Leadership transition in China

China is currently facing its once-in-a-decade transfer of power. The leaders of the Communist Party under lead of Hu Jintao will retire, and a new generation so-called 5^th generation will take the over under lead of Xi Jinping.

The sweeping changes come in a critical time in China’s modern history. The economic model that has enabled decades of rapid growth having become unsustainable, social unrest is rising and international resistance to China’s policies is increasing. Already reported social issues in regards to an aging population, as well as international conflicts with Japan, spurs the domestic unrest.

Power transitions in the People’s Republic of China have always been fraught with uncertainty. This is a consequence of the fact that the state’s founding leader, Mao Zedong, did not establish a formal succession process before he died, creating power struggles and a lack of institutionalized procedures for power transition.

The 5^th generation of Chinese leaders has been shaped by a time period in which China has prioritized to become a global economic power and increase industrial progress. The new leadership is by many scholars seen as increasingly nationalistic and is expected to expand the military budget.

The generation shift in Chinese politics is a very important event in global history – apart from the fact that the Chinese policies will affect the whole world as the second largest economy, the uncertainty and lack of institutionalized procedures for leadership transition can give incentive for the government to state its power and legitimacy. The Communist Party’s leaders are eager to prove the case that their authorial system can manage China better than a multiparty democracy could. Mobilizing public support has historically been done by creating a stronger national identity nationalistic propaganda. The current instability between Japan and China may take a dangerous turn if China is becoming increasingly military and nationalistic. Adding to it, the American military politics has shifted focus from the Middle East to the Pacific Rim. This makes the Chinese military policies even more determining for the country’s international relationships.

Scrutinizing the GOP breaks the enchantment

The latest three days I have had the opportunity to watch and listen to the Republican National Convention. In front of the huge patriotic crowds filled with cowboy hats and American flags have the well-prepared and carefully elected speakers presented their view on the world and the present president.

The praise was not overwhelming, as expected. All Republicans argued that the President Obama had failed brutally. What the country needed was, in their perspective, someone who understood business. Someone who valued the American culture and had a clearer foreign policy in accordance with the American standpoints. Someone who, instead of raising taxes, would spur the economic growth in the country and create jobs. Someone like Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney held during the convent’s final evening his speech, accepting the nomination. The speech was in no manners bad. Romney gave a pragmatic impression and emphasized his experience in business. He presented his life story in a humble way to strengthen the recognition factor, and he turned to the women to win their support. Even I, in the heat of the moment, couldn’t disagree with the fact that many of his arguments seemed fair.

However, as one scrutinizes the true political standpoints behind Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the enchantment is broken.   

First, the social issues. The GOP opposes government-funded health care. Also the Democrats see the importance of competition in health care for development and concurrence. This has historically provided America with great front-edge competence when it comes to advanced surgery and medical knowledge. However, what America lacks today, is a well-functioning health care system for all citizens. This is necessary for a modern country - it is everyone’s right to receive the health care they need now and the preventing health care that will stop the deceases even before they become the case for an elite doctor. Romney and Ryan are against gay marriage, as well as abortion. Enforcing these policies would be a step backwards, instead of forward.

Second, the environmental aspects. In contrast with President Obama, Mitt Romney does not see the environmental issues ad a top priority. Saying that America will be energy independent in 2020 means continuing drilling oil and gas and not taking sufficient long-term environmental decisions.

Third, the foreign policy. In his speech, Romney praised Obama for him ending the life of Osama bin Laden; however, he accused him for being too nice to China and Russia, for not handling the tensions with Iran and for not interfering in Syria. The Syria part I might agree on, the world should interfere. However, it is not America’s responsible only. Saying that “the world should be more like America” is not always the right approach. The patriots of the country needs to realize that different countries have different paths toward liberal democracy and freedom, overthrowing dictators and enforcing elections is not always the right way to go. Obama is more humble in his international relations, necessary today in the more and more globalized world where countries will have to cooperate. America acting as the world police belong to the past, America being an important part of the modern world is what belongs to today.

