Venezuela: Imperfect democracy

When a national leader like Hugo Chávez wins an election, there are few outside observers who are very surprised and most of them are skeptical about the final results. But, even though Chávez rules like a dictator over his people, democratic institutions do exist in Venezuela. That is, even though Chávez has used his power as President to amass large amounts of power, there was a real Presidential campaign this year, and democracy does exist in that country, though it may be imperfect.

To be sure, Chávez has accrued massive power and influence, which gave him an immense advantage in the Presidential race. He has centralized the government and controls almost every branch of it. He owns almost every television station in the country and even has his own program. A large chunk of the state’s oil revenue goes into a personal account of his, and he has had political opponents arrested. And, on top of all that, the President’s term has been extended to six years and term limits have been abolished. Chávez can now be President for life.

Despite this, there was an opposition party and it did very well; Chávez got only 55% of the vote. Of course, modern dictators are too savvy to give themselves mandates of around 99%, but you would think he could have done better. This narrow victory also comes five years after Venezuelans voted in a referendum against constitutional changes supported by Chávez. He can lose.

There were some concerns about vote tampering. Voters had to register their name on an electronic device before voting, raising concerns that these devices would record who voted for whom – though, in reality, this concern was unfounded. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter called the Venezuelan election process “the best in the world.” Chávez wasn’t relying on old-school tactics like ballot-stuffing and vote-rigging.

But now comes the real test. The voting process may have been fair, but the advantages Chávez had over his opponents in spreading his message certainly weren’t, which still calls into question the legitimacy of a Chávez Presidency. How will the opposition react? They aren’t under any illusions that they don’t operate in a rigged system, but I think they see that their best chances lie in operating within that system.

The important thing, though, is that as imperfect as Venezuelan democracy is, it does exist. The problem is that democracy isn’t easy, and Venezuela is relatively new at this. A mature democracy, for example, has safeguards to prevent egomaniacs from taking complete control of the country. There’s a learning process, and it takes a long time. It’s not like we’ve perfected democracy, ourselves.

Don’t Forget Quebec

The announcement on Monday of an agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom to share embassies in areas where one country does not yet have an established presence received more attention and criticism than the government no doubt expected. This isn’t the first time, however, that Canadian and British diplomats have worked together, and a new plan of co-operation between the two countries would seem rather mundane. There’s one thing, though, that they forgot about, one thing that is often forgotten about: Quebec.

Quebec is a province which has just gone through massive protests, where the idea of separatism (or at least sovereignty) is becoming more and more popular, and where a sovereignist government has just been elected (though, with a minority of seats). At the same time, the British Empire has always played a symbolic role in the culture wars between English and French Canada. Even the current government has stirred the pot by doings things like replacing two paintings by a Quebecois artist with portraits of the Queen.

And those who can take political advantage of this symbolism are using it. Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair said in the House of Commons, “It’s all very nice to be nostalgic for the great British Empire, but there are limits.”

What English Canada needs to keep in mind, is that Quebec is also part of this country, and we need to take their views into account. Not all English Canadians feel nostalgic for the British Empire, but they’re often unaware of the symbolic power it has for Quebeckers. Unlike past actions that may have been intentionally provocative, I don’t think the thought even crossed Conservatives’ minds this time. However, Thomas Mulcair, leader of the NDP, the party that became the Official Opposition after winning many new seats in Quebec, noticed it and is taking advantage of it.

Ultimately, this is just another one of those scandals that only exist because the Opposition Party needs to keep busy. It does show, however, that there is a sentiment brewing among Quebeckers, one that savvy politicians are picking up on.

There are some valid concerns about this plan, but no real reason to worry. Criticism is centered around concerns that Canada will be giving up part of its sovereignty. Critics point to some British conservatives who see closer ties with Commonwealth countries as a tactic to create a force in opposition to the European Union. If the UK is trying to start a power play with the EU, it’s nothing we want to get involved in. We want to have close relations with both. That means we should stay vigilant, but it’s no reason to stop working together.

For most of Canadian history, Quebec has been ignored or forgotten about, or simply seen as annoying by the rest of the country. It seems however, that we’re heading into another one of those periods in our history, where Quebec forces us to take notice of it.

 

Partage d’ambassades canado-britanniques: l’opposition a des craintes

‘Made-in-Canada foreign policy’ not compromised by embassy sharing plan: Baird

Whatever happened to Occupy?

