Thank You Mr. Wallace

A few things.  First, a moment of silence for David Foster Wallace, who is rolling his eyes now from wherever he is in the afterlife as I doubt he wanted all of this attention.  The funny thing about great writers is that as you read them you get to know them a little, and if they should hang themselves as Wallace did last Friday you feel like you lost a friend, even if your friendship was imaginary.  Writing is a communication between writer and reader, and the better the writing the more intimate that connection is.  It must feel strange to have created such a connection with so many millions of people, maybe all those millions of manufactured relationships left him feeling isolated.  Who knows, but the specter of a man I knew (even though he didn’t know me) hanging himself is extremely sad.  Hemingway’s work, for me, is shaded slightly darker knowing that he killed himself in the gruesome way he did (is there a non-gruesome way to do it?).  I guess these guys just didn’t want to grow old.  If that was their true motivation, it’s somehow not as sad.  But I suspect it wasn’t.

In any event, I recommend you pick up a copy of anything he has written if you’ve never read him.  Start with the essays, say, Consider the Lobster, and when you’re ready for a literary voyage, dive into Infinite Jest. 

I meant to post a piece today on why invading Iran is a horrible idea, and when I got into it, I realized that more research had to be done.  We have to get into Britain’s history with Iran to understand Iran’s strong sentiment of anti-colonialism.  We have to talk about the US-aided coup that deposed democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, which many believe led to the surprising revolution in 1978 and the reign of Ayatollah Khomeini.  Through this historical lens, we’ll consider the fallout of a hypothetical US invasion and I’m guessing it will be plain to see that such an invasion is a really, really bad idea.  

I left the office to get my hair cut today and noticed a number of reporters and cameramen huddled around a doorway (I work in Times Square).  If you see a gaggle of reporters in Times Square you figure Martha Stewart is nearby, or maybe Johnny Depp or Hannah Montana wearing gigantic, heart-shaped sunglasses.  Then I saw the words Lehman Brothers over the door at which the cameras were aimed…all of those reporters anxious to get shots and comments from depressed employees. 

Mama said there would be days like this.

Considering the UN

I’m going to start off this blog (again) with a few thoughts about the UN.  First, however, I need to clear my mind of something which almost prevented me from starting up this blog (again).  I had a conversation the other day about the media, and how lacking it is, generally speaking, in backing up claims with, you know, evidence.  The guy I was talking to says he and his colleagues can’t bear to watch CNN. (Okay, fine, it was a lecture in this class I’m taking called Research Methods—a somewhat embarrassing requirement that teaches graduate students how to do research).  Popular newspapers and magazines, for the most part, don’t present real evidence beyond a few general statistics to back up their claims, which makes them opinions.  The Economist is notorious for this, the writers over there are like opinion gunslingers shooting from the hip.  Proper analysis, however, would expand a 5 page article to 50 pages, which the media isn’t geared to offer.  On our commute to work, you and I don’t have time to slog through 50 pages of statistical regressions that prove simple points.  Stats don’t sell.  Now, I don’t have the time to compile the evidence necessary to properly analyze every, or maybe even any topic I’ll be dealing with on this blog—if I did it would turn the entries posted here into research papers.  Which would put you to sleep (assuming you’re awake right now).  So I considered not undertaking this blog, thinking that if I couldn’t do it right, I wouldn’t do it at all. 

Then it came to me: Not presenting evidence sufficient to test an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t have a conversation.  Although there is probably a correlation between the quality of the conversation and the amount of evidence presented:

“Defense wins championships.”

“That’s crap, no it doesn’t.”

“Yes it does.”

“Why?”

“Because defense is awesome.  And powerful.  And fun to watch, and it just does.”

“Offense is way more fun to watch…”

Granted, our conversation will be based on impressions, but so is our vote for president.  I’m happy to report that in light of this epiphany I have a new enthusiasm for the blog and I’m reading the Economist again, if only so I can cast my frowning doubt over every page.  

