Often in the past scholars have argued whether or not there is any hope for democratization in the Middle East.  It has further been argued whether Islam is somehow innately incompatible with liberal democracy.  Recently in light of the difficulties in Egypt’s parliamentary elections, particularly claims of violence against activists and candidates and media being barred from covering the elections, this issue has again risen to the fore.

Certainly the difficulties of Egypt’s elections are nothing to take lightly, they display many of the troubles seen commonly in elections under semi-authoritarian regimes.  On the other hand to state that these difficulties somehow lay rooted in faith rather than all the standard flaws of corruption, politics and governance strikes me as terribly unwise.  This argument effectively asserts that democracy is simply not a possibility in the region, as we certainly cannot expect religion to just go away here or anywhere else in the world.

In some ways, I see the problems of the Middle East as reflective of some of those faced in developing democracy in Latin America. There exists a tendency among scholars and practitioners to apply democratic principles successfully used in the Western world to new areas, contrary to the history and culture of said area.  In the Middle East the culture and heritage of a state often seems pointedly ignored to the detriment of any push toward successful democratization.  I see no reason that democracy shouldn’t grow and flourish in the Middle East as much as it has done elsewhere.  The Middle East is certainly not an Islamic monolith, and to suggest that religion keeps states in the region from democratizing must be rather insulting to those Muslims living and successfully participating in democracy in our own country.

Regular readers of D&S will know that I find David Brooks exasperating at times. Yesterday’s op-ed was one of them. Brook’s basic argument is that campaign spending rarely influences the outcome of an election. If this is true, why do candidates obsess over raising money and why do people donate to them? Because its easy to fool candidates and donors want to feel cool. Think I am exaggerating? Here’s Brooks in his own words:

So why is there so much money in politics? Well, every consultant has an incentive to tell every client to raise more money. The donors give money because it makes them feel as if they are doing good and because they get to hang out at exclusive parties. The candidates are horribly insecure and grasp at any straw that gives them a sense of advantage.

How does this guy get a column in the Times? OK David, I have a different theory. Politicians aren’t duped and people don’t donate lots of money just to feel cool. Maybe people donate to campaigns to influence policy after the election. Ever heard of lobbyists? This is kind of their thing. Why don’t candidates say “I don’t want your stinking money, I can win without it?” I can think of lots of reasons: risk aversion, fear of being targeted, they are going to get pressure from lobbyists either way, so why not take the money? Its pretty easy to see why there is a lot of money in politics even if it doesn’t affect election outcomes.

PS to the editorial board: Next time someone argues the reason somebody does something is because he or she is stupid, you might want to ask for the evidence.

Israel’s proposed loyalty oath, a requirement that immigrants seeking Israeli citizenship pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state, is awful enough on its own terms. That is does not apply to Jews – precisely because many Orthodox Jews immigrating to Israel are anti-Zionist – goes far beyond garden-variety hypocrisy; it’s absolutely outrageous.

USAID asked for my thoughts.

Apropos of a recent post, Bill Easterly points out that while non-democratic regimes have some of the world’s fastest growth rates, they also have all of the world’s worst economic growth rates. The reason: can’t get rid of the malevolent dictator. I suppose this points to a question of risk tolerance. If you place more weight on getting the best economic growth rates than on avoiding the worst ones, you would opt for a non-democratic regime. By contrast, if you had a stronger preference for avoiding catastrophe than for breakneck economic growth, you would make the opposite choice.

The lead article in this week’s Economist argues that in the long-run, India’s chaotic democratic capitalism is likely to outperform Chain’s authoritarian capitalism for two reasons. First, due to China’s one-child policy, the country’s working-age population is falling, while India’s far younger population means the workforce is going to grow. Second, information flows much more easily and quickly in India compared to China because the former is a democracy and the latter is not. As a result, India has a big advantage over China in taking advantage of the information revolution. The big takeaway point is centralized planning is probably not the best model for sustaining long-term economic growth in today’s world. Rather, democracy in India, chaotic as it is, is a far better environment for sustaining economic development.

It’s hard to defend an authoritarian regime that discourages domestic charities because it doesn’t want competition in helping to address important social needs.