Avuncular American

Setting the Stage for Uzbek Elections

Uzbekistan, as far as I know, has no official national motto, but the phrase you hear most often when officials describe the country's relationship to democracy is "step by step."  In the almost 18 years since the country became independent with the breakup of the Soviet Union, "step by step" has sometimes been translated as "one step forward, two steps back."

Over the past years, elections have been held, parties have emerged, and foreign observers have taken note.  But some of the country's potentially most popular "public movements" which arose in the late '80s and early '90s never received official status, so their vote-getting ability as political parties was never tested.  At the same time, concerns about the rise of political Islam made Uzbek authorities wary of instability and worse spreading across borders with neighbors like Tajikistan and Afghanistan.

Is Uzbekistan further along the road to democracy than it was in late 1991, when the hammer and sickle came down and the crescent and stars went up?  Probably, but largely in an institutional sense rather than a mass democratic one.

I'm not a frequent flier to Uzbekistan, but I have been to Tashkent twice now in as many months.  In July, it was a conference on responses to the international financial crisis.  Last week it was to compare experiences on political parties and parliamentary elections.  Uzbekistan has scheduled elections to its Oliy Majlis or Parliament for December 27.

With the cooperation of the OSCE's Democratization and Rule of Law program, Regional Dialogue (Slovenia), and the US National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Academy of State and Social Construction (ASSC) convened a two-day program on September 29-30.  Election experts and Central Asia analysts from a number of OSCE member states, plus Asian neighbors from as far away as Japan and India shared their observations on organizing elections.

Uzbek officials from the Central Election Commission and from a variety of government think tanks outlined Uzbekistan's preparations for the elections, which included a rather impressive study of international best practice in a number of areas.  Uzbekistan, noting that other countries have set quotas for the representation of women in national parliaments, has maintained its 30 percent figure, but has put the onus on the political parties to implement the recruitment of female candidates.

A more unusual quota has emerged: 15 seats in the new parliament will be reserved for the Ecological Movement of Uzbekistan, not a political party as such.  Though this development should give an impetus to the country's efforts to confront grave environmental problems such as the drying up of the Aral Sea, the move was not without its critics among the international observers.  Why limit Uzbek greens to 15 seats?  Other than their ostensibly "green" approach to environmental issues, where do they stand on, say, human rights, or Uzbek foreign policy?  Questions that remain unanswered, but worth tracking once the new Majlis starts legislating in the new year.

Worthwhile as it usually is to expose Uzbek officials to (mildly) critical observation by international
experts, the amount of "apparatchik speak" in evidence was still quite high.  Sometimes a Western skeptic might ask a party official for his campaign slogan or theme to rally popular support, only to be answered with a timid observation on the need to increase tourism into this distant Central Asian state.  Not the stuff of rousing stump speeches, but a safe bet in a country where being outspoken is still a risky proposition.

By the looks of things, the elected officials around the conference table seemed more at ease in expressing opinions than their party chiefs.  I have a feeling that they have gotten beyond the stage where - according to Dilip Hiro in his new book Inside Central Asia - Uzbek parliamentarians in the early Nineties "had taken to reciting poems honoring [the president] in the chamber."

"Democracy is not a state, it is a process," said one of the Uzbek participants, and I couldn't agree more.  Democracy can be won - hard won - and then lost, if its beneficiaries cease to defend it.  This holds for countries with long democratic traditions, and highlights how difficult the democracy-building process is for countries with no such tradition.  At least by creating the institutions associated with democracy - representative assemblies, political parties, elections - Uzbekistan is further along than certain countries (among them some of the West's "best friends") which have yet to even acknowledge the need for such institutions.

"Step by step" - neither giant steps nor great leaps forward - is at least movement in the right direction.  While the conference was still in session, Uzbekistan submitted its formal invitation to the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to observe the December elections.

--------

(Photos: top left - former madrassa now an artisans' colony; bottom right - Amir Timur (Tamerlane) Museum)

Belgium & Bolivia: Surfeits Of Democracy?

Other than a dusty bilateral maritime trade treaty involving guano (in 1836 both countries were in the first bloom of independence: Belgium was only 6 years old, and Bolivia 11, and it still had a coastline), I don't suppose there is a whole lot linking the two countries.

