Kristof's hope for a thousand dogs

Ok, I couldn’t help myself. The itch to blog something was too much.

***
A coupla days ago, New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof was hopeful about the power of blogs to (eventually) uprise against the CCP.

This was mainly in response to the workings of 李新德 (Li Xinde), self-appointed investigative journo-blogger on China’s official wrongdoings.

[Ed: Btw, if you have a coupla minutes, and broadband, a really cool multimedia special report on this can be found here. (If the link doesn't work, go here and click on Chinese Internet Crusader under Multimedia.) If not for anything else, then to gawk/marvel at Kristof's pronounciation of 李新德.]



Kristof writes:

The Chinese Communist Party survived a brutal civil war with the Nationalists, battles with American forces in Korea and massive pro-democracy demonstrations at Tiananmen Square. But now it may finally have met its match - the Internet.
...
I think the Internet is hastening China along the same path that South Korea, Chile and especially Taiwan pioneered. In each place, a booming economy nurtured a middle class, rising education, increased international contact and a growing squeamishness about torturing dissidents.

President Hu has fulminated in private speeches that foreign "hostile forces" are trying to change China. Yup, count me in - anybody who loves China as I do would be hostile to an empty Mao suit like Mr. Hu. But it's the Chinese leadership itself that is digging the Communist Party's grave, by giving the Chinese people broadband.

Kristof has apparently lived in, and wrote much about, China and its lack of democracy, so it’s a surprise to me that his one finding of 李新德 – the basis of his article – has made him so optimistic. Not that I enjoy raining down on parades, least of all Kristof’s.

单位 (Danwei) hasn’t been quite so kind with their assessment of Kristof’s response.

Interestingly enough, a recent article by Kristof on the powers of China as the World’s Capital - and a caution to American pride – is featured on 新京报 (Beijing News). Then again, considering the ego-stroking content for China, it's as surprising as finding too-obviously pro-PAP propaganda journalism on the Straits Times.

For those interested, 李新德’s website is yuluncn.com
Note that yuluncn.com is unavailable in China, but a mysterious yuluncn.net is.

***
On a separate but related note (ie. grassroots action for democracy), I recently wrote a piece for a POLS class on Peter McMahon’s article Are the world peace marches the start of the rise of global democracy?

Here it is (if you’re really bored).

***
ARGUMENTS

Although the title of Peter McMahon’s piece is “Are the world peace marches the start of the rise of global democracy?”, the crux of his article is really the impact of communications technology on what he envisions to be a grassroots-based global democracy – a “new global political order”. According to McMahon, this may happen entirely by virtue of the availability for anyone with internet access to be a part of such a global political order.

McMahon describes the current potential of the internet to rally large numbers for specific social causes, using specific examples from the last decade, and draws a link from large-scale events within social movements to the formation of global democracy, and thereby global governance.

Significantly, he argues for the importance of such a global democracy in bringing more attention of political leaders to global issues, which he describes as currently subordinate to national issues, in the current global political framework which, according to McMahon, is lacking in global governance.


EVALUATION

In regards to the link between social movement events and global democracy, McMahon’s ideas seem to flow intuitively. However, his argument seems premised on the assumption that the biggest – or perhaps only – factor in global democracy is the events in social movements, with event turnout as the largest indicator of success.

Perhaps other factors need to be considered alongside the success of social movement events. I will outline these as follows:

i) Access to the internet.
It is difficult to make a case for grassroots democracy based on communications technology, when almost all 1.4 billion of the world’s poor – about half the world’s workers – continue to live below the poverty line, and are largely unable to access internet facilities.

ii) Organising a collective voice.
McMahon talks about a growing sense of solidarity in terms of an oppositional voice. If this is the case, then it must be considered that such a voice can only be coherent, the extent to which is determinant upon the skills of like-minded grassroots communities to organise effectively in order to speak credibly, and clearly, to both national and global decision-making powers.

iii) Accountability.
Currently, IGOs such as the UN technically have little power to ensure accountability of the world’s nations, within the existing framework of signatories for any UN convention. Effectively, if a country chooses not to be state party to a particular treaty, it has no obligation to fulfil the obligations rendered by it. Even as it stands, the authority of the UN has been greatly undermined by the decisions of the US in the war in Iraq. This has in turn undermined global responsibility towards peace from all nations. A framework for greater accountability to the international community, then, needs to be considered, for any true sense of a ‘global democracy’.

I found McMahon’s most important point to be the current differential levels of importance conferred to national and global priorities by political leaders, and the potential for participants of a global democracy to reduce these disparities (to a certain extent).

In my view, the value of this argument lies in the implications for the empowerment of the global grassroots community to be realised in policy matters at both national and global levels. If greater responsiveness of political leaders can be realised, through greater accountability measures, or political and economic consequences, or through other mechanisms, then the notion of ‘empowerment’ may not be just a lofty ideal but in fact a direct means for global denizens to effectively participate in such a global democracy.


SOME AFTER-THOUGHTS

In light of the war in Iraq despite UN grounding principles against the use of force, is there a way to bring about greater accountability of countries (powerful, in particular) to act responsibly for the greater peace and stability of the global community? Might there need to be a shift to power politics as a basis for peace rather than ‘goodwill’ and the ‘inherent value’ of peace? Also, what measures might be feasible in order to bring about more even development, such that a greater proportion of the world’s population – which reflects its diversity – may participate on a level playing field in a global democracy?

Technorati: internet media, democracy, China, politics