Okay, so, the UN.  I was having a few beers with some friends and we were having a common International Relations conversation.  It goes something like this:

“The UN is lame.”

“Really? Why?”

“It’s a BS organization.  It’s ineffective.  It’s weak.  It doesn’t really do anything.”

“Well, it’s made significant contributions to immunization, healthcare, nutrition and education in developing countries.  It’s helped negotiate peace deals…”

“Yeah, they did a great job in Rwanda.”

And so on.  I just did a Google search using the following search terms “the UN is lame” and came across a blog of some sort that posted the following article as support for the argument that the UN is ‘very lame.’  It’s a good example of an argument I’ve heard a few dozen times:

In another setback for U.S. efforts in Iraq, the United Nations has been unable to secure enough troops to protect a U.N. contingent headed to the country to help with elections and rebuilding.

When the U.N. Security Council voted six weeks ago to authorize a protective force, it expected contributors to step forward. But countries have balked at taking part in a force expected to include 1,000 troops and several dozen bodyguards. Diplomats said many nations were hesitating because of the dangers — including a wave of kidnappings — and costs as well as the continuing unpopularity of the U.S. invasion.

The argument here is that the UN is lame because it can’t take action, i.e. send troops to help elections or, say, secure peace in Darfur.  Now, I’m no UN apologist.  I don’t know much about the finer workings of its various arms, or even the particulars of its history.  But I was just curious to see how big the UN’s peacekeeping force is, so I surfed over to UN.org and poked around.  Strangely, I found no mention of it there.  So of course I consulted Wikipedia—always good for a basic fact—and found that the UN has no standing peacekeeping force.  (I’m going to highlight my ignorance here and admit that I didn’t know this.  I thought all those blue helmeted guys were busy at a UN base somewhere doing field exercises, getting ready for the next mission).

Per Wikipedia, “peacekeepers remain members of their respective armed forces, and do not constitute an independent ‘UN army,’ as the UN does not have such a force.”

That changes things.  The argument is now “The UN is lame because it can’t convince countries—worldwide—to cough up the soldiers necessary to create a peacekeeping force sufficient to, say, secure peace in Darfur.”  For the record, since I’m using Darfur as an arbitrary example, how many soldiers would be necessary to secure Sudan?  I’ll leave that question open for now, but I’m guessing it’s a pretty big number.

Okay so the UN is like the woman I work with who just walked around the office asking everyone to contribute to Beth Jones’ baby shower.  I asked her how much she wanted.  “Ten or twenty bucks, whatever you want to contribute.”  I’m a little tight this month, I don’t mind saying (I’m a grad student for crying out loud).  I just did a few laps around midtown Manhattan in search of a five dollar sandwich that I could put on my debit card, so, needless to say, ten bucks is the equivalent, to me in per capita spending, of a large nation’s entire foreign aid budget.  I gave her a wrinkled five dollar bill and told her I’d give her the rest later.  Damn if she didn’t come back looking for the other five.  I wasn’t the only one balking, Beth Jones’ baby shower was in jeopardy for sure.  Now, if the shower doesn’t come together I could say that my coworker, the baby shower fundraiser, was lame and ineffective.  But isn’t it more accurate to say that WE are lame and ineffective? 

Sure, says my friend, but what if baby shower fundraising was her job?  Her mandate?  If she was unable to come up with the cash, couldn’t we then say she is doing her job poorly?  Maybe, but if I decide I’m not going to give her ten bucks, what’s she going to do?  She might stand in front of my cube and breathe steam, she might throw pencils at me.  She might say “You know, Beth Jones processes your vacation requests.”  (Yikes).  At the end of the day though, the fundraiser could put forth a champion effort and the shower still might not happen. 

Okay, says my friend, then why have the UN at all?  Aren’t we giving the UN millions of dollars?  If it can’t execute these things, what are we paying for?

