Let us throw out the old ideologies!

Ideologies are sometimes defined as "a more or less systematic set of ideas, values, and beliefs, which underlies the practices of a society, a class, or some other socially significant group of people." It also has a prescriptive role in a different definition: "A system of beliefs and values that explains society and prescribes the role of government." Ideologies should in other words describe as well as prescribe society. Then why on earth are we still only talking about ideologies that average 200 year anniversaries?

It seems most of European politics is struggling with party identification in relation to the old ideologies. Everyone, except a few old revolutionaries, seems to accept liberal market economy with a social twist of welfare, and an emphasis on tradition values. In other words all parties are centrist and mix between socialist, capitalist, liberal and conservative values. How on earth are we to distinguish one from the other? The only way seems to be which set of ancient rhetoric is used to describe the party: Moral values, solidarity, freedom, individual liberties, equality etc. All beautiful words, but hardly useful to distinguish and describe politics of today.

My view is that the ideologies were written by brilliant men, who were still little more than children of their time. Therefore, Locke, Burke, Marx, Hobbes, Engels, Bakunin and the lot would have written completely different stuff had they lived today. It is equally sure that it is our own inability to think outside the box that keeps us locked in a political debate that uses outdated concepts and ideologies.

Francis Fukuyama wrote that we have come to an end of history in the fact that liberalism has won. He was absolutely right! The struggle between the old ideologies are over and the disillusioned youths rioting across the globe is proof that new belief systems are necessary for political identification in the 21st Century. We have come to the end of the history of 18th and 19th century ideology, and its really about time!

It is obviously much harder to create new ideologies than complaining about the old. Where should we start? Perhaps we do not need new ideologies at all. Belief systems that create images of black and white, right and wrong are perhaps not the way forward for the post-modern generations. Economics is probably not the most important issue of the next set of political value systems. After all, what is necessary is only the fine tuning of the welfare systems of market capitalism.

A starting point for new ideologies is to remove the false barrier between national and international politics. In practice this is already taken care of through the globalisation, but theory retains old boarders.

However, it is another more cynical definition of Ideology as "a set of beliefs and ideas that justify certain interests", that gives us the best hint towards the future. In order to find new ideologies we should perhaps be looking at what interests we humans are likely to want justification for in the future. Suddenly Huntington's "Clash of civilisations" seems to make some sense if culture or moral values may are to be the new systems of identification. The last Cold War was fought over different economic systems. The next may well be about culture or moral values.

(c) Robert Egnell

Intersting views on Museveni and African leadership

BBC's Fergal Keane has written an intresting analysis of theUgandan President Museveni as an example of a larger African-Western dilemma. Find the complete article right here.
It describes the problem of the Western naive belief in "the new African leader", and its dissappointment everytime it goes wrong, as in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and Uganda.
Below is an extract:

"Global business associates

For many years now President Museveni has been touted as one of a new breed of African leaders.

Of course that was said once about Robert Mugabe, too.

Political leaders in the West, and many in the media, have been so desperate to believe in a new Africa, so desperate they have fallen for every leader who has talked the language of pluralism and respect for human rights.

They especially liked these men if they followed World Bank and IMF prescribed solutions to their country's economic problems.

They were - from Mugabe in the early 1980s to President Museveni and the prime minister of Ethiopia now - the kind of people one could do business with.

And so eyes and ears were closed to the nastiness practised by the security agencies of these new African leaders.

Western naivety

The West is being defeated by the politics of wishful thinking in Africa.

After the decades of blood and famine, Western leaders wanted an end to the misery and the constant tugging at the post-colonial conscience.

Many of our leaders acted from genuinely high principles.

But I also think there is a patronising expectation that these new Africans can be managed and moulded in the same way a previous Western generation had manipulated African leaders during the Cold War.

I am afraid the manipulation has worked the other way.

They have seen the West coming with a desperate will for Africa to succeed, hands wringing over past failures and abandonments, eyes blind and ears blocked.

