By: Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez Over the past several months, conservatives seemingly made headway convincing a good portion of the U.S. public that Congress may not be able to produce a national health care plan that will not bust the budget – something that president Barack Obama has promised not to sign. And then came Afghanistan.
Conservatives almost had the nation convinced that despite the laudable goal of improving the overall health of the nation, insuring everyone is simply too costly. There’s no money to save lives, to prolong life or to heal those who would otherwise die or live in deteriorating health, but out of the blue, there will be money for Afghanistan just as every year our brave and courageous political leaders of both parties manage to find hundreds of billions for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
So here’s the equation: Money to save lives? NO! Money to kill? YES!
As is well-known, in this recession and in this economy, the biggest losers are the young because the similar equation is at work: No money for education, but plenty of money for war and more war. Plenty of money for bombs, but not books.
How did the values of this nation get this skewered? The truth is, more than oil, the nation’s leaders are spiritually addicted to war.
Always have been, i.e. Providence, Manifest Destiny and Divine Mission. However, war in this country has always also had its secular counterpart – the idea of U.S. exceptionalism and its need to spread “democracy.” It has also always been aided by linguistic jujitsu: war is actually peace. This is not a page from former president George W.
Bush warped lexicon. Truthfully, all of history’s despots have made the same claim; the more war, the more peace. Thus the nation inherits not simply an insatiable thirst for war, but a spiritual imprimatur to go with it.
At the core of this ideology is dehumanization. As long as U.S. lives are kept to a minimum, the nation’s leaders do not have to account for the killing of hundreds of thousands of the “enemy.” The loss of life is irrelevant – especially with the use of drone technology – as long as leaders employ the use of phrases such as peace, democracy and national security.
But dehumanization is old news. Back to the economic argument about the nation being too broke to afford health care or it being a crime to saddle the next generation with permanent debt because of Obama’s intent to impose a government-run socialized and rationed health care system.
As tempting as it is to call it Bush-logic or Bush-Math or the world according to Bush-Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, the truth is, we are now long-past that era. Yet, under president Obama – and despite his Nobel Peace Prize – we continue to live under the same nonsensical policies that have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. Worse, this administration continues to support virtually all of the Bush-Cheney war policies. This includes defending the unchecked right of the executive to trample upon the Constitution – all under the guise of national security and “keeping the nation safe.” This also includes shirking from his Constitutional responsibilities in terms of holding the former administration legally accountable for foisting upon the world a clearly illegal war.
It defies logic how the nation’s political class manages to discuss the war(s) and health care reform as though they were unrelated. The actual price tag (more than a trillion dollars) on both wars has already far exceeded the projected cost of the president’s health care reform. That does not take into account all the added costs from the tens of thousands of veterans who are returning with permanent physical and psychological injuries that in many cases will require lifetime medical care.
Beyond the moral and political arguments, it makes perfect economic sense to stop both wars. It would be nice if the same politicians who invoke economic arguments regarding the un-affordability of health care reform used the same logic for fighting wars. Perhaps a fiscally conservative Congressional bill is in order: the United States shall not engage in war unless it is fully paid for; the United States shall not engage in war if it contributes to the nation’s deficit.
Regardless of what the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have to say in regards to health care reform, the majority of the U.S. public still wants the Democrats to find their backbones. The majority will now also hope [push] that president Obama use the moral power of his Nobel to actually end both wars.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
• Rodriguez can be reached at: XColumn@gmail.com or PO BOX 85476 – Tucson, AZ 85754
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index focuses on five key indicators of democracy: electoral process and pluralism; functioning of government; political participation; political culture; and civil liberties. Based on these measures, only 30 countries are found to be full democracies in the world. 50 are flawed democracies while 87 are hybrid and authoritarian regimes. Most of the latter are found in Africa which is also a home for the longest serving republican heads of state.
Introduction
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) published its second ever democracy index in the late 2008. The index measures the democratic status of 167 countries in the world. The organization looked at about 60 indicators of democracy in each country and divided the 167 countries surveyed into four categories: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.
