Politics and Government

The Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership is awarded to a democratically-elected African chief of state who pursues good governance and then leaves office according to the constitution.  The prize has been awarded only three times since it was established in 2006: to Mozambique’s Joaquim Chissano (2007), Botswana’s Festus Mogae (2008), and Cape Verde’s Pedro Verona Pires (2011). In 2009, 2010, and again this year, the selection committee found no candidate who met the eligibility criteria. The committee has made two exceptional awards, to Nelson Mandela (2007) and, this year, to Archbishop Desmond Tutu.  But the lack of laureates is commonly taken to be an indictment of the quality of African leadership. Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese telecom billionaire and possibly the world’s richest African, currently resident in London, can be blunt and to the point.   The BBC quotes Mo Ibrahim as saying, “you make your bed, you have to lie on it.  If we said we’re going to have a prize for exceptional leadership, we have to stick to that.  We are not going to compromise… We are not just in the business of positive messages–we would lose our credibility.” The prize is extraordinarily rich: U.S. $5 million spread over ten years, followed by U.S. $200,000 a year for life. Among other things, the prize is intended to free African leaders from the financial concerns that have led some of them to cling to power. Andrew Harding, BBC Africa correspondent, in a thoughtful comment raises the question of whether paradoxically, the prize actually re-enforces the link between money and power that it is supposed to discourage. He asks whether there might be a way to reward a country, rather than an individual, for advancing democracy and good governance. I think he has a point. However, if nothing else, the prize, and its dearth of qualified recipients, focuses popular attention on the importance of democratic leadership at the top.

Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the third and final presidential debate of 2012, informed the Obama and Romney campaigns last week that he had selected debate topics. The debate, which is scheduled for next Monday, October 22, at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, will focus on foreign policy. The ninety-minute debate will be divided into six, fifteen minute segments. Here are the topics that Schieffer selected: America’s role in the world Our longest war—Afghanistan and Pakistan Red Lines—Israel and Iran The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism I The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism II The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World None of these choices is surprising. They are the topics that have dominated the campaign conversation thus far. But the list leaves out several critical issues that the next president will have to confront. Mexico doesn’t make the list, even though growing drug-related violence there may have a greater direct impact on Americans than some of the issues that made Schieffer’s list. Russia also doesn’t make the cut despite the fact that Governor Romney says it is America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” There is no discussion of trade or the international global financial system even though we live in a globalized world in which what happens in other economies will go a long way toward determining whether people in Peoria and Portland have jobs. And climate change continues to be the issue that dominates political discussions everywhere but in the United States. Perhaps these or other issues—foreign aid, Africa, Venezuela, and global health come to mind—will get raised in the course of the conversation next Monday night. And, of course, no ninety-minute debate can tackle every significant foreign policy issue. Still, in all it seems that Schieffer’s choice of debate topics is, well, debatable. Finally, one bit of historical irony about next week’s debate. It will be held on the fiftieth anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s televised address to the nation that the Soviets had begun installing nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba. The speech marked the beginning of the public phase of the Cuban missile crisis, when the United States and the Soviet Union went to the brink of nuclear war. The anniversary is a solemn reminder of what is at stake in foreign policy. May the next president, whoever he is, not face a situation of similar gravity.

