Vaclav & Me

Last Friday I had the opportunity to attend a lecture (and then briefly interview) czech president Vaclav Klaus. Here's the article that will appear in the school newspaper:

On Friday the 23rd at the Shapiro Center theater Vaclav Klaus, current president and former prime minister of the Czech Republic, addressed a packed gathering of press, faculty, and students from colleges from around the Boston area.

In a brief biographical sketch delivered before the president himself spoke, International Business School dean Peter Petri described how Klaus was born and educated in Prague, where he graduated from the University of Economics. Klaus then rose to prominence after the 1989 Velvet Revolution which toppled the Communist regime in a bloodless coup. He served as chairman of the democracy-promoting Civic Forum after Vaclav Havel resigned the chairmanship to become the Czech Republic’s first president in 1990. Klaus later broke with the Civic Forum and founded the right-of-center Civic-Democratic Party (ODS). In 2003 he was elected president, where he remains to this day.

In his talk, “Why Europe Must Reject Centralization” Klaus spoke proudly of the Czech Republic’s advances in integrating itself into Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union but stressed the danger he felt was represented by the expanding power and influence of the European Union. The EU came to dominate the lecture, as he explained how the advance of that organization has created what he called a ‘democratic deficit’ in which the Brussels-based European Parliament destroyed national sovereignty by submitting directive after directive to national parliaments (including that of the Czech Republic) which they than had to implement. This he viewed as an effort to make all European countries the same, characterizing his struggle against such efforts as “the battle between liberalism (in the European sense) and homogenization.” Klaus stressed that there was no such thing as a culturally or socially coherent ‘Europe’ which could be formed into a single standard entity; at most, he would prefer an ‘Organization of European States’ on the model of the OAS.

On economic matters, he denounced social-democratic welfare states as rigid “even though many people like them” and expressed his total opposition to all government subsidies and control over the economy, while also advocating a flat tax. he also expressed disbelief at the idea that countries compete with each other; only corporations do that.

In the question-and-answer session followed, Klaus denied that the rise of the EU was due to a desire to oppose the US, but was simply born out of the ideology of regulation and ‘Europeanism’. In an entity as large as Europe, he said, public participation in the governmental process was simply not possible; the nation-state was just the right size for the right amount of democracy. As for Turkey’s desire to join the EU, he admitted that Turkey may enter into the European Union, but it could never be part of Europe. He denounced multiculturalism as “a terrible mistake” and said that the immigrants to Europe shouldn’t be accommodated in any way. “After all,” he said “When you join a golf club, you can’t change the club charter the next day.”

In a brief interview granted to members of the press (including The Hoot) after his lecture, Klaus reiterated his opposition to a unified Europe and centralization of all types, but stressed that for a country to transition smoothly out of the Communist era they required a leader with three things: vision, a coherent plan to implement that vision, and the trust of the people. “But;” he added, “that really needs a two-hour lecture to answer, and I really must be going.”

The event was hosted by the Brandeis International Business School as part of their Rosenberg Institute Distinguished Lecture series.

Frankly, I'm disappointed it wasn't Vaclav Havel, but you can't have everything.

German Elections: It Could be Worse

So, the German elections are over but nobody has won. The three parties that were in power or striving for power - The Social Democrats, Greens, and Christian Democrats - all lost seats, while the liberal FDP and socialist Left Party or Linkspartei (formerly the Party of Democratic Socialism) gained significantly, achieving roughly 10% and 9% of the vote, respectively. This makes the old Red-Green alliance between the SPD and Greens unworkable, but leaves the presumed government of a CDU-FDP coalition in basically the same situation.

Most people put the blame (or the credit) for Schroeder's decline in popularity on Germany's 11% unemployment rate, while the CDU's Angela Merkel lost much of an early lead by batting around a wildly unpopular flat-tax scheme and saying that one of her as main actions as Chancellor would be to "make it easier for people to be fired."

Interestingly, while the SPD is the traditional 'left' party and the CDU is the respectable 'right' party, this elections seems to represent a shift away from both of them, with the left moving left and the right moving center.

Anyway, the governments that are possible:

Great Coalition - CDU and SPD

If CDU can maintain their seat plurality Merkel will be chancelor, despite what Schroeder is saying. However this coalition seems like a recipe for paralysis, as the joining of both major parties to achieve super-majorities usually only happens during periods of great national crisis.

Traffic light coalition - SPD, FDP and Greens

Called traffic light because the colors are red, yellow and green. FDP already said that is out of the question and even the Greens would be against it, I think, because Joschka Fischer would rather go into oposition than be anything less than foreign minister and vice-chancellor (traditional trappings of the coalition partner's top candidate).

While FDP and Greens are almost diametrically oposite on economy and environment they share some values on social issues. For example they are in agreement on abolishing the conscription.

Jamaican Coalition - CDU, FDP and Greens

Similar to above, just with CDU at the helm. The CSU (a Bavaria-only party closely allied with the CDU) leader already showed interest in talking to the Greens.

Red-Red-Green coalition - SPD, Left Party and Greens

SPD and the Left party do not like each other. One part of the party is formed by breakaways from SPD - such as former finance minister Oskar Lafontaine. The other is the remnant of the former East German ruling party, one with which SPD refused to coalesce on the federal level already (but with which it formed coalitions in some eastern states).

This is unlikely to happen because of animosity between SPD and Left Party and because Greens are unlikely to play third fiddle, even though they came in fifth and may be lucky to end up playing second viola.


Since we live in a majoritarian system that has two parties and not five, this might all seem terribly confusing. It is, and will probably be resolved by some shady backdoor dealings between party leaders. Even so, don't count on the new German government lasting too long.

