Greetings:
Capitol Shrill is the product of my first blog, which was split in order to provide content for more specific readerships, respectively. I have included relevant posts from my previous blog on this one.
In political writing as well as opinion and criticism it is important to acknowledge that we each hold values which belong to value systems that are always incongruent in some way. Politics and writing attempt to address the relationships between these values through argument, to find the most ethical, effective solution for the whole. As such, I view this kind of discourse (especially in a blog format, where back-and-forth between reader, writer, and peer group is possible) as an expression of our malleable values, opinions, and judgments, tempered by one another, to find a greater whole. Comments and response are integral and necessary to this process.
So I hope you will enjoy the experience that is Capitol Shrill; I am sure that it cannot be everything to everyone but a solid ground from which further thought, analysis and humor can be explored.
Follow the link to my personal blog, Ad astra per aspera.
Thank you for your support.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Cold reception
Turkish politics is interesting in that it is such a stark mix of an aspiring modern democracy and a body politic still willing to ignore some basic freedoms. It is not as much a state in transition from one to the other as it is a place where both coexist. This oppression takes many forms: journalists are regularly imprisoned, authors boycotted and prosecuted for criticizing the Turkish government; by the same token, the Turks embrace a strict Kemalist (secularist) approach through democracy that often does not allow them to publicly display the faith that most of them practice. It seems fitting that the crossroads of the east and west is divided in such a manner.
Turkey wants (and needs) nothing more than to join the European Union at this point. But the recent actions of Supreme Court prosecutors, and previously the army generals, threaten to push accession back onto the faraway horizon. The chief prosecutor of Turkey last month filed suit in the Supreme Court to strip Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül of their positions as Prime Minister and President, respectively, and to disband their ruling Justice and Development Party (AK) on grounds that the party and Messrs Erdoğan and Gül are promoting Islamism and shari’a law in Turkey. All would be banned from politics for at least five years. The action, while not necessarily baseless, is destructive to the Turkish system and would provide little relief.
Mr Erdoğan describes himself and his party as center-right conservative. The parties that preceded his AK (the center-right has had to consistently re-invent itself in Turkey) have been traditionally more EU- and Western- oriented, something that continues to cause rumbles in secularist circles. Prevailing Kemalist attitudes dictate that religion must be shoved aside in all forms to pursue modernism. Turkey may choose this path, but it does so at the cost of EU membership.
Turkey’s secular establishment should reevaluate its motives, and perhaps more importantly, the consequences of its hard-line against Islamism. It is often overly wary of the West and the EU, and has dragged the country’s feet in the mud as a result. The administrations under Mr Erdoğan have been some of the most successful in modern Turkey, putting an end to the hyperinflation that plagued the country for decades, and bringing it closer than it has ever been to EU eligibility. A poll by TESEV in 2006 indicated that only 7% of Turks favored an Islamic state that implemented shari’a law, of that, only 2% supported shari’a’s harshest measures. It seems that the secularists have much less to worry about than they let on. They also cannot afford (and have no reason) to ignore the growing moderate-Muslim population; a group that is religious and wears the headscarf but that is also adaptable, excited about the prospect of accession to the EU, and looking for ways to reconcile their faith with the modern world.
With the proposed closure of the AK comes the disenfranchisement of the Kurds and further fractionalization of Turkey. AK is the only party currently capable of representing the entire country and remaining competitive with the pro-Kurdish DTP in Kurdish provinces. Providing the Kurds with a suitable alternative would be extremely difficult for the secular establishment.
Turkey’s commitment to secularism should be commended. But it should not come at the expense of democracy. The secular forces in Turkey must evaluate the consequences of a government-mandated AK closure, which would push EU accession farther, alienate the Kurds, inflame what has been a moderation in the country’s Muslim population, and disrupt economic progress. Messrs Erdoğan & Gül must be allowed to serve out their terms and participate in government as directed by voters. The future of Turkey depends on it.
Turkey wants (and needs) nothing more than to join the European Union at this point. But the recent actions of Supreme Court prosecutors, and previously the army generals, threaten to push accession back onto the faraway horizon. The chief prosecutor of Turkey last month filed suit in the Supreme Court to strip Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül of their positions as Prime Minister and President, respectively, and to disband their ruling Justice and Development Party (AK) on grounds that the party and Messrs Erdoğan and Gül are promoting Islamism and shari’a law in Turkey. All would be banned from politics for at least five years. The action, while not necessarily baseless, is destructive to the Turkish system and would provide little relief.
Mr Erdoğan describes himself and his party as center-right conservative. The parties that preceded his AK (the center-right has had to consistently re-invent itself in Turkey) have been traditionally more EU- and Western- oriented, something that continues to cause rumbles in secularist circles. Prevailing Kemalist attitudes dictate that religion must be shoved aside in all forms to pursue modernism. Turkey may choose this path, but it does so at the cost of EU membership.
Turkey’s secular establishment should reevaluate its motives, and perhaps more importantly, the consequences of its hard-line against Islamism. It is often overly wary of the West and the EU, and has dragged the country’s feet in the mud as a result. The administrations under Mr Erdoğan have been some of the most successful in modern Turkey, putting an end to the hyperinflation that plagued the country for decades, and bringing it closer than it has ever been to EU eligibility. A poll by TESEV in 2006 indicated that only 7% of Turks favored an Islamic state that implemented shari’a law, of that, only 2% supported shari’a’s harshest measures. It seems that the secularists have much less to worry about than they let on. They also cannot afford (and have no reason) to ignore the growing moderate-Muslim population; a group that is religious and wears the headscarf but that is also adaptable, excited about the prospect of accession to the EU, and looking for ways to reconcile their faith with the modern world.
With the proposed closure of the AK comes the disenfranchisement of the Kurds and further fractionalization of Turkey. AK is the only party currently capable of representing the entire country and remaining competitive with the pro-Kurdish DTP in Kurdish provinces. Providing the Kurds with a suitable alternative would be extremely difficult for the secular establishment.
Turkey’s commitment to secularism should be commended. But it should not come at the expense of democracy. The secular forces in Turkey must evaluate the consequences of a government-mandated AK closure, which would push EU accession farther, alienate the Kurds, inflame what has been a moderation in the country’s Muslim population, and disrupt economic progress. Messrs Erdoğan & Gül must be allowed to serve out their terms and participate in government as directed by voters. The future of Turkey depends on it.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Curb your zeal, baby
Xinhua, the state news agency, told the Chinese last week that they "must curb [nationalist] zeal" in reaction to the torch protests in Europe and North America. The Chinese government, and by proxy Xinhua, has been steely in its reaction to the Olympic drama elsewhere. But despite efforts the quell the rage at home, Chinese discontent and reactivity continues to be apparent in Asia and abroad.
Chinese nationalism is big and amorphous but only because it is so hollow. Its lack of substance allows it to shape-shift and emerge in unlikely places, especially where emotions are lit. And it is, thus, incredibly resilient. This kind of ideology is unsettling to the west (although I'm not sure it should be), and taps into our own xenophobia. It is not a difficult thing especially for American politicians to exploit, only enhanced by Taiwan's comfortable seat on the couch in Washington.
To Taiwan's credit, President-elect Ma Ying-jeou and his deputy, Vincent Siew of the Kuomintang have done an exceptional job of bringing the PRC and President Hu Jintao back into the fold, even before taking office. The picture for Tibet does not look so rosy.
But the real accomplishment of Messrs Ma and Siew is the bilateral nature of their dialogue, something the Dalai Lama has been less successful at, perhaps not for his own part but the stubbornness of his followers. Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) has made it known in later years that he does not support outright independence for Tibet, something that western supporters are loth to acknowledge or even pay attention to. It is increasingly difficult for Mr Gyatso to hold a dialogue with the Chinese when those inside Tibet are subverting him.
The Tibet issue is so nuanced that it is hard to disentangle it from the threads of nationalism, Buddhism, independence, and the 2008 games. It is no secret that the Chinese have suffered an outrageous PR disaster at the heels of the country's coming out party. But it may serve them in the end to take Xinhua's advice, curb their zeal, take politics out of the equation and end the torch relay. Nicolas Sarkozy would be foolish to boycott the games now, as he threatened earlier, after the relay ordeal in Paris. Barack Obama is equally misguided in calling for the same from George Bush. China is a big, developing country and a flawed one. But they must be left to solve their own problems.
Chinese nationalism is big and amorphous but only because it is so hollow. Its lack of substance allows it to shape-shift and emerge in unlikely places, especially where emotions are lit. And it is, thus, incredibly resilient. This kind of ideology is unsettling to the west (although I'm not sure it should be), and taps into our own xenophobia. It is not a difficult thing especially for American politicians to exploit, only enhanced by Taiwan's comfortable seat on the couch in Washington.
To Taiwan's credit, President-elect Ma Ying-jeou and his deputy, Vincent Siew of the Kuomintang have done an exceptional job of bringing the PRC and President Hu Jintao back into the fold, even before taking office. The picture for Tibet does not look so rosy.
But the real accomplishment of Messrs Ma and Siew is the bilateral nature of their dialogue, something the Dalai Lama has been less successful at, perhaps not for his own part but the stubbornness of his followers. Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) has made it known in later years that he does not support outright independence for Tibet, something that western supporters are loth to acknowledge or even pay attention to. It is increasingly difficult for Mr Gyatso to hold a dialogue with the Chinese when those inside Tibet are subverting him.
The Tibet issue is so nuanced that it is hard to disentangle it from the threads of nationalism, Buddhism, independence, and the 2008 games. It is no secret that the Chinese have suffered an outrageous PR disaster at the heels of the country's coming out party. But it may serve them in the end to take Xinhua's advice, curb their zeal, take politics out of the equation and end the torch relay. Nicolas Sarkozy would be foolish to boycott the games now, as he threatened earlier, after the relay ordeal in Paris. Barack Obama is equally misguided in calling for the same from George Bush. China is a big, developing country and a flawed one. But they must be left to solve their own problems.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Who cares about the winner
What is really compelling is the Abercrombie & Fitch crew that has apparently taken up arms for Barack Obama
I guess it is what you call a "sign of the times." I only thought of myriad new campaign ads, featuring Mr & Mrs Obama in grayscale, straddling a horse; Mr Obama running through a field with low-slung jeans and just a hint of crack.
