The Democratic Piece

The BBC has reported that Britain has doubled aid to Pakistan to nearly $1 billion over the next three years. The three main recipient are the areas of education, poverty reduction, health care, including the North West Frontier. 

It remains to be seen whether a new strategy will help build state capacity in a climate of political uncertainty. Pressure continues to mount against President Musharraf but the lack of legitimate political alternatives, the continued struggle with militants in the NWFP, the troubles along the Afghan border and continued nationalist sentiments in areas such as Balochistan leaves the prospects for a strong Pakistani state bleak.

While increased aid is certainly needed, it remains to be seen whether aid initiatives will change the status quo…

Via POMED comes a call by Scott Carpenter and Michael Rubin for MMP in Iraq’s governorates. A candidate-centric system, they argue, could dampen sectarian tension by weakening the party system.

Reforming Iraq’s election system on the national level will be difficult… At the local level, however, there is real opportunity… Iraqis should have the right to vote for the best individuals to administer governorates and sit on district councils. The country need not abandon parties or proportional representation, but lawmakers could explore an open-list system that would allow citizens to vote for people they know. Even better would be a mixed system, such as the one practiced in Germany, which combines party lists with the ability to elect individuals.

More on the rationale:

“[Adopting list PR for national elections] was a fateful decision. Rather than vote for individuals, Iraqis voted for political parties, whose leaders compiled lists of candidates. In descending order, one candidate would enter parliament for every 31,000 votes the party received. Under this system, aspiring politicians owed their future not to voters but to the party leaders who compiled the lists. Instead of encouraging Iraqi politicians to debate security, sewage and schooling, the party-slate system encouraged them to engage in the most extreme sectarian or ethno-nationalist rhetoric to prove their mettle to party leaders. Those who preached tolerance or voiced more technocratic concerns found themselves at the bottom of lists.

I have been making the same basic argument since April. The parties are the problem. Institutional choices made in 2005 largely caused them. Present institutional design efforts in the governorates are an opportunity to work on the problem. The system implemented must be highly candidate-centric.

To make that system work, federalism has to be strong enough to put a premium on governorate elections. And to keep federalism from ripping the country apart, there must be inter-governorate revenue sharing.

I applaud Carpenter and Rubin’s careful thinking about an important detail that most democracy promoters ignore. At the same time, open-endorsement SNTV remains preferable to their proposals.

Open-list proportional representation only mildly puts the candidate ahead of the party. Even though one votes for an individual entrepreneur, co-partisans depend on his or her performance for their own chances at winning seats. Open-list PR does not adequately dampen the incentive to run as a team.

Mixed-member proportional representation is problematic for theoretical and implementation reasons alike. One, it requires drawing single-member districts. Those presumably need to be of equal population. Even if the census data existed to allow equal population districts - it does not - districting would raise lots of different questions about gerrymandering (Does the way districts are drawn “naturally” advantage certain groups? Are the districts drawn purposely to do so? Et cetera.)

On the theoretical side, the nominal tier would have to be much larger than the list tier. That is, the proportion of seats elected in districts would have to overwhelm those elected from lists. Otherwise the ‘list logic’ of campaigning that the writers identify would again dominate.

Carpenter and Rubin are thinking in the right terms. Their proposal, however, should be more practical and ambitious. SNTV gets around the districting headaches while even more radically “put[ting] the people ahead of the party bosses.”

H/T to POMED’s Andrew Albertson.

The NY Times wrote an editorial today on The Seductive Charm of Term Limits, which bemoaned the fact that a competent leader such as NY Governor Bloomberg just might have to retire in 2010 due to existing term limits. I found the article interesting, but remarkably myopic in scope, as in just focusing on the exit of competent politicians, it ignored what term limits are intended to accomplish. I felt that this article at CATO helped add to the discussion of the positive elements of term limits.

In trying to broaden this discussion, I wanted to list some of the arguments on this too see what everyone thinks about term limits. Here’s a rough and by no means complete list:

On the positive side of term limits:

1) Exit of incompetent politicians who may have become entrenched in existing power structures regardless of actual governing effectiveness or popularity.

2) Brings in cycles of fresh perspectives while maintaining some degree of institutional memory by staggering term limits.

3) Reduces party control, thus hopefully leading to smaller government and reduced pork barrelling.

On the negative side of term limits:

1) Exit of competent and popular politicians who have a successful record of governing. Where might America be without FDR?

2) Shortens already short time horizons, exacerbating the discounting of the future that already plagues government. Who cares about environmental effects in 30 years if you will be out of government in less than 10?

3) Difficulty in holding politicians to their commitment for voluntary retirement. How many Republicans of the Republican Revolution retired after their voluntary term limits expired as stipulated in their Contract With America? I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but I know that it was very, very few. This creates the temptation to unseat incumbent politicians with proven records of governing with, well, liars who rode in on a promise to limit themselves only to then avoid accountability as they assume the advantages of incumbency.

Well, what do you think? Despite the obvious bias of my list against term limits, I am generally in favor of the idea. Please add to the discussion.

There are an array of reasons that Obama should not choose Hillary as his running mate.  But there is one simple reason that Obama cannot select Hillary for the ticket: she doesn’t share his world vision.  Through the course of the primary process, we have learned that Hillary subscribes to a values system that differs from Obama’s.  Although their ideological stances pit them in the same corner, Obama’s raison d’etre clashes with Hillary’s behavior during this race.  For him, Hillary’s the part of Washington that needs to be reformed or displaced.  They play by different rules, and I’m not so sure that Hillary can be reformed.

Obama revealed a lot about his world vision in his speech on race a few months ago.  Explaining his revulsion to Reverend Wright’s infamous and derogatory comments, Obama said:

“[The remarks] expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”

Later, Obama states:

“The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”

Why do I raise these statements about Reverend Wright when talking about Hillary Clinton?  Hillary and Bill, as Jonathan Chait surmises in the New Republic, adopted a conservative populist rhetoric in the waning months of the primary season.  Chait writes:

“Conservative populism… dismisses any inference that the rich and the non-rich might have opposing interests as “class warfare.” Conservative populism prefers to divide society along social lines, with the elites being intellectuals and other snobs who fancy themselves better than average Americans.”

Indeed, this accurately explains why, to borrow once again from Chait, the “über-wonk [Hillary] has disparaged economists and expertise” and “the staunch ally of black America [again, Hillary] has attacked her opponent for lacking support of ‘working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.’”  I’d like to add to this the fact that Hillary has shamelessly failed to state unequivocally Obama’s religion (He’s not Muslim “as far as I know.”).
Continue Reading »

Erica Bonanno of our sister Conflict Resolution MA program is in Sierra Leone doing a program assessment for Search for Common Ground. From the first post to Erica’s blog:

My project here is to do an evaluation of the radio program dealing with children and youth issues, called Golden Kids News (here is a description of Golden Kids News on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_lFFJaMc4w). In order to evaluate the impact of this radio program on listeners, I will be spending the next few weeks traveling around the country. I will be spending a week in Kabala, a small town in Northern Sierra Leone where Search has a second office, and then another week in Bo, another rural area where we have our third office in the country. My short time in the offices will be spent talking to the producers of Golden Kids News. I will then spend about a month traveling around to villages where I will be interviewing, holding focus groups (which are pretty much group interviews), and giving out surveys. The rural areas are supposed to be much safer than Freetown. These tools, which I will be designing this week, will help to collect data about how the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of listeners may have changed as a result of listening to Golden Kids News. I will then spend my last few weeks back in Freetown, where I will write up my report and present my findings to the Directors and staff.

So, I found this story very interesting.

I’m less interested in the comments on the gaffes as with the last few paragraphs about reporting in the United States. Agree or disagree with Obama on FP, John Fund makes a point none-the-less.

The latest edition of Amnesty’s global human rights report is out and available online in several langauges here.

Via IFES, the AP reports “a nearly complete vote count from Wednesday’s election indicates Saakashvili’s party will hold about 120 of the Parliament’s 150 seats.”

Last week I wrote that electoral “reforms” in Georgia were not actually reformist. While March legislation lowered the threshold for entering parliament from 7 to 5 percent, simultaneous decreases in the total number of seats and proportion of them elected under PR would be new hurdles for small parties. Reform, in other words, would benefit Saakashvili, not his opponents.

Now the main opposition party is threatening to boycott its mere 14 seats. Coverage of protests keeps pointing at fraud, but the electoral rules appear to have been the main source of opposition squeeze.

Glancing at preliminary results from the nominal tier, the ruling United National Movement is the clear leader in most districts. Yet it frequently has less than a majority, and other parties sometimes have sizable vote shares. In the list tier, the UNM is reported to have won 61 percent of votes.

