Government 101

France, bureaucracy, Picardie, 2006. Pascale Hoornaert (b. 1952) works
for eight hours a week as town clerk in Ancienville (population 78), Aisne
department, Pidardie region. She holds the same position in two other
villages nearby, working a total of 31 hours per week. Monthly salary:
1,025 euro (US$ 1,348). Photograph © Jan Banning.

Lee, New Hampshire (population 4,145) Board of Selectmen, January 27, 2003
(L to R) Dwight Barney (Chairman), Joseph Ford, Richard Wellington.
Photograph © Paul Shambroom.

At The Guardian today there is this short notice of quite interesting work by Dutch photographer Jan Banning that consists of portraits of bureaucrats at work in eight different countries ("Bolivia, China, France, India, Liberia, Russia, the United States, and Yemen"). Banning suggests his "photography has a conceptual, typological approach reminding of August Sander’s ‘Menschen des 20 Jahrhunderts’ (‘People of the Twentieth Century’)." Put aside that by declaring the work "conceptual" he risks setting off yet another round of whining by Guardian photography critic Sean O'Hagan.* What strikes me about these portraits is less the comparison to Sander, than the series called "Meetings" that American photographer Paul Shambroom did several years ago. Shambroom toured the U.S. photographing local government 'in action.'

In Banning's images it is interesting to note the context; nearly all of the officials work under the watchful eye of the heroic or the powerful (Gandhi, Mao, Putin ...), often surrounded by the trappings of legitimacy. It is interesting to contrast these banal scenarios with the many images of disgruntled citizens manning the barricades or with photos of famous elected officials. Politics only appears glamorous.
____________
* For my previous (mostly) dissents from O'Hagan's various complaints look here.

Is a Reality Based Politics Possible?

One of the things progressives often wonder is why average working Americans don't repudiate Republican political-economic policies that privilege the wealthy. One clear reason is that average Americans somehow do not manage to align either their assessments of, say, the actual distribution of wealth or the ideal distribution that they would like to see with what is, in fact, the distribution of wealth in the U.S.; the result is that there is a massive disconnect between motivation, assessment of possibilities and actuality. Is it possible to surmount that predicament? That is the first step in any hope for progressive politics. The second step would be to recognize that the data reported here suggest that the average American hardly is an egalitarian.

Democracy: AS Examples and Comments

Please add to this post any good examples or comments to assist with the Democracy section of the AS Politics Unit 1 paper.

(These posters came from this Independent article on how leading advertisers might cover campaigns for and against AV in the referendum on 5 May)

Asked & Answered, Or What I Learned in History Class

Reading around on some photo-related blogs today, I realized that two apparently different questions prompt pretty much the same answer.

Q: What are unions good for (besides, weekends, vacations, minimum wage and working hours standards, of course)?
A: They help keep companies from killing employees (for the historically challenged - look here).

Q: What is photojournalism good for?
A: It helps keep companies from killing employees (same episode, slightly different lesson).

As I've pointed out here before, while critics like Sontag complain that photography has grown up hand-in-hand with war, it has grown up hand-in-hand with democracy too. Sometimes it is a good thing to remind ourselves of that.

The Assault on Lara Logan Should Not Be Marginal to Our Reflections on the Flowering of Democracy

Photojournalism is a dangerous occupation. But as is typically the case, the dangers are not evenly distributed. There are two forthright essays at The New York Times on the dangers that beset women journalists. You can find them here and here. The women who've written these essays - Kim Barker and Sarina Tavernise - were prompted to do so by the vicious attack on correspondent Lara Logan by a mob of men in Tahrir Square last week. It goes without saying, I hope, that Logan has proven courageous in making public her own experience. In case it doesn't, I recommend this thoughtful comment. It is good news that she apparently is recovering from the physical harm she suffered.

Yet another response to Logan's experience appears here at npr. In it, Jane Arraf rightly holds up a mirror to those here in the west who are condemning the sorts of cultures that allegedly sustain attacks like the one Logan endured. Arraf's remarks are not, as conservatives will surely insist, about blaming the West; they are an invitation to learn something about ourselves instead of merely posing as cheerleaders. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the spread of democratic values. But there is nothing wrong either with acknowledging how partially and precariously they exist here at home.

Can Seeing Democratic Politics in the Cairo Streets CHange Stereotypes in the West?

Antigovernment Protesters that had been sleeping at the edge
of Tahir Square since the beginning of the uprising wave the
victory sign after hearing about the resignation of Mr. Mubarak
(11 February 2011). Photograph © Moises Saman/New York Times.

Men of Middle-Eastern extraction wearing the kaffiyeh celebrating success of pro-democracy protests. How can that be?

Democratic Revolution in Egypt: Thinking With Pictures

Egyptians celebrate in Tahrir Square after President Hosni Mubarak
resigned and handed power to the military, in Cairo, Egypt, Friday,
Feb. 11, 2011. Photograph © Khalil Hamra/AP.

On Twitter, Nevine Zaki circulated an image she says she
photographed Wednesday of Christians protecting Muslims
during prayer. Photograph © Nevine Zaki (3 February 2011).

Before the fall ... anti-Mubarak protesters wave Egyptian
flags at Cairo's Tahrir Square on 10 February 2011.
Photograph © Pedro Ugarte/AFP/Getty Images.

A general view shows the crowded Tahrir Square in Cairo on
February 10, 2011. Tens of thousands of Egyptian workers walked
out in mass nationwide strikes to demand wage increases and
show support for the widening revolt against Mubarak's regime.
Photograph © MARCO LONGARI/AFP/Getty Images.

So what is it that we learn from events in Egypt? Well, first there is the dissonance that many Americans must feel when watching dark skinned throngs, chanting in Arabic, engaged in protests for - democracy! After all, isn't it the case that we are supposed invariably to be suspicious of Muslims? But here are Muslims partaking in prayer during pro-democracy protests. Second, there is the observation that striking workers were an integral part of political events in Cairo. Strikes? Yikes, there is a notion. Finally, there is the largely - not entirely, but largely - non-violent character of the protests. Peaceful Muslims? How can that be? Islam in intimately related to Terrorism, no? Just wondering.

Follow Up: Oh yeah, I did neglect the obvious. Democracy here is not in voting booths or legislative assembly, but in the streets and the public square.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi Released from House Arrest!!

(PHOTO CREDIT: REUTERS)

YANGON, Myanmar — Myanmar's military government freed its archrival, democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, on Saturday after her latest term of detention expired. Several thousand jubilant supporters streamed to her residence. Suu Kyi has been jailed or under house arrest for more than 15 of the last 21 years.

James: You would think that after all the abuse Aung San Suu Kyi has endured at the hands of the military dictatorship in Burma, that she'd be a broken spirit. Yet, she has weathered house arrest extremely well. She even went so far as to say that she has no ill feeling toward those who detained her. How could that be possible? As it turns out she has credited Buddhism with helping her survive house arrest. It seems likely that she was able to put into practice the Buddhist teaching of "no-self" which teaches that there is no unchanging, permanent "self" that exists separate from everything else. We don't have to travel through samsara alone because we are interconnected and interdependent with all people, things and phenomena. Nothing ever exists independent of all other things.

A tree exists because the sun exists. Suu Kyi was only imprisoned materially but since there is no "self" to imprison, she was always connected with her supporters as long as she remained aware of that essence. She could travel above those confining walls in concentrating upon the unbreakable connection with family, friends, teachers and fellow citizens. Thus, rather than sinking into feelings of loneliness and bitterness, Aung San Suu Kyi probably rested secure in being aware that she was never alone. She was interconnected with all Burmese (and the world) and therefore could weather the storm of personal imprisonment with greater ease. Because she understood these teachings it is very likely that she survived her imprisonment better than the junta leaders.

But, you might say, "How are the junta leaders imprisoned?" They are imprisoned by clinging to the delusion of "self." If one believes that there is a permanent "self" that is separate from everything else then anything that maintains the delusion of that "self" is "good" and anything that doesn't is "bad." This creates suffering when the "good" isn't around because the self is attached to the "good" in order for it to feel important. And it creates suffering when the "bad" is around because the drug-addicted self isn't being given what "it" thinks is necessary for happiness.

But it isn't lasting happiness because a dictatorship is based on the delusion that there is a "self" that is perceived to be better than everyone else. But, in order to keep that delusion inflated the "self" must constantly be on alert for threats to its fragile existence. Therefore, in order to keep this elaborate charade going the dictator (self) worries and ruminates with paranoia about losing this delusional sense of "specialness." This creates a lot of suffering inside. The dictators may not show it but they're not happy inside. A person who is at peace doesn't need to go around and control, manipulate, oppress and murder people as the Burmese junta is doing.

So, if Aung San Suu Kyi was able to over-come the quagmire of the the "self" then she was free to be at peace with her situation regardless of the house arrest. Because her sense of worth and happiness wouldn't be dependent upon if the "self" was happy, or even if it existed at all. And, while the dictators remain physically free, emotionally they are in one of the darkest, deepest prisons known to existence in samsara (self-importance). Maintaining that heavy burden of self-importance means wherever you go, your prison travels with you. Yet, Suu Kyi will always be free no matter where you try to lock-away her body. Her example helps us to remember that if she can survive decade after decade of imprisonment by dictators, then surely we can survive our daily lives. May her freedom spark a softening of relations between the junta and the strong and noble people of beautiful Burma.

~Peace to all beings~

Elections in Exotic Places (3)

Conakry, Guinea: A Guinean woman holds her voting card as
she enters a polling station. Photograph Jerome Delay/AP.

I have been remiss in my effort to build a base of images from which to discuss the conventions that govern 'election photojournalism.' I made some desultory efforts early last summer [1] [2] [3]; consider this a renewed effort. For this installment I offer the image above, lifted from The Guardian.

I have been prompted to take up this task again by reports from Burma on the "elections" being orchestrated there today. You can find the reports here and here; notice that one of them is image-less. Granted, this particular casting and counting of votes hardly qualifies as an election. But does the absence of photographs mean it has not happened at all?

Why Not Rochester?

There is an extremely interesting interview here with a fellow named Ted Howard who has launched what he calls the Democracy Collaborative. This venture sees the intimate relationship between democracy and economic development and locates the contest to reinvigorate that relationship not in some far away land but in Cleveland. (Look here too.) The collaborative works with poor urban communities to help initiate and sustain work-owned cooperatives that do business with large employers (like Universities and Medical Centers). The aim is to generate jobs in the communities that are green, local, well-paying and not likely to be exported. As a by-product, of course, such businesses will enhance the municipal tax base. This is a model that should fit Rochester - and all the other economically depressed cities across Western and Central New York state - extremely well.

Philosophical Food Fight

"Armchair bullshit, masquerading as philosophy: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?hp
9:50 PM Jun 13th"
via web

jcohen570

That is the reply that Josh Cohen (Stanford) - advocate of democratic deliberation - Tweeted (of all things!) to this post written by J.M. Bernstein (New School) at The New York Times philosophy blog. In the initial post, Bernstein offered an analysis (inspired by Hegel and Freud) of the anger embodied among members of the "The Party" crowd. He followed up here. Philosopher Brian Leiter (Univ. of Chicago) seconds Cohen here. And there is a rambling commentary here at Mother Jones as well. Now, I hardly put myself out as a model of tolerance and civil exchange, and my own theoretical leanings actually tend to converge with Leiter and Cohen, however their replies to Bernstein are not a great advert for doing philosophy (or political theory, or politics) in public.

I think there is a real and important question about why the radical right has managed to coordinate opposition to Obama around a set of ludicrous claims - like his place of birth or the notion, all evidence to the contrary, that he is a "socialist." Sure, there are lots of media politics at play. And the Mother Jones piece reiterates the findings that (as I suggested here) "the 'tea party' crowd tend to be ... a bunch of old, economically well-off, white guys who are 'angry' and 'pessimistic' because they think the government is paying too much attention to the needs of the poor and minorities and not enough to the rich!" Of course, that is not the only demographic among the members of the tea party 'movement'; it takes all types, I suppose.

Having said all that, what happens when you talk sense to people? What happens when you point out that the sources of political polarization in American politics derive from rising inequality and right-wing political strategy [1]? What happens when you point out that the Bush tax cuts and duplicitous military adventurism combine to underwrite the vast bulk of our current and future budget deficits [2]? What happens when you point out that redistributive spending tends to go primarily to red states [3]? Well ... there is some reason to think that despite the fear, anger and frustration that inform too much of American politics, there is some indication [4] [5] [6] that lots of voters are pretty damned sensible. They prefer to trim the military budget and raise taxes on the wealthy rather than simply slash social spending!

How does this connect to our point of departure? Well, Cohen and Leiter might have simply suggested that matters may not be nearly so bleak as Bernstein suggests, that there is reason to believe that citizens can indeed sort things out pretty reasonably despite emotional vicissitudes. (I actually think that we can dispense with the Freud and Hegel in Bernstein's initial piece and agree nonetheless that part of what has been going on is that individualistic Americans have indeed been forced to confront their interdependence and their vulnerability.) What would've been wrong with that?

Liu Xiaobo - Update

Well, the Chinese authorities have said "No, We really mean it!." According to this report in The New York Times an appeals court has upheld the guilty verdict and prison sentence recently imposed on Liu Xiaobo. While this would be troubling if Liu had simply been exercising his individual right to free speech, it is to my way of thinking especially problematic insofar as his "subversive" acts involved composing the list joint demands that have appeared under the title Charter '08. In short Liu and the other signatories top the Charter are not just demanding democracy in some future China, but acting democratically in the actually existing China. The report in The Times makes plain how difficult and necessary such prefigurative action remains - it notes two other cases, those of Huang Qi and Tan Zuoren, who independently have been convicted and imprisoned for speaking out critically about the government.

Buddhist Converts in India.

For the last 5-10 years I have watched in marvel at the mass conversions in India from Hinduism to Buddhism. It was explained to me that many of the converts are Dalits, (the "untouchables") or members of the lowest caste. I can see why someone who is treated as less-than simply for being born into a certain caste would seek the freedom from caste through Buddhism. Buddhism tells us that we are all equal and interconnected, thus, how can we treat any other being as less than us when they are apart of us? That would be like treating ourselves in the same manner and who wants to see themselves as inferior to others? Another conversion recently took place, which saw 11,000 Hindus and Christians convert to Buddhism:

Express News Service, Jan 25, 2010

Ahmedabad, India -- Cose to 11,000 people, including those from the Koli and Kshatriya communities as well as Christian families, embraced Buddhism at a function in Saijpur Bogha here on Sunday. Buddhist monks from Bhante Pragnyasheel administered the pledges to the new converts. The Ahmedabad district collector, however, said no conversion could be effective unless an official permission was granted.

James: I have read from other conversions that the Hindu dominated government often refuses to acknowledge these conversions away from Hinduism. One Dalit spoke of the demeaning caste system and said, "I have hidden my roots. But often on trains people ask about my background, what my father did, where I am from. When I tell them my caste they stop asking questions. In fact they stop talking to me. Buddhism means I can simply say I am not a Hindu. I do not have a caste." It is a sad irony that the country, which gave birth to Buddhism so often now resists the practice of it today by some of its citizens. However, the trend toward an Indian neo-Buddhism doesn't seem to be slowing down. Seeing how both religions believe in karma, you'd think that the Hindus who behave this way would think twice before speaking ill of those converting to Buddhism and treating them as inferior.

Let me be clear, however, that I am not condemning the religion of Hinduism. I find it to be a very vibrant, peaceful, enlightening and beneficial religion. I incorporate some Hindu mystical teachings into my Buddhist practice. However, I can not condone the caste system that is still adhered to by many despite it being technically illegal. Nor can I condone the government not recognizing people having the right to convert to Buddhism. In one region of India, Gujarat, the BJP government there amended a law to state that Buddhism and Jainism are simply extensions of Hinduism. Yes, there are many similarities, but also important differences and I find it unsettling that such a huge democracy as India would take such a rigid stance on religious freedom. As well as that so many Hindus resisting such conversions when Hinduism is said to be a religion of religious tolerance and openness.

I have done a fair bit of research into this subject and it seems that in many cases the resistance to Dalits and others converting to Buddhism is because of political views rather than true religious objections. It is my hope that the majority of the Hindus in India are much more tolerant and secular than those who object to Buddhist conversions. Especially when there are so many different expressions within Hinduism. Why tolerate all those variations but not a fellow, Indian born religion of Buddhism? You'd think it would be a more tolerated religion because of its Indian roots, if nothing else.

~Peace to all beings~

Democracy Live!

A new BBC website which links all the political institutions here and allows you to see them all in action live, see here.
Think about getting involved in the BBC School Report project which allows you to present the news!

30 Days for Burma: It Can't Wait.

We are thrilled to announce that today, a video by actor Will Ferrell is kicking off a 30-day campaign to help the US Campaign for Burma build one million voices of support for human rights and democracy in Burma. (video by Will Ferrell at the bottom of post).

Every day for 30 days you will be able to tune into our website http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/ or http://www.burmacantwait.org/ (or YouTube, Myspace, and many more sites) to watch a new celebrity video about Burma. Instead of watching one single video with limited information, viewers will be able to learn a great deal about the people of Burma's courageous struggle for human rights and democracy. Each video is different -- some are deadly serious while others have a light touch. Most of these are meant to be different than a typical public service announcement -- more like a short movie or skit.

The videos include many of the top actors in Hollywood and others in music, such as Jennifer Aniston, Woody Harrelson, Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz, Eric Szmanda, Anjelica Huston, Ellen Page, Sheryl Crow, and more. Make sure you come back each day to find out who are all the celebrities helping us.

Since you already know about Burma, can you tell as many people as possible to watch the videos and join our effort? They are a fantastic tool to educate people and spur them to take action.

Every single video closes by encouraging viewers to join the US Campaign for Burma's one-million person effort for Burma.

Why do we want one million people to sign up? Here is why: we are facing a military regime that has locked up the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi, brutally cracked down against hundreds of thousands of peaceful monks and civilians, recruited more child soldiers than any other country in the world, and destroyed 3,200 ethnic villages -- bordering on genocide. Yet, too few people have taken action to stop these abuses, and not enough have basic knowledge about Burma.

We have seen in history what happens when not enough people take action. Nelson Mandela was locked up in near-obscurity for nearly two decades before millions of people rallied to the cause of freedom for South Africa. We shouldn't wait that long to build a strong effort for Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi has called on us to help, saying "Please, use your liberty to promote ours." Just as millions of people -- including celebrities -- came together to help free Nelson Mandela and South Africa in the 1980s -- we are asking for your help now.

Tell your friends about these videos, watch them on one of dozens of sites on the internet, including our website http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/ or at http://www.burmacantwait.org/. Then, encourage them to sign up to be one of the million. After they sign up, they will receive timely alerts from us asking them to email people in the US Congress or United Nations, host film screenings, and consider organizing events for human rights in Burma. Working together, we can be a powerful force for change.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Supporting human rights does matter, and together we will do our part to help Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma. It can't wait.

Sincerely,

Aung Din, Jeremy Woodrum, Jennifer Quigley, Thelma Young