Archives

Gore's Nobel Peace Prize certainly brought out the mouthbreathers, but it also inspired some insightful commentary. Here's a sample of some of the better stuff I've found around the tubes.

Paul Krugman on Gore Derangement Syndrome:

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

...

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn't just inconvenient. For conservatives, it's deeply threatening.

...

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He's taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

Steve Clemons on how this will create an "interesting and creative tension" between Gore and the next Democratic president, which is probably Hillary:

Gore actually has a huge global following now on climate change policy -- and Hillary Clinton, if elected, is going to need his approval and support, though it's going to be painful (on occasion) for her to ask for it. Gore's not the easiest guy in the world to work with.

But at the same time, Gore knows he needs a strategic, capable thinker who can push forward hard-to-digest legislative imperatives in the White House -- and if he's not in favor with Hillary Clinton (if she's got the keys to 1600), then his efforts are going to significantly suffer.

Bryan Walsh on why Gore should run:

I get accused of "hero worshiping" Gore, which I don't think is right, but I do have immense respect for the guy, so I thought I'd say why.

Even now, I don't think people appreciate what a punch in the gut the 2000 election was for Gore. The previous eight years had been spent in the shadow of a pol who had the charm and magnetism Gore lacked, but Clinton did not share Gore's passion for the environment, wasn't willing to put his ass on the line for it, and his poor discipline and unforced errors left much of the rest of their shared agenda unfulfilled. 2000 was Gore's chance to finally control his own fate, to rise to the test for which he had been preparing almost his entire life.

Top Chinese officials have stated that Western democracy is not an option for China. At the Communist Party's 17th congress, some party members inquired about political reform.
The BBC reported that Li Dongshen, spokesperson for the Congress, noted that "Political reform is an important component of our comprehensive reform. We have advanced political reform without pause."
But he quickly quashed any idea that China could eventually become a multi-party liberal democracy.
"We will never copy the Western model of political system," he said as he gave details about the congress, which meets every five years.

Full article available here.

Much of the optimism we've had for the Why Democracy? films has been recognised in the media. Rave reviews are coming in from a number of papers. The Financial Times review is one of our favourites.

Are Dictators Ever Good?

Add to My Profile | More Videos

It is difficult to associate the terms democracy and dictatorship with one another. Despite the obvious contradiction, the two have gelled in a few countries that have made the proponents of democracy particularly uncomfortable. Recent waves of democracy in many troubled countries gave optimists the brief feeling of relief as accountable governments would be the standard ruling form. However, dictatorships have emerged in some countries under the guise of democratic rule. Today's feature film, Dinner With The President, investigates this curious phenomenon as the Pakistani leadership gets deconstructed by director, Subihar Sumar.

Monitoring the SADC Guidelines

On the 17th August 2004, in Mauritius, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) leaders adopted the "SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections". As a member of SADC, Zimbabwe was a signatory to these benchmark principles, and therefore it is entirely fitting that the regime's performance in relation to the forthcoming elections in 2008 should be measured against this standard.

Sokwanele has embarked on a project with precisely this in mind: for the last 16 weeks, through our Zimbabwe Election Watch (ZEW) project, we have been monitoring the Zimbabwean government's performance against the SADC standards. We believe that elections are a process, not an event. The success or failure of the day itself depends largely on the months (perhaps years?)preceding it, and whether vital electoral standards have been respected throughout the process.

We have so far identified a total of 492 breaches across 24 of the SADC standards. These figures present questions that need answers. Chief among them,

• Is it possible, despite the 492 breaches recorded so far, for the people of Zimbabwe to have genuinely 'free and fair' elections in 2008?
• What is an acceptable standard for 'free and fair elections' : 1 breach? 10 breaches? 100 breaches? 492 breaches?
• How much time needs to pass to counter-balance mayhem? A few months or a few years?
• Are some breaches 'maximum penalty' offences, while others warrant nothing more than a slap on the wrist, or a small fine?