Tomorrow marks Bolivia's elections, the first time Bolivia has elected prefectos (the heads of the provinces) in addition to the national congress and president. The presidential election itself pits two diametrically opposed candidates against each other: Jorge "Tuto" Quiroga of the right-leaning Podemos (Democratic and Social Power) party, and Evo Morales of the MAS (Movement toward Socialism). There could hardly be a bigger contrast between Quiroga, who is Harvard-educated, has an American wife and was vice-president for the conservative president and ex-military leader Hugo Bánzer, and Morales, an indigenous anti-U.S. leader who advocates liberalization of coca growing and is backed by Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.
This is a tough election for me in terms of who to sympathize with. Quiroga and Morales are clearly the two leading candidates, and one of them will be chosen president by the new congress, since neither will take 50% of the vote. This means the results of the congressional elections are also important. Despite my sympathies with the Left and the alienation of the indigenous population, I am going to prove myself to be one of the right-leaning social democrats and endorse Tuto Quiroga, who I believe has the expertise necessary to lead Bolivia to a more cohesive development strategy and constitutional reform with the constituent assembly in 2006. I am unimpressed by Morales' rhetoric, his refusal to debate other candidates and the lack of clarity in the MAS platform.
In Chile, as was expected, the Concertación candidate Michelle Bachelet was unable to reach 50% of the vote and the election will go to a runoff between Bachelet and the moderate-right wealthy businessman Sebastián Piñera. This election is not as divisive, and it is easy for me to come out for Michelle Bachelet, although I am unhappy that Bachelet and the coalition have decided to press electoral reform at this moment, when it seems like little more than a means to divide the opposition Alianza. The Bachelet slogan is "más" ... more of the Concertación, which has governed Chile for 16 years. But under Chile's two-bloc system, the Left remains the best choice.
Later, comments on Canada's prime ministerial debate, and more...
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Counting the ballots...
It's a sign of my obsession that I'm here writing this (hopefully short) blog entry instead of studying for my 2:30 final in Latin American Political Economy, although to be fair I've spent a number of hours thus far on the material.
The polls are closed in Iraq and no major incidents have been reported. It's an emotional day for everyone, as I've said I admire all the Iraqis who went out to vote today and the fact that they truly believe in the governance of their country by themselves. It is definitely a strong counterpoint to the cynicism we face here in the United States and all other democracies face from time to time, and though there are surely deficiencies in the system (especially in the American system from my POV) it is still democracy and we are still infinitely better off than most of the world.
I browsed Iraq the Model and the BBC today and found Omar and Mohammed generally optimistic (as always) and the BBC a bit more balanced although the BBC was also optimistic and reported the huge numbers of Iraqis turning out to vote and their enthusiasm for the process. They even quoted election officials as saying Anbar was relatively calm. One of the problems the BBC brought up was a female candidate from Basra who campaigned against the influence of the Islamist militia down there and pointed out how difficult the situation has become in the south for those who oppose the theocracy, and quite honestly that might be one of the biggest problems for a new government--how to avoid the partition of Iraq into different self governing states within a state as a "compromise" rather than creating a united and secular and liberal Iraq that many Iraqis (and we of course here in the U.S.) want to see.
Hopefully we will see a quicker ballot count this time around as last time it seemed to take forever to get some results. Admittedly, the most important thing is getting the count right, but in that regard a quicker count generally diminishes the possibility of fraud. The new Council of Representatives is due to be sworn in by year's end and the government formed rather quickly after that. Only after the results are out can there be any educated speculation about the composition and programme of a new government.
This was one of my favorite pictures, it is an Iraqi voter born in 1900 going to the polls today... the picture is from Iraq the Model and they have a lot of really great pictures of election day at the site, I encourage anyone reading this to check out their accounts from across the country. I am just going to link to it so nobody gets mad at me for breaking someone's rights...
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/oo184-783457.jpg
And now back to the books for the last couple hours!
The polls are closed in Iraq and no major incidents have been reported. It's an emotional day for everyone, as I've said I admire all the Iraqis who went out to vote today and the fact that they truly believe in the governance of their country by themselves. It is definitely a strong counterpoint to the cynicism we face here in the United States and all other democracies face from time to time, and though there are surely deficiencies in the system (especially in the American system from my POV) it is still democracy and we are still infinitely better off than most of the world.
