What Does Accountability Mean to You?

There was plenty of finger pointing last Tuesday morning as WNYC's talk show host Brian Lehrer led a spirited discussion with a live audience on the subject of "Occupy New York." The most contentious topics were accountability for U.S. income disparity, and the causes of our financial crisis. Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer accused the Federal Reserve of lack of oversight; New York Federal Reserve Deputy Chairwoman Kathryn Wylde blamed international economic pressures; and Occupy Wall Street protester Jesse LaGreca blamed a non-representative democracy.

Yet despite their bickering, the panelists agreed that the income disparity in America is unacceptable; that the economy needs to improve; and that accountability is lacking. Amid the rapid-fire disagreements, there was a common struggle to grapple with the complex, systemic causes of our country's wobbly moment.

In an effort to poke a hole in LaGreca's arguments, business columnist Greg David asked, "What does accountability mean to you?" It's a fair question. Accountability is often vaunted as the unimpeachable principle missing from our country's response to recurring recessions and the widening income gap. And when we look at past bailouts of "black swan" level crashes and the moral hazard inherent in having institutions that are "too big to fail," it's clear that our system of accountability needs to be reconfigured. But how? In the heat of the debate, LaGreca defined accountability as investigations of bankers and corporate leaders, rather than a more global approach.

When Lehrer drew out LaGreca on the decision-making process underway at Occupy Wall Street, it became clear that LaGreca envisions the movement as a testing ground for a new form of accountable government. LaGreca is looking for a unicameral legislature (similar to Occupy Wall Street's General Assembly) where a 51 percent majority would be enough to pass a bill, thus ending the filibuster. He wants to eliminate political parties entirely and convert our system into a direct democracy.

With such a system, LaGreca contends, we would cut out the problems of campaign finance, party platforms, and special interests that stand in the way of true democratic consensus. Without party platforms or corporate interests to consider, he says, leaders would be accountable to their voters. With this new idea on the table, the meaning of accountability and its place in society has shifted.

LaGreca's plan is idealistic, and maybe impractical. Still, while parsing blame is a necessary step towards injecting accountability into the political-economic climate of the United States, it is clearly insufficient. We need more of the big-picture discussion that Lehrer was able to spark on Tuesday in order to truly confront and deal with the systemic lack of accountability.

[PHOTO CREDIT: Timothy Krause (CC).]

Uncertainty is the Strength of Occupy Wall Street

Now seems as good a time as any to start reading The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. He writes in a passage on negative empiricism that "you know what is wrong with a lot more confidence than you know what is right." This statement resonates with me as the ethical backbone of the "occupation" style protests that have swept the world this year.

What do they want? is the common refrain in the media. It's OK that nobody knows yet. In fact, it would be sheer arrogance to assume that a small cadre has all the answers. The point is that when even in rich societies like the United States tens of millions of people are living in poverty, new processes are needed for people to debate the actions, rules, and directions of our societies.

The protesters in lower Manhattan have opted for a process of collaborative consensus. We shouldn't expect them all to be policy wonks (though even a Nobel laureate economist has stopped by). They are instead what Paul Hawken calls our social immune system. Here is their first statement:

STATEMENT OF THE NYC GENERAL ASSEMBLY

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one's skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers' healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people's lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

[PHOTO CREDIT: David Shankbone (CC).]

Iceland Writes an Information Age Constitution

Few things are as exciting and periodically necessary for a democracy as writing a new constitution. Iceland is in the process of doing just that, and they are doing it with a social media twist.

The Icelandic Stjórnlagaráð or Constitutional Council has solicited public feedback from citizens and is adjusting its drafts accordingly. The Council explains its method and rationale as follows:

The Constitutional Council is eager to make sure the public can be up to date while the work is in progress. It's possible to see the developments in the text of a prospective proposition and make comments. Furthermore, the Constitutional Council has made it possible for the public to send messages and already numerous messages have been sent to the Council. All messages are published on the Council's website under the sender’s name (anonymous messages are not accepted) and the public can read and comment on each of them which has already created a lively discussion on the website.

In this way the Constitutional Council emphasises an open communication with the Icelandic nation and has given the people an opportunity to participate in the formation of a new Constitution of the Republic of Iceland. The Council's work can also be seen on the major communicative media such as Facebook, YouTube and Flickr. Every day short interviews with delegates are put on YouTube and Facebook. On Thursdays at 13:00 there is live broadcast from the Constitutional Council meetings on the webpage and on Facebook. There are also schedules for all meetings, all minutes from meetings of groups, the Board and the Council as well as the Council's work procedures. The webpage also has regular news from the Council's work as well as a weekly newsletter. Advertisements are published in the media encouraging the public to keep track of what is going on and to make comments.

That Iceland chose the digital route should come as no suprise—the country has one of the highest internet penetration rates in the world, and its voter participation rates are roughly double what is common in the United States. Still, it's an impressive maneuver for a country whose legislature, the Althingi, dates back to 930, making it the oldest existing parliament.