I could come up with many more arguments, and that is what I will do in this blog the following months before the Presidential Election in the United States of America.  I will not show my support to President Obama by donating money, I will show my support by arguing for the politics of the Democratic Party. 

Raised voices, patriotism and God bless you all

Yesterday I saw the Republican convention on TV. I didn’t know what I had been expecting, however, I was still chocked by what I saw. The speakers urged the crowd to stand up, and they almost screamed out their pride of the wonderful nation of America. Finishing off with a “God Bless”, and they left the stage. The difference between a Swedish political speech and an American couldn’t be greater.

In Sweden, the political leaders are very controlled and pragmatic. They strengthen their arguments with statistics and nuanced perspectives. Raising your voice or losing control is illegitimate, only showing lack of professionalism or concrete arguments.

As one speaker at the convention was finished, the commentators were quick to scrutinize every detail of the politician’s moves and quotes. It felt almost like a sport event – and it was fun! (Compare that with the political debates in Sweden which requires large amounts of caffeine to get through…)

The purpose with the American conventions is not to give a controlled and pragmatic impression. The leaders want to gather support and stir the crowd. The people attending the conventions will probably be the volunteer workers or donors later in the campaign, and the parties need these for the more and more long and expensive campaigns.

In America, politics equals emotions. Is this good or bad? It can definitely engage people and make them take standpoints even though they are not particularly interested in politics. But it can also remove focus from what is really important, the politics itself. The risk is that the emotions take over the pragmatism which is necessary for long-term political decisions. Craving support and donations, the political leaders of today in America get more and more vulnerable to populism. 

Why some are religious and some aren't

A great difference I’ve noticed between America and Sweden is regarding religion and the practicing of belief. Religion is important to many Americans, and it is not uncommon to pray before dinner or go to church on a regular basis. In Sweden many see themselves as Christians, however, they do not practice their religion actively apart from the normal Christian traditions. (Which initial cause is often forgotten)

As I spoke with my host mother, she couldn’t believe that you could be a part of church without truly believing in your religion or practicing it actively. How come the religious traditions are so much stronger in America in comparison with the similarly modern Sweden?

There are many answers. The first may be connected to the history of the country of dreams: America was founded by pilgrims who fled religious suppression. What united the pilgrims was the search for refuge and free practice of religion. Thereby, as they settled, religion continued to be an important uniting factor in the society.

It is also a question of traditions and culture; if you are raised secular, you will probably continue raising your own children in the same way. If you prayed before dinner when you were a child, you most probably will try to keep those traditions alive. This explains the continual importance of the initially uniting religious practices of the early pilgrims in America.  

Another factor is the size of the two countries. America is huge in comparison to the small and safe country in the north. The American daily life is more confusing, you have more options, more people – more everything. This can cause confusion or a feeling of not being safe. Religion can answer the spiritual questions which science can’t, and in the large and young country of America, the spiritual questions may be of a larger amount than in Sweden. 

The future of freedom

I have read the book "The future of freedom, Illiberal democracy at home and abroad" by Fareed Zakaria. Honestly spoken, it was one of the best and most thought provoking books I have ever read. I made myself the pleasure to write a review of the book, organized by chapter.

Introduction

I thought the introduction to the book was very good since it made the reader curious and started to think about the meaning of the introduction. What it really described was how economy with nonpolitical, independent banks work today. In my opinion, it is necessary for a modern society to have a nonpolitical banking system in order to work and have legitimacy.

Introduction: The Democratic Age

What amazed me in the first chapter was the fact that you can apply democratization to all aspects in today’s society. But is the fact that quantity has become quality only positive? No, since it can create populism in politics and spur consuming that is not sustainable in the long term.  