Here’s my current response: Only insofar as it’s a waste of time and money to have a group of nations, in many cases political foes, sit down at a table, discuss issues, observe international law, and try to reduce some of the friction that might exist between us if we didn’t have such a forum.  And the money?  Isn’t the UN out there immunizing, educating, arbitrating?  Should we castigate the forum if it is unable to stop a brutal genocide?  To me, it seems odd to talk about the forum from such a distance, in such a passive, reactionary way.  If we continue with the Darfur example, it seems odd, to me, to say that failure to intervene in Darfur is the UN’s failure.  Wasn’t it me who didn’t give ten dollars?  I’m just thinking out loud here.  

 

 

 

When it was born, everyone had high hopes for the European Union (initially the European Community).  Two world wars had started in Europe and so there had to be a way to prevent a third.   The EU, among other things, would foster peace; by being dependent on one another economically, by allowing people to flow more freely across borders, by centralizing security and in having a common court, European countries would start working out their differences diplomatically. 

Wow, I should write high school text books.

Well, I’d say the EU has pretty well accomplished that vision wouldn’t you?  I can’t fathom a war between France and Germany these days.  It’s logical to hope, then, that the African Union could have the same effect on Africa.  Now, Africa presents a whole different scenario, but some of the logic still holds; if African countries can become economically interdependent, centralize security, etc, etc, the continent as a whole should start to solve many of its problems. 

One major aspect of the notion that a regional union can provide stability, however, is that its members police each other.  That may sound counterintuitive, that confrontational behavior would lead to peace.  But I’m talking about collective checks and balances more than members squabbling with one another; if there’s a bad apple, the other members must quickly form a circle around it.  The African Union, at its summit the other day, failed to do that when Robert Mugabe was not confronted for, among other things, overseeing the burning-to-death of a six year old child last week.  Why was the child burned?  Because he was the son of an activist among Mugabe’s political opposition.

It’s a sad case.  I’m sighing as I write this.  You read about something like that in the newspaper and so many of us quickly turn the page because, really, to imagine it is like staring at the sun.  I think many people view Africa as a chaotic enigma.  The international community scratches its collective head, as Mugabe is granted a “hero’s welcome” at the African summit.  The hero’s welcome bit was overblown, the other leaders were said to be criticizing Mugabe backstage in whispers, but Mugabe, nonetheless, convinced himself he was still a respected member of the community.  After all, he was the first to be elected in an open election in post-colonial Africa.  To many, he’s still the symbol of anti-colonialism.  And here are all of the Western (white) countries banding together to demand that the African Union condemn Mugabe – to then condemn him would be cowing to Western demands.  Maybe the West should have kept its mouth shut, at least until after the summit meeting?  Regardless, the burning of a six-year-old child should be motivation enough to publicly shun Mr. Mugabe.  The man was a hero once.  But he’s written his own horror story since.  Anticolonialism becomes two-dimensional when it starts to justify ugly things. 

Now I’m depressed.  Let’s talk about something good.  Let’s talk about Ingrid Betancourt the American contractors and the dozen or so others who were freed today after at least five years in captivity in the jungles of Colombia.

Mugabe Conversation Continued

We have a million things to talk about.  I feel like I could start every blog entry with this same sentence, in fact, I think I’m going to make it my tag line.  I really want to talk more about the Korean beef episode, and I will, but I also feel that there are bigger fish to fry (bigger slabs to grill?).  I don’t want to go on and on about American beef at the expense of checking in on Myanmar and the Chinese earthquake situation.  Both of those events deal with the interesting and complicated issue of disaster relief, an area in which I have a zillion questions.  It’s coming more and more apparent to me as I write this blog that instead of answers, we’re just going to get more and more questions; they’re just going to multiply exponentially like viruses.  Each question produces two more.  Is this lack of resolution going to be endlessly frustrating? 

Let’s get back to Mugabe for a minute, because this situation is going put a number of issues under the microscope, not least of which is the state of the African Union; how will it react to this situation, will its reaction carry any weight, what is it becoming (could it be any version of the European Union?).  (Following blog tradition, my usage of punctuation on this site is willy-nilly.  I see that I’ve fallen in love with semicolons.  I don’t know when it happened, I have no idea if I’m using them correctly, and I can’t tell if they’re annoying.  I think it’s just a semi-legal way to write run-on sentences). 

