Mediaboss Marketing

HONG KONG PROTESTS FOR DEMOCRACY
Aerial view from drone of protests September 2014.

By: bearwitnessgroup

More:
HONG KONG PROTESTS FOR DEMOCRACY - Video

By Lindsay Benstead September 30 at 10:58 AM

Scholars of public opinion, including Arab Barometer researchers Amaney Jamal, Michael Robbins and Mark Tessler, offer ample evidence of support for democracy in the Arab world. According to polls from 2006 to 2008, at least 80 percent of residents in Yemen, the Palestinian territories, Algeria and Jordan agreed or strongly agreed that, Democracy may have its problems, but it is the best form of government. This figure exceeded 90 percent in Morocco and Lebanon.

Yet, in a recent article published in Democratization, I revisited these Arab Barometer data and found that support for democracy is not as widespread as received wisdom suggests. I found that 27 percent of citizens of six countries surveyed by the Arab Barometer believed that democracy is best but unsuitable for their country. The reasons citizens saw democracy as unsuitable stem not from religion or economic modernization the focus of many studies of Arab public opinion but from concerns about economic problems and political instability that could accompany free elections.

My research found that 60 percent of citizens strongly support democracy, as indicated by their response to two statements (See Table 3). This group feels that democracy is the best form of government and suitable for the respondents own country. Only 7 percent of the regions citizens reject democracy on both these indicators. Yet, 27 percent regard democracy as the best form of government, but deem it unsuitable at home.

What accounts for these seemingly contradictory views? The answer, it turns out, stems in large part from the respondents expectations of what democracy might bring. When citizens worry about economic upheaval, violence or negative cultural ramifications as a result of free elections, they are more likely to reject democracy at home.

Other factors matter, too. Perceptions of poor government performance (including the belief that the government lacks transparency and effectiveness) degrade government legitimacy and lowerconfidence in democracys suitability. Lower levels of economic modernization (such as not following the news or having lower levels of education) matter in Morocco and Yemen.

While religiosity does not affect attitudes toward democracy, sectarian identity does have an effect. Sect appears to matter in accordance with the consequence-based theory dependent on the unique political conditions and demographic make-up of each country and its relationship to the consequences of free elections not cultural determinism. In Lebanon, for example, Shiite Muslims are more likely to see democracy as suitable than are Christians. This may be because Christians, who make up an estimated 41 percent of the population, expect to lose from freer elections, while Shiite Muslims could gain more influence. (Shiite Muslims make up about 27 percent of the population, Sunni Muslims 26 percent. Together, Muslims make up a larger proportion of the country than Christians.)

Why should lagging demand for democracy be a concern? First, scholars have long suggested that public support for democracy is a key driver of democratization. So, it is important for the long-term development of democracy that citizens have confidence in democracy as the best way to achieve a better life. Second, the conditions that appear to threaten public confidence in democracy in the Arab world instability, violence and upheaval are an unfortunate byproduct of the transitions taking place in the region. And, this appears to be hampering citizen confidence in democracy.

Recently, the Transitional Governance Project, a survey research and party capacity-building project I am a part of with Ellen Lust, Dhafer Malouche, Gamal Soltan and Jakob Wichmann, found declining support for democracy in Libya and Tunisia. In two recent polls conducted in Tunisia, we found that between 2012 and 2014, the proportion of Tunisians agreeing or strongly agreeing that democracy is the best form of government fell from 86 percent to 64 percent.

Interviews I recently conducted in Algeria also suggested declining support for democracy. Citizens expressed concern about instability, which they perceive as growing in Tunisia and Libya. Algerians have experienced their own Black Decade of civil war and incidents of terrorism in recent years, which does little to induce many Algerians to reject their authoritarian regime.

Read the original post:
Monkey Cage: Why some Arabs dont want democracy

TIME Ideas world affairs Hong Kong Is Ready for Democracy, but China Isnt Ready for a Free Hong Kong Police officers face off with pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong on September 28, 2014. ALEX OGLEAFP/Getty Images

Anson Chan was a Chief Secretary of the Hong Kong government, both before and after the city's return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. She is also the founder of the Hong Kong 2020 democracy advocacy group.

For me the most heart-breaking aspect of the current unrest in Hong Kong has been to see our police force, kitted out in full riot gear like Star Wars Stormtroopers with gas masks donned, firing pepper spray and tear gas indiscriminately into the faces of crowds of very young unarmed student protesters, most of whom had their arms in the air to show that they were not holding any weapon. These pictures have shamed our city and its government in front of the whole world.