I browsed Iraq the Model and the BBC today and found Omar and Mohammed generally optimistic (as always) and the BBC a bit more balanced although the BBC was also optimistic and reported the huge numbers of Iraqis turning out to vote and their enthusiasm for the process. They even quoted election officials as saying Anbar was relatively calm. One of the problems the BBC brought up was a female candidate from Basra who campaigned against the influence of the Islamist militia down there and pointed out how difficult the situation has become in the south for those who oppose the theocracy, and quite honestly that might be one of the biggest problems for a new government--how to avoid the partition of Iraq into different self governing states within a state as a "compromise" rather than creating a united and secular and liberal Iraq that many Iraqis (and we of course here in the U.S.) want to see.
Hopefully we will see a quicker ballot count this time around as last time it seemed to take forever to get some results. Admittedly, the most important thing is getting the count right, but in that regard a quicker count generally diminishes the possibility of fraud. The new Council of Representatives is due to be sworn in by year's end and the government formed rather quickly after that. Only after the results are out can there be any educated speculation about the composition and programme of a new government.
This was one of my favorite pictures, it is an Iraqi voter born in 1900 going to the polls today... the picture is from Iraq the Model and they have a lot of really great pictures of election day at the site, I encourage anyone reading this to check out their accounts from across the country. I am just going to link to it so nobody gets mad at me for breaking someone's rights...
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/oo184-783457.jpg
And now back to the books for the last couple hours!
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Iraq is voting again!
The first voters in Iraq's parliamentary election are heading to the polls as the military, people in hospitals and prisons have voted and Iraqis abroad are voting as well. As before the major contenders are the Shia-religious UIA list, Allawi's secular list and the Kurdish united list, joined now by the National Accord Front of the Sunni.
The electoral system for this election is different as well, with most of the seats allocated on a provincial level by the d'Hondt system. This will ensure that all groups have representation regionally regardless of how many people turn out in the region. There is also a pool of national compensatory seats which will probably help out smaller parties which might have been left out due to the smaller constituency size, as well as make the overall result proportional.
It would probably be correct to anticipate the UIA triumph but it will certainly be of a smaller proportion than in the last election, with the addition of the Sunni and increasing popularity of secular national lists such as Allawi's and the others led by al-Kubba and Chalabi.
All that is necessary for a government under the new constitution is an absolute majority of the House of Representatives (and not two-thirds as under the TAL) so the Shia-Kurdish coalition might be able to continue governing, but whether that coalition will survive or whether the Kurds will leave to work with someone like Allawi and other secular lists is open to question.
At any rate, it is exciting to see the Iraqis voting again with enthusiasm for the permanent government and to see the constitution implemented and in action. And while I may have disagreed with the reasoning for the war in the first place I can't help but be excited for the people who have the right to choose their government for the first time and be happy with the enthusiasm and alacrity they have clearly displayed over the past months in embracing the democratic process.
The electoral system for this election is different as well, with most of the seats allocated on a provincial level by the d'Hondt system. This will ensure that all groups have representation regionally regardless of how many people turn out in the region. There is also a pool of national compensatory seats which will probably help out smaller parties which might have been left out due to the smaller constituency size, as well as make the overall result proportional.
It would probably be correct to anticipate the UIA triumph but it will certainly be of a smaller proportion than in the last election, with the addition of the Sunni and increasing popularity of secular national lists such as Allawi's and the others led by al-Kubba and Chalabi.
All that is necessary for a government under the new constitution is an absolute majority of the House of Representatives (and not two-thirds as under the TAL) so the Shia-Kurdish coalition might be able to continue governing, but whether that coalition will survive or whether the Kurds will leave to work with someone like Allawi and other secular lists is open to question.
At any rate, it is exciting to see the Iraqis voting again with enthusiasm for the permanent government and to see the constitution implemented and in action. And while I may have disagreed with the reasoning for the war in the first place I can't help but be excited for the people who have the right to choose their government for the first time and be happy with the enthusiasm and alacrity they have clearly displayed over the past months in embracing the democratic process.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Four more years... six more years?
After a brisk day of voting in Chile the ruling Concertación has taken a majority in the Congress of Deputies for another four-year term, controlling the lower house for 20 years (since the 1989 elections returned democracy). The opposition right-wing Alliance could not duplicate its best performance, from four years ago, and dropped to around 39% of the vote. Despite that, the Alliance remains overrepresented with 54 of the 120 seats, and the Concertación took 65 on 51-52% of the vote. The coalition of Communists and Humanists failed to win a single seat thanks to the two-seat Chilean constituencies.
Congress of Deputies results since 1989
*with 97% counted
The Alianza lost almost no seats (only 2.5%) despite a 5-6% drop in votes due to the electoral system. Now that this system is no longer constitutionally mandated, it would seem logical that the next government would do away with the system, replacing it perhaps with a regional MMP system (a measure I would not support).