I had never thought of the difference between democracy and liberty; the terms are often connected, which the author also mentions. However, it is important to highlight the difference between the terms. Maybe enforcing elections in developing, unstable countries is not the best way to increase freedom and human rights? Not in my opinion, and neither in the author’s.

The chapter also mentions the strong tradition of freedom in the US, which truly explains the strong opposition against today’s changes in the country, for example regarding Medicare.

As in all cases, there can always be too much of a good thing.

Chapter 1: A Brief History of Human Liberty

Zakaria really takes the honor away from Greece, which in many books is regarded as the birthplace of democracy. I was really struck by the sections about the Catholic Church and its importance. Even though many see the church as illiberal, we also have to thank it for the thought of dividing power, which is necessary for freedom.

The connection between Europe’s geography and its democratic traditions and development was very interesting. Is also reflected the importance of concurrence in society for development, as well as a middle class for a scrutinizing of the fractions with more power. To enrich and create a middle class, you need a free market. This is in line with the author’s statement that economic liberty should come before political liberty. To put it simply: first free market, then middle class, then division of power, then liberty.

Chapter 2: The Twisted Path

The second chapter reflects upon the possible dark side of democratic elections: the rise of parties with populist, racist or simply not sustainable views. Democracy is not be the best alternative, if the country itself is too unstable and lacks democratic traditions. The author continues to strengthen the statement that there exists a lowest level of economic development for a country to sustain a liberal democracy. This is logical, as in the human nature we are taught to prioritize our needs – with survival in first hand. It is only when those needs are secured that we can think of the group and contribute to liberty and well-being for all citizens.

I was struck by the difference between earned wealth and wealth that came from natural resources or aid from other countries. If a country doesn’t have to earn wealth, it doesn’t have to tax its citizens. Therefore, the state has no obligations towards the population. Thereby, the state and its economic and social systems will not develop. This explains why many countries struggle today, as well as the dark side of western countries “helping” countries by sending them money without further thought.

China is interesting in the way that economic liberalization has reached very far; however, it has not lead to vast political changes yet. Time will show if it will. In my opinion, China will need to liberalize its political structure in line with the economic liberalization since the people will claim it, communications improve and globalization increases.  

Chapter 3: Illiberal Democracy

The connection between economic development and liberal democracy flourishes throughout the book. Russia is an example of where the democratic attempts happened too early. This leads to illiberal democracies. The author, in line with my opinion, suggests that “what Africa needs more urgently than democracy is good governance”.

The section about India suggests that even though a country do have political elections, the country can still be corrupt, intolerant, illiberal and without a legitimate judicial system. West tends to romanticize India due to its “democratic progress”, but what about the progress when it comes to freedom?

Since elections require politicians to compete for people’s votes, politicians will use the easiest and most efficient way to organize support; often on racial, ethnic or religious lines since that is easy applicable for people.

I disagree with the author on page 118 where the author claims: “nowhere will it be more important that the United States get it right”. Why does America see it as their responsibility to “get it right” in other countries around the world? As a major nation there are obligations, and it is good that America recognizes them. However, the rest of the world argues that America sometimes takes on too many responsibilities on their shoulders… This was also shown at page 136.

Chapter 4: The Islamic Exception

The introduction to the chapter is interesting since it really reflects the difficulties with enforcing human rights in authorial nations with firm dictators. On the other hand, the author also describes the dark side of overthrowing a totalitarian ruler: an even worse alternative like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The sections about Islam were very interesting. According to me, western media does not succeed in giving a nuanced perspective of the religion. When Islam is mentioned in media, it is often in connection with terrorism, extremism or suppression of women. One cannot determine the nature of Islam, since Islam like any other religion is not what the books say, but what interpretations you make of the texts and religious customs.

I agree with the author when he says that religious fundamentalism is a consequence by failure of political institutions. And one of his best conclusions was in my opinion regarding why you cannot rule society with religion: In religion it is right or wrong, black or white. Politics is on the other hand all about compromising.

