Photo : yfrog.com/h73m1zj - Shared by mischkaran.
Human rights as idolatry – Chris Blattman. We need to stop thinking about human rights as trumps and begin thinking of them as a language that creates the basis for deliberation.
I’ve been reading Michael Ignatieff’s 2001 lectures, Human Rights As Politics and Idolatry. Ignatieff is a true human rights pragmatist. To him, rights are neither inviolable nor intrinsic. Inviolability is impossible, since rights so often contradict even themselves. Intrinsic? This seems like an odd thing for a captain of human rights to argue. This brings him to my favorite argument: In order to reconcile democracy and human rights, Western policy will have to put more emphasis not on democracy alone but on constitutionalism, the entrenchment of a balance of powers, judicial review of executive decisions, and enforceable minority rights guarantees. I’m sympathetic to Ignatieff. The critics, who write responses at the end of the book, are not so critical. Blog: TED and Reddit interview Evgeny Morozov. Today, Internet scientist Evgeny Morozov answers questions from the latest Reddit-powered, TED community-driven interview.
Enjoy! Rras asks: Do I see any novel and telling reactions and counter-reactions from individuals or groups in response to governments’ manipulation efforts? Digital activism is only possible because creative and tech-savvy activists are usually one step ahead of authorities. Part of my thesis has been that authorities are getting more and more sophisticated, which makes the lives of digital activists much more difficult (and much less secure). Chances are that we’ll only know about the most secure and effective means of communication and activism once they have stopped being effective; once they jump the shark, they essentially become useless to activists because authorities are keeping a close eye on them as well. Silverwater asks: How do we combat anti-critical thinking online and get people out of the bubbles that they form online?
Foreign Policy: Don't Give up on Egypt. CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP/Getty Images Caveat lector: Not long after Condi Rice spoke in Cairo, the United States seemed to give up on promoting democracy in Egypt. As U.S. President Barack Obama warms up for his highly anticipated speech in Cairo, in which he will no doubt have things to say about the Middle East's democratic deficits, few have noticed that his administration has drastically scaled back, with little explanation or advance warning, its financial support for Egyptian activists fighting for political reform.
On the whole, Obama has renewed, even expanded, American assistance for democracy in the region. But Egypt, long a regional political and cultural leader, stands out as a prominent -- and very important -- exception to this broader trend. U.S. support for democracy activists goes back years. For a brief moment, the policy seemed to be showing results. Obama has mostly continued the Bush-era programs.
Foreign Policy: The Bourgeois Revolution. Most days, the scene around Democracy Monument, a set of giant statues in the center of the old part of Bangkok, seems almost like a carnival. Pushcart vendors hawk everything from dried squid to ripe mangoes, and backpackers haggle with tuk-tuk drivers for a ride in their tiny, three-wheeled taxis. But over the past year, as public anger over the alleged corruption of a series of Thai governments has reached a crescendo, a different, angrier sort of crowd has been gathering there.
Last fall, tens of thousands of Bangkokians dressed in the yellow symbolizing Thailand's monarchy descended to call for Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's resignation and for a transformation of the country's electoral system. Now that a series of protests have forced Thaksin into exile and installed a new prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, the yellow-shirts are facing protests of their own, from Thaksin's red-shirted working-class allies. Paula Bronstein/Getty Images. Foreign Policy: The Dictator’s Handbook. The old rulers of the Soviet Union were terrified of facing contested elections.
Those of us who studied political systems presumed they must be right: Elections would empower citizens against the arrogance of government. And with the fall of the Iron Curtain, elections indeed swept the world. Yet democracy doesn't seem to have delivered on its promise. Surprisingly often, the same old rulers are still there, ruling in much the same old way. Something has gone wrong, but what?
To answer this question, I put myself in the shoes of an old autocrat -- say, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak -- now having to retain power in a "democracy. " This is probably what most people want. I haven't much idea how to do it. Worse still, reform might be dangerous. But suppose I did it. So, even if I pull it off, I’m still more than likely to lose power. I control most of the media, so it is relatively easy. I have been doing this for years, so people heavily discount anything I say.
This one works!