An important and urgent warning to the Europeans in particular, and to the civilized world in general

While the civilized countries have been fighting inaptly, thus ineffectively, against the jihadist terror for more than twenty years, their supposed allies Saudi Arabia and recently Turkey were covertly supporting the jihadists. Several inter-related news coming out of Turkey yesterday sounds like the latest alarm bells for the civilized world, as we know it.

The islamist government of Turkey formally added jihad teaching in the religious classes of 7^th to 12th grades, elementary school children are taken to streets  shouting the jihad slogan “Tekbir” (presumably to teach them to emulate the present youth), and the Religious Affairs Administration is given the authority to have precedence over the Ministry of Education in the administration of private “foundation schools”.

 Also in a speech condemning Israel’s decision to close the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem for three days, the Turkish President called on the “world community to action”. He said he spoke as the President of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Co-operation). Therefore, his call is none other than a call to the Muslim world for “action”. His method of calling people (some of whom are armed with long knives) to streets for action has proven to be effective (e.g. July 15, 2016 coup scenario). Hence, the call, with the backdrop of his incessant attacks on the West, should be taken as a chilling wake-up call.

These and similar actions and coded statements should be taken seriously and with due concern. The last twenty years’ terror is the costly consequence (in blood and in treasure) of our typical wait and see policy and overconfidence in our intelligence and power. Europe is warned in particular because of Turkey’s rigorous programs to brainwash the large Turkish population in Europe. The civilized world, beware; tolerance and civility should not become condonation, indifference or ignorance.

July 22, 2017

Mutating Democracy

Mutating Democracy

Formerly, people of the same political views (or, more specifically, of the same economic interest or cultural/moral conviction) formed or joined political parties. Subsequently, “people governance” eventually became “party governance”. Parties studied national issues and events before taking a position on them. However, inherently, party politics looked after the interests of one group of people rather than after the general interests of the nation (despite their “national” rhetoric). This and the fanatical adherence to party lines created division among the public. Group interests occupied the driver’s seat; national interests took the back seat. Elections and important national issues became knockdown-drag-out fights between factions. Opposition parties, under the grand name of “public interest”  and instead of working to correct government actions, opposed government actions by all means available to them in order not to be seen by their supporters as not doing their job of opposition. Once they came to power, they set to undo the deeds of the earlier administration.*

Democracy is still undergoing transformation, particularly since the advance of the electronic medium in the last few decades. Citizens now directly get involved in daily politics. One would think that the more there is public participation in governance the closer we are to democracy, but the more of citizens get involved in politics the more politics and governance become impulsive and reckless. The so-called social media enables the spread of individual opinions nationwide (even globally) without the traditional prior scrutiny by parties or by media. It may be safe to assume that most of personal opinions expressed instantaneously are emotional (knee-jerk) reactions to news as perceived. Some such personally expressed views coalesce in the form of hard-lined beliefs in large groups. Some are capable of even launching instantaneous mass protests to influence the public opinion or the government. Worse of all, parties take advantage of this new found tool for their objectives and cheerlead such spontaneous movements. Roman agora where opinions were exchanged turns in to gladiators’ arena.

This development in the exercise of democracy may be simply the expression of a common, but primitive, emotion of the human species called in social psychology the “gladiators spectacle” (like the excitement they get from boxing, dog fight, etc.). Does a nation as a whole get something beneficial out of this spectacle, other than excitement? 

One theory is that a frequent change in administrations is necessary for avoiding undue accumulation of power in the hands of one group, and for enabling adaptation of the system to ever-evolving society. Very true; however, if the change is only because of disagreements between the economic or ideological differences based on group interests and on emotional reactions, without objective and scientific considerations concerning the needs of the nation as a whole, the change is not in society’s interest. When one group takes the nation in one direction, and the following one in the other, just for the sake of opposition, the system is not adapting or advancing; it is taking one step forward one step back at best, or becoming directionless at worst. Any undoing of earlier deeds certainly takes the precious time of the work force and precious public funds, which already absorbed taxpayers’ money to “do” them. The waste of time and funds caused by this tug-of-war for power also delay addressing important national issues awaiting attention. 

 In national issues, public’s views almost always rally around two opposing groups. One group applies a reasoned approach, using studied, rational, and patient methods. The other group seeks fast, forceful, impatient methods. This difference, which is in fact the reflection of two different types of human nature, causes division in democracies.

The former group encounters two obstacles in a dialogue with the latter: the perception of being elitist or condescending, and the delay in demonstrable results caused by due care. The latter group does not even enter in a dialogue; it is action oriented for quick results, which however causes economic and political damage that require additional costs and time to repair thereafter.

