Politics, Uncategorized

Intransigence in Politics.

Let’s start with Hafez Assad of Syria. When the Arab Spring came to Syria in 2011 with peaceful demonstrators marching for basic freedoms and democracy, he labeled them all terrorists and brutally suppressed them, just as he and his father before him had suppressed all dissent. For a lot of strongmen, once they have power, they find it impossible to give it up. Holding on is an ego thing, self-aggrandizement, puffing themselves up to claim wealth and power. There’s also, I assume, a fear of retribution for their many misdeeds and reckoning regarding their amassing of wealth through greed and corruption. As long as they remain in power the millions keep rolling in. If they are deposed, they may find themselves in prison.

Assad has been fighting for seven years to stay in power. So what has he accomplished for his country? To start with half a million dead, 12 million people displaced, part turned into refugees, part internally. Finally large areas have been completely destroyed. It will take a generation to repair the damage. All for one man’s ego.

Assad is an Alawite, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, which made up about 18% of Syria’s, pre conflict population. 80% were Sunnis and as it happens in nearly every society, the party in control keeps most of the spoils for themselves. Opening the country to more freedom might’ve allowed for a peaceful transition, since Syrians are educated and the society secular, but by basically saying to the demonstrators, Bring it on, Assad, brought out the worst in the form of radical Islamists who took over large swathes of the country and, in the case of Islamic State, were arguably worse than him in regards to human rights. They will be totally vanquished at some point, but in any case the country will be left in an awful state.

I don’t believe a violent insurrection is possible here, though many people are, to put it mildly, extremely distressed and disgruntled about the country’s current political situation. The opposition took 45% in the last election in an amazing turnout of 86%, a better turnout than almost any western country. The opposition no longer exists through a tactic called lawfare. As long as you control the government, you can devise laws that target your opponents and put them out of commission.

There’s also not a small matter of threats of violence the leadership has made against any who demonstrate against a ruling party win at the polls. The big guy said he’d be willing to kill 100 or 200 people to prevent demonstrations. As a result, opponents have been laying low, but they haven’t forgotten and have only been pacified on the outside: Inside many are seething. When you need to take another’s life to maintain power you are playing God, which, if it doesn’t come back to haunt you in this life, will punish you in the next. (Forgive the religious tone, sometimes I can’t help myself.)

Memories of the Khmer Rouge are still fresh in many people’s minds and we have no radical groups to threaten the peace, no malcontents itching to blow things up. In that way we are blessed: no ethnic tensions, the country’s Muslims are completely peaceful.

When 92-year-old Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was forced to step down, peacefully but unwillingly, he had been the longest serving leader in Africa. He remained in power partly from his legacy of being an original fighter for independence and the usual vote-rigging, intimidation and beating of opposition figures: The kind of chicanery practiced all over the world by tin-pot strongmen as well as the US and some other places in the developed world.

At the time a lot of people compared him to our head man, who’s now the longest serving leader in Asia, wondering if the same fate would befall him and while there were some parallels; long serving, autocratic, eccentric impulses and strong opposition, there are great divergences.

Most importantly, Mugabe practically destroyed the Zimbabwean economy. He’s probably most famous for a staggering inflation rate of 69,000,000%. A friend from there showed me a 50,000,000,000 dollar note, but the highest one was a cool one trillion, that’s 1,000,000,000,000. But then at a certain point the people began refusing that funny money and demanded something of value. The government was then forced to use the US Dollar.

He indulged in a lot of racial politics, always blaming the substantial white population and colonialism for the country’s problems. For instance, he set up a land redistribution scheme, which, in itself, I don’t consider a bad idea considering the country’s colonial past, but what really happened was productive white farms were parceled out to military men and cronies who knew nothing about farming and production plummeted. The country went from one of Africa’s breadbaskets to a basket case. He clung to power until essentially the whole country rose up and said, Time to go.

In contrast, our big man, has led the country into being one of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world. As a result a lot of people have risen out of abject poverty and their lives improved. No matter what else he’s noted for, a lot of people appreciate that part of his rule.

An extensive patronage network helps him survive. For instance, we have 3000 generals here. In contrast, the US with 1000 times the budget has 500. It’s a good chance that a lot of our top guns drive luxury vehicles of higher status than America’s generals. That, added to a similar padding of many government offices, constitutes a lot of loyal people to back him up.

Another factor in our success is the country’s openness to the world. Making it easy for people from all over the world to settle here has brought income and innovation and world culture.