The 60 indicators of democracy were graded from 1 to 10 while the indicators were spread across five broad areas: electoral process and pluralism; functioning of government; political participation; political culture; and civil liberties. A country with the highest overall score is considered to be the most democratic while that with the least overall score is considered to be the least democratic. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s index is by far the most scientific and the most reliable measure of democratic deepening with in the countries of the world.
Democracy in the World: which countries are the most democratic in the word?
According to the EIU’s 2008 democracy index, there are only 30 full democracies in the world. Although, the United States is one of the 30 full democracies in the world, it is not the most democratic country. It is not even one of the 15 most democratic countries in the world.
According to both the 2006 and the 2008 EIU democracy index, the most democratic country in the world is Sweden. Sweden scored a whopping 9.88 out of 10 for both 2006 and 2008 EIU democracy index. The remaining world’s top fifteen most democratic countries, in order of their rank, are: Norway, Iceland, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Germany, Austria and Spain. Except Australia and new Zealand, the top fifteen democratic countries in the world are found in western Europe. The top 5 near perfect democracies are the north European social democracies. The more egalitarian social democracies are found to be better democracies than nonegalitarian liberal democracies.
The United States, the “world’s democracy watchdog,” is itself only 18th full democracy after Japan, the second largest economy in the world, and one of the only two full democracies from the Asian continent, the second being South Korea, the 28th full democracy. The United States scored 7.86 for the “Functioning of government,” lower than Mauritius in Africa which scored 8.21. Furthermore, for “Political participation,” the United States scored 7.22 at par with South Korea and lower than many other advanced economies.
The 30 full democracies are dominated by the OECD member states except a few full democracies from developing regions such as Cost Rica and Uruguay in Latin America; Mauritius in Africa; and the two emerging economies of Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic and Slovenia.
Democracy in Africa
The EIU democracy survey in 2008 covered 44 countries in Africa. According to the EIU 2008 democracy index, the only full democracy in Africa is Mauritius. Mauritius is the 26th full democracy with the overall score of 8.04 out of 10. Mauritius is one of the African islands, located about 900 kms to the east of Madagascar, in the western Indian Ocean. It has a population of about 1.3 million and the seventh biggest per capita income in the continent, which makes it one of the few middle income economies in the continent.
Countries that have qualified for full democracy obtained an average score of 7.96 and above, for the five key democracy indicators of electoral process and pluralism; functioning of government; political participation; political culture; and civil liberties.
Countries with the average scores between 7.91 and 6.04 were categorized as flawed democracies. Accordingly, 50 countries in the world were classified as flawed democracies in 2008 by the EIU. Among these, 6 are found in sub Saharan Africa. South Africa, the largest economy in Africa, and the only African member of the G20 countries, slightly missed the full democracy list in 2008 with the average score of 7.91. South Africa’s over all score was affected by lower scores for election process and pluralism, and political culture for which the country scored 8.75 and 6.88 respectively.
The April 22, 2009 parliamentary elections in South Africa were largely free and fair and are exemplary to the continent plagued by vote rigging, intimidation of the opposition candidates and post election violence. This will improve South Africa’s image as Africa’s beacon of democracy. Hopefully, during the 2010 review of the EIU democracy index, South Africa will move up the ladder to join today’s 30 full democracies of the world.
The other flawed democracies in Africa, in order of highest rank, are: Cape Verde, Botswana, Trinidad and Tobago, Namibia, Lesotho and Benin.
Mali was flawed democracy according to the EIU 2006 index but was downgraded in to a hybrid regime in 2008. The reason given by EIU for the downgrading of Mali’s democracy index was the deterioration in civil liberties as the government has restricted media freedoms, while insecurity has increased as a result of insurgency in the north of the country.
Most of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are hybrid regimes and totalitarian regimes. In sub-Saharan Africa, in 2006, there were 13 hybrid regimes and 23 totalitarian regimes while in 2008 there were 15 hybrid regimes and 22 totalitarian regimes. Between 2006 and 2008 democracy in sub-Saharan Africa has at best stagnated if not deteriorated. This has been the general global trend. Since mid 2000’s, globally, democracy has generally stagnated and some analysts believe that the current global economic recession followed the global “democratic recession.” In 2006, globally, there were only 30 hybrid regimes but in 2008 there were 36 hybrid regimes. On the other hand, the number of authoritarian regimes decreased from 55 in 2006 to 51 in 2008.
