Archive for October 1st, 2007
Condition: Red – or The Burmese Sweater
�
Having a Facebook account can be mildly disturbing. Last week, I was gently but firmly approached by one virtual and one real world (or is that World 1.0?) acquaintance, both urging me to take a stand for the protesters in Burma by wearing a red shirt on Friday (last Friday, that is).
Now, due to the combination of my own Phileas Fogg-like approach to dressing and sartorial irony, I was in fact going to wear a red shirt – or to be more precise: a red sweater, as can be seen on the photo above – on Friday, so to me the political statement would have consisted in deciding not to wear the sweater scheduled for Friday. As I had a hardtime coming up with arguments for supporting the Burmese regime and did not as such have a problem with being associated with the fight for democracy and human right, I reverted to the default option. And hey, even the Swedish Foreign Minister made a point out of wearing a red tie on Friday.
But as a political scientist, I’m stuck with a fundamental theoretical problem: My wearing a red sweater – or showing a similar token of support – may have made me feel good or righteous, but has it in any way affected the situation in Burma?
Most likely not.
I didn’t see any Burmese media in UmeÃ¥ on Friday and to be perfectly honest not that many red shirts or other pieces of clothing around the university campus – which given UmeÃ¥ University’s political traditions was a little surprising. (According to a short notice in the local newspaper, a couple of hundred people gathered on Saturday in central UmeÃ¥).
You could then argue that this way of displaying support can make an indirect impact in two ways:
First, supporting other people’s democratic rights could serve to make you – and national governments – more aware of your own democratic rights (surveillance of electronic communications, anybody?), and as it is not immediately linked to a national question, it is also a relatively cheap and risk-free way of doing so.
Second, the motivation given for international protests often is that they will create an indirect pressure on the regime in question and national governments’ policies toward the regime.
As far as I am informed, we have no evidence that the second line of argument is supported by events in the real world. The Rhodesian and South African regimes eventually gave in to international boycots – but it is worth pointing out that internal developments played a big role here. Democratisation in Chile was due to national pressures while the Argentinian junta fell, literally, on its own sword. (And speaking of Rhodesia, the complete political and humanitarian disaster which is the Mugabe regime – and the complete failure of African states to acknowledge this – would merit serious international outrage).
So for those of us who do not have any direct connection to Burma (if I’m correctly informed, the U.K. has an exile-Burmese community), the first alternative motivation remains. The question then remains whether or not this is the most effective way to guard political rights in you rown country.
PS: The polar bear? That is a complicated story involving a nephew once removed, A.P. Møller-Mærsk, Illums Bolighus, Bornholms Kunstmuseum and in general a family with a rather wicked sense of humour. Why a polar bear would wear a sweater in the first place – especially given the global warming – is a question I cannot answer.
Annual Convention of the Danish Conservatives: Still in the Doldrums
The Danish Conservatives held their annual convention this weekend facing a weak performance in recent opinion polls but it seems that there are no ways to get a transcript of Bendt Bendtsen’s speech – if you really, really feel for it, then the thing in its entirety can be watched on YouTube.
Apparently the big stunt was having Bendtsen answer “questions from ordinary Danes” during his speech. The questions were of cause carefully prepared in advance. According to reports (academics will note that I’m relying on second-hand sources here), the convention had three – or two-and-a-half big themes: Abolishing the regional level of government (an old Conservative war-horse – and yes, the regions only started their work this January), lower taxes (at some point in time) and a promise to fight other parties’ promises for higher public budgets.
The initiative which made the biggest impact came the day before the convention started, however, when the former party leader Pia Christmas-Møller called for a referendum on the coming EU Treaty. Christmas-Møller’s statement was somewhat surprising given that the government has tried to keep the issue out of the public arena and that the Liberals want to avoid a referendum. Fellow Conservatives Helge Adam Møller and Per Stig Møller were less than amused by Christmas-Møller’s actions. (These Møllers are not related – but all of them belong to traditional Conservative families)
Edit: WordPress and the YouTube link did not play ball.
links for 2007-10-01
-
The unsatisfactory research performance of Europe’s universities also results from inadequate institutions. European universities suffer from poor governance, insufficient autonomy and often perverse incentives.
-
Political science is still a very American discipline, but a little less than some years ago.
-
English Premier League … has neither the values nor the structures to protect itself from the attentions of some of the most suspect billionaires in the world.