The UN Human Rights Council will hold its 14th Universal Periodic Review this month to evaluate human rights practices in fourteen member states from across the globe. Countries are bound under international law to respect, protect, and fulfill the economic and social rights of their citizens, yet efforts to hold states accountable for meeting these human rights obligations have long been frustrated. At least part of this challenge is one of objective evaluation and measurement. States are legally obligated to commit the “maximum available resources” to progressively fulfill the economic and social rights (ESRs) of their citizens.  This "progressive realization" formulation has long complicated efforts to monitor countries’ fulfillment of rights obligations, since without an evidence-based model for assessing performance it allows states to escape from their human rights obligations by claiming inadequate resources. Often socioeconomic indicators like the Human Development Index (HDI) are used to understand how economic and social rights are being fulfilled. While HDI indicators can provide useful information about the welfare of citizens, these indicators fail to reveal the how well states are doing in light of available resources. In response to this challenge, Susan Randolph, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, and I have developed the Social & Economic Rights Fulfillment (SERF) Index to provide another perspective on development.  Instead of simply measuring the performance of countries in a number of socioeconomic indicators, the SERF Index rigorously assesses states’ fulfillment of economic and social rights obligations by measuring the gap between actual and feasible economic and social rights enjoyment. Specifically, this tool allows quantitative measurement and analysis regarding fulfillment of the right to food, the right to adequate shelter, the right to healthcare, the right to education, the right to decent work, and protection against discrimination. The SERF Index allows apples-to-apples comparisons across countries by estimating states’ economic and social rights obligations using an evidence-based "Achievement Possibilities Frontier." While socioeconomic statistics like school enrollment and infant mortality tell us the extent to which rights-holding individuals enjoy economic and social rights, these statistics lack the relevant context of per capita income which indicates resource availability. By relating countries’ per capita income with their performance on socioeconomic statistics like malnutrition, infant mortality, and school enrollment, the Achievement Possibilities Frontier reveals the best a country can do at any given level of income. This evidence-based performance standard allows states to be held accountable for meeting their economic and social rights obligations under international law. Achievement Possibilities Frontier Example: Under 5 Survival Rate (per 1000) (Max=100). Best fit obtained with an inverse function. The findings are sobering: a large number of countries—rich and poor—are falling short of meeting their economic and social rights obligations, presenting a daunting task for the UN Human Rights Council and other rights bodies. The worst-performing country, Equatorial Guinea, only meets 16 percent of its overall obligations. Low scores can reflect a lack of will to give necessary priority to economic and social rights, ineffective policies and programs, or both. These results are substantially different from measures that merely account for the rights-bearer perspective, like the Human Development Index (HDI). For example, while Human Development Indicators similarly rank both Jordan and Turkey as medium performers, when state resource capacity is accounted for, significant discrepancies in economic and social rights fulfillment are revealed—Jordan is among the top performing in its category with a rank of 6th, as compared with Turkey which ranks 87th. Jordan’s high rank stems from good performance fulfilling rights to education, health, food, adequate housing, and decent work; however, the country faces significant lags in its obligations with respect to non-discrimination (for example, for women). Ironically, Jordan guarantees women’s rights legally and institutionally, yet performs poorly in practice—all the while performing strongly in its health rights fulfillment, despite not formally recognizing a right to health. This post is the first in a series of two addressing the SERF Index and the upcoming UN Periodic Review. In my next post, I will use the SERF Index to analyze and compare rights practices in several of the countries up for review.  More information about the Economic and Social Rights Empowerment Initiative and the SERF index is available at http://www.serfindex.org/.

Yesterday on CFR.org, four experts from around the world discussed the dynamics surrounding the underrepresentation of emerging economies in the governance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As one expert, Oliver Stuenkel of the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Brazil, argues: While European and U.S. leaders have asked emerging powers to act as "responsible stakeholders," they are largely unwilling to constructively engage new actors and allow them to assume leadership within existing institutions. One of the consequences is growing support in Brazil and other emerging markets in the creation of a BRICS Development Bank. You can read the full article here.