Africa’s Hybrid and Authoritarian Regimes
In 2008, of the 30 hybrid regimes in the world, 15 are in sub-Saharan Africa while of the 51 authoritarian regimes of the world 22 are found in the African continent both in sub- Saharan and north Africa. The EIU democracy index scores for hybrid regimes range from the high of 5.91 to the low of 4.00. The 15 hybrid regimes in sub-Saharan Africa in order of their rank from high to low are: Mali, Madagascar, Mozambique, Senegal, Ghana, Tanzania, Zambia, Liberia, Malawi, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Burundi, Gambia and Sierra Leone.
The hybrid regimes perform better on the election processes and pluralism because they allow some form of political pluralism and conduct elections. However, these elections are often neither free nor fair. These regimes perform dismally on other indicators of democracy such as political participation, functioning of government, political culture and civil liberties. These regimes share certain features of democratic and authoritarian regimes.
These countries need to implement genuine political reforms to improve election processes and political pluralism as well as governance and develop more tolerance to civil rights, in order to improve their democratic credentials. Otherwise they will easily slide back to the authoritarian systems whose features they partly share.
The EIU democracy index scores for the authoritarian regimes range from 3.93 to 0.86. The world’s most authoritarian regime is North Korea with the overall score of 0.86 for 2008. The Africa’s Chad is the second most authoritarian regime in the world with the overall score of just 1.52. Other authoritarian regimes in Africa from highest to lowest scores are: Mauritania, Egypt, Morocco, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Nigeria, Cameron, Niger, Angola, Algeria, Cote d’Ivoire, Swaziland, Gabon, Tunisia, Congo Brazzaville, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Togo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Libya, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, and Chad. Some authoritarian regimes are the poorest regimes in the continent while others are not. The oil rich Nigeria, Angola, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Gabon are all middle income economies but are typical kleptocracies. The correlation between democracy and level of economic development (income per capita) is however not clear cut. But obviously most democratic countries are the most developed countries in the world.
Gabon’s President Omar Bongo has been in power since 1967, at the age of 31, and is now the world’s longest serving head of republican state (the world’s longest serving current Head of State (monarchy) is King Rama IX of Thailand, King since June 9, 1946; followed by Queen Elizabeth II of UK). Other longest serving heads of states and governments in Africa are: Muammar Qaddafi of Libya in power since 1969, Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola, since 1979; Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe since 1980; Hosni Mubarak of Egypt since 1981; Paul Biya of Cameroon since 1982; Denis Sassou Nguesso of Congo Brazzaville between 1979-1992 and again since 1997 to date; King Makhosetive Mswati III of Swaziland since 1987 (Swaziland is Africa’s last absolute monarchy); Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia since 1987; and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda since 1986. No wonder that the EIU democracy index puts these countries at the bottom of the world democracy scales. The poorest continent in the world is well known for its longest serving kleptocracies.
Concluding Remarks
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s index of democracy is by far the most comprehensive measure of democratic deepening with in the countries of the world. The five major democracy indictors, viz., election process and pluralism; functioning of government; political participation; political culture; and civil liberties cut across all key spheres of political processes, governance, and human and democratic rights of citizens.
More egalitarian social democracies tended to score higher on the index compared to the nonegalitarian liberal democracies. The world’s top five most democratic states (near perfect democracies) are the north European social democracies. The world’s near perfect democracy is Sweden while the world’s most repressive authoritarian regime is North Korea.
Only one African country, Mauritius, is among the 30 full democracies in the world. South Africa misses this list with a very small margin. About 50 countries in the world are imperfect (flawed) democracies. Only 6 African countries are among this group. Most African countries are either hybrid or authoritarian regimes. Half of the world’s hybrid regimes and about forty five percent of totalitarian regimes are found in Africa. Africa is home for the world’s longest serving heads of republican states, although world’s longest serving monarchies are found in Asia and Europe.
