RSS
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri autocrats. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri autocrats. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan

Why Bad Guys Matter

Paul Collier in Foreign Policy writes:

Sure, some of Asia's "benign" autocrats have turned their ambitions to building strong national economies. But not in Africa and many of the other countries that I call the bottom billion -- quite a number of which crowd the upper reaches of the Failed States Index. There, the most common form of autocracy is anything but benign. These leaders not only neglect to build the economy, they actively avoid doing so.
He contends that:
Bad guys matter, and when they rule, they make weak states weaker. And the countless anecdotes are backed up by numbers: In a celebrated study, economists Benjamin Jones and Benjamin Olken looked at whether the death of a country's leader altered economic growth. It did, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. Recently, an Oxford colleague, Anke Hoeffler, and I sifted through their results again, distinguishing this time between democrats and autocrats. We found that in democracies, changing the leader does not change growth -- all leaders are disciplined to perform tolerably. But in autocracies, the growth rates are as unpredictably varied as the leaders' personalities. Here lies the difference between good leaders and great ones: Good leaders put right the policy catastrophes of bad leaders; great leaders, like the men who shaped the U.S. Constitution, build the democratic checks and balances that make good leaders redundant.
More here
Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Strengthening African Leadership

Africa has long been saddled with poor,even malevolent, leadership: predatory kleptocrats, military-installed autocrats,economic illiterates, and puffed-up posturers. By far the most egregious examples come from Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zimbabwe—countries that have been run into the ground despite their abundant natural resources. But these cases are by no means unrepresentative: by some measures, 90 percent of sub-Saharan African nations have experienced despotic rule in the last three decades. Such leaders use power as an end in itself, rather than for the public good; they are indifferent to the progress of their citizens (although anxious to receive their adulation); they are unswayed by reason and employ poisonous social or racial ideologies; and they are hypocrites, always shifting blame for their countries’ distress. Under the stewardship of these leaders,infrastructure in many African countries has fallen into disrepair, currencies have depreciated, and real prices have inflated dramatically, while job availability,health care, education standards, and life expectancy have declined. Ordinary life has become beleaguered: general security has deteriorated, crime and corruption have increased, much-needed public funds have flowed into hidden bank accounts, and offcially sanctioned ethnic discrimination—sometimes resulting in civil war—has become prevalent. This depressing picture is brought into even sharper relief by the few but striking examples of effective African leadership in recent decades. These leaders stand out because of their strength of character, their adherence to the principles of participatory democracy, and their ability to overcome deep-rooted challenges. The government of Mozambique, for example, brought about economic growth rates of more than ten percent between 1996 and 2003, following the economic catastrophe wrought by that country’s civil war (which ended in 1992). And in Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki has strengthened civil society, invested in education, and removed barriers to economic entrepreneurship instated during the repressive rule of Daniel arap Moi.The best example of good leadership in Africa is Botswana. Long before diamonds were discovered there, this former desert protectorate, which was neglected by the British under colonialism, demonstrated a knack for participatory democracy, integrity, tolerance, entrepreneurship, and the rule of law. The country has remained democratic in spirit as well as form continuously since its independence in 1966—an unmatched record in Africa. It has also defended human rights, encouraged civil liberties, and actively promoted its citizens’ social and economic development.
GOOD APPLES
What has enabled Botswana to succeed where so many other African nations have failed? Some observers point to the relative linguistic homogeneity of the country. But Somalia, which remains unstable despite a similar uniformity, shows that this factor is far from sufficient.Others point to the century-old teachings of the congregational London Missionary Society—the peaceful, pragmatic outlook that is inextricably bound up in the country’s political culture. But this explanation also fails to explain why the same positive effects have not been witnessed in other countries with a history of Christian teaching, such as in neighboring Zambia. Nor are Botswana’s plentiful diamond reserves responsible:Angola, Gabon, and Nigeria all have abundant natural resources, but none has seen comparable returns for its people.It is Botswana’s history of visionary leadership, especially in the years following independence, that best explains its success. Sir Seretse Khama, Botswana’s founding president, came from a family of Bamangwato chiefs well regarded for their benevolence and integrity.