With regard to domestic issues, the unnecessary back and forth in administration may be minimized if the former group were to avoid delays in results by accepting a reasonable level of risk and criticism of adverse effects of its decisions. After all, trying to ensure better results costs also money and time; furthermore, better results are relative to time, because the efficacy of an expected result erodes with the passage of time.

In international matters, the views are divided as well. One group has a rational view of world affairs and favors dialogue with others; the other group –in smaller countries–, views the other countries untrustworthy and thrives on conspiracy theories, or -in more powerful countries- irrationally wishes to enforce their policies on other countries.

The former group can achieve compromises only after long dialogues. This puts them in the category of ineffectiveness, although they may provide a relatively peaceful environment. The latter group may achieve  its purpose expediently, but it may be short lived for the global unrest it would cause in economic and political fields. The “exceptionalist/greatest” philosophy alienates other countries by exclusion. The group then leads the country to isolation at best or to combat at worst. Irrational rash actions in international affairs almost always are responded by the like. Even a smaller country can be harmful to a bully state. Jonathan Swift’s political satire Gulliver’s Travels reminds us that even little people, Lilliputians, can capture and sentence a bigger man for treason (believed to be an allusion to the impeachment of 1^st Earl of Oxford Bolingbroke in Swift’s time).

A middle way solution cannot be found for the divide in foreign affairs, like the one suggested above for national affairs. The political divide in domestic affairs may be bridged somewhat by the rational group being a lot more efficacious, but in foreign affairs the brash group needs to accept the policies of the rational group. On the world platform, the leader of any country, big or small, has no choice but to act rationally, with a world view, with patience, and with due respect to the independence and interests of other countries, as well as to the general world interests as a whole.

Another remedy for saving democracy may be to redefine the rule of majority decision. A 50+% majority is nothing more than a small majority’s tyranny over a large minority –totalitarianism. A 66% majority for election could be considered more appropriate, similar to 2/3 majority rule practiced in many important decision making processes in the Senate. What can be more important than electing a party to power that will be holding the destiny of a nation in its hands for some years to come? A larger participation in the final decision has also the advantage of reducing any potential dissatisfaction, unhappiness, thus unrest in the nation.

At any rate, we need to act before democracy self-destructs.

*"Repealing Executive Orders

 James Pfiffner and Joshua Lee, January 23 2017, Washington Post

For instance, in reaction to Nixon’s abuses of presidential power, Jimmy Carter replaced Nixon’s Executive Order 11652 on secrecy and classification by issuing his own Executive Order 12065, requiring more open access to government policies and documents. His successor, Reagan, then reversed Carter’s order with his own (12356), tightening secrecy again. Clinton revoked Reagan’s order with Executive Order 12958, pushing the government back toward openness. George W. Bush then issued Executive Order 13233 to assert more presidential control over the release of governmental records. And shortly after his inauguration, Obama revoked the Bush order and later replaced it with his own approach to classification (EO 13526).”

February 7, 2017

A Clarion Call to American Democracy: 2016 Presidential Elections

A Clarion Call to American Democracy: 2016 Presidential Elections

In light of the wide public dissatisfaction with the U.S. presidential election results, I wrote earlier that when the popular votes and the Electoral College votes do not coincide, public disappointments are the consequence of a general ignorance of the Constitutional mandate. The public is under the impression that they are directly electing a president “of and by the people”, when the reality is that they are voting for the election of a president “of and by” their State. Therefore the president is, de facto, the president of the Union, not of the people. Put in another way, when the majority of individual votes go to one candidate, but the majority of State electors vote for the other candidate, States’ will overrides the people’s will.

Since the election, we observed the transition team’s performance, we can now add to the above observation a new one on the probable shape of the coming administration. The elected president ran a pretentious and cocky campaign disparaging and intimidating some groups, institutions, and persons of the society. The group that considers itself patriotic and “exceptionalist American” related itself to his arrogant, contemptuous, vindictive, and combative character, thus carried the candidate to the office. The rest of the public thought that his attitude was for the campaign, and it might change once he is elected. However, his post-election performance shows that he and his team are not capable of changing from the campaign mode to the presidential mode. Under the circumstances, we may be witnessing a rough and tough business style administration (of which the president- elect is so proud) for the next four years.

