The unfortunate reality of guns in America

For those who have been reading my blog for a while, they’ll recognise many posts like this. Ones where I liberally and happily refer readers to China.org.

Harvey Dzodin

For starters, I am in favor of a comprehensive ban on guns, which is what the majority of sane countries have. Though this would be ideal if it could be implemented in America, I am at my wits end to see how it might actually become a reality. My unfortuante conclusion is that it is unlikely at best, and impossible at worst. The specific context of the USA just makes it very difficult to achieve this ends.

Harvey Dzodin, “a senior adviser to Tsinghua University and former director and vice-president of ABC Television in New York” hits the nail on the head with his short but very accurate analysis titled ‘Little hope for gun control in US‘. Not the most heart warming title, but very realistic. Just goes to show, sometimes Chinese commentaries can be just as good if not better than American ones.

Even if President Barack Obama, defying history and against overwhelming political odds, succeeds in fulfilling the wishes of the advocates of gun control, which, among other things, would require getting Congress to re-institute the assault weapons ban, imposing a prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, closing the gaping loophole that allows 40 percent of all gun sales to be free from registration or background checks to eliminate criminals or the mentally ill, and optimizing the abysmal information-sharing systems among various jurisdictions. And even if in this era of budgetary restraint, he can get Congress to expend hundreds of millions of dollars on mental health, gun safety education and the rest. The reality is little would change. Simply because of the prevalence of guns in the US, the attitudes of most gun-rights proponents, and the terror of single-issue politics.

The US is being buried under firearms. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2009 there were 310 million guns registered in private hands in the US: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles and 86 million shotguns. While “only” 40 percent of Americans own guns, this is just about one for each man, woman and child in the US, twice the figure in 1968, the year Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated. Although some paranoids worry that the government will confiscate some or all guns, this is as unlikely to happen. So these guns will continue to wreak havoc for decades to come. Don’t even think about a voluntary buy-back program such as Australia tried. Assuming that each surrendered weapon was bought back for $100 on average, recovering just 10 percent would cost $3.1 billion.

Visit http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2012-12/25/content_27507560.htm for the full article.

Jumping off the cliff, or pushed off the cliff

So the world didn’t end on the 21st, but if one listens to the scary sounding ‘fiscal cliff’ new reports, then you might be forgiven for thinking that the world might end on the 31st anyways. This is hardly a perfectly accurate depiction, although there will most certainly be serious repercussions of going off the cliff. More interesting are the ‘ongoing’ negotiations in Washington to attempt to find a solution. Long framed as an Obama vs. Boehner battle, I say the ‘negotiations are ‘ongoing’ because they are hardly happening, especially with the holiday season.

Obama’s key demand, and perhaps the biggest sticking point, is his demand for a higher tax-rate on the rich. Republicans traditionally baulk at anything that looks remotely like a tax increase; a trend certainly prolonged by Grover Norquist. This made it a pleasant surprise when Boehner tentatively agreed to higher tax rates, giving up the common position of only making the rich payer more taxes through closing tax loopholes.

Source: Huffington Post

Hoping to strengthen his negotiating hand, Boehner tried to pass his now infamous ‘Plan B’, which would raise taxes only those with an income of 1 million or more. Obama’s definition of the ‘rich’ was considerably broader and approval of his Plan B might have made it easier to push for the level to be set at 1 million rather than £250,000. Sadly for Boehner, his Plan B failed horrible, imploding in his face like an egg in a microwave. Republican votes failed to materialise, doing the very opposite by highlighting his weaknesses rather than his support. Read about how it all unfolded.

Now negotiations are on ice as the respective players head off on holiday. So what’s next?

The demise of democracy: Part 5 (Conclusion)

For the past half century, democracy has been the political ideology. The cold war saw a concerted effort to promote democracy, led by the USA. Since then, more and more countries have moved towards some form of democracy as the specter of communism was beat back. The idea of everyone’s opinion being considered in an equal and fair manner, without prejudice, captured the imagination of millions around the world. The recent spate of political upheaval in Arab stats, dubbed the Arab Spring, was heralded as the dawning of true democracy in the Middle East. But reality presents a far more murky picture, one where democracy’s success and future are both called into question. Here’s an examination of where democracy stands across the world.

CONCLUSION

This is the conclusion to a series of posts titled The Demise of Democracy. Click to read The West (USA), The West (Europe), Part 3 (Asia) and Part 4 (Middle East).

The first thing I should probably note is that this is neither an academically rigorous series nor even a very complete one. There are numerous countries whom have not been included, all of whom could have been excellent case studies: the troubles in India, the situation in Russia not to mention Eastern Europe, Africa and South America. You are equally correct to note that the countries and events selected to illustrate the argument necessarily mean that many others are omitted, including ones that would run counter to the idea that democracy is on the down. And perhaps it would have been better to include more countries and a greater number of regions. I’ll leave that for another time.

Don’t get me wrong, these posts were not intended to be a verdict on democracy. I myself do not believe that democracy as an idea is necessarily in decline. I certainly would agree that democracy is under threat in many areas of the world. But that isn’t to say that democracy is a bad idea, although there are aspects of other political systems that I respect (particularly some level of authoritarianism), it seems clear that the most viable form of governance for the foreseeable future is some form of democracy.

So if this wasn’t meant to mark the actual end of democracy, what was the purpose of these posts? By connecting the dots together on various problems that democracy around the world is facing, these posts will hopefully have helped you to actually question whether democracy is a preferable system, rather than just accepting its inevitability. More importantly, provided that you actually agree that democracy is the more preferable system of governance, this will hopefully keep us on our toes and prevent us from become complacent about the development of democracy around the world.

Paul Lau

The demise of democracy: Part 2 (Europe)

For the past half century, democracy has been the political ideology. The cold war saw a concerted effort to promote democracy, led by the USA. Since then, more and more countries have moved towards some form of democracy as the specter of communism was beat back. The idea of everyone’s opinion being considered in an equal and fair manner, without prejudice, captured the imagination of millions around the world. The recent spate of political upheaval in Arab stats, dubbed the Arab Spring, was heralded as the dawning of true democracy in the Middle East. But reality presents a far more murky picture, one where democracy’s success and future are both called into question. Here’s an examination of where democracy stands across the world.

Previously: The West (USA)

THE WEST (EUROPE)

In Europe, arguably the source of democracy (Athens), democracy isn’t faring much better. The UK has a coalition government, which is arguably a good thing, but it points to a failure of the original system dominated by Labour and the Conservatives.

In Greece, a referendum on the bailout plan was called off and an unelected, technocratic government formed to lead Greece towards calmer waters. Now, not one, but two de-facto referendum on the bailout and elections have been held, with the lack of national consensus on many of the core issues facing Greece scaring markets. Elections, the supposed bedrock of modern democracy, only seemed to further complicate political uncertainty and help send the financial markets tumbling.

Italy is now led by ‘Super Mario’ who heads an unelected, technocratic government that for all our love of democracy, lacks any sort of electoral mandate. It should probably be noted that Berlusconi was duly elected.

Even the European Union has been chastised for the failure of its consensus and democratic decision making. Pundits have long called for much stronger action and for ways to bypass democratic deadlock. Germany’s dominance of the debate surrounding the Eurozone’s debt crisis points in much the same direction.

More than anything in recent times, the debt crisis in Europe seems to be pushing Europe away from democracy and consensus decision making as was championed in the past. Rather, Europe increasingly seems to be embracing the idea that a few people and institutions hold a disproportionate share of the power for decision making.

Next time: Asia

The demise of democracy: Part 1 (USA)

For the past half century, democracy has been the political ideology. The cold war saw a concerted effort to promote democracy, led by the USA. Since then, more and more countries have moved towards some form of democracy as the specter of communism was beat back. The idea of everyone’s opinion being considered in an equal and fair manner, without prejudice, captured the imagination of millions around the world. The recent spate of political upheaval in Arab stats, dubbed the Arab Spring, was heralded as the dawning of true democracy in the Middle East. But reality presents a far more murky picture, one where democracy’s success and future are both called into question. Here’s an examination of where democracy stands across the world.

THE WEST (USA)

One of the biggest proponents of democracy, the US itself has found its political system mired in partisan deadlock in recent times. Ever since Newt Gingrich’s political blockade against Bill Clinton, both Republicans and Democrats have used their time as the opposition to do just that – opposing virtually everything that comes their way. The filibuster has been used endlessly in the Senate, and often for entirely trivial matters. Most recently, the House of Representatives has become the new place of gridlock with dozens of bills stuck in committees and a sizable collection of party-line votes.

The long list of unapproved nominations to various government positions is another case in point. Both Bush and Obama have had difficulty getting nominees approved. Many commentators have rued the over politicization of judicial appointments. It’s not that nominees are outright rejected (ignoring the question of competence or capacity), a vast number of them are simply never voted on. It is telling that mistrust in the US political system is at new heights. Disapproval of Congress, supposedly the US home of democratic representation, is at an all time high with nearly 80%^# disapproving of Congress’s work.

Ideologically, more and more voters class themselves as independents; but ironically, the number of independent senators and representatives is dwindling, both in terms of ideology and party affiliation. Indeed, the emergency of the Tea Party has pushed the Republican party further to the right, unseating many moderates in the process.

While one could legitimately argue that this is all just a part of the democratic process, one can’t but help question whether democracy remains the undisputed king of all political systems.

Next time: The West (Europe)

The failure of elected representatives

Most of the world now heralds the brilliance and importance of representation by our elected representatives. But it has occurred to me that we really shouldn’t be so upset that even those we elect don’t truly represent our views on all or even most issues. There are two ways to look at this, firstly by looking at the voting process, and secondly from the representatives point of view.

THE VOTER

Votes, no matter what the ideal situation might be, are either not based on the issues, or based on just a few issues out of many. In the first instance, although seen as undesirable, reality is that many voters cast their ballots based on the appearance or their impressions of the candidates rather than actual policy. Obama is a good example of someone who won on high public approval but often based purely upon personal charisma and a favorable personality. That’s not to say people don’t agree with his policies, but rather than a large part of his electoral base (or those of his opponents) are based upon his personality and how they feel about him. Let’s not pretend that uninformed voters don’t exist.

