Democracy in Action

Here is some footage of a recent demonstration in Baku. Dispersed violently by the police, of course.

The policies pursued by the Aliyev administration are so short-sighted, violent, and selfish. Those in power cannot hold onto power indefinitely, and when they lose power, the odds of good that the transition will be violent.

Innovation requires freedom

This observation about the necessity of freedom seems obvious - and yet it is remarkable how often this truth is overlooked. I believe the connection between freedom and innovation is ignored in both capitalist and communist economies. Innovation can be squelched by the demand for short-term profits, or it can be smothered by central planners.

I think of this connection after reading an excellent column by Georgy Satarov. He picks apart a recent interview by a high government official, a government official describing in detail how the Putin-Medvedev administration is going to create some sort of engine for economic development and innovation. It won't happen. I have no idea about what is the future for Russia at this point, but it does not look very bright. The people running the country seem determined to close any possible space for democratic opposition. Without democratic opposition, there can be no peaceful change. And Russia vitally needs change. It plods on, its extractive industries subsidizing its maddening and oppressive inefficiencies.

The best and the brightest will always crave freedom. This is the nature of intelligent people. They seek the opportunity to exercise their intelligence. They do not want to be stifled.

Russia can continue on its current path indefinitely, but it will become increasingly uncompetitive in a global market that will not be restrained by Russia's police, bureaucrats and their criminal allies.

Kremlin's friend wins in Ukraine, but democratic process could cause problems

The author of this article makes a very good point. Yes, Russia's preferred candidate won the election in Ukraine, yet the election he won stands in sharp contrast to recent heavily-managed elections in Russia. Will Russian's care that their Slavic cousins to the west have experienced a democratic presidential election? Some Russians tell me- "But we do have democracy at the local level." This local-level democracy, however, is inevitably limited by the fact that processes by which national leaders have been chosen in national years is anything but democratic. (It reminds me, in fact, of the apologists for autocracy of the tsar, when people could point to the local level zemstvo or the mir as examples of local democratic processes and autonomy. In reality, however, the autonomy was not grounded in law and was subject to the caprices of the tsar and his administration.)

One of the statistically significant factors in predicting whether a nation will be democratic is its contiguity to other democracies. So, if Ukraine is successful in holding its tenuous grip on democratic institutions, Russia's oligarchs and their patrons might just have reason to worry.

Chapter One

About a year ago, I wrote a long story - as opposed to a short story. It reflected various thoughts and impressions - material that was not appropriate for the formal reports I wrote during that time. It is copyright protected material - and it is all my own. There are definitely resemblances between the characters in the story & people who are living. In fact, sometimes I would describe a character - and then meet that actual person not long after. Very strange. And there are resemblances between real places and the fictional places in the story. But I did not want to sacrifice a larger truth for the sake of trying to make every detail strictly accurate. Hence - names of places and people have been changed. I hope in some ways the story is amusing or illustrative or at the very least interesting.

Here is Chapter One. Chapter Two will follow - in about a week.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter One

Emin Husadzev took a moment from his job to enjoy the sunrise. He was perched on a 20-foot ladder, pasting a large poster of the president’s father onto a billboard that towered above the central square of Berme, a small provincial city of Azanistan.

On June 21, the sun was rising early, and an orange light suffused the square, reflected from the pavement still wet from last night’s rain. At this hour, few people were driving, and the only sound was the scrape of straw brooms on the sidewalks. Three women wearing saffron-colored smocks and bright headscarves swept the pavement clean. This was the ideal time for Emin’s work, with enough light to let him apply the posters neatly, but before the streets were busy. Ideally, people should have the impression that the images on the billboards naturally stayed fresh and new, that they were somehow self-replicating, not dependent on human hands. This morning, even the poster of Heymar Alidev seemed to glow in the light of the orange dawn, adding life to an image that had grown flat from repetition. All the residents of Azanistan long ago had become inured to his visage, because posters of him and of his son decorated every public space in the country. But Emin took a professional pride in his work, and while he knew the posters were not art, he tried to apply them with professional care. He was certainly not ignorant of the repetitious nature of posters, plastered on walls, posted by highways, hung in schools and offices. Emin had held this job for the last year, so he knew every small feature of the father and son – the squinting eyes and thick eyebrows of the father, the indolent gaze and slight smile of the son.