The World Next Week podcast is up. Bob McMahon and I discussed the second presidential debate; where Libya stands one year after the death of Muammar Qaddafi; and the fiftieth anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis. [audio: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/media/editorial/2012/20121011_TWNW.mp3] The highlights: Next Tuesday’s presidential debate in Hempstead, New York is a high stakes meeting for both candidates, but especially for President Obama. The chatter on the eve of the first presidential debate was whether he was effectively about to clinch his re-election. After a showing that even his supporters describe as disastrous, the talk is suddenly whether it is too late for him to recover. Governor Romney saw a roughly four point bounce in the national polls, some of which now show him leading, and he closed the gap in critical battleground states. Obama’s task may get even harder if Vice President Joe Biden fares poorly in his debate tonight against Paul Ryan. One year after the death of Muammar Qaddafi, Libya is in political turmoil. Libya’s parliament ousted the country’s prime minister in a no-confidence vote this week, the contending political factions cannot seem to work together, the country is awash in weapons, and a small pro-Qaddafi contingent hangs on. The fact that Libya, which has a relatively small and homogenous population, is struggling to build a stable democratic government raises serious questions about the fate that awaits Syria, a larger and far more complicated society, after the al-Assad government falls. Sunday marks the 50th anniversary of the U-2 flight that turned up photographic evidence that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba, despite insisting repeatedly and publicly it was doing no such thing. One of the many remarkable things about the thirteen-day long Cuban missile crisis was how President John F. Kennedy stuck with his public schedule for several days, giving the American public and the world no hint that he and his national security team were wrestling with how to respond to a Soviet provocation that had brought the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear war. Bob’s Figure of the Week is 40 percent. My Figure of the Week is Malala Yousafzai. As always, you’ll have to listen to the podcast to find out why. For more on the topics we discussed in the podcast check out: Obama and Romney rematch in the second presidential debate: The Huffington Post outlines four foreign policy issues that will dominate Romney’s debate strategy. The LA Times reports on Madeleine Albright’s criticism that Romney changed his mind on several issues and failed to provide specifics about his proposed foreign policy strategy. ABC News compares what Obama and Romney have to say on several foreign policy topics. Libya one year after the death of Muammar Qaddafi: United Press International covers the ouster of Libya’s prime minister on Monday. Time contends that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has intensified the deep political divisions in Libya. The Chicago Tribune reports that the International Criminal Court is deciding whether Libya can provide Qaddafi’s son with a fair trial. The New York Times notes that partisan politics may play a role in the congressional hearing on the attack in Benghazi. The Cuban missile crisis fifty years later: VOA News points out particular events in 1961 that helped fuel the Cuban missile crisis. Forbes compiles political figures’ thoughts and reflections on the Cuban missile crisis. Foreign Policy plans to tweet the Cuban Missile Crisis in real time while outlining its historical lessons. The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University commemorates the crisis with a website loaded with information and analysis about the events and people that drove the confrontation. USA Today reports that the National Archives is releasing 2,700 pages of papers from its Robert F. Kennedy collection, many of them dealing with the missile crisis.

A recent Pew Hispanic Center report on trends in Latino voter participation counts a record 24 million Latinos as eligible to vote in November’s presidential election (11 percent of all potential voters). It also finds that Latinos are particularly important in several battleground states. Their rising numbers and geographic concentration suggest that if and how Latinos vote on November 6 could determine the race. While a large voting bloc for several election cycles now, Latinos have yet to fully wield their potential political power. Part of the reason is turnout—few Latinos make it to the polls on Election Day. In 2008 only half of eligible Latino voters cast ballots versus 65 percent of blacks and 66 percent of whites. Latinos are also a heterogeneous bunch with vast differences across the population; for instance the priorities of Florida’s conservative Cuban base are vastly different from Arizona’s predominantly Mexican-American constituency. Complicating political appeals even further, a recent Gallup poll shows that Latinos’ political priorities differ by generation. As shown in the chart below, foreign born Latinos care most about economic growth, second generation citizens focus on unemployment, and third generation members prioritize healthcare. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155327/hispanic-voters-put-issues-immigration.aspx Still, despite these obstacles and divides, 2012 looks to be the year of the Latino voter. In the swing states of Colorado, Nevada, and Florida, Hispanics make up between 13 and 16 percent of the voting population. Looking at past history and current polling preferences, these demographics strongly support the president over his Republican rival. In Nevada a whopping 78 percent of Latinos prefer Obama to Romney, in Colorado it’s 74 percent, and even in more conservative Florida it is 61 percent. Obama’s current lead in these three states (between 1.4 and 3.9 percent) reflects in large part these votes. These three states matter. As the New York Times interactive electoral map illustrates (you can create your own scenarios here), if Colorado, Nevada, and especially Florida swing to Obama (and assuming he prevails in “solid” and “probable” democratic-leaning states), he wins. By contrast, Romney must triumph in these battleground states to have a chance.  The upshot? This may be the year Latinos choose the next U.S. president.