When Khama founded the Botswana Democratic Party in 1961 and led his country to independence, he was already dedicated to the principles of deliberative democracy and market economy that would allow his young country to flourish. Modest, unostentatious as a leader, and a genuine believer in popular rule, Khama forged a participatory and law-respecting political culture that has endured under his successors, Sir Ketumile Masire and Festus Mogae. Although operating in very differerent circumstances, Mauritius’ first leader,Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, held to the same leadership codes as Khama.Ramgoolam gave Mauritius a robust democratic beginning, which has been sustained by a series of wise successors from different backgrounds and parties.Both Khama and Ramgoolam could have emulated many of their contemporaries by establishing strong, single-man, kleptocratic regimes. But they refused to do so.Effective leadership has proved the decisive factor in South Africa, too: without Nelson Mandela’s inclusive and visionary leadership, his adherence to the rule of law, his insistence on broadening the delivery of essential services, and his emphasis on moving from a commandeconomy toward a market-driven one, South Africa would probably have emerged from apartheid as a far more fractured and autocratic state than it did.Too few African leaders have followed the examples of Mandela, Khama, and foreign affairs . Ramgoolam. Ghana, Lesotho, Mali, and Senegal are all showing promise. But in many other African countries,leaders have begun their presidential careers as democrats only to end up, a term or two later, as corrupt autocrats: Bakili Muluzi of Malawi, Moi of Kenya,and, most dramatically of all, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Other leaders, such as Sam Nujoma of Namibia and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, may be heading in the same direction.
A BOLD INITIATIVE
To build on the positive leadership examples, a select group of prominent past and present African leaders who met over the last year decided to confront the continent’s pathology of poor leadership with deeds as well as words. At the conclusion of a series of private meetings(the final one of which was held in Mombasa, Kenya), they established the African Leadership Council, promulgated a Code of African Leadership with 23 commandments, issued a Mombasa Declaration promoting better leadership,and proposed a series of courses to train their political successors in the art of good government.Members of the council believe that absolute standards of leadership are both appropriate and attainable. Good leaders deliver security of the state and of the person, the rule of law, good education and health services, and a framework conducive to economic growth. They ensure effective arteries of commerce and enshrine personal and human freedoms. They empower civil society and protect the environmental commons. Crucially, good leaders also provide their citizens with a sense of belonging to a national enterprise. Conscious that Africa’s poor are getting poorer and that good governance is essential for successful economic development, the council sees itself at
the vanguard of fundamental reform in the continent. Its approach certainly goes far beyond the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (nepad) and proposals for the African Union. The Code of African Leadership, for example, says in its first commandment that leaders should “offer a coherent vision of individual growth and national advancement with justice and dignity for all,” implying that most leaders today do not. Other commandments demand that African leaders encourage “broad participation,” adhere to the letter and spirit of their national constitutions (especially term limits), encourage dissent and disagreement, respect human rights and civil liberties, strengthen the rule of law, promote policies that eradicate poverty and improve the wellbeing of their citizens, ensure a strong code of ethics, refuse to use their offices
for personal gain, oppose corruption, and bolster essential personal freedoms. This uncommonly bold agenda seeks to avoid renewed patrimonial leadership debacles, such as those presided over by Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Moi in Kenya, Idi Amin in Uganda, and Jean-Bedel Bokassa in the Central African Republic. The council is highly conscious,too, of the hijacking of Zimbabwe’s government by Mugabe, which has resulted in starvation and drastically reduced living standards.The council is chaired by former President Sir Ketumile Masire of Botswana and includes former Nigerian head of state General Yakubu Gowon,Vice President Moody Awori of Kenya, former Prime Minister Hage Geingob of Namibia, and a dozen other present and former prime ministers and cabinet ministers from Sierra Leone to Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda. All are regarded throughout Africa as men of unusual personal probity and esteem and as accomplished proponents of good governance. The council intends to recruit additional members from the ranks of Africa’s outstanding democratic leaders, Francophone and Anglophone, female and male. Together they will serve the continent by advising international organizations, individual countries, and donor agencies on how to improve leadership. The group stands ready to assist civil societies in countries undergoing serious leadership crises. It will also urge greedy national leaders to attack corrupt practices and adhere to term limits (the current presidents of Gabon, Malawi, Namibia,Uganda, and Zambia, for example, have all had pangs of desire for illegal third terms). Next year(2005), it expects to begin holding special seminars for cabinet ministers and others. The council’s curriculum emphasizes constitutionalism, the rule of law, ethics, accountability,diversity, good fiscal management, coalition building, and the fundamentals of modern micro- and macroeconomics. Training courses will soon be launched.Whether the efforts of the African Leadership Council will reduce bloodshed,diminish corruption, and encourage more prosperity for citizens across Africa is by no means certain. But as a unique African response to the continent’s immense needs, this innovative endeavor is a promising, dramatic step forward.