But this morning on the BBC, I learned of President Evo Morales' plan to grant autonomy based on ethnic lines (read "indigenous population," from which he hails).  Many countries have such arrangements, and Bolivia no doubt has much to atone for in its treatment of its Indian population, who constitute the majority.  But here's the catch: apparently this will create what amounts to five layers of government.

This is where Belgium comes in.  Belgium is probably a world leader in layers of government, which at times can border on the surreal.  There is the national (federal) parliament in Brussels, the city which is also home to a Flemish regional assembly that doubles as a body for the Dutch-speaking speaking community.  Then there's the Brussels Capital Region assembly, and finally the Francophone community's parliament.  Not to be confused with the parliament of the French-speaking region of Wallonie, which sits in Namur.  I may have left something out.

Oh yes, provinces.  Actually, I've been living on and off in Belgium for upwards of a decade, and other than ubiquitous road signs announcing the limit of this or that province, I had never thought of them as jurisdictions, with administrations and therefore administrators.  But yes, Belgium probably leads the world in the number of people on the payroll of one level of government or another.

Don't get me wrong: I am a former public servant, and see more of a role for government in addressing society's ills than most of my compatriots.  But there are limits to representative democracy, and there's a reason that the United States is a republic rather than a direct democracy.  You can have too much of a good thing.

Even in the US, there are way too many jurisdictions.  Just look at a map of, say, the Miami area, and you'll see the city of Miami, neighboring Miami Beach, and Dade County, but also a bunch of mini-municipalities that insist on having their own government structure, replete with a police force where, I bet you, the chief of police has four stars on his lapel or shoulder, in the best tradition of some foreign armies, where a sergeant can have as many stars as General Petraeus.

So, all power to the Bolivians, but maybe they should rethink those extra layers of government.  They haven't done much good for the Belgians.

Pacific Rim Fireworks: The Kim & Sarah Shows

Definition of narcissistic personality disorder: “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.”

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

-------------------------

I doubt that Kim Jong-Il, the North Korean leader, has much need for a public relations adviser, but his decision to launch a bunch of missiles on the eve of American Independence Day was surely a master move of attention grabbing.

Though it did confuse the message of the month, just when the world was getting used to the kindler, gentler image of a country that dismantled an entire English brewery to make "The Pride of Pyongyang," reputed to be a very decent beer.  Then there was the barbecue diplomacy between North Korea and the US via a New Jersey restaurateur.  All that sacrificed for the sake of some pyrotechnics.

But then we're used to the cognac-swilling dictator (Hennessey's best customer) - who provides junior high school-aged girls to his high-level visitors - acting a bit outrageously.  "He believes his own propaganda," said former CIA psychologist Dr. Jerold Post, in a 2003 CNN interview.  Scary stuff indeed.

Not nearly as scary, perhaps, as the portrait of Sarah Palin provided by Todd Purdum in the current Vanity Fair, many of whose Alaskan interviewees cited the above-mentioned "narcissistic personality disorder" in connection with their soon-to-be-former governor.  Purdum's article provides excellent background reading for anyone still harboring any illusions about Gov. Palin being the incarnation of the wholesome home town girl.

Yesterday Palin launched her own pre-Fourth fireworks: a rambling "Hi Alaska" paean to herself and her accomplishments delivered in high school diction, which was actually a "Bye, Alaska" to announce her resignation.  She, who might want to become the first woman President of the United States, assured her listeners that "America is now, more than ever, looking North to the Future."  Presumably when they look North they'll see Sarah Palin, and yearn for the times when we last had a Republican President who had trouble with coherent speech.

How appropriate, in her July 4th double bill with Kim Jong-Il, that she closed her farewell address with a quote from General Douglas MacArthur, the "American Caesar" who suffered from another type of narcissistic personality disorder: hubris.  Palin's MacArthur inspiration: "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."  In fact, MacArthur's headstrong disregard for his civilian superiors (i.e., President Truman) made a Korean War turn into a war with China.  He was finally dismissed for near insubordination.

MacArthur's replacement in Korea, General Mathew Ridgeway's words about his predecessor...

...the hunger for praise that led him on some occasions to claim or accept credit for deeds he had not performed, or to disclaim responsibility for mistakes that were clearly his own; the love of the limelight that continually prompted him to pose before the public... the headstrong quality...that sometimes led him to persist in a cause in defiance of all logic; [and] a faith in his own judgment that created an aura of infallibility...