Although there is no clear cut correlation between the level of development and democracy, most advanced economies are obviously most democratic while most authoritarian regimes preside over the majority poverty stricken citizens. Globally, the recent trend in democratic transformation has been discouraging. The current global economic recession followed what some analysts term as global “democratic recession.” Africa’s performance has been worse. With several coups in the continent since 2005, beginning with the Mauritanian military takeover, and post election violence in several other countries including Ethiopia’s 2005 elections, Kenya’s 2007 elections and Zimbabwe’s political nightmare, and the most recent unconstitutional change of government in Madagascar, democracy in the continent is facing serious setbacks.
The citizens’ hope to eradicate the current massive poverty in the continent is directly linked to the continents’ ability to carry out sustainable democratic transformation. Undemocratic regimes in other parts of the world were development oriented while African hybrid and authoritarian regimes are fundamentally kleptocracies. The African citizens must break the cycle of silence and subordination to these kleptocracies and drive the democratic transformation in every single country of concern.
Reference
• Economist Intelligence Unit 2006: Index of Democracy 2006
• Economist Intelligence Unit 2008: Index of Democracy 2008
“I came here to see a country, but what I find is a theater … In appearances, everything happens as it does everywhere else. There is no difference except in the very foundation of things.” (de Custine, writing about Russia in the mid-19th century)
Four decades ago, the Polish-American-Jewish author, Jerzy Kosinski, wrote the book “Being There.” It describes the election to the presidency of the United States of a simpleton, a gardener, whose vapid and trite pronouncements are taken to be sagacious and penetrating insights into human affairs. The “Being There Syndrome” is now manifest throughout the world: from Russia (Putin) to the United States (Obama).
Given a high enough level of frustration, triggered by recurrent, endemic, and systemic failures in all spheres of policy, even the most resilient democracy develops a predilection to “strong men,” leaders whose self-confidence, sangfroid, and apparent omniscience all but “guarantee” a change of course for the better.
These are usually people with a thin resume, having accomplished little prior to their ascendance. They appear to have erupted on the scene from nowhere. They are received as providential messiahs precisely because they are unencumbered with a discernible past and, thus, are ostensibly unburdened by prior affiliations and commitments. Their only duty is to the future. They are a-historical: they have no history and they are above history.
Indeed, it is precisely this apparent lack of a biography that qualifies these leaders to represent and bring about a fantastic and grandiose future. They act as a blank screen upon which the multitudes project their own traits, wishes, personal biographies, needs, and yearnings.
The more these leaders deviate from their initial promises and the more they fail, the dearer they are to the hearts of their constituents: like them, their new-chosen leader is struggling, coping, trying, and failing and, like them, he has his shortcomings and vices. This affinity is endearing and captivating. It helps to form a shared psychosis (follies-a-pleusieurs) between ruler and people and fosters the emergence of an hagiography.
The propensity to elevate narcissistic or even psychopathic personalities to power is most pronounced in countries that lack a democratic tradition (such as China, Russia, or the nations that inhabit the territories that once belonged to Byzantium or the Ottoman Empire).
Cultures and civilizations which frown upon individualism and have a collectivist tradition, prefer to install “strong collective leaderships” rather than “strong men.” Yet, all these polities maintain a theatre of democracy, or a theatre of “democratically-reached consensus” (Putin calls it: “sovereign democracy”). Such charades are devoid of essence and proper function and are replete and concurrent with a personality cult or the adoration of the party in power.
In most developing countries and nations in transition, “democracy” is an empty word. Granted, the hallmarks of democracy are there: candidate lists, parties, election propaganda, a plurality of media, and voting. But its quiddity is absent. The democratic principles are institutions are being consistently hollowed out and rendered mock by election fraud, exclusionary policies, cronyism, corruption, intimidation, and collusion with Western interests, both commercial and political.
The new “democracies” are thinly-disguised and criminalized plutocracies (recall the Russian oligarchs), authoritarian regimes (Central Asia and the Caucasus), or puppeteered heterarchies (Macedonia, Bosnia, and Iraq, to mention three recent examples).