By
Robert I. Rotberg

Reprinted with permission
Copyrighted 2004 Council on Foreign relations Inc. All Rights Reserved

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism, Syndicaliam, Corporatism... Obamaism

In my post Crony Capitalism Booming Under Obama Rule in February of 2010, I wrote:

One of my biggest fears about the Obama administration is not that it is liberal and not that it is communist, but rather that it is the beginning of a renaissance of National Socialism. One of the common misconceptions that people have about National Socialism is that it was against big business, or that big business opposed it. Free markets oppose national socialism, and individuals oppose national socialism, but Big Business, threatened by government, does the logical thing, and joins in. National socialism leads to an alliance of Big Business, which enjoys government protection against challenges to its market share and in exchange transforms itself into a tool of government control over the economy. Top executives and lobbyists do very well under a National Socialist regime, while the people suffer.
At the time, I was responding to a post that I found on powerlineblog called Crony Capitalism, which itself was a response to the article from Michael Barone called: "Under Obama, crony capitalism again rules the day."

That was several months ago now, and with the passage of time, we can re-evaluate my thesis- that the Obama administration is putting place a version of fascism that you can nicely called Crony Capitalism or State Capitalism, whereby the government subverts the free market for the good of the 'state' and makes alliances with Big Business to crush smaller companies through regulation and taxation.

Gregory Scoblete updates the situation with his article Will Free Markets Give Way to State Capitalism:

State capitalism, Bremmer writes, "is a system in which the state dominates markets primarily for political gain." From state-owned corporations operating in strategic industries like natural resources or defense, to enormous sovereign wealth funds in the hands of autocrats with opaque operating principles, state capitalism has enabled the world's autocratic states to reap the benefits of capitalist enterprise while maintaining a vice-grip on political freedom.

In Bremmer's telling, the world's autocratic states learned a valuable lesson from the implosion of the Soviet Union: command economies do not work and when they fail, they can bring down the over-arching political system with them. They also watched the post Soviet experiment in crash liberalization with horror. To protect their hides and preserve their privilege, autocratic rulers in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have created a "hybrid" system that leverages many of the tools of capitalism to generate wealth while the heavy hand of the state ensures that wealth is put to the service of the elites and rulers of each country.

Here in America, we have a ruler who wants us to emulate China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia- he wants to create a 'hybrid system' here where the fascist state can leverage capitalism for the good of the all-powerful state through the heavy hand of a tyrannical government. I'd love to sugar coat this, but the evidence is piling up that this is his intention.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The New Scramble for Africa