... could be applied to Ms. Palin as she begins to stake out ground deserted by more grown up and stable Republicans.

But unlike old soldier MacArthur, don't expect Sarah Palin to "fade away."

(Fireworks photo from OSHA)

Check Into the Parliament Hotel

Gluttons for punishment can check out the Guardian's special page on the furore over parliamentary profligacy in the UK.  There's everything from toilet seats to televisions.

Others, recognizing the utility of parliamentary democracy as long as it does not go the way of the Roman Senate, might want to check into the "Parliament Hotel," my suggestion for reigning in costs and giving elected representatives a better sense of being on the job, not on the take.

(Image thanks to the real Parliament Hotel in Cape Town South Africa, where Pretoria and Cape Town share in hosting the seat of government - the cabinet has to shuttle back and forth when Parliament is in session, perhaps not the best example of efficiency, but it does spread the wealth.)

So here is my proposal for Parliaments from London to Luanda, by way of Capitol Hill: find a decent hotel near your national assembly, buy it with stimulus funds, renovate it into adequate but Spartan suites, and make your congresspeople, MPs, senators, or deputies stay there when parliament is in session.  Presumably they are representing constituents from a home district, so that's where they should have their home.  But when they are in _______ (fill in the name of the capital city), they stay in their parliamentary hotel suite.

I'm not talking about a fold-down bed in the office (in this season of European Parliament elections, French TV showed an MEP in his minuscule office, pulling down what I swear was a couchette-sized "bed" for those late-night sessions).  No, Hotel Parliament would provide a spacious suite where the elected official could relax, even set up a kids' room for when they come to see the big city, and grab a snack at the in-house cafeteria when she doesn't feel like cooking).

Unfortunately for the Mother of Parliaments, all the attention on the expenses row has somehow created the impression that UK MPs are the worst offenders.  The BBC provides a nice, if limited, comparison of parliamentary perks in a number of European countries, where Italy comes out - again - as the most generous (they are already the highest paid MEPs) to its deputies:

Political journalists Gian Antonio Stella and Sergio Rizzo have exposed the excesses of the political class in a new book, The Caste: How Italian Politicians Have Become Untouchable.

How about the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, collectively known as Congress?  Ouch.  When you have to have detailed sets of rules about "Officially-connected travel paid by a private source" and "Travel unrelated to official duties and paid for by a private source," you know that you're entering ambiguous territory.  That terrain is called lobbying, and I daresay that the current imbroglio in Britain over reimbursement for moat-cleaning would pale in comparison to a full disclosure by Americans in Congress.

"Many Members travel home more than 40 times a year," says the helpful Congressional Management Foundation, which provides an eye-opening budget guide for the freshman Congressperson.  Try doing that - plus hiring staff for Washington and home district offices - on the average $1.3 million (2005 figures) in public money allotted and you'll understand just one of the reasons that American politicians look for help from lobbyists.  We know, of course, that such assistance does not come for free.

So, while "Hotel Parliament" would not solve all the dilemmas of parliamentary expenses, it would at least remove one excuse for all these contraventions of arcane rules.  Make sure the hotel security people keep lobbyists out of the lobby.

Algerian Elections: A Very Easy Call

Dilem, Liberte-Algerie.com

Algeria has gone full circle: 19 years ago, I arrived in Algiers in advance of the June 1990 regional and municipal elections, which saw the emergence of the Islamist FIS Party as a force to be reckoned with (the reckoning came when the Algerian Army quashed the second FIS victory in as many years, the December 1991 parliamentary elections whose cancellation signaled the beginning of Algeria's bloody years of political violence).

In 1990, while monitoring the elections in a one-man mission for the US Embassy, I took a lunch break for a plate of couscous.  The government clerk sitting at the table next to me wasn't a "man on the street," but he would do.  "Voted yet?" I asked.  "Not going to," the functionary answered.  "The FLN will win again, as it always does," a reference to the previous one-party rule of the National Liberation Front.