The presidential elections
The failure of the Alliance to unite behind a single presidential candidate may have hurt its chances in the legislative race, but it did not affect the outcome of the election for the presidency. The leading candidate, Renovación Nacional's Sebastián Piñera, came out with just over 25% of the vote. The UDI's Joaquín Lavín, Alliance flag-bearer in 1999, took 23%, while the Concertación candidate Michelle Bachelet wound up with about 45% of the vote, meaning a runoff between her and Piñera (who likely stole many Christian Democrat votes).
The smart money is still on Bachelet to extend the Concertación to 22 years in the presidency, and be Chile's first female president, but the results indicate that it will be a tough race, much like the hard-fought 1999 contest.
Congress of Deputies results since 1989
| 1989 | % | 1993 | % | 1997 | % | 2001 | % | |
| Concertación | 69 | 51,49% | 70 | 55,40% | 69 | 50,51% | 62 | 47,90% |
| Alianza | 48 | 34,18% | 50 | 36,68% | 47 | 36,26% | 57 | 44,27% |
| list | 2005 | %* |
| Concertación | 65 | 51,8% |
| Alianza | 54 | 38,7% |
The Alianza lost almost no seats (only 2.5%) despite a 5-6% drop in votes due to the electoral system. Now that this system is no longer constitutionally mandated, it would seem logical that the next government would do away with the system, replacing it perhaps with a regional MMP system (a measure I would not support).
The presidential elections
The failure of the Alliance to unite behind a single presidential candidate may have hurt its chances in the legislative race, but it did not affect the outcome of the election for the presidency. The leading candidate, Renovación Nacional's Sebastián Piñera, came out with just over 25% of the vote. The UDI's Joaquín Lavín, Alliance flag-bearer in 1999, took 23%, while the Concertación candidate Michelle Bachelet wound up with about 45% of the vote, meaning a runoff between her and Piñera (who likely stole many Christian Democrat votes).
The smart money is still on Bachelet to extend the Concertación to 22 years in the presidency, and be Chile's first female president, but the results indicate that it will be a tough race, much like the hard-fought 1999 contest.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Two months, two big elections
As an election nerd one of my biggest thrills comes when a government falls from a motion of no confidence, as we saw today in Canada, where as expected, Paul Martin lost a vote in the Commons and will face a ballot at some point in mid-January. I took time during one of my classes to sketch out the basic alignment of the Commons and what we can expect from these polls:
The Liberals have a minority government but are the only party capable of winning seats everywhere in Canada. The NDP and Conservatives can't win in Quebec, and the Conservatives are weak in Ontario and the Maritimes. Of course, the NDP is pretty much third everywhere and therefore receives only scattered seats.
This means that the Liberals are the only party that even has potential to form a government, unless the Conservatives moderate themselves and wind up... well, essentially where the old Tories were, and enough to win a plurality in Ontario, which will not happen according to current polls. However, it appears unlikely that the Liberals will win much in the West, and they'll likely get hammered by the Bloc in Quebec. Many of the 21 ridings (of 75) the Liberals took in Quebec the last time around were lopsided, but in 6, the Bloc came within 5%.
So, what can happen? Well, the Conservatives can come up with a moderate platform and take enough Ontario and Maritime seats to take the government; but they'd need to improve immensely. They already hold 68 of 92 Western ridings; further improvement will have to come from Ontario where they won only 24 of 106 ridings with 31.5% of the vote (to 42% for the Liberals). Taking another 10 Western ridings and even half the Ontario ridings (53) puts the Conservatives up 39 seats, still only 137 seats, 18 short of a majority. And the Conservatives lack a potential coalition partner, even supply partner, in the Commons.
The essential problem is that Canada's FPP system has become regionalized, and individual parties are maintaining strong grips on each area. The Conservative success in loosening the Liberal hold on Ontario and the Maritimes has just meant that nobody can form a government; the Bloc is overrepresented thanks to FPP (17.5 percent of seats on 12.5 percent of the vote) but is not a potential coalition partner for anyone due to disagreements on the essence of the Canadian state.
What can the parties do about this? The Conservatives can become more moderate and try to appeal to Quebec voters; this will probably happen with time, but not by January. The Liberals can try many things: moving even further right, thereby opening space to the NDP (especially in the West) but perhaps recapturing some Conservative ridings in Ontario; moving back left, reducing NDP votes in marginal constituencies in the West and perhaps recapturing them from Conservatives, but at the same time perhaps losing ground in Ontario and other Western constituencies if the Conservatives present a more moderate platform; and finally, actually allying with the NDP to present only one center-left candidate in marginal Western constituencies.
Each strategy has its weak points, and an actual alliance with the NDP seems out of the question. In the end, the likely outcome of this election is exactly what we got out of the last election--a weak minority government. Anti-incumbent sentiment will continue to build against the Liberals, counterbalanced by those who want stable government and know only the Liberals have any chance of reaching a majority. Meanwhile, there might be more strategic voting, especially in three-party Western constituencies, where many ridings were lost to Conservatives by Liberal/NDP vote splitting (see B.C.: 22 of 36 ridings to the Conservatives with only 36% of the vote). If the center and left can win a few more seats, a formal Liberal/NDP coalition or at least somewhat more formal support arrangement might result.
When I have more time I'll discuss the upcoming presidential and legislative elections in Chile as the Concertacion will continue in office for another six years...
addendum: Number of Liberal seats in Ontario with 5% or less margin over Conservatives: 7 of 75
The Liberals have a minority government but are the only party capable of winning seats everywhere in Canada. The NDP and Conservatives can't win in Quebec, and the Conservatives are weak in Ontario and the Maritimes. Of course, the NDP is pretty much third everywhere and therefore receives only scattered seats.
This means that the Liberals are the only party that even has potential to form a government, unless the Conservatives moderate themselves and wind up... well, essentially where the old Tories were, and enough to win a plurality in Ontario, which will not happen according to current polls. However, it appears unlikely that the Liberals will win much in the West, and they'll likely get hammered by the Bloc in Quebec. Many of the 21 ridings (of 75) the Liberals took in Quebec the last time around were lopsided, but in 6, the Bloc came within 5%.
So, what can happen? Well, the Conservatives can come up with a moderate platform and take enough Ontario and Maritime seats to take the government; but they'd need to improve immensely. They already hold 68 of 92 Western ridings; further improvement will have to come from Ontario where they won only 24 of 106 ridings with 31.5% of the vote (to 42% for the Liberals). Taking another 10 Western ridings and even half the Ontario ridings (53) puts the Conservatives up 39 seats, still only 137 seats, 18 short of a majority. And the Conservatives lack a potential coalition partner, even supply partner, in the Commons.
The essential problem is that Canada's FPP system has become regionalized, and individual parties are maintaining strong grips on each area. The Conservative success in loosening the Liberal hold on Ontario and the Maritimes has just meant that nobody can form a government; the Bloc is overrepresented thanks to FPP (17.5 percent of seats on 12.5 percent of the vote) but is not a potential coalition partner for anyone due to disagreements on the essence of the Canadian state.
What can the parties do about this? The Conservatives can become more moderate and try to appeal to Quebec voters; this will probably happen with time, but not by January. The Liberals can try many things: moving even further right, thereby opening space to the NDP (especially in the West) but perhaps recapturing some Conservative ridings in Ontario; moving back left, reducing NDP votes in marginal constituencies in the West and perhaps recapturing them from Conservatives, but at the same time perhaps losing ground in Ontario and other Western constituencies if the Conservatives present a more moderate platform; and finally, actually allying with the NDP to present only one center-left candidate in marginal Western constituencies.
Each strategy has its weak points, and an actual alliance with the NDP seems out of the question. In the end, the likely outcome of this election is exactly what we got out of the last election--a weak minority government. Anti-incumbent sentiment will continue to build against the Liberals, counterbalanced by those who want stable government and know only the Liberals have any chance of reaching a majority. Meanwhile, there might be more strategic voting, especially in three-party Western constituencies, where many ridings were lost to Conservatives by Liberal/NDP vote splitting (see B.C.: 22 of 36 ridings to the Conservatives with only 36% of the vote). If the center and left can win a few more seats, a formal Liberal/NDP coalition or at least somewhat more formal support arrangement might result.
When I have more time I'll discuss the upcoming presidential and legislative elections in Chile as the Concertacion will continue in office for another six years...
addendum: Number of Liberal seats in Ontario with 5% or less margin over Conservatives: 7 of 75
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Sharon will leave the Likud!
Israeli PM Ariel Sharon is to leave Likud and start his own "centrist party" campaigning mainly for the continuity of Sharon's diplomatic policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians and mitigated free-market economics.
This departure changes the face of Israeli politics in the short-term although as Ha'aretz pointed out, it is clearly a one-term party and many people who are currently high in government are reluctant to leave high spots on their lists to join the Sharon list. Not only would they be potentially sacrificing longer term gains but spot #3 on a different list is well better than spot #8 or 9 on Sharon's.
The question is just how well the new party will do. Labor is rejuvenated under Amir Peretz as a real party of opposition and likely will perform well. Likud will attract the secular-hard-right voters but just how many of those there are is open to question. Sharon will get most of the pragmatists. The losers, by the same token, are the parties of the secular hard right (National Union), Shinui which will likely see votes stolen by Sharon, and Yahad which will see its votes taken by Peretz's Labor.
The consequences of Sharon's move will be seen over the next few weeks and months, but it seems as though there will be an at least somewhat more moderate government to begin the next Knesset.
This departure changes the face of Israeli politics in the short-term although as Ha'aretz pointed out, it is clearly a one-term party and many people who are currently high in government are reluctant to leave high spots on their lists to join the Sharon list. Not only would they be potentially sacrificing longer term gains but spot #3 on a different list is well better than spot #8 or 9 on Sharon's.
The question is just how well the new party will do. Labor is rejuvenated under Amir Peretz as a real party of opposition and likely will perform well. Likud will attract the secular-hard-right voters but just how many of those there are is open to question. Sharon will get most of the pragmatists. The losers, by the same token, are the parties of the secular hard right (National Union), Shinui which will likely see votes stolen by Sharon, and Yahad which will see its votes taken by Peretz's Labor.
The consequences of Sharon's move will be seen over the next few weeks and months, but it seems as though there will be an at least somewhat more moderate government to begin the next Knesset.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Keeping an eye on Africa
Well, to nobody's surprise Compaore has won his "hard-fought campaign" to be "reelected" to the presidency of Burkina Faso... the last few months have seen a lot of reversals for democracy in Africa. To point out just a few: the persecution of opponents in Senegal, Nino Vieira's return in Guinea-Bissau, the failure of conflict resolution in Cote d'Ivoire, Faure's perhaps fraudulent win in Togo, the apparent split of Zimbabwe's MDC, Meles' repression in Ethiopia, the amended new constitution in Kenya...
In between these negatives there are some lights... Burundi held elections and the ex rebels are now a majority in Parliament, and Nkurunziza their leader has become president. Of course, they still confront the rebels from FNL. In Liberia democratic elections were held and a woman president elected, but there is trouble as George Weah will not accept the results (exactly what the country does not need right now is a dispute and everyone should hope that Weah will realize that soon). Mauritania is ambiguous as the new military group has so far taken the right steps, but must be watched closely.
In between all of this, Somaliland remains one of the success stories. In a neighborhood where nobody else has successfully democratized, the Somalilanders have held peaceful municipal, presidential and parliamentary elections. Of course the government in Hargeysa still sits without international recognition and little aid, though the EU and U.S. try to help as they can. But the country weathered a very close and contentious presidential election without violence, and the parliamentary polls gave none of the three permitted parties a majority, meaning they will have to work together. It's too bad that politics have prohibited anyone from recognizing this government because it's one of the few on the continent that has had any success.
By the same token, perhaps it is that same lack of recognition and much more scruitinizing international eye that has facilitated Somaliland's democratization. Leaders of the fledgling state know that they must be accountable if they are to have hope of gaining recongition, and any aid at all. Meanwhile there are fewer aid scraps and patronage positions to fight about; government is not a flowing spigot of aid, because there is little aid and much must be channeled through other organizations.
As much as Africa is in dire need of economic renewal, the current model is not working. This has been recognized, of course, and steps taken, but the latest of them, NEPAD, is a joke. Perhaps what is needed is much more stringent standards and the end of any aid directly to African governments, as this aid seems to just create flawed incentive structures and encourage rent-seeking.
Or, perhaps not... I don't pretend to know the issue thoroughly enough, yet.
A note on tuition
So I ranted about tuition the other day and explained that I favor a higher-tuition model. Here's something else to take into account that I hadn't put together, even though I really should have (heard it in a class today):
What is our state's tax structure like? Regressive and favoring the wealthy (to the tune of, lowest brackets $30k and below pay 4 times as much percentage-wise as higher brackets $130k-plus).
Who is more likely to get into my university? People in the upper and middle classes.
Who does a low-tuition model really favor?
In between these negatives there are some lights... Burundi held elections and the ex rebels are now a majority in Parliament, and Nkurunziza their leader has become president. Of course, they still confront the rebels from FNL. In Liberia democratic elections were held and a woman president elected, but there is trouble as George Weah will not accept the results (exactly what the country does not need right now is a dispute and everyone should hope that Weah will realize that soon). Mauritania is ambiguous as the new military group has so far taken the right steps, but must be watched closely.
In between all of this, Somaliland remains one of the success stories. In a neighborhood where nobody else has successfully democratized, the Somalilanders have held peaceful municipal, presidential and parliamentary elections. Of course the government in Hargeysa still sits without international recognition and little aid, though the EU and U.S. try to help as they can. But the country weathered a very close and contentious presidential election without violence, and the parliamentary polls gave none of the three permitted parties a majority, meaning they will have to work together. It's too bad that politics have prohibited anyone from recognizing this government because it's one of the few on the continent that has had any success.