An argument advanced by those who voted for the elected president is that it is good to have a businessman in presidency, because he will run the government efficiently and effectively, like running a company. We can leave aside the fact that some businesses are run well some not so well. The proponents of this argument do not seem to be able to distinguish that businesses are run for the benefit of the company, its owner or owners (the interest of the consumer of the service or the product of the company is of secondary concern although businesses deny this aspect), while the government is run solely for the benefit of the people. Businesses also compete with each other, sometimes at a cutthroat rate, without regard to or against the interest of other companies; whereas governments have to compete with each other while having to accept the interests of their counterparts. Furthermore, businesses take risks to the extent of declaring bankruptcy, while governments cannot take risks to run the public coffers dry or to engage the country in wars.

The new administration’s style may be the reflection of the president’s personal character: 1) He applies his own value measures to everything and everybody. He has no reasoned and objective approach to issues. 2) He believes he knows all and better than anyone (like better than generals about the security issues); he cannot accept criticism; if criticized, he considers it as a sign of his failure; he hates to be a loser. Yet, both of these attributes are very unbecoming of an elected public official and may be even dangerous. His headstrong refusal of the intelligence findings about the Russian cyberattack on his opponent’s campaign is an obvious example of these attributes. His team repeatedly stated that the intelligence findings are for casting doubt on his win of the election and for marring his victory. Concern about a clear election victory seems to outweigh the bigger problem of interference by an unfriendly foreign government in the democratic process of the United States. But, how can we forget his call on Russia, during the campaign, to find the allegedly lost e-mails of his opponent.* There is no reason to believe that Russia would not have happily obliged.

Up to this point, we have no indication or encouragement that he will or can divest himself from the combative businessman or self-centered personal style, and don the mantle of a responsible public servant. It may be that he was running for the highest office of the land only to feed his insatiable appetite for publicity, popularity, and success. Once elected, he was surprised as much as anyone else; he was caught unprepared for the seriousness of the national and international responsibility attached to the solemn office. If however his condescending approach to all things is due to a personality that is self-centered, narcissistic, hedonistic, grandiose, superiority complex, no-empathy for others, then we have a problem with a leader with these characteristics. Such leaders in history caused social and political upheavals in their respective societies by recklessly dismantling social and political institutions, and by undoing many social and political contracts, unwritten understandings, and traditions special to that society. This type of leadership in the United States would have serious consequences also for the whole world. Other powers, like China and Russia, who are competitors today, may turn into adversaries tomorrow; the smaller countries may oblige under today’s prevailing conditions, but may not extend a helping hand in times of need in the international forum.

Once instituted in office, the president is joyfully signing several “Executive Orders” or “Memoranda” every day, like a boy in candy store, to overturn previous administration’s Executive Orders. His purpose seems to convey to his supporters the appearance that he is making good on his campaign promises, as if these Orders and Memoranda are “edicts”, for which laws and administrative procedures are to follow suit. This style is reminiscent of Louis XIV’s, who governed with the principle “L’Etat c’est moi”. One example of rushed policy declarations was about the admittance of foreigners and immigrants in the country. As part of this policy, the president did not only act reportedly illegally and caused hardship (may it be temporarily) to many people, he also upset a friendly nation by being rude to its PM on the phone. He says he does not understand why his predecessor agreed to help Australia by taking some of the refugees waiting at the door of Australia. Of course, he does not understand it, he ran a campaign “to make America great again”, not knowing that the U.S. is great because it always offers help to allies and to humanity. Greatness does not necessarily come with show of force, but more so with show of humanity and humility, with moral/ethical greatness.

Another observation is that the President inserts his winning in his speeches on almost every public occasion, still three months after the election, no matter what the occasion or the audience. He also makes the victory gestures with a clinched fist, like a winning boxer in the ring. This is, in fact, a sign of immaturity or of disbelief that he really won. It appears that winning the election is more important for him than having been entrusted the honor and the responsibility of this high office. Winning an election is not for cheer and celebration, it is not a game; it is the appointment to a post of great responsibility from among other candidates, it is serious.

Only democracy itself, often called a good but messy system, may solve the problem it created. The aggressive, brash, disruptive, quarrelsome style of governance may eventually alienate some foreign countries, and some of the president’s supporters that they may not vote for him again! It may be the people’s turn to say, “You are fired”. Then, the United States will be even greater.

January 11, 2017- February 8, 2017 

* Trump asks Russia to find Clinton’s missing emails

by Amy Sherman, Alex Daugherty and Kyra Gurney, July 27, 2016  MiAMI hERALD

In a surprising call for a foreign power to use its hacking abilities to get involved in the U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from the time she was secretary of state.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said to a room full of TV cameras at Trump National Doral. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Trump said he hopes Russia does have her emails. Clinton’s lawyers had turned over work-related emails, but deleted thousands which she said were about personal matters.

“They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there,” he said. “So let's see.”