My lunch partner was, of course, wrong: the FIS won, and won big, because they got out the vote.  Fast forward to 2009, and today's presidential elections.   Don't know if my clerk is still around, but if he sat out the election this time, his cynicism would be well-placed.  As the excellent Maghreb-watching blog "The Moor Next Door" puts it, this is a "cakewalk" for the re-election of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

Though Algerian politics has been far from fair, at least it had avoided the "President For Life" malady that afflicts it North African neighbors.  As Ahmed Aghrout and Yahia H. Zoubir write in Middle East Report Online MERIP

Until recently,  Algeria was the North African exception -- Article 74 of its  1996 constitution set two five-year terms as the limit on the  mandate of a given president. On November 12, 2008, however, the parliament voted overwhelmingly to approve several constitutional  amendments, the most important of which removed the stipulations  of Article 74. This far-reaching amendment opened the way for President Abdelaziz Bouteflika to run for a third successive  term, as he will do on April 9, despite his poor health and controversial performance. Algerians are convinced that, as in Tunisia or Egypt, the result of this election is a foregone conclusion.

If you count out the FIS, which was disbanded after the Army coup in 1992, most of the remaining credible politicians and parties are boycotting the election (see this useful BBC Q & A).  There are international observers in Algeria for the event: the African Union has agreed to deploy 100 monitors.  But three prominent French weeklies, including L'Express, have been banned for apparently getting too close to the inconvenient truth.

As a service to readers who want to browse previous coverage of Algerian topics, here's a link to my "Algeria" tag category.

FYI, for myopic readers who haven't clicked on Dilem's "Presidential Elections" cartoon above, that ballot box is a shredder.

 

Women In Power - Over There, Underrepresented

NOTE: This article appears in Together Magazine, a Brussels bimonthly circulated among EU institutions.  This is the first "Gerald's Gaze" (nod to Stephen King) opinion column for Together.  In an issue devoted to the theme of Women in Power, the piece highlights the paucity of power for women in American politics, and how that may change in the wake of Barack Obama’s Presidential victory.

----------------------------------------

A mini-quiz to begin: Who was the first female US Presidential candidate?

a. Eleanor Roosevelt
b. Hillary Clinton
c. Geraldine Ferraro
d. Shirley Chisholm
e. None of the above

Attention - it’s actually a trick question. Most people know that Hillary Clinton was the first woman to run for President. Except she wasn’t. In fact, the mostly forgotten Victoria Woodhull (from as far back as 1872) takes that honor - her running mate, black anti-slavery campaigner Frederick Douglass, is better remembered. Appropriately enough, they were candidates for the Equal Rights Party.

“You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby” - the 1960s vintage ‘Virginia Slims’ cigarette adverts (not Fatboy Slim’s album) - have provided cliched headlines for thousands of articles on the progress of women’s rights during the past 40 years. In the American political battleground, ‘Women in Power’ remains a largely underachieved goal, with notable exceptions. More accurately, we might say ‘Women For Power’, as their vote is increasingly crucial to winning elective office for candidates of either sex.

LONG TIME COMING
It wasn’t until the 20th century that women were enfranchised, let alone taken seriously enough to campaign in the mainstream parties. In the Democratic Party, Shirley Chisholm, the first black Congresswoman, ran unsuccessfully for President in 1972. In 1984 another Democrat, Geraldine Ferraro, became the first woman Vice Presidential nominee of a major party, but met the same fate as Republican Sarah Palin in 2008.

So Hillary Clinton, though she got further than other American women, didn’t invent female Presidential politics. In fact, the US comes out rather poorly in some metrics: Rwanda is number one in elected women, while Belgium is number eight. The US ranks a lowly 57 in terms of female members of parliamentary bodies (for women in elective office, it is 70th in the world). Women have fared somewhat better in the US Senate and states, however - there are 16 women out of 100 senators, and women are governors in 11 of the 50 states.

In the Presidential succession lineup, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives comes after the Vice President. Pelosi wields considerable legislative power, which was strengthened in the recent elections. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is also highly placed in the succession order, as was her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

Rice wasn’t the first female Secretary of State; Madeleine Albright was, a decade earlier. And Clinton, who during husband Bill’s tenure preferred a more overtly political role to the honorific duties of ‘First Lady’, was not the first Presidential wife to dabble in matters of state. Edith Wilson was catapulted into an unofficial ‘secret Presidency’ when her husband Woodrow suffered a stroke after WW I, and Eleanor Roosevelt survived her husband Franklin to lead the US delegation at the 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

THE FEMALE FACTOR
So, we’ve established that American women have been politically active for some time, even before they won the right to vote in 1920, but what has it got them? Under-representation, for one thing: only 25 per cent of US elective office holders are women, though they comprise 52 per cent of the population, and there’s also the notion - often misconstrued - that there is a ‘women’s vote’, that is, they vote monolithically, and that women vote for women.

