Ready for vote, bloke?

Tomorrow, the voters in the United Kingdom will head towards the polling station to decide what the next government will be like. Thanks to the single constituency first-past-the-post electoral system, and the surge of the third party, the outcome is anybody's guess.

Considering its declining economic prowess and political influence, the election in the United Kingdom doesn't deserve such attention from the rest of the world. But as the oldest parliamentarian democracy, United Kingdom has amazingly maintained its two-party system for so long. A change seems very likely to come, and it will possibly reshuffle the system once and for all. This will show that whether two-party system is possible in a parliamentary system, which is a very interesting question to think about.

But it is interesting to see that how obsessed the Iranian media are with Britain. Many Iranians still think it is Britain who is ruling the world, and the United States is simply manipulated by their former master. There is a book about how the British prime ministers influenced and manipulated the American foreign policy, but I don't think there are many people who would agree with this.

It seems the Gordon Brown hasn't been greatly affected by his "bigoted woman" comment, which, by the way, is in surprisingly proper but impolite language. This potential disastrous gaffe was followed by his timely apology. Spending one day with a voter he has offended probably is not enough, but it seems that most voters who lean towards Labor, according to the polls, have forgiven him. After all, that woman, who questions Brown why he doesn't stop immigration from Eastern Europe, is quite bigoted.

I was wrong in the last post to say that the internet is playing a huge role in this campaign. It doesn't seem so. Not many candidates have twitter accounts, and those who do only have an average of several hundred followers. The technology is still influencing this election, only in that TV is the new technology for the Brits. In this age, after the success of Tony Blair a decade ago, even for the most reserved British people, young and charmingly handsome politicians with good public speaking skills in front of the camera are the trend of the future leaders.

"Bigoted" woman begot it

For those who care about the UK election, it seems more and more interesting. As one of the first democracies in the world, and the example of political system for many countries, the UK election in this year is quite different, not only because of a possibility of hung parliament, but thanks to the tremendous influence of technology.

Because political aids are restricted limited on TV, online social media and networking websites are playing an unprecedented role, and Gordon Brown, who is ten years senior to the other two major candidates, looks much more clumsily under the never-ending limelight. His comment on a lady (calling her a bigoted woman, BBC) was caught by a microphone on his shirt, and the result is understandably disastrous. This will make the already-gloomy labor prospect even worse. On the contrary, the young, energetic, and multilingual (German, French, Spanish, Dutch plus English) Nick Clegg has taken advantage of the first ever television debate dramatically boosted the chance of his party, and the impact will be sustaining because of the electoral reform which will definitely benefit his party.

Technology does make a difference in politics, doesn't it? For leaders around the world, it's not too late to realize that. For those who can't even check emails (including Mr. John McCain), it's never too late to learn.

Disaster and unity

There have been many destructive earthquakes this year. It seems the movie "2012" is going to realize, which is clearly not a good news for people who don't have a billion euros. Also, considering the fact that those arks are being built in Tibet, I hope they are not affected by this earthquake.

National disasters are also tragic. People lose their lives. Survivors lose their home. But it is also a time to unite people. Just like Poland after the air crash, that country was united for a while. In China, there has also been sign of improvement.

For Han Chinese, most of them saw it on the TV that how bad the living conditions the Tibetans have, and how wrong the propaganda has been. This can change their previous perception that Tibetans are simply not thankful for the Chinese who help them raise their life quality.

For Tibetans, the rapid and timely rescue efforts really saved a lot of lives and many are, indeed, thankful to the government, even in front of the international media, without any sign of being forced to do so. For people around the world, they also see for the first time that there is cooperation and gratitude between Han Chinese and Tibetans sometimes.

True, this doesn't tell us a lot. This is just what government has to do. But I hope the bad things can help people to bridge their difference and live together peacefully. That depends on what people do after the disasters. If they do it like what Poles do to put the President's grave in the controversial cathedral, the natural disasters will turn into human disasters and people will turn from sadness to anger. If they do it like what Indonesians did in Aceh, they can help us find a solution which is beneficial for everybody.

How to prevent coups?

A coup took place a poverty-stricken African country again. This time it was in Niger. The reason, of course, was to restore democracy. But unlike most others, its cause was somewhat justified. While being criticized by most international organizations and governments, the spokesperson of U.S. State Department murmured, blaming it on the dictator’s attempt to prolong his rule.

Coupled with the coup in Honduras last year, this brings us a serious question. What is our attitude to the good coups – those against bad or brutal leaders?

Everybody agrees that coup is a bad thing, but when there is no democracy and rule of law in those countries in the first place, is it really that bad if it can help restore the democracy?

Of course, say the dictators around the world, holding the international law in their hands. With this, it seems that only atrocities committed by the incumbents will be tolerated and ignored.

But if you want to prevent the coups, you should do something to ensure there is no popular support for them. Can we do something? The international law is blocking our way, claiming that those are internal affairs.

