The Great Rift Valley

You may or may not have noted the elections in Kenya over the weekend. The election run up was about as nasty as the Iowa caucus previews, perhaps even more so. The aftermath has been nothing but horrid.

The incumbent president, Mwai Kibaki, won a vote that's been hotly contested by his rival, Raila Odinga, who accused Kibaki of vote fraud and vote suppression:

NAIROBI (Reuters) - President Mwai Kibaki's government accused rival Raila Odinga's party of unleashing "genocide" in Kenya on Wednesday as the death toll from tribal violence over a disputed election passed 300.

"It is becoming clear that these well-organized acts of genocide and ethnic-cleansing were well-planned, financed and rehearsed by Orange Democratic Movement leaders prior to the general elections," the statement read by Lands Minister Kivutha Kibwana on behalf of his colleagues said.

ODM had no immediate reaction to the accusation. Odinga's supporters, drawn mainly from his Luo tribe, have blamed the violence on Kibaki for "stealing" the December 27 presidential vote. Many clashes have pitted the Luo against Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe.

First irony: The US initially supported Kibaki's re-election.

The second irony:

"There are independent reports of serious irregularities in the counting process," said British Foreign Minister David Miliband and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a joint statement. They called for an end to violence and "an intensive political and legal process" to end the crisis.

(emphasis added)

Ahem.

This election has implications that go far beyond the borders of Kenya, a country right smack in the middle of some of the most contentious real estate in the world, bordered by Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Kenya has been a stable democratic regime since 1963 (when it declared independence from England), and until global warming hit the country with a severe drought in 2000, was a beacon economic engine in Africa, despite severe governmental corruption.

Now, however, the only real growth industries are as transit points for sex slaves and heroin.

Moreover, there are other democratic elections coming up in the next 18 months is less stable places like Angola, Ghana and Malawi, places that aren't as sophisticated as Kenya, and more prone to turmoil and trouble.

Kenya seems to be at an impasse: Kibaki has offered to negotiate a settlement with Odinga, but Odinga insists that Kibaki give up his Presidency before any talks can commence.

Meanwhile, the blood spills.

How Odd...

...Democracy without a war?

DEOTHANG, Bhutan (Reuters) - Bhutanese voted on Monday to elect members to a new upper house of parliament for the first time, a step towards democracy after a century of absolute monarchy.

The tiny, conservative Himalayan kingdom has been preparing for democracy since former monarch Jigme Singye Wangchuck decided to hand power to an elected government, even as many of his citizens said they were quite happy with the way things were.

Not a shot fired. No nation invaded and displaced the king. No trillions of dollars spent to spread a philosophy.

In short, democracy grew from within, because the people were ready for it. In this case, the existing government was, as well.

And yet, even here in a country where the first TVs only came in 1999, the ugly head of Iraq is reared:

"I'm afraid that our country might end up like other countries who are having problems because of democracy," said Mila Wangchuk, 28, who runs a real estate business.

It's taken nearly twenty years for the king to agree to a general call for democracy. In that time, many Bhutanese have been expelled and ethnic Nepalese living in Bhutan have been denied the vote. We're not talking about a paradise here.

But it's a start, and should serve as a beacon to any war-mongering knucklehead who wants to be President that we will be vigilant about how our troops are used in the future, because here we have a clear example of how to do democracy the right way.

The Unvarnished Truth

Events of the past few months have made one thing pretty evident to me. I'm not sure what to do about it, other than either co-opt, or work from the inside out.

Or perhaps foment revolt.

None of those is a particularly palatable choice, in my opinion.

I don't consider myself an idealist, by any stretch of the imagination. I find some of the idealists I read on blogs and in comments...quaint. Naifs who mutter dramatic change is in the wind, forgetting the simplest truths about politics.

We have what we wanted, but our deepest suspicions are being realized: the Democrats are only slightly more interested in our welfare and opinions as the Republicans. This was, of course, not unexpected. Power corrupts, and money is power, so in order to keep one's addiction to power intact, one must keep the money flow intact.

