Ralf Goergens

For future reference: Defining Legitimacy

by

The Iraqi elections turned out to be an unqualified success, and I’m very happy about that. I’m somewhat less happy about the attempts before the elections to set standards of voter participation and security by which to measure the legitimacy of the elections. The unspoken expectation of those who did it was that they could have disqualified the vote if it didn’t measure up to the unrealistic standards set by themselves. But what would it have mattered if hardly any Sunnis had shown up? And what if the terrorists had succeeded in killing large numbers of voters? The responsibility would have rested on the terrorists, and nobody else.

Anyway. Iraq is very likely not the last Islamic dictatorship to fall during GWB’s tenure, so I would like to propose, for future reference, a simple criterion for legitimacy (for it really isn’t necessary to jump over every stick the anti-war crowd is holding up for us):

The new form of government shall be considered legitimate if it offers more freedom and better conditions of living than the previous one, and also offers room for further improvement within the same system, that is without a further revolution.

You probably noticed that I’m not mentioning democracy. That is because it might not be possible to hold elections as soon as in Iraq, for the security situation in countries like Syria (apart from some Druze and Kurds, almost all Syrians are Sunni Arabs) and Iran (three times the size of Iraq and a population of 65 million, with a corresponding potential for problems) might be much worse than in Iraq. But as long as the criterion I set above is met, I don’t see how this would diminish the (as yet potential) new governments’ legitimacy, for it would yet again be the responsibility of the terrorists in those countries, and anyway, there are plenty of internationally recognized governments that are not democratic.

If there actually are elections, they also don’t have to be perfect the first, or even the third or fourth, time around, depending on local conditions at the time. There will be plenty of time to work out any problems. The same goes for rule of law; it would be nice if it could be imposed from the start, but that, too, takes time, and probably longer than democracy itself; Western countries had rule of law centuries before they became democratic, after all. Learning from the West, and the Iraqi example, they probably will be able to muddle through in the meantime; not that Iraq has real rule of law as of yet, but it certainly is muddling through very well.

For all my optimism I don’t expect any of this to be easy, but this time around let’s at least strangle frivolous debates about ‘illegitimacy’ in the cradle. If the people in those countries are made better off as a result of the process then it is legitimate – period.

The country Iraq resembles most right now is…

by

Since the removal of Saddam Iraq has been compared to several different countries in order to put the situation there in context. Most named post-WW II Germany and/or Japan, while some others came up with South Korea just after the Korean war. I don’t think that these comparisons really fit, for a number of reasons, and for my own part nominate South Africa as the closest if by no means perfect fit:

– Iraq and South Africa alike are basically are Third World countries with some modern parts

– both countries were ruled by privileged minorities, and denied freedom and rule of law to the vast majority, with the predictable consequence of widespread lawlessness

– the population of Iraq and South Africa is mostly very young, which unfortunately means that they have to accept a pretty high baseline of violence, for the number of teenage boys and men in their twenties is one of the most important indicators of violent crime.

– both are in transition, especially as their institutions are concerned, which makes it harder than it otherwise would be to impose rule of law

– the population of both countries is made up by rivalling ethnic groups and of roughly the same size

I think that compared to these similarities the religious affiliation of their respective populations is quite irrelevant. For example, the behavior of the inhabitants of the slums of Djakarta, Durban or Calcutta very likely would not differ all that much from that of those of Sadr-City in Baghdad, given a large foreign force within shooting range, and with extremists agitating among them and handing out weapons.

Read more

Some points on anti-Americanism

by

Mitch writes in his post below about Anti-Americanism. Since it would take some books’ worth of material to cover the issue comprehensively, I’ll just list some points here (feel free to add your won in the comments):

-While anti-Americanism is a very real phenomenon, it needs to be pointed out that articles like those Mitch links to constitute published rather than public opinion. The steady barrage of such articles does color the opinion Europeans have of America, but the effect is rather superficial, and does not stand up to substantiated information to the contrary, at least not after the usual period of denial. Once blogs and other alternative media start to gain status in Europe, things should start to improve.

-Anti-Americanism also usually is not as bad as Americans perceive it. Both liberal and conservative media have an incentive to overemphasize its extent; liberals because it seems to affirm their claim that W is bad for America, for his policies allegedly make the country hated all over the world, while conservatives hope that tales of hostility abroad help to close the ranks, i.e. encourage Americans to stand behind their government.

-While anti-Americanism is a quite irrational sentiment, those who propagate it have a rational if not very nice reason to do so: Unlike economic activity, politics is a zero-sum-game. Political influence is very much relative, so that influence for one party or country means less influence for the others. Anything that helps to make the most powerful less popular and influential conversely increases the influence of their competition.

-Many Americans tend to react to anti-Americanism by asserting that they are different than anybody else, in ways that those others won’t even be able to understand. This is self-defeating, for it works into the hands of those want to marginalize American influence in the world. It would be much more productive to ignore the loudmouths and engage the moderate majority which actually is open to honest debate (even if it isn’t an easy thing to do).

-This kind of exaggerated resentment should also be taken as a kind of back-handed compliment, for those who disseminate this kind of nonsense implicitly acknowledge that they regard their target as top-dog.

-Projection also is a major factor. We all remember how our respective countries behaved when they could pretty much do as they wished (I don’t want to go into the gory details here).

-The concrete level of anti-Americanism also depends on circumstances and whoever is President at the time. Bill Clinton did some things that could potentially have led to similar levels of resentment as George W. Bush. The reason why they didn’t was that Clinton has an exuberance and a charm (Republicans may interpret these characteristics differently) which Bush simply is lacking, and because he gave his European counterparts plenty of rhetorical pats on the head. Europeans also can’t really be angry at somebody who is that open a hedonist, while Bush tends to rub most of us the wrong way.

The Chinese are coming!

by

This doesn’t seem to have gotten much attention yet:

A team of 95 Chinese riot police officers has arrived in Haiti as part of a UN peacekeeping mission.
The force, which includes 13 women, is to help train Haitian police to deal with crime and mob violence which has led to 50 deaths in recent weeks.

…

It is China’s first deployment for the UN in the western hemisphere.

The police, wearing black uniforms and blue helmets, went through a three-month training programme before arriving in Port-au-Prince.

“This is our country’s obligation in safeguarding world peace,” Chinese Vice Minister of Public Security Meng Hongwei told state television.

…

“China, being a responsible major country in the world, should play such a role.”

China does not have diplomatic relations with Haiti because of the latter’s support for the island of Taiwan, viewed by Beijing as an illegal breakaway state.

By the way, what’s “Tianmen Square” in Creole?

Election over, everybody’s blood pressure back to normal? Alright then, I’m Ralf Goergens and I am reporting for duty!

by

Well, that that was one intense election campaign, topped off by election night cliffhanger to boot. I had promised my fellow contributors posts about several current topics, but in the face of the high emotional temperature in the blogospehere I wimped out and decided not to stick my big furriner nose into other people’s business. I’ll catch up on that stuff in the next days, I promise, guys.