Astute commenter Jeremy Kaye weighed in on Mugabe, check out his comment…wait a minute, Jeremy is the first official GT commenter!  And he’s not even related to me.  Nice.  Here’s an excerpt of his comment:

And quite frankly, what choice does Mugabe have?

To accede to international demands would mean the acknowledgement of his own powerlessness and the effective end of his reign. He must go forward with the election. By holding the mock election he spits in the face of his opponents (within and without) and reinforces his position as the absolute power in the country – one who does not bow to any will but his own.

So Mugabe held the election specifically to thumb his nose at elections.  He’s openly mocking democracy.  I also suspect this is true.  It’s somehow a greater show of absolute power to hold a mock election than to do away with elections and simply declare yourself ruler.  To take the supposed international rules and laugh at them is scarier, in a comic book villain sort of way, than doing away with the election and simply declaring yourself ruler.  But consider Hugo Chavez for a minute (and I’m not comparing Chavez to Mugabe here, not at all, I just want to make a point about elections).  Chavez uses elections for legitimacy.  He respects the process and the results, and in doing so shows the world that Venezuelans want him as their leader.  He understands that this is most powerful claim to the presidency he could possibly make.  It seems to me making a mockery of the process would do the exact opposite, would completely drain your legitimacy.  Is it even possible, then, that Mugabe actually wanted the election to appear legitimate?  Did he think he might actually get away with that?  If so, then the man is crazy.  He’s either a comic book villain making a mockery of elections, or he’s delusional in thinking he could force people at gun point to vote for him and make it look legitimate.  One of the two, I don’t really see a third alternative.  Either possibility is very scary and I’m now very interested to see not how the West responds, but how the African Union responds.  I’m very interested to know how legitimate the African Union is (because, in my wild imagination, I believe the African Union could be the answer to Africa’s problems).  My only problem is, I know virtually nothing about the African Union.  So if some astute reader who does could weigh in and save me the trouble of a ton of research, I’d be very appreciative (it turns out I’m a pretty lazy guy, just ask my soon-to-be-wife; I’ve got pages of baseball blogs to read, especially those of Joe Posnanski.  But I will read up on the African Union and offer my amateur opinion if I have to). 

So much more to talk about.  I’m going to do some reading about Myanmar and China (and Iowa!) this evening to launch a conversation about disaster relief.  I’m not ready to let Korean beef off the hook (pun intended) yet, either.  Anyone with knowledge of Korea who would like to comment about that situation would we warmly welcomed to the table.  My main questions are, what is the real motivation behind the protests over there?  Is it truly fear of unhealthy beef, or something broader?  The protests have been vigorous, to say the least. 

The People Choose Mugabe!

In a surprise landslide defeat of…no one, since his opposition had been killed, raped or beaten…Robert Mugabe triumphantly declared victory after yesterday’s election.  “It is important to have elections so that we can hear the will of the people,” he said.  “Just because we’re holding guns to their heads doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to choose.”  He will be sworn in on Sunday, where he will take an oath to be a fair leader, that he will uphold the rights of Zimbabweans, that he will do everything in his power to ensure equality for all and a bright future for Zimbabwe.  Additionally, if any of his citizens ever disagree with him, he will shoot them, most likely in the head.   

