Evgeny Morozov bangs his drum again questioning the democratizing power of the Internet. Though I find him overly reactionary, I do generally agree with Morozov. My original master’s thesis proposal was on the Internet as a propaganda tool for clerics in Iran. Morozov’s basic point over the past couple of years is that the Internet is just a tool, to be used for good or ill — with an emphasis on the ill. This article sums up his view once again, except he brings up an excellent point about techno-utopian bias that he dubs “orientalism-in-reverse”:

While we fret about the Internet’s contribution to degrading the civic engagement of American kids, all teenagers in China or Iran are presumed to be committed and engaged global citizens who use the Web to acquaint themselves with human rights violations committed by their governments.

Read the whole article and the comments. I follow Morozov’s blog and his writing in FP. Often I find his op-eds heavy in rhetoric and light on data, so I am looking forward to his book on the Internet and democracy, which will be released later this year.

Related: Evgeny Morozov’s TED talk

Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party has ruled Japan almost uninterrupted for the past six decades. It suffered a leadership crisis through the 1990s but managed to keep power largely due to the incompetence of the opposition. In 2001, the party elected as Prime Minsiter its last best hope, a maveric fringe politician known as Junichiro Koizumi. He pushed through structural reforms, most importantly the privatization of the Post Office, the controversy over which led him to disolve the Diet and call a sudden snap election, which resulted in his party winning a record-breaking landslide in the most recent Lower House election in September 2005.

Barely a year after winning that election, Koizumi stepped down without nominating a clear successor, leaving the party to decide who would follow after him. In a three-way race between an old school conservative, a boring moderate, and a “Japanese neo-con,” the later—Shinzo Abe—was the clear popular choice. Abe had only a decade serving as a parliamentarian in the Diet and had little cabinet experience, and his election made him the youngest PM in the modern era and the first born after World War II. Abe was labeled a “Japanese neo-con” and was a nationalist who focused on his pet issues such as patriotic education and needling North Korea over abducting Japanese nationals. Although he started out very popular, he was slammed by more practical issues that affected the lifestyle of the citizenry. He was then slammed by a sleeper issue, the failure to correctly record the national pension records, and saw his popularity collapse. This resulted in the LDP losing the Upper House election to the opposition Democrats, and he spent exactly one year in office and resigned when he couldn’t handle the stress.

Abe was followed by Yasuo Fukuda, a softer, more moderate face of the LDP. But Fukuda was unable to grasp the popular mood and appeal to issues that were relevant to the voting public. Over time Fukuda faced the same problems as Abe and saw his relatively high approval rates steadily drop. Like Abe, Fukuda resigned due to the stress.

Taro Aso was an old school conservative and the eldest son from an elite family heavily entrenched in politics and business. He was the clear favorite to follow after Fukuda resigned, partially because he was seen as the best man to lead the LDP into an election. That was correct at the time. But his repeated gaffes, unpopular attempts to stimulate the economy, and inability to convince the electorate that he was competently aware of the issues has quickly resulted in his steady unpopularity. Although some LDP reformists tried to dethrone Aso before today’s election, he has survived—and despite the party’s woes, many in the ruling coalition are relieved that they finally have a leader who doesn’t cut and run from the leadership the moment

All three of these men were “LDP royalty”—each counted a former prime minister as their father or grandfather. This aspect of Japanese politics won’t immediately change if the opposition wins. DPJ party leader Yukio Hatoyama is the grandson of a prime minister, and his brother sits across the political aisle and until recently served in Aso’s cabinet.

Polls close in just a few hours at 8 p.m. local time, and the results should start to flow in immediately thereafter. If you’re in Japan and understand Japanese, NHK will provide the best coverage. If you’re not in Japan or want instant English coverage, our friends over at Transpacific Radio and Mutantfrog are teaming up with others to provide live, streaming coverage of the results as they come in, the only audio-visual media that will provide this type of live coverage in English. Those of you who are interested should be sure to tune in here.

Long-time blog pal the strategist has been posting on the recurring theme of Leadership as of late. He has two worthy posts What can Chuang Tzu tell us about leading people? and Where can you find good books about leadership? that anyone interested in leadership should go read.

The first post emphasizes the role of a leader as a facilitator: A leader must “create or shape situations where people succeed through their own initiative and effort.” The second post is chock full of resources on leadership that do not use that specific term in the title, and a further discussion of the term itself.

A couple of years back we had a lively discussion on leadership that Peter himself took part in. It might be interesting to see if and how views have changed.

In his latest book Tribes, the famous marketer Seth Godin makes an important distinction between leaders and managers:

Leaders have followers. Managers have employees.
Managers make widgets. Leaders make change.

I think this could definitely extend to military and political leadership. Godin’s point is a manager’s role is that of increasing efficiency within the current paradigm. Leaders on the other hand, break with the past.

Furthermore, Godin stresses in his book that in this day and age anyone and everyone can be a leader of their own movement, if they are willing to take the initiative. In our field this is evidenced both by super-empowered individuals like Osama bin Laden, and the Strategic Corporals on the ground all over the world. I also hope it can evidenced by our current political leaders soon, because it always seems that blog posts on leadership are compelled to refer to the bygone works of Churchill, Sun Tzu and Xenaphon.

From tribes to city states to states, humans have always sought security, and used familial ties (constantly redefined) as the links to achieve that. Similarly, humans have an innate need to differentiate themselves whether by family, race, region, culture, religion etc. Globalization is confronting people with more and more differences (other countries, cultures, civilizations, religions and more) at an unparalleled pace. This is leading to individuals worldwide to redefine their identity and their loyalty creating both upward and downward trends. This recent telegraph article on an independence party for Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium, has a quote by a party spokesman on exactly this trend:

“The EU makes it possible for countries such as this one to split up. We believe we are experiencing both globalisation and localisation. Some problems are global, like defence or the environment, and these need to be dealt with by the EU. But at the same time democracy needs to be closer to the people, and that is why we are a regionalist party. The two trends go hand in hand.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. More on this topic within the next week or so.

As political leaders begin to make statements bordering on the ridiculous, let me briefly recap what has happened in Honduras.

Former President Manuel Zelaya, ally of Venezuelan thug in chief Hugo Chavez, sought to illegally hold a referendum on changing the Honduran constitution. This could have allowed him to run again in violation of the country’s current term limits. It’s a classic trick of would-be-dictators and luckily did not succeed. While some in the media and elsewhere are labeling this a coup, I would not not. It’s rather a ‘coup’ in the same sense as Turkey has experienced several times whereby the military removed leadership that was violating the country’s laws.

Some may argue that the military’s removal of the president by force was not democratic. Indeed, on the surface it would seem to be illegal, however given that the president was pressing on with his illegal actions, declared so by the supreme court, congress and the military, it was in fact a fairly reasonable and foreseeable response. While of course, I do not encourage such actions by any military in general, in the case of Honduras, the constitutionally mandated checks on presidential power had failed. Since Zelaya blatantly continued his illegal activity, we can in fact be thankful that he was ousted before having a chance to rewrite the constitution and turn the country into an even poorer, worse off Venezuelan satellite. Indeed, according to top-secret Chirol sources in Honduras, there were rumors of several hundred Venezuelan trained paramilitary forces poised to enter the country from Nicaragua during the referendum to create unrest of somehow aid the process. Thus, the Honduran military has been deployed to the border in large numbers, so I am told.

My sources indicate that the former vice president did not want to assume the presidency as it would not allow him to run for president in the next election per Honduran law. Therefore, president of congress, Roberto Micheletti, has been named acting president as he would be next in line. Given that the military has not attempted to take power and has in fact followed Honduran law in terms of who would assume power, its actions can hardly be condemned but rather seen as defending the rule of law.

Barring unforeseen changes or new evidence coming to light, this author applauds the Honduran military and is happy to see another blow against the leftist fascism creeping through Central and South America, emanating from Caracas. It should therefore come as no surprise that Venezuela has even threatened military action in response! My prediction is that Zelaya will end up in Caracas living off the oil money that rightfully belongs to the Venezuelan people and serving as a living ‘martyr’ of Yankee imperialism, giving speeches and rallying support for Chavez. I also strongly disagree the remarks of both President Obama and SecState Clinton who were quick to condemn the action.

In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the democratic presidential primary, some bemoaned “subterranean sexism” in America, where voters would not vote to elect a woman to the highest office. Truth be told, this may have less to do with the American voters than with the form of direct democracy in America. A global perspective shows that indirect democracy such as in a parliamentary systems—where a prime minister is selected by elected peers—is far more likely to produce a female head of government.

Looking at a list of elected female heads of state, of the 52 elected leaders, 42 were elected through parliamentary elections. And of the other 10 presidents that were directly elected heads of government (not head of state), that’s only 7 countries—the Philippines, Liberia, and Argentina have each elected two presidents.

This phenomenon is not even remotely regional, and is seen in every corner of the globe. From Margaret Thatcher in the UK to Golda Meir in Israel, from Yulia Tymoshenko in the Ukraine to Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, it is parliaments that tend to elect female leaders. That’s notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan is a country where women in some regions are forbidden to even leave their homes without a male escort.

Why? A direct electoral system such as in the US presidential election permits an unknown to campaign out of nowhere on the basis of a campaign against the system. Just look at the last three US presidents, who were all relatively unknown until they ran for president. By contrast, in countries with parliamentary systems, all leaders must be selected by their colleagues. This typically means a gradual rise, based on an accumulated record of achievement, requiring a base of support among fellow legislators. Popular support doesn’t come into play until this requirements are met. This system typically gives women and minorities a better chance to make their case.

What does this say about democracy? To me, although no system is perfect, this is another pro about less democracy. Dissapointed supporters of Hillary Clinton can be somewhat comforted by the fact that, if America was a parliamentary system where the head of the House of Representatives was the prime minister, America would have seen its first female head of government in 2007 when Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the house.

Garry Kasparov, Russian chess champion turned Kremlin critic, was giving a speech at a political rally with the theme of restoring democracy. It was attended by about 500 Kremlin critics. The meeting was interripted when pro-Kremlin Young Russia activists launched flying penises through the room. See the video below. Via liveleak.com.

From John Micklethwait, Editor in Chief of The Economist:

In 2001 The Economist argued against the Olympic games being given to China, making unkind comparisons to the event in Berlin in 1936. Now that the games are about to begin, many people, not least in China, say we were wrong: the Olympics have helped the world’s largest country. We disagree. China has certainly made a huge and admirable leap forward, but that is attributable to other things, such as opening up its economy or the spread of mobile telephony. On closer examination, the Olympics have been bad for human rights and the environment, and they have done little to make China more biddable when it comes to foreign policy. Now they may further fuel the flames of nationalism.

Read the article here.

The Washington Post has a great article about two former dictators dead or near death, Pinochet and Castro, and discusses the substantive differences between the two in a manner similar to how Kaplan (and myself) have approached the issue before:

A Dictator’s Double Standard

Augusto Pinochet tortured and murdered. His legacy is Latin America’s most successful country…

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle—and that not even Allende’s socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro—Mr. Pinochet’s nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond—will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet’s coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

You bet.

The following is part of an email exchange between Chirol and a very close Italian friend. This friend worked at the polls in the recent referendum and had this additional information to add since microstates and devolution have been all the rage recently. The title of the post is a rather humorous comment from him on what would happen if the North became autonomous.

The referendum asked to change half of the constitution, of course it was too much at once. For example they wanted to lower the number of senators, which is good, but also wanted to take some power from the supreme constitutional court and give them to the prime minister, which is very bad because it means the government can make a law which is not constitutional.

However, the most important point was federalism: they wanted to give every region his own autonomy, for example in matters like health-system, security and schools. This means of course that the northern regions, which are richer and more efficient (southern Italy is a money-grave), will have higher standards.

Now what happened is that they posed these questions all together, because Berlusconi wanted to hit his biggest enemies (the judges) without too much noise, therefore he tried to switch the attention on federalism. Moreover , this was the main political target of Bossi and Lega nord, one on his biggest allies. At the end only Veneto and Lombardia (two of the richest region) voted yes and this was rather a surprise, since I expected the whole north to vote yes. In fact it’s clear that we’ve always had two different Italies, which have different speed. It’s however different from Catalonia, since there they really feel they live in a different state. This is not the case for Italy:

Bossi, at the beginning of his career, tried to talk about a norther state and about a “celtic race”, but now most of the northern people don’t feel this appeal anymore. Even when Bossi, before the referendum, asked for a “non-democratic alternative” in case the “no” would win, nobody was really scared. The people here just want to spend the taxes here and not send them to southern italy (which is also not completely true, since here the tax-evasion is much higher than southern italy, expecially the companies here pay much less taxes then they should).

Anyway, yes, there was a time when many people here dreamed of an independent state and they offended the Italian flag in public, now is a different story i guess.