By the same token, perhaps it is that same lack of recognition and much more scruitinizing international eye that has facilitated Somaliland's democratization. Leaders of the fledgling state know that they must be accountable if they are to have hope of gaining recongition, and any aid at all. Meanwhile there are fewer aid scraps and patronage positions to fight about; government is not a flowing spigot of aid, because there is little aid and much must be channeled through other organizations.
As much as Africa is in dire need of economic renewal, the current model is not working. This has been recognized, of course, and steps taken, but the latest of them, NEPAD, is a joke. Perhaps what is needed is much more stringent standards and the end of any aid directly to African governments, as this aid seems to just create flawed incentive structures and encourage rent-seeking.
Or, perhaps not... I don't pretend to know the issue thoroughly enough, yet.
A note on tuition
So I ranted about tuition the other day and explained that I favor a higher-tuition model. Here's something else to take into account that I hadn't put together, even though I really should have (heard it in a class today):
What is our state's tax structure like? Regressive and favoring the wealthy (to the tune of, lowest brackets $30k and below pay 4 times as much percentage-wise as higher brackets $130k-plus).
Who is more likely to get into my university? People in the upper and middle classes.
Who does a low-tuition model really favor?
Monday, November 14, 2005
Motivations of a suicide bomber
Today I went to see the Palestinian movie Paradise Now. I try to take the opportunity to see movies from Palestine when I can, because there aren't that many of them, and they're inevitably influenced by the occupation, so it's interesting to see the political angle. Moreover, I just like seeing the scenery and shots from Palestine and Israel.
This particular movie takes place mostly in Nablus but with scenes in other areas and Tel Aviv as well. The main characters, Said and Khaled, are best friends and have asked to be selected as suicide bombers. Whichever militant group they are involved with decides that it is time, and selects them to go on a mission to Tel Aviv.
Paradise Now isn't asking us to pardon suicide bombers; it's asking us to understand why they do what they do. I actually think it could do a better job of that--Americans in general don't understand very well the living conditions in the territories and, while the characters talk a lot about how they live in prison (and it's true), I don't think we see enough in Paradise Now to justify the talk. We do, however, see that suicide bombers are people, and they do what they do for a reason, however unjustifiable their acts are.
This particular movie takes place mostly in Nablus but with scenes in other areas and Tel Aviv as well. The main characters, Said and Khaled, are best friends and have asked to be selected as suicide bombers. Whichever militant group they are involved with decides that it is time, and selects them to go on a mission to Tel Aviv.
Paradise Now isn't asking us to pardon suicide bombers; it's asking us to understand why they do what they do. I actually think it could do a better job of that--Americans in general don't understand very well the living conditions in the territories and, while the characters talk a lot about how they live in prison (and it's true), I don't think we see enough in Paradise Now to justify the talk. We do, however, see that suicide bombers are people, and they do what they do for a reason, however unjustifiable their acts are.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Ah, rational choice
Well, there's certainly a lot going on in the world these days, and it's been a long time since I've been blogging. It's election day today in the States, meaning that for once, local politics is on my mind.
Today the student government body I serve in started discussing our student union's legislative program, that is, what guides our lobbyist. I can't help but reflect on the fact that most of the issues we'd like to see addressed in the coming months and years will not be, as a result of the fact that our state Legislature is so constrained by citizen initiatives and the general hatred of taxation that has evolved in this state despite our social liberality. We can't retain top faculty and remain in the first tier without either more state funding, a radically altered tuition model or both.
That said, I'd be happy to make the pitch for a different tuition model. There's a lot of sentiment against what people are calling the "Robin Hood" model, i.e. an explicitly different level of tuition depending on income, the "sliding scale." I don't advocate that, but I do advocate a moderately higher level of tuition in keeping with other institutions of our caliber across the country, and a corresponding increase in grants and scholarships (and secondarily, loans) in order to allow lower-income students to continue attending the university. I'm also pro-affirmative action (on a primarily economic basis) and, though racial affirmative action is prohibited in our state, I agree with race being a factor in admissions.
Opposing the low-tuition model is unpopular, but realistically is the only way to go. In addition to the revenues, higher tuition levels create a greater incentive to graduate earlier, further relieving the pressure on our University's limited resources. It's worth noting too that there's greater incentive to do well, the more you're paying for an education.