Now that the subtle repression of such states has become more publicly brutal - the locking up of the opposition leader in Uganda, the jailing of scores of opposition supporters in Ethiopia - countries like Britain appear shocked.

They have moved to cut aid.

It is all much, much too late."

Putting Pressure on Museveni

I have commented before on the worrying situation in Uganda. President Mueveni has changed the constitution and is now running for a third term in office. He has imprisoned his greatest rival Kizza Besigye and take ever increasing liberties in his pursuit of power.

The donor countires of the west have finally found his behaviour unacceptable and at least the UK, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have frozen its developpment aid to the country. This is obviously a huge blow to a government which funds half of its budget with aid. What will the effects of these actions be?

Best case, but highly unlikely, scenario is that the actions wakes Museveni out of his dreams of eternal power, that he steps down from the presidency after his two terms and that the multipartyism and democracy in Uganda continues to develop. Most African governments today thrive upon a populistic anti Western and especially anti American consents. Whatever the problem the West can always be blamed. As Mugabe stood up against his "neo colonial oppressors" he gained enormous respect in Africa and he is looked up to by large parts of the continent. Cutting aid to Uganda will therefore morelikely push Museveni another step in the direction of his colleague in Zimbabwe.

We are therefore likely to see Museveni use the cutting of aid to his advantage. He will speak of his own strength in the face of western imperialism, and he will further stress the need for his strong leadership. To the Monitor in Uganda he has already stated: "When you listen to outsiders, you make mistakes." "Yielding to pressure from outsiders has been our big mistake in some cases. We will never do it again." Museveni further argued that he would be able to demonstrate how Africa can develop without donor aid, "especially if that aid is arrogantly mixed up with an effort to interfere in our sovereignty". Most likely the rhetoric will work and he will be re-elected stronger than ever.

If cutting of aid is not going to work than what will? Not much to be honest. With the institutionalisation of development aid, the Ugandan government has already lost the all important feature of accountability to its people. Managerial problems can always be blamed on the donors and after 19 years in power, Museveni sees himself as a semi-good without whom his country cannot survive.

I see no light at the end of the tunnel.

(c) Robert Egnell

Democracy I: What is the point?

A number of thoughts on democracy were sparked while conducting a seminar on democratic peace theory at the University of Dar es Salaam. Among the questions from the students was why democracy should be introduced if the people were already happy? Is democracy something worth striving for in itself? Does democracy really create peace and prosperity? These are difficult questions that deserve much space, and I thought I would present some ideas as a series on the Open Forum.

Democracy is in the West one of those holy concepts that we seek to achieve without asking why. It is therefore seen as an end good enough to strive for without asking too many questions. It has for a long time been considered an end worth spending billions of dollars a year in development aid for, and more recently it is also considered worth starting wars for. But perhaps we are making a mistake by not questioning the concept of democracy once in a while. I would therefore like to start the democracy debate by presenting an alternative interpretation of democratisation not as an end in itself but as a means to a different end.

First, we must ask why the process of democratisation took place in Europe and North America, later in Asia, and now to a limited extent in Africa and South America? Was it because everyone suddenly realised the importance of the democratic ideals? No really! It seems to me that true democracy is something that slowly grew as previously sidelined classes and genders gained in economic importance and power. The middle classes were allowed into the political process as the agricultural societies started to change and early industrialisation essentially made them responsible for the welfare of the state. The working classes and women were of course allowed into the political process even later, but the importance of a large workforce in industrialised countries in combination with political education made these groups not only vital to the welfare of the state, but aware of that position, and thereby empowered.