Should we expect any substantive surprises from this process? Perhaps it is too soon to tell, with the drafts still shifting wiki-style, but already some interesting ideas have emerged. (The current official English version is machine translated, so some of the following quotations may be awkward.)

THE POWER OF GOV 2.0

The statement on transparency couldn't be clearer: "Governance must be transparent." The new constitution also requires that all "matters and documents held by government … be publicly accessible," which includes complaints made to the government as well as procedures for their redress. That Iceland would uphold press freedom and freedom of information—"anyone is free to gather and disseminate information"—is in keeping with the strong laws they passed last year to protect journalists and anonymous sources, with implications for WikiLeaks and other whistleblowers.

EDUCATION A PRIORITY

Education is a high priority, and the opening section has a passage on academic freedom: "It should be ensured by law the freedom of science, education, arts and education." There is also a guarantee that everyone will receive a public education, free of charge at the primary level. The spirit animating the education section falls in line with the tradition of civic humanism: "Education shall aim at the full development of each individual, critical thinking and awareness of rights and duties."

WITHOUT NATURE, NOTHING

By far the most interesting language so far comes in the sections on ownership and natural resources. The overall sense of property rights is that "ownership is inviolable," while "exercise of ownership should not go against the public interest." At the same time, the "natural resources of Iceland are common and perpetual property of the nation. They should be utilized in a sustainable manner for the benefit of all citizens. No one can get them for permanent ownership or use." These clauses are driven by a belief that "Icelandic nature is inviolable. Each person must respect and protect. The utilization of common resources of the nation must act so that they are not diminished in the long term and the right of future generations is observed."

It would definitely be nice to see the "right to healthy environment, fresh water and unspoiled natural land, air and sea" enshrined in a new U.S. Constitution. As it stands, the current crop of Republican candidates has staked out a bizarre stance against environmental protection, despite the fact that the American public consistently supports clean air, clean water, and more renewable energy.

So the new Icelandic constitution may not be as radical as Bolivia granting rights to Mother Earth, but with its procedural innovations and a focus on sustainability and civic humanism, Iceland is certainly showing the world what twenty-first century democracy looks like:



[PHOTO CREDITS: Althingi by vovchychko (CC); Stjórnlagaráð by Stjórnlagaráð (CC).]

Chaos After Burma's Election?

Burma's anticipated experiment with limited democracy with an election this year may lead to political instability, according to a diplomatic source familiar with the situation in that country. I had the opportunity to interview this source this week just after democracy activist Aung San Suu Ki's party the National League for Democracy decided to boycott any election as it expects the process to be "unfair" and "unjust."

The military-ruled country is expected to hold an election (of questionable credibility) this May or October. Citing the general's superstitions, some believe the election will be held on the auspicious date Oct. 10 (or 10/10/10). But given that the junta is so unpredictable, it is difficult to pin down a date.

Two scenarios are possible after an election, the source told me. One is that the military junta holds an election, it is condemned by the West as a sham, and Burma closes down, remaining a military regime but "without the uniform." The second is that the junta actually wants change in the country and we are seeing an incremental move toward change. But the country is controlled by three to five people and such a small group will be unable to keep control if some freedoms are granted to the people, according to the source.

"I don't think you can give people just a little bit of freedom," the source told me yesterday. The Burmese press is already enjoying much more freedom to report on stories on human rights in Burma. These stories are government-approved. The junta is working on worker representation, as well as freedoms of assembly and speech; so the change seems real, the source said. Meanwhile, the junta is struggling to control the Burmese Internet, and satellite TV is giving people access to news from China and India. While sim cards are prohibitively expensive in Burma, monthly cell phones have recently become available in Burma for about 20 dollars per month. That's still too expensive for most Burmese but access to information is dramatically increasing.

Political instability after elections could occur in a number of ways. One of which would be that more junior military officers begin to see their fortunes disappear as government spending on defense falls, the source said.

What is motivating the junta to seek change in Burma? One might be that the generals to not want to end up in prison so they are trying to bring about positive change before they retire. Another might be the general realization that the country needs to open in order to provide any economic development or that the junta in under pressure from China, India, or the United States. The source told me that "all of the motivations hold some truth." The source saw China as providing the best leverage with the regime since Beijing doesn't want Burma to be seen as a pariah. ASEAN is also important symbolically and for access to international trade; the ASEAN human rights body has created just enough discomfort on the junta by opening up the discussion on human rights in Burma, the source said. The junta is sick of being beat up on human rights on the world stage and international sanctions do hurt, so if you add all of these factors together, you do get the drivers, the source said.

Whatever the motivation, the source recommended that the world take this opportunity. "Who cares what the motivations are, let's put our foot in the door," the source advised.

Photo by break.things.