Taliban Finds Pakistan Offensive; American Beef Overshadows Nuclear Weapons

I’m obviously having a good time coming up with headlines for these blog posts.  Pakistan launched an offensive against the Taliban yesterday.  More on that in a minute, but first I’ll mention that I’m still figuring out how best to go about formatting on this website and I’m having font issues.  The font in the last post, for example, just suddenly got larger and bolder when I was talking about American beef.  I assure you, I wasn’t feeling bold about beef, nor did I want to draw your attention particularly to that topic; the font just sort of did what it wanted.  Perhaps the blog, acting on its own, was more interested in that story, I don’t know.  I have to admit, it is an interesting story.  There are certainly more important things going on in the grand scheme of things, such as this Pakistan military action against the Taliban inside its own borders, which may signal a changing of the tide in the Afghanistan operation?  We’ll see.  I’m no military strategist…although I do have a colleague who is quite knowledeable on such subjects (having worked for a military consulting firm that advises the government) and we’re definitely going to try and pick his impressive brain.  But this South Korean/American Beef issue is really fascinating to both me and the blog.  Let me repeat what I mentioned yesterday (in bold type): South Koreans* have taken to the streets–they are storming the capital–over the fact that their government has chosen to import American beef. 

*I realize, as the author of an international affairs blog, that I should know the answer to this, but is the phrase “South Korean” incorrect?  It seems to me we refer to South Korea as simply Korea these days.  Is it true that there is only Korea and North Korea (i.e., Dakota and North Dakota; Carolina and North Carolina?).  If that is the case, how do North Koreans feel about this?  I know we’re not collectively high on North Korea these days, but we’re removing them from the Axis of Evil, after all…

Let’s put this in some kind of perspective.  What kind of issue would inspire people to march on Washington, and to be restrained with police barricades and, who knows, tear gas, rubber bullets?  (I’m going to check if the [South] Korean police is having to resort to anti-riot measures to quell the uprising in a moment).  No, actually let’s check right now.  *Hold music*. 

Alright wait a minute.  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Umm.  While checking to find out if there have been actual riots over the American beef issue, and if the Korean government has had to resort to time honored crowd-dispersal tactics such as firing rubber bullets and throwing tear gas grenades, I came across an article from the Associated Press that sounds like it came right out of the Onion.  Here’s what it says (and, to quote Dave Barry, I am not in any way making this up):

“Just one day after the communist North demolished the most visible symbol of its nuclear programs, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced a barrage of questions about the safety of American steaks, chops and burgers. She had told reporters she hoped this issue would not distract from other matters.

“‘I want to assure everyone that American beef is safe,’” she told a news conference with South Korea’s foreign minister, Yu Myung-hwan. ‘We will continue to work with you to have consumer confidence in that matter. We want there to be consumer confidence in American beef.’”

The North Korean declaration that it has ended its nuclear program (well, has stopped building new bombs anyway), has been eclipsed by American steaks, chops, and burgers?  One day after a nuclear bomb-making facility is destroyed, Condoleezza’s statement to the region has to be about consumer confidence in beef?  So it is true, [South] Koreans couldn’t care less about North Korea right now.  And this whole to-do about American beef is not a trade issue.  It’s a health issue.  They’re obssessed with the notion that US beef might be tainted with Mad Cow disease.  They are marching in the streets holding signs with cartoon mad cows-cows with googly eyes.  And to underscore just how serious this is, the South Korean cabinet has offered to resign! 

In all seriousness, we need to explore this further, because it has all sorts of implications.  World economies are becoming more and more interdepedent (really?  Shocking!  No, seriously, we’re becoming more and more of a global society!  I know it’s hard to believe and everything…).  South Korea has a MAJOR problem with American beef.  The questions deserve to be asked, is this a broader problem with America in general?  Is it a distrust of US products?  Is it a backlash against American distrust of Asian products?  I currently work for a corporate firm, and two of our largest clients this summer are Korean companies.  Korea figures heavily into our economic future, so we’d best delve into this a little bit.

You know what’s cool about this blog?  We’re going to accomplish that very thing, by asking very knowledgeable people. 

**********

Back to the Pakistan offensive.  I’m going to admit that I know virtually nothing about the implications of this move, especially compared to some of the extremely knowledeable people out there on this particular subject area.  But here’s what my initial thoughts were when I read the news this morning: “Pakistan is helping NATO root out the Taliban?  Doesn’t an offensive against the Taliban anger many of Pakistan’s citizens who are devout Muslims?  How does the general population feel about our war against the Taliban?  How do they feel about the West?  What are the Pakistani government’s motivations here?  Are they cowing to pressure from the US government?  Are they helping out in good faith?  The US/NATO has been in bad shape in the Afghanistan conflict for a while, does this signal a change in the tide?”  That’s probably enough questions for now.  I can’t answer them with my pea-sized pool of knowledge about Pakistan.  But I will dig.  That’s what this blog is all about.

