Monthly Archives: February 2012

A headline in the Vancouver Sun caught my eye today: “Canada More Right-leaning than Before: Poll.” I read further. Turns out, this was a fairly misleading headline; there is no indication that Canada is actually more right leaning than before, as the title suggests. The poll actually asked respondents if they thought Canada was more right leaning than before, and the majority of people said that yes, they thought that was the case. So the headline should really read “Canadians Believe Canada More Right-leaning than Before.” Considering that Canada has one of the most right wing governments we’ve had in a long time, it’s not surprising that the majority of Canadians would presume that Canada is more right leaning. They’re thinking, “hey, Harper must have got in somehow.”

For what it’s worth, in the wake of the economic crisis and such, I think it’s probably true that Canada has become a bit more right-leaning. But this article was both misleading and not very informative; a bad combination, and one I’ve come to expect from the Vancouver sun. Still hoping my dad will switch his subscription at least to the Globe and Mail.

I  just read an article in the New York Times that blew me away.  On February 7 – 2 days ago – the first democratically elected president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, was forced to resign. On February 8, he wrote this article for the New York Times.

First of all – it’s got to be said – way to go New York Times! They definitely got the scoop of the week. The first democratically elected president in the Maldives is ousted in what was probably a coup d’etat and a day later, they get HIM to write about it. How do these things happen? I was SO impressed when I saw his name at the bottom of the article. Other media sources are reporting on this issue in a slightly more balanced way – see this BBC article. The BBC piece explains that a warrant is now out for Nasheed’s arrest, suggests that the reality of the situation is currently uncertain, and mentions that a coup d’etat is suspected. After reading the NYT piece, I wanted none of that diplomatic bs.

Secondly – I may just be a bleeding heart, but after reading this article, I’m left with the impression that Nasheed is a pretty amazing person caught up in an unfathomable mess. (Here‘s a quick 8 min video giving a bit of a run-down on him.) He explains that he inherited a regime caught between the throes of authoritarianism and Islamic extremism, and the fact that he was even willing to assume responsibility for such a conflicted state seems a small miracle. Nasheed describes his resignation as “a dramatic turn of events;” the way he makes it sound, this was a straight-up mutiny. Nasheed woke up on Tuesday to a spontaneous protest and a gun in his face, and was informed that his resignation was required. There is currently a warrant out for his arrest. The reason for the warrant has not been specified. The counter-protest that he lead the following day (with thousands of supporters) was broadcasted as “an act of terrorism.”

Notably, Nasheed emphasizes the extent to which the lingering autocratic judiciary undermined his regime. He states,  ”[I had] a judiciary handpicked by the former president, which was now hiding behind a democratic constitution.” This judiciary worked against him at every turn. This was interesting to me in light of the democratic measures we have been studying in class. The judiciary is a separate branch of government, and often not an elected body, so presumably, by many measures a country with a corrupt judiciary could still be a functioning democracy. However, Nasheed cites this judicial problem as a factor that directly contributed to the decline of Moldivian democracy. When measuring democracy, how do we account for incongruences such as a democratic, constitutional state that is undermined (though not controlled) by a corrupt judiciary?

I highly recommend reading the NYT article. It is so gripping because it is a first hand account of a man who caught got in an (inevitable?) cross-fire when he tried to facilitate his country’s transition from autocracy to democracy. This article, and my subsequent research on the coup, has put into perspective the enormous struggles that countries may face in their transition to a democratic system. Nasheed ends his piece with this paragraph:

“The problems we are facing in the Maldives are a warning for other Muslim nations undergoing democratic reform. At times, dealing with the corrupt system of patronage the former regime left behind can feel like wrestling with a Hydra: when you remove one head, two more grow back. With patience and determination, the beast can be slain. But let the Maldives be a lesson for aspiring democrats everywhere: the dictator can be removed in a day, but it can take years to stamp out the lingering remnants of his dictatorship.”

This is chillingly true, and exceptionally relevant in light of the regime upheavals throughout the Middle East. Can we expect similar upheavals from the emerging fragile democracies in that region? At the risk of undermining real-life struggles for the sake of my intellectual growth: this really is an incredible point in time to be a political science student studying democracy.

Brian Fox of The Huffington Post asserts, “the best way to protect and even promote democracy is to protect the freedom of the internet.” He writes in response to SOPA, the so-called anti-piracy act that has recently been getting so much attention. However, his concern isn’t simply SOPA and the US government crackdown on major free upload sites such as megaupload (bye bye megavideo… :’( ). He also talks about that wildly controversial subject: filter bubbles. In a nutshell, filter bubbles are designed to personalize the information that you receive. What this means is that if I type “Egypt” into google, I may come up with very different results than someone else who types “Egypt” into google. This is marketed as a good thing. It is personalized and efficient. However, there has been increasing condemnation of filter bubbles and similar algorithms by those who make their living in the expanding realm of social media. Here‘s a great TED Talk on this very subject.

There’s been lots of buzz about the internet as a tool of democracy. Especially in light of the Arab Spring, pundits debate the extent of the role that social media sites such as twitter and facebook have played in facilitating social uprising. The internet, as a vast, international, minimally-regulated forum for discussion and debate has obvious utility for activist mobilization. In this way, many have argued that the internet has become a valuable tool of democracy. But now, some maintain that our view of the internet has been excessively rosy. The internet isn’t the lovely, un-regulated knowledge source that many believe it to be. Your internet – google, facebook, etc. –  has now taken it upon itself to make choices for you. It was Herbert Marcuse who suggested that modern liberal democracies are enslaving us by providing us with so many choices that we forget that our array of choices is pre-determined. I’m so excited that I get to choose from an apple, a banana, and an orange, that I doesn’t consider the possibility of having a pear. Is this what the internet has become? A new form of social control, masquerading as a soldier of democracy? A cyber world of artificial choices?

I leave you with this  thought: does it make sense for the internet to be the most important tool in democracy promotion and protection (as asserted by Fox), when democracy has survived for thousands of years without it? Or has the world evolved to such an extent that democracy – as a global phenomenon – can be significantly undermined by a sneakily controlled cyber space?