DevPolitics

Illiberal Democracy Alert

I was recently reading Nicholas Schmidle’s article in the New Republic about the current crisis in Pakistan.  The author suggested that despite the demonization of Musharraf by the Western press, in reality his regime has brought in an era of modernization and liberalization in Pakistan, including the emergence of a healthy civil society, vibrant media, an independent judiciary, progress in protections for women’s rights, and strong economic growth. Unfortunately for Musharraf, the author suggests, the same freedom that he has enabled during his regime has undone him, as the lawyer’s movement and private television stations, which never would never have existed in an alternate regime, have developed the strength to reject his recent authoritarian impulses.  As calls for his ouster, both domestically and internationally, rain down, shouldn’t we first ask: is he really all that bad? After all, which is more favorable: an illiberal democracy that Fareed Zakaria condemns in the piece we read, or a liberal dictatorship, under which Pakistan seemed to flourish?  What role do the fundamentalists play in a post-Musharraf democracy? Is a new regime really good for “development” or not?

Pakistan Today - Asia Society Event

I tuned into Asia Society's webcast of "Pakistan Today:  The Musharraf Government Makes its Case".  I have to say that I came away with a slightly different perspective, a little more sympathetic towards the Musharraf government and a little more skeptical of the Pakistan judiciary.

American Democracy in Eastern Europe?

I had the wonderful opportunity to attend the AUDEM Conference in Katowice, Poland in early November as apart of my capstone project. AUDEM stands for the Association of Universities for Democracy and was founded in the late 1990's in order to promote democracy, human, and economic development in Eastern Europe. There were approximately 150 university professors from all over the world coming together in order discuss democracy, education, social work, and civic engagement. As a graduate student it was interesting to be on the "inside" of an international conference aimed at professors. The majority of the professors represented were from the United States and Eastern Europe (Romania, Ukraine, Poland, and Russia).
The confrence was composed of a few plenary sessions, with the main tracks being: Education and Civic Engagement, Transitional Societies, and Social Work. I attended the Education and Civic Engagement track. Each track consisted of different presentations of research of either students or faculty.
The purpose of conference is to promote democracy in Eastern Europe. It was interesting that all of those representing "democracy" were from the United States. My observation was that the dialogue was heavily American focusing on some "how to's" of democracy and civic engagement. It was no surprise that the question arose of how these same techniques of increasing civic engagement in the United States would be applied to the Eastern European context.
However, this question was never directly addressed. The context of the formation of the American democracy was an extremely unique context. People left their home countries in persuit of religious and political freedom. The founding fathers of this country founded this democracy on the ideal of justice and equality for all, as flawed as it was, it was a foundational ideal. These unique features, in addition to other factors in which the American democracy was created, are specific to the American democracy. The vision of AUDEM to promote democratic ideals and functions, is a good idea in the sense of promoting justice and equality. However, the majority of what the Eastern European professors took home, were applications of student involvement from clubs and organizations in an American university. The Eastern European context is not the American context. The past of communism, socialism, and war are historical and cultural factors that are difficult for americans to conceptualize. I feel that as much time and energy went into this conference, more concentrated effort could have been put into addressing the barriers to democracy in the universities that Eastern Europe is facing and what the professors of the universities in Eastern Europe would want to see, and working on how to move forward towards their goals, together.

Is democracy a good thing?

I believe that some countries will suffer if they lose their dictators. The chaos following the change will destroy whatever was built at this point. A country I am thinking about is Uzbekistan. The current “President” have ruled and reigned there since 1991, since independence. A friend of mine used to joke during "elections" in 2002, “The question asked is “Do you want me to be a President or do you want me to be a President?” Karimov is on the 5^th place among World Ten Worst Dictators. But when in May 2005 there was a rebellion in Andijan I was hoping that state troops would suppress it very fast. Because if they did not the country would have been totally lost in anarchy and disarray. I feel very sorry for the blood that was shed, I cried when I saw horrible pictures because I walked on those streets. But when the uprising was finally quelled I was almost happy...