And you, my friends, you can help us by sharing your knowledge in the comments section.

I’m getting the sense that we end up with more questions than answers around here. 

*By the way, yes, the beef issue did involve riots – check out the photo*

The People of Zimbabwe Speak (At Gun Point); North Korea Disarms?; South Koreans’ Beef with Their Government

There’s so much to talk about, or should I say think about, here at the Global Thinker (I still can’t decide if this blog title is cool or terrible).  Robert Mugabe is literally herding Zimbabweans to the polls today.  And you can’t just abstain from voting; if you don’t get up and go vote for Mugabe you’ll probably be shot.  I’m not exaggerating, the danger is so real even Mugabe’s opposition—who bowed out of the race because his supporters were being beaten, raped, and killed—is encouraging his supporters to vote for Mugabe for their own safety. 

(The opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, absolutely did the right thing by bowing out…still, I wonder if all those people who died for him, people who knew they would likely be killed for supporting him but did so anyway in the name of their freedom to speak and vote, wouldn’t be a little upset that their candidate stepped down? I imagine everyone is too concerned with survival at this point to even think about it…). 

So there’s this surreal election taking place, as we speak, in Zimbabwe.  It reminds me of a lunatic putting his hostages on trial.  It’s so bizarre that it makes me think Mugabe is holding the election to intentionally mock the concept of elections.  In that respect, one result of this actually might be good.  This ‘election’ might really emphasize the point, in a crude way, that elections do not equal democracy; that elections aren’t worth anything unless they’re conducted fairly; and that totalitarian regimes can’t prop themselves up with the façade of elections—the illusion they hope to create, that they are supported by the will of the people, is now even more transparent. 

Villains become more villainous as democracy is martyred, or something.

**********

On to North Korea.  They blew up part of a reactor today where they had been creating plutonium for nuclear weapons.  It was a big show; the North Koreans invited news sources from several countries to record the event, it was sort of like a press release, which said “Hey, look, we’re no longer pursuing nuclear weapons.”  What it didn’t say was “…because we already have enough nuclear weapons to give us the political muscle we think we need.”  And Bush is now going to remove North Korea from the Axis of Evil (the US is officially taking North Korea off of its list of states that sponsor terrorism).  I would have thought North Korea couldn’t care less how Bush categorizes them, especially after that scary nuclear bomb test in 2006, but not so, Kim Jong II says he is quite pleased at being taken off the list.  Here you had a regime that was unabashedly testing nuclear weapons in the face of an unhappy US just two years ago and now they suddenly give this press conference to declare they’re through with it.  Newspapers around the world are understandably abuzz.  Are they still secretly making weapons?  Condoleeza Rice believes they might be.  “We also must deal with proliferation, we must deal with highly enriched uranium, we must verify to the end all of North Korea’s weapons,” she said. 

I don’t know a whole lot about how the North Korea/US negotiations have evolved over the last two years, but I do wonder about this notion of building weapons in secret.  Once you already have nuclear weapons, I’m not sure what building more of them in secret would accomplish.  It seems to me the act of building additional nuclear weapons is for show.  Would North Korea feel more secure if it had fifty nuclear warheads instead of ten?  Ten nuclear warheads would do quite a number on a would-be opponent, and North Korea would be decimated in retaliation either way.  In this light, I’ve always thought ten nuclear missiles is as good as a hundred, and that building them during the Cold War was always just a show.  I think if North Korea says it’s done building them, it’s probably done building them.  A country seeking to possess a nuclear weapon for the first time would have incentive to do so in secret, but once the first weapon is built and tested, is there any remaining reason to build them secretly?  Just a thought, an open question.  I’m no nuclear expert.   