Africa Confidential published on October 5, a clear-eyed analysis of the challenges facing Nigeria’s economic reformers and concludes that those blocking reform “are winning hands down.”  Central Bank Governor Lamido Sanusi states publicly that oil theft is massive and organized. He also questions whether, in fact, the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) actually knows how much oil is produced–NNPC says 2.7 million barrels a day. The article cites Lagos bankers as saying that the current financial status quo is “not sustainable.” In addition to revenue lost through oil theft, they note the insurgency in the north which has resulted in a security vote of over U.S.$5 billion in the2012 budget, reducing the amount available for health, education and infrastructure. They also argue that the popular “fuel subsidy” has “spiraled out of control”–the backlog owed to oil traders from 2011 could be as much as U.S.$18 billion. The country is also once again falling into debt. The Director General of the Central Bank’s Debt Management Office is quoted as forecasting that Nigeria could own U.S.$25 billion by 2015, with U.S.$16.75 billion to foreign creditors. On the other hand, semi-privatization of the power sector is on track, and the article  states that the electric grid has produced 4,000 megawatts for the past month–“one of the longest periods of semi-continuous power in the southwest for several decades.” It concludes that if President Goodluck Jonathan can fix power generation, “then almost any other sins may be quickly forgiven.” This conclusion strikes me as optimistic. The immediate improvement in power generation affects only one part of the country—the area around Lagos—not elsewhere. The financial issues are mostly short-term; the payoff from a revitalized power industry–if it happens–is longer term. The more existential issue facing Jonathan’s government is how to get through the next year with Boko Haram in the north, oil theft in the Delta, and, possibly, rising unemployment that could result in strikes.

In the wake of the Philippines government announcing last weekend that Manila and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) had agreed upon a peace plan after fifteen years of negotiations and forty years of war, many Thai news outlets are wondering whether Manila could teach Bangkok a lesson in how to deal with the southern Thailand insurgency. The Nation today, in an editorial titled “A Lesson for Thailand from the Philippines,” offers that the Philippine agreement has many key points for Thai policymakers to learn from, a mantra echoed by several other Thai media outlets. Yet there are key differences between southern Thailand and southern Philippines that, at this point, will make it hard to apply many of Manila’s lessons to Thailand: Thai prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra is not personally engaged in ending the insurgency. According to nearly all Philippine news sources, Philippines president Benigno Aquino III made a peace deal with the MILF one of his highest priorities, and agreed to face-to-face meetings with the MILF leaders in order to personally guarantee the peace process and demonstrate his commitment. Prime Minister Yingluck has shown no such interest, perhaps because her brother Thaksin remains the power behind the throne, or perhaps because most Thais in Bangkok and the north/northeast, the Puea Thai power base, do not really care about the situation in the south as long as the war does not trickle beyond the south. The Philippines government was also willing to offer the south a self-governing autonomous zone, which is a red line most Thai politicians will not cross at this point.  The southern insurgents in Thailand do not have any apparent leader. Time and time again, efforts by the Thai government to launch negotiations have been stymied because Bangkok is still not really sure who leads the insurgency, or even whether the top leaders are in touch with each other, since the insurgencies’ cells are so diffuse and disconnected. In contrast, the MILF had a clear leadership to negotiate with.  The Thai government has rejected most assistance from outsiders. As The Nation notes, because the government and insurgents have no trust in each other, outside mediation can be crucial, but the Yingluck government wants to have a peace process with the insurgency with minimal input from outside parties like Malaysia, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or Saudi Arabia. As a result, the few negotiations that have taken place have failed in acrimony.  The Thai insurgents are not tired of war. Unfortunately, unlike in the southern Philippines, the southern Thai insurgents seem to be only getting stronger and angrier.  Seven people have been killed in the south in the past few days alone, and the insurgency, by shutting down businesses most Fridays, appears to be gaining the upper hand.