The poster of Heymar Alidev now smiled into the sunrise, and Emin smiled too, admiring his work. He had applied the poster smoothly, with no wrinkles marring the surface. The presentation of the posters be especially important now, because birthday celebrations for the president, who died five years earlier, were planned for the next week.

“Hello, Heymar,” Emin addressed the dead president. “You are looking fine this morning.” All that remained was to paste the inspirational quote from the Heymar Alidev at the bottom of the poster, and this billboard would be complete.

“The Azani people draw strength from unity!”

Emin unraveled these words and applied them at the bottom of the poster, climbed down the ladder, gathered his tools and walked down the still empty streets to the main square for some tea.

Few people were drinking tea in the Pines Café at this hour. Other than tea, the café served small soda cakes, but they were usually stale. The regulars just drank tea. Emin took a table by the window, and in a few moments Pavel, one of the waiters, came over with a small pot of tea and a cup. He put them on the table in front of Emin, and then sat down opposite him.

“Has she come back yet?” he asked.

“No.”

The question was direct and uncomfortable, but the two men were friends, and Emin knew that Pavel’s intent was always good, even though his style was usually rough.

Pavel, one of Emin’s few friends, was one of the handful of Russians who remained in this city after the country declared its independence from the Soviet Union, A former newspaper editor, Pavel now waited on tables because his newspaper had been closed by the government, and no other newspaper would hire him now. He was a good editor, but a terrible waiter, always forgetting orders and spending too much time chatting with customers. But Gunar, the owner of the café, kept him employed, because long ago he had a schoolboy’s crush on Pavel’s mother.

“She didn’t call?” Pavel asked.

“No.”

“She’s not at Zamine’s?”

“No, I’m pretty sure about that.”

“What are you going to do?”

Emin took his cup of tea, blew on it softly, and watched a taxi impatiently race by a soot-spewing city bus.

“I don’t know.”

Emin’s wife, Buna, had disappeared, again, two weeks ago. Buna hadn’t disappeared for at least six months, and in any case it was unusual for her to stay away for two weeks. When Emin married Buna 10 years earlier, she had been strikingly beautiful, with piercing dark eyes, and the body of gymnast. Her years of drinking had since taken their toll. Her eyes were now not so bright, and her forehead bore the scars of her falls. But she still had a certain magnetism, so once she started drinking, Buna would start to act as if she were again the young courtesan, charming her male admirers. Of course, she was no young courtesan, and her male admirers were more likely to be rough middle-aged truck drivers than charming young men. And, once she started drinking, she completely lost control, finding herself in dangerous and compromising positions. Once, she had awoken from a blackout and found herself in a small hotel in Russia. That had been six months ago, and Emin had nearly divorced her at that point.

After that experience, Buna had agreed to stop drinking for awhile, and even went to a new church in Berme, where the kind members of the congregation prayed for her soul. Emin began to hope that they could begin to love again, and in fact they had sex not long before she disappeared. But one day, he came home from his job, and he knew right away, she had gone. There was no note, no physical sign. She could have been at her job in the laundry, but he knew the truth. She had gone.

Emin tried not to worry about her, but of course he did. When the church members had learned that she was gone again, they told Emin they would pray for her, and Emin prayed for her too, but it felt mechanical and empty. And when he prayed for her, he found himself imagining her in the arms of some strange man, and he felt dirty. It was less painful just to not think of her.

Pavel and Emin sat in silence, looking at the city square as the streets began to fill with morning traffic. A small gang of beggar children was bothering the people who wanted to use the nearby money exchange booths. Women were already carrying large bags loaded with fruits and vegetables back from the bazaar, located a few blocks south of the café. They were old friends, and could sit indefinitely in silence together. Their contemplation was interrupted, however, as Gunar entered the café, slamming the door. He sat down noisily beside Emin. Pavel hurriedly got up, avoiding Gunar’s angry eyes, and bustled back to the kitchen.

Gunar had pulled strings to get Emin his job, and ever since then considered that Emin was indebted to him. Gunar was, in fact, annoyed that Emin seemed to have forgotten his debt to the café owner. Emin, who was trained as a painter, had been unemployed for more than year, depending on his wife’s meager salary as a seamstress when Gunar’s friends in the New Freedom Party told them that they needed someone to put up posters of the president and his father. Every town and city already had posters that graced every public space, but these posters naturally needed to be replaced periodically. It would be disrespectful to depict the Presidents Alidev with tattered or dirty posters. Furthermore, the party leaders were certain that further opportunities for publicizing the President and his father existed. They would always exist. New places could always be found for new billboards. So Emin was hired as part of a small regional team that was assigned the task of replacing the old or decaying posters and finding places for new posters. He was given the title of “national artist,” although very little art was required in the application of adhesive to flat surfaces.

“I saw the new one this morning,” Gunar said. “Very nice. Very nice. You are a true artist.”

“Thank you. Yes, I like it too. It’s bright and cheery. The flag in the background is inspiring. And the quote too. I’m putting up another one up in March 20 Square, later this morning.”

“Good, good. I like your work. You should be proud of yourself, turning your life around. Doing something useful.”

“Thank you,” Emin said. “And thank you for helping me.”

Gunar grinned.

“I am happy to help. Our nation needs everyone. It needs everyone united, working together,” he said.

Emin turned to look at Gunar’s fat and satisfied face, but he could think of no reply. When he was working, Emin was able to separate himself from the goal of his job – the indoctrination of the population. But here in the presence of Gunar, that objective was all too palpable. Everything about Gunar - his meticulous thin moustache, his sour cabbage odor, and thick rings on his fat fingers – disgusted Emin.

“Yes, speaking of work, my next task awaits me,” Emin said. “I want to finish the installation at March 20 Square before noon.”

“Of course. Of course,” said Gunar. “By all means.”

The heavy man rose to his feet, and turned to the kitchen, where Pavel was chatting with the cook.

“Pavel, you worthless socialist! There is a dirty table here! Come here!” Gunar shouted.

Pavel was cleaning that table when Emin left the café, but he looked up to smile and wave goodbye.

Clouds on the domestic front

A considerable quantity of liberal and progressive teeth are being gnashed in the USA this week. First - the results of the Massachusetts special election on Tuesday night - which gave the victory to Republican candidate Scott Brown. Nothing particularly remarkable about the man, from what I have heard, but the victory is particularly disturbing for progressives because:

1. It's seen as a repudiation of Obama's domestic policies.
2. Brown's victory makes passage of health care reform legislation much more difficult.
3. This happened in Massachusetts, in a special election to fill the position formerly held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. And Massachusetts is supposed to be liberal!

But - quite a few people didn't get that memo. Brown won the election decisively.

Tuesday's news was bad enough. Today's news, if anything, was worse. The Supreme Court effectively struck down a law that had limited the amount of corporate cash that could flow into elections. The US election system is already awash in corporate cash. This will just open the flood gates.

Our government was essentially owned by corporations already. I suppose this will just remove whatever fiction remains about our democracy. "The Pledge of Allegiance .... sponsored by Coca Cola and Wal-Mart."

I am an optimist, so I am hoping that an effective response will be mounted to this destructive decision by the US Supreme Court. This group is starting a petition drive to devise a legislative remedy to this very real threat to what remains of our democracy.

Not holding my breath on this suggestion

So, the head of the Moscow Electoral Commission is suggesting to re-make Russia's electoral system. To "start over from scratch,” according to Ekho Moskvy.

I completely agree that the entire electoral system needs to be re-made. Just like the judiciary system in Russia needs to be completely reconstructed. Is it realistic, however, to expect that the foxes will voluntarily leave their position at the door of the hen house?

Any bets on how long Valentin Gorbunov holds his current post?

Thinking about the media and governance

This morning I was reading this amusing and disturbing column by Maureen Dowd, and I was thinking about a conversation I had a couple of days ago with my students in the class I teach about ethics.

I had given the students a reading assignment, and after I re-read the material myself, it seemed that there was not much to discuss. But - of course - this is not usually the case, and even here I was able to take what seemed to be unpromising material and turn it into a substantive discussion. The column the students & I read concerned observations of a newsman on coverage of a political campaign. He opined that journalists should just get out of the way. Enough with the puffed up opinions!