The Next Internationale

Several weeks ago Smiling Neocon and I were having one of our customary arguments, which usually center on socialism, U.S. foreign policy, or depressing Israeli movies. In the course of the conversation we got to the issue of how in internationale disputes each 'democratic' nation must always giver other democratic governments preference over their more autocratic counterparts, so as to encourage democracy. I contended that no democratic government every actually did this, and that most democratic countries (including the U.S.) had no interest in whether their allies allowed basic freedoms or not. To cap it off, I somewhat sarcastically remarked that "It's not like we're part of some Democratic Internationale which tries to encourage personal freedom and government accountability around the world."

Thinking about it now, though, why aren't we?

It might seem like this idea has been done to death. We've already had at least three Communist internationales, and we've still got a Socialist Internationale (actually for social democrats), a Liberal International, a Green Internationale, and even a right-wing conservative Internationale, which started calling itself the 'Freedom International' after 9/11.

Still, why is this a useless idea? In the world today there is no government or major party that has dedicated its resources to helping other countries achieve popular self-rule. Instead, we have ideologically bound organizations which focus almost exclusively on economic issues. So, private-property rights or collective ownership rights are stressed to the neglect of freedoms of speech, conscience, religion, and equality under the law.

As the symbol of this new Democratic Internationale, there are many options, though I suppose an Athenian laurel crown would do perfectly well.

The Mummy's Election

Yesterday saw the first multi-party election Egypt has ever had. Nine candidates ran against 4-term incumbent Hosni Mubarak, including Numan Gumaa from the New Wafd Party and 40-year Ayman Nour of the Tomorrow Party, though not the banned Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak represented his own ironically-named National Democratic Party.

Last Tuesday the ever-wry BBC, reporting on this event, told listeners that "Egyptians elections are being held tomorrow. We should know Mubarak's margin of victory by Saturday."

Allegations of abuse are already flying, including charges of voter intimidation, votes being taken away before people could mark them, and intenrational obsevrers being blocked from polling stations. A consortium of Egyptian artists gathered to protest

But, if you had any doubts about where illiterate laundrymen-turned nationalistic singers stand on whether Mubarak deserves a fifth term, look no further than jewel of the Nile Shaaban Abdel Rahim. In his latest song 'The Word of Truth', Rahim lavishes praise on the 76-year-old premier. "Oh president, you do not need any words," he sings, "The people are happy because they feel secure." Rahim goes on to list Mr Mubarak's many feats, ranging from the construction of 'new cities' to the advent of the 'incredible metro' in Cairo. Mr Mubarak is also credited with bringing satellites to Egypt and making running water and mobile phones readily available to the general population. Rahim is generally regarded as something between kitsch and camp by Egypt's 'cultured' society, who derisively refer to him as 'Ludwig Shaaban'.

All joking aside, this little charade in honor of democracy is nothing new; autocratic regimes have been calling themselves 'republics' or 'democratic republics' or even 'Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyas' since 'democracy' became the accepted ideal after World War Two. While some might see this as a sign of progress in that formerly regimes must at least go through the motions of allowing public participation in government, my fear is that it's much easier to stifle dissent and calls for democracy if at least some people are fooled into thinking they've already got it.

UPDATE: Mubarak has been declared the winner with 88.6% of the vote - 4 point higher than he got six years ago in what he admitted was a rigged election. So, you see, dictators can embrace democracy too.

Katrina

Katrina is a natural disaster beyond the likes of which we have seen in this country for along, long time. It has reduced a great city to a lake and thrown several states into third-world condiitions.

Relief efforts have been stymied by a lack of rescue personnel (caused in part by the number of them serving in Iraq), equipment (the same), general chaos at the disaster site, and widespread apathy at the top.

This didn't have to happen. People in new orleans and Louisiana new that the levees were vulnerable and needed reinforcing. But Bush slahed their budget to free up money for Iraq and Homeland Security. I think preventing your cities from being submerged in water counts as homeland security, but what do I know?

To fill the void, many groups have sprung into action. but are still in desperate need of assistance. Visit Smiling Neocon's blog for a list of major organizations helping with the cause.

By far the boldest response to the disaster came from Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, still fresh in the public eye after Pat robertson's now-infamous call for his assassination. Since that incident, Chavez had been increasing his efforts to get good PR in America, first by offering discounted heating oil and eye operations to America's economically disadvantaged. Now, he has pledged $1 million as well as food, fuel, and aid workers to help the hurricane victims. "It's a terrible tragedy that our North American brothers are living through," Chavez said. "We have a battalion from our Simon Bolivar humanitarian team ready in case they authorize it for us to go there, if they give us the green light." Thus far, the U.S. has not accepted any Venezuelan aid, dismissing such unsolicited offers as 'counterproductive.'

Whatever you think about the man, he has chutzpah to spare.

In my opinion, this hurricane is worse than 9/11. There is more devestation, more chaos, and more harm to our economy. The price of gas has been surging, and there's no telling when it will abate, or what the U.S. might do to bring the price down.

It lays bare how this government views its citizens, leaving thousands trapped in the sweltering heat without food or clean water while Bush stays on vacation, only returning to the White House after the negative publicity became untenable. If anyone thinks the government's indifference and the fact that New Orleans has a 28% poverty rate are unconnected, I don't buy it. The middle and upper classes were evacuated at the start; the poor were left behind. The people of Louisiana and Mississippi won't forget this, and I hope we won't fogret them.

UPDATE: The U.S. has agreed to accept Venezuela's offer of aid. I guess sanity wins out over pride eventually.