Time Magazine chose as its 2011 Person of the Year “the Protester,” and it’s hard to disagree. The protests in Tunisia at the beginning of 2011 led to the fall of a dictator and inspired protest movements in the rest of the Middle East which were collectively dubbed the “Arab Spring.” The Arab Spring began to inspire protesters in other parts of the world as new movements sprang up in Europe to demonstrate against terrible economic conditions, sometimes adopting tactics used by the Middle East protesters. One of the most famous episodes of the Arab Spring was when residents of Cairo occupied Tahrir Square and it became a kind of base of operations for Egyptian protesters. When the wave of protests reached New York City, the protesters adopted this tactic of occupation, took over Zuccotti Park and became Occupy Wall Street

The protest movement that was inspired by one in Egypt inspired a new movement, in turn. Within less than a month, versions of Occupy sprang up in cities all around the United States and the world. The Occupy movement had struck a nerve and had captured the attention of the media and people in general. It had a real effect on the US national dialogue, changing it to one of income inequality after being dominated by the need to reduce the national debt. The following winter, the camps were evicted from public spaces and the protesters were dispersed, but it seemed impossible that a movement with so much energy and support behind it would simply die out. Many expected Occupy to return in the spring. Half way in to 2012, however, the movement seems largely forgotten.

Since spring rolled around, events have been planned and carried out that have gotten only minor attention. A Day of Action was planned for May 1. There was some news about the 99 Percent Spring, a movement created by a coalition of liberal groups and endorsed by celebrities with the aim of teaching ordinary people about direct action. Many from the original Occupy movement were suspicious of it, even describing the 99 Percent Spring as a “co-opting” of the Occupy movement. So far, not much has come out of it. At the same time, there are still groups operating under the Occupy banner. Occupy Our Homes, for example, has been working to prevent home owners from being evicted and Occupy the SEC has gotten itself involved in the implementation of financial reform regulations in the US. But, again, very little notice is being taken of these groups and their activities.

Outside of the US, the protest movements inspired by the Middle East and New York City were and remain focused on local issues. The various Occupies set up after a wave of inspiration have been largely abandoned, but the energy remains. Today, for example, the website for Occupy Montreal will redirect you to one with links for “weight loss” or “Dvds,” but protesters’ energy has been redirected to the massive student strike. In Europe, some minor and not very influential Occupy groups remain, but there has still been massive mobilization in opposition to programs of austerity, leading to the triumph in several elections of anti-austerity candidates.

The reason the Occupy movement gained so much attention was not the work of the activists — left-wing groups have been around forever — but that these activists tapped into a feeling of dissatisfaction among regular people. It seems only natural that after exploding onto the scene, the energy would die down a little. If 2011 was the Year of the Protest, 2012 is the year of its aftermath. The Arab Spring, for example, has turned into an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria. Despite this, the conditions that caused the dissatisfaction remain and it’s very likely that more actions like Occupy Wall Street will continue and will eventually retake people’s attentions, even if not under the name “Occupy.”

What will the Afghanistan withdrawal look like?

At the NATO summit in Chicago last week, the US plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan was officially endorsed and a framework was established, outlining the alliance’s future involvement in the region. All combat troops will be out by the end of 2014 and a new mission will be established that will have NATO soldiers taking on training and advisory roles. Therefore, despite the end of combat operations, NATO troops will remain in Afghanistan, raising the question: What exactly does “withdrawal” mean?

Each member country will decide for itself whether personnel will remain in training and advisory roles after combat operations end, and all will contribute to a fund that will aid in financing Afghan security forces. As for Canada, all of our troops will be withdrawn from the country by the end of March 2014. None will remain, not even in advisory positions. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged, however, $330 million to aid Afghan forces.

Attention has mainly been directed toward the US plan for withdrawal, as it is outlined in the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement (pdf) between the US and Afghanistan, signed earlier this month. This agreement states that US combat troops will leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014, but some personnel will remain after this date to assist the Afghans.

The agreement drew criticism however, because it remains in effect until 2024, with the possibility of renewal. The war in Afghanistan is very unpopular in the United States and many are opposed to any US personnel staying behind. Since the killing of Osama bin Laden and the near wiping out of Al-Qaeda, more and more Americans believe it’s time to leave Afghanistan once and for all.

This, however, is not good policy, even though the threat that Al-Qaeda poses in Afghanistan is practically non-existent. The terror organization has, in fact, taken up base in other countries, like Yemen. But, this does not mean that Afghanistan can be completely abandoned. Al-Qaeda moved to Yemen because the country is unstable and there was almost no US presence. If the US were to abandon Afghanistan completely, an unready Afghan army may be unable to maintain stability, and Al-Qaeda could move back in.

