and a his cadre of long-time party leaders. There is every indication that Raul will indeed be chosen as the next President of Cuba.

In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf accepted defeat in that country’s parliamentary elections. Of the 242 contested seats, the Pakistan People’s Party took 80 and the Pakistan Muslim League N carried 66. Musharraf’s party won only 38. Several smaller parties won the remaining 58 seats. With this defeat, Musharraf’s domination of Pakistani politics is at an end.

For years now, pundits of all varieties have foretold of a major struggle in post-Castro Cuba. The predictions ranged from harsh infighting among Cuba’s elite to armed struggles across the countryside, yet throughout Cuba, the news of Castro’s resignation was met with a collective shrug. There was no fighting or cheering in the streets, no feverish public rallying cries from rivals in the inner circle, and to my knowledge not a single boatload of armed Cuban exiles streaking out of Miami toward the island’s shore. Everything is calm.

Pakistan certainly isn’t calm today. There are parties in anti-Musharraf circles, and no doubt more solemn gatherings among supporters of the Pakistani leader. But the much-anticipated backlash from Musharraf’s forces has not materialized – there was not vote tampering, no voter intimidation, and no raids on the opposition parties. The New York Times quoted the leader of Musharraf’s party as saying “We readily accept our defeat, unlike in the past when losing parties alleged rigging. We accept that we were beaten fair and square.”

It’s too early to tell if these peaceful transitions will become trends in Cuba and Pakistan. As the news settles in during the next few days, there may indeed be isolated instances of violence. The major institutionalized violence that many analysts predicted has simply not come to pass. No matter how you feel about Raul Castro or Pervez Musharraf, peaceful political transitions are still rare these days. Any time one government can peacefully hand off power to another, without hundreds or thousands of innocent lives being lost in the process, is a victory for us all.

Post from: EveryJoe

Wimpers, not Bangs: Political Transitions in Cuba and Pakistan

In his article, “What China Will Want: The Future Intentions of a Rising Power,” Legro contends that China is currently a Status Quo Power, which means that China has no interest in seeking changes to the international economic or political system. Three big examples of China’s deepening integration are its membership in the World Trade Organization, its participation in G-8 meetings, and its cooperation with the US on anti-terrorist activities.

Yet many scholars and US policymakers think China is likely to become a Revisionist Power, the sort of country that wants to force big changes. They point to China’s dissatisfaction with external pressures to democratize and its displeasure with the Taiwan situation.
There are, Legro says, two dominant perspectives on China.

1. The Power Theory: Although China may truly believe that its rise to power will be peaceful, as it gains more political and economic clout it will inevitably seek changes in the international system. The other status quo powers of today must work to limit China’s power, or eventually China will try to challenge the current international distribution of power.
2. The Interdependence Theory: As China becomes more integrated into the international system, it becomes more interdependent, and hence more conservative. Other countries should continue to engage China, drawing it deeper into the current world order and making it more difficult for China to strike out on its own and challenge the status quo.

Legro argues that these two perspectives miss something of great importance – the power of ideas. People who focus only on GDP, military spending, and other concrete measures are prone to forgetting that ideas are as influential as power or economics.

By ideas, Legro doesn’t just mean the private thoughts of individual persons. He means “the collective beliefs of societies and organizations about how to act” … “embedded … in the collective memories, national symbols, government procedures, education systems, and rhetoric of statecraft” of each state. His point is that just as there are trends in fashion, there are trends in ideas about politics and economics. For instance, isolationism was a major intellectual trend in the US for decades. This isolationism, the idea that the US should not become entangled in international affairs, was so widespread that even after victory in World War I, rather than bursting onto the global stage as a major player, the US turned back in upon itself, shunning the leading international role that other countries assumed it would take. Everyone who followed the US rise to power during World War I thought the US would stay involved in global affairs, but they didn’t realize the importance of the idea of isolationism. Ideas mattered just as much as power.