And I would guess Uzbekistan is not the only country that benefits from dictatorship at this point. Iron hand is good sometimes… At lease we did not have a civil war like our neighboring Tadjikistan…

By the way, I was very-very surprised that not so many people in class consider the US a democratic state.

A question for comments.

I saw a demonstration near Ground Zero with signs “Thank God for 9/11” and “9/11 is the righteous punishment”. Or yesterday I saw in the news how portraits of Bush were burnt in the Middle East. Is it free speech? Isn’t that too free speech?

Blog Leader: Posting 2

I am in the middle of my readings for next week and my mind keeps wandering to a trip I took to Cuba in 2003. Although I had strong opinions about Cuba prior to my visit, from the moment I landed in Cuba, I have been unable to collect my thoughts.

My assignment was to gather information about Cuba’s HIV/AIDS policy, specifically, mandatory testing and quarantining. Paul Farmer’s book briefly touches upon this issue, and it was comforting to see that he too, was unsure, or unwilling, to place judgment on Cuba’s approach.

Nonetheless, my discomfort with Cuba went deeper than HIV/AIDS policy. I found the police at every corner frightening, the abundance of stray and diseased animals sad, the upbeat tempo of the people charming, and the architecture beautiful. Everything I experienced was bittersweet.

How does an aberration like Cuba fit into the development debate? With Evo Morales, a newly elected left-leaning president, in Bolivia, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and other left leaning leaders in Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Ecuador- could something be changing in Latin America?

I wish we could know what Cuba would be like today if Castro was unable to blame his imperialist neighbor for the problems Cuba is experiencing.

A House Divided: The North and the South of India

Back in October, Amelia wrote How does India feel that 5/6 of its land neighbors are being classified as potentially failed states?? Do failed states make bad neighbors, I wondered? in this entry.

I also wondered about this question, but thought the question could be tweaked to ask, "How do Indian states feel when their neighbors could be classified as potentially failed states if they were independent entities?"

If you look at development indicators, crime statistics, or even simple anecdotal stories, you find a pattern in India.  Southern India for the most part has seen faster economic growth, better governance, and better developmental stats (such as literacy, male-to-female ratios, etc) than much of the North.  It is not a coincidence that the two largest centers of IT are in the South -- Bangalore and Hyderabad, state capitals of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh respectively.  Contrast that with north Indian states in the Hindi-belt like Bihar or Uttar Pradesh, from which polio cases still emanate, though the rest of India has eliminated the threat of polio.

Bihar is a classic example of failed governance and failed development within the Indian Union.  Bihar has for the past 15 years remained a personal fiefdom of Laloo Prasad Yadav.  He was indicted for corruption charges, and was forced to give up his position as Chief Minister.  His wife then was put in his place, though it was an open secret that she was merely a puppet while Laloo dealt with the charges against him.  He was able to keep power through two traditionally disenfranchised groups – Muslims and lower-caste Hindus who supported his RJD Party.  Under his leadership, Bihar came to have an unsavory reputation in much of India.  It became known as the kidnap capital of India; the situation became so dire that doctors went on strike a few years ago for the repeated kidnapping and ransoming of medical professionals throughout the state.  Bihar became so ungovernable that the state was even split in two.  The state of Jharkhand was created in 2000, ostensibly to provide greater representation for tribal groups.  Still, Indian commentators at the time noted that Jharkhand residents were not unthankful to create a government free of Laloo Prasad.

In a recent series of articles in the NY Times, Amy Waldman has written about the new highway system in India.  Known as the Golden Quadrilateral, the new highways are on par with typical highways in the US.  Having been on the older highways in India, I say that you would be lucky to get above 50 km/hour, and if you did, you would fear for your life.  Well, as construction has continued for the Golden Quadrilateral in the section connecting Delhi with Kolkotta (Calcutta), it is passing through Bihar.  Engineers mostly from southern India and from South Korea have been attacked and some held for ransom.  Waldman notes that engineers from Andhra Pradesh as well as South Korea felt ill-at-ease in Bihar, and both groups felt it to be quite different from home.