Chapter 5: Too Much of a Good Thing

I was very interested in the chapters about America since it felt very current to me currently living in America for a year. Why have the Americans lost faith in their democracy? It is shown since fewer people vote, fewer engage themselves and more and more people express their distrust and dislike of American politics. I think the American system has become too open. With reforms such as the primary elections mean that now it is the people who choose the candidates, not the party. This has made political parties unexciting in America. Political parties can accumulate interest groups to rational politics, but now, individuals cannot stand behind a sustainable suggestion only since their party does it.  As the political party declines further, being rich and famous will become even more important.  Everything is focused on gaining support.

How do candidates gain support? It is gained through short term political decisions and easy applicable standpoints. In other words, the American system has become too democratized and has gotten a disease called populism. Raising money has become the fundamental activity of a political campaign. In my point of view, this is wrong. The focus should instead be on the politics!

Chapter 6: The Death of Authority

Comparing economic systems in Sweden and USA is very interesting. Sweden has the world’s highest tax rates, but also one of the most developed welfare systems. America, on the other hand, lacks a welfare system but has through concurrence increased front-edge competence in different areas (such as health care).

 Religion in the two countries differs. Going to church is more common in America, as well as putting great emphasis in your belief. Why is that? Traditions are shaped in your childhood, but when did it really start? I don’t think belief ever will disappear. No matter how much we know scientifically, science will never be able to answer some spiritual questions. People want and need guidance in life which today becomes more and more chaotic. But why is America, such a modern country, so much more religious in comparison with the similarly modern Sweden?

The educational systems also differ significantly. If the American was characterized by elevating people rather than bringing standards down, Sweden is the opposite. Everything is adapted to “the group” and the ones who need more challenges and seldom embraced. This prevents Sweden from creating the front-edge competence it needs to compete with other fast developing countries. However, USA might consider offering good education for all individuals no matter economic situation…

Conclusion: The Way Out

The whole book focuses on the dark side of democratization, meaning that the deregulation of it has gone too far. In order to break the negative curve, governments have to go against the temptation to pander and enact policies for the long run. But in order for them to do so, the public needs to show that it will stand behind those sustainable decisions. Therefore, it all comes down to the individual. We all are responsible of how we want to shape the future.

The quote “almost every success story in the developing world has taken place under a liberal authoritarian regime” suggests that the world needs to rethink its policies in developing countries. Is “democracy” always the best solution to all issues? The answer is no; bringing freedom is not about getting rid of the tyrant, it is about building scrutinizing institutions, dividing power and creating legitimate economic and judicial systems. I would like to finish this review with a quote: “First order, then liberty”. 

Front edge competence requires education for all

It's interesting how many people that are chocked when they hear that all education in Sweden is for free. Having been raised in the country of welfare and collective thinking, many Swedish citizens take education for granted.

In other countries, the system works differently. A good education costs you, a lot. Therefore it is only available for the really wealthy small part of the society. Even though scholarships and economic aid tend to be more common in these countries, the facts stand still: Fewer people have the opportunity to receive a good education.

This is an issue. In today's global and competitive world, all countries need to embrace front edge competence in unique individuals. How is that possible when only a few, depending on what family you are born into and how that family's economic situation looks like, are able to go to a challenging school? In a diverse society, diverse individuals need to be embraced, seen and given the opportunity to receive a good education.

Should comparative politics be thrown in the trashes?

When I enter my new school in Connecticut, Westminster school, I will take a course called "Comparative Government". I couldn't be more anxious to take it - social science and politics are what interests me the most. Actually, I was anxious enough to start looking at my future course material. I started reading the book "Essentials of comparative politics" by Patrick Ó Neil.

In the first chapter, the difficulties with studying the society with a scientific approach was described. The obstacles are many: First of all, countries are complex and diverse. Therefore, it is difficult to make comparisons between countries: you cannot control all factors. Second, the number of countries is limited. This can me compared with natural science: you can make as many experiments as you need, and you are able to affect all factors in order to find out what differences that might give different outcomes. It is also difficult for one individual to get a sufficient insight in many countries; lack of rights in the country or language skills prevent it.