As such, democracy has a place within the history of liberal market capitalism, as a means to keep the productive citizens happy, involved and thus in order. Democratisation is thus a way to ensure effective management of economic development – the result of early economic development and a catalyst for the final stages of economic development into effective market economy. I sound frightfully much like a Marxists who would argue that democracy is simply a way to keep the proletariat under control in order to increase the profits of the bourgeoisie. Although I share some of Marx’s historical views of capitalism I see it as a force for good rather than as a tool of exploitation. A large happy middle class is good for society and its citizens, and not a sign of oppression.

What is the point of this argument? Again, I seem to push for pragmatism rather than humanitarianism. When seeking to spread democracy around the globe, which has been the main aim over the last 50 odd years, the moral arguments are compelling but not enough. It must be made clear that the purpose of democracy is to maintain a well-oiled societal machinery and economic development by providing for a happy hardworking citizenry.

Thus, when promoting democracy it is therefore important to understand its mechanisms and to be pragmatic rather than idealistic. Human beings are no good hearted idealists who really want the best for everyone – we are pragmatic survivalists and will agree to change if we can see the personal benefit of it! How was the West democratised? How has the Far East been democratised? How will China finally open up? Through market demands!

Next time - Democracy II: A must for economic development?

(c) Robert Egnell

An NGO Advertising Campaign!?

On public demand this post is republished with a picture of one of the billboards!

There is currently a massive advertising campaign across Tanzania. Everywhere you look the billboards are depicting happy Tanzanians with the accompanying texts:

“NGO's: The voice of the voiceless”

“NGO's: Caring for your community”

And my favourite: “NGOs are creative and innovative"

Being a rather cynical man when it comes to NGOs, I cannot stop my curiosity when the aid community launches such a massive information campaign. What is the purpose of the campaign, who funds it, and who are the targets?

A closer look at the posters reveales the text “Celebrate/Shangalia”. A quick search on the internet further reveals that the campaign is launched by USAID Tanzania’s largest democracy and governance program, Tanzania Advocacy Partnership Programme (TAPP). So this is in other words a donor funded campaign and not an attempt by the NGOs themselves to further their cause.

In the words of TAPP: “The Shangalia/Celebrate NGOs campaign promotes the positive work and messages of Tanzanian NGOs, and was also developed after conducting focus groups to discern the public’s opinion about NGOs”. So there we have the purpose! The donor community is worried about the receiving public's opinions about NGOs and feel that a good old-fashioned information campaign should solve the problem.

This matter is really starting to stink in my opinion. Instead of looking into the causes of the bad reputation of NGOs among the public, the donor community assumes that it is a problem of perception. No inquiries into the output of NGOs and no long-term assessments of the effects created by NGOs. The reason for this is perhaps easy enough to figure out anyway...

It is, however, not until I look up the word “Shangalia” in the Kiswahili dictionary that my stomach begins to turn.. Shangalia means to “receive (with joy and enthusiasm)”. Humanitarian and civil society organisations are non-profit, and their purpose is to make life better for people. If you need to launch a massive advertising campaign to get this message across to the receiving public, you are doing something seriously wrong! But damned are those who question the good heart of the humanitarians!

No - shut up and receive with joy and enthusiasm!

Torture in the War on Terror and in Iraq

The use of torture, or “abuse” of prisoners is easily condemned on moral grounds. It violates the very basic rights of being human and therefore disgusts most of us. However, torture as an information gathering method is as ancient as it is nasty, and have on many occations proved useful in times of war and crisis – even by the good guys! To simply denounce it is therefore a mistake as it fails to address a harsh reality as well as the moral fact that the ends will sometimes always justify the means. If the survival of mankind, or an entire state, is at stake, there are many of us who would be willing to look away while our national security agencies are “roughing up” potential information holders. However, the almost impossible question is where the line should be drawn. What ends are important enough to justify crimes against humans rights? The answer is, and always will be, a completely subjective interpretation.

Let us bring this difficult debate to the current war on terrorism and the ongoing campaign in Iraq. From an international perspective, it seems clear that the US government has crossed the line. But within the US it seems as if public opinion is at least divided on the issue. A decision based on morals alone is therefore perhaps too subjective to be useful. With the risk of being called a cold hearted bastard, I would therefore like to add the purely pragmatic variable of strategy to the debate on torture.