So, that raises the question, what will happen in India as parts of the country continue to develop faster than other parts?  Jeffrey Sachs and his co-authors in a paper entitled Understanding Regional Economic Growth in India (Asian Economic Papers, Sept 2002), found that per capita incomes (obviously only one method to measure development) diverged between 1980 and 1998 in fourteen major Indian states.  While richer states tended to have their per capita incomes converge on each other, the poorer states remained behind.

What will happen to those left behind?  One can easily imagine that ethnic and linguistic tensions which have simmered across India since independence might be exacerbated by the larger migrations made possible by infrastructure projects such as the Golden Quadrilateral.  In places like the Northeast, ethnic tensions due to economic migrations by Bengalis into Assam and Manipur have already lead to riots.  While religious communalism and caste discrimination tend to grab the headlines in the West, Indians have not forgotten about the periodic violence that erupts throughout much of India when large groups of people migrate away from their homes to other regions or states.  In a country where the so-called national language is spoken by less than half the population and thousands of sub-castes (jatis in Sanskrit) and ethnic groups exist, India has very high ethnolinguistic fractionalization. India also has the unfortunate potential to erupt into violence if development continues to remain so uneven.

Development and Democracy in South Korea

I am writing to point out some factors that I see as important to South Korea's rapid economic growth . As we discussed in class, South Korea, one of Asian Togers, achieved high growth by pursuing an export-driven trade policy, domestic market protection, and a human investment policy.

I believe that the most important factor in South Korea's economic growth was a long period of political and social stability. In terms of security, the presence of U.S. forces lessened the security burden in South Korea. Even President Park's authoritarian rule provided the state with the political and socual stability that was necessary for economic development. There is no question that the authoritarian regime restricted human rights and democracy. However, strong leadership and political stability are needed for poor countries to realize economic growth. According to mordenization theory, the level of democracy is related to economic development. South Korea recorded rapid economic growth until 1980, but subsequently suffered political upheaval, social disorder, and economic cirsis in the course of promoting democracy. Today, Korea is a member of OECD and is trying to become a true developed country.

It is best to pursue democracy and development together and many donor countries want poor countries to pursue economic development and to become democratic. If someone pushes me to choose between economic growth and democracy, I will definitely prefer the economic growth with restricted democracy over a weak democracy and severe poverty. Therefore, when we discuss the economic development of poor countries, we should think of what the people want, not of what the donor wants.

I am writing to point out some factors that I see as important to South Korea's rapid economic growth . As we discussed in class, South Korea, one of Asian Togers, achieved high growth by pursuing an export-driven trade policy, domestic market protection, and a human investment policy.

I believe that the most important factor in South Korea's economic growth was a long period of political and social stability. In terms of security, the presence of U.S. forces lessened the security burden in South Korea. Even President Park's authoritarian rule provided the state with the political and socual stability that was necessary for economic development. There is no question that the authoritarian regime restricted human rights and democracy. However, strong leadership and political stability are needed for poor countries to realize economic growth. According to mordenization theory, the level of democracy is related to economic development. South Korea recorded rapid economic growth until 1980, but subsequently suffered political upheaval, social disorder, and economic cirsis in the course of promoting democracy. Today, Korea is a member of OECD and is trying to become a true developed country.

It is best to pursue democracy and development together and many donor countries want poor countries to pursue economic development and to become democratic. If someone pushes me to choose between economic growth and democracy, I will definitely prefer the economic growth with restricted democracy over a weak democracy and severe poverty. Therefore, when we discuss the economic development of poor countries, we should think of what the people want, not of what the donor wants.

Welcome

Welcome to the DevPolitics Weblog. While posting will be limited to students, comments are welcome.