Why is it, I asked the students, that the trend is to more & more partisan coverage of the news? Consumers on one hand have an increasing number of news outlets, but the news that is presented tends to be increasingly partisan. And how does this trend intersect with the journalistic responsibility to provide information necessary for democratic governance? (I think this is the responsibility of journalists because I am a democrat and I am a journalist.)

I made reference to the work by James T. Hamilton and Markus Prior, two scholars whose work I greatly admire. The work of both concerns this very question - how the media is becoming increasingly partisan and what the impact is on the media audience. Frankly, I think that I lost my students when I began talking economic theory, upon which the work of Hamilton in particular rests.

The conversation turned out well. One student admitted that she loves watching Glenn Beck because he is "hysterical." I agreed that he is hysterical, but I didn't think this psychological condition was an asset. My point was that this increasing partisan media system is harmful, leading to increasing cynicism, voter apathy, and general disengagement from democratic governance. At the end of the class, I asked who hoped to be involved in government in any way.

No one raised a hand.

Students foretell the future of the media. It's not rosy.

Today I discussed with my class the ethical obligations of journalists. I was left unsatisfied by our last conversation, which ended with an incomplete link between actions of the media as a whole and the maintenance of a democracy. I have my own beliefs about the importance of the media in democratic processes, but I don't want to just dictate my conclusions to my students. I do want to explain my beliefs, to make the connections between "x" & "y."

By the end of the discussion, some students were ready to admit that journalists possess some ethical responsibility to tell the truth. But this was an ethical responsibility that had to be balanced with the need to get a paycheck. So, really it came down to situational ethics. If a journalist felt that he or she could quit the job after being pressured by the advertiser, then that journalist should quit the job. But - that would be a choice that few would make.

I guess that's par for the course. In fact, most journalists don't make that choice. I did once, but I was young at the time.

Overall, I found a high level of cynicism in my students. One summed it up well. The young man didn't feel much ethical responsibility to be honest, he said, because no one believed the media anyway.

I was at a loss for words. He had a point, albeit a grim one.

Before they left, I conducted an impromptu poll. How many people don't consume any news, get no news at all except second-hand, through conversations? One young woman raised her hand. She the news was depressing. Can't argue with that either, I guess.

How many get news from the TV?

About eight raised their hands.

How many get news mainly from the Internet?

The remainder raised their hands.

So - this is the future of the media apparently. The information that serves as "news" for these students might be a mixture of Facebook info, Drudge Reports, New York Times articles or posts by Perez Hilton. The students as a whole have little regard for ethical responsibilities of journalists and nearly no trust in any information they consume. What does this mean for our democracy?

Not such a crazy idea

In an article on the RFE/RL website, Dmitry Sidorov presents an interesting hypothesis that I don't think is as whacky as some of his initial commentators think it is. He points out that it could be in the short-term interest of the Kremlin (i.e. Gazprom) for a war to erupt in Iran. Such a conflict would surely boost gas and oil revenues dramatically. These revenues are central to the operations of the Kremlin. Therefore, war is in the interests of those who rule Russia. (The Russian version of his article is found here.)

As the article points out, war might be in the short-term interest of the Russian government, but it does not mean that a war in Iran would benefit Russia in the long term. In the long-run, it could easily further degrade Russian power.

Of course, we have to understand the distinctions between the interests of the Kremlin and the interests of Russia. By implication, if not strictly by definition, the less democratic the country, the more the interests of its leadership and its people diverge. This is not a phenomenon limited to Russia. I remain convinced that it was no in the interests of the citizens of the United States to start a war with Iraq. It was, however, in the short-term political interest of the Bush Administration. It was in the interest of the military contractors who are so generous with their campaign contributions.

Likewise, a war in Iran could help the profits of Gazprom and Lukoil, the extractive industries linked with the Kremlin through interlocking directorships. What would be beneficial for Russia as a whole would be to reduce its dependence on these industries and to become truly democratic.

Unfortunately, I think a war in Iran is more likely than the democratization of Russia.

The importance of smashing idealism

OL! has a nice little interview with Ziya Aliyev, senior investigator of the Sabail Region district. Aliyev is the fellow supposedly investigating the case of Adnan Hajizadah & Emin Milli Abdullayev. As you recall, the two activists were arrested earlier this month, and were last week sentenced to two months pre-trial detention.