Hong Kong has a long tradition of peaceful protest, dating back to the outpouring of grief following the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, and now including annual June 4 candlelight vigils, and pro-democracy marches that take place each year on the July 1 anniversary of the return of sovereignty to China. Hong Kong protesters dont hurl rocks and Molotov cocktails, they dont burn tires or set fire to police vehicles, they dont smash windows and loot shops. Fulfilling their side of the bargain, they have trusted that the police will fulfill theirs by managing the demonstration with a light touch and supporting their right to peaceful demonstration.

In a few short hours last Sunday, our police sacrificed decades of goodwill; their mandate having clearly changed from one of supporting freedom of expression to acting as a tool of an increasingly repressive and authoritarian government that seems committed to rule by law, rather than the rule of law. These sorts of tactics may be par for the course in Mainland China; they are totally unacceptable under the policy of one country, two systems laid down by the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration the treaty signed by China and Britain that paved the way for Hong Kong to be handed back to Chinese rule in 1997.

As I write, the protest is ongoing. This is no longer just about the Occupy Central movement, which planned to block roads in Hong Kong Islands main business district. Peaceful sit-ins have spread up-town and across Hong Kong Harbor to Kowloon. The numbers of students are being swelled by supporters of all ages and walks of life.

For the time being, our government seems to have recognized the error of its ways. Riot police have withdrawn and the mood of the crowds is more relaxed.

The question now is can trust be repaired? What will it take to defuse the current stand-off?

First, the governments in Hong Kong and Beijing must acknowledge that Hong Kongs people have a right to be angry. Our constitution, the Basic Law, promises that we will have the right to elect our head of government and all members of our legislature by universal suffrage. Yet, 17 years after the return of sovereignty to China, we are still being told that we are not really ready for full democracy. We can have one person, one vote to elect our next head of government in 2017 but the two or three candidates allowed to stand for election must all be pre-screened by a nominating committee loaded with pro-Beijing sympathizers.

Having waited so long, Hong Kong people are outraged at this insult to their intelligence. Not surprisingly, it is young people, the students, who are most incensed. They can see that Hong Kong is slipping down a perilous slope toward becoming just another Chinese city. This is about their future, the preservation of their way of life and the core values and freedoms they want to be able to pass on to their children and grandchildren.

More:
Hong Kong Is Ready For Democracy, But China Isnt Ready for a Free Hong Kong

Anti-Communism and Counterintelligence: Poland, 1918-1944
On September 24, 2014, the Kosciuszko Chair of Polish Studies at The Institute of World Politics held a lecture entitled "Anti-Communism and Counterintellige...

By: The Institute of World Politics

Continued here:
Anti-Communism and Counterintelligence: Poland, 1918-1944 - Video

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) Twenty-five years ago this month two remarkable events took place in Washington.

On Sept. 27, 1989, in the musty embassy ballroom of the Polish Peoples Republic on upper 16th Street, Leszek Balcerowicz, finance minister in the new non-communist government, outlined a plan to transform Polands economy from communism to capitalism. Shock therapy would be launched in three months.

Balcerowiczs message was breathtaking. Prices would be decontrolled, individuals allowed to start businesses, the survival of state enterprises determined by the market. There was more the printing press would be shut down halting hyperinflation, the worthless Polish currency redeemed USDPLN, +0.14% .

Financial journalists in Washington for the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund were astonished. Some sprang from their seats to file stories after the modest man in the ill-fitting East European suit stopped talking. For those of us remaining the room was electric. One reporter said, there are lots of books about transforming capitalism to communism, none for going the opposite direction.

This was six weeks before the Berlin Wall came down.

On Oct. 19, 1989, 34-year-old Jeffrey Sachs, the Harvard economist advising the Polish government, made an emotional plea to Washington insiders. At a Willard Hotel dinner arranged by the Institute for International Economics, Sachs said Poland required a cash injection to leap across the chasm from disintegrating communism to capitalism. The next six months, he said, are critical in determining whether Eastern Europes first non-communist government since World War II succeeds.

Sachs had made his name by helping to end hyperinflation in Bolivia. He essentially shamed his Washington audience into action, excoriating the U.S. government, the IMF and World Bank for dragging their feet. It was imperative, he said, that the Polish experiment succeed.

The debate over big bang and shock therapy essentially began that night.

J.P. Morgan Funds global market strategist James Liu explains how investors can stay disciplined during constant global unrest. Photo: AP.

Sachs had offered his services to Poland only weeks earlier and was just off the plane from Warsaw, where there was chaos and anger over shortages of basic commodities, including food. Few outsiders thought the planned reforms, which in the short term would further depress living standards had any chance of working. Sachs said later, It was a terrifying and unpredictable period.

Read more here:
Outside the Box: The Polish miracle turns 25