The labor unrest in South Africa’s mining industry is about more than wages. The Bench Marks Foundation, an influential South African non-governmental organization (NGO), issued a statement on October 14, in which John Capel, its executive director said, “Contrary to what is being reported, it is not purely about wages, but about the totality of people’s lives where they definitely do not feel respective and live under conditions that do not give them dignity.” In an October 4, press release, Bench Marks cited the cozy relationship between the mining companies and the government that “…raises questions as to government’s bias toward the mining companies and…why there is no real accountability in this sector.” The press release notes that the companies court government influence and the politicians are appointed to mining company boards or are shareholders. Bench Marks says, however, it is the government not the mining companies that is ultimately responsible for the appalling living conditions that many miners endure, and that feeds the anger behind the illegal strikes. The Marikana strike and subsequent killings, mostly—not entirely—by the police have highlighted the close relationship between ANC politicians (current and former), the National Union of Miners, and the big mining companies. Bench Marks Foundation was founded by Archbishop Desmond Tutu essentially to monitor the big corporations from the perspective of corporate social responsibility. It is owned by the churches, and its current head is the Anglican bishop of Pretoria, Jo Seoka. Bench Marks is part of the rising tide of civic criticism that the ANC has lost its way and rather than being about liberation, it is too much about the enrichment of its leaders. That said, the ANC is a big tent, and especially among its grassroots, it retains considerable idealism.

Length of Conflict 19 month Deaths Total opposition deaths: 29,234 – 35,323 Civilan: 25,660 – 32,419 Children: 2,748 – 2,818 Opposition military: 2,904 – 3,574 Deaths by Province Homs: 6,642 – 8,096 Idleb: 3,827 – 4,710 Hama: 2,564 – 3,172 Daraa: 2,839 – 3,327 Rural Damascus: 5,270 – 6,243 Deir Ezzor: 2,173 – 2,416 Damascus: 1,785 – 2,439 Aleppo: 3,200 – 3,912 Latakia: 516 – 600 Hasaka: 111 – 142 Tartous: 51 – 75 Raqqa: 133 – 147 Qunaitera: 52 – 68 Swuaida: 22 – 24 (Sources: Center For Documentation of Violations in Syria and Syrian Shuhada) UN Refugees – Registered or Waiting to be Registered Total refugees registered or awaiting registration by the UN in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq: 311,500 Refugees in Turkey: 96,397 Refugees in Jordan: 103,488 Refugees in Lebanon: 80,800 Refugees in Iraq:  36,500 Projected Number of Refugees by End of Year 710,000 Estimated Number of Refugees Estimated total number of refugees: over 300,000 Refugees in Turkey: 133,000 Refugees in Jordan: 180,000 Refugees in Lebanon: 85,200 Refugees in Iraq:  36,500 Internally Displaced Estimated total number of displaced Syrians: 1.5 – 2 million Aid UNHCR Syria Regional Response Plan updated requirements: $487.9 million Percent funded: 29 percent *Middle East Matters posted corresponding statistics for the months of June here and August here

