Wednesday, January 23, 2013

After toppling govt's, Overcoming Dilemmas of (NeoColonialism)Democratization
The ongoing global shift toward (imperialist controlled)democratic government, vividly joined in recent years by the Arab World, is tempered by the many challenges of democratic transitions, writesJoseph Siegle.* The toppling of an autocratic leader does not automatically mean the rise of democracy. Elections do not guarantee the protection of civil liberties. And democratic leaders are not immune from the seductions of power and the incentives of dismantling democracy’s institutional checks and balances. The costs to a society and the international community for democratic reversals are high in terms of civil liberties, human rights, human development, and political instability. Strengthening international legal instruments including mechanisms to enhance accountability for violence against journalists and proscribe the subversion of democratic institutions as a Crime against Democracy can help overcome these conundrums.   [ed notes:translation: after western neocolonial interventions that topple legitimate govts its not just enough to build up artificial institutions and open up the nation by subversion thru civil society groups(ngo's)that promote our goals,but we must make sure any future efforts to get rid of these by host nation,should be classified as a war crime,this way we cement out colonial project without any obstacles wich may arise from challenging our directives..
Experience has shown that the early years of a democratic transition are most risky. More than half of all democratic backsliding takes place in the first 5-6 years of a transition. This risk diminishes over time, with less than 10 percent of backsliding occurring once a country has been engaged in the democratisation process for 15 years or more. In other words, momentum for democracy builds the longer a country stays on a democratic path. Still, instances of backsliding even 20 or more years into the democratisation experience do occur. This includes a military coup in Mali in 2012 that reversed a democratisation process that had been underway since 1991. The ongoing risk of backsliding faced by democratisers underscores the reality that democratic consolidation is typically a decades’ long process. A key factor for democratisers’ uphill struggle is that they must overcome entrenched and overlapping autocratic political and economic interests. Lacking popular support, exclusive regimes rely on strong ties to key constituencies – political party, security sector, ethnic group, and geographic region – to stay in power. Regimes reward these groups through patronage – political appointments, jobs, contracts, educational opportunities and other benefits. As in other monopolistic or oligarchic relationships, the privileges that accrue to those in the network come at the expense of the rest of society who suffer from fewer opportunities, services, and overall lower economic productivity. Over time, this arrangement leads to deep and widening disparities in a society.[ed notes:interestingly,the west ,that the author represents,has no problem with this arrangement in countries like Colombia,Peru,Gulf countries...but author doesnt mind those,he is specifically talking about those pesky little countries wich oppose western hegemony..
The problem often persists after an autocratic regime has been toppled because of significant collective action challenges. Supporters of a former autocratic regime have much to lose if their privileged positions are threatened. Moreover, because of their close knit networks, they are well-informed, organised, and resourced. Thus reformers do not begin a transition with a neutral playing field but one that is highly unbalanced and embedded in a society’s economy. Reformers represent the interests of the majority but they are fragmented, difficult to organise, and operate with limited information. Old guard supporters play on this lack of cohesion through misinformation campaigns that further impede organization and mobilization. In short, given the institutional history, pushback from rearguard interests is not only common but to be expected – often from the earliest days of a transition.Democratic transitions then can be seen as periods of norms-setting or, perhaps more accurately, norms competition. 
[ed notes:he means an unhampered free market invasion
In addition to pressures from rearguard interests, democratic transitions are also vulnerable to hijackings by those with divergent ideological, religious, or economic interests. Seizing the opportunity of a transition, such spoilers redirect the momentum toward their ends. Arguably, this is the sequence that took place following the protests against the Shah of Iran in 1979. Iranians had mobilized to reject the tyranny of this autocratic model only to have this groundswell redirected under the banner of a charismatic religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, who affirmed his desire to see democracy take root in Iran. Instead, nationalist and Islamist fervor were fused to justify a theocratic governance system that while adopting certain democratic practices, in fact, did not respond to popular preferences or allow checks on the Supreme Leader. [ed notes:keep in mind the weasel behind this paper is a zionist,whos interested in regime change in Iran,in order to pursue thsoe interests,not interests of majority of Iranians,who if not for western unilateral sanctions,would be right now enjoying the best standard of living in the world!!!even under sanctions they fare better then almost all of us puppet regimes in mena region!!!as fara s claim that iranian system doesnt allow checks and balances,thats a lie..see.. IRAN'S INTERNATIONAL CONSTITUTIONALISM IS AS COMPETITIVE AND JUST AS VALID AS ANY OTHER NATION IN WORLD  
Since most democratic transitions are emerging from a political context where power is consolidated within the executive overcoming autocratic inertia requires establishing checks and balances on the Office of the President or Prime Minister.
[ed notes:Ah that old parliamentary govt representative nonsense..take the UK for instance or Canada..both though superficially having these institutions, wich supposedly provide checks on different branches of govt,are actually a facade..take UK for instance,the queen is the worlds ultimate insider trader(so much for checks and balances)see.. Windsor Report- Queen Ultimate Insider Trader- Thompson in Canada she has power to absolve parliament(and has many times) this line of propaganda author is feeding us is nonsense,in U.S. there are really no checks and balances,you have an executive wich goes around congress,you have a judiciary and supreme court with appointments for life(though they are tied to the dualopoly party system),there is no real democracy ,and author knows this well..
Insights from earlier transition experiences reveal that such state institutions can emerge but they take time, typically a decade or more. Consequently, non-state actors play a vital role in upholding new norms of democratic accountability during this interim period. In particular, civil society groups, media, and public access to information and communications technology are essential forces for accountability. These actors and tools generate independent information – the lifeblood of accountability. Information enables independent assessment and oversight as well as educating the general public, effectively empowering them to protect their interests. Civil society networks, moreover, create links between and across social, geographic, and economic groups in a society. The density of such networks enhances the social cohesion of a population enabling them to sustain popular pressure for democratic reform over the extended period until state accountability institutions can gain traction. While it should be recognised that not all civil society actors represent the public good (e.g. racist organizations, gangs, criminal networks), depth of civil society networks is a key predictor of successful democratic transitions. [ed notes:again he's deceiving the reader,these NGOs are not indepedent at all,but rather privately funded by corporate interests whos representation by the govt and nation they come from is well many other cases they get funded by the govts out to topple the govts hes advocating democracy promotion for..
*Joseph Siegle is Director of Research at the National Defense University’s Africa Center for Strategic Studies.
[ed notes:some backround on the author.. he comes from CFR,Center for Security Policy,and representing his own economic agendas,wich covet targetted countries for dmeocracy promotion..he owns a venture capital company.. but going deeper hes tied TO C.I.A. front National Endowment for Democracy,wich specializes in overthrowing democratic govts around the world... Africa | National Endowment for Democracy Democracy Promotion Roundtable - Democracy Coalition Project  Roundtable on Democracy Promotion - Council on Foreign Relations  Why Democracies Excel | Foreign Affairs

No comments: