An Armed and Dangerous Place

I have to admit that I'm pretty worried about the militarization of the international society. Particularly one should be worried about the spread of weapons of mass destruction (henceforth WMD). Of course, at a first glance it may seem ridiculous that just a few countries should agree upon who has the right to develop nuclear weapons, but come to think of it I'd be more than happy to live in world with as few atomic bombs as possible threatening the very existence of humanity. So I'm not enthused that the nuclear club now has been expanded to eight members with Israel, Pakistan and India having developed and tested A-bombs during the last two decades or so. Furthermore, rouge state North Korea alledges that it is the ninth country to have entered the club, an event that unravelled a clandestine network of spreading nuclear knowledge and technology within an extended axis of evil. Libya admitted to having been working on a bomb, but abandoned their project. Talking of nuclear ambitions, Iran denies vehemently that it is constructing a bomb (even though the smoking gun evidence could appear anytime), while Brazil vows its ambitions on developing its own bomb. And one shouldn't rule out Japan, nor South Korea, nor South Africa, nor...

Adding to pessimism so far, consider the spread of other WMDs, the frail support for the anti-personell mine convention, and that there is no convention regulating the spread of hand weapons. Resorting to weapons and violence has always been the compelling argument of the strong, but also the voice of the oppressed. Two most interesting blogs, The Armchair Generalist and Arms and Influence, discuss in depth military affairs and the political use of violence, respectively. Both should be recommended reading for people interested in realpolitik and the current state of our world.

Pop Idol and Democracy

One-and-a-half year ago there was an incident in the Norwegian Pop Idol contest that sparked public debate: The indiscutable favorite, Anh Vu (picture), failed to qualify to the next programme at a relatively early stage. Viewers were enraged over this "unjust" outcome, while the judges bluntly commented that they had to acknowledge "the voice of the people". Both arguments, however, are flawed.

The first argument, that the outcome was "unjust", fails to take into account that everybody in position of a mobile phone (and too much money than to know what to do with it) were free to vote for their favored candidate. Still, as Anh was a clear favorite to become the Pop Idol and was widely considered as the best candidate, viewers who would otherwise have supported her, probably failed to vote because they were sure that she would qualify to the next stage. Without intending to besmirch economic theory with stains from popular culture, one could classify this inaction as a collective action problem. A rational calculus of this situation would find that, considering the costs of voting and the (perceived) likelihood of Anh to qualify, it would be rational for an individual viewer not to vote. Probably many individuals arrived at this conclusion, with the unexpected consequence that Anh received too few votes.

Now for the second argument, that Anh's departure was in accordance to the people's will. Well, did the outcome reflect people's will? Obviously not, considering the posterior reactions. However, when several viewers failed to vote for Anh, the mainstream favorite, radical opinions weighed disproportionally heavy. Political science teaches that radical voters are more easily mobilized because they on average have a more ardent passion for their cause than moderate voters. Therefore centrist parties are anxious to "get out the vote" from ordinary citizens, who usually hold moderate opinions. When these voters stay home, then, a smaller group of radical voters will have a disproportionately large say in elections. Thus, the political landscape may be more radical and polarized than one would expect from the demographic landscape. Former US president Richard Nixon coined the expression "the silent majority", which refers to the large number of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. This argument may hold in several contexts, but may also be abused in order to justify one's own opinions in the light of the public's general will, famously promoted by Rousseau. Still, Anh Vu obviously was a victim of the radical opinions' disproportionately large say in the Pop Idol contest. Pretty trivial, but still a lesson in the workings of democracy.

Even if Pop Idol can provide useful reminders of the democratic system to the people of established democracies, the same competition can give people living under autocratic regimes a taste of democracy. As happened recently in communist China, reporting The Economist: "In a country conspicuously lacking in democratic voice, this rare opportunity to vote and make a difference - even if only to the outcome of the 'Mengniu Sour Yoghurt Super Voice Girl' competition - has inspired a remarkable debate. The fact that around 400 million Chinese (almost 1/3 of the country's population) has contributed to spark a debate about participatory and representative government in a country ruled by party officials not subject to popular election or consultation. Still, most Chinese seem to follow the show mostly for reasons familiar to Norwegians, Britons, Americans and other nationalities exposed to Idol contests: 'Super Girl', as the show is commonly known, appealed mainly because of its racy format (at least until the authorities began insisting on more downbeat folksy songs) and the pleasure that many enjoy from watching amateur singers embarass themselves. And the final outcome of the contest also sounds remarkably familiar, as commented by the loyal paper China Daily: How come an imitation of a democratic system ends up selecting the singer who has the least ability to carry a tune?

Nothing's new under the sun, I'd say. Just tune in to the next Norwegian Pop Idol contest. Or observe the outcome of our recent parliamentary elections.

- We fear what we can't manage

In order to expand the thematical scope of this blog I hereby present a few statements made by the famous sociologist Zygmunt Bauman in his speech about "Moral Challenges of Liquid-Modern Life" given at the University of Oslo two days ago. Needless to say, I don't intend to develop nor reproduce Mr. Bauman's argument. The purpose of this post is rather to broadcast a few thoughts, briefly and crudely, which in turn may spur further thinking among this blog's readers.

Interestingly, Mr. Bauman suggested that the dividing line between natural disasters and man-made catastrophes is getting more and more blurred. The magnitude of the former is usually increased by human behavior. For example, the tsunami wouldn't have caused such devastation if multitudes of people hadn't settled so exposed to the sea and crammed themselves together so densely. Consciously or not, this pattern of settlement is the result of a risk calculation. A similar example is found in New Orleans. Here the population was warned in advance about the pending disaster, but several people stayed in the city. Their reasons to stay were manifold: 1) They didn't believe in Katrina's severity; 2) They couldn't afford to flee the city; 3) The authorities failed to execute and coordinate the evacuation of the poor. And so forth. Furthermore, scientists claim that the increasing magnitude and frequency of natural disasters such as floods, drought and hurricanes are due to pollution caused by man.

On the other hand, man-made catastrophes are looking more like natural disasters for two reasons. Firstly, the magnitude of such catastrophes may be similar to the devastation caused by natural disasters. Take 9/11 for an example. Or the holocaust during the WWII. Secondly, man-made catastrophes may spin out of control, i.e. we are not able to prevent nor handle them. The insurgency in Iraq is one example, the suicide bombings in Israel, Madrid and London are others.

Mr. Bauman summed up: "We fear what we can't manage, and what we cannot manage (or handle) we call incomprehension". Hence our obsession with the threat from terrorism.

The Revolution Council

Although having achieved the goal of obtaining the sufficient number of parliamentary seats to establish a majority government coalition consisting of Labour (Ap), the Center party (Sp) and the Socialist Left (SV), the latter doesn't seem too enthused with the election results. Even though the Socialist Left for the first time in history have an opportunity to move into the government offices, the party's support was diminished considerably at the polls. The party lost 8 of their 23 parliamentary seats and got only 8,8% of the votes, reversing a good trend from the last parliamentary elections (12,5% in 2001) and the last local elections (13,0% in 2003). The setback is even greater recalling that they scored around 17-18% in summer's opinion polls.

Being a radical protest party (erstwhile the opposition to Norwegian membership in NATO triggered the leftist wing of Labour to break out and establish their own party in the 1960s), there's been plenty of murmuring on the party's member and activist level recently. The party leadership's pragmatic approach to the red-green coalition project has been followed with great scepticism, but internal criticism has mostly been muted. So far.

Given the party's election setback, party activists are convinced that they lost because the party leaders were soft on important policy issues. Consequently, there's been established a group of radicals to which the party leadership will have to report frequently during the coalition negotiations with Labour and the Center party. The group is thus supposed to make sure that the Socialist Left will retain their radical prophile. And it sure will, stacked as it is by staunch leftist radicals. Such as Hallgeir Langeland, the long-haired anti-Americanist who each year proposes Fidel Castro to Nobel's Peace Prize, and who deemed Iraqis being trained in Norway at the Nato base in Stavanger (on the request of the UN) as quislings.

Ironically, then, there seems to be certain similarities between the secular Norwegian socialists and the shia government of Iran: Both are anti-American. Both have a revolution council who monitors and vetoes the actions of the executive. And: Both are fundamentalist, secular and muslim respectively.

Unfortunately, media coverage is only in Norwegian. Scandinavian readers, though, may find interesting articles here, here and here.

Into the abyss

WILL THE LAST PERSON TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY PLEASE TURN OUT THE LIGHTS?

Paraphrasing The Sun's famous frontpage on Britain's Election Day in 1992 I'm trying to express some of the disillusion created by the Norwegian parliamentary elections on September 12th. Amid five consecutive years of topping UNDP's Human Development Index, statistically (sic.) crowning Norway as "the best country in the world", record-low interest rates and several great economic accomplishments, the centre-right coalition, lead by PM Kjell Magne Bondevik was severely punished by the voters, losing 18 seats in parliament. Now an unprecedented centre-left coalition, having obtained 51,5 % of the parliamentary seats, is in formation and will be the first majority government in two decades.

Speculations abound regarding which policy switches will be executed and which reforms will be reversed. Most probably, several private schools will be shut down, stem cell research will be permitted, abortion legislation relaxed, and - of course - public spending will definitely increase (as illustrated above..). Alongside the silent prayers that the country will survive the socialist invation of the government offices, there is also a feeling of shamefullness because of the populists' land slide elections. Lead by maverick leader Carl I. Hagen, who made electoral promises worth billions of dollars and torpedoed the centre-right coalition demanding the PM's head, the party obtained 22,1 % of the votes, by far becoming the biggest opposition party. Such a manifestation of Norwegian introverted self-consciousness and greedy egoism is a disgrace. On the night of the election Mr. Hagen revealed himself as a true and cynical populist proclaiming that the goal is four years of consolidation before winning the 2009 elections. In other words, party before country. I'm proud that the Christian Democrats and the Liberal party didn't succumb to Mr. Hagen's overtures and demagogy, even though the price at the polls was high.

While hoping that the nation soon will be brought to its senses and call the populist bluff, I have a more immediate concern about the country's image abroad. Mr. Hagen, an infantile seeker of prestige and positions, is dreaming of entering the presidency of the Norwegian Storting. Well, will he and his wife, inseparably by his side, portray Norway the way we like?