Peter Burnell, Professor at the University of Warwick, England, has written a new article exploring whether democracy assistance practitioners should measure autocracy promotion.

The questions that arise are not simply how far democrats should be concerned but whether there are specific implications for democracy assistance. While the answers are not yet clear, a strong case can be made on precautionary grounds for developing new ways of assessing the true measure of autocracy promotion/export and evaluating it against the performance of democracy support.  Although setting a difficult challenge in its own right, this work could help move democracy assistance and democratisation forward in the challenging times that at present both of them undoubtedly face.

The article is well worth a read, as it tackles several important issues of current relevance.  Among  those are the increased demand to measure development programs, and the debate surrounding the extent that autocracy promotion poses a threat (or even exists).  The topic of the paper is based upon Burnell’s upcoming book, Promoting Democracy Abroad: Policy and Performance, and can also be be read in his recent paper in the University of Warwick’s Journal of Law.   In that paper, Burnell argues that much of the original research into the effectiveness of democracy assistance was conducted in an environment where such programs went largely unchallenged by other countries.  With the spread of autocracy promotion, however, such efforts need to be reevaluated.  Democracy assistance programs, he argues, need to be measured against the success of their autocratic rivals.

Burnell acknowledges some of the major barriers to such assessments happening.   Financial and time constraints mean DG practitioners are often reluctant to engage in impact evaluation for democracy assistance programs.  It would seem to be asking a lot, therefore, to take on the additional burden of assessing the competition’s programs as well.  Furthermore, conducting such assessments would be challenging.  Impact evaluation for DG programs is in itself problematic, as many indicators are difficult to quantify.   These problems would only be more prevalent in assessing autocracy promotion, as the inherently nontransparent nature of such programs would make data collection unreliable.

Burnell explores a variety of issues related to developing a meaningful strategy of such assessments, but concludes that the inherent difficulties in such an exercise should not prevent donor agencies from undertaking the challenge.

For those of us interested in the development of democracy, the recent struggles in Cote d’Ivoire are deserving of much attention.  Even among those versed in the nation’s history and current events the recent happenings might be something of a shock considering the country’s wealth and relative stability.  The speed at which the situation devolved, and the ferocity of the conflict, has been enough to draw pause throughout the international community, including the World Bank.

A recent Foreign Policy article by David Bosco approaches the tragedy in Cote d’Ivoire and the subject of democracy and development, with the World Bank as a reference point.  In response to the political crisis it appears that the Bank is convinced that democracy does matter, at least in terms of economic investment.  There was a time, not too long ago, when the World Bank would have taken a much different approach regarding distribution of funds to a suspect government.  Certainly there’s been little issue in the past with offering loans to authoritarian, non-representative regimes.

I agree with Bosco that in this instance the issue wasn’t one of the World Bank recognizing the innate value of democratic governance, so much as being wary of funding a ruler blatantly unsupported by popular will.  The Bank’s general stance (lending to governments regardless of their manner of attaining power) combined with their current reticence to lend gives the impression that the Bank’s message in this situation is that Gbagbo shouldn’t have been bold enough to go ahead with elections he couldn’t guarantee winning.  All the same, the decision of the Bank is a step pointedly in the right direction even if its motives are not yet exactly on target.

Springboarding from my last post on the possibility of the military as the United States’ remaining source of power, and Barak’s most recent writing on defense and foreign aid, I wanted to write a bit more on the conflict between foreign aid and military spending.  In the halls of Congress, it’s a rare thing to hear critiques of our military budget, in contrast with just about any other form of government spending.  Concerns over defense expenditures, conflicts of interests in contracting and our ever increasing love of outsourcing typically devolve into tried and true “support the troops” rhetoric.

Fortunately, I’m not a legislator and thus these subjects are fine for me to discuss.  A recent piece in the Atlantic by Andrew Bacevich explores the US’ current approach to military projects through the lens of Dwight Eisenhower’s commentary on the “military industrial complex”.  Perhaps during the height of the Cold War our military expenditures were genuinely justifiable (I certainly don’t believe so but at very least there’s room for argument).  With this great threat to war with an equally powerful nation finally behind us however, how unreasonable is it to expect military spending to taper off?

Even if one believes that it would be irresponsible to slow our pursuit of military dominance, does much real argument exist to explain the amount we spend on the military? Furthermore once our military budget is decided for the year, is there any effort put into determining how that budget will be allocated to varied projects?  These days every bit of Congressional spending on earmarks for local projects is scrutinized, why should our spending on military projects be any different? So often politicians tout the ability of the market to resolve our woes, but the cost of military spending does not obey any of the rules of the market, yet is vastly ignored by the ‘free market’s’ largest proponents.