Omoyele Sowore in the Guardian:
Fifty years after colonial battles were fought and independence won, Africans are still chafing under postcolonial regimes led by former liberation warriors transformed into power-hungry, super-rich, authoritarian autocrats. Socialist rhetoric has been replaced with talk of capitalist investment, while multinationals of the west are vying for place against the emerging development interests of China and other Asian countries.
Newly discovered oil fields, fertile lands, diamonds, rare minerals and export crops are being sold off to the most cooperative bidders. While African billionaires are created overnight, the gap between the rich and the poor widens tremendously. Is this colonialism in a new dress? How does this new accumulation of enormous wealth in a few hands compare to the pre-independence period – and what are the strategies of progressive Africans to retake control of their countries?
More here

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

AFT Prez Randi Weingarten Interferes in DC Teachers' Union Elections

I thought I would share this news worthy story with you as originally reported by Norm of Ed Notes On Line education blog. This story addresses intereference by AFT President Randi Weingarten in our Washington Teachers Union elections which are constitutionally required to be held mid May 2010. As I am sure that you are aware our Washington Teachers Union Constitution states that a member desiring to run for a position shall submit an official nominating petition signed by twenty (20) or more members in good standing to the office of the Washington Teachers’ Union on or before the last regular working day of the Union in April. Union members must submit their petitions on April 30 and that ballots must be mailed by mid May. Unfortunately, it appears that our local elections will be delayed in an unprecedented power play by AFT Prez Randi Weingarten. Please read insights from Norm of Ed Notes on line blog, a retired teacher activist from New York turned blogger as well as Nathan Saunders, WTU 2010 Presidential candidate. - Candi Peterson
Ed Notes on Line writes:
"History has taught us that autocrats will never give up power and will resort to illegal means to keep absolutism intact...... Ed Notes has been reporting on the Washington DC and Chicago teacher union elections. Both cities are hotbeds of potential activism and if Nathan Saunders and/or Karen Lewis (CORE) were to be elected, would indicate potential trouble for AFT President Randi Weingarten. Not that she has to worry too much with the NYC Unity Caucus machine being able to control the NY state NYSUT which in turn controls the AFT. But we know that Randi wants ZERO OPPOSITION and will do what she can to undercut the ability of these candidates to win.
Washington DC is a particularly interesting case where both Randi and Michelle Rhee's reps are on the line if Saunders should win. So now we hear the AFT is "getting involved" in the DC election. With elections in Washington DC about to take place, the AFT goon squad is out to undermine them. They found some excuse and there is talk about including the contract vote ballot in the same envelope as the election ballot. If true, why are we not surprised here in NYC?
The real reason is that Randi/Rhee/Parker are anxious to get the contract vote done before the election, which if Saunders wins will kill any chance of the contract Randi and Rhee want. With problems over the private money being assured, it is clear that the election will be done beforehand and Randi is trying to figure out a way to undermine it.
Is anyone surprised that Randi is more aligned with Rhee - remember my basic rule - ignore what Randi says, watch what she does? So here is Nathan Saunders' piece in May 6 edition of TheMail magazine- written by Norm of Ed Notes on line blog "
Nathan Saunders, WTU Presidential candidate writes.....
Is AFT Undermining DC Teachers ?
"Intense public school budget hearings on April 30 evidenced the significant impact WTU teachers have on the city’s budget. Charter school advocates presented the government a demand letter for comparable wages to the WTU Tentative Agreement (TA), or they would seek court action. A magnanimous Chief Financial Officer Gandhi refused to certify the TA’s financial soundness while simultaneously scaling back other programs and possibly raising taxes to reduce a $530 million deficit.
The 1960’s legislation allowing exclusive representation of DC’s Public teachers was theorized to encourage mutual cooperation yielding increased workplace productivity.
Unfortunately, some of the industrial labor union’s ills and social injustices, such as paternalism, permeated the teachers’ union movement.
Oftentimes national union interests will attack local dissident opinion by influencing union elections, producing propaganda, and controlling issues. All the while repeating, ad nauseam, “We never get involved in local issues.”
Amazingly, this is like the letter the American Federation of Teachers sent home to all DC teachers implying that the May 2010 elections will probably be delayed. Federal legislation, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, was created to combat union member abuses involving violations of free speech, violence, and elections tampering. It forces elections every three years and gives union members a special bill of rights akin to the US Constitution.
Empowering WTU teachers in democratic management and advocacy for themselves and their students is an often neglected education reform that is affordable. Paternalism is most dangerous in teachers’ unions, as it makes teachers feel trapped with two bosses — the DC Government and the AFT/WTU — their own union. Union democracy is suppressed.
The AFT should not be involved in the May 2010 union election or the upcoming contract ratification vote, as their ability to exercise self-control will deter additional controversies and challenges. The federal Department of Labor should be involved.
Unfortunately, the president of the AFT parent union, Randi Weingarten, is deeply entangled in election shenanigans, potentially stalling WTU’s election schedule past its constitutionally required May 2010 date. Her beneficiary is WTU President George Parker the embattled negotiator of the Rhee/Parker tentative agreement. The agreement was supposed to harvest elections benefits of 20 percent pay raises, without members knowing most would probably be terminated or that a portion of the raises was financed with blood money of wrongfully terminated teachers, and the only job security in the deal belonged to Chancellor Michelle Rhee.
The problem with Weingarten’s election meddling is that it makes DC teachers more vulnerable. Teachers are about to deal with hundreds of year-end layoffs, a hard summer fight to support a mayoral candidate and leaving approximately eighty other elected positions unfilled (Elections Committee, Delegates to the Maryland State AFL-CIO, and others). It smells to high heaven.
Any desire to place an election ballot with a contract ratification ballot in the same envelope is selfish and belittles the WTU’s members’ intelligence. Common sense, time, and economic realities may have broken up the Fenty/Rhee/Parker/Weingarten playbook, but law and the WTU’s Constitution require a paternalistic AFT to step aside and to allow dues paying members to vote on their future — now."
Posted by The Washington Teacher, featuring Candi Peterson, blogger in residence