Our currency is pegged to the USD and in the 16 years I’ve been here it’s never strayed more than 5% from 4000 to a dollar. Having a stable currency and use of the dollar has been a big boost for development. The country’s leaders would really like to change that, to dedollarize, but can’t for many reasons. Eliminating the use of the dollar would allow them to manipulate the local currency, which has its good points but also sometimes leads to problems, Zimbabwe being the best example.

Speedy development looks good and adds to GDP, but not all development is beneficial. The country has a mania for converting urban wetlands and public park space to development. In the latest example a 1600 meter public walkway on the river in Phnom Penh just south of the Japanese bridge is going to be sold off for development. In a city where only 1% of land area is public and much of that is inaccessible traffic circles or small areas surrounded by traffic, every loss is a bad idea. It’s the same in the countryside. Large areas of national parks and wildlife refuges have been converted to plantations. There’s not much that’s natural left in some parks.

A Chinese company was given 40 kms of coastline in Ream National Park near Sihanoukville for a reportedly 2 billion dollar resort development. If history is any guide, the resort will, to all intents and purposes, be off limits to non-Chinese. Here in Kampot all the main tourist spots are jammed at every holiday; traffic gets backed up for kilometers. Now that wealth is coming to our country and many people have cars there is pent up demand, they want to get away from the crowded city and enjoy a little of the countryside and its fresh air. Maybe Ream wasn’t used much when the concession was granted, so it wasn’t considered much of a loss, but now it’s clear if the park had been developed with locals in mind it’d be crowded now. A resource for all citizens has been reserved for privileged others.

It’s hard to talk about political intransigence without mentioning Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela. He took over from Hugo Chavez when he died in 3013. Chavez was the first indigenous leader of Venezuela and he did wonders in bringing people out of poverty and creating a fairer society. At the same time he was reviled by the country’s establishment and mercilessly denounced by the US, regularly referring to him as a dictator when he won every election by a large margin. What he did was break the hold of the right-wing establishment on the country’s politics. Meanwhile he was revered by the people. The right wing opposition demonstrated against him on a regular basis only because they were pissed that he won the election.

What he didn’t do was diversify the economy to be less dependent on oil so when the price crashed there wasn’t the cash to keep all of its programs going. If you then try to keep them going by printing money without reserve, the whole monetary system goes haywire and the result is an inflation rate of about 17,000%, prices double every month. If you then try to keep basic food staples cheap while inflation is raging by setting prices, and those prices are below the cost of production, well then manufacturers will stop producing. The average Venezuelan has lost five to ten kilos in the last couple years because food is simply not available. This in a country with the world’s largest oil reserves and great natural wealth.

When the people soured on his leadership and the opposition won 70% of the seats in the country’s legislature, he stripped the assembly of its powers. He’s jailed opposition leaders and acted autocratically. He obsessively clings to power, refuses to accept the will of the people and continues to drag his country down. He has given socialism a bad name. No matter your ideology, at a certain point practicality has to reign. You can’t maintain your socialist stance while people aren’t getting enough to eat.

We too have a leader who clings to power which is fine as long as it’s legitimate; that is, earned through the ballot box without using legal artifice to eliminate your opposition, without threats and intimidation, without rigging the vote or the system.

It gets silly when the government goes after a woman who threw a shoe at a ruling party sign and subsequently put it on social media. She fled to Thailand, was returned at government request and is now in jail. You have to be really insecure to be frightened of a thrown shoe. Putting her behind bars and punishing others whose only crime is to object or dissent is no way to win hearts and minds, but it is a way to crystallize opponents resolve.

Excessive time in office tends to cause leaders to do silly things, to forget simple norms. When our number one saw pictures of himself being burned in Australia prior to a trip there he said, If you burn my picture, I can beat you (paraphrasing). Maybe he forgot he didn’t have the same prerogatives in a foreign country and had to walk his comment back after it created an uproar.

Finally, there’s a feel good story from Malaysia to end this essay on political intransigence. Mohammed Mahathir who ran Malaysia for 20 years until the early 1990s has made a surprise comeback at the age of 92. While he was in power the country made great economic strides, but he was quite autocratic also and put much of his opposition out of commission. He began as partners with Anwar Ibrahim but when he and Ibrahim had a falling out and Ibrahim challenged him at the polls, Mahathir used trumped up, politically motivated charges of sodomy to put Ibrahim out of commission. He spent 6 years in prison and was quite severely beaten at times, to the point of causing permanent damage.

