« April 26, 2003 | Main
| April 28, 2003 »

April 27, 2003

B-Roll: Arab
: I've added new weblogs, mostly by Iranians, under B-Roll: Arab (on the right). I'm not sure what the proper description is: Arab, Persian... In any case, there are lots of interesting English-language blogs from that part of the world. Expect more.
: Bless the world of weblogs. Moments after putting up this post, I got advice to change to B-Roll: Persian. Done.
: Now I'm already in a MidEast PC problem. Some say Persian is too limiting. I would like to be able to include weblogs from anywhere in that neighborhood. Should it be B-Roll: Mideast?

LINK | Comments (10)

What does Democracy mean (for Iraq)?
: The people of Iraq must have a democracy. They deserve nothing less.

: Coming home the other night, I turned on the radio and heard someone with an accent say dismissively that you just can't force democracy on a country -- namely, Iraq. I came in too late to hear who said it. And, unfortunately, the NPR reporter didn't bother to question the statement. For it was hogwash.
Democracy was "forced" on Germany and Japan and it has worked splendidly, just as well as (if not better than) it has worked in countries that came by democracy through popular uprising and revolt. Their Germans and the Japanese -- once assumed to be incapable of managing democracy themselves -- have long-since and resoundingly proven all their condescending naysayers wrong. They have proven that when people are given a chance to govern themselves, they will do it eagerly and well -- in fits and starts, perhaps, but in the end, well.

: Now there is a school of thought that asks, what if the Iraqis choose a theocracy or even a dictatorship instead of democracy? That's certainly what we're hearing from Shiite clerics in Iraq. I'm hearing rumblings of this from the anti-war club.
A superb weblog by an Iranian called the Eyeranian poses the question well:

To me a dictatorship, mixed with visions of divine responsibilities is probably the most horrendous type of repression possible. Close to a quarter of a century of an autocratic government in Iran, bringing mass executions, murders, large-scale imprisonments, terror, oppression and corruption is the prime confirmation of this line of reasoning....
Having said that, one of the bases for any true democracy is to accept the people’s prerogative to occasionally make wrong choices and even more often, to make choices that you and I may not like or agree with. But at the end of the day, the choice is completely theirs. By that I mean that if in a free and open election Iranians choose to keep the current regime, it would be vital for people like myself to value and honor their choice, yet reserving our right to oppose it in peaceful fashion and by non-violent means.
This of course also applies to the people of Iraq. We invaded their country supposedly to “establish democracy” and give them the option of selecting their own form of government, elect their true representatives and enact laws according to their own sets of values and cultural make-up. However, a short few weeks after the fall of Saddam Hussein regime of terror, the hawks running globe’s only super-power are trying to take away that very right.

By this line of reasoning, if the people choose a theocracy -- a dictatorship, even -- isn't that democratic because it was, at least, a choice?

: I respectfully disagree. The problem here is the definition of democracy.
Democracy is not a one-time event: Go into the polls and pick your government or your leader and then lump it for the foreseeable future.
No, democracy is a process.
First and foremost, democracy is a living, ever-changing social organism. Its ability to change is exactly what gives the people power over their leaders. Essential to any definition of a democracy is that it allows the people to change leaders -- and thus the course of government -- at any time, in a peaceful process, without having to resort to revolution.
Second, a democracy is never just its leader. If you go to the polls and pick a leader and then that person cuts off democratic process, he becomes a dictator, whether religious or secular, whether an ayatollah or a Saddam.
Third, a democracy is its constitution. That is, the process of democracy -- the means by which the various interests and needs of the people are both enforced and protected -- is enshrined in a constitution (rather than in a person or a party). We must work with the people of Iraq -- as we worked with Germany and Japan and are now working with the people of Afghanistan -- to create a system of governance that gives the power permanently to the people and protects that power through representative institutions, through checks and balances, and through the ability to change that constitution when the people will it.
Fourth, a democracy must protect the rights of all the people, including minorities. Especially in a fractious nation such as Iraq, just taking power away from one group and giving it to another -- just letting the Shiite religious leaders rule because they wield the majority -- is trading one brand of dictatorship for another. That majority vote would not be democracy; it would be oppression. No, the constitution and the process of elections must allow for a give and take of all groups and all interests.
Fifth, a democracy depends on a well-informed electorate and thus it must support free speech, a free press, and independent education.

: A democracy respects its people.
Those who say that Iraqis cannot handle democracy give them no respect.

LINK | Comments (13)

A revolution starts with one blog
: Hossein Derakhshan, aka Hoder, runs the Iranian weblog Editor:Myself where he not only has been reporting on the arrest of Iranian weblogger Sina Motallebi (and today he recalls witnessing the repression of free speech in Iran first-hand), but I now learn that he also practically single-handedly started the Iranian blogging revolution.
A fellow blogger named Khodadad wrote an article about Hoder and the start of Iranian weblogs:

It all started when an article appeared in a popular Iranian news site, written by a twenty something former Iranian journalist, a refugee of the shut-down reformist newspapers in Iran, who lived in Canada. He had discovered the format of blogging, and manipulated the latest common operating system to write blogs in Persian. In a few simple paragraphs, he explained what web-logs are, and how he had managed to created a template that allowed one to use the Unicode system to write Persian. He was perhaps hoping that a few Iranians would pick up the lead and make a presence in the world of web-logging. Well, he was right about “some” picking up the lead, but not about how many. In less than two months, more than 200 Iranian blogs were created on the internet! That was November of 2001. Now, a year and four months later, than number is closer to 1,500!

The piece tells about how women started a network about their rights in Iran via weblogs and about the many other uses the youth of Iran have made of this powerful publishing tool.

: I'll repeat one more time -- and keep repeating it until I get a call from the White House or the State Department or a major underwriter agreeing that this is a good idea they should get behind: Imagine if we helped start a simple network of weblogs in Iraq. Imagine how they could foster free speech, free press, and democracy. Imagine how they could empower the youth of Iraq to build their future. Imagine how they could foster communication and understanding in the rest of the world.
Or instead of imagining, maybe we should just do it, eh?

LINK | Comments (2)

Dependence and democracy
: Hooman, an Iranian blogger, raises an interesting question regarding economics and democracy:

Imagine you live in a country with a diverse economy. Imagine you keep 70% of your income in your pocket and end up paying 30% to the government as tax. Your government hinges on you and your fellow countrymen and women to stay afloat then.... Now imagine you live in a country with an economy living off … let’s say the oil. And that is the job of the government to sell it and distribute the profit among its subjects … oops, I mean its population. So the 70% you keep in your pocket is from the guys in the top. It is obvious that an oil-rich government with a nature as such is not so keen then to collect the 30% tax from you. Reclaiming the money that's already given out? It won't be so shocking then to learn the tax laws are not really enforced....
Anyway, the point that I am starting to miss to drive home is: Once a government, whom you feed, occasionally pushes you around, what do you expect to see from a government who feeds you?
Does it explain why some oil producing countries move toward democracy when the oil prices are low and move the opposie direction when their pockets are full of the green back note, i.e. US $?

All the more reason that we must help Iraq build an economy built on the value of its people, not just its oil

LINK | Comments (4)

Just what are they trying to stop?
: I smell a cynical act China's decision to shut entertainment venues to stop the spread of SARS. Included in that is the closure of Internet cafes. Why Internet cafes and why not trains, restaurants, stores, and other public venues? Perhaps they also want to stop the spread of information?

LINK | Comments (3)