Citizen initiatives are stupid
This brings me to the "citizen initiatives are stupid" opinion I've held for a long time. Simply put, information costs mean that most citizens don't consider all aspects of an issue. A guy I live with today commented to me something along the lines of "we should elect people to read about these issues for us and vote on them." I noted that, theoretically, such people are referred to in our state constitution as the Legislature.
Now, there could certainly be changes to the Legislature; but honestly, I believe the problems with the state legislature are problems common in the American system across the country, and I seriously doubt a switch to a proportional-representation parliamentary system is at hand. (I do, however, advocate radically reducing the number of elected positions in order to minimize information costs and allow citizens to focus on gathering information for major races.)
But the major point I'm getting at here is that citizen initiatives (and citizen-initiated referendums) are ridiculous. Whoever can afford to bankroll an initiative can get it on the ballot, and great sums of money are spent on convincing the public of some point they can only consider in isolation. When considering a new tax, the public doesn't have the scope of the entire state budget to look at and realize what rejecting the tax will do, in terms of further tying the Legislature's hands and leading to painful cuts in social spending (and no new transportation projects that are desperately needed). It's worth noting that California's crisis was worsened by the fact that about two-thirds of their state budget is specifically dedicated from individual taxes, and cannot be changed by the state Legislature.
The Legislature are the ones who know what the hell is going on. Let them do their jobs.
Please.
World events
There's plenty going on today, as always; the Mar del Plata summit ended in disaccord as everyone knew it would; Liberia is electing its (hopefully) postconflict president; France is dealing with an eleventh night of civil unrest; Martin's government in Canada is facing a possible downfall in a few days.
Now the French are hypocrites and also in denial, and (of course) discriminate against their minorities (but who doesn't?). One might note, however, that the anger of minorities against the French government might suggest that pretending that cultural differences don't exist might not be a particularly sane strategy.
In Israel, meanwhile, both parties are in turmoil; Channel One reported that Arik has decided to definitively break from Likud, though that's being denied; meanwhile Labor is due to elect a new leader, choosing between Peres and Amir Peretz. Honestly, it seems like Labor is choosing between being Yachad (Social Democratic Israel) and being Shinui.
At this point, Ha'avoda brings nothing new to the table. But should this be surprising? In the first decades of the Jewish state, Mapai was the party that represented the state, in general, winning ridiculous majorities (which were fated to end as immigration continued, and more cleavages opened in society). Splinter groups continued to break from Mapai, until nothing was left except that core which still tried to reach the "consensus." But there was and is no more consensus, all the ideological groups have split from Labor, and the remaining core is a little group which, under Peres, tries to satisfy everyone and pleases nobody.
Honestly it probably doesn't matter who wins this election. In the short term, Labor's best chance for electoral success probably lies with Amir Peretz. At least he's not guaranteed to bring Labor even further down, though he very well might. But then, what would be the difference between Labor and Beilin's party?
Today the student government body I serve in started discussing our student union's legislative program, that is, what guides our lobbyist. I can't help but reflect on the fact that most of the issues we'd like to see addressed in the coming months and years will not be, as a result of the fact that our state Legislature is so constrained by citizen initiatives and the general hatred of taxation that has evolved in this state despite our social liberality. We can't retain top faculty and remain in the first tier without either more state funding, a radically altered tuition model or both.
That said, I'd be happy to make the pitch for a different tuition model. There's a lot of sentiment against what people are calling the "Robin Hood" model, i.e. an explicitly different level of tuition depending on income, the "sliding scale." I don't advocate that, but I do advocate a moderately higher level of tuition in keeping with other institutions of our caliber across the country, and a corresponding increase in grants and scholarships (and secondarily, loans) in order to allow lower-income students to continue attending the university. I'm also pro-affirmative action (on a primarily economic basis) and, though racial affirmative action is prohibited in our state, I agree with race being a factor in admissions.
Opposing the low-tuition model is unpopular, but realistically is the only way to go. In addition to the revenues, higher tuition levels create a greater incentive to graduate earlier, further relieving the pressure on our University's limited resources. It's worth noting too that there's greater incentive to do well, the more you're paying for an education.
Citizen initiatives are stupid
This brings me to the "citizen initiatives are stupid" opinion I've held for a long time. Simply put, information costs mean that most citizens don't consider all aspects of an issue. A guy I live with today commented to me something along the lines of "we should elect people to read about these issues for us and vote on them." I noted that, theoretically, such people are referred to in our state constitution as the Legislature.
Now, there could certainly be changes to the Legislature; but honestly, I believe the problems with the state legislature are problems common in the American system across the country, and I seriously doubt a switch to a proportional-representation parliamentary system is at hand. (I do, however, advocate radically reducing the number of elected positions in order to minimize information costs and allow citizens to focus on gathering information for major races.)