Meanwhile, when Mahathir retired about 20 years ago, Najib Razak, took over. Mahathir’s victory over Razak in the latest election ended one party rule by UMNO – United National Malays Organization – that had been maintained since independence in the sixties. They had kept their power by giving special privileges to the 60% Malay Muslim population and by establishing an electoral system heavily weighted towards rural voters where Malays are concentrated.

Just a few years ago it was Razak’s turn to jail Ibrahim on sodomy charges. Whether or not you thought the charges of sodomy were plausible the first time, the second time was a farce. A big strong young man claimed he was abused by an old, small and frail Ibrahim.

Meanwhile Razak engaged in corruption on a massive scale. His 1MDB development scheme wound up losing 13 billion dollars of state money and seven hundred million dollars appeared in his personal bank account… a gift from a Saudi prince was his laughable claim. All that was too much for Mahathir so he reconciled with Ibrahim, who was still behind bars, to challenge Razak and won. Mahathir immediately pardoned Ibrahim and has promised to step down within 2 years and let Ibrahim become president. Some people see Mahathir’s working with and freeing Ibrahim as an act of atonement for wrongs committed. Taking a person’s freedom for personal gain is another one of those bottom-of-the-barrel karmic lows.

I can’t end this essay without a mention of China. President Xi Jin Ping, not long after starting his second term, decided to change the constitution to end term limits. They had been in place since Mao’s time to prevent the rise of an all powerful individual. But Xi wants to rule forever so he brought together the country’s rubber stamp congress to change the rule. Not surprisingly the change was approved, and also not surprisingly, the vote was 2995 to 2 with 3 abstentions. When the tally was announced almost the entire assembly cheered wildly. I mean, who’s going to publicly go against an all powerful leader. The kicker is that the words term limits were censored in the country’s internet search engines. Such a momentous change and the people aren’t even entitled to ask about it.

Just a few words before I close about Xi’s social credit system. By 2020 every Chinese will be rated according to their social merits. Good grades in school, follow all the laws, visit your parents regularly, you get a good score. Bad grades, demonstrate (against pollution for instance), break the laws, bad score. Currently in China there are 11 million people who are banned from air travel and another 4 million who can’t even ride trains because, in the eyes of the state, they are bad people. Talk about Big Brother.

Advertisements
Standard
Uncategorized

Elections 2017 – Cambodia, UK, France

On June 4 Cambodia held a general election for commune leaders and councilors. Cambodia holds elections on two levels only, communes and the national legislature, which will take place next year. Everything in between; province and city leaders are all appointed by the ruling party.

The entire country is divided into 1646 communes, both urban and rural. In America we’d call them neighborhoods except here they have a lot more responsibility. That’s where people go to get ID cards and official papers stamped, for instance, so they do have an impact on people close to home. However, they don’t have a lot of power and over the commune leader’s head is a representative of the ruling party. They also don’t have much in the way of funding, being dependent on the central government for any public project.

In the election just passed the ruling CPP Cambodian People’s Party won 1158 communes, the opposition CNRP Cambodian National Rescue Party won 487. One commune was captured by a minor party. This was a loss for the ruling party from the last commune election when they won all but about 30 communes.

The actual vote in Cambodia was much closer with the CPP getting 51% and the CNRP getting 44%, the rest going to minor parties. The opposition does better in Phnom Penh where communes have more people than in rural areas. Those vote totals aren’t much different than the last general election in 2013, still it marks a real challenge to the ruling party’s control. Also some of the contests ran on local issues so might not reflect exactly on the people’s mood as a whole.

Several points stand out, the most remarkable being an astounding turnout of 86%. This is all the more exceptional considering that registration closed last October and many people had to return to their home towns to vote. And since the government created a new voter list for this election, everybody had to register anew. It was also the first time people were allowed to vote where they work, but not everybody was able to change their place of registration.

In contrast Oregon has one of the best turnouts in America. They make it very easy to vote. All voting is by mail, there’s no waiting in line to vote. You can register the day of the election. Every time you go to the Dept of Motor Vehicles they ask you if you want to register. With all that they still can’t beat Cambodia at 86%. The Cambodian people are committed to and passionate about the democratic system.