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Democracy and its Discontents

G. Pascal Zachary writes in The East African:

“If autocrats do not deliver prosperity any more reliably than democrats, then the romance with benign authoritarianism is probably misguided. Democratisation must be pursued wholeheartedly in Africa — but pursued without illusions. Elections inevitably heighten ethnic tensions, but these tensions can be managed. If democrats are to triumph over authoritarian populists, they must take more seriously the importance of balancing ethnic differences along with promoting economic growth. One without the other is unsustainable.”-[continue reading]

via Africa Works

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Cozying up to the Dictator of Equatorial Guinea

In the NYTimes:
While the United States has turned its back on some authoritarian rulers in North Africa and the Middle East, its attitude toward strategically placed autocrats in less restive corners of Africa is more ambiguous, and perhaps nowhere more so than in this oil-rich speck of a nation in the Gulf of Guinea...Officially and unofficially, Americans do business with one of the undisputed human rights global bad boys, Equatorial Guinea, Africa’s fourth biggest oil exporter. Its widely criticized record on basic freedoms has offered little barrier to broad engagement by the United States, commercially or diplomatically.
Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Economics of Bribery and Assassination

Ben Olken posits that:

A country is “more likely to see democratization follow­ing the assassination(death) of an autocratic leader,” but found no substantial “effect following assassinations—or assassination attempts—on democratic leaders.” They(Olken and Ben Jones, an economist at Northwestern,) concluded that “on average, successful assassinations of autocrats produce sustained moves toward democracy.”... results suggest,” they write, “that individual leaders can play crucial roles in shap­ing the growth of nations,” provided they are ruling with minimal or nonexistent checks and balances to their power (think Augusto Pinochet or Robert Mugabe).

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Obama's Lack of Support of Tunisia's Revolution More Evidence of Incompetence?

There is something very important happening in Tunisia. On January 14, a spontaneous popular uprising ousted President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali from power and ended his decades of autocratic rule. For the first time, many in this nation have the freedom to speak and the freedom to demand justice for those who have been unjustly killed by Ali's regime. Although the ending to this story is uncertain- exactly how far does this revolution go and what kind of retribution will fall on Ali's party- the story is very much one that is hopeful and to be celebrated by those people who love and support freedom, liberty, and protection of property.