If there’s a single rule I live by regarding US politics, it’s that one can always count on our legislators to keep their own interests in mind.  Their focus is almost universally on being reelected and maintaining whatever influence and power they’ve sunk their claws into.  Unfortunately, arguing against military spending isn’t in any legislator’s personal interests, period.  It can be difficult at times to argue over military spending as in contrast with the country’s GDP it almost seems reasonable, however it’s important to remember in the current congressional circus that the argument is over federal spending and the numbers on military spending as a portion of the federal budget are quite clear.

Ultimately my point isn’t to express complaint on the state of military spending but to briefly highlight one aspect of the absurdity of the current debate over government spending.  Is there a problem in our government’s current approach to economics? Obviously.  But does the current discussion in the political arena have anything to do with it? Not at all.  Focusing on tax cuts and ending “extraneous” pursuits like US foreign aid spending, is a perfect example of Congressional politics as usual and displays an utter lack of concern for any of the policies which landed us in our current mess.

Jared Loughner’s attempt to kill Representative Gabrielle Giffords is tragic and completely unjustifiable. Six others died in the attempt, including US District Judge John Roll. I have no doubt that the event will become politicized as an extreme symptom of the polarized political atmosphere in the US today. I am going to eschew the histrionics that our democracy is falling apart. Sadly, political killings have long been a feature of US history. Nowhere is this more evident than in the civil rights struggle that lasted for more than 100 years, from the assassination of President Lincoln through the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X in the 1960s.

What seem relevant to me is that in the US, we do not glorify lone perpetrators of political violence. I have never met a person who admires John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, or John Hinckley, Jr. This strikes me as relevant. In the US, however strongly we may disagree, we do not condone lone violence as an acceptable as a means to political end.

Here’s a funny thing about the United States. If a police officer pulls me over for speeding and I offer to give said officer $100 if he/she forgets that I was speeding, that’s called a bribe and it is illegal. Yet if Corporation X helps elect a politician by spending a lot of money and that politician subsequently writes a law providing Corporation X with favorable tax treatment, it’s called free speech and is legal. Is there anything troubling and just a wee bit hypocritical about this?

MA in Democracy and Governance student Samuel Tadros argues that lack of religious freedom in Egypt lies at the heart of the New Year’s Eve terrorist attack on a Coptic Church that killed 23 Copts:

The current attack is attributed to Islamist anger over the alleged kidnapping by the Coptic Church of a Priest’s wife whom they claim converted to Islam. The general context is Islamist anger at what they perceive as the humiliation of Islam at the hands of Copts by asking to build churches…In all of this there is no alternative provided. There is no argument for the right of an individual to choose his religion, there is no defense of the right of people to build churches, and there is no public sphere opened to Christians.

This seems like a pretty solid argument to me. Placing the communal feelings of the followers of a state’s dominant religion above the ability of an individual to practice the religion of his or her choice is only a small step away from legitimizing oppression of those who don’t adhere to the dominant religion.

Studying political science can at times be a trying pursuit.  When I first began to read on The United States’ Latin American pursuits in the 20^th century, for a while it was hard to have much faith at all in the better virtues of the country.  In contrast with some of the more idealistic writings on earlier periods of our history, and the rosy visions of values the nation was built upon; studying COINTELPRO, United Fruit and the Iran Contra scandals paint a bleak picture of US international relations.

The start of a new year is a good time to reflect the past, and at the moment the ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East provide a focal point where US foreign relations are concerned.  Just a few days ago on Democracy Now! Amy Goodman spoke with investigative journalist and activist Allan Nairn, about just this subject.  The pair discussed the role the US is taking on a global stage in the 21^st century, in light of our continued military pursuits and the nation’s economic floundering.

In his past works, Nairn has earned infamy and awards for exposition on some of the worst applications of US military and economic power.  Thus it should come as little surprise that Nairn’s discussions with Goodman on drone attacks and other such fierce ethical dilemmas are strikingly critical of the US.  Though in our current political climate it’s easy to take comments like Nairn’s as “anti-American”, dissenting voices like his are necessary to the exchange of ideas and the democratic process.

In a nation as wealthy as the United States, complacency is always a threat.  We don’t live under constant fear of violence (however frightful the war on terror might be) and most of our daily concerns are over degrees of comfort rather than basic survival.   Though they interrupt our comfortable lives, dissenting voices serve a valuable role in questioning the current state of our society.  As disheartening as Democracy Now! and programs like it might be at times, it’d be a shame to remain unaware of the consequences of our daily actions domestically and abroad.

It’s worrisome to think that as our economic woes continue, our military efforts increasingly become the centerpiece of United States influence abroad.  Particularly in light of recent calls to cut our investment in foreign aid, it might be worth it for all Americans (not just those in Congress) to consider just what role we intend the country to take in shaping the world throughout future years.  If nothing else, perhaps this is one more way in which the recovery of the US economy is relevant to everyone.