The new “democracies” suffer from many of the same ills that afflict their veteran role models: murky campaign finances; venal revolving doors between state administration and private enterprise; endemic corruption, nepotism, and cronyism; self-censoring media; socially, economically, and politically excluded minorities; and so on. But while this malaise does not threaten the foundations of the United States and France – it does imperil the stability and future of the likes of Ukraine, Serbia, and Moldova, Indonesia, Mexico, and Bolivia.
Many nations have chosen prosperity over democracy. Yes, the denizens of these realms can’t speak their mind or protest or criticize or even joke lest they be arrested or worse – but, in exchange for giving up these trivial freedoms, they have food on the table, they are fully employed, they receive ample health care and proper education, they save and spend to their hearts’ content.
In return for all these worldly and intangible goods (popularity of the leadership which yields political stability; prosperity; security; prestige abroad; authority at home; a renewed sense of nationalism, collective and community), the citizens of these countries forgo the right to be able to criticize the regime or change it once every four years. Many insist that they have struck a good bargain – not a Faustian one.
If Americans can throw out conventional thinking and a complete paradigm shift of seismic proportions and elect a black Man with a foreign sounding name, Ignore years of racial acrimony differences, stereotypes, Then we Africans have a lot to learn in regard to democracy, tolerance and peaceful co-existence.
l have just come to learn that true leaders are not made, but are indeed Born. You can have all the experience and the political pedigree, But at the end you cannot deliver no matter what. Certain men exude a certain confidence, integrity and the ability to lead and inspire “Hope” among there respective constituency’s, a good example are a well known cast of characters….
Winston Churchill, the WW2, British prime Minister who inspired hope, among Britons amid hopelessness and potential defeat by the Nazis, Ronald Reagan who won the cold war without firing a single missile, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King jnr who fought for civil rights and inspired American Blacks with his leadership…. Nelson Mandela who emerged from jail and united a racially divided south Africa after years of apartheid, our own Tom Mboya who inspired countless African trade unionists, and young politicians to fight the yoke of colonialism and exploitation only to fall to an assassins bullet…and now Obama.
Obama now has that rare chance to prove he can lead and inspire a whole generation of young people for a better and brighter future.
For us in Africa, it’s time to focus on the fight against well known suspects..Poverty ignorance and disease, tribalism, racism and corruption not necessarily in that order.
We need to invite and initiate open discussion and debate about the road ahead — invite the well known unwanted guest called DEMOCRACY and give him a chance, to prevail/build enviable institutions, and governments elected by the ballot not the bullet.
It’s about time to change the status quo and give our children and people hope for the future.
Judge Johann Kriegler, who is heading the commission of inquiry into what went wrong in Kenya’s December 2007 election says that the Mwai Kibaki-Raila Odinga, and now Mugabe-Tsvangirai power-sharing deals are undermining Africa’s democracy.
Kenya, and now Zimbabwe. Is power-sharing the panacea?
BOYS WILL ALWAYS BE BOYS. A few weeks ago, some male-dominated African lists on the Internet circulated the photos of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe’s daughter Bona, and that of his opposition rival Morgan Tsvangirai’s, Rumbi (Zimbabweans have such wonderful names!)
Members were asked which one of them they thought was the more beautiful. Also, which one of the two they would like to marry.
I thought, knowing that most of the chaps that I knew on the lists were anti-Mugabe that Bona would lose.
However, when it comes to matters of women, most men will gladly leave politics at the door, so Bona got many admirers. In the end, it was very close.
[Bona Mugabe (left) and Rumbi Tsvangirai][Click Pics To Enlarge] Bona, as the daughter of a president, clearly was receiving the care of a well-paid beautician. She had a glossier look than Rumbi. Half the men, on the other hand, said Rumbi didn’t have Bona’s grim look (much like her father), and exuded more character.
Only one bloke, Thomas (not his real name) rose beyond the limited choices being offered, and said he would marry both! His position was slammed as unprincipled and weak, because he feared the responsibility of choice.