Benign tyranny is tyranny nonetheless, and while I might make a wonderful benevolent dictator, the simple fact is, unless the people are involved and engaged in the decisions of their government, unless they can believe that their voice is heard and making a difference, then the social contract with government is lost.

Third party politics may be ripe for taking serious bites out of the mandate of the current two parties, but analyses of history show that third parties, with one exception, fall woefully short of the mark.

The sole exception? The current Republican party, which arose to oppose the expansion of slavery into the Kansas territories, but who never really united as a unified party until 1896, despite electing President after President (Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, McKinley, interrupted only by Grover Cleveland...does that scenario sound familiar?). Republicans absorbed the Whigs, who were deeply divided over the slavery question, thus morphing a fractious coalition of people whose only common ground was a hatred of Andrew Jackson's imperialist treatment during his tenure in the White House (again, sounds familiar), said fervor dying on the vine.

All this swirls in the background like a dust devil at a duel. The matter at hand is, what to do about the Democrats?

I'm angry. I'm angry at the war vote. I see no good excuse for not forcing Bush's hand, at least a little bit. I see no good excuse for not at least trying to staunch the flow of the blood of young Americans as quickly as politically possible, if not humanly possible.

I see no good excuse why there's not at least the serious hint of impeachment talk floating around DC. I see a lot of posing about accountability. I see a path to the 2008 election, and that path can go one of two ways: either reveal the true depths of the corruption of this administration, and win the Presidency (but lose the facility to indulge yourself in the same spoils of victory), or ignore it except as a de facto totem of Republican cronyism to tar the next candidate with, and win the Presidency.

But lose on principle.

I'm angry that not a peep about investigating the 2004 election (nevermind the 2000 election), aside from the occasional press release from Congressman Conyers office, has been raised. This is a lot more important than even the US attorney scandal, which at best is a warping of questionable Constitutional authority: this strikes deep at the very heart of our democracy. One man or woman, one vote.

I'm angry that oil executives from across the country aren't being hauled in front of a Congressional committee to explain why gas prices are so high. Are we conducting legislative business on the Today Show?

Mostly, I'm angry that the Democrats aren't baring teeth, and my suspicions grow daily, the more and more they gum their prey.

I've been a lifelong (literally. I worked on the Humphrey/Muskie campaign in sixth grade) Democrat, and while my opinions have changed, and my take on reality has matured, and I've gained an appreciation regarding compromise and realpolitiks, I've never held anything less than regard for the ideals of the party: that people matter, that business is a dangerous wolf at the door most of the time and that we need to be protected from that, as well as other insidious creations of the Republican right, like blurred church-state separations.

I want to believe, despite the fact that it gets harder and harder to believe. The evidence in front of my eyes grows daily. I want to believe that there's some soopersekrit plan to take back America by the Democrats, that they'll resist the Siren call of campaign money, of power, and rule wisely. I want to believe that all of us can do well again, as we did under Bill Clinton.

Mostly, I want my country back.

The Last Honest Republican

Clearly, at least to some degree, the "consent of the governed" was becoming a commodity to be purchased by the highest bidder. To the extent that money and the clever use of electronic mass media could be used to manipulate the outcome of elections, the role of reason began to diminish. -- The Assault on Reason, Al Gore

During the Clinton administration...you remember, the days of wine and roses?...there was a clear separation between the political wing of the White House and the Department of Justice, embodied by the first woman (and longest-serving) Attorney General, Janet Reno.

When she could have taken the easy way out to let Clinton wriggle off the hook in the Lewinski scandal with a minor and perfunctory (and probably more productive) inquiry, followed by a "Who the hell cares? Let's work on terrorism!" report, Reno went out of her way to ensure that the investigation was thorough, naming not one, but two right wing Republican knuckleheads as special prosecutor.

Now, imagine if Monica Lewinski had blown George W. Bush...

Integrity seems to have a dear price in this administration, which is why I think it's important to point out when someone has consistently acted with integrity and on principle. Introducing James Comey:

As deputy attorney general in 2003, he appointed his old friend Patrick J. Fitzgerald as independent counsel in the C.I.A. leak case, leading to the perjury conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.