Slaughter on DPRK, Burma, and China - "Support democracy abroad"

I just heard a fantastic presentation by Anne Marie Slaughter at the Carnegie Council before she heads off to Foggy Bottom, apparently to take the head of policy planning position at State Dept. She made a powerful case for a truer Wilsonianism during the Obama administration. Central to Wilsonianism in the 21st Century will be about creating progressive policies at home, “supporting democracy abroad,” and entering into pluralistic deliberation among our peers on big policy questions such as armed intervention.

George Packard, head of the US-Japan Foundation, asked what this approach would mean for U.S. policy toward North Korea and Burma. Slaughter said that starving people, such as the North Koreans or Burmese, does not necessarily help the people or hurt the regime. By contrast, engaging with these regimes, by sending aid for example, does not necessarily help the government or hurt the people. In other words, there is a good case for engagement with both.

Slaughter saw parallels with the story of China—call it a China model of understanding potential change in North Korea and Burma. In other words, it is not the case that the richer a country gets, the more it desires liberalism. We should not necessarily expect liberal democracies to spring up from economic growth and openness. But we do see, such as in China, that people demand a greater voice as they get richer. As the people demand more voice, they demand more accountability from their government and policies that are more equitable.

Dutch Disease and Democracy in Russia

I just got back from Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Moscow, and St. Petersburg, completing a circumnavigation of the Earth.

One preoccupation in Russia was whether democracy is necessary for international legitimacy, prestige, and change. As one senior college student at St. Petersburg State University asked me: Do states need to democratize in order to globalize? I responded that democracy helps countries cope with the increased openness that is associated with globalization. I drew Ian Bremmer's J-curve on the blackboard (my interview with Ian about his book last year is here). Of course, the students wanted to know where Russia was on the J-curve.

Ian, a Russia specialist, devotes a whole section to Russia in his book: "Whether or not Putin's consolidation of power is the means to help Russia navigate the bottom of the curve and ultimately to make the transition from closed to open, left to right, remains to be seen."

Another big concern in Russia is the so-called Dutch Disease, which Russia has probably contracted. My presentation with Zhenia Bessonova in Moscow was about the effect of FDI on Russian industries. Companies that are competitive will respond to FDI by increasing efficiency while uncompetitive companies will exit. Russians are concerned about inflation and their heavily natural resource based economy.

Thinking about the bubble in the Shanghai real estate sector in China and the luxury condos between Bangkok and the airport in 1997, I noted that the road from the hotel to the airport in Moscow is dotted with new car dealerships--from Toyota to Ford to Audi. Is it bubbly in Russia too?

Network as Catalyst for Democracy

The Council of Europe Committee on Higher Education and Research and the International Consortium for Higher Education, Civic Responsibility and Democracy held a two-day "Symposium on Universities, Democratic Culture, and Human Rights" last week at the University of Pennsylvania. The group comprised university presidents, deans, department heads, professors, and civil society leaders.

I was the final speaker on a panel with David Maurrasse, Timothy Stanton, Josef Huber, and Radu Damian on creating a global network as a catalyst for democracy.

In response to what is seen as a "crisis in confidence" and an increased emphasis on the rhetoric rather than the practice of democracy, these higher education leaders met in Strasbourg last year. They adopted on June 23, 2006 a declaration titled, "The Responsibility of Higher Education for a Democratic Culture, Citizenship, Human Rights and Sustainability," which supports the principles in higher education of:

Democratic and accountable structures, processes, and practice;

Active democratic citizenship;

Human rights, mutual respect, and social justice;

Environmental and societal sustainability; and

Dialogue and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

The declaration was also a call for action in local, national, and global communities to put these principles into practice.

My suggestion was that information technology can help democratic practice and leaders in higher education have a responsibility to use this tool. Given the theme of responsibility and scholarship at this symposium and the recent International Studies Association conference in Chicago, I detect a concern among academics about their duty to society--their duty to question policymakers.

A global online network can help deepen democratic practice. In my view, an effective network has global reach or potential and can therefore affect change when called upon. The advantage of a single hub is that the knowledge and networks that it aggregates can more easily find their way on a syllabus or policy paper.

The Internet is a democratic tool because there is little cost of using it and it doesn't discriminate according to language, class, culture, etc. Like good democratic citizenship, it is up to the individual to learn how to use the Internet. While the Internet is a communications or knowledge management technology, democracy can be seen as a governing technology.

Themes on networking civil society I can offer from my experience with Policy Innovations over the past year:

1. Multi-stakeholder approach - build your community and expand by finding overlapping communities;

2. It is a messy process - Some people will participate in networks, some people won't. But human networks are chaotic--as are neurological networks. Nevertheless the weight of successful networks creates a gravity that draws people in.

3. Try to share your knowledge and value with others and look for a place for every stakeholder. Often the people who come to you undergo a self-selecting process.

4. Treat every relationship ethically and with respect. This may need no explanation, but connecting networks requires that relationships are handled with respect.

5. Maintain your guiding ethos, but be prepared to expand, change, and reinvent your methods and delivery systems. The Internet and world are constantly changing; be prepared to rethink copyright and intellectual property.

Finally, the offline meeting and a shared ethos are crucial for online networking success.