Why revive an Al-Qaeda in decline?

Advancing Against Al Qaeda (Photo credit: Third Way)

Mohamed Amine Belarbi recently published a series of four articles titled ‘What reforms needed for an Al Qaeda in decline’. It certainly makes for very interesting reading, and for those of you would are so inclined, you can read the four part series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). While I find the analysis of Al-Qaeda’s current state and possible future direction intriguing, the series builds upon a worrying underlying presumption: that Al-Qaeda is something to be encouraged and furthered.

Appearance, Appearance, Appearance

After much attention on the 2012 Chief Executive Elections, Leung Chun-ying ultimately emerged the new Chief-Executive elect. Although not seen as the ideal candidate, he certainly held the lead in terms of opinion polls, and probably has some genuine support, more so than many of his rivals. A major part of his victory was down to his ability to project a sense that he was the public’s choice and Henry Tang merely China’s choice. This appearance was certainly helped by his visits to public housing estates etc.

What is surprising is his failure to recognize the importance of public perception in the aftermath of the vote. His first order of business, visit the Chinese Liason office. Certainly there are good reasons to do so, though I am doubtful of his explanation. However, for argument’s sake, let’s put aside the suggestion that he went to thank the Chinese Liason Office for their unofficial official support at the end of the campaign. Even if he had a legitimate reason for visiting, he should be well aware of the perception that it would give. I think it is safe to assume that he doesn’t live in a vacuum of his own, which means that he would be fully aware of media reports on the heavy show of hand by the Chinese Liason office as well as the fear that the Chinese government was unnecessarily meddling in Hong Kong affairs. Then it should be clear, even if there is a good reason to visit the Liason Office, such as visit would best be done at another time, in another place, in a more sensitive way. What baffles me is how a candidate can be so conscious of public sentiment during the campaign, and almost instantly ignore or fail to even consider public perception.

Yes, or just No? Public opinion during HK Chief Executive Election 2012

This year’s Hong Kong Chief Executive Election has been anything but normal. As I noted last time, it was instrumental in creating new norms that I feel will be beneficial in the future. One of the more interesting aspects was of this years campaign was the swings in public opinion, which I believe had a distinct impact on the race as a whole. More interestingly, was support for any of the candidates a ‘Yes’ in support of them, or merely a ‘No’ in opposition?

From the off, Leung chun-ying seemed to have the upper hand in public opinion, with regular reports of how he was besting Henry Tang by sometimes double digits. On the surface of it, it seemed that the Hong Kong people prefered Leung, who was seen as having an outsiders chance of dethroning Tang, who at the time was perceived as ‘China’s pick’. In many respects, this may be true. Certainly, Tang was the first to be hit by a series of scandals with his marriage laid out in full view, followed by massive cranes being put outside his Kowloon Tong residence. So in the midst of the campaign, you had Leung, who was seen as popular and the people’s choice, in comparison to Tang who was scandal hit and China’s choice.

With Tang’s rather unwarranted outbursts revealing Exco meeting details, it became increasingly clear that he would be an unviable candidate, lacking both public opinion and having a long series of unforced errors. Attention then swung quite strongly towards Leung. However, Leung turned out to have a closet of his own with allegations of corruption and very-late-coming allegations from Tang of being an advocate for greater power and more limited freedoms. Also, in the closing stages of the campaign, there were further questions as to whether Leung was an underground member of the Chinese Communist Party. All this helped turn the perception of Leung as the under-dog to the presumed Chinese pick, something that the Chinese liaison office seemed to support by almost openly canvasing for electors to vote for Leung.

A defense of the 2012 Hong Kong Chief Executive Election

Today, 1,200 people will cast ballots in the Hong Kong Chief Executive elections 2012. It has been an eventful campaign, with even a full Wikipedia page being developed with details outlining all the various bits of mud that were slung around. Let’s first be clear, as Anson Chan so eloquently stated, this election is not a free and fair election. Albert Ho was clearly not going to win, and only 1,200 people were able to express any opinion in any instance.

However, in contrast to the 2007 elections, this was measurably more competitive with 3 candidates (Leung Chun-Ying, Henry Tang and Albert Ho) rather than the 2 (Donald Tsang and Alan Leong). Notably was the fact that there were a whole host of other politicians who were considered possible candidates, including Rita Fan and Regina Ip. There was even a ‘primary’ between the various pan-democrat groups. The campaign itself was also more competitive with genuine uncertainty as to who would be ultimately elected until about a week ago. In addition to the formal poll, there was also the HKU’s public opinion poll that was conducted yesterday and the day before.

Although the 2012 elections are not free and fair elections in their own rights, I think it is hard to argue that they have not been an improvement in comparison to the 2007 elections. Whilst we should continue to push for universal suffrage in 2017, we should stop and think how far we have gone this year.