And he wonders why he is losing the seniors................. Mr Obama, not impressed
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
A step back for South Africa
That Thabo Mbeki or his neighbors in Namibia and Botswana would allow Zimbabwe's election, already three weeks over, to drag out further is disappointing for African governance. Mr Mbeki affirmatively denied a crisis in Zimbabwe, and then went there, even to the dismay of his own ANC. Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia seems to be the only one with his head on straight, but given Mr Mwanawasa's history of accountability, that is to be expected.
It is hard to imagine would could be gained for Mr Mbeki from his style of "quiet diplomacy." His poll numbers have been consistently anemic, and he has drawn exceptional domestic criticism for his handling of HIV/AIDS in South Africa and dodgy maneuvers regarding the SADC (South African Development Community) and his run against Jacob Zuma. Increasingly a lame duck, Mr Mbeki is doing little to carve out a legacy.
He is, indeed, what the New York Times calls "a complicated man," but it is puzzling why he would so cheerfully throw himself at the feet of Robert Mugabe. There is little question that Mr Mugabe's incumbent ZANU-PF used intimidation, especially in rural areas, and has been less than forthright with the election results. And Mr Mbeki's silent diplomacy will only lock him out with Mr Mugabe.
It is hard to imagine would could be gained for Mr Mbeki from his style of "quiet diplomacy." His poll numbers have been consistently anemic, and he has drawn exceptional domestic criticism for his handling of HIV/AIDS in South Africa and dodgy maneuvers regarding the SADC (South African Development Community) and his run against Jacob Zuma. Increasingly a lame duck, Mr Mbeki is doing little to carve out a legacy.
He is, indeed, what the New York Times calls "a complicated man," but it is puzzling why he would so cheerfully throw himself at the feet of Robert Mugabe. There is little question that Mr Mugabe's incumbent ZANU-PF used intimidation, especially in rural areas, and has been less than forthright with the election results. And Mr Mbeki's silent diplomacy will only lock him out with Mr Mugabe.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Pennsylvania Eve
Not that I think the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is a particularly significant one. Getting into politics could end this blog before it even begins; but, it is hard to ignore the donkeys' constant stream of poll numbers and new ideas about what kind of Democratic schism "Satan herself" (Mrs Clinton) is going to bring about.
Are either of them even worth a split? In policy or ideology they are not so different, you are comparing a rhetorical populist with a pragmatic one. And then it becomes about personality: the MTV generation has declared a winner (albeit unsurprisingly) in Mr Obama in a recent poll. Not that either choice would particularly speak to the strong points of the American universe (have presidential elections ever?), but some kind of catch is luring both to an ear-punching protectionist shrill. I have a hard time seeing what a divided D party would have to argue about.
The mess over CFTA, exacerbated by the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is only the tip of the iceberg. With Mrs Clinton we also get Mr Clinton's influence to mitigate the disaster. Spheres of influence may be a dated doctrine, but is Mrs Pelosi really under the impression that a Congress can afford to disenchant the Colombian administration (and perhaps, more importantly, its populace) over something so straightforward in the first place? I don't dare suppose that Mrs Clinton nor Mr Obama would prefer a cozy relationship with Hugo Chavez, instead.
Pennsylvania's primary tomorrow is going to have less to do with personality and everything to do with jobs moving south of the border, and the mortgage crunch (hence Mrs Clinton's apparent lead). If either she or Mr Obama can package and sell the protectionist gusto they are offering Pennsylvania to the rest of the country, we may be in for a starkly different direction, after all.
Are either of them even worth a split? In policy or ideology they are not so different, you are comparing a rhetorical populist with a pragmatic one. And then it becomes about personality: the MTV generation has declared a winner (albeit unsurprisingly) in Mr Obama in a recent poll. Not that either choice would particularly speak to the strong points of the American universe (have presidential elections ever?), but some kind of catch is luring both to an ear-punching protectionist shrill. I have a hard time seeing what a divided D party would have to argue about.
The mess over CFTA, exacerbated by the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is only the tip of the iceberg. With Mrs Clinton we also get Mr Clinton's influence to mitigate the disaster. Spheres of influence may be a dated doctrine, but is Mrs Pelosi really under the impression that a Congress can afford to disenchant the Colombian administration (and perhaps, more importantly, its populace) over something so straightforward in the first place? I don't dare suppose that Mrs Clinton nor Mr Obama would prefer a cozy relationship with Hugo Chavez, instead.
Pennsylvania's primary tomorrow is going to have less to do with personality and everything to do with jobs moving south of the border, and the mortgage crunch (hence Mrs Clinton's apparent lead). If either she or Mr Obama can package and sell the protectionist gusto they are offering Pennsylvania to the rest of the country, we may be in for a starkly different direction, after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