Legro reminds us that at present, there are two major ideas in Chinese society that generate support for the international status quo:

1. The belief that integrating into the current global economic order provides the best avenue towards domestic Chinese economic development. This idea is so widespread that the legitimacy of the Chinese government itself rests not on socialist ideology, but on continued economic development. If Chinese economic development falters, its government is likely to experience a crisis of legitimacy.
2. Integrating into the existing international system enhances the sovereignty of the Chinese state. Dominant Chinese ideas consider territorial integrity and political independence the two most important aspects of sovereignty.

Therefore, Legro says, “the durability of China’s integrationist foreign policy … will depend on how results match social expectations related to economic growth and sovereignty.” A decline in China’s economic growth or increasing challenges to its sovereignty would violate the ideas the Chinese have about integrating into the status quo. Revisionist groups, those that want China to challenge the international order, would then likely increase in number and importance, changing Chinese ideas and leading China to pursue changes to today’s global economic and political order.

In order to help keep China a status quo state, Legro suggests that we be pro-active. We should not simply react to new developments in Chinese economics or politics, we should nurture groups in Chinese government and society that espouse integrationist ideas and help to marginalize groups with revisionist beliefs.

Overall, we in business and politics should become more aware of the power that ideas – shared, influential beliefs about proper means and ends – have over us all. China will only continue to support the international status quo as long as it believes that this system provides the best environment for the achievement of the goals that it thinks are best for it. Helping to manage Chinese ideas today will be far more efficient than reacting to Chinese actions tomorrow.

Post from: EveryJoe

In Honor of the Chinese New Year – Chinese Business and Politics

Liberia’s Supreme Court handed down a judgment that the Liberian president can appoint local mayors until the country can afford to hold elections, but that decision is being challenged by the United People’s Party, the opposition to President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf’s ruling party.

Post from: EveryJoe

When It’s Just Too Expensive to Hold Elections

1:

Many third-parties only appeal to a limited number of voters or a small geographic area. For instance, the Populist Party was basically a Midwestern phenomenon, and the Prohibition Party only appeals to a handful of people. The major parties, on the other hand, are sometimes called “catch-all parties.” Whether because they have their finger on the pulse of American society, or because they are consciously vague about their goals, the major parties have national appeal and a broad base of supporters. The major parties are willing to support much broader sets of ideas, than are most third parties.

2:

Most voters assume that only the Democratic and Republican candidates have any chance at actually winning. Voters therefore tend to ignore third party candidates, even if they like them, so as not to “waste their votes” by supporting a candidate who can’t win. Of course, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: The more people assume that Party X’s candidate can’t win, the fewer people support him, and his chances of winning plummet.

Some voters who might otherwise stick by their third party candidate end up voting for a major party candidate so that the other major party’s candidate doesn’t win. Both major parties have been hurt by third party candidates that drew votes away from their candidates, opening the door for the other party’s victory. Perhaps the most famous recent case occurred in 2000, when many voters who might otherwise have voted Democratic instead cast their ballots for Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate. If a small percentage of these Green Party voters had voted Democratic, the Dems would have won Florida, and the entire presidential election. Regretting their “wasted votes,” and perceiving that they gave the election to the Republicans, many of these Green Party voters supported the Democrats in 2004.

3:

The electoral system in the US makes it rather difficult for third parties to win elections, which tends to cause their dissolution. The US uses a system of “single-member districts,” in which just one candidate is elected to represent a district. Some countries use a “multiple-member district” system, in which several people are elected from each district. Multiple-member districts make it easier for smaller parties to win some seats at the table. In the US, with its single-member districts, smaller parties have little chance of winning many seats.

The US also tends to use a “majority system,” in which the single winning candidate must win a plurality of the votes in that district. (A “plurality” is simply the most votes, regardless of the actual percentage. If 10 people run for office and the top candidate gets 12% of the vote, that’s a plurality.) This means that the one candidate who wins is the one who gets the most votes. That’s a high bar for victory, compared with some other countries that use “proportional representation” with their multiple-member districts.