The 2008 campaign was instructive: though most attention had been on Hillary Clinton’s prospects, she had barely lost the Democratic Party nomination before the Republican Party came up with their own woman - Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. John McCain’s choice of Palin as running mate was both a bold move to corral the conservative base and a blatant bid for ‘the women’s vote’. All manner of supposedly disappointed ‘Clinton women’ were trotted out to testify how they were now going to vote Republican.

And we all know how it ended - despite the absence of Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket and Sarah Palin’s seeming omnipresence on the Republican side, Barack Obama carried the vote of women by a wide margin. It may be that their vote was decisive - for years, millions more women have voted than men, well beyond their numerical superiority in the population. In the end, it was their preference, especially among younger and unmarried women, for Obama’s stand on issues - and not gender solidarity - that swayed women in 2008.

IT’S THE POLICY, STUPID
Beyond elections, women in the United States struggle to gain influence and power relative to their numbers. It’s mostly an uphill battle, but some sectors stand out. Women now make up 14 per cent of the US Army, and 21 have attained the rank of general. In the State Department, Hillary Clinton presides over a diplomatic corps that includes more than 50 women of ambassadorial rank.

Barack Obama didn’t win the Presidency by campaigning as the African-American or mixed-race candidate. In fact, he won by transcending racial pigeonholing. Obama’s victory, Hillary Clinton’s close-run thing, and Sarah Palin’s flop should show American women that - more than race or gender - it’s the policy, stupid. 'You’ve Got a Long Way to Go, Baby' - but at least the route to power for American women is no longer the ‘Road to Nowhere’.

---------------------------------------
##

Young Greens "Deconstruct" Obama

This week members of the "Ecolo-J" - the youth wing of Belgium's francophone Green Party - at the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB) organized an evening devoted to "deconstructing" (in the analytical, though not quite Woody Allen sense) Barack Obama's first month as President of the United States.

They invited two of their professors (American expat and political science expert Katya Long and Francois Heinderyckx, communications analyst), Hubert Bedoret, Green Party deputy political director, plus me, representing Democrats Abroad Belgium (DAB) and addressing how the Obama campaign used Democratic Party rules to best advantage and created its own fundraising network of local activists.

NDLR: Pour les francophones, voici le texte de mes remarques - sans accents: Download Deconstructing Obama majuscules.

Apart from a few questioners on the far left of what is already a progressive party, the audience appeared to share the panel's realistic assessment of a Presidency that offers America's best chance at solving a collection of seemingly insurmountable problems.

A roomful of environmentalists naturally focused on prospects for change in the climate change arena after the "negationist" Bush years, and while the United States has much further to go to make up for lost time, Obama's appointment of scientists to key positions shows that he means business.

Francois Heinderyckx underscored the enormous, almost "grotesque" expectations accompanying Obama's election, and described a communications strategy that not only has to manage expectations but has to manage inevitable disappointment.  For a campaign that stressed openness and solicited input from voters, right up through the Transition ("Change.gov"), the Obama Administration's first month has shown a rather sparse "controlled transparency" (the "13 Questions" press conference).  Finally, Heinderyckx expressed reservations about "Public Diplomacy 2.0" degenerating into a kind of "Propaganda 2.0."

Panel and audience shared an appreciation of the historic nature of Obama's election in a country with such a fraught racial history, though a sense remained of the surprising closeness of the results given the utter failure on all fronts of Bush and his Republican Presidency.  Europeans continue to be fascinated by what appears to be the insurgent power of the Obama campaign and its ability to rally support in unexpected areas of the nation, in part through use of modern means of communication.

Not wanting to dampen their enthusiasm, I warned about the dangers of the American "permanent campaign," where no sooner do we inaugurate a new president than we cast our eyes towards the next election cycle, in this case Congressional elections of 2010 - next year!  Europeans, with election seasons that last 5-6 weeks max, conduct campaigns that are like 90-minute soccer matches.  Kick the ball back and forth, score 2 or 3 goals, and it's basically over.  Form your government.

Europe, please do copy Obama's astute use of networks and citizen involvement, but please do not try and import American Superbowl political campaigns, which last way longer than the Superbowl Pre-Game show and cost billions more.  Political campaigning - keep it short, and simple.

American Health: Harry and Louise, Tom and...?

