The problems in Russia

The Washington Post has an article this morning that is relevant to my previous post. Russians have legendary patience, but nothing is infinite. And the sham of their "democracy" becomes more obvious every year.

The marvelous aspect of democracy is that it allows for the population to make a commitment to their government. Even though the people may not agree with everything about the government, they are committed to it at a fundamental level. If the government does not rule with the consent of the populace, governments tend to rely on fear as the means of obtaining the necessary compliance from the population.

Relying on this tool, however, has many drawbacks.

Russia will probably make it through this crisis and probably the government will not fall. But clearly the powers there are relying increasingly on the tool of fear. This tool will only make them weaker in the long run.

Boot licking

Ah, the wonderful Azerbaijan Parliament. Bastion of free and honest debate on important issues.

Like International Women's Day on March 8.

The Soviet version of Valentine's Day is now outdated. It's a vestige of the discredited past.
Far better to celebrate the birthday of the president's late mother, according to one lawmaker.

Very sensible proposal, really.

Even if the holiday is not created, Elmira Akhundova has proven her servility to the ruler of the land.

Servility, not common sense or honesty, is rewarded in Baku.

Where is this going?

Radio Free Europe has a nice opinion piece today about Azerbaijan's "steady descent into authoritarianism." I have written about this subject repeatedly on this blog. I did not have the perspective that natives of that country have, because I only moved there last year. I did, nonetheless, talk to many Azerbaijanis, and I understood that the repression has steadily increased in recent years.

I continue to be both confounded and fascinated by the question of democratization. Too often, it appears that the rather deterministic views of Carles Boix, Daron Acemoglu, and James A. Robinson have the bulk of supporting evidence. I cannot do justice to their work here. Suffice it to say that they all focus on the impact that economic resources and distribution of wealth have on the democratization of societies.

Azerbaijan potentially has many different sources of wealth, but in recent history its primary source of income has been from petroleum and natural gas. These are resources that are immobile. The oil in Azerbaijan may be depleted, but it will not decide to emigrate because of repressive government policies. When the source of wealth is intellectual, however, the rulers of the country must act more carefully. Factories can be moved. Trading offices can be closed and re-opened easily. If the rulers of a country want to hold onto this type of wealth, they must be careful not to enact policies that will cause the sources of this wealth to move.

Where does this leave Azerbaijan?

Not in a good place. The rulers of Azerbaijan control the wealth of their country. It's not going away quickly. In fact, because of Azerbaijan's delicate position between Russia and the West, the rulers of the country are trying to play a delicate game, flirting with both sides in order to achieve maximum freedom of action within their country, while picking whatever benefits they can from Russia and the West. The winners in the game - so far - are the rulers of Azerbaijan, while the bulk of the population in Azerbaijan loses as the country becomes increasingly autocratic and the distribution of income becomes increasingly skewed.

The sad thing about the analyses of the above political scientists is that even revolution does not change the situation that much. When the wealth is immobile, the succeeding regime is likely to be just as undemocratic as the one it replaced.

Russia is a wonderful example.

More restrictions

I heard some more bad news from a friend of mine. She works for one of the few independent news organizations here.

I knew about the measure to allow unlimited re-election for the president. I knew about the closure of the BBC and Radio Free Europe. Now, it turns out that as part of the referendum on the term limit measure, voters will have the chance to approve an unrelated law that will make it potentially illegal to take a picture of someone without that person's consent.

While this may sound benign to a layman, it has some serious implications. This is not about protecting people from invasion of privacy. Rather, the law is bound to be enforced selectively. For example, how can you get the written permission of every person participating in a demonstration? Basically, the law would give police a reason to arrest any photographer trying to shoot something that is potentially embarrassing.

Azerbaijan appears to be moving quite steadily toward increasing authoritarianism.

Freedom and order

When I was in Car, I had a conversation that exemplifies for me the internal conflict that many Azerbaijanis have. I was having tea in a restaurant there and an older local gentleman sat down at my table and began to chat. The usual questions. 1.) Where are you from? 2.) So, what do you think about Azerbaijan? Honestly.

I gave my usual answers. 1.) I’ve been around a lot of Azerbaijan. I’m impressed with its beauty and the way that different regions are quite distinct in their character. 2.) The people of Azerbaijan are very hospitable. 3.) The gulf between the rich and the poor is quite large.

He didn’t argue with me on the last point, but he did offer some perspective. You don’t know how it was before, he said. Before we had strong leadership in the government. Things were chaotic. You didn’t know if the bus that you took to Baku would arrive at its destination. Now, the people in charge know that strong leadership is needed. They have given this leadership. There is order.

I listened. I said that I understood, that I heard about the stories about banditry, about the period when each individual region of the country seemed to be controlled by a local strong-man.

Later, we left the table. While we were walking, he asked me about democracy. Is democracy possible in such a place like this? No, I answered. I don’t think it is possible, when posters of the president or his father adorn every street corner.

Right, he said. It is impossible to live freely in such a place. And people need freedom, he said.

Both points of view are completely accurate and not necessarily contradictory. People need freedom and people need order. It is that delicate balancing act that is never perfect. At the moment, the balance in Azerbaijan weighs more heavily on order than on freedom, but that may change.