In 2004, he backed Justice Department subordinates who withdrew a legal memorandum justifying harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists. This spring, more than a year after leaving the government, he publicly praised several United States attorneys who had been dismissed, undermining the administration’s claim that they were removed for poor performance.

Finally, at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Comey gave a riveting account of how he intervened in 2004 at the hospital bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft to prevent two top White House officials from persuading Mr. Ashcroft to reauthorize the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program. The Justice Department had ruled that the program would not be lawful without certain changes, and President Bush subsequently directed that the changes be made.

Colleagues say Mr. Comey is, even now, a reluctant critic of the administration he served. But they say he feels strongly that there was no justification for the purge of prosecutors and remains furious about what he saw in 2004 as an improper attempt by the White House to bypass the Justice Department.

Every once in a while, a Republican comes along who espouses principle above expediency. Comey is one. Elliot Richardson was another.

Isn't it funny, tho, how you never hear about "Democractic men (and women) of principle"? Maybe that's because Democrats assume that principle, generally, trumps political expediency. This is not to give them carte blanche, no way, but to point out that, on the whole, Republican administrations (and now, Congresses) are far more corrupt and corrupting than Democratic ones.

If the past six years have taught us anything, it's that Republicans simply can't be trusted with the keys to the car. Name one senior Bush Cabinet official who hasn't been embroiled in some major scandal, right up the UN Ambassador, John Bolton! The leadership of the House and Senate was another place where the pockets of wealthy donors were lined tenfold beyond the pockets of the legislators they bought off.

It will take decades, decades, to uncover and undo the damage of allowing lobbyists to write legislation designed to protect the average citizen from the predations of Corporate America. My great fear is that Democrats will succumb to the same temptation, now that the barn door is open and the first horse has strolled off the ranch.

Think about the rape of environmental, consumer protection, & civil rights legislation:

Rich, a former chief of the voting section in the civil rights division who worked at the Justice Department for 35 years before leaving in 2005, says that from 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African-American or Native American voters. Instead, he alleges, U.S.attorneys were told to give priority to voter-fraud cases, which civil rights groups have long contended are actually meant to depress voter turnout in minority communities.

The Justice Department has become a repository of political hackery and is in no way, shape or form providing the single fiduciary function that any government of the people, by the people and for the people should provide: shelter from the gouging and scaveging of far larger, far wealthier, entities whose very survival relies on the sweat of your brow and my brow.

The social contract with governments, that we consent to be governed, is made in exchange for the protections of our civil rights, more loosely defined as that wonderful phrase in the Declaration of Independence: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Rights bestowed on all of us, not just those who can afford a ticket to the Inaugural Ball. Rights that are all but natural rights of human beings, just by being born. Rights that are yours and mine.

We could think of government in classical psychological terms as the ego between the id of commerce and the superego of the will of the people. A moderator between the rapacious commercial interests engaged in making a profit, and the greed of people who see a richer target in the concentrations of wealth that are businesses and want to take it for all its worth. This is why we have both civil and criminal codes that can be enforced in both directions.

But lets face facts: people are like ants at a picnic in this instance and can be squashed easily under the wheels of commerce no matter how many people are trying to take what they perceive is theirs, so government's real job is to protect you and I from the nebulous "them," making sure that business abides by the same criminal laws that you and I would get dragged into court for: littering, assault, theft, among others.

When commerce turns against us, our recourse is to petition our government.

However, when government turns against us, we have no recourse. It's a handicap wrestling match, two on one, and unfortunately, we're still ants.

The one illusion that we can cling to right now is, in less than two years, we can get rid of these assholes, and find a new set of people to take up the shield for us. I say that's an illusion because there's no guarantee that the next regime won't be as bad or worse, than the Bush junta.

Men and women like James Comey, like the 9/11 widows, like Janet Reno, like Patrick Fitzgerald, may be our last best hope for a free future.

Plant The Seed. Forget To Water

Each morning, now that the weather is nice, I walk about a mile and a half to a nearby train station to commute to work. It's really a very pleasant walk (altho wearing a suit each day, now that the weather is getting more sultry, makes for some unpleasant aftereffects).