But Americans have been hearing this argument for years, and they are no longer convinced by it. US presence in Afghanistan will have to enter a new stage after 2014. Political realities in both the United States and Afghanistan, as well as the need to force Afghanistan to eventually take over its own security require that only a minimum of American personnel be left after the official withdrawal date.

If we look at the withdrawal from Iraq, where a US presence still remains after a complete military withdrawal, this might give us an idea of what the Afghanistan withdrawal will look like. At the moment, only diplomatic staff remain in Iraq, as well as independent contractors providing security. Trainers and advisors remain to aid Iraqi security forces, under US Embassy authority. While the US military has been completely withdrawn from the country, the Obama administration did, in fact, try to negotiate an agreement that would allow US forces to remain. These talks broke down over the issue of legal immunity for American soldiers.

The final details of the withdrawal from Afghanistan have yet to be worked out, but the general form it will take is clear. After 2014, NATO will continue to support the Afghan forces through financial aid. Some countries, like Canada, will withdraw their forces completely, while personnel from other countries will remain to provide training and advice. Because of the unpopularity of the war in the United States, only a minimal presence will remain; enough to train Afghan forces and to ensure the country does not descend back into chaos. If the administration does not face any hurdles like those in Iraq while negotiating with the Afghans, that presence could include the US military. Even though it is officially being called a withdrawal, the US will continue to have a presence in the region, at least until 2024, but possibly even longer.

Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement (pdf)
Some Troops to Stay in Iraq as Trainers, Top Officer Says
Status of Forces Agreement (New York Times)
Nato endorses Afghanistan withdrawal timetable
Iraq (US Department of State)
NATO leaders discuss Afghan withdrawal
All Canadian troops to leave Afghanistan by 2014: PM
France’s Afghanistan pull-out signals war fatigue driving European defense cuts

Middle East secularism after the Arab Spring

When the Arab Spring began in Tunisia in January of last year, it captured the world’s attention. People everywhere were inspired by the toppling of dictators in the Middle East and North Africa region. Others, however, were pessimistic, and worried about a power vacuum that would allow Islamist groups come to take control. This is how most people heard about the Muslim Brotherhood, which managed to win seats in the Egyptian parliament in the election held earlier this year. The fact is, though, that it was brutal dictators like Mubarak that created support for extreme, fanatic religious groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or Al-Qaeda.

Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad, and even Saddam Hussein all ran (nominally, at least) secular regimes and were targets of extreme Islamist groups, like Al-Qaeda, because of their secularism. These leaders were also brutal dictators, so, to oppose these secular dictators, people turned to religious extremism and the extremist groups that were leading the opposition.

In the last decade, support for extremist groups has plummeted. This Pew poll shows, for example, that support among Muslims for Al-Qaeda has dropped 43 percentage points since 2003 in Jordan, and 38 points in Palestine. Despite the fact that Al-Qaeda has killed more Muslims than the War on Terror, it was able to gain support among Muslims because of a narrative that painted the organization as religious freedom fighters.

The Arab Spring was a movement of all Arabs, religious or not, democratic or not. Naturally, Al-Qaeda and other Islamist organizations saw the Arab Spring as the fruits of their labour. But, there was another group that was just as instrumental, a group of democratic secularists. The fall of a dictator does leave a power vacuum that could be filled with religious extremists, but we have every reason to be optimistic. Things may be chaotic at the moment, but once Arabs are able to establish free and democratic governments, Islamists can no longer paint themselves as the only force for freedom. In a free society, extreme viewpoints will always exist, but few people will be driven to listen to them.

Beauchamp’s resignation and the Quebec student movement in international context

Line Beauchamp démissionne

When the student protesters started carrying banners and signs with the phrase printemps érable (Maple Spring, which rhymes with printemps arabe, the French name for the Arab Spring) on them, there came with it the not unexpected criticism that students striking over tuition fees would compare themselves to people in the Middle East fighting to overthrow truly oppressive dictatorships. The two situations are completely different, and Line Beauchamp wasn’t Hosni Mubarak, but there is a connection between both the Arab Spring and the Maple Spring. Since the end of the Cold War, a new left has emerged, one opposed to the neo-conservative and neo-liberal policies that governments have been carrying for the past three or four decades. The Arab Spring was a turning point for this new left because it was the first time that its efforts of mobilization and action were actually able to effect change, and Beauchamp’s resignation is just another example showing that this new left, and the world, has entered a new era.

The turning point that ushered in the last era of the new left was the 1999 World Trade Organization summit in Seattle and the protests around it. This was the first time since the Cold War that activists were able to mobilize on such a massive scale. Activists would mobilize again in large numbers to protest the Summit of the Americas in 2001, the Iraq war, in Quebec, to oppose a tuition hike in 2005, and to protest many other things around the world. Of course, the US still went to war with Iraq and, while tuition rates weren’t raised, many students were still unhappy with the resolution.

The deepening divide between an establishment made up of governments, organizations, international corporations, etc. and ordinary people is what puts events in Quebec into a broader international context. This graph of average US household income over the last 30 years is only one example of this widening gap, but it clearly illustrates it. The class of people dubbed the 1% by the Occupy movement lives in a world of its own, with its own concerns and even its own economy. As the world of the 1% and that of regular people has drifted further and further apart, governments have been acting in the interest of the 1%, ignoring the concerns of the vast majority of their citizens.

Whether it was the invasion of other countries, outsourcing of jobs, or the elimination of regulations on businesses, these were all things being driven by global forces, and the average person couldn’t do anything to stop them. Many tried, but were largely unsuccessful. That all changed in 2011, when ordinary people in Egypt were able to force a dictator to resign.

Just to emphasize the point, I’ll mention again that Line Beauchamp isn’t a brutal dictator, and neither is Jean Charest. It was however, a student movement, partially inspired by the Arab Spring that forced Beauchamp to step down. And, while the issues in Quebec are for the most part very different from those in Egypt, we can see how, from a different point of view they really are related. After the Arab Spring came Occupy Wall Street, the Quebec student strike, and, more recently, the sweeping defeat of pro-austerity governments all across Europe. Beauchamp’s resignation is just one more instance of the new left succeeding and we have entered a new era where we’ll be seeing many more successes like these.

Austerity vs. Growth after the Elections in France and Greece

Four years after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the world economy is still stagnating and we have two plans of action to choose from to get us out of this crisis; austerity or growth. The contention of those in favour of austerity is that nations have been spending too much in recent years (or decades) and this spending must be stopped and cut back. This means cuts in social programs and a period of general hardship, but this all necessary in order to undo the consequences of a previous period of excess and it simply must be endured. A program of growth, on the other hand, focuses on government spending in order to invest in national economies and spur economic growth. Proponents of this path argue that a path of austerity would, in fact, harm the world economy by taking huge amounts of money out of it.

The election of Hollande has brought these two paths head to head with each other. Until now, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, as leaders of the two most powerful nations in the Eurozone, have been imposing a path of austerity on the rest of Europe. Last Sunday, Merkozy was broken up, and, while Hollande’s economic agenda isn’t as clear as Sarkozy’s, what is clear, is that he rejects the path of austerity and will be advancing one that is growth oriented. Merkel remains dedicated to austerity, and her position, as the leader of Germany, remains strong, though significantly weakened without France behind her, and this will be important if there is a clash with the Greek government.

The question of austerity or growth, and the election of governments that favour growth, isn’t just a matter of differing opinions on ecomic policy. The attitude behind austerity was that democracy had gotten out of hand, people had insisted on so many public services that countries had to take on massive amounts of debt that they would never be able to pay back, and now sensible, pragmatically minded people had to step in and put things right again. Greece became the poster boy of democracy run-amok with massive corruption, tax evasion, and retired grandmothers receiving more pension than they were owed. From its introduction, austerity has meant policies created by elites that disproportionately harm the middle and lower classes, enacted with the sense of paying a penance after an era of gluttony.

The election of Hollande in France and Syriza in Greece signal that the people are beginning to assert themselves against uncaring technocrats and indifferent elites. Simply being opposed to austerity enabled a neo-Nazi party to gain seats in the Greek parliament. And some people who voted for the far right Le Pen in the French election in April, voted for the socialist candidate, François Hollande, in the run-off.

Austerity has held a monopoly on the economic discussion in Europe for the last two years and the elections last weekend have just thrown the choice of which path the continent will follow up in the air.

What’s driving the Quebec student protests?

The title of this article isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m now living in Montreal, but I’m originally from Saskatchewan, and I both want to understand the people of my new home (I’m also reading Bonheur d’Occasion) and the situation happening around me. The protests are ostensibly over a tuition hike, but there seems to be more to it than that. It’s not just students wearing the carré rouge, and a protest against the Plan Nord, an issue completely unrelated to tuition, was able to draw large crowds. It seems as though these protests are part of a larger movement.

Being unfamiliar with the recent history of Quebec, I want to be cautious about calling the current situation historic. This could just be how things are done in Quebec. According to wikipedia, the last student strike in 2005 lasted about as long as the current one has so far and included a protest as large as the one on March 22. Even the carré rouge was used as a symbol in the last strike.

That said, there have been other student strikes from time to time before 2005. Were they as intense as the current one and the one in 2005? Unfortunately, I can’t find any information about that. It could be that the strike in 2005 was also part of this larger movement.

In addition to the movement happening in Quebec, we are in the middle of a world-wide upheaval, which events in Quebec must be part of. The protests in Quebec are over local matters, but there is a sense of connection between global and local issues, as demonstrated in the word play in the sometimes-used name for the local movement “printemps érable“. And while events in Egypt, Greece, and New York, for example, have all been motivated by local issues, there is no doubt that they are all related to this larger, world-wide movement.

What, then, is the nature of the movement in Quebec? Partly, it seems to be opposition to Premier Jean Charest, part of what drove the protest against the Plan Nord. The English/French divide is evident. Like in past strikes, there is more support for the strike in the French schools and universities than in the English ones. Even though the students at the English universities are on strike according to their student unions, the students of the French universities have definitely been more active. Also, a video went viral, recently, of a poem called “Speak Red“, an adaptation of the 1968 poem, “Speak White”.

The news from last weekend is that the Quebec government had come up with a compromise that they hoped would end the strike. The news from this week is that many student bodies are on route to reject this proposal. Even if the strike ends soon, that doesn’t mean the protests will. The protests emerged even before the strike started. Occupy Montreal pitched their tents last October. If the strike is part of this larger, global movement, the real problem isn’t tuition, and a solution to the tuition hike won’t solve the core issues driving the protests.

These have been my observations and questions about the student protests and, to end this blog post, I want to list the main questions which I hope whoever reads this post will address in the comments (someone’s reading this, right?)

1. Are the students protests anything new or special for Quebec? How does the current strike compare to the one in 2005? What about ones before that?

2.What role does the French/English divide play in these protests?

3. How do these protests relate to the larger, world-wide movement?

4. Will the protests end any time soon? What if a deal can be struck over the tuition hike?

President Obama was right to apologize to Afghans

The leading presidential contenders for the Republican party criticized President Obama on Sunday for apologizing after the accidental burning of a Quran on a U.S. base in Afghanistan. The burning sparked widespread protests and violence in Afghanistan, and NATO is now trying to regain stability. Those who think that Obama should not have apologized should be aware that the burning was only a spark that ignited an already tense situation.

NATO is waging a war in Afghanistan, which means Afghans are constantly living in the unfortunate but necessary reality of night raids, drone strikes and civilian casualties. In this context, NATO has to convince the people of Afghanistan that their presence in the country is for their benefit and that NATO is on their side.

Consider this from the point of view of an Afghani. NATO says that they are not an occupying force, that they are in my country to build it up so that power can eventually be transferred to my government and I can live in a free and stable society. Ten years later, this force is still here and their soldiers have raided my house in the middle of the night or one of my loved ones was killed in a drone strike. Their claim is becoming harder to believe. Then I hear that they have been burning Qurans. It’s easy to see the tension in this relationship.

An apology from Obama was definitely in order, not just to prevent further violence, but as a part of doing everything reasonable and possible to try to undo a major setback in relations between the two sides. The U.S. needs to show that they are on the side of Afghans. And, fortunately, whether Obama’s apology helped, it seems that the protests are winding down.

Karzai urges Afghans to avoid violent retaliation over Koran burnings
Anti-American Violence Is Unlikely to Change U.S. Afghan War Plans
NATO Chief: Troops Show ‘Remarkable Restraint’ in Afghanistan
GOP bashes Obama over Afghan apology

Saleh Loses Uncontested Election

An update for my post from last week; the election was held in Yemen and the former President Ali Abdullah Saleh was officially rejected by his people. We still don’t have the final results, but turnout is estimated to be as high as 80% despite boycotts and violent incidences. A high turnout means that the new president, Mansour Hadi, will have an air of legitimacy; important for a country as divided as Yemen.

After Yemen election, life after Saleh begins
Yemen election hints at Arab Spring’s deeper meaning
Yemen election for president ends rule of Ali Abdullah Saleh