With some few exceptions the election was considered free and fair, for Cambodia a real achievement. However, while the election itself went off smoothly and peacefully, election observers consider the election to be tainted by pre-election media control and threats of violence on the part of the CPP. The PM went off into his usual threats of civil war and chaos if he doesn’t get reelected. Some of it is pure politics, the scare factor. Teresa May’s approach in the UKs election was similar… You must stay with us for stability and strength or else you’ll get a dangerous man like Jeremy Corbyn.

Some of it you have to take at face value. He has threatened to ‘eliminate’ 100 or 200 people if they try to run a revolution on him. His Defense Minister threatened to ‘smash the teeth’ of anybody who doesn’t accept the result in next year’s general election.

Okay, I got that, but what if he actually loses in a free and fair election? He and his crew actually believe that mayhem will follow the loss of the CPP. After 30 years in power would he graciously accept defeat?

He wants the legitimacy of elections and risks economic chaos if he stages a coup against a duly elected government. At least for a while, there would be sanctions, international pressure and general opprobrium. He’d wreck the very stability he runs on. The CPP has greatly increased prosperity over their long reign and people see great improvement in infrastructure and other facets of government, but displacement, land-grabbing, and widespread impunity and corruption are rankling to the masses.

Sometimes no matter how good a political situation might be, after 30 years people get tired and want to try something new. Also there are storm clouds on the economic horizon. Overbuilding of structures tailored for the upper classes in the capital will cause a general crash in property values, at least in the short term. Cambodians are heavily indebted to microfinance institutions, some 88% of rural Cambodians have borrowed from them. With interest rates so high many can only afford to pay interest and never pay the loans off. Any economic slowdown would cause many to default. I also think dependency on loans from China for many projects puts the country in a tenuous position.

The opposition on the other hand stuck to the issues, corruption, decentralization, money for communes. They have to be nice, otherwise the courts will come after them with a vengeance. But what about the people? There were some for sure who heard the CPPs message and felt pressured to vote for ‘stability’, but clearly most people said, meh, I’ll vote for who I want. A lot of people, in this case 44%, weren’t going to be cowed no matter how serious the threat. When popular activist Kem Lay was gunned down last year in suspicious circumstances mourners were told there could be no march. People defied the authorities and 200,000 showed up. They take their rights seriously.

The big election next year will be the test of how far democracy is allowed to go. Jailing and harassment of the opposition might achieve its goals in the short run but will only strengthen the people’s resolve and resentment of the ruling party’s ham-handed tendencies. It’ll be fascinating to watch.

Meanwhile, elections in the UK have created a miasmic morass of uncertainty and confusion. First there was PM David Cameron pandering to his right wing by holding a referendum on the UK leaving or remaining in the EU. It was a vote he was sure was going to be for staying, but instead went for Brexit. Personally, I think it’s dangerous to base such a momentous decision on a single plebiscite: it should’ve required two votes, especially since the vote was close, 52-48.

A lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum are angry at the status quo. Neoliberal policies born in the Thatcher/Reagan era have transferred wealth and power from the 99% to the 1%. The last time inequality was as extreme in the US was in 1929 and we all know how that turned out.

The same goes for the UK. Cosmopolitans and youth in the cities, as well as Scotland and N Ireland voted to stay. It was small town and rural voters who carried the referendum, people nostalgic for a long past past.

Teresa May who took over as Conservative PM when Cameron resigned after the Brexit vote saw an opportunity a couple months back when polls showed her riding high and called for a special election. She had said she wouldn’t call an election ahead of the one scheduled in the regular sequence of things, but couldn’t resist when polls showed her gaining 100 seats in Parliament.

Jeremy Corbyn her opponent was widely derided in the press and by his own Labour MPs who, being staunchly centrist and pro-business, wanted nothing to do with his leftist populist message. However rank and file Labour party members voted for him as leader by an overwhelming majority: this was seen by the establishment as a death knell for the party’s chances in the next election.

Then a funny thing happened on the way to the vote. The more people saw of May, the less they liked her, for Corbyn the exact opposite happened. Instead of a blowout in favor of the Tories, they lost seats and their parliamentary majority. It was a disaster for the party and a big dose of uncertainty going forward for the nation. The electorate was much less divided this time compared to the last election and both major parties gained a lot of votes. Conservatives went from 37% to 44%, Labour went from 30% to 41%.

As in the Brexit vote, young voters were extremely one side in their preference for Labour. All May could offer was her ‘Strong’ leadership along with austerity, hardship and feed-the-rich tax policies, whereas Corbyn talked about free college tuition, taxing the wealthy, nationalization of the railways and more national holidays. As to the last, the UK has only 5 national holidays, less than any other EU country. More time off to enjoy life was his message… imagine that.

Free tuition was also one of Bernie Sanders’ campaign planks. As in the US his opponents talked about that as if it were some impossible pie-in-the-sky populism, so lets look at that more closely.

I don’t know the details regarding the UK, so I’ll stick to US as an example. Bernie’s free tuition proposal for all public higher education would cost $69 billion per year based on the current number of students. American corporations have more than 2 trillion dollars stashed overseas to avoid paying taxes on it. If they were good corporate citizens (bwahahahaha, have you ever heard such a thing?) brought the money back and paid the 35% corporate income tax rate, that would amount to about $700 billion or enough to pay for the program for 10 years. Wealthy Americans have $20 trillion dollars in assets, if you tax that wealth at 1% you’d raise almost 3 times as much as the annual cost of the program. Just the 10 richest Americans could pay for the program for 5 years and each still have tens of billions to play with.

The program would actually cost more since a lot more people would be able to afford an education, but it would still be a pittance compared to the excessive wealth strewn about in the elite. And really, is it better for society to have the superwealthy wallow in their riches or educate everyone who wants? Cost is not the problem, our priorities are.

Corbyn represented a clash with the establishment and spoke to simple truths. He’s the real thing and youth especially knew it and responded.

Meanwhile May having lost her parliamentary majority has got a hell of a problem on her hands. She gets first crack at forming a new government, but she needs the help of a smaller party. Unfortunately, the only potential partner is a far right party in N. Ireland, but it’s not a good match. She may not be able to form a stable government, which job would then fall to Corbyn.

The other great point of confusion brought about by her loss is the beginning of Brexit negotiations. She campaigned on the idea of a hard Brexit, a complete break with the EU, but many Brits, maybe a majority would prefer a soft Brexit. If they had the option to vote again they might even decide to stay.

I think the Brexit vote will ultimately turn out for the best. The UK has always tried to stymie European cooperation and integration and frequently tried to exempt itself from EU wide policies. Brexit will be a grand experiment. It’s all in flux now, but if the exit goes through, I predict within 5 or 10 years they’ll be asking to join again. With more humility and respect for the whole project the next time.

Finally, France has a new president. Emmanuel Macron came from nowhere one year ago with a new party to sweep the presidential field and elect a majority in parliament. Once again the old-guard centrist parties were vanquished in favor of a totally new voice. In this case he’s decidedly centrist, but with a youthful twist. Not only that Macron himself, at 39, is the youngest French president in modern times, but the youth vote carried him to victory. And even in his very short time in office he’s shown himself to be a strong forceful leader.

His major goal is the reform of labor laws that discourage hiring and firing. In past attempts unions came out in force to thwart that goal but with a new mandate and control of government there’s nothing to stop change now. I have great sympathy for the working class but in this case it protects people who are already working while discriminating against those who aren’t. It also protects underperformers while leaving the young out in the dust. The only mitigating factor in today’s cutthroat world would be a generous safety net to cushion job losses and insecurity.

It is heartening that in all three contests mentioned it was the youth who were forward looking and progressive, the voice and direction of the future, giving hope that politics can change.

As a final note I’d like to bring up a voting system variously called preference, ranked choice or instant runoff, a system currently used in Ireland and Australia. France just held 4 votes in one month. Both the presidential and legislative elections required runoffs for contests in which no candidate achieved a majority. By the fourth vote, voter fatigue pushed turnout down to 40%.

Instant runoff guarantees a majority on the first ballot. The voter chooses candidates by ranking their preference, first, second, third. If there’s no majority winner, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their second choice votes are divided up among the remaining candidates. This happens until a candidate gets a majority. For instance, if I were voting in the UK under that system, I’d always vote Green first. It doesn’t matter that I know the Green candidate has no chance of winning because my second choice would be Labour. If the Conservative (or another party candidate) won a majority in the first round, then it didn’t matter who I voted for. If another party didn’t win there’s still a chance my second choice might win.

Instant runoff eliminates the spoiler role minor party candidates play in electing the voter’s worst choice, like the way that votes for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000 helped elect GW Bush. There are lots of reasons why Gore lost the presidency, but the Green party vote for Nader was undoubtedly one of them. With preference voting the Dems and Greens would work together instead of slamming each other.

 

 

Standard