Recall that one “reform” reduced the share of PR seats from 100 to 75. If one considers that no election was held under original provisions for the 150-member parliament, “reform” actually reduced the PR share from 150 of 235 seats at the 2004 election to 75 of 150 today.

The net effect of “reform” was less proportional representation and more first-past-the-post, regardless of what Saakashvili did to the PR threshold. That’s how he’s winning 80 percent of seats on 61 percent of votes.

RFE/RL optimistically reports that Georgian president Saakashvili has reduced the threshold from 7 to 5 percent for the list tier of that country’s parliamentary elections. Of course, today’s elections are for a much smaller parliament with far fewer seats elected under PR rules than in 2004. Despite the optimism, this probably will result in a smaller opposition seat share.

Since winning reelection, a seemingly humbled Saakashvili has taken pains to show that he understands the mood of both the electorate and the opposition, enacting a series of electoral reforms his supporters say are meant to boost confidence in the elections.

What “humbled” Saakashvili was his “close call in [a] snap presidential election four months ago,” according to the news service. Yet he won with over 53 percent, 18 points ahead of the runner-up. Such is his standard for competitiveness.

As usual, the details of the new system depend on the source. The overall picture since 2004 is fewer seats in general and fewer elected proportionally.

According to the electoral law, last updated 17-12-07, 50 members are elected in single-member districts and 100 are elected from party lists (Art. 91). The threshold was 7 percent, and seat allocation is by Hare quota with largest remainder (Art. 105).

IFES’ Election Guide says the 2004 elections proceeded with 75 single-member districts, 150 list seats and 10 seats reserved to “displaced persons.” Via ACE Project, the same organization says this is the system in place. The 2008 Election Guide entry, however, reports a 150-seat parliament with 75 list and 75 district seats. That is consonant with RFE/RL’s report and others.

Angus-Reid has a good description of the politics of the electoral law. Saakashvili’s allies in parliament approved the 75-75 system on March 21, with opposition leaders balking in favor of the 50-100 system, which is the one on the books as published.

Reuters, via the Washington Post, says opposition leaders accuse the president of “rigging” the elections. More problematic than outright fraud, it seems, is a lack of basic agreement (even clarity?) on the details of seat allocation.

It flies in the face of cynical reason to think the president would increase opposition prospects in response to his own electoral “close call.” More important than reducing the threshold to 5 percent, an opposition-inclusive reform, is reducing the PR tier from 150 to 75 seats, which is opposition-exclusive. A glance at the 2004 results-by-region at Electoral Geography shows why. Saakashvili’s National Movement polled an average 69.4 percent. The median share for his party was 71.8 percent. The overall effect of “reform,” I suspect, will be to further weaken opposition. The more small districts, the more seats for Saakashvili. Reducing average district magnitude is what matters here. Lowering the threshold is an empty gesture.

Without in any way endorsing anything McCain has said today, particularly moving the goal posts yet again in Iraq to 2013 (conveniently enough JUST after his presumed re-election against a candidate urging to “cut-and-run”), I do have to say that I like his urging to bring UK-style question sessions to the President. Aside from my belief in the necessity of such things for the health of a democracy, I also believe this type of procedure makes for fantastic television.

I have come to believe that one of the greatest tragedies of the Bush 2 presidency has been the complete transformation of the presidency into a carefully controlled photo-op. While this has helped to reduce unfortunate gaffes by this particularly prone president, it has also turned the most powerful democratically elected office in the world into a complete spectacle. I believe that this has had two harmful consequences:

1) It leaves the American public feeling cut off from their elected leaders, thus reducing government legitimacy and public participation.

2) It leaves the American government cut off from the American people, and worse, cut off from even the most marginal inquiry.

While #1 is unfortunate, I believe that #2 has been disastrous. Perhaps the reason why we’ve seen policy after policy which should never have been implemented is that nobody was ever actually able to ask the President a meaningful question about the policies he wanted to implement. Instead, we received a classic case of cabinet groupthink and, well, we see what we’ve ended up with.

I’m not sure that a “Questions” session is the perfect answer to this problem, but it’s a great place to start. If a President can’t be bothered to learn enough about why a policy should be implemented to defend it to the lawmakers who fund it at the taxpayers expense, well, then maybe that policy shouldn’t be pursued any further. It may not actually bring information feedback back to American government, but it should make for some great entertainment.