In the aftermath of the Tom Daschle debacle this week, there was one piece of very good news for those who are appalled by the American health care situation: President Obama's signing of the S-CHIP bill extending health care to children from low-income families.  The feel-good effect for politicians lasted perhaps one day, when bickering over the stalled stimulus bill inspired a righteous President to unleash his wrath, like Moses smiting the sinners.

At least the effect for the now-insured children will be lasting.  I agree with the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) that the U.S. needs a single-payer program, like other developed countries.  But at least S-CHIP is a chink in the edifice of opposition to what is a sensible, cost-effective solution.  There is no reason that the United States should pay way more than any other country and get sub-standard health care in return.

Now that Daschle is out of the picture, the speculation is on who might fill his shoes as Health and Human Services (HHS) nominee.  John Nichols at The Nation, no fan of Daschle, reminds us that former Governor Howard Dean is a doctor, and has some considerable political attributes as well, like his organizational abilities.  Nichols also mentions Congressman Jim McDermott, another doctor (psychiatrist, actually) who has a great resume that includes military and Foreign Service experience.

The main thing is getting a man or woman at HHS who can communicate the crying need for a fix to America's health care situation.  Where elderly people, despite Medicare, must impoverish themselves in exchange for a modicum of care.  And where countless billions are spent, needlessly, prolonging the suffering of those in the last weeks of life.

But beware of the backlash.  "Harry and Louise," the media mercenaries who helped sink Hillary and Bill Clinton's attempt to fix American health care in the early '90s, are still around.  So if not Tom, then Jim or Howard or whoever gets the HHS portfolio will have to deal with the big big bucks which oppose a health care insurance plan that makes sense.  Because making sense for America does not translate to making money for the insurance lobby.

30 Roman Candles: Iran 1979 - 2009

Just to save you from having to Google "Roman candle," here is Webster's definition: firework consisting of a tube that sends out a shower of sparks and a succession of balls of fire...

Rather a fitting metaphor for a 30th Islamic Revolution anniversary launch of its Omid satellite, no?

1979: the end of the reign of the Shah, who blew out no more birthday candles in his homeland.

It was the year where U.S. support of the Shah led to the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran.  The start of 30 years of mutual recrimination, leading to fraught interaction with political Islam, from Algeria to Afghanistan.

1979 was my first year in the US Foreign Service.  One of my classmates in a consular training course became one of the hostages in Tehran, and later I studied Arabic with people who had been spirited out of Iran by a courageous Canadian Embassy.

The Financial Times has put together a nice interactive timeline of 30 years of Iranian-American relations, and the Middle East Institute has gathered 53 experts and academics to comment on the Revolution at 30.

Okay, so what's next?  Stanford's Abbas Milani, writing in the Boston Review ("Common Cause: Real Help for Iranian Democrats"), thinks that

Citizen diplomacy and solidarity must become a pillar of a new American policy in Iran. Regular civic contacts—inviting Iranian artists, musicians, filmmakers, scholars, and human rights activists to the United States—would be the natural first step. Sports exchanges, for which there are some precedents, and visits by tourists and business groups to Iran and the United States, can help create an atmosphere of mutual trust, a necessary prelude to the success of both citizen and state support for democracy in Iran.

We might have an early manifestation of such "citizen diplomacy" this very week.  Blogger Charles J. Brown in "Undiplomatic" spotted a State Department press release about the visit of

a delegation of 12 Americans, including eight female athletes, coaches, and managers representing USA Badminton, to Tehran, Iran, from February 3-9th.

Rather intriguing, I'd say, especially given all the speculation about "change" coming to US-Iranian relations, after the Bush Administration opened the door in its final days to allowing the US-based American Iranian Council (AIC) to establish an office in Tehran.

Admittedly, badminton teams and an AIC office do not a new policy make.  But amidst Israeli saber rattling, Iranian missile launching, and assorted predictions of war, these are hopeful little signs.

Watch for an Obama Administration decision on the establishment of an American diplomatic or consular office, which Bush considered and then put off for the new President's in box.

Update:  Bad news on the "soft power" front: News flash from the BBC: "The British Council says it has suspended all operations in Tehran after staff members were intimidated by the Iranian authorities. The council, which promotes cultural and educational ties, says pressure has been growing over its activities."   The orders came from the office of Iran's President, and there are indications that Iran's ultra-conservatives were increasingly worried about the effectiveness of the British Council's work.