Their sentence came despite the fact that according to witnesses, they were the ones who were assaulted. That's the way it works in Azerbaijan. If you are a critic of the government, you are likely to be assaulted, and then be arrested for committing the assault. It's as logical as the rest of the governance there.

Since the arrest of the two young men, the action of the Azerbaijan government has been condemned by the representatives of the European Union and the United States. But this apparently has not changed the course chosen by the Azerbaijan government. They assume - probably correctly - that the fuss will settle down, and then sufficient punishment will be inflicted on Adnan and Emin to further intimidate the opposition with Azerbaijan. And the people running the country can proceed with their corrupt practices within their long-suffering country.

When I was working in Azerbaijan, I observed that corruption is useful to the authoritarian rulers in at least two ways. Most obviously, corruption personally enriches them. A huge chain of corruption has been built, and the top representatives of the government are the greatest beneficiaries. But secondly, corruption works to sap the strength of any opposition. If corruption is all pervasive, then even the opponents of the government can be snared in the sticky web. For this reason, true idealism - which is found most often in the young - can be the greatest threat to such a regime.

The persecution of Adnan and Emin may seem to be completely disproportionate to their offenses or the threat they posed - but their persecution is not directed at just two individuals. The rulers of Azerbaijan are intending to teach all young activists a lesson. To all those idealistic youths who took to the streets this spring, the Masters say, "Look at Emin and Adnan. This fate could be yours. Behave!"

Free press, gas pipelines, and jailed activists

I came across a provocative post on this blog today, following a link from Facebook. You can read it for yourself, but the author states her position clearly in the headline: Why Facebook Hurts Democratic Movements. She objects to the recent activity on Facebook, as sympathizers protest the arrests of Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizada.

I have to disagree respectfully with the author. I believe that in the struggle to improve democratic governance and safeguard human rights, every peaceful tool should be used. It appears that the author of the post believes that the activists of the Internet are not incurring enough risk to validate their activist credentials. In fact, as we can see the young people who are using the Internet to discuss democracy in Azerbaijan do incur significant risk.

Every peaceful tool should be used if we are to effect political change. We don't know which ones will be most effective. Also, not everyone has the same tools to use. For some people, attending a demonstration in Baku is possible. For others, circulating information about the human rights abuses in that country is a more feasible action.

In other news, I was glad to hear about this agreement being signed, even though many of the details remain to be ironed out. I am a supporter of democrats in Russia, and so I am all for creating some competition to Gazprom. Azerbaijan pay provide gas for the pipeline. It is one of the many details for Nabucco.

Finally, I expect to be reading this report tonight. The report was produced by Free Press, a media reform group started in 2002 by media scholar Robert W. McChesney. The article that John Nichols and McChesney wrote for the Nation earlier this year was thought-provoking and well argued. I expect that the new report will contain some similar suggestions.

Victims jailed and the guilty parties walk

Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizada have been sentenced to two months "pre-trial investigative detention." Presumably this is for investigation into the incident where they were both assaulted and seriously injured. Confused? You should be.

There is a movie called Absurdistan. Azerbaijan is perceived to be the model for the fictional country. It is such incidents that cause such perceptions. Yes, if you are assaulted in Azerbaijan, you will be jailed and your assailant will go free.

Of course, this is the case if you are a trouble-making activists like Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizada. Emin Milli was agitating on the Internet, using Facebook to get the word out about protests and the conditions in Azerbaiajan. Adnan Hajizada was one of the founders of OL Youth group. This group also used the Internet to publicize the problems that young people in Azerbaijan face. Radio Free Liberty has an article about the case. Global Voices and Flying Carpets and Broken Pipelines write about the case as well.

Officials from the US Embassy & the Norwegian Embassy are objecting to the persecution of the activists - but I don't hold much hope that external pressure will change things. To me, the case is a reminder that even authoritarian governments are not monolithic. Within the power structure, there may be different elements that have different agendas. Some people in Azerbaijan breathed a sigh of relief last month, when legislation concerning NGOs was not as restrictive as feared. As it was - it is plenty restrictive - but perhaps it was less than some hard liners wanted. Here is an example of the hard line elements in the government taking off their gloves - and showing human rights activists - and the populace in general - that they better not make noise about the thieves who are running their country.