This seemingly frivolous Internet fun game, however, proves how unpredictable African politics can be, and demonstrated that what is ideal and “right” is not always the best and most practical.
Mugabe had sworn that he would never share power with Tsvangirai, after he lost the first round of elections and unleashed so much terror on Tsvangirai ahead of the second round, that the opposition had little choice but to pull out. This left Mugabe to run against himself, and claim a sham victory.
Zimbabwe just plunged further into crisis. Inflation rose to over 20 million per cent, and unemployment skyrocketed to 80 per cent.
As The Observer (London) reported in a long insightful piece, the central bank knocked 10 zeros off the Zimbabwe dollar at the beginning of August because shops and banks could not cope with calculations in the trillions.
When it was launched on August 1, the new dollar was Z$4 to the Pound, but on the black market, it immediately slumped to Z$25. It continued crashing dramatically, and within a month, the black market rate was Z$13,000.
With worthless bank notes, and too broke to print more, three weeks ago the Government announced that it would legalise the use of US dollars and South African Rand as everyday currency.
It would seem that shortly after, Mugabe finally realised that he had run out of wiggle room, and put in a call to South Africa President Thabo Mbeki, who had been mediating the power-sharing talks that seemed doomed to fail.
THE RESULT IS THAT ALL THE MEN who said they would marry Bona Mugabe, would now have a father-in-law with less power than he wielded two months ago.
Those who went for Rumbi Tsvangirai, expecting their father-in-law would be an opposition leader, who came close to becoming Zimbabwe’s president, but not close enough, would have one who is a prime minister and controlling about 51 per cent of the Government.
Thomas would be the greatest winner, with one father-in-law being president, and the other prime minister. It couldn’t be better. However, his fortunes have been scorned.
Daily Nation’s sister publication The East African had South African judge Johann Kriegler, who is heading the commission of inquiry into what went wrong in the December 2007 election, saying he thought these Mwai Kibaki-Raila Odinga, and now Mugabe-Tsvangirai power-sharing deals were undermining Africa’s democracy.
He argued that they offered presidents, who are not ready to retire when their time has come, or who have lost elections, to cling on to power. Within a day, there were many such reservations being aired about the Zimbabwe deal.
Kriegler’s view is particularly interesting, because he should be aware of what is touted as the most successful power-sharing deal in Africa — the transitional government between the African Nation Congress’ leader Nelson Mandela, and F. W. de Klerk, who was president and leader of the racist National Party that had jailed him for 27 years.
This is not to say there are no problems with governments where power is shared.
Because there can never be two winners in an election contest, they reward losers and turn the logic of elections — the idea that the person or party that is preferred by most voters should form government — on its head.
And while power-sharing might give unpopular incumbents a way back into power through a back door, they can also equally hand disorganised opposition groups a slice of power that they were denied at polls.
On balance, if Kenya’s example is anything to go by, the competition between coalition partners for the affection of the public seems to be the greatest incentive for performance there is.
And because they are wooing voters, each of the sides is eager to be seen as more enlightened than the other, and therefore tends to avoid being repressive. The result is that Kenya is probably freer today, than the previous time when it had been freest — the first years of Kibaki 2003-2007.
About The Author: Charles Onyango-Obbo is Uganda’s leading political commentator. He is Nation Media Group’s managing editor for convergence and new products. Charles writes for The Monitor, Uganda’s only independent daily and most influential newspaper and The East African, a NationMedia publication. Be sure to check out his Article Archive featuring hundreds of Charles’s greatest publications…..Click Here To Read More Articles By Onyango-Obbo
Over the past several months, conservatives seemingly made headway convincing a good portion of the U.S. public that Congress may not be able to produce a national health care plan that will not bust the budget – something that president Barack Obama has promised not to sign. And then came Afghanistan.
About The Author: Charles Onyango-Obbo is Uganda’s leading political commentator. He is Nation Media Group’s managing editor for convergence and new products. Charles writes for The Monitor, Uganda’s only independent daily and most influential newspaper and The East African, a NationMedia publication. Be sure to check out his 
