Some thoughts on James Mittelman’s “Hyperconflict”

As globalization increasingly impacts the global system of governance and statecraft, traditional analytic frames of sovereignty, power and risk are increasingly unable to account for the emerging challenges of the modern security environment.  James Mittelman describes this new brand of risk as “hyperconflict”, driven by “hyperpower” and “hypercompetition”.  While he does not use the same systematic approach favored by political scientists such as Posner, who focus on carefully defining a dynamic within a case and testing its transferability, Mittleman does effectively draw on cases of global change during the 1990s and work them into a theoretical framework of social change that more effectively defines the complexity of risk in hyper-powerful and hyper-competitive global political economies.

Continue reading

So I felt like I should add something about tech…

So the last few things that went up were academic self-critique and a book review.  Since “tech” is in the blog title, I thought I should put something up that touches on the digital world.  For now, we’ll revisit something a little older and I’ll make sure I get something new up this week that’s tech for peace related.  It’s called “Smart Phones for Smart Peacekeeping”, and hopefully it can get a little debate going in the readership.  I wrote it with the inimitable Nick Martin, President of TechChange and Dr. A. Walter Dorn of the Canadian Forces College for The Mark News (a Canadian approximation of the Huffington Post).

Daniel Posner’s “Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa”

Systematic analysis of ethno-linguistic cleavages and competition in Africa, and the world more broadly, are often chalked up to “ancient ethnic hatred” or over-simplistic cultural analyses of legacy political economics.  Daniel Posner’s “Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa” takes the question of ethnicity in African politics and unpacks the cleavages between ethno-linguistic groups in Zambia using a rational choice methodology backed by a probabilistic model of primary actor behavior when choosing members of a coalition.  He performs robustness checks on his analysis of Zambia and, importantly, discusses both the limitations of his analysis and its universal value outside of Zambia.  It’s an interesting approach, which helps bridge theories of colonial legacies and rational choice.

Continue reading

Thinking about my academic tribe…what’s yours?

During the semester I good fortune to take Dr. Mara Schoeny’s course on qualitative research for the social sciences at George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.  We kept logs about the experience and we dealt with questions pertaining to ethics and interpersonal aspects of conflict analysis and resolution.  While these were important, what particularly came through during the latter part of the semester was the way that I engage with and reflect upon the fact that I’m a member of a “tribe” in terms of how I conceive of and do research.  Framing my “tribal affiliation” in a way that both empowered me as a researcher, while also helping me reflectively frame the ways that other research “tribes” contribute to the work that I currently do and will do in the future was a huge help as I prepare to write a dissertation next year.

Continue reading

Presenting at Tech4Dev in May!

Hey everybody, I’m pretty excited to have had a paper accepted to the Tech4Dev conference hosted by the UNESCO Chair at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.  I’ll be focusing on the impact that distance learning technology can have on knowledge co-creation across geographic boundaries, with a particular focus on technology applications for development and peacebuilding.  If you’re curious, I’ve got a draft of the paper stored here.  As usual, feedback is welcome, and I have to give a big shout out to my co-author Jordan Hosmer-Henner (@jordanhh) who is the resident open-source tool guru at TechChange and soon-to-be master of arts at the Elliott School of International Affairs.  If anyone has knowledge of fun things to do in Lausanne, leave a comment with your recommendation!

A few thoughts on Beatrice Hibou’s “The Force of Obedience”

The political economy of repression is a fascinating way to understand how deposed Tunisian president Zine el Abidine Ben Ali’s regime had created an entire economy of obedience and control based on economic and banking factors, social-political economic engineering, and the creation of an economic and financial reform mythology that provided a space for the West to either ignore, or be complicit in, the perpetuation of the regime.  What is fascinating about this structural frame is that it can be traced back to more classic structural theories of government that focus on land tenure and capital, but adjusts to modern banking and debt economics to demonstrate the ways that hierarchy was perpetuated across the ruling party and maintained down to the individual level.  It pulls together what we know about totalitarianism, eliciting imagery of fascist Europe, and merges it with a distinctly economic space that can speak to readers in the United States and Europe about how modern freedom can be curtailed and controlled.