The BBC does this great thing where they check in with major newspapers around the world to gauge the international reaction.  If you ever wanted to gauge the state of relations between Asian countries, check out the varying responses (China is very pleased with North Korea’s declaration, whereas Japan is very suspicious and angry that the US would even consider taking North Korea off of its list of terrorists).  

**********

Speaking of varying responses, South Koreans, according to one observer, are much more interested in their government’s recent agreement to resume imports of American beef. 

“They couldn’t care less about North Korea,” says Shim Jae Hoon, long-time analyst and commentator here. “No one is watching.”

Apparently, the news of their neighbor’s decision to drop its nuclear program takes a back seat to this business about the beef.  All imports of American beef were halted during the Mad Cow thing a few years ago, and now that the government has lifted the blockade, people are storming the capital.  I have no idea if this is a trade issue where Korean farmers fear they’ll go out of business or if it’s a health issue where the people fear Mad Cow or maybe hormone-related aspects of American beef.  Either way, it’s interesting to me that the public would get so riled over this issue.  It seems from the report that they’re making more noise over it than we are about Iraq.  Seriously, protesters in Seoul are “battling police in front of police buses lined up to stop them.”  Wow.  (The article does go on to suggest it’s more than just a beef issue, but still…).  We’ll definitely be following up on this.

 

 

Mugabe Distorts Democracy: But Why Go Through the Trouble?

 

I’m going to kick off the Global Thinker (we might well change the name if we can think of something catchier) with an observation about democracy provided by the gentle-hearted ruler, Africa’s own Mr. Rogers, Robert Mugabe.  Mugabe, as you may know, is splashed all over the news at the moment for violently rigging an election in Zimbabwe—that is to take place tomorrow—which would allow him to remain that country’s president. 

Mugabe won the first election to allow black voters in Zimbabwe’s history, which kind of made him, in that respect (and only that respect), Zimbabwe’s version of Nelson Mandela.  In Mugabe’s case, it was a wave anti-colonial sentiment that brought him to power (Zimbabwe was formerly under British colonial rule).  He was a prominent anti-colonial figure, part of the National Democratic Party, thrown in prison by a white Prime Minister—according to Wikipedia—“for ‘subversive speech.’”  I don’t know why Wikipedia is putting that in quotes, presumably because this was what they officially arrested him for.  But get this: while he was in prison, “he earned three degrees, including a law degree from London and a bachelor of administration from the University of South Africa by correspondence courses.”  Imagine Robert Mugabe in this light, knowing nothing of what you now know about him (that he executes his political opposition, for example).  A man speaking out about democracy, thrown in prison for subversion against a white regime, and while he is imprisoned, he educates himself about justice and governance.  Upon his release he presides over the country’s first fair election and becomes its first black leader since Zimbabwe was geographically defined under the British.  You’d think him a national hero.  In fact, I’m willing to bet the International Community was quite happy with him.  Let’s delve into newspapers of the 1980’s and find out.

*Muzak plays in the background while I do the research…maybe a light orchestral version of ‘She Blinded Me With Science’*

Well, I wouldn’t say the International Community was overjoyed with Mugabe, but was cautiously optimistic, which is surprising since Mugabe was known to embrace communism – he happily received a delegation from Fidel Castro which congratulated him “with the great victory of Zimbabwe against colonialism and racism” (BBC).  On the other hand, Mugabe disliked the USSR and kept his distance from it, which is probably why US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance “urged the parties to the process in Zimbabwe and all nations to respect and support the electoral outcome.” (Washington Post, March 3, 1980).  Xan Smiley of Foreign Affairs wrote that “Mugabe has initially shown a remarkable and willing flexibility in his dealings with

the West. It would be foolish if the West—in particular the United States and Britain—failed to respond with as much economic and political sympathy as it can muster.”  Well, there you have it.