Is studying comparative politics even worth the pain? With so many obstacles, will the scholars be able to present valid results from their comparisons and analyses? Yes, as long as we are aware of the obstacles, we need to study what happens around us. Even though the hypotheses and the conclusions are not 100 % correct, they contribute to an understanding of how people or governments act, which in the long term will lead to a more peaceful world. 


Therefore, we should not throw the comparative politics in the trashes, on the contrary, we should put it on a trophy shelf and continue studying it. 

En död föder 10 nya

Över 20 länder är involverade i det krigshärjade landet Afghanistan, och har varit det i över 20 år. Sedan Sovjetunionen drog sig ifrån landet kring 1980 upplevde landet ett maktvakuum - och oroligheterna ledde till att talibanerna lyckades ta makten. Talibanerna förtrycker de civila, i synnerlighet kvinnor. Afghanistan har präglats av krig och blod de senaste årtiondena, och trots omvärldens omfattande militära och humanitära ingripanden syns ännu inget slut på förtrycket och olyckan.

Efter så lång tid och så mycket resurser måste omvärlden fråga sig om de verkligen agerat på rätt sätt. Enligt ordföranden för Svenska Afghanistan Kommittén ansluter sig 10 nya män till talibanerna för varje taliban som dödas, vilket sker varje dag. Hur kan detta komma sig?

Om västvärldens militära styrkor dödar "en taliban" dödas också en människa. En människa med bröder, systrar, vänner och bekanta. Att denna människa går bort väcker vrede mot omvärlden hos de civila i Afghanistan. Dessutom förstärks rädslan - oroligheter leder till att människor söker tillhörighet och trygghet, vilket historien lärt oss att extremistiska grupper i hög halt ger.

Är det alltså de rätta metoderna att tåga in med ännu fler vapen och död i syfte att stabilisera Afghanistan och hindra förtrycket  - om det endast föder otrygghet och fler talibaner? Nej - istället måste omvärlden verka för utbildning, ökad kunskap och trygghet. Genom att visa att det finns andra alternativ, och att alla individer (inklusive kvinnor) har rättigheter i samhället, kan man på lång sikt förebygga talibanernas fortsatta utbredning. 

Being politically active

This winter, I decided to become politically active. I have always been very interested in politics and today’s society, and felt that I wanted to take it one step further. I began to research different youth organizations websites, and as I did, I was shocked: The majority of them seemed disorganized, unprofessional and unapprised. Either there were major spelling mistakes, or extreme and unjustified opinions.

Despite this, I finally found a political youth organization that matched up with my expectations: the biggest and most spread political youth organization in Stockholm, MUF (a part of the ruling party in Sweden today), seemed to offer interesting lectures and events. Unaware of my true partisan belonging, I applied and entered my first meeting a Wednesday in January.

I had an unexpected, inspiring and great experience:  After some mingling and conversation with well-read youths from all around Stockholm, a lecturer was invited and held a one hour lecture about equality politics and affirmative action. I went back the next week, and this time I learnt more about environmental politics from an expert. Since then, I have been entering MUF’s meetings once a week. I have met wonderful and inspiring people, and I have learnt a lot about different global and local issues, as well as how to write letters to a newspaper and debate.

The meetings were not about agitating for one point of view or one political message; they were about making young people aware of the society around them, understand different opinions and know how they can affect and make a difference. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if you don’t know your true partisan belonging or affair of the heart – you can still enter a political youth organization and have a great time.

In the future, I want to be able to play an important role in the society and participate in the shaping of it. Can you affect politicians by being involved in a youth organization? In order to be listened to and respected, you first of all need knowledge. And entering a political youth organization is a very good way to receive that knowledge.

So, young people from around the world – get involved!