Alarming news from Azerbaijan

I received a notice today from the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS) in Azerbaijan about proposed changes to the law in Azerbaijan regarding non-governmental organizations in the country. The IRFS interprets the proposed changes as effectively leading to the closure independent NGOs. The changes in the law will be discussed in the Milli Mejlis on June 19.

The situation for independent NGOs has been quite difficult for some time in Azerbaijan. I was fortunate that the government interfered minimally in my activities - but my organization was comparatively small and operated for the most part "under the radar." For larger organizations, the government can be quite troublesome. For example, when I was in Ganca, the director of the local branch of Open Society related how the office would likely close soon. Perhaps it has already closed at this point. I haven't spoken with him in months.

The government maintains a facade of "civil society" by allowing non-governmental organizations - as long as they are sponsored by the government. (Yes, you read that right. It's just one of many absurdities in the country.) Of course, one of the largest organizations is the Heydar Aliyev Fund, which sponsors all sorts of charitable activities. This "non-governmental organization" is also able to dispense cash in all sorts of ways that might be more awkward for the YAP (the ruling party) or the government itself to do.

Here are the troublesome aspects of the new legislation highlighted by the IRFS (verbatim from the press release).

- the proposed change to outlaw the activities of NGOs that have more than 50% of their resources from foreign sources (Article 24.2)

- the proposed ban on the activity of NGOs until they receive state registration (Article 16.4) – a process that can take months or even years

- the proposed prohibition against people who are not permanent residents of Azerbaijan and people without citizenship acting as founders of non-governmental organizations (Article 9.4)

- the proposed new criteria for classification NGOs that will require “nationwide” Azeri NGOs to have branches and/or representations in 1/3 of Azerbaijan’s 59 administrative-territorial regions

- the five year ban on founding a new NGO that can be placed on founders of non-governmental organizations that are closed on the basis of a court decision for law violations

A cursory reading of the changes makes it clear that these changes would effectively close all or nearly all NGOs. Just read the first item. Maybe there are foreign NGOs that receive only 50 percent of their funding from foreign sources - but I don't know of any. The foreign NGOs depend on foreign support. They aren't being supported by the Azerbaijani government or by fundraising within the country.

The second item also would be quite effective to close all NGOs. Anyone who has tried to operate in this sphere in Azerbaijan knows the absurdities of registration process. It can take years if you are not a favored organization. Years of filed paperwork that then must be re-filed when it is lost or perhaps a bureaucrat decides that the documents are incorrect. The details are irrelevant. Registration is a fool's errand - but provides substantial income to the lawyers who supposedly "assist" in this process.

In short, the changes are so extreme that they would effectively shut-down the foreign NGO community if they are implemented. Perhaps an optimist might say - "well, the government would never do anything so silly and draconian." Unfortunately, recent history shows that the trend is toward increasingly harsh measures in an authoritarian country that is dismantling one by one its meager elements of democracy.

The Disease of Permanent War

"The embrace by any society of permanent war is a parasite that devours the heart and soul of a nation. Permanent war extinguishes liberal, democratic movements. It turns culture into nationalist cant." This is written by Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, a seasoned war correspondent. He knows a little about war.

To reach his conclusions about the moral consequences of war, it is not necessary to travel to a war zone. You can observe the moral corrosion of war in Russia, Azerbaijan, the United States, or in any of a multitude of other nations. War requires that we view other humans as "less than human," and in so doing, our own humanity is itself diminished.

read more | digg story

Big Media Myopia: More Consolidation Won't Save Journalism

Some people have advances the sophistical argument that more consolidation will help the news business, because consolidation leads to richer owners, who can afford to make investments in the news outlets they have purchased. The only problem is - the more these owners are isolated from competitive pressures, the less likely they are to invest in improving the quality of the news media - whether it is broadcasting or newspaper.

This fact is glaringly demonstrated by the current crisis US newspaper business - the logical consequence of decades of breakneck consolidation with nary a thought given to the public good that the news media provide. So now - the industry is in crisis and Congress finally has woken up to the fact that the provision of even basic civic information is being threatened. The horse has left the barn.

What now? Your guess is as good as anyone's.

read more | digg story

Is political change coming in Georgia?