Hibou starts with a discussion of the Tunisian banking system as the foundational aspect of how control and repression was perpetuated in Tunisia.  The strength of this argument is augmented by the collapse of the global banking system.  She discusses in detail how the private, public-private and public banks are used to shift debt and maintain the appearance of a solid banking system.  She then details how this kind of debt shifting is used by the government and the party to reward loyalists or those with the right social connections, and criminalize those who do not repay.  The lack of tangible risk analysis and the opacity of the assets held by Tunisian banks demonstrates a system that abandoned quantitative risk analysis in favor of a social capital-driven system for issuing debt, but doing so in a way that is acceptable and operationally sound to outsiders such as multi-national banks and the multi-lateral agencies.

This level of economic control spreads across social systems including employment and social participation.  Since organizations need funding, and funding is handled through the banking system, which is controlled in a rather arbitrary way by Ben Ali’s party, the access to funding for organizations that do not toe the party line will be limited.  At the same time, European and American funders can still provide funding to projects and programs, perpetuating the myth of Tunisian reform.  This replicates itself in private investment and the development of SMEs, where actors are treated in favored and unfavored ways by the legal system, both in terms of access to credit and leniency in failure to repay.  This level of economic oversight creates a “policing state”, which oversees all parts of life using the functions of the economy as a mechanism for absolute oversight.  It is not merely a police force or a powerful president that creates a system of repression and obedience; it is the economic policies of the state that incorporate policing, politics, social security and banking to create an all-encompassing panopticon where no one is ever able to lead a purely private life.

The strength of her argument lies in the fact that she is building a modern political economic argument that draws on the methods used by previous scholars of governance and obedience.  While the structural theories of European state development focus on the political economy of land tenure, she takes her argument into the modern frame by focusing on the political economy of debt finance and banking.  An astute reader can see where classical notions of primogeniture and land-based capital acquisition, for example the feudal system, promoted the power of the landholder without the necessity to police the population.  The political economy of the society provided the structure in which to always be able to track people and force the modification of behavior.  Her analysis builds on this using the modern tools of finance and banking, demonstrating a continuity of repressions and obedience among politically powerful leaders across time.

It is particularly striking because we see these same systems operating in the West, ever more apparent in that last five years after the global financial crash.  There are debtors who are bailed out, and debtors who are cast out.  The housing market is one such example in the United States; the favored institutions were saved, while others for various and sundry reasons were left to fail.  Some financiers were taken to court and convicted of crimes, while others testified before Congress about why they needed less regulation.  The position of these different actors relative to the political apparatus could be a function of the legal outcomes they faced.  At the micro level, Americans are subject to surveillance under the guise of payment of debts; banks track us and report back to federal and semi-federal agencies about our spending habits and credit worthiness.  While the United States is not a police state, it has some of the traits of what Hibou describes of a ‘policing state’.

The value of this book is that in effectively describing the political control systems apparent in Tunisia, it does not fail to provide analysis that is valuable to readers in the United States or Europe.  The risks of political economic repression, and the development of a policing state are not unique to Tunisia, North Africa, or the Muslim World.  The Weberian and Foucaultian political economic structures she uses to analyze the web of surveillance and lack of privacy in Tunisia could easily, insidiously find their way in the daily lives of citizens anywhere if fail to be aware of them.

I’d definitely recommend this book to anyone with an interest in political economy, Tunisia, or Foucaultian political theory. Find it here – The Force of Obedience: The Political Economy of Repression in Tunisia

ICTD 2012

Just got back from ICTD 2012 down at Georgia Tech, and am excited about the state of the field.  This conference is a gathering for academics and practitioners working in the international development and technology spaces.  We got to see talks about everything from mapping to public health, mobile phone applications and new open source software.  The keynote speaker, the Honorable Omobola Johnson, the Minister of Communication Technology in Nigeria, provided participants with an insightful and inspiring look at Nigerian ICT policy.  Nigeria’s efforts to integrate ICT’s into cross-sectoral governance were highlighted and it’s clear that their strategy is robust as technology continues to play an expanding role in governance and peace.

A few highlights:

  • Ramine Tinati‘s model for tracking and studying interactions and group development in the Twitterverse.  What his model does is show us who the important actors between groups are; while someone might have thousands of followers, what he is finding is that the people who are actually propagating ideas are often unknown users who have shared interests and are retweeting information between the users with large followings.  From a conflict analysis perspective, this could be valuable research because it can help practitioners and policy makers identify the actors who can link two thought leaders and spur new ideas or action.
  • Thomas Smyth and Michael Best’s Aggie software, developed at Georgia Tech, which can analyze social media streams and has been used to track information during elections.  The software allowed a user to filter information, tag valuable data and track patterns in the social networking space.
  • IREX’s Paul-Andre Baran came over from Romania to attend and pointed me to a mapping project in Romania called BursaSpagilor, which is an open source map where users can upload information about where they paid bribes and how much they spent.  He explained that bribery was an accepted part of life in Romania (even if it’s illegal), so the idea was to create a market place where consumers of services could see what the competing rates were for different services in different locations.  While this could be collected and used for prosecution, what was even cooler about it was that the program itself might eliminate the need for legal action.  If services providers know that they are competing for customers and that their bribe is being undercut by a competitor, they will bribe less to keep their customers.  This creates a downward spiral, drastically reducing or possibly eliminating bribery.

These were only three of the many cool papers and products presented at the conference.  The fail faire was also fantastic, and a great deal of learning was done as we all discussed our mistakes and lessons learned working in the ICTD field.  I’d strongly encourage anyone working in this space or interested in what is happening with technology and social change to attend the conference next year.  It’s going to be in Cape Town during the Southern Hemisphere summer, so if nothing else it’s going to be a fantastic location!

“BBC keen on paternalistic analysis of Libyan governance”

Editor’s Note: I don’t think the BBC is actually keen on paternalistic analyses of Libyan governance.  The title of this post is a riff on the title of the BBC article that it’s based on.

From what I could tell on the BBC News Africa landing page, Libyans are not interested in democracy and want a new dictator.  While the politics, cultural assumptions and click-through value of the BBC’s article today on Libya could be parsed and argued, what I found interesting about it was the fact that the statistics didn’t seem to match up with the story the article, and the Oxford researcher they quoted, wanted to tell.  This is how the article starts:

“Many Libyans prefer strong leadership to democracy despite four decades spent under the rule of Muammar Gaddafi, a national survey suggests.”

It then includes these two pieces of data collected by researchers from Oxford and Benghazi Universities:

“Just 15% of 2,000 people polled by academics from Benghazi and Oxford universities said democracy should be installed in the next year….

….More than 40% backed strong leadership from one person or a group.”

There are two big issues that come through here.  The first is the qualifier at the end of the first quote.  The majority people polled don’t want a democracy “installed” in the next year.  I wouldn’t want a democracy “installed” either; I’d prefer it to grow out of a coalescing sense of governance within the population.  How the world helps Libya achieve that is a complex topic for a different post, but to go back to the headline this doesn’t make me think they’re not keen on democracy generally.

The second sentence was curious too; as an American I back strong leadership from a person or group.  I’m registered with a political party and vote for a president that I think can best lead the country.  Individually strong, charismatic leaders have a notable history in Western, democratic politics; Churchill, Mandela, Clinton, Reagan, the list goes on.  What ever their party politics were, they were successful because they were strong leaders.  Strong leadership didn’t impinge on democracy in those cases…I sense there is a judgment coming.  It’ll probably be ham-fisted and tinged with Western superiority…

“Oxford University’s Dr Christoph Sahm said the survey suggested Libyans lacked the knowledge of how democracy works.”

There it is!  Those Libyans don’t understand democracy.  It couldn’t be that they might not want to rush into some partially born, foreign-produced version of democracy.  The article even points out later on that they actually do feel like they want a representative government and 80% of Libyans have developed an increased interest in politics since the fall of Gaddafi.  Maybe, just maybe, the people of Libya want a strong leader because they don’t want their government to devolve into the internal bickering and stonewalling that was emblematic of the Iraqi parliament after the U.S. invasion.  It seems a bit paternalistic to assume that “strong leader” is synonymous with “wanting a dictator”.

Clearly Libya has challenges ahead and it may fall apart in the end.  But I think it’s incumbent on the West to recognize that Libya could very well find its way to stability and inclusion for its citizens, and to be aware of the paternalism and assumptions we might have when we analyze the politics of a country recovering from conflict.  Maybe with a little reflection we could even be a better partner to the people of Libya as they make their way forward.