That really sounds familiar. Allowing husbands to rape and torture their wives, but stoning the wives who resist. We all know this kind of problem can only be solved by laws which can be enforced, but why can’t we do anything in the international stage?

The only reason is that, the world is still ruled by abusive husbands and men who might be nice to their wives, but they are doing business and even owing money to those abusive husbands. This certainly sounds miserable, but I’m sorry that it’s real.

Use Internet to bring democracy to China and Iran? Not Yet!

It seems that the Iranian regime has indeed started blocking the access to Gmail on the eve of the Islamic Revolution’s anniversary, the most important day in Iran’s political calendar. Twitter and other social networking sites are still accessible right now, but they are equally fragile as Gmail. This only strengthens my belief that internet’s influence on democratization is minimal in the most oppressive countries.

Advocates believe that because the use of internet is assumedly anonymous and ubiquitous, it can spread information more freely and safely, which enables people to reveal the misconducts of the governments and increase the influence of opposition forces, domestic and foreign. They also start to emphasize its ability to help organize massive protests after the prominent Green Movement in Iran.

True, the internet is playing a positive role in some countries. For example in Ukraine, its role in uncovering the frauds during the 2004 election was significant, if not indispensable, to the final success of the color revolution. But it has only achieved modest successes in countries where the government is far from omnipotent. Strong opposition movements already existed and the ruling regime didn’t have the total control over all the government resources.

Some people also regard the Green Movement in Iran and the Saffron Revolution in Myanmar as examples of successful influence of internet. But the failure to shake the regimes and the result of more restrictive internet access can hardly second their points.

Can the internet alone achieve, or even stimulate the democratization process in the most oppressive countries? The answer is no.

Firstly, the chaotic opposition voices cannot match the well-organized response from the most oppressive governments. The advantage of the internet is that it bestows chances to everybody to make their voice heard, but that is also its disadvantage, in that there are simply too many of them. In the most oppressive countries, there are generally lacks of strong opposition core. Thousands of anonymous dissidents can send their anti-government messages out, but this only puzzles the people more, who wonder which one to listen to. On the contrary, the government has the benefit of staying in the open. Its supporters know who their leader is (Chinese Communist Party in China), where to listen to their direction (People’s Daily), and moreover, money-coveting people can be legally employed to flood the internet with pro-government statements (50-cent party).

Secondly, the most oppressive governments have total control over the internet access. However mobile and anonymous the internet service is, it still heavily relies on resources provided and controlled by the governments, no matter whether it is through the land line, wireless or even the 3G service. Radio and TV signals can be sent from abroad, which means to block them requires the installation of intercepting and disrupting facilities. In the case of Internet, it is no harder. The experts deployed by the government have learned to establish a system to filter and restrict what the people can see. Even when there is a unified powerful opposition movement, the government has always had the “North Korea solution” – the option to shut down the internet in its entirety.

Thirdly, the most oppressive governments have the determination to do whatever necessary to maintain their power. For leaders in the democracies, losing power just means 5 years in the opposition benches. For leaders in weak autocracies, losing power probably means personal notoriety and the end of their political careers. But for leaders in the most oppressive regime, losing power can mean criminal prosecution and retribution, which means they will fall from controlling everything to even not controlling over their own lives (example of Nicolae Ceauşescu in Romania). Thus, they will undoubtedly do whatever possible to keep them in power. Shutting down the internet must be one of first steps, however high the cost it would be.

But how can we explain internet’s seemingly growing influence in Iran? The answer is not complicated. The internet is new to everyone, and the role of the social networking sites was especially unprecedented. The Iranian regime was also in the learning process. Their recent actions actually show that they are getting more and more confident.

But does it mean we should simply give up? No. Just as the VOA didn’t stop broadcasting even though its signals were blocked, the efforts to using internet to stimulate the democratization in the most oppressive countries shouldn’t stop. It may make little difference today, but we will certainly be ready when there are internal changes in those countries in the future. At the same time, we should also remember that placing too much hope on it will only bring about disappointments and unnecessary loss.

Pictures of Legislatures around the world. You will know what HARMONY means.

Turkey

Mexico

South Korea

Ukraine

Russia

Italy

Taiwan

India

Japan

 

OK, let me show you the congress in the harmonious society: China.

 

Link: http://www.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=169282

To play in the Football World Cup, study the Koran!

Egyptian national team won the African Nations’ Cup held in Angola. The coach Hassan Shehata, who is a national hero right now, claimed when he was selecting players, religious piety and skill were equally important. (Google News)

Let alone the fact that more than 10% of the population are Christians, not all Muslims in politically secular Egypt would be pious enough for Coach Shehata’s standard. This reminds me the eccentric coach of French national team Raymond Domenech, who uses his astrological knowledge to determine who should be in his squad.

I’m not that sure that this championship is a reward from Allah. As a proof, his devotion didn’t bring his team to the World Cup final in South Africa, which is more important for Egyptian team, who hasn’t qualified since 1990. Instead, Egypt lost to their sworn archrival, the Algerian team. Probably he should make sure all of his players fulfill their salah requirements.