As I read this NYT article, I remembered a conversation I had with an Azerbaijani woman last year. She was bemoaning the lack of political change in her country, and pointed the acquiescent attitude of the Azerbaijani populace as one explanation for the authoritarian government there. She had been to Georgia, and recalled how ordinary women had erected barricades to stop traffic. This feisty attitude of the people made it harder for a dictator to dominate the Georgians, she argued.

I'm not sure if this is true, but certainly it does seem that the Georgians are pretty good about making their voices heard. What would be the result if the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili felt he could repress the demonstrators with impunity? Indeed, would he be more likely to repress them if his good friend John McCain were president?

(The above is an icon in an abandoned church near Sighnaghi, Georgia, that I photographed last summer.)

Newspapers don't matter?

One of my first jobs was delivering newspapers. I began working as a journalist while still in college. So, I bring a certain bias to the debate over the value of newspapers.

I began reading the day with a long rant about how newspapers don't matter. Just now, I have been reading the transcript of an interview aired on the program "On the Media" a few days ago.

You can listen to the interview here:

Take home message: newspapers matter a lot - for civic involvement and education, and hence for democracy.

Drugs, war, and democracy

I've been traveling a lot -and staying in places without good Internet connections. So - I've gotten behind on blogging and other activities requiring good connections.

Things such as making surveys.

So - here is my latest survey. I'll post some of the results from previous surveys a little later.....

Stepping back from democracy

Today citizens of Azerbaijan can vote on the proposal to amend the nation's constitution. This change is being done to give the citizens more freedom - the freedom to provide their unlimited support for the current president - Ilham Aliyev. (This is how the president himself has characterized the initiative!)

As I write this in Eastern Massachusetts, the polls should be closed in Azerbaijan. But - knowing the results of the vote does not require detailed analysis. A boycott of the referendum by opposition parties was announced on March 10. (The opposition also boycotted last year's presidential elections.)

My colleagues in Azerbaijan held a series of forums on the referendum in three regions and in the capital. My colleagues said that the local authorities interfered with them in some locations - but in general the forums went well. But - how could a few forums address the fundamental problems posed by this change. As in the presidential election, everyone knew the vote that was desired by the president and his ruling party - and it would be really amazing if the electorate did not provide this vote.

One way or another.

Referendum approaches, and opposition grows

The signs are going up. Yes, in a couple of months, Azerbaijani citizens will have the chance to voice their approval of a measure that would remove the two-term limit from the president. But while President Ilham Aliyev was credited with reaping 89 percent of the vote in the November election, the proposed constitutional changes are stirring up real opposition.

The opposition to Aliyev has been fractious in the recent past, although the real opposition groups did agree to boycott the last election (hence - contributing to the Ilham’s landslide). Now, however, the referendum to remove term limits appears to galvanizing opposition groups, who might not see eye to eye on much but can agree that an limitation of the current regime is a bad thing for democracy.

But - as always the case, expressing opposition in Azerbaijan is costly. A reminder: the trial of human rights activist Leyla Yunus is scheduled to begin today. She is accused of "insulting" the ministry and causing "moral damage" to the reputation of the police after she questioned the conduct of a kidnapping trial in which a defendant had alleged police involvement. Human Rights Watch is calling for the government to drop its charges. But the prosecutor charges that she caused “moral damage” to the police by her comments during an interview.

It’s a reminder for journalists who are used to working the West, that our conventional understanding of libel laws aren’t really applicable in most countries. Truth, for example, is not a defense.

Leyla has been chosen to lead a coalition opposition groups called the Civil Movement for Karabakh and a Democratic Republic. The opposition is even growing on-line, with the creation of the Lale Movement, named after a little girl holding a sign in a recent protest. The group now has its own Facebook and Yahoo groups.

All of this is encouraging for those of us who favor more democracy in Azerbaijan, but the opposition is likely to face considerable pressure from a government that appears increasingly less tolerant of dissent. Earlier this week, seven activists were arrested after 20 members Musavat protested a government policy that closed BBC and Radio Liberty and Voice of America broadcasts on Azerbaijani frequencies. Here's another little article with a photo.

(Above is a photo of little Lale - and a photo of one of the many signs advertising the referendum.)