But it isn't being celebrated by many in America. President Barack Obama (Democrat) issued a weak statement praising “the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people”, and then turned around and made a phone call in support of Egypt's autocratic dictator Hosni Mubarak. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (Democrat) commented that the US was not “taking sides” in Tunisia, reinforcing that it is the policy of the (Democratic) administration not to support good in its battle with evil around the world.

It shouldn't come as a surprise though that Obama's (Democratic) administration is not being supportive or even very happy about the overthrow of an autocratic Middle-East dictator. Ali was 'our guy' a neo-liberal who ran a semi-modern nation and seemed to support us in our wars against extremism in the Middle-East, a description that also fits Mubarak and Egypt. Still, although he was 'our guy', his overthrow might lead to a 'better guy', and so the administration should have been able to react quickly and move decisively to support and praise the freedom movement in Tunisia.

But yet, Obama's (Democratic) administration isn't moving fast and quick and reacting to modern-day events in ways that would support the flowering of democracy and freedom and bring more life, liberty, and protection of property to more people of the world. Why?

Obama is stuck in the past- the past of his Harvard college years, the past of his term papers, the past of his Jerimiah Wright church, the past of his own rhetoric- and this uprising in Tunes, much like the uprising last year in Iran, wasn't expected or even smelled by his advisers and they lack the skill and intelligence and competence to change their policies on the fly. So they sit there, letting world events swirl around them, reacting to uprisings in ways that betray their lack of abilities and vision, and for that reason, voters should severely punish Obama and Democrats in Congress who supported him and his stuck-in-the-past policies.

The Middle-East has been opened to a revolution of freedom and liberty by the successful policies of Republicans and Bush, and Obama's administration has had these successes unfold and fall into his lap, where he has done nothing noteworthy to earn the Peace Prize that was awarded to him before his administration took its first steps. We demand more and better from our Presidents and his advisers- not lukewarm statements and bored non-interest, but real action and real policy and real support.

One wonders why Obama and his Democrats in Congress have been so reluctant to speak out against corrupt regimes that build their power by demonizing their enemies, speaking harshly against them, personally attacking them, criminalizing their political activities, transferring citizens wealth to favored constituents, confiscating the wealth of unfavored individuals, having no oversight to its actions, and in other ways acting as a corrupt and autocratic tyrannical regime that attacks the life, liberty, and property rights of its citizens. Perhaps Obama doesn't express his support for revolutions in Tunisia though because he and his cronies identify more with the autocrats and dictators who run them.

UPDATE: So it is now several days later, and Egypt and Yeman have both also broke out in revolutions, demanding an end to autocractic government and more democracy. Obama's response? No clue. As usual, Obama is reacting to events on the international stage rather than driving events, and doing so in a slow manner, demonstrating once again that he is imcompetent- he and his advisors don't know what they are talking about, don't know how to react to situations, don't do their homework, and don't understand what is going on- and that explains why we hear nothing about how the greatest nation in the world reacts to these revolutions around the world.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

A Continued Dependence on Commodities

In FT:

...the direction of trade may be changing but its character, involving raw material exports and manufactured imports, has not. Yet over the long-term demand for African commodities, land and manpower is unlikely to diminish. This time optimism about the outlook has less to do with visionary autocrats and more with the macro-economic climate.
More here

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

France and its continued support for Dictators

Adam Nossiter writes in the NYTimes:

It is not a good time to be French in Francophone Africa, except if you are a high official from Paris privately visiting a strongman’s palace. As democracy slips in country after country in the region, France often quietly sides, once again, with the once-and-future autocrats.All summer long, while African opposition figures were protesting, demonstrating and fleeing, men in power were coolly visiting Paris, or receiving visits in return.
More here
See related article on America's blind eye to looters from Africa

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS