“Police Chief in Southern Afghanistan Survives Attack That Kills 4 Civilians”

By: Kevin-Chris Gründel

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/world/asia/afghan-police-chief-escapes-attack-that-kills-4-civilians.html?ref=world

An assassination attempt on the 27^th of August on the chief of the police force of Kandahar Province by the Taliban failed, but took four innocent lives. The target, Gen. Abdul Raziq, is conducting an offensive against the Taliban in the south and already faced several attacks on his life. The locals of Kandahar province respect Gen. Raziq, as his archaic crudity has resulted in improved security in the region.[1] 

While Afghanistan`s official title is the “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”, it is questionable how realistic the democratic part of the hybrid regime is. Therefore we skip to analyze the Islamic aspect of the hybrid regime and focus on the democratic part of the title. A Republic is not synonymously a Democracy, but both contain core elements which are found in a democratic ideology, which is here shortly verified.

Theoretically, a democracy is not single ideology, but it implies ideas that make it a significant classical system of governance. This system influenced and combined ideologies from the Antique until today. The core aspect is the “rule of the people”, so the regime in Afghanistan must at least follow four principles to be in the range of the democratic ideology factors. First, the sovereignty of people must be ensured which forces the authorities to gain their power by the legitimating of their ruled people via elections. This implies that the authorities must represent the will of the people. Secondly, this includes ruling of the majority of the people. Thirdly, their public issues must be solved effectively by voting. Fourthly, every citizen must have an even chance to get elected as an authority, which ensures political equality among the people.[2]

Herein we compare the theory with the real situation in Afghanistan by using this news article. Following the first principle, clear elections ensure an authorized ruler to represent the will of the people. This is not the case in Afghanistan as people are threatened with violence to vote at all.[3] This leads to the failure of the second setting of a democratic ideology, the reign of the majority. There are even cases in which the winners list is published before the elections in Afghanistan are started.[4] The question of the third setting is thereby answered, as well. Voting does not solve public issues, as free and peacefully voting cannot be ensured at all. In addition, issues are often “solved” by the use of force. This point is strengthened by the fragmentation of the state itself.[5] The last aspect is therefore not ensured, as well. There is no political equality between the citizens, which is underlined by the obligatory financial bribe in the voting procedure to win elections.[6]

This clearly shows that the theoretical ideology ideas, combined in democracy, are not realized in the political practice of Afghanistan. Even though the state is called a Republic, it is only this way on paper.

By these factors, the part of “Islamic” isn’t analyzed at all, which would question the title of republic even more as Afghanistan is theoretically a not workable hybrid regime of democracy and religious fundamentalism.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/world/asia/afghan-police-chief-escapes-attack-that-kills-4-civilians.html?_r=1&ref=world (Aug 28th 2012)

[2] J. Richard: Political Ideologies. An Introduction. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1984, p. 154-181.

[3] http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/afghanistans-parliamentary-elections-candidates-everywhere/ (Sept 20th 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/world/asia/25afghan.html?pagewanted=all (Sept 24th 2010)

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/world/asia/25afghan.html?pagewanted=all (Sept 24th 2010)

[5] http://www.economist.com/node/21560606 (Aug 18th 2012)

[6] http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/afghanistans-parliamentary-elections-candidates-everywhere/ (September 20th 2010)

Collapse of New Bridge Underscores Worries About China Infrastructure

By Anna Zdancewicz

According to a report published by the New York Times on August 24, 2012, a 9.6-mile (15.4 km) bridge over the Songhua River in China collapsed yesterday killing three people and injuring five more. A portion of the massive Yangmingtan Bridge plummeted nearly 100 feet (30 meters) taking four vehicles with it. Xinhua news agency, an official news agency in Beijing, reported that this was the “sixth major bridge in China to collapse since July 2011” (Bradsher). What’s more appalling then the event itself, perhaps, is the Chinese government’s response to the incident. According to officials, the Yangmingtan collapse was the result of overloaded trucks; an excuse used for the previous bridges as well.

The online response has been vicious, and postings are suggesting the 9-month-old bridge collapse is the result of government corruption. Using outlets such as Sina Weibo, one blogger stated “Corrupt officials who do not die just continue to cause disaster after disaster” (Bradsher). Another quips “Tofu engineering work leads to a tofu bridge” (Bradsher).

China’s infrastructure issues have been under fire even before yesterday’s events, however. July 23, 2011 a standing high-speed train was rear-ended by another incoming train after it failed to stop in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Provence. 40 people were killed and 191 others were injured (Research). High-speed rail, since its creation, has been China’s emblem of technological success, yet an investigation of the event revealed issues with the signaling equipment that resulted in the crash. The blame was mainly placed on various safety inspectors and China’s Railway Ministry deputy chief engineer Zhang Shuguang (Research).