On Sunday Hugo Chávez won his third presidential term. With 55 percent of the total vote, he bested opponent Henrique Capriles by almost 11 percent. With the dust now settling and celebrations or mourning (depending on your politics) coming to an end, here is a roundup of insights into how and why Chávez defeated Capriles, and what this might mean for the next six years. Part of the reason for Chavez’s victory was turnout—some 80 percent of the eligible population made it to the polls, and this likely helped the incumbent. Though a few scattered voices allege fraud, the election overall seems to have been free. Whether or not it was fair is more widely contested. The opposition has alleged that Chávez used state resources during his campaign, and Bloggings by Boz’s James Bosworth has pointed out that the ballot itself was confusing. Media coverage of Chávez has also been contentious, with opponents claiming that the state-run media favored Chávez in its coverage and allowed him more air time. But today’s Pan-American Post cites a study by the Andres Bello Catholic University that finds, in fact, that Capriles received more exposure in recent weeks. Another reason was social spending. Businessweek notes that government outlays rose 30 percent this year. High oil prices gave Chávez the fiscal flexibility to undertake ambitious social projects, such as giving away nearly 250,000 houses (although, as Javier Corrales notes, the quality of their construction may be dubious) and subsidizing appliances through the Mi Casa Bien Equipada (or in English, My Well Equipped Home) program, part of an “oil for appliances” deal with China. Many worried that Chávez’s defeat could end these popular programs. Overall, high oil prices have often been directly correlated with Chavez’s approval ratings (see this Wall Street Journal graph), and international markets obliged this October. What happens now is less clear. Michael Shifter suggests in the New York Times that this term will be different for Chávez, as he now faces an organized and confident opposition. By contrast, the Wall Street Journal published a piece stating that the election just gives Chávez more time to “press ahead with his Socialist revolution, deepening government intervention in the economy, including price controls and nationalizations.” Finally, Chavez’s health remains a question for many. If he cannot complete the first four years of his six year term, Venezuelans will head back to the polls, as the Constitution calls for new elections. You can watch Chávez’s acceptance speech here or watch Capriles’s concession speech here.

This is a guest blog post by Mohamed Jallow, Program Development Specialist at IntraHealth International. He was previously a program associate at the Council on Foreign Relations. Sierra Leoneans go to the polls a little over a week after the United States this year. Unlike the United States, Sierra Leone is still experimenting with the idea of democracy and all its complexities. There remains an ever present fear of elections degenerating into chaos and violence. Election periods in Sierra Leone, as across much of sub-Saharan Africa, are a challenge to the people as well as the contestants. There is an increasingly polarized atmosphere to this year’s elections in particular–heightened by an overzealous mixture of pro and anti-government factions in the press–that increases fears of political violence. People are worried about whether Sierra Leone can weather this electoral cycle without degenerating into turmoil as some of its neighbors have done. The answer to this question hinges on two things: First, whether the ruling party can exercise enough restraint when responding to political provocations from the opposition and their various mouthpieces. Second, whether a responsible press can remain true to the tenets of fair democratic debate rather than stoking deep seated divisions that could potentially destabilize the country. So far, only the former has been true. Despite its limitations, the government of current president, Earnest Bai Koroma has shown a remarkable level of restraint, especially in dealing with the incidences of violence among its supporters and the opposition. The press on the other hand, has been engaging in political flame throwing, and even overt incitement in some cases. Sierra Leone, as with many countries in the region, has seen a proliferation of newspapers in recent decades. While this is a good measure of an open political system, with the press free and vibrant, it becomes counterproductive when it fails its duty to keep the population informed, instead engaging in political demagoguery. The situation has unsettling parallels to the post-election crisis in Côte D’Ivoire in 2010. There, many newspapers openly chose sides and increased the divisive rhetoric that contributed to the violence following those bitterly contested elections. One encouraging sign in Sierra Leone though, is that civil society groups are taking steps to mitigate potential political violence during and after the elections. The Political Party Registration Commission, together with local and international partners, has been sensitizing the public and political parties to the perils of political violence, and how to avoid it. Many Sierra Leoneans have also recognized that elections by themselves are not a panacea for addressing the myriad problems facing the country, but that extreme vigilance in the face of superficial tensions can save the country from going the way of Côte D’Ivoire and Guinea.