I pass plenty of schools, bright young faces, happy for the moment's freedom in the sunshine. I pass a few convenience stores, the inner city version of a "7-11", bustling with laborers picking up a coffee and donut for the morning.

And I pass relics and remnants of a past age. Among these, I stroll past three buildings that, within my adult lifetime, were movie theatres. Now, they are warehouses or retail strips with apartments overhead, but at one time, they were minipalaces dedicated to showing movies and entertaining audiences.

There aren't many of these left in the world today. One or two in Manhattan and of course, the famous (Grau)Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. Other than that, they've been divvied up into minitheatres, or sold and converted to other uses.

People's tastes change. Their habits change. Their opinions change. For lack of a blockbuster, gotta-go-see movie, most people are content to wait for the DVD, or worse, for cable to show the film. They won't make the effort to go and do something unless there's more bang for the buck.

I say all this, because in Time Magazine this week is a fascinating piece about democracy. Entitled Is Freedom Failing?, author Peter Beinart makes the case that the spread of democracy that we saw in the late 80s and early 90s, due in large part to the fall of the Soviet Union, is contracting quicker than Bush's legacy. An example:

In 1999 Nigerians did something remarkable: they elected a President. After 16 years of military rule and four decades of political and economic failure, Africa's most populous country held a free election. "Globally, things are going democratically," a Lagos slum dweller told the New York Times. "We want to join the globe."

It was a good time to get on board. The percentage of democracies in the world had doubled since the 1970s, to more than 60%. Many of the remaining autocracies--pariah states like North Korea, Burma and Iran--seemed to be living on borrowed time. In ideological terms, as Francis Fukuyama famously declared, history was ending--and Nigeria didn't want to be left behind.

That was then. But when Nigerians went to the polls again last month, democracy lost. In an orgy of ballot-box stuffing and violence, punctuated by an attempted truck bombing of the electoral-commission headquarters, the ruling party won what some observers thought was the most fraudulent election ever in Nigeria--which is saying something. Once again, Nigeria is catching a wave. From Bangladesh to Thailand to Russia, political freedom is in retreat. In a book due out this fall, Hoover Institution political scientist Larry Diamond notes that "we have entered a period of global democratic recession."

Why?

Several reasons, of course. Nigeria, like Russia and Iran, is heavily dependent on oil revenues. When oil prices are low, dictators have less power to control their populace and freedom can take root. When oil prices rise, more money means more oppression.

The biggest reason democracies are failing now is the one thing you might expect, and ironically, shouldn't have expected: Iraq. The failure of the United States to establish a democracy in a country that has long lived with tyranny is a glaring one, and does not give comfort to freedom fighters in other parts of the region.

Indeed, we rely heavily on autocracies and tyrannies to keep the Middle East as a whole from devolving into chaos. Look at Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Even Syria and Iran are buffers against the collapse of the Middle East.

But the overarching reason? People change. The fruits of democracy are hard to fight for, and seeing the example of the chaos in Iraq does not help others, like the Nigerians, like the Burmese, to keep on keeping on. Moreover, the fruits of democracy are fleeting in countries: no nation is more than three meals from a revolution, not even America.

You can't just drop seeds and hope they'll take root. You have to nurture them along until the roots are so strong that the tree stands on its own merits. Fighting a war for democracy in some other country is insanity at its most basic level. If we want to create a democratic tradition, if we want people around the world to be truly free, we have to offer assistance that keeps them free.

Troops aren't the answer, and in this case, I agree with Barack Obama: we ought to be doubling our foreign aid, taking away from our war efforts and investing in countries where democracy has already taken root but is in danger of collapsing.

We could start here in the US, of course.

Rather than spreading hatred for our ideals and our nation, we ought to be showing folks how democracies work. And we ought to be taking the time to make sure ours works, too. September 11 was a golden opportunity to show that a free nation can take a body blow like that, and not come up punching, but ready to punch, ready to fight for our rights and our beliefs and our freedoms.

Ironically, the attempt to spread freedom has revealed a powerful flaw in our own freedoms: when people stop caring because they're afraid, they won't make the effort anymore.

Unfortunately, you can't TiVo freedom.