In a proportional-representation, multiple-member system, each party gets a percentage of the available seats equal to the percentage of votes it received during the election. Here’s an example:

Consider these fictitious election results for District A:

Democratic Party – 25%

Republican Party – 50%

Libertarian Party – 10%

Green Party – 15%

If this election were held under the US’s single-member plurality system, the Republican Party’s single candidate wins. Everybody else goes home empty-handed. But if it were held under a multiple-member proportional-representation system, all four parties would win some seats. The Dems and Reps would hold 75% of the seats, and the third parties would hold 25%. Sure, 25% isn’t much, but it’s more than 0%! With some representation these third parties could influence politics, showing their effectiveness and gaining more supporters as a result.

Of course, there are disadvantages to multiple-member proportional-representation systems, but I’ll save those for another time.

In order to help raise awareness of the many third parties fielding candidates in the 2008 presidential election, I am going to highlight several this week. Maybe you’ll find one that appeals to you!

Post from: EveryJoe

The Trials and Tribulations of Third Parties

Peru, Spain, and Britain seem to be the most equalitarian states on this issue. In each country, 83% of respondents claimed that both sexes perform equally well as political leaders. On the other hand, just 16% of respondents in the Palestinian territories and only about 30% in Mali and Pakistan consider men and women equally well suited for leadership positions.

Interestingly, in nearly every country women are more likely than men to say that both sexes perform equally. The report notes that this trend is especially apparent in Middle Eastern, Eastern European, and Asian countries.

It also points out that in the US, about 30% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats of both sexes say that men are better political leaders. Nearly 78% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans agree that both sexes are equal.

These results become even more interesting when considered in light of an excellent article by Jennifer L. Lawless of Brown University, titled “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post-September 11^th Era,” which appeared in the prestigious scholarly journal Political Research Quarterly in September, 2004.

Noting that the percentage of Americans willing to support female presidential candidates had declined since late 2001, Lawless examined voter attitudes towards women in light of the perceived post-9/11 importance of traditionally masculine issues like military crises. She discovered that 61% of respondents believe that a male candidate is better able to handle military crises, whereas only 3% believe a women is more capable, and 36% rate both sexes equally (check out page 482 for a great table of fascinating findings).

After performing a statistical analysis of these and other results, Lawless concluded that, in the US, “gender stereotyping in the political arena continues to exist, both in terms of general traits and issue expertise that citizens accord to men and women candidates and office-holders, and regarding quite specific policy expertise associated with curbing terrorism.” (487) Individuals’ policy preferences play an important role in shaping these stereotypes – those with more hawkish preferences are more likely to stereotype in favor of men, while those on the more dovish side are less likely to reach this conclusion.

So where does this leave the business of getting women elected to political office? Well, 75% of Americans agree that men and women make equally good political leaders, but a solid majority consider men more capable of handling traditionally male issues like military crises and terrorism. As is often the case, it looks like the answer comes down to issue control. Whoever can set the issue agenda can play to his or her perceived strengths, and that is an advantage that should never be underestimated.

Post from: EveryJoe

Women as Political Leaders?

In Russia…

President Vladimir Putin’s party won 70% of the legislative seats available. Though the results have been in only a few hours, election monitors are already declaring the win unfair, citing numerous acts of intimidation and voting irregularities. Furthermore, Putin’s opposition are concerned that he will use this victory to keep himself in power when his term ends early in 2008

In Venezuela…

There is a direct contrast. Hugo Chavez sent a constitutional reform package to the voters that, if passed, would have essentially allowed for him to remain in power indefinitely by eliminating term limits. Around 51% of the vote was against Chavez’s reforms, but that total was still higher than expected.

Both of these votes rely on the same democratic principles that the U.S. government was founded on, yet they both called into question whether their respective governments will be able to consider themselves democracies even a year from now.

Post from: EveryJoe

Democracy in action: A Russian election and a Venezuelan referendum