For those who have not been following the back story of Egypt and Tunisia, here it is in a nutshell: Their governments were led by small groups of people who were extremely rich, corrupt, non-transparent, and violent and did not represent the people.
The people in turn were poor, deprived of basic rights, lacked basic services and, most importantly, were ignorant of what was going on around them and in the world.
This setup was very comfortable for the authorities until a new element entered the equation: the Internet, which connected citizens to the outside world.
Because of the Internet, the values of governance, human rights and freedom are global and non-negotiable. There are no more half-corrupt governments or half-corrupt officials. They are either corrupt or not, transparent or not.
As a result, the information vacuum, often created by the government, becomes very visible. If the authorities do not fill it with the correct information, others will – whether it is the likes of organizations, with firm agendas, such as Al-Jazeera, or ordinary citizens.
The new reality of connectivity is creating a new landscape of information, and as a result a new global citizenry.
It is creating a public that is informed and knows what it needs. A public that is not afraid of fighting for its right to live in dignity, prosperity and freedom. A public that is intolerant of poor governance.
This reality unites all of us in one country. This country is called Facebookstan, Twitterstan – or, even better -- Wikileakistan.
This new country is not united by a dictator or by borders; it is united by the values of governance and citizen values around the world.
The global citizens of this country now all have the same high expectations of their governments. At the same time, they are all reporting on the developments in their lives and are comparing notes.
This new reality places a lot more pressure on governments to meet the new standard of good governance. A standard that is set by everyone through Facebook, Twitter and Wikileaks. A standard that does not tolerate any shortcomings, simply because nothing can be hidden anymore.
The people created this new reality, and had a transitionary period to embrace it. This new reality minimized the differences between the public’s aspirations in various parts of the world.
In the future, or soon, it will also eradicate the differences between governments and their standards of governance.
The challenge is now for the governments to adapt. This requires an understanding of the new reality and good governance, and will require them to act fairly and justly. Unlike the past, governments can no longer hide behind history, revolutionary legacy or external threats.
Thanks to the Internet and social networks, the public is well aware of governance, and in most case they can judge which entities or developments are dangerous, and which are not.
Similarly, a corrupt official is a corrupt official, whether he was a war hero in the past or not, a revolutionary or not, the people expect from him to do what he was appointed to do.
The good news for the people is that there is no going back. The more connected our mobile phones and computers are, the better our lives will be.
The bad news for corrupt governments is that life has changed forever. Those who hold or seek government posts solely for their personal gain will soon realize that it is not worth it anymore. They will be held to account, and should start looking for other jobs.
Newly empowered global citizens are the future, and leaders need to take notice. The universal values of good governance, transparency, human rights and freedoms will soon be the code of conduct for any government that wants to stay in power.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Kurdistan's Government & Opposition: an endless cycle
From the start of our new government, new parliament, new presidency and new opposition; the people of Kurdistan have mostly been preoccupied with crisis after crisis between the two.
Most of the time, the crisis gets big when the opposition attacks or seems to attack a “fundamental value” of the people and history of Kurdistan and hence prompting a strong reaction from the government and the ruling parties.
Usually, the reaction comes after a longer campaign from the opposition against the government over things that they can’t defend such as bad public services, corruption, nepotism and political reform.
With every time that a crisis appears, the action and reaction of both sides is disproportionately bigger, more personal and emotional than it should be. As a result, decisions taken are often far from being realistic or based on sound political judgment or practical reasoning.
On of the key reasons for this unhealthy relationship between government and opposition is the disconnect between the ruling parties and the opposition ones as a result of the geographical separation of the constituencies of the ruling and opposition parties.
The geographical distance between government and opposition leaders is an important factor in not creating a better atmosphere between them.
Very rarely in a democracy or an emerging democracy the leaders of the opposition and the ruling parties or the government do not meet when it comes to discussing national security issues, like dissolving the parliament or the government.