But the major point I'm getting at here is that citizen initiatives (and citizen-initiated referendums) are ridiculous. Whoever can afford to bankroll an initiative can get it on the ballot, and great sums of money are spent on convincing the public of some point they can only consider in isolation. When considering a new tax, the public doesn't have the scope of the entire state budget to look at and realize what rejecting the tax will do, in terms of further tying the Legislature's hands and leading to painful cuts in social spending (and no new transportation projects that are desperately needed). It's worth noting that California's crisis was worsened by the fact that about two-thirds of their state budget is specifically dedicated from individual taxes, and cannot be changed by the state Legislature.
The Legislature are the ones who know what the hell is going on. Let them do their jobs.
Please.
World events
There's plenty going on today, as always; the Mar del Plata summit ended in disaccord as everyone knew it would; Liberia is electing its (hopefully) postconflict president; France is dealing with an eleventh night of civil unrest; Martin's government in Canada is facing a possible downfall in a few days.
Now the French are hypocrites and also in denial, and (of course) discriminate against their minorities (but who doesn't?). One might note, however, that the anger of minorities against the French government might suggest that pretending that cultural differences don't exist might not be a particularly sane strategy.
In Israel, meanwhile, both parties are in turmoil; Channel One reported that Arik has decided to definitively break from Likud, though that's being denied; meanwhile Labor is due to elect a new leader, choosing between Peres and Amir Peretz. Honestly, it seems like Labor is choosing between being Yachad (Social Democratic Israel) and being Shinui.
At this point, Ha'avoda brings nothing new to the table. But should this be surprising? In the first decades of the Jewish state, Mapai was the party that represented the state, in general, winning ridiculous majorities (which were fated to end as immigration continued, and more cleavages opened in society). Splinter groups continued to break from Mapai, until nothing was left except that core which still tried to reach the "consensus." But there was and is no more consensus, all the ideological groups have split from Labor, and the remaining core is a little group which, under Peres, tries to satisfy everyone and pleases nobody.
Honestly it probably doesn't matter who wins this election. In the short term, Labor's best chance for electoral success probably lies with Amir Peretz. At least he's not guaranteed to bring Labor even further down, though he very well might. But then, what would be the difference between Labor and Beilin's party?
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Worries about the Iraq referendum
I've been busy lately and don't have much time now, either, but I wanted to say a quick word about the developments in Iraq.
How can the Shi'a and Kurdish blocs with a straight face define "voter" in two different ways? Changing the interpretation of the referendum law is a horrible decision. If before we were saying either way, at least the Sunni will participate, this is a way to tell them that their votes don't matter (let alone all the Shi'a and Kurds who might happen to not agree with the constitution). Two-thirds of registered voters is going to be pretty tough especially considering that many might not even turn out in some of the more violent provinces (even though we all agree turnout will go up, it probably won't go up that much).
To explain for those who do not know, what the National Assembly decided is that a majority of voters who actually vote (nationwide) is all that is necessary to ratify the constitution; while two-thirds of registered voters in three provinces are needed to reject it.
So basically this is a blatant attempt by the dominant factions to prevent the constitution from being rejected at all costs. This decision undercuts the political efforts to integrate opposition, particularly Sunni opposition. Fortunately the UN has rejected the idea outright and the bloggers at Iraq the Model were good enough to be quite worried about it as well, though I haven't heard anything from the U.S. government as yet (admittedly I may have missed it).
The most important thing above all, is that everyone feels the October referendum means something. If it doesn't, the best opportunity has been lost.
How can the Shi'a and Kurdish blocs with a straight face define "voter" in two different ways? Changing the interpretation of the referendum law is a horrible decision. If before we were saying either way, at least the Sunni will participate, this is a way to tell them that their votes don't matter (let alone all the Shi'a and Kurds who might happen to not agree with the constitution). Two-thirds of registered voters is going to be pretty tough especially considering that many might not even turn out in some of the more violent provinces (even though we all agree turnout will go up, it probably won't go up that much).
To explain for those who do not know, what the National Assembly decided is that a majority of voters who actually vote (nationwide) is all that is necessary to ratify the constitution; while two-thirds of registered voters in three provinces are needed to reject it.
So basically this is a blatant attempt by the dominant factions to prevent the constitution from being rejected at all costs. This decision undercuts the political efforts to integrate opposition, particularly Sunni opposition. Fortunately the UN has rejected the idea outright and the bloggers at Iraq the Model were good enough to be quite worried about it as well, though I haven't heard anything from the U.S. government as yet (admittedly I may have missed it).
The most important thing above all, is that everyone feels the October referendum means something. If it doesn't, the best opportunity has been lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