But who (or what) is really to blame for China’s infrastructure problems? One would be naïve to simply dismiss a total of six bridge collapses within the last two years. To answer this question, it is imperative to look at the regime itself and what drives China today.

The ruling political party of China is the Communist Party of China (CPC). It is the founding and ruling party of the state and maintains a unitary government as well as centralized military and media. In addition, the economy is built under the notion that the state does all the central planning in order to maintain “absolute social equality” (Heywood 108). Opposition is absolutely prohibited and dealt with in often-severe ways.

The very set up of the Chinese government makes it easy for corruption to be rampant, a fact which has been acknowledged by the ones in power themselves! So when China introduced its $586 billion USD economic stimulus plan focused on infrastructure, red flags should have been waving left and right (Barboza). Sure, the plan looked good on paper: It was a way for China to avoid the global economic downturn, but the government’s huge and fast push for building bridges, railroads, and other structures left room for too many mistakes.

So, when it is all said and done, one must ask oneself what is more valuable: A government’s desire to push it’s country into economic prosperity? Or the lives being taken as a result? The answer is clear.  

Works Cited

Barboza, David. "China Unveils Sweeping Plan For Economy." The New York Times.    The New York Times, 10 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Aug. 2012.

    <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/world/asia/10china.html>. Bradsher, Keith. "China Bridge Collapse Raises Infrastructure Concerns." The New
    York Times. The New York Times, 25 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Aug. 2012.     

    <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/asia/collapse-of-new-bridge-underscores-chinas-infrastructure-   

    concerns.html?_r=2>.
 Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke,
    Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Print.

 Research., Sharon Lafraniere; Mia Li Contributed. "Study Cites Blunders In China    Train Crash." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 25 Aug. 2012.   

    <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/world/asia/design-flaws-cited-in-china-train-crash.html>.

Romney: Cold but Cool

by Joseph Dickens-Gavito

On August 24th, 2012, The New York Times in its article titled “Romney in Crisis: Two Dark Spots in Fortunate Life” emphasized on the need for Republican Mitt Romney to show some sort of sensitive side now that next week he will officially come to be his party’s candidate in the upcoming presidential elections.

Thus far, the Republican Party has depended on a campaign displaying how they can repair the struggling economy through both Mitt Romney’s and, nominated vice-president, Paul Ryan’s business and economic know-how. Nevertheless, I agree with the article that, as the election closes in, the inevitability to show a sensible candidate who is in touch with the ordinary citizen’s needs is getting greater. Previous presidential candidates have understood this and have had moving campaigns with the objective of bonding with the voter. John McCain had a solid profile, being a war veteran who endured torture, but was ultimately topped by Barack Obama and his biracial, around-the-world family struggles. But what can a man who has always had it all in his life do to attest a connection with the ordinary American?

Romney and his aides will have to resolve if they are to use the only two difficult moments in the candidate’s life, as it can either show an ordinary man susceptible to hardship or further confirm Romney’s privileged economic standing. The first trying moment in Romney’s life occurred when he was a Mormon missionary in France and was a driver involved in an accident where one of his passengers perished. Romney was also wrongly pronounced dead but returned to duty immediately with only a broken arm. This story shows a man keen on getting the job done, no matter how crushing his atmosphere might be. But it also shows Romney’s religious past, something he has to some extent avoided and portrays him as perhaps an indifferent individual.

His second life-changing incident occurred in 1998 when Romney’s wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Romney concealed his pain and rarely spoke on the subject. He thoroughly researched the disease, did household chores, accompanied his wife to treatment and leisure activities she fancied, and even deliberated on building an elevator inside his home to make things easier. His wife overcame her illness, but even this emotional story gives us a glimpse of his family’s access to the best of medical care and their lavishness, as demonstrated with the elevator extravaganza. It also ratifies the idea of Romney as a devoted companion, yet a private person incapable to share his feelings when needed.

Not bonding with the voter might work in country like Mexico, where the presumed President-elect was the least empathic of the three candidates and enjoyed more of a rock-star lifestyle. But in the United States, where voters want to feel like they know the candidates personally, not being in touch with the general public might just ruin your odds of becoming president. Romney does appear like a man ready to be president. He looks like someone who will remain “cool” and get the job done no matter what, and that is just what the United States requires. Then again, having been born in a privileged family with a fortune at his disposal and showing little sentiments, if any, can prove too much for the Republican candidate. His team need to expose him as the answer but also as a man, and this will not happen by only taking off his corporate-suit tie and rolling up his sleeves.