The other factor in this is that the geographical distribution of power base of the opposition and the ruling parties is not representative of the political reality of Iraqi Kurdistan Region.
The KDP, the senior partner in the ruling alliance, holds the majority in two governorates, and the opposition group Goran enjoys the majority in the third one.
The PUK, who came second in Sulaymaniya and in Arbil in the elections, is holding the government.
This peculiar setup has driven a wedge between the political parties and their supporters.
It is creating the setup of a strong government in two governorates and a vocal opposition in the third.
Walking through the streets of Sulaymaniyah, one would not think that the KDP is controlling Iraqi Kurdistan. By the same token, very little in Arbil or Dohuk suggest the presence of any Goran opposition.
A situation like this usually creates a much stronger rhetoric when it comes to a conflict and distances the various parties further from each other. This is clearly reflected in every crisis that pops up.
The other important reason is that good government breeds good opposition and vice-versa.
There are a number of important portfolios that the government (the presidency and the council of ministers) has so far failed to tackle.
Fighting corruption and nepotism, political reform and providing public services are all issues that are still waiting to be seriously tackled. So far, they are still talked about and nothing practical is being done about them.
It is only natural from an opposition group to attack the government and its leaders on these issues. Only when real measures are taken to address these portfolios, the government would be able to respond to Goran’s attacks in a more measured way.
Gorran in turn would be able, or forced, to have a more specific and constructive criticism and argument.
This would also pave the way for a more reasonable geographic distribution of government and opposition and real, calm and constructive dialogue and debate between the two.
Most of the time, the crisis gets big when the opposition attacks or seems to attack a “fundamental value” of the people and history of Kurdistan and hence prompting a strong reaction from the government and the ruling parties.
Usually, the reaction comes after a longer campaign from the opposition against the government over things that they can’t defend such as bad public services, corruption, nepotism and political reform.
With every time that a crisis appears, the action and reaction of both sides is disproportionately bigger, more personal and emotional than it should be. As a result, decisions taken are often far from being realistic or based on sound political judgment or practical reasoning.
On of the key reasons for this unhealthy relationship between government and opposition is the disconnect between the ruling parties and the opposition ones as a result of the geographical separation of the constituencies of the ruling and opposition parties.
The geographical distance between government and opposition leaders is an important factor in not creating a better atmosphere between them.
Very rarely in a democracy or an emerging democracy the leaders of the opposition and the ruling parties or the government do not meet when it comes to discussing national security issues, like dissolving the parliament or the government.
The other factor in this is that the geographical distribution of power base of the opposition and the ruling parties is not representative of the political reality of Iraqi Kurdistan Region.
The KDP, the senior partner in the ruling alliance, holds the majority in two governorates, and the opposition group Goran enjoys the majority in the third one.
The PUK, who came second in Sulaymaniya and in Arbil in the elections, is holding the government.
This peculiar setup has driven a wedge between the political parties and their supporters.
It is creating the setup of a strong government in two governorates and a vocal opposition in the third.
Walking through the streets of Sulaymaniyah, one would not think that the KDP is controlling Iraqi Kurdistan. By the same token, very little in Arbil or Dohuk suggest the presence of any Goran opposition.
A situation like this usually creates a much stronger rhetoric when it comes to a conflict and distances the various parties further from each other. This is clearly reflected in every crisis that pops up.
The other important reason is that good government breeds good opposition and vice-versa.
There are a number of important portfolios that the government (the presidency and the council of ministers) has so far failed to tackle.
Fighting corruption and nepotism, political reform and providing public services are all issues that are still waiting to be seriously tackled. So far, they are still talked about and nothing practical is being done about them.
It is only natural from an opposition group to attack the government and its leaders on these issues. Only when real measures are taken to address these portfolios, the government would be able to respond to Goran’s attacks in a more measured way.
Gorran in turn would be able, or forced, to have a more specific and constructive criticism and argument.
This would also pave the way for a more reasonable geographic distribution of government and opposition and real, calm and constructive dialogue and debate between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)