A problem of the War on terrorism and the campaign in Iraq is that these campaigns are supposed to protect liberal democratic ideals. The use of torture is therefore seems to contradict the very purpose of the wars. How undemocratic and disrespectful of human rights can you be in a campaign that serves to protect the very same ideals?

With this problem in mind, we should ask ourselves, to what extent does the methods used in the campaign support or obstruct the achievement of the aims of the campaign? In Iraq the US-led coalition seems to shoot itself in the foot by employing rough methods. It is virtually impossible to convince the Iraqi people and world opinion of your good intentions when employing certain methods. The effects of these methods are therefore loss of strategic credibility and lost battles for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people – something that is hugely important for success. Considering that the use of torture as a method is a crime against human rights, as well as a cause of enormous losses in terms of strategic aims, one can only wonder what type of information could be obtained from the tortured detainees. Could an insurgent ever hold information that would be important enough to employ torture as a method? It seems unlikely!

In the war on terrorism it seems theoretically possible, although quite unlikely, that a detainee might have information important enough to justify torture. In this case we are of course talking about information such as direct knowledge of where and when weapons of mass destruction would be used by terrorists. However, the enormous loss of credibility as a force for good that the US is experiencing at the moment should be evidence enough that torture will never be justifiable in a cost-benefit analysis.

Since the moral arguments against torture do not seem to be enough to stop even the most liberal democracies from employing it as a method in war and crisis, I hereby present strategy as an equally potent reason to abolish the use of torture. From a pure cost benefit perspective I would therefore strongly recommend the governments employing these methods to stop. Torture is a sure way to lose the war in Iraq as well as the war on terrorism.

(c) Robert Egnell

Finally a Strategy for Iraq!

The White house has recently published a 35 page "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq", and Bush is now touring the country selling the new plan. The debate about its content is already raging and many of Bush's critics argue that it still contains no major course change, or a clear "exit strategy". However, most comments from the political opposition are filled with political opportunism and disregard the strategic and tactical realities on the ground in Iraq and in the international arena.

The fact is that the Strategy displays most of the features that strategists have been asking for. The big problem is obviously that the document is nearly three years late. The Strategy for Victory in Iraq is precisely the type of open and clear strategy that should have been created and published before the invasion of Iraq. Not only would such a document have given direction for the coalition forces on the ground - thereby forcing them to train and prepare for the post-conflict phase that was largely ignored. It would also have assured the sceptical world about US intentions in Iraq. Finally, and more importantly, it would have given the Iraqi people a clear indication of coalition intentions in Iraq. Although it is clearly too late to undo two and a half years of serious mismanagement of Iraq it is never too late to improve and adapt!

The aims in the new Strategy is to "help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists." To achieve this end, the strategy outlines three tracks of political, security and economic strategies to pursue. Each track contains a number of objectives and directives. It therefore seems like the coalition finally has a list of clear objectives accompanied with a strategy on how to achieve them! The Strategy also displays an unprecedented candidness by stating that achieving the objectives in Iraq will take a long time, but that the coalition will not leave until the conditions allow so.

Interestingly the Strategy argues that "It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power." This begs the question what the coalition strategists were thinking three years ago?

There have been countless mistakes made in Iraq and undoing them is impossible. However, as the Strategy acknowledges, not succeeding is not an option. Too much is at stake! The Strategy for Victory in Iraq therefore serves as an important step in the right direction. Hopefully we will also see some changes on the ground in tactical behaviour that reflects this new Strategy. However, the military establishment is not as "fickle" as the strategic leadership and to learn, understand, and conform to tactical lessons after "only" three years may unfortunately be asking too much of the US military establishment. To be continued of course...

Find the complete strategy in pdf format here.

(c) Robert Egnell