 

So that was the mood following the 1980 election.  Fast forward 28 years to the ‘election’ which is to take place tomorrow, and you could say the mood has changed.  In addition to “brutal campaigns of murder and forced resettlement” towards Zimbabwe’s citizens, for various reasons, Mugabe has forced pretty much anyone affiliated with the government including the military and the entirety of the country’s police force to vote for him (apparently, said employees have to vote in front of government officials—I’m picturing government ministers standing in front of you staring down at your ballot, arms crossed—if you don’t vote for Mugabe your family disappears).

 

All of this, by the way, makes Mugabe a good candidate to be named Totalitarian of the Month by the Global Thinker.  Results will be posted at the end of the month.

I’m not going to go through all of the particularly horrible things Mugabe has done to earn his candidacy for Totalitarian of the Month, do a few google searches and you’ll find plenty of details, I just want to ask a simple question about democracy.  Why does Mugabe, and so many other rulers, care about creating a democratic façade? 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, along with pretty much everyone else in the world, has urged Zimbabwe not to conduct the election tomorrow.  This is because, among other reasons, his main opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, bowed out of the race due to the fact that his supporters were being killed (well, that’s one way to win an election, isn’t it?  Kill the opposition).  But Mugabe is insisting the election will run tomorrow.  He’s turning his back to international pressure.  He’s holding guns to the heads of Zimbabweans everywhere and politely requesting that they vote for him.  So why have an election?  What is he hoping this election will accomplish?  It will be obvious to everyone, both in and outside of the country that the election was a farce, and no one will respect the results.  It is true that the Zimbabwean government controls the media, maybe they think they can convince the public, within the country at least, via television and radio broadcasts that the election was legitimate.  I just don’t understand why a dictator doesn’t just declare himself a dictator, why go through this clownish election?  After tomorrow, after Mugabe is ‘re-elected,’ he will then say with a straight face “The People Have Spoken.” 

It’s fascinating to me when dictators feel a need to go through pretend elections.  When I was a kid, Guess jeans (with that famous little question mark logo) were popular among us suburban teenagers and they were expensive.  A few astute kids discovered that you could steal the question mark logo off of a pair of Guess jeans with scissors or a pin or something—apparently it was much easier than stealing the actual jeans—and you could sew it onto the back pocket of a pair of Wranglers (much cheaper and a hundred rungs lower on the social status totem).  Voila, you were IN.  Mugabe believes that to declare your regime democratic, all you need is what looks like an election, except it doesn’t really look like an election because the public is well aware, both in and outside the country that it’s a farcical imitation.  Nonetheless, Mugabe will go through the motions, and sew the patch onto the back of his jeans in front of everyone.  And he will proclaim himself, what, the newest fairly elected president of the Zimbabwean democracy.  Wouldn’t it be easier to just say “You know what, we’re not having elections this year and I’m going to remain ruler of Zimbabwe.”

But that’s not even what confuses me most about all of this.  Most confusing to me is that people believe that an election—not to mention a farcical election—all by itself is sufficient for a democracy.  What IS sufficient for a democracy?  What are, say, the qualities a democracy must have at bare minimum?  It’s a challenging, yet interesting and fun question to try and answer.  For we all think we have a handle on exactly what ‘democracy’ means, but it’s not so easy to quantify.  The main thing I’ve come up with so far is Participation of the People in government.  But we have to be able to participate in so much more than elections.  We have to have a voice that may be heard if someone harms us, or takes our property (now we’re getting into Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau).  A good justice system would give us that voice.  Democracy requires an independent audience to ensure the government isn’t treating its citizens unfairly.  But it’s even more than that, for we can’t participate fairly unless we have certain specific rights, most notably of free speech.  Some of this stuff is painfully obvious, some of it less so.  I would say, though, looking at the whole picture of democracy, that electing a leader is a fraction of what defines it, like maybe a fifth of the pie.  This is going to be a recurring theme around here, as it relates to a million things, not the least of which is our desire to establish democracies in various parts of the world.  Indeed, it’s the (stated) premise for the mission in Iraq. 

Mugabe takes a fifth (let’s say) of what’s required to create a democracy, distorts it badly, and then declares Democracy.  I’m just wondering, why go through the trouble?