As Abbas Milani says of efforts to engage with Iran, nothing is easy: "Only the wisdom and humanity of concerned and informed citizens, combined with a new prudence in American policy, can navigate the treacherous waters ahead."

Update II: Abbas Milani was so right.  As I was writing this post, the Iranians turned down the badminton team's visa application: " "The issuing of visa (sic) is a time-consuming procedure," said a Foreign Ministry spokesman.  As The Hegemonist said in his comment: "I can't believe the news that the Iranians botched the badminton and launched a satellite during Obama's first two weeks in office. It's beginning to look like they want to stay on America's bad side."  To paraphrase the Iranian spokesman, "The normalization of relation is a time-consuming procedure."  Decades-long.

(Photo of Iranian flag - MediationChannel.com)

Can Europe Emulate the U.S. "Tech President?"

The Washington-based Center for American Progress (CAP) and Stockholm's Prime PR teamed up to present their report (photo) on "The First Tech President" in Brussels last Thursday.  It gathered a good mix of Brussels' growing community of European Union types: communication consultants, bloggers, journalists, and of course EU Commission and other functionaries.  On his return to the States, CAP Senior VP Andrew Sherry mentioned it in his own blog, (r)evolution.

The question at hand: can we do this too?  "This" being President Barack Obama's spectacular harnessing of support (monetary to be sure, but equally important, the creation of a vibrant network of people) through innovative use of new technologies.  Europe's national political parties, and their equivalent groups in the European Parliament, are studying the Obama case for clues on this vital new democratization tool.

Howard Dean may have been the First Tech Candidate, but Barack Obama probably does deserve the title of First Tech President (check out the Personal Democracy Forum for their excellent techPresident site).  As Europe does not yet have its own president, it's up to the only popularly-elected European officials - Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) - to take notes from the Obama book.

Vice President of the European Commission, former Swedish minister Margot Wallström, addressed the group and put her finger on a key difference between US and European political campaigns:

First: money. This is the key to success in any US election campaign, whether Presidential or Congressional. Congress men and women wanting to be re-elected have to spend a great deal of time traveling the length and breadth of the country to attend fund-raising events.

Presidential candidates tend to get large slices of their campaign funds from major donors, especially from big business and wealthy individuals. President Bush, for example, was famously supported by the oil industry. And of course they want something in return.

What's interesting about Barack Obama in this respect is that he raised most of his finance not from a few big donations but from millions of small ones, via the Internet. This makes him much more independent, which I think is an excellent thing for America – and the world!

Fortunately for European democracy, success in our elections has a lot less to do with the wealth of the candidates. But on both sides of the Atlantic, success greatly depends on how you come across on TV and in the press.

Wallström's EU portfolio includes Communication, and her stress is on the non-tech side of the word: emulate Obama for his engagement with the citizenry.  Serious Europhiles always point out the struggle to communicate the message and meaning of the European Union to their publics, and as Wallström herself says, guaranteeing a half century of peace and prosperity on a continent that previously knew war and privation is the essential EU "message."  But it is not as sound-bitey as "Change" or "Yes We Can."

I for one would not wish the "permanent campaign" aspect of American politics on Europe.  As it stands, the typical EU Parliament campaign kicks off a mere 5 weeks before election day.  Compare that to the US, where Presidential campaigning starts almost two years before elections, and where, just to get re-elected to a two-year seat in the House of Representatives, members of Congress have to raise tens of thousands of dollars per week during each term for their campaign expenses.  Where's the time for legislating?

So we don't want Europe to emulate gargantuan American campaign spending, where the 2008 elections probably cost in excess of $5 billion.  We can argue over whether this is a "value for money" proposition, and I am no one to complain about the way these elections turned out.  But just like the American health care system situation that results in mucho SiCKO citizens at the world's highest cost, I am not convinced that the US needs to outspend the world, and take two years to do what others do in five weeks, in the electoral realm.

I'm a participant in, in my own little blogging way, Obama's techification - and democratization - of politics.  But I'll give the last word to Ms. Wallström:

Whether online or face to face, whether in the old media or the new, both in the EU and the US, what democracy needs is a real conversation, in plain language, between the people and the politicians. A conversation that shapes policy. Politics from the bottom up rather than top down.

That's the kind of democracy I believe in. And so does Barack Obama.

Amen.